The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-27 00:00:00

MARCH 27, ILF6O,

to respect it as it now stood if we could find anything better
as a substitute. But such was our present position with
regard to revenue and expenditure that unless we trusted
in some degree to direct taxation, he did not know where
the revenue was to come from. We could not re-

mpose indirect taxes, and the inevitable conclusion there-
fore was that we must resort to direct taxation. He trusted

that another year would not pass without this question of
the income tax being taken into the deliberate considera-
tion of .the house, and that the house would not be dis-
suaded from dealing with it by any feeling of despair as to
the results of its labours.
Lord H. VANE said that the cnnmittee of 1853 arrived

at the conclusion that the .difficulties in the way of a real
adjustment of the income tax, so that justice might be dealt
out to all parties, was impossible. He was not opposed to
direct taxation, yet looking to the state of our relations
abroad, especially after the discusoion in the earlier part of
the evening, he confessed he viewed the budget with some
alarm.

M rBENTINCK said that having refrained on a forraer.

occasion from trespassing on the time of the house he would

now offer a few observations. The Chancellor of the Ex

chequer was about to propose the repeal of the 7th Geo.
11., an act which was passed in the first place for three
years as an experiment, and then made perpetual,
and was still in operation. The right honourable
gentleman intended to propose its repeal. The.preamble of
the act recited the evilslattending stockjobbing, and he (Mr.
Bentinck) was well aware that the practice of what was
called time bargains was sanctioned by custom but not by
law. Custom, however, had not removed the evils in con-

nexicn with time bargains. But there were many other
things which society tolerated, but which the Legislature
could not sanction. It would be remembered that the Le-

gislature had suppressed gambling houses, and it had exer-
cised a sound discretion in so doing. Now he should like

to know upon what ground the police were to be autharised
by the Government to break into houses of that description
to see whether gambling was carried on or not, when the
Legislaturd was about to sanction a more extensive and a
more mischievous system of gambling by many degrees
than any other ever invented by the mind of man. Upon
what possible ground could the present or any other Go-
vernment continue to suppress the practice of gambling if
they were now to sanction, by legislative enactment, time
bargains ? There was a name not to be mentioned to ears
polite applied to gambling houses, but he thought it was
strictly applicable to the Stock Exchange. It was a perfect
Pandemonium But where did this proposal come from ?
Why, from the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who represented one of the seats of learning
and virtue, piety and religion. (Laughter.) He proposed
to the Legislature to sanction one of the most mischievous
practices which ever prevailed in this country, and he (Mr.
Bentinck) thought that such practices could not be hold to
be consistent with good order and public morality. (Hear,
hear.)
TheC HANCE LLO R ofthe EXCHEQUER said he would
in the first place answer the appeal of the' hon. gentleman
the member for Norfolk. It was true he represented one of
the universities, and he would assure the hon. gentleman
that although his constituency were among the most dis-
tinguished supporters of piety and virtue, yet they had not
—and they numbered 3,Boo—sent him a single remon-
strance against the proposal, which had been published to
the world fora length of time, to repeal the act 7 Geo. 11.,
—Sir John Barnard's Act. Whether it would have the
effect which the hon. gentleman imagined he did not know,
but the principle upon which the Government had acted
was this, that it was not wise to keep on the statute book a
pretended prohibition, which was constantly violated by
the sanction of that branch of the community which stood
in connection with those practises. There was a great con-
fusion of ideas in what had been stated by the hon. gentle-
man. The hon. gentleman lamented and deplored the
great temptations offered to young men on the Stock Ex-
change, and no doubt many resorted to that place who had
less, discretion than means, from a desire to acquire a for
tune rapidly. The matter was one to be regretted, but
these things were not bad in themselves, but made so by
those who resorted to the Exchange for the purpose of
speculating. But that observation did not apply to the
Stock Exchange only, for all descriptions of dealing in the
funds and in mining speculations, and in joint-stock banks,
and in a quantity of other things, involved the principle of
gambling when taken to by persons who had, from their
limited knowledge and means, no business with them.
(Hear.) With regard [to time bargains, the question was
whether they were so bad in themselves that the legislature
ought to interfere with private discretion and to prohibit
them. This prohibition was perfectly ineffectual ; the law
in question was an absoltite dead letter, and had been so
almost over since the day it was enacted, and for the sake
of the respect in which laws should be held by the whole
community, the laws ought, practically, to have some force
in them ; they ought not to be passed by the legislature as
mere expressions of abstract opinion, but as instruments of
government. The question was not whether foolish persons
might be tempted to ruin themselves, both in their fortunes
and morally, by dabbling in these time bargains, but
whether they were so essentially immoral as to make it
proper to proscribe them, like the practices carried on in a
gambling-house. Even the transactions in a gambling-house
were not easy to define or describe, when it was sought to
put down the evil by law, and as no great philosophical
nicety could be attained, it was requisite to include every-
thing which bore a resemblance to the evil in question.
With regard to these time bargains, he was not prepared to
say, on the-face of the facts within the knowledge of every-
body, that there was anything essentially in the nature of
a time bargain which was vicious or immoral, so that it
ought to be proscribed by law. As. for the class of gentle-
men who dealt in money, he did not believe there was a
more respectable class of men in the commercial world than
those who were connected with the Stock Exchange in
London ; and time bargains were a part of the regular busi-
ness of the class of gentlemen whose business it was to deal
in money as their trade and daily occupation. These trans-
actions could not be divided by any difference of principle
from transactions in the funds. No doubt that they involved
a greater degree of hazard, but that was just as the insur-
ance of high risks involved greater hazards than low risks.
At the time when Parliament attempted to proscribe these
time bargains, an idea prevailed that all dealings in the
stocks and funds were deserving of reprobation, and there-
fore stock;jobbing was called " a wicked practice." In those
days, also, what were called forestalling and regrating were
considered moral offences ; the forestaller being a man who
bought corn when a scarcity was coining on in order to sell
it at the time when the scarcity was at its height ; and it
was now considered that the conduct of such a man, by early
raising the price, and so diminishing the consumption, had a
beneficial effect. These things were quite elementary, and
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was almost ashamed
to dwell upon them ; but if the lion. member objected to the
repeal of Sir John Sarnard's Act, let him go back and re-
vive all the other old statutes of that good old time in
George ll.'s reign, of which this act was a remnant. '
Mr. BOVILL remarked that in the eighth and ninth year
of the present reign an act had been passed to prevent wager
contracts being enforced in courts of law, and the legisla-
tion against time bargains, which it was new proposed to
repeal by a simple resolution, was based on the same prin-
ciple. In India, where wager bargains were legal, enormous
mischief had resulted from speculations in opium, by which
some of the largest mercantile houses bad been placed in
jeopardy. He had heard of one firm which stood to win a
million and a half of money upon a single operation.
The resolution, as reported from the Committee' of Ways
and Means, was then agreed to, and so were the resolutions
for a penny stamp on dock warrants, delivery orders, bills
of exchange, and sundry other instruments.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUBBARD,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said these
resolutions did not at all affect the question of law which
had been raised with regard to the liability of coupons and
dividend warrants, under the act passed in 1855, to bear a
penny stamp. It was well known that, in consequence of
a decision against their liability, it was not intended to en-
force it.
The next resolution, imposing a stamp on certificated
copies of registry:of births, deaths, baptisms, and marriages,
transfer of mining shares, certificates of probate, and lease
agreements, were then reported.
In reply to Mr. PULLER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it wits hard to draw the line as regarded foreign stocks, and
levying a probate duty upon thew. However, he thanked
his hon. friend for calling attention to the matter. The
difficulty was in levying probate duty on property not ab-
solutely English. The matter would be anxiously consi-
dered by the Government.
The report was then agreed to.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE
LICENSES BILL.

On the order of the dziirfoTtl;;;;Cond reading of this
bi:l,

Petitions were presented against it by several members,
including Mr. J. Ewart, from Liverpool; Sir C. Napier,
Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Ker Soymer. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising
to move the second reading of the bill, said his hon.
friend the member for Liverpool had just presented a peti-
tion which described the measure before the house as a con-
fiscation of the property of the licensed vikituallers. Now
he was anxious to say that it was extremely difficult to dis-
cuss the question before them without more or less indi-
cating the opinions of the Government as to the present
system under which drinking houses were licensed and
managed ; and he was afraid that, so far as his opinion
might become apparent, it would be very unfavourable to
the system. But at the same time the Government were
very anxious, in framing a bill which had in view a ccm-
paratively limited object, to avoid everything like the feel-
ing described in the language of the petition from Liver-
pool. There was much that been pressed upon the Go-
vernment by the sellers if beer, and there was much au-
thority due to the report of a committee of that house, which
warned them that some time or other they must deal with
the whole system under which the sale of strong liquors
had been regulated. It was not their intention, however,
upon that occasion to propose a complete and final settle-
ment of the question, but a measure of much more limited
tendency. The question was one of very great practical
importance, and one which no consideration of a party or
purely political character could interfere ; and the measure
which he had to propose was undoubtedly also of consider-
able fiscal importance, because it originated in a fiscal pro-
posal, for it would have been absurd to propose a great di•
urination of the wine duties and to bold out a hope to the
house that the revenue would be rapidly recovered, unless,
at the dame time, the Government was prepared to submit
a measure to Parliament by which the channels for the
sale and consumption of wine should be greatly altered and
enlarged. But although fiscal considerations formed the
immediate occasion of the measure, it had undoubtedly an
important bearing upon the social eondition of the cora-
rounity—(hear, hear)—it had a decided bearing upon the
great question of public sobriety ; and the ground on
which ho earnestly commended it to the house was not be-
cause of its importance with respect to fiscal ends, but upon
the ground that it was a good and wise measure, with re-
gard, first, to the enlargement of the comforts of the
people, and, secondly, with reference to the promotion of
temperance, and sobriety as opposed to drunkenness and de •
moralisation. (Cheers.) In the discussions which he had had
with the various ps.rtios who viewed the bill with more or
less aversion and suspicion, he was obliged to hold firmly
by two conditions. The opponents of the bill had been two
parties who for the nonce had acted in conjunction, and yet
it would seem a jest to mention such an alliance in that
house. One of them had been
the humbler tho licenssellersed victuaofllersbeer , who
represented in some degree and
of wine, but, at the same time, the sellers of ardent spirits,
which sale was by far the favourite portion of their trade.
The other party had been a body of gentlemen, of whom he
was unable to speak either there or elsewhere save with the
profoundest respect, inasmuch as they were gentlemen who
were anxiously endeavouring. to lay the axe, as they thought,
at the root of a great social evil. (Hear, hear, hear.) He
spoke of them, then, with the utmost respect, and ho referred
to " the Temperance Society." But at the same time he at
once avowed a broad difference of opinion between the
society and himself. Ho believed that so far as the article
of wine was concerned, there was a use apart from an abuse
of wine ; whereas those gentlemen drew no distinction be-
tween the use and abuse—and in their view it would be just
as proper to talk of legalising the use of perjury or theft as
to `propose the introduction of cheap wines. Ho was bound,
however, to say that of those two classes of opponents, he
had not the slightest doubt from which the most formidable
opposition was to be expected. .(Hear, hear.) He frankly

avowed that those who represented the National Temperance
Society had much more in view than the acquittance of
their consciences and the liberation of their souls, in wash-

ing their hands of all responSibility in connection with
a measure of this kind, than the prosecution of a real and
earnest opposition to it. Indeed, apart from their general
objections, they did Rot hesitate to say the bill was a great
improvement upon the existing system. With regard to
the other class, he would only say that he was quite sure
the house might pass an impartial judgment upon the bill,

both as it effected public policy arid public morality.
Those who were adverse to the principle of the-bill varied
greatly in the grounds of their opposition. But the answer
of the Government was, that there 'were two conditions
which they could not depart from. One of these conditions
was, that they could not consent to leave the sale of wine
at the mercy of the restricted channels now in existence.
That was a fundamental proposition. It rested on the
ground thit the channels of consumption were ludicrously
restricted. The other fundamental ground was, that the
channels for the sale of wine were unduly restricted in pro-
portion to the channels for the sale of other strong liquors.
It was stated to him by a deputation of licensed victuallers,
as a plea for the efficiency of the present channels of con-
sumption, that there were sixty-three thousand houses
licensed for the sale of spirits. It appeared unreasonable to
deny that in quantity at least such a number ought to be
sufficient. But he found that though about 100,000 houses
licensed for the sale of strong liquors to be consumed on
the premises, though beer was the natural drink of the
population, and after that wine, no house could get a license
for the sale of wine which had not also a license for the

sale of spirits. That was to offer a premium on the sale of
spirits. He appealed, therefore, to the advocates of tem-
perance and sobriety as to whether it was possible to justify
that %tate of the law. But how did that state of things

work? The houses licensed for the sale of spirits were
63,000 in number; but of that nnmber only 23,000 had
licenses for the sale of wine. Under these circumstances

he felt confident by anticipation of the judgment of the
house when they were asked whether it would not be wiser

to give increased facilities for the sale of wine than to ad-
here to the present system. Then as to the quality of the
wine sold in public helms ; on that ground alone it would
be requisite to alter the channels of sale and consumption,
so as to admit of free competition. Every one knew the de-
scription of wine sold in this country, and that with the ex-
ception of the high priced wines to be had in hotels of a car-
tam class, what was sold as such was a mixture that no pen
or tongue could describe. White -wine, as sold in public
houses, was a mixture of fire and water; and red wine was
composed of the juice of the sloe, or of other substances which
may be more baneful, with a strong infusion of some descrip -
tion of spirits. The second proposition was fundamental
in respect of a useful and salutary measure such as that be
fore the house—namely, that whatever might be done with
the control of the police and magistrates, the Government
would not be responsible for the extension of the present
licensing system. He made no reproach to the magistrates.
Indeed, the bill was framed en the principle that confidence
might be fairly reposed in them, in so far as intelligence and
integrity went. But the licensing system imposed duties on
the magistrates which it was impossible they could satisfac-
factorily discharge. It made them the judges, for instance,
of the quantity of liquor which any number of human be-
ings could consume ; and so led to absurdity and inequality.
In some places the magistrates determined the capacity of
the population to consume strong drink was limited, and
they accordingly limited the number of licenses. In other
places the contrary principle prevailed. In Liverpool, for
example, with a population about the same as Manchester,
the number of public houses was threefold more. If, then,
this matter was to be regulated by authority, it should be
regulated on a definite principle, so as to ensure uniformity
of action, and to give satisfaction and content to the people
of this country. But it was not only because the present
licensing system gave rise to inequality, and produced
heartburnings and discontent, that it was objectionable; it
was, moreover, entirely inefficient. Ile (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had received a statement from certain li-
censed victuallers of Liverpool in opposition to the bill,
which showed the moral tendency of the system of licens-
ing. These persons stated in that memorial that there were
in Liverpool 1,536 licensed public-houses, and that in that
number there were 178 known to the police to be the resort
of thieves and prostitutes. And yet these houses were regu-
larly licensed by the magistrates. That was the state of
things, and that was the system which, on moral grounds,
the Government were aeked not to meddle with. (Hoar, hear.)
The tendency of the present licensing system was to create a
monopoly. Where there was a monopoly there were proprie-
tary interests---or rather what were called vested interests ;
and, accordingly, such an interest had grown up in the
licensing of public-houses, apart from the interest on the
premises. The existence of that vested interest was one of
the most formidable opponents to the effectual control of
the police and the magistrates over public-houses. When,
therefore, it was proposed to him to rear up a new class of
houses of the same description, his answer was it would be
to raise up the same system, and to make wine houses the
nucleus of fresh vested interests, and so to impede the ope-
rations of the power of the police and the magistracy. That
conclusion was the reason -why he declined to present any
bill to the house for placing wine liceisses under the same
system as public .houses. Short of these two propositions,
however, to rest satisfied with the present licensing system,
in connection with the sale of wines, and to create a new
system of vested interests, such as had been created under
the public-house licensing, there was no proposition for the
maintenance of good order in these houses that Ike was not
willing to receive and entertain. So much for the general
view of the question. He would now describe the main ob-
jects of the measure. They were three in number, in two of
which he anticipated the unanimous concurrence of the
house. One of these was for the sale of wine not to be Con-
sumed on the premises. The sale of wine in that form was
both unexceptionable and desirable for the supply of fami-
lies, and he therefore proposed that, subject to a moderate
license duty, every retail shopkeeper should have the power
to take out a license for the sale of wine not to be consumed
on the premises. Passing on to a more socially important
portion of the bill, it proposed to obtain one object, viz., an
efficient police control in connection with the sale of strong
liquors. To that effect it proposed that any house wherein
strong liquors were sold should be under the direct control
of the polies. The ground of this was that some of those
houses might be the receptacle of disorderly characters.
He believed theta was no second opinion as to the propriety
of biinging these houses within the scope of the bill. There
was, however, an important exemption, viz., of houses be-
low the value of £lO, in places the population of which was
under a certain number. That would include those vil-
lage shops where ginger wine and other things
were sold. He believed this exemption would also
be generally agreed to. The third portion of the
bill referred to licensing eating-houses for the sale of wine.
The idea had got abroad that all refreshment houses were
to be licensed for the sale of wine, but there could be no
greater error. The fundamental principle of the bill was
to draw a distinction between refreshment houses and eating
houses. In licensing eating houses the bill had in view the
creation of a system more healthful and natural, and less
liable to the contingencies of evil than the present system.
Obviously Nature intended that the functions of eating and
drinking should be carried on together: (Laughter.) But the
existing law did everything to separate these functions, the
one from the other. There were some 70,000 or 80,000 di-ink-
ing houses in England, and not one eating house among
them all. The law had constituted a monopoly for the sale
of drink, but not for the sale of victuals. The result was
that the trade in drink was fostered and promoted, to the
neglect of the trade in victuals ; and so the business of eat-
ing and drinking had been separated. People of the higher
classes took care of themselves in that respect in clubs ; but
the licensing system placed it beyond the means of the mid-
dle and poorer classes. The operation of the system of sepa-
ration was against sobriety of habit ; and the consequence
was, not that the desire of drink was got rid of, but that man
were compelled to go to places where drinking was a busi-
ness. If it was desired to devise a scheme for the promo-
tion of drunkenness, it would be impossible to devise one
more effectual. He was told that the bill ought not to be
supported, because the Beer Mated failed ; but nothing
could be more inappropriate, as the objects of the two bills
were widely different. In Sweden, where the people, though
intelligent, were prone to the vice of drunkenness, gleat
-efforts had been made of late years to restrain that vice ;
and one measure to that effect, which had been very suc-
cessful, was a provision in the law that spirits should not
be sold in any house except that victuals were sold also.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think the
use of wine would cause any decrease in the consumption of
beer and spirits, as there -was a population inereasmg
number and wealth, which aflOrded a legitimate sphere for
the consumption of that article without trenching on these.
But the bill would give the people an easier access to a mild
liquor than they heretofore enjoyed, and he looked upon that
as a matter of great consequence. He had had letters stat-
ing that there were many drunken people in Paris, but he
would willingly exchange the drunkenness of Paris for the
drunkenness of London. It was a universal
principle that
where wine was abundant there was little or no drunken-
ness, and though he was not likely to insist on the converse
of that proposition, be was obliged to admit that in many
instances it held good. Besides the advantage of reuniting
eating and drinking, which he presented to the house as
the main object of the bill, he thought he might say it pro-
vided a much better and more effectual system of control
than any at present in existence. Every one who kept a
refreshment house, subject to a limited exemption, would
be required to make out a license, and would thus come
under the control of the police. Every one who kept an
eating-house would be enabled to apply to the Excise for a
wine license ; but the officer of Excise, before the license
issued, must make known the fact to the magistrates, and
the magistrates had the power to elect, and to put an ab-
solute veto on the issue of the license, provided that they
could assert either that the house was not an eating-house
within the meaning of the act, or that it was a house kept
or frequented by disorderly persons. He admitted that that
was a large power, that it might almost be called an arbi-
trary power, and that it was one which could not be justi-
fied, unless they had confidence in the integrity and intele
ligence of the magistrates. (Hear.) The reason for giving
that stringent power to magistrates with respect to the ap-
plication of the definition of the term "eating-house" with-
in the meaning of the act, was, that if they were to enable
persons on undertaking to sell bread and cheese, or articles
of that kind, to call their establishments eating-houses, and
to entitle them to take out wine licenses, the practical effect
would be to give wine licenses to drinking houses instead.
of to eating-houses, whereas the object of the bill was
to give wine licenses to houses where the business of
drinking was subsidiary to that of eating. (Hear, hear.)
The magistrates would also have the power to object
to granting a license, on the ground that the house did not
correspond with the rental or value prescribed by the act, or
that the person applying had been disqualified in another
place in consequence of misconduct. He hoped that these
would prove efficient restraints upon any undue facilities for
the first issue of these licenses. (Hear, hear.) The licenses
must be renewed from year to year, and the bill gave the
magistrates the same power in cases of renewal as they had
upon receiving the notice of the first application. Besides
that, there was in the bill a system of penalties, with the
details of which he would not now weary the house. They
had been copied, for the most part, from the Beer Act,
which contained very stringent penalties, but had been im-
proved and rendered more workable. He should propose, for
example, to disqualify, under certain circumstances, the
"house" as well as the " individual ;" and he should also
propose that the penalty inflicted should be without appeal,
except on the third conviction. On the whole he thought
that if the penalties erred, it was not on the side of laxity.
Possibly, in some cases they might be considered too strin-
gent ; but that might be discussed when they got into com-
mittee. He had now explained the general scope and cffest
of the bill, and the principal provisions which it contained.
And, as he had said at the commencement, so he said at the
close : he did not propose this measure with the intention
of making it the precursor of an attack upon the privileges
now enjoyed by licensed victuallers or beer-house keepers.
That question stood on entirely distinct and independent
grounds, and would no doubt some day or other call for the
attention of the house. But this bill he recommended as
one which had a decided tendency to the promotion of
habits of sobriety in the people, and which would have that
effect both by establishing a better system of control than
any new existing, and by offering to them the means of rea-
sonable access to liquor and its refreshing influences in con-
junction with the meals which they required to take. He
hoped that the house would sanction the second reading of
the bill, aiming as
,it did at benefits of no common import-

ance with reference to all itx social and its moral bearings.
(Cheers.)
Mr. WYLD moved the adjournment of the debate.

(Cries of " Go on.")
Mr. WYLD moved the actiournment of the debate.
Mr AYRTON seconded We motion, on the ground that
as the bill was a taxing bill, it could not he conveniently
discussed until the house had considered the tax itself in
committee. It was haHly possible to imagine a more im-
nortant question than that which the measure involved ;
for it was really whether the house should impose a tax
upon a particular class of shopkeepers; and at the proper
time he should be prepared to ,state at laigth the objections
which he entertained to it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
agree Niith the hon. gentleman's conclusions if he could
agree to his premises. There could not be a greater mis-
take than to suppose that this was a taxing bill. The
licenses were wholly -incidental to the great social objects
which the measure had in view with respect to the use of
wine; and it would be absurd to consent to a tax of this
kind until the house had had an opportunity of considering
the plan of granting the wine licences. Under these cir-
eumstances, he could not consent to the adjournment.
Mr. LIDDELL expressed the objection he felt to the bill,
which he ti ought would prove injurious to the public
morals. As ter it being conducive to the public comfort
and convenience, the answer to that was the 1,700 petitions
that had been preseated against it, while no petition had
yet been laid en the table in its favour. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR contended that the bill was
certainly a taxing measure, and that in accordance with the
forms of the house the tax ought first to have been con.-

sidered ire committee.
Mr. NE WDEGATE thought the measure must be con-
sidered as a whole. Its meaning was to recompense the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the revenue which he had
given up.
Mr. HADFIELD said he had presented a petition from
his constituents, who had assembled in public meeting,
with the Vicar of Sheffield in the chair, to protest against
it. He thought that it would diminish the control of the
magistrates over the sale of liquor, and would. prove as per-
nicious as the bill which permitted the establishment of
beer-shops.
Mr. E. JAMES said it was quite clear from the language
of the bill that it was a taxing bill.
Mr. CRAWFORD said that the hon. and learned gentle-
man could only have formed that idea from his inexperience
of the forms of Parliament. The house was precluded from
considering, on the second reading, the taxing clauses, which
were printed in italic on that very account.
The.house then divided on the question of the adjourn-
ment of the debate, and the numbers were—
For the adjournment
Against
The motion was consequently lost.
On the question that the bill be read a second time,
Mr. AYRTON moved that the house should adjourn.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as he
understood that several hon. members wished to express
their sentiments on the bill, he would consent to the ad -
journment of the debate. F.
Mr. AYRTON hereupon agreed to withdraw his motion
for the adjournment of the house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Then I
fear I shall be under the necessity of asking the house to
meet at 12 o'clock on Thursday. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. HARDY protested against this proposal, on the
ground that several committees were now sitting.
Lord PALMERSTON said that that was a reason against
any morning sitting. He urged the importance of forward-
ing the business as much as possible before Easter.
Mr. DISRAELI said that morning sittings before Easter
were most unusual. (Hear. hear.) Without this there was
ample time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry
all his financial measures before Easter ; and if the Govern-
ment chose to bring on other business, in which the house
was not at all interested, the sittings of the whole of the
committees ought not to be suspended on that account.
(Hear, hear.) This ought not to be done in order that some
caprice of legislation might be again held up to the scorn
and derision of the house. (A laugh.) He should support
the bill before the house, but would not consent to a morning
sitting on Thursday, as there was ample time to dispose of
all the real business. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. JAMES said that the Government had been
warned of the inconvenience of allowing the discussion on
the Reform bill to be mixed up with those on the budget.
They ought to have brought forward that great constitu-
tional measure, the Reform Bill, at as earlier period.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site did not state what was the important measure to which
he made allusion, and which he appeared to treat with so
much scorn and contempt. But if he was not wrong in
supposing that the measure thus darkly indicated was the
Bill for the Better Representation of the People, he begged.
to remind the right hon. gentleman that there was a Re-
torte Bill last year, and that the right hon. gentleman then.
thought it so important that he submitted it to a general
election. (Cheers.) He hoped the House of Commons
would have the decency to show that they did not regard
that measure as trifling, paltry, and contemptible, by as-
senting to the proposition for meeting on Thursday morn-
ing. (Hear' hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS said that if the right hon. gentleman
had shown that the Government measure was a considerable
amelioration of the representation he would have made out
some claim for his demand. But looking to the way in which
the Reform Bill was introduced, and the way in which 'twos
treated by the Government, it was not unreasonable to infer
that it was not regarded by the Government or the house of
so much importance as to require its being read a second
time before Easter. (Hear, hear.) The proposition that VW
should meet on Thursday morning was one of the most
astounding he ever heard. The noble lord treated it with
that charming indifference with which ho treated most
questions, but it was a proposition quite unusual, and wo ala
be most inconvenient to the members of committees.
Mr. BEAUMONT did not understand the right h on•
gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) as referring to a reform of the
representation of the people of England, but to the Reboil),
Bill of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He voted for the btu
of.last year, but he did not.thin' It that the bill of the pre,,,ait
Government was of such a nature that the house should be
forced to agree to the second ring before Easter.
Sir G. GREY complained that the right hon. gentleman•
having ,d,aclared that neither he nor his party intended_i..„, to
it
offer any opposition to the second reading of the RHO'`
13i11, was naw attempting to delay what they could not de-
feat. The right hon. gentleman should remember that Lora
Derby's bill was rejected by a large majority, whereas the
present bill had met with no opposition. He thought the
present conduct of the Opposition unprecedented. (Hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE denied that Lord Derby's Reform
Bill had been rejected by the house. The noble lord the
member for London succeeded in carrying an abstract pro-
position, and thus prevented any discussion on the bill-
They' would not, however, be prevented discussing the pre'
sent Wilt as there were 25 gentlemen of great ability on that
side of the house who meant to address themselves to its
merits. laugh.)
Lord FE.RMOY said that the Ministry were themselves
to blame for ell that was now taking place. They had post-
poned the bill for six weeks, and thus had got everything
connected with the business of the house into a dead lock.
lie thought that there was a reat deal of good in the bill
of the right hon. member for Bucks, and mine good, and
much that was not good, in the Government measure. He
should certainly oppose the proposal for a morning sitting
on Thursday.
Mr. BENTINCK advocated the postponement of the
measure until after Easter. He must protest against their
carrying out so unusual a proceeding as to have a morning
sitting before the holidays.
Mr. BRISTOW said that he for one would give up an)
amount of time for the discussion of this question. He
should certainly support her Majesty's Government.
Mr. S. BOOTH hoped the Government would not per-
severe in pressing a morning sitting on the house.
Mr. SALOMONS also opposed the morning sitting.
Mr. VT. E. DUNCOMBr, said that considering the
money bills which must be passed before Easter, he thought
it would be impossible to discuss so important a measure al.
this of Parliamentary Reform.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, as the general feeling of the
house appears to be in favour of a postponement, the Go-
vernment will go on with this bill on Monday. (Hear.) It
may possibly involve the necessity of sitting on Wodnesc/51
and Thursday, but I am sure the house will not object to
that. (Hear, hear.) That is the usual course, and therefore
we will take the bill on Monday. (Cheers.)
CUSTOMS ACTS.

The house went into committee on the Customs Act s.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the ExcnEctullt,
the resolution No. 22, respecting spirits in the Channel
Islands, was agreed to.
PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL.
This bill was postponed until Thursday.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The adjourned debate upon this bill was fixed for Friday*
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL•
After a brief discussion, this bill passed through commit-
tee pro forma, with a view to the insertion of certain amemd-
ments.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at one o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—It is ever a pleasing duty for
journalist to introduce to his readers some discovery calcw
lated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow creature°
which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It ill
with ilia feeling that we call the attention of invalid"
to the following extracts from Du Barry's interesting
report of cures without medicine of indigestion (clys,
pepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, anti,
liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and
debility by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food
Cure No. 52,422—Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 160,.
I have suffered these 33 years continually from diseased
lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, sing;
ing in the ears, constipation, debility, shortness of breath and
cough, which have been removed by your Revalenta Arabic's'
My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right, of
hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all a
acquaintances. James Roberts, timber merchant'
In tins, at ls. 6d.; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., Ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 12114,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of per,
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, Londe))
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis,
Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, ()dol'.
street; 330 and 451, Strand • 49 and 60, Bishopager
street ; 85, Tottenham-conri-road. Also at Dubw:
Bewley 'and Draper ' • at Edinburgh, Raimes and C°l
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Skarp an
Scott ; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co. ; at Sow
ampton. Handal I and Son.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO Y":1c:
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, 14°'
of
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the NO"
Middlesex, Tuesday, March 27, ISGO,