The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE :‘!: 9, 1860.

to the circumstances in which they were placed, and be-
lieving it to be an infringement of their rights and privi-
leges to be debarred from making any amendment in this
bill, he abstained from moving any amendment.
The Earl of WICKLOW did not know why Scotland
and Ireland should be deprived of a benefit of this kind, for
he understood the principle of this bill to be that it was to
induce the people of this country to substitute a more whole-
some beverage for that fiery spiritual beverage—(a laugh)
—to which they were now accustomed. If there were any
portion of the empire to which this principle was most ap-
plicable it was to those two countries, Scotland and Ire-
land, where the manufacture of ardent spirits was princi-
pally carried on, and where, consequently, there was com-
paratively the greatest consumption. If they were to
substitute wine for spirituous liquors, surely there was no
portion of the empire that stood more in need of the benefits
of this bill. As those two portions of the empire were
to be deprived of the blessings of Parliamentary reform, he
could not understand why they were also to be deprived of
the benefits of beverage reform.
The Earl of DONOUG H MORE said he understood that
this was to be treated as a supply bill, and he was very sorry
to hear it, because the greater part of the bill related to mat-
ters with regard to which that house was in the habit of
legislating. He agreed with the noble earl (Earl Shaftes-
bury) that this was not a proper time to enter into a dis-
cussion of the privileges of the House of Lords, and, there-
fore, he should be very unwilling to introduce any amend-
ment. But there were certain clauses in the bill to which
he entertained a strong objection, and he asked the noble
earl whether any amendment of them would be a breach of
the privileges of the House of Commons ? The whole of
the licensing system under this bill differed essentially from
that under which the licensed victuallers now obtained their
licenses. The bill proposed to introduce a number of other
persons into the trade. Now he did not ask for the licensed
victuallers any monopoly. He did not think the house would
support any suoh monopoly, but at least they had a right to
demand that the conditions under which they were placed
should be the same as those under which other persons were
placed who had the same privileges. Now a licensed vic-
tualler had to apply to a magistrate, who had complete dis-
cretion as to whether he would or would not grant him a
license. He had to go to the magistrates to obtain a certifi-
cate for a license, and then he went to the excise, and upon I
that certificate the excise granted a license. But what was
the course to be pursued under this bill ? The person who
wished to obtain a license did not go to the magistrates, but
to the excise, and the excise served a notice on the magis-
trates, and if the magistrates did not in a certain number of
days enter a caveat the license would be granted as a matter
of course; and the magistrates, moreover, could not enter
that caveat without stating the specific grounds on which
they did so. Now that was not putting these persons in the
same position as the licensed victuallers; and for the pur-
pose of putting them in that position he would, if it were
competent for him to do so, move to insert words in the 10th
clause to the effect that no license should be granted except
on the production of the certificate of magistrates, in the
same way as they granted certificates to licensed victuallers.
He should also move to insert words in the 13th clause. The
noble earl opposite asked the reason why Ireland and Scot-
land were not included in this 'bill. He thought he could
tell him. He believed that when the bill was first introduced
it was intended to include those two countries, but it met
with such opposition that if it had not been restricted to Eng-
land it would not have been carried. He thought the bill
would be a failure, and he was not sorry to see that the expe-
rimentum in corpore viii, instead of being on Ireland; would
for the first time be tried on England.
The Earl of HARRINGTON said this was a mixed ques-
tion, partly fiscal and partly otherwise. He did not object
to the free trade part of the till; but what he objected to
was the new licensing system. Intoxicating drinks were
the great causes of immorality, of irreligion, and disease ;
and this bill would place crime more within the reach of the
people. He denied that light wines, as they were called,
were so innocent a beverage as they were said to be. Beer
contained only eight per cent, of alcohol, but wine con-
tained from 10 to 40 per cent. The most eminent authori-
ties were agreed in stating that the people of this country
taxed themselves to the amount of more than 50 millions a
year for wines, spirits, beer, and tobacco, and he deprecated
any measure which would place alcoholic drinks more
within the reach of the people.
Earl GRANVILLE said he gave the noble earl credit for
the consistency and earnestness with which he advocated
the temperance movement. The real question was not
whether wine was a good or a bad thing, but whether this
bill on the whole would encourage temperance. The noble
earl thought it right to ge to the extreme, and he recom-
mended that a measure should be carried to enable the
ratepayers to prevent a man from drinking a glass of beer.
The Earl of HARRINGTON—No, only not in public-
houses.
Earl GRANVILLE—But the noble earl would impose
restrictions of that kind. But there was another way of
promoting habits of temperance, by introducing the use of
milder and less pernicious beverages, so as gradually to
wean the people from those abominable liquors which they
were accustomed now to consume. The right hon. gentle-
man, in introducing this bill, had been actuated by such
an intention. Some of the objections which had been taken
to this bill would vanish as soon as they were looked at.
One noble earl had spoken very indignantly about certain
clauses which hP did not appear to have examined for
himself. He had referred to the aura clause ae aelding with
the police in a manner never thought of in any legisla-
tive enactment before. But if he had read the clause, he
must have seen in the margin that it was derived from the
10th and 11th Victoria, chapter 89, section 84. As to the
grievance of the keepers of refreshment-houses being called
upon to pay 10s. 6d. for a license, and to a number of those
houses being placed in a difficulty by their leases not allow-
ing them to sell articles of this description, no such com-
plaints had reached the Treasury from the parties them-
selves since this bill was brought before Parliament. In his
complaint of the police having access to all those houses,
the noble earl laboured under a great mistake, for he sup-
posed that everybody would be obliged to take out a license,
and would be liable to that police visitation. But it was
only to those who kept nighthouses, which were open from
nine o'clock at night till five o'clock in the morning, that
the clause applied, and it was most necessary, in order to
secure the public tranquillity, and for other reasons, that
the police should exercise some superintendence over those
houses. It was quite true that, by the wording of the
clause the police would have a right to enter those houses
in the day time as well as at night. That was a question
which the Government had considered ; but if hereafter it
should be thought advisable to alter the police acts in that
respect, there might be some further legislation on the
matter. As to whether their lordships' house had any
power to alter the provisions of such a bill as this, he would
not again raise the question of constitutional privilege. This
bill no doubt was one partly of a fiscal character, and partly
one which affected general policy. Their lordships, how-
ever, could deal with the latter portion only by amending
or expunging the clauses relating thereto, and it was the in-
variable practice of the House of Commons to consider
themselves obliged to reject any bill of this kind which had
been so amended. Of course it might then be open to the
Government in the other House of Parliament to re •intro-
duce the bill, but it would only be worth while to
adopt that course in order to attain some very
important object. A noble lord had expressed his wish to
make an alteration in the bill, with a view to give the
magistrates the same powers with regard to wine licenses
that they now possessed with regard to public-houses. But
one of the main objects of the bill was to diminish those
very powers. At present the magistrates took upon them-
selves to decide what number of public-houses wore neces -
sary in a district, and the result was a monopoly injurious
to the consumer, and not beneficial to the public morals.
Therefore, one of the great advantages of the bill was that
it would make a change in that system, and any amend-
ment to the effect which the noble lord proposed could not
be agreed to. Another noble lord had raised an objection,
that it was hard for Ireland and Scotland to be excluded
from the benefits of this bill, and his noble friend had
volunteered an answer to that, saying that when the bill
was first introduced it did apply to Ireland and Scotland,
but that the Irish and Scotch made such an opposition to
it, that the Government found it impossible to maintain
that point. Unfortunately, this was quite wrong, and his
noble friend had been greatly misinformed. Ireland and
Scotland were not in the bill originally. He believed that
in Ireland opinions were divided on the subject, some being
in favour of the bill there, and some against it ; but in
Scotland all the opinions he had heard were strongly in
favour of it. According to the usual precedent, when this
bill had been passed for England, a similar bill would be
introduced, applicable to Scotland and to Ireland, with such
modifications as might be desirable on account of the
different police regulations and other circumstances of the
country.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
The Earl of HARRINGTON drew attention to the 13th
clause, defining the new powers of the magistrates. He
proposed to strike out from line 27 to lino 41, and to put in
some words, giving the magistrates the same powers, with
regard to those wine licenses, that they now possessed with
regard to other licenses, "in the exercise of a fair discretion,
as provided by the act of the 6th George IV., chapter 6,
section 1."
Earl GRANVILLE remarked that he had already stated
the reasons why he could not agree to this amendment.
Lord DENMAN expressed his own opinion that, with
the vast number of houses for the sale of drink that were
now open in this country, the bill was quite unnecessary.
The consumption of wine already amounted to 727,000 gal-
lons, which would be raised to 900.000 in the first year of
the treaty, and he had observed that the price of wine had
been reduced throughout thexountry during the last few
days, in consequence of the reduction of the Customs duty.
He thought there was no need to provide additional facilities
for the traffic in intoxicating drinks.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill passed
;hrough committee.
After a few words across the table between the noble
ords,

Earl GRANVILLE fixed the third reading for Monday
next.

Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal Bill passed through coin.
inittee.
The Sale of Gas Bill was read a third time.
Their lirdships then adjourned.