Commons Sitting of 14 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Manages (Extra-Parochial Places); Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment.
THE QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the House will sit on Friday next, being Her Majesty's Birthday; and if not, whether the adjournment of the House will be moved on Thursday?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was not usual for the House to sit on Her Majesty's Birthday.

PORTPATRICK AND DONAGHADEE HARBOURS.—QUESTION.
GENERAL UPTONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will furnish a Statement of the amount which has been, up to this time, expended of the £20,000 voted last year for the improvement of Portpatrick Harbour; a similar statement with respect to the sum of £5,000 voted for Donaghadee; and by what time it may be expected that the improvements will be completed?
MR. LAINGsaid, that no portion of the £20,000 for the improvement of Portpatrick Harbour had been yet expended. The tenders were only sent in a short time ago, and a tender was accepted for £19,800. The works had been commenced, and he believed the contractor bound himself to complete them in about a year, perhaps by July next, but certainly some time next year. With regard to Donaghadee, he believed about £2,500 of the sum voted had been expended. A good deal of that work was work which would proceed rather more slowly, and lie was told about two years would elapse before the whole was completed.

NEWSPAPERS CONVEYANCE, &c, BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to proceed this evening with the Order of the Day which stands on the Paper for the second Reading of the News papers Conveyance Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Newspapers Conveyance Bill has not yet been printed, and has been reserved for the purpose of submitting to the House at the same time the regulations to be made by authority of the Treasury, which the adoption of such a Bill would require. But I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this question, because it will enable me to state what appears to be the convenient course to take with respect to the measure. The reasons on which the Bill is founded are chiefly or entirely departmental and administrative reasons; but a portion of the parties affected by it are disposed to contest those reasons, and to urge that the present system of a stamp on superficies, instead of a single stamp on weight, with the privilege of retransmission is accompanied by certain incidents which make it, on the whole, a beneficial and an economical arrangement for the public. That is an allegation which, however it may be opposed to the view of the authorities in the Post Office Department, is yet a fair subject for inquiry, and I should not like to urge the disposal of a subject of this kind without attending to such a fair allegation, which it is competent for those parties to make, and fairly within the province of the House of Commons to consider. We are, however, met by this difficulty. Sir Rowland Hill, the Secretary to the Post Office, I regret to say, has been labouring under a severe illness, and an intimation has been made to him on medical authority that it is absolutely requisite, in order to the public retaining his invaluable services, that he should have leave of absence for no less a period than six months. I think, therefore, it will be impossible for the Department to state its case on a subject of this kind in the absence of one who, I may say, has been the life and soul of all the Post Office arrangements in this country for the last twenty years. Under these circumstances, I have no alternative but to postpone that inquiry which I admit to be fairly demanded, and as it is uncertain whether or not Sir Rowland Hill may re-
  1206
  cover before the end of the Session, I think it best to drop the Bill, reserving to myself the renewal of it at a future period, after this inquiry shall have been made. I would, therefore, move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Newspapers Conveyance, &c, Bill be read for the purpose of being cancelled.
  Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. STEUARTsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have turned their attention to collections of money being made, there chiefly, as well as in other parts of the Empire, for the use of the Sovereign of the Papal States; whether they believe that such may be used, or means adopted otherwise, for enlisting subjects of Her Majesty for the army of that Foreign Power; and whether, if such be illegal or irregular, Government will take measures to check any agents in the matter, or to warn those who may enter into such engagements?
MR. CARDWELLreplied that, no doubt the Foreign Enlistment Act absolutely prohibited any of Her Majesty's subjects to enter the military service of a Foreign Power without 11 or Majesty's permission. The Government had had their attention directed to the subject which the hon. Member had just brought under his notice, and he might state that they would be prepared to take such measures as seemed to them to be necessary for the prevention of any illegal proceedings.

FAIRS AND MARKETS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill on the subject of Fairs and Markets in Ireland during the present Session?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had prepared a Bill, which he was prevented by the state of public business from introducing. If an opportunity should arise of carrying it through in the present Session, he should be glad to introduce it.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to know the order of business for this even-

1207
ing, and what will be taken up after the first and second Orders are disposed of?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, they would proceed in the first instance with the Refreshment Houses Bill and the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act. They would afterwards be regulated by circumstances.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had no wish to be unreasonable, but if the noble Lord cannot inform the House what is to be taken up after the first and second Orders, perhaps he can say what will not be taken up. Will the Customs Acts, for example, be proceeded with or not; and if so, after what hour?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Customs Acts would not be proceeded with that night.

THE NEW BRONZE COINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the new Bronze Penny will be ready for issue; and, if the distribution is to be made in England and Ireland by the National Banks of those Kingdoms, by what machinery the distribution will be made in Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, all the arrangements which depended upon the Mint with respect to the new coinage were in a very forward state; but there had been some delay with respect to that portion of the operation which was in the domain of art strictly so called, and they were not yet in possession of the dies. It was expected by the Master of the Mint that in a few weeks the dies would be forthcoming, and then the issue would commence immediately. The issue, however, was a somewhat serious operation, and the entire distribution of the coinage would take a very considerable time. In the first place, they would begin by issuing the coins from the Mint only, until the demand was so far established, and the public at large so far familiar with the progress of the operation, as to require a larger issue. They would then resort to the presses which were in the possession of the contractors, as well as the presses of the Mint itself. When the Mint itself became inadequate to supply as much as the public were disposed to call for, arrangements would then be made with the Bank of England, with all its country branches, the Bank of Ireland, and the principal banks in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and to those the new coin would be forwarded by
  1208
  the Mint, and they would become separate centres of distribution. The collection of the old coin, which would, in the main, I form the material of the new coin, would go forward simultaneously with the distribution of the new coin, and for the collection of the old coin it was thought that the best plan would be not to arrange any expensive public machinery, but rather to trust to persons for bringing in the old coin, allured as they would be by some allowance in the nature of premium, by way of compensation for any charge and trouble they might be put to in collecting it. That was the whole of the arrangements that had been made.
  In answer to sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a small sum would be taken in the Estimates towards the expenses, but that was taken merely as an account, because, in point of fact, the issue as soon as it began would balance the account in favour of the public.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask, When the Savings Banks Bill will be brought on?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould put the Order down for Friday week, in the hope of bringing it on then.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to know, Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General can tell the House when it will be asked to go into Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought that was a very cruel question to address to him. At present, he saw no probability of being able to obtain a day for the consideration of that measure. But he had urged his noble Friend at the head of the Government to give them that day week for the purpose, and he hoped they would then be enabled to make such progress in the Committee that he would afterwards be allowed a morning sitting for its further consideration.

PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE—REPORT OF RESOLUTIONS FROM COMMITTEES OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  THE WINE LICENCES BILL

    IRREGULARITY, AND ORDERS THEREON.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise redemption of the pledge which I gave

    1209
    on Friday evening, to call the attention of the House to an irregularity of proceeding which took place on Thursday. The House on that evening went into Committee of Ways and Means, and passed Resolutions affirming duties which were to form the foundation of two clauses in the Wine Licences Bill. According to the rules of the House, no clause of that kind can be put into a Bill, except it be founded upon a previous Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means, and afterwards reported to the House. That is the form of proceeding. Upon that occasion, there being no difference of opinion upon that preliminary step, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the House to dispense with the usual form, and allow the Resolution to be reported at once. It was an obvious convenience; the House agreed to it—at least there was no dissent—and it was done. But upon further consideration, and the matter being pointed out by my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bouverie), it struck everybody that that proceeding, however convenient for the moment, was a departure from an established usage of this House. That usage is, that Resolutions in Committee of Supply, involving grants of money, should be reported, not on the day on which the Resolutions passed in Committee, but on some subsequent day; and upon inquiry I believe it appears that, from the Revolution downwards, there is only one instance in which that rule has been departed from—namely, in the year 1797, when a measure of great urgency was passed during the mutiny at the Nore, and when the ordinary forms of both Houses of Parliament were departed from for the purpose of expediting a measure which, upon that occasion, and under those circumstances, was called for by the public interests. Now, these forms of Parliamentary usage are, no doubt, very often productive simply of delay, and are an incumbrance on our proceedings; but they are all founded upon reason and good sense. The tendency of all of them is to guard the public interests and the character of the House of Commons from those precipitate decisions, which an accidental majority might be led to by passion, fear, or haste, or any of those other impulses by which men are governed. We all know that in assemblies in other countries where those forms do not prevail decisions of great importance, involving permanent consequences, and having a most important bearing upon national interests,
    1210
    have been passed suddenly, and without allowing any time for consideration. The object of all our forms is to secure a reconsideration of a given matter at a subsequent period, and when a different attendance may be in the House—and so to guard the House against precipitate decisions of an accidental and momentary majority. I am sure the House will feel that it is of the utmost importance to the public interests, the national welfare, and the character of the House, that we should maintain and respect these forms. Therefore it was felt by the House that it was necessary in some manner to correct the inadvertency or irregularity that took place on Thursday evening. There are two ways in which that may be done. One method suggested was, that we might pass a Resolution that that which was done then should not establish a precedent, and that we might convert the rule, the lex consuetudinis, into a standing order. But, Sir, it was thought that merely to pass a Resolution that this should not be deemed a precedent, would not be altogether sufficient for the purpose, and that we should rather weaken than strengthen the authority of Parliamentary usage, by converting that which is, I may say, a part of the unwritten law of Parliament into a statute, as it were, by making it a Standing Order, Standing Orders being frequently dispensed with. There can be no doubt, that this House has the power to do what it did on Thursday. There can be no doubt, that what was done on Thursday was a perfectly valid act, and, if nothing was done, it would remain as it is, and no one could impeach the validity of the proceeding. At the same time, for the reasons I have stated, I think the House will be of opinion that it is better not to let the matter rest in that way. I therefore propose that we should resolve that that which was done then should be deemed null and void, and that we should order that the Resolutions passed in the Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday shall be reported to-morrow.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Or to-night.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Or, tonight, if it should be thought more convenient—all that the rule requires being that the Resolutions shall be reported on a day subsequent to that on which they were passed in the Committee of Ways and Means. I shall therefore move—that Notice should be entered in our Journals that upon Thursday last the Committee of

    1211
    Ways and Means had agreed to a Resolution, which, contrary to the Rules and Practice of this House, was, without urgent occasion, ordered to be reported forthwith, and was thereupon reported and agreed to by the House. I propose to put in the words, "without urgent occasion," because if any occasion should occur when the public interests require that we should depart from our ordinary rules and practice, the House may think fit to do again what was done in 1797. We have, therefore, thought it important to specify that what was done on Thursday was done without any urgent occasion. I now therefore propose to order—"That the said proceedings shall be null and void;" and thereupon, "That the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means be reported," either this day or To-morrow. [Cries of "To morrow!"] Then, I propose that it shall be reported tomorrow.
    SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought that a double irregularity had been committed on Thursday last. The first was in the Motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Resolution be reported forthwith. The House then went into Committee on the Wine Licences Bill, and added two clauses which were founded upon the irregular proceeding in regard to the Resolution; and these clauses were agreed to by the Committee; that was irregularity No. 2. It was most important in a constitutional point of view that hon. Members should have time to reflect on the nature of a tax, and that the country should have an interval for knowing what was going on in regard to taxation. There was no proper foundation for the insertion of those two clauses, and he wished to know whether the Government intended to have the Bill recommitted.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As I understand it, the lion. Baronet is quite correct in saying that a double irregularity has been committed, the second irregularity being in consequence of the former one. The proceeding in Committee was perfectly regular if the former proceeding had been valid; but the former proceeding having been cancelled, it follows that the subsequent proceeding in Committee in inserting the clauses was not founded on any Resolution of the House directing that they should do so. The matter will be regarded, therefore, as if it had not occurred, and these clauses will he brought up afresh in Committee, and will be then inserted. As I was the person who made
    1212
    the Motion that this Resolution be reported forthwith. I will state the part I had in the matter. I came down to the House and moved that the House should go into Committee of Ways and Means without having the slightest idea that any Resolution of that Committee could, without a violation of the rules and practice of the House, be reported on the same day. I had never heard of such a proceeding, and always thought it was forbidden by the rules and practice of the House. When the Resolution was in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he, as is usual, said, "When will you have it reported? Will you have it reported forthwith?" I said, "Can it be reported forthwith?" and he replied in the affirmative. I thought there had probably been some alteration in the rules and practice of the House, and assented to the Report as being more convenient to the House than waiting for any further proceeding on a future day. That was all that took place, excepting that, having received that assurance from the Chairman of Committees, I stated the point to the House, and stated that the matter was not one of emergency but of convenience. I am now in the hands of the House.
    MR. WALPOLE: No doubt an irregularity has been committed which had better be taken notice of, and the only reason why I venture to rise is to express a doubt whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government has put his Motion in the best form for correcting the irregularity. No doubt the House has the power of reporting the Resolutions passed in Committee of Ways and Means forthwith. We exercised that power in 1797. I think that in taking notice of the irregularity we ought not to do it in such a manner as to imply a want of power on the part of the House to take that course in a case of emergency. I would suggest that the form of the Motion agreed to now should be "that the Report made on Thursday evening, and all the proceedings taken in consequence, shall be deemed null and void." I draw a broad distinction between saying these proceedings "are null and void," and that they are "deemed to be null and void." One implies that the House has not the power of proceeding as it did, and the other declares that the power is reserved.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We think the object has been attained by the insertion of the words "without urgent oc-

    1213
    casion," implying that if there had been any urgent occasion the proceeding might have been taken by the House.
    Notice taken, that upon Thursday last the Committee of Ways and Means had agreed to a Resolution which, contrary to the Rules and practice of this House, was, without urgent occasion, ordered to be reported forthwith, and was thereupon reported and agreed to by the House.
    Ordered, That the said proceedings be null and void.
    Ordered, That the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means be reported To-morrow.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 14,
SIR WILLIAM MILESobserved that several of the clauses in this Bill had been copied from the Beer Act, and the persons who sold wine in refreshment-rooms would not have to come to the magistrates for a licence. Before any person was brought up before the magistrates for conviction it would be necessary to prove that he was the identical person keeping the wine refreshment-house, which they could not do, as they would have no record of the granting of the licence. It was true that a certificate was granted by the Excise, which was sent to the magistrates to give them an opportunity of objecting; but if they did not object within thirty days the licence was granted; he therefore proposed to introduce words which would oblige the collector or supervisor of Excise to transmit to the magistrate once every calendar month a copy of the list or register of the persons licensed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that it would be unnecessary to send a copy of the list once a month, but he had no objection to its being sent once in six months, so as to reach the magistrates a few days before the general licensing day.
MR. HENLEYobserved, that it would be very desirable that there should he certain fixed days on which those licences should be issued, so that everybody might know what was going on.
Clause agreed to; also Clause 15.
Clause 16.
MR. HUNTsaid, that it was very inconvenient to discuss this clause until the
1214
12th and 13th were settled; he, therefore, proposed that they should go through the remainder of the clauses pro forma, and then take the 12th and 13th.
MR. LIDDELLinquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to insert the very important Amendments of which he had given notice in those clauses.
MR. HARDYsaid, he would propose that words should be inserted to give the police power to enter refreshment-houses which were not licensed, but which were opened between nine o'clock at night and five in the morning.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the insertion of the words "or requiring to be licensed" after the word licensed, would meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was of opinion that it would be necessary to define any such power given to the police, so as to limit it to places of public resort.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that if a person opened a refreshment-house which required a licence without obtaining one, he rendered himself thereby liable to penalties other than those for abuse of licence. He doubted whether it would be right to give the police power to enter any house merely because they thought it ought to be licensed.
MR. HARDYsaid, that the provision would only apply to houses open between nine o'clock at night and five in the morning. All he wanted was a provision given to the police empowering them to visit such places of public resort as ought to come under supervision.
MR. HENLEYsaid, those houses were now neither licensed nor requiring to be licensed, such as shell-fish houses, coffeeshops, and the like. If the police had information that the refreshments were sold in those houses which would require licences, let them lay an information, and that would compel the owners to take out licences.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to move an Amendment exempting houses from the visitation of the police before nine o'clock in the evening. It would be a grievous hardship upon pastry cooks and eating-house keepers, either taking out a wine licence or not, to be subjected to the visitation of policemen, especially when they closed before nine o'clock. He thought it a matter of public policy that a strong line of demarcation

1215
should be drawn between those which closed at that hour and those which did not.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Committee had, with great propriety, agreed to limit the powers of the police so that they should not visit houses which did not deal in strong liquors. But he could not see the justice of the proposal to render houses with wine licences, which were not open in the evening, exempt from those powers, when all beerhouses and public-houses were subject to the visits of the police during all hours of the day. He cherished the hope that the houses which this Bill would create would be of a more desirable character than those which now existed, but he did not think it fair to give them a chartered freedom which was not enjoyed by other public-houses.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, they were giving the police the power of domiciliary visits to an alarming extent. The result would be that when the police were wanted in the streets to take any one into custody they would not be found, and the excuse would be that they were in a refreshment-house. Or the police would exact black mail from the owners of these houses, as was well known they did now of those poor unhappy creatures who frequented the Haymarket, and of persons keeping houses in the Haymarket. There ought to be some safeguard. The police ought to have bonâ fide reason to believe disorderly persons were in the house before they entered. If they were allowed to walk in and out at all times, they would become perfectly odious to the whole community.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that one great inconvenience of the Amendment would be, that under it they would have a different legislation for winehouses and beerhouses. Many hon. Gentlemen did not wish to check the consumption of beer, and they would therefore object to any advantage being given to the holder of a wine licence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clause as it stood was taken from the Beer Act, and what he proposed was to apply to those wine licensed houses the very same restrictions, neither more nor less, than were applied under that Act. As to the police the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James) had conjured up imaginary dangers.
MR. HARDYsaid, he was in favour of putting all houses where drinks were sold under the same restriction, but he thought
1216
it was evident from the discussion that they would soon have to consider the whole question of licences so as to have one recognized system instead of three or four. He wished to call attention to the Town Police Clauses Act, the provisions of which had been adopted in many towns, and, in his opinion, might be generally adopted with advantage. By one of those provisions publicans were liable to a penalty if they knowingly harboured, or entertained, or suffered to remain in the place where they carried on business, any constable on duty, unless for the purpose of quelling a disturbance. There was another provision which related to harbouring disorderly persons, and a third which empowered the magistrates to impose a fine of 40 s. for drunkenness, and imprisonment in default of the fine being paid. Where the Act did not apply there was really no punishment for drunkenness. A fine of 5s. might be imposed, but as there were no means to recover it the offender could laugh at the Court and walk away. If no other Member volunteered, he should bring up clauses with a view to incorporate some of the provisions of this Act in the present Bill.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to the necessity for legislating in a general way on all matters, relating to licensing. All the laws relating to the sale of wine, beer, or spirits, ought to be codified, and the Irish and English laws on the subject ought to be assimilated. He was surprised to bear that the 5s. Act was nugatory in England; in Ireland it was not nugatory, but had done more to suppress drunkenness in the streets than any other law. He thought they ought not to encourage the consumption of foreign wine at the expense of beer, and that the effect of the Bill would be to make "confusion worse confounded" in the distinction which it established between licences.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he did not wish to press his Amendment against the sense of the Committee, neither did he wish to have three separate regulations for the sale of wine, beer, and spirits.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Clauses 17 to 22 were adopted from the Beer Act, and that Clause 23 was taken from the Licence Act.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the object was to subject persons keeping night houses

1217
without licence to a penalty. If refreshment houses in which wine was not sold did not require a licence, unless when kept open at certain hours, lie thought those houses should be subject to a heavy penalty if open after a certain hour.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the unsatisfactory way in which beershops were often conducted. He never found that the police troubled their heads about beershops unless they sold spirits, but when that was the case they wore active enough. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would take it seriously into consideration whether magistrates were to have any control in this matter, he would do a great deal of good to the country. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the indecencies which took place in some of the out-of-the-way beerhouses ought to be well looked after.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that in his opinion it was not well to impose penalties of an excessive character, because it produced an indisposition to enforce them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed to deal with the case of keeping open refreshment houses, not wine licensed houses, by striking out words which would make the 18th clause an excise clause. The hon. Baronet who had last spoken would observe that the clause before the House did not propose an ordinary penalty of £20 but a penalty of £20, which was denominated an excise penalty. There was a law which regulated this species of penalty, and which admitted of its being brought down to one-fourth.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that a general feeling prevailed throughout the country that the Beer Act had operated most disadvantageously, and yet they were proceeding to incorporate many of its clauses in the present measure. He hoped this Bill would prove the preliminary to a revisal of the Beer Act.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know how a retailer was to distinguish between foreign wine and other wine, inasmuch as when foreign wine came into this country it was often converted into a variety of forms by the admixture of spirits, and it no longer retained the distinguishing character of foreign wine. Under these circumstances, he did know how a retailer was to distinguish between one compound and another.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Warwickshire
1218
(Mr. Newdegate) to say that no one would be found in that House to stand up and defend beershops, but as there were several beershops in the districts with which he was more intimately connected which were very well conducted, and were under the surveillance of the police, he did not think beerhouses were deserving of the wholesale condemnation of the censure passed upon them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not deny there were some advocates of the Beer Act; but he maintained that that Act did not work well; and he was confirmed in that opinion by the Report of a Select Committee of that House which sat on the subject two years ago.
MR. SCULLYobserved, that he agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Ham-lots (Mr. Ayrton), that the Bill should contain a definition of what "foreign" wine meant.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that a difficulty was involved in the explanation of the words; the question, however, was not one of definition, but rather of skill, knowledge, and taste, and likewise of medical science. Foreign wine meant all wine made out of this country, and included colonial wine; but the offence for which they were now imposing a penalty was for selling foreign wine without a proper licence. If it were really foreign wine they might be sure it would be sold as such; whereas, it was by no means equally certain that because it was sold as such it was really foreign wine.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsuggested that the words "or shall sell as foreign wine" should be introduced. In an action recently brought against the London Docks, which had occupied considerable attention, it was proved that a quantity of wine sold as South African port had all been made at Whitechapel. It was therefore advisable to remove from traders the excuse that their "foreign wines" had been made at Lambeth or elsewhere.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to introduce the words "or purporting to be foreign wine."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, to prevent confusion it would be better to have a general interpretation clause at the end of the Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERacquiesced in this suggestion.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the Chancellor of

1219
the Exchequer would find it no easy matter to frame an interpretation clause, defining what was meant by foreign wine.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18,
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONasked, whether the penalty of £5 referred to the same offence as that indicated in the 16th clause. If so, there was no reason why the wording of the clauses should not he the same.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the reason for wording the clause in the manner referred to was, that it was deemed more convenient to adhere to the terms of the Beer Act.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 19 and 20.
Clause 21.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought there would he considerable difficulty in dealing with the question of what was wine and what spirits. At present, foreign wine was ordered not to contain more than 40 per cent of proof spirit, but in this Bill there was no restriction, so that the article sold as foreign wine might be made to contain 50, 60, or 70 per cent of spirit, or spirits might be diluted to 30 or 40 per cent.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think it at all necessary that there should be a clause defining what was wine and what spirit. Foreign wine was defined in the Customs Act, and he apprehended no danger of the dilution of spirits to compete with wine, as alcohol in spirit was taxed more severely than alcohol in wine.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he thought there was no difficulty. The question was, what was understood amongst the community? At present an exciseman calling for brandy would he in no danger of being served with wine, and vice versa. He thought the new law would receive the same interpretation as the old.
MR. HENLEYobserved, that the whole difficulty arose from the occasional use of the word "foreign." It should cither be used systematically or not at all.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he also thought the distinction was perfectly intelligible without the insertion of an interpretation clause.
MR. SCULLYsaid, they might get rid of the difficulty by leaving out the word "foreign."
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22.
MR. HENLEYasked whether a person licensed to sell British wines would be liable under the clause?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,replied, that the sale of British wines was provided for under the existing law.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would again urge the want of a definition of wine and spirits. The necessity for such a definition arose from the fact that the law was not intended for the superior and respectable class of houses so much as for the lower character of sellers, who would be likely to infringe it. It was not simply a question of English spirit, for under the Bill a foreign wine-merchant could bring his wine up to a standard of 40 per cent of spirit and import it into this country, where the retailer could add 10 per cent of spirit and then produce a liquor equal in strength to the gin which was now sold, but giving the foreign manufacturer a differential advantage of 3s. per gallon. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the point, as it might materially affect the revenue, and tend to promote intemperance.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken sufficient notice of the important statement of the lion, and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, as to the importation of spirits in the shape of wine. The present proposition was, that there should be an import duty of 8s. per gallon upon foreign spirits; but all spirits introduced in foreign wine only paid a duty of 5s. per gallon, which was thus offering a premium of 3s. per gallon upon all alcohol imported in the shape of wine.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the Committee was rather going back in its discussion. The question of the relative rate of duty upon wine and spirits was a most important question, as the collection of £14,000,000 of revenue depended upon it; but there would be no advantage in discussing it upon a clause which simply repeated the provisions of existing Acts. The real question to consider was, whether the distinction could be practically enforced. The shortest and best answer was that it was now practically enforced.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked why the word "foreign" could not be omitted before "wine" in all the clauses.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not stated that the

1221
words "foreign wine" were struck out, but that the words "British wine" were added. It did not at all follow that because they had brought British wine within the scope of the licence to soil foreign wine the same penalties would apply to both. Foreign wine was a dutyable article, but British wine was not.
MR. AYRTONsaid, British wine being a compound of spirits and fruit, he wanted to know where wine began and spirits ended—in other words, how English wine was to be distinguished from spirits; because now they were going to have a different law for the man who sold homemade wine and the man who sold spirits.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no now point was raised with respect to the relations between British wine and spirits. It was quite obvious, if the hon. Gentleman wore correct, that there was nothing to prevent anybody from selling spirit under the name of British wine, and he was not going to alter the law.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply to questions, explained that Clause 23 was a remedial clause, providing for the security of the buyer. In case the buyer thought he was not getting fair measure, he could require the seller to give the wine to him according to strict legal measurement.
MR. WOODDrose to suggest an alteration in the clause to remove his objections to it.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that this was certainly the law at present in regard to licensed victuallers, and there was no novelty in it.
MR. HENLEYintimated that in his opinion the licence to sell wine by retail only applied to wine to be consumed on the premises.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that, as he understood the clause, it would apply to wine to be consumed on or off the premises.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would propose to omit the words—
"Before the hour of four o'clock in the morning nor after eleven o'clock at night of any clay in the week, nor at any time during which the houses of licensed victuallers now are or hereafter shall be required by law to be closed on any Sun-
1222
day, Good Friday, Christmas Day, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving."
And to insert words the object of which was to assimilate the law with respect to wine licences with the present law respecting beerhouses, so far as regarded the various arrangements as to opening and closing in places of different populations.
Amendment proposed,
"In page 10, line 4, to leave out from the word 'House,' to the word 'Thanksgiving,' in line 9, inclusive, in order to insert the words, "at any time before the hour of five of the clock in the morning, nor after twelve of the clock at night, or of any day in the week, in the cities of London or Westminster, or within the boundaries of any of the boroughs of Marylebone, the Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, or Southwark, as defined by an Act passed in the second and third years of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-four; nor after eleven of the clock at night within any parish or place within the bills of mortality, or within any city, cinque port, town corporate, parish, or place the population of which, according to the last Parliamentary Census, shall exceed two thousand five hundred, or within one mile, to be measured as aforesaid, from any polling place used at the last Election for any town having a like population, and returning a Member or Members to Parliament; nor after ten of the clock at night elsewhere; nor at any time during which the houses of licensed victuallers now are, or hereafter shall be, closed on any Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day, or any Day appointed for a Public Fast or Thanksgiving; and no person licensed as aforesaid shall keep or have his house open as a place of public resort, or for the sale or consumption therein of any article whatever, at any time between the hours of one and four of the clock in the morning on any day whatever."
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted,"
MR. SPOONERasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant by this clause to authorize the opening of refreshment-houses upon days on which they were closed at present. The object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to afford persons who were moving about in towns an opportunity of obtaining a glass of wine and a biscuit in houses of refreshment. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to extend to all refreshment-houses the right to do that which was at present contrary to the law of the land—namely, to follow their ordinary calling upon the Sabbath Day? He thought that such a provision would be most dangerous, and the clause itself most objectionable.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERsaid, so far as regarded the question of opening on Sundays there was no intention to alter the present law, nor to authorize the opening on Sundays of any house that was not now authorized to be opened on Sundays. The clause, as it stood, applied all the restraints to houses licensed under the Bill to sell wine by retail which were now applicable to the houses of licensed victuallers, with respect to Sundays, fasts, and thanksgiving-days. The effect of this Amendment, as far as eating-houses were concerned, would be to bring them under greater restraint than they were subject to at present with respect to Sunday trading, for now they kept open all day, but then they would be compelled to close during the same hours that the ordinary licensed victuallers closed.
MR. SPOONERasked if he was to understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that refreshment-houses were not now amenable to the law for opening on Sunday? Whatever might be the case in London, refreshment-houses of the kind referred to by the right hon. Gentleman did not open in country towns. They were not open in Birmingham. Persons carrying on their ordinary week-day calling on Sunday were by law liable to prosecution; but this Bill would allow the keepers of refreshment-houses to do so.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Act of Charles II., to which the hon. Member no doubt referred, was inoperative and obsolete. It was well known that great numbers of persons, including the keepers of refreshment-houses, carried on their ordinary callings on Sundays unchallenged. By this Bill, eating-houses having licences would be placed under the same regulations with other houses that sold liquors.
MR. BAINESsaid, he had an Amendment to move, and, certainly, after what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the necessity for moving that Amendment did not appear to him to be lessened. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, they were abandoning the law by which the sacredness of the Lord's-day was preserved. Now, that was just what he wished to make a stand against. He proposed to insert in the clause, after the word "week," the words "nor on any Sunday," the effect of which would be to prevent this new class of houses from being opened on the Lord's-day. He thought it of importance that the House should make a stand against
1224
the desecration of that day. He looked upon the observance of the Lord's-day as all but essential to the preservation of religion in the world, as well to the protection of labour. At a large meeting in Leeds, presided over by the vicar, special attention was drawn to this feature of the Bill, and it was clearly shown that the effect of this Bill would be to open a large class of now houses on the Lord's-day. Whatever might be the case in some parts of London, confectioners' shops and places of that kind were not open on Sundays in the provincial towns, but it was to be feared that, if this Bill passed, the force of competition would have that result. He believed that what had been said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would encourage people to open their shops, and therefore there was the more need that the House should set its face against the practice. Numerous petitions from Sunday-school teachers and others had been presented against the Bill, and a petition bad come from Dublin against it signed by 12,000 persons, including clergymen of the Catholic, Presbyterian, and Established churches. The House was aware that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act which closed public-houses in Scotland on Sunday. That Commission had not yet reported, but he was told that their Report was likely to contain a distinct approval of the working of the law. He hoped the House would resolve not to pursue a downward course on this question, but that they would rather do that which would give an indication of their intention at some future time to abridge the hours of those houses which now by law might be open on Sunday. The effect of this Bill would be to deprive thousands of pastry cooks and others of the opportunity of attending to their religious duties on the Lord's-day. Peculiar temptations, too, would be held out to boys to enter these places to buy sweetmeats on Sunday, and there they would find liquors on sale. What an example of evil would in this way be set before them on their way from their Sunday-schools and places of worship! These houses would be inimical to the domestic habits of the people. Next to religion itself there was nothing so valuable to the community as the practice and enjoyment of domestic habits on the Lord's-day. It was of importance, therefore, to encourage the people to rest in their own houses on that day, and to remain at home and instruct their children.

1225
The effect of the Bill would be to give them encouragement to frequent refreshment houses and places of amusement on the Lord's-day, and therefore he regarded it as an anti-domestic measure. The hon. Gentleman moved the insertion after the word "week" of the words "nor on any Sunday."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment in line 3, to insert, alter the word "week," the words "nor on any Sunday."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to alter the clause in such a manner as that the Committee might have the satisfaction of knowing that while they had acted in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation in opening new places where persons might obtain refreshment, they were not going to open a new class of refreshment-houses on Sundays. He was opposed to the principle of the Bill, and had voted against it, but he was far from denying that it would confer many advantages upon the public. But these advantages would be more than counterbalanced if a new class of public-houses were to be opened on Sunday, and he felt persuaded that the public generally by a large majority would object to that proposition. Everybody knew that there were numbers of houses open on Sundays which were fruitful in all sorts of disorder. In he beerhouses in the country all kinds of evils were concocted. He believed that a majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House were averse to a new class of places being opened on Sundays, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would act in accordance with their wishes.
MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, there were abundance of houses already open on the Sunday, and there was no necessity for any more; but he thought the effect of the Amendment would be to compel those who merely wanted refreshment to go to the public-houses to obtain it.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could not help thinking that if the licensed victuallers and beershop-keepers—in whose houses so many evils were concocted—were allowed to have their places open on Sundays, there could be no reason why a class of houses for refreshment, which were likely to be better conducted, should not
1226
be open on Sundays. If the argument was good as it affected the refreshment-houses of the lower and middle classes, it must also hold good as it regarded those places, such as the Reform Club and other clubs, where gentlemen could always obtain what they desired on Sundays. There ought to be one law for all. Again, hon. Members ought to show that these new houses would be tippling houses, and used for other purposes than for refreshment, before they rejected the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he felt compelled to differ from his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Estcourt). All depended on the character which hon. Members attached to these refreshment-houses. For his own part, believing that they would promote good order and temperance, he could not object to their being opened on Sunday during the same hours that beerhouses and gin palaces were allowed to be opened. The right hon. Member had spoken as if it were wrong for working people to be away from their homes on Sunday. It was all very well for hon. Members of that House, who had ample means and opportunities of enjoyment on the other days of the week, to stay at home on Sunday, but they could not ask the 2,500,000 inhabitants of the Metropolis to do so, and if they went for a long walk they ought to have some refreshment. He should support the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he voted against the Bill. But if these houses were to be opened on week days, they ought to be opened on Sundays. He supposed the effect of the Amendment would be to send people to the gin palace; and, if carried, a gentleman who was in the habit of drinking his bottle of old port at his club every day in the week would not be able to obtain a supply on Sunday, but be compelled to drink spirits instead.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he could not see the analogy attempted to be established by the hon. Member for Westminster between these houses and clubs. The clubs came to Parliament for no licence. Gentlemen who took refreshment there took it, in fact, at their own houses. They did not require the authority of Parliament, and nobody but themselves were guilty of desecrating the Sabbath. But if licences were granted to these refreshment-houses they would have the authority of Parliament to desecrate the Sabbath, a matter which all were earnestly desirous of putting down. He

1227
could not subscribe to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to his construction of the law of Charles 11., and he thought the Committee ought to exert its power and prevent these houses being opened on Sundays.
MR. BAINESsaid, he had only a few words to say by way of explanation—first, that it was his intention to press his Motion to a division; and, secondly, that he did not propose to alter the law of the land with regard to the opening of pastry cooks' shops and other refreshment-houses on the Sunday. The clause had reference only to those places which would be converted into wineshops under the new system; and his Amendment did not extend its application.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he wished to call attention to the existing state of the law. The Acts under which Sunday trading was at present regulated were an Act of Charles II, for England and Wales, and an Act of William III. for Ireland. By the former statute it was provided that its regulations should not extend to prohibit the dressing of meat in families, or the dressing and selling of meat and wine in inns, cook-shops, and victuallers' houses, for such as could not otherwise be provided for, nor the selling of milk before certain hours, of mackerel, and articles of that kind. The spirit and beerhouses were not to be closed except during the hours of Divine service. It was quite obvious, therefore, that if the hon. Gentleman succeeded in his Amendment, he would be altering the law, for he proposed to make it illegal for any person to go into one of the refreshment-houses and drink a glass of wine with his food. He (Mr. Locke) could hardly conceive that the Committee would come to such a conclusion as that. That was taking a Puritanical view of the Sabbath indeed. According to hon. Gentlemen who took that view, people were to get up and dress themselves, but he did not know whether they were to wash or not; as in some very strict watering places bathing machines were not allowed to go out on Sunday. In short, the country was to revert to the religious observances of the days of Oliver Cromwell. He would only add that if the hon. Member for Leeds wished to go fully into this subject, there was a Bill coming down from the Lords which would apply not only to the refreshment-houses but to the clubs also, when the whole question might be agitated, debated, and settled. He (Mr. Locke) wished to sec the Sabbath observed,
1228
but he would never consent to a measure that would deprive the great bulk of the people of innocent recreation. But if there were to be a law on the subject, let it be a general law.
MR. BALLsaid, it was extremely unfair to fasten upon those hon. Gentlemen who wished to see the Sabbath more strictly observed the desire to abridge the comforts and happiness of the working classes. On the contrary, they had the interests of that portion of their countrymen much at heart, and were always foremost in every effort for their amelioration, whether moral or physical. The proposition before the Committee, however, was whether the country was to continue to observe the Sabbath day, or whether it was gradually and progressively to relax its efforts and do nothing whatever, either towards keeping the Sabbath or not. He should support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that there were great anomalies in the hon. Member's Amendment. The effect of it would be to give an entire monopoly to the licensed victuallers on Sunday by completely closing the refreshment-houses. With those motives, which the Committee well knew that the hon. Member entertained, did he think that by this means of promoting the better—or rather the "bitter"—observance of the Sabbath, that he was really diminishing its desecration? It was very well for those who lived in luxurious houses, surrounded by comforts and relaxations, to say—Stay at home on the Sunday; but it was a very different thing for the poor, toiling working millions, whom they saw abroad on that day. By whom, he would ask, were the clubs frequented? Why, to a great extent, by those who had domestic ties elsewhere. Then, what miserable, wretched hypocrisy was it to talk of desecrating the Sabbath, when they saw four-in-hand clubs going down to Greenwich to dine on the Sunday! If they wished to commit the country to such a course of asceticism, the question ought to be brought before the House in a definite manner.
MR. FELLOWESsaid, he fully believed there was no country in which there was less desecration of the Sabbath than in England, and that was the very reason why he supported the Amendment. He had no wish to take a puritanical view of this question. He would not dispute with the hon. and learned Member for Southwark whether these houses could or could not be kept open by law. If they could

1229
be kept open by law, all he would say was, why make the state of things worse than it was at present? If refreshment houses were allowed to sell wine they became, of course, drinking-shops, and then was a danger, therefore, in allowing them to keep open on the Sunday. He did no agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, who said that because licensed victuallers' houses and beer-houses were open on Sunday, therefore they should open eating-houses also. If mischief to the morals of the country arose from having public-houses open on Sunday, they ought not to extend it further. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he should support the Amendment. He felt an important interest in this subject, which was common to all hon. Members, namely, the ground of expediency. He thought it would be inexpedient, having the spirit and beerhouses opened already on the Sunday, to extend the right of opening to refreshment-houses.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested an alteration in the form of the Amendment which would have the effect of making the clause more clear. The question of the due observance of Sunday had perplexed Christendom for centuries, and he regretted that this discussion should have arisen. But as it was raised, he feared they must come to some decision upon it. As to the general subject upon which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had enlarged, he cordially agreed with him, and he had no doubt that nine-tenths of the Committee were of the same opinion. It was not suggested either by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), or by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) that the comforts of the lower classes were to be increased or diminished; hut, looking at the question practically, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that in the interest of the working classes themselves it was becoming a question of some importance whether some limit should not be put upon indiscriminate Sunday trading. Into that question he would not enter, as he believed it would shortly be referred to them from "another place." But on the comparatively small point before them he would say that he did not think a case had been made out for the extension of Sunday trading, and therefore he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. BAINESaccepted the suggestion of the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 12, after the word "elsewhere," to insert the words "nor on any Sunday."
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he wished to remove a misapprehension, as he thought it right that the country should understand about what they were dividing, One hon. Member said it was time the country should see who in that House were in favour of the desecration of Sunday, and who not, and another hon. Gentleman said it was time, the country should see who were in favour of extending Sunday trading, and who not. It might go forth that those who voted against the Amendment were really promoting the desecration of the Sabbath and Sunday trading. But what was the proposition? It was not proposed to prevent the opening of refreshment-houses, nor to prevent public-houses selling wine, nor to prevent persons sending to the public house for wine and drinking it elsewhere, so that a traveller might take a dozen of wine into a refreshment-house, and do all the mischief which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would prevent. What was the difference in the desecration of the Sabbath between the traveller who gave money out of his pocket for wine and the traveller who found it charged in the Bill? Surely that was too paltry an issue on which to place the question. The fact was there were plenty of houses in existence already where spirits could be got on Sundays, and the question was whether people should be driven to those irregular houses, or whether a better class of establishments should be legalized. It was objected that there were already too many public-houses by far; but, on the other hand, the very same persons who made that assertion would admit upon other occasions that, notwithstanding every sort of temptation which spirit and beerhouses could hold out, there was no country in the world where the Sabbath was so well observed as England. Did not that look as if the people were intelligent beings and good Christians who could pass public-houses without making brutes of themselves? He wanted to know where was the evidence of an increasing tendency to desecrate the Sabbath. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) could carry his memory a long way back, and he would be obliged to acknowledge that the people were more sober and decent, and that the Sabbath was

1231
better observed than formerly. There was one way in which they could induce people not to go to drinking-houses, and that was by allowing them innocent recreation. But the hon. Member belonged to a party who would stop every steamboat and shut up every railway on a Sunday. The truth was, that since people had been able to get into the country on Sunday, there had been leas drunkenness in large towns than there used to be, He had not one whit less regard for the Sabbath than those who thought themselves more righteous than all the rest, but, as he had said, it was a paltry issue on which to put the question, and he should vote against the Amendment.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had charged him with being one of those who would shut up all places of innocent recreation on Sunday; but he challenged him to prove an instance in which he had ever done anything, or said anything, to justify the accusation. He knew it was a very difficult question how to regulate these things, but he believed that the more rational recreation there was, the more it would lead to the proper enjoyment of Sunday. He supported the Amendment, because, in his opinion, the clause, unamended, would add to the number of places which led to great immorality and great mischief. He voted against the second reading upon the ground that the Bill would do great injustice to vested interests. He saw the evil of public-houses being open, and he asked the Committee not to increase it, and, above all, not to give a fresh Parliamentary sanction to the desecration of the Sabbath. There was this difference between clubs and public-houses—clubs were places of private meetings, for which private individuals were alone responsible; but, if they consented to the opening of more places of public refreshment than were necessary, Parliament would be responsible, and that was a responsibility which he would not incur. He believed that in England the Sabbath was better observed than in any other country, and he wished to keep it so.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to state the conclusion, not to which the Government had come, but at which they remained. It appeared that the hon. Gentleman approached the question from this point of view—that all these licensed houses were necessarily places of great immorality—places to be condemned and proscribed in themselves; and they naturally, there-
1232
fore, concluded that it was bad enough to have them six days of the week, and that it would be worse to have them on Sundays. But that was not the principle on which the House sanctioned the second reading of the Bill. The view upon which the House had proceeded was that it was desirable to allow the people greater facilities for obtaining wholesome refreshment under conditions more favourable to temperance arid sobriety than those which existed under the existing law. Up to the present time the law had restrained trading on certain days, of which the Sundays were the most prominent and important, but which also included Christmas-days, Good Fridays, and other days appointed for religious observance. But this Amendment overlooked these latter days altogether, and left them to be devoted to that intemperance and riot which it was said the opening of these houses on Sunday would occasion. Again, the law of England at present recognized the necessity of affording reasonable refreshment on the Sunday, and the words of the Act of Charles II., in emphatic form, exempted cookshops and eating-houses from the restrictions which applied to other places. Now, the present Bill did not propose to open drinking-houses, but to give drinking licences to what were virtually cookshops and eating-houses, and if the Amendment were accepted, they would stand in this anomalous position, that they would place those houses, which the Act of Charles II. admitted to be proper to be kept open under more unfavourable conditions, with respect to the sale of wine, than the mere drinking-shops. On the whole, he came to the conclusion that the inconvenience of establishing an exceptionable distinction against a class of houses which he believed would be of an improved character, would be a greater evil in itself than any they were likely to incur by adopting the opposite course. He, therefore, hoped they would reserve the general question which had been raised to be dealt with as a whole with reference to all the houses alike.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not but express his regret that so grave and important an Amendment was brought forward without notice, and suggested that it should now be withdrawn and brought up on the Report. The question involved was a large and a difficult one, and it was not usual to bring forward such a question without notice, that all who took an interest in it might be present and take a part

1233
if they chose in the discussion. No doubt the stop they were now taking would render any further dealing with the subject more difficult. He regretted that they had departed from the recommendation of the Committee, in having three descriptions of these houses instead of one, the consequence of which would be a competition which would conduce to intemperance. There ought to be the same law for the different classes of refreshment-houses.
MR. PULLERurged that the refreshment-houses would be on a different footing to beerhouses and public-houses, inasmuch as they would not be compelled to close during the time of Divine service.
MR. BAINESsaid, he had no intention of taking the House by surprise in the matter. He had not given any previous notice of the Amendment, partly because he had hoped that the subject would have been taken up with a better prospect of a successful advocacy by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, and partly because he had really been somewhat bewildered by the number of Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put on the paper so that he really did not know where to bring in this particular Amendment, tie could not forget that the question had been referred to in many of the petitions which had been presented to the House, and had been made the subject of considerable discussion at public meetings throughout the country; and, under these circumstances, he felt that he would not be justified in accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire by postponing the Amendment.
MR. PACKEremarked, in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), that it had been stated in evidence before the Committee, to which reference had so frequently been made, that the public-houses and the places of worship in the Metropolis had been visited on a Sunday evening by the police; and it had been ascertained that there had been more people in the former, than in the latter.
MR. MALINSsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment. He saw no reason why a greater restriction should be imposed on a pastry-cook's shop, than on a public-house.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 117: Majority 35.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it seemed to him
1234
that this clause, as proposed, drew a very important distinction between the law in reference to public-houses, and that in reference to refreshment-houses. The law with regard to public-houses required that they should be closed during certain hours on Sunday; but this clause allowed refreshment houses to be kept open for eating purposes; but during those hours the sale of wine was prohibited. Such a clause as this, in his opinion, was perfectly illusory. The only possible protection which they could have against people drinking in those houses during the prohibited hours on Sunday, was by applying the law, as it was now applied to public-houses, and closing them altogether. The law should be as stringent in regard to refreshment-houses, as it was in the case of public-houses and beer-shops; and he pressed this the more upon the House, because the result of practical experience had shown that when the public-houses were kept open for a longer period on Sunday than they were at the present time, the amount of intemperance, and the number of charges against persons on Monday morning, were exactly double. They might rely upon it, that if they allowed houses to be kept open during prohibited hours on Sunday, in which the working people could assemble for the purpose of eating, drinking to a great extent would be carried on in those houses.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he could not conceive how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could seriously propose such a clause. In the eating-houses which opened in the morning, drinking was not to commence until one o'clock, and should cease at two o'clock. Refreshment might, how-ever, be sold all day; but virtuous drinking could only be resumed at six o'clock, and finally brought to a close at ten o'clock. It was absurd to suppose that such a Resolution could be carried out.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter, or, at least, alter the law affecting public-houses, which also sold victuals as well as drink.
MR. BENTINCKobserved, that it was plain that hon. Gentlemen did not understand the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to afford the greatest encouragement to drinking of all kinds, in order to raise a revenue; and therefore it was that he encouraged the sale and consumption on Sundays of all the abominations which would be sold in refreshment shops under the name of wine. If any one

1235
would move that this measure would promote drunkenness and immorality, he (Mr. Bentinck) would support him; but without some such Motion being made, all these discussions were useless. The only question was, whether they would have more or less drunkenness; while, for his part, he had always thought that it would be a good thing to put a stop to drunkenness altogether.
MR. HARDYsaid, he thought that the wine licences granted to refreshment houses ought to override all other licences, for, if those places were allowed to remain open during the whole of Sunday, it would be impossible to prevent the sale of wine.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was under the impression that the eating-houses wore to be under the same restrictions as the public-houses. If a refreshment-house with a wine licence were to be open all Sunday, an injustice, in the first place, would be done to the publican, and, in the second place, the result would be that wine selling would go on all Sunday, as it was quite ridiculous to suppose that people in the shops would leave off drinking at eleven and resume at one, or leave off at three till six o'clock. The fair way would be to make, every refreshment-house with a licence subject to the same restrictions as the public-house.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clause had been drawn in strict conformity with the terms of an analogous clause in the Beer Act; but the beer licence restrained those houses from being open at all during certain hours on Sunday. In the schedules to the present Bill it would be found that the licence for the sale of wine would place refreshment-houses on precisely the same footing as the beerhouses.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTwished to know whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to place these houses on the same footing as licensed houses.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that was his intention.
MR. PULLERsaid, he considered there was a discrepancy between the wording of the clause and the schedule, as the schedule said that refreshment-houses might be kept open between four A.M. and one A.M., while the clause said that they should not be open for the sale of wines after eleven at night.
On the suggestion of MR. HENLEY.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed to the insertion of the words
1236
"for the sale or consumption therein of any article whatever."
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26,
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he had at first objected to the sale of wines as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he informed him that he had no objection to make the regulations of the new law stringent in every possible way. Experience of beershops had told him (Mr. Crossley) that the keepers of them did not care much about fines, and there was no power to take away their licences. Now, he proposed to make the clause to stand that a person holding a retail licence should be disqualified from selling wine by retail for a space of five years, if convicted of offending against the law three times, and that it should not be within the discretion of the magistrates to condone the third offence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the proposition required a good deal of consideration, as it would operate very harshly in the case of persons convicted of small offences. There might be long intervals, too, between the offences, and the justices would, in such cases, be placed in a very difficult position. The clause proposed to disqualify offenders from selling wine for five years. That seemed a long time, and was not in accordance with the Beer Act, which, he understood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to follow. By the Beer Act the disqualification was only for two years. It was his opinion that if the clause were to be worked out in the way now proposed there would be found a great difficulty in obtaining convictions at all.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as a general rule he thought it would be desirable to follow the Beer Act, unless an improvement could be made upon it. In some respects the Beer Act was found to be very weak, and open to improvement, and he thought it was so in this instance. He wished to make the Act as stringent as possible, and he was about himself to propose an Amendment which would give a larger discretion to the justices. Instead of the words "third offence," he proposed to substitute the words "Any such second or third offence." If the eases were very aggravated a person might thus be disqualified on the second offence. The character, and not the number, of the offences should be the point of consideration.
MR. HARDYsaid, he preferred the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that of the hon. Member for the West Riding. It was clearly shown before the Committee upstairs that there was no instance of a third conviction of a beerhouse-keeper, which would have been followed by the loss of his licence. When a man had committed two offences he always transferred his licence. The same thing would be done more easily under the present measure, and therefore he thought the magistrates should have power to take away the qualification of the man on the second offence, and thus prevent him from being able to transfer the licence.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the penalty for a second offence was £10, and for a third offence from £20 to £50. These were serious penalties to persons in this condition of life, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider them.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that Clause 28 diminished the severity of the penalties by enabling the magistrates to lessen them.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYobserved, he was wiling to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to call attention to the provisions against adulteration. As they stood in the Bill, they would not touch any person who sold wine that had been adulterated by some one else. He was afraid that the effects of this law would be to make the wine sold in England worse than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer so graphically described in his statement when he introduced the Budget. The introduction of cheap wine into this country had already been tried, and failed. The South African wines had been introduced, but the bulk that had been sold was manufactured in this country. Competition, so far from making wine cheap, would make it dearer, and under no circumstances would they have for the next two or three years wine cheaper than 24 s. per dozen, or perhaps more, and then, probably, not worth drinking. It was, therefore, highly desirable that provisions should be introduced into the Bill against adulteration, that if they had no great operation, would frighten the people against adulteration. At the present time there was a large stock of bad wine in the London Docks, that would not afford to pay duty, and he understood that it would be mixed
1238
with some infusion, to make it more palatable, and then it would be sold as the "Chancellor of the Exchequer's wine." Cette, in the South of France, was a great place for the manufacture of spurious wines, and at the present moment the wine agents of France were scouring the country to purchase inferior wine to manufacture like the South African for the English market. He would, therefore, move the insertion of the words, "or shall knowingly sell, or expose for sale, any wines so diluted, adulterated, or mixed, as aforesaid."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had been led by the hon. Gentleman's argument not only to the same conclusion, but almost to the choice of the same words. He thought, however, it would be advisable to adopt the wording used in the Beer Act, which was, "anyone who shall knowingly sell or offer for sale any wine so fraudulently mixed, diluted, or adulterated."
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was willing to accept the alteration.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to know whether the phrase "knowingly sell," implied that the seller knew the article he supplied to be adulterated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood it did.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could only repeat what he had before said, that it was his conviction the only possible effect of the Bill would be to promote drunkenness for the sake of augmenting the revenue. But, as the right hon. Gentleman, in his wild career, seemed determined to sacrifice the morals of the country—as he was willing in cold blood to open the doors to immorality of this description for the sake of revenue—he should appeal to him to have regard, at all events, to the health of the community as far as it was possible. He concurred with his hon. relation in thinking that it was high time that some very stringent measures should be taken to prevent the sale of that combination of filth—he could use no other term—which would be sold under the operation of the new law. The price of good wine would no doubt henceforth be considerably raised. It was notorious that as soon as the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was first mooted the dealers in Franco began to buy up all the worst description of wines, and to adulterate thorn for the English market; that wine when first landed in this country was bad enough, certainly—so bad that it made one shudder to think of the distress-

1239
ing effect it would have on any person who was rash enough to drink it. But it was comparatively pure to what it would be after it had passed through the hands of the English vendor, whose singular talent for adulteration would be exercised to the fullest extent, in order to get the largest profit out of the transaction. By the time that the villanous compound was poured down the throats of the unfortunate dupes who bought it in the refreshment-house at so much a glass it would bear no more resemblance to wine than the ink on the clerk's table. The port and sherry of the present day, bad as they were, would be nectar compared with the stuff that would be passed off as wine when the combined ingenuity of England and France was directed to its adulteration. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he believed that in the class of houses which sold wine in retail under the present system a drop of pure genuine wine could really be got. Well, if that was the case now, what would it be after this Bill passed? He thought there ought to be some stringent system of inspection established in order to prevent people from being poisoned with bad wine. It was generally understood that Greenwich champagne was manufactured there; but, then, it was really a very wholesome beverage. It was prepared by a skilful chemist, and the manufacturers were very careful to exclude everything from its composition which would be likely to injure the people who drank it. If they poisoned them, of course, they would lose their custom. The same prudence was not to be expected on the part of those who would prepare the wine which the refreshment-houses would supply, and it was, therefore, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to take strong measures to check the adulteration.
MR. STEUARTsuggested the propriety of adopting the words of a clause in the Bill framed to provide against the adulteration of food and drink which he thought would meet the requirements of the case completely. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. W. Bentinck) the Bill to which he alluded provided for the analyzation of any article of food or drink that was alleged to be adulterated.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought the hon. Member for West Norfolk had been somewhat unjust to the tavern-keepers of our country, who were not responsible for all the adulteration which was practised.
1240
The fact was that a large quantity of port wine reached our shores in an adulterated state. It was also proved before the Committee that a large quantity of wines were adulterated in France before they were sent over to this country, especially since I the first occurrence of the wine disease. It was said that there was more champagne consumed in St. Petersburgh alone than had ever been produced in France. He might mention that the worst port he ever had the ill-luck to taste was at an agricultural dinner in West Norfolk.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would recommend the adoption of the same principle which had been laid down in the Adulteration of Food Bill; namely, that persons should he liable to penalties if they sold articles containing matter injurious to health or things impure which they had expressly warranted to be pure. He would further advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit the word dilute. It was in evidence that an exciseman, looking only to revenue purposes, deemed it a great grievance that publicans should reduce the strength of gin and beer, but as the stronger they were the more readily they would intoxicate, the weaker they were made the greater the benefit conferred on society. When the publicans complained to him of the treatment they received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told them to water their gin, and water their beer, so as to indemnify themselves, and they would thus render a great service to the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make it an offence to sell weak wine; but it would be the greatest blessing to dilute it as much as possible.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the feelings of the hon. Gentleman which were enlisted in behalf of some of his constituents who were virtuously employed in protecting the public sobriety, would not be hurt when he knew that the language of the clause was not only "dilute," but "fraudulently dilute." Fraudulent was the word on which he wished to dwell. He would not enter into the question whether wine and water was better than wine. He had his own opinion, but he did not wish to interfere with those who sold wine and water or those who sold wine; all he wished was to require that if they sold wine and water they should sell it as wine and water; and, on behalf of that detestable article gin, he would say that if the publicans sold gin and water they should sell it as gin

1241
and water; but not, under their zeal and ardour to defend the sobriety of the people, fraudulently give an article different from that which they professed to sell. He could not agree to abandon those words, and he hoped the Committee would agree to them. He thought the hon. Member for West Norfolk had been guilty of some exaggeration, for even now all wine that was sold was not adulterated. He had the curiosity to send for 20 samples from 20 publicans, taken indiscriminately, and the result of analysis was, that in about 12 cases the wine was new and raw, but pure, and in the other seven or eight it was adulterated in various degrees, some by mixture with Cape, and some by the introduction of objectionable compounds.
MR. ROEBUCKobserved that where a warranty was given that the wine was pure, and it was proved to be impure, a remedy could be obtained by simply proving the warranty, but he thought it would be very difficult to prove in any case that the person who sold adulterated wines "knew" that they were adulterated. He therefore thought it better to make the penalty turn on a warranty which could be easily proved.
MR. STEUARTsaid, when the vendor persevered in selling an article which he had been told was adulterated, it could then be proved that he sold such article with a guilty knowledge.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged him with indulging in a tone of exaggeration. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he never presumed to rival him in anything. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared not to understand the nature and habits of the classes for whom he was legislating. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, he confessed he was surprised to hear him say that he had imbibed some very bad wine in West Norfolk. He (Mr. Bentinck) could only say that the district which he had the honour to represent was celebrated for the peculiarly good port wine which it imported and produced. The hon. and learned Gentleman must, therefore, have been extremely unlucky in having stumbled on a bad bottle. They would always be glad to see the hon. Member, and he only wished the hon. Member had imbibed some of the principles which he was sure were current upon the occasion to which he had referred.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also.
Clauses 27 to 30 inclusive.
Clause 31 postponed; Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35.
MR. AYRTONasked on what grounds the Universities were exempted from the Bill if, as was contended, its effect would be to promote temperance and virtue. It was quite right in passing the Licensing Act of George IV., the object of which was to restrict the sale of liquors by the strict supervision of magistrates, to preserve the authority exercised by the heads of the Universities; but, as the Bill proceeded on the principle that the sale of wine would promote sobriety, why should not the Universities be included? If restrictions could be dispensed with in regard to the people at large, much more could they be dispensed with in the case of the educated young men who frequented the Universities. But, in fact, the House of Commons, while passing this Bill, knew very well what its character was, and did not dare to apply to places resorted to by the sons of hon. Members and persons in a similar condition of life, the principles which they were applying to the people at large.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman's devotion to his cause amounted to something sublime. His argument, however, had no basis in fact. The Act would apply to Oxford and Cambridge just as to any other place, and the simple object of the clause was to preserve from any possible effect of a statutory enactment the licensing powers now possessed by the Vice-Chancellors. Similar clauses were inserted in the Beer Act and in the Licensing Act of George IV.
MR. HARDYsaid, he wished to know why the Incorporated Society of Free Vintners should be excepted. The privileges possessed by that society of being-able to grant licences to wine dealers without consulting the magistrates had already produced many evils. It had been proved before a Committee of that House, that under this system men of straw placed their names upon the doors of houses to which licences were granted, and then other persons used those names for the purpose of carrying on a disreputable trade. The clause also exempted the corporation of St. Albans. Was that, he wished to know, to make amends for the disfran-

1243
chisement of that borough? For the purpose of bringing the vintners within the operation of the Bill, he would move as an Amendment that the exception affecting them should be omitted from the clause.
Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, to leave out from the word "otherwise," to the word "only," in line 24, inclusive.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the proper place to deal with the privilege of the Vintners' Company would be when the London Corporation Reform Rill came on. That body possessed privileges in reference to the opening of public-houses which could not be dealt with on this occasion. The only effect of this clause would be to except the new class of wineshops from the privileges of the vintners.
MR. HARDYsaid, he did not see why the vintners should be on a different footing from other people, and he should therefore move the omission of the words relating to the Vintners' Company.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EHCHEQUERsaid, the exemption in favour of the corporation of St. Albans was inserted, because that body had licensing powers under ancient charters, and which were independent of the ordinary tribunal of the justices of the peace. With regard to the privilege of the free vintners, it was certainly one of a most anomalous character, and he therefore thought the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Lewis) should be adopted. To adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) would be granting too much or too little; and the effect would be to leave the law in a state of ambiguity. It would be much better to deal with the matter substantively by a separate Bill, and he confessed he thought it was a matter which Parliament should deal with.
MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he thought it unfair to take away the vintner's licences without duo notice.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 90: Majority 7.
On Question that the Clause be added to the Bill—
MR. AYRTONsaid, that with regard to the allegations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his observations had no foundation in fact, he should contend that they were well-founded. As he understood, the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ex-
1244
ercised an absolute discretion as to licensing all places for the sale of drinks of an intoxicating character; which discretional power it was proposed, under the present Bill, to retain. If this were a good Bill, and if, as was now declared, perfect free trade in wine was the best means of encouraging temperance, why should restraints continue to be imposed at Oxford and Cambridge, which were no longer to exist in any other part of the country? It was very desirable that the House should know what authority the Vice-Chancellors really possessed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the Bill was about to be introduced, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford wrote to him, and expressed his anxiety that the licensing power of the University, with respect to public-houses, should not be interfered with. He referred the matter to the Board of Inland Revenue, and they saw no objection whatever to this clause. But he certainly did not understand it would do anything more than reserve to the Vice-Chancellors the powers which they already possessed. If there was any reason for altering or modifying those powers, that question might be raised; but at present he was not aware of any sufficient grounds for interfering with them.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the real question was as to the extent of the powers which the Vice-Chancellors possessed, and which, according to the wording of the clause, wore to be maintained.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, there was a great anomaly in taking away the control of the magistrates generally as to licensing, at the same time that quasi magisterial powers of this nature were confirmed to the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities. The question, he might be permitted to say, had nothing to do with the Inland Revenue Department, notwithstanding the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, who kept running up and down the House, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Laing).
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the exemptions were taken almost exactly from those in the Sale of Beer and Cider Act, 1 Wm. IV., c. 64, which provided that nothing in the Act should affect the privileges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must again express a wish for information as to the powers reserved by the clause.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he owed an apology to the

1245
noble Lord. Upon inquiry he found that the powers of the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities were larger than he had supposed. At the same time he thought that the House could not do otherwise than give them, under this Bill, the same authority which they enjoyed under the Beer Act.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was sorry to hear the Beer Act quoted as a precedent. The Beer Act was the last desperate effort of a corrupt House of Commons to pacify a people who were asking for Parliamentary Reform, and had proved a total failure. After thirty years the people were asking for Parliamentary Reform again, and they were offered free trade in wine instead. The real spirit in which the Beer Act was passed, was made more obvious by the exemption of the Universities. If the present Bill would not be injurious to the sons of the people, why should it be injurious to the sons of the wealthy at the Universities? Unless the clause was amended, so as to give to the Vice-Chancellors only the same power as was conferred upon justices of the peace, he should divide against it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that Oxford and Cambridge were in a different position from other towns, because the discipline of the students was involved in the authority which was invested in the Vice-Chancellors for maintaining order in those places. On that account they had conferred upon them powers with regard to places of public resort and refreshment which were not needed in other towns. He hoped hon. Members would not lightly be induced to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman to deprive the Vice-Chancellors of those powers.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the Universities; but what did his remarks say for the Bill? He believed it to be a bad Bill. The Government said it was a good one; and yet it now appeared they were afraid to entrust its working in the University towns.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had mistaken the tenor of the noble Lord's observations. That it was necessary that the Vice-Chancellors should have special powers for the maintenance of academic discipline, did not prove that this was a bad Bill.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to leave in the hands of the Mayor of St. Albans a power of which he deprived all other magistrates?
SIR MINTO FARQUHARasked what object the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have in excepting the University towns from the operations of this Bill, if it was really a measure for the promotion of temperance and sobriety.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although this might be a measure for the promotion of temperance and sobriety in places where the present system of licensed public-houses and beer-shops was in full force, it did not follow that it would be desirable to refuse to the Vice-Chancellors the power which they at present enjoyed with regard to that system, and which was necessary in order to maintain discipline among a body of 1,500 or 2,000 young men, who, from the period of life at which they had arrived, were peculiarly exposed to temptation. He did not wish to exclude these houses from Oxford and Cambridge, but only to leave it to the discretion of the University' authorities to decide whether or not they should be introduced into these places.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman had now put the clause on an intelligible ground. He quite agreed that some discretion should be allowed to the Vice-Chancellors, but he would remind the Committee that with respect to Oxford, at least, the limits of their jurisdiction were very narrow, and the public-houses round them were not few. The practices to which hon. Members had referred were not done in the High Street, but just outside the Vice Chancellor's circle, where the powers of the magistrates were very limited. Hitherto the magistrates and the Vice Chancellors had got on together very well; but he feared if this Bill passed in its entirety the clause that saved the rights of the Vice-Chancellors would be mere waste paper.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked, that he could see no peculiar virtue in the borough of St. Albans which entitled its magistracy to any special favour under this Bill.
MR. MACAULAYsaid, that the powers exercised over the town by charter or otherwise by the University of Cambridge had been made the subject of agreement between the University and the town some years ago, under the arbitration of Sir J. Pateson, which had since been turned into an Act of Parliament. If that had worked with perfect satisfaction to both parties, anything in this Bill which would disturb any part of the arrangement must be

1247
viewed both by the town and university as a very great misfortune.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that with reference to the University authorities and the commoners, the company of vinters, and that remarkable body the mayor and burgesses of the borough of St. Albans, this clause in no way enlarged any more than it diminished their authorities and rights. If hon. Members referred to the twentieth line, they would observe the expression after the words rights and privileges "as by law possessed."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the award of Sir J. Patteson, as between the powers of the University and the town authorities of Cambridge, operated so satisfactorily to both parties that it ought not even inferentially to be disturbed.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 36.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that no part of Her Majesty's dominions so much required a measure for promoting temperance as Scotland. One of the ostensible objects of this Bill being to cheek the consumption of ardent spirits, it was surprising that it had not been brought in for Scotland in the first instance rather than for England. While England, with her population of 19,000,000, consumed 12,000,000 gallons of spirits annually; Scotland, on the other hand, with a population of only 3,000,000, consumed nearly 6,000,000 gallons. Moreover, one-half of all the shops in Scotland of £20 in annual value were public-houses. The efforts of many gentlemen connected with the various religious denominations in Scotland had been devoted to the promotion of temperance; and yet, strange to say, when a legislative measure was proposed to assist that cause, Scotland was wholly excluded from its operation. The licensing system and other circumstances of Scotland were very much identical with those of England; and he would therefore move that this Bill be extended to that country.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he also wished to hear from the Government why they had omitted Ireland from the Bill, He advocated its extension to Ireland for a different reason from that just urged in the case of Scotland. Of late years the people of Ireland had become much more moderate in their potations, and it was only fair that they should enjoy the same chance of obtaining cheap claret as their English fellow-subjects.
MR. BLACKsaid, that Scotland might
1248
not have a very good name for its temperance, but it was quite impossible that its people could consume the 6,000,000 gallons of spirits which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had allotted to them. Much of the whisky distilled in Scotland crossed the Border into England, and some of it even reached the Continent. He saw no reason, however, why the benefits of this measure should not be extended to Scotland; but it would not be fair to include that country within its provisions now, because no notice had been given of the intention to make any proposal of that kind. Such a step ought not to be taken without allowing the people of Scotland an opportunity for its full consideration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was usual, if Parliament accepted a Bill of that nature in principle for England, for an analogous measure to be applied to Scotland and Ireland. When this Bill was drawn he accordingly brought the subject immediately under the notice of the Irish Government, and also of his learned Friend the Lord Advocate; and he understood from the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland that there would he little difficulty in adapting its provisions to that country. He was not sure whether they had a measure ready for that purpose, but he believed there would be no reason for delaying its introduction. The case of Scotland was rather different, because the subject there had recently been investigated by a Commission, whose report was not yet in the hands of hon. Members. True, the Scottish licensed victuallers were not of the same mind as their brethren in England, having petitioned in favour of a Bill of that kind. But the whole law of Scotland was very different from ours, and some time would have to elapse before any positive decision was come to with respect to that country.
MR. M'CANNsaid, the Irish Members had all through supported this Bill.—["No!"] At least, all of them who knew the people of Ireland best had done so. As an Irishman himself, he trusted the measure would be soon extended to Ireland. In fact, a great deal of trouble would be saved by putting the word "Ireland" in the Bill now, and extending its provisions at once to that country.
COLONEL DUNNEremarked that, no part of the kingdom had so generally opposed the rash and dangerous measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Ireland. A general impression prevailed that this

1249
Bill would not be extended to Ireland, or it would have been much more stoutly opposed. He certainly would oppose it in every form if it were intended to apply to Ireland.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, it had at first been understood that the Bill was to extend to Ireland; and the consequence was that a considerable agitation had been got up in that country against the measure. That agitation had only ceased on an intimation being given that Ireland was not to be comprehended within the Bill, and it would amount almost to a breach of faith to set aside that understanding.
MR. M'CANNsaid, that he had heard of no such agitation as the hon. Member for Dublin had mentioned. He believed the feeling of the people of Ireland to be in favour of this measure, and he moved that the word "Ireland" be omitted from the clause.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the law in Scotland was so different from that of England with respect to licences that the utmost confusion would result from extending the Bill at once to Scotland. There was no desire on the part of the Scotch Members to oppose its extension to Scotland, but that could not be done by merely striking out the word "Scotland."
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that the whole Bill had been framed with reference to England alone. If it was to extend to Scotland, it would be necessary to insert wholly new clauses. It would introduce great confusion into the law of Scotland. If the House thought it desirable at once to extend the measure to Scotland and Ireland, it would be necessary to bring-up a whole set of clauses and add them to the Bill.
MR. M'CANNsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, on the distinct understanding that it was seriously intended to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he believed that whether the Bill was a good or a bad one, Irish Members might rest assured that it would be extended to their country he remembered that those hon. Gentlemen had at one time congratulated themselves on the fact that the income tax was not to be extended to Ireland; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had "let them in" upon that question; and he (Mr. Henley) had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would also give them the advantages or the disadvantages of his Wine Licences Bill.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would not press his Amendment, as he understood that the Government were pledged to extend the measure, at a fitting opportunity, both to Scotland and to Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he hoped the Government had given no such pledge.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Additional Clause.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to propose a clause in lieu of Clause 12, which had been postponed. The now clause was, in fact, the same as Clause 12, with amendments. There was one point which they discussed at some length on a former occasion—namely, the question whether, within the limits of the Metropolis, the power of veto, and the hearing of parties who applied for licences, should be lodged in the hands of the police magistrates, or of the Middlesex magistrates. The Government were of opinion that that power should be lodged in the hands of the police magistrates for the reasons which they gave at the time, and likewise for other reasons. The Government were informed that it would be very inconvenient to place that power in the hands of the Middlesex magistrates, inasmuch as they had not petty sessions, as was the case in other parts of the country. In fact, they had not the machinery that would be requisite for working a Bill of this nature.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he could conceive no possible reason why the Metropolis should be subjected to a kind of despotism from which all the rest of the country was exempted. For a long time past the justices of the peace had discharged the functions of licensing magistrates, and had all the requisite machinery in their hands. The magistrates of police held office at the pleasure of the Secretary for the Home Department, and could only see through the eyes of the police, while the justices of the peace discharged their functions as members of society generally, without any particular bias. He hoped the Committee would not sanction a system which, if once adopted, must extend to all places where there were stipendiary magistrates. He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment that the notices of application for licences should be given to the justices of the peace who had hitherto discharged analogous duties in the Metropolis.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite

1251
in error in supposing that the position of the stipendiary magistrates in London was the same as that of stipendiary magistrates in Manchester, Liverpool, and other places. In London the power of the police magistrates was exclusive in their own districts. They did not sit with the other magistrates. But in Liverpool, Manchester, and elsewhere the stipendiary magistrates sat with the others, and exercised a concurrent jurisdiction with them. This clause was prepared with a view of meeting this difference of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman said that the stipendiary magistrates in Middlesex were in the power of the Crown, and seemed to think that it was the constant habit of the Executive to interfere with their functions. He (Sir G. Lewis) was not aware of any instance in which the Secretary of State had interfered with the stipendiary magistrates. Practically their position was the same as that of a judge at common law. As to the notion of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police having any control over the stipendiary magistrates, it was a perfect chimera. The title of inspectors of police might have a formidable sound in the oars of the Committee, but they were only officers over the main body of the police; and they possessed no control over the magistrates. He thought there was no ground for the objection of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, there seemed to be some difficulty in the ease. He should be most happy to give the magistrates of Middlesex the same power that ordinary magistrates possessed, for he thought a purer body of men did not exist; but he foresaw a difficulty, if the Middlesex magistrates had a power of refusing licences, but not the power of enforcing the prescribed penalties.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the Middlesex magistrates performed almost all the duties which were usually discharged by other magistrates throughout the country. They imposed fines, they licensed public-houses and slaughter-houses, granted game licences, and performed numerous other duties. They met in petty sessions, sometimes every fortnight, but at all events as often as circumstances required. He could fancy no reason for the course proposed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except that he feared that the Middlesex magistrates would be more strict in the granting of licences than would exactly suit his pro-sent purposes. The Middlesex magistrates
1252
were as competent to perform the functions in question as any magistrates in England, and certainly as the police magistrates.
MR. LAINGsaid, a moment's consideration of the actual working of the machinery of the justices in the Metropolis would show that, without casting the slightest imputation upon them, no kind of supervision could be exercised by them in the granting of licences. The jurisdiction of the Middlesex magistrates was not concurrent with that of the police magistrates, who had ousted them from almost all authority except that of granting licences twice a year. The licences under the Bill would be granted in the first place by the Excise, subject to giving notice to the clerk of the justices of petty sessions holden within the district; but there were no petty sessions in Middlesex, and no clerk, no communication with the police, and therefore the effect of giving such power to the Middlesex justices would he that licences would be granted to all persons that would apply for them; or, instead of making the grant of wine licences a thing going on from month to month, they would have to assimilate it entirely to the granting of licences to public-houses, which were granted but once or twice annually.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would beg leave to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Middlesex magistrates met most frequently in petty sessions, and had a regular clerk. In the district in which he resided, the magistrates had a clerk; their duties were most onerous, and embraced a variety of matters totally distinct from licensing—everything, in fact, except such duties as were performed by the police magistrates, which were very limited.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been a magistrate of Middlesex for many years, but after all he bad heard about them, he began to think himself a myth. He was not aware that the magistrates of Middlesex had no petty sessions, no clerk, and no connection with the police. The right hon. Gentleman seemed, in the eyes of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Miles), invested with one of the Royal prerogatives—that he could do no wrong. Supposing it were true that an objection was made by one authority, and a penalty for abuse enforced by another, why that was the present state of the law, and was intended to be enforced under this Bill. His impression was, that the Middlesex magistrates, like those of other counties, were in the habit of making much closer investigations into character than

1253
seemed fashionable with the Chancellor of Exchequer. He could see no validity in the objection, and agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that no reason had been shown why they should begin in this Bill thus to subvert the whole principle of local Government. He said nothing against stipendiary magistrates in the Metropolis, but that was a question of local Government. He spoke himself as a Middlesex magistrate who had once acted in behalf of the House, in 1848, when he was associated with another magistrate and swore in two-thirds of the special constables. The bench of the Middlesex magistrates was not, as the Home Secretary seemed to suppose, a defunct body, and if he would turn to the evidence of the chairman of the magistrates (Mr. Pownall) on the Beer Bill, he would find that the magistrates of Middlesex were not uninformed upon the subject of licensing.
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend he had no intention to make any objection to the jurisdiction of the Middlesex magistrates. If they met especially for licensing, he would give them the power of objecting. But he wanted some information as to how often they met for he purpose of licensing. If they met once a month he would give them the power of objecting; but if only once or twice a year, it would be perfectly ridiculous, for, if the licences under the Bill were to be at all useful, they ought to be granted every week.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that for all county business the Middlesex magistrates were more completely organized than any bench of magistrates in the United Kingdom. They were subdivided into committees, and met frequently, and they could, of course, meet any time for a particular purpose.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he hoped the House would show a distrust of any extension of the power of the stipendiary magistrates. It would be very dangerous to entrust them with county business, for it would be introducing the principle of centralization. He believed there was a strong feeling in every county that the magistrates of the county should not he superseded.
MR. BYNGsaid, he regretted the remark that had been made, to the effect that the stipendiary magistrates were too much under the control of the Home Office. But he would ask the Homo Secretary whether the powers of the county magis-
1254
trates were anything new, and whether he thought those powers had been abused? The Middlesex magistrates sat in petty sessions. They met to grant licences, and they had special sittings to hear appeals. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to divest the magistrates of any other county of their powers, a loud storm would have been raised against the proposal.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, the Middlesex magistrates met frequently, and did everything but administer justice. If for the first time these refreshment-houses were to be placed under the police magistrates, those able gentlemen would necessarily be guided by the police reports, and would not he able to institute those independent inquiries which the Middlesex magistrates would feel it their duty to institute.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had not been properly informed when they stated that the Middlesex magistrates had not the machinery requisite to carry out this measure. He wanted to know who regulated the transfer of licences. [Mr. Alderman SALOMONS: The Middlesex magistrates.] Then, if the Middlesex magistrates met to transfer licences, surely they could meet to grant licences. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not cast such a reflection upon a body of magistrates and take away from them functions which it was shown they were competent to fulfil.
MR. BUTLERsaid, the Middlesex magistrates were not at all anxious to have these additional duties cast upon them, but he could not admit that they were not competent to them. The Secretary to the Treasury said there were no clerks to Petty Sessions upon whom the notices could be served; but that was not the fact. There were clerks to all the special divisional courts, and the magistrates held eight special meetings in the year for the purpose of licensing public-houses, besides other meetings throughout the year for the grant of game and slaughter-house licences, cases of weights and measures, highways, parochial assessments, and other business. It would be absurd to say that the Middlesex magistrates were not competent to fulfil all the duties of granting licences.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it had been shown that the police magistrates had quite enough business to occupy them, and to confer upon them fresh duties would only be to impair their efficiency in other respects. If their duties

1255
were to be taken away from the magistrates of Middlesex, could they stop there, and must not the whole licensing functions be transferred to the police magistrates? It would be said that the Middlesex magistrates were more severe or more lax than the police magistrates, and an argument would be raised for relieving them of those functions. He looked on this as a more important question than it appeared at first sight to be. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, and trusted the Committee would not sanction any departure from the recognized principles which had hitherto guided them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the only wish of the Government was to place the power of licensing these houses in the hands of those who were most likely to perform the duties with care and circumspection, and he had been led to believe it would have been a mere sinecure in the hands of the Middlesex magistrates; but, as he found the feeling of the Committee was in the opposite direction, he had no hesitation in saying he was prepared to give way upon the point, and upon the Report he would move words to meet what he believed to be the wish of the Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to that part of the clause which gave the magistrates power to object. By the clause, if no objection was made by the magistrates within thirty days after the supervisor had sent them notice of the application for licences, it was granted. In many cases, however, Petty Sessions were not holden more than once a month, and therefore he thought the time allowed for objection was too short. There were no less than five causes on account of which the magistrates could object to a licence; that the house was not a confectioner's shop or eating-house; that the rental was not equal to the amount required; that it was disorderly; that it was frequented by prostitutes or bad characters, and that it was disqualified under the Act. Before the magistrates objected they were very properly required to summon the party against whom they were to object, and to state in the summons the grounds of the objection. But, he asked, were the magistrates themselves to be the objectors, or were they to object on information given them by somebody else? He thought it objectionable to make the magistrate the objector "on his own hook," and that the best plan would be for some person to
1256
raise objections before the magistrates. He did not see how the two clauses could be worked at all, and should like to hear the opinion of the Solicitor General on the point. As the Excise were the people who collected the money, perhaps they were the proper people to grant the licence; but he thought something like the recommendation of the Committee which sat on public-houses should be adopted in this case. That Committee recommended, if he recollected rightly, that the licence should be granted by the magistrates at Sessions; and he thought something like that would be the right course, because then the character of the applicant would be stated affirmatively, and not negatively, as would be the effect under the clause as it stood. The magistrates might grant a certificate, and upon that certificate being shown to the Excise, the licence might be granted at once. All that the Chancellor of the Exchequer required as to fitness of character could be then proved affirmatively by the parties themselves, instead of negatively, as was at present proposed. Negative proof amounted almost to nothing. The applicant would bring to the hearing certificates of character from persons who knew him, many of whom would be known to the magistrates, who would be able to say what credit was to be attached to their statements. The Committee on Public Houses also recommended that all applicants of good character should have a licence, and he thought they ought. Indeed, it was not often now that people of bad character applied for a licence; they knew that the proof of character required was such that they would not succeed; but the misfortune was that people of good character, having obtained a licence, often fell into a bad course of life afterwards. For the purpose of raising the question, he would move the omission of certain words, with the view to afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of recasting the clause so as to obviate the objections he had taken to it.
Amendment proposed, in lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words, "and every such duplicate."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be glad to hear the subject which had been mooted by the right hon. Gentleman discussed by the Committee, for the views he had expressed did not altogether carry conviction to his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) mind. He was surprised at the deposition shown by the right hon. Gentleman to attach great

1257
value to the positive proof of character, for he had thought that certificates of that kind were now very much discredited. The right hon. Gentleman objected that the matters to be proved were all negative; but surely the fact that a house was disorderly, and that a man was disqualified for selling wine in consequence of having kept a disorderly house, were affirmative propositions. Some, no doubt, were negative, such as that a particular house was not an eating-house within the terms of the Act, or that the requisite amount of annual rent was not paid for the House; but these were all matters easily proved, and nothing would be easier than for the magistrates to make up their minds regarding them. The Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred recommended that the licences should issue from the magistrates, whereas the right hon. Gentleman proposed that it should issue from the Excise. He must say that the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman were not sufficient to induce him to accede to his Amendment.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not see the full force of the objection. The question seemed to be, who was to take the initiative. Should a person who wanted to take out a licence go to the Government office and say he intended to take out a licence, or should he be referred by that office to the magistrate, who should give him a certificate of character, so that in reality the issue was with the magistrate. He (Mr. Roebuck) believed the best way would be for the person to go to the Government office and say he wished to have a licence, and ask was there anybody who had an objection to him. He thought the onus of proving the objection ought to rest with the magistrate.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSobserved, that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the whole tendency of the evidence taken before the Committee was to shake confidence in evidence of character; and that so far as magistrates had any rule in the granting of licences, they were guided by the necessities of the district. It was also given in evidence that there was no class of persons who so constantly changed their business as that of publicans.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it would ill become him to comment on the interpretation the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) had given to his own Report. He (Mr. Henley) had spoken, not from the evidence, but from the Report. That Committee was
1258
unanimous, and the recommendation of the Committee was, that it should be open to all persons of character to obtain licences, He confessed he could not put the same construction on the Report which the right hon. Gentleman had done. He thought that, as far as they could get at a man's character, they should try to do so. It might not be of the greatest possible use, but it might, perhaps, he of some use.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, there was a great distinction between the two propositions before the Committee. If they decided on an affirmative certificate they would continue the present system, which it was the object of this Bill to get rid of.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTremarked, that the question to be decided was, which of these systems would be most effectual? He would undertake to say that the mode suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never bring into play that which he seemed to think was so desirable, because there was nothing so disagreeable as to be called upon to prove a negative. He would advise the House to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 124, Noes 104: Majority 20.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as there was no prospect of getting through the remainder of the clauses on that occasion, he would suggest that the Chairman do report progress.
House resumed; Committee report Progress: to sit again on Thursday.

NUISANCES REMOVAL AND DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. LOWEsaid he would state, in a few words, the exact object of this Bill; but first he would mention what it would not do. It would not increase the central power of the substitute for the General Board of Health nor the local powers of local boards of health. Its object was simply to carry out the intentions of the existing law, which was that there should be in every place in England a local authority responsible for the health of the district. The present Act, passed in 1855, provided that wherever there was a Local Board of Health that should be the local authority for the Administration of the Act. In the absence of a Local Board of

1259
Health, the municipal Council of the place was to be substituted; and, failing that, the Trustees or Commissioners for the purposes of local improvement. If there were none of these three, then the local authority was to be the highway board; if there was no highway hoard, it was to be the nuisances' removal committee, elected by the vestry, of which the surveyor of roads should be a member ex-officio. Should it happen that there was none of these five bodies, than the local authority was to devolve on the inspectors of lighting and watching, failing whom, the overseer of the poor, the guardian of the parish, and the surveyor of roads were to exercise the power. Such was the present law, and it worked very unsatisfactorily, as could readily be proved. There were in England and Wales 14,398 places, in each of which there ought to be a Local Board of Health. In each there was, of course, a local authority of some sort; and the test of its efficiency and utility was whether it complied with the first requisite of the Act—the appointment of a local medical officer. Only 2,005 out of the number he had mentioned, or one-seventh of the whole, had fulfilled that provision. So that six-sevenths of the whole local authorities in England had failed even to go as far in the discharge of their duties under the Act as to appoint a medical officer. The total number of places consisted of the following classes. There were 3,176 places of which they knew absolutely nothing, no returns having been furnished. In 2,099 places there was a local authority, of the exact character of which they were ignorant, although they believed it to be the committee of the guardians of the parish, the overseer of the parish, and the surveyor of roads. There were 6,216 places in which they knew that that committee constituted the local authority. That body, however, was much in want of organization, and never acted together. In fifty-seven places the local authority was the paving, lighting, and watching inspectors; in 1,715 the nuisances' removal commissioners; in 250 the highway board; in ninety-five the local improvement committee; in 679 the town council; and in 311 the Board of Health. The Boards of Health had complied with the first requisite of the Act in sixty four out of every 100 cases; the town councils in eighty-four out of every 100; the improvement commissioners in seventy-nine out of every 100; and the nuisances' removal committees in forty-six out of every 100. The
1260
other bodies were very backward indeed in the discharge of this duty, the high way board having complied in only forty-four, the inspectors of lighting, &c, in twenty-one, and the guardians and overseers of parishes in twelve out of every 100 cases. The greater part of these local authorities were imperfectly organized, and quite unsuitable for the purposes of the Act. The consequence, of course, was that they discharged their duties in a very unsatisfactory manner. Acting on the best advice he could obtain he had introduced this Bill. It retained the three local authorities first named—the Local Board of Health, the municipal council, and the commissioners for local improvements. All the nuisances' removal committees were also retained who had complied with the Act in regard to the appointment of a medical officer. The other authorities, who had shown themselves so incompetent for the task of local management, he had dismissed altogether, and had taken the guardians of the parish as a substitute. That body had always a medical officer in their employment, who could be referred to when wanted, and having to relieve the poor were peculiarly fitted to conduct measures for the prevention of disease.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. KNIGHTsaid, he looked upon this Bill as a retrograde step in the way of legislation. The first Nuisances Bill was brought in in 1846. In 1848 that Bill was renewed. In 1849 another Bill was brought in which gave great power to the boards of guardians and the Poor Law Board. It gave great offence to the country, and had not the effect of removing any of the nuisances. In 1855 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, over which Sir Benjamin Hall presided. Subsequently that right hon. Baronet, now Lord Llanover, brought in a Bill which proved most effective for its purposes. Every parish was bound to appoint a Nuisances Removal Committee, with the necessary powers. He hoped that this Bill would not be pressed forward, and he would suggest that the Measure should be postponed for a month at least, to give the public full opportunity of studying its provisions.
LORD FERMOYsaid, they had a statement from the hon. Gentleman which they should have had on the second reading. At that hour (twenty minutes to one o'clock) they could not go into the general

1261
question, and he should move that the Chairman report progress.
MR. LOWEsaid, he would not oppose the Motion for reporting progress; but the admission made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one showed that in a majority of instances the present machinery was defective.
House resumed; Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

MR. DROUGHT AND THE POST OFFICE.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  Order [19th April] for Returns relative thereto, read.
  MR. LAING MR. LAING moved to discharge the Order of the 19th of April for a Return relative to Mr. Drought, and, instead thereof, to move for Copies of Correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury, relative to the Grant of a Superannuation Allowance to Mr. Drought, late Surveyor of the Post Office Department in Ireland; and of the Correspondence which has taken place between Mr. Drought and the Post Office since he ceased to be an officer of that Department.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Order be discharged."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he could not but express his surprise that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should make this Motion. Mr. Drought, after thirty-six years in the public service, had been most unjustly dismissed. Since then he had held the office of high sheriff for the county which he had the honour to represent, and it was the opinion of the people that he had been most unfairly dealt with. He had asked for the particulars of his offence, but the Post Office authorities had decided that the evidence should only be published on one side, namely, the charges, and not the defence. The Return had been unopposed when he moved it.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that he believed that no Motion should be taken as unopposed at the commencement of business unless agreed to. He had referred to the correspondence and found that some of it was confidential, but the correspondence subsequent to his superannuation would be published, and he apprehended that the whole case would appear in that. But it was clear that all private correspondence between the officers of the Post Office and their surveyors, &c, could not be produced as upon an unopposed Motion.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it was exactly
  1262
  that correspondence which was refused by the Government that the friends of the gentleman who had been dismissed were most anxious to obtain. When it had been found that one of the officers in Mr. Drought's department had been removed from his office, of course that anxiety had been increased.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he had some time back brought Mr. Drought's case before the authorities, and he repeated now what he had formerly stated, that it was not creditable to the Post Office authorities to refuse to produce that correspondence. If Mr. Drought deserved the censure that had been cast upon him, of course the correspondence would show that, and the Post Office officials would be exonerated from all imputation.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the papers had been moved for as an unopposed Return, whereas in point of fact the Government had not been prepared to grant them. The Motion had been agreed to through a misunderstanding, and he might add that Returns were frequently moved for on the allegation that they were unopposed, when really there was an objection to them. Moreover, he thought there should be some reserve exercised in producing correspondence respecting the character of particular individuals, because, if it were known that confidential letters from public officers might afterwards be produced in the House of Commons, it would be extremely difficult to get a sincere expression of their opinions, and so the public service would suffer.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he had applied to the Post Office authorities, and they had expressly stated that there was no objection to produce the correspondence asked for.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that the public throughout King's County did not entertain the same affectionate regard for Mr. Drought as the hon. Member himself (Mr. Hennessy); but, on the ground of fair play, he hoped the correspondence would not be further refused.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he had no objection to produce all the letters which were not confidential.
  LORD NAASsaid, there could be no objection to producing the latter part of the correspondence.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should not give way.
  LORD FERMOY LORD FERMOY moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should not oppose the adjournment, but he should not give way in what he had asked for, and which he had obtained the order for as an unopposed Return.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the hon. Member for King's County should, on public grounds, be satisfied with all but the confidential correspondence.
  Debate Adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after One o'clock.