The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIN .0, MAY 11, 1860.

for War, the number of regiments or numerical strength
of the garrisons of Hong Kong and Canton, Europeans
and natives of India, not included in the amount of forces
stated by the Secretary of State as proceeding to or ar-
rived in China. Ile also ed the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty the number of nirines and sailors now on the
China stations ?

LordpC. PAGET said that an answer had already been
given in reference to this subject, to the effect that it would
not be expedient to make the information required public.
As far as he (Lord C. Paget) was concerned, he would be
happy to give the hon. and gallant member in private all
the necessary intelligence ho might wish to obtain.
WINE LICENSES, &c., BILL.

Mr. AYRTON asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he was willing to move that the Refreshment
Houses and Wine Licenses Bill be committed pro forma,
for the purpose of introducing his amendments therein, and
having the bill reprinted ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not accede' • the proposition of the honourable and
learned member. 44 • e debate on this subject had extended
over a long perio., akd the fact was that there was no
necessity for any mateiltal alteration in the bill which had
been submitted to the houMoriginally. The amendments
in no way touched the principle of the bill, and he had al-
ready made an ample explanation on that subject. No
inconvenience would arise from the course the Government
proposed to pursue in reference to this bill.

COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.

On going into committee of Ways and Means,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
resolution which he had previously brought forward, in re-
ference to the licensing of houses. With regard to this re-
solution he did not wish to press on hon. members the
adoption of the particular description of house to be taxed
under the bill. The questions which the house wouldhave
to decide upon would relate to the different places, the
different values, and other circumstances, in
reference to what would constitute a house that
should be properly licensed. The hon. member for
the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) proposed that no house
should be compelled to take out a license. Hav-
ing referred to the committee appointed to in-
quire into public-houses some years ago, the right
hon. gentleman contended that some of those houses which
did not profess to sell strong liquors did so surreptitiously,
and it was necessary in many cases the taking out of licenses
should be rendered compulsory. Th e practical operation would
be that such houses would form a symbol to the police,
wader whose surveillance they would be placed.
Mr. AYRT ON complained that at present the licensing

system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
rendered more obscure than it had yet been. In the
first place, they were called on to adopt this system as a
part of the financial scheme of the right hon. gentleman,
but from what he had just stated it appeared that it was
merely a matter of police. The argument as to repressing
the illicit sale of strong drink by the imposition of
licenses would be inoperative. In support of that state-
ment he also adverted to the select committee on public--
houses, and from the evidence adduced before them it
was quite clear that such sale could be repressed-
only by the intervention of the police, and could
it be expected that these parties would come forward
and avow the illegal practices in which they were engaged.
It was quite absurd to expect such a course on their part,
and how then could it be supposed that these persons would
not endeavour to evade the payment of a license ? He
also objected to the amounts of the licenses. There was
a further objection, and that was imposing this tax on the
country when its object was only to carry out a matter
of police regulation. That proposition, ho considered,
came with a very bad grace from the right hon. gentle-
man, who, when a Chancellor of the Exchequer iu
expectation, took an opposite course in reference to a similar
subject, and refused to consent to a national charge for
police, which body should be a mere local charge. On
financial grounds, therefore, they wore not called on to agree
to this resolution for taxation in reference to these licenses,
and he contended that the operation would be most unjust
on a very large class of the community. For instance—
a number of houses situated in the metropolis
would be obliged to pay this tax, whereas
houses of a similar class in the country would be utterly
exempt from its imposition. He referred particularly to
coffee houses and lodging houses. The hon. and learned
member concluded by moving the omission of the license
tax on refreshment.
After some discussion the house divided on the motion
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was as follows :
"That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty,
there shall be charged, levied, and paid, unto and for the
use of her Majesty, her heirs and successors, for and
upon the several licenses hereinafter mentioned, the
respective rates and duties following, that is to say :
If the house and premises in respeot of which such
license shall be granted shall be under the rent and value
of £2O a-year, 10s. 6d.
The numbers were
For the motion
Against lO3
—7O

Majority

On the next clause, that the license should be £1 is on all
refreshment houses rated at £2O and upwards.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the license should be 10s. 6d.
Mr. HARDY thought there could be no reasonable argu-
ment for having two different scales of taxation. As the bill
ROW stood it gave power to the police to inspect refreshment
houses, but unless those houses were licensed to sell wine
there was no power of punishment against persons keeping
disorderly houses. He thought that persons keeping disor-
derly houses of this kind ought to be punished in the same
way as persons keeping disorderly public-houses, viz., by
having their license taken away.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had said
there was a uniform license in most trades. That was so,
but the inference drawn from it was a very doubtful one.
He thought it would be an extreme hardship on small deal-
ers in teas to pay as much for license as was paid by Fort-
num and Mason; and therefore he considered there ought
to be some distinction between the large and small dealers.
He did not wish to press for any complicated scale of licen-
ses, and therefore he thought it would be better if the reso-
lution stood as it was.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the argument of the right
hon. gentleman was not strictly applicable to the case before
the house. He thought that substantially no injustice
would be done to the small houses by the proposal of the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, but if the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was going to revise the whole system of
licenses, that was an argument for not departing, from the
present system.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
mean nor had he said anything about revising the licensing
system. He said the system was a bad one which imposed a
uniform rate upon small and large dealers, and that some
distinction should be made he thought was reasonable.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS thought this tax would fall
very heavy upon the dealers in the metropolis, and he
trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way,
and allow the tax to be a uniform one of 10s. 6d.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause

Against

The resolution was then agreed to.
Qn the proposal for every license to be granted as herein-
after mentioned to any licensed keeper of a refreshment house
to sell therein by retail foreign and British wine to be con-
sumed in such house pr on the premises belonging thereto—
If such house and premises shall be under the rent and

value of £5O a year, £3 3s. And if the same shall be of
the rent or value of £5O a year or upwards, £5 ss.
And for every license to be taken out by any person for
the selling by retail in any shop of foreign wine not to be
consumed in the house or shop or on the premises
where sold :—lf the house and premiSes shall be under the
rent or value of £5O, £2 2s. ; and if the same shall be of
the rent or value of £5O a-year or upwards, £3 3s.
Lord J. MANNERS asked whether colonial wines would
be classed under the head of British or foreign winos ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
would be classed as foreign wines. (A laugh.)
Mr. AYRTON wished to know whether the Chancellor
of the Exchequer meant to keep up the difference between
licenses granted to wholesale and retail dealers. The license
at present, he believed, was £lO 10s. for persons who dealt
wholesale, and £2 2s. and £3 3s. on retail dealers. Preserv-
ing that difference would not promote the consumption of
unadulterated wine. The difference between the two
ought to be abolished and one uniform license established.
He had opposed the resolutions purelyfrom a desire to pro-
mote temperance, and he left the regulations for intempe-
rance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman had raised a perfectly legitimate question
for discussion. The wholesale dealer was a man who
usually dealt in large quantities of wine, or wished to have
the power of doing so, and he therefore paid ten guineas for
his license. But it would be scarcely fair to charge the
retail dealer, whose shop was open for the sale of other
articles, so large a sum, and he could not see that any prac-
tical inconvenience would arise from maintaining a distinc-

tion. An eight or ten guinea license would press so
heavily upon the retail dealer that he would be required
to dispose of wine some hundreds of pounds in value
before he could realise any profit. If, on the other hand,
they were to reduce the ten guinea wine license to five
or six guineas he was afraid the next step they would be
called upon to take would be to reduce the 10 guinea spirit
license.

Mr. GRIFFITH was not disposed to take a puritanical
view of the question, but he should like to know the de-
scription of shops likely to be engaged in the retail of wine.
He hardly supposed that there was to be no check upon the
retail of wine, though it did not appear at present that there
VMS any.

The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER said he had
acted upon the principle that there was no objection to the
wide extension of the sale of wino to be consumed on the
premises ; but regulations would be enforced for preventing
the abuse of theprivilege in consuming wine on the premises.
After a few words from Mr.. NEWDEGATE, the resolution
was agreed to, as also was a resolution that the licenseupon
premises of the rent or value of £5O a year or upwards should
be £3 3s. per annum.
The house then resumed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, if

it was agreeable to the house, he would move tha 't the re-
solutions just agreed to should be reported forthe Pith and
inserted in the bill, so that the committee might c onside.,
the measure as a whole.

The suggestion was acceded to, and the report of the re-
solutions was brought up and agreed to.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICEI gSES
BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER m lived
that the house go into committee upon this bill.
Mr. PALK contended that it would be unwise, as wel las
injurious to the morals, health, and happiness of the peon
to permit unrestricted competition in the sale of alcoho lie
drinks. So long ago as the reign of William and Mary . Iva
experiment similar to that now proposed by the Chancell or
of the Exchequer was tried, and the trade was carried on to
an enormous extent, but the evil became so great that t he
legislature was compelled to interfere. The right hon." gi
tleman now for the first time since the days of "William And
Mary sought to take away the power of the magistrat, N 3 to
grant licenses, and to throw the whole power into the
hands of the supervisor of excise. No necessity, ho
had been shown for the increase of public-houses and it
could not be alleged that there was a want; of pif .olic-house
accommodation, inasmuch as a return p-ablislied in 1855
proved that at that time there was a public'-:house for every
38 of the male and female populaten above. the age of 21.
Under the bill any person, though of bad c haw .cter and the
associate of thieves, might obtain a wine li cer,se. The bill
was neither a fiscal measure nor a free •trr the measure, nor
yet a measure dictated by any principle of ts ound policy. He
would therefore move that the house go into committee upon
it on that day six months.
Mr. PACKE in seconding the motion said the bill was
ono of the greatest attempts to infringe t he liberty of the
subject that he ever remembered to have seen introduced
into that house. It would render every old woman who
sold cakes or ginger beer liable to a yearly tax. In fact he
did not know that thebill would not apply seven to butchers'
shops.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH EQUER did not
think the house would be willing to resume me the lengthened
debate which had been brought to a close c 'n Monday night.
The objection of his hon. friend who he and seconded the
amendment did not really apply to the 'Dill ; the general
words in which were subjected to many i mportant limita-
tions. The other hon. gentleman's (Mr. I?alk's) objections
were no doubt of a very different character.. He had listened
to the hon. gentlermLn, and he admitted th at his opinion was
entitled to much consideration. The Government had stated

in that house what they antici:)ated would be the social
consequences of cercs.in measures, and the fallacies against
the bill were that h on. gentlemen declined to draw dis-
tinctions which oug ht to be drawn, and which lay on
the surface of tho case. The case of wine licenses
was different front the beer bill. He had propounded
this measure as :a deliberate attempt to effect a
great improvement iii one portion of the law, with re-
gard to which ref, reshment was to be had by the
people, and under which they were to be enabled to find
fermented liquors in th e same places as eatables. After the
long arguments he had offered to the house the other night

it would not be respecti ul to repeat them at this moment.
But when they went hit o committee he hoped they would
make such amendments -as might be required, if any were
necessary. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was th en negatived without a division,
and the house went into. committee, Mr. MASSEY in the
chair.

On clause 1, relating to the duty on licenses,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved an
amendment for the purpose of restricting the sale of wine
not to lre consumed on the• ;premises to wine in bottle only.
The amendment was agTeed to, as was an amendment
making the clause applicalbLe to British as well as foreign
wines.
On the next proposition, viz., the amount of the duties to
bo granted,
Mr. PALK said it raised the question so much discussed,
viz., that any person keeping, a shop for the sale of goods
or commodities might sell wine in bottle, and he wished to
ask whether they would be wider the control of the police.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
every person keeping a shop would be entitled to take out
a license for the sale of wine in bottle, and that they would
not be under the control of the police.
After some observations from Mr. WARNER and Mr. B.
W °ODD ,
Mr. AYRTON said, if this clause remained as it then
stood, no more wholesale licenses would be necessary, for a
retail dealer would be able to sell any quantity, and he, of
course, would ta'. e out a license of the lower value. This
clause raised an important question, and he should like to
know what license or authority the right hon. gentleman
intended to repeal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
clause had been considered by the leg l advisers of the Go-
vernment, and they thought the sale of " goods and com-
modities" was clearly defined, and that their was no fear of
their enabling persons to substitute a retail license for a
wholesale license. But he might further observe that the
second clause would prevent such substitution taking place.
He understood that the wholesale dealer had a right to do
everything which was proposed now to be given to the re-
tail dealer.
➢lr. AYRVON said a distinction must be drawn between
the terms. lle believed a wholesaL© dealer would not be
entitled to sell less than two gallons, and if a man sold less
than one dozen, then he would bo a retailer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
had constituted a license which was to enable a person to
sell wine by retail in general. Then as to what would be a
selling of wine by retail was determined by the second clause.
Mr. AYRTON said he thought a new definition would

be necessary in reference to what persons were or were not
to sell less than two gallons, for as the bill stood every
wholesale dealer would give up his license and be in future
retail dealers.

After a few words from Mr. J. LocKz to the same effect.
Sir S. NOItTHCOTE said the point he wished to ask for
information on was this—any person who kept for sale
"goods and commodities" aright sell wine not subject to
the control of the police, but if not, how were they going
to prevent its being consumed on the premises, and being
drunk in the back rooms ?
Mr. W. E WART apprehended the clause was suf•-
ciently clear to prevent any evasion, as the parties would
only be entitled to sell in bottles.
Mr. VILLIERS said all the clause did was to enable a
new class of persons to take out wine licenses, and he
thought the ten guinea class and the three guinea would
still be kept distinct. Merchants would be prevented from
selling in bottles, as they were under the present law.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object of the first clause was to describe the persons who
should be entitled to take out licenses for selling by retail
wine not to hie consumed on the premises, and the object of
the second clause was to define the terms " retail and whole-
sale." It appeared to him that it would not be reasonable
that those who kept shops should not be allowed to take out
licenses of this kind, and that being granted he thought it
would be improper to prevent wholesale dealers from hav •
ing the same privilege. If the words "or who shall have
taken out a license as a wholesale dealer in wine" were
added to the words" other than foreign wine," he thought
the clause would meet the views of all hon. gentlemen.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. SPOONER asked whether there was anything to
prevent the retail dealer, to whom thoy were about to give
a £3 3s. license, from selling out of his shop to anybody.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object of the second clause was to prevent that.
Mr. PALK put the case of a large tailor who kept a large
number of hands—working probably on the premises—
what was to prevent him from taking out a license and re-
tailing wine to his workmen ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was nothing to prevent such a man from retailing British
vvines:at present in the way described, but ho never heard
of the practice.
The amendment, " Other than foreign wine," was then
agreed to.

Upon the amendment containing the words " reputed
quart bottles," _

Mr. AYRTON suggested that the language of what was
called the " Maraschino Act" should be followed in this

clause.

After a conversation in which Sir S. Northcote, Mr Cross,
Mr. Malin; Alderman Salomons, and Mr. W. Ewart took
part,

Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he felt disposed to take the
sense of the committee against the insertion of these words
altogether. He saw no object for restricting the sale of
wine to measures of less s'zo than quart bottles.
Mr. HENLEY said he thought the house had had some
experience of this kind of legislation in, the results. The
number of • public-houses with licenses for beer " not to
be drunk on the premises" was very great at first, but
they had now almost entirely disappeared. The effect of
legislation was very apparent in the increased number of in-
formations. A man went into ono of these houses and
ordered a glass of beer; it went like lightning down his
throat--(a laugh)—and then his confederate outside watch-
ing the proceeding, went and laid an information before the
magistrates. The same sort of thing would take place with
regard to the sale of wine. But if wine were not to be sold
in leas measure than quart bottles, this trick would not be
so easy. A man might indeed shove the neck of a quart
bottle down his throat, but then he found he could not go
on EI3 well with it. (A laugh.) He thought the amend-
ment a very good suggestion, and ho should support it,
Tho result would be, so many informations would be laid
that this class of licenses would cease to be taken out.
Sir S. M. PETO said that the number of licenses for beer
to be drunk on the premises was 39,945; not to be drunk
on the premises, 2,915. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. E. JAMES said that the sale of wine in a quart bottle
would be evidence that there was no intention that it should
be consumed on the premises. This was a test or line of
demaroation which was necessary to the working of the bill.
The CEIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
listened with great interest to this discussion of the botde
question. (Laughter.) He had como to the conclusion
that the best course would be to make the minimum limit a

reputed pint. (Hear, hear.)
Mr.' AYRTON said he should stand upon the quart.
(A laugh.) Any one might go to one of these licensed

houses, and drink off a reputed pint, and get his bottle filled
again.

The committee then divided on the proposal to aad "in
reputed quart bottles only."— -
For the addition
Against it 9O-57
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pro-
posed to insert the words, "in reputed quart or pint bottles
only."

Mr. W. WILLIAMS again alluded to the deficiency of
reputed. measures.
Sir S. M. PETO suggested that the limit should be in
imperial measures.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that would be very objectionable.
Mr. WARNER would insert the Words "not less than
one-sixth of an imperial gallon."
Mr. M'CANN said this discussion reminded him of one
in the Irish Parliament, where it was seriously proposed
that every quart bottle should hold a quart. (Laughter.)
The addition proposed by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was then agreed to.
The clause as amended was then ordered to stand part of
the bill.
On clause 2, which enacts that the sale of foreign wine
in any less quantities than two gallons, or in less than one
dozen reputed quart bottles, shall be deemed to be selling
by retail.
Mr. AYRTON said he supposed that any person who
took out a license to sell the lesser quantity would be at
liberty to sell a larger, and thus there would be an end to
all wholesale wine licenses.
Sir F. BARING remarked that if a retailer were limited
to the sale of a dozen he might evade that by selling to the
same person a dozen dozens in the course of a day.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 3, which provides that permitting the drinking
of wine in a neighbouring shed or building, with intent to
evade the provision of the act, shall be deemed to be drink-
ing on the premises—a short discussion arose, which re-
sulted in the word "buildings" being struck out, and the
word "premises" inserted.
On clause 4,
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER said he
wished to remove one or two misapprehensions as to the
effect of this clause. The hon. gentleman who seconded
the amendment, for the purpose of throwing the bill over
at this stage, appeared to consider that this clause obliged
all persons selling refreshments to take out a license. Now,
he wished to observe that the intention of the clause was
limited in two most important particulars, that was to say,
that the sales of victuals or refreshments affected by this
clause were sales of victuals or refreshments to be consumed
on the premises. He was not speaking of strong liquors.
That was one limitation. The other limitation was that the
sale of victuals or refreshments was to constitute the pur-
pose for which the house or shop was kept, and not where
it was incidental that provisions were supplied. As for
example, the case of a person having lodgers, and, perhaps,
making an arrangement with a lodger to supply him with
breakfast, would not come within the act. He would not
go into the question whether it would be convenient to in-
sert an exception in the case of lodgers, but he took this as
an instance that that would not be a case to which the
clause applied.
Mr. HARDY proposed an amendment, requiring that
coffee-houses and other houses of refreshment which kept
open from ten at night till four o'clock in the morning
should be required tp take out a license for a refreshment
house, by which they would be subject to the inspection of
the police.
After some conversation, Mr. Hardy's amendment was
agreed to, with the exception of the hours being made nine
to five.

Some verbal amendments having been afterwards made,
the clause was agreed to.
Clause 5, after some discussion, was agreed to.
Upon clause 0,
Mr. W. MARTIN moved an amendment to diminish the
population of towns to which the clause applied from 50,000
to 10,000.
Mr. LYALL moved the insertion of words limiting the
granting of licenses to houses which had been established
twelve months. He said his object was to prevent shops
being opened under the colour of refreshment houses solely
for the sale of wine.
.The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected
to the amendment as ineffectual and vexatious. A great
number of houses might have been established for twelve
months, and yet have no pretensions to receive these
licenses, while it would be very vexatious to prevent a re-
spectable man, who had opened a refreshment house in a
populous neighbourhood, from selling wine until the lapse
of a year. (Hear, hear.)
Both the amendments were then negatived, and the clause
was agreed to.
Clause 7 was withdrawn and clause 8 agreed to.
Upon clause 9,
Mr. W. MARTIN suggested, whether as the proprietors
of refreshment houses would have the same privileges as
licensed victuallers and beerhouse keepers, they should not
have the same liability with regard to the billeting of sol-
diers.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that it was part of a peculiar and antiquated system, full of
difficulties, and that.it-would be much bettor not to import
any such provisions into the new system they were now
devising.
The clause was agreed to, as were also clauses 10 and 11.
On clause 12,
Mr. AYRTON objected to that part of the clause which
proposed to place the metropolis in this matter under the
jurisdiction of the commissioners of police, submitting that
jurisdiction should be confined to the justices of the peace,
as was the custom throughout the country in regard to in-
specting those houses.
Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT agreed with the hon.
member who had just spoken that the licenses to those
houses should he issued by the nearest justices of the
r eace to the parties applying for them.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
intention of confiding the inspection of these houses to the
commissioners of police was because they were the persons
who had the best local knowledge of the metropolis.
Sir G. GREY said nearly all the jurisdiction in matters
of this kind had already gone from the magistrates in the
districts round the metropolis to the police who were con-
sidered to have the best knowledge of parties applying for
licenses.
Mr. HARDY thought it was very desirable that the
police magistrates should be removed from the squabbles
which usually attend the issue of licenses.
Mr. WILLIAMS said the metropolis was now divided
into districts, and each district magistrate had a clerk, who
he considered wag the most fit and proper person to make
applications to for licenses.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object of the clause was to combine the knowledge of the
police with the responsibility of the magistrates, which he
considered would be accomplished by the provision in the
clause. He thought it would be far better to give the exer-
cise of the office to the police magistrates of the metropolis,
who were engaged in the administration of justice, than to
the Middlesex magistrates, who had no judicial functions

to perform.
Mr. J. LOCKE said there was no distinction between the
magistrates of the counties in which the metropolis was
situated and the magistrates throughout the counties. He
therefore thought if it was right the duty should be en-
trusted to the magistrates throughout the country, it was
equally proper it should devolve upon the magistrates who
were connected with the metropolis. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SCULLY complained that no power of appeal was
given by the act. Secret decisions might be come to—arbi-
trary judgments might be given behind the backs of par-
ties. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
not give such a power to the police magistrates.
The CHANCELLOR of the E X CHEQUER was anxious
this should be understood by the house. What they pro-
posed was that the power should be placed in the police
magistrates of the city of London. The Government were
agreed the Felice were the parties on whom they must de-
pend for knowledge, and the I,olice were in constant com-
munication with the police magistrates, and not with the I
Middlesex justices.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the manner in which parties
were to be tried. Under this clause, on mere information
to the police magistrates, a decision might be given with-
out any reason assigned, and in the Absence of the parties.
Notwithstanding the whole of the amendments to this
clause it would want amending still further, because they
did n t secure that the party objected to should have notice
of the ground on which the objection was raised.
After some further conversation, clauses 12 and 13 were
postponed.

Mr. lIUNT moved that the Chairman report progress.
Sir W. MILES protested against this attempt to delay
public business. The disputed clauses were postponed, but
there were a great many other clauses about which there
was no dispute, and which, therefore, might be proceeded
with. ,

On clause 14,
Mr. E. JAMES suggested that it should be postponed.
Sir W. MILES suggested various technical amendments
to the clause.

Mr. SCULLY suggested that, if only in justice to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been in the house
for eight hours without any refreshment, the Chairman
ought to report progress. (Laughter and cheers.)
The house then resumed.

The Sheriff Court-houses (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on the 4th June.
THE HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD-ADVOCATE moved that the house should
go into committee on this bill pro forma, and stated that
certain alterations would have to bp made which he thought
would be beneficial.

Sir J. FERGUSSON trusted the Lord Advocate would
consider the period of " close time," and make the necessary
alterations in the bill before it again came before the house.
Mr. CAIRD thought the bill ought to have been referred
to a select committee before any of the clauses were struck
out.

After a few words from Mr. BUCHANAN, the house went
into committee pro forma, for the purpose of having the bill
re-printed, and then resumed.

THE PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time. •

The Highland Roads and Bridges Bill was read a third
time and passed.

The Labourers' Cottages (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time. ,

THE BLEACHING AND DYEING BILL.
The committee on this bill was, on the motion of Mr
CitooK, postponed to Wednesday, the 27th of Juno.
FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The amendments on this bill were considered.
Mr. LOCK HART moved the insertion of the words " or
for pointing" after the words "instrument" and "fish" in
the first four clauses of the bill.
The amendment was agreed to.
On,clauso 12, line 10,

Mr. CAIRD moved, after the word "present," the inser-
tion of the words "or by this act." He said there ought
not to be one law for the poor and another for the rich.
Mr. COCHRANE protested against the hon. member's
remark, which was only intended to court popularity. It
was absurd to suppose that proprietors would put lime into
the rivers to destroy their own fish.
After a conversation the lionse divided—
For the amendment 37
Against it 37
The SPEAKER said, as the house had not been able to
form its judgment on this proposal, he should give his vote
so as to leave the matter as it was left by the last decision
of the house. lie should give his vote fcr the noes.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS (IRELAND) BILL