23 May 1854 228. Is that for a year, or for what period?—I believe for the whole year; Rev. J. T. Baylee, it is for the borough of Manchester; it does not include Salford. I have every reason to rely upon the accuracy of my informant. The police will not pronounce a man to be drunk except he really is what we should call beastly drunk, therefore the numbers are not so small as may at first appear. With respect to the first head, "Sober and creating a breach of the peace," I must say I cannot help thinking that the parties denominated "sober" here, were nearly all of them strongly under the influence of drink, although not in that degree of intoxication which would justify the police in saying they were drunk. Now there is another consideration affecting the respectability of the keepers of public-houses themselves; we find that the temptations to offences seem to be greater on the Sunday. 229. What offence do you refer to ?-There are more charges brought against them by the police and magistrates for transgressing the law generally on the Sundays throughout the year, in proportion, than on any other day in the week. 230. Is not that because Sunday is the only day on which they can transgress the law in that way; is it not for Sunday trading?—I think not only for trading, but allowing gambling on the premises; for allowing people to be on the premises at times not permitted by the law, and offences of that kind. I find in the borough of Manchester, in the year 1850, the population being 303,358, the number of public-houses being 461, that the number of offences reported against keepers of public-houses on ordinary days was five, on Sundays, 52; the number of beerhouses being 1,298, that the number of offences reported against keepers of beershops in the borough of Manchester was on ordinary days 192, on Sundays 292. I have looked at more recent returns; I think for 1852; and there is precisely the same relative increase of offences with which they are charged on the Sunday, as compared with other days in the week. There is another table with regard to Liverpool, which I should like to deliver in. Witness. I felt it my duty, a year or two ago, to write letters to the superintendents of police of some of our principal towns, to ask them what their opinion was of the restrictions that have been placed on the sale of drinks on the Lord's Day, and of further restrictions of the same nature. Some of them did not reply; some few answered, and with the permission of the Committee I shall read two or three of their replies. One is from the superintendent of police of the borough of Birmingham: " In reply to your note, received on the "In 18th instant, I beg to state that the clearing of the public-houses and beershops till one o'clock on Sundays has had very beneficial effect in this borough ; respecting further restrictions, I am not at present in a position to speak upon the subject, waiting to see whether there is to be a free trade in the sale of spirits. I am, &c. R. A. Stephens, Chief of Police.' 231. Sir G. Grey.] Do you understand him to mean that the public-houses should be closed all Sunday, and that he thinks it right there should be free trade in beer?-I do not know what he means except it be that he refers to the Committee sitting upon the licensing system. Another letter I have is from Hull:— 0.51. Rev. J. T. Baylee. 23 May 1854. "In reply to your letter of the 16th instant relative to the closing of public-houses, beershops, &c. I beg to inform you that, in my opinion, it is a very salutary law, and if no other good would arise from it than this, you do not meet now that number of half drunken, half naked, and disorderly characters as you were in the habit of seeing on Sundays in large towns, at the corner of streets, or close to ginshops. As to the latter part of your letter, as to the further restrictions, and to what extent, I cannot at present express an opinion, but I will turn it over in my mind, and let you know in a short time. Believe me, &c., A. MacManus, Chief Constable." However, I have not heard from this gentleman since. 232. When did you obtain those opinions:-In the year 1853. Another letter, dated December 21, 1853, is from the superintendent of police at Derby: "In reply to your favour, 16th instant, I fear that my experience will hardly warrant an opinion that the morals of the community are much benefited by the partial closing of the public-houses on the Sunday, though I think it probable that the tendency is beneficial. I am inclined to think that the more they are closed on that day the better it is for a great many families, and but for the difficulty there would be in framing a law which would not be easily evaded, I think the entire closing of those houses on the Sunday would be highly beneficial to the community at large. I am, &c., J. A. Thompson, Superintendent of Police." There are two other letters; one is from the Liverpool superintendent of police:-" I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of yesterday's date, inquiring whether, in my opinion, the closing of publichouses and beershops till the afternoon of the Lord's Day has proved a beneficial arrangement, and whether I think further restrictions would be desirable, and to what extent; and to acquaint you in reply that the present arrangement for closing public-houses, &c., has been in existence since 1842, and that I cannot, therefore, speak of the improvement which may have been effected from my own knowledge, but from what I have learnt from the superior officers of the force of the state of the town before the period referred to, I am convinced that a great improvement has been brought about. With respect to further restrictions, any arrangement which would secure a better observance of the Lord's Day, would, in my opinion, be highly desirable. I am, &c. J. J. Greig." The next letter is from the superintendent of the Borough Police Office, Bradford: "In reply to yours, I beg to inform you that my residence in Bradford commenced after the passing of the Act for closing public-houses, &c., during a portion of the Lord's Day, came into operation, therefore I cannot speak of its effects here; but a portion of my eleven years' service in the Liverpool Police Force was before the Act came into operation, and truly the change was wonderful, and that it is a most beneficial law there cannot be a question; on the contrary, there is an abundance of proof. For two years I was located in that portion of Liverpool, called Vauxhall-road, a district very similar to Lambeth-cut, and the scenes I there witnessed from three to six o'clock on Sunday mornings I shall never forget. The publicans usually closed from 12 to three, A. M., in order to clear out their drunken company, and to enable them to get their places of business set a little straight for Sunday; those parties retiring from the public-houses at 12, more or less intoxicated, seldom thought of going to bed for the night, but just a little repose and sleep to fit them to commence their intemperate habits again at three o'clock; then followed the most horrid scenes of drunkenness and riot such as no pen can describe; but so soon as the new regulation was put in force the Sunday morning riots and debauchery were at once stopped, and by two o'clock the streets became quiet. From what I have seen here since 1848, I am quite satisfied that the hundreds who now spend the forenoon of the Lord's Day in wandering about the fields and highways, simply because the public-houses are closed against them till half-past 12 o'clock, if they could not have access to them till Monday morning, would be induced to spend a portion of the sacred day in the public worship of God. What is the plea of such persons? They say, 'If I were to go to church in the forenoon, why I must give up going to the alehouse in the afternoon. The beerhouses in this borough are as well conducted as in all large towns, yet here there is a fearful amount of crime and desecration; in some of them, on the Lord's Day evening, there are rooms filled with both sexes, drinking, smoking, and indulging in loose jests and obscenity. I have 23 May 1854. have seen about 50 to 60 of both sexes from 15 to 70 years of age, all mixed Rev. J. T. Baylee. up in one room, dressed in the Sunday clothes, in the absence of a fiddler listening with delight to the foolish tales of one or more of the company; a more corrupting influence cannot be imagined. I do not hesitate to say, from my 18 years' experience as a police officer, that the closing entirely of public-houses and beerhouses on the Lord's Day would be productive of the most beneficial effects." ? 233. Chairman.] Have you had any communication with persons in the rural districts upon the subject, who are themselves conversant with the habits of the people frequenting the beershops -My duties call me frequently into communication with the clergy in the rural districts; I cannot state any particular instance which has come under my notice, but my general impression is, that the clergy in the rural districts complain most strongly of the injurious operation of the Beer Act, from the beerhouses being open on the Sunday. 234. It is the result of your communications, which have been generally with the clergy, that there is a great deal of intemperance caused by the beershops. being open on the Sunday?—Yes; and not only the clergy, but it is the prevailing impression of all persons I am in the habit of meeting with, that it is a system most injurious, and needs some better regulation than at present exists. 235. You are not otherwise than alive to the difficulty of closing houses which have been kept open so long on the Sunday?—I do not know that the difficulty would be so great; there is no doubt that the law would be evaded to some extent; at the same time I think the working classes are very much in the condition of children; if a place is open they will go into it, and if you close that place they will go elsewhere; they will keep in their homes, or stay with their families. Although we must admit the law would be evaded, I think the evasion of the law that would take place would be an evil not at all to be compared to the evil of permitting these houses to be open on Sundays. 236. Would it not be considered a great hardship upon the poorer classes to close those houses upon the Sunday, independently of the question of their interest?—I would allow them to be open to lodgers and travellers; I think also the fact of a poor man requiring his beer is a matter which demands consideration in a subject of this kind; the poor man may fairly say, "You gentlemen can have recourse to your cellar; we cannot." I do think, however, that there is not so much strength in that reason as would be supposed at first sight, because to my own knowledge I know the case of a publican in the country who never sold beer on the Sunday, but on the Saturday night he supplied his customers with beer for Sunday, and also with bottles in which to keep the beer. I know a house of a licensed victualler in London, I do not remember his name at this moment, who has a bill in his window, printed and glazed, announcing that he does not sell on Sunday, and that he is prepared to supply his customers with porter and beer on the Saturday night, and bottles into which to put it. I have spoken to some of the working classes, who tell me they are in the habit of adopting that practice themselves. I think closing the houses altogether, except for lodgers and travellers, would not operate so injuriously on the comforts of the working man as is generally supposed. 237. Mr. Gregson.] How do you propose to distinguish those who are travellers?-I am aware that it is a subject difficult to legislate upon; I remember there was recently a discussion in the House of Lords as to what constituted "reasonable accommodation" by railway companies, and one of the law officers of the Crown, I think it was the Lord Chancellor, defended the use of the phrase as being that used in reference to innkeepers in the laws affecting that class; it is a difficulty which it was the duty of the laws to solve. 238. Mr. Barrow.] Would you call a man who came three or four miles to visit a friend a traveller-I admit the difficulty at once; I have no hesitation in saying that. 239. Would you class those parties under the title of travellers ?—If you were to ask me what I think really justifiable travelling on the Lord's Day, it would be this, travelling for which there was some cause which might be fairly necessary, and to the individual's mind be called a cause of necessity or of mercy; beyond that I think no travelling would be justifiable. 240. Mr. K. Seymer.] You would not consider so much the distance which a person came, but the question whether the journey was justifiable?—I should be influenced by the cause, not by the quantity. Rev. J. T. Baylee. 23 May 1854. 241. Lord D. Stuart.] Suppose the case of an artisan residing in London, probably in some very crowded part of the metropolis which was miserably illdrained; supposing that man were to walk out on Sunday afternoon, after having attended Divine worship with his family, up to Hampstead Hill to breathe the fresh air, and supposing that party to require some refreshment on their way, do you think it would be right that they should be prevented from getting a glass of beer-In considering a question of that kind, we must look beyond the individual case (and no doubt we might put very strong individual cases) to the more important general consideration which is involved in it. I should be sorry to say that a man would be wrong in supplying himself with refreshment under exceptive circumstances; but if you allow that principle generally on the Sunday, you lead to a vast amount of labour on the Sunday, and you inflict a far greater injury on the class to which that man belongs than you endeavour to obviate in his particular instance. You might put a case before me which I could not undertake to decide; I should be sorry to say that a man was wrong in getting refreshment in every case; I should not undertake to be his judge, but I should take a general view of the proceeding. 242. Mr. Gregson.] If you did not define the limit in point of distance which a man might travel, what rule would you lay down as a general guide?—I should be affected, as I said, by the cause, in applying the rule to myself. 243. Lord D. Stuart. Would you think it right to shut up the Star and Garter, at Richmond, on Sunday-Yes, except to lodgers and bond fide travellers. 244. Mr. Gregson.] Would you include travellers from London:-I must not get into the question of distance; I do not propose to lay down a rule for others; I can only speak with reference to my own opinions upon the subject. 245. Chairman.] Assuming that it is difficult to get a definition of a traveller, do you think it would be any amendment in the law to prevent people drinking on the premises on the Sunday?—I think it would be an improvement; I should be pleased at any amount of additional restriction which was placed upon the present system. 246. Would you say that the chief evil was caused by people collecting together in the public-houses, and from the contamination that follows?—No doubt they corrupt each other; the permission to assemble in these houses entices a man from the society of his wife, mother, father, or brother, and withdraws him from the chastening influences of domestic life. 247. You think a great deal of mischief would be prevented if people were not allowed to drink on the premises on Sunday?—Yes; I think it is in the evening that the most mischief occurs. 248. You think no inconvenience would follow from that?-I think there would be no inconvenience deserving consideration, and which might not be obviated by care on the part of the person himself. 249. Would you apply that to the inmates of hotels, and to persons bona fide lodging in places of refreshment?-We would not interfere with such persons; I think the working classes would be really, as a class, rejoiced at the restrictions. Perhaps the Committee would allow me to state my experience upon the subject. I have been attending meetings lately in reference to this particular matter. There was one meeting held at Yarmouth, called by the mayor of that place, in compliance with a very respectable requisition of the inhabitants, to consider about the adoption of a petition to Parliament in favour of closing public-houses and beershops on Sunday, except to lodgers and travellers. We went to the place of meeting, which, I think, was at the Town Hall; the room was crowded with persons, and those who were interested in the success of the meeting felt some little uneasiness at the anticipation of being opposed; we feared that we might be defeated; but, to our great surprise and gratification, the resolutions for the adoption of the petition were carried without a dissentient voice. Another meeting of the same character was held at Stockton-on-Tees, with the mayor of the place in the chair, attended almost exclusively by working men, and in like manner we rather anticipated considerable opposition. The working classes were invited to speak, and a working man seconded the resolution for the adoption of our petition. There was not a single opposing voice in the meeting; therefore my impression is, that the feelings of the working classes are with us to a greater extent than is generally supposed. supposed. Many of them who are victims to intoxication would be rejoiced Rev. J. T. Baylee. to have temptation put out of their way. If their wives and families were appealed to, there is not a woman in England who would not sign the petition. 23 May 1854. in favour of shutting up public-houses on Sunday, because they find it most decidedly opposed to their interest. 250. Have you not found other people who were most decidedly opposed to that change-I think, in going through society, you meet with a class of persons who, when a question of this nature is proposed, suggest objections and difficulties on behalf of the poor people which are not felt by the poor themselves, I look upon it as mistaken benevolence. In very many cases I think the interests of the poor man and the comforts of the poor man are pleaded, when the poor man would probably say, "Our comforts and our interests are not involved in the question at all; we shall be pleased if you will put an end to the evil," whatever it may be. 251. You think that that consideration is asked for by others, and not by themselves?—I do not mean to say that many of the working classes do not oppose us, but I think the opposite feeling exists to a degree which is not supposed by the upper classes of society. 252. Would you expect any general opposition on the part of the working classes to the change which you are now contemplating?-I said before this present movement in favour of closing public-houses on Sunday was originated, if I had agency at my command, I had no hesitation in saying that I could get two millions of signatures from the working classes in favour of this object, fairly and honestly obtained, and I am still of the same opinion. The signatures hitherto amount to about 290,000, a large proportion of which are the signatures of working men. I still entertain the same opinion, and I think there is a very strong feeling on the subject amongst the working classes. They believe that it is one great cause of their demoralization and degradation, the temptation by which they are in so many instances overcome. 253. Sir G. Grey.] Are there not a large number of eating-houses open in the metropolitan district on Sundays?—Yes; many are open in the evening of Sunday, I believe. 254. Do the working classes resort much to them?—I cannot speak to that from personal observation; I should not like to say anything which I do not personally know; I have not visited them on the Sunday evening. 255. Do not you think, that if the public-houses are closed all day on Sunday, there would be considerable risk of beer and spirits being illegally sold in those eating-houses?—Yes. 256. Is it not probable that those houses would be increased in number ?—I have no doubt there are evils that would follow, but I think that those evils would be small as bearing upon the general morals of the community when compared with the vast amount of evil which is caused by the opening of public-houses on Sunday. 257. You do not propose to place any additional restrictions upon the eatinghouses?—I have not considered that question particularly; but surely, if evil is apprehended in connexion with eating-houses, in case public-houses should be closed on Sundays, additional restrictions upon them would be only just towards keepers of public-houses and beerhouses. 258. What is the nature of the additional restrictions which you think are necessary upon the beerhouses?--I think there ought to be some kind of general board invested with authority, composed of persons holding a more independent position in society than the police, and who could not generally be brought under the influence of the owners of those beershops, and whose specific duty it would be to inquire into the management of all those places, and they should be invested with summary powers of punishing them for breaches of the law. 259. Sir G. Goodman.] Would you give a greater latitude to public gardens and other places of rational recreation, if all the public-houses were closed on Sunday ?-I have no objection whatever to persons walking in the green fields and green lanes on the Sunday; I think it is a thing which is very right, pro'vided the other duties of the day are observed; I have no objection whatever to that, but I object to labour being involved in such enjoyments, because I -conceive it to be contrary to the command of God, and also because I think it would ultimately be most injurious to those very classes whom we are thus anxious to benefit; besides, I do not believe that Crystal Palaces and places of |