The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-18 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Alyth
Railway—Andover and Redbridge Railway—Cleeve and
Evesham Road—Farnborough and Aldershot Railway—
Great North of Scotland Railway—Great Western and
West Midland Railways Amalgamation—Great Western,
West Midland, and South Wales Railway Companies
Amalgamation—Herne 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
Railways—Vale of Neath Railway—Furness Railway
Company and Barrow Harbour Commissioners.
LIVERPOOL LICENSING BILL.

Lord FERMOY 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 magistrates ought to be dele-
-3 • gated, as now, the power of adjudicating upon the proper
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. HORSFA.Li. 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 1,540 licensed houses,
whilst Manchester, with a larger population, had only
600. The bill was :framed in accordance with the re-
port of 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 publichou sea 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 did
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.) It was not a bill to be quietly
settled by a committee of five members up stairs.
Mr. MASSEY explained that by some ancient statutes
of the house some bills affecting trade were allowed to be
introduced as private bills, and this bill before the house
was introduced in accordance with these rules which were
framed about 200 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, after 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 by 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, the Government
Ought to adopt a general bill for the whole country.
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the bill.
Mr. J. ENVART said the magistrates of Liverpool were
in favour of the bill.
Sir G. GR-E-v
con-
nected with the psuotPceoroteZer.taa '
the bill.
Tlht
awtwas
aessentially cprincipalon
this—that
element they had to c
house should not lose Inall such matters the
sight of
h. the public morality
was aparamount question.large locality might not suit
thell adapted for a
whole country.
The bill ought to be sent to ;,
committee to be
carefully investigated and then subsequently d
is
seu sed by
the whole house. He hoped the house would not stop the
bill at this stage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQuRR con-
sidered that it would be well to make an experiment of this
bill so far as Liverpool was concerned, in order to see
whether its provisions were adaptable to the whole country.
The present system of licensing at Liverpool was 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-
limns of Liverpool.
Mr. HENLEY should vote against the bill, because

Waf4 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

Mr. R. HODGSON then rose to propose rescinding so
much of the tabled fees charged at the House of Commons
(under the standing order of the house passed in 1852) as
multiplied the fees payable on the petition, first, second,
and third readings, and report of private bills, according to
the money to be raised or expended under the authority of
such bills—the reduction to take effect in respect of private
bills introduced in the present session.
Mr. HADFIELD reconded the resolution, which he
said was highly necessary and important. The returns
showed that the railways of the United Kingdom had cost
.U 0,000,000 for fees alone. He thought, while they were
about it, they might also introduce some system of taxing
the enormous fees demanded by the counsel with their
briefs. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said the subject was no doubt very
important, but he intended that evening to move for a
committee upon the whole subject of private legislation, and
the question of fees would certainly fbrm part of their de-
liberations. (Hear.)
Colonel PATTEN and Colonel FRENCH hoped that
would be so, and on that ground would advise the with-
drawal of the motion.

Mr. HODGSON said, upon that understanding, he would
withdraw the motion.
PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.
Mr. B. FERRAND gave notice that on Tuesday next
he should ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the
board intended to rescind the order of October, 1861, rela-
tive to promotion in the navy.
THE GAME LAWS.
Mr. C. FORSTER postponed his motion from the 3d
to the 17th of March.
MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the First Lord of the
Treasury whether the Government were prepared to bring
in a bill for making commercial engagements falling due on
the wedding day of the Prince of Wales payable as by law
provided for Christmas-day, so as to enable all her Ma-
jesty's subjects to enjoy the day of that auspicious event as
a general holiday.
Lord PALMERSTON—I am sorry to inform my hon.
friend that her Majesty's Government have no intention to
introduce any bill for the purpose. It is generally con-
ceded that any unnecessary interference with the arrange-
ments of the commerce of the country is inconvenient, and
as there is no precedent for such a measure as the hon. gen-
tleman suggests, it is not the intention of her Majesty's
Government to introduce one. (Hear, hear.)
;IRON-CASED VESSELS.

Mr. LAIRD asked the Secretary to the Admiralty when
the iron-cased ship Royal Oak was expected to be ready for
sea ; and whether, in order to test the sea-going capabilities
of a wood built vessel cased with heavy armour plates, the
Admiralty intended to commission her as soon as she was
ready. Also, when the Royal Sovereign was ordered to be
cat down and altered into a cupola ship, the probable time
of completion for trial, and what armaments she would
carry.

Lord C. PAGET said the Royal Oak was expected to
be out of the hands of the Dockyard by the 19th of March.
The Royal Sovereign had been ordered to be cut down on
the 3d of April, 1862. He trusted she would be ready by
the end of the year, but her armament had not yet been de-
cided upon.