The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-11 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

one he had therefore adopted in the present Bill. He
Ltd a right to assume tbat Parliament bad sanctioned
the principle that there ought to be some property qua-
lification, and although, perhaps, the scale he had pro-
posed was not the most judicious that could be adopted,
it was for the Committee to say whether they would
not reject the principle altogether, or suggest such
amendments as might be deemed advisable. He had
never intended that the measure shou!cl interfere with
existing houses—it was to be entirely prospective in its
operation.

After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET in
explanation,

Mr. WARBURTON suggested that the Bill
should be allowed to pass through the Committee, po
forma, and that all the amendments proposed by the
Hon. Member should be added, in order that they
might know what the measure was with which they
were dealing. It appeared To him that the object of
the Hon. Gentleman was to limit very much the num-
ber of beer•houscs, although he understood originally
that the object of the Bill was not to cheek, but to
promote trade. He thought it better, however, to have
the Bill before them, instead of discussing it in that de-
sultory way.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the class ficition which the Bill contemplated had
already taken place to a certain extent, the principle
having been recognised by the House on two former
occasions. The object of the measure, as he under-
stood it, was to allow the trade to be as free as pos-
sible, and at the same time to provide efficient police re-
gulations. He thought the Hon. Gentleman had
adopted the proper course in varifying the qualification
clause with reference to the qualification. The re-
mainder of the Right Hon. Gentleman's observations
were quite inaudible in the gallery, but we understood
him to conclude by expressing his general approval of
the Bill as introduced, though he doubted its efficiency.
Mr. R. ALSTON, after a few words which were
not heard in the gallery, moved that the clause should
be expunged.
Mr. SL A NEY said, the question was whether or not
upon the balance of good and evil they should not do
a great good by passing this Bill. He thought they
would, and he should accordingly vote for it.
Mr. W A KLEY said he thought if a remedy for the
evils of the present system could be found it ought to
be adopted. It was in the rural districts an evil of
fearful magnitude.—( Hear, hear.) No man with his
eyes open could be insensible to that. The wives and
children of labouring men had great reason to complain
of it. But, admitting this, he could not think the pre-
sent Bill provided a remedy, and he thought the Hon.
Gentleman bad better defer it till another Session, in
order that. it might be seen whether or not a remedy
could not be devised. The Hon. Gentleman said what
was wanting was a better system of police, but
he (Mr. Wakley) thought before that a better system of
education for the people was seeded to teach them self-
respect and habits of temperance.—( Hear.) While this,
Bill would produce great loss to many, he thought it
would be attended with little good effect to the mass of
society, , The Hon. Gentleman had Lot, as he ought to
have done, furnished them with any statistical details as
to the effect of this Bill, and therefore seeing there we*
such a difference of opinion respecting it, he should Tote
for the proposition of the Hon. Gentlman below hi'd),
Capt. PLC HELL thought, without going into fur-
ther detail, it was sufficient objection to the Bill that
the data on which it was founded was the last census,
which would be found to be very different to that about
to take place.

Dr. NIC HOL suggested that the House should dis-
pose of the amendment before they divided on the clause.
Mr. PAKINGTON said the objection of the Hon
Member for Brighton was not a valid one, far the Bill
provided that the population should be estimated accord-
. mg to " the last Parliamentary census."
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved to sub-
stitute 12,000 for 10,000 in the second line et the first
clause, which was agreed to.
Mr. ALSTON proposed to substitute 5,000 for
2,.500, which was agreed to.
Mr. ALSTON moved, at page 2, to substitute 11/.
for 10/.

Mr. AGLIONBY thought 101. was much too high,
and if the amendnient was not carried he should propose
that it should be 81.
The House divided, when there appeared,
For the Amendment 00
Against it
37
.i‘Nority against the Amendment.
On our re-entering the Gallery, we found
Mr. ALSTON moving as an amendment to the same
clause, that there be.inserted the words "five thousand
inhabitants," instead of " two thousand five hundred."
Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided.
For the Amendment 22
Against it
40
Majority against the Amendment —lB
Mr. ALSTON next complained of another part
of the same clause, by which it was provided that
a separate rating should be made for the
house, premises, and land. A house, premises, and
land ought, for the purposes of the Bill, to be considered
as but one tenement, but if the clause were allowed to
r..main in its present shape, great injustice would be in-
flicted on many parties. For instance, he knew a case
in which a house, field, and.garden, all of which could
be coniidered as but one tenement, were rated at 191.,
but if a separate rating were made for each, the
amount would no doubt tall infinitely short of that re-
quired by theßili.

Mr.,(JOUL BURN observed that the intention o
the clause was that the house in which the trade was to
be carried on should ba in a house of a certain value.
Mr. PA KINGTON could not deviate from the ori.
ginai provisions of the Bill.

. .
_ .
M. ALSTON having moved an amendment to
the clause to remedy the evil he complained of.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—

For the amendment 22
Against it
Majority against the amendment —l2
Mr. ALSTON said he 'believed there would scarce-
ly ever be found a beer-house rated at 81., therefore he
moved that the qualification be 5/. instead of 8/.
Mr. GORING said he differed from the Honour-
able Member ; he believed there were many beer-houses
rated at 10/. in the country, and that the effect of this
all would be to produce a much more respectable
class of beer•hcuses. At present the beer-houses were
haunts of crime.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear,
hear.") Did not every country Gentlemen know that?
—(Hear, hear.) Had not the House been wearied
with petitions from the country stating this ?—(Hear,
hear.) And those not only from the gentry but from
the farmers and labourers themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON said the professed object of
the Bill was to remove public-houses from the brewers,
and put them into the hands of real occupiers, but
the only effect of this Bill would be to raise the value
of the beer-houses, and so put them out of the reach
of all who had not capital, so that the brewers would
have it in their own hands, and advance capital to who-
ever they liked. As to the charge of beer-houses being
haunts of crime, the same had been said when the Beer
Bill first passed, and the same would be said of all places
for the recreation of the lower classes to the end of the
world.

Mr. AG LI ON BY said he should support the amend-
ment on the broad principle which had governed his
votes on this subject on every occasion of decreasing
the qualification in money. A tacit-regulated beer-
house he considered a blessing to the poor, accompanied
with police regulations; he did not believe there was any
ground for attributing crime so exclusively to the beer-
houses. Criminals if they bad not beer-houses to
go to, would go to tap-rooms, or concoct their de-
signs under a hedge.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord WORSLEY said he should vote for the
smaller qualifications in towns, because there the police
were more powerful and vigilant ; but he could not
agree to it in counties where the constabulary was most
imperfect.
The Committee divided— •
For the amendment 22
Against. ..........................
Majority .........................•
. —9l
Mr. HAWES then moved the omission. of the words
requiring payment of all the arrears of taxes or rates.
Mr. PAKINGTON, after consulting with some of
his friends agreed to the alteration.
Mr. P. HOWARD said he considered this clause
militated so much against the enjoyments of the poor,
and interfered so much with their domestic comforts, to a
degree indeed unknown in any other country, that he
should move its entire omission.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers.
were--

For the clause

Against the clause
Majority .... ..
The clause was then ordcred to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses up to 4 were then agreed to.
On clause 4 being put,

Mr. WARBUR-TON objected to the clause. He
fh
rom
that tl a intd
isohrodu lads bt
toe
tnheec
valueessary
otfo
tphrec dlattoeuel:
might 134 absent ; and what wr,a to be
cTdeidonehdretinfiioincatantt hewd al ifotsrrtcda se ? We thought that a certifir,ate from
two householders would be sufficient.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
proposed that the test should be the Tent which the
party paid to the landlord, which it, would be easy to
ascertain.
Mr. CRESS WELL thought that it would be easy
to produce the certificate of the lr.ndlord, or the receipt
from him or his agent, for the pa yment of the rent.
Mr. JENKINS said that the landlord or his agent
might refuse the certificate if the party happened to
have displeased—if, for in,,ta-ace, he voted against his
wish at an election. He tlaought that would be a great

I'ARINGTON would consent that the receipt
Sl7,,ied by a landlord, with the• certificate of two house-
holders, should be deemed sufficient.

Mr. JENKINS said that %hat would not obviate the
i difficulty, as the landlord cou'id not be compelled to re
I ceive the money and sign the receipt.