REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 May 1860)

§ MR. PALK
said, he rose to move that the Bill be committed that day six months. If a reason were required for the proposal he was about to make, it would be 1034 found in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in placing upon the notice paper Amendments that would to a great extent alter the principle of the Bill, and refusing to consent to recommit the Bill in order that it might be printed and the House enabled fully to understand the bearing of the clauses which he proposed. But there were other reasons that led him to take a course that would again raise a discussion on the principle of the Bill. The first reason was, that the main principle of the Bill was to extend the licensing system as far as circumstances would permit it to be extended, or as far as the demand for wines could be created. Now, he proposed to show that neither for the comforts nor the convenience of the people, nor oven for the purpose of raising revenue, was such a course required or necessary. He would, on the contrary, show that unrestricted competition in the sale of alcoholic drinks tended to injure the health, the morals, and the happiness of the people. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) had clearly proved that proposition in a speech delivered by him on the introduction of his Beer Bill in 1857. This was by no means a new idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had been introduced as long ago as the reign of William and Mary, but the evil became so great that in the reign of George H. the Legislature, even in those days, which, compared with the present, were supposed to be degenerate days, was obliged to pass strong restrictive laws on the subject. A duty of £20 was imposed on retailing licences for the sale of spirits, and no licence was given to any person to keep an alehouse or retail brandy but at a general meeting of justices of the peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now sought, for the first time, to destroy the whole control of the magistrates; he attempted to cast a slur on that body, and proposed that the only person to have a voice in the matter should be the Supervisor of Excise. But, looking at the Bill as a fiscal measure, he asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown any good reasons for extending the trade in alcoholic drinks. By a return obtained in 1855 it appeared that there was a beerhouse for every thirty-eight males and females over twenty-one years of age, and one for eighty-seven males of all ages, so that the accommodation for the sale of spirituous liquors was now sufficient for the wants of the country. But even if it could be proved that there 1035 was any want of houses for the sale of such liquors, there existed ample machinery for increasing them to any extent that might he required. The system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was tried in Liverpool, and the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to it in his speech the other evening. He said that when the magistrates of Liverpool hesitated in increasing the licences drunkenness increased, but that, on the other hand, when they extended the licences drunkenness decreased; and he instanced that as a contradiction of the prevailing opinion that a multiplication of the means of drinking increased drunkenness itself. But what had been the fact? The magistrates of Liverpool certainly exercised the powers they possessed and extended the licences, but they had to increase their police, and the evil of drunkenness rose to such an extent that through their representatives in Parliament they asked for and obtained the Committee that sat under the presidency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. That Committee reported that there should be only one species of Excise licence granted. The Bill created a most extraordinary anomaly. The magistrates were to have a control over the character of the houses, but none over the number to be licensed. At present the magistrates had a control over the indefinite multiplication of licences; but the present Bill took away from them all such control. By a new clause put on the paper any house called a refreshment-house, on payment of the duty, unless notice in writing was given by the Lord Mayor, police magistrates, or the justice of the peace, that it was not a confectioner's shop or an eating-house, or that it was a disorderly house, no matter what the character of the applicant might be, was entitled to a wine licence. The applicant for a licence might be a man or woman of indifferent character, but unless upon these grounds, which gave no security for the respectability of the applicant, no one had the power to hinder the granting of a licence. That was a matter of serious importance in the view of public morality, because such a provision at once broke down every barrier against vice and immorality, which Parliament had been endeavouring to raise with much labour and great expense. He (Mr. Palk) could not perceive what was the real principle of the measure. Was it a free-trade or a protective measure? Indeed, he was wholly at a loss to discover whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a 1036 Free-trader or a Protectionist. If he was a Free-trader, upon what principle did he impose restrictions upon the sale of wine; and if he was a Protectionist, upon what principle did he impose a duty upon articles of our own manufacture? The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in introducing this measure he was following the policy of Sir Robert Peel in carrying free trade into the sale of wine. But a gentleman of great authority, at a Manchester meeting, declared that no one had any right to talk about this proposal as a development of free trade, with which it had nothing to do. The whole question was one of public safety, which would justify any amount of interference, if it would justify interference at all. Another speaker, Mr. Barker, denied with equal force that free trade had anything to do with the present scheme of the Government. The Bill, in fact, combined all the objections that any one might entertain for free trade, with those which hon. Members had so constantly advanced against protection. He would venture to say that the right hon. Gentlemen was totally ignorant of those high and noble principles which induced Sir Robert Peel to make such sacrifices—to sacrifice, in short, the great party which he had led, and to forfeit, for a time, at least, the estimation of his friends. His principle was that of remitting all taxes upon food and raw material—to raise and elevate the artisan and the labourer by placing him in a better pecuniary position—to raise him by education, and to show him that there was but little difference between the working man and the gentleman, except in social position. The course the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pursuing was the exact converse of that of Sir Robert Peel. For pure fiscal purposes, and for the sake of a revenue he had parted from that he might make a treaty with France for which he had received no reciprocity, the right hon. Gentleman had created a deficit which with singular infelicity he sought to make up from the necessities of the poor and the improvident. By alluring people to drink wine to which they were unaccustomed, the right hon. Gentleman hoped to raise a paltry sum of £60,000, to gain which he proposed to pass a measure fraught with all the evils and misery that the House had been for years seeking to remove. During the last fifty years a large number of earnest and sincere men had been doing all they could to promote the education and moral im- 1037 provement of the people. They were good, unobtrusive men, who did not content themselves with making grand speeches in the House of Commons, but who went about their work steadily and perseveringly. They were called by various names, though that by which they were most commonly known was the "teetotallers." He knew that that name generally excited a smile, but he did not understand why, for he had the pleasure of knowing many teetotallers, and he believed they practised the self-denial which they inculcated. They had, however, been very successful; they had extended their organization throughout the country, and one of their principal aids was the temperance coffeehouse, which enabled a man to obtain his meals without the risk of being tempted to indulge in intoxicating liquors. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer stepped in and broke down the barrier which the friends of temperance had raised by insisting that every house of entertainment should be licensed. Under the proposed arrangement the modest, sober coffee-house would no longer be able to hold its ground against the attractive places of resort which would be established for the sale of intoxicating drink, and would be tempted to enter the same dangerous trade. There was a Divine appeal which said "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;" but this was not the rule of guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether, as a question of free trade, fiscal arrangement, or social policy, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to force such a Bill on the attention of the House. As a fiscal measure it was wicked and unnecessary; and as a social measure it was opposed to the interests of public morality, and he should have considered himself wanting in his duty to himself and his constituents if he had refrained, even on that occasion, unusual though it were, from raising his voice against the measure.

MR. PACKE
said, he rose to second the Motion. Licences were generally imposed for the purpose of controlling immorality, but the proposed Bill simply imposed licences for revenue. He was opposed to the wine licences, but he entertained a far stronger objection to the licensing of re- 1038 freshment-houses. The lodges in the public Parks, where oranges, ginger beer, and cakes were supplied, and every little shop where a child bought a cheesecake or a gingerbread nut, would be obliged to take out a licence. There was no more reason why a 10s. 6d. duty should be imposed on these refreshment-houses than on bakers' or butchers' or any other shops. The whole measure was a gross infringement of the liberty of the subject, and he hoped the House would pause before it countenanced so extraordinary a course of legislation.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,
said, he hardly supposed that it was desired to resume at any length the discussion which was brought to a close on Monday evening. His hon. Friend who spoke last did not appear to have said anything in the nature of an objection which went to the root of the Bill. In the first place, he begged leave to assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not construed accurately the clause as it stood. Its scope was far more limited than he appeared to suppose. There was no question of compelling every person to take out a licence who sold anything to be eaten or drunk. The Bill was subject to the most important limitations, which he should not go into then, because they had much better be discussed on the clauses. As regarded the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, he admitted that it dealt broadly with the whole subject. The hon. Gentleman, however, made an imputation upon him to the effect that he had exhibited great distrust of the magistracy, which was certainly not warranted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had more truly said (he other evening that the powers in the hands of the magistrates were enormous, and that it was necessary, as a matter of justice, to limit them. That was much nearer the truth, for the powers were much too large, and they were limited in the Bill. He had listened with great attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Devon, and he readily admitted that his conscientious opinions were entitled to every respect. But the great fallacy with regard to this Bill was that hon. Gentlemen declined to make those distinctions which lay deep in the nature of the case. They referred to the failure of the Beer Bill, though he must say that, even with regard to the Beer Bill its failure was one of a far more qualified kind, and related more to certain peculiar parishes and districts than hon. Gentlemen were 1039 willing to admit. But however that might be, the present Bill was altogether of a different nature. He propounded it as a deliberate attempt to improve the means of supplying refreshments to the public, and of enabling the people to find fermented liquors at the same places where eatables were to be had. After having fully argued the question on a former occasion, he did not think it would be respectful to the House if he went over them again, but he hoped in Committee the hon. Gentleman would reconsider the propositions he had made.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
moved an Amendment for the purpose of restricting the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises to wine in bottle only.

§ MR. PALK
said, this clause raised the question so much discussed, namely, that any person keeping a shop for the sale of goods or commodities might sell wine in bottle, and he wished to ask whether they would be under the control of the police.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that every person keeping a shop would be entitled to take out a licence for the sale of wine in bottle, and that they would not be under the control of the police.

§ MR. WOODD
said, he would propose the insertion of the words, "other than foreign wines" after the word "commodities" to prevent the holders of ten guinea licences under the existing law from exchanging those licences for three guinea licences under the present Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that generally the term wholesale dealer meant a person who sold to the retailer and did not sell direct to the consumer, but in the wine trade it had a statutory meaning—namely, a person who sold more than a certain quantity whether to a retailer or a consumer. A licence under this Bill would enable the dealer to sell any quantity, small or large, and render the present wholesale licence of £10 10s. unnecessary.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the clause had been considered by the legal advisers of the Government, and they thought the sale of "goods and commodities" was clearly defined, and that there was no fear of their enabling persons to substitute a retail licence for a wholesale licence. But he might further observe, that the second clause would prevent such substitution taking place. He understood that the wholesale dealer had a right to do everything which was proposed now to be given to the retail dealer.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, a distinction must be drawn between the terms. He believed a wholesale dealer would not be entitled to sell less than two gallons, and if a man sold less than one dozen, then he would be a retailer.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, they had constituted a licence which was to enable a person to sell wine by retail in general. Then as to what would be a selling of wine by retail was determined by the second clause.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, there were two classes of retailers of wine at present—the licenced victuallers and the persons who sold quantities of not less than two gallons. If the clause was passed as it stood, no man would pay ten guineas for a wholesale licence when he could obtain the same power by taking out a retail licence, which would, enable him to sell any quantity.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he understood that any person who kept a shop for the sale of any goods or commodities might, if he chose, sell wine by retail not to be consumed on the premises; but that did not subject him to the control of the police. Now, he wished to know how they were going to prevent a person from selling wine retail to be consumed on the premises.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he apprehended the clause was sufficiently clear to prevent any evasion, as the parties would only be entitled to sell in bottles.

§ MR. C. P. VILLIERS
said, there were certain persons to whom the granting of licences for the retail of wine was limited. The object of the Bill was simply to extend that privilege to persons keeping refreshment-houses. It was clear that a man who only took out a three-guinea licence could not effect the same sale as a man who took out a ten guinea licence.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to ask the meaning of the words "without pro- 1041 ducing or having any other licence or authority."

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,
said, the words were not directed to any other purpose than signifying the intention of the law that there should be no control by the magistrates or any other authority. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Woodd), he proposed to adopt the words "other than foreign wines;" and to add "or who shall have taken out licences as dealers in wine," because he thought it reasonable to allow the holders of wholesale wine licences to take out retail licences also, if they pleased. He did not think that there was any danger of these shops becoming drinking places, and he was sure that it would not be wise to subject the mere passing of bottles through the shops to the surveillance of the police.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he wished to ask whether there was anything to prevent the retail dealer, to whom they were about to give a £3 3s. licence, from selling out of his shop to anybody.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the object of the 2nd clause was to prevent that.

§ MR. PALK
said, he put the case of a large tailor who kept a large number of hands—working probably on the premises—what was to prevent him from taking out a licence and retailing wine to his workmen?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, there was nothing to prevent such a man from retailing British wines at present in the way described, but he never heard of the practice.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would propose as an Amendment, after the word "retail," to add the words "and in reputed quart bottles only." He believed that those words would afford a check against the abuse of the power of selling wines in shops where it was not to be drunk.

§ MR. CROSS
said, that the Act would be practically invalid unless wine was allowed to be sold in fictitious or reputed quart bottles.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the object of these words appeared to be to prevent the drinking of wine on the premises by selling it in quart bottles. He did not see the use of this restriction, and it would be very hard if a poor man in case of sickness wanting a glass of wine was not allowed to get it unless he took a 1042 quart. If he could do so he would put it in his pocket, and would not care to stop and consume it on the premises. It would be going quite far enough to provide that wine should be sold in bottle only.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he saw no reason why persons might not buy less than a reputed quart bottle. He did not see that there ought to be any restriction upon a person buying a pint or even a half-pint bottle.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the restriction was intended to discourage intemperance; and, if it were not imposed, there would be nothing to prevent a person buying a small quantity of wine in a bottle, and going out upon the pavement and drinking it, or in other ways evading the statute.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he believed that the measure could not he better denned than as a reputed quart bottle, and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to that description.

§ MR. ALDEEMAN SALOMONS
said, the words "in reputed quart bottles" might imply that the sale must consist of two bottles, and he suggested that the words should he substituted "in not less than one reputed quart bottle."

§ MR. W. EWART
said, it appeared to him that, as the object of the Bill was to diffuse throughout the country a taste for wine, there should be no unnecessary restrictions on the sale.

§ MR. MALINS
thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object was to prevent these wine-sellers from allowing wine to be consumed on the premises, his plan for effecting that object was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have proposed that the wine-seller should not keep a corkscrew, nor his customer bring one with him in his pocket. "Why should these people not he allowed to sell wine in any manner that might be most convenient to them.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he was prepared to take the sense of the Committee against the insertion of these words, because he thought they contained a bad principle.

LORD FERMOT
contended that it was necessary to draw a line of distinction somewhere to prevent these wine sellers from using their places of business as public-houses. A poor man could obtain his glass of wine at the public-house.

MR. HENLEY
said, the experience of the working of the Beer Act ought not to be passed over in discussing this point. 1043 By that Act a privilege was given to sell beer not to be consumed on the premises, and this was the sort of thing which used frequently to happen in houses of that description. A man would go in with a quart pot in his hand, and ask for "a quart of your best fourpenny." No sooner was it handed over than down it went like a flash of lightning, and then the man's confederate, who was waiting outside, would lay an information against the beerseller for selling beer to be consumed on the premises without a licence. The same thing would happen to the shopkeepers who might take to the retail sale of wine if the Legislature trapped them into selling it in open pints or glasses. A man would go in, ask for a small quantity, which is down his throat in a moment, and then the shopkeeper would be hauled up before the magistrates. It would be no use for him to plead that he could not help the man drinking the wine, the magistrates would say, "No doubt it is a hard case, but here is the law, and the law says your liquor is not to be consumed on the premises." A man could not play such tricks with a bottle—the neck of the bottle would stick in his throat; he could not dispose of the wine with the same rapidity as the beer in the quart pot. It was mainly in consequence of such practices as these, he believed, that the number of licences to retail beer not to be consumed on the premises had very much decreased of late years. Unless some proper safeguard were adopted, so many informations would be laid against the dealers in wine that they would soon give up selling it, as had already happened in regard to the sale of beer. He knew that owing to that very cause the beerhouses which formerly existed had almost all vanished from certain districts.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, the returns showed that the number of licences for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises was 39,945, but of licences to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, the number was only 2,715. He concurred in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken as to the necessity of taking precautions against wine-sellers being victimised by the devices of informers.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, the substantial question was how to establish a line of demarcation between the sale of wine to be consumed on the premises and its sale for consumption off the premises. The sale in quart bottles was a well-known 1044 and sufficiently practical test in such matters.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he thought that the sale in quart bottles would almost do away with the sale of wine by retail. He would suggest a medium course—the pint bottle.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he objected to the use of the words "reputed quart bottle." They ought to adopt a legal measure, if any at all.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he was unwilling to hinder the progress of the Bill, but he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the word "pint" would be preferable.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he had listened as dispassionately as he could to that great bottle controversy. An important legal safeguard was involved in this matter, and he had no doubt that the argument of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire was as sound as it was lively. All he desired was to give every practical accommodation to the public consistently with the prevention of fraud.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take his stand on the quart bottle. It was a good rule to stand upon what had been already adopted. If the wine-sellers were allowed to sell pints of wine, a man that wanted to tipple might carry pint flagons in his pocket, and, having purchased a pint of wine from one of these wine-sellers, he could go outside of the shop, drink it in the street, and return again immediately for another pint, and by the repetition of that process get drunk. Put if the wine-seller were prohibited from selling less than a quart, that tippling could not be carried on so easily.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the pint bottle.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, that if the pint bottle were admitted, all the inconveniences so graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be aggravated. He did not think the use of a pint bottle would prevent a man from drinking off wine like a flash of lightning. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should stand by the larger bottle.

MR. HENLEY
said, no doubt he had seen the lazzaroni of Naples get the contents of a bottle of wine down their throats in a very continuous and rapid stream. He would recommend the hon. and learned 1045 Gentleman, however, to walk into the refreshment-room and try how long it would take to empty a pint bottle by putting the neck in his mouth. He (Mr. Henley) thought he would find the operation a slow one.

§ MR. WOODD
inquired whether there was anything to prevent wine being bought, for the purpose of being drunk at home, in houses licensed to sell it for consumption on the premises.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Not at all.

§ MR. WOODD
Then he would have the word quart retained.

§ MR. CLAY
expressed an objection to any proposal which would offer additional inducements to curtail the size of pint and quart measures, which was diminishing daily. If "reputed" quantities were to be sanctioned at all, he thought the quart was the one which the House ought to adopt.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, it was a mistake to suppose that a reputed quart was not a defined and ascertained measure. It was already provided by an Act of 11 and 12 Vict, that a reputed quart should be one-sixth of a gallon. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would stand by the quart; if not, he (Mr. James) should make a "pint" of doing it.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he could corroborate the statement as to the limited capacity of "reputed" measures. A reputed quart had been declared to be one- sixth of a gallon; but any hon. Member who might wish to try the experiment in the refreshment-room would find, he thought, that it would take three reputed pints to make one quart bottle.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
then proposed to insert the words "in reputed quart or pint bottles only."

§ SIR MORTON PETO
suggested that the words "Imperial quart or pint" would be more suitable.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
thought no object would be gained by it. They had decided that wine sold by retail should be in bottles.

§ MR. WARNER
thought the quantity should be defined.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, there were objections to inserting the legal measure, which might 1046 bring them into collision with the Customs regulations.

§ MR. M'CANN
said the size of bottles was so rapidly diminishing that he was reminded of the Motion introduced into the Irish House of Commons by Sir E. Flood, to the effect that every quart bottle should hold a quart. [Mr. BASS: No, but hold a pint.] No, that might do for England; but they liked good measure in Ireland, and the Motion was that every quart bottle should hold a quart.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would make inquiries, and insert words to render the definition more clear, if it were found necessary. The primâ facie inference was that a pint was not a quart.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he wished to ask whether the wholesale dealer would have a right to sell a less quantity than two gallons?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the intention of the clause was to confine the retail dealer to the sale of one dozen of wine at a time to one customer.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he would then inquire if the wholsesale dealer would have a right to sell a less quantity than at present?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE, EXCHEQUER
Not without a retail licence.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that a person who took out a wholesale licence could not sell less than two gallons, and the right hon. Gentleman now proposed every sale of foreign wine, in less quantity than two gallons, should be deemed a sale by retail. He did not say that he might not sell more than that. If the clause stood in its present shape there would be an end of all wholesale wine licences.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he saw no reason why a retail dealer might not, under the operation of the clause, sell a dozen dozens of wine in a single day, provided each dozen were sold at a different time, and thus at once interfere with the profit of the wholesale dealer and defraud the revenue.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, no doubt the law might be evaded. He thought the wine would come into the retailer's possession from the wholesale dealers, the same as the beer came to the beer-sellers from 1047 the large brewers. In that case no practical injury would be inflicted on the wholesale dealers.

MR. HENLEY
said, at present, persons could not buy less than two gallons of spirits or wine without going to a publican. He thought that a person who took out a wine licence ought to be placed on the same footing as a publican.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought the law might be evaded to a great extent by such dishonest acts as those referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, by the cumbrous process of making out separate Bills; but he did not believe it would reach to the extent of injuring the wholesale dealer. Publicans were not limited by their licences as to the quantity they sold. It was not proposed to interfere with them by this clause.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he should like to know whether a party of a dozen gentlemen, or a larger number, dining together—such a case, for instance, as that of Her Majesty's Ministers taking their whitebait dinner at Greenwich—could, under the operation of the clause, be served with only a dozen bottles of wine.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
replied that he did not conceive there would be any limitation in such a case.

§ MR. DUTTON
suggested an alteration in the clause which would protect the wholesale dealer.

§ MR. M'CANN
said, as he understood the clause, it meant that every man of the company who dined together could get a dozen.

§ MR. WARNER
said, he would propose to insert the words "or in the open air in the immediate neighbourhood of the shop or premises."

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought that such words were not necessary, for evasion was not likely, in this country, to take place in that form; and it might sometimes inflict on parties very great hardships.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested the substitution of the word premises for house, which would cover a cricket or bowling-green.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he saw no objection to the substitution of the one word for the other.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he wished to remove one or two misapprehensions as to the effect of this clause. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, for the purpose of throwing the Bill over at this stage, appeared to consider that this clause obliged all persons selling refreshments to take out a licence. Now, he wished to observe that the clause was limited in two most important particulars. In the first place, the victuals or refreshment was to be consumed on the premises, and in the next place the sale of victuals or refreshment was to constitute the purpose for which the House was kept open, and was not to be accidental, secondary, or occasional. For instance, if a lodging-house keeper engaged to supply some of his lodgers with victuals, that would not bring him within the operation of the clause. Still, he thought it would never do to indicate by name certain places which would be excepted from the Act, such as temperance hotels, coffee-shops, shell-fish shops, and other places of public resort. This was recommended by the Committee, but he did not think their Report would be a safe guide in this particular.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he would propose that all places kept open to the public for refreshments between the hours of ten o'clock at night and four o'clock in the morning should be deemed refreshment-houses. He would next propose that the licences should be compulsory on all persons who kept such houses; and then, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to carry out the clause as it stood, it would be necessary to strike out the words in the 26th line, and insert "refreshment-houses kept open between ten and four o'clock at night." That alteration would carry out the views of the Committee, and would, he thought, be most desirable. There was no evidence against eating-houses which were kept open only during the day; but the police declared that they could often not clear the streets at night because of refreshment-houses which were open when other places were shut up. He had heard that in some of those night refreshment- 1049 houses it was just as easy to get gin as coffee; but the liquor was brought in a coffee-cup, with a cream jug at hand, to prevent suspicion. At the proper time he should propose clauses inflicting penalties on those who kept their houses open between the hours named without taking out a licence, and empowering the police to inspect such refreshment-houses. He thought it would also be necessary to have a further clause to place refreshment-houses that were open at night upon the same footing as beershops, and that if the proprietors of those places knowingly permitted prostitutes, gamblers, or other bad characters to assemble, they should be liable to the same penalties as beershop-keepers were exposed to. In the case of a third offence, the licence should be suspended for a year. He submitted these suggestions in the cause of good order, and he hoped they would meet with the approval of the Committee.

§ MR. AYRTON
remarked, that the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman would fulfil all the objects they had in view, and they would place a practical line of demarcation between those houses which were to be licensed and those that were not.

MR. HENLEY
said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. If he did so, it would save a great deal of discussion upon the subsequent clauses, for it was a very serious question to consider what houses were to be subjected to the visits of the police. The right hon. Gentleman had relied upon the words "kept for the purpose," but were not boarding-houses kept for the purpose of selling victuals? Were those respectable establishments to be subjected to visits from policemen with black beards, red beards, and beards of every colour, at any hour, turning all the inhabitants topsy-survy? He thought it would be better to make this a tentative measure, and if further restrictions should by experience be found to be necessary, it would be easy to introduce them, but it would be most improper to make the measure too oppressive in the first instance.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would admit there was much force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. There was much truth in the remark that it would be well to proceed tentatively in the first instance, and, if mischiefs should be shown to exist afterwards, it would be easy to remedy 1050 them at a future time. If he adopted the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, he apprehended the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles) could not proceed with his proposed limitation in country places, nor should he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proceed with his limitation as to open shops. He would wish to know, however, whether the hon. Member intended to include cigar-shops in the I words "refreshment,, resort, or entertainment;" for those shops were open at night, and were not of the best class of houses. He did not refer to large divans, but to a multitude of small shops, which should be subjected to the same restrictions as other shops that were open at the same hours. Then there were the shops where penny ices and lemonade were sold, which were kept open at night, but which were of a harmless character; but, as the licence fee was so low, probably it was hardly worth while to make any exception. Upon another point he also wished to ascertain the feeling of the Committee. He thought the hours named—ten to four—were too limited, and should be from nine to four, or nine to five. His own opinion was, that the words were so large that cigar-shops would be included in them; but he would assent to the Amendment, provided the hours were to be from nine to five, instead of from ten to four.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he was anxious that the words respecting the hours should be as extensive as possible, bearing in view the social welfare of the people. He was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing his suggestion, but he thought the licence duty was so very small that, if there was any object in keeping a house open after nine o'clock at night, the licence fee would scarcely be felt. He did not therefore object to the extension of the language of the clause so as to include cigar shops. The great object he had in view was to prevent the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors.

§ SIR W. MILES
said, that under the circumstances he should not think it necessary to bring forward his Amendment. In reference to the hours suggested for the shutting up of unlicensed refreshment-houses, he would remind the right hon. Gentlemen that the coffee-shops were generally frequented at night by men who resorted to them for the main object of reading the newspapers, and who seldom finished their perusal until ten o'clock at night.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he thought reading-rooms ought to be excepted where there were no liquors sold.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, they had passed all the clauses in the Bill which related to the imposition of the tax and defined its object, and now they were going to deal with clauses relating to public morality. They had passed what was called a Money Bill, but they had appended to it a number of provisions which related to the general conduct of the community, and which would require the consideration not only of that but of the other House of Parliament. In the other House there were lords spiritual, who had the opportunity of communicating with all the clergy, and could obtain information which hon. Members generally had not the same facilities to procure. Many peers, too, took a deep interest in the question of temperance; but he apprehended they would be precluded from making any Amendments in the Bill if it was sent up to them in a shape by which two distinct subjects were mixed up together. He would therefore appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt a similar course to that which he pursued in respect to the Stamp Duties Bill, from which he separated the portion repealing Sir J. Barnard's Act, and, omitting from the present Measure all the provisions relating to questions of police, to introduce those provisions in a separate Bill.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, he did not regard the present clause simply as a police clause. It was a clause which enabled parties to do something for the public convenience; but he could not understand why the proprietors of the refreshment places mentioned in the clause should be disabled from selling a glass of beer, if a customer preferred that beverage to wine.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the intention of the Bill was not to interfere in any way with beerhouses, properly so called; but the fact of a person holding a wine licence would not disqualify him from holding a beer licence, nor would the holding of a beer licence disqualify him from holding a wine licence. It would be absurd for the Legislature to say that the proprietor of an eating-house should have the option of giving his customers beer exclusively or wine exclusively, but should not be enabled 1052 to serve beer and wine, accordingly as persons might prefer one to the other. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he did not think that the Committee had yet reached that part of the Bill to which the hon. Member's remarks applied, but he could not accede to the doctrine that the licensing portion of the Bill should be separated from the police portion. If reference were made to the Beer Act, it would be found that the dealing with these two matters together was according to precedent; and if the House of Lords made any alteration in the police portion of the Measure, the House of Commons, though it would not accept the Bill so altered, as it was technically a revenue Bill, yet, if it approved of the alteration, might send up to the Lords another Bill embodying the Amendment. He had omitted from the Stamp Duties Bill the clause respecting Sir J. Barnard's Act, because it had no relation to revenue.

§ MR. CAYLEY
inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to the insertion of the words, "or malt liquors?"

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that, individually he did not object to the insertion of the words, but he thought them unnecessary.

§ MR. HARDY
said, that as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made it a condition to the obtaining of the licence that the house should be a refreshment-house for the sale of food, and this he considered would occasion great difficulty as regarded the definition.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought they had limited refreshment-houses to a certain class. He wished to know if he were right in that respect? He hoped that the Bill would be reprinted as amended, so that they might be better able to judge the effect of the Amendments, and to introduce such verbal Amendments as should carry out the intentions of both sides.

§ MR. BRADY
asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not interfere with the beer licence regulations in any way? Suppose, for instance, a man who had a beer licence, and was obliged, in conformity with it, to close his place at eleven o'clock, took out a licence to keep a refreshment-shop, would he have a diversity of regulations applying to the two branches of business, carried on in the same premises?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, 1053 that persons might at present take cut a wine licence or a beer licence, but they would not be exactly in the same position, and it would be desirable that the position of a person taking out either should be distinctly defined.

§ MR. PALK
said, he did not know whether he should be in order by at once moving his proviso.

MR. HENLEY
remarked that the clause previous to that which the hon. Member wished to move an Amendment was not yet disposed of.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he considered that it was almost impossible to lay down by any rule what refreshments should be supplied as particularly connected with wine drinking.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was intended to place the houses for the sale of the wine on precisely the same footing as houses for the sale of beer. Both would close at the same time.

§ MR. PALK
said, he would then move the insertion of the following proviso at the end of the clause:— Provided always, that in any borough, not being a corporate borough, or in any rural district, the consent in writing of two justices of the peace for the said county be first obtained, and that the said justices in their several districts shall have the power of summarily dealing with any licence so obtained, in cases where conviction before a bench of justices shall have taken place, or where card-playing or gambling has been proved to have taken place, or where persons of notoriously dishonest character, or where trampers are known habitually to frequent.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to know if they were finally passing the clause, or if it were intended to amend it before they passed the Bill? He thought it was intended to confine the licence to a certain class, but the clause did not carry out that assurance. He hoped that a proper definition of the parties who might obtain a licence under the Bill would be given in the clause.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he rose on a point of order. The proviso was at present the subject under discussion, and it was incompetent to make any alteration in the clause, it having been agreed that no further Amendments would be made.

THE CHAIRMAN
confirmed the hon. Member's statement.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was a very fair subject for consideration, what phraseology would convey to the magistrates a fair and in- 1054 telligible indication of what Parliament meant by an eating-house. The simplest mode of making it understood might be the words "bonâ fide eating-house," but the phrase bonâ fide had lately been so damaged and battered in reference to the construction of another Act of Parliament that it was the very last definition he should care to employ. Unless there could be some stringent and effective, yet at the same time intelligible, definition of an eating-house, the result would be that every beerhouse would take a wine licence. It was not, however, intended to create new drinking-houses, but to facilitate the granting of wine licences to eating-houses. He should be glad to receive any suggestion or assistance in regard to the language of the clause. With regard to the proviso moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Palk), he thought it was unsuited to the structure of the Bill, because it brought together inconveniently what was divided in the Bill, and what ought to be divided—namely, the preventive provisions, which were intended to obstruct the improper issue of licences, and the penal provisions which followed the abuse of licences. With regard to the penal provisions, he thought that some of the objects which the hon. Gentleman had in view would be attained by certain Amendments of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given notice. For example, in the 12th clause, he proposed to enlarge the grounds of veto by the magistrate in such a way as to enable him to include the disqualification of a person by a prior conviction in another place. With regard to the first part of the proviso, which provided that in rural districts the consent in writing of two justices of the peace for the county should be first obtained, the great objection to it was, that when applied to for that consent, the magistrate would not know upon what grounds to give it. That appeared to him a conclusive objection to a provision of that kind, unless they laid down definite grounds for the magistrate to go upon.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
observed, that the objections which had been raised to the Bill on that (the Opposition) side of the House were of a fair and forcible character. He had applied to the chief constable of the county which he had the honour to represent, to know what would be the effect of the Bill; and that gentleman, who was an officer of considerable ability and experience, assured him that it would 1055 be attended with an increase of disorder, and would entail the necessity of an increased police force. They might rely upon it that they could never get over the disadvantage of vesting the granting of licences in the hands of authorities other than those who would be responsible for the conduct of such houses. They had a striking instance of that disadvantage in the case of the beerhouses. As the matter ran with beerhouses so it would be with these winehouses. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman that if such a proviso as was now proposed were agreed to, the Committee were bound to state on what grounds the justices were to refuse their consent, and declare a man to be unfit.

§ MR. PALK
said, his object had been attained to a great extent. It was to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the difference which existed between large towns and rural districts. Many of the small towns in the county which he represented were almost inaccessible from the want of proper roads, and all he wished was that the Bill should give to the population in those places the same amount of protection as was given to the urban population of large towns. He should, therefore, rest satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to give his attention to these two points—the propriety of empowering magistrates to inquire into the character of applicants for licences and of providing for the withdrawal of a licence, by summary conviction, in the event of any irregularity taking place.

§ MR. LYALL
said, he would propose to insert the words, "which shall not have been established twelve months previous to the application for such licence." It was desirable that a refreshment-house should be bonâ fide a house for refreshment, and he thought that object might be gained by limiting the licences to houses which had been established twelve months. His object was to prevent shops being opened under the colour of refreshment-houses, solely for the sale of wine.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought the Amendment would be both ineffectual and vexatious. There were many refreshment-houses which had been established for twelve months, 1056 which had no pretension to receive a licence; and, on the other hand, it would be vexatious to compel a man to keep open a house for a year without allowing him to sell wine before he was entitled to apply for a licence.

§ MR. P. W. MARTIN
said, he would suggest whether as the proprietors of refreshment-houses would have the same privileges as licenced victuallers and beerhouse-keepers, they ought not to have the same liability with regard to the billeting of soldiers.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
observed that it was part of a peculiar and antiquated system, full of difficulties, and that it would be much better not to import any such provisions into the new system they were now devizing.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he had a number of Amendments to propose, for the purpose of giving the jurisdiction in the Metropolis to the Commissioners of Police.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he considered the proposition most unsatisfactory. It was most unreasonable to put the Metropolis entirely in the hands of the Commissioners of Police, who were officers of the Crown, and in no way responsible to the inhabitants, either directly through the municipality, or indirectly through the justices of the peace. That would be the introduction of a new system of administration which he viewed with alarm. What he suggested was that they should strike out from the clause the words "magistrates of the Metropolis," and have one uniform system of justices of the peace. He appealed to hon. Members to place the counties of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, in which the Metropolis was situated, on the same footing as the rest of England. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's propositions were sanctioned, the consequences would be most mischievous.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, he presumed that the object of the Chancellor 1057 of the Exchequer in having reference to the Commissioners of the Police was to prevent the issuing of licences to improper persons. He would suggest that, although notice might be given to the police, the licence ought to issue from the judicial authorities who exercised their functions nearest to the spot where the applicant resided.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, his object was to secure knowledge on the part of the person exercising jurisdiction, and in the Metropolis the only persons who had the requisite knowledge were the police. He thought that the stipendiary magistrates might have the power of granting liceuces if care was taken that they had full knowledge of the matter. His first Amendment, however, and which alone was now before the Committee, had reference simply to giving notice of applications for licences.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he had no objection to notice being given to the magistrates as well as to the police, but as the first Amendment would lay the foundation for a number of others, all framed for the same purpose, he insisted that notice should be given to the justices also.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, nearly all the jurisdiction in matters of this kind had already gone from the magistrates in the districts round the Metropolis to the police, who were considered to have the best knowledge of parties applying for licences.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought they might duplicate the notices, and he would therefore move the insertion of the following words:—"To the chief clerk of the Commissioners of Police and to the magistrate of the police-court nearest to such refreshment-house."

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not sufficient. Notice should be given to the divisional clerk of the justices. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) totally misapprehended the subject. The supervision of that branch of the law which related to licences, was in the hands of justices of the peace, and the police had nothing whatever to do with it. They had an officer who was called the clerk to the divisional justices. The right hon. Gentleman was always anxious to set up the police and to put down the justices, and he now manifestly wished to carry out that principle. The police magistrates were in the hands of the police themselves, 1058 and were not their masters, but their servants. That was not a state of things to be encouraged, and he hoped the Metropolis would be put on an equal footing with the rest of the country.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the hon. Member was quite wrong in his supposition. It was not a proper description to call them police magistrates. They were stipendiary magistrates, and exercised greater jurisdiction than ordinary justices, having the power to do that which was required to be done by two justices.

§ MR. HARDY
said, it had always been thought desirable to keep the police magistrates apart from the licensing system. The licensing justices also were ill the habit of going to look at houses for which licences were asked, and thus judging for themselves upon the question of licensing. This was a duty which the police magistrates would neither have time nor disposition to perform. He thought it was a sound principle that the police magistrates should not grant licences; and that the justices of the whole kingdom, including the Metropolis, should be upon the same footing in reference to this matter. The county justices licensed slaughter-houses and public-houses, and he thought that they should also grant the licences now in question. The magistrates of Middlesex were a body of independent gentlemen, and the fairness of their decisions had never been questioned.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that the Metropolis was divided into certain divisions, of which magistrates were appointed to take charge. These divisional magistrates had a clerk regularly appointed, and no doubt that was the proper person to whom those notices should be given, in common with the clerks of the ordinary magistrates.

§ MR. PULLER
said, the discussion was not whether the power should be given to the police magistrates or the Commissioners of police, but to the county magistrates.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
admitted, that on the whole a Commissioner of Police was not the fittest person to entrust with the granting of licences, and that they ought to combine the knowledge of the police with the responsibility of the magistrates. It was on that ground that he proposed that the notices should be given both to the Commissioners of Police and to Metropolitan police magistrates. The Middlesex magistrates had very little to do with the administration of justice, whereas the Metropolitan 1059 police magistrates were constantly engaged in that work, and were also in constant communication with the police. The Metropolitan police magistrates, therefore, were better prepared than the Middlesex magistrates to exercise the duty of granting licences.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
contended that the justices of Middlesex performed precisely the same duties as the justices of other counties, with the exception that they paid an assistant judge to preside in lieu of a chairman, and that in Surrey, which included Lambeth and Southwark, and in Kent there was not even that difference. He had a great objection to give judicial power to the Commissioners of Police, and he did not believe that hon. Members would be ready to extend it to the corresponding officer in counties—namely, the chief constable. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would unite with him in his endeavour to prevent the Metropolis from being treated in a manner different from that in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to treat the rest of the country.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, that he thought the most important matter was that, as he read the Act, there was to be no power whatever of appeal from the judgment of one police magistrate, or two justices of the peace, delivered behind the backs of the parties interested. Such an arbitrary power should not be given. Provided an appeal were allowed, he thought it immaterial whether the power of licensing should be given to the commissioners of police, the police magistrates, or the justices. In Dublin the people were generally better satisfied with the decision of the stipendiary than of the ordinary magistrates.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was anxious that the clause should be clearly understood. The Government had abandoned the intention of giving the commissioner of police power to prevent the issue of the licences. And the main reason for entrusting that authority to the Metropolitan magistrates was that it was agreed on all sides that upon the police dependence would have to be placed for knowledge of the parties applying. The Metropolitan police magistrates were in constant and habitual communication with the police; but that was not the case with the Middlesex magistrates, who only occasionally discharged the duties of visiting justices.

MR. HENLEY
said, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided that a man charged should be heard, but it did not provide that he should have notice of the charge preferred against him, or that he should be brought face to face with his accuser. That was a defect, and threw upon the magistrates a most onerous duty, which they ought not to be saddled with. Why were they to treat the magistrates of Middlesex differently to the magistrates in the other parts of the country? It was said that the reason was that they were not in communication with the police. Now, how were the police magistrates to communicate with the police? Were the police to go and whisper to the magistrates that they had seen a "social evil" enter a man's house, and therefore a licence should be refused. If that were the sort of thing, he did not care to whom the power of deciding was intrusted, because he, for one, should be very sorry to have anything to do with the matter; but if there was to be a regular hearing and a judicial decision, he thought that no sufficient reason had been assigned for withholding from the magistrates of the County of Middlesex the power which was to be given to those of the City of London, and of every other city, borough, and county in the kingdom. The Amendments both to this and the subsequent clause required further consideration.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that in order fairly to raise the question, he would move the insertion in the clause of words requiring a copy of the requisition for a licence to be forwarded to the "clerk of the justices of the special sessional division of the Metropolis within which such refreshment-house is situated."

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
suggested, as it was getting late (five minutes before twelve o'clock), and there was no chance of the Committee getting through this clause to-night, that it and the succeeding one should be postponed, and they should proceed with the consideration of the other sections of the Bill.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he wished to call attention to the fact that this clause as it stood gave the magistrates no power to inquire into the character or antecedents of a person applying for a licence.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that that defect would be remedied by the Amendments of which he had given notice.

§ MR. HUNT
moved that the Chairman be ordered to report prorgess.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. If the two clauses were postponed, why should they not at that early hour (ten minutes to twelve o'clock) proceed with the Bill? Did the hon. Genleman wish to stop all the practical business of the House?

§ MR. HUNT
said, he had no desire to obstruct business. So many alterations had been made in Committee that he thought progress would be promoted by reporting progress and getting the Bill reprinted. He would, however, withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, it was not desirable to proceed with other clauses till the question of the jurisdiction of the magistrate had been settled by the 12th and 13th clauses.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, he hoped the Committee would proceed with the 14th clause. He had an objection to the last part of it. He moved the omission of the latter part of the clause, and to substitute for it "and a copy of such list and register shall be forwarded to the clerk of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, at the Mansion House of the said City, or to the chief clerk of the magistrate of the Metropolitan police-court, or to the clerk to the justices of the Court of Petty Sessions of the city, place, or county where such licence shall be granted, and where such house shall be situate, at Lady Day and Michaelmas in each succeeding year." Reference to the magistrate of the Metropolitan police-court must, however, stand over till the 12th clause had been settled.

§ MR. AYRTON
remarked that it had not been decided that the magistrates should have the jurisdiction referred to. The Amendment would, therefore, have to be postponed with the clause.

§ LORD LOVAINE
observed that he saw no difficulty in the clause.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, it was time the debate was adjourned. The hon. Baronet who was so indignant at the proposition had only come into the House about two hours ago. He protested against the hon. Baronet thus turning patriot at the expense of those Members who had been there all night without refreshment.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, he was happy to say that he had had refreshment, 1062 but he had been present at the discussion of nearly all the clauses.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, this was a high compliment to the hon. Baronet, as it showed that as soon as he left the House he was missed. However, as they seemed to have got into a chatting humour, perhaps they had better report progress.