the new law had come into force. Lord Chesterfield afterwards expressed regret that the policy of charging the duty at the still-head had not been adopted instead of levying it on the retailer.

A new Parliament, which met in December, 1741, was opposed to Sir Robert Walpole's Government; and, Sir Robert having resigned, a fresh Ministry was formed, which included some of Pulteney's friends. By this Cabinet, and partly with the hope of raising a larger revenue, a bill was brought into the Commons for repealing the act of 1736, and replacing it by one which lowered the licence fee to 20s., and placed a duty of from 1d. to 6d. a gallon on the still head, the issue of licences being restricted to keepers of taverns, victualling-houses, inns, ale-houses, and coffee-houses. The historian says that this bill was hurried through the Commons with great speed and small discussion; but on reaching the Lords a determined resistance was offered to its progress. Of the debates that ensued there is no authentic verbatim report, though both the Gentleman's Magazine' and the 'London Magazine' gave very copious accounts from the pens of Dr. Johnson and Mr. Gordon. Mr. Cobbett is very angry with Dr. Johnson's biographer for relating that the doctor had confessed that his copy of the debates was chiefly composed by himself, and Mr. Cobbett insists, on the contrary, that they were 'unusually authentic.' For proof he refers to the manuscript notes of Archbishop Secker, but so far as relates to the Lords' debates on the Gin Act, a comparison of these reports by no means sustains Mr. Cobbett's decision. Johnson never denied being supplied with heads and fragments of the real speeches, and how he manipulated them is obvious on putting Secker's notes side by side with the doctor's published effusions. As to phraseology, Gordon's reports seem to have come nearer than Johnson's to the ipsissima verba of the lay and spiritual peers. Any epitome or analysis here of the speeches then delivered is incompatible with our decreasing space. Dr. Secker, who was then Bishop of Oxford, was a warm opponent of the repealing bill, and his notes are a truly valuable addition to our authentic Par liamentary memorials. The bill was read a first time February 15th, 1743. February 21st, Lord Hervey moved that three physicians, Dr. Mead, Dr. Leigh, and Dr. Barker might be summoned to give their opinions concerning the drinking of spirituous liquors. The motion was opposed by Lord Bathurst, the Lord Chancellor (Hardwicke), and the Earl of Bath (Pulteney), and supported by Lord Lonsdale and the Bishop of Oxford. Several other lords spoke.' Contents, 17; noncontents,

Debates upon the Drink Traffic.

207

contents, 33. Next day, February 22nd, the bill came on for a second reading; it was opposed by Lord Hervey, Bishop of Oxford, Earl Chesterfield, Lord Talbot, Lord Lonsdale, and the Bishop of Salisbury (the celebrated Dr. Sherlock), and supported by Earl Bathurst, Earl Cholmondeley, Earl Carteret, Duke of Newcastle, and Earl Ilay. On a division the votes stood Contents, 59; proxies, 23: total, 82. Non-contents, 38; proxies, 16: total, 54. All the ten bishops present voted against it, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Potter. February 24th, on going into committee on the bill, Earl Lonsdale moved that the noble Lord (Delawar) may leave the chair.' His speech, a very vigorous one, was followed by 'a long silence,' but the silence was succeeded by a very animated debate, traversing the whole question, the leading speakers being Chesterfield, Carteret, Bath, and Hervey; but the House went into Committee by a vote of 56 to 35. After going through committee, a motion was made to defer the third reading till Tuesday,' which was lost by 52 votes to 29. February 25th, on the third reading, its rejection was moved by Lord Hervey, who was very ably supported by Earl Lonsdale, and opposed by Earl Carteret, one of whose remarks is sufficiently singular to be quoted: Our chief revenues are from follies, our tobacco, our tea, and the last hath made way for gin!' The division list showed-Contents, 59; proxies, 23: total, 82. Non-contents, 38; proxies, 17: total, 55. All the bishops present, ten, voted against the third reading, and with five lay lords they entered their dissent from the result of the division. A protest, signed by ten peers, was also entered on the journals.

So ended this memorable struggle. The evil flowed on like a torrent, and in a few years higher duties were found. necessary to contend against the stream of misery and crime which the liquor trade was interminably pouring forth. Few sessions passed without the same subject demanding and exacting renewed attention. George III., the youthful sovereign, grew grey and half-forgotten in his seclusion, and still Parliament was straining at the ancient difficulty. The licensing system was revised in 1828, but a lowering of the duty on gin sent a new current of pollution through the social system, and, in casting about for a remedy, the united wisdom of Parliament fixed upon a measure to abolish the beer tax, followed by another to exempt the sale of beer and ale from magisterial jurisdiction. The circle of absurdity was thus completed. It had been found necessary, in the middle of the sixteenth century, to prevent the uncertificated sale of beer; in the second quarter of the eighteenth century it had been. found

found equally necessary (even by the men who rejected a more stringent act), to prevent the uncertificated sale of spirits; and now, in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, it was gravely proposed to cure the evils arising from the certificated sale of spirits by permitting the uncertificated sale of beer! The chief men on both sides of both Houses supported the proposal, though a wiser minority strove, first to defeat the measure, and then to limit its mischief by restricting its operation to the sale of beer for consumption off the premises. The debates that accompanied the passing of the beer bill and the subsequent bills, introduced for its amendment, are rich in instruction. The promoters of the bill were warned of varied and numerous disastrous consequences, but one peculiar result of it does not appear to have been foreseen. It was intended to raise up a new class of ale-houses not selling spirits, and therefore tending to wean the people from spiritdrinking habits; but by putting such houses alongside ginshops, and by putting them out of the magisterial jurisdiction, the authors of the bill were offering a temptation to the keepers of them to seek to become publicans, and likewise a temptation to the magisterial benches to qualify them to become so. In sober fact, both temptations soon arose, and have been very successful; so that the new class of houses that were intended to supplant the gin-shops have become the most common means of multiplying their number and their pestiferous effects.

The continued abounding of drunkenness led, in 1834, to some noble parliamentary action of Mr. James Silk Buckingham, M.P. for Sheffield. Sheffield, then, had as a representative a man whom all good men could esteem, and whom posterity will gratefully remember. On June 3d, he delivered a speech at once comprehensive and concise, in support of a motion to appoint a Select Committee of Inquiry into the causes of the great increase of drunkenness, and the legislative means of preventing its further spread. Sir George Strickland seconded the motion. Lord Althorp, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not see any beneficial effect that was likely to arise from the committee,' and so opposed its appointment. Mr. Cobbett recommended the Government to purchase one or two million copies of his sermon on drunkenness and circulate them through the country. Mr. Robinson wanted a bill instead of a committee. Mr. Pease supported the motion; Mr. Hume opposed it. The only remedy was education.' Mr. J. Maxwell, Sir R. Bateson, Sir H. Verney, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Baines, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Cayley, and Col. Williams, all successively supported the motion. Mr.

Warburton

Debates upon the Drink Traffic.

209

Warburton re-echoed Mr. Hume's opinions. Lord Althorp refused to yield to Colonel Evans's request to consent to the motion, which was carried on a division by sixty-four votes against forty-seven. The committee so appointed elected Mr. Buckingham its chairman, and much important evidence was accumulated; but on the 5th of August, when Mr. Buckingham brought up the report, a scene' took place, disgraceful to the leading actors. First of these was Mr. Hawes, M.P. for Lambeth, who had, as Mr. Buckingham told the House, 'attended the sittings of the committee three or four times. only, and then for a short period, during which his object had been to browbeat and puzzle the witnesses, to make it out that no legislative remedy could be applied.' Mr. Hawes contended that the committee had no right to make a report, but was informed by the Speaker that every select committee was bound to do so. He then attacked the report in violent language, and moved that it should not be printed. Mr. Buckingham replied to him, and was sustained by Mr. Baines, M.P. for Leeds. Mr. O'Connell then spoke, and only a quotation will do him justice :

'Did the committee not understand what they had to do? To be sure they seemed to have been a little muddled-there must have been some mud in the water; and he saw that the hon. gentleman's appearance was that of a man who drank nothing but water-nothing but solid water? But ought the House to meet this proposition, when the committee came before them with so silly, so absurd a suggestion as that of preventing the importation of spirits? * *Distillation

*

was to be confined to the chemists only! But he begged pardon of the House for detaining them with such trash. If they allowed this report to be printed they would encourage every drivelling legislator. Oh, yes! they would have some snail-paced legislator moving for a committee to inquire into the best means of preventing flies from destroying butter or honey.'

Colonel Williams thought the House bound to receive the report, and have it printed. Whatever ridicule might attach to the course, he would take care to place the following resolutions on the journals of the House-" Resolved, that the petitions on the part of the people to this House for cheap bread ought to be met by the suppression of the practice of converting human food into useless and destructive drink. That from a time (to be fixed) the distillation of ardent spirits from grain should be at once and entirely prohibited in Great Britain and Ireland." Lord Sandon implored the House' to allow of the printing of the report. Mr. Brotherton contended that if the House adopted the recommendation of the committee, they would find that the happiness and best interests of the country would be greatly promoted. After other remarks, the House divided on the question of printing the report; and there appeared-Ayes, 63; Noes, 31: majority 32. Father Mathew's movement afterwards opened up to

Mr.

Mr. O'Connell another view of the temperance question, but for his vituperative attack he owed an amende honorable to Mr. Buckingham, which we hope he rendered at the last. His style of abuse was to a certain extent repeated in the columns of the press, and notably so by the Times. The only daily newspaper taking a directly opposite course was the Morning Herald, which then often treated social topics with equal candour and ability.

The Parliamentary debates on Mr. Gladstone's Wine Licence Bill of 1860, on Mr. Somes's Sunday Closing Bill, on Mr. Lawson's Permissive Bill, and on other questions bearing upon the causes of public intemperance, can only be signalled as we pass. Some of them have been the subject of criticism in preceding numbers of this periodical.*

Other debates more beneficial to the whole community than any that have yet been chronicled or have transpired, will by and bye be coming due.

A Parliament really determined to dive into causes, and to stop the sources of social mischief, will have much to say and do that has never been said and done upon the liquor traffic of the kingdom. Yet a knowledge of the past would be of no trifling service in excluding from future discussions errors of reasoning and of fact. What is wanted is a work that should present in a condensed form every useful portion of previous legislative discussions; an epitome of all the bills proposed and acts passed for the regulation of the liquor traffic with a view to diminish intemperance; and such statistical illustrations and side-lights from historical authorities as would explain the reason of past failures to render this country sober and happy. Intelligent persons generally perceive that good legislation has a great office to serve in this department of future statesmanship; and it would be of no small advantage to have it made clear, why legislation has been for so long employed, with so little success, about a business of so much importance to the British people and to their remotest posterity.

FROM

ART. II.-STEAM.

ROM fire and water, progenitors so capable of mutual service and of mutual quarrel, comes their wonderful offspring, the laborious steam. It comes in this wise. To water add heat (of which molecular motion is another name), and a

* See 'Meliora,' No. X., July, 1860; and No. XXII., October, 1864.

change