The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-04 00:00:00

LISBURN ELECTION.

The members of this committee, appointed to try the
merits of the petition against this election, were called to
the table and sworn.
PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL.

A very large number of petitions were presented in favour
of this bill. Mr. HADFIFLD presented 73, signed by 19,136,
in favour; Viscount ENFIELD two, but he begged to inti-
mate that ho entirely dissented from their prayer—(hear,
hear) ; Mr. VANSITTART, with a similar disclaimer—(hear,
hear) ; Mr. PEASE, from a place in Ireland, praying that
the bill might be extended to that country; Mr. H.
BERKELEY, two against the bill, on the ground that its
provisions would contravert the liberty of the subject—
(hear) ; Mr. Cox, several to the like effect; also by Mr.
ROEBUCK, from 24,000 to 25,000 of the male inhabitants
of Sheffield, which he looked upon tts an expression of the
opinion of the town on the subject; Mr. J.B.Smmt, several
from Stockport. _ _

Mr. SOMES then moved the second reading of the bill.
Had the bill been placed in other and better hands, greater
justice wculd have Leen cone to the subject. He feared it
would suffer from his advocacy, He disclaimed being
actuated, in proposing this bill, by a blind and bigoted
zeal fur the Sabbath; neither had he any desire to trench,
as he had been accused, upon the liberty of the
working classes. No one more sincerely desired to
promote the true interests of the industrial classes than
he did. The opening of public houses Ur eight hours on
the Sabbath was a great evil, constituting a temptation and
a snare to working men on a day when they were at leisure,
and had some portion of their wages in their pockets. In
Manchester, last year, 3,373 people were taken into custody
for drunkenness, and 1,549 of these cases occurred between

10 o'clock on Saturday and Monday mornings—far more
than all the apprehensions for the rest of the week.
Several magistrates and judges gave it as their opinion,
based upon their magisterial and judicial experience,
that drunkenness was the fertile cause of all crimes.
Mr. Broughton, the magistrate of Southwark Police-court,
declared that there was more drunkenness on Sunday in
London than in all the capitals of Europe. The sight of
drunken women was very sad, and in every case it happened
that where the wife and mother drank the family went to
ruin. And a committee of that house had distinctly de-
clared that drunkenness was the sole course of the misery
and the crime in the country. Justice Coleridge said
scarcely a criminal came before him who had not been led
into evil courses by strong drink. Baron Gurney said the
source of every crime could be traced to drunkenness. Mr.
Justice Patteson, when on the bench, declared that he
should have nothing to do except for the prevalence of
drunkenness. Earl Shaftesbury said that nine-tenths of
the pauperism and woes of the industrial classes were
caused by their own pernicious habits, and especially from
the terrible evil of intoxication. (Hear, hear.) Dr. Chal-
mers entertained a like opinion, and the chief physician of
the London Hospital said that 75 out of every 100 cases
were attributable to drunkenness. The bill simply asked
the house to extend a principle already laid down that whore
the welfare of the country required it special legislation
should be adopted. The bill was in consonance with the
feelings of the working classes of this country.
For instance, up to the 2d of June 4,101 petitions, with
693,265 signatures, had been presented in favour of the bill,
and 110, with 148,577 signatures against, and probably this
day petitions in favour of the bill, with 100,000 additional
signatures, had been presented—considerably over half a
million signatures altogether, and chiefly from the indus-
trial classes and their wives and daughters. (Hem, hear.)
Even the drunkards were in favour of the bill, for three pe •
titions from well known and avowed drunkards had been
sent up to him by the curate of Altringham in Cheshire,
desiring to have a restraint placed upon their weakness.
(Hear, and laughter.) The important parish of St. Pancras
had been canvassed on the subject, and the result was
that 25,051 were in favour of the bill, and 18,289 against
—giving a majority of 7,462 in favour. Many
of the publicans of Liverpool had signed petitions in fa-
vour of the bill. I he hon. member said he had the opinions
of between 80 and 90 magistrates and police constables in
favour of the bill. A restrictive act of the nature he sought
had been in operation in Scotland for nine years and with
the best effect, and a Royal Commission appointed to re-
port on its operations had declared their opinion that it
had worked exceedingly well. (Hear, hear.) ttestrictions
of the like nature prevailed in New York and Tasmania.
He was so satisfied that the bill would constitute a great
boon to the public, that he was prepared at any trouble
or cost to himself to extend its blessings to the indus-
trial classes, (Hear.)
Mr. PEASE seconded the motion, declaring that it
would be one of the greatest boons yet conferred upon the
industrial classes, nor would it restrict the liberty of the
subject of what the house was naturally very jealous. It
would promote religion, education, and common decency.
He pointed to the fact that the Sunday school teachers
were universally in favour of the bill, who saw much of the
evils of drunkenness in proof of its efficacy. He begged
the house to let the bill go into committee, where the bill
could be amended.
Capt. JERVIS moved that the bill be read a second time
this day three months. Drunkenness had not increased ;
but, on the contrary, had greatly diminished from year to
year, and yet they were asked to make it a penal offence.
The system of petitioning that had been adopted in favour
of the bill was of an extraordinary character ; a more care-
fully organised system had never been heretofore witnessed.
(Hear, hear.) The petitions had been in the course of pre-
paration for some months, and all at once the house was
overwhelmed with them. And then some of the petitions
had been proved to have been forged. Notwithstanding
the restrictive act in Scotland, it did not appear, from the
returns, that drunkenness had lessened, or that the con-
sumption of spirits had decreased. (Hear, hear.) He was
told that the petitions were got up by a society the members
of which paid ss, a year, but which had other objects in view
than the closing of public houses on the Sabbath—namely,
reduction of the income tax, and no examination of weights
and measures. (Laughter.) The result of the passing of
the bill would be (and in his opinion he was borne out by
the opinion of Mr Arnold, the magistrate) the illicit sale of
spirits on the Sunday. Tie saw no reason why excursion-
ists and others should be deprived of refreshments on tee
Sabbath. Instead of working men using public houses
under good management and proper police supervision,
drinking clubs would be established all over the country,
as was the way in Scotland. (Hear.) Cottages a little way
off the towns were advertised for, and rules drawn up for
their guidance, that the members should not split. (Laugh-
ter.) His experience in the army showed that the more
openly soldiers were permitted to drink, the less drunken-
ness was there. If a colonel shut up a canteen it usually
led to an increase of drunkenness.
Mr. K. SEYMER seconded the amendment. He de.
precated the language, such as "canting hypocrites," used
by the journals in the publichouse interest towards the
hon. member for Hull (Mr. Somes), and those who acted
with him, as he believed they were thorougly sincere in
what they were doing. Enactments of this kind would not
promote the morality of the people. Would it not be un-
just to prevent a working man, who walked for miles
through the streets, probably carrying a child, in order to
see the green fields, to have his glass of beer to refresh
himself, when they and others could go to their clubs, and
drink what they liked. (Hear, hear.) Class legislation of
this kind wou d greatly irritate the people as in the past.
(Hear.) This bill might be adapted to small villager, but
could never be brought into operati n in large towns. When
they closed the Post-office on Sunday it was supposed to be
an act in accordance with the feeling of the country, but as
soon as it was s ffectuated the whole country rose against it
and it was rescinded by the house without a trial. Such
would be the case if this bill were passed, and they would
probably have a renewal of the Hyde-park riots. (Hear.)
They would find it heard to separate John Baileycorn
from the people of this country. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
He trusted the common sense of the house would reject the
bill ; most assuredly if it were adopted the house would be
compelled in a great hurry to rescind it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY would do everything in his power to lessen
drunkenness, but as he did not consider this bill would have
that effect he regretted he could not support the proposition
of his hon. friend and colleaeue. Were the bill endowed
with a permissive character, like the Health of Towns Bill,
he should be prepared to support its going into committee.
Mr. HO RSFALL supported the bill. He had obtained,
since the mover of the amendment (Captain Jervis) spoke,
a return of the consumption of spirits since the passingo
of the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland, and insteavdeuf:22y:
consumption of spirits continuing the same as
ipercei
yeairs
there had been a falling off in the consumption ei
ref and social
of no less than 76,000 gallons. And the
wieners reported most favourably of themo _
of 87 of the chief
effect of the change. Eighty-two out
the bill. The Chief
towns in the country were in favourh
ofonourable and gallant
yal Commis-
Constable of Harwich, which
;eenient in the habits of the
there had been a great imp 0
member (Captain Jervis)
;to drunkenness and quiet on
pthreesented, reported that
town, especially in rar
n hundred barmen and barwomen of
the Sabbath. -einfavour of the bill, so that they
Sabbath. A very large majority of
evtli
might get lest on the
Liverpool were in favour of the closing
the householders=
the
Liverpool petitioned
Sabbath, and he cited statistics in
of publichouse
confirmationofsthis opinion. If every town and rural
polled it would befound that
vil-
lage were poll a majority of the
inhabitants were of the same opinion as the people of
Liverpool. The bill would confer a lasting blessing upon
all classes of this country. (Hear.)
Mr. W. MARTIN opposed the bill. If passed in its n
pre-
sent form the people would be unable to get even their din-
ner or supper beer on the Sabbath. If the bill
were passed
—if a victory over common sense were
obtained—they
would
quickly find that they had strung the bow too tightly, feel-
ings of irritation on the partof
and they would have a repetition of the Hyde Park riots,
when the house would,occasion, have to go
through the undignified ascouornse thato
f giving way to a mob •
pressure from without. People would drink actually out of
spite, and thus drunkenness would be promoted.
They will drink who never drank before,
And those who always drank will drink the more I
(Laughter.)
Mr, BAINES supported the bill. The signatures to the
petitions in favour of the bill were four-fold; those against,
which constituted a sufficient manifestation of the opinion
of the public out of doors for the house to act upon, He
was satisfied that the passing of the bill would elevate the
moral and physical condition of the people. Originally he
was opposed to this bill, not to its principle, but because
he objected to the total closing of public-houses on the Sab-
bath, being in favour of evening closing; but he gave way
to the desires of a body of respectable working men who
approved of closing publio-houses on the Sabbath.
Mr. PACKS opposed the bill on account of its tyran-
nical character.
Mr. LAWSON viewed the sub uestion,
ject as a police q

considering that unless so viewed they would have no right
to interfere in any way with the liberty of the people in re-
gard to the consumption of strong drink. He cited the
opinion of the Under-Secretary of State for the Horne
Department (Mr. Bruce) in favour of the bill, though he
said he objected to interfere with the "recreations of the
people." (Hear, hear.) The legislation of past years lad
been attended, beyond all dispute, by a diminution!, of
drunkenness, and this being so, it would be well for the
house to take a step in the same direction, because increased.
good could not fail to result from it. In order to avoid
any appearance of hardship he should be willing to support
in committee the insertion of a clause permitting pic-
houses to be open for two hours per day to accommodate
travellers; but merely to accommodate London was no
reason why drunkenness on the Sabbath should be per-
mitted all over the country. (Divide, divide.)
Sir G. GREY said he voted for the introduction of the
bill out of respect to those who promoted it, but he could
not shut his eyes to the fact that its promoters would not
stop short of the provisions of this bill, were it adopted,
but would seek to place a prohibition on all Sunday recrea-
tions whatever. (Hear, hear.) If the bill were
passed, not a single glas. of beer or spirits
could be legally purchased throughout the whole of
England on the Sabbath--not from 11 on Saturday
evening till 6 o'clock on Monday morning. (Hear, hear.)
Now, he was bound to say, if the house was so ill advised
as to pass this measure, its provisions could not be carried
out. (Hear, hear.) Everything tended to show that
drunkenness was greatly on the decrease all over the coun-
try, and the right hon. baronet cited figures with respect to
persons taken into custody for drunkenness in the metropo-
litan district which supported his statement. In the last
two years there had been a diminution of 2,000 in the me-
tropolis, notwithstanding the increase of the population.
And he could report a similarly improved state of things
in Liverpool and other large towns, a circumstance he attri-
buted t the improved education and habits of the people.
The reaction which the passing of the bill would create kru_
the minds of the people would be fraught with danger. The
habits of Scotland were different from those of England; not
beer but spirits was chiefly consumed; and a rigid obser-
vance of the Sabbath was in acccordance with the desire of
that country. In London, at one o'clock on Sunday, they
would see crowds of young men and women respectably
dressed fetching their dinner beer. Now why should they
and many families be deprived of fresh beer, and compelled
to bottle it and place it in a secluded place for use
on Sunday. The bill would be a great injustice to
iexcur-
sionists and others. He blamed the promoters of the b
for seeking by acts of Parliament to improve the morals
and alter the habits of the public • bdoing so they would
retard the happy progress now taking place. (Cheers.) He
asked the house to reject the bill.
Mr. H. BERKE LEY referred to his committee of
and defended its acts. As to this bill he should oppose it
as an attempt to cripple the liberty of the subject. (Divides
divide.)
Mr. ADDERLEY rose amidst loud cries for a division.
The bill was aimed solely against drunkenness, and it
couldbe easily amended in committee so as to be adapted to
the reasonable desires of the respectable class of the com-
munity,
Sir S. M. PETO said, as one of the largest employers of
labour in the country, he was not prepared to adopt a strin-
gent measure of this kind. They must deal equally be-
tween all classes. Let the seller and recipient of fish on
the Sabbath be punished. He could support a bill for a
restriction of the hours of selling beer and spirits on the
Sabbath, but he could not do otherwise than vote against
the second reading of this bill. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE would support the second reading,
on the understanding that this bill was rendered permissive
in committee. (Divide, divide.)
Sir H. CAIRNS would support the bill, in the belief
that it would lead to a restriction of hours.

Sir J. SHELLEY opposed the bill.
Mr. HUNT was in favour of a bill restricting the hours.
Mr. 11. B. SHERIDAN should vote against the bill, be-
cause it was not endowed with a permissive character.
Mr. HARDY opposed the bill, and trusted the Govern-
ment would introduce one to amend the licensing system.
The house (five o'clock) being very impatient for a divi-
sion, Mr: SoMES briefly replied, and being appealed to by
Mr. AYRTON whether he would endow the bill with a per-
missive nature, stated that he should abide by the pre-
amble. -

After a few words from Lord H. VANE,
The house divided, when there appeared—
For tha second reading lO3
Against it

_
Majority against -175
The announcement was received with loud cheers by the
opponents of the measure.
The bill was consequently lost.
SHEEP AND CATTLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. M'MAHON postponed the second reading to Wed.
nesd ay next.
METROPOLIS TURNPIKE ROADS ACT AMEND.