J. Ewing Ritchie’s 1855 pamphlet opens by naming the specific law it defends: the New Beer Bill, which forced Sunday closure of public houses except for two short windows. Rather than argue abstractly, Ritchie immediately cites a measurable effect—a sharp drop in drunkenness arrests at London police stations—and notes that Monday court sessions became lighter. This concrete claim sets the tone for a work that leans heavily on parliamentary Blue Books and newspaper reports.

The pamphlet’s structure is adversarial. Ritchie quotes publicans and their allies at length, then rebuts them with evidence from the 1853–4 House of Commons committee. The excerpts show a writer who treats the law as a test case for whether public order or trade interests should prevail, and who is unafraid to name opponents like Benjamin Disraeli.

The Publicans’ Case, as Quoted

Ritchie lets his opponents speak first. He reproduces extracts from a September meeting in Drury Lane, where publicans called the Bill “despotic and tyrannical” (Mr. Luce) and “the Liberty of the Subject and Licensed Victuallers’ Liberty Curtailment Bill” (Mr. Palmer). A Mr. Symes claimed it was “directed against all recreation on Sundays.” The Daily News is quoted warning of “social gloom” in the suburbs and painting a picture of a working man “starving in the streets” after returning from Brighton. These quotations are not neutral; Ritchie selects the most dramatic language to set up his rebuttal.

Parliamentary Evidence as a Weapon

Ritchie repeatedly invokes “the evidence just published in two enormous Blue Books” as the foundation of his argument. He implies that anyone who reads that evidence will see the publicans’ cause is weak. The pamphlet’s full title includes the phrase “An Epitome of the Evidence Taken Before a Committee of the House of Commons,” indicating that Ritchie’s method is to condense official testimony for a popular audience. The excerpts do not reproduce that evidence, but the author’s confidence in it is clear: he writes that “silence would become them better” than opposing the Bill. This reliance on parliamentary records gives the pamphlet an authoritative, fact-based tone distinct from mere opinion.

Class and the Politics of Sunday Closing

Underlying the debate is a class dimension. The Daily News leader quoted by Ritchie accuses “the Pharisees of our drawing-rooms and saloons” of imposing hardships on the poor without sharing their labour. Ritchie does not directly endorse this view, but by including it he acknowledges the charge that the law is an elite imposition. His own position seems to side with order and temperance, yet the pamphlet’s structure—giving space to the opposition—allows readers to see the conflict as one between moral reform and working-class leisure. The excerpts end with Ritchie predicting “disastrous results” for publicans if they continue their fight, suggesting he expects the law to hold.

This pamphlet is best read as a period piece in the Victorian debate over Sunday observance and alcohol regulation. Ritchie’s method—assembling quotations, citing Blue Books, and naming political figures—makes it a useful primary source for understanding how temperance advocates framed their arguments. Readers should note that the excerpts cover only the opening and closing pages; the core parliamentary evidence is not included here. The work’s brevity (about 25 minutes’ reading) means it can be consumed in one sitting, but its density of reference rewards slow attention.