The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-08 00:00:00

- - --- d advocate ith the right hon. gen tl eman were otherwise than of a of his speech appeared to me to countenance an iendly character. The letter is as follows : that mode of settlement of the question. I do not say he cc Sir "1, Richmond-terrace, M a y 2. intended to do so, but when he came to' the dissolution and ,—I think it right to request that you will be in your the postponement of the bill, what the hon, gent l eman said lace to-morrow, when the debate on the Reform Bill is re- was received with ironical cheers and laughter from different umed, as I intend in speaking to notice the suggestion you lade on Monday, that the passing of the bill should not be Parts of the house, and the house evidently fixed that in- Allowed by an e ar ly di sso l u ti on . And I feel the more terPretation up on it which the rumour m e nti one d by ray -. ' sound to d o this, as the same sugg es ti on was coupled w i t h h on . a nd gallant f ri end assigned. That sam e morn i ng th ere ay name i n a leading articl e o f th e Ti mes of that day, in appeared in the T i mes an article from which I will read an -.Mich. lam personally brought in for no other purpose but extract. The writer is speaking of the Reform Bill : as illustrative of the general meanness of the House of " There are certain gentlemen in the house whose seats Commons. As the member selected by the Times through are secure, and whose elections cost them nothing, and whom to offer an insult to the House of Commons more whose nature it is to make hustings speeches who would gross than any yet offered by Mr. Bright, whom you re- just as soon it passed as not. There are also a'few Conger buked, I feel called upon to repudiate, as publicly as it was votive leaders who have never ceased to regret their own folly made, a description of the character and sentiments of the in committing themselves to any reform, and who would house which every member of it will repel as indignantly as perhaps buy a r e le ase f rom thi s most di sagreeable pledge Ido myself.---I have th e h onour t o b e , Sir, your obedient servant, " EDWD. HORSMAN. " even at the expen s e o f an i n t erv i ew w i t h the i r constituents. " John Walt, Esq., M.P." (Cheers, and a laugh.) B u t w ith th ese except i ons. the pass- Now, in this er, letter ing of this Ref orm Bill means money out of pocket, a the house will observe that a distinct char month of hard, dis agreea bl e wor k , an d poss ib ly a fall from ge is made against me of using language in my speech the Parliamentary firmament. Perhaps itmight have facili 'inad the debate which, taken in conjunction with language tat e e n d m th a e d r t o h g a rr a s o i l e te rm billi e f t a si e j o e u u b i lp a a e nn bt o e u f n e r w e e n d tt y a i used in a leading article in a public journal, the right hon. 1) e gentleman supposed to convey an imp u t a ti on on th e charac- dissolution. The id ea , we b e li eve , h as occurred to many, perhaps it has been th oug ht so can did as to verge upon ter of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) To this indecorum. A maiden may be very anxious for a husband, letter I addressed the following reply : a barrister for a brief, or a politician for a seat, and each may " 40, Upper Grosvenor street, May 3. tremble at the thought of losing the object of his solicitude " Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt ofrespectable hypocrisy of social life —but it is par of the a your extraordinary letter, which I received last evening at that a perfect an d stoica indiff erence t a sh 11 always be as a public dinner, and to which, as I shall of course be in the sumed i n such ma tt ers. W e b e lieve H h t if such an assur house this evening, I need make no further reply at this ante had been volunteered even Me , orsman would have moments—l have th e h onour to remain, Sir, your most i n di gnantly repudiated any suggestion of an unwillin gness obedient servant, "J, WALTER." to test the confidence of the electors of Stroud. (A. laugh.) But still it might have helped the bill." In consequence of the invitation of the right hon. gentleman . What was the construction to be put on this article ? The I attended in my place on Thursday evening, and waited, , construction I put upon it was that, however dangerous the from 4 o'clock till half-past 7. The right hon. gentleman was in his place, b u t did not r i se to address the house. He House of Commons mi g ht thi n k th at bill , h owever descruc tive it might be co ns id ere d b y t h e Times to the national in intimated to me at half-pa s t 7 th a t, as h e found his rising to address the house at that time would lead to an adjourn- terests, still that what we eared about was the danger of a e ment of the debate an d cause great public inconvenience, he dissolution, and th a t th ere f ore, if matters could b mem some mad had abandoned his intention of sp ea ki ng. H ere, perhaps, pleasant by an tutderitandi n g w ithlh e G overnmen t, person may as k w h y I did not allow the matter to tiers wereto t sell their votes in return for a two years ' lease drop. Sir, I felt it i mpossible to allow it to drop. (Hear, of th eir se If thiscould be secured then this Parliament condemned as. and morally defunct, in which there hear.) After h av i ng b een called on to attend in my place —le ga lly • and hear a ch arge preferred against me in reference to a are man y members w ho would in that case have no right remark is a spe ec h ma d e b y me, coupled with reference to leg ally to sit here, and f rom which many persons would be remarks made els ew h ere , I f e l t that I could not allow the excluded to leg al right to sit here—would be willing sell their votes, who had a openly and unblushingly, with a selfish right hon. gentlem an . to hold in his hand a w ea p on th a t h e r might use against me a t an y ti me a t hi s conven i ence. (Hear, regard to their base and sor did i n t erests . (H ear. ) Th at was till; construction I put up o n th a t ar ti c l e, an d, putt i ng t h at hear.) I theref ore wro t e th e f o ll ow i ng letter to the right hon. gentleman : construction upon it, I say th a t a grosser ca l umny an d "40, Upper G rosvenor - s t reet, May 4, 1860, a fouler and a more in su lti ng aspers i on cou l d not have been " Sir,—l cannot help thinking that your letter of Wed- cast by any public speaker or writer upon the House of nesday, which occasioned my attendance in the house last Commons. (Hear, hear.) I then wrote the letter which evening to no purpose, must have been written in a MO - the hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire has read to ment of irritation, and under circumstances of misappre • the hotse. No one had seen that letter but myself, and I hension which your better judgment may have led you to regret. If so, I shall be happy to receive an assurance from gave no notice of my intention to bring the matter before you to that effect ; if not, I shall feel it my d u ty t o b r i ng the house. Therefore, I believed, when I told the hon. your letter and the subject to which it re l a t es un d er th e mem b er I was not going to notice the matter in debate, that notice of the house this evening at the earliest opportunity, no injury had been done to him, and • *that no —I have the hon our t o b e, s i r, your most obedient servant, public dilation of his character was r equ i re d. I w ill go further, via " J. WALTER." rther, I waited at home till h a lf- past two o ' clock on Friday after- and say that if, when I r ece i ve d th e h on. mem b er ' s letter noun for a reply, b u t, no t rece i v i ng any reply, I came down next morning in which h e com pl a i ne d o f my a b andoning my intention of speakin g u p on th e matter, that letter had to the house to consu lt you , sir , as to the course which I ought to pursue. I h a d j ust arranged for the proper moment not been accompanied by th e th reat t h at i f I did not make he would bring th e ques ti on b e f ore the house, of bringing the subj ec t un d er the notice of the house, when, an apolog y • at half-past thr ee o ' c l oc k , this very brief epistle was for- I shored have bee n rea d y t o ma k e any apology for any in warded to me from the right hon. gentleman. Of course I convenience, and give any explanation which the right hon. was prevented from giving to it the attention which such a g en tleman desired. But when that lett er was accom p ap i e d t document deserved, an d I was o b l i ged to postpone my state- sayby a threa of an appeal to the Hou se o f C ommons , I as k hon. gentleman whether I c ou ld h ave g i ven an apo meat till the prese n t moment. (Hear.) I have no wish to refer to the cont en t s o f thi s l etter, except to one passage logy. (Hear, hear.) I regret th e h on , gen tl eman di d net - only, which re l a t es t o a speech of mine at Nottingham. It Disk for an apology witho u t th e accompan i ment of that threat. After that letter I w ro t e a rep l y , w hi c h , after the contains a great deal o f ver y cur i ous ma tt er , an d t h e r i g h t hon, gentl eman , if h e thi n k s proper to read i t to the house, challenge of Veen. gentl eman , I must read. Before, how has my permission to d o so , on th e di s ti nct understanding ever, I read it, I may be permitted, to show my opi n i on on the subject, to read the two subsequent letters referrin g t o that ha reads every word of it. (C r i es o f "R ea d , read. " ) I this matter. I received f rom th e h on. mem b er for Berkshire would rather not read it ; but the right hon. gentlema n ma y read it to the house, p rov id e d h e reads every word of it. the followingletter : " (Cries of c' Read, I f e lt th a t I h ad good reason to complain Read, read.") I i n f orme d th e r i ght hon. gentle- of the course which you pursued on Thursday evening, in man of my intention to bring the subject before the house abandoning the impeachment which you had expressly this evening, wheri he would have an opportunity of making summoned me to undergo,l did not consider myself justified, a reply. Now, with respect to the passage in my speech to at the risk of another adjournment of the debate on the which the right hon, gentleman refers, making any objection t o th a t p rocee d ing. I felt, however, I have nothing to Reform Bill,and the furth er d e l ay of public business, in explain or to vindi ca t e . I t referred in express terms to the that I eould not remain silent under the imputations con speech which the right hon. bart. the member for Hert- veyed in your letter ; and, accordingly, on my return fordshire had delivered a few nights before, in which he home, after the debate, I wrote the few lines which you spoke of a dissolution as a great evil to the country, the received e,l homeata f n e early hour yesterd ay i reply_ h alf- past mern flgo.'cloActeli wait only difference being that, while the hon. baronet depre- ing g wn to the hL y se eur and td just arra nged with the Speaker cated the passing of the Reform Bill, because it would lead for my proposed explanation when, at half-past 3 o'clock, to a dissolution, I, agreeing with him as to the mischief of I received your copious and elaborate communication. It a dissolution, thought that it did not follow as a necessary was too late for me at that hour to study its contents before consequence of a Reform Bill, and therefore should not be i l ad dressing ed t ae t a h t e h n o e us m e and y exp fa explanation a t therefore li reluctantly onca Monday evening,com- considered an obstacle to the passing of a Reform Bill plying you wir have an opportunity, if you think fit, of re during the present year. (Hear, hear.) Even had the plying to it language which I used conveyed the meaning which the I replied to that letter immediately by the following : right hon. member attributes to it, Ido not think there are o Sir s —l must leave you to take whatever course you many members in this house whose sensibilities would have may think proper on Monday, on the distinct understand been wounded by the suggestion that the prospect of a ing that there will be a motion before the house on which general election, with all its concomitant expense, confusion I shall be at liberty to ape ik, and that yo u read to . the and dissipation, wa s one w hi c h t h ey wou l d not wish to pre- house my lette r on which you found your complaint, I cipitate. (Hear, hear.) The fact is have not as yet show n th a t l e tt er or any po rtion ' , however, that I respondence to any one out of my family, except confiden neither expressed nor intended to convey any such mean- tially to one friend, nor did I intend, unless compelled, to ing. (Hear, hear.) But what I do complain of is, that show it. I shall only regret its production in the House i ol e C at o i m aa m e rs u l t o h er co us u e ra t e he of n r am e ep ri e c i a f w tw h o ia ti. i f ro t u oi r d frie o n u d the right hon. member seeks to connect my speech with an y friends are article in the Times, with which I had no more to do than 4 privately offered.' I presume you will have apprised them he had himself, and of which I can only say that Ido not at of your intention to bring the correspondence before the this moment know who wrote it. But as this statement house, and to take on yourself the responsibility of giving may surprise the hon. member, and as he founds his infer- to their names a publicitythat I would willingly them, but from wh ic h I h ave not the slightest ha ve disposition spared ,enee as to my co nnex i on w i t h t h e press, and pleaded it as an to sh r ink. ghtest d ie p excuse for not having tak en a more active part in the debate s in this house, I will ex pl a i n t o t h e h ouse the reasons which The house will see from thi s th a t I did not com p el the r led me to make th a t s t a t ement. There is, in my opinion, a eading of the letter. As f ar as I was concerne d , I depre necessary antagonism (I kno w no t b y w h at ot h er name to cated the course which the ho n . gen tl eman h as now o b liged call it) between P ar li amen t an d the press, which aught to me to pursue, and w arne d hi m th a t i t wou l d b e painful to others. I hope, the r ef ore , th e h ouse w ill b oar with me keep the functions o f eac h en ti re l y apart, and which requires while I read this lette r , an d b e ki n d enough tee feel that it a good deal of d e li cac y t o b e o b served i n the relations between them. Now, I h ave o b serve d a grow i ng dispo- is not a voluntary ac t on my par t , b ut one which has been sition of late years on th e par t o f a certain section tbrced upon me by th e c h a ll enge w hi c h t h e hon. gentleman has 'given me to-d a y. I should mention first th a t th e let of this house to i m p or t i n t o t h e de b ates in this house very frequent re f erences to the opinions of the ter of the hon. gentleman was delivered at my h ouse ear l y in the morning, b e f ore I was up. As soon as I received it, press, to an extent w hi c h appears to me to be with a number of o th er l e tt ers , I h urr i e dl y wrote a reply in hardly consistent w ith th e di gn i ty of Parliament. And in order that the ho n , gen tl eman m i g h t rece i ve it early that the year in which m y s p eec h to wh i ch the right hon. gen- day. He had, however, left h ome b e f ore my letter arrived tleman refers was m a d e I was part i cularly struck by the there, and therefore he received it at the House of Cora circumstance that a right hon. gentleman, now a member of mons. My letter was as follows : the Cabinet, had in the debate on theConspiracyßill quoted " Sir,—l did not write to you under feelings of misappre very largely from leading articles in the Times, with a view hension, and still less of irritation, and havenot the smallest to strengthen the case against the noble lord now at the regret to expres s on that account. If my requesting your head of the Government, whom he succeeded in ousting. attendance in the house put you to inconvenience, I erred (Hear, hear.) That circumstance, coupled with the growing through a rule of courtesy, which requires notice to ll bezi i ven fashion to which I have referred; has always made me feel L. t , z u 1 , „: „.5 e 0 ,17 , 1. , s t e e h u o n sTme i l c le n s e ar t s e pe to ai l c oe poin te dly without risk a of u causi t n e gi that the position of any hon, gentleman in this house who an adjournment, I thought it courteous to inform you was supposed to be in any way connected with the press has that-I meant t ot, abandon that intention. It Was quite open become somewhat embarrassing. (Hear.) Accordingly, in tee you- to •have objected then or later in 'the evening, fur I the speech delivered on the occasion referred to at a public presume, from the early hour at which t yonrnot o e los w e a d s Idoest livered, a that t i l i e t al written va before .t h e .de b ate de dinner at Nottingham, in reply to a toast in which inynarne ad to adopt the course was connected both with the House of Commons and with the i wn ; 'idls it now appears would have been more satisfactory press, I made some remarks on that circumstance, and mem- to you, if you had returnedlo the house and apprized me tioned that any hon. gentleman supposed to be connected of what your note now conveys. I will now state to with the press laboured under some;, disadvantages in this you what I intended to do, and my reasons for it. I house. (Hear, h ear .) B u t if I h ave f e l t unduly sensitive was mach surprised whe n y ou suggested ofthe bill, n your that as spe ech, on that point it was b ecause I never b efore had the oppor- th an accompaniment t o th e passing e dissolution should b e a dj ourne d ; and it appeared tunny which the right hon. gentleman has now afforded to me that no one could misunderstand what it conveyed me, which I could not have made for myself, and without as to the motives by which the house was to be influenced. which I could not volunteer the statement I now make— it was only on Wednesday morning that, alluding again that toy connection with the Times newspaper, although inicnivte.rsiaitmioni, made oyour suggestion, I was informed that I p reviously fiihe Times, and on referring of a nature which melees 1713 feel the deepest interest in t t o the' I for ihe — flrse 'time noticed the article of its concerns, is not of an editori a l character—(hear, hear) aforala,' the' day on 'Which you spoke.. I intended, in —and does not involve any responsibility on My Part for uotie - ing the'various argninents and motives urged for the any opinion or statement which it contains, (Cheers:) ee passing of . th t e bill, to have alluded particularl? , to youriosreuga c. dissolution,tt: s st the right hon, gentleman wants any more information, all conveying, ate ' t n he ny m o e l aers'of I can say is that I have not got it to give lam ; nor can gveeisytsapaeraugin the House of Commons; and I should have added that, Ibe responsible for any conjectures which public gossip or although your sentiment was clothed in the language of a the imagination of any private individual may lead him to gentleman addressing gentlemen, and though you were form on the subject. (Cheers.) I have thought it' due character incapable of andlanage position , t w i nconsistentaa e e xt r emely r e w m t your t b be high e. alike to the house and to myself to offer this explanation, Personal that a member or our own body should see y m to imply and, having done so, I will only say in conclusion that in the such motives in a speech that must'tend to give weight and event of any similar attack being directed against me I authority to the same sentiment expressed elsewhere in shall take no notice of it whatever. (Loud cheers.) coarser terms and a more offensive spirit. I should then Mr. HORSMAN—If the hon. member for Berkshire netting read you wi th i p it, pa s sage in the Times—not in any way con th or making you responsible for it, any felt great reluctance in bringing this matter before the house, more in tta y n e I should have made Lord Palmerston or Lord I can assure him and the house of my unfeigned regret that John Russell responsible for an article to which I charged he has felt it his duty to take the course he has now them with giving weight and authority by adopting its sub adopted. Ido so not on my own account. I freely confess etance. I will w e veeari would have a s v o e ULi e c e a n n d a i dee: deny connection tea that that I would willingly and anxiously have avoided this din- t l e m n y yo o u w r n s m ind peech and that article, and that it might and cussion, for I feel that the statement which the hon, member would probably have been suggested to the minds of others, now compels-me to make must give some pain to a gentle- and not unnaturally, for I remember that in a speech to man for whom personally I entertain feelings of respect and your constituents at Nottingham you avowed your connec esteem, and no word shall fall from me to add to the un- tion with the Times, and stated, with great taste and delicacy, pleasant feeling which a controversy of this description to that you felt that connection embarrassed you in your desire must under any circumsta nces pro d uce. As all that has take a proper share in t he debates in Parliament, I sh ould have made no furtherallusion to you—beyond that one regret passed between the hon. member and myself has taken that the speech ofeone of our own body should appear, to place by correspondence, I will leave that correspondence however small an extent, to give weight to aspersions and to tell its own tale. Tho hon. gentleman has read only a imputations t on thee a h t Ti f is t md s e u e l l t se w w e h r e e re to , 7 ,e d 0 s h ouldl frto ha t T le e portion of that correspondence, and he has left it to me to none ' on house, did not regret regret that I should be brought in as an ex read the rest. Tho hon. member read the first of those let- ample to prove the rule as to the. depth of baseness to_ which tern, but if he' had read on the house would see that in a members of Parliament would descend to retain their seats, subsequent letter I qualified some of the expressions I used rid observations gave me to the house on th e re l a t ions of the pub tlie opportunity of submitti ng some gene in the first ; and, so far as I could, I think I rendered it un - necessary to bring the question before the house. I warned he press to the i ns tit u ti ons o f t h e country, and especially to the Rouse of Commons, that we are now re the hon. g en tl eman , however, that if the question were forming ; and as I believe you to be the proprietor of brought before the house it must give pain which I would the Times, the leader in its councils, and more than any not willingly be the instrument of inflicting ; and that, as other man responsible for its ac t s , I thi n k I miii do the pub far as I wa s concerned I would rather the matter should be lie good service if I can no w in d uce you to weigh well the , settled by person a l explanation without these walls between remarks now privately offered, but w hi c h, h a d I spoken last him I should have given to the world. You combine in him and myself, which I courted: =These efforts of mine your own person the two most powerful attributes that an failed. I regret extremely that they failed, but Ido not re- Englishman can possess, as a tar o t f ed th ri e seniher t o l f ia t t he logic gret that I made them, because the responsibility of the t h i l l t e i v w e o b r p i ly aist a d i t o h t s o upr r e ae m ha t e e r il s e y a o u have res s immense course lam compelled to take in my own vindication rests bi lilies, and you are doubly bound to sustain the reputation upon the friends and advisers of the hon. gentleman, and not of each of the bodies to which you belong. You do not upon me. While lam as ready as the hon. member to assert require me to tell you that the character and honour of the the independence of the press, and as anxious to maintain House thereforeef Common s dicult are e e t h e exaggerate nation's era te th the best speriseefstrantsisalaideniet it, I utterly repudiate as false and mischievous that doe- !. I) tne.tone of low morality attributed to public men, and trine of responsibility which the hon , gentleman has set ex hibited in itself by the most powerful organ in the coun up ; and before I sit down I shall have, lam afraid, to‘show try. There is nothing in which the press of England is so that the hon, b e-entlemanispersonally anddirectly r es p ons ib le valuable as for the fearless advocacy by each journal of its for every letter and every word of that article to which I own line of opinions when it is done with an h onesty and have taken exception. (Hear, hear.) The facts are th ese : , c o nsistency that command respect, and, a t th e same t i me, capability of feeling respect for all th a t i s great and —On taking my place on Monday I was told by ray hon. and s how a estimable in public life, with a full appreciation of the cares gallant friend the member for Roscommon (Capt. French) and anxieties and sacrifices of those acting under onerous that there was a rumour of a compromise ()teethe Reform responsibility, and who, while closely watched, should be The 1 . England, Bill, that there was to be a il6 franchise for counties, au j a u o stlanderou d sln ' e ecl j crl g e e l d ev . atTng ej tre rn to a n i e sm of Q p f c mo '.E3 fur boroughs, and an 'engagement that there was to be h onourab ly rality and sta c in n in u g the character of public men, is of in no dissolution of the hou s e fo r t wo ye a r s . (Laughter.) I ' estimable value, in strengthening the national institutions; ought to repeat that my hon, and gallant friend the mem- but if is nothing short of a national calamity when public a which, less mindful her for Roscommon merely mentioned this as a rumour, opiou is ue n of the res ponsibilities intib t y ha g n re tte jon! Ze l e s ees of the press, show but the postponement of the dissolution for two years was themselves true to no principle, pn constant to no polic y, and openly discussed as a sop to the House of Commons, (A disdainful of all rules of public justice and morality. Now, l a ugh.) The hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire y o u mast excuse my taking the liberty of reminding you that afterwards rose and addressed the house, and in the Wane there is not a leadingman on eitherfront bench that the Times, THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY _ EVENING, MAY 8, 1860. guided with such wonderful ability and wielding such a ter rific power, has not by turnslauded and calumniated, flat tered and villified. By turns it has vehemently espoused and bitterly vituperated every party, and advocated and abandoned every principle. And there is this painful and distinctive peculiarity about the Times—other journals are content with opposing the policy or censuring the acts of the Mi nister, but the Times always tries to crush the man. For some years it seemed its special vocation to hunt down, ruin, and destroy Lord Palmerston, whose official life is now deemed vital to the nation. Lord J. Russell was once the idol to be worshipped, but more recently he would have been driven altogether from public life if the acrimony of the Times could have accomplished it. So, again, Lord Derby's first Administration was supported by the Times; but, in his second one, in the personal persecution of every leading member, it furnished only another instance of con sistency and consideration, and thus with every public man that is capriciously—and personally, as distinct from poli tically—assailed, it is not criticism but extermination that is aimed at. The practical consequences of all this on our political condition are very serious. Governments and par ties have been lately in a state of weakness and disorgani zation alike deplorable and dangerous ; but all this is enor mously aggravated when all the vast machinery of the Times and its gigantic writing power are directed to one end—that of pursuing to the death, day after day, every leading man on whom, in turn, the nation (as the Times comes round to show) must rely; and doing this to an ex tent that their public acts don't justifi. The result is that all our best public men become not only politically weakened, but personally discredited. P u bli c principles are unsettled and discredited also, respect for parliamentary government and political institutions is much shaken, and strong go vernment becomes impossible. I avow to you my deliberate and solemn conviction, founded on much observation and reflection, that the present confusion in our political world is to a great extent owing to the manner in which every leading man and principle and cause have been damaged by the wavering invective of the Times. As I wish you to re ceive this before you go to the house, I have not time to re mark on the personal influences by which the Times is sup posed to be affected—on the peculiar influences that draw Mr. Delane to Lord Palmerston, and the anomalous position and proceedings of Mr. Lowe on the Treasury bench. They are the subject of comments which I will not now repeat, butwbich affect bath the House of Commons and the press. If you receive my observations in the same frank spirit in which I make them, I shall be happy to follow them up by a further expression of views that may be useful to you. Few public men are in a condition to speak boldly to the Times. There are few men in Parliament who, like myself, are so indifferent to party to office, or to their seat, that they are as independent of the Times as the Times is of them, and fear it as little as it fears them. As lam in that position I have felt it a duty to tell you what may be useful truths, and in a plain though not unfriendly spirit ; and if they should have the effect of leading you to consider what I have said, and if you will permit your judgment to be influenced by it, I shall not regret the difference—l trust in that case only of a temporary nature—that has arisen between us, and which will have been productive of good results through a circle beyond ourselves." May I read the postscript ? (Mr. Walter assented.) "In saying I should have expressed these views last night, I mean, of course, the general views on the press, without personal allusions to yourself or others." Has ing read that letter by permission, or rather in answer to the challenge of the hon. gentleman, I leave it without further comment, except that it shows two things—that I did not wish to make this a merely personal question, be tween the hon. member for Berkshire and myself, and that, as far as I am concerned, I have not necessitated the bring ing the question before the house. (Hear, hear.) Upon the general and important principle of the independence of the public press and its irresponsibility, I have a few words to add in reply to what has fallen from the hon. gentleman who is its principle representative. - Mr. WALTER—I beg to explain. Mr. HORSMAN—I withdraw that expression. I sin cerely regret the inadvez tence in so describing the hon. gentleman. Whence guises this doctrine of responsibility ? Every man in this house is in favour of the independence of the press, as all are in favour of the independ ence o f Par liament, but this independence carries with it responsibility. Every member of this house is, individually or collectively, responsible. The House of Lords is responsible. The Crown is responsible. Why is the public pressalone to be irrespon sible ? (Hear.) It is the Fourth Estate. It is a mighty in stitution. The first law of the constitution is that there is no power, and there can be no power, which is not accom panied by responsibility. In a constitutional Government power and irresponsibility are perfectly incompatible. Why, then, is the public press, or why is the Time* newspaper, to be the sole exception to the rule ? Conventionally you May say the press is responsible, but practically you find that the press is irresponsible. Why ? Because it is anony mous. But its being anonymous does not remove the respon sibility. It only makes it difficult to enforce it. You cannot enforce it against a man working in the dark—having a mask before his face. When a muffied`figure, who plants a dagger, is not punished it is because you cannot identify him. Nor can you punish the midnight burglar whom you cannot catch. But the principle of responsibility applies equally to both. How does that affect the hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire ? I am afraid that I now come to the somewhat painful part of the question, but at the same time a very important public part. By what law of public responsibility are gentlemen connected with the public press and having seats in this house to be judged ? I think the hon. gentleman himself laid down that law on Monday night. I attempted in the correspondence with him, in courtesy to him, to detach from him any responsibility with the Times, but I now mean to fix it upon him. (Opposition cheers.) What was the leading element of the able speech of the hen. member for Berkshire on Monday night ? What was its most telling and effective part? Was it not the in dignant and spirited rebuke administered to the hon. mem ber for Birmingham for speeches not made here but filer where (near.) Did no not tell us that if we wished to see the hon. member for Birmingham painted by himself we must read the National Review? What does that mean ? Is not every member, as a public man and perfectly indepen dent, to exercise his rights ? Is he not to express opinions and disseminate principles wherever he pleases, in this house or elsewhere, provided he does nOt transgress any rule of public decorum and propriety ? And was that not the reason why the member for Birmingham was brought into the house and the hon. gentleman executed on him his law of responsibility ? Why, all of us feel that responsibility is en forced on every member wherever he acts, wherever he speaks, in his place or out of it, as it was enforced the other night by the hon. member for Berkshire. Is the same rule not to be applied to him ? To Caesar he appeals, to Caesar he must go. He bays he has no editorial functions with the Times—he does not know who was the writer of the article. Who, I ask, employed the man who wrote it ? (Opposition cheers.) Who paid the man who wrote it ? (Opposition cheers.) And if, sir, he, as the proprietor of the Times— Mr. WALTER—" A" proprietor or " the" proprietor ? Mr. HORSMAN—As the leading proprietor of the Times. If the hon. gentleman gets up and tells me he is not the leading proprietor I have done. Mr. WALTER—My proprietary interest in the Tones, if the hon. gentleman wishes to know, is of a very limited description. I have large property connected with the Times, wholly independent of a limited proprietary interest in it. Mr. HORSMAN—I am sure the house will feel that it is unworthy of the house and unfit in me to descend to a controversy with the hon. gentleman the member for Berk shire on the exact amount of his interest in the Times. The hon. gentleman cannot dens that he has a leading interest, and that he is the greatest authority in the Times. I ask again, who employs the man who writes, who pays the man who writes those articles? (Opposition cheers.) And I say, if the writer received instructions from the council of which the hon. gentleman is a leading meMber—if the iter receives instructions and remuneration from him, I want to know what is the difference between the hon. mem ber for Birmingham and, the hon. member for Berkshire as regards responsibility. Why, sir, the difference is this, and this only :—The member for Birmingham goes on a plat form in the face of day, avows his opinions before all the world, and braves the responsibility which is brought upon him in this house, while the member for Berkshire em ploys another to do what the member for Birmingham does himself. (Opposition cheers.) Because the gentleman he employs works in secret his employer thinks he is to evade responsibility. I lay down boldly and confidently this prin ciple, that between a public writer and a public speaker, on the ground of responsibility, there is no distinction what ever. (Hear.) The only distinction is as to the difficulty of identification and detection. (Hear.) If the independence of the press be assailed, every man in this house, and 99 out of every 100 men in the country, will raise their voices in its favour. I say, as to the responsibility of the press, that as in the responsibility of public men, it is the interest of the whole community to enforce full responsi bility, If a member of our own body out of this house makes a public speech which we feel lowers and discredits the body to which we belong, all are anxious that he should be called to account, all are anxious to enforce re- sponsibility, the enforcement of which is a protection to our own character and honour. So it is with the press. It has the same interest in keeping up the character of the press as we have in keeping up the character of public men; and if there be one organ which lowers the charact er of the press, I say . it is the interest of every man connected with the press to do all they can, not only to discountenance it, but to enforce responsibility against that organ which would otherwise throw discredit on the whole body, who are not more distinguished for talent than for honour, taste, refine ment, high principle, and a combination of all those quali ties which make the leading contributors favourites and ornaments of every society which• they enter. (Cheers.) It is with extreme regret that I have had to say this to the hon. member for Berkshire. I have sat with him many years, and I have learnt to regard him with feelings of sin cere respect. Although it is impossible that occasionally there should not have been an incidental recollection of his connection with the press, my wish has always been to re gard him in a different character, as the representative of an important English county—asone who, while ho does in . . herit a noble inheritance, which we are now discussing, inherits still more the position of a territorial proprietor, which puts him on a social equality with the greatest and noblest in the land. (Cheers.) I believe he owes his seat not so much to his merely territorial position as to the ex- ample which he has set of every virtue. 1 know that in his own neighbourhood few landlords are more popular. There is no man whose conduct sets a better example in the esti mation of all those who live in his vicinity than that of the hon. gentleman, and my sincere wish is that he may sit many years in this house, sharing more largely than he has hitherto done in those debates which, as we all know, he has already adorned, and receiving from" us that respect and esteem which as a tribute to his past demeanour he has fairly won, and to which he is eminently entitled. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said—l hope this discussion will end where it now stands—(hear, hear)—and that it will not lead to any result greater than the cause from which it appears to have originated. ___l should not have presented myself to the house were it not for the mention which my right hon. friend has made of my name in connexion with Mr. Delane. In the first place my right hon. friend has recorded that for a ecrtain period of time, now I am happy to say long gone by, I sustained very bitter attacks in the columns of the Times. It is perfectly true that during a portion of my public life I was, in regard to the newspaper press, one of the best abused men in England. I submitted with patience to those attacks—(hear, and laughter)—l trusted that my public conduct would be an answer, sooner or later, to those attacks. (Hear.) It never occurred to me to rise in my place in this house to complain of the at tacks which were so bitterly toads upon me. (Hear, hear.) Whether my example in that respect is ono that should be, followed, or whether those who have taken a different course acted more properly than I did, I cannot say. My right hon. friend had stated, in his letter, that he did not know what the influences were which Mr. Delano, one of the edi tors or managers of the Times, attributed to me. If by that ho implies that any wish or influence of mine has been exer cised over the line of conduct of the proprietors of the Times, I can only say with Mrs. Malaprop that I should be glad to plead to that soft impeachment—(laughter) —if such insin uations were really founded on fact. If there are any in fluences which have led Mr. Delano to me they are the in fluences of society. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend has himself stated in his glowing address that the contri butors to the press are the favourites and ornaments of every society into which they enter. He is perfectly right in that expression. They are generally men, as he states, of great information and great attainments, and therefore they are men whose society must be agreeable to those with whom they associate. (Hear.) My connexion with Mr. Delano is of that character exactly. I have had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Delano frequently in society, and he has done me the honour of meeting society occasionally under my roof. (Hear, hear.) That society is composed of per sons of all politics—(hers, hear)---and engaged in all pur suits. I feel very proud when persons come without under taking any other engagement than that which Mr. Delane does so well—of always making themselves very agreeable. (Laughter.) I have had the honour, and I esteem it such, of receiving occasionally the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Buckinghamshire, and also the right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge. Tho influences which led them to do me that honour were of the same kind as thbse which prompted Mr. Delane. They expected to meet agreeable society, and I trust they were not disappointed. (Much laughter) I have also myself had the honour of meeting society under the roof of Lord Derby, and in so doing I did I no more than the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks and the right hon. gentleman the member for Cam bridge—that is to say, mixed on fair and equal terms with agreeable society, and making themselves agreeable'to those whom they met. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said—Before the discussion closes I think I ought to endeavour to extract some useful result from it, and therefore I will request the house to recollect one observation that has been made by the hon. member for Berkshire, namely, the disapprobation he expressed of quoting, in order to influence opinion in our discussions, views which have been advanced in the morning news papers, and which are often written without sufficient data. It appears to me that to quote the anonymous opinions of contemporaries in an assembly like that where they ought to depend on their own knowledge and their own powers of argument enforced and illustrated by the opinions of other gentlemen of equal authority—it appears to me - that that constant practice which has lately become the fashion of enforcing one's views by quotations from anonymous con temporaries, is one which ought not to be encouraged. (Hear, hear.) I think it tends very much to lower the tone and authority of our debates; and, therefore, if from this conversation the attentionef thehouse is drawn in so marked a manner to this novel feature of our debates, we shall in future be able to avoid that eriticism of the hon. member for Berkshire which I consider to be so accurate and just and it will not be without benefit. Both the gentlemen who are into • rested in this matter possess, and are well entitled to, the re spect of the house from their position and talents. ,Hear.) I cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman in, as I think, his somewhat sweeping and exaggerated view of the press of this country. He says in a very serious part of his speech that the press was the fourth estate of the realm. I must remind the hon. gentleman that when he is speaking of the Sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, to speak of the press of this country as the fourth estate of the realm is but the introduction into our debates of a slang ex pression which is not true. (Hear.) The press is not the fourth estate of the realm, nor can it exercise any political responsibility. There is a responsibility which attaches to the newspaper press, and that is that it is amenable fortu nately to the laws of the country. (Hear, hear.) But it is responsible to the public, and I cannot believe that news papers which are conducted with a total absence of principle employing themselves in the manner in which the right hon. gentleman says this particular newspaper has em ployed itself, would possess that degree of confidence and patronage on the part of the public which it does. (Hear.) Newspapers must depend on public opinion, and there is no doubt the Times newspaper has great weight in its criti cisms of public men. But we must remember this, that if you have a free press, and if it be what I agree it is, a zreat blessinz. vou must ~nt almut what it says. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has very playfully reminded the house that he has been subject in the course of his political life to considerable criticism. Well, it does not appear to have done the noble lord much harm physi cally—(laughter)—and as to the moral effect of such criti cism, there are few public men who may not have profited by it. (Hear, hear.) I, too, have had my share of news paper criticism, and it is as large a share as any public man ever had. I cannot pretend to say that when it first began, which is now a long time ago, it was not as disagreeable to me as it could be to anybody —(laughter)—but I can truly say that as long as that public criticism is able and intelli gent, I do not care what degree of general malignity may pervade it. (Hear.) Now I agree 'with the noble lord in his view that on the whole it is very unnecessary to ask this house to be the confidant of complaints when we are sub jected to any severe criticisms. If the press of this country is to be a free press, it is not for us to criticise with too great promptitude or severity intellectual efforts, which it must be recollected are written under conditions of immense diffi cult. And we must also recollect that these enterprises are responsible to the general opinion of the country, and that opinion cannot be enlisted in their favour, un less on the whole we find that, whether it be through their information, or their criticisms, er their general intelligence, they are found to be of great advantage to the community. (Hear, hear.) The motion for the adjournment of the house was then withdrawn, and the subject dropped. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL. On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de bate on the second reading of this bill, Mr. AYRTON rose to move the following amendment:— "That it is inexpedient to impose a now tax on houses for the sale of unintoxicating refreshments and to promote the consumption of intoxicating drink by giving increased faci lities for retailing the same, and by diminishing the control now exercised by justices of the peace over houses kept for that purpose." Ho contended that the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that intoxication would be diminished by the increased consumption of wine were illusory. The theory that in wine countries there was an absence of drunkenness depended upon certain conditions, especially the poverty of the people ; the question was what the result would be in this country when the opportunities to buy wine were increased, and high wages afforded the means of buying enough to procure intoxication. He urged the evil consequences of taking a wrong step in a matter so intimately connected with the moral and physical condition of the lower classes, and that the best course was to reject the bill. Mr. LIDDELL likewise opposed the bill. After obser ving that ft created a new temptation for the indulgence of intoxication, and that in large towns the Youth of both sexes would be encouraged to congregate together in wine houses, he argued against the case for the bill, which rested, he said, upon an assumption which was not true, that there was a public necessity for opening new channels for the sale of cheap wines. He objected that the bill virtually dimi nished the control of the magistrates, that it did not give them power at the right time, and gave them power at the wrong time. Mr. SALOMONS supported the second reading. There were three' classes of persons who combined in their opposi tion to the bill. First, the licensed victuallers, who thought their interests would be affected by it ; and if he really thought they would be injured by the bill he should never be found a supporter of its principle. The second body of persons were the teetotallers, who were averse to any legis lation whatever from which the extension of the sale of in- toxicating liquors might be in any way encouraged. The third parties were the beersellers ; but with regard to them there could be no doubt the beerhouses established thr9ugh out the country districts were a great nuisance to all the surrounding neighbourhood. (Hear.) The question, how ever, he would put to the house was this—was the law in a satisfactory state when it did not enable a respectable man with a lady to get a glass of wine without going to the bar of a public-house or gin -shop ? This seemed to him to be a piece of barbarism not at all desirable. Then, he might ask, was the spirit trade in a proper condition ? Look at the state of the Haymarket and the streets adjacent at a late hour of the night. Was that a state satisfactory to the pub.. lic, whether they viewed this as a religious country or even as a country where licenses were necessary ? By the hill a great public want might be supplied without interfering with any existing interests. Having had some experience as a magistrate, he could say that they need not be scared away by the various phantoms which had been conjured up as to the effect of increasing the number of licensed houses for the sale of intoxicating drinks. The City of London, in proportion to its size, hod a lorger number of public house than any other part of the kingdom. While Man chester, with a population of 347,000 persons, had only 485 public-houses, the City of London, with a population of _ _ - - only 130,000, had as many as 645 public-houses and 187 beershops, or a total of 832 houses. In the City of London almost every pastrycook who desired a license from the ma- gistratea could get one; the only condition imposed being an honourable understanding that he would not open on Sundays, nor after 8 o'clock at night on other days, nor convert hi, house into a gin -shop. Yet in no part of England did so much sobriety and good order prevail as in the City of London. The most objectionable part of the bill was that rendering it necessary for every house for the sale of refresh ments to have a license. (Hear, hear.) It certainly seemed monstrous to require a baker, who sold a few buns or bis cuits over his counter, to take out a license, and he could not help looking upon such a prevision as an interference with the freedom of trade. (Hear, hear.) He was for limit ing rather than extending the hours in the evening to which these new refreshment houses might keep open, and he would fix it at nine in winter and ten in summer. But with regard to placing them under the supervision of the police, he would ask hon. members how they would like, while they were regaling themselves at Gunter's, in Bel- i gravia, or Farr ance ' s , i n Spring-gardens, to see a police man come in. (Hear, hear.) Believing, however, that the bill might in committee be made not only unobjectionable, but popular, he should vote for the second reading. Mr. PALK did not dispute the bill might be amended in committee, but he objected to the principle of a measure which was to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not succeed in creating a demand for French wines, the revenue which he expected to obtain from that source would not be forthcoming, and his scheme so far would be an entire failure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to create a new demand for a liquor which was not now one of great popularity, but he had failed to show that it would lessen the demand for spirituous liquors or promote the cause of morality and good conduct. He was positively re versing that cause of progress and improvement which had guided the policy of the country for many years past. We had done much lately to promote the education, the religion, and the amusements of the poor; we had also founded the institutions for the reformation of juvenile offenders, and having by these means given a high tone of morality to.the public policy, the right hon. gentleman would extinguish all the good we had done by establishing free trade in drunkenness.' To make his scheme good he must erect foreign intemperance upon intemperance at home. His (Mr. Palk's) experience was, that the greater facilities they gave for drinking, the more they multiplied drunkenness ; and England had indeed arrived at a melancholy pitch if her revenue were to be derived from the degradation of the people. This was a question which made or marred what he believed to be the strength and wealth of the nation— vie., the English artisans and labourers ; and it was because he saw the evil effects of the slightest error upon such a subject that he earnestly besought the house to carefully weigh the provisions ef the measure before assenting to the second reading-. Mr. SCULLY said that as the country with which he was more immediately connected was not at present interested in the bill, he was in a position to form an impartial opinion of its merits. Besides, as English members did not scruple to interfere with Irish business, he did not see why Irish members should not occasionally return the compliment; especially as there was every probability of the measure be ing sooner or later extended to Ireland if it ever became law in England. The bill, they were ,told, was a measure of finance; but it could not increase the revenue, except by in creasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It was, in fact, a sort of public proclamation— " Let those now drink who never drank before ; And those who always drank now drink the more." (Laughter.) The hon. member (Alderman Salomons) had complained of the grievance it would be to hon. gentlemen if, while they were taking their refreshments at Gunter's or Farrance's, the shop might be visited by a policeman. But if shops with wine licenses were not liable to inspection, what a set of bear-gardens they might become. They would soon be little better than what was called in Ireland she beens. (Laughter.) It had been pointed out that any re tail trader might obtain a wine license. There was really no reason in the world why there should not be a decanter on every counter at Shoolbred's. (Laughter.) Mr. HUMBERSTON hoped the bill would be with drawn, or at least much modified. (Hear, hear.) Mr. JAMES would not be influenced by the organisa tion which had been alluded to for the purpose of enforcing temperance, far he could not help thinking there was a good deal of hypocrisy about that movement. (Hear, hear.) He would state to the house very shortly the grounds upon which he opposed this bill. It seemed to him to be extremely unjust and unfair to persons who had invested a large capi tal, not in a monopoly of their own creation, but upon re strictions placed by the legislature upon them. By the com mon law of this land every person was at liberty to open an ale-house, a beer-house, or a public-house in the same way as he could set up a linendraper'er shop. But, inasmuch as the normal condition of public-houses was that customers were led to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as possible, and perhaps sometimes to get as intoxicated as possible, the legislature had interfered by various acts of Parliament to put restrictions upon these houses and bring them under the supervision of the magistrates. Hence the restriction that they were not to be opened without a li cense ; those who kept them were not to allow gaming, or to permit bad characters to assemble in their houses. They had persons billeted on them, they were placed under the control of the magistracy. What was the effect of all this ? It was all very well for aldermen—for the hon. alderman (Salomons) himself--to say it was a very hard case that a gentleman and lady could not go into a pastrycook's shop and have a glass of claret with their biscuit. admitted it was ' —bar ire could tell the worthy alderman that the pastry. cooks and biscuit bakers would never avail themselves of the measure, if it placed their shops under the surveillance of the police. (Hear, hear.) But this bill made every magis trate an inquisitor and every policeman a spy. (Hear.) The effect of the bill would be, that every beerhouse would take out a refreshment license, and then a wine license, and then it would become a publichouse to all intents and purposes. (Hear.) It was well known that as regards boershops, Sir R. Mayne had given evidence to the effect that the control of the magistrates over the licensed beerhouses and the houses of the licensed victuallers tended to the greatest order. The honourable member for Dorset shire, who was opposed to the present system, told the house of the scenes of drunkenness and profligacy which he had witnessed in the Haymarket; but the description given by the deputation which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject showed that it was in the unlicensed coffee-houses and the fish-shops, and not in the licensed victualling houses, that the worst scenes of profli gacy took place. When the hon. member in future wan dered through the Haymarket in his nocturnal perambula tions from that house, he (Mr. James) wondered what his experience would be of the new wine-shops. (A laugh.) Then a great deal had been said about the Excise ; but the Excise cared nothing about the morals of the people—all they cared about was the revenue. It was now said that wine licenses could not exist without spirit licenses ; for when wine licenses were given singly, the revenue was de frauded by their selling spirits as well as wino. He (Mr. James) was no advocate of the present system of licensing —(hear, hear)—he thought it was very much abused, and that there was a great deal of gross jobbery about it (he .r, hear)—but let them deal with these subjects fairly. The licensed victuallers had expended a large sum upon this monopoly; and he certainly thought these matters had been fully explained to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The deputation consisted of very intelligent persons, and was headed by a gentleman, whose very name of Homer shoald have been sufficient to enlist the sympathies of the right hon. gentleman with his classical associations; espe cially as Horace had told us that Homer was himself ad dicted to the use of wine— Laudibus arguitur vini vinosus Homerus. (A. laugh.) He thought the measure was unfair and unjust to a most important branch of trade, and he should there fore oppose the measure. Mr. VILLIERS said that after having heard the speech of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets he defied any human being to say who he represented—whether it was the brewers' interest, or the licensed victuallers', or the sup porters of the French treaty, or of free trade; he condemned everything that had been done, and supported everything that existed. But it seemed that any stick did to beat a dog, and so at one time they had a talk about 'temperance, at another of vested interests, at another of supporting things as they were ; at another time, of the rights of the licensed victuallers. The hon. members supported the monopoly of the brewen—of the victuallers—every monopoly, in short, which existed. So his hon. and learned friend (Mr. E. James) assumed that - everything which de pended on the present system was an injury to his clients. Ile (Mr. Villiers) believed, however, that the present sys tem had been condemned for many a year, even by the ma gistrates themselves. The committee who had reported on this subject had condemned the system of licenses, and re commended a scheme which seemed to be far better cal culated to secure public order. That was the system recom mended by this bill. He expected to have heard that the fault of this bill was that it threw too much power into the hands of the magistrates. But who was it who promoted this inquiry ? Why the magistrates themselves, who said the system was defective. Every member of the committee except himself (Mr. Villiers) was a justice of the peace; and under'the circumstances he thought their report was the fairest that possibly could have been made. The, hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had argued upon principles which, perhaps, were not inconsistent as those of the tee totallers, because he argued against the treaty. But the teetotallers never raised their voices against the reduction of the wine duties. They knew very well they could not have got their ewn members in the house to support it. They would have said to them, " We cannot stop trade, we cannot interfere with the exchanges." Then there was another party, who said, " Oh, by all means let the poor have wine, but don't let them have it in any place where they cannot get ardent spirits as well." (Hear, hear.) The opponents of the bill were in a very inconsistent position. They would allow cheap wine to be sold at the public-houses, and they would allow eating-house keepers to send for cheap wine or cheap spirits. (Hear.) All that they objected to was the eating-house keeper laying in a stock of a dozen of wine in the -morning to supply his cus tomers during the day. That was what they thought the great evil of the bill. (Hear, hear.) Was this an object worthy of all the machinery that had been brought to bear against this bill ? They could only fall back upon the licen sing system as being perfect. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer inserted in his bill a provision that everybody who kept an eating-house should go before the magistrates to get his wine license, this discussion would never have been heard of. To restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors, or confine their sale to respectable persons,. was a very laudable object; but the magistrates themselves said that they hard no means whatever of judging of the character of applicants. One case has made a great impression on the committee. This was the case of Admiral Hope, who had petitioned against the licensing system, and asked to be examined. He was a benevolent man, who took a great it.- terest in the Sailors' Home; and he stated in his petition that the great object of that institution, which was to afford a refuge to the sailor and prevent him from being plund ered while on shore, was defeated by the great number of public-houses in the neighbourhood ; and this, he said, had been the case for 10 or 12 years. Nearly every other house was a public-house; these places were filled with disorderly characters, who waylaid sailors and robbed them. A supe• rintendent of the metropolitan police was examined, and he stated that in his district, which was a mile and a half in length, by half a mile in width, there were 500 public houses. (Hear.) He said that there had been a great num ber of convictions, but there was no helf for the evil. Being asked if any of the persons convicted were deprived of their licenses, he said that one,case was so flagrant, that, after being convicted a great number of times. the magistrates really thoUght of depriving the man of his license--(laughter)—but when the licensing day came round, he did that which was usual in such cases —he transferred the license to his barman. (Hear, hear.) Tho magistrates knew perfectly well what had occurred; but they granted the license to the barman, though he had been there when the former offences were committed. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the magistrates decided on granting or refusing licenses according to the requirements of the district; but here were 500 public-houses in a small district of a mile and a half by half a mile; and notwithstanding this large num ber, they had recently granted another. This was the system now existing, and which the opponents of the bill wished to continue. Mr. Po wnall, a leading magistrate in Middlesex, was asked how it came that so many public houses were thrust together in one particular district. He said that those were old districts, places where the trade had left. So much for the rule about the requirements of a district. If the trade left a district, why not take away some of the licenses ? But in fact it was a question of pro perty ; when they gave a license, they gave a value to the property--(hear, hear)--and they thought that it would be very hard indeed upon a poor man who had invested a great deal in that property to deprive him of his license, simply because the requirements of the district did not necessitate its existence. (Hear.) The magistrates might be right in this view, but let the public understand what the licensing system was. It was a system of giving a value to pro • petty; it had nothing to do with police—nothing, to do with the preservation of good order. (Hear, hear.) By their own confession the magistrate.; were incompetent to decide to whom licenses ought to be granted, and by the re sult their management was positively injurious ; and yet the great objection to this bill was raised because people were not required to go to the magistrates for their licenses. He did not say that the number of public-houses ought not to be limited ; all he said was that they had not hit upon the right authority for doing this. (Hear, hear.) Beerhouses had only been established owing to the scandals that had arisen from the licensing system ; and there were still many scandalous cases under the same system. It was said that the beerhouse system had , failed, but the re was no evidence of that. On the contrary, there was a great deal of evidence that in the largo towns the beerhouses were better conducted than the public-houses. Mr. Commissioner Mayne stated this distinctly, and said that they were not only better conducted than public-houses but better than coffee-houses. The Commissioner of Police for the City stated the same thing. He believed that the bill, with the securities which they took from the persons who took out the licenses, would be perfectly harmless, and that it would be a matter of great convenience to a large portion of the community who resorted to these houses. Mr. HENLEY remarked that, so far from the bill carry ing out the recommendations of the committee to which Mr. Villiers referred, every part of it was a contradiction to and in conflict with them. If there was on e point strongly established before the committee, he said it was that the having two kinds of houses was in effect a competition to tempt people to do what they ought not to do, and this bill was going to set up a third, in the very teeth of the recom mendations of the committee. Mr. Henley examined the securities provided by the bill, condemning the manner in which it dealt with the magistrates, and the perpetual blister of the police. His objections went, he said, to the whole framework of the bill, which it was almost impossible to alter in committee. Mr. BUXTON said the brewers had nothing to do with the opposition to the bill ; they had, one and all, refused to take any part in the agitation against it. Having, how ever, considered the bill studiously, he had been driven re luctantly to the conclusion that he ought to oppose it, on the ground that it would strongly tend to promote intoxi cation. Admitting that a free trade in wine was a neces sary corollary of the commercial treaty, he suggested the withdrawal of this bill, and the introduction of another containing a scheme of precautions founded upon principles which he indicated. Sir S. M. PETO intended to support the second reading of the bill, believing that, however objectionable certain parts of the measure might be, they could easily be amended in committee. He had carried on enormous contracts abroad, and had always found that in the wine countries the la bourers were far more sober than they were elsewhere. (Hoar.) During four years he had been engaged in the construction of the Mediterranean lines of railway, where some of the heaviest works were executed which were ever attempted, 3,000 Piedmontese were employed ; those men during the whole of the time drank the wine of the country and on no occasion had he heard of any instance of intoxi cation. (Hear, hear.) They all saved money, and took it home to their families, and he did not see why, with simi lar facilities, the results should not be the same withregard to the working men of this country. (Hear, hear.) The cri ticisms of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) referred wholly to points of detail, which might be dealt with in committee, and, sympathising in some of his objections, he should vote for the second reading in the hope that the de fects of the bill might be satisfactorily amended. (Hear.) Sir W. MILES assented to the principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the wine duties, but wished to know whether tha right hon. gentleman was willing to omit from the bill the tax on refreshment-houses. He quite agreed that wine licenses ought to b e g i ven t o re freshment-houses; but there were scattered over the coun try a large number of houses in some of which small beer, apples, and gingerbread were retailed, and he thought it unjust that they should be called upon to pay 10s. 6d. per annum. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The short, but, I think, most able speech of my hon. friend (Sir M. Pete) has opened the line of remark which I should have wished to take, and has diminished the labour, such as it is, which still lies before me. My hon. friend pointed out, with a clearness which I cannot hope to do more than imitate, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) had, while giving his assent to the general principles and ob jects of this bill, founded his opposition to it entirely upon mere points of detail. lam sure the right hon. gentleman will put a favourable construction on what I say, because no one contributes more valuable aid to the debates of this house by his acute and unrelenting criticism—(hear)—but when he has had as much experience in framing bills as during the last 20 years he has had in dissecting and judg ing bills framed by others, I will promise him that, especi ally in devising new systems, he will not find it easy to avoid raising real and sound objections on the part of critics not half so keen as he is. (A laugh.) His objections turn on two points. In the first place he complains that all re freshment houses having nothing to do with wine and strong liquors are dragged head and shoulders into this bill; and secondly, that we do not give the parties a right of being heard before the magistrates. Now, on the first of these points I don't think that either the right hon. gentleman or the hon. baronet who has just spoken can have read the bill aright. I don't know whether the language of the fourth clause is sufficient for its purpose ; but I can say most unequivocally that its object is not to impose the lia bility to take a license upon all houses where refreshment is sold—not to impose that liability even upon all houses where casually it may be consumed upon the premises —hut to im pose it upon houses which are kept open for the purpose of selling refreshment to be consumed on the premises. (Hear.) I mean that the consumption upon the premises is to bo the business for which the house is kept open. (Hear, hear.) That is the principle of this part of the bill. The right hon. gentleman will see that the object with which the, clause has been framed entirely disposes of his gingerbread oranges, and barleysugarcases, and all the rest of it, be• cause these are not houses kept open for the purpose of sell ing refreshment to be consumed on the premises. But the question raised by my hon. friend (Sir W. Miles) is a wider one. I believe it will be answered by the exemptions in the seventh clause, which apply to all small places. At the same time. I look upon this part_ of the bill as in -7 • volving matter which is secondary and incidental to the main object of the measure, and which, undoubtedly, I, for my part, thought it my duty to adopt mainly in deference to the authority of a unanimous committee of this house, and to what I know to be the views of the police authorities. (Hear.) To me it seems not unreasonable that, especially in large towns, in conformity with the vie ws taken by the committee, those houses which are kept open for the purpose of the consumption of refreshments upon the premises, and which become places of public resort and amusement, should, under certain conditions, and in principle, be brought within the superintendence of the police. (Hear.) And lam bound to say that I do not believe there is any great objection to the supervision of the police by this description of persons. I have only received one remonstrance—and one, I think, which ought to be attended to—from the bakers, who say they occasionally sell bread to be consumed on the premises, and if they are within the operation of the bill - they certainly ought to be relieved from it. (Hear.) But Ido not regard this portion of the bill as forming any part of its essence, and only wish the house to give a candid consideration to the recommendations of the committee upon this subject. (Hear.) Any proposals which accord with the general spirit of the suggestions made by the committee will answer my purpose, and if the hbuse thought fit to strike out of the bill all that relates to the licensing of refreshment-houses, the main object of the measure would not be affected. Then, as to the hearing before the magistrates, to which the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox fordshire devoted so large a portion of his speech, there is only one thing which the gentlemen who reported what fell from me would have done well to add had they recollected it. I frankly own, referring to the sim ple and arbitrary discretion given to magistrates, that this bill was drawn with an almost unlimited desire to give them every possible power to decide matters of fact, and required only honesty and intelligence to give it effect. And I do say that the provisions of the bill, as they stand, are so stringent that I believe I shall find it necessary to limit and restrain them. There is an old fable, called, I believe, the " Vision of Hercules," which is in point. When Her cules was young he dreamt that he came to a certain point of the road, where he was met by two figures —one the figure of Virtue, and the other the figure of Vice. He was solicited by Virtue to go ono way and by Vice to go an other. We are in the position of Hercules, as we are en countered by two figures of Virtue and Vice. But, instead of Virtue soliciting us to go one way and Vice to go an other, we have both Virtue and Vice leagued against us— (hear and laughter)—both standing across the road and refusing to allow us to proceed. (Hear.) I know the vir tuous motives of those who support the temperance move ment—(hear)—which the hon member for Marylebone (Mr. James) has manfully thrown overboard in his speech. The arguments used are a group of assumptions fastened together, which it is difficult to separate and to deal with. We are told that the use of wine is to be considered exactly as that of ardent spirits. These practical philosophers will not condescend to draw any distinction; they have invented phrases, " alcoholic liquids," " intoxicating liquids," and such like; but my' right hon. friend the member for Ox fordshire could readily show them the fallacy of mixing up things which are so distinct. There is a difference between the lighter wines of Northern Europe and the gin which is consumed in rivers in our great towns. Some one has given us a deplorable description of the drunkenness that pre vails in France, and I begin to think that no English tra veller could hive made a proper use of his oyes. However, I have found a testimony which is entitled to great weight, coming from a man pledged by his sacred profession, eminent for his eloquence, distinguished and beloved for all his vir tues—Dr. Guthrie. (Hear.) That gentleman before he de voted himself to his present calling resided for some time on the continent, and in one of his sermons he says he was in Brussels and Paris duringperiods of great national festivity and that he did not see in seven weeks as much drunkenness in those capitals as he would meet with in seven short hours • in London, Edinburgh, or any other of our large towns. (Hear.) That, Sir, is the testimony of an impartial witness. I hail() spoken of the fable of Virtue and Vice ; and I appeal from them to what I call the common sense of the Douse of Commons and of the country at large. I was lately staying at the house of a magistrate in the country, and one day he told me he had been assisting in adjudicating on an appli cation for a licence for a new public-house in the village of So and So ; and that they had not granted it. I asked him why. He said they did not grunt it because there were two public-houses in the village already. I believe the magis trates were anxious to do their duty. I said to him, " Was the, man who applied for the new licence a person' of bad character ?" He said, "No." I asked if the two men who had a licence already were of good character. He replied, on, the contrary, that they were men of very bad character. (A laugh.) So, then, I said to him, because two men who are already in possession of a licence in the village are per sons of bad character, you must refuse it to a third, who is a man of good character. (Cheers.) The present system has this for its main characteristics—that it creates a com pound interest in the trade, requiring of the publican capital not only to carry on his business, but likewise by way of advance, in the first instance, for that licence of which he comes into possession as a monopolist, and so placing him un der a double pressure to stimulate the use of strong liquors. Is it possible to conceive a system that could more effectually paralyse the arm of magisterial power than this ? (Hear.) There is no amendment of this bill which I would not be glad to consider, except that which would recreate and re produce the mischiefs of a proprietary interest in the licenses. (Hear.) There has recently been brought before the public one of those excessively rare cases in which the re newal of a licence to a public-house has been refused. The case came before the Middlesex magistrates, when the inhabitants of an entire neighbourhood petitioned for the refusal of the renewal of licenses to two persons who had been originally pugilists and then publicans. (Hear, hear.) The consequence of these persons having got licenses was that the neighbourhood became the scene of continual dis order, and the case was so extreme that the renewal of the licenses was refused. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Marylebone told the magistrates plainly that when the licenses were originally given they must have known the men who had made application for them,; and yet these are the kind of men who are considered fit, under the present system, to be armed with licenses, and who, when they get licenses, are hedged and fenced about with every obstacle that can interfere to prevent the right ,dis charge of magisterial duties. (Hear, hear.) That is the system we have now before us, and, if the last hand were wanted to be put to it, that hand was put when you in vented a scheme by which the sale of spirits was kept apart from the sale of victuals ; and you permitted any kind of amusement to be carried on in the houses to which your licenses were given. (Hear, hear.) It is this system we wish to modify, we wish to exclude that arbitrary discre tion which makes the magistrates the judges of the num ber of hguses and the quantity of liquor that ought to satisfy the demands of a district. (Hear, hear.) Not because we distrust the magistrates, but because it is beyond the power of man to regulate such matters. (Hear, hear.) And we think there is great virtue and hope in giving an opening for the consumption of those lighter wines which have now for the first time during many generations obtained some thing like justice in the arrangements of the British tariff, and in endeavouring to bring into union those two opera tions of eating and drinking which it has been the practical effect of our system to dissever. (Hear, hear.) T hat is the question on which we must vote to-night, and, believing as I do that the rejection of this bill will cause great dissatis faction in the country, and likewise believing that it is well entitled to the approval of the House of Commons, I confidently anticipate for it a favourable verdict. (Hear.) After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, and loud cries for a division, . The house divided. The numbers were :-- For the second reading Against . .. 193 Majority The numbers *e re received with cheering. —74 The bill was then read a second time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said hon. members ware aware that in the bill, as it now stood, the licences were printed in italics, and would not, in fact, form part of it, until agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means. He hoped, therefore, that they would permit him to go into Committee of Ways and Means at once. The licences could be discussed on the first clause of the bill. Mr. NEWDEGA.TE and Mr. AYE.TON objected to the course proposed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER refrained from pressing his request against the wish of the house. He proposed to go into Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday, before going into Committee on the Wine Licences Bill. - CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was reads second time. The other orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKET'S. COLHCESTER—MAT 5. A small supply of wheat, at is per qr below last week's prices. Barley comes scarce, and is fully as dear. Beans is to 2S-higher. Peas as before. Wheat, white sos to 56s I Beans, Mazagan.. 34 8 t o 37 s red 46s to 52s I Middle & small 36s to 42s Barley 36s to 508 I White peas 36 s t o 3 86 Oats 2os to 28s Grey.. 36s to 406 CHELMSFORD-111AI( 4. There was a fair supply of wheat to-day, and the best samples barely realised late rates; inferior is cheaper, with a dull trade. Pels and beans firm. Oats and barley were is dearer. Wheat, white.....42s to 56s Peas, Partridge ..40s to 41s red 41s to 50s White 40s to 42s Barley 36s to 46s Boiling 4os to 43s Chevalier ....40s to 508 Dun Ms to 38s Grinding . 30s to 35s Beans, Tick 4os to 43s Malt 60s to 66s Harrow Ticks 43s to 46s Chevalier 63s to 68s Mazagan 378 to 39s Oats 308 to 39s KIRKALDY—MAY 5. Here to-day we have had very good supplies of wheat, small of barley, and moderate Moats. Sales slow, at a de cline on late rates. Wheat Barley Oats First.... 48s Od " 38a Od 28s Od Second 53s Od —s Od 328 Od Third .. 55s Od —s Od 338 0 ISLINGTON PROPRIETARY SCHOOL.—Within the last few weeks two pupils from this school have been elected to open scholarships at Oxford :—Mr. Balmer to the Lasby Scholarship at Magdalen Hall, and Mr. Valentine, on Fri day last, to an open scholarship at Lincoln College. BIRTHS. LYALL.—On the sth inst., at 8, Chesham-street, the wife of George Lyall, Esq., M.P., of a son. MARKS.—On the sth inst., at 44, Bedford-square, the wife of Jacob Marks, Esq., of a daughter. MARRIAGES. BALL—MASON.—On the 3d inst., at St. Marylebone Church, Major-General Ball, to Charlotte, third daughter of th• late W. W. Mason, Esq., of Beverley. COURTNEY—HAYCR SFT—On the 6th hat, at St. Michael's Church, Stockwell, Frederick John Courtney, Esq. to Phebe, second dau g ht er o f the late John Mighell Hay craft, Esq. DEATHS. BOULT.—On.the 6th inst., Thomas Boult, Esq., of Wan stead Hall, Essex. DEAN.—On the sth inst., a t Euston-square, Thomas A. Dean, Esq., aced 60. STRATHMORE.—On the sth inst., at Albemarle .street, Mary, Countess of Strathmore, wifo of the Right Hoz. W. Hutt, M.P. SUTTON.—On the 3d inst., John Sutton, Esq., of Spring hill, and Stock Exchange. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , of No. 112, Strand, Printer; at 2734 Sun Otlice, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Tuesday, May 8, 1860. lIINI In ol the Au he will stamp ! Add] tedfor ( A 3IE JURt in a sent MA Perfect 15, Alb Stn MT] C A R Ear ly cif A of Mar Fol lies CU and Mc over CIIA Gonorr The Cases, t Lotion " Clll should 23d Ma "h( littl T e vv which 1 old age Atli Sunda3 FOR TT DEni Conti DU, SuDen fn -- C ?lib. e l harry Quin, 2 Street side, I fghov vain of fi apps SIR zenge have able t be vel CE an( of ben ter, ma Ear Cast