Sitting of 2 April 1860

MINUTES.
NEW NEMBERS SWORN.—Sir William Russell, for Norwich; Edward Warner, esquire, for Norwich; The O'Conor Don, for Roscommon.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Prisons (Scotland); Police and Towns Improvement (Scotland) Act Amendment; Fisheries (Scotland); Public Charities. 3° Bankrupt Law Scotland) Amendment.

DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.—(FRANCE).
SIR GEORGE LEWISbrought up Her Majesty's Gracious Answer to the Address presented to Her relative to the Differential Duties on shipping in French ports.
Answer to Address [29th March] reported, as follows:—
I hate received your Address praying that I will enter into Negotiations with the Emperor of the French, with the view of making a Treaty for the reciprocal abrogation of all discriminating Duties levied upon the Vessels and their Cargoes of either of the two Nations in the Ports of the other; and for procuring such alterations in the Navigation Laws of France as may tend to facilitate the commercial intercourse and strengthen the friendly relations between England and France.
And I shall not fail to give such directions as may appear to Me to be best calculated to promote the object which you have in view.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY WITH FRANCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, in laying these papers—further Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Italy—upon the table, I wish to state shortly and generally their contents, and also to say a few words on the present state of affairs, as far as I can do so consistently with my public duty. We have thought it right to lay before Parliament the correspondence with M. Thouvenel, and in answer to a despatch which had already appeared in the public papers. That closes with a despatch from M. Thouvenel. We have replied on our part that we intend to keep the question of the neutralized parts of Savoy separate from the general question of the annexation of that province. There are likewise among this correspondence papers from Switzerland, containing an appeal to the Great Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna on behalf of the neutrality of Switzerland, and a request that those Powers will meet in conference upon the subject. We have expressed no objection to going into conference, if that should be thought the best mode of dealing with the question. The papers also include a copy of the Treaty of Turin, which has been
1720
communicated both by Earl Cowley and Sir James Hudson. In the second article of that Treaty it is stated that it will be for the Emperor of the French to come to an understanding with the other Powers with respect to the neutralized portions of Savoy. We conclude, therefore, that there will be a serious examination of this important question, that it will be discussed with reason on all sides; and we hope that such propositions may be made as will be satisfactory to Switzerland, and will meet the views of the Powers of Europe generally.

LIGHTS AND BUOYS.—QUESTION.
MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Commissioners appointed on the 3rd day of December, 1858, to inquire into the condition and management of Lights, Buoys, and Beacons, have made their Report; and, if so, when he will lay it upon the Table of the House.
MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied that the Report of the Commissioners had not yet been made, in consequence of the necessity of procuring extensive Returns from the Light House Authorities. He should be very glad to do anything in his power to promote the end in view, and he did not doubt that he should be able to lay the Report upon the Table before the close of the Session.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend Viscount Palmerston, he wished to move, that upon Thursdays after Easter, and till Whitsuntide, Government Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,— "That upon Thursdays, after Easter and till Whitsuntide, Government Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions."
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had no wish to embarrass the Government in the conduct of the public business, and was convinced that difficulties had been thrown in their way which would shortly render necessary the adoption of some remedial measures; but at the same time he thought that it was rather early in the Session for the Ministry to take possession of Thursday, which was one of the only two days a week that independent Members had for their Motions. He observed that the Motion was not to take possession

1721
of Thursdays till the end of the Session, but only those intervening between Easter and Whitsuntide. The fact, however, was that practically the Thursdays after Whitsuntide were of no value whatever to private Members, because they had not the slightest chance of getting through with any measures which were not in an advanced state at that time, seeing that they would only have the Wednesdays on which to discuss them. A practice had arisen in the House which had met with great favour, the discussing many public questions on the Motion of the adjournment from Friday to Monday, and the Government had shown an evident disinclination to interfere with it. He could not, however, but think that that practice must cause considerable inconvenience to the Government in retarding the transaction of business, and, if it continued, it would soon be necessary to adopt some arrangement for the more equal division of the time of the House between the Government and independent Members. During the last few weeks the Government, instead of having two evenings a week for their business had only had Mondays and three or four hours on Friday. On Friday last, for instance, the debate upon the adjournment of the House lasted so long that the Bills of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not come on until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when they were considered so hurriedly that he believed sundry errors had crept into them. He was of opinion, under these circumstances, that some better arrangement would have to be made for the conduct of public business; but at the same time he thought that it was only fair to private Members that the proposition now made by the noble Lord should be deferred till a later period of the Session.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he very much agreed in the views which had been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member. There was no precedent for taking Thursdays away from independent Members until after Whitsuntide, and he did not wish to create one. If they gave the Government too much time, they might be disposed to bestow less care and attention upon their measures. He admitted that independent Members frequently occupied too much time on Friday evenings, but thought that some arrangement might be made to meet that evil. The Government now had Mondays, Fridays, and Wednesdays—["No, no!"] Well, then, he would say Mondays and Fridays; they had the
1722
same right of balloting for Tuesdays and Thursdays as was enjoyed by other hon. Members, and they had this advantage, that they had greater facilities for keeping a House, though on a recent occasion even they had not found that task a very easy one. The only object of the Government in taking these Thursdays must be to gain more time for their measures. He thought, however, the Government had already too much time given to them, and that they would not require more if their measures were better considered and more matured. There were certainly exceptions in that respect. For instance, the Budget, which, in his opinion, was a great and well-considered measure, had not occupied more time than was absolutely necessary, and was now pretty far advanced. Another great measure, the Bankruptcy Bill, had been so well considered and matured by the Attorney General that it had passed its first two stages without opposition. Had the amendment of the representation of the people been as well considered, and the views of persons both in and out of that House concerning it as well ascertained, he believed that a measure upon the subject—he did not say one that would have satisfied all parties, but one that would have been generally acceptable to the country—might have been passed in a fortnight. He was afraid the Reform Bill would occupy months in Committee, and perhaps fail to give satisfaction after all. He thought the Government should not seek to deprive private Members of Thursday till after Whitsuntide. He should take the sense of the House on the Motion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to hear the hon. Member say that he should take the sense of the House on the Motion, but he hoped at all events he would reserve his own vote until he was convinced that the request of the Government was an unreasonable one. The demand which the Government had made was really one prompted by a sense of public duty and public convenience, as well as by a regard to the state of public business. So far as his recollection went, there was no charge he had heard more frequently, and he must add very often more justly, brought against administrations than the charge that, by introducing very important measures at a very late period of the Session, they rendered it impossible for the House to give them due attention, and so had caused unnecessary delay in legislation. Now, whatever might

1723
be said of the measures of the present Government, it must be admitted that they had taken some pains to bring forward, at the very outset of the Session, the most important measures which they intended to submit to Parliament. How did those measures stand. The hon. Member had said that the Reform Bill would occupy a month in Committee: but was that not one reason for taking time to discuss it? He had also said truly that the Attorney General had devoted great pains to the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed it to be the expectation of his right hon. and learned Friend that that Bill, however well matured it might have been, must necessarily, from its very nature, occupy a considerable portion of the time of the House in Committee. It was obvious that that Bill, unless sent to the House of Lords at a comparatively early period of the year, would not pass into law during the present Session, because the noble and learned Lords who guided the deliberations of that House would naturally take part in the question, and would require ample time for its consideration. It was true that owing to the great kindness of the House very considerable progress had been made in the measures of finance, but at the same time he could not calculate upon requiring less than from four to six entire evenings after Easter, to get rid of the various questions which still remained for discussion in connection with the Wine Licences Bill, with some particulars of the Paper Duty, with the question of the Malt drawbacks, and several other questions. It must also be remembered that the House was in a very backward state as regarded Supply. They had had only one or two evenings given to Supply, and it would be absolutely necessary that the House should devote several evenings before Easter to the subject. What was the available time at the disposal of the Government? He had listened with interest to the sanguine views of the hon. Member, who said that the Government in addition to Mondays and Fridays, had virtually got Wednesdays and Tuesdays and Thursdays. If he could be shown they had got even a moiety of that very sanguine estimate the Government would have no reason to complain. He admitted that on two occasions the Government had occupied a portion of Thursday—once for some hours with the Bankruptcy Bill, and again for about an hour and a half with the Reform Bill.
1724
[An HON. MEMBER: The Tenant-right Bill.] It was likewise true that the Tenant-right Bill was introduced at a late hour on Thursday last. But on an average it would appear that the time which had been really at the disposal of the Government was only one evening and a half each week. The business of the Friday previous commenced, so far as the Government were concerned, at eight o'clock, when half the night was gone. The Government business of the preceding Friday commenced at nine o'clock, when more than half the night was gone. They had been obliged to compensate themselves for the many inroads upon their time by seeking for scraps and fragments at the end of other evenings. Members were kept until the latest hour on Friday evenings waiting for the Government business, until a miscellaneous, he was going to say, farrago, but he would say assemblage of subjects, had been disposed of in the singular manner in which they were commonly disposed of upon such occasions. Between Easter and Whitsuntide there were bit five weeks available for discussion, which represented, even taking the sanguine estimate of two nights a week, ten nights available for the Government. Now, several nights would have to be given to the Estimates, from four to six would be required for the financial measures; the Bankruptcy Bill must be got into Committee before Whitsuntide; and something, he presumed, must be allowed for the second reading of the Reform Bill. He confidently submitted that he had made out a good case for that additional time, amounting to about five days, which the Government wanted between Easter and Whitsuntide.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was always disposed to accede to the requests of the Government for facilitating the progress of business, but at the same time it did occur to him that on the present occasion the request had not been brought forward and supported by those reasons which ought to induce the House to agree to it. In the first place, the Motion was made without the noble Lord who moved it condescending to offer a single reason in its favour. Since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought his great powers of argument to support it; but, after all, what was the result of the argument the right hon. Gentleman had used? It was neither more nor less than this—that independent Members ought really to have no days at all. That was the legitimate conclusion,

1725
and no doubt the Government business I would be in a much more advanced and satisfactory state if hon. Gentlemen had no privileges at all on two days of the week. There was, indeed, one argument of a more limited character in favour of the Motion, and that was, that at present the Government suffered very much from the arrangement which subsisted with regard to Friday. But he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the head of his own Government, the leader of that House, who opposed the Motion which would have put an end to that which many hon. Gentlemen thought a great inconvenience and an abuse. He agreed, on the whole, though with conditions, to the course taken by the noble Viscount; but it was not open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the part of the Government, to complain now of the conduct of the House with respect to proceedings on the Motion for adjournment on Friday, when the Government, by their principal representative, had decided that the existing arrangement was convenient to the House and advantageous to the conduct of public business. After all, generally speaking, had the Government any right to complain of the manner in which their business had been received by the House? They had brought forward measures of considerable importance, which met with opposition from the majority of the Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House on principle, and legitimate opportunities were taken to oppose them on principle, but the House studiously refrained from embarrassing the Government on matters of detail, because they thought that, having decided by a large majority on the principle of the measure, and there being many difficulties of detail, it would be unfair to take advantage of those difficulties. In consequence of this great progress had been made in the measures, and it did appear to him somewhat unreasonable that hon. Gentlemen should now be asked to give up their privileges on Thursdays in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide, when it was remembered that the Government had not only been treated with great moderation on the part of the House, but also had availed themselves, he believed, on four occasions, of those very nights. As independent Members had not yet had fair opportunity of bringing forward many Motions which they might think important, and had given up many of their opportunities without demurring, he thought it unreasonable that they should
1726
he deprived of further opportunities in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. Therefore it was, he conceived, his duty, though he performed it somewhat reluctantly, to oppose the Motion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must admit that all the important measures brought forward by the Government this Session—he might perhaps mention one exception—had been met by the House in a spirit of fair discussion, and that no delay had been interposed beyond that which was necessary to enable hon. Members to express their opinions. He disclaimed therefore altogether the notion that this Motion was brought forward in any spirit of complaint. Possibly, in the case of the exception he had referred to—the Reform Bill—the Government might have some reason to complain of the manner in which the second reading had been opposed, but really this proposition was not made in the interest of the Government, but rather in that of the House. It mattered but little to the Members of the Government, who were compelled to be in town the greater part of the year, how Ions the Session lasted, but it was to the interest of the public service, and in an imperial sense to the interests of the House itself that the business of the Session should not be unnecessarily delayed. It was in accordance with the ordinary practice for the House at a later period of the Session to adopt the arrangement which they were now asked to assent to, and the only difference in the present instance was that the House was asked to give that assent somewhat earlier than usual. But the reason was obvious: the circumstances of the Session were exceptional—there was an unusual pressure of public business, which it was necessary to get through—and it was for the House to take its choice, either to give the Government the Thursdays for that purpose, or to sit till a later period. There was this Session, much earlier than usual, a large accumulation of important measures which it was essential to the public service should be proceeded with, and the proposition therefore was in fact offering to the House the means of getting through that business, which must be got through, at a period of the year which would suit the convenience of hon. Members generally, so that they might be enabled to bring the Session to a close at a time beyond which hon. Members wished not to remain in town. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken of the time which

1727
the Government had for proceeding with the public business of the country as compared with that which was at the disposal of private Members of the House; but the real fact was that the Government had only the Monday and about half of the Friday which they could call their own, while private Members had the Tuesday, the Wednesday, the Thursday, and the privilege of raising discussions upon the Motion of adjournment to the Monday—one-half in fact of the Friday. Now he must say, with all respect for the House, and with every regard for the privileges of private Members, that this was a most unequal division of the public time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that he (Viscount Palmerston) refused when a Motion was brought forward for that purpose on a former occasion to interfere with that faculty or power which private Members possessed of bringing forward Motions on the question of the adjournment of the House from the Friday to the Monday. That was quite true, and he did so because he thought it undesirable to interfere with the privilege which, by the established usages of the House, hon. Members had of bringing forward important questions of pressing interest on that day, which otherwise they might find it difficult to bring to the attention of the House; and though he must say that that privilege had been rather largely used of late, he did not think it would be wise on that ground to abolish it. The Government, nevertheless, did not propose to interfere with that privilege, but only on the ground of the pressure of public business, in some degree consequent upon the extensive use which had been made of that privilege during the present Session, to take, with the consent of the House, one other day, on which those measures which were of general public importance should be proceeded with. After the explanation of his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) of the measures which would have to be gone through between this and Whitsuntide, and, considering that it only proposed a temporary arrangement, he hoped the House would consent to the Motion.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that in reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that there had been one exception to the mode in which the Government business had been suffered to proceed, he (Sir J. Pakington) must remark that the Reform Bill was the one
1728
measure of all others to which no complaint could apply; and if that measure had lingered in its progress the Government must admit that the fault did not lie with the Opposition. The noble Lord could not suppose that in the case of a Bill of that importance the House would proceed to the second reading at once and without discussion. He had been led by a person connected with the Government to expect, that if the debate on that measure was not resumed last week it would be resumed this week; at any rate the delay had not rested with the Opposition, but with the Government, and it had been their own plan to postpone that discussion till the day for which it now stood. With respect to this Motion, he must observe that the Government had already had the greatest number of Thursdays during the present Session for proceeding with their own business. Tuesdays and Thursdays were considered as days set apart for private Members; but the Government had already, to a considerable degree, trenched upon this right. He would remind the noble Lord that this was a matter which lay very much in the hands of the Government themselves. If the system of desultory conversations on the Fridays was to continue, it ought, for the sake of the Government and of the transaction of public business, to be placed under some restriction, for nothing was more unsatisfactory than the way in which private Members, under the mere pretext of the Motion for adjournment, monopolized half the Government evening with discussions so ill-conducted that it was almost impossible to understand what was talked about. This was a matter which the Government should consider before they proposed to encroach on the rights of independent Members. He trusted the Government would not press the present Motion, but defer taking the Thursdays until after Whitsuntide.
MR. RICHsaid, that considering the many assaults which had been made by successive Governments upon the privileges of private Members, he thought that they would do well to make a stand and resist this Motion. It would be a dangerous precedent to depart from the practice which had so long prevailed without a special reason being given. At the same time he admitted that the Government Friday had been rather unscrupulously encroached upon, but some provision might be made for the more regular conduct of business on that evening.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the Government had not made out any case in support of the proposal of the noble Lord. The Government said they had been prompted in their proceeding by a sense of public duty; but the noble Lord admitted that there had been no unnecessary delay, and the fact was the Government had encumbered themselves with too much business, and had miscalculated the time necessary for getting through the business which they desired to transact. The fault must lie with themselves, and it was most unfair on their part to propose a new mode of dealing with their own difficulty. The noble Lord said that this was only a temporary arrangement, but what the noble Lord called a temporary arrangement would possibly pass into a most dangerous precedent and ultimately become the practice of the House. The principal point to which he meant to advert was, that the whole tendency of the practice of Governments drawn from both sides of the House had been for some time past to stifle the right of independent Members. He hoped the House would not accede to this proposal, and that private Members, on the contrary, would be induced to compare the time now at their disposal with the time which used to be allotted to them some years since. Then Gentlemen could raise a debate on a petition as well as upon almost every question. That right had, however, been extinguished, and it was matter for consideration whether independent Members should not now claim the restoration of their old privileges.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought that there was nothing unreasonable in the request of the Government. What was it that they asked? They merely asked that four Thursdays between this and Whitsuntide should be given to the public business. It was urged that it would be an exception to their usual practice; but was not this an exceptional Session? They had the Reform Bill to discuss, and if the proposal of Government was not acceded to they might sit until December.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he doubted very much whether the noble Lord, if the arrangement suggested were agreed to, would advance the Government business. The Government, in his opinion, would do much better if they gave up the Fridays to private Members, and took the Thursdays themselves. By this means they would avoid the loss of time consequent on the miscellaneous discussion on the ordinary Friday
1730
Motion for adjourning the House to the Monday.
MR. CLAYsaid, he thought that, under present circumstances, looking to the exceptional amount of business before the House, the Motion was a reasonable one; but it should be understood, if granted, that it was not to be converted into a precedent. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he (Mr. Clay) should certainly be content with the assurance of the Prime Minister that no precedent would be made of the Motion.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel French) had described this as an exceptional Session. So, in one sense, it was; though not perhaps in the sense in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended; because there had not for many years past been a Session in which so much time, which should be at the disposal of independent Members, had been in practice appropriated by the Government. Turning back to the last few weeks, he found that on Thursday, the 1st of March, there was a discussion on Customs' Duties; on March 8, the Address in favour of the Treaty was moved; on the 15th, there was another debate and a division on the Customs' Duties, and the Bankruptcy Bill was introduced; on Thursday the 22nd, there was a discussion on the Reform Bill; and on the 29th, one upon the Income Tax and Stamp Duties. There had absolutely not been one Thursday from the beginning of the Session down to the present time, of which a part at least had not been devoted to Government business. The demand made by the Government was an exceptional one, for which, at this time of the year, there was no precedent within his Parliamentary recollection. Nor was there any justification for such a demand in the state of business. Parliament had begun to sit considerably earlier than usual; the Government—and he said it to their credit—had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing on the most important business of the year; and their financial business was in a state of greater progress than usual at this time of year. On what ground, then, did this demand rest? Generally, it was true, the Civil Service Estimates had been presented before April; and it was not usual to have one set of Army Estimates submitted, and then withdrawn that others might be substituted in their place. But there was no good reason for acceding to the Motion, which, as had been said, would be set up as a precedent

1731
hereafter. If independent Members too easily surrendered their Thursdays, then they would not he likely to get them at a similar period another year. As to the discussions on the adjournment which took place on Friday evenings, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) were again to submit his Motion on this subject, it would meet with a very different reception from that accorded to it before. But he believed it to be the general feeling on both sides of the House that such a demand as was now made, could not reasonably be pressed upon the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would remind his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), that when the Government had taken Thursday evenings for forwarding their measures it was after the notices of Motions had been disposed of—a course to which he could hardly conceive any objection could be made. He would ask the House to consider the important change which had of late taken place in regard to the amount of legislative business which the Government were called upon to undertake and conduct through Parliament—a change which was by no means conducive to the progress of business. According to the old custom, the Government hardly ever brought in any measures. They proposed their Budget and their Estimates at a certain time; but there the duty of the Government ended, and Members who wished to bring in measures on any subject did so. Of late years, however, as everybody knew, the House had insisted that the Government should take up any important subject which happened to require legislation. He had tried in vain to resist the pressure; but the House had always said in such cases, "This is a question for the Government, and it will be disgraceful in them if they do not deal with it." In that way one subject after another was forced upon the Government, and the result was to throw upon them the responsibility of preparing and passing through Parliament at least ten times as many measures as they were formerly required to undertake. But while the amount of labour had been increased by the compulsory pressure of the House, there was on the other hand a diminution in the time during which it must be performed, and as his noble Friend had shown, of the business days of which the week consisted one and a half only went to the Government, the other three and a half being, according to the practice of the House, taken up by private
1732
Members. Thus the Government which had three-fourths of the whole legislative business of Parliament in its hands, was left with only one-fourth of the time. His hon. Friend (Mr. Rich) thought the present arrangement satisfactory, because it was the old established practice. Now, what was the working of this old established practice? A number of important Bills were brought in by the Government at an early period of the Session—take as an instance the Bankruptcy Bill; it was brought forward with great applause, it was afterwards read a second time with still greater applause. In Committee, however, it would very probably be found that the few objections which had been raised on the second reading would swell out immensely. Points deserving of careful consideration would be raised. The House would take great pains in order to settle the clauses in such a way as should be most satisfactory to the commercial community. Much time would necessarily be consumed in this way, the Government having meanwhile to carry the Estimates and transact the ordinary business of the year; and perhaps, in the month of July the Bill would pass a third reading. It would then be sent up to the House of Peers, where it would be declared impossible for the law Lords at such a time of year to attend to so many details; and the whole time of this House as well as the legislative skill and ability which bad been bestowed upon the measure would thus be utterly wasted. The Government simply wished to improve the system under which the business of the House was conducted. They thought it would be desirable, instead of having discussions upon a variety of subjects leading to no definite conclusion, to have a system established under which the attention of the House would be directed to the substantial legislation of the country. If, however, such a proposition were objected to, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes), would be an improvement upon the present practice, because the Government could then get Thursdays for their own business instead of Fridays, which would be given to the House. At present the Government were only able to obtain a portion of the Friday.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would beg leave to suggest a plan by which the Government could get their measures forward between Easter and Whitsuntide without disturbing the established rules o the House. The noble Lord spoke smilingly

1733
and mysteriously of a certain important measure that had been postponed from day to day. He presumed that the measure regarding the representation of the people was the one alluded to. But how was it that a measure affecting the constitution of the country should be received with such indifference, and in such an apathetic and sneering manner by all parties inside and outside of that House? He thought if the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would but allow his "poor little Bill" to be dropped and buried under the floor of the House, with a requiescat in pace, everything would go on well, and there would be no tears shed over it, and the Government would have little difficulty in proceeding with their other measures.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsubmitted that it had been shown that the Government had monopolized almost all the Thursdays already. They had, further, the power of encroaching upon the privileges of private Members by resorting to an expedient which was sometimes adopted to arrest the progress of a measure or debate which was objectionable or inconvenient to them. Under such circumstances he did not think that the Government could fairly ask for any further accommodation from the House; above all, they had no right to ask private Members to surrender to them those few remaining privileges which they possessed. He hoped that the House would not assent to such a proposition.
MR. PAULLsaid, he would remind the House that he had proposed a Resolution with a view to the transaction of the business of the House in a more convenient and orderly manner. The Government, no doubt, had two days in the week assigned to them for their business, but it could scarcely be said that they had the full advantage of those days. He thought that those days should be given to the Government without interruption. That was the object which he had in view when he had made his proposition. At the same time he was not disposed to forego the privileges already possessed by private Members. He should support any arrangement that would give the Government the full advantage of two days in the week without interruption, but at the same time he was opposed to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He thought that the House was generally desirous of preserving the privileges of independent Members in submitting certain questions for consideration
1734
on Friday evenings. It was, in his opinion, most objectionable to introduce any precedents interfering with the privileges of private Members; because if they once established a precedent of the kind it would be most difficult to retract it.
SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he did not think the House had any just reason to complain of the Government proposition, when it was considered that, in addition to the two days at their disposal, hon. Members exercised largely the privilege of bringing forward questions on the Motion of adjournment to Monday. He did not think, however, that the Government would gain their object if they pressed the question against the feeling of a large minority of the House. He hoped, therefore, the Government would well consider that point before they divided the House. He, in common with some other Members, had been returned to that House for the purpose of endeavouring to reform it, and he believed the country would not be satisfied unless they brought that question to an early issue. There would only be five weeks after they met again before Whitsuntide, and unless the Bill passed that House before Whitsuntide, there would be little chance of its passing the House of Lords this Session.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the question had been discussed upon two grounds, which ought to be kept perfectly distinct. The one was the special ground, applicable only to the present year. The other was the general ground, applicable to the mode in which the course of business was usually conducted. In regard to the special ground, he did not think that a case had been made out for assenting to the proposition of the noble Lord. Ordinarily speaking, the financial statement of the Government was not proposed until after Easter; and all the measures consequent upon that were usually taken in the months of May and June. During the present year the financial statement had been very properly brought on at an early period, and that circumstance had apparently thrown into the background the Resolutions in Committee of Supply. In regard to financial measures they were clearly in advance, and he was inclined to think that in the general business of the country they were not more backward than in former years. Consequently, he did not think that a special ground had been made out for interfering with the right of independent Members in bringing forward their Motions on the pro-

1735
per opportunities. But he owned he was struck with the general ground urged by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It seemed to him that they had really come to the stage when it would be well for those who guided the deliberations of the House and his right hon. Friends on the front bench below him to consider what new mode, for the arrangement of the public business, might be conveniently adopted. When he wished to press on the Government was this—it seemed to him that unless the Government obtained the general acquiescence of the House to their proposition, they would be rather losing time in the progress of business than gaining it. He had looked at the Notice Paper for the Thursday after the holidays, and he found upon it two Notices and one Order of the Day of the Government—that for the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act. No other business was as yet set down, and it was impossible as yet to ascertain what business might be fixed for that day besides that to which he had referred. But would they be justified, upon so short a notice, in depriving independent Gentlemen of the opportunity of discussing the two first notices already set down for the first Thursday after the Easter holidays? His opinion was that the Government ought to give notice of their intention to bring forward a proposition after Easter to consider the best mode of disposing of the business of the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and particularly in reference to the course of business on Fridays. He believed by that course they would facilitate business much more satisfactorily than by pressing their proposition at that moment. He doubted very much whether the Motion before the House would not occasion much disappointment amongst the independent Members of the House. He, therefore, urged upon the noble Viscount the propriety of withdrawing the present proposition, and of bringing forward a distinct proposition on the subject immediately after Easter as to the general course of business, when he believed the great body of the House would give him their support.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked, that he was anxious that the Government should have their two days clear for the discussion of public business, but without infringing on the rights of private Members.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be necessary, if they intended to make any alteration in the course of busi-
1736
ness, that it should be made before Easter. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) in thinking that it would be useless to press the proposition unless with the general assent of the House, inasmuch as it was purely a question for the general convenience of the House and the public, and not one in which the Government were specially interested. He believed, however, there was a very general opinion that the practice which had grown up of taking the greater part of Friday night for the discussion of general questions should be checked, or some compensation given to the Government for the loss of time which they thereby sustained; and, if he was not mistaken, there was a very general feeling in favour of the Motion proposed a few evenings ago by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull). He would take the liberty of proposing an addition to the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), which he hoped would be acceptable to the House. It was to add the words "and that Notices of Motion have precedence of all Orders of the Day on Fridays." That proposal was, of course, limited to the time between Easter and Whitsuntide, and the effect of it would be to make an experiment for that time of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "and that Notices of Motions have precedence of Orders of the Day upon Fridays."
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to call upon the House to affirm his proposition at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman should first give notice of his intention to move the addition of those words. What had been stated as to the disappointment which the adoption of the Resolution would occasion to independent Members was, in his mind, a strong argument in favour of due notice being given of the proposition. He was very sorry at having unintentionally stood in the way of the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull) in which he concurred, by assenting to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to refer the question to a Select Committee. He thought the best plan would be to refer the whole case to the consideration of a Select Committee after Easter.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, the subject was not before the House for the first

1737
time. The Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives and that of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had necessarily had the effect of calling attention to the subject, and he could not but think that without an inquiry by a Select Committee the House was perfectly-prepared to decide the question. He thought Government had no reason to complain of the conduct of the House this Session, seeing that a great number of Thursdays had actually been given up to them. But there was a general feeling that the time of the House was much wasted by the desultory discussions which took place on Fridays. He hoped therefore the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would be acceded to.
MR. A. MILLSobserved that they had wasted an hour and a half in this discussion. He hoped that Government would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) and postpone the subject till after Easter.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the House being hurried into the adoption of any such changes as were proposed, and therefore he wished to urge upon the Government the propriety of withdrawing the Motion, and bringing it forward after Easter. If Thursday were made a Government day instead of Friday, it would probably come to be felt that the public business of the week was over; hon. Members would leave town, and the House would be counted out every Friday. He would suggest to the noble Lord to amend his Motion by giving all Orders of the Day precedence on Thursdays, so as to include the Bills of independent Members as well as those of the Government.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to a point of order. I wish to know from you whether it is competent to the House to change a Standing Order without notice.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand this to be a Motion to change a Standing Order of the House. If this Motion were carried, the Standing Order would remain. It is only proposed to make a change for a certain number of days between Easter and Whitsuntide. I do not think, therefore that it is necessary to repeal the Standing Order for this purpose.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the words of the Standing Order itself were, "unless the House should otherwise direct." Of course the addition he proposed would be a direction to the House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was the opinion of the Select Committee which sat to consider the forms and procedure of the House, that even the suspension of a Standing Order ought not to be made without notice. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had on Saturday drawn attention to the fact that several hon. Members who were chairmen of quarter sessions would be absent on the present occasion. Now, in the category of Members who attended quarter sessions were many hon. Gentlemen who took a most useful part in the business of the House. There were other and grave reasons why changes in the procedure of the House should not be made without notice; but upon this ground alone he should support the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that this change in the Standing Order ought not to be made without notice.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he could not consent to give up both Thursday and Friday for Government business. But the change proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was in the nature of an experiment during the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. If the experiment did not succeed the House could go back to its original practice. If, on the other hand, the change was found to be an improvement upon the present practice, if it favoured the despatch of business—if, above all, business came on when Members anticipated it would be taken, it would then be easy to make a change in the Standing Orders.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 126: Majority 24.
Upon the Question that the Motion, as amended, be agreed to,
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought that the change proposed was a very unwise one, and would tend only to prolong indefinitely the conversazione with which the House was regaled every Friday evening. It would be much better to arrange that on Fridays the Orders of the Day should be proceeded with at a specified hour, say seven o'clock.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would repeat his objection, which was as strong against the Motion as a whole as it was against that portion of it which had been already adopted. The Standing Orders ought not to be changed or suspended without notice, and he would urge the House not to decide rashly a question

1739
which might seriously influence the future course of business.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENthought the House had better try the utility of the Resolution just agreed to for a few weeks after Easter, and if the inconvenience which was feared really arose, he would be the first to vote against the plan.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEobserved that if the privileges of independent Members were curtailed by the Government, it must be expected that those Members would avail themselves of every opportunity that might present itself for the purpose of discharging their duty to their constituents. He regretted that such Motions should be forced on against the general wish of the House.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to protest against the idea that the change was only to be an experiment, and to express his fear that if once sanctioned it would be established permanently. If independent Members were prepared tamely to submit to the arrangement proposed, they might as well put on their hats and leave the House.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 117: Majority 25.
Resolved,
"That upon Thursdays, after Easter and till Whitsuntide, Government Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, and that Notices of Motions have precedence of Orders of the Day upon Fridays."
MR. DISRAELI:—In consequence of the vote to which the House has just arrived, considerable changes must take place in the conduct of public business. In the course of a few hours the House will adjourn, and it would be convenient if the noble Lord could give us some information as to the mode in which the public business will be conducted after Easter. I would remind the House that there are two subjects of great importance—of great interest to the House generally, but particularly important to the great Liberal party—namely, the measure for the abolition of church rates and the measure for the reform of the House of Commons. Now, it so happens that by the change which has taken place in the order of conducting the public business it is impossible for the church-rates question, which is a notice of Motion, to come on on Thursday, which has now become an Order Day, and the notice given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the
1740
resumption of the debate on the Reform Bill cannot now come on on Friday, the 20th, because that Order Day has been transformed into a Notice Day, Now, it would be very much to our convenience if the noble Lord would inform us when the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill will be taken, and also if the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny)—if he is in the House—will favour us by stating what are his intentions with regard to the third reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the arrangements proposed are, that we should take the Navy Estimates on Monday after the re assembling of the House; on Thursday the finance; and on the Monday following the second reading of the Reform Bill.
MR. MALINSsaid, that there was a Bill of extraordinary length, consisting of 570 clauses before the House—the new Bankruptcy Bill—he begged to know when that would be taken?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not then answer the Question.
COLONEL KNOXasked whether it would be army or Navy Estimates on the Monday?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, they proposed to take the Navy Estimates.
COLONEL HERBERTsaid, that with regard to the Army Estimates the House had been informed that they had been delayed in consequence of the return of several regiments from India. As this must necessarily occasion great delay, he begged to ask upon what day they would be presented again?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that a considerable portion of these Estimates had to be reprinted, and the immense mass of figures in them took time. He would, however, lay them on the table on the first day the House met after the recess.

SARDINIA AND THE DUCHIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have advised Her Majesty to recognize the annexation of Bologna, Tuscany, Modena, and Parma to the kingdom of Sardinia; and, if so, whether he is prepared to state the reasons which have induced the Government to tender such advice to Her Majesty?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that the King of Sardinia has not taken any new title, but his dominions have been enlarged by the annexation of Lombardy; and I have no hesitation in saying that we have advised Her Majesty to consider the new part of the King's dominions as forming part of his kingdom of Sardinia. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that as soon as the Austrian troops left Bologna, the Papal authorities left it likewise, and the country was left without any Government. In Tuscany, as soon as the Grand Duke left Florence, the grand-ducal authorities also left. At Modena the same thing occurred. The Duchess of Parma showed more courage and determination, but still she was obliged to leave her dominions. These different states have re-constituted themselves of their own accord, and annexed themselves to the dominions of the King of Sardinia. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go further into the matter and inquire into the causes which induced the people of those states to leave their former sovereigns, and their motives for so doing, he will have to give notice of a Motion on the subject.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked whether the noble Lord had any objection to produce any recent correspondence between the Government and Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Rome, Mr. Russell?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there was no Chargé d'Affaires at Rome. Mr. Russell was only an Attaché to the Ministry at Florence. He had laid on the table from time to time some letters from Mr. Russell to the Home Government, and he did not think there were any more which it was necessary to produce.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order; Mr. Massey in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Resolution 20,
"That in aid of the Charges of Customs' Establishments incident to the conduct of Trade and to the statistical accounts thereof there shall be charged as follows upon all articles, except Corn, Grain, or Flour, and Timber and Wood goods, upon the importation thereof,—

s.

d.

Per package or parcel

0

1

Animals, per head

Goods in bulk, for each unit of entry

With power to the Lords of the Treasury to frame regulations for adjusting the amount of such payments in certain cases

by altering the unit of entry, or quantity, or number of goods which is to form the unit of entry for the purpose of this charge, so that the charge shall, as little as may be, exceed one quarter per cent on the goods of the lowest value usually imported under the denomination; and every person entering goods for exportation at the Custom House shall be required to present to the proper Officer of Customs a copy of his bill of lading in respect of such goods, with a correct endorsement thereon of the particulars and value of the goods comprised in such bill of lading, and that such copy of the bill of lading so presented shall be deemed the entry outwards for such goods, and be charged with a duty of

1

6"

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no necessity to trouble the Committee with any lengthened details, but merely to explain the relation in which this Resolution stood to the original Resolution No. 11. At that time it was proposed to make a charge of 1d. upon all articles of import and export alike, with certain adjustments, so as to keep it within a certain proportion of the value of the goods. It was also proposed to levy charges on articles removed in bond and on operations in warehouses. The total proceeds of these charges as originally proposed were calculated at £420,000— namely, £300,000 from the penny charge; £60,000 from the charge on goods removed; and £60,000 from the charge on operations in warehouses. But there were various points, particularly in respect to the charges on goods removed and on operations in warehouses, which were received with a great deal of doubt, distrust, and even disapproval by those classes in the mercantile world immediately affected by them; and he was bound to say that, as originally framed, they would probably have tended to restrict the application of the warehousing system, which was so highly beneficial to the country. There was some difficulty in the application of the penny registration to the trade, particularly the export trade, which for revenue purposes was not so easily managed as the import trade. The export trade had entailed the principal sacrifice which he was about to make. At one time he was disposed to get rid of the difficulty felt in the adjustment of the penny rate, by reverting to a charge ad valorem of 2s. 6d. per cent. Doubtless that charge would have had some great recommendation. It would have been levied in a very simple manner, and it would have had the effect of establishing that immediate relation between the statistical accounts of the country and the

1743
value of the goods which would have made it, to a certain extent, the duty of the Custom-house officers to check the value of the goods, and in that manner would have enabled us probably to attain what he had always looked upon as a most important public object apart from the fiscal operation of the Resolution—namely, a much greater correctness of the statistical accounts of goods of export. The accounts of the exports on which we so much relied, on which we founded such important arguments, and which formed the basis of a considerable part of our political policy, were in many of their details exceedingly inaccurate. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Hear, hear!] The objection to the ad valorem duty was that it offered—not to merchants, but to the smaller agents—perpetual temptation to petty fraud, therefore he entertained with great willingness a proposition on behalf of the mercantile community to substitute a fixed sum, to be levied by way of stamp on bills of lading outwards, and the Government were disposed to regard this proposition the more favourably because it tended to increase the accuracy of the statistics. The usage at present was for three bills of lading to be drawn and given to the parties concerned. These were countersigned by the different persons who were responsible, and they were liable to hear a stamp of 6d. each. The proposal had been that in all cases a fourth bill of lading should be given similarly countersigned, and certifying to contain an accurate account of the goods. That would supply, according to the estimates of the proposers, from £100,000 to £120,000 to the Exchequer. Taking, however, the bill of lading as they now proposed to do, with the stamp of 1s. 6d., they did not estimate that it would yield more than £60,000. As the plan was originally suggested to Parliament he should have expected to raise a considerably greater sum than that from the penny charge on exports. They had reckoned on obtaining nearly £300,000. As the plan now stood it would produce on imports about £170,000, and on the stamp on bills of lading outwards £60,000, making together £230,000; thus involving a sacrifice of some £70,000. Nor was that the whole amount of reduction as the other Resolutions would yield considerably less, even if they stood as they now did, than under the original estimate. The second Resolution related to goods removed under bond, and would produce somewhat less than it would have done under its origi-
1744
nal form. The Estimate at first stood at between £50,000 and £60,000; now it was about £50,000. The third Resolution dealt with charges on operations in warehouse. The rate on those operations had been so much reduced that instead of producing from £60,000 to £70,000, the Resolution in its present shape would produce only £30,000. There was still an indisposition on the part of many Gentlemen connected with the trade to see this principle of charge for operations in warehouse adopted. They did not dispute its justice but its policy in respect to the convenience of commerce. He was not prepared to abandon the Resolution, but as those who were opposed to it were still engaged in considering what substitute less open to objection they could suggest, he was quite willing to let the question stand over till after the Easter recess. On the whole, then, there would be a surrender of revenue, as compared with the original Estimate, of from £100,000 to £120,000, even assuming the third Resolution to be either passed or replaced by one equally productive. That surrender they might safely venture to make. The state of the revenue was good, and the changes of arrangement that had been made in the course of their discussions had been favourable to the Exchequer rather than otherwise. The sacrifice he had mentioned would, therefore, not impair the stability of the calculations for the year, especially as they would still attain the objects of policy which they originally had in view. Effectual precaution had now been taken under the first Resolution against the oppressive operation of the penny charge on packages. As regarded certain imports that simple impost would prove very onerous, the most conspicuous illustration of this being the case of boxes of fruit imported from the East, and which were used for filling up irregular spaces in cargoes called "broken stowage."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to put a question to the right lion. Gentleman. Some time since he (Mr. Newdegate) had brought under the consideration of the House the fact that the exports from the port of Liverpool were grossly over valued. There were now no duties on exports, and no one could anticipate that the exporter would undervalue his goods, because he could gain no advantage by undervaluation, which would be used against him in the market to which his goods were being sent. He wished to ask the right

1745
hon. Gentleman whether he would take any additional steps to provide that the declared value should be more accurately given than heretofore. The trader was not likely to cry down his own goods before they reached their market, and he believed that the declared value had been considerably exaggerated. During a laborious course of examination, the actual value of the imports and exports of this country, for seven years, he discovered that the declared value of goods exported was generally above the real value, very considerably above the real value of the goods. Then with regard to the imports, he was afraid that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's statistical arrangements increased accuracy, a greater accuracy, or even equal accuracy with that which had been obtained under the system that had hitherto prevailed, could not be hoped for. When there was an ad valorem duty it was the business of the Customhouse to ascertain the value of the imports. They, therefore, became cognizant of their value; and the statistical department of the Board of Trade was furnished with information which now they had lost; for when all duty upon the great bulk of the articles imported was abolished, the inducement to accurate examination ceased. It appeared to him that they would have the quantities given of the exports and imports, but nothing more, under the proposed arrangement. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it possible, or whether he intended, to adopt means to ensure increased accuracy with regard to the declared value of our exports?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think that the hon. Gentleman was accurate in his impression that the value of the exports was systematically overstated. On the contrary, the exports were often not entered at all, not unfrequently they were entered twice over, sometimes they were entered too low; sometimes too high; but he did not think there was reason to believe that they were systematically overstated. On the contrary, he would be inclined to think that they were understated. He did not think there were adequate motives for overstating the value, and, speaking in the presence of many hon. Gentlemen who were well informed on the subject, he judged by this reason, that up to the year 1845 they had an ad valorem tax of 10 s. per cent. When that tax was levied upon the ex-
1746
ports there was a motive for understating the value. Trade at that time was growing rapidly; still that 10 s. could have hardly had any material effect on an undervaluing of the return, and this the figures showed. When that tax ceased there was no sudden start, no great increase in the returns immediately, although an increase occurred some years afterwards. He thought, therefore, it was unnecessary to check the import returns upon this ground. But the values were delivered to the Customs at present by junior clerks of mercantile establishments, and they were not attested by responsible persons upon a bill of lading. It were desirable that this attestation should be secured; but as regarded the imports he thought no additional security would be necessary. He did not think any additional security was required.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain all he expected from his proposals. At present there was a large class of goods imported in small packages, known amongst shippers as "broken stowage," and which were taken for half freight by shipowners, because they could be conveniently used for filling up small spaces. The result of this tax of Id. on packages would be that a number of small ones would be put into one large one, and not then being useful as broken stowage, they would be charged full freight, and thus the consumer would pay double what he paid before. Again, the great bulk of our imports were now free of duty, but a charge would be created on all by this penny tax. At the Custom-house journal and ledger entries would be required for every penny or sixpence that was charged, so that in many cases the cost of collection would be greater than the revenue obtained. The additional 1s. 6d. on the fourth bill of lading he understood was merely for the purpose of securing correct statistical returns to the Custom-house, not for raising an additional revenue. But its operation would be extremely unjust. If a bill of lading represented goods not worth more than 5s., it would be taxed 1s. 6d.; while one representing £10,000 would only pay the same. To carry out the system would entail an immense amount of labour, much more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposed. He hoped that this Resolution also would be deferred until after Easter.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, that though the

1747
amended Resolutions were preferable to those originally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the grave objection remained that they introduced fresh complications into the operations of trade—subjected those engaged in trade to petty and vexatious payments—and introduced a system which it had been the object of past legislation to put an end to by simplifying as much as possible the process of buying and selling. No doubt after the sanction given by the House to the removal of duties upon a variety of articles which he believed ought to have been maintained—a removal which would neither benefit the revenue nor the consumer—he admitted that some substitute must be found. A more regular substitute, how ever, might have been found than this 1d. charge upon every package—especially when the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to leave a regulating power to the Lords of the Treasury. He thought that the penny system was an erroneous one. It had succeeded remarkably well in the Post Office; but there the rate had been reduced to a penny from a much higher amount; here a penny was imposed where nothing had been paid before. It would make the operations of trade and shipping a constant series of taxes from beginning to end, and when they began to add pence to pence on every small transaction throughout successive stages on the same articles, it was clear that, in the aggregate, it must produce a monstrous effect. If England was to be the emporium of foreign trade, the imposition of such charges as these must be most damaging. Competition was already smart enough, and the moment when a heavy income tax was being put on Schedule D, which included traders, was most inopportune for inventing a new tax of this character. At present statistical returns were obtained from the Custom-house clerks without any additional expense, and there was no need to levy a new penny tax for that purpose. They were taking off indirect taxation which really affected hardly anybody, and putting direct taxes on traders and merchants. The tax on dock warrants affected London peculiarly. The tax on bills of lading had been suggested by the mercantile body to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a substitute for all those obnoxious pence; but having got the suggestion he adopted it, and retained all the other taxes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—No, no. As the Resolution stood
1748
originally it was a penny upon imports and exports as well. Now it is a penny upon imports; and instead of putting it on exports, we tax the bill of lading.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, that the exporter ought to pay as well as the importer. Though the charge on bills of lading was objectionable, it might have been admitted as a substitute for the other little vexatious charges. There was no use in testing the opinion of the Committee, and the sufferers from the right hon. Gentleman's plan must bear it.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not share in the general objection to those charges; but if at any time they produced more than was anticipated from them, the mercantile interest would have a fair claim for their reduction. He thought that the penny tax on packages would be collected without much trouble, and would produce much more than was expected. As to the unit of entry he saw no great difficulty in carrying out the arrangements proposed by the Resolution. Nor did he think that the duty on packages would have the effect of diminishing the quantity of goods brought in under the denomination of "broken stowage." There would be no difficulty in so arranging the unit of duty in all cases that shippers of goods in all parts of the world would know perfectly well what peculiar circumstances they had to meet. The proposed tax on bills of lading would lead to great advantage in ascertaining the quantity of our exports. The bill of lading was in effect a contract between the shipper of the goods and the owner of the ship, and was not likely to be far wrong on either side. The fourth copy of the bill of lading would answer all the purposes of a declaration of value, and afford a very satisfactory means of arriving at the quantity and value of the exports of this country.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the manner in which the cross-Channel trade might be affected by the Resolutions. Hitherto the trade from Ireland to England, even although the goods were intended to be re-shipped in England, had not been considered export trade, nor had goods crossing from England to Ireland been regarded as import trade. It appeared, however, according to the wording of these Resolutions, that goods sent from Ireland to Liverpool to be re-shipped, would be subjected to a double charge. He

1749
there fore risked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough to see that such precautions were taken as would prevent that from being the case. Then, with regard to the statistical returns of the Irish trade, it was a singular fact that though Ireland exported many millions' worth of goods per annum, yet as they were re-shipped from this country, no notice whatever was taken of them in the returns as forming part of the export trade of Ireland. From one port alone, Belfast, many millions' worth of linen were exported every year; but in the returns its exports were only stated at a few hundred thousand pounds. It would be desirable to have a correct record established, and this he thought might be done by adding the name of the place at which the goods were manufactured and from which they were sent to the particulars of value already proposed to be required in the bill of lading. This would show the place that bonâ fide exported the goods. In reference to the power of adjusting the amount of payments required by these Resolutions, he presumed that the Treasury, in whom that power was to be vested, would not be able to exceed the amount proposed by the Resolution, but would simply be able to fix any sum below that amount. The words of the Resolution "so that the charge shall as little as may be exceed ¼ per cent on the goods of the lowest value usually imported under the denomination" were vague and would seem to give the Treasury the power of fixing an amount higher than the maximum named in the Resolution. He would suggest they should run "shall in no case exceed ¼ per cent" and so on. Then with respect to the mode of ascertaining the value of the goods, it was proposed that the shipper should give that information. It would, however, be impossible to depend for accuracy upon the shipper, beyond which disputes and mistakes might occur, which would be completely avoided if the invoice price of the goods were on all occasions adopted. One serious objection to the proposed tax on bills of lading was its inequality, seeing that one bill of lading might be for £10 and another for £10,000. He thought it was a charge not justified by the motives assigned for its imposition, besides which it would have a tendency to hamper trade, and when imposed the pressure against it would lead to its removal.
MR. HANKEYsaid, his objection to
1750
the charge on bills of lading was that they had not heard any satisfactory account from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting what it was to be a substitute for. It was not one of the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was made after strong objections had been urged against many of the minor details and charges originally proposed for adoption. He (Mr. Hankey) had no objection to a tax being imposed upon both outward and inward hills of lading, but before he agreed to it he should like to have an assurance that the tax on packages would be given up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had invited an expression of opinion from the City of London on this subject, and he (Mr. Hankey) had presided at a meeting where the utmost unanimity prevailed, and the opinion of that meeting was decidedly averse to this tax, but they had consented to it on the understanding that it was to be in substitution of the proposed charge on packages. Now it seemed that they were to be saddled with both.
MR. CAVEsaid, he did not agree with what his hon. Friend opposite had said. He preferred the present measure to that which had been indicated in the opening statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; not that he gave his approval to the measure; on the contrary, he considered the collection of statistics a mere pretence. It might be a subject of question whether the cost of collecting statistics for the benefit of the community should be saddled on the commercial classes. At present, however, it actually fell upon those classes, because the servants of the dock companies collected the information at the expense of the importers, and the Customhouse officers took it at second hand without further inquiry. To lay a tax on bills of lading for the same purpose would be to imitate the conduct of the Russian officers, who, before quitting a village where they had been living at free quarters, presented a bill for the wear and tear of their teeth in eating dinners provided for nothing. The measure was most unwelcome to the commercial classes, as being a mere revival of numerous small charges, which had long ago been abandoned, as most embarrassing and inconvenient. The extra amount of account keeping such charges rendered necessary was most serious. Besides which the delay occasioned by them in clearing a ship might lead to the loss of a wind and of a voyage. He had known

1751
instances of fifty tons of goods stopped in consequence of an error of a few shillings, and carts and vans sent away empty from a considerable distance, and every extra charge increased the chance of such mistakes. The most serious objection to the proposed tax was that it would lead to embezzlement. There was no greater source of embezzlement than that of entrusting clerks and carmen with small sums of money to pay these charges. To say that the proposed tax was a relief to the commercial classes was absurd. It was something like a highwayman stopping a traveller and stripping him, and then giving him his own shirt and trowsers to go away with. He (Mr. Cave) was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman was going to reconsider his proposition with respect to charges in bond. The real effect of the scheme, as originally proposed, would have been to drive away to foreign countries many of the operations now carried on in this country, especially in respect to articles on which the duties were low. Thus the bonding system would be injured, for the importer would naturally prefer to pay the duty and perform the operations out of bond. He thought the general effect of the whole measure would disappoint the expectation of its framer, and that it would turn out that a scheme which professed to open up new channels of commerce would be found, on the contrary, to choke up those which already existed.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he felt bound to support the fresh taxation now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, having given his support to the general principle of his scheme. But he wished to say a few words as to the way in which this tax would operate. The right hon. Gentleman, wisely in his opinion, reduced the duty on exports to a much lower point than the duty on imports. The charge on the exports was calculated to bring in only £60,000: while the charge upon imports would bring in £190,000 a year; and as the exports were rather larger in amount, it was quite clear that the charge upon imports would be at least double that upon exports. The charge looked small upon paper, and it was so small that the importing merchant would not be able to charge it on the consumer. It was too small a charge, amounting only to 6d. per ton, and the whole of it would fall upon the unfortunate merchant, and would in many cases increase from 25 to 50 per cent the income tax which he paid, under Schedule D, to the Government.
1752
So that this was, in fact, a special tax imposed on the mercantile classes.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, the question was not whether they would have any of these small taxes, but what was the best form in which they could be levied. He accepted the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a compromise, and not because he agreed with its principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was bound to say, had most courteously received every representation that had been made to him. He (Mr. Horsfall) had himself introduced a deputation which had proposed a tax on both outward and inward bills of lading, but that was found objectionable, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the present tax, which he (Mr. Horsfall) was prepared to accept as a compromise. Nevertheless he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he was willing to abandon the, tax altogether. If passed this Session, he had no doubt that a tax of that kind could not be of long continuance. With regard to the over valuing of goods sent from Liverpool, he was at a loss to assign any reason for so doing; but there was sometimes carelessness on the part of the Custom-house clerks, and they were sometimes obliged to guess at the value, owing to the invoices not having come forward at the time of shipment.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought that the Committee was bound to admit the two propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the one that a certain portion of the deficiency created by the repeal of taxes must now be made up; and the other that it must be made up by taxes incident upon trade. But in the actual proposition before the Committee he would suggest some modification. It was a question whether the charges proposed by the Resolution were properly speaking Customs' charges at all. Duties of Customs were invariably raised either according to weight, quantity, or value; but these were rather in the nature of landing or wharf. Again, he had another objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to raise under this Resolution £230,000, and it was to be raised "for defraying the cost of that part of the Customs' establishments which was incident to the conduct of trade." But so far from £230,000 being necessary, £50,000 would be as much as would be required for that purpose. He thought the country would be entitled to complain, if £230,000 a year

1753
was spent on establishments used only for the conduct of trade and collecting statististical returns. The hon. Member for Sunderland had very correctly stated that this charge would add very much to the cost of the Customs' establishments. The great mass of the expenses of the Customhouse was caused by the collection of the duties on duty-charged goods, the operations with respect to free goods being exceedingly simple. He wished, then, to know whether these charges or fees were to be treated as duties on duty-charged goods, or whether some other mode of dealing with them would be devised. In the latter case the objection he had stated would fall to the ground. He thought he could suggest a substitute not obnoxious to the objections to which the proposed charge was liable, and yet capable of raising the required revenue. The House was aware that all operations between the Customhouse and merchants were carried on by entries which were put into the Custom house by clerks of the merchants, either simple in duplicate or triplicate. Now, instead of putting on a charge such as was proposed in the Resolution, and which would be a varying charge, he would propose to the right hon. Gentleman to put on a uniform stamp of one penny on all entries. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to require that all entries, documents, shipping hills, or whatever else they might be, should be subject to a uniform stamp of one penny, he would be able to collect, if not as much as this Resolution would produce, at least sufficient to defray the charges for which this revenue was to be raised. With respect to the second part of the Resolution, which imposed 1s. 6d. on every bill of lading, it was to be recollected that already bills of lading were subject to a charge of 6d. each; but that charge might be accepted as the means of collecting more satisfactory statistics than could at present be obtained.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that the complaint of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), that he had adopted the suggestion with respect to the taxing of the bill of lading and giving nothing in return, was rather hard; because the duties which he surrendered would be very much larger than anything which he would get from the bill of lading. The bill of lading would not yield more than £60,000 a year upon a sanguine estimate, while the 1s. 6d. per cent which he had given up would have
1754
yielded upwards of £150,000. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave), seemed to think that the stamp duty of 1d. under this Resolution was imposed in respect merely of the statistical department; the charge was of a more general character incident to the conduct of trade. It might be true with respect to the great dock establishments in London, which were so admirably organized that they stood in lieu of the services required from the Customhouse; but that was not the case with respect to other ports, where the returns made by Customs' officers were taken as the very best authority by the merchants themselves. With respect to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he must observe that he did not think the hon. Member correctly understood the practice of the Customs in reference to the service rendered by that de-department. The hon. Gentleman proposed as a substitute the charge of 1d. upon every entry and paper of whatever description passed by the Customs affecting commerce and trade. Now, in the first place, he had no means of estimating what would be the produce of such a tax, and the hon. Gentleman did not say what he calculated it would yield; but, so far as it was a valid objection to this Resolution, that it would multiply small charges and give complication to accounts, it applied with tenfold force to this substitute. There was not a single act of any kind that was done by the proprietors of goods in warehouse, for instance, whether of removal, re-packing, or otherwise, to which it would not apply, and he confessed he thought it would not be expedient to adopt it. The sum proposed to be levied would require to be paid when the first entry was passed through the Custom-house. It would all he collected at once, and there would be no complication of accounts whatever. In conclusion, he desired to express his opinion of the perfect fairness of the admission that a Resolution of this kind should be considered part of the measures to which the House had already expressed its assent.
MR. CHILDERSinquired whether these charges would pass through the Customs' books in the same way as the ordinary duties?
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he apprehended that there could be no difficulty in instructing the Customs' department to keep a separate account of this duty, so that if it were subsequently found that the amount

1755
of duty was out of proportion to the cost of collection the mercantile community might have the benefit which might naturally be expected under these circumstances.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a separate account would be kept of all these charges, and the fullest means given to ascertain what was their produce, with a view to any proposal that might afterwards be made respecting them. As regards the collection of them, that would be conducted as far as possible by stamps prepared for the purpose, and which, no doubt, would be very extensively used for the convenience of parties. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Customs assured him that the whole operation would be a matter of the greatest simplicity, and would not interfere with the extensive reduction of the establishment which he promised.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to impress on the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of reconsidering this charge of one penny. He was anxious that, if it was not necessary to amend the Resolution, the Government, in bringing in the Bill, should have a complete schedule of charges to which the merchant could refer. He also wished to ask whether the penalties would still be applicable as before? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] He was going to suggest that the penalties would be exceedingly heavy in proportion to the proposed rates, and he hoped the subject would engage the attention of the Government.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 21:—
"That in aid of the charge of the Customs' Establishment incident to the Warehousing and Removal of Goods under Bond, there shall be charged (irrespective of any duties of Customs, or other charges payable by law, and in addition thereto), a Customs' duty at the rate of 10 s. per £100 on the amount of Customs' duty payable on such goods as shall be warehoused, and removed under bond from any warehouse in any port or place to any warehouse in any other port or place, and at the rate of 5s. per £100 on the amount of Customs duty payable on such goods warehoused but not removed, to be paid in each case on taking such goods out of bond for home consumption; provided that tobacco shall only be chargeable with half the above rates, and that no more than the sum of 5s., in addition to the sum of 5s. per centum, shall be chargeable upon a single delivery of sugars for refineries when removed under bond."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the charges upon warehouse operations of all kinds, including the re-
1756
moval, were estimated at about £120,000 a year, and it was proposed in lieu of that to have a fee taken upon all warehoused goods when delivered at the warehouse, irrespective of their being removed, to the amount of 10 s. per cent. But no sooner had that proposal been made than considerable opposition arose from some classes of Gentlemen engaged in trade, who observed that the cost to which the country was put by the warehoused goods was extremely different, and expressed a great preference for the principle of the Resolution in comparison with the new and uniform proposal. When the Resolution was proposed to the Committee originally, he ventured to state that it had in view an important object of policy—namely, to provide some self-acting regulator of the warehousing system. By degrees that system—speaking now only with regard to ports—had received an extension which was very costly to the country, for the convenience, in many instances, of very small communities, and without any compensating advantages to the Exchequer. It was needless to go into details or names of places, but it was within the knowledge of those who heard him, that a number of very small places enjoyed warehousing privileges at the cost of the Crown, which was the cost of the public, simply because they were ports of importation. They enjoyed the privilege, not with respect to the goods which they imported, in regard to which, it might be natural enough to grant it; but in regard to goods which they did not import at all, and only received from importing places. The consequence was that large towns in the interior became desirous of having warehousing privileges extended to them. Manchester very naturally, and very fairly took the lead in the movement, and obtained, on condition of bearing the necessary charge, the concession of warehousing privileges. But as it was subjected to the condition that the town should in one form or another bear the charge, Manchester complained of having to bear the cost where the deliveries amounted to hundreds of thousands a year, when little, insignificant places, because they happened to be ports, enjoyed warehousing privileges, and had warehousing establishments maintained at the cost of the public, and goods removed to them without any charge, and without at the same time being called upon to contribute one farthing to the cost of the Customs' establishment. A desire spread in the

1757
country, as a natural consequence, for the extension and multiplication of warehousing privileges at the cost of the public. He did not see where the demand was to stop, unless the places themselves were in some degree or some manner made to contribute. On grounds, therefore, both of policy and of justice, he thought the proposal of the Government sound and wise. He would also submit to the Committee that there ought to be some difference made in the charge when the goods were removed in bond. However small that difference might be, yet it would operate in the nature of a regulating charge. It would make the inhabitants contribute something towards the cost of the warehousing establishment, and would operate powerfully in preventing undue demands for the extension of the system inwards throughout the country, while on the other hand it would enable the Government to give fair scope to the extension, where the cost of the Crown was not likely to be very great. The charge was not a Customs' duty, but a fee upon goods which had gone into the warehouses and were delivered from it. The parties upon whom the charges fell in the first instance would not be the importers of the goods, but the retail dealers in the country. The charge would be paid upon the delivery of goods, and by the persons to whom they were delivered. Great objections had been made to a charge of ½ per cent, but he was happy to understand that the tea trade were now perfectly satisfied with the charge as it now stood, of ¼ per cent. There was an exception in the case of tobacco, because the charge was levied not on the value of the goods, but on the amount of duty, and the duty on tobacco was higher out of all proportion than any other duty. It was therefore proposed that the charge on tobacco should be mitigated by one moiety. The charge upon goods removed had been also fixed at ¼ per cent, and if the principle were sound that there should be a contribution towards the cost of these warehousing privileges, then he submitted to the Committee that the charge imposed was a fair one. The charge would be 5s. per cent, and if they took the rate at which money could be obtained at 4 per cent per annum, the 5s. would represent 21 days' interest upon the money payable for the goods. It was not fair to call upon the public for the charge of these warehousing establishments. These were the grounds on which the second 5s. was imposed. The only
1758
way of regulating the extension of the system was to call on the parties themselves to make a moderate contribution towards the cost of the establishments, and there was no way of doing this more fairly than by a small charge on the goods when removed. A special provision, however, was to be made for the particular case of sugar. Sugar cost in removal comparatively little to the Customs, for it was delivered from bond in very large quantities, and it was therefore proposed that for 5s. any single quantity of sugar should be delivered for refineries out of bond. The effect of this would be to substitute instead of 5s. per cent, a charge almost inappreciably small. The produce of the whole Resolution would be about £50,000—a considerable reduction of revenue as compared with that which would have accrued under the original proposition.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That the words, 'That in aid of the charge of the Customs' Establishment incident to the Warehousing and Removal,' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
MR. DALGLISHsaid, the Resolution, as it stood, was calculated to confer unfair advantages on the larger over the smaller ports, and to have the effect of giving the tea trade an advantage of the quarter per cent. He should, therefore, move the following Amendment:
"Resolution 21, line 2, leave out 'and removal.' Line 4 to line 7, leave out '10 s. per £100 on the amount of Customs' duty payable on such goods as shall be warehoused, and removed under bond from any warehouse in any port or place, to any warehouse in any other port or place, and at the rate of.' Lines 8 and 9, leave out 'but not removed,' and 'in such case.' Line 11, leave out 'and that no more than the sum of 5s., in addition to the sum of 5s. per centum, shall be chargeable upon any single delivery of sugars for refineries when removed under bond."'
Amendment, proposed, to leave out the words "and Removal."
Question put, "That those words stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 50: Majority 14.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CHILDERSsuggested that a much more equitable plan, and one by which the revenue might be more easily collected, was to impose a small annual fee upon the warehouses themselves. As he was aware that he could not move this as an Amendment, he would ask the House to reject the Resolution, so that, if rejected, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might con-

1759
sider the propriety of coming to such an arrangement as he had suggested.
MR. W. MILLERsaid, he begged to second the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), as he entertained great objections to the proposed charge upon removals.
MR. VANCEsaid, the inhabitants of the city he had the honour to represent (Dublin) contributed very largely to the Customs of the country, and this charge would fall on them particularly heavy. By false legislation they had been deprived of their foreign trade, and were obliged to import, for instance, their teas from Liverpool or London. They laboured under various charges for entering goods in bond. They had to pay 1s. for every entry, either of goods coming into or going out of bond, and 2s. on every Customs' entry for warehousing goods imported from foreign ports. The result was, they would have to pay the charges already imposed, as well as the extra charges proposed to be placed on them by the Resolution. If these new imposts were placed upon them they ought to be relieved of the old; and he believed the merchants of Dublin had made very strong representations to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns), that it would be most desirable to have some statistics of Ireland, with regard to its exports, and also of the coast Channel trade, because it was stated that Ireland contributed only a certain amount to the revenue. That amount was merely taken from the sum obtained by the dues paid in the Custom-house; but it should be remembered that they paid the duty upon tea, and many other articles in Liverpool, of which no record whatever was made; and Ireland was taken to contribute much less to the taxation of the country than it really did. He must enter his strong protest against those charges on account of warehousing.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question of the statistics of Irish taxation had already been under discussion that evening, and the Government intended to make inquiries with a view to ascertain whether those statistics could be improved. With respect to the Motion for rejecting the Resolution the seconder had based his support of that Motion upon his objection to the charge upon removals. That charge was only a matter of £8,000 or £10,000, but the whole Resolution involved a sum of £50,000, and
1760
surely the hon. Member would not deprive the revenue of that amount simply because he objected to the smaller sum, especially as there would be other opportunities for explaining his objections to the charge upon the removal of goods. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) to impose an annual tax upon each bonded warehouse was most startling, and one that he did not think the House would agree to. There were 1,200 bonded warehouses in the country, and to call upon the proprietors of those warehouses to pay £50,000 a year, at a time when Parliament by remitting duties was excluding from them a large class of goods, and thus, to some extent, taking the bread out of their mouths, was too violent a proposition. The £40,000 upon warehousing was generally recognized as a fair charge by the retail dealers who would have to pay it, and he thought the Committee would not deprive the revenue of that amount because of any objection to a lesser amount for removals.
MR. CHILDERSremarked, that the principle had always been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the consumer who paid the taxes upon all articles
MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he objected to the favour shown to sugar for refineries.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, he was willing to omit the words "for refineries."
MR. CRUM-EWING: And rum?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, rum had, by an accident of legislation, actually obtained a protecting duty, and therefore he would recommend the hon. Member not to enter upon any discussion upon that subject.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to pass the Resolution as it now stood, or whether it was to undergo any modification?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that the only modification would be that in the place of the word "duties" would be substituted "dues," or "charges," and he also proposed to strike out the words "for refineries."
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it would be desirable for so small a sum as £12,000 to incur such dissatisfaction at the outports, and occasion such an amount of inconvenience to retail-

1761
dealers at those outports, as would follow from the charge. He objected to the principle of taxing large outports, which amply paid for their Customs establishments, in order to cover the deficiency in small ones which did not pay. Let them apply that principle to the Post Office revenue, and they would be obliged to put a large impost on towns which paid for their postal establishments, in order to compensate the Post Office for the expenditure in small places whose letter traffic did not pay. He would venture to ask whether it would not be better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the Resolution.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that unfortunately the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when he made his statement upon this subject, and fully explained the object of the Resolution. The charge on removals was not for purposes of revenue, but to provide a self-acting regulation instead of having a great warehousing system throughout the country. He would not, however, preclude himself from reconsidering the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) in a modified form.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought the small places should be required to pay their own expenses, and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist on-such a petty tax as that now proposed.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought that the small trader would not only have to pay for the accommodation in his own town, but he would have to pay for the accommodation in London; in other words, he would not only have to pay the proposed 5s. in his own town, but an extra charge in large towns. He did not think they ought to endorse any legislation which would impose a differential duty, and place the traders and consumers in small towns at a disadvantage with those of the larger towns. The result would be to produce a differential price of ¼ per cent on tea and other articles. He hoped, when they went into Committee on the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yield to the very strong expression of opinion in regard to this matter, because the Resolution had been carried only by a small majority.
Motion made, and Question,—
"That the words 'of Goods under Bond, there shall be charged (irrespective of any Duties of Customs, or other charges payable by law, and in addition thereto), a Customs due or charge at the rate of Ten Shillings per £100 on the amount of Customs Duty payable on such goods, as shall be
1762
warehoused and removed under bond from any warehouse in any port or place to any warehouse in any other port or place, and at the rate of Five Shillings per £100 on the amount of Customs Duty payable on such goods warehoused but not removed, to be paid in each case on taking such goods out of bond for home consumption; provided that Tobacco shall only be chargeable with half the above rates, and likewise that no more than the sum of Five Shillings, in addition to the sum of Five Shillings per centum, shall be chargeable upon any single delivery of Sugars when removed under bond,' stand part of the proposed Resolution,"
put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday 19th April.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL.—SECOND READING.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CROOKsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there were two parties who objected to this Bill. He rose to advocate the claims of one of these parties. With the licensed victuallers he had no sympathy or desire to contribute to their objects. He appeared before the House simply as the advocate of the opinions which the temperance societies of this country had expressed in their petitions, and which petitions had been largely signed by persons who were not members of temperance societies. He desired not to be understood on the present occasion as advocating any prohibitory system or a Maine law. The temperance reformers had not come before the House for such a purpose, but simply in the interest of general sobriety. They waived their peculiar views at this time, and took issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own conditions. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended the Bill to the House as a wise and good measure, calculated to promote sobriety, although he confessed that, while he expected it would lead to a large increase in the consumption of foreign wine, he did not anticipate any sensible diminution of the sale of spirits and beer. The question, then, for the House to consider was the

  1763
  effect this measure would have on the sobriety of the country. The petitions presented to the House by those who disapproved of the Bill contained 120,000 signatures. In the borough he represented (Bolton) there had been two large public meetings, which had pronounced unanimously against the Bill. Thirty out of forty-eight of the members of the Town Council had recorded their opinions in petition against it, although not more than five or six of them were connected with temperance societies. There were also twenty-one Christian ministers of Bolton who had expressed in writing their deprecation of the Bill; and he was not aware that there had proceeded from that town a single petition in favour of the Bill. Indeed, he was not aware that so much as one petition from any part of the country had been presented in support of the Bill. He could not put his finger on any person who wanted the Bill. The temperance advocates, at all events, sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the shudder to which he confessed in the contemplation of the multititude of people who were already licensed by the Legislature to distribute intoxicating drinks. At the present moment 105,000 individuals were specially set up by law to administer to the comforts or to corrupt and demoralize and debase the people; and it was considered that they were amply sufficient to distribute any further importation of foreign wine. This Bill would immensely increase the facilities for the consumption of intoxicating drinks, and in the same proportion increase the facilities for intemperance. In the borough of Bolton there were 120 public-houses and 240 beerhouses, which was quite enough for a population of 60,000 persons. It was estimated that an equal number of shops would take out wine licences under this Bill. Would that be at all calculated to promote sobriety? On the other hand, would not such increased facilities tend greatly to augment the consumption of intoxicating drinks? Wine being constantly on the counters of general shops would be very dangerous to young people and servants, and they would frequently be disposed to give a preference to those shops which offered the temptation. He believed that the houses of the licensed victuallers and the beershops were nothing like so dangerous as those places would be. He might remark, further, that the provisions of the Bill were in direct opposition to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry which sat in
  1764
  1854, of which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, the now President of the Poor Law Board, was Chairman. In short, the Bill rendered the labours of the Committee quite useless, and would prevent the House acting upon their Report at any future time; and he wondered why the right hon. Gentleman had not proposed to allow ardent spirits to be sold by every shop. The Committee of 1854, in the most emphatic manner, decided that no intoxicating drink should be sold without a licence, and that in no case should it be less than £6 a year; but under this Bill licences could be had for three guineas a year; so that for 2d. a day any shopkeeper might have a licence to sell wine, and if he only had a little bread and cheese, he might possess the power of selling it to be drunk on the premises. The main point of the Committee's Report was, that the facilities for the distribution of intoxicating drinks should be largely reduced; while this measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a totally contrary effect. He would appeal to hon. Members who were fathers of families, or commissioners of the peace, whether they could, in the face of such facts, conscientiously support the measure? Again, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had the approval of the clergy or of dissenting ministers, the heads of police, chaplains of gaols, or boards of guardians in his favour? Had there been one public meeting in favour of the Bill? Nay, more; was there any friend of the I Bill who dare call a public meeting? If this was so, surely the Bill ought not to be passed by the House. If, however, it should unhappily be imposed upon the country, he did trust that the local authorities, representing the people, would have given to them a discretionary power to prevent, suspend, or annul all licences under the Bill, in any district where two-thirds of the ratepayers were opposed to it. He trusted, however, that they would reject it altogether.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, that he did not rise to second the Amendment, for all the reasons advanced by the hon. Mover. He was not there as the representative of any society, or of any body of men whatever; but he desired to give

  1765
  his testimony as the Recorder of a large town in the North of England, that no one in the habit of attending the criminal courts could resist the conviction that three-fourths—he might say five-sixths—of the crime of the country was directly referrible to the demoralizing influences of the low public-houses and beershops. He did trust, therefore, that this Bill would not become law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than once declared to deputations which had waited upon him, that he did not bring this Bill forward simply as a fiscal measure, but more especially as a social and moral question. It stood before the House, recommended on fiscal, sanatory, and moral grounds, and he thought he should be able to show that it ought not to be accepted on any of those grounds. Look at it first in a fiscal light. He owned he did not look forward to any great increase of refreshment houses from the operation of the Bill, and therefore he thought the fiscal benefits anticipated from it by the right hon. Gentleman were greatly exaggerated. Light French wines were not suitable to a northern climate, and it was stated by Mr. M'Culloch that the only effect of a reduction of duty would be a reduction of revenue, and that even if there was no duty on such wines as it was now proposed to introduce, beer would still continue to be the chief drink of the people. Another great authority, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1856, declared that light wines would never be very largely drunk in this country. What then became of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that a pure and wholesome wine would now be supplied at a cheap rate. The cloven foot was revealed by The Economist, in which paper he observed it stated that French wines might be easily strengthened for the British palate by the introduction of a little brandy. It was patent to every one that the advantage which the French expected was not a better market for good wine, but a market where they could get rid of their bad vintages. In the words of Horace—
  "Vile potabis modicis Sabinum "Cantharis,"
  which he might familiarly translate, "They were to drink wretched claret out of pewter pots." Then as to the moral and social aspects of the question. There had been no demand for this Bill by the public; and although there had been hundreds of petitions from persons, independent of publicans and teetotallers, against it, he had not
  1766
  heard of a single petition in its favour. It was a fallacy to suppose that in winegrowing countries the population were more sober. He believed that the consumption, of alcohol was more than double per head in France that which it was in England, and he was supported in that opinion by the observations of such men as Horace Greely and Fenimore Cooper. The inducements to drink in England were abundantly sufficient, and the Legislature ought to pause before they thrust upon the people greater facilities and temptations. The process of reasoning appeared to be that because there must be a treaty with France wine must be freely admitted, the revenue must suffer, and to recover the loss this Bill must be passed; but that was a line of argument against which he protested. Besides the objections which he entertained against the principle of the measure, he must say that in the form in which it now appeared it was the most clumsy piece of legislation he had ever seen in his life. Every shopkeeper, whether a tailor or tobacconist, might take out a licence, and every customer might be exposed to the temptation of this wine being recommended by the shopkeeper. Every oysterman and every orange woman would be obliged to take out a licence, and the evil which would follow was that, with French wine they would introduce a French police. It was not at the dictation of the temperance societies, but by his own instinct, as a lover of constitutional freedom, that he implored the House not to sanction such an inquisitorial system as would allow the police to come into honest mens' houses, whether they sold wine or not, simply because they were obliged to take out an eating-house licence. In the neighbourhood of Southampton there were many beautiful spots to which picnic parties resorted in the summer months, and any one who allowed the use of a room wherein they might consume their own refreshments would have to take out a licence and be subjected to the supervision of the police. The evil, however, was not in the licence, but in what followed the granting of the licence. It was a monstrous provision that the police should have the power to enter houses under these licences at their own discretion, and he implored the House not to sanction the placing of this inquisitorial power, in so unguarded a manner, in such hands. Clause 12 of the Bill gave must extraordinary powers to magistrates. Notice of every application was to be sent to

  1767
  the clerk of the magistrates, and if within thirty days an objection was sent from the magistrates to the Excise Office that the house was disorderly, or was not a bonâ fide eating-house the licence was not to be granted. There certainly was no preceded of such extraordinary powers being given to the magistrates without any inquiry. It was in reality worse than the French system. Then, again, there was no definition in the Bill of a bonâ fide eating-house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered into a philosophical disquisition of the connection between eating and drinking; but his argument proved too much. It proved that a man ought to have liberty to drink beer with his victuals if he liked it better than wine. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: So he may.] That certainly was not the effect of the Bill. Foreign wine was all that was provided for. There was a clause against adulteration in the Bill; but it only struck at the small retailer; the wholesale importing adulterator was left entirely untouched. He (Mr. D. Seymour) protested against the foreign element which characterized that measure from first to last. He opposed it on fiscal grounds, and he opposed it still more on social and moral grounds. When the Beer Bill was passed the cry was "Cheap ale for the million." Now the cry was "cheap wine for the million;" but there was not a magistrate throughout the country, not a single person who had to do with the administration of justice, who did not feel that the Beer Bill was an utter failure, and that its evil effects were every day growing worse. He hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be warned by the experience of that Bill not to persevere with a measure which would have the effect of offering cheaper temptations and cheaper inducements to crime.
  MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he was not surprised at the opposition offered to this Bill. He had not been very favourably impressed with the financial scheme as a whole; but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to this part, he remarked to the hon. Member who sat next to him, "That's the best part of the Budget, and will be the hardest to carry." The right hon. Gentleman had to deal with two most important and well-organized bodies, differing in everything but opposition to this Bill—the licensed victuallers and the teetotallers. The opposition of the first, he
  1768
  was afraid, would be most formidable; for a moral opposition was rarely so powerful as a selfish opposition. The teetotallers, however, who conscientiously believed that every man who drank a glass of light wine was an incipient drunkard, and that every fermented liquor was poisonous, and that its sale ought to be prohibited like the sale of arsenic, were not fair judges of such a proposal as this. They were banded together, as the title of their association stated, for "the total suppression of the liquor traffic," and they were, of course, opposed to a proposal for extending that traffic. The proposal had been quite a God-send to the United Kingdom Total Abstinence Alliance. For some years they had had their paraphernalia of agitation so well understood and so well paid in this country, their processions, their meetings, their testimonials, their cheap publications, and so on; but as yet they had never got into Parliament. On this occasion, however, they were represented by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Crook), and they boasted to have presented 1,200 petitions against this Bill, all of which, it would be seen, concluded with a prayer for the establishment of what was called the Permissive Maine Law, which meant that in any town or village where there happened to be a majority of water-drinkers, nobody should be allowed to drink a glass of beer. Such an enactment as that would never do for England; and the people who entertained such views were not fair judges of this proposal. There were also many other persons—ably represented there by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy)—who, not holding extreme views, and not wishing to "rob the poor man of his beer," yet looked with alarm on this proposition. But he would ask them, had any man, with a couple of shillings in his pocket, the slightest difficulty, under the present system, in getting drunk on spirits? However well intended, the present restrictive system did not operate as a check on drunkenness. Having, therefore, made a sacrifice to introduce French wines, was it not reasonable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should endeavour to give their consumption a fair chance? The great body of the labouring classes would doubtless still drink their beer, the favourite beverage of Englishmen; but those who wished for wine should be allowed to have it. The question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really had to ask himself was, "Should the only path

  1769
  to wine be through the ginshop?" In this city of anomalies no anomaly struck the intelligent foreigner half so forcibly as to find that in numerous refreshment houses where barons of beef, fish, and poultry were displayed in the windows, he could obtain nothing to drink with his dinner but water. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished, therefore, to bring eating and drinking together; and nothing could be more conducive to temperance. True, he did not allow persons to drink beer as well as wine; but in this he had made a concession to the licensed victuallers, who now turned round and reproached him for it. As far, however, as the proposal went, it proceeded in the right direction, though he (Mr. K. Seymer) confessed that he was for a system of free licences to sell all spirituous liquors. The points reserved by the Bill for the discretion of the magistrates were the right points; although the measure required to be made a little more stringent. It avoided granting to magistrates the objectionable power of deciding on what were the wants of particular districts—a power which many magistrates would far rather not be called upon to exercise. They were, however, to have authority to inquire into the character of the house as well as into that of the persons frequenting it. But it would be desirable that their power of inquiry should also extend to the character of the occupant of the house. By the Bill the justices were to have a veto on the granting of the licence from the Excise, but no mode of appeal was provided to some superior authority. This omission might, however, be corrected in Committee. Many magistrates would shrink from being entrusted with a power, a mistake in their exercise of which was not open to some remedy. The proposed provisions for punishing contraventions of the rules were mainly taken from the Beer Bill, and were sufficiently stringent; but the greatest safeguard in this respect would consist in the power of the magistrates to refuse the renewal of the licence. The great evil of the Beer Bill was that the justices had no control of that kind. The signatures of householders were perfectly valueless as a guarantee for the character of the keeper of the house, many respectable persons signing their names to applications for licences from mere good-nature, or as a matter of course. As far, then, as legislation could secure the good conduct of these houses the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided for it. The recommen-
  1770
  dations of the Select Committee had been carried out as regarded putting these refreshment houses under the authority of the police. It was well known that in many of these places spirits were illegally sold, and great tippling went on in them. In his own neighbourhood the officers of Inland Revenue had not shown themselves as active as they ought to have been in detecting persons who sold spirits without a licence, thereby injuring the fair trader. In this matter the licensed victuallers had a just ground of complaint; but, in their strange infatuation, they had wholly omitted it from their catalogue of grievances. At present wine licences had not a fair chance, as the foundation of the present licensing system was beer. The magistrates granted a certificate for an alehouse. Then the alehouse keeper went to the Excise and got a beer licence. Having obtained that, he might afterwards obtain a spirit licence also; but he could not get the spirit licence without first having a beer licence. Now, it was notorious that many of the public-houses in this country had fallen into the bauds of the brewers, although they had no return showing to what extent that had taken place. When, however, by some great catastrophe the veil was withdrawn, the public got a peep behind the scenes, and saw how the brewers were mixed up with the licensing system. In the case of Calvert's bankruptcy, it was found that out of £750,000 invested in the business the sum of £468,000 was not invested in the proper business of brewing, but in public-house property,—that was to say, either in buying up public-houses, or in lending money to publicans, over whom they thereby obtained the greatest influence. The publican derived a very small profit from the sale of beer, and looked to the sale of spirits for his compensation. That could hardly be called a system promotive of temperance. No connection like that between the brewer and the publican existed between the wholesale grocer and the retail grocer, by which the latter was compelled to take all his tea and sugar from the former. If such a connection were really to be established, the retail grocer would not be able to serve his customers so well, and he would soon find a rival shop opening, and taking away all his trade. The licensing system, however, deprived the public of this wholesome check of competition in regard to liquor. If a great brewer bought up fifty public-houses in a particular locality, he knew that the magistrates would not license fifty more,

  1771
  and he therefore felt himself quite safe. He was sure of his investment, and knew that the houses would remain to take his beer to any extent. The brewers, doubtless, sent out perfectly good beer to the publicans, but the latter were tempted, by the low price at which they had to retail it, "to pump," as it was said, "the New River into it." That fact had been established before the Select Committee. To give it a fictitious strength they sometimes, but not to any very great extent, added noxious drugs to the liquor. The Beer Bill had not been very successful, but in his opinion the beer-seller never had a fair chance. Having to compete with the licensed victualler, who made his great profit on spirits, he had to resort to all sorts of shifts for a living. The first thing which such a person did was to make an effort to rise in the world by becoming a licensed victualler. But though nothing could be said against his character, though there was no ground for complaint in the manner in which he had conducted his shop, or in the accommodation which he afforded to the public, his application was almost invariably refused at the instigation of counsel on behalf of the licensed victuallers, on the ground that there were already sufficient houses in the neighbourhood. No arguments, therefore, ought to be drawn from the case of the beershop-keeper in illustration of the probable result of an extension of the licensing system. Now, a beer-shop-keeper who, under this Bill, kept an eating-house might take out a refreshment licence, and having obtained that, he would be entitled to a wine licence. The measure, however, did not provide for the hours his house might be kept open. For the sale of beer the hours were fixed—but what was the hour he would be allowed to keep open for the sale of wine?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We propose to assimilate the hours precisely to those of the beershops.
  MR. KER SEYMERsaid this was the very point he was anxious to come to, but he would even go further, and say that in large towns, containing a population exceeding 50,000, beershop-keepers who had obtained wine licences should be allowed to sell beer equally with wine as late as 12 o'clock at night; because if the two things were kept separate, and the shop was allowed to remain open for the sale of wine but not for that of beer, the temptation to sell the prohibited article would be so strong that the rule would certainly be
  1772
  infringed, and the House had no right to place men in such a position. He now came to the case of the real and powerful opponents of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, had done the wisest thing in his power in laying on the table the memorial of the licensed victuallers, which could not be too widely circulated. He (Mr. K. Seymer) had given notice of a proposition in relation to this subject, which, however, he should not propose in a Committee of Ways and Means, but should reserve for some future occasion, when he should submit it as a distinct question to the consideration of the House. The memorial to which he referred commenced by stating that it was proposed to give to every person applying for a licence the power of selling wine for consumption on the premises. This was not true; a licence would by no means be granted unless the applicant had complied with certain requisites. The house for which licence was sought must be bonâ fide rated at £20; it must not have been of a disorderly character, or frequented by disorderly persons. Then the petition of the body complained that their business was perpetually threatened with change. He was their truest friend when he told them openly that they would always be threatened with change until they consented to carry on their business on the same principle as every other was conducted—that of free competition. The licensed victuallers had received fair warning by the Report of the Select Committee, and they ought to have looked the matter in the face and have adopted that principle, subject only to such regulations as were inseparable from the nature of their business. They now complained that they were the victims of irksome restrictions. He was not aware of any to which they were subject which did not arise from their peculiar calling; if there were any of an unjust or vexatious nature, by all means let them be abolished, but let not these rules be made the pretext for continuing a monopoly which on no reasonable grounds could ever be tolerated. They also alleged that restrictions as to hours were imposed on them which did not exist with regard to any other class. This likewise was a misrepresentation. The beershop-keepers were confined to certain hours, while the licensed victuallers, save on Saturday and Sunday, were not restrained within any limits. On his way home from the House of Commons, which kept very bad hours, he constantly

  1773
  saw ginshops full of drunken men and women, at a time when the beerhouses were by law closed, and when those establishments which it was proposed by the present measure to create would likewise be closed for the night. Another of the liabilities which the victuallers, according to their own statement, incurred was the burden of collecting the greater portion of the vast revenue derived from beer, spirits, and. wine. The money, doubtless, was drawn from the public, but he had been under the impression that it was the Excise Commissioners who collected the revenue; and if they once admitted the principle of exceptional legislation in favour of those who dealt in articles paying revenue indirectly to the Crown, they would have grocers and others coming forward to claim exclusive privileges. Another of these arguments was that the victuallers were the victims of a system of morality which had forced protection upon them, though they had not sought it. They might not have sought protection, but he must say they had taken very kindly to it, and they had carried out the principle to the utmost of their power. Last week thirty applicants for licences in Finsbury were refused, and in no case was there any objection to the character of the applicants. On Saturday nineteen others were refused in Wands worth alone, to all of whom the same remark might apply, and in every case the licensed victuallers had been legally represented. They tried to frighten the House by an enormous claim for compensation—something approaching the sum of £50,000,000. Having already drawn that sum from the country, they now sought to establish a claim for a like sum, which would amount to £100,000,000 in all. That was a strong proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to look to. But they seemed to forget that there was such a thing as the good-will of a business, whether it was free or restricted; and those gentlemen did not state how much of the £50,000,000 was to be given for the good-will and how much for the monopoly. In support of their demand they referred to the compensation granted to lawyers and proctors. For his part he was of opinion that the compensation granted in the latter case was far too large, and the country certainly was not prepared to repeat the step which it had been induced to take. But in the one case there was some reason why Parliament should act liberally, for it had de-
  1774
  stroyed the occupation of an entire class; in the other, unless the Maine Liquor Law were carried, the business of the publicans could never be done away with. They tried to persuade them that hotels would become infamous; and all those stories with which in childhood they were familiar, about beds sinking down into charnel-houses and travellers being attacked by banditti were revived; but it was too much to expect that men in the 19th century would believe that these things would come to pass because persons with refreshment licences were allowed to sell a glass of wine. Some ill-natured people said that there was no need for innkeepers to be in league with robbers; that they already did all the robbery themselves by their exorbitant charges. But, without going so far as that, he must say it was absurd to talk as if in England, in the middle of the 19th century, the same scenes happen as in Terracina and other parts of Italy, where every man looked like a brigand, and probably was one. Then they said that they were the only persons who paid for licences to carry on their trade. This, again, was a great mistake. The wholesale wine and spirit merchant paid twenty guineas a year to carry on his trade at the same time that he was subjected to unrestricted competition. Then they turned round, having already persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up his intentions with regard to the beer licences, and they said this was not free trade. But it would not do for them to attempt to mystify the public with questions of free trade in this way. This was not a question of free trade at all. The question of free trade was only involved in this matter as far as the restriction of the number of persons engaging in it was concerned, and no one could doubt that the numbers were restricted. But then they were told that this was a proposition for the extension of drinking. Now, were the publicans really opposed to the extension of drinking? Of course not: drinking was that by which they all made their living. It was not drinking in itself that was objected to, but the places where the drinking took place. Drinking in a wineshop was frightful, drinking in a beer-shop abominable; but drinking in a ginshop was all that was moral and proper. Then they tried to catch a few Conservative votes by the statement that the wineshops would be frequented by Radical politicians. He had no doubt that wherever Englishmen met

  1775
  they would talk politics; but were they never talked in public-houses? Was not the phrase "a pot-house politician" proverbial? Conservative as he was, and not over favourable to the ministerial mode of extending the franchise, he was not at all alarmed that these wineshops would be turned into political clubs. Then they were told that this measure would sap the morality of our female population. Women, they were told, were ashamed now to appear at the bar of a public-house. But if these public-houses were the temples of virtue their occupiers described them to be he could not understand why women should be ashamed to be seen there; but here he must protest against the gross libel that had been thrown on the women of the middle classes, that they would go to these houses for the sake of tippling. Every one would recollect the abominable insinuation made by the daily organ of the publicans, that a respectable man going into one of these houses after this Bill was passed to eat a bun might find his wife lying dead drank in the back parlour, and his daughter still more disgracefully employed in the attic. That was a gross libel on the middle classes, which was only worthy of the quarter in which it appeared. Then the publicans said that the sums they paid for their licensed houses were guarantees for good conduct. Now, that sounded very well in theory, but in practice it was all moonshine. From the Returns which he had moved for on a former occasion, it appeared that no house ever was, in fact, shut up, however badly conducted it might be. When matters became very bad, the occupier transferred his licence to another, of course receiving what he gave for it. The new man went on for a time, till he was complained of, and then the house was transferred again, but the house was never shut up, and it was carried on on the same principle, and that was what they called a safeguard for the public morals. Now this was the case for the publicans as stated by themselves. He had endeavoured to show that the teetotallers were not fair judges upon this question, that those who were anxious to promote temperance were needlessly alarmed at this measure, and that the opposition of the licensed victuallers to it was purely a selfish opposition. He, therefore, hoped that Parliament would sanction the Bill of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. HARDYsaid, the course he had formerly taken on the licensing question must be his apology for now addressing the
  1776
  House. He did not impute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any intention wilfully to corrupt the morals of the country, or any other object than that of increasing the revenue of the country, which he no doubt believed could be effected without injuring the public morals. The course taken by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) was one which it was always easy to take, but it did not go to the real question at issue. It might or it might not be true that the brewers possessed a great number of public-houses; it might or it might not be true that the licensed victuallers were pursuing only their own selfish ends; it might or it might not be true that the United Kingdom Alliance was utterly mistaken in its course. But these were all beside the real question, which was whether or not it was necessary or advisable to increase the facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquors in this country, and whether the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to increase the revenue without injuring the morals or disturbing the social order of the country. With respect to the brewers and the licensed victuallers and the United Kingdom Alliance, he stood clear of them all. There were no brewers with whom he was intimately acquainted, or in whose prosperity he was at all interested any more than as every man must take an interest in the prosperity of an enterprising class of men in the country. He might, however, say that he did not believe in the cry that was raised against the brewers. It was admitted on all hands that they sent out good and pure articles, and if they were mixed and adulterated afterwards, the brewers were not to blame. He ventured to say, with respect to the brewers, that if perfect free trade were established to-morrow, still, with their capital and the number of houses they possessed, they would be able to hold their own, and would always be found at the head of the trade. With respect to the vested interests of the licensed victuallers, it was perfectly true that they were placed in a system which they found established long before they entered the trade, and under which all their interests had grown up. But he was far from imagining that their interests would suffer to the extent of £50,000,000, as by some was alleged, or, indeed, that they would be injuriously affected at all for the present. What might follow afterwards was another question. He was not

  1777
  called upon, nor, indeed, was he prepared to defend in its entirety the present system of licensing. He admitted that there were many points in which it might be improved. But, in his opinion, it was just and right that those who had charge of social order in the country—the justices of the peace—should, as far as possible, have full control over places where numbers of people assembled, and where by the consumption of intoxicating liquors they were led into the commission of offences, and it was desirable that the magistrates should have the initiative as to pronouncing upon the fitness of the persons by whom, and the places where such liquors might be publicly consumed; but he was not altogether satisfied with the appeal, which at present existed in the manner of licences. In most parts of the country it had become a mere matter of form, because the Quarter Sessions seldom or never interfered with the decision of the Petty Sessions. In such cases it would be better that there should be no appeal, and that the responsibility should rest with the magistrates who really decided the case. In other instances, however, benches of magistrates at Quarter Sessions acted upon the principle of allowing free trade, and granted licences without any reference to the decision of the justices below. That was an equally objectionable course; and rather than have this he would abolish the power of appeal altogether; but he thought it was not impossible that in the course of these discussions something might be struck out which would satisfy the public, and at the same time check the undue increase of drinking houses and their establishment in unfit situations. Before proceeding further, he must say one word with respect to the United Kingdom Alliance, whose representative had moved the rejection of this Bill. For his own part he had not intended to object to the second reading, though now the question was raised he would vote with the hon. Member; but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his willingness to make alterations in Committee, he had intended to move certain Amendments there if the Bill should reach that stage. He felt justified in voting against a Bill which he disapproved with the hon. Member who represented the United Kingdom Alliance, although he could not agree in the principle of that body in making practically no distinction between the use and abuse of strong liquor. He could not
  1778
  agree with the Alliance in proscribing or prohibiting, even by a permissive Bill, the sale and use of liquors, merely because their abuse was dangerous, and he did not recognize the right even of a majority to interfere with the rights of others. Suppose the majority in any place were of opinion that the practice of allopathy was injurious to the health of the community, were they to prevent the minority from resorting to that mode of cure, and insist upon putting down all practice in the place except that of homœopathy or hydropathy. If he was to have a divorce he would rather it should be at his own suing than at the instance of other parties and without his own consent. So much then for the two parties opposing, and untruly said to be the only opponents of the measure. He came, now, to the primary object of the Bill in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was revenue. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, that the revenue would not be materially increased by this Bill; that the Bill would be a failure so far as it referred to the introduction of French light wines into this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, anticipated a considerable increase of revenue. In arguing the question he was bound to assume that the Estimate would be realized, and that there would be a large consumption of the stimulants to be imported. The present consumption of intoxicating liquors in this country, including all kinds, was put down at 684,000,000 gallons; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them the other night that the further introduction of wine would make little difference in the consumption of spirits and malt liquors, they must add to the present consumption of spirits and malt liquors an unlimited number of gallons of light wines. But comparing the number of the population with the quantity of liquors already consumed, he could not think that any increase in these "nervous stimulants" as the Secretary to the Treasury called them, could be made with advantage. It was said that free trade in drink should be encouraged, not only with reference to the Revenue, but in order to get rid of the existing restrictive system, to introduce competition, and to put down adulteration. Those who said so seemed to suppose that nothing of the kind had ever been tried before. Why, up to 1496, there was perfect freedom of trade with respect to ale, and the first power given to Justices was something like the negative

  1779
  power which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to place in their hands. They had the right "to reject common selling of ale." It proved a complete failure, and in the reign of James I.—that happy period, to which we had been referred, when French wines were largely consumed in this country—further restrictive measures were adopted in order to put a stop to the "odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness, the source of every crime," which then prevailed. Those measures, however, were ineffectual and Defoe said that drunkenness at the Restoration; began its reign, and for forty years continued without diminution. Yet, in the reign of Charles II., the people of England followed the French habit of drinking light wines. At one time claret was largely consumed in Scotland. A jug of it, as Lord Cockburn states, was sold for 6d. in the streets of Leith; but they would see from the Memorials of Lord Cockburn's Life and Times, that people got drunk on that which was now put forward as a certain means of stopping intoxication, and it is very questionable whether in Scotland it was not always qualified by a dram of usquebaugh. In the reign of George II. there was a great deal of legislation with respect to gin, which was then a comparatively new liquor, the introduction of which was fraught with the most pernicious results. One Act after another was passed with the view of stopping its sale, but in vain. It was at that period that a statute was passed prohibiting it to be carried about in burrows and sold in the streets, and confining the sale to dwelling-houses. It is recorded that at that time signs were publicly set up "drunk for 1d., dead drunk for 2d., clean straw for nothing," An enormous duty was put on gin, as well as a large licensing fee in the hope of checking the sale, but the distillers then took wine licences, and gin was sold under various names—such as spiced cordial, "Sangree," &c., and the consumption increased until the evils became intolerable. For two years licences were altogether refused in the City of London. Then came in the licensing system, properly so called, which lasted up to the passing of the Beer Act, introduced for the purpose of removing restrictions on the sale of beer. The Beer Act was recommended on the ground that if beer was sold freely it would "increase the comforts of the people—it would give them a more wholesome beverage"—it would improve the morals of the work-
  1780
  ing classes by drawing them away from the temptations to be met with in common public-houses, and introduce them to houses of a better order. Those were the promises held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time. He asked had one of them been fulfilled? Had it not been found that the establishment of beerhouses had been one of the greatest curses of the country? Had they added to the comforts of the poor? Had they improved the morals of the peasantry? Some years ago, when he had charge of a Beer Bill, a brewer who largely supplied beershops, told him in a letter "that the whole system was rotten, and atrociously demoralizing, and that, though in the trade, he would willingly see the Beer Bill entirely repealed, although a very heavy sum had been laid out by his concern in that trade." He added "I trust you will not falter or yield up your Bill to any party." In a Committee which sat some time ago the system of beershops was most fully considered, and it was shown that they had failed altogether—that, so far from checking, they increased drunkenness; and that the multiplication of such places was in itself an evil of the first magnitude. The hon. Member for Dorset was a Member of that Committee, and he signed its Report, and yet he was now calling on the House to increase the number of these drinking places under a new name. For what was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why it was to perpetuate the evil and to increase it by giving wine licences to beershops. The right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon this subject in his address to the House in introducing the measure, but an hon. Friend had discovered the blot. The clause in the statute, which prohibited beershops from selling wines of every description, was repealed by the fifth section of the proposed Bill; and if, therefore, a beershop should become an eating-house, from that moment the keeper would be enabled to go to the Excise and, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Bill, to take out a wine in addition to his beer licence. Thus by simply registering the houses as eating-houses, and taking out a refreshment licence they would be enabled to take out a wine licence, and sell wines to any extent. It was put forward strongly by the Committee to which he referred, that the increase of the houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors was an evil of the first magnitude "not only by increasing the temptations to excess which are thus presented at every

  1781
  step, but by driving houses, even those under the direct control of the magistrates, and others originally respectable, to practices which are degrading to their own character and most injurious to morality and order." It was clear, therefore, that excessive competition led to improper practices in order to make public-houses and beershops attractive and alluring to the peasantry and the poorer classes, and the appetite so grew by what it fed on that the creation of the beershop system had proved nothing more or less than the creation of a system to encourage drunkenness. But it was still said that the chief thing wanted was competition. At present, in spite of monopoly, so attractive was this trade, so growing the habit which it supplied, that there were about 121,336 of these houses. In 1856 their proportion to the whole population was 1 to 176, to the males of all ages as 1 to 87. In 1841 they were to the males over 20 years of age as 1 to 42; to males and females as 1 to 88. But in 1856 they had so increased that they were to the males over 20 years of age as 1 to 38; to males and females as 1 to 80. He thought he had good ground for asking the House to pause before they increased the number of houses which supplied these nervous stimulants to the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the magistrates had an impossible duty to perform, the Legislature making them judges of the quantity of liquor to be consumed. That argument was unworthy of the ingenuity and logical mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On what principle could it be said, if the number of houses for the supply of drink was as 1 house to 80 persons, that there was any difficulty in procuring any quantity of liquor? If it was meant to be said that by diminishing the number of drinking-houses the quantity of liquor consumed would probably be diminished, he would agree to the proposition, for he thought that the multiplication of these houses was an evil, and in itself a temptation to the drunken man. He appealed to the experience of lion. Gentlemen whether when cases of assault, or other criminal cases arising from drunkenness, came before them—whether it was not the fact that the men had not got drunk at one house, but had, after staggering out of one at a comparatively early period of the evening, met on their way home with fifty other temptations, by giving way to which they had been rendered in the end hopelessly drunk and so became
  1782
  easy victims to plunderers on the look out for such prey, and he could mention a case which lately came before him where, after two men had been drinking together at different places all the evening, the landlord at the last sold one of them a bottle of gin, by drinking which in the street he got nearly dead drunk and while in that condition was robbed by his companion. Whenever it was found in respect to any of these houses that there was such a disobedience of the law, the licences ought to be swept away, without regard to the proprietor, or what were called "vested interests." It then became a question of public order, and public order ought to be supported. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer) stated that he had observed drinking houses open at every hour of the day and night, and after that statement could any man contend that either in this great metropolis, or in any town in the country, there was not an ample supply of public-houses? The hon. Member was fond of free trade, but would he carry out his principles so far as to allow every tenant on his property to have a licence? There was not a proprietor of land who did not stipulate that beershops and public-houses should not be opened on his property without his consent; and therefore let them not legislate in that House on false pretences, but, with the honest feeling which actuated them in their own private capacity, when checking drunkenness in their villages, check it in like manner throughout the country. But this system of free trade was to cause the sale of pure wine and wine only, and this was said in the face of the Report of the Committee of 1854, from which it appeared, on the evidence of Sir R. Mayne, that the free vintners who had the free sale of wine in this city, instead of selling wine only sold spirits under the cover of wine. If the present Bill should pass into law, what security would there be that the same thing would not be done in the beershops? And, indeed, if allowed to sell wine, why on principle should those shops not be allowed to sell spirits under the system of free trade? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a man ought to drink where he ate. But if he preferred brandy or gin with his meals, why was he not to have it as well as wine? The Bill was founded on a principle that went further than the Bill itself; it put in the thin end of the wedge, which the hon. Member for Dorsetshire was anxious to drive home, and opened the door for free

  1783
  trade in articles to which the principle to free trade ought never to be applied. It was said that eating and drinking, now separated, would be combined under the operation of the present Bill; but it struck him that in the class for which these places were intended more was drunk after dinner than at dinner. ["No!"] At least that used to be the case. He wished to know for whom these eating-houses were intended. He found that in 40 towns in Scotland every 149 persons supported a dram shop, while it took 981 to keep a baker, 1,061 a butcher, and 2,281 a bookseller. In Newcastle it was stated that there were 21 eating-houses to 55 spirit merchants, 425 public-houses and 76 beershops. How could they be sure, when people went to an eating-house, that they went there to eat? In fact the licensed victuallers, as their name shows, were established as eating-houses. Many now are so, with the exception of those abominable ginshops of which no one can speak in terms of too great detestation. There were many provocatives to drink, and those who liked it never wanted an excuse. As Dr. Aldrich said:—
  "Good wine, a friend, or being dry,
  Or lest you should be by and by,
  Or any other reason why."
  In fact any person wanting drink would find it, and it was not expedient to over multiply his facilities, for the supply created more demand. But for whom were these eating-houses intended? Not for those who had families. No one wished to entice them there. Then they must be for the unmarried men, or, at all events, men away from their homes. They would go to the eating-houses only during the short dinner hours. Having, however, found drink in these houses they would repeat their visits. Not that they would go altogether for the drink; men went to such places for company. The appetite for eating was soon satisfied; the appetite for drink was increased by gratification. Licensed victuallers found comparatively little profit in supplying food; their profit came from drink, and it was, consequently, for drinking and not for eating, that they made their main provision. So it would be in the winehouses. The sale of that which brought most profit would be pressed. Then, to come to the question, did free trade apply to this subject? It was admitted that with respect to the houses licensed under the Bill, stringent regulations would be required, and that the police must
  1784
  have free access to them. Were these things consistent with free trade? Was the object of the Report of the Committee, over which the President of the Poor Law Board presided, free trade? Free trade favoured the development of trade, but the purpose of all these regulations was the restriction of trade. The object of that Committee was to get rid of a great number of the public-houses. As the right hon. Chairman of that Committee had said in a letter to Mr. Caudelat, "it was hoped by the changes they proposed that the character of the public-houses generally would be raised and their number limited." But, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night referred to the case of Liverpool and Manchester as illustrating his doctrine. A relative of the right hon. Gentleman, a magistrate of Liverpool, took it into his head that free trade was a good thing in the matter of public-house licences; by a majority of one the magistrates carried a Resolution to that effect. What was the consequence? In every instance applicants got licences, and soon there were 1,520 public-houses in Liverpool. At the same time Manchester, with as large a population, had only 450. According to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, the effect of this should have been to bring things to their natural level and to check drunkenness. But the fact was that every one of these houses was reduced to an insane competition. Mr. Robertson Gladstone stated in his evidence that the parties who kept them were going through the Bankruptcy Court, and yet crowds were pressing into the trade. The effect of this state of things was thus indicated:—
  "From the returns furnished to the Committee it was proved that the average number of committals for drunkenness in eight of the largest towns in England under the operation of the licensing system was 1 in 393; while Liverpool, the theatre of the experiment of the system recommended by the Committee for universal adoption, was 1 in 20, or about 20 times the amount of drunkenness that exists in the towns regulated by the present licensing system. In free trade Scotland the average per town was 1 in 40, or, in round numbers, 10 times the amount of the towns in England. In free trade Ireland, 1 in 34, or 11 times the amount of the English towns."
  This might not be a strictly accurate statement, for he found that in Liverpool they took up more readily for drunkenness; while in other places they took up only those who were both drunk and disorderly; but, at all events, the numbers were very remarkable, and showed what had been

  1785
  the effect of free trade in licensing public-houses in Liverpool, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the number of public-houses in Liverpool which were the resort of thieves, he should remember that it was under a system of free licensing that they existed. In Manchester the magistrates put on the rein, keeping the public-houses very much on the same level as they had been for many years before. It was not for him to say whether they had not carried restriction too far; but their restrictive system could not be fairly tried, for they were check-mated by the Beer Acts, and in spite of them, in consequence of the Excise licences, 1,400 or 1,500 beer-shops sprang up in that city. Beer, however, was not so deleterious as spirits; and in Manchester, as he had shown, drunkenness was far less prevalent than in Liverpool. Again, some years ago there was free trade in public-houses in Dublin. And what happened there? In the year 1841 there were taken before the magistrates 23,443 persons. Out of these, 23,014 were more or less affected by drink. Free trade in drink, then, it was clear, produced drunkenness. Was there, then, any call for this Bill on the part of the public? He ventured to say that the national feeling was strong against it, meetings had been held in the West Riding of Yorkshire against it, and many magistrates and others from that part of the country had been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, and he believed some of their Amendments had been embodied in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman said he was about to remedy all the evils of the system by imposing new restrictions. And now he came to the important question, could they pass this Bill without injuring social order and public morality? By the stringent veto which he gave to the magistrates the right hon. Gentleman thought to provide an irrefragable guard against these houses becoming instruments of immorality. What was the check which the magistrates had under this Bill? They might, in the first place, say that a house was not an eating-house, and then the Excise would not grant a licence. Then it was important that they should know what an eating-house was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there would be no difficulty in the magistrate's ascertaining what was a bonâ fide eating-house. But he said, also, there was an immense difficulty in a magistrate ascertaining the requirements of the neigh-
  1786
  bourhood. And he gave them a question which was very much more difficult to solve. A confectioner, he said, should be entitled to a wine licence. Well, what was a confectioner? Many persons in the House and out of the House said it would be perfectly innocent for a person to get a glass of light French wine with his biscuit. And if this could be confined to a high class of confectioners, he (Mr. Hardy) should have no objection. But as to light French wine with a biscuit, whoever asked for it? There could be no better test than in the precincts of the House. There were Members of Parliament constantly going to the counters in the lobby. But did they ask for a glass of claret with their biscuit? Had there ever been there a demand for that kind of wine. But to go further. The high-class confectioner might have his sherry on the counter. But would the low-class confectioner? Suppose a man painted confectioner over his door, and sold buns and sponge-cakes, was he a confectioner? If such men were to be entitled to a licence, every immoral house in the metropolis would only have to stick up a few cannisters full of biscuits into their windows to enable them to get a licence for the sale of wine. Then with regard to the eating-house, the definition given of an eating-house by the Bill was most remarkable. It was any house where animal food was sold, or other food, with which fermented liquors were usually drunk. He was sorry to say that he knew of no food with which it was not usual to drink these liquors. It was throwing a duty too difficult and delicate upon magistrates to determine what were eating-houses under such a definition. What justice of the peace, if he were called upon to say whether a man who had pork pies for sale, which certainly contained animal food, or mutton pies, biscuits, gingerbread, cakes of all kinds, kept an eating-house or not—could safely tell the Excise that such a place was not an eating-house. No man could perform such a duty conscientiously; for it would be impossible for him to arrive at a just judgment. Then again the proposal would open the door to every sort of house to get these licences How, in that case, were beershops to be checked? They perhaps could not represent them as disorderly houses; there might be no means of fixing upon them that opprobrium. A beetshop-keeper might have had a disorderly house; but he might shift his residence to a few doors off, and that house could not be called disorderly.

  1787
  The right hon. Gentleman had provided no check in respect of the character of a man. He refused to put the character of the applicant in question, or the fitness of the particular premises, so that houses might be provided with back entrances and other contrivances to prevent the inspection of the police. He refused to take notice of the question of locality of the houses, so that they might be opened in out-of-the-way places and be frequented by people who wished to keep out of the Way of the police. The Bill therefore did not provide any sufficient check as to the nature of the house itself, or as to who was a confectioner. There was no effectual check upon disorderly houses, and anybody might get a licence if he so wished. Then the Bill gave no power to the magistrates where the locality or the premises were unsuitable, or where the character of the occupant was bad. But even supposing the Bill did all that was pretended and professed, did it do them in a way which Englishmen would stand? What was the mode? Was it in harmony with the other legislation of the country? They proposed to put into the hands of the magistrates a secret and irresponsible power, which would render them odious in the eyes of all Englishmen, because they were to exercise their veto in secrecy. But was it only the magistrates who received this power? From whom would they receive their information? What enormous power did this Bill practically place in the hands of the police? They were the persons who informed the magistrates of all that was going on in the neighbourhood. They would say to the magistrates—this is a man of bad character; the house he is about to open is not a real eating-house; he affects to sell provisions, but it is really a house of another description;" and thus a house might be condemned as disorderly before it was opened. The licence would be refused in secret, and the man would be unheard. These questions at present came before the magistrates at Special Sessions, where they were watched by the reporters of the public press. Thus a check was placed upon the magistrates, and he ventured to say, that if the Government were to put forth a little of their pressure upon the magistrates, and make the licensing system a reality and not a sham, they would find the magistrates ready to put down the disreputable houses, and would have decent and respectable places of entertainment throughout the country. He knew that at
  1788
  every Special Sessions the police came forward with the list of places, and said whether they had or had not heard a report against any of those places during the year. And this was a most important check. But the plan proposed by this Bill was to give a secret arbitrary power, for the exercise of which the magistrates would not be responsible to any man. Thus, in the case of an honest magistrate, they were putting a burden upon him such as no gentleman in England ought to bear. At present magistrates acted freely and honestly, because they acted openly. But by this Bill they led them into temptation—and so odious would the system become in a twelvemonth, or even less time, that it would break down the whole of the guards provided by this Bill, throw every thing into confusion, and sweep away the licensing system, without the Legislature having duly considered what they were to substitute in its place. In the early part of the Session he (Mr. Hardy) had asked for the Report of the Commission on the Forbes Mackenzie Act. A Commission had been sent into Scotland to inquire into the operation of that Act. It was an Act restricting the sale of wine and spirits, and the houses which supplied wine and spirits. The preamble of that Act contrasted in a most remarkable manner with the provisions of the present Bill. It recited that great evils had arisen from certificates granted, and enacted that, for the sale of nine and spirits in Scotland, no confectioner or dealer in provisions or eatables of any kind shall receive a licence to sell wine or spirits to be consumed on the premises. A Commission, as he had said, was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act; and, whilst waiting for the Report, the Legislature of this country was called upon to pass an Act for England and Wales upon totally different principles. That Commission was composed of several eminent and enlightened men, and Sir G. Clerk's name was sufficient to guarantee an impartial and disinterested inquiry. Was it not important that the House should know what the Report of these Commissioners said? He hoped he was not detaining the House; but this was a subject on which he felt a deep interest, and he hoped the House would pardon him. Then it was said that this Bill by promoting free trade would prevent adulteration. But only a few days since the hon. Member for Birmingham introduced a Bill to stop the adulteration of articles of food and drink.

  1789
  But the House well knew that the statutes relating to publicans and beer-sellers contained restrictions of the most severe character against the adulteration of beer and spirits, yet the attempt to put down adulteration had entirely failed. The hon. Member for Stafford had informed the House that bread was often made of plaster of Paris, and that cayenne was nothing but brickdust; so that a man after eating this adulterated bread, and then endeavouring to rectify his digestive organs by the stimulant of cayenne pepper, ran a chance of having his internal economy entirely walled up. In all these articles free trade prevailed. Under the most perfect system of free trade, therefore, adulteration still prevailed; and did the right hon. Gentleman seriously hope to put a stop to it by this new piece of legislation, and with that object did he really mean to give these licences at random? The permission to sell wine in single bottles was a matter of minor importance. Yet there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for Southampton. One of the chief evils that had been put down in Scotland was the presenting servants who came to make purchases for their masters and mistresses at shops with wine or spirits over the counter, and therefore grocers had been prohibited from selling or giving spirits or wine to be consumed on the premises. Was there no danger of this system extending itself, and was it so certain that tradesmen would not change the Christmas boxes given to servants from money lo wine, and so introduce disorder into houses where it had never existed before? He thought that subject was worthy of considerable attention. He had already treated of some of the social features of the measure; but there was another question which he would wish to put. Was it likely that this Bill would succeed as a matter of revenue? He confessed he thought not. By this time it was pretty well seen which way the taste of the mass of the people was extending. It was not to be supposed that a supply of milder stimulants would stop the sale of stronger liquors. The case might be compared to that of the newspapers which were vigorously written, but might in politics or other respects be objectionable. People asked one another, why do you not take in a good respectable family paper? The light wines might represent the Family Journal. They were what would be considered harmless, and to those who had
  1790
  been in the habit of drinking stronger liquors insipid. And as the "family papers" disappeared from circulation before the more spirited and racy journals, so people would not for French wines abandon the more exciting stimulants for which they had a greater affection. The right hon. Gentleman said that in countries where light wines were consumed drunkenness did not prevail. Upon this point he (Mr. Hardy) had not been able to obtain distinct information, but Fennimore Cooper, the American novelist, declared that in Paris he saw more drunken people by going into the right quarters than ever he saw in London. There were no fewer than 360,000 of these wineshops in France, and it was ascertained also that out of 1,100 homicides 400 were committed in these places. With respect to Sweden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some information which he was glad to hear. Some time ago he had occasion to comment upon the case of Sweden, and he should be delighted to hear that she had rescued herself from the reproach to which she then seemed open. In Sweden there had been an unlimited right to distil, enjoyed by every peasant; and in Alison's History it was stated that under that system, notwithstanding the thinness of the population, there were 150,000 distilleries, the consequence being a degree of immorality in some of the towns unparalleled in any European capital. It was stated by Dr. Wald of Konigsberg that, in the conscription of 1852 for a district of Western Prussia (in the very neighbourhood of the German wine country) out of 174 young men examined for the army only four were declared admissible by the surgeons, the remaining 170 being physically incapacitated by dram-drinking. In the face of such facts as these he could not accept for Gospel the general assertion that wine drinking countries were free from the evils which in this country arose from drunkenness. He was happy to observe here a gradual decrease in the consumption of strong liquors, which was due partly to the efforts of temperance societies, to the improved education and increased facilities for information and amusement possessed by the masses, and, more than all, to the better houses which had been, and which he trusted were being built, in various parts of the country for the labouring classes. This want was at the root of many evils, for if men had comfortable homes, they would not seek in the well-lighted, warm, and sanded rooms of beer

  1791
  houses enjoyments which they did not find under their own roofs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, anticipated a considerable revenue from the operation of the present Bill; but was such an increase desirable, was it not, he would ask, the fact that a steady decrease in the consumption of spirituous liquors had taken place of late years in proportion as the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa became more widely spread? Was the House prepared to put a stop to such a state of things? Did hon. Members seek to supply the place of the articles which he had just mentioned by the introduction of wine? If so, did they expect that the light wines of France were to form the staple products of consumption? Was it the fact that the taste for such wines would be found to exist, except among the higher classes? He was told that a large quantity of wine was imported into France from Spain, which admitted of being mixed with alcohol to a great extent to suit the English market, so that if it were introduced into this country we should only have spirit-drinking in another shape, and upon what principle could they stop short of actual spirits when this act was once in operation? The right hon. Gentleman had told us that the year 1860 was to be a memorable year. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was to make it memorable for a political revolution, and the right hon. Gentleman for a fiscal revolution. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to add a Social Revolution. And the right hon. Gentleman enthroned on his grand measures of 1860, and resting there upon his fame says, like Jack Cade on London Stone, "I charge and command, that the conduit run nothing but claret wine this first year of our reign." He (Mr. Hardy) believed that it would not be claret, but the old established liquors of the country, which would find their way through the conduits which the right hon. Gentleman was opening. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer against attempting to raise a revenue which it was desirable should fail him in the end. The more the people improved, the more he would lose; the more the people ceased to drink, the more loss there would be to the revenue—never more wanted than at the present moment. He warned him, therefore, to build his reputation on something better than establishing houses for increased intoxication, as he believed would be the effect of the Bill, which would produce increased competition amongst those
  1792
  who already could not live fairly out of this trade, but only by low and debasing incitements to bring men to drink in their houses. He said that if the right hon. Gentlemen added a new class to the 121,000 houses which already existed, he would be doing his best, against his own intention, against the will of his constituents, and against the will of the moral part of the community—and against, he trusted, the sound sense of that House—to demoralize the people of this country.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was with regret that he acceded to the adjournment, but as there were many Gentlemen who wished to speak, who had not spoken, he could not resist the Motion.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday, the 19th April.
  House adjourned at a quarter-after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Trustees, Mortgagees, &c.
2a Stamp Duties; Income Tax.
3a Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Stamp Duties; Income Tax.

THE TYNE HARBOUR OF REFUGE.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to correct a statement he had made

1711
the other evening with reference to the sum expended on the works now in progress at the mouth of the Tyne. He had read from the Report of the Harbour of Refuge Commissioners that the sum of £750,000 was recommended by them as the total cost of efficient works for a good harbour of refuge at the mouth of the Tyne. That was quite correct; but he stated incidentally that £500,000 of this sum had been already expended, which he found was not the fact. The sum actually laid out was only £142,000.

PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS (IRELAND).—MOTION FOR RETURNS.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved an address for—
"Return of all Towns in Ireland, exclusive of Parliamentary Boroughs, containing a population of 3,000 or upwards, specifying the County in which each such Town is situated, and showing the Number of Occupiers rated at above £4 and under £6, and at £6 and upwards but under £8, and at £8; And also,
"Returns showing the Area, Population, Income Tax, Number of Occupiers rated at various Amounts, Number of Parliamentary Voters, &c. in each County in Ireland, and showing the Area, Population, Income Tax, the Number of Tenemenuated at various Amounts under £10, Number Voters, &c. in each Parliamentary Borou Ireland."
The noble Marquess said that the Irish Reform Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament was, in his opinion, so complete a mockery that he could not understand why the Government had taken the trouble to bring it forward. So strongly did he entertain that view with respect to it, that if it should ever come up to their Lordships' House, which he hoped would not be the case, he should deem it to be his duty to oppose its passing into a law. For his own part he had not heard that any desire for Parliamentary Reform had been exhibited in Ireland, or that the question was one which had taken the slightest hold of the minds of the Irish people. But if it were deemed necessary that some alteration in the electoral system in that country should be made, he thought due consideration should be shown for those large constituencies which were not adequately represented. He might also observe that there were in Ireland boroughs so poor and having constituencies so small that they were to a great extent naturally subject either to proprietary or to other corrupt influences; while
1712
on the other hand there were populous places in Ireland that were at present either wholly unrepresented or very inadequately represented. It was most expedient in any measure of Reform which might be passed that such cases should be placed upon some more satisfactory footing than that upon which they at present stood. He held, for example, in his hand a Return of no less than sixteen boroughs not one of which had a constituency exceeding 300 registered electors, and that number, it must be borne in mind, was considerably larger than the number who voted at the last election. He might add that of the sixteen boroughs to which he had alluded six had a constituency of less than 200, so that they afforded a good ground for the hand of the Reformer to work upon. And how, let him ask, was it proposed to deal with these cases in the Government measure? According to certain returns which had been laid before the House, the result of the change which that measure proposed to effect would be that not one of those boroughs would have a constituency of 400; that twelve would still have a constituency of less than 300, and four a constituency of less than 200. That being the proposed operation of the measure, he could not, as he had said before, look upon it otherwise than a perfect mockery of Reform, to disturb the existing system for the attainment of such a result as that. Now he would not completely abolish the representative system in all such small places; what he should propose in most cases would be to group those boroughs in such a way as that they might have a constituency somewhat respectable in point of numbers—in such a way, for instance, as that no constituency should number below 500, while the population which it represented should not be less than 12,000. He had said that the large constituencies in Ireland were inadequately represented, and he might, in support of that opinion, mention the county of Cork, which, with a population of 563,000 and 15,700 electors, had altogether only six Members; the county of Down, which, with a population of 328,000 and a constituency exceeding 11,000, had only three Members; Tipperary, which, with a population of 331,600 and 9,467 electors, had only four Members; and Galway, which, with a population of 297,000 and a number of electors exceeding 5,000, had only two Members. There was also the county of Dublin, which, although the

1713
number of its inhabitants wag not more than 143,000, yet was of greater importance, and which, with a constituency of 6,200, returned only two Members. Those were, in his opinion, points well worthy the attention of the Government in dealing with the subject of Irish Parliamentary Reform.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Marquess had not merely anticipated the discussion of that Reform Bill which he had expressed a hope would not come up to their Lordships' House from the House of Commons, but had, to a certain extent, sketched out a counter-measure of his own. Now, while his wishes with respect to the fate of the Government Bill were quite different from those which his noble Friend entertained, he must decline following him into a discussion of the details of that or any other measure which might be introduced on the subject. The Government Bill involved, he was prepared to admit, no proposals of immense magnitude. It was not, for instance, of a character "to take away one's breath," if he might be allowed the use of an expression which he had of late on one or two occasions seen in print. He might, however, observe that the Irish people would not, in all probability, be disposed to think that equal justice had been dealt out to them if the small boroughs in that country were, as the noble Marquess suggested, to be disfranchised, while no such course was to be adopted with regard to boroughs of the same description in England. The noble Marquess seemed to be of opinion that it would be advisable that a certain number of those boroughs should be grouped together, but in order to effect that object it would be necessary to alter the proportion of the borough to the county representation, inasmuch as no substitute could otherwise be found for those boroughs he wished to see disfranchised. He might add that the population in boroughs and that in counties in Ireland stood to one another in proportions different from that which was the case in England or Scotland. The county population in Scotland, for instance, was 2,000,000, of which the town population exceeded one-half; while in Ireland, with a population of 6,000,000, the town population did not exceed 1,000,000. Under these circumstances, the noble Marquess would see that there would be considerable difficulty in adopting in Ireland the changes which he recommended. There could, of course, be no objection to the Returns re-
1714
quired by the noble Marquess, on the understanding that the population should be taken according to the last Census.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he did not think the Irish Reform Bill was a measure in itself of very great importance; indeed all reference to Ireland might very well have been omitted in the present legislation, were it not that if that had been the case the Irish people might have thought they were treated with neglect. But whatever might be the character of the Reform Bill for Ireland, in other respects it would not be denied that it contained some very great anomalies. Some of its provisions were of a very extraordinary character, and he could not help calling attention to one which had attracted considerable notice—he meant that clause which provided that Irish Peers should in future be enabled to sit as representing Irish constituencies in the House of Commons. On that clause there was undoubtedly an extraordinary unanimity of opinion as well on this side of the water as on the other. How it was possible to conceive that such a power should be granted to Irish Peers he could not imagine. Irish Peers had already the privilege of representing their own body in the House of Lords, and now it was proposed that they should enjoy another franchise,—namely, that of representing their own counties and boroughs in the other House of Parliament. How could that clause recommend itself to the House of Commons? It was too much to suppose that the present Irish Members would commit political suicide by supporting a clause the effect of which must be to create the most formidable competition against themselves in every constituency throughout the country.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he did not now propose that any disfranchisement should take place in Ireland, except to the extent which was contemplated in England, by depriving constituencies of one Member when the population was below a certain amount. The boroughs of Athlone and Portarlington each returned a Member to Parliament. He found that under the Government Reform Bill four additional voters would be added to the constituency of Athlone, which would thus amount to 258; the increased roll of voters for Portarlington would number 140. He did not believe that by grouping these boroughs together, and allotting one of their Members to some large constituency, any injustice would be done to the 398 voters

1715
of whom the joint constituency would then be composed.
Motion agreed to.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.—QUESTION.
LORD EBURYrose to inquire, Whether it is the Intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow any Part of the Site of Old Smithfield Market to be appropriated for Building Purposes? The noble Lord said he had always taken a deep interest in the affairs of the metropolis, and had spent twenty years of his life in endeavouring to remove the vested interests of Smithfield Market from that great centre of the town. Having got rid of them he had since been employed in endeavouring to prevent their resettling themselves on that at present vacant space of ground in the shape of a dead-meat market. He had attended with deputations to both the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) and the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government to ask that they would not allow old Smithfield to be covered with buildings. He might state that Smithfield had been granted to the Corporation of London, to be held so long as it was used as a cattle market; but when that was removed to another locality the site of Smithfield reverted to the Crown, and the Crown now claimed the right to hold it. He believed that the Corporation of the City at first demurred to the Government interpretation of the terms of the charter; but there could not, he thought, be any doubt that when the market was removed to Copenhagen Fields—whither, however, it ought not to have been removed, for he contended that it ought to have been removed wholly out of town—the ground reverted absolutely to the Crown. When that removal took place he formed one of a deputation to the noble Earl at the head of the last Government, requesting that the area should not be built over, and both from that noble Earl and more recently from the Government of the noble Lord now in power he received the assurance that there was no intention to build over the area. This was so far satisfactory, because there was no part of London where there was so dense and squalid a population as that which was found in the immediate neighbourhood of Smithfield and the adjacent localities of Snow Hill, Clerkenwell Green, Long Lane, Cow Lane, and field Lane. It was most important to the health of the people in those localities that this open space should
1716
be kept clear of buildings. That large population had no other space whatever for their children to play on. But, although he had received an assurance from both Governments, neither of them had taken a step in the matter, but had left the ground in the same state in which it was left when the market was removed some years ago. The Government having done nothing in the matter the City authorities had proposed that the space should be appropriated to a dead-meat market, and for other purposes to which they might think proper to apply it. Their Lordships should recollect that there were no squares or open places in the City for the recreation of the people. He thought the Government should have taken possession of the ground in the name of the Crown, have railed it off, and have made it into a playground for the poor children of the neighbourhood. The reason why he had asked the question of which he had given notice was because he understood a plan had been submitted by certain parties for making a great railway terminus on the site of Smithfield. The company was not in posse but in esse, for an Act had been obtained from Parliament for making a railway which should bring the Great Northern and the London and North Western Railways to that part of the town, and the company had proposed to the Government a plan under which they would occupy the greater part of Smithfield. He hoped he should receive an assurance from the noble Duke that the Government did not mean to sanction this covetousness on the part of the Corporation of London. He wished to know whether the Government would persevere in keeping the space vacant, and further, whether they would take possession of it in the name of the Crown.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Lord was probably aware, though he had not stated it to the House, that the City had at that moment a Bill before the other House of Parliament sanctioning the formation of a dead-meat market on the site of Smithfield. Communications had taken place between the City authorities and the Home Office on this subject; and, though no decision had yet been come to by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he was bound to tell the noble Lord that the proposition had been received not unfavourably. At the same time he might state that the matter was still under consideration, and no answer which would at all compromise the Government had yet

1717
been given. He did not know at what stage the Bill had arrived, but he apprehended that some arrangement, involving the sanction of the Crown, must be come to before the Bill reached their Lordships' House.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.

  INCOME TAX BILL.
  BILLS READ 2a; 3a; AND PASSED.
  Orders of the Day for the Second Reading, and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38, to be considered in order to their being dispensed with in the said Bill, read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: If I rightly understand the wish of the House, from the desire which was expressed on a former day by two or three noble Friends, and from the tacit assent of the remainder, I apprehend that it is not now desired to enter into a discussion at the present moment either of this measure or of the Income Tax Bill; but that a discussion should take place on the general financial scheme of the Government when some three or four other Bills are brought before us after Easter. If that be the feeling of the House, I shall act more in conformity with it by abstaining from debating the question, or from defending an enactment which there is no desire at present to assail. I shall, therefore, simply explain to your Lordships that the general scope of this Bill is to extend to various other articles of agreement in writing that principle of penny taxation which has been adopted with vary great success for some years, and has produced, on the whole, a very considerable revenue. It was first adopted in the case of the Post Office by my noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) when Chancellor of the Exchequer in a former Government. It was carried further by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who imposed an uniform rate of 1d. on receipt stamps; a step further was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Government when he imposed a similar stamp on bankers' cheques; and we now propose to extend the principle considerably further by imposing a small tax, varying from a penny to sixpence, on various other documents. I do not now enter into the question of stamps for a higher amount which are to be found in the present Bill. I am quite aware that objections have been raised to the measure on the ground that it interferes with trade and creates impediments of an undesirable nature. It is
  1718
  impossible to deny that any tax, however small, must have that tendency; but when it is believed—whether rightly or wrongly, I purposely abstain from entering into that question—that the general measures of the Government are largely calculated for the relief of the trade of the country, we have thought it not unfair that it should be called on to contribute a compensation to the revenue to an extent which it is well able to bear. With this short explanation, I beg now to move the Second Reading of these Bills, with the intimation that, if your Lordships should be willing to agree to it, I shall then move the suspension of the Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38, with a view to both Bills being read a third time and passed.
  Motion made and Question proposed. That the Stamp Duties Bill be now read the second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with; and Bill read 3a and passed.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthen moved that the Income Tax Bill be now read the second time, and said as their Lordships had been kind enough to allow him to pass the former Bill without a single word of observation, he would not further intrude upon their Lordships' time even with any explanation of the only two remarkable features in this Bill—that was to say the imposition of an additional penny in the tax, and why it was only imposed for one year. He apprehended that these points would all be raised in the discussion that was to take place after Easter, and, therefore, he would abstain from expressing any opinion whatever on them now.
  Bill read 2a; Standing Orders read, and dispensed with; Bill read 3a and passed.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.