The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Julf.c 3.
The LORD C:IihNCELLOR took his scat at Five o'Clock
on the Woolsack.
Lord DARTMOUTH and the Earl of HADDING-
TON presented petitions in favour of a uniform rate of
penny postage.
A message from the House of Commons brought up
several private Bills.
Lord RE DE SDA LE presented a petition from Wood-
house, in the county of Northumberland, in favour of the
Church in Canada.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented petitions
from Bath, Hertford, and the licensed victuallers of the
Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Marylebone, and several other
places, against the Beer Bill.
Lord A LBEMARLE presented petitions from Ipswich,
and several places in the county of Norfolk, praying for the
adoption of a penny postage.
The Duke of ARGYLE presented a petition from a
place in the county of Argyle, praying for Church Ex-
tension.
Earl STA N H 0 PE presented several petitions in favour
of a penny postage.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a
place in Inverness-shire against any alteration in the Corn-
laws, and several petitions against the Beer Bill.
PENNY POSTAGE.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from a
great many places in favour of a uniform rate of penny
postage. The Noble Duke was anxious to call
the attention of their Lordships, and more particu-
larly that of her Majesty's Ministers, to the subject
of the penny postage, as otherwise he might be too
late in his efforts to make any alteration in a mea-
sure that was likely to be recommended by the other
House of Parliament upon this subject. He dii hope if
her Majesty's Ministers did reduce the postage
at all, they would do it according to Mr.
Rowland Hill's plan— ( Hear, hear)—and not according
to the Report of the Committee of the House of Com-
mons, because if they did riot they would not be able to
prevent the illegal conveyance of letters. —( Hear, hear. )
The only way they could hope to prevent that would be by
taking the postage at the lowest rate, namely a penny
He hoped, also, there would be nothing in that Bill
that would prevent an individual sending a letter,
not in a penny cover, otherwise the Legislature would
be against the very principle of Mr. Rowland Hill,
which was to induce and encourage letter-writing,
The right principle would be to- allow every man to write
and send a letter without a stamp if he pleased, but that all
such letters should be charged upon delivery at a higher
rate.--(Hear, hear, hear.) lie could not abstain
either from adverting to one of the groeses abuses
that ever existed in this country in the Post-office
Department, and that was official franking. He saw
no reason why the Treasury should not purchase the
stamps as well as other persons, arid then it would be
known what the amount of the money would come
to in this way, and thereby the whole of the abuse
of official franks would be got rid of. He would
also throw out the propriety of allowing persons to
purchase any stamps to send their letters by any stage coach,
carrier, or steam-boat that might choose to take them, be-
cause so long as the revenue was secured parties ought to
have their own option as to the mode of conveyance.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented peti-
tions in favour of an uniform rate of penny postage, and
against the bastardy clause of the New Poor-law Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to suggest to his Noble
and Learned Friend, who had a motion on the subject
of Chancery for to-morrow, whether it would not be con-
venient to postpone it till Friday night. Many Learned
Lords would be engaged on Thursday, and the Church
Discipline Bill was fixed for to-morrow, and it would
be inconvenient for the Right Rev Prelate who intended
to oppose that Bill, as he could not attend on any other day.
Lord LYNDHURST had no objection to accede to the
proposal of his Noble and Learned Friend, and would
therefore postpose his motion till Friday.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was a thing which very sel-
dom happened to him to have to complain of a breach of
privilege, because he paid little regard to statements
made out of doors; but there was one way
in which the privileges of that House might
certainly he abused, and that was by gross, and ma-
nifest, and wilful—and lie confined himself to that—wilful
mis-statements of what took place in that House. If it had
been merely an inaccurate report, he would bethe last per-
son in the world to complain of it; on the contrary, it was a
matter of wonder to him, as it must he to others, that the
reports were so accurate as they were. That was his
opinion, but when he saw a wilful misrepresentation in the
newspapers, and more especially when it was directly
in the teeth of its own report, he felt it his duty to
call attention to it, for the purpose of exposing to the
people of that country bow little faith they could fix upon
party statements of facts. He would now appeal to the House,
whether any one of the three following assertions, which
he was about to read in the paragraph he held in his hand,
had any foundation, and if any one Member of their Lord-
ship's House (and that was a great degree of audacity of
assertion—that was a bold challenge), if any one of their
Lordship's would say that there was any truth whatever
in any one of the three following assertions, then he
would cease to make any observations :—" The answer
was as distinct and satisfactory as any answer that ever was
given."—( Laughter.) He did not know how far that that
might be true, but his Noble Friend behind him could not
think so. It then proceeded—" We are compelled to
state"—now what compelled a man to state a gross false-
hood be could not tell--( A laugh)—except it might be
his nature—" that there was not a single Member of the
House who did not leave it disgusted with the speech."
Not a single Member l He admitted that ninety-nine out
of a hundred might have been disgusted. His Noble
' Friend near him (Lord Melbourne) might have felt dis-
gust, but certainly there were some besides himself who
r did not leave it disgusted, for he had stated facts. Now
there followed a more serious charge—" That the object
of the speech was only in reality to indulge in his known
inveteracy of hatred to the Monarchy." Why lie was the
person who had defended the Monarchy on that occasion,
and he had objected to his Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne)
because he had said too little in its favour, fur he only
quoted King William—that he could not tell whether he
liked best a Monarchy or a Republic. He declared upon
his honour that be never spoke with less idea of throwing
disrespect upon the Monarchy.—(Hear, hear.) Ilis
opinion and his argument was in favour of a Monarchy,
and it held up the Monarchical principle ;:and if it was not
his belief that what had been ill done by one party and mis-
represented by another was endangered, he should not have
inflicted that speech upon their Lordships. There was
one kind of monarchy for which he had not expressed
respect, and that was a monarchy which could not carry
on its own measures ; but that was not his sentiment or
his speech—it was he sentiment of his Noble Friend
behind him, borrowed from King William. He did not
believe that any single individual who heard him had the
least idea of that sort. The last paragraph was equally
painful and equally false. It asserted that he had assailed
—whom did their Lordships think ?—the actual Sovereign !
Could anything be more base ? ( Hear, near.) Was
there a man in the House, however disgusted he might
be with his speech—was there one man in the House
who could say conscientiously that he made any—the
slightest disrespectful, allusion to the Sovereign 7—( Hear. )
On the contrary, he bad thought he was unnecessarily
endeavouring to prevent tile possibility of perversions,
blunders, and misinterpretations. He now found that he
not unnecessarily, but uselessly and ineffectually,
did se, for all that you could take in the way of
pains to prevent the possibility of that most offen-
sive, and, to him, certainly painful misrepresentation
was, he found, all thrown away, for the misrepresentation
had been made.—( Several Peers here exclaimed, " What
newspaper is it ?") The Observer Sunday paper.--( Cries
of " Oh")—the organ of the Government.—( Laughter.)
Two things appeared to have been in the contemplation of
the parties who made that statement : —first, to ascertain
what the fact was, and then to find out how they could say
that which would be the most untrue, the most injurious,
the most offensive, and the most painful to the individual
against whom it was made. If it was any satisfaction to
the parties to know they had succeeded in one of their
objects, in saying that which was most untrue three times
over, let them enjoy that satisfaction. He defied anybody
to surpass them in that ; but if they required the other
satisfaction of having given any great pain, why it was
always painful to see one person hated another so much
as to tell such falsehoods ; any other pain he (Lord
Brougham) did not feel. He knew that if he had not
mentioned this to their Lordships, and had held it
up as a sort of a challenge, that for the next six
months he would have been misrepresented, first by onr
paper, then by another, and then by a third, till
at last all papers,all speakers at country meetings, all orators
at those great, unanimous, hearty, and most respectable
and most numerous meetings, like the one at Kensington
the other day—(Laughter)—which, out of 12,000 inhabi-
tants, had 72 present. At all those great, unanimous, and
multitudinous meetings, as he saw one account called them,
he would have been represented as having made an attack on
the Monarchy—an attack on the Sovereign actually on the
Throne. He hail merely made these remarks for the pur-
pose of repelling the statement, and to show there was not
a shadow of foundation for it. The best thing any re-
spectable publication could do would be to give up the
name of the individual who made that false party state-
ment, and suggested it would be a good thing to put forth
to the public. If anybody should say that he was interfer-
ing with the liberty of the Press, of which he was a great
advocate, he would answer that he was only interfering
with unlicensed falsehood, put forth to deceive the people
of this country, and die sooner the people opened their eyes
to such stratagems and falsehoods the better it would be

Au. the country.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY certainly lamented
hat the Noble and Learned Lord had thought it neces-

ry to trouble the House with a repetition of such trash,
published in the newspaper he had just quoted.—( Hear,
' hear, and laughter.) There was not an indivi(lual in that
House who had not gone away with the conviction that
there never was so eloquent, so able, and so constitutional
a speech as that made by the Noble and Learned Lord the
other night.--( Hear, hear.) He (the Marquis of London-
derry) and those nearly connected with him, had been
opposed to the Noble and Learned Lord in political senti-
ments during the whole course of their lives, but he be-
lieved they were all agreed that they had never heard so
able and so clear an exposition of the British Constitution
and of the rights of the people, as that which the Noble
and Learned Lord then made.—( Hear, bear.) If the
Noble and Learned Lord had not already had sufficient
praise bestowed on him by the universal acclamations and
testimonials of regard and esteem he had received from all
societies and all towns he had visited, he believed these
marks of admiration would shortly be renewed from every
part of the country. If the Noble and Learned Lord had
not already had sufficient encomiums passed on him to
satisfy his vanity, he believed there would be a renewal
of them to such an extent as would overwhelm him.—
(Great laughter, in which Lord Brougham heartily
joined.)

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE begged to draw the attention
of the House to a subject which he conceived of great

pertance. His attention had been arrested by an account
in one of the Morning Papers, quoted from the Freeman's
Journal, of a requisition to the Iligh Sheriff of the county
of Mayo, calling upon him to convene a meeting
to address her Majesty on the resignation and recal
of her present Ministers. The requisition was signed by
the Lord Lieutenant (the Marquis of Sligo). The next
signature was " John (Archbishop of) Tuam," and the
third name was " Thomas Tuam."—( Laughter.) This
did appear to him to be gross assumption on the part of
the Roman Catholic Archbishop, and he must say it did
appear to him that the conduct of the Protestant Bishop
was most extraordinary, lie should like to know from the
Government, whether they would allow a Roman Catholic
Archbishop to assume those titles, which by law they were
under a penalty for using ?
Lord MELBOURNE said it was a matter for the Irish
Government, if they thought fit, to take under their con-
sideration. But he could not help saying, that if the
Protestant Bishop concurred in the requisition, he did not
think it would have been a wise thing in him to have with-
held his signature on the ground that the other individual
had assumed the title stated.
The Earl of WICKLOW could not hear what had
fallen from the Noble Viscount opposite without express-
ing his total dissent from the whole of it. The mode in
which the Irish Government was led and dictated to in
that country was well known, and it was well known that
the Noble Viscount here, as the head of that Government,
ought to exercise his authority over it. The new Bishop
was the son of the Lord Chancellor of that country—a
person just appointed by the Noble Lord himself ; and a
greater affliction could not have been imposed upon that
country, proceeding from that mean subserviency to an in-
dividul to whom the Noble Lord considered himself in-
debted, than the appointment of that individual.
BEER BILL.
Lord MELBOURNE presented petitions from the
Tower Hamlets, from the common brewers of Derby,
from the retailers of beer in Rochdale, Manchester, Sal-
ford, Huddersfield, Portsmouth, Pontefract, the metropolis,
and various other places, in favour of the Beer Bill.
Lord BROUGHANI presented petitions from Stroud,
and other places, in favour of a repeal of the Beer
Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord said that in rising
to move tha second reading of the Beer Bill, of which
he had given notice, the only thing that operated on his
mind as a discouragement to that in which he hoped to be
successful, was the consideration that it might be thought
an effort on his part, which would be most contrary
to his feelings and fixed principles, to deprive the humbler
classes of society of some of some of the means of recrea-
tion adapted to their situation, and which was of no con-
' sequence to those who were placed in a different and higher
sphere of life. He had all his life looked with the greatest
suspicion upon every plan which had for its object, under
whatever pretence, a limitation of the enjoyment of the
common people, where equal limits were not at the same
time proposed to be imposed upon the enjoyments of those
in a higher condition. He had carried this feeling to the
utmost extent ; for instance, as to the Temperance Socie-
ties, no onecould approve of them more than he did him-
self, and the Noble Duke opposite had expresed the same
sentiment. But he had joined with the Noble Duke in
refusing to become a member of those Societies for the
obvious reason that it would be no self-restraint upon in-
dividuals in his situation to enter into a bond not to con-
sume ardent spirits, when they had at their command the
opportunity of consuming equally deleterious liquor.
Why should the Noble Duke, or his Noble and Learned
Friend opposite enter into a Society binding themselves not
to drink spirits, when they had the perfect power of
drinking their claret, burgandy, and champagne.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He knew plenty of persons
who would have no objections to enter into those So-
cieties but they said they would not be guilty of such hy-
pocrisy as to declare that ardent spirits should not be drank
when they felt certain that they could continue to enjoy
their wine. He himself felt strongly the objection to
drinking ardent spirits. They were the parent of crimes
of the worst description, as the Police Reports
showed, namely, crimes accompanied by violence. But if
ardent spirits could be used with great moderation, they
had the authority of Burke—no mean authority—for say-
ing that in moderation they might be a needful stimulus to
the poor man, particularly in the various branches of town
industry, in damp positions, and in unwholesome occupa-
tions, where stimulus of that description was required for
the nerves. But passing by that they were all agreed that
the habits of temperance, and avoiding intemperance and
those other offences which he should advert to by and by,
as fostered prodigiously by those who kept beer-houses--
that to get rid of those evils would be a very great
improvement to the morals, the comfort, and the
happiness of the labouring classes. He felt that
he should not be discharging his duty to the
country or their Lordships, or to himself, if he delayed
any longer in bringing the question before the House. He
must observe that some of his Noble Friends near him had
charged him with having changed his opinions upon that
subject. These statements were not more true than many
others that were made with respect to him, but the fact
was quite the reverse. " How can you," said the letters
he was receiving daily, " how can you think to be against
the Beer Bill, that originally brought it in?" If he had
brought it in, and found that he had been wrong, that
would be a good reason why he should change his opinion.
—( Hear, hear.) But it did so happen that he had not only
not brought it in, but had opposed it in every way he could.
He had brought in the Beer Bill, out of which originated
the Committee which proposed and carried the late mea-
sure. But what was his (Lord Brougham's) proposition--
that beer might be allowed to be sold, but not consumed
on the premises. That was, he had no objection to its
being sold like bread, or any other commodity, at the
chandler's shop, but not drunk on the premises. Nov, his
Bills of 1822, 1823, and 1824, for he had brought
forward three, contained a clause prohibiting, under;severe
penalties, the consumption of beer on the premises. That
was it prohibited the beer-houses, or beer-shops, or pub-
lic-houses, whose sale was confined to beer, and selling
without magistrates' licence, having only the excise licence,
from allowing beer to be consumed on the premisee. Now,
he would explain to their Lordships why he had urged
upon them, and upon the lower House of Parliament, (for
tie was then a Member of that House), why he objected to
the Beer Bill, and why he admitted the sale of beer in
these shops, but not to be consumed on the premises. hi
the first place it interfered with monopoly brewers. That
was one, but only a small portion of his reasons. But the prin-
ciple reason was, that it enabled a person to send his daughter
to beer-shops to get a quart or a pint of beer for drinking in
his own house, without the chance of her being contami-
nated by being sent to the ale house. There was another,
but a weightier reason, that a man was enticed from the
ale-house if he could only buy beer at these houses to
consume with his family at home. He could not, accord-
ing to the present excise laws, have a sufficient quantity
at home, and if he went for it to the ale-house, be was,
perhaps, induced to remain there. His whole argument
had been an argument against the beer-houses, but his
principal argument had been to enable a man to Iluy his
beer it one of these shops, and bring it home to his
family. It was then said, why support the Bill of 1830,
and suffer it to pass without opposition? He had yielded to
the Report,of the Committee, but he stated that his opi-
nion remained unaltered—that as they had fully consi-
dered and examined the question, they might take the
weight and responsibility of the measure on them—it was
their measure. sot leis—their Bill, not his—and they would
see how it woold stork in practice. He had been urged a
year afterwards to repeal it ; but he had said, no : after a
Bill was once passed it would not do to change it the next
year because it had failed—it was better to give it a longer
trial. Ile was then a Member of their Lordships' House,
and in office, and he had said to his colleagues, give it a
longer trial, and then it will be time enough to repeal it if
it fails. That was the whole history of his ever having
said any thing in favour of the measure. He held that
nothing was more calculated to bring legislation into dis-
repute than to try an experiment every year, and the next,
without giving it a fair trial, to retrace their steps. Now,
he found, after all the petitions, the many hundreds that
had been presented at different times, and to the
nature of which he would presently draw their
Lordships' attention---he found his Noble Friend at the
head of the Government had that night presented a very
bulky petition signed by he believed eight thousand, headed
by a beer seller, and he dared to say that many of those
who signed it were beer sellers. He did not object to
that, and he dared to say that there had been many from
licensed victuallers whose interests were of an opposite
nature. He had no objection to that, but the argument
there was raised in favour of the measure, and he thought
he could not do better than just state to their Lordships
the arguments used against his (Lord Brougham's) Bill.
It stated first " that the opening.of the trade in beer, whereby
the monopoly in that essential article had been broken
down bad been productive of great public good, that it had
occasioned a considerable reduction in the price of the com-
modity, and a material improvement in the quality. That
many of the petitioners in following their occupations
(meaning labourers) were from an early hour till late at
night from home, and required dinners and other accom-
modation suitable to their. circumstances, which were for-
merly furnished by the licensed victuallers, but were now
obtained much more easily and cheaply at the beer houses.
That many of them in pursuit of business resorted to
some neighbouring house, and then in conversations wit
their friends and neighbours they enjoyed over a pint of
ale a temporary relaxation from the cares of business."
He ( Lord B.) wished to God that nothing worse took
place at these houses. Then came the last point--" That
the general conduct observed in these beer-houses, so fin-
es their experience extended, was as moral and as respect-
able as that observed at public houses, and from the ab-
sence of ardent intoxicating spirits there was less temptation
to drunkenness." He denied the absence of ardent spirits
--(Hear, hear)—and but in a few instances he denied the
rest of the argument of the petitioners. Now having read
their own allegations of their own case, he would meet
them by showing their Lordships facts from the most au-
thentic and undoubted sources of information. If he were
to rest his case upon the evidence of licensed victuallers
there might be some objections made, although he would
show their Lordships presently that there were many
tensed victuallers who had not the slightest objection to
these beer-houses. But it was not their testimony that
would establish his case—very far from it. It was the tes-
timony of farmers, and landlords, and magistrates, and
grand jurors, and reverend clergymen of the Established
Church, and of all Dissenting persuasions. It was the evi-
dence of Commissioners, appointed by the Government to
enquire into the state of the habits of the people, with a par-
ticular practical view—who had taken evidence on which to
found recommendations for a police measure. All these
testimOnies of various classes of the community were tine-
nimbus, and they called for a repeal of the Beer Bill.
Now taking all these classes in another light, not as
petitioners but as witnesses, he should state to their Lord-
ships that it was upon their testimony be relied in esta-
blishing his case before them. Now one of these classes,
namely, the Magistrates, were said to have some interest
in the subject, because it was contended that the Beer
Bill took away a valuable branch of patronage, which it was
said had been often converted to particular purposes. But
what interest had the Clergy of the Established Church
or the Dissenting Clergy in the matter? What interest
had such men as the Government Commissioners and the
farmers whose evidence he was about to refer to ? Ile was
unwilling to believe that the Magistrates of the country

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, J

would view the matter in the light of a question affecting
their interests or their patronage—or !that they would b's,
so lost to all sense of truth and honour as to
pray their Lordships to pass a measure, on the
ground that it would tend to improve the morals
and promote the interests of the working classes, while all
the time they merely advocated their own private interests.
He would be still more averse to say that under the hypo-
critical and false pretence of improving the morals of the
people they were merely promoting their own patronage.
He could not believe that such was the character of the
magistracy of that country. Having stated the grounds
on which he should rest his case, he would now call their
attention to the particulars of the evidence, and which
would substantiate the general remarks he had previously
made. He would now quote from the evidence of the Corn-
rnissionerz on the subject of the habits of the people, and the
state of crime, and he had already told their Lordships to what
a degree the beer-houses had contributed. In the exami.
nution of a solicitor from Welchpool, he found it stated,
" The beer-shops of this town, the Sergeant at Mace says,
are kept open all night, so long as their customers seek to
be served with drink." That was the common complaint
every where. But then it might be said—why not enforce
the law ? The constable was an unpaid yearly officer,
who did not serve voluntarily, but endeavoured, like the
churchwarden or overseer, to go through his office as
quietly as possible, and give as little offence as he might
to the poor people among whom he lived. There was also
another inducement, they frequented the beer-houses
themselves. What if they were well treated there ? What
if others paid, and they did not, which their Lordships
would presently see was the fact ? The beer-house keeper,
in order to keep him quiet, gave him beer for nothing,
and the constable did not like to tell him to shut his shop
because it would be shutting himself out, and he would
thereby be deprived of the benefit of the company he might
meet, and the drink, for he paid no hill. That was the
caseic
Hear, hear.) He would now
g
a respectable farmer of Essex.
vall
them over et r
he the
evidence
icdoeun country,_( r y
o. —f
In speaking of depredations, and his evidence was the more
worthy of attention because that was not the main object of
inquiry, Mr. Gregory said, " In all cases of depredation on
farmers the'plunder must be considerable to be worth while, as
the produce was sold at so much less than its value. The
great source of evil is the beer-shops. I had hardly lost
anything until a beer-shop was set up in my neighbourhood
and now lam obliged to watch them every way. They
take my fowls, and bring them to the beer-shop to sell or
to cook ; they cut off the heads of my cabbages, and on
one occasion I took a fowl of mine half cooked out of the
pot." It was added that one of the parties concerned in
these robberies was afterwards transported. Mr. William
Kershaw, a canal carrier, also described the nature and
extent of these depredations. Ile said the plunder con-
sisted of every small article that could be carried off, and
also flour and malt ; and they had places where they dis-
posed of it with great facility. These places were the
cheap beer-shops ; and the greater portion of the plundered
property was sold to the proprietor, or to parties who con-
gregated there. He Lord Brougham) also had before him
the confession of a thief, who was of respectable parents
in Manchester, and who stated that be knew of beer-
shops being started by thieves for the accommodation and
reception of their fellows. There were two such at Not-
tingham and another at Chester, four in Manchester in one
street, and others at Halifax and other towns. The ex-
pense of setting up was only 81. for a license, and Si. for
stock; the first week paid the expenses. The Messrs.
Kenworthy, carriers, stated similar facts, and he had also
the evidence of the Deputy Constable of Manchester,
which he referred to merely to show that the evil was not
confined to country districts, and that it would not be wise
to adopt a proposition to put them down in the covntry,
and allow them to exist still in towns. In the country
there was less felony, less prostitution, and more of trifling
offences; but greater mischief was done to a better class
of people, namely, the farm servants. In towns, however,
they were very bad indeed, and he would only refer to the
evidence with respect to Birmingham, Manchester,i Hudders-
field, Leeds, and Liverpool, as affording a very fair sample
of the effects of that measure. In Liverpool it was stated
that they were the source of a great deal of crime—that
illicit spirits were frequently clandestinely sold in them. It
was added that it was not always safe for the constable to
watch them ; and if it was not safe merely to watch them,
how could these men be expected to lay informations
against them, when they ran the risk of having their heads
broke. The magistrates of Leiih-ward, in Cumberland,
complained that the keepers of beer-shops were appointed
as constables at the court-leet. That he (Lord Brougham)
could bear testimony to himself. What hope was there
that these constables would do their duty ? At a place in
Berkshire, it was stated that three of the constables were
reputed drunkards, and one of them the brother of a beer-
shopkeeper. The evidence of the High Constable of
Chester was to the same effect ; and it would be merely
repeating what he had already stated, to quote it. Mr.
Pool, of Howe-on-the- Wold, stated that the keepers of
the beer-shops were all opposed to the farmers, because
they spoiled their trade of harbouring thieves. In the
Report of the Liverpool Watch Committee to the
Town-Council, it was stated that there were seve-
ral hundred of these beer-houses supported by the very
worst characters. In Salop the constables stated that they
were in the habit of keeping their beer-houses open till a
late hour of the night. Now these facts were not confined
to the rural or agricultural districts, but extended to vil-
lages, towns, manufacturing and commercial, canals and
railways. The evidence of the grand jury of the county
of Essex was to the effect that the demoralizing effect of
beer-houses licensed for the sale of beer to be drunk on
the premises still continued, and formed a serious subject
of complaint from time to time. The same statements
were made by the grand juries of Stafford, Oxford, So-
merset, and other counties ; and although they were not
in the habit of making presentments on the subject of
beer-houses, they had on more than one occasion, as be
, was informed by a Learned Friend of his, expressed to
the Court their opinion that many minor offences originated
in beer-houses, and that was the result of their inquiries
when finding bills of indictment. (Hear, hear.)
The grand, jury of Falmouth reported that females were
going about the streets almost in a state of nudity, and
intoxicated, the consequence of beer-shops. These were
tiresome details. but he thought it better that he should go
into such particulars than make a speech on the subject.
Mr. Justice Vaughan, in 1839, on the occasion of a child
being left to perish, said that the beer shops from their
causing abuses and immoralities were to be regarded as
public nuisances. It was contended by the petition from
London presented this day, that the regulations of the
beer shops were as good as these of the licensed victu-
allers, and that argument was to be drawn from the state
of the returns of public convictions made to the House of
Commons. He would willingly put his case upon
that issue, because never was there a grosser
misrepresentation. The mistake arose in this
way ; in London in three years the convictions of licensed
victuallers amounted to 2,316 ; of beer-shops during the
same time of 1,437 ; upon which, said the political cal-
culators, there were twice as many convictions of licensed
victuallers as of beer-shop keepers. But then those cal-
culators forgot to take into their account that there were
5,000 licensed victuallers and only 1,400 beer-shop keepers
in London; so that there were twice as many convictions
of beer-shop keepers as there were of licensed victuallers.
Liverpool showed the same result. In Birmingham the
returns for seven years, from 1831 to 1838, showed, ac-
cording to their proportion, very nearly three times the
number of convictions of beer-shop keepers to those of
licensed victuallers. So much for the regulations of the beer-
shops which had been so much bragged of; and their con-
victions would be many more if the constables only did
their duty, but the beer-shop keepers treated the constables
with beer and seduced them from doing their duty ;
whereas the licensed victuallers would not treat them, and
therefore were informed of by them. With respect to the
effects of beer-shops upon the morals of the people the
Noble and Learned Lord was in possession of some of the
most grievous and distressing facts. H redly a petition
came to him that was not accompanied by a letter, either
from a magistrate, a grand juror, an overseer, a high
constable, or a reverend clergyman, all stating facts
similar to what he was about to detail, and they were only
to be taken as a sample. The chief police-officer
and billet-master of Halifax, where there was a popu-
lation of twenty-two thousand, stated that in the
beer-houses there gambling was very common—gambling
by boys, and that in one case out of every two, they were
frequented by boys and girls. He said that in these
houses it was truly shocking to see girls for the purpose of
prostitution, and boys for the purpose of availing them_
selves of the profligacy of the females. The Noble and
Learned Lord would observe that all the representations
he had agreed in melancholy uniformity, as to those places
being the resort for the gambling of boys, and the pros-
titution of girls. He was informed that the general
management of those beer-houses was disgraceful ; that
many of them were kept by persons of the lowest character
_persons who lived on the fruits of the prostitution of
their own daughters, and who harboured reputed
thieves. He supposed those were the persons to
whom the petitioners of London referred in their
petition, which had just been presented by his
Noble Friend, when they stated that beer-houses were
places for persons in humble life to resort to to have a pint
of ale and to enjoy themselves, as a temporary relaxation
from the cares of business.—( Laughter.) The state-
ments from Huddersfield were that the wives and children
of the poor men were exposed to the most painful examples
of blasphemy and disorder; that the keepers of beer-
honses admitted characters of the vilest description, and
that men sent out their own children to follow a course of
prostitution that they might have money to spend in those
houses, and that in doing so they left others of more
tender years in a state of sheer starvation.—( Hear, hear. )
Examples were
given, too shocking for him to read to
the House, of the most abhorrent cases of female
prostitution, and of such profligacy and crapulous vice,
as he had never read or heard of before. In Leeds the
convictions for drunkenness had increased four-old since
the passing of the Beer Bill. The High Constable of
Leeds attributed that entirely to the beer-houses. Now
he (the Noble and Learned Lord) wonld say, without
meaning any offence to the common
people, and without
any desire to spare the feelings of those in the rank of
their Lordships, that as to those which were vices in any
rank of life—either gambling or drunkenness—the one
being the parent of every mischief, and the other being
that they were ten thousand times worse for the common
the parent of every degree of dissoluteness in every life—
and industrious artizan and hard-working man, than they
were for the more elevated ranks of society. The

time persons spent --at--;uch. --
an occupation in
their Lordships' rank was the mere fragment of
their time, the money they spent in that way
was the mere parings of their fortunes which they cast
away ; but to the poor man such habits were destructive
to his comforts, his industry, his honesty, and his mind it-
self. It was hardly possible that he could be an honest
man; hardly possible that he could be an industrious man;
utterly impossible that he could be a thriving man, if he
indulged either in gaming or in drunkenness. Why were
the state lotteries abolished ? simply because the lower
classes should not be induced or encouraged to gamble.
While beer-shops had the effect of accustoming the corn.
mon people to gamble, they generated dissipation of other
sorts, in a lower class of
people than would naturally
be guilty of those excesses but for the beer-shops.
Persons who went to licensed victuallers' houses,