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

end where it now stands—(hear, hear)—and that it will
not lead to any result greater than the cause from which it
appears to have originated. ___l should not have presented
myself to the house were it not for the mention which my
right hon. friend has made of my name in connexion with
Mr. Delane. In the first place my right hon. friend has
recorded that for a ecrtain period of time, now I am happy
to say long gone by, I sustained very bitter attacks in the
columns of the Times. It is perfectly true that during a
portion of my public life I was, in regard to the newspaper
press, one of the best abused men in England. I submitted
with patience to those attacks—(hear, and laughter)—l
trusted that my public conduct would be an answer, sooner
or later, to those attacks. (Hear.) It never occurred to
me to rise in my place in this house to complain of the at-
tacks which were so bitterly toads upon me. (Hear, hear.)
Whether my example in that respect is ono that should be,
followed, or whether those who have taken a different course
acted more properly than I did, I cannot say. My right
hon. friend had stated, in his letter, that he did not know
what the influences were which Mr. Delano, one of the edi-
tors or managers of the Times, attributed to me. If by that
ho implies that any wish or influence of mine has been exer-
cised over the line of conduct of the proprietors of the Times,
I can only say with Mrs. Malaprop that I should be glad to
plead to that soft impeachment—(laughter)—if such insin-
uations were really founded on fact. If there are any in-
fluences which have led Mr. Delano to me they are the in-
fluences of society. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend
has himself stated in his glowing address that the contri-
butors to the press are the favourites and ornaments of every
society into which they enter. He is perfectly right in that
expression. They are generally men, as he states, of great
information and great attainments, and therefore they are
men whose society must be agreeable to those with whom
they associate. (Hear.) My connexion with Mr. Delano
is of that character exactly. I have had the pleasure of
meeting with Mr. Delano frequently in society, and he has
done me the honour of meeting society occasionally under
my roof. (Hear, hear.) That society is composed of per-
sons of all politics—(hers, hear)---and engaged in all pur-
suits. I feel very proud when persons come without under-
taking any other engagement than that which Mr. Delane
does so well—of always making themselves very agreeable.
(Laughter.) I have had the honour, and I esteem it such,
of receiving occasionally the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire, and also the right hon. gentleman
the member for Cambridge. Tho influences which led them
to do me that honour were of the same kind as thbse which
prompted Mr. Delane. They expected to meet agreeable
society, and I trust they were not disappointed. (Much
laughter) I have also myself had the honour of meeting
society under the roof of Lord Derby, and in so doing I did
I no more than the right hon. gentleman the member for
Bucks and the right hon. gentleman the member for Cam-
bridge—that is to say, mixed on fair and equal terms with
agreeable society, and making themselves agreeable'to those
whom they met. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said—Before the discussion closes I
think I ought to endeavour to extract some useful result
from it, and therefore I will request the house to recollect
one observation that has been made by the hon. member
for Berkshire, namely, the disapprobation he expressed of
quoting, in order to influence opinion in our discussions,
views which have been advanced in the morning news-
papers, and which are often written without sufficient data.
It appears to me that to quote the anonymous opinions of
contemporaries in an assembly like that where they ought-
to depend on their own knowledge and their own powers of
argument enforced and illustrated by the opinions of other
gentlemen of equal authority—it appears to me-that that
constant practice which has lately become the fashion of
enforcing one's views by quotations from anonymous con-
temporaries, is one which ought not to be encouraged.
(Hear, hear.) I think it tends very much to lower the tone
and authority of our debates; and, therefore, if from this
conversation the attentionef thehouse is drawn in so marked
a manner to this novel feature of our debates, we shall in
future be able to avoid that eriticism of the hon. member for
Berkshire which I consider to be so accurate and just and it
will not be without benefit. Both the gentlemen who are into •
rested in this matter possess, and are well entitled to, the re-
spect of the house from their position and talents. ,Hear.) I
cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman in, as I think,
his somewhat sweeping and exaggerated view of the press
of this country. He says in a very serious part of his
speech that the press was the fourth estate of the realm. I
must remind the hon. gentleman that when he is speaking
of the Sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, to
speak of the press of this country as the fourth estate of the
realm is but the introduction into our debates of a slang ex-
pression which is not true. (Hear.) The press is not the
fourth estate of the realm, nor can it exercise any political
responsibility. There is a responsibility which attaches to
the newspaper press, and that is that it is amenable fortu-
nately to the laws of the country. (Hear, hear.) But it is
responsible to the public, and I cannot believe that news-
papers which are conducted with a total absence of principle
employing themselves in the manner in which the right
hon. gentleman says this particular newspaper has em-
ployed itself, would possess that degree of confidence and
patronage on the part of the public which it does. (Hear.)
Newspapers must depend on public opinion, and there is
no doubt the Times newspaper has great weight in its criti-
cisms of public men. But we must remember this, that if
you have a free press, and if it be what I agree it is, a
zreat blessinz. vou must ~nt almut what it
says. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has very playfully
reminded the house that he has been subject in the course
of his political life to considerable criticism. Well, it does
not appear to have done the noble lord much harm physi-
cally—(laughter)—and as to the moral effect of such criti-
cism, there are few public men who may not have profited
by it. (Hear, hear.) I, too, have had my share of news-
paper criticism, and it is as large a share as any public man
ever had. I cannot pretend to say that when it first began,
which is now a long time ago, it was not as disagreeable to
me as it could be to anybody—(laughter)—but I can truly
say that as long as that public criticism is able and intelli-
gent, I do not care what degree of general malignity may
pervade it. (Hear.) Now I agree 'with the noble lord in his
view that on the whole it is very unnecessary to ask this
house to be the confidant of complaints when we are sub-
jected to any severe criticisms. If the press of this country
is to be a free press, it is not for us to criticise with too great
promptitude or severity intellectual efforts, which it must be
recollected are written under conditions of immense diffi-
cult. And we must also recollect that these enterprises are
responsible to the general opinion of the country, and
that opinion cannot be enlisted in their favour, un-
less on the whole we find that, whether it be through their
information, or their criticisms, er their general intelligence,
they are found to be of great advantage to the community.
(Hear, hear.)
The motion for the adjournment of the house was then
withdrawn, and the subject dropped.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
BILL.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de-
bate on the second reading of this bill,
Mr. AYRTON rose to move the following amendment:—
"That it is inexpedient to impose a now tax on houses for
the sale of unintoxicating refreshments and to promote the
consumption of intoxicating drink by giving increased faci-
lities for retailing the same, and by diminishing the control
now exercised by justices of the peace over houses kept for
that purpose." Ho contended that the expectations of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that intoxication would be
diminished by the increased consumption of wine were
illusory. The theory that in wine countries there was an
absence of drunkenness depended upon certain conditions,
especially the poverty of the people ; the question was what
the result would be in this country when the opportunities
to buy wine were increased, and high wages afforded the
means of buying enough to procure intoxication. He urged
the evil consequences of taking a wrong step in a matter so
intimately connected with the moral and physical condition
of the lower classes, and that the best course was to reject
the bill.
Mr. LIDDELL likewise opposed the bill. After obser-
ving that ft created a new temptation for the indulgence of
intoxication, and that in large towns the Youth of both
sexes would be encouraged to congregate together in wine-
houses, he argued against the case for the bill, which rested,
he said, upon an assumption which was not true, that there
was a public necessity for opening new channels for the sale
of cheap wines. He objected that the bill virtually dimi-
nished the control of the magistrates, that it did not give
them power at the right time, and gave them power at the
wrong time.

Mr. SALOMONS supported the second reading. There
were three' classes of persons who combined in their opposi-
tion to the bill. First, the licensed victuallers, who thought
their interests would be affected by it ; and if he really
thought they would be injured by the bill he should never
be found a supporter of its principle. The second body of
persons were the teetotallers, who were averse to any legis-
lation whatever from which the extension of the sale of in-

toxicating liquors might be in any way encouraged. The
third parties were the beersellers ; but with regard to them
there could be no doubt the beerhouses established thr9ugh-
out the country districts were a great nuisance to all the
surrounding neighbourhood. (Hear.) The question, how-
ever, he would put to the house was this—was the law in a

satisfactory state when it did not enable a respectable man
with a lady to get a glass of wine without going to the bar

of a public-house or gin-shop ? This seemed to him to be
a piece of barbarism not at all desirable. Then, he might
ask, was the spirit trade in a proper condition ? Look at the
state of the Haymarket and the streets adjacent at a late

hour of the night. Was that a state satisfactory to the pub..
lic, whether they viewed this as a religious country or even

as a country where licenses were necessary ? By the hill

a great public want might be supplied without interfering
with any existing interests. Having had some experience

as a magistrate, he could say that they need not be scared

away by the various phantoms which had been conjured up
as to the effect of increasing the number of licensed houses

for the sale of intoxicating drinks. The City of London,

in proportion to its size, hod a lorger number of public-
house than any other part of the kingdom. While Man-
chester, with a population of 347,000 persons, had only 485
public-houses, the City of London, with a population of
_ _

- -
only 130,000, had as many as 645 public-houses and 187
beershops, or a total of 832 houses. In the City of London
almost every pastrycook who desired a license from the ma-

gistratea could get one; the only condition imposed being an
honourable understanding that he would not open on Sundays,
nor after 8 o'clock at night on other days, nor convert hi,

house into a gin-shop. Yet in no part of England did so
much sobriety and good order prevail as in the City of
London. The most objectionable part of the bill was that
rendering it necessary for every house for the sale of refresh-
ments to have a license. (Hear, hear.) It certainly seemed
monstrous to require a baker, who sold a few buns or bis-
cuits over his counter, to take out a license, and he could
not help looking upon such a prevision as an interference
with the freedom of trade. (Hear, hear.) He was for limit-
ing
rather than extending the hours in the evening to
which these new refreshment houses might keep open, and
he would fix it at nine in winter and ten in summer. But
with regard to placing them under the supervision of the
police, he would ask hon. members how they would like,
while they were regaling themselves at Gunter's, in Bel- i
gravia, or Farrance's, in Spring-gardens, to see a police-
man come in. (Hear, hear.) Believing, however, that the
bill might in committee be made not only unobjectionable,
but popular, he should vote for the second reading.
Mr. PALK did not dispute the bill might be amended in
committee, but he objected to the principle of a measure
which was to increase the consumption of intoxicating
liquors, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not
succeed in creating a demand for French wines, the revenue
which he expected to obtain from that source would not be
forthcoming, and his scheme so far would be an entire
failure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to
create a new demand for a liquor which was not now one of
great popularity, but he had failed to show that it would
lessen the demand for spirituous liquors or promote the
cause of morality and good conduct. He was positively re-
versing that cause of progress and improvement which had
guided the policy of the country for many years past. We
had done much lately to promote the education, the religion,
and the amusements of the poor; we had also founded the
institutions for the reformation of juvenile offenders, and
having by these means given a high tone of morality to.the
public policy, the right hon. gentleman would extinguish
all the good we had done by establishing free trade in
drunkenness.' To make his scheme good he must erect
foreign intemperance upon intemperance at home. His
(Mr. Palk's) experience was, that the greater facilities they
gave for drinking, the more they multiplied drunkenness ;
and England had indeed arrived at a melancholy pitch if
her revenue were to be derived from the degradation of the
people. This was a question which made or marred what
he believed to be the strength and wealth of the nation—
vie., the English artisans and labourers ; and it was because
he saw the evil effects of the slightest error upon such a
subject that he earnestly besought the house to carefully
weigh the provisions ef the measure before assenting to the
second reading-.
Mr. SCULLY said that as the country with which he was
more immediately connected was not at present interested
in the bill, he was in a position to form an impartial opinion
of its merits. Besides, as English members did not scruple
to interfere with Irish business, he did not see why Irish
members should not occasionally return the compliment;
especially as there was every probability of the measure be-
ing sooner or later extended to Ireland if it ever became law
in England. The bill, they were ,told, was a measure of
finance; but it could not increase the revenue, except by in-
creasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It was,
in fact, a sort of public proclamation—
" Let those now drink who never drank before ;
And those who always drank now drink the more."
(Laughter.) The hon. member (Alderman Salomons) had
complained of the grievance it would be to hon. gentlemen
if, while they were taking their refreshments at Gunter's or
Farrance's, the shop might be visited by a policeman. But
if shops with wine licenses were not liable to inspection,
what a set of bear-gardens they might become. They would
soon be little better than what was called in Ireland she-
beens. (Laughter.) It had been pointed out that any re-
tail trader might obtain a wine license. There was really
no reason in the world why there should not be a decanter
on every counter at Shoolbred's. (Laughter.)
Mr. HUMBERSTON hoped the bill would be with-
drawn, or at least much modified. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JAMES would not be influenced by the organisa-
tion which had been alluded to for the purpose of enforcing
temperance, far he could not help thinking there was a good
deal of hypocrisy about that movement. (Hear, hear.) He
would state to the house very shortly the grounds upon
which he opposed this bill. It seemed to him to be extremely
unjust and unfair to persons who had invested a large capi-
tal, not in a monopoly of their own creation, but upon re-
strictions placed by the legislature upon them. By the com-
mon law of this land every person was at liberty to open an
ale-house, a beer-house, or a public-house in the same way
as he could set up a linendraper'er shop. But, inasmuch
as the normal condition of public-houses was that customers
were led to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as
possible, and perhaps sometimes to get as intoxicated as
possible, the legislature had interfered by various acts of
Parliament to put restrictions upon these houses and bring
them under the supervision of the magistrates. Hence the
restriction that they were not to be opened without a li-
cense ; those who kept them were not to allow gaming, or
to permit bad characters to assemble in their houses. They
had persons billeted on them, they were placed under the
control of the magistracy. What was the effect of all this ?
It was all very well for aldermen—for the hon. alderman
(Salomons) himself--to say it was a very hard case that a
gentleman and lady could not go into a pastrycook's shop
and have a glass of claret with their biscuit. admitted it was
' —bar ire could tell the worthy alderman that the pastry.
cooks and biscuit bakers would never avail themselves of
the measure, if it placed their shops under the surveillance
of the police. (Hear, hear.) But this bill made every magis-
trate an inquisitor and every policeman a spy. (Hear.) The
effect of the bill would be, that every beerhouse would take
out a refreshment license, and then a wine license, and then
it would become a publichouse to all intents and purposes.
(Hear.) It was well known that as regards boershops, Sir
R. Mayne had given evidence to the effect that the control
of the magistrates over the licensed beerhouses and the
houses of the licensed victuallers tended to the
greatest order. The honourable member for Dorset-
shire, who was opposed to the present system, told the
house of the scenes of drunkenness and profligacy which
he had witnessed in the Haymarket; but the description
given by the deputation which waited on the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on this subject showed that it was in the
unlicensed coffee-houses and the fish-shops, and not in the
licensed victualling houses, that the worst scenes of profli-
gacy took place. When the hon. member in future wan-
dered through the Haymarket in his nocturnal perambula-
tions from that house, he (Mr. James) wondered what his
experience would be of the new wine-shops. (A laugh.)
Then a great deal had been said about the Excise ; but the
Excise cared nothing about the morals of the people—all
they cared about was the revenue. It was now said that
wine licenses could not exist without spirit licenses ; for
when wine licenses were given singly, the revenue was de-
frauded by their selling spirits as well as wino. He (Mr.
James) was no advocate of the present system of licensing
—(hear, hear)—he thought it was very much abused, and
that there was a great deal of gross jobbery about it
(he .r, hear)—but let them deal with these subjects fairly.
The licensed victuallers had expended a large sum upon
this monopoly; and he certainly thought these matters had
been fully explained to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The deputation consisted of very intelligent persons, and
was headed by a gentleman, whose very name of Homer
shoald have been sufficient to enlist the sympathies of the
right hon. gentleman with his classical associations; espe-
cially as Horace had told us that Homer was himself ad-
dicted to the use of wine—
Laudibus arguitur vini vinosus Homerus.
(A. laugh.) He thought the measure was unfair and unjust
to a most important branch of trade, and he should there-
fore oppose the measure.
Mr. VILLIERS said that after having heard the speech
of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets he defied any
human being to say who he represented—whether it was
the brewers' interest, or the licensed victuallers', or the sup-
porters of the French treaty, or of free trade; he condemned
everything that had been done, and supported everything
that existed. But it seemed that any stick did to beat a
dog, and so at one time they had a talk about 'temperance,
at another of vested interests, at another of supporting
things as they were ; at another time, of the rights of
the licensed victuallers. The hon. members supported
the monopoly of the brewen—of the victuallers—every
monopoly, in short, which existed. So his hon. and learned
friend (Mr. E. James) assumed that-everything which de-
pended on the present system was an injury to his clients.
Ile (Mr. Villiers) believed, however, that the present sys-
tem had been condemned for many a year, even by the ma-
gistrates themselves. The committee who had reported on
this subject had condemned the system of licenses, and re-
commended a scheme which seemed to be far better cal-
culated to secure public order. That was the system recom-
mended by this bill. He expected to have heard that the
fault of this bill was that it threw too much power into the
hands of the magistrates. But who was it who promoted
this inquiry ? Why the magistrates themselves, who said
the system was defective. Every member of the committee
except himself (Mr. Villiers) was a justice of the peace;
and under'the circumstances he thought their report was
the fairest that possibly could have been made. The, hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets had argued upon principles
which, perhaps, were not inconsistent as those of the tee-
totallers, because he argued against the treaty. But the
teetotallers never raised their voices against the reduction of
the wine duties. They knew very well they could not have
got their ewn members in the house to support it. They
would have said to them, " We cannot stop trade, we cannot
interfere with the exchanges." Then there was another
party, who said, " Oh, by all means let the poor have
wine, but don't let them have it in any place where
they cannot get ardent spirits as well." (Hear, hear.)
The opponents of the bill were in a very inconsistent
position. They would allow cheap wine to be sold at the
public-houses, and they would allow eating-house keepers
to send for cheap wine or cheap spirits. (Hear.) All that
they objected to was the eating-house keeper laying in a
stock of a dozen of wine in the -morning to supply his cus-
tomers during the day. That was what they thought the
great evil of the bill. (Hear, hear.) Was this an object
worthy of all the machinery that had been brought to bear
against this bill ? They could only fall back upon the licen-
sing system as being perfect. Had the Chancellor of the
Exchequer inserted in his bill a provision that everybody
who kept an eating-house should go before the magistrates
to get his wine license, this discussion would never have
been heard of. To restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors,
or confine their sale to respectable persons,. was a very

laudable object; but the magistrates themselves said that
they hard 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 it.-
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 —he transferred
the license to his barman. (Hear, hear.) Tho 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. He
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 •
petty; it had nothing to do with police—nothing, to do
with the preservation of good order. (Hear, hear.) By
their own confession the magistrate.; were incompetent to
decide to whom licenses ought to be granted, and by the re-
sult 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 largo 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 on e point strongly
established before the committee, he said it was that the
having 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.
(Hoar.) 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 withregard
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 be satisfactorily amended. (Hear.)
Sir W. MILES assented to the principles laid down by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the wine duties,
but wished to know whether tha 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. Pete) 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 I 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 devising 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 spoken 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 refreshment is
sold—not to impose that liability even upon all houses where
casually it may be consumed upon the premises—hut to im-
pose it upon houses which are kept open for the purpose of
selling refreshment to be consumed on the premises. (Hear.)
I mean that the consumption upon the premises is to bo 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 barleysugarcases, 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-
-7 •

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 lam bound
to say that I do not believe there is any great objection to
the supervision of the police by this description of 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 Ido 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.
(Hear.) Any proposals which accord with the general
spirit of the suggestions made by the committee will answer
my purpose, and if the hbuse 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 be 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