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

house into a gin-shop. Yet in no part of England did so
much sobridy 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-
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 ho 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 sho* 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 intemperanee 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—
viz., the English artisans and labourers ; and it was because
ho saw the evil effects of the slightest error upon such a
subject that he earnestly besought the house to carefully
weigh the provisions of 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 whe always drank now drink the more."
(Laughter.) The hon. member (Alderman Salemons) 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 It 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, for 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's 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
—but he 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 beershops, 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 Eidise ; 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 wine. 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 tr, hear)—but let them deal with these subjects fairly.
"l'he 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
should 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 ono 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 brewers—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.
He (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) wad' 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 wins 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 got 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. (Hoar.) 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 ens
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 tbe 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