Sitting of 3 April 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 31] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Exciseable Liquors (Licensing).
Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [101].
Ordered—Rating and Local Government, debate adjourned; Local Taxation, debate adjourned.
Ordered—First Reading—Representation of the People Acts Amendment* [98]; Charity Commissioners* [99]; Bath City Prison* [100].
Second Reading—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) [45].
Third Reading—Marine Mutiny*, and passed.

SALE OF DAMAGED TEA AND COFFEE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether tea or coffee damaged by sea or bilge water is allowed to be taken out of bond for kiln-drying and other purposes, and afterwards returned to bond to be sold as sound tea or coffee; whether the quantity of damaged tea so treated has not largely increased since the reduction of the Duty in June 1865; and, whether also it is true that no account is kept of such operations, (as although in cases of wreck) the quantity is sometimes very large?
  MR. BAXTER: Tea and coffee which accidentally on the voyage have absorbed sea or bilge water are allowed by law to be taken out of bond for the purpose of being kiln-dried, for the duty is chargeable on the weight of the tea and coffee, not on that of the water. These goods when dried are returned to warehouse and delivered thence as ordinary goods on payment of the duty. The Crown has no power to interfere with the conditions of sale. The quantity of tea so treated has not increased since the reduction
  1044
  of the duty in June, 1865. It is believed that there is not a single instance of tea having been so delivered to be kiln-dried since 1865. Proper accounts of the weights of goods are taken both at delivery from and at the return to the bonded warehouses; but no statistical or collective account or record of number and dates of such operations is kept. It would, therefore, be necessary to search the registers carefully in order to give any Return to Parliament—a task involving great labour and expense.

COURT OF CHANCERY—COMMITTAL OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the committal to York Castle on the 16th of March, for contempt of the Court of Chancery, of Mr. John Murgatroyd, a person of unsound mind; and, whether it is the case that in an Official Report addressed to the Lord Chancellor it is stated that the parties at whose instance the committal was ordered, were well aware of Mr. Murgatroyd's state of mind; and, if so, what steps it is the intention of the Government to take upon the subject, with a view to provide against the recurrence of such proceedings?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor respecting this case, and was informed that the Governor of York Castle had written a private letter to the noble and learned Lord to state that Mr. John Murgatroyd, who had been imprisoned for contempt of the Court of Chancery in omitting to discharge his duties as an executor, was a person of unsound mind. The solicitors who obtained the order for the committal were immediately communicated with, and the result was that, at their instance, the prisoner was discharged. They affirmed that, when they applied for the order, they had no knowledge that Mr. Murgatroyd was of unsound mind.

ARMY—REGULATION BILL—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the

1045
Table of the House a Statement setting forth the alterations they propose to make in the Royal Warrant concerning promotion, and the whole of their scheme for the promotion and retirement of Officers, together with an Estimate of its probable or possible cost, and also the plan for the amalgamation of the Regular and Reserve Forces; and, if so, when?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was not prepared at present to lay on the Table a statement setting forth the alterations the Government proposed to make concerning promotion and retirement of officers in the Army, further than he had already announced to the House.

NAVY—HARBOURS AND COAST DEFENCES.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he proposes, before he commits the Country to a large expenditure for harbours and coast defences, to submit the type of ships which he intends shall form that force, to the consideration of the Committee now sitting on Ironclad Ships; or to obtain their opinion as to the type of vessel or vessels they consider to be the best suited for that purpose?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the form of the Question was likely to convey the erroneous impression that the Government was about to put the country to a large expense for harbour and coast defence. They had no such intention. The construction of gunboats would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible; but the type of those gunboats had not been referred to the Committee on iron-clad ships. As regarded the larger class of ships, such as the Cyclops, there was no intention, on the part of the Government, to lay down new ships of that class in the present financial year.

WEST COAST OF AFRICA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a recent number of the "West African Times," in which it is alleged that his statement with regard to the defraying from Imperial Funds of the expenses of the Steamer on the West
  1046
  African Coast is incorrect, and that the burden is actually borne by Colonial Revenues?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the newspaper in question, which was good enough to acquit him of "wilful misrepresentation," but accused him of being "ignorant and ill-informed," and of having been guilty of a "looseness of statement," which was "disgraceful." The facts were these—The Select Committee of 1865 recommended that the West African Settlements should be concentrated under one Governor at Sierra Leone, and that steam communication should be provided. As the whole arrangement was one by which considerable saving to Imperial Funds was effected, it was thought right that the Imperial Exchequer should bear the cost of the provision and maintenance of the steamer. This was accordingly done; and after a steamer had been provided, a sum of £5,000 per annum had been voted for its maintenance, which would be found in Class 5, Vote 3, of the Estimates of the present year. If the cost exceeded £5,000, no doubt the Colony would be charged with the excess; but there was no reason to expect that this would be the case. This was his statement, and it was entirely accurate. It was quite true, as stated by The West African Times, that the sum of £5,000 appeared in the Sierra Leone Estimates of the present year under the head of "Colonial steamer;" so did another item immediately preceding, "Grant for Governor's salary, £3,500;" but these both appeared not under the head of expenditure, but of revenue, not as sums paid from, but received by, the Colonial Exchequer, and the exercise of a little ordinary intelligence would have enabled anyone to perceive that these entries related to the precise sums mentioned in our home Estimates, and received from the Imperial Exchequer in aid of the Colony. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House would be satisfied that the looseness of statement had not been on his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) side.

POST OFFICE—SALARIES—THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether any extra pay-

1047
ments have been made, or are intended to be made, to the officials of the Post Office, in consideration of the additional work they have had to perform since the Department assumed the management of the telegraph system; what is the amount of such payments; and, whether that amount is included in the estimate of £420,000 for the Post Office Telegraph Service, for which a Vote is proposed to be taken this year?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the salaries of many of the officers of the Post Office had been increased, and others would be increased, on account of the additional labour imposed upon them by the telegraphic service. It was believed that the sum of £420,000 a-year included in the Estimates would be sufficient to defray the expense of such increase.

METROPOLIS—THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that arrangements are in progress for the erection of a wall to enclose the space on the Embankment in front of and adjoining Crown land; and what is the object for which that wall is to be erected?
  MR. BAXTER: It is true that arrangements are in progress for the erection of a wall to enclose the space referred to by the hon. Member. The wall is being erected by the Metropolitan Board of Works in accordance with the 72nd section of the Thames Embankment Act of 1862. It does not at all affect the ultimate appropriation of the ground.

  INDIA—RAILWAY GAUGE.—QUESTION
  MR. KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, bearing in mind the important military results obtainable by continuous gauge on Railways in a time of war, as proved by late events on the Continent, Whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt a new reduced gauge of 3 ft. 3 in. in the Railways to be constructed from the Punjaub to the frontier, thus introducing a break of gauge which will materially delay their proper and continuous working?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the Secretary of State in Council, after very long
  1048
  and careful consideration of the gauge question—a question with regard to which the arguments on either side are very closely balanced—left it to the decision of the Government of India, and that Government being fully cognizant of all the local circumstances, and having given all due weight to those very important considerations that are alluded to in my hon. Friend's Question, did determine to adopt the gauge of 3 ft. 3 in. for the railway to be constructed towards the frontier of the Punjaub, and its decision has received the confirmation of the Secretary of State in Council. I may mention to my hon. Friend that the Papers have been laid upon the Table, and will, I hope, soon be in the hands of hon. Members.

  TENANT FARMERS—THE PROPERTY TAX BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAKERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will inform the House, by a Return or otherwise, what number of persons according to Clause 3 of c. 12 of the 13th and 14th Vic. have made use of the powers of above Act during the years 1868, 1869, and 1870, and how many of such persons were successful in obtaining an abatement from the Commissioners who made the assessment and who were appealed to; and what was the amount of each abatement, and what its proportion to the assessment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no doubt such a Return as the hon. Member contemplates could be made, but it would involve great trouble and expense, because it could only be made by interrogating each surveyor. I do not think, when made, it would be worth the trouble and expense, because, owing to the light taxation on this kind of property, it is notorious that the Return would be almost nil.

INDIA—THE NAWAB NAZIM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, on or about the 17th day of February, the Secretary of State for India, or any officer of his department, received one or more Telegrams, and the date thereof, from or by instruction of the Governor General of India, respecting the whereabouts of the Memo-

  1049
  rial, of the 28th July 1869, from the Nawab Nazim of Bengal to the Secretary of State for India; and, whether the reply to such one or more Telegrams was by Telegram or by Letter, and the dates thereof?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir. Not on the 17th, but on the 8th of February, 1870, the Secretary of State for India did receive a telegram to say that the Memorial alluded to had not arrived in India, and the Secretary of State on the same day telegraphed in return that it had been sent out.

INCOME TAX AND INHABITED HOUSE DUTY (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.
MR. MORLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the power hitherto vested in the Commissioners of Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty in the Metropolitan Districts of granting relief on appeal from year to year on reductions of rental in cases of annual lettings is now superseded for the ensuing five years by the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act 32 and 33 Vic. c. 67; and, whether in case the rent of any property let by the year, included in the assessment made under this Act at £500, should in 1871 be reduced to £400, the Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty are to be levied for the four following years on the higher sum without any means of redress?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply to the first part of the Question, he had to state that the powers of the Commissioners had been superseded in the manner described by the hon. Member, and it was the intention of the Government not to interfere with that arrangement. As to the second part of the inquiry, the rent will be levied under the Metropolis Valuation Act.

NAVY—COMMITTEE ON DESIGNS OF SHIPS OF WAR.—QUESTION.
MR. CORRYasked, Whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will lay upon the Table of the House the Evidence taken before the Committee on Designs of Ships of War?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would permit him to reserve the decision of the Government on this matter until the Committee
1050
had completed its labours, and they were able to form an opinion as to how much of the evidence, if any, ought to be treated as confidential. Of course, there would be every desire to give publicity to as much of the evidence as was compatible with the interests of the public service. He could not, at present, tell how many witnesses would be examined.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, "That the House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Monday the 17th instant."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Motion agreed to.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) BILL— [BILL 45.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) BILL— [BILL 45.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he did not on the present occasion propose to enter at large upon the principle of the Bill, as there was an understanding that the discussion on the principle should be postponed until the Motion for going into Committee. In deference to that understanding he would not refer to it further than to describe it shortly as a measure completely revolutionizing the entire representative system. But he must venture, with all submission, to complain of the course which was about to be taken. When he considered the great scope and probable results of the legislation now proposed, he could not but think that the course about to be taken in respect to the Bill was highly objectionable, and would establish a very bad precedent; and it was liable to misconstruction in the country, for the very fact of reading the Bill a second time nemine contradicente was calculated to give it an artificial advantage to which it was not entitled, and of which he feared it had no need. He, therefore, expressed his earnest hope that those who were the traditional opponents by principle and feeling of such a Bill as the present would not, by allowing the second reading to pass at the present moment without comment, be held to be

  1051
  supine or ready to waive at any stage, when the principle of the Bill should be discussed, their stern and unswerving opposition to it. He regretted that they should have been brought into the position in which they now found themselves in consequence of the Prime Minister having fixed the second reading of the Bill for a night when a large number of Members were necessarily absent on important and unavoidable business—namely, the Quarter Sessions. The only option given to the House if they choose not to accept this arrangement was to sit through Passion Week for the purpose of proceeding with the measure. That was a proposition which the House would naturally decline, and therefore they found themselves now passing the second reading sub silentio. He could quite understand that the Prime Minister, earnest and sincere as he believed him to be in endeavouring to advance the legislation required by the country, and backed by a powerful majority, might feel chafed and irritated at the slow progress of Public Business; but he would, with great deference, ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the present indisposition of the House to share in his zeal for the advance of legislation was not significant that the supply of legislation was somewhat in excess of the wants of the country? He would take this very Bill upon which to found an argument. The Bill had reference to the dissolution of Parliament and the conduct of a General Election. That was an event for which the Government were not likely to have any great desire, nor was it likely to occur very shortly; therefore he ventured to think public interest would not suffer one iota if this Bill gave place to more pressing legislation for some time to come. The list of measures on to-day's Paper would afford ample occupation for a whole Session; indeed, some of them were of such magnitude and involved such large interests that one Session would hardly suffice to carry them into law. He, therefore, repeated there was an overplus of legislation, and if that were diminished the whole of the difficulties in which they found themselves would disappear, and they would no longer hear of the Leaders of the House in high places making propositions and suggesting schemes entirely at variance with the feelings and habits of Englishmen. That was not the time; but the
  1052
  time would come for discussing those schemes which were rendered necessary only by the extra amount of legislation which was laid on the Table. He would not detain the House further. But in behalf of those—and there were many—who were passive but rather unwilling parties to the arrangement to-night, he claimed the fairest and fullest opportunity of stating their objections to the principles of this Bill, which he could only describe as antagonistic alike to their principles, feelings, and traditions.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was one of those who had all along consistently opposed the Ballot, and would continue to do so. He should like to have heard from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who for a vast number of years had also consistently opposed it, the reasons they had for turning round and supporting this most objectionable Bill. They had a most able speech from the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. W. E. Forster), and who had been a consistent supporter of the Ballot; but there were those sitting around him who had not always been so; and though he was quite willing to admit that every man had a right to change his opinion, he thought they had a right to expect from these hon. Gentlemen some stronger reasons than had yet been adduced why so great a change had occurred in their sentiments with regard to legislation on this subject. He adhered to what he stated the other evening, that it would have been a gracious and courteous act on the part of the Prime Minister if, knowing the feeling of the large majority on that side of the House in relation to this Bill, he had postponed the second reading till after Easter. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, the best judge of how to conduct the Business of the House; but if he thought that by forcing on the second reading of this measure he would advance it one iota towards a satisfactory conclusion he was certainly very much mistaken. If it had been put down for after Easter they could then have fairly discussed the measure upon its merits, instead of being obliged to pursue the very objectionable course of having to discuss it upon going into Committee. Did hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who always headed their election addresses "To the free and independent electors,"

  1053
  think their constituents were now less free and independent than they were before the late Reform Bill, and could they not now be trusted to give their votes freely and independently like Englishmen? He should have been ashamed to bring in a Bill of this kind, which had so often been rejected by large majorities in that House. Now, they had got an increased constituency, requiring most careful handling to see that there was no personation or bribery, which generally followed personation; he said this was no time to bring in a Bill of this kind. He was one of those who trusted his fellow-countrymen to give their votes, as a sacred and honourable thing ought to be given, in the face of day. He would, therefore, on every occasion, consistently and persistently oppose this Bill.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, there was one remark made by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) which ought not to pass unnoticed, and from which he totally dissented. The hon. Member said because a dissolution was not impending there was no reason for pressing forward this Bill. Now he, on the other hand, regretted very much that this Bill did not pass last year, and he should very much regret if it did not pass this year; for it was of the utmost importance that the constituencies should get thoroughly acquainted with the machinery of the Bill in the bye elections which might take place before a General Election occurred. It was perfectly impossible to adopt a perfect measure at first, and therefore the sooner this Bill was passed the more perfect they would be able to make it before a General Election.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot) would not consider the arguments he had brought forward against this Bill as irresistible because he did not now attempt to answer them. In consequence of the arrangement which had been come to the House did not expect that they should go into a full debate to-night, and where there was not a full debate a partial debate was often very inconvenient. Consequently, it was from no disrespect to the hon. and gallant Member that he took no notice of the—to him—somewhat novel argument addressed to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. With respect to the reason
  1054
  why they had consented to the arrangement to take the discussion on the principle of this Bill upon going into Committee was, that it suited the convenience of hon. Members to do so; had the discussion been taken to-night many of those who took interest in the matter would not have been present. And as to the demands on the House for legislation, however anxious the Government might be to consult the convenience of Members, if the business of the country was to be transacted, they must proceed with the Bills very much in the order in which they had been brought forward. The hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had given the answer to his own objection when he said that there was a great demand at present upon the House for legislation. The country really expected legislation in many important matters, and it would be impossible to do their duty in that respect unless they pressed forward measures with all convenient speed. There were two questions coming on this evening which would tax the energies of the House—the subject of local taxation and the licensing system—neither of which could well be postponed, and it was not the opinion of hon. Members on his side the House, nor of a vast number of persons in the country, that the present Bill was one that could be put off. He could assure hon. Members that it was the desire and the expectation of the Government that there should be a full debate on the merits of the Bill on the Motion to go into Committee; but this was not a Bill as to which it was desirable that there should be two debates on the principle, and there would not be any real inconvenience in taking the debate after Easter on the later stage. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell) need not be alarmed at the idea that he would be supposed to have given up his opposition to the Ballot, for he could negative that supposition on the adjourned debate; and, for himself, he should be glad to avail himself of the opportunity of defending the principle of the Ballot; for though he was not sanguine enough to hope he should be able to adduce arguments which would convince the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), it was possible that the arguments which had convinced right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who had not advocated the

  1055
  Ballot so long as he had done, might have the effect of convincing other hon. Members. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King) that there was a special advantage in taking the Bill this year, because, with the utmost endeavours on the part of the Government and of the House, it was not likely that at first they could make the machinery of the Bill perfect, and it would, therefore, be advisable that it should be tried by special election before it was tried by a General Election. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell) seemed to suppose that the passing of a Ballot Bill would necessitate a dissolution. But that could only happen in one of two ways—a General Election could be necessitated first by the defeat of the Government on an important measure, or by the passing of a measure effecting a complete revolution in our electoral system; but the Ballot Bill, important though it was, did not affect either the person voting or the person voted for; it merely affected the machinery of voting, and he was at a loss to see why a Bill which merely affected the machinery of voting should necessitate a dissolution. He would propose to-morrow to commit the Bill pro formâ, for the purpose of certain amendments, which, however, were not matters of great importance. One of them was the introduction of a line that a person who was engaged in taking votes should not be allowed to state who had not voted during the time that voting was going on. It was thought by persons of experience that that prevention would do much towards checking attempts at personation, because the danger of personation would be increased if the would-be offender did not know whether the voter whom he wished to personate had voted or not. He should also wish to introduce clauses to meet the special circumstances of Scotland. The Bill, as amended, would be circulated immediately on the re-assembling of Members after the Easter Recess.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to apprehend the point of the hon. Member's observations. Granting the courtesy of the Government, and that this stage of the Bill was being taken without debate by agreement between both sides of the House, he, as an independent Member, must back what had been said, and urge
  1056
  that it was setting a dangerous precedent to slur over the stage of the second reading of any Bill of importance, inasmuch as to do so was to sacrifice one of the safeguards provided by the forms of the House for a fair and complete examination of every measure. The forms of the House permitted discussion and division on the second reading, and also on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, because there might have been miscarriage or surprise in the first division, or because circumstances might have arisen subsequently, such as to render it desirable that the opinion of the House should be taken a second time. It was inconsistent with the principle which underlay the forms of the House to forego discussion on the second reading of a Bill of importance, because a number of hon. Members might be absent, attending Quarter Sessions, and to take the main division on the Motion to go into Committee. Such capriciousness destroyed confidence in the forms of the House, and therefore he protested against it. Hon. Members on both sides were to blame in this instance; but, as the agreement had been made, he acquiesced in it, though not silently. It was formerly a time-saving practice to take a division on the introduction of a private Member's Bill, but that custom was nearly obsolete, and he supposed we should end in passing measures through both Houses without debate, and throwing them at the foot of the Throne in the hope that they would receive the Royal Assent. Perhaps this was an extreme supposition; but, at all events, he protested against the proceeding of to-night. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Bill affected merely the machinery of voting; but the alteration of the machinery of voting all over the country was a matter that was of gigantic importance.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) would have a long life if he lived until the House passed measures sub silentio, for the tendency of the House was rather to multiply occasions for discussions, and to protract debates upon matters which formerly would have been disposed of in a few minutes. The hon. Member seemed to be unreasonable, for he assented to the agreement, which he admitted had been made for the convenience of both sides of the House and for the despatch of Business; and if the

  1057
  Opposition were determined to discuss the principle of the Bill at this stage, there would be no alternative but to yield and to proceed with the discussion. But hon. Members did not move the rejection of the Bill; in fact, while protesting they still agreed, and they were therefore out of Court, and had no right to complain that the second reading was to be taken as proposed.
  MR. G. BENTINCKagreed that this was not the proper time to discuss the merits of the Bill; but he must say that hon. Members on his side of the House had a right to express their objections to the arrangement, because in coming into it they had acted under compulsion. As to the suggestion that the passing of this Bill would necessitate a dissolution, there was no instance on record of a self-condemned House of Commons continuing to legislate for the country, and you could not pass a more sweeping condemnation upon the House than by condemning the mode in which it had been elected. Therefore, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen flattered themselves that they were to sit on and not to see the operation of the Ballot for two or three years after the Bill passed, he apprehended that they were very much mistaken. He believed that the course to be taken now was at variance with the practice and with the courtesy of the House, for the practice was not to read such measures a second time without discussion, and the courtesy was not to turn a deaf ear to appeals made from both sides of the House when hon. Members were compelled to absent themselves from the House by business over which they had no control. We had heard of a factious opposition; but there might be such a thing as a factious Government, and, after the course to be taken to-night, the Government would have no right to complain if hon. Members availed themselves of the forms of the House in opposing this measure.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) who represented the Government with respect to the measure, had urged upon the House the demand, which he represented as being made by the country for legislation on the subject. He admitted that there was a great demand for legislation, but it was a demand for the revision of the licensing system, and a loud demand for an alteration of the incidence
  1058
  of local taxation. In the course of the last two years they had had abundant evidence of demand from the country for those measures; but he denied that there was any eager demand for an alteration in the system of voting. Of that they had had no evidence whatever, since the great changes that had been made in the electoral law by the recent Reform Act. It was his firm conviction that the country believed that the House of Commons had acted honestly with the view to suppressing corruption and bribery. In fact, the severity of the recent Statutes had, in great measure, astonished the constituencies; but before the repressive effect had been fully ascertained, they were asked again to go back to this old nostrum. He admitted that it had been brought forward in former years by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government side of the House, and by some on the Ministerial Bench in consequence of agitation, but that agitation had died out—of its vitality they had now no evidence. They had heard nothing of it, indeed, since the great change effected in the electoral laws by the House through the late Reform Act, and the Act against corrupt practices. He repeated that they had heard nothing of this demand since the passing of those measures, and therefore he thought the excuse for taking the measure in Passion Week feeble, especially since they had on the Order Paper two other measures, for each of which there was and had been an active agitation going on in the country for some time. He must be allowed to observe also, that whatever might be the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman offered in support of reading the Bill pro formâ, they could not forget that the whole tendency of the measure, that the whole tendency of secret voting was to evade public opinion. He held that this country had been hitherto safely governed, because at every election a Return had been made, not according to the individual preferences of the electors, but by the public opinion of the electors of the locality; and it was for that reason, because he considered that to be a measure, the purpose of which was to evade the action of public opinion, that he felt so intense an objection to it. He objected also to the course taken by the Government, on account of the unseasonable period. They knew that the House was

  1059
  at present weak in the attendance of its Members, and they proposed the second reading of this Bill. He gave full credit to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that there had been of late a disposition to carry discussions in that House to excess; still, if he remembered rightly, in the Select Committee on Public Business it was alleged, and truly, that the tendency might be abridged if the ancient practice of the House were adhered to, according to which the principle of every measure was discussed on the second reading, thereby clearing the subject for the consideration of its details in Committee. That was a sound opinion, and he heard it expressed but the other day in the Committee on Public Business. He deprecated taking the second reading of the measure now for many reasons, among others for this—the Bill had been spoken of as effecting a small change in the machinery at elections; but never yet had such arbitrary powers—nay, such dangerous powers, been entrusted by the Legislature to the returning officers, as would be conferred upon these officials by the Bill. He held that the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the position of leaders of the Opposition did wrong in consenting to the second reading of the measure being taken in Passion Week. If there was a systematic agreement between those who fill the position of leaders of the Opposition and the Members of the Government to evade discussion of the principles of great measures, the action of the House would virtually be defeated. That action, by which the balance of opinion had hitherto been fairly elicited, would be lost. He stated that afternoon that the House was at present incapacitated by the necessary absence of many of its Members from deciding on the principle of the measure. He would not take a Division now, because it would be unfair; but he objected emphatically to the action of the Government, and to the consent of the leaders of the Opposition who, by urging the second reading of the measure, deprived the House of its legitimate opportunity for contesting the principle of the measure—a principle which he held to be most dangerous.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly an agreement between Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition side and those who
  1060
  occupy the Treasury Bench is not of a nature either to bind the free discretion of the House itself, nor must it be of necessity a right arrangement. I am bound, however, in the name of the freedom of the House, to protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) that no important measure ought ever to be discussed in Passion Week. These abbreviations of our powers of action, by cutting off beyond what usage prescribes the first and last days of each of the short terms into which a Session is broken up, are matters which require to be watched. The hon. Gentleman cannot prove from the records of this House the existence of the canon he lays down, that important measures must not be discussed in Passion Week. The hon. Gentleman likewise objected to the Bill being proceeded with on the ground of the absence of many hon. Gentlemen at Quarter Sessions. Now, it is not possible for the Parliament of England to regulate its proceedings with reference to local arrangements of this nature. We regret exceedingly any collision between the duties of hon. Gentlemen here and elsewhere, and no Minister would be justified in disregarding circumstances of that kind if he could take them into account without any sacrifice of public convenience; but it is quite another thing to say that because a certain number of Quarter Sessions are to be held—not to-day, I believe, but to-morrow—the Government are precluded from going forward with an important Bill like this. The day, I may remark, is not of our choice. Circumstances beyond our control have deprived us of several preceding days on which we should have desired to bring the measure forward, and, looking to the rest of the business, we deemed it inconsistent with our duty to postpone it till after Easter. Undoubtedly it is part of the duty of the Government, with respect to the measures in their hands, to arrange the order in which they are to be taken, and if the Government did not arrange them they failed in their duty. It was our firm conviction that we ought to bring forward this Bill, as one of the heavier and bulkier measures of the Session, directly after the Army Regulation Bill. I need not refer to the challenge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), which requires argu-

  1061
  ments that may be more suitably adduced at another period; but in this conversation one point has been raised to which I must refer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) has laid down what he appears to regard as an unquestioned principle—namely, that if it should please the House to adopt the measure, the change thus introduced must be necessarily followed by dissolution. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to sustain this theory by history and precedent. He always professes to be guided by history and precedent; but, on the contrary, he has departed from history and precedent altogether, for neither sanction this doctrine. It might be all very well to suspend this sword by a thread over their heads, and as his business is to find out everything which might dispose the mind of Parliament to reject the Bill, he conjures up this phantom of dissolution. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that again and again improvements of various kinds have been made in the methods of election, and that they have not disturbed in the slightest degree the comfort and satisfaction of the Members of this House. I suppose, therefore, the hon. Gentleman made use of that argument merely as a ruse of debate. It may be, however, that the hon. Gentleman is sincere, and actuated by a very deep and profound conviction, and that he himself, with his recent experience of elections, looks forward with dread to a very early return to his constituents. If so, I entreat him to tranquillize his own mind and to dismiss from it whatever conceptions of that kind may have disturbed it. I may say on behalf of the Government, and I believe I also speak the sentiments of Members on both sides of the House, that none of us entertain the foolish and wicked intention of cutting short the existence of the Parliament. I trust, then, we may be allowed to consider this Bill on its merits, and that we shall not be perplexed by idle and imaginative fears concocted and created by the sensitive mind of the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that though he had not enjoyed so extensive an experience as the right hon. Gentleman, he had not been an inconsiderate spectator of what had transpired in this country for many years, and it was his deliberate opinion that the House would stand self-condemned if it passed
  1062
  this measure, for the reason that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of showing the country and the constituencies that they had elected the present Parliament in error, and that so soon as they had the so-called protection of the Ballot it would be their duty to send representatives of a highly different complexion. He represented a large constituency which despised the Ballot—looked upon it as a sneaking measure against which Englishmen should set their faces, and which was only practised in countries inhabited by slaves. In America, so little did the inhabitants value the protection of the Ballot that they went to the voting places proclaiming for whom they intended to vote. Their great object was to pride themselves on the purity of the Ballot, and to vote early and often. He represented a constituency of 12,000 voters, and not one of them had ever said one word to him about the Ballot. At the election he had never heard of the Ballot, and he had never heard of the Ballot since. Under these circumstances, not only should he oppose the measure to the best of his ability, but he should avail himself of every form of the House to defeat it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EXCISEABLE LIQUORS (LICENSING).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. BRUCE, in rising to explain the proposals of the Government for the amendment of the laws respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors, said, the measure which he was about to ask the permission of the House to explain, was one which had been demanded by the general voice of the country with an earnestness and an unanimity to which he recollected hardly any parallel. The question was one which had deeply stirred the hearts and feelings of all classes of society. Committees of both Houses of Parliament, the Church in Convocation, ministers of every religious denomination, judges and magistrates collectively and individually, Boards of Health and Boards of Guardians, had all united in proclaiming and impressing upon Parliament the mischiefs which

1063
had arisen from the existing facilities for the purchase of intoxicating liquors. Social and sanitary reformers, who spent their lives in doing good, had declared that their labours for the moral and social improvement of their fellowmen were baffled at every turn by the recklessness and moral degradation which sprung from, and were occasioned by, the liquor traffic. They told us how our prisons, lunatic asylums, and workhouses were filled with inmates whose career had originated in their passion for intoxicating liquors. The tack streets, courts, and alleys of most large towns were thronged with a squalid and dangerous population, who owed their degradation to the same cause; and even the rural districts were not free from the curse. Above all, the working classes of this country, who were the most sensitive to its effects, and who were affected by and felt most the consequences of this system, had, with united voice, called upon Parliament to deliver them from temptation. He would not stay to inquire what amount of exaggeration there might be in the statements made; or ask whether some of the evils attributed to drunkenness might not be traced to infirmity of character and weakness of principle which, under any circumstances, would have betrayed their unfortunate victims into criminal careers. Nor would he pause to ask whether drunkenness was or was not on the increase, for he felt satisfied that the evil was so great as to be a blot upon our social system, and a disgrace to our civilization. He believed that there was throughout the House an unanimous desire to apply itself vigorously to the removal of these evils; and though he was not sure that unanimity would be found as to the mode of applying a remedy, there were certain leading principles in which he thought he might expect the concurrence of all, or nearly all, the Members of the House. He should expect them to concur in the proposition that, under the existing system of licensing, far more licences had been issued than were required for the public convenience. He had no doubt of this concurrence in the face of the fact that there exists a publichouse or a beerhouse for every 182 of the population. The next proposition he would advance was, that the present mode of issuing licences was unsatisfactory,
1064
no guidance being afforded to the magistrates either as to the number to be issued, or the respectability and responsibility of the persons seeking to be licensed. The third proposition in which he expected general concurrence, was that no sufficient guarantees were taken for the orderly management of public-houses or for their effective supervision. His fourth proposition was that the laws against adulteration were insufficient, and, such as they were, were imperfectly enforced; and his fifth and last proposition was that the hours during which publichouses were allowed to be open, admitted of reduction without interfering with the liberty or the material convenience of the people generally. He might add two other propositions, which were at any rate assumed as principles in the Bill of the Government. He did not say that he expected an unanimous agreement upon them, but he expected with regard to them to receive the general support of the House. One was that the public had a right to be supplied with places of refreshment, sufficient in number, convenient, and respectably conducted; and the other was that all existing interests, however qualified their nature might be, were entitled to just and fair consideration. The Bill of the Government, which was framed on the principles he had stated, would repeal, in whole or in part, from 40 to 50 Acts of Parliament, and would consolidate and amend the laws regulating the ordinary retail sale of intoxicating liquors. It affected the wholesale trade only so far as that trade was carried on in in conjunction with retail trade.
Retail trade was of two kinds—one, conducted under licences to sell on or off the premises, the other conducted under licences to sell liquor to be consumed only off the premises. The main distinction between these two classes of licences was that magistrates might, in the exercise of their discretion, refuse to grant licences of the first-named class, there being reserved a right to appeal to the Quarter Sessions in the case of refusal; while they were not authorized to refuse licences for the sale of liquor to be consumed off the premises, except on proof of some statutory disqualification in the applicant. With respect to the licences for the sale of liquors to be consumed off the premises, the Bill would make very slight changes in the

1065
existing law. He proposed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) to abolish the table-beer licences, which were formerly issued by the Excise, without any certificate from the magistrates, on a simple payment of 5s., the licence allowing the sale of beer at not more than 1½d. per quart. As these licences were merely used as excuses for keeping houses for the sale of other and more potent liquors, the Government proposed to abolish them; and, with this exception, and that of the obsolete liquor licence, also to be abolished, the law relating to the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises would remain as at present. The changes introduced by the Act of the hon. Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), which made it necessary that the issue of a magistrate's certificate should precede the granting of a licence by the Excise were retained. That Act was temporary, but considering the very general support which it received in passing through Parliament, he thought the House would agree in its being made the basis of future legislation. Applications for certificates for the sale of intoxicating liquors not to be consumed on the premises were not, however, to be required to be made by the applicant in person, except in the case of the beershop licence. This trade being of a lower character, greater vigilance was needed as to the persons by whom it should be carried on. In two cases no preliminary certificate would be required—namely, that of the wholesale spirit dealer's additional retail licence and the wine merchant's licence. It was conceded on all sides that there was no necessity for applicants for such licences to obtain magistrates' certificates.
He had now stated what was proposed with regard to the sale for consumption off the premises. There remained the far more important branch of the question—that of licences for consumption on the premises. It was necessary, in considering any licensing system, to decide two questions—first, how, if at all, is the number of licences to be determined; and, secondly, how, if at all, is discretion to be exercised in the selection of those who are to be allowed to hold licences. Three antagonistic modes of action had been adopted or advocated for solving
1066
these questions. They had actually tried the systems of magisterial selection and of free trade, and it had been urged upon the Government that they should adopt a system of popular control. Between the system of selection and that of free trade there had been much vaccilation on the part of the Legislature; and from that vaccilation had sprung many of the evils of which they had now to complain. Up to 1830 magisterial selection was the rule, and that was a plan which, at the time it was adopted, seemed calculated to work well. The magistrates were supposed to know the wants of their districts, and might, therefore, it was thought, be safely intrusted to select those who should receive licences. As time went on other ideas began to prevail; and the free trade principle led to the passing of the Beerhouse Act, which remained in force until 1869, when it was repealed. The refreshment house wine licence was a compromise between the two systems, for the Act authorizing the issue of those licences allowed them to be freely granted by the Excise, subject to a power of veto in the magistrates, if certain statutory conditions, as to the character of applicant and premises, were not satisfied. Much difference of opinion, however, had existed throughout the country in reference to this subject of licensing, and a most complete inquiry had been made by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and composed of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Mr. Kerr Seymer, and others of great weight and authority in the House. Their recommendation was founded upon the principle of free trade. It took away the magistrates' power of selection; but qualified free trade by the requirement of various statutory conditions. Free trade had also been the basis of the two Bills promoted by the town of Liverpool, where great attention had been paid to the subject of licence reform, and which had become as distinguished in connection with the licensing system, as Manchester in connection with the improvement of the educational system. On the other hand, the

1067
evils arising from the unrestricted, issue of licences were felt to be so great that in 1857 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) brought in a Bill investing the magistrates with the issue of beerhouse licences as well as publican's licences. That Bill was defeated; but a similar one, subsequently introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), passed without a Division. Yet that Act was regarded only as a makeshift until some complete measure could be introduced. The legislation affecting the trade was in such a state of confusion that it had become necessary to have a conclusive measure. Existing Acts contained conflicting provisions; there was a strange variety of licences; while there was no definite principle on which licences were to be granted. The hours of closing differed in various places, and while publichouses in towns were closed from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m., in the rural districts they might be kept open during the whole night. There were also variations in the Excise duties, depending on whether a particular licence was taken out alone or in combination with others. The Act of 1869 recognized a certain vested interest in beerhouse licences existing at the time of its introduction; and the renewal of such licences could not be refused by magistrates except for certain reasons. There was no obligation to renew any publican's licence. Under these circumstances, it was clear that consolidation and simplification of the law was necessary, and there next arose the question—"On what principle shall a new system be founded?" The magisterial system had much to recommend it. It was founded on the principle that the magistrates possess great local knowledge, so that they are well qualified to distribute licences, and he was bound to say that, notwithstanding particular exceptions, the duties imposed upon the magistrates had been discharged with great integrity and public spirit. There was, however, much that was irrational in a system which gave to the magistrates the power of bestowing gratuitously a privilege of great pecuniary value. Again, not a penny from the granting of licences went to the alleviation of local taxation, though publichouses were known to cause a great increase of the rates, and
1068
to make necessary a large police force. The ratepayers, too, whose convenience and pockets were so greatly affected by the multiplication of publichouses, had no means of preventing an increase of their number. As far, however, as the country districts were concerned, the objections that had been raised to the action of the magistrates in this respect had less weight, for he was bound to say that the duties of the magistracy in the rural districts had been in the main satisfactorily performed, the number of licences was not so excessive as elsewhere, and the decisions of the Bench were received with general approval and respect. But in large and populous towns the case was very different, and it was not unusual at the annual licensing sessions of such places for 50 or 60 applications for new licences to be made. Every kind of argument was brought forward in favour of the applicants; some asserting that they ought to have the larger licence because they had conducted a beerhouse respectably; others claiming on the ground that they had prepared suitable premises, while some appealed to motives of partiality or interest; and it was known that retired butlers, old soldiers, and widows with many children were frequently regarded with special favour. And, again, there were others opposing. Some had conflicting interests, as publicans already licensed, who did not wish to see others entering into competition with them for the business of the neighbourhood, and behind them were the brewers and distillers, who exercised very great influence, and were interested, either as owners or as mortgagees of a large number of existing houses; it being, probably, no exaggeration to say that in large towns there existed such an interest in as many as two-thirds of the houses now licensed. Besides this, there was the influence exerted by builders, by the representatives of at least two political parties, by the owners of house property, and by the supporters of temperance societies, who were, perhaps, as active in opposing as any who interested themselves in the granting of licences. Under these circumstances it was not surprising to find the magistrates had great difficulty in making a proper selection in the absence of any established principle to guide them; nor was it surprising that the great majority of those who were disappointed in their

1069
applications accused the magistrates of partiality, and attributed their want of success to anything but their unfitness. But, apart from that, the magistrates themselves naturally pursued different courses in different parts of the country. In one place the Bench was inclined to adopt free trade, and freely granted licences to all respectable applicants, while others acted with a desire to prevent the increase of publichouses. A distinguished Member of this House had asked a brewer, one of his leading constituents, what course was adopted within his experience? He replied that in the district in which he lived the obtaining a licence depended very much on the licensing division to which the applicant went, and that while in one county hardly any respectable applicant was refused; in another adjoining county a successful application was extremely rare; in his own borough applications were granted only to the adherents of a certain political party; and in another place the temperance societies were uniformly successful in opposing fresh grants. Such a state of things must necessarily give dissatisfaction to those who had failed in their application, and who went away abusing the magistrates for partiality or improper motives, and it was a matter of great public importance that the impartiality of the magistrate should not be questioned. One result of the present system was that the most highminded men in some places abstained from attending Licensing Courts, and the Bench was therefore composed of those who freely distributed licences. It was long since he had himself acted as a magistrate on licensing day; but he recollected with disgust not only the attempts made to influence his decisions from all quarters, but that there were magistrates on the Bench who were ready to act from motives of partiality; and, acting so, they would ask—"If the applicant is respectable, why should he not have a licence?"
He maintained, therefore, that the dissatisfaction of the magistrates and the ratepayers, and the anxiety of those who had embarked large capital in this species of property with respect to its future value, alike called for the re-adjustment of the licensing system. It must be acknowledged that a system, the administration of which had lost public respect, could not stand, and he believed none were more
1070
anxious for its revision than the great brewers. The opinion he had expressed that the magistrates were unfit to decide on the granting of licences was not his own merely; it was the opinion of the Select Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), which had reported on the subject in these words—
"Your Committee forbear to enter at length on the evidence condemnatory of the exercise of the magisterial power of granting licences. The existence of a suspicion that licences are withheld and granted capriciously, and that the influence of builders and brewers is more potent than either the character of the applicant or the requirements of the public in procuring a licence, whether it were proved or not, might afford sufficient ground for relieving the magistracy of duties which, however great their desire to do so, it has been found impossible for them satisfactorily to discharge."
The magistrates of Liverpool, sensible of the difficulties of their position, for some years licensed all respectable applicants; but the evils resulting from that course obliged them to abandon it, and to attempt a revision of the licensing system. In 1865, the licensed victuallers of Liverpool, in conjunction with the justices, procured the introduction of a Bill into Parliament for the purpose, the Preamble of which was instructive. It ran—
"Whereas differences of opinion have arisen for several years past among the justices of the peace for the said borough of Liverpool as to the interpretation to be put on the first herein-before-recited Act (Publichouse Act, 9 Geo. IV., c. 61) so far as regards the considerations which should influence the said justices in granting or withholding licences for the sale of exciseable liquors by retail as in that Act mentioned, and it is expedient that such differences should be determined, and that the considerations which should influence the said justices in granting or withholding such licences should be more strictly defined and settled."
The Bill proceeds to provide that all licences should be granted by the justices; that there should be one uniform licence, authorizing the sale of all liquors; that this licence should be obtainable by any applicant who could show good character, and provide two sureties, each of £50, whose premises should be rated at £50 a-year, and who would pay £30 a-year to the Excise. In 1867 another Bill, also emanating from Liverpool, proposed that the ratepayers should have power to veto the opening of a publichouse in their neighbourhood.

1071
The question the Committee had to consider was whether any improvement of the present system could be suggested. If licences were to be distributed at discretion he was clearly of opinion that no better authority than the justices could be intrusted with the power of granting them, since they were men of social position, acquainted with local circumstances, and were frequently men of legal attainments; above all, they were nominated by a higher authority, and were not elected by those who would seek licences. The suggestion that Boards of Guardians should be intrusted with the duty could not be adopted; their very constitution would act as a disqualification, because if Boards of Guardians were constituted licensing boards they would very soon be composed of the nominees of the brewers and licensed victuallers, who had almost boundless opportunities of corruption. On the part of the association of brewers in the country repeated representations had been made in favour of the appointment of barristers to distribute new licences, and decide on applications for renewal of licences; but such officials would necessarily be wanting in local knowledge; they would be unable to say whether the number of licences already granted was too large; they would be quite in the dark as to the character of the applicant; and unless the Act prescribed with the greatest minuteness upon what principles they should go, their decisions would be of the most conflicting character. The objections to the appointment of such officials were so strong that but for the respectability of those who had made the recommendation, he should not have troubled the Committee with it. The next proposal with which he had to deal was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—the permissive prohibitory system, the peculiar characteristics of which were that it ignored all vested interests, and treated the licence as merely annual, without conferring any right to renewal; it made no difference between consumption on and consumption off the premises—between mere drinking-houses, and inns and eating-houses; it involved all in common extinction; and it offered no middle course to the ratepayers; it forced them to choose between the present system and complete prohibition of the
1072
liquor trade; and, even if carried, it could not in the slightest degree improve the licensing system, except in the particular places in which it had been adopted. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, sanguine as to the number of places in which it would be adopted. He was not able himself to form an opinion on that subject; but certainly there would be a very large portion of the country in which it would not be adopted. He believed, moreover, that that system would lead demonstrably to increased evils, and to violations of the law such as no exertions of the police or the Excise would be able to suppress. There was one sentence in the Report of the Committee of 1854 which had struck him as remarkable for its truth—namely—
"It is scarcely possible to carry into effect any enactment opposed to the convenience or ordinary habits of any large number of people."
The strongest proof of the correctness of that statement which he had seen—although much evidence might easily be accumulated on the subject—was contained in a very remarkable paper, written by Mr. Richardson, chairman of the Board of Health at Jarrow. He did not know whether that paper had been generally circulated among the Members of that House; but, among the vast number of communications that he had received it had struck him as being one of the most instructive and most fertile in good suggestions. Mr. Richardson's paper embodied his experience as to the working of the licensing system in Jarrow. Jarrow consisted of two parts, one of which contained a population of about 3,000, and the houses there, and the whole of the property, were entirely in the hands of the proprietors of certain works, who allowed no licences to be taken out, and no intoxicating liquors to be sold on the premises; and having effectual power over those houses they were successful in their endeavours. Their next neighbours, the Messrs. Tennant and Co., were equally desirous to suppress that traffic. They had also a large power over the houses inhabited by their workpeople; but, unfortunately for the success of their measures, their power was not so complete as that of the company to which he had first referred. Although the extract was rather long, yet it was so instructive that perhaps

1073
the House would allow him to read it. The writer said—
"The next village, New Hepburn, is inhabited mainly by the workpeople employed by Messrs. C. Tennant and Co., who about five years ago became lessees of about 100 acres of land adjoining the river Tyne, upon which they have erected large works, and have leased portions for house building, so that a village has been built upon land of which they are the lessors. Their workmen's houses are owned by several people, who have built them on the land leased to them by these gentlemen. One of the conditions of the lease is that beer or spirits shall not be sold on the premises under penalty of forfeiture of the lease and consequent loss of the property. This is a usual clause in building leases in this district, and is generally made use of by the lessor to obtain additional ground rent from those tenants who sell beer or spirits. Messrs. Tennant and Co., however, have endeavoured to use it as a means of mitigating drunkenness among their workmen, by prohibiting the traffic entirely. Very soon, however, after the houses were inhabited, beer and spirits were sold in the dwelling-houses. About a-year and a-half after the houses were erected, and when the population of the village amounted to 1,950 souls, men, women, and children, there were 17 houses known to the police where beer and spirits were illicitly sold. The occupiers were at once threatened with dismissal from their employment unless they desisted, and this threat was carried into execution; but though some desisted, it had no effect in stopping the trade, as many persons seemed to find it more profitable, or more suitable to their taste, to suffer dismissal, and continue their illicit trade. The next step taken was to inform the proprietors of the houses that, as beer and spirits were being sold on their properties, they had rendered themselves liable to the forfeiture of their leases, and they were requested to expel the offenders from their houses, as the only condition on which they would be allowed to retain possession of their property. There was, however, so much trouble and difficulty in obtaining evidence, and so much delay in getting a legal conviction, that by the time one offender was evicted, some other person was doing as brisk a trade as before, and often the evicted person got into another house, under another name, and was as bad as ever."
The result was that Mr. Richardson applied to the Excise on the matter. He took infinite trouble and pains to procure evidence as to the illicit sale of liquors; he succeeded in obtaining some convictions, but he found it was quite impossible to prevent that illicit trade, and it was now a flourishing traffic. Mr. Richardson described the state of things in the rest of Jarrow, where the publichouses and beerhouses throve, and where he was afraid, also, that an illicit trade in liquors was carried on in some houses. Everything there was about as bad as it could be, and Mr. Richardson had made a number of suggestions for
1074
the improvement of the law—many of them, he was bound to say, showing great sagacity and a thorough knowledge of the subject. But it was instructive to read the final conclusion come to by a gentleman so sensible of the evils of that traffic, and so earnest in his desire to suppress them. He said—
"After much careful consideration, the writer is of opinion that any radical change in the habits of the people as to intemperance will be the effect of other than legislative measures which it is not the purpose of this Paper to discuss; and that with the present wretched house accommodation available for a large proportion of the workmen of this district, their deficient mental culture—which makes drinking almost their only amusement and relaxation—and the limited number of workmen's clubs, mechanics' institutes, and other places of resort for recreation or profitable occupation of time, publichouses for refreshment and social intercourse are almost a necessity. If their number were reduced, so as to be no more than sufficient for the reasonable requirements of the people, or, what would be the same thing in effect, if proper order were enforced therein and drunkenness and riotous conduct prohibited (in which case many of them would not be worth carrying on), and if means could be devised for insuring a supply of pure wholesome ale instead of the noxious compound now usually retailed in this district, probably all that legislation could effect would be done."
Those seemed to him to be very wise words, and he would anticipate one part of his statement by saying that he had striven with earnestness throughout his Bill to give the utmost effect to them.
He had explained that he could not in any way accept as a solution of that question the Bill brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. At the same time he was bound to say he thought that measure contained a very valuable principle, and that the principle of an appeal to the ratepayers on matters affecting their interests was one of which great use could be made. Over and above the fact that the ratepayers were the persons chiefly interested, that it was their comfort and convenience and not that of other people that should be consulted, that they were the persons who bore nearly all the burden of the crime and misery produced by the multiplication of those houses and by their disorderly conduct—over and above those considerations there was another, and in his view a most important one—namely, the advantage of enlisting the minds and hearts and feelings of the people in the thorough consideration of that subject.

1075
Let them give the ratepayers a voice in that matter—let them give them the power in some way or other of deciding how far those houses should exist amongst them, and they would at once create a strong public opinion, they would encourage among them that sort of feeling which among the upper classes of society had long made drunkenness disgraceful, which was rapidly also making it disgraceful among the working classes themselves, and which no longer permitted them to call a mere sot a good fellow, or to look on the offence of drunkenness as merely venial. He was satisfied, therefore, that if they were to create a wholesome and vigorous public opinion on that subject, they must give the ratepayers of the country some direct control over it, and that the more widely that control could, without injustice, be extended, the greater would be the social advantage. It was true that the establishment of free trade in the liquor traffic had been recommended by the Committee of 1854. No doubt that principle had the merit of perfect simplicity and impartiality, and the question was whether or not those advantages would be counterbalanced by the evil of insufficient restriction. There was this difference between free trade in alcoholic liquors and free trade in other articles, that excess of supply was not self-corrective to the same extent as it was in other trades. It created a demand at once artificial and dangerous to society. Free trade was a good principle where their object was to develop trade to the utmost; but as that could not be their object in respect to the liquor traffic, it seemed to him that it would be dangerous to apply that principle to the traffic. It had been advocated mainly by those who looked only to the abuses of the magisterial system, or who insisted upon the application of abstract principles. The experiment had been tried with regard to beerhouses, and immediately after the passing of the Act great complaints had been made. Act after Act had been passed "weighting" the trade in various ways, certificates of character, and other conditions being attached to the granting of licences—all of which, however, had failed to save the Act from general condemnation. It was also a remarkable fact that among the thousands of Petitions which had been presented to that House in favour of some method of suppressing
1076
the evils of that traffic, not one, as far as he was aware, was in favour of the free trade principle.
Having gone through the existing system, and the various other proposals which had been suggested, the result, as far as he had proceeded, would hardly be encouraging to the House, inasmuch as while finding fault with the present system he had found still greater fault with all other proposals. The system proposed by the Government he would now state in as few words as he could. The broad principles upon which the Bill was framed were as follows:—In all cases the grant of licences by the Excise would be preceded by a certificate from the justices. The licences themselves, their conditions, and the licensing jurisdiction would remain substantially unaltered. The licences, called in the Bill "publicans' general licences," would correspond with the present publicans' licences, and those called in the Bill "publicans' limited licences," would correspond with the present beer licences, except that they would confer the power of selling wine. The licensing justices would have the same jurisdiction as they possessed at present; but, for convenience, the area over which it extended would be sub-divided into licensing districts, which the magistrates would have the power, in case they thought fit to do so, to further sub-divide into smaller districts. The question of the number of licensing certificates to be issued on the licensing day would be considered by the justices altogether apart from that of their distribution, and would be determined by the justices, subject to a limited veto to be exercised by the ratepayers. The distribution of the certificates after the number to be issued had been settled by the magistrates would be determined in the only impartial manner that had suggested itself to the Government. Each certificate would be given to the bidder of the highest annual licence-rent. These licence-rents would be appropriated to public purposes, and the certificate-holder would be at liberty to use his certificate where he choose within the district, subject to certain restrictions, the justices, as guardians of the public, being satisfied that the premises were fit and proper for the purpose, and that they were under the control of a fit manager. All these certificates were to be granted for a certain limited period, and were to

1077
be liable to forfeiture, not, as hitherto, at the discretion of the licensing justices, but in the event of a certain prescribed number of convictions having being recorded against the holder for offences under the Act.
Having thus sketched the general outline of the main principles of the measure, he would now proceed to enter into its provisions in greater detail. As he had before stated the licensing jurisdictions, would remain practically unaltered. In the boroughs, whether with or without a separate Court of Quarter Sessions, the licensing justices would be the justices of the boroughs, while in the counties they would be the county justices acting in and for the special sessional divisions. Stipendiary magistrates, not being metropolitan police magistrates, would be empowered to act as licensing justices, so far as concerned all certificates within their jurisdiction. No appeal would be given from the decision of the justices in respect of the exercise of their licensing jurisdiction, they, living on the spot, being supposed to be better judges of local and personal questions than the justices of Quarter Sessions could be. But, although the Bill retained the present divisions for licensing purposes, those divisions were sub-divided by the Bill into more manageable areas, chiefly with the view of facilitating the determination of the justices with reference to the appropriate number of licences to be issued. The licensing districts so proposed would be in boroughs where there were wards, the wards, and in boroughs without wards, the whole borough; in a petty sessional division of a county, each parish or place where a separate rate was or could be levied. The justices would be empowered, in the exercise of their discretion, further to divide those districts. At the general annual licensing sessions the justices would deal separately with each licensing district in their division. The first step which the justices would have to take would be to consider what was the number of new certificates which the circumstances of the district would entitle them to issue. In the event of their being of opinion that no increase in the number of certificates was desirable, none would be issued; but, if otherwise, they would then determine, by resolution, what number should be issued. The justices would then advertise the number of certificates
1078
proposed to be issued, and it would be open to a certain proportion of the ratepayers mentioned in the Bill to take a vote of the ratepayers on the question, and a majority of three-fifths were to have the power of vetoing or of reducing, but not of increasing the number proposed. There was, however, to be a limit to this power of the ratepayers. The Bill would prescribe a certain proportion of publichouses to population. If at the date of the proposal the number of publicans' certificates in existence in the district, and the number proposed to be issued did not, when added together, exceed the proportion of one certificate to so many ratepayers, no poll could be taken; and if the justices proposed to increase the number above the Parliamentary standard, and the ratepayers voted that it should be reduced below the standard, the justices might, nevertheless, raise it up to the standard by issuing the necessary number of certificates, general or limited, as they might think fit. The number and character of the certificates having been thus determined, the next step was to distribute them. The process was to be by tender. Any person not within the statutory disqualifications might tender for all or any of the certificates. The form of the tender was an undertaking to pay a licence rent annually during the continuance of the certificate, such licence rent to be a percentage on the gross annual value according to the poor rate assessment of the premises to which the certificate was to be attached; so, however, that no tender should be of less than 5 per cent on the gross estimated rental, and no premises should be deemed to be assessed at less than £50 or more than £300. The thing to be tendered for would be a publican's general certificate authorizing the holder to set up a publichouse anywhere within the district unless any part or parts of it had been barred by the justices; such certificate to be good only for a term of 10 years from the passing of the Bill, but during that term to be annually renewable. Applications for tenders would be duly invited by advertisment. They would be received by the justices and opened publicly by them on a given day. The certificates would then be allotted to the persons making the highest tender. The same process would apply to publicans' limited certificates, with this exception—that the minimum licence rent would be

1079
lower. The certificates, however, thus allotted would not be finally issued to each allottee until the justices had approved of the premises proposed and of a manager for them. The part of the Bill which related to the manager of premises to which licences were to be attached was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance. The manager was necessarily, as the responsible person, bound to reside on the premises, residence not being required of the holder; but the holder would appoint his own manager, and, of course, might appoint himself. As to premises, the justices might withhold their approval only if either the structure or the fitting up was unsuitable for a publichouse, or if the premises fell within the statutory disqualifications. Opportunity, however, would be given to the allottee to apply to the justices for the approval of the premises before he had actually acquired them, or had been put to the expense of fitting them up, or for the approval of the plans before the premises were constructed. After the manager and premises had been thus approved, the allottee would pay his first year's licence-rent in advance, obtain his certificate, take it to the Excise authorities, and obtain his Excise licence. Having stated the outline of the scheme, he would now point out what he conceived to be its advantages. In the first place the licensing justices would be relieved from the impossible task of considering the requirements of enormous unwieldy districts, which would be partially divided for them by the Bill, and which might be further sub-divided by themselves where necessary. Having so sub-divided the districts, the justices, having thoroughly considered the wants of each particular district, would give public notice of the determination at which they might have arrived on the subject of the number of licences to be issued. The ratepayers would thus have an opportunity of expressing their assent or dissent with reference to the number proposed, and candidates would no longer be exposed to the chance of loss they now incurred by preparing premises to which licences might be refused. The whole of the annual licence-rent would be applied for the public benefit, in the manner to be hereafter explained. Then, with regard to the renewals of licences. At present the renewal of publicans' licences was
1080
entirely in the discretion of the magistrates. He was bound to say that the very frequent complaints which he had received from former holders of licences of the manner in which they had been deprived of them were, in many instances, well founded, because not only was no notice required to be given of the intention to oppose the renewal of a licence at the next licensing meeting, but the evidence as to acts which might have occurred months previously, upon which the opposition was founded, was not even required to be upon oath. This did not appear to him to be just. The offence ought to have been charged against the licensee at the time of its committal, when either he might have been able to meet the charge, or it would have been proved in a court of justice. If a certificate was forfeited, the forfeiture should be part of the punishment for a legally proved offence. The Bill would, therefore, give the magistrates power of refusing to renew a certificate at their annual meeting on one or two grounds only, having reference chiefly to the residence of the manager during the past year. Then as to removals. The Bill would enable the holder of a certificate to remove it from one house to another within the district, subject to the approval of the justices. It would be seen that the issue of new certificates, except in very few cases, would depend upon the consent of the ratepayers. As to the issue of certain special certificates their consent would not be required, and he did not think it would be contended that it should be required. This remark applied to inns and eating-houses, which were necessary for the accommodation of travellers and inhabitants of towns. These establishments, if properly conducted, were most useful. So long as they were bonâ fide eating-houses and inns, and not kept for mere drinking purposes, there was every reason why they should be encouraged, and they ought to be placed on a different footing to publichouses and beerhouses. The Bill therefore provided that inn certificates should be issued at the discretion of the justices, which would authorize the sale of fermented liquors and spirits for consumption on the premises, with the restriction that such liquors must be sold exclusively to travellers and persons taking meals in the house. Eating-house certificates issued also at the discretion of the justices would

1081
not authorize the sale of spirits under any circumstances. It would be necessary to guard against an abuse of these certificates, and therefore the Bill provided that the justices who were intrusted with the issue of them, should ascertain whether the application made was bonâ fide. They would also have the power of summoning at any time the holder of any such certificate for the purpose of meeting any charge made against him of carrying on upon his premises a publican's business. A second conviction would involve a forfeiture of the certificate. Renewal of such certificates might also be refused at any licensing sessions. The issue of certificates for railway station refreshment-rooms would be at the discretion of the justices, and they would only be permitted to supply railway travellers and persons engaged on the premises. The refreshment-house wine certificate would correspond with the licence authorized by the Act introduced by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and would be granted to any person in respect of any premises so long as those premises were within the statutory qualification.
He had now to deal with the question of issuing new licences, and came to an incomparably more important question, the treatment of existing licences. He admitted, and no person, he thought, could deny, that the number of licences in most parts of the country was too great. Temptation was thereby thrown in the way of the population. It was quite clear that in the town of Wolverhampton, for instance, there were too many public and beerhouses, the proportion of them, as he was told, being 1 in 70 of the population. In Middlesborough the proportion had recently been 1 in 60, and in Liverpool 1 in 190. It was utterly impossible that these houses could be carried on at a profit after payment of the Excise duty, and of the other expenses of such establishments, if the law was obeyed, and pure and unadulterated liquor was sold in them. But the question how the number of these licences is to be reduced, was very difficult to solve. He did not think that the House was prepared for any general confiscation of licences. It might be that a vast number of public-houses were ill-conducted, but it was impossible to distinguish between the better and the worse. A Royal Commission
1082
could not be issued to decide which of them were respectably conducted, and which were disreputably conducted. If the House dealt with them, it must deal with them on some broad general principle. If the House were not prepared actually to confiscate them, there remained only the question of buying them up. It had been suggested that the Imperial Exchequer should bear part of the burden of buying them up, but he doubted whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would entertain that proposal. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would hardly at the first blush sanction a proposal that rates should be applied to that purpose. It would be urged that would be a most impolitic, and unjust application of rates. The fact that a certain number of bad houses would be suppressed by the expenditure of local moneys, would greatly enhance the value of the remaining houses. Having examined the question most carefully with those who were most competent to advise him, he had failed to devise any scheme by which Imperial or local revenues could be applied to purchase the surrender of licences. At the same time he thought it was impossible to present to the House any measure which would be worthy of their reception, which did not attempt to deal with that part of the question. What therefore he proposed was this. He could not assent to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that these houses had no sort of interest. They had an interest, although it was undoubtedly of a qualified description. His hon. Friend founded his proposition on the superficial fact that these licences were annually renewed, and that the justices might any year refuse to renew them. But the fact was that the justices nearly always renewed these licences unless the holders of them, by bad conduct, had rendered themselves unfit to hold a licence, and it should be borne in mind that they could not be refused without an appeal to the Quarter Sessions: and had anyone ever heard of such an appeal being decided, except with reference only to the conduct of the holder of the licence? On the other hand the House had never recognized any vested interest in this species of property, or any right to compensation, yet it had frequently interfered with the trade. It greatly inter-

1083
fered with it when it passed the Beerhouse Act; again, when spirit dealers were allowed to have retail licences; and again, when the Act for closing publichouses was passed; and in 1854 it was proposed by Mr. Villiers' Committee to introduce free trade into the business without providing compensation. The knowledge of the holders of these licences that their right to compensation was of a very qualified nature, made them extremely anxious for anything like a fair and equitable arrangement of this question. What he was anxious to provide was that Parliament should deal fairly towards the holders of these licences, while without any delay, by means of stringent police regulations, and efficient guarantees for orderly conduct and for the sale of unadulterated liquors, an end might be put to a vast number of the present ill-conducted houses. He, therefore, proposed to substitute for the present precarious annual licence an assured certificate for the term of 10 years, subject to a moderate licence-rent sufficient to pay the costs of proper inspection, and proportioned to the gross estimated rental. The holders of publichouses would be entitled to what was called a publican's general certificate, and the holders of beerhouses would be entitled to a publican's limited certificate. For a publican's general or a publican's limited certificate £2 per cent would be paid on the gross annual value; no premises to be deemed to be assessed at less than £50, or more than £300. That would amount to only £1 per head from beerhouse-keepers, which were all, or nearly all, under £50; and only £1 per head from the 53,000 innkeepers whose premises were under £50. The remainder would have to pay from £2 up to £6, according to circumstances. These certificates would be subjected to the police regulations of the Bill, subject to these regulations, they would be renewable for the term of 10 years, and at the end of 10 years, when they would cease to exist, it would be for the magistrates to decide what number of certificates should be issued. Now, take the case of Wolverhampton, where there were 999 licences to 72,000 persons. After the expiration of the first 10 years the number of certificates, though greatly reduced by the operation of this Bill, would probably be still in excess of the actual wants and necessities of the population.
1084
The justices would meet, and their decision, if in favour of a larger proportion than that indicated in the Bill, would be subject to the popular vote. Suppose, for instance, that the proportion mentioned in the Bill was 1 licence to every 1,000 of the population. If, therefore, the Wolverhampton magistrates decided to grant 70 certificates their decision must pass unchallenged; if, however, they proposed to grant 100, the ratepayers might be asked to vote, and might either accede to the proposition or reduce the number proposed, but to not less than 70. There would be another provision in the Bill, giving at the end of 10 years a priority to the holders of existing licences in the distribution of the new certificates. The new certificates, if not fewer in number, would be assigned to the holders of the expired certificates; if fewer in number than those expired, they would be put up to the tender among the holders of the expired certificates exclusively.
He had just now stated that he had no proposal to submit to the House for the compensation of existing licence-holders with a view to an immediate reduction in the number, but he did not altogether despair of seeing some experiment tried with this object within a few years of the passing of this Bill if the House should see fit to adopt it. He did not know whether the House had read a very interesting statement which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) with regard to the practice that had been adopted in Sweden. Sweden, as most hon. Members probably knew, did not bear an exceedingly high reputation for the temperance and sobriety of its inhabitants, and though he did not go so far as to say that the practice which prevailed in a part of Sweden was one which they should adopt, still it furnished an instructive example. He referred to the town of Gottenburg, which had adopted a system which had been attended by excellent results. The municipality of that town had bought up all the publichouses and established a number of well-conducted houses, into which they had put managers, who were paid by salary, and had no pecuniary interest whatever in the liquor they sold. They were thus never placed in the position in which publicans too frequently found themselves. A man who had drank too much would often be encouraged by the dis-

1085
honest and disreputable publican to drink more, because by so doing the profit of the publican would be increased, while many a man who was not disreputable or dishonest would willingly refuse to supply anyone who had drank too much if it were not for the fear of offending a customer. No such reason, however, would apply in the case of a manager appointed in the manner he had indicated. Where this system prevailed there was, too, this further security. It was provided that the liquor sold should be pure and unadulterated, and in addition the manager was allowed to trade on his own account in tea, coffee, and other innocuous beverages, so that every encouragement was given to the conversion of these houses thus under municipality control into places for innocent assembly. The change in the habits of the population, resulting from the adoption of this system, had been very marked, and, where, before intemperance was rife, the people had become a model to every other part of Sweden. He did not think this country was ripe for committing to any body of ratepayers the purchase of publichouses; but he could very well perceive that, as every year the efflux of time would decrease the value of the licence, it might offer to the authorities an opportunity for buying up existing licences, and letting a smaller number to the highest bidders on the principle recommended by the Bill, for thereby at once reducing the number of publichouses. On the whole, he believed the proposition contained in the Bill afforded a basis for dealing fairly with the difficult question of vested interests.
He would now pass to the part of the Bill which proposed to deal with the rating qualification. In counties no licence would be granted to a house of a lower gross annual value than £9 per annum; in towns where the population did not exceed 10,000, £15; where it was above 10,000 and under 30,000, £20; and where the population exceeded 30,000, £25. This part of the subject was one of extreme difficulty, because although the population of two towns might be the same, the rateable value of similar houses varied very much, and what was fair in one place would be unfair in another, and therefore he had not ventured to carry the rating qualification too high.
1086
Now, another important point had reference to the hours of closing. At present, publichouses were closed in large towns between 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning, but were open through the night in portions of the country where the provisions of the Early Closing Act did not apply, or had not been adopted. Beerhouses were closed in the metropolis between 12 at night and 4 in the morning, in country towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants between 11 and 4, and in smaller places between 10 and 4. He proposed to eqalize the hours of closing in the case of beer and publichouses, and, as far as the night went, to adopt the hours now applied to beerhouses. In addition to that, the Bill gave the power, and he had no doubt it would be frequently exercised, to the magistrates to make a further reduction, with the consent of the ratepayers in every case of one hour, so that in the rural districts the magistrates might, with the concurrence of the ratepayers, close the houses at 9 at night instead of at 10, as at present. The hour of opening would be 7 in the morning, instead of 4. There was a great deal of drinking of a very objectionable character between the hours of 6 and 7 by workmen proceeding to their labour, and it would be of great public advantage if the facilities for it were cut off. He then came to a much more difficult question, that of closing on Sundays, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had especially interested himself. He had had before him a great deal of evidence of the very strong feeling which pervaded the country on this subject, and he had no doubt whatever that a very large number of the working people were in favour of the total closing of publichouses on the Sunday. But, on the other hand, he must be guided by considerations of general policy, and he could not but think that if a great change were suddenly made in the habits of the people with respect to the accommodation they had hitherto enjoyed on Sundays, there would be a revulsion of feeling which would prevent much of the good that might otherwise be effected. He proposed, therefore, a reduction of hours founded on the Report of the Committee of 1854, which inquired very carefully into the subject. The result of their inquiries was that publichouses on Sunday should be closed except from

1087
1 to 3 in the afternoon, and from 7 until 9 in the evening. These were the hours which he proposed to adopt. But it was intended that the justices, with the consent of the ratepayers, might close publichouses for the whole of Sunday, except for sale for consumption off the premises. There would, of course, be special exemptions to meet peculiar cases, as with regard to houses situated near market-places. But he would not trouble the Committee by entering into these details. At the closing hour the houses were to be cleared, after it no article whatever was to be sold, and persons found on the premises would be subject to punishment.
The penal provisions of the Bill had been very carefully considered, because he felt obliged to leave in existence a number of publichouses which he admitted to be a great evil; and that was an additional reason for taking the best possible security for public order. It was well known that licences were very rarely forfeited under the present Acts. However numerous the convictions might have been, the justices were not obliged to forfeit the licence. They were frequently moved by various considerations, as for example that forfeiture would be a too severe penalty, that the licence-holder was not the real owner, and so on. What he wanted to do was to introduce a system which should be self-acting, and, therefore, he proposed that all offences against the licence of whatever kind, whether for selling liquor which there was no right to sell, for adulteration, for permitting drunkenness on the premises, and so forth, should be subjected to a certain penalty under the Bill. Whenever a conviction for these offences occurred the fact of the conviction would be endorsed on the back of the certificate, and under no circumstances should it be removed. If the penalty imposed should exceed half of the highest amount that might be inflicted for the offence, then the whole penalty would be entered as if it had been inflicted; if less than half, then half the penalty would be entered. When the sum of these penalties added together reached £65 in three years, or £100 in five years, the certificate would be ipso facto forfeited without any discretion on the part of the magistrates. In the meantime, the existence of the record of these convictions on the back of the certificate would depreciate the value of it; and in
1088
conjunction with the next proposal which he had to make would form a strong guarantee against the repetition of offences against the licence. Supposing the penalties for these offences reached a certain maximum within a given time, not only would the holder lose his certificate but the premises themselves could not be licensed after a certain number of offences had been recorded against them; and, moreover, the personal disqualification of the manager would extend to five years. One of the most frequent difficulties which arose at present was with regard to the interpretation given to the word "traveller." Nothing was more difficult than to prove whether a man found in a publichouse when the house ought to be closed was a traveller or not. What he proposed was that a traveller should be held to be a person not less than five miles from the place of his residence, and the burden of proof should be thrown on the publican on whose premises the person was found during the prohibited hours. At the same time the publican would be protected by the imposition of a penalty in persons falsely professing to be travellers. As to a breach of the closing regulations, the Bill imposed the same penalties as those imposed by the Act of the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). There had been many and serious complaints with respect to disorderly houses, such as those in the Haymarket, and other such places. The penal provision against allowing persons of bad character to assemble and remain in these houses was made more stringent; and it was provided that a second conviction for this offence should involve the forfeiture of the certificate. One of the greatest offences against the tenour of the certificate was permitting drunkenness on the premises. He could conceive few greater offences. It often happened that when more than enough was given to a man, he became animated by a sort of maudlin liberality, and insisted on treating all round, so that in a few hours he might spend on his boon companions the earnings of a week, and leave his wife and children starving at home. The burden of proof in this case would be thrown on the manager, and he would be required to show that he took reasonable means to ascertain, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that

1089
the drunken person when supplied with liquor was not drunk. With regard to the difficulty of proving when a person was really drunk, he thought the keeper of the house should by his long experience be able to know what was the state of his customers; and if it could be shown that a drunken man had been supplied with liquor the burden of proving that he was ignorant of the fact ought to be thrown upon the publican. Further, he proposed to impose a penalty for drunkenness not only in the streets, but in publichouses, and to raise it to 20 s.; and, in default of payment, the offender might be sentenced, not only to imprisonment, but to imprisonment with hard labour. Then there would be a heavier penalty on persons found drunk when they were specially bound to be sober—as when in charge of a horse or steam-engine, or having dangerous weapons in their possession. With respect to adulteration, the Bill provided that samples might be taken by the authority named therein and duly tested; and arrangements had been made that analyses should be conducted in Somerset House laboratory. This provision was most important. He looked upon adulteration as a most iniquitous fraud, and its effects as of a most injurious character. Acts of the most dangerous violence with which the police had to deal were committed by persons intoxicated with liquors into which noxious ingredients had been introduced. As offences of this kind were very serious, he proposed for the first offence the imposition of a heavy fine, with imprisonment at the option of the magistrates; and for the second offence a still heavier fine, together with forfeiture of the certificate. He came now to a very important part of the Bill—namely, that which dealt with the managers of publichouses. The law at present was that a licence should be granted only to the man who undertook to reside on the premises, the purpose being to prevent the acquisition of publichouses by brewers, and their multiplication in a few hands. But that purpose had totally failed. As a matter of fact it was well known that, directly or indirectly, the enormous majority of publichouses were controlled by brewers. It seemed to him that this enactment was attended with disadvantages without any compensating advantage. If the brewer were capable of holding the
1090
licence in his own name, we should have the guarantee of his own character for the proper conduct of the house, and he would choose persons who would do credit to him to manage the business. At present, as the fact of the ownership was known to but few, the brewer might put into the house the first person that offered to sell a certain quantity of liquor; if his conduct imperilled the licence, some other person was put in his place, and the house was conducted very much as before. What was now proposed was that any number of certificates might be taken by the same person, who was to appoint a manager for each house. The manager was to reside in and to be responsible for the conduct of the house. If he committed an offence, the penalty would be indelibly marked on the certificate. At present, if the manager committed an offence the owner would turn him out, and there would be an end of the matter. But when every conviction was registered, and depreciated the value of the certificate and of the premises, the owner would take the utmost care that the next manager would not further depreciate the value, or bring about the forfeiture of the certificate By those means the best security would, he thought, be afforded that managers should be responsible persons; and there would, therefore, be an obvious advantage in their appointment over the present system.
There were already strict laws against publichouses, and all sorts of conditions were attached to a licence, a failure in the performance of which subjected the holder to punishments more or less severe. Practically speaking, however, the law had turned out to be inefficient and inoperative. What was the reason? It was to be found in the fact that those who were charged with the enforcement of the law—that was to say, the police—could not and ought not to be trusted within the walls of a publichouse. Except when called upon to quell disorder, or when it was kept open at improper hours, constables were under orders not to enter a publichouse, because they were there subject to temptations of every kind. An efficient inspection could, in his opinion, be conducted only by a body of men superior to the ordinary police, and not charged with ordinary police duties. He had stated that all the holders of existing licences would

1091
have to pay an annual licence rent, which he calculated would produce £130,000 a-year. That amount, he proposed, should be paid into the Treasury; and the Treasury would provide for the cost of an efficient body of publichouse inspectors. There would be one Inspector-in-Chief; and England and Wales would be divided into districts, with an inspector for each—every large town and district having a superintendent, under whom there would be a carefully-selected and well-paid body of men. Those officers would have the power of obtaining admittance to a publichouse at all times, and of asking for samples of liquor for the purpose of having it tested; they would, in fact, be a body of men specially charged with the duty of seeing that no offence was committed in a publichouse which was prohibited by the law; and an efficient system of inspection would thus, for the first time, be established. Under such a system of inspection, and with such police regulations as he had described, and a considerable contraction of the number of hours during which they could remain open, there would, he thought, before long, be a considerable decrease in the number of public-houses. Many of those now in existence would not, it was well known, be able to subsist were it not for the constant infraction of their licences; and if the opportunities of such infraction were cut off, and the system which he had sketched out were vigourously administered, there would be, he believed, not only a reduction in the number of publichouses, but those which remained would be of a much better description. It was impossible to estimate the exact cost of the system of inspection. It would, however, be no real charge on the Treasury, but on the trade which required it. And whatever surplus remained, after the cost of inspection had been defrayed, would be paid into the fund of the district from which it came.
He had now explained the provisions of the Bill. He had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to deal with a subject, the difficulties of which no one could rightly estimate who had not taken them into consideration. He had sought to deal fairly with the interests of the owners of property in publichouses, on the one hand, and with those of the public on the other—he proposed to give
1092
the people a control over the issue of new licences. The Bill would provide also for the impartial distribution of licences. The rules, with regard to early closing, and the precautions taken against adulteration, would, he thought, have a most wholesome influence on the conduct of publichouses for the future. The Bill would not remove all the human misery which proceeded from the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. That was an object which he believed no legislation could accomplish. The ultimate remedy for the evil of drunkenness was not to be found in the mechanical difficulties which might be interposed in its way—though he was far from depreciating such means—but rather in the moral influences of education, in the creation among the people of a high moral standard, of a state of feeling which would lead them to look upon drunkenness as a disgrace, and would give them a truer sense of what was due to their families as well as to themselves. By those means, and by those means only, would the people of the country become a moral, religious, and sober people. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—

(1.) That it is expedient, from the 1st day of October 1871, to repeal the duties of Excise charged in England in respect of Licences authorising the sale by retail, and not (except in the case of Publicans' Licences) by wholesale, of intoxicating liquors, and of Licences to keep Refreshment Houses, imposed by the several Acts relating thereto.

(2.) That it is expedient to grant to Her Majesty, from the 1st day of October 1871, the following Duties of Excise to be payable in England (that is to say):—

Publican's General Licence.

£

s.

d.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10

5

0

0

Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20

8

0

0

Exceed £20 and do not exceed £30

11

0

0

Exceed £30 and do not exceed £40

14

0

0

Exceed £40

17

0

0

(3.) That it is expedient to authorise the imposition on holders of Certificates from Justices authorising those holders to obtain a Publican's General, a Publican's Limited, an Inn or an Eating House Licence, of a Licence Rent bearing such proportion to the annual gross value of the licensed premises as may be fixed by or in pursuance of any Act to be passed in the present Session.
(4.) That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the sale of Exciseable Liquors in England.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, it was impossible to form any very accurate opinion upon the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had brought in, or to master many of its complicated clauses; but he thought it was evident from the careful speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just made, that he had taken a great deal of labour in endeavouring to improve the system which that Bill was intended to improve. All those who wished to see an amendment in the existing state of things must
1094
be grateful to him for the labour he had expended in this matter, and he was quite sure that all would think it labour worth so expending, for he had no hesitation in saying that if the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to diminish intemperance, he would have done more than any statesman of his generation for the welfare of England; and he knew, as well as he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did, that it was only the overwhelming demand of the country for a reform in this matter which had enabled him to bring forward that Bill. Parliament, for generations back, had been dealing with this question, and so far it had utterly failed to do what it had intended—that is, to make the licensing system, instead of a curse, a blessing to the people. The old system, as he had said, had been a total failure; they knew that it was intended to enable the sale of intoxicating drinks to be carried on, and, at the same time, to prevent drunkenness. That could be seen from the very wording of the licences given to every person who succeeded in obtaining one—"He shall not knowingly permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct on his premises." Well, all old schemes had failed. The Beer Act had been a great failure; and they knew also from the examinations and inquiries made by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) how bad the system had been during the years that supervened after the passing of the Beer Act. Archbishop Manning said a short time since, that he had only read the Report of that Committee lately, and that he felt as if going from one chamber of horrors to another, while reading the revelations which it made. So strong was the evidence adduced before that Committee, and so strong was their Report, that a Bill was promised by the Government. That Bill had been promised for 15 years, and to-day they saw the realization of that promise. He was sure the hon. Member (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would admit—he had heard him say that the Bill which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) passed two years ago was only touching the fringe of this question; for after it was passed, they remained in the same position, or, as he thought, in a rather worse condition than they did before the passing of the Beer Act in 1830. His right hon. Friend had now

1095
made an effort to put things right, and he wished to make a few remarks on the subject; but he would not like to speak decisively before he saw exactly what was the value of the Bill. But he must protest at this, the very earliest, opportunity against one principle in the Bill which gave a vested interest in licences. As far as he understood, the habit had been that licences for the sale of drink should not be granted for a longer period than 12 months; but he found now that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to break through this rule, to increase, strengthen, and create vested interests. If that was so, there were, he thought, several hon. Members in that House who would oppose that portion of the Bill. As to the restrictive clauses and the shortening of hours, he would only say, that as they would reduce the facilities for obtaining drink he should cordially support them, for he thought they would result in good. He did not exactly understand how the matter of compensation, in the way of licences, was to be dealt with, and therefore he should not refer to that clause. [Mr. BRUCE: There is not to be any compensation.] He thought there was a decision, by which a veto power was to be given to a certain number of inhabitants on new applications, but that this veto power only came into operation to stop licences beyond a certain given number. He must say that appeared to him to be a very inefficient power, and it was not satisfactory to persons who suffered from those establishments. They were suffering at this moment from the immense amount of crime and pauperism in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that that arose in a great measure from the sale of intoxicating drinks, and that was a very urgent reason for that Bill. But this veto power was only to apply to new licences—new houses which had never yet done any harm. What he thought was a very serious defect was that, so far as he understood, the Bill was confined to England and Wales, for he saw no reason why it should not extend throughout the whole United Kingdom. The Bill was wanted quite as much in Scotland and Ireland as it was in England. In Scotland there was a strong feeling in favour of a change in the law. Only a few years ago, after much labour and discussion, the House passed a licensing
1096
measure, which was, perhaps, as good a licensing Bill as could be passed, and which had shut up a good many of the houses in Scotland. But there was still as great a need of the Act being applied to Scotland as to England. He had read in a recent publication, that no Act had ever been carried out more effectually than the last Scotch Licensing Act, but yet the drunkenness and immorality that prevailed in Scotland was dreadful. The Bill was also needed for Ireland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remember that when the Permissive Bill was last before the House, a majority of two to one of the Irish Members in the House voted in favour of that Bill. If he were to ask any hon. Member from Ireland for his opinion, he had no doubt that he should be told that checking drunkenness in Ireland would do more good than the Irish Land Bill or the Church Bill, or any other Act of the present generation. The great demand of the people for the last eight or ten years, was for power to get rid of these places altogether. They could not go into the question of good houses or bad houses; but the people said there are the houses producing pauperism and crime, let us have the power to put them down. An allusion had been made to something that had taken place at Jarrow, but that did not bear any comparison to the operation of the Permissive Bill; for, in that case, houses were not allowed to be open, simply because a certain owner objected, but with the Permissive Bill the ratepayers were the people to say if houses should be permitted or not. He believed in the principle of free trade for everything that would benefit the community; but as he believed the licensing trade was a bad one, he could not understand why publichouses, which increased the rates and promoted disorder, should be licensed, except by the will of the people. He could not understand why they should licence that which was wrong. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that, although they were in favour of the Permissive Bill, they would not oppose his Bill. He did not believe in it, and thought it could be improved; but he was not going to oppose him. They would still go on trying to obtain their scheme, which they believed would secure order and happiness in that country. If the scheme of the right hon.

1097
Gentleman was passed, there would be nothing to prevent the power of total prohibition being given to the people along with it; and if their scheme was carried, it would not interfere with him in any way.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was far better that they should not, till the Bill was before the House, discuss its separate provisions; but, having taken some interest in this subject, it might be expected that he should say a few words upon it. He was quite sure that the House would believe that the right hon. Gentleman fully interpreted his feelings on the subject when he said that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had always looked forward to the day when the Government would grapple fairly with the subject, and deal with it largely as a whole. He had great satisfaction in finding that the right hon. Gentleman had that night grappled boldly, at least, with the subject. There might be points in the Bill to which he should take exception; but there were also many points which had his hearty and cordial support. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down stated that he objected to that part of the Bill in which the veto was given to the ratepayers against the magisterial licensing power, because it only dealt with a very small portion of the question—namely, the new licences. But he had forgotten that all the existing houses, after a period limited in the Bill, would fall under the same ratepayers' restrictions. If they were to adopt the ratepaying veto at all he thought that supported by the Government was quite as extensive as the country would be prepared to receive. The hon. Baronet seemed to forget, when he talked about vested interests, though no vested interests existed, that there had grown up an equivalent, and that the question could certainly not be dealt with without the recognition of something like vested interests. The Bill seemed to deal with several points which he had always wished to be dealt with in any measure introduced. It dealt with the shortening of the hours throughout the country. It shortened them; and it equalized them. And he had often thought that a great deal of drunkenness existed on account of the different hours for visiting publichouses existing in the same places, enabling a drunkard when obliged to leave a house which
1098
closed at 11 o'clock to go to another closing at 12 o'clock. With the hours equalized, this would not exist. As to the placing of the licences up to public auction, that appeared to him to be open, at first sight, to one objection, and that was that the licences might be made to converge to one particular part of the district, and that part the worst part. Another point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was with regard to the rating qualification. The scale began at £9 in counties; this would be too low in many districts, and that was the beginning of the scale for the beerhouses. [Mr. BRUCE: £8.] With regard to the time during which houses were to be allowed to be open for the sale and consumption of liquors on Sunday—1 to 3, and 7 to 9—he did not understand whether they were the hours during which beerhouses could be open for the sale of beer to be consumed off the premises, or on the premises. [Mr. BRUCE: For both.] He should prefer to see the time of remaining open restricted exclusively to the sale of liquors off the premises, as in such cases the same amount of attendance on the part of those serving would not be requisite. He was exceedingly pleased with the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the question of adulteration. He believed the effect of that part of the measure would be not only to diminish drunkenness, but crime. He had always thought if they had a general Bill, harmonizing all the Acts, bringing them all into one uniform system, they would do much to strengthen their hands in doing away with one of the worst vices of the country. And though there were many points in the Bill to which he must take exception, it was with satisfaction that he found the Government had at last been bold enough to grapple with the question as a whole.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he would not attempt to pronounce any distinct opinion upon a measure which, at present, he understood so imperfectly; but he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not taken up all the views of the promoters of the Permissive Bill. He thought the Bill a very complicated one; although, perhaps, in dealing with such a subject, it could scarcely be otherwise. With regard to the veto system on the part of the ratepayers he confessed he did not understand it. The hon. Baronet

1099
the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wanted to give two-thirds of the ratepayers the power to prevent the minority of one-third from having any refreshment whatever in the shape of alcoholic drink. They had been told, on evidence that was accepted by the hon. Baronet who brought it forward, that in Scotland the effect of closing the publichouses on Sundays had been to increase the drunkenness of the nation. [Mr. M'LAREN: No.] Well, he did not quite know whether that effect was limited to the Sunday, or extended through all the days of the week; perhaps the latter, because if a man could get no drink on Sunday he was certain to take all the more on Monday. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a witness before the Committee on the Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill; and the Committee rejected that Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh was not in favour of applying the principle of that Bill to England; he was in favour of the diminution of the hours on Sunday. The chairman of that Committee, Sir James Ferguson, though a Scotchman, was of the same opinion; he highly approved the Report and the rejection of the Bill, because the situation of Scotland was altogether different from that of England. His right hon. Friend was, therefore, perfectly justified in not adopting the permissive system; but he did not understand how magistrates and the ratepayers were to act with regard to licences, or in what manner the character of the person who was to keep the publichouse was to be ascertained. The licence was to be put up to auction, and he that would bid the most money for it was to have the certificate. [Mr. BRUCE: After an examination into his fitness by the magistrates.] That was exactly what the magistrates did now before granting a licence. They examined into the character of the person applying for a licence—the fitness or accommodation of the house, and the wants of the neighbourhood. The magistrates made very strict inquiry into these three points, and unless they were satisfied no licence was given. Now a certain population was to have no more than a certain number of publichouses; but how was the veto of the inhabitants, proposed by the Bill, to be applied? He understood that if the number fixed by the magistrates was more than in a certain
1100
proportion to the inhabitants, the ratepayers might strike off the excess.
MR. BRUCE: What I said in regard to the veto is this—the veto shall not apply in certain cases, where the proportion of population that shall be fixed upon is not supplied with the means of obtaining liquor. For instance, suppose it is decided that one publichouse to every 1,000 inhabitants is a fair proportion. If there are already 10 houses in a district containing 10,000 inhabitants, and a proposal should be made to licence another house, it will then be in the power of the ratepayers, if they choose, to refuse it. But if there are only nine houses, it will not be in their power to interfere with the decision of the magistrates that a licence for another one shall be granted.
MR. LOCKEthought that was quite right, for a population of so many souls might not be "thirsty souls." As to the reduction of houses, he thought it a great hardship that at the end of 10 years of hard work a person who had all along conducted himself and his business properly, without any charge having ever been made against him, should lose his licence and be driven out of his house, and his whole business might be cut away from under his feet—which would certainly be a very harsh proceeding. A more equitable mode of reducing the number of publichouses than that proposed might easily be adopted, for it did not do that justice to the publican which in common with other citizens he had a right to demand; and no doubt Petitions from the publicans would soon flow into the House indicating how they would prefer to be dealt with. The existing law was sufficient, if it were properly carried out, to prevent the adulteration of beer and of spirits; but the law had not been carried out as it might have been if a proper selection had been made from the police of plain clothes officers charged to see that it was duly enforced. The adulteration of food might also be prevented, if it were not for the vestries of the metropolis refusing to incur the expense. In fact, we had permissive legislation, which was ineffectual, because local authorities would not appoint and pay public analysts to test the specimens inspectors might bring to them. Though he did not pledge himself to all the details of the Bill, he considered

1101
that the right hon. Gentleman had conferred a benefit on his country by the introduction of so comprehensive and promising a measure. The Bill was, at all events, free from the peculiarities and eccentricities which distinguished other Bills, such as the Permissive Bill, and the Bill relating to the sale of liquors on Sunday.
MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he was extremely anxious to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his attempt to consolidate the law upon this subject. It would be a most important step to take inspection of publichouses out of the hands of the police and to hand it over to authorized inspectors, for publicans naturally very much disliked police supervision. The licensed victuallers, who felt difficulty in appealing to tribunals that necessarily considered it part of their duty to uphold and support the police, would feel considerable relief in being placed under the supervision of independent persons, charged with a single duty, and directly responsible to Government authorities, instead of being watched by those who were charged with the business of detecting and convicting criminals. The business of a licensed victualler was a most difficult one to conduct, especially in some neighbourhoods. He was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) upon the proposal to require the renewal of a licence every 10 years, seeing that at present it was necessary to renew licences annually. If no complaint was made against a publican his licence was renewed as a matter of course. The proposition to throw upon the publican the onus of proof that he did not know of the drunken condition of a man found drunk in his House, raised a little difficulty; for it was impossible, under some circumstances,—such, say, as the management of a publichouse being thrown suddenly upon the shoulders of one person through the illness of a second, for the person in charge to be cognizant of the condition of everyone in the house, and to know that any particular man was or was not drunk; and under such circumstances it would be hard to convict. After the innumerable conflicting decisions that had been given upon the subject of who was and who was not a traveller, intelligible legislation on the point, something in character to that which the Bill proposed, would
1102
be extremely acceptable. He believed that rateable value was a fair test by which to judge of the suitability of a house to be a publichouse. He was anxious to see how the Bill proposed to meet the fair wants of new neighbourhoods, because the applications of the most respectable persons for licences were at present often ignored, even when backed by the recommendations of large numbers of inhabitants, so that it was often impossible to understand why such applications were not acceded to. He was glad that at least some effort had been made to deal with this long-vexed question, and though the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would require much emendation and alteration, he sincerely trusted that it might be found possible to place the law upon a basis at once fair to the licensed victuallers and to the ratepayers.
MR. LOCKEsaid, what he had complained of was not that a publican should have to apply for a licence at the end of 10 years, but that, at the end of that time, without having done anything to deserve it, his licence should be taken away from him as a matter of course.
MR. M'LARENentirely approved the general scope and spirit of the Bill; but some of its provisions would be found so much out of harmony with the requirements of large towns that they would require to be considerably modified. The scale of rate, according to rental, was such that the small publican paying £25 of real rent per annum would pay much more than his fair proportion, and, in some cases, 10 times as much as the great innkeepers. He did not see how the auction system was to work. It would be better that the same rate of licence should apply to the new as to the old houses, instead of making the new houses pay more. Under the new scale of 1 house to 1,000 inhabitants, the number of publichouses would have to be reduced to a proportion much lower than would suffice for the wants of large towns. The Government proposed to buy up the present vested interests by giving the present holders a 10 years' tenure. He did not see how new licences could come into operation for 10 years, because everywhere there were at present more publichouses than 1 to 1,000 inhabitants.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the licensing magistrates would have the power of dividing the present districts, so as to make the

1103
growing portion of a town a separate district, and allot licences to that district. In many growing towns there were new districts springing up, and it was desirable that the magistrates should have the power of separating those districts from the rest.
MR. M'LAREN(in continuation): What he wanted to call particular attention to was the litter improbability of getting the limit of the publichouses fixed at the line the right hon. Gentleman had drawn before any new houses could be established. He knew a large town which now had nearly 1,000 licences, but which, according to the proportion presented by the Act, ought only to have 200. It was very improbable that during the next 10 years the 1,000 licences would be reduced to 200, but unless they became diminished to that extent there would be no room for any new licences. One to 1,000 of the population was far too small a proportion, and he said so after having acted as a magistrate for many years, and in that capacity having succeeded in reducing the number of publichouses. In fact, such a proportion was practically unattainable in large towns. If attempted, hundreds of unlicensed houses would spring up which all the power of the Executive could not put down. He would therefore urge that that question should be re-considered. In Scotland it was arranged by the magistrates that three convictions for a breach of licence forfeited the certificate, and under that wholesome enactment 145 publichouses were wiped out within three years in one city. Unless they adopted a rule of that kind in England they could not hope for a reduction in the number of publichouses to any considerable extent. He was gratified to see that under this Bill the premises were not only to be closed at 11 o'clock, but cleared at that hour. With regard to diminishing the number of licences by declaring those forfeited where fines of a certain amount had been inflicted, he did not believe that if the police records throughout the country were searched, a single case could be found of a publican who had been fined so much as £65 in three years, or £100 in five years; the number of offences would be a better ground for withdrawing a licence than the amount of fines. In his opinion it would be well to re-consider some portions of the Bill,
1104
which would excite very great interest throughout the country. He entirely approved of the ratepayers getting a veto with regard to the opening of new houses. From personal knowledge he could state that the amount of drunkenness was enormously diminished in Scotland from closing on Sundays, although he must admit that shebeens had increased. For the last 20 years there had been a register kept of all the parties apprehended on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in Edinburgh, and the result was that not one-fifth of the number of persons were now taken up by the police for being in the streets drunk on Sunday that there were before the Sunday closing enactment. That was surely a complete proof of the efficiency of the legislation in that direction. At the same time he confessed he should be afraid of trying the experiment of wholly closing the publichouses for the enormous population in London, on the Sunday, because many of the publichouses here were also eating-houses, and the poorer class of people required beer for their dinners, and considered it as much a necessity, and to be used in the same way as they used soup in Scotland.
MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether the districts to be mapped out under the provisions of the Bill would be enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill. He expressed satisfaction with the general provisions of the Bill, while reserving to himself the right of discussing the details in Committee. It was most important that the Government should deal with the subject in a bold spirit, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had done so. On the whole he was glad to believe that the measure would do much to promote temperance in this country. On the last occasion when the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle brought forward his Permissive Bill he gave it his support, because he was anxious to show that the subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit. He had always entertained doubts, however, as to whether the measure would work satisfactorily. Indeed, he believed it would operate in districts where it was not particularly wanted, while in the districts where it was most required it would be totally insufficient to attain the desired end. In illustration of this he mentioned that some years ago he attended

1105
the Quarter Sessions for Middlesex when applications were made for music and dancing licences. One application was for a dancing licence for a low house near the docks, and a petition was presented against it, signed by the clergy of all denominations, the churchwardens, overseers, medical men, and, so far as he could judge, every man of position in the district. The local magistrates also attended to support the same view. This petition bore about 160 signatures, but on the other hand some 400 persons signed one in favour of the licence. This showed that if the power of granting licences was relegated to the ratepayers the licence would have been granted, and that in low parishes a very large number of houses would be licensed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had referred to the scale in the Bill. That was a matter which required to be well considered in Committee. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the scale was not too high in cheaply-rated houses, and too low in houses rated at a very high rent. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some further information with regard to the inspectors. In conclusion, he expressed his gratification that the Government had taken up this question in a bold spirit, and had dealt with it in a measure which he believed would produce good results.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEcongratulated the Home Secretary on the fact that he had not been induced to recognize the Permissive Prohibitory principle, or to advocate the total closing of publichouses on Sunday. Being intimately acquainted with the licensing system in the City of London and the county of Middlesex, he would point out to his right hon. Friend that if it were intended to limit the number of publichouses in proportion to the population, an exception to the rule must be made in the case of the City of London, where there were nearly 1,000,000 persons who required refreshment in the day-time, but who, as they slept elsewhere, would not be recorded in the Census as inhabitants of the City. With respect to the complaints which had been made as to the mode in which the licensed victuallers carried on their business, and respecting the administration of the present licensing system, he could say that the magistrates for the county of Middlesex
1106
and the City of London had paid the greatest attention to the licensing of publichouses, and he considered that men carrying on a lawful business in a lawful manner had a right to that protection of law which was extended to other trades. He believed there were too many publichouses in some parts of the country; but if some were closed compulsorily, compensation ought to be given either out of the Imperial Exchequer or the rates of the district. Unless that was done great injury would be inflicted on the present occupiers and their families. If they were only to enjoy their present licences for 10 years their property would be deteriorated in value year by year. The hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) thought that the licences were to be renewed at the expiration of the 10 years, unless the occupiers had committed a breach of the law, which would prevent their renewal; but the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that there would be an end of all the licences at the close of the 10 years, and that then the number would be largely reduced, and the remainder be put up to public competition. The injustice of this course would be the greater upon men who had conducted their trading in a respectable and careful manner, because it would be not only their licences but their business that would be put up for sale. Another and great difficulty would be that of deciding upon whom to place the responsible duty of granting new licences when the existing ones were forfeited at the end of the 10 years. The number of years during which a man had occupied a house would have no weight in support of his application for a renewal, as the Bill proposed to hand over the licences to those who offered the most money. Why was the poor publican to be subjected to a ruinous competition with a new comer, who might take his business and compel him to retire into the country upon a pittance? Purchase in the Army was to be abolished, at a cost to the country of £7,000,000, and the officers were to be largely compensated for sums which they had paid in acquiring their commissions beyond the amount recognized by law. But in the present Bill the publicans were to be disestablished, and sent adrift at the end of 10 years, without sixpence in the shape of compensa-

1107
tion, the system of purchase being introduced in order to secure a better mode of distributing licences. At present, only one person was licensed for a public-house; but if publichouses were to be let in the same way as toll-gates perhaps a joint-stock company might purchase a large number, and again put them up to the highest bidder. If owners were to be turned into managers or superintendents and committed an offence, they might be thrown over by the company, and others placed in possession. He objected to the system of putting up houses of this description in such a wholesale manner. It had been said that the brewers held a large number of these houses, and advanced a large portion of the amount paid by the occupier, and therefore that it would be better to meet the brewer at once. If houses were to be put up to public competition in the manner proposed there would be a competition between Bass and Allsopp, between Hoare and Reid, between the City Brewery Company and Barclay. Now, supposing the brewers to obtain possession of the whole of the publichouses, they might district the whole metropolis in the same manner as the Gas and Water Companies had done. Parliament fixed the price of gas and water. Now, was Parliament prepared to settle the price at which liquor of various kinds should be supplied in publichouses? The system of putting up publichouses in the manner proposed was quite novel, and he believed that many evils would arise from it. He hoped on further consideration that that proposition would be swept out of the Bill. He hoped also that the licences of those who had carried on their business honourably would not be forfeited at the expiration of 10 years. Innkeepers had been often regarded as publicans and sinners; but he trusted the House would not look upon them in that light. The Chancellor of the Exchequer derived a large amount of his revenue from publichouses, and probably expected to obtain still more from the disposal of their licences. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had asked leave to introduce the Bill would re-consider and amend these clauses, for by so doing he could alone prevent the great outcry against the measure which would arise in all parts of the country, and he could assure him that worthy and respectable
1108
individuals, who had acquired property in their houses by long years of thrift and management, would not submit to be mulcted of their hard earnings in the manner proposed by this Bill.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had had 12 years experience as a magistrate in Surrey, and for the past seven years he had taken an active part on the Bench in the Wandsworth and Battersea division, and he protested against the censure which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon the publicans as a body who permitted a large amount of drunkenness in their houses. Between Wandsworth and Vauxhall 7,000 houses had been erected within the past few years, yet three years ago, when the licences came on for renewal, there was not a single complaint against a licence-holder; in the following year there were but three, and last year there were two only. With regard to the proposal to forfeit all licences at the end of 10 years, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that it would fail utterly. If a publican knew that in case of offence against the law his licence would be suspended or taken away he would have in that quite as strong a reason as was necessary to induce him to conduct his business properly. He disapproved the proposal to appoint inspectors of public-houses who should be independent of the police force as being unnecessary and enormously expensive. So far as his experience enabled him to judge, no body of public servants in the metropolis were more zealous, independent, and respectable in the discharge of delicate and responsible duty than the superintendents and inspectors of police, taken as an aggregate force. There was not the least necessity for imposing an additional burden of taxation upon the country for the inspection of publichouses. When the Bill reached the next stage he should propose certain amendments of detail.
MR. RYLANDSexpressed his gratitude to the Home Secretary for introducing this Bill. A large amount of public feeling had been excited on this question, and it would inevitably lead, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, to a large reduction in the number of publichouses, and in the number of hours during which they should be kept open. The great point was how to reduce the

1109
number of these places of public resort and so lessen these temptations which led to so much crime and pauperism in the country. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme of reducing the number of publichouses through the operation of the penal clauses of the Bill might not be so effectual as was expected, and it should be considered whether it would not be practicable to increase the stringency of the Bill by at once sweeping away all houses that were not rated up to a certain point, for unless the effect of the measure was to reduce the number of publichouses in places where they were in excess of the requirements of the population the Bill would not meet with public support. Such a provision would get rid of the lowest class of houses, and by reducing the number of houses it would decrease the competition and improve the value of those that remained, thus affording some measure of compensation to the large owners of publichouses for those which were refused licences. He presumed that in places where the number of existing publichouses exceeded the limit fixed in the Bill no new houses would be licensed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the ratepayers would have to confirm the decision of the magistrates in that respect.
MR. RYLANDShoped that no increase would be made, for he desired to see an immediate prospect of a rapid decrease in places where the number of publichouses was already excessive. With regard to the number of hours during which publichouses should be open he concurred in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, but was not sure whether they might not have been limited to a greater extent than was contemplated in the Bill, and in regard to the option of the extra hour given to the magistrates, he thought that option might have been left, to some extent, with the ratepayers themselves. With regard to Sunday closing, public opinion was ripening with great rapidity on that point, and he had just learned that, in Crewe, it had been shown from a canvass instituted by the working men themselves that a large majority of inhabitants were in favour of closing the publichouses altogether on Sundays, while he held in his hand a memorial signed by upwards of 1,000 magistrates in all parts of the country in favour of such a scheme. If the right
1110
hon. Gentleman could not go to that extent he might, at least, give the ratepayers the option of deciding the point, and with this view, when the Bill got into Committee, he should give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of Sunday closing as applied to publichouses. He hoped the result of this measure would be to check one of the greatest evils under which the country suffered, and in that case Government would be successful in dealing effectually with a most important question.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he approved of the Bill, and thanked the Home Secretary for having undertaken the difficult and anxious task of introducing it, which had been forced upon the Government, who were rather behind public opinion on this matter than in advance of it. This Bill he regarded as the result of those measures which had been introduced by independent Members who represented the popular feeling, and desired to promote public morals, for had there not been that action on the part of hon. Members no such Bill as this would have been framed by the Government. If the Bill proceeded upon the popular feeling it would be supported by the country, and much good would be accomplished. As to the objection made by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler), that by giving effect to the popular voice the result would be that the worst houses would be established in the worst districts, the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that in all districts the magistrates would still possess their present control over the issue of licences.
MR. EYKYNsaid, the House was under a disadvantage in discussing a Bill, the details of which were not yet before them; but he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced a Bill which had long been required, and in the result of which the public were deeply interested, especially with regard to the provisions relating to adulteration and intoxication. Some such measure had been loudly called for, for some time past, and it had now become an imperative necessity. Considering the large amount of capital which was directly and indirectly invested in the brewing interest, he trusted that the effect of this Bill would not be to frighten away capital from its legiti-

1111
mate domain. He was exceedingly glad to find that the supervision which at present was inefficiently performed by the police, was to be transferred to another body. With regard to the brewers becoming licensed owners of houses, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that distillers had almost as large an interest in them, and he thought both ought to be placed on the same footing. It was, no doubt, very difficult to accurately define a "traveller;" but he thought that a man should not be permitted to get intoxicated simply because he had travelled five miles. He thought the Bill might impose some limit on the amount which the traveller should be allowed to expend in drink, at a time when a restriction was imposed on other persons. Serious amendments would have to be made when in Committee on the Bill in regard to vested interests.
MR. T. E. SMITHwas extremely disappointed with the Bill, and was sure that the majority of the working classes in the North of England had expected a much stronger and more sweeping measure. In fact, the Bill only dealt with one part of the question—the relations of the publican and the Government, or its representatives, the licensing body. Whatever advantages might result from the proposed changes in the law, there was nothing in the Bill which would tend to diminish the evil of drunkenness. Hitherto it had been a disputed question whether publicans could be considered to have a vested interest in their holdings; but this Bill created for them a vested interest for at least 10 years, and he was sure this would be greatly disapproved of. Again, it was known that a large section of the population wished to have the power of depriving both themselves and their neighbours of the temptation of indulging in intoxicating liquors; and he believed that it was not just for the Government to prevent their exercising this power. It was said that they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament; but if they could not make people wiser and happier it was a serious reflection upon modern legislation. He hoped steps would be taken in Committee to enable those who were virtuously disposed to have some influence in making the Bill more effective, not only in improving the management of publichouses, but in promoting
1112
sober habits amongst the population generally.
MR. BRUCE, in reply, observed, that he had been very much gratified by the comments that had been made by hon. Members that evening. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a sufficient answer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that this was, in some respects, a measure of confiscation. He wished to remove some misapprehensions which had arisen as to the nature of several provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who had studied this question so thoroughly, and who understood it so well, had objected to the apportioning of the publichouses at the rate of 1 to every 1,000 of the population, on the ground that at the end of the 10 years the number of licensed houses would be reduced very greatly below what the necessities of the people required. But that was not the principle of the Bill. The limit, whatever it was—and it would be fixed in Committee—was simply to interfere with the action of the ratepayers. The Justices might recommend the licensing of more houses in places like the City of London or Edinburgh; and, with the concurrence of the ratepayers, these licences would be granted—but, while the proportion to be fixed in the Bill was maintained, the ratepayers would have no voice in the matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) criticized one portion of the Bill; and, in reference to that, he should state that one object of the Bill was to secure the impartial distribution of licences, and they proposed to go a great way in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. But if a publichouse were needed just outside a village, the magistrates had the power of granting it where it was required, instead of being bound, as his hon. Friend supposed was the case, to give it to the village, which might already be amply supplied. Again, the licensing rent of new houses would be higher than the licensing rent of the older ones, because, in the case of the latter, large sums would, in all probability, have already been paid by the occupiers. There was hardly one of those persons who had not paid a heavy sum in acquiring his licence, and they had thought

1113
it unfair to put the licence rent, in their case, at as heavy a sum as in the case of those who started afresh and had their licences free. His hon. Friend had rather misunderstood the application of the cumulative penalties provided for by this Bill. There were many small matters which would not affect the licence, and for which the fines imposable by the magistrates would be sufficient punishment; but the forfeiture of the licence would follow two convictions of the more serious offences—such as permitting drunkenness and intoxication. He had to thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) for the manner in which he had spoken of the Bill; also the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight), who had spoken with so much knowledge on the subject, for his offers of assistance. The measure could not but be improved by the impartial criticism of hon. Members, and he was especially obliged for the offers of assistance made in this instance, because it was impossible successfully to carry a measure dealing with the multitude of interests involved in the Government proposals without the cordial support of the House.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEhoped that, upon a subject of such importance, sufficient time would be allowed to elapse before the Motion for a second reading of the Bill, in order to insure a full consideration of its various provisions throughout the country.

(1.) Resolved, That it is expedient, from the 1st day of October 1871, to repeal the Duties of Excise charged in England in respect of Licences authorising the sale by retail, and not (except in the case of Publicans' Licences) by wholesale, of intoxicating liquors, and of Licences to keep Refreshment Houses, imposed by the several Acts relating thereto.

(2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to grant to Her Majesty, from the 1st day of October 1871, the following Duties of Excise to be payable in England (that is to say):—

Publican's General Licence.

£

s.

d.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10

5

0

0

Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20

8

0

0

Exceed £20 and do not exceed £30

11

0

0

Exceed £30 and do not exceed £40

14

0

0

Exceed £40

17

0

0

Publican's Limited Licence.

Beer Licence.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10

3

0

0

1114

£

s.

d.

Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20

4

0

0

Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40

5

0

0

Exceed £40

6

0

0

Wine Licence.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10

2

0

0

Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20

3

0

0

Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40

4

0

0

Exceed £40

5

0

0

Beer and Wine Licence.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10

4

0

0

Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20

6

0

0

Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40

8

0

0

Exceed £40

10

0

0

Inn Licence.

Same as Publican's General Licence.

Eating House Licence.

Same as Publican's Limited Licence.

Refreshment House Wine Licence.

If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £50

3

3

0

If the annual gross value of the premises exceeds £50

5

5

0

Refreshment House Limited Wine Licence.

If the annual gross value of premises do not exceed £30

2

15

8

Exceeding £30 and do not exceed £50

3

0

0

Exceed £50

4

4

0

Railway Refreshment Rooms Licence.

If three rooms or bars for different classes of passengers

17

0

0

If two rooms or bars for different classes of passengers

12

0

0

If only one room or bar

6

0

0

Theatre Licence.

The same as for a Publican's General Licence.

Beershop Licence.

If the annual gross value do not exceed £20

1

1

0

If the annual gross value do exceed £20

2

2

0

Spirit Dealers Retail Licence

3

3

0

Beer Dealers Retail Licence

1

2

0

Wine Retail Licence.

If the annual gross value of premises do not exceed £50

2

2

0

If the annual gross value of premises do exceed £50

3

3

0

Sweets Retail Licence

1

1

0

(3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition on holders of Certificates from Justices authorising those holders to obtain a Publican's General, a Publican's Limited, an Inn or an Eating House Licence, of a Licence Rent bearing such proportion to the annual gross value of the licensed premises as may be fixed by or in pursuance of any Act to be passed in the present Session.
(4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the sale of Exciseable Liquors in England.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

RATING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

  LEAVE.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I rise to redeem the pledges given by the Government to the effect that they were prepared to submit measures to Parliament on the subject of local rating and local government. The House is aware that these two subjects are so closely interlaced that it is scarcely possible to deal satisfactorily with the one without also dealing with the other, for this reason, that in both cases it is the ratepayer who has the locus standi, that it is impossible to touch the question of local government without dealing with the areas of rating, and equally impossible to deal with the areas of rating without disturbing the present incidence of local rates. The Government is also desirous, in dealing with this question of local government, to adopt as many as possible of the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission; but everyone who has studied this question of local government and taxation is aware that the subject is so vast that it is impossible to deal with every portion of it in one Bill or in one Session. We must endeavour to legislate as far as we can; and, above all things, I think it is our duty to make up our minds clearly as to what we want, and to put a stop to that piecemeal legislation as regards local government which has produced the chaos at present existing. One of the sources, the endless sources, of confusion in this matter of local government has been that, in the various enactments which have been from time to time passed respecting it, the need of the hour only has been considered. Whether it has been the Government or a private Member who has proposed legislation—often wise and beneficial legislation—on the subject, the Bills they have introduced have generally looked to the immediate object before the House at the time, and never has the attempt been made to fit in the new pieces of legislation with the old. The consequence is that the whole country is covered with overlapping areas and conflicting jurisdictions. It is impossible to lay hold of any one principle that has guided Parliament in this matter, and the most zealous efforts of the Royal Commission to which I have referred were made to bring out that portion of the subject in the most striking relief. And not only is there this difficulty
  1116
  as regards jurisdiction, areas, and purposes, but that same confusion has been reproduced, and reproduced from the most remote times, on the subject of the rates which were at the disposal of the various local authorities. There was, in the first instance, the old poor rate. Afterwards, new purposes had to be defrayed by additional taxation, and for some time every such new purpose was to be provided for by a new rate. At a later period a portion of these rates was merged in the poor rate, and the overseers collecting the poor rate were directed to pay out of the poor rate a certain amount to other purposes; but it was found that, owing to the overlapping of the areas, it was impossible to levy the whole of the new rates with the poor rate; and, consequently, we have had this anomaly, that while, for instance, the county rate is generally levied with the poor rate, there are cases in which it is levied separately. In the same way the borough rate has generally been levied with the poor rate; in other cases it was not so levied; and in the annual Reports published by the Poor Law Board there is one column to this effect—Borough, hundred, county, and police rates paid out of poor rates. The amount which was contributed to each of these rates no Report has ever stated, and no person, as far as I can discover, has ever yet analyzed it. The confusion is increased by the facts that the accounts of these various authorities are made up to different dates. With some the year ends in September; with others on the 31st of December; with many on the 25th of March. The consequence is that it is impossible ever to arrive at any coherent view of the whole of our local rates. This matter has formed the subject of two Committees which have sat on local taxation; and there has been entertained for many years past the view that it is absolutely necessary that all rates should, as far as possible, be consolidated, and the same principles applied to all rates. The truth, Sir, is, that we have a chaos as regards authorities, a chaos as regards rates, and a worse chaos than all as regards areas. And not only that, but every different form of election which it is possible to conceive is applied to the various local authorities administering these various rates in these various areas. It is a curious fact that while

  1117
  the principles that govern these matters might be supposed not, perhaps, to be identical, but, at all events, very similar, in the case of the election of guardians, in the case of the election of local boards, in the case of the election of highway surveyors, overseers, and other local and parochial authorities, there is a different form of election in nearly all of them. In some instances you have an election by plurality of votes, in others by single votes, in some instances you have an election by owners and occupiers, in others by occupiers only; and where you have a plurality of votes the scale varies—there being, for example, one scale for the election of guardians and another for the election of highway surveyors. Now, the Government are anxious to deal, as far as possible, with these matters, and to see whether some kind of order cannot be introduced into what I have called this chaos. But, quite separate from that subject, at least, in the minds of Members of this House, although, as I have shown intimately connected with it, is the question of the burden borne by the various classes of property. Side by side with this question of simplifying local administration, it has been the duty of the Government carefully to examine and take their decision upon the allegations made by ratepayers in the towns and in the country that certain kinds of property were unduly burdened, and that, quite irrespective of administration, it was necessary, from a financial point of view also, that great reforms should be effected. We have had to consider these two classes of subjects—first, the improvement of local administration with a view to simplicity, and next the alleged grievances of the ratepayers. On both of these topics it devolves on me to address the House to-night. The House will observe that Notice has been given of two Bills; and the reason is this—that, so far as local administration is concerned, we do not propose to deal this year with the metropolis. I think the House is aware of our intention in that respect. Our reforms in regard to local government are applied to England exclusive of the metropolis. But it will be seen that when we come to the second branch of the question—namely, the grievances of the ratepayers—it would be exceedingly difficult to take measures that would apply to a part of the kingdom only, and not to the whole. Consequently,
  1118
  it has been requisite to divide the subject into two portions, so as to meet that difficulty.
  I believe, Sir, that in treating of this question, I may assume that the House is acquainted with the vastness of the matter of which we are treating, and I need only repeat that the amount of the rates levied in England and Wales is £16,500,000, and if to that you add the amount raised by indirect taxation, such as tolls, dues, and fees, and if you further add the subventions made by the Government, the receipts derived from the sale of property and from rents and miscellaneous sources, and likewise the receipts derived from loans, you will get a total of £30,000,000 sterling administered by local authorities. The total for England, Scotland, and Ireland is £36,000,000; but for England and Wales alone it is £30,000,000. Then, as regards the number of bodies administering these rates: in a Report circulated among hon. Members this morning there is an enumeration of the various classes of local authorities. They amount to about 20; but some of these are what may be called maritime authorities—managing harbours, ports, and bridges; and therefore if you deduct these there will remain really 16 different classes of local authorities, elected, as I have stated, generally upon different principles, proceeding in an entirely different manner, and standing in very little relation to one another. I am sure the House will feel that we must approach this subject with considerable anxiety, and it will be our duty—and I hope we shall be able to do it with success—to appeal to the House to support us in our task, irrespective of the local pressure which is certain to be brought to bear on many hon. Members when we come to deal with existing local institutions. But the desire for reform is so great that I am confident that the House will give us that support, and that the country itself will not be unwilling that some of the older forms of local government should be materially changed, provided we thereby secure simplicity and improvement. In the first place, I may say that the Government purpose accepting, in its entirety, the Resolution of a Select Committee of this House which sat two years ago, and decided in favour of the consolidation of all rates into one. That Resolution was re-affirmed by the Select

  1119
  Committee which sat last year. The Government propose, in the first instance, that, instead of the present system of various authorities being entitled to levy separate rates, only one rate should be levied; and that every authority now entitled to raise funds should obtain those funds by a requisition upon the parochial authorities. We propose, for example, that the Boards of Guardians, the highway boards, the county justices, the local boards, the town councils, and all the bodies who will have a claim on a particular parish, should each on a particular day in the year send in an estimate of the particular amounts which they will require in the course of that year. The parish officers will add all these together, and will accordingly be enabled to make an estimate of the total sum that will be required from the parish for the whole of the year. A demand-note will be sent to each ratepayer, specifying all the items of which the rate is composed. It will have to state that so much is collected for the relief of the poor, so much for the purposes of the highways, so much for the county expenditure; but the whole is to be thrown into one and to be collected in one sum. I will give the House the general form in which we propose that this shall be done:—On and after the 25th of April, 1872, a rate, called the consolidated rate, shall be made and assessed in every parish under which all sums hitherto levied under the form of different rates shall be raised, and all sums usually paid out of such rates shall be paid out of such consolidated rate of each parish on the requisition of the authority entitled to demand payment of such sums. This one reform, it appears to me, will be of considerable use and convenience, because not only will it effect a considerable saving in the cost of collection, but it will introduce such simplicity into the rating system, that any ratepayer will know what he never knows now—namely, the amount which he has to pay in the course of the year in the shape of rates. But besides the advantage of every ratepayer knowing what he will have to pay, the House will see that this change, small as it is, involves many corollaries, because the rates now collected separately are made upon different principles, they are made upon different valuations, and, to a certain extent, they are subject to different deductions.
  1120
  For instance, two years ago the Assessed Rates Act was passed, by which the owner was made rateable instead of the occupier in the case of certain small tenements under the annual value of £8 in the country, and of £20 in the metropolis. That Act only applied to the poor rate, and, consequently, you have this anomaly, that while the owners of this class of tenements are rated for the poor rate it does not follow that they are rated for other rates at all. Thus it is possible that in a town where the occupier is not rated to the poor rate, but the owner is, the occupier may be rated to the general district rate while the owner is not. Such cases are, of course, extremely intricate and complicated; but they are further complicated by the fact that in certain cases where the owner is rated, one rate may be subject to deductions amounting to 30 per cent, while the other may be subjected to deductions amounting to 40 or 50 per cent. In such divergence no principle can exist, and as the House has adopted the practice of rating the owner instead of the occupier below a certain line in the case of the poor rate, there is no reason whatever why precisely the same principle should not be extended to other rates, and therefore to the proposed consolidated rate. Therefore, by a clause in the Bill, it is proposed to enact that the principle of the Assessed Rates Act shall apply to the Consolidated Act, whereby the anomalies in the case of deductions from rates which now exist would be put an end to. As regards the question of audit, the Government propose that, having one consolidated rate, we shall also have one consolidated audit of all local funds throughout the country. At present the expenses of the guardians, and those of the local boards, are very carefully audited by the Poor Law auditors; but those of boroughs are exempted from this public audit. The accounts of highway surveyors are only audited by the justices, who do not at all examine the legality of the expenditure, but simply see whether the accounts are correct according to the vouchers. There is also this difficulty, which every person conversant with the subject is aware of—namely, that if one of two accounts is audited and the other is not, a collector who collects both rates will frequently make good defalcations in

  1121
  that which is audited out of that which is not audited. No doubt there may be some little reluctance on the part of certain local bodies to adopt this general system of audit; but I trust that that will be overcome in a very short time. I now come to another difficulty, which is of a far more serious character. The House is aware that the political franchise under the present law depends upon the payment of the poor rate, while it is not affected in any way by the nonpayment of other rates. The Government, therefore, have had to consider what will be the position of the ratepayer and of the voter if, when the consolidated rate is substituted for the poor rate, the former should remain unpaid. This is a subject of some difficulty, because the consolidated rate will possibly be twice as high as the poor rate, and therefore it would be unjust to require that the franchise should be dependent upon the payment of this higher rate. The House is aware that, by the Assessed Rates Act, the vote was reserved to the occupier notwithstanding the rate was paid by the owner, and therefore it does not seem that the House attached much value to that part of the Reform Act which required that the rate should be paid by the voter. The Government, therefore, propose not to raise the qualification, by enacting that the consolidated rate shall take the place of the poor rate, but to make the fact of being rated to the consolidated rate, and not the payment of it, the qualification for the franchise. The Government would not have dealt with matters of this semi-political character in a Bill like this were it not that it was absolutely necessary to encounter the difficulty if they desired to prevent the creation of a consolidated rate from practically disfranchising a large number of ratepayers. In connection with the consolidation of the rates, we propose to make another very considerable reform—namely, to appoint paid collectors all over the country. The system at present in vogue by which the rates are collected by unpaid overseers who are only indirectly responsible ought to be abolished. The system of the appointment of paid collectors would be far more efficient, and where it has been adopted, has led to considerable economy in the collection of the rates, notwithstanding the salaries paid to the collectors. We do not insist
  1122
  upon every small parish appointing and paying its own collector—we permit a certain number of small parishes to group themselves together, and to appoint a paid collector between them. As far as I have gone, therefore, it will be seen that the Bill proposes the consolidation of all rates into one, the enforcement of a general audit, and the appointment of paid and responsible collectors. The next question we have had to determine was over what area is this rate to be collected, and we have chosen the parish. And this brings me to the general question which forced itself upon the Government throughout the whole of their preparation of this Bill—namely, what area shall be taken as the unit in dealing with the aggregate areas into which the country is covered? As they at present exist, the areas overlap each other, parishes and unions and country districts being mixed up together, and differently portioned out for various rating purposes. It has been said that the Poor Law union might be utilized, so as to be made the principal area for local government. An examination has proved that it is almost impossible to adopt that view, and for this reason, that out of the total number of 650 unions there are, I think, 250, at least, partly situate in one county and partly in another; and, that which is still more serious, that, in the case of boroughs, a borough very rarely is coincident with a union. A borough is generally partly in a union and partly out of it. Again, unions do not coincide with highway districts; and the question, therefore, to determine is, whether a union is an area which you can so touch as by a rectification of its boundaries to bring it into a more regular form? Examination shows that a union is precisely an area the most difficult to touch on account of the poor rate. You would be introducing a new Union Chargeability Bill, and changing entirely the rates in every Union in the country, if you were to begin to deal with the boundaries of Unions. And, again, unions have been so mapped out that the workhouse might be in the central part of the union, and if you were to do anything to rectify the boundaries of the union it would be necessary for you to consider what distance the poor would have to travel in order to get to the workhouse. You would have to re-constitute the whole of the unions in

  1123
  the country in order to make them coincide with the boundaries of boroughs, with the boundaries of highway districts, and the boundaries of counties. On the whole, therefore, after mature consideration, it has been thought best to make the parish the general unit for local administration, the rectification of the boundaries of a parish being infinitely easier than the rectification of the boundaries of a union. Nothing would conduce more to the simplification of our local administration than the securing of this object—that no parish should be cut in two by the boundary of any other area—that there should be a given number of parishes in a union and a given number in a highway district. We propose, therefore, to deal with parishes. But we are met with this difficulty, that of all the defective arrangements for the purposes of local administration the arrangements of the parish are probably the worst. You have overseers in the first place who are really appointed by the justices though nominated by the vestry. It is, however, a striking example of the general ignorance upon these subjects, that even Parliament at one time clearly did not know this. Although there is no legislative enactment whatever which requires vestries to be called together on a particular day for the election of overseers, yet in one of our Highway Acts it was laid down that the highway surveyors should be appointed at the same vestry meeting as that at which the overseers were appointed. Besides overseers you have the vestry, you have in many agricultural parishes inspectors of lighting and watching, you have waywardens or highway surveyors, all elected in a different way and not brought together in any systematic manner. I believe my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have found the greatest difficulty in working the Education Act and many Sanitary Acts because they do not know with whom they ought to correspond in any particular parish. It may be said that the overseers are the oldest parish officers, and that they should represent the parish; but they have no functions except those definitely assigned to them by statute. As to the vestry, its powers are almost undefined. You have no one to convoke it, and no one to preside over it;
  1124
  everything is done in an irregular manner. The vestry is not bound to meet at stated intervals. It has no continuous existence. It cannot hold property. Trustees must hold property for it. The House might say, is this the organization which you wish to make your unit in your new scheme? We propose to re-constitute the parish entirely. We propose that there should be in every parish what I will call a "civil head," a person who shall be responsible for the affairs of that parish. We propose that the ratepayers in every parish should annually elect from themselves a person, to be called chairman of the parochial board, and that he shall be associated with a certain number of other members of the parochial board, varying from 3 to 20, according to the population of the parish, and that to this regularly constituted body, the parochial board, should be transferred the duties now exercised by the overseers, by the highway surveyors, by the lighting and watch inspectors, and the executive duties of the vestry such as those which it possesses, although the House may not be aware of the fact as a sanitary authority. It is exceedingly difficult in a large parish to cause a vestry, which consists of all the inhabitants of the parish, really to do business. They exercise their proper functions when they determine on the adoption of Acts of Parliament which are voluntary; but so far as concerns the carrying out of Acts of Parliament, the making of contracts, the construction of sewers, and business of that kind, it is quite clear that a vestry is not a proper, competent, or efficient authority; and so strongly has that been felt, that in many cases the tendency of legislation has been to appoint what may be called a committee of the vestry. In some parishes, again, you have select vestries created for the same reason, which have superseded the old parish authorities, and perform many important functions. As between vestries and select vestries the choice has to be made between a vestry which is too large for the performance of business and a vestry which is too small really to represent the wishes of the parish. Generally speaking, it is readily admitted that the whole of this question of vestries has been in a most unsatisfactory state. The Government, therefore, propose to have a small board—

  1125
  whose functions I do not wish at all to magnify—and to constitute them into the executive of the parish, with a chairman of the parochial board, who is to be its organ and mouthpiece, and to represent it in every sense. He will be the authority to prepare the various estimates and to make a rate. He will make a rate without, as at present, going through the empty form of obtaining the sanction of the justices. At present you have no authority in a parish who can make a rate unless it is the overseers; but the office of overseer is generally felt to be a burden. It is liked by no one. We intend that the chairmanship of the parochial board shall be an office of honour, and we should hope that the chairman of the parochial board would be the principal person in the parish. We trust that the person who may be elected chairman will inspire the ratepayers with confidence that the financial affairs of the parish are safe in his hands, and in those of the parochial board. We propose—
  "That there shall be elected by the vestry of every parish on the 25th day of March in every year a board, to be called the parochial board, to consist of a chairman to be named by the vestry, and of such other members as will, together with the chairman, make the whole board consist of such numbers not being less than 3 nor more than 20, as may be prescribed."
  There is a further clause, according to which the chairman of the parochial board is to represent the parish in all matters. The House is aware that there are many parishes where the number of inhabitants is so small that they would be unable to elect a board. There are provisions in the Bill which meet that case, and it is proposed that in such places the vestry, if not composed of more than 12 members, can itself become the board. These parochial boards will have to perform all the duties now discharged in a disjointed manner by the various parochial officers at present constituted. There is a good deal that is new in the proposal that we submit to the House; but we think that it is simple; that it will tend to facilitate the conduct of parochial business; that it will bring together into one hand those duties which are now scattered over a number of officers; and that it will insure that responsibility which it would be well worth the attention of the House to provide. These boards will be assisted
  1126
  by the paid collector, of whom I have already spoken. We do not consider that in any case any further expense will be incurred by the formation of these boards, for we shall provide that where there is a clerk of the vestry he shall be clerk of the parochial board. The House must distinctly understand that we leave to the vestry those functions which properly belong to the deliberative assembly of the parish—namely, the adoption or not of voluntary Acts of Parliament. It is the executive duties of the vestry that we propose to transfer to the chairmen of the parochial boards, and we consider that we shall in this way organize the parish in a manner that will be efficient for the conduct of the business that belongs to it. When the chairman of the parochial board and the board itself have been established in each parish, great advantages, other than those I have spoken of, will be found to attach to the plan. At present, when you wish to combine a number of parishes for any particular object, it is difficult to find any representatives, and the consequence is that it is necessary always to have a separate election. If there be a highway district it is necessary, in order to get a highway board together, that there should be a separate election in the parish. For your Board of Guardians you have a separate election, and there is no representative of a parish whom you can lay hold of when you wish to aggregate a number of parishes. But having by the Bill appointed a chairman of the parochial board, who represents the parish, if Parliament should think fit to aggregate a number of parishes for any particular purpose, the thing is done at once by simply saying that the matter shall be carried into effect by the chairmen of the particular parishes included in the aggregate area. For instance, if we say that a certain number of parishes shall be brought together for sanitary purposes, and that the board shall be composed of the chairmen of the respective parochial boards, the thing is done. That is not our plan for the sanitary objects to which I shall presently have to allude; but I wish to state it by way of illustration, in order to show that when we have once obtained representatives of the parishes, it is possible to bring them together for unity of action for any purpose whatever, a thing which at present

  1127
  is entirely impossible. Another important change is this. I wish to do away with the variety of elections, of which I have spoken, and to substitute one annual election for all parish officers whatever. Instead of having one election conducted in one mode for Boards of Guardians, another in a different mode for overseers, another for highway surveyors or way wardens, I propose that we shall have but one election every year, when all the parish officers shall be elected on one registry, by one mode of voting at the same time and with the same forms. I am sure that is a reform which the House will consider desirable. We propose that this election should be by Ballot in the same way as in the Parliamentary and municipal elections, in order that there may be one general system throughout the country with which people may be familiarized, and that they may not be continually distracted by various forms of voting. Instead, as I have said, of having separate elections for the various officers, when the election for the parochial board is held, the electors will be called upon at the same time to return Poor Law Guardians, and also their representatives at the highway boards. We consider that more interest will attach to the parochial elections if all the representatives are chosen at the same time than if there are scattered elections. One of the first purposes to which we propose to turn the organization of the parish which I have described is to create those county financial boards of which so much has been said, and which have been so long desired by the farmers. One of the great obstacles in the way has been to find the best mode in which county financial boards could be elected by the ratepayers. There was no difficulty as to the representatives of the justices; but there has been great difficulty on account of the overlapping areas in determining who shall be the representatives of the ratepayers on the county financial boards. It had been suggested that the Guardians of the unions should elect representatives; but as the unions overlap the counties there would be considerable inconvenience attending such a plan. What we propose is that the chairmen of the parochial boards in the petty sessional districts shall elect representatives from among themselves to represent the ratepayers
  1128
  on the county financial boards. We propose that these boards shall be composed half of representatives of the justices, and half of representatives of the ratepayers, the latter to be chosen by the chairmen of the parochial boards in the petty sessional districts. It will be seen that in this way we bring the parochial organization in direct contact with the county organization, and that a certain number of the officers whom we propose to create by this Bill will sit with the justices on the county financial boards—a circumstance which will heighten the position of those chairmen of the parochial boards. I need not discuss the separation of the judicial business of the Quarter Sessions from the administrative business which we propose to give to the county financial board, for that is a matter with which the House is well acquainted. Up to this point the House will see that we propose to reform, to the best of our judgment, the parish organization, and, at the same time, to create a new county organization in which the ratepayers are represented, while we retain, as far as possible, the local character of the organization by making the petty sessional divisions the electoral areas. I now come to a very complicated part of the subject—namely, the question of sanitary authorities. As regards sanitary matters, broad distinctions must be drawn between the towns and the country. In the urban part of the country you have the following authorities:—town councils, improvement commissioners, and local boards administering certain sanitary laws. Beyond the towns there are very small portions of sanitary laws vested in the Guardians. As regards drainage and sewerage, special districts have been made. As regards the towns the position is not very satisfactory, and for this reason—that you may have in a borough a town council existing side by side with a local board, the town council exercising municipal functions, while the more important sanitary functions are performed by the local board. Now, we propose that whenever there happen to be two boards exercising jurisdiction over a conterminous area they should be merged into one, so that there should not be a double board having jurisdiction over the same area. But, with regard to the general question of sanitary jurisdiction,

  1129
  we do not propose—following in this respect the recommendation of the Sanitary Commission—to take away their powers from the present sanitary authorities, such as local boards and improvement commissioners. It may be a question for future consideration whether the number of local Acts may not be worked into a more harmonious whole; but the House will, I think, see that we are proposing considerable changes, and that it would not be desirable that we should overweight ourselves this Session, for we are anxious to avoid doing anything which would not fit in with the general plan of the simplification of boundaries. The question of most urgent importance is to look to those parts of the country which are at present most insufficiently provided with any sanitary authority. These are the rural districts and the outlying parts of the towns, and they constitute the most difficult parts of the problem with which we have to deal. In the suburbs of large towns you find the most imperfect arrangements as regards sanitary purposes very often existing, while in the country districts there is, practically speaking, no authority which carries out the sanitary laws at all. The Guardians are not elected for that purpose, while as far as the vestries are concerned, they are not fitted for the discharge of executive duties. Thus we have to consider what should be the sanitary area which we should adopt in the country. It has been suggested that the highway district would be the most convenient as the sanitary district, and the Government have considered the proposal with the greatest care. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the highway district, because there is some connection between sewers and roads, and the highway district does not overlap the counties. But, on the other hand, we had to consider whether the union would not be a better area for this particular purpose. The Sanitary Commission were in favour of the latter area, and we have adopted their recommendation, and taken the union, with some modification, as the area for sanitary purposes in those cases in which no part of the union is contained within the district of a local board or of improvement commissioners. In such unions we propose that the Guardians should be the sanitary authority. I admit that Guardians were elected for a
  1130
  different purpose; but there is this advantage connected with them—that they have a staff; they have a medical officer and a clerk, and although, for many reasons, it might be desirable to have a sanitary board unconnected with the poor, we have come to the conclusion that the ability to utilize their officers for sanitary purposes outweighs every theoretical objection. There are several cases in which we shall not be able to take the whole union, but only a portion of the union—namely, in cases where part of the union may be within a local board district and the rest without. In these cases we propose that in the extra-urban part of the union, the sanitary authority should be composed of the Guardians of that portion of the union and the chairmen of the parochial boards of the parishes contained in it. By these means we propose to cover the whole country with sanitary boards. These proposals would remove the difficulty of the Secretary for the Home Department not knowing to what authority he should apply to carry Acts of Parliament into execution. We have endeavoured to make regulations for the sanitary authority in every part of the country; but we have been unable to carry out the whole of the sanitary code which has been recommended by the Commission. Still, there are some questions of sanitary legislation which could not be postponed, and with these we have endeavoured to deal. We propose that in addition to the powers at present exercised by various authorities certain other powers should be conferred on them. Every sanitary authority, for instance, will have the power to provide a proper place for the disinfection of clothes, and carriages for the conveyance of persons infected, or supposed to be infected, as well as hospitals to which infected persons may be removed. Recent events show how necessary it is to deal with this portion of the question at once, and I trust the House will support us in carrying our proposals with respect to it immediately into effect, for by this means we bring together, for the purpose of checking disease, the sanitary authorities and the Guardians of the poor. And now let me turn to the question of the central administration.
  We have been considering whether this legislation should remain, as now, in the hands of three or four different

  1131
  Ministers, or whether, having consolidated locally, we should not also consolidate centrally. As matters now stand municipal rates are dealt with by the Secretary for the Home Department, while the Poor Law rates are dealt with by the Poor Law Board, and there is no Minister in this House whose duty it is to watch every Bill relating to those various charges, in the same way as it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look after the general burden to be imposed on the taxpayers at large. We feel it, therefore, expedient to bring matters to a point at which one Minister may be responsible for local finance. The Government are desirous of bringing under one head this branch of legislation, and the Royal Commission, though approaching the matter from a different point of view, came to the same conclusion. We propose, therefore, that all matters relating to local government and to local rating which are now dealt with, partly by the Home Office, partly by the Poor Law Board, and partly by the Privy Council, should be placed under the control of one central department. The natural department to which these subjects would be referred would be the Poor Law Board. As, however, there may be a prejudice against associating the administration of the Poor Law with the administration of local affairs, it will be desirable to change the name of the department.
  Although these questions are very important, and although the reforms which we contemplate are considerable and comprehensive, they may be carried out by means of a few clauses, and if the proposals I have indicated are acceptable to the House, I have no doubt that we shall be able to pass the Bill this Session. I must beg to remind the House of the urgency which exists for organization, and all those who are acquainted with our sanitary, municipal, and rating laws will be ready to admit that the first thing is to get them into order, and introduce some uniformity in that respect. I now approach the question of the ratepayer, on whose behalf four grievances are alleged in this House and elsewhere. It is said that while most real property is liable to local taxation, there are many classes of real property which are exempted. Again, it is said that the mode of valuing certain property
  1132
  unduly favours such classes of property, which do not, consequently, pay their fair share. Thirdly, it is said that the occupiers exclusively pay the rates, and that the ground landlords in all cases, and the owners in many, escape all local taxation whatever; and, lastly, it is said, chiefly by the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) in this House, that the occupiers and owners of rateable property bear an unfair share of local and Imperial taxation, and that the Government is bound to provide for their relief. Now, with regard to the first grievance, the exemptions made have arisen chiefly from the wording of the Act of Queen Elizabeth, under which these rates are levied. The wording of this Act gave rise to a series of judicial decisions, in consequence of which Government property, metalliferous mines, timber other than underwood, and various other classes of property not so important, have been exempted. We propose to take one intelligible and uniform system, and to render "every hereditament, corporeal or incorporeal," liable to these burdens, with the exception only of certain kinds of property, of the nature of a rentcharge, which are specially exempted by the Act, because otherwise it would happen that the same property would be charged twice over to the same rate. The effect of this will be that Government property will be rated; but the rule must be universal. We believe that the claims of Government property to exemption are very considerable, and if claims are set up on behalf of municipal buildings, charities, and the like, it must clearly be understood that it may be necessary for us to re-consider our decision on this point. This uniform rule will include metalliferous mines, timber, rights of way, canals, and game, and by adopting it we shall get rid of many of the anomalies which at present are so vexatious. With regard to the question of valuation, the Government would have been very glad if they had been able to introduce a Bill to extend to the country the principle adopted a couple of years since in the case of London; but we have been deterred from taking a step in that direction, as we have been from proceeding in reference to other points, by the consideration that such a course would considerably lengthen the discus-

  1133
  sions, and possibly endanger legislation on the main subject of local taxation this Session. Having thus taken in some new classes of property, we found that the existing difficulty of discovering the letting annual value in many cases was considerably increased. With regard to metalliferous mines, for instance, we have been much inclined to legislate specially; but we have found so much difference of opinion among gentlemen representing that species of property as to render it impossible for the Government to satisfy each of the interests concerned, if the special claims of the different parts of the country were regarded. Under these circumstances, the Government have found it necessary to propose one uniform system—namely, that metalliferous mines should be rated as other property, and the assessment committees must in those cases, where royalties were reserved, endeavour to deal with them as with coal mines. With regard to another kind of property, where the system of valuation is very imperfect, it is proposed to make a change. There are many buildings and large houses in the country districts which cannot be valued on a calculation of what they would be let at from year to year, and in consequence escape paying on a fair rateable value. It causes a considerable amount of not unnatural irritation among the farmers to see a large neighbouring property escape at a low rating for this reason, while their own smaller farms are, as they complain, highly rated, and the Government, therefore, propose, where it is held to be impossible to get the letting value, to take the selling value, minus a certain percentage, as is done in the case of the Scotch railways, and to take 4 per cent on the selling value as the estimated rental. I now approach the third grievance, which I call specially that of the ratepayers—namely, the question between the owner and the occupier, in consequence of the exclusive payment of rates by the latter. Considering this matter in connection with the evidence produced before the Select Committee last year, the Government have become more and more convinced that both justice and public policy require that the owner shall pay a certain portion of the taxes. At present, through the nature of the contracts made between the occupiers
  1134
  and the landlords, by which the former engage to pay the whole of the rates, any increased rate, which is not foreseen by either party, falls entirely on the tenants. This is a question more seriously affecting the towns than the country districts; but it is generally inexpedient that the landlords should be allowed to contract with their tenants that the local authority should impose no taxation on them. With regard to Imperial taxation, such a practice is not permitted; for if it were legal to make contracts that the whole of the income tax should be paid by the tenants, the House of Commons would be hampered in its legislation; knowing that on any increase in the income tax the payment would fall not on the landlords, who ought to pay their fair proportion, but exclusively on the occupiers. The result of the present state of things has been that many great improvements in the metropolis, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns have been made within the last 10 years exclusively at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a single shilling towards the expense. The Government have decided that such an anomalous state of things shall no longer exist; and a provision rendering void any engagements, by which owners contract themselves out of the payment of local taxation, is embodied in this Bill. The division of rates between owners and occupiers is not a new proposal, for a similar provision exists in Scotland and in Ireland. In England alone, the exclusive payment of rates by the occupiers has been maintained, and I will point out to the House one of the consequences which flow from such a system. The landlords, not being considered ratepayers, have no share at all in the administration of the money raised by rates, although I feel sure that the House will agree with me that it is important both for the interest of the public, and for the good administration of affairs, that they should take a direct and practical interest in all the great works paid for out of the rates. It may be said that if the tenant pays an increased rate he gets a deduction of rent on account of it; but for every small increase of rate the tenant cannot go to the landlord and tell him he must reduce the rent. In the first place, the tenant knows that he will suffer far more than

  1135
  the landlord if he is compelled to leave his farm; and, secondly, whichever of the two contracting parties has to take the initiative in asking for an alteration in the terms of the bargain is thereby placed at a serious disadvantage. Again, I have seen it stated repeatedly that it would be no relief to farmers or occupiers in towns that half of the onus should be thrown on the owners. I believe, on the contrary, it will be a very great boon if, unfortunately, there should be an increase of rates, that it should be so divided, and for the reason which I have just stated—namely, that the occupier will no longer be compelled, in order to relieve himself of the whole burden of the increased rates, to place himself at the disadvantage of taking the initiative step. Having dealt with three of the grievances of ratepayers I now come to the fourth—namely, the general allegation that the owners and occupiers of rateable property together pay more than their share of local and Imperial taxation, I say of Imperial as well as of local taxation, because the two classes should be treated as one when such an argument is raised. I will not repeat here the argument into which I entered on a recent occasion, showing the great difference, which should never be lost sight of, between the urban and the rural classes of occupiers. I will only remind those who urge this grievance that there is a vast amount of property liable to rates which is only in one sense real property, such as railways, and other industrial enterprises—an item which was almost nil 30 or 40 years ago. These classes of property now represent no less than £14,000,000 to £16,000,000 a year, and all contribute from their profits to rates. I admit that there is a great aggregate increase in the amount levied for rates. But how is it composed? The broad lines are clear and distinct. I allow that there has been an increase in rates generally so great as from £8,000,000, to £16,000,000; but of this increase £5,000,000 are due to improvement rates in towns and metropolitan rates of every description. These are rates with which the country has nothing whatever to do. Then there is an increase of £2,000,000 in Poor Law expenditure; but of that, £1,600,000 falls on 150 urban unions, and only £400,000 on 500 county unions. Of the remaining £1,000,000, £500,000 are due
  1136
  to the county police. As regards poor rates, I have shown that by far the greater portion of the increase has fallen on the towns. Again, as regards the number of paupers, the increase during the last seven years has been only 2 per cent in the counties, and 36 per cent in the towns. I cannot find, looking to any part of the statistical materials which have been collected, that there has been any great increase in the rates on land. I have no wish to raise the question between town and country; but in legislating on this subject with the view of remedying a grievance we are bound to recollect that the ratepayers do not form one homogeneous class, we are bound to see which class it is that is burdened most, and not to hurry to the relief of those who are infinitely better off now than they were 40 years ago, and are not so much in need of relief as other large classes of the community. We must consider who are the ratepayers who are most burdened and most entitled to relief. As regards burdens on land, I have formerly indicated that in this country they are not excessive. In this country land has certainly been relieved, both in respect of Imperial and local taxation, more than in any other country in Europe. There can be no doubt of that, whether we take the subject historically, geographically, or comparatively. It is a mere chimera of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) to speak of land being so heavily burdened with rates and taxes that capital is flying from the land and seeking other investments. Has land fallen in value on account of the taxes placed on it? Have rents fallen on account of the taxes on land? Have the farmers' profits over the country generally been diminished in consequence of the increase on rates? I believe that a glance at schedule (B) of the income tax will show clearly that they have not. But if they have, it has been upon the farmers that the rates have fallen, and the owners have not paid their proportion of the burden. If the rates had been divided between the owners and occupiers, the occupier would not have had his profits reduced by the payment of the rates. It is impossible for two persons to pay the same rates. If the occupier pays the rates, then the owner does not. But if the Returns contained in the Report placed in

  1137
  the hands of hon. Members this morning are examined county by county, it will be seen that in most of the counties there has been a considerable decrease of the burden upon land as compared with earlier periods, although a comparison of particular years might show an increase, and this decrease is owing largely to the great alteration in the relative proportions of land to house property. If, for instance, we take the case of Suffolk, which is strictly an agricultural county, we find that the annual value under schedule (A) was £1,150,000, 50 years ago, whereas now it is £2,000,000. The amount of poor rates in that county in 1813–15 was £215,000; in 1826–27 it was £290,000; now it is only £223,000. The rate in the pound has raised from 4s. 4¾d. in the first period, to 5s. 1d. in the second, and now stands at 2s. 8¼d. While the Government are prepared to listen to counter statements, they do not see the grievances that are alleged on the part of the owners of land; but they are prepared to propose a division of the consolidated rate between occupiers and owners—a measure which, they believe, will conduce to the relief of the former. But the Government have further measures to propose. If the burdens on land have not increased, the burdens on houses have most undoubtedly increased to a very considerable extent. It is therefore necessary to consider how far relief should be given. It is conceivable that relief might be given either by a local income tax, or by transferring local charges to Imperial funds, or by inventing new taxes, or by the transfer of Imperial taxes to local funds. As regards the first method, it appears to be impossible to devise an equitable local income tax, for you cannot localize income. An attempt was made in Scotland, and it broke down when an English Lord Chancellor, who drew his £10,000 a year in London, but had a small place in Scotland, was made to pay income tax on the whole of his income in that country as well as in this. No country has been able to levy a local income tax. In the United States there has been not a local income tax but a personal property tax. What has been the result of that? A very able Report has just been published by Mr. Wells, who with two other Commissioners was appointed to inquire into its working.
  1138
  On the cover of that Report is this sentence—
  "I insist that a people cannot prosper whose officers either work or tell lies. There is not an assessment Roll now made out in this State which does not now tell and work lies."
  In making the assessment to this personal property tax, the oath of the person to be assessed was not questioned there, and there was an instance, adduced by Mr. Wells on undoubted authority, in which a man, assessed at $20,000, swore he possessed only $15,000, and swore himself down $1,000 yearly, until, in the year 1869, he reached $1,000; in that year he died and, as the Report expressed it, "passed to a tribunal where oaths could be inquired into," and his devised property was found to be worth $150,000. Mr. Wells concludes that the system is pregnant with fraud and perjury, and that the house a man lived in is the best test of what he could pay, pointing to England as offering a model system of local taxation because it has adopted that test. With us, too, there is another important consideration. How far ought we to impair the use of the income tax as a great engine of public finance, to be resorted to in times of sudden pressure when a great amount has to be raised? Nor could the statements so often made, showing the amount of real property on the one hand, and of personal property on the other—statements from which the inference was suggested that personal income largely escapes taxation—be relied on. A great part of the personal income thus placed on one side of the account consists of the earnings of the class that has no property at all. The whole calculation is erroneous. With respect to the second alternative, that of charging certain local charges upon the Consolidated Fund, the Government entertain the gravest objections to it. I am sure that the House would take such a step as the transference of many of the branches of local to Imperial administration with great reluctance. It might be right to do so if the case were made out, but the claim is, in fact, made only because other local funds cannot be invented. The invention of new local taxes, exclusive of a local income tax, the third alternative of which I spoke, appears scarcely to have been deemed practicable in any quarter. Seeing, therefore, that none of these

  1139
  three alternatives were feasible, the Government have examined the fourth alternative. They have analyzed Imperial finances and Imperial taxes to see whether there were any Imperial taxes of so local a character that they might be transferred to the local authorities. After looking through the list of Imperial taxes and consulting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who met me in the most liberal spirit, I have come to the conclusion that, as the increase of rates has mainly fallen upon house property, the relief ought to be given in that direction. It is, therefore, the intention of the Government, at a certain date, not mentioned in the Bill, but to be hereafter fixed by an Order in Council, to hand over the present house tax amounting to about £1,200,000, in relief of local rates, which would then be payable, not to Her Majesty, but to the local authorities. This relief will extend to the whole of England and Scotland; but the house tax will not be surrendered until the next financial year. At the same time, I must ask hon. Members clearly to understand that this relief is to be contingent in a certain sense. It may happen that, owing to events at present unforeseen, it will be impossible for the Imperial Exchequer to part with so important a source of revenue as the house tax. With this proviso, however, the Government are prepared to grant it at the date fixed by the Order in Council, believing that they will by this step afford considerable relief to the most heavily-burdened class of ratepayers in the most equitable manner. It may be asked, why should not the house tax be entirely repealed? For this reason: if it were repealed, the benefit would go exclusively to the owners and occupiers of houses of £20 value and upwards; whereas it is desirable that the occupiers of every class of houses should be relieved. In other respects, the effect is practically equivalent to a repeal of the house tax. For instance:—if a parish now has to pay £2,000 a-year for rates and £400 for house tax, after the passing of this Bill, it would have to raise £1,600 a-year only by rates, the difference between that sum and £2,000 being covered by the house tax. The relief, therefore, will be very considerable. The aggregate rates of the occupiers will be diminished by the sum which they now pay to the
  1140
  Imperial Exchequer in respect of the house tax. I have now, I believe, explained to the House all the main points in the proposals of the Government, except one—namely, that in reference to the representation of owners. The Government have had to weigh the various modes by which representation of owners might be secured. The following alternatives were before them:—Plurality of voting, the cumulative vote, or the selection of a certain number of owners by a constituency also composed of owners. None of these alternatives commended themselves to the Government. Plural voting has become generally discredited, and owners have not exercised much influence under it owing to the defects in registration. Again, the plurality of voting is incompatible with the Ballot for obvious reasons. As regards the cumulative vote, the Government feel that much is to be said in its favour, Whatever may be its demerits in party conflicts, it appears to secure that variety of representation which is peculiarly to be desired in local government. But I freely admit that many objections may be urged against it, and the Government have resolved to look in another direction for the means of giving representation to the owner. It is proposed that on every board spending local funds there shall be a certain proportion of justices or of owners, and that to secure that proportion, the chairman of the parochial boards of the parishes, comprised in the area to be represented, should elect so many owners as, with the justices, should make up one-third of the representative board. We further propose that where the parochial board is a sanitary board, and contains more than six members, the qualification of one-third of the members of the board should be that they are owners of property within the parish. However, there is one exception contained in the Bill, owners have no votes at all in municipal elections. The Government do not wish to weight the Bill with a reform of the municipal franchise. They have consequently determined that, as regards so much of the consolidated rate as represents the borough rate, the occupier should not be entitled to make the deduction from the owner. The Government regret the exception; but it is either necessary to enact that owners should have votes at municipal elec-

  1141
  tions, or that they should not be directly liable for any portion of municipal rates. I will now briefly sum up the proposals contained in the two Bills. It is proposed to consolidate all rates; to have one universal system of deduction; to have one parochial system of elections instead of many; to have an audit covering the whole of the country; to organize the parish; to establish a civil head who would represent the parish in all parochial affairs; to limit the powers of the vestry to deliberative functions, and to transfer the Executive functions to a single parochial board; to utilize the chairman of the parochial board in order to elect the representatives of the county financial boards; to extend the provisions of the Sanitary Acts so as to provide for hospitals and other matters not sufficiently provided for at present; to give greater coercive powers to the central authority to carry out the Sanitary Acts; to combine in one department all the business relating to local government, and to provide for the simplification of areas. With regard to finance, we propose to make all hereditaments, both corporeal and incorporeal, visible and invisible, liable to rates; to improve the mode of valuation, to make owners and occupiers each liable for half the rates, and to surrender the house tax in relief of the local rates. Her Majesty's Government trust, notwithstanding the large amount of business to be transacted in the course of this Session, that they will be able to carry through Parliament the measure the provisions of which I have sketched, because it is not only important in itself, but will provide the means for still further legislation, which is at present almost at a standstill for the want of powers necessary to carry it out. I beg to move for leave to bring in the Bills of which I have given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Rating and Local Government."—(Mr. Goschen.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: After listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that his measure would deal out anything but even-handed justice. That which the right hon. Gentleman desires seems not to be so
  1142
  much a re-adjustment of local burdens as a re-adjustment of local government. It is, however, the financial aspect of this scheme to which I wish to draw attention. What does his scheme come to in this respect? It proposes that all hereditaments shall be liable to taxation. So far so good; but it moreover proposes a separate property tax upon land. That is about the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He proposes a new property tax on the land, instead of imposing a new property tax on house property in towns, which is the property that has so much increased in value. Upon this increasing property he proposes a reduction of the general taxation, by proposing that the house duty shall be abolished in relief of the rates. For the first time in the financial records of this country, the right hon. Gentleman would divide real property into the two classes for the purpose of taxation—he would disturb the contracts throughout the whole agricultural community, in order to place a direct tax upon the landowners: that is to say, a direct tax, a new property tax upon land. Whilst with regard to house property, the value of which has been increasing in a far greater ratio than the value of the land, he would place no additional tax whatever such as he puts upon land; but he would make a present to the owners of house property of the whole of the inhabited house duty. This, certainly, is not dealing out even-handed justice as between these two classes of property. The ground which the right hon. Gentleman laid for this unequal distribution of relief—relief from the burden of Imperial taxation in the case of house property, and the imposition of a property tax on land, is this—that the poor rate has increased more upon house property in towns than upon land. Now, it does so happen that, because population has been attracted towards the towns, house property in the towns has increased in value; the increase of houses constitutes the source of the increased value of town property, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to relieve from taxation. I should have recognized some justice in this scheme, if, in proportion to the pressure of the rates, the right hon. Gentleman had given relief to both classes of property. But the right hon. Gentleman does not propose

  1143
  to do this. For the first time he proposes a tax levied exclusively upon land, an exceptional property tax; whilst with respect to the house property in towns, which has been so rapidly increasing in value, instead of imposing upon that a property tax, he gives direct relief to the owners out of the Imperial taxation. I will not now dwell upon all the changes of Administration which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted to the House, nor upon their effect—they will doubtless attract the attention of the country—I will content myself with pointing to this one fact, that, for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to separate real property into two classes, and to inflict a direct property tax upon land only, whilst he would give almost immediate relief from rates to house property in towns, which relief is drawn from Imperial taxation. I will not detain the House longer; but I hope the country will clearly understand what is the nature of the financial arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
  MR. GLADSTONEhoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed, in order that the Bill might be now read a first time, and printed and placed in the hands of Members. He feared there would not be time that day (Tuesday) to take a satisfactory discussion of the measure.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought a measure of this importance should not be read a first time without discussion.
  MR. PELLsaid, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) as to the stages of important measures being taken without discussion.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the Clock.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Returns ordered, "in tabular form, showing the number of Notices discussed on going into Committee of Supply (excluding Fridays), with the number of pages of 'Hansard' occupied each evening in the discussion of these Notices, for the Sessions 1868–9 and 1870:"
  "And, of the number of Morning Sittings held before the 1st day of July in each year, showing the number of hours occupied in each Sitting before 7 P.M., and the number of pages of 'Hansard' occupied in discussion in each Sitting before 7 P.M., in the Sessions 1868–9 and 1870."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Curran, Dover, Hastings, Herne Bay, Hornsea, Northam, and Stornoway.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill to repeal the Minority Clauses of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. BAYLEY POTTER, and Mr. GILPIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 98.]

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to amend the Charitable Trusts Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 99.]

  BATH CITY PRISON BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill for amending the Law relating to the appointment of the Gaoler and Matron of the Prison of the City of Bath, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 100.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.