The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-28 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the
Lancaster and Preston Railway Company com-
plaining that a Committee of the House had ne-
gatived the right (as we understood) of the proprie-
tors of Companies for competing lines, or lines not in
actual formation, to oppose newly projected lines of
Railway. The Hon. Member stated some of the
grounds which were urged in support of the prayer of
the petition, which was, that all competing lines might
oppose, as well as those in existence. But he spoke in
so inaudible a tone that we were unable to hear with
any degree of accuracy the purport of what he said.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice of his inten-
tion to move for leave to bring in a Bill to suspend the
appointment to ecclesiastical preferments for another
year. _ _

The dropped orders and notices of motion of Wed-
nesday were then disposed of.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVE-
NUES BILL.

On the motion for re-instating the dropped order on
his Bill,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he understood
a wish had been expressed that the Committee on this
Bill should be postponed. He was quite aware that
there were many reasons why it would be desirable that
the Bill should not be proceeded with further at the pre-
sent period of the Session. It was stated that there would
be a difficulty in the other House of Parliament, in
obtaining a full attendance of as many Spiritual Lords
as would be desirable. It was likewise stated that an
imprecsion prevailed among many Hon. Members of
that House, and out of doors, upon what grounds he
would not attempt to say, that some proposition was
intended to be made, or some modification proposed,
which would gain more general assent to the Bill.
He certainly felt desirous that the Bill, whenever it
passed, should have the general consent of Parliament
and of the Church. He was, therefore, not unwilling
to postpone the consideration sf the Bill ; but he cer-
tainly should be very reluctant to postpone it, if it was
considered that that postponement would be at all
giving up the objects which the Bill was intended
to carry into effect, or the principles contained
in it. But it was quite necessary that what the
Bill proposed should be carried into effect by some
Parliamentary enactment. Therefore, in postponing
the measure, he wished, at the same time, to propose
the Bill of which he had just given notice, for suspend-
ing certain Cathedral dignities. He was aware that
that was a course liable to objection if it were repeated
year after year without the prospect of coming to some
termination. What he proposed, therefore, was that
in the Bill to be introduced the vacancies which
took place should not be filled up. He
should therefore propose that the Ecclesiastical Duties
and Revenues' Bill be postponed, with a view to ascer-
taining whether the Bill for the suspension of Cathedral
Dignities was likely to receive the assent of Parliament.
If that Bill did not receive the assent of Parliament
then he should give up the other Bill for the present
Session. But whatever the inconvenience might be,
he should think it necessary to press the Bill in order
to show that he was not disposed to abandon either the
principle or the manner in which it was proposed to be
carried into effect. He should, therefore, propose that
the Bill be postponed till that day fortnight.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought a better opportunity
would not be offered him of suggesting to the Noble
Lord (as the present was the last week of the sitting
in the month of June), the propriety of announcing, not
on that day, but at his earliest convenience, what were
those Bills with which the Noble Lord intended
to proceed during the present Session, and what
Bills he intended to postpone. That was a course which
had been generally taken at an earlier period of the

Session—(Hear, hear)—but he was satisfied that it
would greatly facilitate the discussion of those Bills which
were to be discussed, if the Noble Lord would state
what Bills respecting Scotland, England, and Ireland
were to be proceeded with. He hoped an early day would
be fixed for the Canada Bill, and he thought it right to
state that. he should feel it his duty to oppose that Bill.
He did not contest the principle, but he must contest its
being affirmed, if it were not intended to be carried out
during the present Session. If he were to hold that it
was intended bona fide to legislate during the present
Session for the union of the Canadas, he would be pre-
pared to accede to it—if they were to enact something
upon the principle being affirmed. He would not
oppose the second reading,- if they were to follow
it with actual, legislation for the Canadas, other-
wise he must by some means oppose the second
reading, on the ground that, the question could not be
discussed without entering into. various considerations
which ought certainly to be followed by some enact-
ments, because if the discussions in that House were to
go out to Canada, and be considered there for
some six or eight moths without anything having been
done by that House, it might greatly prejudice le fu-
ture legislation upon the question. He should not di-
rectly oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he
would feel it to be his duty to move either the
previous question or the passing to the other
Orders of ,the Day, in order to mark his sense
of the impropriety of affirming a principle without
other legislation. He would feel it to be his duty to
pursue the same course with other measures. To
many Bills on the table he had no objection in principle ;
he would agree to the second reading of many of them if
it were proposed to proceed to legislate upon them,-but
if it were intended to propose the second reading,
merely for the purpose of affirming the principle—with-
out proceeding with legislation during the present Ses-
sion—he must take the same course, and invite the
House to refuse their assent to any principle upon
which it was not proposed to legislate during the pre-
sent Session.
Lord J. RUSSELL would certainly take an early
opportunity of informing the House as to the Bills
which the Government intended to proceed with during
the present Session. There were several Bills which
had been already abandoned, therefore it would not
be necessary for him to make any fresh declaration
with respect to them. He would take advantage of the
offer made by the Right Hon. Baronet, he would cer-
tainly take time to consider before he named the Bills,
because in the hurry at the end of last session be had
postponed one unintentionally and for that oversight he
bad been very much blamed. He might take that
opportunity of stating, however, for the information of
the gentlemen connected with Scotland, and the House
generally, that with regard to the queitions connected
with that part of the country,- there were three Bills
that would certainly be proceeded with. They were
the Salaries of Judge's Bill, the Prisons Bill,
and the Bankrupts Estates (Scotland) Bill. These
three Bills would certainly be proceeded with
this Session, but it was notintended to press to a further
stage any other Bills relative to Scotland. As to the
Bills respecting Canada, he was afraid some misapprehen-
sion might exist regarding the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement if it was not further explained. There were
two Bills which the Government had obtained leave to
introduce respecting Canada. • There was one which
Le had already stated they did not mean to pro-
ceed with during the present Session ; but there was
another, with respect to the powers conferred by Act
of Parliament on the Governor and Special Council, '
which it was the intention of the Government to pro-
ceed with this Session. He hoped the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's statement did not refer to that Bill, because,
after what passed last year with respect to the Judges
in Canada, he should certainly think it necessary to
press that Bill. He would not then enter into the
question of whether it was politic or impolitic to ask for
the second reading of- the Bill respecting the union
of Canada this year, . but would enter into that,
when the question should he regularly before the
House.—(Hear.`, He would take that opportunity of
stating with regard to the Orders of the Day, that he
had understood from a Right Hari. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Shaw), it was the wish of himself and same other
Members that the Irish Municipal Corporation' Bill
should not- stand for to-morrow. Now; he con-
fessed he bad not heard any reason for that post-
ponement. It appeared to him they were ready
to enter into the discussion of
.that Bill ; and as
they were now speaking of the proceedings of the House,
it might be as well for the Right Hon. Gentleman to
state why he wished postponement.
Sir R. PEEL—Let us take Canada first.—(Laugh-
ter.) He was quite aware the Noble Lord had
two Bills relating to Canada, and distinctly under-
stood with respect to one of the Bills, it was the
intention of the Noble Lord to proceed to effective le-
giAation in the course of the present Session. His ob-
jection (lid not apply to that Bill. His impression was
that he should not oppose the principle of that Bill. All
he intended to do was to oppose the principle of any
Bill on the second reading, which the Government
s' ated it was not their intention to carry out this Session.
Mr. SHAW said, with respect to the Irish Corpo-
ration Bill, he would state vrhy it was not convenient
to proceed- with it to-morrow; The Noble Lord had
stated his intention to bring on that Bill, and another
(the Controverted Elections Bill) to-morrow night, the
latter of which would take a considerable time. Another
reason, that on the last night on which the Souse
'sat it was not understood that. he meant to pro-
ceed with it this Session. It would be more
convenient for the House to understand 'positiyely when
it would come on, and that some other night should be
fined..
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN appealed to the Noble
Lord to give precedence to the Irish Corporation Bill
to-morrow. • He thought it would be inconvenient to
delay it longer. for -a great number of his friends were
anxious to leave town next week.
Sir D. ROACH also expressed his wish that the
Bill might come on early to-morrow night.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as there had been
a very full attendance this week, he did not think
there was any necessity for postponing the Bill beyond
to-morrow, although he could not agree with his Hon.
Friend behind him, who proposed thatit Afield take
precedence, of the Controverted Elections Bill. That
Bill had stood over for a considerable time, and he
thought it would not require any long time to
settle the remaining points in question. He did
not think that the business could be arranged so as
to suit all parties, and he did not think it fair for Hon.
Members to object because they happened to be en-
gaged for dinner.—(A laugh.)
Sir R. PEEL did not think that was any ground for
delay ; but as it was a Bill of importance, they ought to
know that it would come on on a certain day. There were
280.clausesla the Bill. It had been pretty often before
the House, but he ' had not a perfect recollection
of all the clauses. He should be so much engaged to-
morrow with the Election Jurisdiction Bill, that he
should have no leisure to
.attend to one word of the
other. He suggested that the Bill should be fixed for
Thursday next, and would venture to say in .that case
there would be no disposition to enter into any prelimi-
nary discussion.
Mr. HUME said this question pressed very much
with regard to the people of Ireland, and he hoped
the Noble Lord would take it to-morrow without tiiil.
Ireland expected something, but, nothing had yet been
done for her.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not to be sup-
posed they could get through the 280 clauses to-morrow.
There was one point cspe&ally in the Bill which had
been frequently a matter of difference in the House,

and baying taken the discussion on that question he
should postpone the consideration of the clauses till

some future day.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Mr. KELLY wished to know if it was the intention
of Government to proceed with the Summary Juris-
diction Bill during the present Session ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Yes.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
Mr. LUCAS wished to ask the Hon. Member for
Waterford whether he intended to proceed with the

Ecclesiastical Courts Bill during the present Session?
Mr. BARRON was understood to say that he should
take the sense of the House on the principle of the Bill.
CONTRACT AND VAGRANCY LAWS IN

THE COLONIES.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON wished to ask the Under
Secretary for the Colonial Department, whether any in-
formation had reached the Colonial-office from the Le-
gislature of Barbadoes, communicating the information
that they had passed two laws on the subjects of con-
tracts and vagrancy, in conformity with the Orders in
Council.

Mr. LABOUCHERE had the satisfaction to state
in reply to the question of the Honourable and Learned
Member, that information had been received from Bar-
badoes, that the Legislature of that Colony had
passed laws on the subject of vagrancy and contracts in
exact conformity with the Orders in Council.—(Tory
cheers.) Also that in the Island of St. Vincent a law
on the subject of contracts in exact conformity with the
Order in Council had been passed by that Legislature.
FACTORY BILL.
Lord ASHLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord
what course he intended to pursue with respect to the
Factory Bill. In consequence of the numerous delays
which had taken place from February to July, all the
parties interested had left London, and he should be ob-
liged to write to them that they may be in town on
that day.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I stated in the face of
the House that the Factory Bill would take precedence
os the other orders on Monday next ; and I have only
to repeat that notification.
HOSTILITIES IN THE EAST.
Mr. HUME asked the Noble Lord, the Secretary
for the Foreign Department, whether, after the news
which had been received to-day from the East, of hos-
tilities having commenced there,
he would have any
objection to lay before the House the treaty or conven-
tion made in 1833 (at some place, the name_of which
was quite unintelligible to our ears).
Lord PALMERSTON said there had been no formal ,

treaty or convention, but merely an arrangement between
the Sultan and the Paella of Egypt, by which the Sultan
undertook to nominate Mehemet Ali Governor of certain
pachalics, and which had hitherto been executed merely
by the annual list of pachas. With respect to the
dispatches on the subject, he would read them over,
and see if he could produce them ; he did not at present
see any objection.
THE EDUCATION VOTE.—CARRIED.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I beg to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite, whether he intends to rake the
sense of the House upon the Report of the Education
Vote ?

Sir R. PEEL said he intended to hare made his
reply to that question yesterday, had it not been for the
accidental circumstance of a House not having been
formed. He would now state, that as he believed the
House considered the subject had been exhausted
in point of debate—as the question upon the Re-
port would be identically the same with that
which had been decided in Committee, and as he had
ascertained that every Member of the house had voted
upon the subject, except 24, he deemed it unnecessary
to trouble the House by another division. He did not,
therefore, propose to take the sense of the House on
the Report, and had no objection to its being received
now.

Lord J. RUSSELL accordingly moved that the
Report be now received.
Mr. F. BARING brought up the Report.
Sir E. WILMOT ssished not to enter into a discus-
sion upon the subject, but to call the attention of the
Noble Lord to a subject intimately connected with it.
The Noble Lord was aware, from the Report of the
Charity Commissioners, that there was an immense fund
applicable to the purpose of education which was wholly
squandered away. There were grammar schools well
endowed, in almost every town in England, which were
almost wholly useless. There was one in the county
of Warwick, where a gentleman for many years had en-
joyed a house, and an income amounting to 4001. a year,
but as it was a grammar-school, the Lord Chancellor
had dsoided that he could teach.only Latin. The con-
sequence was, that for many years he had only one boy
as a scholar, who stammered so abominably that nobody
knew what he said.—(A laugh.) In Macclesfield he
believed the trustees of the grammar-school, by arrange-
ment, applied to .the Lord Chancellor, and a new
scheme was introduced, which had been most beneficial.
He wanted to know whether the Noble Lord would
bring in any Bill to enable the trustees of grammar-
schools to enlarge the scheme of their trusts, subject to
the approbation of the Chancellor.—( Hear, hear.) The
result would be, that in place of gentlemen getting large
salaries for doing nothing, there would be funds suffi-
cient for the education of tradesmen's sons free.
Lord J. RUSSELL said Lord Brougham had paid
much attention to the subject, and last year introduced
a Bill on it. He believed it would again be brought
forward, and he trusted with success, as it was a mat-
ter of much importance.
Mr. C. BULLER. said the country was deeply in-
debted to the Hon. Baronet for calling attention to that
important subject. There was a fund which might and
would educate the whole of England wholly wasted. He
would state one case of the misapplication of these funds.
One of the Commissioners of Charities told him that in
three parishes in Lincolnshire which he had examined,
there were general charities which were frittered away in
slangs of ls., which did no good whatever, which might
educate the whole of the people in those parishes.—
(Hear, hear.) If the Government really had at heart
the education of the people, the first subject to which
they would turn their attention was the application of
those charities to the purposes for which they were ori-
ginally founded.
Mr. BROTHERT ON, in order to show the im-
portance of the suggestion of the Hon. Baronet oppo-
site, would mention that there was a grammar school in
the neighbourhood of Manchester, with an income of
6,0001. a year, and in which, up to a very late period,
not more than 200 scholars were instructed. At the
present moment there were not more than 300 scholars,
and yet the funds were sufficient to instruct and edcu-
cate a great portion of the children of the people of
Manchester.
Mr. T. EGERTON said the Hon. Member for Sal-
ford was labouring under considerable error. The
trustees of that Charity were now acting according to
a scheme settled by the Master in Chancery. They had
appropriated the funds to two schools, one for classical
education, and the other was open to the whole world,
any individual might send his child there. It was un-
fair, when the trustees were acting under a decree of
the Lord Chancellor, that the lion. Member should
come forward, and declare in the House of Commons,
that which was not in consonance with the facts.
Captain PECHELL said they need not go so far
north as Manchester. A most villanous subject was the
Berkhampstead school—(Laughter)—in which the moat
monstrous abases existed, that were ever divulged by
the Charity Commissioners.—( Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. R. ALSTON said that at Willoughby, in Lin-
colnshire, there was a school, the master of which had
6001. a year, and only one child attended it.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN hoped no scheme fOr
the establishment of Commissioners of Education would
be agreed to. At present there was a disposition to
fritter- away the justice of the country by introducing
tribunals for particular objects, and while the judicial
business of the country was at a stand-still for want of
suilicient force. He entirely objected to the suggestion
thrown out by the Hon, and Learned Member for Lis-
kcard. Gentlemen should not forget that grammar
schools were established for the sole, express, and only
purpose of classical education ; that they had been of
very great use, and that the persons now appointed were
appointed as classical masters ; and to ask them to teach
little boys reading and writing, would be one of the most
unreasonable things in the world. He was one
of those who thought part of the funds of
th.ose charities might be used for general edu-
cation, that there might be a common school
established as well as a classical school, but they
ought not to trench on the original foundation so-as not
to leave a sufficient sum for classical education, accord-
ing to the intention of the founder. He thought that
in the new state of society both systems might be com-
bined with advantage to the public without acting ad-
versely to the real intentions of the testators.—( Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS did not mean to undervalue the im-
portance of a popular system of education, but he pro-
tested against the suggestion they had heard. If it were
adopted it would be acting against the general principle
that a testator might dispose of his property as he liked,
provided he were not devising anything injurious to the
public good.
Sir E. WILMOT explained some points upon which
he had been misrepresented. When some of these pro-
perties were devised they were not worth more than .50/.
a vear, now they produced incomes of 5,000/.—(Hear.)
We understood the Hon. Baronet to say that the schools
of Birfield and Birmingham were already enlarged for
the extended system of education they had heard re,
commended.

Sir R. PEEL said this was a question of sery great
importance.—( Hear, hear.) There was one point which
he wished to submit to the Learned Attorney-General.
There were several schools for which trustees would be
found willing to act, but an application to the Court of
Chancery for authority would cost from 201. to 80/., and
some of the foundations were too poor to afford so
great an expense. He suggested that some summary
form in the shape of clauses, to meet this difficulty,
might be advantageously introduced both for the schools
and the public, and this being once effected, and the
schools actually set to work, he knew several gentlemen,
so far ai the schools he knew of were concerned, who
would cheerfully subscribe towards them.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL promised to bring the
suggestio❑ of the Right Hon. Baronet under the notice

of leis Learned Friend.

He thought it might be bend

cially adopted, and he should always be glad to receive
the advice of the Right Hon. Baronet on this subject,
which he regarded as one of the most difficult now be-

fore Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that they
might safely adopt a middle course, not strictly follow-
ing the injunctions of the testators, nor yet so far de-
viating from them as some Hon. Gentlemen had sug-
gested. He had no doubt that an endowment might be
well administered without literally following out the will
of the testator, as had been insisted upon by the Hon.
Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. He
did not think that even be (Sir R. I.) would desire to
see those wills literally acted upon in all cases. Should
he like to see the money arising from some of the be-
quests made to the University of Oxford applied as the
testators had required,—namely, for the saying of masses
for the release of their souls from purgatory.—(Laugh-
ter, and " Hear, hear.")
Sir R. INGLIS—WouId have no objection to agree
to this if his Hon. Friend would first repeal the statute
which had been introduced by another Lord Russell,
which made the saying of masses unlawful.—(" Hear,
hear," and laughter.
The resolution was then agreed to.
SALE 'OF BEER BILL.
Petitions on either side of this question, were pre-
sented, amidst a confusion which rendered the names
of the places and the precise object of the petitioners
generally undistinguishable, by Mr. Warburton, pray-
ing to place the beer-sellers and the licensed vic-
tuallers under equal laws ; Sir B. Hall, Capt. Pechell,
Lord Stanley, Lord Sandon, Sir Jatbes Duke, Sir IL
Peel, from a body of teetotallers, against the beer-sellers
—(Laughter)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord
Worsley, and Mr. Cresswell.
- On the motion that the House go into Committee on
the Bill,

Mr. HUME complained that no case had been made
out against the beer-sellers by the Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Pakington). He denied that the beer-
! shops were the scenes of greater irregularities than the
public-houses. He assented that they were even much
less inculpated in this way. He therefore could not
understand why houses in which a large share of pro-
perty had been invested, and which were as regular as
could be expected—for they all knew the class of per.
sons that resorted to them—should be charged by the
Hon. Gentleman with being the centre of thefts and
robberies. Had it been proved that the keepers of
those houses were hostile to the laws, or flagrant vio- ,

lators of the regulations under which they were permitted
to sell ? The only authority the Hon. Geetisman had
been able to give them was that. of c:,:cs or two ano-
nymous letters ; but what were those in the face
of the official returns which he (Mr. Hutne)
should now refer to, and which would prove that the
public house keepers were much greater violaters oF
the law than the beer retailers. According to the re-
turns laid before the House, it appeared that in the
year 1835 there were 29 dealers in retail convicted of adul-
terating beer, of whom 20 were licensed victuallers and
only nine beer sellers.--(Hear, hear.) In 183 G, out
of 146 convictions for the same offence, 144 were
licensed victuallers, and two were beer sellers. (Hear,
hear.) In 1837, there were 48 convictions—how many
were there in that convict class of those whom the
Hon. Gentleman had so severely attacked? Why—
let the House attend to it—there was one beer seller
and 47 licensed victuallers. (Hear, hear.) So much
for the general comparative morality of the licensed
victuallers and the beer sellers. He would now refer
to the returns from London since the passing of the
Bill. In 1830 there were summoned before the magi-
strates for irregularities 123 public house keepers, of
whom 109 were convicted and 14 were dismissed : in
the same year four beer sellers were summoned, and
the four were dismissed.---(Hear, hear.) In 1831 out
of 155. licensed victuallers summoned 143 were con-
victed. In the same year only ten beer sellers were
convicted. And here he would remind the House
that many of those transgressions for which the
beer sellers were convicted, were for opening their
houses half an hour earlier or keeping them open
half an hour later than the time prescribed by
the Act. Even a difference of five minutes rendered
them liable to such a visitation. In 1837 there were
summoned before the magistrates 546 licensed victuallers,
of whom 519 were convicted and 27 were dismissed.
In the same year of 241 beer-sellers summoned
207 were convicted and 24 were dismissed. In 1838
there were summoned 655 publicans ; 603 were convicted,
and 52 were dismissed. The number of beer sellers
summoned was 349, of whom 322 were convicted and
28 dismissed. In the whole period there had been
summoned beforg, the Magistrates 2,519 publicans, and
with all their difficulties only 1,008 beer sellers. After
this he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
place houses of both descriptions under an exact
equality of law. Why should they shut up the beer-
shops where men seldom did themselves so much injury,
and leave the gin shops open, where men make them-
selves mad, and ready for the perpetration of any crime
after filling themselves with ardent spirits ?—(Hear,
hear.) Ile considered the Bill quite uncalled for, and
should move as an amendment that it be committed
that day six months.
Mr. SANFORD opposed the statement of the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and said that the true
state of the conduct of the beer-shops would be much
better learned from those residing in the. respective .10-
calities than from the official returns. So far back as
the year 1494, it had been found necessary to issue le-
gislative restrictions on the selling of beer. In 1552
the restrictions were renewed. In 1787 the Secretary
of State issued a circular to the Magistrates cautioning
them against the system that prevailed in issuing licenses.
He thought it absolutely necessary that some plan
should be adopted for licensing these houses different
from the present. All that was necessary now was to
obtain the certificates of six householders of the neigh-
beurhood ; but if the excise officer by whom the license
was granted took care to ascertain that the person aps
plying was a man of good character and respectability,
much of the present evil would be done away with. He
thought the measure would be one of very general
utility, and he hoped there would be no objection to
going into Committee on the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON complained of the very un-
fair course which had been adopted by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kilkenny in taking merely the returns for the
metropolis, instead of taking the average of the entire
country.
Mr. HUM E.—Th ese returns are for the entire
country.
Lord DUNGANNON understood the Hon. Mem-
ber to refer merely to the Metropolitan returns. He
would however give the House the returns for the
Borough of Liverpool. which would show what the propor-
tion was between the offences of the two classes of houses ;
In 1830-31 the number of convictions was—licensed
victuallers 80, beer-houses 106 ; in 1831-32, licensed
victuallers 82, beer-houses 81 ; in 1832-33, licensed
victuallers 88, beer-houses 77 ; in 1833.34, licensed
victuallers 72, beer-houses 95 ; in 1834-85, licensed
victuallers 67, beer-houses 179 ; in 1835.36, licensed
victuallers 193, beer-houses 312 ; in 1836-37, licensed
victuallers 39, beer-houses 87 ; in 1837-38, licensed
victuallers 83, beer-houses 135. That, he thought,
was a fair criterion of the two classes of houses. He
believed, if the Hon. Member made inquiries among
the clergymen and magistrates from one end of the
country to the other—front Northumberland to Corn-
wall—he would hear that a great portion of the vice
and immorality existing among the agricultural classes
was to be attributed to the establishment of beer-
houses. As a County Magistrate he could state that
most of the robl9eries—not those of a trifling, but many
of a much graver character—were concocted in the
beer-houses, whose proprietors were, in most cases, men
of no capital or property. Ile hoped the motion would
be carried by a large majority.
The CHANCELLOR .of the EXCHEQUER
was not prepared for any opposition to the measure,
and could not support the Hon. Member's amendment.
—(I-Iear.) He had stated, on a former occasion, the
course he meant to pursue, which was, when the Bill
went into Committee, to endeavour to equalize the
condition of the two classes of houses so far as he could.
He had further stated that if he failed in Isis endeavours
to make the Bill just between the two parties, he should
undoubtedly then join the Hon. Member in voting
against the Bill on the report being brought up to the
third reading. It appeared that the number of signa-
tures to the petitions presented in favour of equalizing
the laws between the two classeS of houses were
248,000. Now if the statements of the Noble Lord
opposite relative to the immorality and vice of these
beer houses, was true, instead of supporting the present
Bill, he ought to move for the total repeal of the Beer
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, if the statements were
not exaggerated, he ought to proceed criminally against
the parties.—( Hear, hear.) He should take the liberty
of refuting some of the very extraordinary statements
of the Noble Lord. It was was assumed in the first
place, that the Beer-shops altogether were disreputable
places, that their owners were men of no character or
property, and that they were all hot beds of vice. He
would show that there was no ground whatever for
these statements. The House would hardly believe
that the property invested in these houses was very
considerable. He held in his hand a letter from one
party, who stated that he had invested 4,0001. in the
establishment of a beer-shop.—(Hear, hear.) It
might be said that that was only an individual case,
but he had a return of 360 Beer-shops, and the total
amount of the rental was 8,226/. ; the amount of
capital invested was 74,2101., and that was but a small
proportion of the 40 or 50,000 houses which they were
called upon to legislate for. He would now give the
Noble Lord another instance, and he would take a case
from the metropolis. There was a beer-shop in Mile-
end, the property of an individual owner, the value of
the house and fixtures was 1,500/., the stock 1,325/.,
and that was one of the class which the Honourable
Gentleman opposite represented as persons without
property, and in many cases without character.
Lord DUNGANNON had merely alluded to beer
houses in agricultural districts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Noble Lord and those Hon. Members who had dis-
cussed the question, had brought the arguments as
against the whole body, and he, for one, could not al-
low them to back out of the question in that way.—
(Hear, hear.) The next case was that of a beer shop
in Ratcliffe street. The value of the house was 6001.,
and of the stock 5001. Then with respect to residence,
which was an excellent test of character, there were in-
stances of 8,6, 10, 16, 5, and even 23 years constant
residence in one house, the parties paying rates and
taxes,and contributing to parochial and other dues during
all that time, and yet they were told that these men were
wholly without capital, and altogether devoid of respec-
tability.—( Hear, hear.) There was another point to
which he wished to call the attention of the House. In
stating the want of capital embarked in that trade, he
had not taken into account the amount of capital em-
barked by brewers, and if that were added to it, would
form a sum total which would entirely astonish Hon.
Members. He would take the number of licensed
brewers before and after the passing of the Beer Bill,
and he would begin two years before the passing of the
Act. In the first year, the number of licensed brewers
was 27,161 ; in the year after the passing of the Bill it
was 36,284 ; but in the following year the number was
42,976 ; and in the one following that 43,087.
Therefore there was an addition of capital of
from 27,161 brewers to 43,087, the, number of
licensed brewers in the last year, and he wished Hon.
Members, and more especially landed proprietors, to re-
collect that it was these brewers who furnished a market
for their barley, and formed a peat addition to the de-
mand for the agricultural produce of the country.—
( Hear, hear.) He was merely applying himself to the
arguments that there was no capital embarked in these
beer houses. He held in his hand another return of a
very extraordinary nature, and to which he would call
the attention of Hon. Members opposite. Nothing was
more easy than to say that the licensed victuallers as a
class were all men of wealth and independence ; while
the keepers of beer shops were men without capital. I-1:
had procured a return from the Excise Officers of
the the
number of public-houses and beer-houses withinnie
of
respective collections extending over the
England. It appeared by that return
-
number of public-houses was 55,513, and that th
the num e
ber of beer shops linceused to sellNbleverofe
tothbs:
consumed on the premises, 36'054.,)
55,000 public houses, the owners of which were sup.
posed to represent so much wealth and capital, there
were 18,379 who rented houses under 10/. yearly
value.—( Hear, hear.) And it should be remembered
that the value of the house was increased by the license,

EVENING, EDITION

so that the 10/. was not the rent, but a fictitious value,
Amongst tic beer shops there were inbahitirg houses
under 61. in value, 1,858 ; and over 5/. in value 34,196.
That, however, might net be considered a fair mode of
comparison, and he would take the question in another
point of view. There were of publicans inhabitating
houses under 10/. in yearly value. 18,379 ; ar d beer
shops snider 10/. yearly "value, 15,318. It should be-
sides be borne in mind that the value of the public houses
was increased by the license, which was not the case
with the beer houses. What, then, became of the ex-
aggerated statements of the wealth of the one class, and
the absence of capital of the other, which had been
put forward by Hon. Members opposite.—( Hear, hear.)
He would lay these papers on the table of the House,
because he thought they would go far to dispel the de-
lusion that existed on this subject. He did not how-
ever think it would be wise to continue the licence to
houses rented under five pounds, and there ought to be
new police regulations. The deputation of beer sellers
who had had an interview with him had thought that
instead of that being a hardship it would be a protec-
tion to their trade, and had assented to the proposition.
They stated it was the want of police regulations in
small places that had raised the storm against them, and
they were perfectly willing to acquesce in the proposed
modification.—(Hear, hear.) He had now disposed of
that part of the case which related to the value of the
property ; and he had shown the contrast between the
one class and the other was founded on entire delusion.
He now came to an important question, that which re-
ferred to crime; and the assertions that had been made on
this subject were just as gratuitous and unfounded as
they were on the other. Could the Noble Lord oppo-
site prove that crime had increased, and then prove
that that increase had arisen from the beer shops ?----
( Hear, hear.) A table had been prepared at the
Home-office on this subject, from which he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) had deduced the following
conclusions. Increased commitments were not conclu-
sive proof of an increase of crime, because that might
arise from the establishment of a more active police
or greater facilities of prosecution.—(Hear, hear.)
Yet it might be assumed that a decrease in the number
of commitments was proof of the decrease of crime.
He would take the four years average before the Beer
Bill and the four years average after the Beer Bill.
The mean ratio of increase in criminal commitments for
1826 to 1829 inclusive showed an average increase of
commitments of 7:1 per cent. in England and Wales. In
the four years subsequent to the passing of the Beer
Bill there was not an increase of 71 per cent
but 2 per cent. only.—(Cheers.) What became
therefore of the statement that crime bad absolutely in-
creased ?—(Hear, hear.) Now was this crime attri-
butable to the Beer-shops ? In twenty of the largest
agricultural counties, there was a decrease in commit-
ments altogether. Some gentlemen have said that
sheep-stealing was the child of the beer shops, and that
such a thing as sheep-stealing was never heard of before
the beer shops. The paper he held in his band stated,
that it might be generally remarked, that offences com-
mitted by the rural population had decreased,such as cattle
stealing, and that the offences against the Game Laws had
decreased 45 per cent. That would answer at once
the statement of the Noble Lord, that crime had in-
creased in the agricultural districts since the passing of
the Beer Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He could trouble the
House with further evidence on this subject, but he was
reluctant to occupy the time of the House by doing so-
ne did not deny that crime might, more or less, be at-
tributed to intoxicating liquors. It was at public-
houses and beer-shops that people, having no house of
their own, would congregate ; but the question was,
whether every evil and every crime could be traced ex-
clusively and essentially to the beer-shops ? There
was a greater chance of crime originating in public-
houses than in beer-shops, because, as his Hon. Friend
the Member for Kilkenny had observed, ardent spirits
were more likely to inflame the passions and to excite
persons to violent acts than beer. Indeed Hogarth
had very powerfully drawn the contrast between Gin
Alley and Beer Lane.—(Hear, hear.) He should
support the motion for going into Committee, because
he wished to consider impartially the interests of both
parties ; but he thought nothing would tend more to
diminish the House in the estimation of the public than
a want of consistency—a sort of blowing hot and cold
—at one time raising great interests, and at another
pulling them down. This Bill had been introduced and
carried after full inquiry—the objections urged now
were urged then ; evidence was taken upon them and
the Bill introduced by the Government which preceded
Lord Grey's, passed as one of the best legislative mea-
sures, and as one of the boldest and most effective
financial reforms, and for which the Government who
introduced it deserved the thanks of the country. If
a proposition should be entertained for overturning dm
who!e of this trade, no confidence whatever would be
placed in:the proceedings of Parliament. If the House did
not adopt the amendments of which he had give notice,
he should certainly oppose the Bill altogether.
Lord DUNGANNON explained.
Lord ELIOT said the whole of the.address of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a panegyric on
beer-shops—(Hear)—but the Magistrates with whom
he had communicated in different parts of the country
had taken a very different view of the subject. But he
(Lord Eliot) admitted that a great part "of the evil"l
might be attributed to the inefficient controul over the
beer-shops. With a rural police a great many of the '
evils might be remedied.—( Hear, hear.) He should
vote for going into Committee, but he did not think the
Bill of his Hon. Friend best calculated to effect the ob-
ject he lied in view.—( Hear, hear.) lie was opposed
to the principle of making property the test of respec-
tability.—(Hear.)
Mr. W ARB URTO N recommended his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, to accede to the
suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
thought that Right Hon. Gentleman had given a trium-
phant answer to the remarks that had fallen from the
Noble Lord opposite, as well as to other remarks which
had been made on the subject of beer-houses. The
beer-seller was subjected to restrictions which the li-
censed victualler was not, and in his opinion was that
both should be put upon an equality.
Captain WOOD said he thought it right to state,
that in the London district, while the licensed victual-
lers were 4,300, the beer-shops were only 1,560 ; so
that the convictions were two to one, and the numbers
as three to one.
Lord WORSLEY said, as a County Magistrate,
he felt bound to make a few observations. He certainly
did not attribute the increase of crime to the beer-shops
exclusively.—( Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had stated that crime had decreased. Now
that might be the case in large towns, but in the coun-
try he (Lord Worsley) was afraid that the efficiency of
the town police had but tended to drive bad characters
into the rural districts.—( Hear, hear.) Certainly he
much cloubted if crime had really diminished so much
as 45 per cent. At all events, that was not the case in
his own county, where the depredations upon the
farmers had greatly increased.—( Hear.) The far-
mers, indeed, generally complained most grievously of
the existing law, stating that their servants bad
thereby great facilities for drinking, and that their con-
duct had, since the passing of that law, become much
worse. Of one thing he was convinced, that the state
provedof t the cou
untiln t rayn weoffiu
elled
nnte tp' ear becomea b tuhl
aorryo uvvglai lsy
esi:-.
blished.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the Bill would be
allowed to go into Committee, though he was by no '
means so sanguine as to the benefits •to be expected
from it, yet he felt that some alteration in the law was
imperatively called for.---( Hear, hear.) •
Mr. PA KINGTON said he was not prepared for
such a discussion upon the Committee, which he thought
would have better taken place upon the second reading.
Ile must olsserve that a great part of the speech of the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
against a Bill now before the House—a Bill for entirely
doing away with the beer houses. The Hon. Member
for Kilkenny had said that no case had been made•.
out fUr the present Bill, an observation which he •
(Mr. Pakington) would not take the trouble to refute.
—(Hear, hear.) The capital alleged to be invested in
the beer-houses was very unequally distributed ; and
the proposal, that they should be such as were rated at
10/. or LW., would secure respectability. As to the
argument drawn from the returns of the London dis-
trict, it was sufficient to observe that the licensed vie'
tuallers were to the beer houses as sto 1. No one
ethsltielintding from
could be more desirous than himself of putting down all
the, misery and vice connected with spirit houses ; but
because such misery and vice were connected with the
spirit houses, were the evils associated with the her
shops to go unrernedied ?—(Hear, hear.) It was in
evidence before the Committee of 1834, that the Sat!,
of spirits had been increased by the competition erets4-
quent upon the passing of the Beer Act.—(Rear,
hear.) If it had been proved that the public :louses
were the haunts of vice, they would have. been equally
called out against ; but no such complaint had been
directly under the controul of the Magistrates, which
made. Besides, the licensed victuallsde.ir_ns'it(tlietidoeuatsrhe,sabtensa•verar.s;
holluesea
wNaosw notas thetn t
the question
uweist
thi oti hi
oe these e beer
crime,
most important—(Hear, hear)— i
anG that unless he
could show that the beer-houses were haunts of vice, and
injurious to the working classes, he had no right to ask
Hear, hear.) But the
them.—(
established any case in
throughout the country had not general statistical
obfe been
crime, establishedth at
therefore
e thatrefa
rt
eh e t
ibi
ee
ye, r -Ii o
wereu
rttielltii
teiegui
rirliitt,f;lu,i
thatosoeun favour
tocreb
ryei
mn
merelyte e restricttmha r
in-
creased. The real question was, whether it had not
ses were
strongly theob j
ehuatui
unnt.s
able, and the ground of jut and general complaint?
Now he contended that this had been abundantly
• proved. He would refer emphatically to the numerous
confessions of men who had been executed under sentence
of the law.—(Oh, oh, from the Liberal Members, and
Hear, from the Opposition.) Surely Hon. Members would.-
not disregard the declarations of dying men, as to the
causes which had led to their unhappy fate.—(Hear.)
And he could cite many such declarations of rio:n upon
the scaffold, that their crime and their misery were at-
tributed to beer-houses. He could also quote many
confessions of those who had become the inmates of
gaols, through the evil associations which they had

ng
In-
;ht
ice

n
'Y
e
it

VEN TG PIT lON

for Med in the beer-houses. From thrty-one eountie,
the Magistrates had almost unauimon,ly pehinnel
against the existing law. When the Act was under
consideration in the House, the debates were long, and
the divisions very narrow ; and it was really remark-
able to observe how accurately the predictions of those
who had then opposed it had been fairiiied.—(Hear,
hear.) Undoubtedly this was no party question.
Tee Beer Act had been proposed by the party with
whom he had the honour usually to vote. But the
great, man who had been then at the head of the
Government had now been the foremost to avow that
the measure had failed, and had since recorded his vote
tbr the repeal.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said, in-
deed, that in 1834, legislation had taken place upon
the subject, but it was legislation abortive and miserable.
The present Bill was founded upon the Report of the
Committee in 12,34 ; and the proposal for a 10/. qualifi-
cation was in reality lower than the 10/. proposed in
1834, as 10/. rating then would be equivalent to 15/.
now, owing to the Local Assessment Act, which had
since passed ; with regard to the hours, he must say
that the licensed victuallers had been hardly dealt with,
and he would. agree to the principle of the clause sug-
gested in this respect by the Right Hon. the Chancel-
or of the Exchequer, though he thought it was very
loosely worded, and would be difficult to frame accurately,
especially in regard to travellers. Believing that the Bill
was intimately connected with the morals, welfare, and
the happiness of the people, he hoped the House would
not be led away by the statistical statements of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to reject it.--(Hear.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said he concurred in requesting
bis Hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, not to per-
sist in opposing the Bill going into Committee.—(Hear,
hear.) He regretted that this Bill, which had been in-
troduced so long ago as the 7th March, should now be
under discussion.—(Hear.) He wished the subject had
been referred to a Select Committee, which might have
inquired into the different charges against both the
beer houses and licenced victuallers, and might have
made a Report, on which legislation would perhaps have
been more satisfactorily founded than upon the discus-
sions in that House. Upon one point he thought there
could be no difference of judgment—that some legis-
lation upon the subject was imperatively required.
He hoped the lion. Member for Kilkenny would con-
sent to withdraw his motion, and not interfere at pre-
sent with the Hon. Member (Mr. Pakingham).
Mr. HUME agreed to do so, on the condition that
be should be permitted to move the rejection of the Bill
altogether on the third reading.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Lord SANDON replied to the statements made in
favour of the beer sellers by the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny. The petition that he had presented that
evening against the beer retail system from Liverpool
was signed by sixteen Roman Catholic clergymen, who
had the best means of knowing the injury it had
effected amongst the working classes. But the same
objection applied to all other classes cf society. The
evidence of the deputy constable for Manchester stated
that such were the temptations that it held out to the
lower classes, especially the Irish, to distil illicit spirits
in the beer shops, that the revenue lost 50,000/. a year
in that town alone. The objection against the system
was almost unanimously strong amongst the best in-
formed and the least prejudiced persons. The Grand
Juries of Essex, Oxfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Surrey,
the Western Circuit, and many other important dis-
tricts, were all against it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said it was his intention to move the postponement of
the clause, for the purpose of substituting a clause of
his own.
Mr. HUME thought there could be no doubt the
Noble Lord's (Sandon's) amendment was a new clause
.altogether.
After a desultory conversation, in which Lord San-
dal, Mr. S. O'Brien, and the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer took part,
M 4-: HUME said lie would put an end to the diffi-
culty shat appeared to have arisen, by moving that
clause I be postponed.
Sir R. .ING LIS suggested that the Noble Lord
should withdraw his amendment, and bring it up as a
separate clause.
Mr. ATTWOOD thought the proposition was most
monstrous, to prevent a poor man consuming beer upon
the premises.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said they were not yet in a condition to discuss that
question. They were in what the Americans called
a very unhandsome fix.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. PAKINGTON said the clause as it ori-
gitudly stood required that the party should reside for
twelve months previously in the House for which he
required the license. He was willing however, to
waive the residence and to substitute the provision that
he shotild be rated to the poor rates in the annual sum
of 101. for the house he carried on business in, or some
other house in the parish.
The OstIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was glad the twelve months' prevous residence was
abandoned. Be thought however the other pro-
vision equally' unreasonable. The result of adopt-
ing it would be that 15,518 beer houses, which
at present were rated under 10/. would he disqualified.
Is. would be also manifestly unjust, as it would continue
18,379 public-houses, which were all rated under 10/.
Nothing could be more unjust, and he would add more
untenable, than such a proposition, and he should most
decidedly oppose it.—(Cheers.) He should also object
to the principle of twelve mouths' previous residence,
inasmuch as it would be a bar to the application of
capital, and capital in its most beneficial state, arising
from the occupation of houses of an improved construc-
tion, and built for the purposes of that trade. In the
claus% which he intended to substitute, he proposed that
where the population of the district was under 5,000, the
qualifie. lotion should be 5/. ; where it was above that
number the qualification to be 10/., and a house rated
at 151. so be the qualification within the bills of morta-
lity.—Wiear.) That would exclude about 1,800 houses
existing eisder the present system, but he thought it
would be pr. eductive of good, inasmuch as in the existing
small houses IlleY could not have good police regula-
tions. On these' grounds he would object to the clause.
Mr. WARIIL TR,TON also objected to the clause.
The proposition was' a most monstrous and unjust one.
Mr. MILES, 100 at the large capital em-
barked in the beer tract 'e would not do anything calcu-
lated to overturn it.—(i?iear.) The licensed victuallers,
however, had a right to esassplain that their interests
had not been attended to w'h'en the Beer Bill was intro-
duced. He would suggest to his Hon. Friend whether it
would not be as well to pat the two Houses on an
equality, taking care that a Allificient rate was named
to insure the respectability ,of the occupiers. He
thought a 71. rate would melt with the aperobation
of the House.—(" No, no," from .the Liberal Members.)
Captain PECHELL had hope d the Hon. Member
for Somersetshire was about to r sommend his Hon.
Friend to withdraw the Bill altslt •ether, because it
would be painful to the Hon. Mem& sr to have every
clause in his Bill negatived one of e. another. He
(Captain Pechell) had supported the .licensed victual-
lers, as the House knew, on many 00e., slogs, but he
could not support them at the expense of any other
class. He thought a Si. rate was sufficiests.4lY high.
Mr. BRISCOE observed that a house 71. value, was
not likely to be rated higher than Si. in the ►'at e-book.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEO,4OI:II had
drawn up these clauses after a full consideration be
conflicting interests, and he did not think he shot
acting fairly if he agreed to any eompromise.—(
Ai
Sir E. KNATCHBULL hoped his Hon. Fricod
would assent to the clauses proposed by the Chance limn
of the Exchequer, as an experiment. If it succeed ea
he for one should heartily rejoice ; if it failed th e
House could remedy it. The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had shown that
evening in the statements he had made, and the details
he had laid before the House, that he had paid great
attention to this subject, and he thought this matter
,ought to be left entirely to the responsibility of the
Government.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SLANEY also recommended the Hon. Member
for Droitwich to adopt the proposition of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. By so doing he would unite a large
body of gentlemen in that House, by which great Un-
provement might be effected.
Mr. PAKINGTON trusted the House would not
consider him guilty of any improper pertinacity when he
stated, that having taken this subject up from the most
disinterested motives, he could not abandon the Bill
be had introduced. In the first place he would
state that he entirely disapproved of the non-com-
sumption clause proposed by the Noble Lord the
'Member for Liverpool (Sandon). The tendency of
that clause would be in the first place to restore the cx-'
elusive power of licensing to the Magistrates, and thus
revive all that jealousy which had formerly existed ; and
in the next place, although it would no doubt diminish
the number of beer-shops, yet it would take away all the
respectable houses and leave those that had no capital,
and which were the very subject of complaint. If,
therefore, the Noble Lord had divided the House
on the non-consumptive clause, he (Mr. P.) would
have felt bound to have voted against it. Now with
regard to the scale of rating, he (Mr. Pakington) pro-
posed 15/. in the large towns, and 101. in the country.
The Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
that there should be three ratings : 101. in the large towns,
15/. in the metropolis, and 51. in the country. It was not
worth stipulating for 101. in the metropolis, for if there
was any part of the country in which the beer-houses were
unobjectionable, it was the metropolis._( Hear, hear.) If
he wanted to touch the beer-houses there, he should
proposehear.") As to 10/. in
25/ (Cries of "Bear,
the large towns it was the existing law,—the only dif-
ference being that it now was the value, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed rating, which
was a point of very little consequence.—( Hear, hear.)
A roost erroneous notion was entertained by some persons,
that the evils of the beer-law were felt only in the coun-
try, and not in the large towns ; whereas he (Mr. Paking-
ton) knew of a long list of large towns, including Bury,
Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Stoke-upon-Trent, Ports-
mouth, Gosport, Stamford, Stroud, Leicester, Nottingham,
Doncaster, Lewes, in all of which the evils of the Beer-law
prevailed to a frightful extent.—( Hear, hear.') To less
than a lot, qualification he could not agree ; and if the

Committee decided against him on this point, he should
abandon the Bill..—(lleAr, from all sides of the H7..q.if.44.
Si_- it. INC LIS suls_r.l,7,l to the cxtraordLary positic•ii
in abich he said the Bill WCs placed by the so modestly
called " clauses" of the Right Hon. the Charcellor of the
Exchequer, the Bill having only seven clauses. The
clauses of the Right 11-m. Gentleman, three times the
length of the entire A laugh)—began as Bills
usually did, and concluding with the customary final
words in Bills, "that this Act may be altered and amended
in the present Session." To introduce a " full grown"
Bill into another measure, in this way, was rather novel.
—(A laugh.) Upon the concurrent testimony of the
Magistrates throughout the country, he considered this
101. qualification the most just.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had taken that course which he considered fairest. He
had given full notice of the clauses he meant to propose,
and had them printed. —(hear, hear.) The question
was as to the 10/. qualification, to which he objected,
because upon the best information be had been
able to procure, he believed, the effect of that qualification
would be to crush the beer-house keepers in many parts of
the country.—( Hear, hear.) And he believed, that so
long accustomed as the people had now been to these houses,
it would be impossible to prevent the beer from being
sold.---( Hear.) It would be really monstrous to put down
15,000 beer-houses under 10/. and to allow 15,060 licensed
victuallers' houses under 10/.—( Hear.)
Sir C. BURRELL believed a great part of the evils
of the present system might be traced to the negligence
of the Excise officers, who took no trouble except to pre-
vent beer-houses from selling spirits.
Mr. PARROTT said he could safely declare that in
many districts the 10/. clause would totally crush the
beer-houses, and he was persuaded that in nine cases
out of ten, where the beer could not lawfully be sold, it
would be sold illegally.—( Hear.) Gentlemen seemed to
think only of the disadvantages of the Beer-law, and Gen-
tlemen disregarded the advantages of the present system,
which he believed were considerable.
The Committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority —27
Mr. WARBURTON recommended that the House
should now proceed to a vote on the proposition of the
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, so as to leave the
coast clear fcr the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear,
hear, and No, no.)
Clause 1 was then agreed to.
Lord SANDON said the object of his clause was to re-
store to the Commissioners of Excise the power to issue
licenses to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, which
they had before the passing of the present Bill. The
Noble Lord then read his amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER op-
posed the clause, as tending to lead to fraudulent practices
on the part of the beer-sellers, such as sending beer to be
drunk on neihboaring premises, and being thus calcu-
lated to involve the country in trouble and litigation. The
clause would be inoperative, unless it were supported by
others. But the whole system it would produce, would be
in every respect vexatious.
Lord DUNGANNON supported the clause of the
Noble Lord, the Member fur Liverpool.—(Loud cries of
Divide, Divide.)
After a few words from Mr. GotTLeraN and Mr.
PALMER,

Captain WOOD opposed the clause. The object
of that clause should be done by a separate Bill, and after
due dotice to the parties concerned. The Government
should consider the whole law as affecting the licensed
victuallers, and the beer sellers, and consolidate it into
one measure, instead of making the law more intricate than
it was now.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ATT WOOD hoped the Noble Lord would with-
draw the smen'lment. There were many millions of
labourers and their families who were interested in the
question. It would be a direct interference with their
rights to prevent them drinking their beer on the premises.
He was satisfied that it would be evaded by the labourer
and the beer shop keeper. Suppose the Noble Lord
was a labourer and had bought a pot of beer and
had paid for it—( A laugh)—he would be glad to know
what law would authorise any man to snatch the jug
from his lips. No man dare do it—no law would sanction
it ; and if the landlord attempted it, he would deserve to
be, and perhaps would be, knocked down. If that was
the case, there was not a jury in England who would con-
vict an honest labourer for knocking down a man—( Great
laughter)—under such circumstances. It was said that
beer-shops had increased the general amount of crime, but
he denied it—it was the great mass of misery and poverty
in the country that occasioned it. The Beer Bill was
only ten years in operation, but for the last twenty-two
years crime had been increasing. They were oppressing
the labourers of England more and more every year—
they were imposing heavier tasks, and giving them less
food and less wages every day. Let them only do a little
justice to the poor, and educate theroselves—( A laugh.)
Why, they required education as much, if not more, than
the working classes—they were wiser and better men in
their situation than Hon. Members of that House.—( Hear,
and a laugh.) Let them only keep their hard hands from
the shoulders of the poor, and the vice ■nd crime of these
people would be considerably diminished. If they abolished
all the bear houses and public houses, old and new, they
would not put an end to crime unloss they relieved the
misery and distresses of the people. If the poor could
procure and pay for three times as much beer as they at
present consumed, their morals would be benefited.—( A
laugh.) Why, the only place the poor man had to enjoy
himself in was the beer-house, and their morals were as
much improved there as in any other place.—( Hear, bear )
Hon. Members came down to that House to oppose the
poor labourer and curtail his enjoyments, who took their
notions and opinions from elderly ladies in the country.—
( Cries of " Question.") He hoped the Noble Lord would
withdraw his amendment. .

Lord SANDON said he could not accede to the propo-
sition. He should press it to a division.
Colonel SIBTHORP was just as deeply inter-
ested in the welfare of the working classes as
the Honourable Member for Birmingham. Ho had
himself gone to Greenwich fair, and had no objection to
the working man going there.—(Hear, and laughter.)
He objected to the beer being " swiped" on the premises,
instead of being brought home for the benefit of the poor
man's wife and family.
Mr. ATTWOOD explained. He thought the worst
thing a poor man's family could ho taught was to drink
beer.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Tea was what they ought
to drink.—(Cries of "'Spoke.")
Sir H. VERNEY said what the country wanted was an
efficient rural police.—( Oh !) He believed—for he bad
it from good authority—that many of the small beer shops
were nothing but brothels.--( Cries of " Question.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Corn•
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the Clause..
Against it
Majority against the Clause
On our re-admission to the Gallery' we found
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mov-
inff the clauses of which he had given notice.
°After the clauses were read a first and second time,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUR, in an-
swer to a question from Lord Dungannon, said, he should
proceed with the Bill during the present Session.
SUGAR DUTIES.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER the Report on the Sugar Duties' Bill was
allowed to be brought up, on the understanding that the
discussion should be taken at a future stage of the Bill.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read a
third to-morrow.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
if the discussion did not take place to-morrow, he mus
ask the House to sit on Saturday.
ELECTORS REMOVAL BILL.

85
146
-61

Mr. GIBSON moved the third reading of the Electors
Removal Bill.
Mr. B A GGE objected to the Bill, because he considered
it would destroy the 101. Clause in the Reform Bill. The
Hon. Member moved as an amendment that it be read a
third time that day three months.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought the Bill extremely
objectionable. It appeared to him to be merely a Bill to
bring in parties who had no qualification to rote with those
who had a qualification, and he should certainly oppose it.
Mr. E WART hoped the House would not be led away
by the eloquence of either of the Hon. Members oppo-
site to reject the Bill.--(Cries of " Oh.") If Hon. Mem-
bers who did him the honour to interrupt him would
o.ily attend to what he had to say, he was satisfied
ceey would, when they collected their sober senses,
fin (It' that he was right.—(Oh I) If the House would only
cors.'der what was taking place every day in Election
Conmeittees they would be convinced that some change in
the present system was necessary. It was painful to any
person ...attending the Carlow Committee now sitting to
witness ti,e interminable disputes as to residence.
Lord M A HON rosy to order. Ile thought the Hon.
Member had no right to allude to the proceedings of any
Election Committee while sitting.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member certainly had
no right to refer to the proceedings of an Election Corn-
mittee before it bad made its Report to the House.—
(Cheers.)
Mr. E W ART contended that if they allowed the pre-
sent system to continue much longer, the public would
lose all confidence in the decisions of that House. He
should give his cordial support to the Bill.
Mr. BLACKSTONE was originally inclined to vote
for the measure, but he most decidedly objected to
the system of out voters being recognised. The voter
might have removed 100 miles, he might be an outlaw
cod residing abroad, and yet he would, under that Bill, be
emtitled to vote at elections. He should oppose such a
principle, and would suggest that a clause should be intro-
duc,Nl prohibiting any person from voting who was not a
rated inhabite.et of the borough.
Mr. WARB jIRTON feared that if they adopted the
limitation of the 'lon. Member who had just sat down
they would open the k-loor to all the litigation and expense
which the Bill was calc,'llated to do away with.
Lord DUNGANNON and Mr. 0. GORE contended against
the Bill, as permitting that a person who had lost all inte-
rest in a locality, and had even left it, should, during the
period of twelve months of his life—( No, no)—be enabled
to come and vote for a Member for that place.--( Ques-
tion, and hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said that in a constituency of
2,000 there will be 200 removals in the year, but not more
than ten will leave the Borough.—( Hear, hear.) Would
they disfranchise the 190 remaining in the borough on
account of the ten who might leave it? He put this to the
justice of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK was still of opinion that the
Bill of the Hon. Member for Ipswich was completely at
variance with the Reform Bill. As the Attorney. General
had withdrawn his Bill for Amending the Registration of
Electors, he thought the Hon. Member for Ipswich had
no excuse for pressing his Bill.—(Hear.) He thought
that they had better wait for some general measure of im-
provement instead of venturing upon petty amendments of
the Reform Bill.
Lord INGESTRE thought this question, interfering

! as. itoni leo the' 11,!:.rrii Bill, called upon her Majesty's
Thni,ter; no- ze.:ne .:apression of opinion. He thought
a toea=on'e of ths coning from the Member for Ips-
wich, would have carne hoier if he had brought it forw...rd
from the other side of the House.—( Cheers.) He thought
the R, form Act was fraught with danger, yet as it was the
law of the 1 inc-1, he should support it in aa its integrity.
The S3LICITOR-GENERAL was of opinion that
this was the most practical measure ever brought before
the House—it was a practical remedy for a practical evil.
With regard to the objection of the Hon. Member for
Stamford, the registry in Scotland was not the same as
that in England. He was astonished at the Hon. Mem-
ber's argument about out-voters. May not persons have
gore to the extremity of the kingdom, and yet occupy a
101. tenement in the borough ? If a practical clause could
be introduced to prevent out-votes he should be glad of it,
but he was convinced it was impossible. The questions of
rating were the most expensive ones brought before a
Committee. The question was, should a few persons
during the current year have the power of voting who
ought not to have it, or should many who ought to have it
be deprived of it.
Mr. GOULBURN objected to legislating on the elec-
tive franchise by points. He did not consider this a party
question. This Bill was in opposition to the principle
of the Reform Bill, and only removed the disability
from borough voters and not county voters, from whom it
ought also to be removed if the principle of the Bill were
worth anything.
Mr. GIBSON was glad the Hon. Gentleman, at the
commencement of his remarks, had said this was no party
question, and he hoped the Noble Lord would take it as a
gentle reproof—. (Cheers) —as it showed that his
remarks were dictated snore by party than by public
spirit—( Loud cheers)—with regard to the Hon.
Member for Shropshire who had expressed a hope that
the House would not stultify itself by passing this
Bill, lie would recall to his recollection that a Bill of this
description had before passed the House when that Hon.
Member was a Member of it, and he hoped that he would not
so far stultify himself as to come down and record his
vote against it.—( Cheers.) Ile could not consent to any
amendments in his Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading of the Bill
Against it
Majority in favour of the Bill
The result was received with loud cheers.
The Bill seas then passed.
REGISTERS OF BIRTHS, ETC., BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the further consider
ation of the Report on this Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to take that opportu-
nity of making a few observations upon the effect that had
been produced by the Register of Marriages Bill. He felt
convinced that that measure had tended greatly to the in-
crease of illegal marriages, for in mans instances where
marriages had been refused to be solemnized by the Cler-
gymen, in consequence of the consanguinity of the
parties, immediate notice had been given at the Re-
gister Office, and the marriage bad taken place.—( Hear.)
It appeared to him that the public confidence in the system
of registration was considerably on the decline, and in
proof of it be would refer to the returns which had been
made to the House. So far from its having proved a more
efficient system of registry than the former one it was
found to be directly the reverse. For instance, it appeared
that by the returns of last year, from some of the most exten-
sive parishes in the metropolis, that the number of births was
37,731, and during the same period the number of deaths
was 55,572. That showed a most extraordinary increase
of mortality in these parishes, and it was found on minute
inquiry to be quite contrary to the fact. There was an-
other point deserving of attention—the baptisms in all
cases appeared to have exceeded the births. In the parish
of St. George, Hanover-square, the Registrar-General
returned 878 births, while the baptisms were I,3o6—that
discrepancy appeared to him quite unaccountable. In an-
other metropolitan parish, which was remarkably healthy,
the births were returned as 2,500, and the deaths as 3,700.
Now, it was at once admitted by every person who knew
anything of the parish in question, that these returns were
extremely erroneous. The Right Hon. Gentleman went into
the details of a variety of documents to show that the pre-
sent system of registration gave no correct idea of the re-
lative increase and diminution of the population of several
localities. The law must bo carefully amended.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not agree with the Right
Hon. Gentleman that the Registration Bill had greatly
disappointed the public. The disappointment could not
have been greater than might naturally have been ex-
pected, especially when it was recollected how exceedingly
defective the old system was. Even though baptism may
have been duly registered in their respective localities, the
returns were not sent to the diocese, or to any other fit
place, to be enrolled. In attempting the new system, it
was proposed that the Act should be made compulsory, but
Parliament would not agree with the Government, and it
was made voluntary to a considerable extent. However,
there had been, on the whole, considerable accuracy,
making allowances for the difficulties of a beginning and the
obstructions of prejudices, as might be seen on referring
to the Registrar-General's Report. It was stated that the
proportion of deaths was 1 in 45, and the probable num-
ber of deaths during the year, 340,549. The Right Hon.
Gentleman stated the number to be 335,968 ; the accounts
of the Registrar-General made it 335,926, making
a difference of about 5,000 between the probable
numbers and the calculations of Mr. Finlaison. He (Lord
J. R.) would admit that in the registration of births there
had been a very considerable deficiency, but not more than
might have been looked for. He was sorry to say that
one fact, which the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gout-
burn) did not allude to, accounted for this in a great
degree. This was the effart that had been made
by a great part of the clergy to induce their
flocks not to comply with the law—(Heer, hear)—by
exhortations and by printed circulars. No wonder, there-
fore, that a great difference should appear between the
number of births and that of baptisms registered.—(Hear.)
lie found that the number of births registered for the
quarter ending March 31, 1838, was 113,815 ; in June 30,
1838, it was 121,281. The average number of births for
the whole year was 480,000. The number of baptisms
registered for the whole of the year 1838, was 444,589.
The people were now gradually conforming to the law.
The deficiencies arising from the religious scru-
ples of parents, who were averse from baptism
altogether, and the feelings of those who put
off baptising until the children were 5 or 6 years
old, would be remedied by the operation of the present Act.
The opposition of the clergy to the measure proved
what he had often deplored before, viz. the want of re-
ligious education amongst the people. No doubt there
had been several clandestine marriages under the present
system. He had heard of one illegal marriage of which
no notice was given within his own personal supervision ;
three such marriages had come to his knowledge alto-
gether, and of course there might have been others.
These were matters which, in such a large population, would
of course take place, and hai happened in former times,
owing to ignorance on the part of the Clergymen of the
circumstances of the case. These points had, moreover,
been particularly noted by those who were desirous of
finding fault with the operation of the Bill. With regard
to the persons who had been appointed by the Registrar
General, he had no means of satisfying the Right Hon.
Gentleman, as the names of those persons had never come
before him. He was willing to allow that there
were some defects in the Bill whicn it would be very desir-
able to remedy ; but he thought it would be better to
watch the working of the Bill for a little longer, and thus
acquire a knowledge of what was really required for per-
fecting the measure. But on the whole he saw no reason
to alter the opinion he had expressed on first introducing
the Bill, that it was advisable to establish a civil registra-
tion with an office in London, to which copies of the re-
gistry might be transmitted, and where they might be
referred to. This was an advantage that no other civilized
nation was deprived of, and he thought it was very desir-
able that we should do all in our power to improve and
extend this system.
Mr. GOULBURN apprehended that the Noble Lord
had construed into an opposition to the law the exhorta-
tions which the Clergy had felt themselves called upon to
issue to their flocks, to urge on them the necessity of bap-
tism for their children.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL regretted exceed-
ingly that in many instances the Clergy had set themselves
in direct opposition to the law ; he wished the Right
Hon. Gentleman would enlighten their minds on the sub-
ject, and make them understand that the law of the land
must be obeyed. A case had come before him the other
day, in which a Clergyman had actually refused to marry
a couple on the certificate of the superintendent registrar.
Now, for such a disobedience to an Act of Parliament the
Clergyman was clearly liable to indictment. Ile had not ad-
vised that course to be pursued, he hoped it would not become
necessary, but if the clergymen continually, openly defy
the law, some measures must he taken for its enforce-
ment.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished to know if the
Learned Gentleman considered an Act of Parliament
imperative on every priest to administer the sacrament
of marriage on the certificate of a superintendent re-
gistrar. Did he mean to say a priest of the Church of
England was the only person subject to legal infliction
for disobeying this law ? He really wished for his
opinion on this subject, although on this occasion he
should expect it without the usual fee.—( A laugh.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was of opinion that
if an Act of Parliament called upon a priest of the Church
of Rome, or of the Church of England, or any other
person, to do anything, that person was bound to obey the
law. In the case alluded to, the clergyman was not only
liable to ecclesiastical censure, as he would have been
before the passing of this Act, but he had been guilty of
an indictable offence.
Lord DUNGANNON disapproved of these grave ac-
cusations being brought against the clergy.
Mr. GOULBURN explained.
Mr. BAINE'S said the registration was operating most
beneficially in those parts, where it was extremely neces-
sary to know the age of children. He alluded to those
counties. where the children worked in factories.
After a few observations from Lord DUNG A NNON
the amendments were agreed to, the Bill ordered to be en-
grossed, and read a third time on Saturday.
The Exchequer of Pleas Bill went through Committee.
The Highway Railway Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to lee committed on Monday.
The Heritable Security (Scotland) Bill, the Fictitious
Votes (Scotland) Bill, and the Registration of Electors
(Scotland) Bill, were on the motion of Mr. F. Maule
postponed till next Session.
The Writs ( Scotland) Bill was read a second time
and ordered to be committed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 27.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
A message from the House of Commons brought up
a variety of Bills.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented petitions
from Cirencester, Stapleton, and another place, against
the Church Discipline Bill. The Right Rev. Prelate
said he had now presented petitions from all the thirteen
Deaneries of his diocese against this Bill. A state-