The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-03 00:00:00

APRIL 3, 1860.

section of the community which he (Mr. Crook) repre-
sented-was, that having consented to the introduction of
foreign wines, they believed the facilities for its distribution
now existing were amply sufficient. There were 105,000
persons at the present time set up by law specially to ad-
minister to the comfort, or to corrupt, demoralise, and de-
base the people, and this bill would add largely to that num-
ber. The bill was in direct opposition to the report of the
committee of 1854, which was presided over by the present
President of the Poor-law Board, with the exception of the
provision placing coffee-shops and refreshment-houses
under the supervision of the police. The bill made the
labours of the committee quite useless, and would prevent
the house acting upon their report at any future time ; and
he wondered why the right hon. gentleman had not pro-
posed to allow ardent spirits to be sold by every shop. The
committee of 1354 recommended that no intoxicating drinks
should be sold without a license of not less than £6; but
under the present bill a shop could be opened for the sale of
wines with a license which would not cost more than 2d. a
day. The result of the committee's report was that the facili-
ties for the distribution of intoxicating drinks should be
largely reduced ; and in the face of that and the other facts
he had mentioned he appealed to those members who were
fathers of families and justices of the peace, whether they
could conscientiously give their support to such a measure.
He implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the
grounds of propriety and temperance, to withdraw so fatal
a measure out of regard for the interests of the poor; but if
he did not do so ho believed that the wisdom of the house
I would reject it. He moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.

Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, in seconding the amendment,
disclaimed being the representative of any temperance asso-
ciation or other body, and said he opposed the bill because
he thought that upon many grounds it would not tend to
the welfare of the community. Experience proved that
three-fourths, if not five-sixths, of the cases which came
before the criminal courts of the country were referable to
the temptations, the seductions, and the degrading influ •
ences of licensed public-houses and beer-shops. (Hear.)
He submitted that neither upon fiscal, sanitary, nor moral
grounds had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made out a
case in favour of the bill. Mr. M'Culloch said he doubted
whether inferior wines, if introduced into this country free
of duty, would be very much drank ; and that he thought
beer would continue to be drunk by the bulk of the popula-
tion. The Economist newspaper, in an article upon the sub-
ject, said that there were a great many weak wines produced
in France which might be made sufficiently strong for the
English palate by the introduction of alcohol in the shape of
brandy. This was the cloven foot of the affair, and would
let the people know what they had to expect. A French
gentleman examined before one of the wine committees also
said that the French producers had no anxiety with regard
to their good wines, and that what they wanted was to got
rid of their bad vintages. (Hear, hear.) Not a single peti-
tion had been laid on the table in favour of the bill, and in
his opinion the present facilities for the sale of spirits and
wines were amply sufficient, and he trusted the house would
pause before it thrust upon the people greater temptations.
It appeared that in order to carry out the treaty with France
they must thrust these wines down the throats of the pub-
lic. The bill was as clumsy a piece of legislation as he ever
saw, because under it barbers, greengrocers, tailors, aid in
fact any other shopkeeper might take out a license for the
sale of wine. Then came clause 4, which contained a most
dangerous principle. Every place of refreshment, every
oyster shop, every little shop for the sale of buns or biscuits
was obliged to take out a wine license. That was licensing
with a vengeance. But this was not all—with the French
wines they also introduced French police. (Hear, hear.) By
a later clause of the bill constables had discretionary power
to enter these places, however respectable, at any hour of
the day. As a lover of constitutional freedom he protested
against this inquisitorial system. (Hear, hear.) The man
who gave or lent his room in which his neighbours or a
pie-nic party might come and eat their food must take
out a license. The 12th section gave an extraordinary
power to the magistrates. If, after a notice for the license,
any objection was offered within 30 days by a magistrate,
the excise were not to grant the license. This was worse
than the French system. Here was a bill which deprived a
man of his license simply on the objection of a magistrate
that he did not consider the house a bona fide eating-house.
He should like to know what was a bona fide eating-house ?
There was no definition of it in the bill. The license was
to be given on the ground that a man when he ate wanted
drink. He (Mr. Seymour) agreed with this : but, if the
argument were good for anything, the man ought to be
allowed to choose what he would drink—he ought to be
allowed to drink beer, if he chose, as well as French wine.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—He may.
Mr. SEYMOUR—There was nothing to show that he
might in the bill. Then as to the clause relating to adul-
teration, it struck at the small shopkeeper, but left the
adulteration by the shopkeeper unchecked. He objected to
the bill on every ground, financial, political, and moral.
The Beer Bill. which was introduced to give the working
man cheap beer, was a failure—and this would be more so,
while, like that bill, it would increase immorality and crime.
Mr. KER SEYMER considered the proposition to grant
wine licenses to refreshment houses the best part of the
budget ; but ke was not surprised that it should be opposed,
and by two opposite parties. He expected, too, to find that
the strongest opposition would be from the licensed vic-
tuallers, for moral opposition was rarely so effectual
as a selfish opposition. The advocates of temperance were
mistaken, he thought, in their ground of opposition. At
the same time, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, which would extend the liquor traffic, was quite a
godsend to the Total Abstinence people, who had all the
paraphernalia of agitation and were anxious to exercise it
for the introduction of the Maine law. As to the more mo -
derate objectors, who said the bill would increase drunken-
ness, he could not see that the present system prevented
people from getting drunk if they chose to do so. The
house had determined to reduce the wine duty, and the
next step was to give free scope to its consumption by
allowing it to be sold in refreshment houses. Many would
prefer beer, no doubt, but let them have wine if they
chose. The question for the house to consider was whether
the only path to cheap wine should be through the gin
shop. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had decided wisely that it should not. (Cheers.)
There was no greater anomaly that struck a Frenchman in
this country than that law which prohibited the proprietors
of eating houses selling wine or beer, and he thought on all
grounds that it would be desirable to remove that anomaly,
The licensed victuallers said this bill was not free trade,
but they endeavoured to mystify the question. The question
of free trade was not involved in the bill before the house
at all. That question was whether they should restrict any
number of persons from selling beer; and he knew that
there were hundreds of persons who were competent to keep
houses, but who were forbidden to do so, and that was the
question of free trade. The licensed victuallers then said
the bill would lead to an extension of drinking. Now, did
these publicans really oppose the extension of drinking?
True, they said drinking in these wine-shops would be had,
but drinking in gin-shops was the best of all possible.
(Laughter.) To catch a few Conservative votes, they said
that these houses would be the resort of Radical politicians.
Well, all knew that " pothouse politicians" was a pro-
verbial term, and all Englishmen would talk politics, but
he did not feel any alarm about these new houses. And
then these gentlemen said that respectable women were
ashamed to be seen at the bar of public houses. Well, if
they were the respectable and virtuous places as stated, he
did not see why persons should be ashamed to go there.
(Hear, hear.) And the daily organ of the publican body
had stated in a recent number that if a man should go into
a pastrycook's shop he would find his wife disgracefully
drunk in the back parlour, and his daughter employed in
something worse in the attic. (Hear.) But all that was
only wet thy of the quarter from which it came. (Hear.)
That was the case of the publicans as stated by themselves.
He had shown that the teetotallers were not fair judges of
the question, and many persons like the hon. member for
Leominster were needlessly alarmed. The position of the
licensed victuallers was wholly selfish, and he did hope the
parliament of this country would sanction this measure.
Mr. HARDY said he would not impute to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer any intention to corrupt the morals of the
country. The course taken by the hon. member for Dorset-
shire did not touch the question, which was whether it was
necessary' or advisable to increase the places for the
sale of intoxicating liquors—(hear, hear)—and whether
to do so would increase the revenue without injury
to social order. He was quite clear of brewers and all
other persons, and therefore he might say that he did not
believe in the cry against them, nor did ke believe that the
licensed ♦ictuallers would suffer to the extent of
£50,000,000, as alleged in their memorial ; indeed, he did
not think they would be affected at all at present. The
present system of licensing he could not defend ; it was
open to improvement, and the justices should have the full
control over all places where persons assembled together
for the purpose of drinking, The system of appeal, as it
now existed, he was not satisfied with, for it had become a
mere form, and generally the magistrates in quarter sessions
affirmed the decisions of the justices below. He was opposed
to the doctrine of the United Alliance Society. The use of
the thing was good, the abuse bad. No doubt these drinks
were harmless in their use but prejudioal in their abuse,
and it was the duty of the house to check the abuse of them.
The object of the bill was to raise a revenue, and he be-
lieved that it would be a failure. The loss from one source
would not be made up by the admission of French wines
into this country and to be sold by refreshment houses. It
was a remarkable fact that, as the Secretary to the Treasury
had told them the other night, nearly the whole of the indi-
rect revenue of the country was made out of nervous stimu-
lan ts. No doubt the community required A, good deal of
stimulant to raise its spirit from the depression into which
a temporary income tax was so well calculated to throw it.
(A laugh.) The bill, they were told, was to secure the sale
of u Well, what had the free vintners of Landon sold?
Look at the evidence of Sir R. Mayne, and they would
find that the free vintners sold spirits under colour of
wine. (Year, hear.) And what security had they that
the same thing would not occur, when they placed
beershop-keepers in a position similar to that of the
free vintners? Indeed he should like to know on what
principle they could allow wine to bo sold, and not extend
the same privilege with regard to spirits? Depend upon
it, they were opening a door which they could never again
shut ; and when this measure 'Ad—pa fail it would—