SALE OF BEER ON SUNDAYS.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 187, 12 August 1864, Page 3

SALE OF BEER ON SUNDAYS.

The following took place in the House of Commons, on May 6:— Mr. Somes moved—- “ For leave to bring in a bill for restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors between the hours of 11 o’clock on Saturday night, and 6 o’clock on Monday morning.” Mr. Roebuck would not detain the House for many minutes, for there were two things which compelled him to be brief —one the lateness of the hour, and the other the fact that the introduction of a bill was supposed to be a mere matter of courtesy. He had no fanatical hatred to this measure; his only desire was to protect his countrymen in the fair enjoyment of their rights and liberties. [Hear, hear.] As for the question of courtesy he begged the House to recollect that though the present was said to be a different bill from that which was decided last year, it was, in reality, the same. [Cries of “No, no.] Hon. gentlemen might cry “No, No,” but before he had done he would prove “ Yes, yea.” [A laugh.] The ground of this bill was two-fold. There was a body of people in this country who were Sabbatarians; there was also a body of teetotallers. These two muddy streams had concentrated. [A laugh.] Running side by side for a long time, they had at last united their waters, and now they formed one foaming, muddy river, which it was difficult to stem, and very disagreeable to see. [An hon. member: And to smell.] Aye, and to smell. [Laughter.] These two sets of people had joined their forces on the present occasion. Why did he oppose them? First and foremost, because this was a law for the poor and not for the rich. [Cheers.] A rich, well-to-do man could have his own beer or wine in his own house —he could draw his beer or uncork his wine whenever he chose; but this was not the case with the poor man. [Hear.] Parliament began with fiscal regulations. It had put a tax upon malt, and he had always voted, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject, but he had always felt that he was preventing the poor man having his own beer in his own house, and driving him to the public house. He wished the House to understand that every man who went into a public house was not a tippler. The poor man who was compelled to go to the public house was like the gentleman who sent down his butler for his glass of wine when he wanted it. [Hear, hear.] If the hon. member for Hull and his friends were really in earnest —if they were anything more than canting hypocrites—they would propose a law for the rich as well as the poor. [Laughter.] Not only would they shut up every public house—not only would they shut up the Star and Garter at Richmond, and the Trafalgar at Greenwich, but they would also shut up every club in London. Would they desire to introduce a bill for that purpose ? If not, how could they presume to say that they were the friends of morality and justice ? He spat upon their paltry pretence. He had no hesitation in saying that those who were endeavoring to bring in this bill under the guise of being the protectors of morality were merely carrying out their own individual views respecting the enjoyments of others. [Hear, hear.] “ We are virtuous,” they said, “and therefore you shall have no more cakes or ale.” [Cheers.] The introduction of this bill would create dissension throughout England. [No, no.] Yes, yes; it would create the necessity on the part of those who thought as he did, of sifting the sentiments of the people of England, as they did last year. The seconder of the motion had talked of representing a largo constituency. He represented a still larger constituency, and he opposed the bill Last session he presented a petition signed by 20,000 people, and when he went down among his constituents during the year, what occurred ? Several geutlemen came to him and said, “ O, this is a people’s measure and you must support it.” His reply was, “ Prove that to me and I will vote for the bill.” They had a meeting in the open air, and it was carried against them by a maiority of thousands. So much for this being a [popular measure. He‘represented a set of hard-working men who were confined to a smoky town all the week, and as he said to those gentlemen, if he lived in Sheffield he should be very glad to getout on a Sunday to breathe a mouthful of fresh air. A working man who had expended his week in hard labor was naturally glad to get out of Sheffield for a few hours on Sunday, but if the hon. gentleman’s bill passed, ho would find the door of every public house shut against him. That man was not necessarily a tippler. What right had they to say to that man that he should only have his luncheon at 1 o’clock and not at 3, if ho likes it best then ? Public houses in the country wero only open now from 12 to 3 and from 5 to 11. What harm was there in that? A working man in London went out on Sunday for a few hours’ recreation, and then those sour gentlemen turned round on him and said “ You ought to be at church.” That was their creed—that if they kept

a man out of the public house they sent him to church. If a man were religiously inclined, ho went to church before he took his walk in the country, and was it not a way of worshipping the great Creator to walk among his works and admire their beauty? [Hear, hear.] The bill would not put an end to drinking; it would force men to break the law. There would be just as much drunkenness as ever, and a great increase of hypocrisy. [Hear, hear.] The hon. gentleman had quoted the example of Scotland. Scotland was an ascetic country, with a peculiar flavor for what was called Sabbath observance, and it was the most drunken country on the face of the earth. [Cheers and laughter.] A friend of his who had been in Scotland on a visit had brought back a very good story. He was stopping in the neighborhood of a very beautiful waterfall, and when Sunday came round, there being an interval between Kirk and dinner, he said, “ I’ll go and see your waterfall. “ Gude mon,” said his host, “its the Sabbath.” “What then,” replied his friend, “ can’t I see God’s works on God’s day ?” “O, no,” replied his host: “ye maun stay here, you can’t break the Sabbath.” And in deference to his host the gentleman stayed in-doors, and they both sat down to spend the day in tippling. This was a well-to-do house, where they could drink their own beer and whisky without having to send out of the house for it. [Laughter.] Did the hon. gentleman believe that he would make men worship God more completely by compelling them to abstain from walking abroad ? What he wanted was to turn this nation into a sour, ascetic, hypocritical people. [Hear, hear.] The bill was the same in substance as that which was introduced last year, and the hon. gentleman was honest enough to say that the modifications which he had introduced were against his will'. That was exactly the principle of the promoters of the bill. They thought a thing was wrong, but still they did it. The bill last year was rejected with ignominy, and to prevent the dissension and dissatisfaction which were occasioned then, he would ask the House to mark its sense of it by refusing leave to introduce it. [Hear, hear.] The House then divided. The numbers were— Ayes 87 Noes 123 Majority against introduction of bill 36