REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 May 1860)

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
observed 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HENLEY
observed, 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.

§ MR. HUNT
said, 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. LIDDELL
inquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to insert the very important Amendments of which he had given notice in those clauses.

§ MR. HARDY
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, that the insertion of the words "or requiring to be licensed" after the word licensed, would meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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. HARDY
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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 JAMES
said, 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 NORTHCOTE
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HARDY
said, 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 40s. 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 SCULLY
agreed 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 SALOMONS
said, 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.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that Clauses 17 to 22 were adopted from the Beer Act, and that Clause 23 was taken from the Licence Act.

MR. HENLEY
said, 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 BURRELL
said, 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 LEIGHTON
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 SHELLEY
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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. SCULLY
observed, 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 EXCHEQUER
admitted 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 JAMES
suggested 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 EXCHEQUER
said, he had no objection to introduce the words "or purporting to be foreign wine."

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, to prevent confusion it would be better to have a general interpretation clause at the end of the Bill.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
acquiesced in this suggestion.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the Chancellor of 1219 the Exchequer would find it no easy matter to frame an interpretation clause, defining what was meant by foreign wine.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
asked, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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 LOCKE
said, 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. HENLEY
observed, that the whole difficulty arose from the occasional use of the word "foreign." It should cither be used systematically or not at all.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he also thought the distinction was perfectly intelligible without the insertion of an interpretation clause.

§ MR. SCULLY
said, they might get rid of the difficulty by leaving out the word "foreign."

MR. HENLEY
asked 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. AYRTON
said, 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. SCULLY
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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 MANNERS
asked why the word "foreign" could not be omitted before "wine" in all the clauses.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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.

§ 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. WOODD
rose to suggest an alteration in the clause to remove his objections to it.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, that this was certainly the law at present in regard to licensed victuallers, and there was no novelty in it.

MR. HENLEY
intimated 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 EXCHEQUER
replied that, as he understood the clause, it would apply to wine to be consumed on or off the premises.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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.

§ MR. SPOONER
asked, 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- QUER
said, 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. SPOONER
asked 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 GREY
said, 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. BAINES
said, 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."

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, 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. MARTIN
said, 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 SHELLEY
said, 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 SEYMER
said, 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. SCULLY
said, 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. SPOONER
said, 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. BAINES
said, 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 LOCKE
said, 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. BALL
said, 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 JAMES
said, 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. FELLOWES
said, 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 SALOMONS
said, 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 MANNERS
suggested 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. BAINES
accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord.

§ MR. C. P. VILLIERS
said, 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. SPOONER
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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. PULLER
urged 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. BAINES
said, 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. PACKE
remarked, 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. MALINS
said, 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.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, 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 GRIFFITH
said, 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 CROSSLEY
said, 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. BENTINCK
observed, 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. HARDY
said, 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 JAMES
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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 ESTCOURT
wished 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 EXCHEQUER
said that was his intention.

§ MR. PULLER
said, 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.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
agreed to the insertion of the words 1236 "for the sale or consumption therein of any article whatever."

§ MR. FRANK CROSSLEY
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HARDY
said, 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 SALOMONS
said, 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 LEIGHTON
said, he must remind the hon. Member that Clause 28 diminished the severity of the penalties by enabling the magistrates to lessen them.

§ MR. FRANK CROSSLEY
observed, he was wiling to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, 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 24s. 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. BENTINCK
said, he was willing to accept the alteration.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, he understood it did.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, 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. STEUART
suggested 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 JAMES
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. ROEBUCK
observed 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. STEUART
said, 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. BENTINCK
said, 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.

§ MR. AYRTON
asked 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HARDY
said, 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.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, 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. HARDY
said, 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 EHCHEQUER
said, 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. MARTIN
said, he thought it unfair to take away the vintner's licences without duo notice.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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 MANNERS
said, 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 JAMES
said, 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 LEWIS
said, 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 MANNERS
said, he must again express a wish for information as to the powers reserved by the clause.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 PALMERSTON
said, 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. SPOONER
said, 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 LEWIS
said, 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 MONTAGU
inquired 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 FARQUHAR
asked 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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 GRIFFITH
remarked, 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. MACAULAY
said, 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 GENERAL
said, 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. WALPOLE
said, 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.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, 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 FERMOY
said, 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. BLACK
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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'CANN
said, 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 DUNNE
remarked 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 GROGAN
said, 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'CANN
said, 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. BLACKBURN
said, 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 LEWIS
observed, 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'CANN
said, he would withdraw his Amendment, on the distinct understanding that it was seriously intended to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland.

MR. HENLEY
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 DUNNE
said, he hoped the Government had given no such pledge.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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. AYRTON
said, 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 LEWIS
said, 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 MILES
said, 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. WILLIAMS
said, 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. LAING
said, 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. WILLIAMS
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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 MILES
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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. PEACOCKE
said, 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. BYNG
said, 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 SALOMONS
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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. BUTLER
said, 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 MANNERS
said, 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 EXCHEQUER
said, 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. HENLEY
said, 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.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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. ROEBUCK
said, 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. VILLIERS
observed, 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. HENLEY
said, 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 GOLDSMID
said, 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 ESTCOURT
remarked, 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.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, 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.