The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-10 00:00:00

licen ing syFtem had failed to Iit:CMC the morality
..1 the paple. It was iinp,s,ih'e for magic-
!rates to form a just estimation c.l the quantity of
beer and sprits required for a given district, and it vras
imps is k for them properly to prot,ct net morality of
the put.Fc from a fear of entrenching on vested rights,
which they were bound to consider well as the question
of public morality, and from that a house was rarely de-
prived of its licence. Before 1830 complaicts were made
tgain:t certain houses which he believed still existed,
and the true remedy for the evd4 coTp!ained of
were not to be found in the bill before the _ house.
Sfr Richard Mayne said that the beer shops were not
worse conducted in the metropolis than the licensed
public-houses, and the same evidence was given by Mr.
W. Harvey, in reference to the beershops in the City,
and he pave the numbers, that out of 138 beershops
within the City, 131 were well conducted. To extend
the system of roa,),istrates licensing all these houses
would bu a retrograde movement. On the part of the
Government he begged to say that they considered
better regulations shoal be aflopted— (hear, bear)—
and to make it the irate-rest of the publicans
to better conduct their houses, by inflicting a penalty
for doing wrong on the house, and make the property
sutieritinstead cf irflicting a penalty on the occupier.
He would give tie subject his best consi3eration during
the recess, and introduce a measure neat session, if the
hon. member would withdraw his bill.

After some remarks from Mr. KENDALL and Mr.
PACK U, . .

Mr. HARDY replied. He did not consider the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary,
satisfactory, and expressed his doubts that any 'siemens
would be brought forward wxt session founded on the
report of the comtnittee referred to. Already it bad
heen allowed to remain in abeyance three years, and
private men had been obliged to interfere in this ques-
tion. lie denied that the movement arose with the
kcensed victual ere, but from the pub'ic generally, who
believed that the time had arrived when an alteration
should took place in the law. He i►.t-nded to go
to a division. The hon. gentleman then proceeded
to reply to the arguments that had been
used against the measure, reviewing the licensing system
from the reign of Henry 7th to the year 1830, when the
public-houses and beershops were one to 269 inhabitants.
The beerehops then numbered 24,342, and afterwards
they went up to 45,000, but subsequently, in 1855, after
increasing the amount of rating, there were 43,648 beer-
shops, the public-houses numbering 62,570, and the
eider shops 521, being at the rate of ore
to 164 inhabitant,, including women and chil-
dren. After referring to the consumption of spirits
in this country, and in those where no licensing system
existed, be said that if the report of the committee
were carried out, things would be worse than now, for
the great brewers would be the sureties for the publicans,
and thus they would monopetse the trade by getting al
the houses into their hands. He had no wish to pre-
vent the association of the poor, but he wanted to secure
them from the demoralising practices of beer sellers. He
complained of the present system of licensing, which
gave no security to the public ; because if magistrates
(narked their sense of the disgraceful manner in which
a house was conducted, by withdrawing the license,
application was madedo the excise, and the house con-
tinued open to the injury of moral.ty. The Home Secre-
tary had said that magistrates had power to shut up a
beer-shop for two years after a third conviction, but the
law was evaded, fcr after a second conviction, the bust.
ness was made over to another member of the family,
and the convictions had to be gone over again. He con-
sidered the magistrates the best person to decide on the
number of pale-houses required for a district, and that
the discretionary power of licensing could be safely plac-d
in their hands, more especially as they had to deal with
crime, and the liberty of the sutject, many ef those houses
being the hotbeds of the former. He hoped to
bring the frea vintners of London under the provi-
sions of this which would be the means of getirg
rid of a nuisance, and the evidence taken before
the committee showed how necessary it was to place
coffeeshops under regulations similar to pnhlie-houses.
After some remarks from Mr. C. P. Villiers, chair-
man of the committee referred to in its defence, General
Thompson, and Mr. Barrow,

The h(mse then divided. The numbers were—
F ,r the second reading lBO
Against it
Mai irity --- 33
The bill was accordin:4ly rejected. (Cheers )
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

KING moved the second reading of this bill.
The only objection made' to it when ►t was first
brought in was that it wool I interfere with the
Government's promised measure of reform, but the
noble lord at the head of the Government had given the
best answer to the objection by the introduction of the
Oaths Ell, which dealt the same as this, viz., with the
elected and not the elector.
Sir G. GREY moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months, the Government considering
this and another bill on the paper should form the sub-
ject of discussion next year on the question of reform.
Lie declined then to enter into the rnet its of the case.
Mr. COBBETT could not assent to the withdrawal
of this bia unless the Government pledged themselves
that the question should form part of the new reform
bill.

Mr. COLLIER thought it was asking too much of the
Government to state the details of their proposed mea-
sure of reform for next session. The time of the house
could be better employed th's session than in
discussing this measure. (Hear, hear.) If, when the
when the Government measure was before the house,
no provision was made relitive to this question, and the
hon. member for Surrey moved au am.mirnent, he would
supp,rt him.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE protested against the principle
tbat the House of Commons should not discuss questions
of Parliament reform. Hon. members were " piping
hot" from the hustings, and were in a position to give
the Government much information on questions
of reform, and therefore it was desirable this and
other questions on the paper relating to represen-
tation should be discussed. Unless the Government
gave a pledge that this question and the more frequent
reeistration of votes should form part of the new reform
bill, be advi-ed his friend to go to a decision, and show
the country who were and who were not reformers.
Mr. GREER supported the second reading of the
bill. Money was no test of honesty or intelligence, and
he opposed the qualification clause, because it limited
the circle of choice of representatives. Educa-
tion and intelligence should be the only test, and
he thought an ex imination of members as to their legis-
lative qualifications desirable. There was no qualifica-
tion for the members of Scotland, who were a, respect-
able, intelligent, and good members as the English mem-
bers. (Loud cries of " Divide.")
Lord PALMERSTON urged the withdrawal of this
bill from the want of time to consider its provisions this
session. Property qualification required much conside-
ration, as it was one of the ingredients of our constitu-
tional system.

Mr. L. KING couM not agree with the exr...use of the
noble lord, and should press Lis motion to a division.
The holve divided, and the nuoibers were—
For second reading 145
Against it
Majority —s9
The wae, accordingly rfjected.
ELECTION EXPENSE 3 BILL.

Lord fl. GROSVENOR in consequence of the deci-
sion of the house on the Property Qualification Bill,
withdrew the motion for the second reading of the Elec-
tion Expanses Bill.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE also withdrew this bill on the
same grounds.

VACCINATION.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to repeal the Compulsory Vaccination Act, 1853.
The other orders of the day were postponed, and the
house adjourned at half-past 5 o'c'ock.