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

laudable object; but the magistrates themselves said that
they had 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 h. -
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 —ho transferred
the license to his barman. (Hear, hear.) The 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. lie
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 •
perty ; it had nothing to do with police—nothing to do
with the preservation of good order. (Hear, hear.) By
their own confession the magistrates were incompetent to
decide to whom licenses ought to be granted, and by the re-,
suit 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 there was no
evidence of that. On the contrary, there was a great deal
of evidence that in the large 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 one point strongly
established before the committee, he said it was that the
haviage 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.
• (Hear.) 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 with regard
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 bo satisfactorily amended. (Hear.)
Sir W. MILES assented to the principles laid down by
the Chancellor ef the Exchequer respecting the wine duties,
but wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman was
willing to omit from the bill the tax on refreshment-houses.
He quite agreed that wine licenses ought to be given to 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. Peto) 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 T 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 deyising 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 spoleren 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 refreshMentis
sold—not to impose that liability even upon all houses where
casually it may be consumed upon the premises—but to im-
pose it upon houses which are kept open fur the purpose of
selling refreshment to be consumed on the premises. (Hear.)
I mean that the consumption upon the premises is to be 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 barleysugar cases, 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-
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 I am bound
to say that I do not believe there is any great objection to
the supervision of the police by this description ef 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 I do 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.
(Hoar.) Any proposals which accord with the general
spirit of the suggestions made by the committee will answer
my purpose, and if the house 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 bo 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,