Star.
London, England, 1830-06-22 00:00:00

would have any good efffiet ; fee if hear was prohibited ham being
drunk on the ',nowise', rooms adjoising those premises would be
built, and the beer be drunk there. It has been saki this meamore
would be a great injostiee to oho publics's', but that was awl the
question for the house to consider t it was bound to protect the In-
terests of the public, and to provide for the comforts of the labour-
ing classes.—(Hear. hear.)—ln the country, the mode of licensing'
houses was very different to what it was in town. In his own coun-
try he knew magistrates were so cautious that In lame parts of
it there was only one public-house in three or four miles.—
(Hear, hear )—He had always been an advocate of a more
equal distribution of business. In the cases to which he alluded,
the labouring poor would go a distance of three or four miles on a
Saturday night—stay often most part of the Suaday—and spend
the principal part a their week's earnings. He was, therefore, of
opinion it would be better that they should be provided with com-
fortable rooms at home, and consequently felt bound to oppose the
clause of the Honourable Baronet. With respect to the other
clause of limiting the Bill to three yean, he thought it was of little
consequence whether it was agreed to or not, as if the measure
worked well It could be attain renewed.
Sir EDWARD DEERING was of opinion the measure was
calculated to produce the most pernicious effects on the morals of
the public, if houses were allowed to be opened at pleasure, it
would afford the greatest temptation for the poor man to neglect his
family. He thought the clause a most admirable one, and should
give it his support.
Colonel SISTHORPE could not think with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that the clause, if adopted, would destroy the re.
lief intended by the bill, if any relief was likely to result from it.
He (Colonel Sibthorpe) knew that the general opinion was, that it
would materially injure the morals of the people, and lubserside of
all regularity. The hon. member for Wiltshire said he should op-
pose the clause, on the ground that where there was only one house
in three or four miles the lower orders went and enjoyed themselves
on a Saturday night. It, therefore, seemed as if he would wish
for them to get tipsy seven days in the week instead of one.—
(laughter.) He should support the clause.
Mr. BYNG said that parts of the bill he approved of: nothing
could be more just than that the poor man should get his beer at
the cheapest rate, and according to his taste; but allowing every
house in the parish to sell beer, was the most violent attack upon
property he had known since he had the honour of a seat in that
House. For centuries that House had declared by its vote that
property of this description was to be held sacred, and it was only
two years since that an ant was passed for its protection, by giving
the publican a right of appeal to the sessions from the decision of
two magistrates. With respect to the monopoly of the brewers, about
which so much had been said, he could inform the House that in hie
own neighbourhood there were now eleven brewers in two miles,
and one of them, to which he belonged, had the greatest
trade, because they brewed the best beer. (Laughter.) He would
also inform the House of another fact, which had come under his
own observation. In one village there were five public-houses, at
which time there were nothing but scenes of riot and confusion.
Wives of the poor were continually pouring forth their complaints,
and to such a length did disorder abound that the magistrates re-
solved to refuse the licence of two of the houses. This had the de.
sired effect, for it had now been Id years since, and no complaint
was made, for the publicans were now enabled to live without re.
sorting to means to induce the labourer to spend his money.—
(Hear.) He should oppose the BilL
Sir E. KNATCHBULL in reply said, he hoped the measure,
if carried, might be productive of the good effects anticipated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he had great doubts that such
would be the ease. The right hon. gent. had read three letters from
different parts of the country, wishing the measure to be carried.—
But the house would bear in mind that the bill had been three
months in its progress, and during that time no less than 243 rd.
tions had been presented against it. That fact was quite sufficient,
and warranted him taking the sense of the house on the clause itched
submitted for its consideration.

TheZHAl;e 1711611,0fWe EXCHEQUER and Mr. hIONCR
made a fewobserestions--hut the calls of Withdraw, Withdraw,

.
were PO load, that it was impossible to bear a single word in the
Gallery.
The gallery was then cleared foe a division, when there ap.
peered—
For the clause .. .
Against it

Majority....
The Amendments were then read a second time, as we were in-
formed, and the hill was ordered to be read a third time, but we
could not learn upon what day.
Mr. ESTCOUKT jun. gave notice, that on the third reading of
the male of beer bill he should propose that the operation of the bill
should be confined to perishes containing upwards of three hundred
houses.

The other Olden of the Day were then disposed of, sod the house
adjourned at Three o'Cloek.