The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-17 00:00:00

HOUSE Or COMMONS—This Evening.

The SPEARER took the chair at four o'clock.
NE W ME MBE R—DEVON PORT.
Mr.W. B. FERRAND took the oaths and his seat for De-
vonport. The hon. member was introduced by Lord John
Many ers and General Peel. The hon. member was re •
ceived with loud cheers from the Opposition.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a second time :—Alyth
Railway _.Andover and Redbridge Railway— leeve and
Evesham Road—Farnborough and Aldershot Railway—
Great North of Scotland Rai way—Great Western and
West Midland Railways Amalgamation—Great Western,
West Midland, and South Wales Railway Companies
Amalgamation—Flerne Bay and Canterbury Junction—
Lancaster Canal and London and North-Western Railway
—Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—Milford. Railway—,
Mistley, Thorpe, and Walton Railway—Ogmore Valley
Railway's—Vale of Neath Railway—Furness Railway
Company and Barrow Harbour Commissioners.
LIVERPOOL LICENSING BILL.
Lord FE ttMOY moved that this bill be read a second
time that day
six months, on the ground that it would in-
troduce by a private bill an entirely new mode of licens-
ing for a single town in the empire. If a change
were required in the present form of licensing
it should not be effected by a private bill, but
by a measure brought forward on the authority of the
Government, Free trade ought not to be introduced into
the business of licensing ; to magis.trates ought to be
proper
dele-
gated, as now, the power of. adjudicating upon the
parties to be intrusted with licenses. In. Liverpool the
question of licensing was made a party question, but that
was no reason the house should be called to favour one set

Of partisans.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. HORSFALL said the bill did not arise from any
party feeling in Liverpool. One set of the magistrates were
in favour of a great extension of licenses, whilst another
considered that they should be materially restricted. The
powers sought by this bill were exceedingly wholesome.
Persons only of good character and able to give secu-
rity for their good conduct by bond, and rated to
the poor at £5O, would be granted licenses. Different
localities required different modes of dealing in this re-
gard. For instance, Liverpool had 500 licensed houses,
whilst Manchester, with a smaller population, had no less
than 600. The bill was framed in accordance with the re-
po tof the house of last session. He believed only one
petition had been presented against the bill, and he believed
that was simply in favour of closing publichouses on the
Sabbath. He should support the second reading of the

bill.
Mr. AYRTON considered that the bill ought not to have
been introduced as a private bill, and in that shape ought
ought not to be proceeded with any further. As the bill
would affect the law and the revenue he, should be glad to
know who was responsible for it? It appeared merely to
be based on a petition from Mr. Lamb and others, who
not venture to give their names and addresses. There was no
valid reason why the law should be altered to favour Liver-
pool alone. (Divide divide.) ft was
b not
P a
rtso.be quietly
settled by ac, mrnittee of five members stairs.
Mr. MASSEY explained that ysome ancient statutes
of the house some bills affecting trade were allowed to be
introduced as private bills, and this bill before the house
wa was introduced in accordance with these rules which were
framed about 100 years ago, before private bills were
known to the house. The bill was based on the report of
the committee of this house on licensing ; and
he believed was approved of by the magistrates of Liver-
pool. (No, no.) Liverpool possessed half a million of in-
habitants, and probably was entitled to exceptional legisla-
tion in regard to a matter of this kind, which, atter all, was
a mere matter of police.
Mr. HARDY opposed the bill, considering that it ought
never to have been introduced as a private bill, but before
the house, and discussed clause b, clause. (Hear, hear.)
If this plan of introducing private bills were made a prece-
dent, the Government might avail themselves of it to pass
several bills that ought not to be treated otherwise than as
public bills. If this bill were passed, tne Government
ought to adopt a general bill for the whole country.
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the bill.
Mr. J. E WART said the magistrates of Liverpool were
in favour of the bill.
Sir G. GREY supported the bill. It was essentially con-
nected with the police operations. That was the principal
element they had to consider In all such mastersr
_the
house should not lose sight of this—that the public pio_oalr itYs'
was a paramount question. A bill adapted
h e country.
large locality might not suit the %%tee to be
The bill ought to be sent to a
carefully investigated and then he
he whole house. He hoped the house :veoriddnisoctusstsoepd theb
bill at this stage.
The CHANCELLOR eEnitt ofc
woesCH
r d
ee rc to t see
sidered that it would be welolftotmheak Ee
aXn e pEe rC mU
bill so far as Liverpool was concerned,
whether its provisions weredap e o
ruted;heinWho
The present system ofcensing at Liverpool exceed-
ingly anomalous, and required material amendment.
Mr. WALPOLE said the committee referred to had re-
ported
in favour of a general system of licensing for the
whole country, and considered that an exception ought not
to be made in favour of Liverpool. He understood that the
bill was not promoted by the magistrates, but by the pub-
licans of Liverpool.
Mr. HENLEY should vote against the bill, because it
was exceptional. If a good bill could be devised he saw no
reason why it should not be applied to the whole country.
The house then divided, when the numbers were--
For the second reading lOB
Against it 124

Majority against the second reading —l6
The bill was therefore lost.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Sir J. DUKE moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. DODSON opposed the bill, because it would not
confer any substantial public benefit. He hoped the house
would throw out the bill, and thus prevent a useless waste
of money and time in opposition between the contending
lines. The whole matter had been set at rest by legislation
in 1861. He moved that the bill be read a second time that
day six months.
'qr. C. GILPIN supported the bill, and contended that
it was a far superior line to the one opposed to !t.O
line, although never-
opposed by a few of the lanci Teewn
and some of the inhabitants of Folkestone, 1,
great
UNIONS An excellent me, and would COQ"