said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consideration of the Committee on the Reform Bill for England and Wales having been deferred till June, and with the view to expedite the passing of that Measure, he would agree to postpone the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills to the next Session of Parliament?

said, that before the noble Lord replied he would beg to ask another question of which notice had been given—namely, whether he will agree to postpone going into Committee on the Representation of the People Bill until after the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Bill; or whether, with a view to uniformity of legislation, he will introduce provisions applicable to Ireland into the Representation of the People Bill, so that Parliamentary Reform for both Countries may proceed pari passu?

said, with respect to the question of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) he thought it would be a very inconvenient course to proceed with the Second Reading of the Irish and Scotch Bills until they had gone into Committee on the English Bill, because they would have to debate the question of the franchise, which had already been discussed, and which must be discussed again in Committee on that Bill. It appeared to him that the more convenient course to be taken would be to go into Committee on the English Bill, and then the result of that discussion might be taken into consideration on the Second Reading of the Irish Bill. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. V. Scully) as to deferring the Irish Bill till next Session, he was unable to answer it before they went into Committee on the English Bill; but before they went into Committee on the English Bill his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) or himself would state what were the intentions of Government on the subject.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of Marines and Sailors now on the China Stations?

said, he must repeat an answer which had been given to a similar question that was put earlier in the Session. It would not be convenient for the public service to make any statement of the number of Marines and sailors in China, but he had no objection to give privately the information to the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any clue has been obtained relative to the late abstraction of Examination Papers; and, if so, whether the names of the parties concerned are to be made public, and what steps have been taken in the matter by the authorities?

replied, that the police had been making an investigation, but had not as yet succeeded in discovering the offender, although they were not without hopes of doing so. If there should be any means of bringing the guilty parties to justice they would not be neglected.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State 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 arrived in China?

replied, that the garrisons of Hong Kong and Canton comprised three batteries of artillery consisting of 292 men, three companies of Royal Engineers containing 268 men, and a battalion of European troops 738 strong. There were also three battalions of Native troops containing 1639 men, who were to be relieved by an equivalent force; and orders had been given that the English soldiers who were sick should be sent home unless urgent affairs required that they should be still retained there.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is willing to move that the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill be committed pro formâ, for the purpose of introducing his Amendments therein and having the Bill reprinted?

said, he was sorry that he could not accede to that arrangement. Owing to the necessary pressure of public business the debate on the Bill had spread over a period of seven weeks. If it had been agreeable to hon. Gentlemen that the Bill, after having been read a second time, should have been committed, it would have been practicable, without any great inconvenience, to have adopted the course of incorporating the whole of the Amendments, and sending them forth for the consideration of all parties. At present the state of the case was, that the Amendments of which he had given notice, and which represented the Bill in its complete form, so far as the House was concerned in no respect touched the essential principle of the Bill, of which he had endeavoured to give the clearest explanation. In the state of public business it would not be convenient to allow of the further delay for the reprinting of the Bill. Of course, if there were found any great inconvenience in Committee, hon. Members would be entitled to make the demand; but he could not conceive how any such inconvenience could arise, because the Amendments were very simple in form.

I rise, Sir, to move the Resolution of which I have given notice in regard to the Wine Licences Bill. Of course I shall not move this evening the other Resolutions which are also to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means, and which relate to other subjects. The Resolution to which I now refer separates itself into three parts. The first two stand exactly as they have stood before the country for many weeks. I am not aware that there is any ground for making any alteration in the licences so far as the rates of them are concerned. As respects the first portion of the Resolution, which relates simply to the licences to be taken out for keeping a refreshment house, I do not wish that this vote should pledge any hon. Member as to what kind of refreshment houses are to become liable to the payment of a licence, and under what conditions that payment is to be made. All those hon. Members who think that no refreshment houses ought to be taxed except those which sell wines may with propriety raise a debate upon that Resolution. But those who think, with the Committee of 1854, that it is desirable that refreshment houses of a certain description, in certain places, should be made liable to the obligation of taking out a licence, will only have to consider whether proper rates are proposed to be charged in this Resolution. And the question we shall have to dispose of with respect to the different places, or the precise description of houses, which require a licence, can be much more conveniently disposed of in Committee on the Bill. An hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) has given a notice which touches the whole principle of the Resolution. He objects to imposing the obligation of taking out a licence on any refreshment house. I am not prepared to recede from the proposal. I think the recommendation of the Committee of 1854 was a wise proposal; and that, as regards a certain description of houses, there is really as great a necessity for a licence, which is the ordinary symbol of police superintendence, as there is in any case which can be mentioned. I do not think the difference of strong liquor being avowed as the substance of the trade, or even as a portion of the trade, touches the question vitally. In point of fact, many of the houses where there is no licence to sell strong liquors are the very places where you most of all require the power of entering by the police, in order to ascertain whether strong liquors are not surreptitiously sold there. The hon. Member took two objections, which appeared to me to be contradictory. He first argued against the recommendation as involving the principle of a universal licence, upon all retail shops, and then contended that it was inconsistent because it only imposed a duty upon one class of retail shops. The two things cannot stand together. The Resolution before the House has nothing to do with universal licence. It touches simply the question of the peculiarities of a class of refreshment-houses which are places of public resort, and with respect to which there are peculiar risks, both as regards the preservation of the peace and good order of society, and the surreptitious consumption of strong liquors. "With this explanation I beg to move:—

"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 Licences hereinafter mentioned, the respective Rates and Duties following—that is to say, for every Licence to keep a Refreshment House, if the house and premises in respect of which such Licence shall be granted shall be under the rent and value of £20 a year, 10s. 6d."

said, if the consideration of the question was embarrassing before, it was rendered ten fold more embarrassed by the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had before endeavoured to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a precise and clear expression of opinion as to the policy which regulated his conduct in proposing these new taxes. He had asked him whether he proposed them as a measure of finance, or as a measure of police, with a view to preserve order and morality in the country. If it were put forward as a measure of finance, they must then be prepared to examine it on financial grounds, as part of an important system by which the Government proposed to license the retail shopkeepers of every trade and profession throughout the country. There was much to be said for and against that view of the subject. When it was first brought forward, it was coupled with the general financial scheme of the country—it was, in fact, a part of the Budget; and Parliament was called to support it as a part of the financial scheme. But now it seemed that it was no part of finance; that it was proposed as a mere measure of police, to preserve the good order and morality of the country. He was certainly surprised to find that a measure of this kind should be brought forward, not by the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the peace and good order of the country, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a part of his new financial scheme. He would briefly state why he thought the proposition should not be agreed to. It was ostensibly founded on the recommendations of the Committee which sat to inquire into the condition of public-houses, and other places for the sale of beer; but lie thought they had heard enough from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), to show that the scheme was directly opposite to that which was recommended by the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted in support of his proposition. If it was to be considered as a mere question of police, he was compelled to ask the Committee upon what ground they could decide to levy a tax on a particular class of houses, in aid of the local police—for the police in this country were purely local—to be paid into the National Exchequer. If it were imposed in order that inspectors might be appointed, who, it was clear, must be appointed by the local authorities, the tax ought to be no more than was necessary for that purpose. If it were for the purpose of registration, to give the police facilities for entering the houses, then it ought just to cover the mere cost of registration. But these were no grounds for levying a tax to be paid into the general exchequer for the national expenditure of the country. The Committee were asked to vote an indefinite tax upon houses of some sort; but had received no explanation as to the kind of houses on which it was to be imposed. If there was any one man in the House who ought not to have made such a proposition, it was that light hon. Member, who, when asked to go into Committee upon a house tax, said that that question was embarrassed with so many difficulties, that he never would consent to consider the proposal, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a precise explanation of all the incidences of the tax. So sensitive was the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman then, that he preferred to overturn a Government, rather than take a course of which his conscience disapproved; but now he invited the House to go into a discussion upon a tax, and he could not give the least explanation of the character of the houses upon which the tax was to be levied. He (Mr. Ayrton) would not say the right hon. Gentleman could not give any explanation, but he would not do so; and he would tell the House why. The right hon. Gentleman had twice attempted to give an explanation. In the first attempt he signally failed, and on the second occasion he not only failed, but his proposition was preposterously absurd. He (Mr. Ayrton) thought he was justified in using that phrase, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was in the habit of using phrases quite as strong when he desired to express his opinions upon the views of other hon. Members. He would also ask the Committee to consider what was the original proposition which the right hon. Gentleman made, and then to view it in its amended form. It was first proposed to levy this tax on any house, room, shop, or building used for the purpose of selling therein victuals or refreshments to be consumed on the premises. The question had naturally been asked, what was excluded under this provision describing anything that a man could eat or drink. One Gentleman said that to buy and eat an orange in an unlicensed house would be against the law; at which the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, as if that were a thing out of the question. When he was inviting the support of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to his proposal, he told them that in villages, and even small towns in the country, there were houses where articles that might be called refreshments were sold—such as ginger-beer and oranges—but that as these places were not the resort of persons for whom it was necessary to have the visitation of the police, they were not included in his proposition. The effect of his illustration was, that in houses in small towns oranges might be sold without a licence, but that the sale of oranges was not to be permitted in unlicensed houses in large towns. Indeed, the language of the proposal was so indefinite, that it might include a stick of barley sugar, or the best dinner that a Lord Mayor could provide. The proposal was considered so extravagant, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was urged to withdraw it, and how did he withdraw from this proposal? The amended provision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was—

"Provided always that no licence to keep a refreshment house shall be required to be kept under this Act for the sale of goods or commodities in the front, or on the basement, or on the ground floor, although refreshment may be consumed in such shops; such refreshment, however, not being consumed in any other room, and not being wine, or any other excisable liquor."

The amended proposal, therefore, amounted to this, that a person would be permitted to take a cap of coffee in the kitchen or ground floor of a house, but not in the drawing-room. Upstairs it was to be subject to taxation in the shape of a licence; but downstairs there was to be no tax. In the shop it would be untaxed, but in the floor above the tax would have to be paid. Was ever such a proposal as this made for purposes of police; that two stories of a house should be free from the visitations of the police, but that the rest of the house should be placed under their control? On what ground did this distinction proceed? He could imagine a ground where the greatest privacy was desired; but he was afraid that if he were to suggest it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself compelled to repudiate it, because it could not for one moment be maintained that any one would take out a licence in order that those upper rooms should be open to the visitation of the police. It was said that there were certain houses in the town and country where people secretly sold illicit spirits, and that these cases would be met by this provision. But it would not answer that purpose, for they could not expect that such persons would take out a licence in order to inform the police of their intention to violate the law. The evidence given before the Select Committee sufficiently disposed of this theory. When a witness was asked how the police repressed the illicit sale of beer and spirits, he said there was no method of doing so, except by using the police as spies, and sending them in plain clothes. Being asked why the police did not do that, the answer was that an unfortunate transaction in which the police had acted as spies had excited such attention, that it was thought inexpedient to pursue the spy system in this country. The police were therefore unable to carry on the process of detection. Was this to be a Bill for encouraging that spy system from which even the police shrunk as being at variance with the opinions and feelings of the people of this country? The police had just as much power now to go into houses in disguise and make search as they would have under this Bill, and if parties were selling spirits without a licence they were already subject to penalties and forfeitures. Then, was it supposed that another class of houses, which were known as disorderly houses, would take out licences which would give the police an opportunity of entering every bedroom in those houses? If the occupation of such houses was unlawful, and if the bedrooms were to be used for purposes not to be mentioned, the occupiers would, of course, take care not to render themselves liable to be visited by the police by taking out a licence. What, then, did the Bill rest upon? They had a proposal to tax the sale of coffee, or something else, in an upstairs room. He submitted that until the House had before it a definite explanation of the precise character of the shops to be taxed, they could not proceed to vote for this tax. He wished to say one word upon the injustice of any system of taxation which took a margin of £20 rental as the limit of increase. He had said that if it be for police purposes, it was essential that it should be a single uniform tax; but to take a margin of £20 as the ground of increase, would be to commit an act of great injustice to the constituency which he represented, and to the Metropolis generally. Of the entire house tax of £690,000 a year levied in England, nearly one-half, or £330,000, was levied upon the Metropolis alone, while all Scotland only paid £45,000. Could that be said to be a just tax? This attempt to make a distinction between one town and another was founded upon a monstrous fallacy. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would visit some of the smaller streets in Westminster, he would see shops for the sale of cakes and oranges quite as small as those in country towns. What right, then, had the hon. Gentleman to make this distinction? He opposed the Resolution—first, because in the absence of any explanation, it was perfectly unintelligible; and secondly, because in the mode in which it was proposed it was most unjust, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been the last person to propose such a Resolution, for when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in expectancy, he could not tolerate the mention of such a proposition as that which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in possession, he then proposed for the adoption of the House.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member through a speech that was more discursive than dispassionate, but would content himself with replying to that part of it which bore upon the question. The hon. Gentleman had embraced the house tax and a number of other points which would best be discussed when the clauses came before the House. In his opinion, the hon. Gentleman had misconstrued (he provisions and grammatical effect of the Resolution, according to its sense and certainly according to its intention. There was no distinction in the Resolution between upstairs and downstairs, cellars and ground floors; and that argument might, therefore, stand over. These was one point which the hon. Gentleman missed, and which appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to be relevant to the case, and it was this. He said it was unjust to draw a distinction between houses under and those above £20, and he complained of the severe incidence of the present house tax upon the Metropolis. The house tax might or might not be just to the Metropolis, and they ought not to do anything which would have the effect of aggravating it; but he could not admit to the hon. Gentleman that in that instance they were going to inflict any injustice by imposing, not a minute and complicated scale of charges, but a simple difference of doubling-tins charge, in itself a simple one, upon houses above £20. The hon. Gentleman said this was in no degree a fiscal question, and what he then set up for a supposition for himself, in the next moment lie put into his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) mouth. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never said this was not a fiscal question, but that it was mainly and chiefly to be decided upon other than fiscal; grounds. He did not admit, therefore, that they were not to take into consideration the ability of parties to bear this charge, which looked to the extent of the premises as the index to the extent of the trade. As regards the question of the amount of occupation they might give to the police, it was presumable that very largo establishments would give more occupation to the police than very small establishments with very limited business below £20 a year. There was another point which was not noticed by the hon. Gentleman, and it was this. As he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) understood the effect of the law, the imposition of this licence duty would, under the existing law, have the effect of making into shops, in the eye of the law, those coffee-houses which were not now shops. The effect of that would be that, although they will pay a licence duty—that is, a sum of 10s. 6d. on houses above £20—yet they would obtain relief, in some degree, from the house-tax, because, in becoming shops, they would be taxed at the lower rather than at the higher rate. He did not think it necessary to say more, because there were a variety of considerations which would be more conveniently discussed on the clauses.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he had himself proposed one of a similar description in 1857. He wished, however, to guard himself against being committed on the question of the particular incidence of the tax, which they would have to consider hereafter. The view he took was that the tax should be imposed on places of public resort and entertainment, because they brought numbers of people together, and would be less likely to require the interference of the police if conducted under the responsibility of a licence. The evidence which was taken before the Committee of 1853–01 showed that the great evil arose from those houses which were kept open all night, and he recommended that those only should be taxed which were open after a certain hour at night, and before a certain hour in the morning. Such a provision would, he thought, cover all the worst class of eating-houses. Those which were open during the day and shut in the evening were harmless places of resort, and did not call for any inspection on the part of the police. But it was clearly proved before the Committee that when the public-houses and beershops were closed, the worst characters in a town resorted to the coffee-houses, temperance tels, shell-fish shops, and so on, which were kept open till four or live o'clock in the morning; and there could be little doubt that in those places beer and spirits were sold illicitly, because the police had no access to them. It appeared to him that those places only should be taxed which were kept open between ten o'clock at night and four o'clock in the morning.

said, he would suggest that they should alter the sum of £20 to £25. It appeared rather bard that a man having a house rated at £19 a year should only pay 10s. 6d., while a man having a house rated at £1 more, should have to pay one guinea.

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer had omitted to answer a very important question which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; that was, what constituted a refreshment-house? Would a shop in a country town, which sold biscuits, apples, and confectionery—for confectionery was particularly mentioned in the Bill—come under the designation of a house of refreshment? Nothing could be more vague than the terms in which it was at present described; and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last person to allow the House to come to a decision on this subject without having a definition of a refreshment-house.

said, he could assure the hon. Member he had not overlooked the question at all. He had stated generally, in his explanations to the House, and had likewise specified in the Bill, what was clearly understood to be the meaning of the term "refreshment-house." Various proposals had been made to modify or restrain that meaning, and the question was, when could they most conveniently consider these proposals? In his opinion, it was not convenient to do so at the present stage, when they could not introduce Amendments to limit the meaning of the term. The proper time for such a discussion would be when they were going through the clauses of the Bill, which defined and fixed the application of the principle. The only question now before the House was whether to any refreshment-house other than those which sold strong drink this obligation to take out a licence should apply. It appeared to him that the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Salomons) was inadmissible. If he was rightly advised of the indirect operation of the licences, the alteration proposed would have the effect of establishing very peculiar and anomalous relations with regard to the class of persons subject to the charge. For there would then be three classes. There would be a class of persons with houses up to £20 rental, paying 10s. 6d. for the licence, and not receiving any indirect relief through taking out a licence because they were not subject to house tax; and there would be a second class of persons with houses between £20 and £25, likewise paying only 10s. 6d. duty, but receiving indirect relief through having their houses rated as shops under the house tax. The third class would, of course, be those above £25. It was plain that such an arrangement would be very inconvenient, and that it would be better that the distinction should be drawn at £20 where the incidence of the house tax began.

said, he would not oppose the Resolution. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, in agreeing to this Resolution, no one would be pledged as to any description of refreshment-house. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] On that understanding he thought there was great force in the observations of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy). He would be glad to see the duty confined to that class of houses indicated by the Committee, which were kept open at irregular hours, when there could be no doubt that great mischief had arisen from their not being under the supervision of the police. One effect of the duty, it appeared, would be to transmogrify, if he might use the word, a certain class of houses into shops, and consequently to exempt them from the proportion of the house tax which they paid at present. That would not certainly simplify the discussion of this question, as they did not all possess the same knowledge of the effect of the different revenue Acts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly stated that this was not only a police, but a fiscal question. It was to these licences that the right hon. Gentleman, he understood, looked to supply the deficiency caused by the repeal of certain Customs' duties which he had induced the House to sanction. He wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any data upon which he could calculate what the licence duties, if agreed to by the Committee, would probably yield.

said, that various questions yet remained unsettled which would, of course, affect the amount derived from the licences. He was bound to say, on the part of those who were best acquainted with the subject—the officers of the revenue—that it was really impossible to form any trustworthy estimate when entering on ground which was entirely new. The decision to which the House might come as to the class of houses subject to licences, and as to the extension of the system to Ireland and Scotland, would, of course, materially affect the financial results of the measure. But as far as a conjecture, rather than an estimate, could he formed, the whole of the licences, both for wine and refreshment-houses, in England, Scotland, and Ireland would yield to the revenue between £60,000 and £70,000 a year. It was anticipated that the wine licences would supply by far the greatest sum.

said, he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to the proposal of the hon. Member for Leominster.

said, he did not in the least degree desire to put a negative on the proposal of the hon Gentleman; but, as there were various particulars in which it was proposed to limit the application of the licence, he thought that they had better all be discussed at the time when they could insert in the Bill any Intendments they agreed upon.

said, he hoped the House would put a negative on the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no man was to sell anything like victuals or refreshments without paying a 10s. 6d. duty, and that no man was to consume those victuals or refreshments, undefined as they were, without having a policeman to wait on him. The object of the Bill was to introduce the police into every man's house. It was a common boast that an Englishman's house was his castle; but it would cease to be his castle if he was not to be allowed to sell refreshments, or to receive any one within doors to consume them without the attendance and supervision of the police. There was some sense in placing restrictions on the sale of spirits or wine. If they wished to prevent drunkenness in those houses at night, let them be licensed and placed under the operation of a heavy duty. But they might depend on it that if this House was prepared to submit to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that all refreshment-houses were to pay a licence duty, and that every man who entered them was to be subject to the attendance of the police, at all events, the public would not submit to it. It was worthy of the Six Acts, and of Lord Castlereagh's days. It was said to be with the view of promoting the morality and improvement of the working classes that this system was to be introduced. One day they were told that the working classes were so much improved that the franchise might be lowered to £6, and the next that the working classes must neither eat nor drink without having the police to watch them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not regard it as a police question, and would not give up the fiscal portion of the proposition. But, if so, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them how much he expected this tax would produce. If the sum were large, it would show how obnoxious and oppressive was the burden; and if it were a good tax, it ought to be extended to Scotland. He hoped the Committee would accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

observed, that it might be necessary to give the police control over coffee-shops and temperance-houses which were the resorts of disorderly characters; but that it should be limited to those houses which were open at certain hours.

said, he conceived that they were proceeding in a very irregular manner, as they were called upon to agree that refreshment-houses should be licensed before they had really determined what refreshment-houses were. As to those refreshment-houses in which no tippling or the sale of spirits took place, he could not see why any licence should be put upon them. He, for one, wished to see the sale of light wines extended, but he agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that it would be most objectionable to have the intrusion of policemen where a small trade in refreshments was carried on. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the question was as to the capability of the house, but looking to the Metropolis, the distinction would not hold water, because there a smaller house might be rated higher than a house elsewhere. The police could see everything which took place in a baker's shop from the outside, and, if they had a right of inspection, no baker would be able to let lodgings, because people would not live where they would be subject to such an annoyance.

said, he thought it was not a very convenient course of proceeding to discuss police regulations in a Committee of Ways and Means. The hon. Member for Finsbury was mistaken if he supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given any information of the amount of revenue which would be raised by these licences. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if England, Ireland, and Scotland, were all included, the sum upon which he calculated from wine and refreshment licences, was £60,000 or £70,000 a year. As the principal part was expected to be produced by licences for the sale of wine, he was correct in describing the amount estimated from refreshment licences as infinitesimally small, and he thought the Committee should look with great jealousy and suspicion on these small means of meeting a great deficiency which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself created. There was every probability that by modifications in the Bill the small amount which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated would be still further diminished, and the result would be to inflict great inconvenience and annoyance on the very classes which it was the alleged intention of the Government to benefit, without obtaining any revenue worth considering. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) with respect to the class of houses that ought to be taxed; and if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would go to a division he should support him.

said, it seemed to him to be a most extraordinary proposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask them to vote for the Resolution, on the understanding that he would modify it in Committee. What was the proposition before the Committee? It was,

"That, towards the supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, levied, and paid to and for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, for and upon the several licences hereafter mentioned, the respective rates and duties the following licences—that is to say, for every refreshment-house."

Now, they were asked to vote for that without knowing what was really to be considered as a refreshment-house or the character of the house to be licensed. If there were a large number of refreshment-houses in London kept in a disorderly manner, why did not the Government bring-in a Bill, as in the ease of gaming-houses, giving the police a power of inspection? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had had a Budget in hand at the time the gambling-houses were put down, would he have proposed to put a tax on them for the purpose of making them liable to police regulations instead of bringing in a straightforward Bill for the purpose? Take another class of houses—where promiscuous assignations were supposed to be made—would he have recourse to a sys- tem of licensing those mansions if he wanted to bring them under police regulations? The right hon. Gentleman's argument was simply this:—"I tax all refreshment-houses, good as well as bad, and I tax the bad in order to give the police power over them." The Resolution was drawn up in a most unqualified form, and he hoped the House would not trust to what might be done in Committee on the Bill, but insist on its being considerably modified before giving its assent to the present stage.

said, that the hon. and learned Member had totally misrepresented what had fallen from him. The Resolution did not make a declaration that every refreshment-house should be bound to take out a licence, but simply stated the price at which refreshment licences should be issued. It was quite a different thing to fix the price of a licence and to define the class of houses to which it was applicable. The only question was, did they think that there was some description of refreshment-houses to which the licence ought not to be applicable?

said, he had no objection to place under the supervision of the police, all houses which in any way promoted public immorality; but that was a question which ought to be considered by the Home Secretary, and brought under the consideration of the House distinctly as a question affecting public morals. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman was tacking an important question of morality to a Money Bill, and thereby excluding the House of Lords from all power of taking cognizance of it. At one moment the question was treated as one of police, at another entirely of finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to define the class of houses which were to pay this tax exactly, and not in terms which would enable him to tax all refreshment-houses. He hoped the House would decide this question, not by mere voting power, but on considerations of justice. One-half of the whole shop tax of the country was at the present time paid by the Metropolis, a result which arose from the standard being fixed at £20. If this Bill passed, every lodging-house keeper in London who served his lodger with bread and butter and coffee for breakfast in his attic—and this was a very general practice in the Metropolis—would have to pay the tax. To go on voting taxes merely according to voting power, and not on the principle of justice, would be teaching the people a lesson—which if a Reform Bill were passed—though he was by no means anxious for such a Bill as that now before the House—and the power were placed in their hands, they might not be disinclined to act upon it.

said, he should then submit to the Committee that if refreshment-houses were to be subjected to taxation, there ought to be one uniform tax upon all of them, and not the graduated tax proposed. Hitherto the taxes on particular trades were uniform, and had no reference to the value of the houses in which the trades were carried on. If that uniformity were to be set aside, then the proper way of imposing a trade tax would be to graduate it according to the income of the tradesman, and not the rent of the place in which he carried on his business. All teadealers, whatever the amount of their business or the rent of their shops, paid a uniform licence of half-a-guinea for the purpose of enabling the customs to secure the revenue. He would therefore move as an Amendment that the proposed tax should be reduced to 10s. 6d.

said, there seemed to him to be no reasonable argument for having two different scales. As the Bill stood it gave power to the police to inspect refreshment-houses, but, unless the keepers of such houses were licensed to sell wine they could not be punished as persons keeping houses of a disorderly character. His object would be to make them amen- able to punishment in such cases, but when the object was effected he did not see the advantage of maintaining an increased rate as regarded the higher class of houses.

said, there might be a uniformity of licence in the case of other trades, but it was not a good precedent from which to argue. There was no part of our system of taxation which it would be more desirable to revise than this system of licences. The little village teadealer felt it an extreme hardship that he should be called upon to pay as much as was paid by Fortnum and Mason for a licence. A complicated scale in this instance he did not recommend; but that there should he some distinction between the rate paid by large and small refreshment-houses was, he thought, a reasonable proposal. He was not inclined to depart from the terms of the Resolution.

said, he thought that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not strictly applicable to the case before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the whole system of licences needed revisal that was no reason for imposing the tax proposed by the clause. If the system of taxation on trades were shortly to be revised, it would be better to impose only one uniform tax on refreshment-houses, because the imposition of different taxes on different classes of refreshment-houses would make more difficult the adjustment of trade licences hereafter. He should support the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

declared that he did not hint, or promise, or say anything on the subject of revising the system. He merely had said that the system was bad which imposed an uniform rate on the exceedingly small dealer and on the man who did a very large business. He thought the making of some distinction was advisable.

said, this tax would fall very heavily upon traders in the Metropolis. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way, and that a uniform tax would be imposed.

inquired whether colonial wines would come under the class of British or foreign wines.

said, they would be classed as foreign wines.

wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to keep up the difference between the licences granted to wholesale and retail traders. The licence at present, he believed, was £10 10s. for persons who dealt wholesale, and £2 2s. or £3 3s. for persons who dealt retail. Preserving that difference would not promote the consumption of unadulterated wine. The difference between the taxes ought to be abolished, and a uniform rate should be established. At present the law was evaded by selling sample bottles. Without they had a uniform licence of seven or eight guineas, the wines sold by the retailer not to be consumed upon the premises would be of that charming character which M. Chevalier described as partaking more of the water of the Seine than the juice of the grape, just as our London porter was said to have an affinity for the water of the Thames. He therefore proposed that the charge for the licence should be uniformly between five to ten guineas.

said, the hon. Member had certainly raised a very fair question for discussion; but he did not see that any material convenience was likely to result from the change proposed. 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 licence. 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 practical inconvenience would arise from maintaining a distinction, and he thought he had given a sufficient definition to secure the line between the two classes. A five or seven guinea licence 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 guineas wine licence to five or six guineas he was afraid the next step they would be called upon to take would be to reduce the ten guinea spirit licence.

said, he was not disposed to take a puritanical view of the question, but he should like to know the description of shops likely to be engaged in the retail of wine. If wine was to be sold at every shop at which tea, sugar, and the like were now purchased, the result would be a great social change. He had hardly expected that it was intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give facilities for the dissemination of wine in so profuse a manner. He was, therefore, in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) being adopted, for he thought without it the Bill would not contain a sufficient check to the evils to which it would give rise.

said, undoubtedly he had proceeded on the principle that there was no objection to the extension of the facilities for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises, but precautions would be taken to prevent the abuse of that power.

said, he would then move that the Resolutions just passed should be reported forthwith, in order that they might be inserted in the Bill in Committee. They would then form part of the Bill, and the Committee would then have an opportunity of voting on the whole of the clauses of the Bill. He would then reprint the Bill, and it would go forth at once as a whole for further consideration. He would not make the Motion if it was against the general wish of the House.

said, he rose to move that the Bill be committed that day six months. If a reason were required for the proposal he was about to make, it would be found in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in placing upon the notice paper Amendments that would to a great extent alter the principle of the Bill, and refusing to consent to recommit the Bill in order that it might be printed and the House enabled fully to understand the bearing of the clauses which he proposed. But there were other reasons that led him to take a course that would again raise a discussion on the principle of the Bill. The first reason was, that the main principle of the Bill was to extend the licensing system as far as circumstances would permit it to be extended, or as far as the demand for wines could be created. Now, he proposed to show that neither for the comforts nor the convenience of the people, nor oven for the purpose of raising revenue, was such a course required or necessary. He would, on the contrary, show that unrestricted competition in the sale of alcoholic drinks tended to injure the health, the morals, and the happiness of the people. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) had clearly proved that proposition in a speech delivered by him on the introduction of his Beer Bill in 1857. This was by no means a new idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had been introduced as long ago as the reign of William and Mary, but the evil became so great that in the reign of George H. the Legislature, even in those days, which, compared with the present, were supposed to be degenerate days, was obliged to pass strong restrictive laws on the subject. A duty of £20 was imposed on retailing licences for the sale of spirits, and no licence was given to any person to keep an alehouse or retail brandy but at a general meeting of justices of the peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now sought, for the first time, to destroy the whole control of the magistrates; he attempted to cast a slur on that body, and proposed that the only person to have a voice in the matter should be the Supervisor of Excise. But, looking at the Bill as a fiscal measure, he asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown any good reasons for extending the trade in alcoholic drinks. By a return obtained in 1855 it appeared that there was a beerhouse for every thirty-eight males and females over twenty-one years of age, and one for eighty-seven males of all ages, so that the accommodation for the sale of spirituous liquors was now sufficient for the wants of the country. But even if it could be proved that there was any want of houses for the sale of such liquors, there existed ample machinery for increasing them to any extent that might he required. The system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was tried in Liverpool, and the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to it in his speech the other evening. He said that when the magistrates of Liverpool hesitated in increasing the licences drunkenness increased, but that, on the other hand, when they extended the licences drunkenness decreased; and he instanced that as a contradiction of the prevailing opinion that a multiplication of the means of drinking increased drunkenness itself. But what had been the fact? The magistrates of Liverpool certainly exercised the powers they possessed and extended the licences, but they had to increase their police, and the evil of drunkenness rose to such an extent that through their representatives in Parliament they asked for and obtained the Committee that sat under the presidency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. That Committee reported that there should be only one species of Excise licence granted. The Bill created a most extraordinary anomaly. The magistrates were to have a control over the character of the houses, but none over the number to be licensed. At present the magistrates had a control over the indefinite multiplication of licences; but the present Bill took away from them all such control. By a new clause put on the paper any house called a refreshment-house, on payment of the duty, unless notice in writing was given by the Lord Mayor, police magistrates, or the justice of the peace, that it was not a confectioner's shop or an eating-house, or that it was a disorderly house, no matter what the character of the applicant might be, was entitled to a wine licence. The applicant for a licence might be a man or woman of indifferent character, but unless upon these grounds, which gave no security for the respectability of the applicant, no one had the power to hinder the granting of a licence. That was a matter of serious importance in the view of public morality, because such a provision at once broke down every barrier against vice and immorality, which Parliament had been endeavouring to raise with much labour and great expense. He (Mr. Palk) could not perceive what was the real principle of the measure. Was it a free-trade or a protective measure? Indeed, he was wholly at a loss to discover whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Free-trader or a Protectionist. If he was a Free-trader, upon what principle did he impose restrictions upon the sale of wine; and if he was a Protectionist, upon what principle did he impose a duty upon articles of our own manufacture? The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in introducing this measure he was following the policy of Sir Robert Peel in carrying free trade into the sale of wine. But a gentleman of great authority, at a Manchester meeting, declared that no one had any right to talk about this proposal as a development of free trade, with which it had nothing to do. The whole question was one of public safety, which would justify any amount of interference, if it would justify interference at all. Another speaker, Mr. Barker, denied with equal force that free trade had anything to do with the present scheme of the Government. The Bill, in fact, combined all the objections that any one might entertain for free trade, with those which hon. Members had so constantly advanced against protection. He would venture to say that the right hon. Gentlemen was totally ignorant of those high and noble principles which induced Sir Robert Peel to make such sacrifices—to sacrifice, in short, the great party which he had led, and to forfeit, for a time, at least, the estimation of his friends. His principle was that of remitting all taxes upon food and raw material—to raise and elevate the artisan and the labourer by placing him in a better pecuniary position—to raise him by education, and to show him that there was but little difference between the working man and the gentleman, except in social position. The course the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pursuing was the exact converse of that of Sir Robert Peel. For pure fiscal purposes, and for the sake of a revenue he had parted from that he might make a treaty with France for which he had received no reciprocity, the right hon. Gentleman had created a deficit which with singular infelicity he sought to make up from the necessities of the poor and the improvident. By alluring people to drink wine to which they were unaccustomed, the right hon. Gentleman hoped to raise a paltry sum of £60,000, to gain which he proposed to pass a measure fraught with all the evils and misery that the House had been for years seeking to remove. During the last fifty years a large number of earnest and sincere men had been doing all they could to promote the education and moral im- provement of the people. They were good, unobtrusive men, who did not content themselves with making grand speeches in the House of Commons, but who went about their work steadily and perseveringly. They were called by various names, though that by which they were most commonly known was the "teetotallers." He knew that that name generally excited a smile, but he did not understand why, for he had the pleasure of knowing many teetotallers, and he believed they practised the self-denial which they inculcated. They had, however, been very successful; they had extended their organization throughout the country, and one of their principal aids was the temperance coffeehouse, which enabled a man to obtain his meals without the risk of being tempted to indulge in intoxicating liquors. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer stepped in and broke down the barrier which the friends of temperance had raised by insisting that every house of entertainment should be licensed. Under the proposed arrangement the modest, sober coffee-house would no longer be able to hold its ground against the attractive places of resort which would be established for the sale of intoxicating drink, and would be tempted to enter the same dangerous trade. There was a Divine appeal which said "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;" but this was not the rule of guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether, as a question of free trade, fiscal arrangement, or social policy, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to force such a Bill on the attention of the House. As a fiscal measure it was wicked and unnecessary; and as a social measure it was opposed to the interests of public morality, and he should have considered himself wanting in his duty to himself and his constituents if he had refrained, even on that occasion, unusual though it were, from raising his voice against the measure.

said, he rose to second the Motion. Licences were generally imposed for the purpose of controlling immorality, but the proposed Bill simply imposed licences for revenue. He was opposed to the wine licences, but he entertained a far stronger objection to the licensing of re- freshment-houses. The lodges in the public Parks, where oranges, ginger beer, and cakes were supplied, and every little shop where a child bought a cheesecake or a gingerbread nut, would be obliged to take out a licence. There was no more reason why a 10s. 6d. duty should be imposed on these refreshment-houses than on bakers' or butchers' or any other shops. The whole measure was a gross infringement of the liberty of the subject, and he hoped the House would pause before it countenanced so extraordinary a course of legislation.

said, he hardly supposed that it was desired to resume at any length the discussion which was brought to a close on Monday evening. His hon. Friend who spoke last did not appear to have said anything in the nature of an objection which went to the root of the Bill. In the first place, he begged leave to assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not construed accurately the clause as it stood. Its scope was far more limited than he appeared to suppose. There was no question of compelling every person to take out a licence who sold anything to be eaten or drunk. The Bill was subject to the most important limitations, which he should not go into then, because they had much better be discussed on the clauses. As regarded the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, he admitted that it dealt broadly with the whole subject. The hon. Gentleman, however, made an imputation upon him to the effect that he had exhibited great distrust of the magistracy, which was certainly not warranted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had more truly said (he other evening that the powers in the hands of the magistrates were enormous, and that it was necessary, as a matter of justice, to limit them. That was much nearer the truth, for the powers were much too large, and they were limited in the Bill. He had listened with great attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Devon, and he readily admitted that his conscientious opinions were entitled to every respect. But the great fallacy with regard to this Bill was that hon. Gentlemen declined to make those distinctions which lay deep in the nature of the case. They referred to the failure of the Beer Bill, though he must say that, even with regard to the Beer Bill its failure was one of a far more qualified kind, and related more to certain peculiar parishes and districts than hon. Gentlemen were willing to admit. But however that might be, the present Bill was altogether of a different nature. He propounded it as a deliberate attempt to improve the means of supplying refreshments to the public, and of enabling the people to find fermented liquors at the same places where eatables were to be had. After having fully argued the question on a former occasion, he did not think it would be respectful to the House if he went over them again, but he hoped in Committee the hon. Gentleman would reconsider the propositions he had made.

moved an Amendment for the purpose of restricting the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises to wine in bottle only.

said, this clause raised the question so much discussed, namely, 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 under the control of the police.

said, that every person keeping a shop would be entitled to take out a licence for the sale of wine in bottle, and that they would not be under the control of the police.

said, he would propose the insertion of the words, "other than foreign wines" after the word "commodities" to prevent the holders of ten guinea licences under the existing law from exchanging those licences for three guinea licences under the present Bill.

said, that generally the term wholesale dealer meant a person who sold to the retailer and did not sell direct to the consumer, but in the wine trade it had a statutory meaning—namely, a person who sold more than a certain quantity whether to a retailer or a consumer. A licence under this Bill would enable the dealer to sell any quantity, small or large, and render the present wholesale licence of £10 10s. unnecessary.

said, the clause had been considered by the legal advisers of the Government, and they thought the sale of "goods and commodities" was clearly defined, and that there was no fear of their enabling persons to substitute a retail licence for a wholesale licence. 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 retail dealer.

said, a distinction must be drawn between the terms. He believed a wholesale dealer would not be entitled to sell less than two gallons, and if a man sold less than one dozen, then he would be a retailer.

said, they had constituted a licence 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.

said, there were two classes of retailers of wine at present—the licenced victuallers and the persons who sold quantities of not less than two gallons. If the clause was passed as it stood, no man would pay ten guineas for a wholesale licence when he could obtain the same power by taking out a retail licence, which would, enable him to sell any quantity.

said, he understood that any person who kept a shop for the sale of any goods or commodities might, if he chose, sell wine by retail not to be consumed on the premises; but that did not subject him to the control of the police. Now, he wished to know how they were going to prevent a person from selling wine retail to be consumed on the premises.

said, he apprehended the clause was sufficiently clear to prevent any evasion, as the parties would only be entitled to sell in bottles.

said, there were certain persons to whom the granting of licences for the retail of wine was limited. The object of the Bill was simply to extend that privilege to persons keeping refreshment-houses. It was clear that a man who only took out a three-guinea licence could not effect the same sale as a man who took out a ten guinea licence.

said, he wished to ask the meaning of the words "without pro- ducing or having any other licence or authority."

said, the words were not directed to any other purpose than signifying the intention of the law that there should be no control by the magistrates or any other authority. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Woodd), he proposed to adopt the words "other than foreign wines;" and to add "or who shall have taken out licences as dealers in wine," because he thought it reasonable to allow the holders of wholesale wine licences to take out retail licences also, if they pleased. He did not think that there was any danger of these shops becoming drinking places, and he was sure that it would not be wise to subject the mere passing of bottles through the shops to the surveillance of the police.

said, he wished to ask whether there was anything to prevent the retail dealer, to whom they were about to give a £3 3s. licence, from selling out of his shop to anybody.

said, the object of the 2nd clause was to prevent that.

said, he 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 licence and retailing wine to his workmen?

said, there was nothing to prevent such a man from retailing British wines at present in the way described, but he never heard of the practice.

said, he would propose as an Amendment, after the word "retail," to add the words "and in reputed quart bottles only." He believed that those words would afford a check against the abuse of the power of selling wines in shops where it was not to be drunk.

said, that the Act would be practically invalid unless wine was allowed to be sold in fictitious or reputed quart bottles.

said, the object of these words appeared to be to prevent the drinking of wine on the premises by selling it in quart bottles. He did not see the use of this restriction, and it would be very hard if a poor man in case of sickness wanting a glass of wine was not allowed to get it unless he took a quart. If he could do so he would put it in his pocket, and would not care to stop and consume it on the premises. It would be going quite far enough to provide that wine should be sold in bottle only.

said, he saw no reason why persons might not buy less than a reputed quart bottle. He did not see that there ought to be any restriction upon a person buying a pint or even a half-pint bottle.

said, the restriction was intended to discourage intemperance; and, if it were not imposed, there would be nothing to prevent a person buying a small quantity of wine in a bottle, and going out upon the pavement and drinking it, or in other ways evading the statute.

said, he believed that the measure could not he better denned than as a reputed quart bottle, and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to that description.

said, the words "in reputed quart bottles" might imply that the sale must consist of two bottles, and he suggested that the words should he substituted "in not less than one reputed quart bottle."

said, it appeared to him that, as the object of the Bill was to diffuse throughout the country a taste for wine, there should be no unnecessary restrictions on the sale.

thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object was to prevent these wine-sellers from allowing wine to be consumed on the premises, his plan for effecting that object was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have proposed that the wine-seller should not keep a corkscrew, nor his customer bring one with him in his pocket. "Why should these people not he allowed to sell wine in any manner that might be most convenient to them.

said, he was prepared to take the sense of the Committee against the insertion of these words, because he thought they contained a bad principle.

contended that it was necessary to draw a line of distinction somewhere to prevent these wine sellers from using their places of business as public-houses. A poor man could obtain his glass of wine at the public-house.

said, the experience of the working of the Beer Act ought not to be passed over in discussing this point. By that Act a privilege was given to sell beer not to be consumed on the premises, and this was the sort of thing which used frequently to happen in houses of that description. A man would go in with a quart pot in his hand, and ask for "a quart of your best fourpenny." No sooner was it handed over than down it went like a flash of lightning, and then the man's confederate, who was waiting outside, would lay an information against the beerseller for selling beer to be consumed on the premises without a licence. The same thing would happen to the shopkeepers who might take to the retail sale of wine if the Legislature trapped them into selling it in open pints or glasses. A man would go in, ask for a small quantity, which is down his throat in a moment, and then the shopkeeper would be hauled up before the magistrates. It would be no use for him to plead that he could not help the man drinking the wine, the magistrates would say, "No doubt it is a hard case, but here is the law, and the law says your liquor is not to be consumed on the premises." A man could not play such tricks with a bottle—the neck of the bottle would stick in his throat; he could not dispose of the wine with the same rapidity as the beer in the quart pot. It was mainly in consequence of such practices as these, he believed, that the number of licences to retail beer not to be consumed on the premises had very much decreased of late years. Unless some proper safeguard were adopted, so many informations would be laid against the dealers in wine that they would soon give up selling it, as had already happened in regard to the sale of beer. He knew that owing to that very cause the beerhouses which formerly existed had almost all vanished from certain districts.

said, the returns showed that the number of licences for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises was 39,945, but of licences to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, the number was only 2,715. He concurred in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken as to the necessity of taking precautions against wine-sellers being victimised by the devices of informers.

said, the substantial question was how to establish a line of demarcation between the sale of wine to be consumed on the premises and its sale for consumption off the premises. The sale in quart bottles was a well-known and sufficiently practical test in such matters.

said, he thought that the sale in quart bottles would almost do away with the sale of wine by retail. He would suggest a medium course—the pint bottle.

said, he objected to the use of the words "reputed quart bottle." They ought to adopt a legal measure, if any at all.

said, he was unwilling to hinder the progress of the Bill, but he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the word "pint" would be preferable.

said, he had listened as dispassionately as he could to that great bottle controversy. An important legal safeguard was involved in this matter, and he had no doubt that the argument of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire was as sound as it was lively. All he desired was to give every practical accommodation to the public consistently with the prevention of fraud.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take his stand on the quart bottle. It was a good rule to stand upon what had been already adopted. If the wine-sellers were allowed to sell pints of wine, a man that wanted to tipple might carry pint flagons in his pocket, and, having purchased a pint of wine from one of these wine-sellers, he could go outside of the shop, drink it in the street, and return again immediately for another pint, and by the repetition of that process get drunk. Put if the wine-seller were prohibited from selling less than a quart, that tippling could not be carried on so easily.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the pint bottle.

said, that if the pint bottle were admitted, all the inconveniences so graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be aggravated. He did not think the use of a pint bottle would prevent a man from drinking off wine like a flash of lightning. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should stand by the larger bottle.

said, no doubt he had seen the lazzaroni of Naples get the contents of a bottle of wine down their throats in a very continuous and rapid stream. He would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, to walk into the refreshment-room and try how long it would take to empty a pint bottle by putting the neck in his mouth. He (Mr. Henley) thought he would find the operation a slow one.

inquired whether there was anything to prevent wine being bought, for the purpose of being drunk at home, in houses licensed to sell it for consumption on the premises.

Not at all.

Then he would have the word quart retained.

expressed an objection to any proposal which would offer additional inducements to curtail the size of pint and quart measures, which was diminishing daily. If "reputed" quantities were to be sanctioned at all, he thought the quart was the one which the House ought to adopt.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that a reputed quart was not a defined and ascertained measure. It was already provided by an Act of 11 and 12 Vict, that a reputed quart should be one-sixth of a gallon. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would stand by the quart; if not, he (Mr. James) should make a "pint" of doing it.

said, he could corroborate the statement as to the limited capacity of "reputed" measures. A reputed quart had been declared to be one- sixth of a gallon; but any hon. Member who might wish to try the experiment in the refreshment-room would find, he thought, that it would take three reputed pints to make one quart bottle.

then proposed to insert the words "in reputed quart or pint bottles only."

suggested that the words "Imperial quart or pint" would be more suitable.

thought no object would be gained by it. They had decided that wine sold by retail should be in bottles.

thought the quantity should be defined.

said, there were objections to inserting the legal measure, which might bring them into collision with the Customs regulations.

said the size of bottles was so rapidly diminishing that he was reminded of the Motion introduced into the Irish House of Commons by Sir E. Flood, to the effect that every quart bottle should hold a quart. [Mr. BASS: No, but hold a pint.] No, that might do for England; but they liked good measure in Ireland, and the Motion was that every quart bottle should hold a quart.

said, he would make inquiries, and insert words to render the definition more clear, if it were found necessary. The primâ facie inference was that a pint was not a quart.

said, he wished to ask whether the wholesale dealer would have a right to sell a less quantity than two gallons?

said, the intention of the clause was to confine the retail dealer to the sale of one dozen of wine at a time to one customer.

said, he would then inquire if the wholsesale dealer would have a right to sell a less quantity than at present?

Not without a retail licence.

said, that a person who took out a wholesale licence could not sell less than two gallons, and the right hon. Gentleman now proposed every sale of foreign wine, in less quantity than two gallons, should be deemed a sale by retail. He did not say that he might not sell more than that. If the clause stood in its present shape there would be an end of all wholesale wine licences.

said, he saw no reason why a retail dealer might not, under the operation of the clause, sell a dozen dozens of wine in a single day, provided each dozen were sold at a different time, and thus at once interfere with the profit of the wholesale dealer and defraud the revenue.

said, no doubt the law might be evaded. He thought the wine would come into the retailer's possession from the wholesale dealers, the same as the beer came to the beer-sellers from the large brewers. In that case no practical injury would be inflicted on the wholesale dealers.

said, at present, persons could not buy less than two gallons of spirits or wine without going to a publican. He thought that a person who took out a wine licence ought to be placed on the same footing as a publican.

said, he thought the law might be evaded to a great extent by such dishonest acts as those referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, by the cumbrous process of making out separate Bills; but he did not believe it would reach to the extent of injuring the wholesale dealer. Publicans were not limited by their licences as to the quantity they sold. It was not proposed to interfere with them by this clause.

said, he should like to know whether a party of a dozen gentlemen, or a larger number, dining together—such a case, for instance, as that of Her Majesty's Ministers taking their whitebait dinner at Greenwich—could, under the operation of the clause, be served with only a dozen bottles of wine.

replied that he did not conceive there would be any limitation in such a case.

suggested an alteration in the clause which would protect the wholesale dealer.

said, as he understood the clause, it meant that every man of the company who dined together could get a dozen.

said, he would propose to insert the words "or in the open air in the immediate neighbourhood of the shop or premises."

said, he thought that such words were not necessary, for evasion was not likely, in this country, to take place in that form; and it might sometimes inflict on parties very great hardships.

suggested the substitution of the word premises for house, which would cover a cricket or bowling-green.

said, he saw no objection to the substitution of the one word for the other.

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 licence. Now, he wished to observe that the clause was limited in two most important particulars. In the first place, the victuals or refreshment was to be consumed on the premises, and in the next place the sale of victuals or refreshment was to constitute the purpose for which the House was kept open, and was not to be accidental, secondary, or occasional. For instance, if a lodging-house keeper engaged to supply some of his lodgers with victuals, that would not bring him within the operation of the clause. Still, he thought it would never do to indicate by name certain places which would be excepted from the Act, such as temperance hotels, coffee-shops, shell-fish shops, and other places of public resort. This was recommended by the Committee, but he did not think their Report would be a safe guide in this particular.

said, he would propose that all places kept open to the public for refreshments between the hours of ten o'clock at night and four o'clock in the morning should be deemed refreshment-houses. He would next propose that the licences should be compulsory on all persons who kept such houses; and then, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to carry out the clause as it stood, it would be necessary to strike out the words in the 26th line, and insert "refreshment-houses kept open between ten and four o'clock at night." That alteration would carry out the views of the Committee, and would, he thought, be most desirable. There was no evidence against eating-houses which were kept open only during the day; but the police declared that they could often not clear the streets at night because of refreshment-houses which were open when other places were shut up. He had heard that in some of those night refreshment- houses it was just as easy to get gin as coffee; but the liquor was brought in a coffee-cup, with a cream jug at hand, to prevent suspicion. At the proper time he should propose clauses inflicting penalties on those who kept their houses open between the hours named without taking out a licence, and empowering the police to inspect such refreshment-houses. He thought it would also be necessary to have a further clause to place refreshment-houses that were open at night upon the same footing as beershops, and that if the proprietors of those places knowingly permitted prostitutes, gamblers, or other bad characters to assemble, they should be liable to the same penalties as beershop-keepers were exposed to. In the case of a third offence, the licence should be suspended for a year. He submitted these suggestions in the cause of good order, and he hoped they would meet with the approval of the Committee.

remarked, that the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman would fulfil all the objects they had in view, and they would place a practical line of demarcation between those houses which were to be licensed and those that were not.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. If he did so, it would save a great deal of discussion upon the subsequent clauses, for it was a very serious question to consider what houses were to be subjected to the visits of the police. The right hon. Gentleman had relied upon the words "kept for the purpose," but were not boarding-houses kept for the purpose of selling victuals? Were those respectable establishments to be subjected to visits from policemen with black beards, red beards, and beards of every colour, at any hour, turning all the inhabitants topsy-survy? He thought it would be better to make this a tentative measure, and if further restrictions should by experience be found to be necessary, it would be easy to introduce them, but it would be most improper to make the measure too oppressive in the first instance.

said, he would admit there was much force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. There was much truth in the remark that it would be well to proceed tentatively in the first instance, and, if mischiefs should be shown to exist afterwards, it would be easy to remedy them at a future time. If he adopted the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, he apprehended the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles) could not proceed with his proposed limitation in country places, nor should he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proceed with his limitation as to open shops. He would wish to know, however, whether the hon. Member intended to include cigar-shops in the I words "refreshment,, resort, or entertainment;" for those shops were open at night, and were not of the best class of houses. He did not refer to large divans, but to a multitude of small shops, which should be subjected to the same restrictions as other shops that were open at the same hours. Then there were the shops where penny ices and lemonade were sold, which were kept open at night, but which were of a harmless character; but, as the licence fee was so low, probably it was hardly worth while to make any exception. Upon another point he also wished to ascertain the feeling of the Committee. He thought the hours named—ten to four—were too limited, and should be from nine to four, or nine to five. His own opinion was, that the words were so large that cigar-shops would be included in them; but he would assent to the Amendment, provided the hours were to be from nine to five, instead of from ten to four.

said, he was anxious that the words respecting the hours should be as extensive as possible, bearing in view the social welfare of the people. He was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing his suggestion, but he thought the licence duty was so very small that, if there was any object in keeping a house open after nine o'clock at night, the licence fee would scarcely be felt. He did not therefore object to the extension of the language of the clause so as to include cigar shops. The great object he had in view was to prevent the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors.

said, that under the circumstances he should not think it necessary to bring forward his Amendment. In reference to the hours suggested for the shutting up of unlicensed refreshment-houses, he would remind the right hon. Gentlemen that the coffee-shops were generally frequented at night by men who resorted to them for the main object of reading the newspapers, and who seldom finished their perusal until ten o'clock at night.

said, he thought reading-rooms ought to be excepted where there were no liquors sold.

said, they had passed all the clauses in the Bill which related to the imposition of the tax and defined its object, and now they were going to deal with clauses relating to public morality. They had passed what was called a Money Bill, but they had appended to it a number of provisions which related to the general conduct of the community, and which would require the consideration not only of that but of the other House of Parliament. In the other House there were lords spiritual, who had the opportunity of communicating with all the clergy, and could obtain information which hon. Members generally had not the same facilities to procure. Many peers, too, took a deep interest in the question of temperance; but he apprehended they would be precluded from making any Amendments in the Bill if it was sent up to them in a shape by which two distinct subjects were mixed up together. He would therefore appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt a similar course to that which he pursued in respect to the Stamp Duties Bill, from which he separated the portion repealing Sir J. Barnard's Act, and, omitting from the present Measure all the provisions relating to questions of police, to introduce those provisions in a separate Bill.

said, he did not regard the present clause simply as a police clause. It was a clause which enabled parties to do something for the public convenience; but he could not understand why the proprietors of the refreshment places mentioned in the clause should be disabled from selling a glass of beer, if a customer preferred that beverage to wine.

said, that the intention of the Bill was not to interfere in any way with beerhouses, properly so called; but the fact of a person holding a wine licence would not disqualify him from holding a beer licence, nor would the holding of a beer licence disqualify him from holding a wine licence. It would be absurd for the Legislature to say that the proprietor of an eating-house should have the option of giving his customers beer exclusively or wine exclusively, but should not be enabled to serve beer and wine, accordingly as persons might prefer one to the other. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he did not think that the Committee had yet reached that part of the Bill to which the hon. Member's remarks applied, but he could not accede to the doctrine that the licensing portion of the Bill should be separated from the police portion. If reference were made to the Beer Act, it would be found that the dealing with these two matters together was according to precedent; and if the House of Lords made any alteration in the police portion of the Measure, the House of Commons, though it would not accept the Bill so altered, as it was technically a revenue Bill, yet, if it approved of the alteration, might send up to the Lords another Bill embodying the Amendment. He had omitted from the Stamp Duties Bill the clause respecting Sir J. Barnard's Act, because it had no relation to revenue.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to the insertion of the words, "or malt liquors?"

said, that, individually he did not object to the insertion of the words, but he thought them unnecessary.

said, that as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he made it a condition to the obtaining of the licence that the house should be a refreshment-house for the sale of food, and this he considered would occasion great difficulty as regarded the definition.

said, he thought they had limited refreshment-houses to a certain class. He wished to know if he were right in that respect? He hoped that the Bill would be reprinted as amended, so that they might be better able to judge the effect of the Amendments, and to introduce such verbal Amendments as should carry out the intentions of both sides.

asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not interfere with the beer licence regulations in any way? Suppose, for instance, a man who had a beer licence, and was obliged, in conformity with it, to close his place at eleven o'clock, took out a licence to keep a refreshment-shop, would he have a diversity of regulations applying to the two branches of business, carried on in the same premises?

said, that persons might at present take cut a wine licence or a beer licence, but they would not be exactly in the same position, and it would be desirable that the position of a person taking out either should be distinctly defined.

said, he did not know whether he should be in order by at once moving his proviso.

remarked that the clause previous to that which the hon. Member wished to move an Amendment was not yet disposed of.

said, he considered that it was almost impossible to lay down by any rule what refreshments should be supplied as particularly connected with wine drinking.

said, it was intended to place the houses for the sale of the wine on precisely the same footing as houses for the sale of beer. Both would close at the same time.

said, he would then move the insertion of the following proviso at the end of the clause:—

"Provided always, that in any borough, not being a corporate borough, or in any rural district, the consent in writing of two justices of the peace for the said county be first obtained, and that the said justices in their several districts shall have the power of summarily dealing with any licence so obtained, in cases where conviction before a bench of justices shall have taken place, or where card-playing or gambling has been proved to have taken place, or where persons of notoriously dishonest character, or where trampers are known habitually to frequent."

said, he wished to know if they were finally passing the clause, or if it were intended to amend it before they passed the Bill? He thought it was intended to confine the licence to a certain class, but the clause did not carry out that assurance. He hoped that a proper definition of the parties who might obtain a licence under the Bill would be given in the clause.

said, he rose on a point of order. The proviso was at present the subject under discussion, and it was incompetent to make any alteration in the clause, it having been agreed that no further Amendments would be made.

confirmed the hon. Member's statement.

said, it was a very fair subject for consideration, what phraseology would convey to the magistrates a fair and in- telligible indication of what Parliament meant by an eating-house. The simplest mode of making it understood might be the words "bonâ fide eating-house," but the phrase bonâ fide had lately been so damaged and battered in reference to the construction of another Act of Parliament that it was the very last definition he should care to employ. Unless there could be some stringent and effective, yet at the same time intelligible, definition of an eating-house, the result would be that every beerhouse would take a wine licence. It was not, however, intended to create new drinking-houses, but to facilitate the granting of wine licences to eating-houses. He should be glad to receive any suggestion or assistance in regard to the language of the clause. With regard to the proviso moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Palk), he thought it was unsuited to the structure of the Bill, because it brought together inconveniently what was divided in the Bill, and what ought to be divided—namely, the preventive provisions, which were intended to obstruct the improper issue of licences, and the penal provisions which followed the abuse of licences. With regard to the penal provisions, he thought that some of the objects which the hon. Gentleman had in view would be attained by certain Amendments of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given notice. For example, in the 12th clause, he proposed to enlarge the grounds of veto by the magistrate in such a way as to enable him to include the disqualification of a person by a prior conviction in another place. With regard to the first part of the proviso, which provided that in rural districts the consent in writing of two justices of the peace for the county should be first obtained, the great objection to it was, that when applied to for that consent, the magistrate would not know upon what grounds to give it. That appeared to him a conclusive objection to a provision of that kind, unless they laid down definite grounds for the magistrate to go upon.

observed, that the objections which had been raised to the Bill on that (the Opposition) side of the House were of a fair and forcible character. He had applied to the chief constable of the county which he had the honour to represent, to know what would be the effect of the Bill; and that gentleman, who was an officer of considerable ability and experience, assured him that it would be attended with an increase of disorder, and would entail the necessity of an increased police force. They might rely upon it that they could never get over the disadvantage of vesting the granting of licences in the hands of authorities other than those who would be responsible for the conduct of such houses. They had a striking instance of that disadvantage in the case of the beerhouses. As the matter ran with beerhouses so it would be with these winehouses. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman that if such a proviso as was now proposed were agreed to, the Committee were bound to state on what grounds the justices were to refuse their consent, and declare a man to be unfit.

said, his object had been attained to a great extent. It was to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the difference which existed between large towns and rural districts. Many of the small towns in the county which he represented were almost inaccessible from the want of proper roads, and all he wished was that the Bill should give to the population in those places the same amount of protection as was given to the urban population of large towns. He should, therefore, rest satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to give his attention to these two points—the propriety of empowering magistrates to inquire into the character of applicants for licences and of providing for the withdrawal of a licence, by summary conviction, in the event of any irregularity taking place.

said, he would propose to insert the words, "which shall not have been established twelve months previous to the application for such licence." It was desirable that a refreshment-house should be bonâ fide a house for refreshment, and he thought that object might be gained by limiting the licences to houses which had been established twelve months. His object was to prevent shops being opened under the colour of refreshment-houses, solely for the sale of wine.

said, he thought the Amendment would be both ineffectual and vexatious. There were many refreshment-houses which had been established for twelve months, which had no pretension to receive a licence; and, on the other hand, it would be vexatious to compel a man to keep open a house for a year without allowing him to sell wine before he was entitled to apply for a licence.

said, he would suggest whether as the proprietors of refreshment-houses would have the same privileges as licenced victuallers and beerhouse-keepers, they ought not to have the same liability with regard to the billeting of soldiers.

observed that it was part of a peculiar and antiquated system, full of difficulties, and that it would be much better not to import any such provisions into the new system they were now devizing.

said, he had a number of Amendments to propose, for the purpose of giving the jurisdiction in the Metropolis to the Commissioners of Police.

said, he considered the proposition most unsatisfactory. It was most unreasonable to put the Metropolis entirely in the hands of the Commissioners of Police, who were officers of the Crown, and in no way responsible to the inhabitants, either directly through the municipality, or indirectly through the justices of the peace. That would be the introduction of a new system of administration which he viewed with alarm. What he suggested was that they should strike out from the clause the words "magistrates of the Metropolis," and have one uniform system of justices of the peace. He appealed to hon. Members to place the counties of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, in which the Metropolis was situated, on the same footing as the rest of England. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's propositions were sanctioned, the consequences would be most mischievous.

said, he presumed that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having reference to the Commissioners of the Police was to prevent the issuing of licences to improper persons. He would suggest that, although notice might be given to the police, the licence ought to issue from the judicial authorities who exercised their functions nearest to the spot where the applicant resided.

said, his object was to secure knowledge on the part of the person exercising jurisdiction, and in the Metropolis the only persons who had the requisite knowledge were the police. He thought that the stipendiary magistrates might have the power of granting liceuces if care was taken that they had full knowledge of the matter. His first Amendment, however, and which alone was now before the Committee, had reference simply to giving notice of applications for licences.

said, he had no objection to notice being given to the magistrates as well as to the police, but as the first Amendment would lay the foundation for a number of others, all framed for the same purpose, he insisted that notice should be given to the justices also.

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 considered to have the best knowledge of parties applying for licences.

said, he thought they might duplicate the notices, and he would therefore move the insertion of the following words:—"To the chief clerk of the Commissioners of Police and to the magistrate of the police-court nearest to such refreshment-house."

said, that the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not sufficient. Notice should be given to the divisional clerk of the justices. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) totally misapprehended the subject. The supervision of that branch of the law which related to licences, was in the hands of justices of the peace, and the police had nothing whatever to do with it. They had an officer who was called the clerk to the divisional justices. The right hon. Gentleman was always anxious to set up the police and to put down the justices, and he now manifestly wished to carry out that principle. The police magistrates were in the hands of the police themselves, and were not their masters, but their servants. That was not a state of things to be encouraged, and he hoped the Metropolis would be put on an equal footing with the rest of the country.

said, the hon. Member was quite wrong in his supposition. It was not a proper description to call them police magistrates. They were stipendiary magistrates, and exercised greater jurisdiction than ordinary justices, having the power to do that which was required to be done by two justices.

said, it had always been thought desirable to keep the police magistrates apart from the licensing system. The licensing justices also were ill the habit of going to look at houses for which licences were asked, and thus judging for themselves upon the question of licensing. This was a duty which the police magistrates would neither have time nor disposition to perform. He thought it was a sound principle that the police magistrates should not grant licences; and that the justices of the whole kingdom, including the Metropolis, should be upon the same footing in reference to this matter. The county justices licensed slaughter-houses and public-houses, and he thought that they should also grant the licences now in question. The magistrates of Middlesex were a body of independent gentlemen, and the fairness of their decisions had never been questioned.

said, that the Metropolis was divided into certain divisions, of which magistrates were appointed to take charge. These divisional magistrates had a clerk regularly appointed, and no doubt that was the proper person to whom those notices should be given, in common with the clerks of the ordinary magistrates.

said, the discussion was not whether the power should be given to the police magistrates or the Commissioners of police, but to the county magistrates.

admitted, that on the whole a Commissioner of Police was not the fittest person to entrust with the granting of licences, and that they ought to combine the knowledge of the police with the responsibility of the magistrates. It was on that ground that he proposed that the notices should be given both to the Commissioners of Police and to Metropolitan police magistrates. The Middlesex magistrates had very little to do with the administration of justice, whereas the Metropolitan police magistrates were constantly engaged in that work, and were also in constant communication with the police. The Metropolitan police magistrates, therefore, were better prepared than the Middlesex magistrates to exercise the duty of granting licences.

contended that the justices of Middlesex performed precisely the same duties as the justices of other counties, with the exception that they paid an assistant judge to preside in lieu of a chairman, and that in Surrey, which included Lambeth and Southwark, and in Kent there was not even that difference. He had a great objection to give judicial power to the Commissioners of Police, and he did not believe that hon. Members would be ready to extend it to the corresponding officer in counties—namely, the chief constable. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would unite with him in his endeavour to prevent the Metropolis from being treated in a manner different from that in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to treat the rest of the country.

said, that he thought the most important matter was that, as he read the Act, there was to be no power whatever of appeal from the judgment of one police magistrate, or two justices of the peace, delivered behind the backs of the parties interested. Such an arbitrary power should not be given. Provided an appeal were allowed, he thought it immaterial whether the power of licensing should be given to the commissioners of police, the police magistrates, or the justices. In Dublin the people were generally better satisfied with the decision of the stipendiary than of the ordinary magistrates.

said, he was anxious that the clause should be clearly understood. The Government had abandoned the intention of giving the commissioner of police power to prevent the issue of the licences. And the main reason for entrusting that authority to the Metropolitan magistrates was that it was agreed on all sides that upon the police dependence would have to be placed for knowledge of the parties applying. The Metropolitan police magistrates were in constant and habitual communication with the police; but that was not the case with the Middlesex magistrates, who only occasionally discharged the duties of visiting justices.

said, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided that a man charged should be heard, but it did not provide that he should have notice of the charge preferred against him, or that he should be brought face to face with his accuser. That was a defect, and threw upon the magistrates a most onerous duty, which they ought not to be saddled with. Why were they to treat the magistrates of Middlesex differently to the magistrates in the other parts of the country? It was said that the reason was that they were not in communication with the police. Now, how were the police magistrates to communicate with the police? Were the police to go and whisper to the magistrates that they had seen a "social evil" enter a man's house, and therefore a licence should be refused. If that were the sort of thing, he did not care to whom the power of deciding was intrusted, because he, for one, should be very sorry to have anything to do with the matter; but if there was to be a regular hearing and a judicial decision, he thought that no sufficient reason had been assigned for withholding from the magistrates of the County of Middlesex the power which was to be given to those of the City of London, and of every other city, borough, and county in the kingdom. The Amendments both to this and the subsequent clause required further consideration.

said, that in order fairly to raise the question, he would move the insertion in the clause of words requiring a copy of the requisition for a licence to be forwarded to the "clerk of the justices of the special sessional division of the Metropolis within which such refreshment-house is situated."

suggested, as it was getting late (five minutes before twelve o'clock), and there was no chance of the Committee getting through this clause to-night, that it and the succeeding one should be postponed, and they should proceed with the consideration of the other sections of the Bill.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that this clause as it stood gave the magistrates no power to inquire into the character or antecedents of a person applying for a licence.

said, that that defect would be remedied by the Amendments of which he had given notice.

moved that the Chairman be ordered to report prorgess.

said, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. If the two clauses were postponed, why should they not at that early hour (ten minutes to twelve o'clock) proceed with the Bill? Did the hon. Genleman wish to stop all the practical business of the House?

said, he had no desire to obstruct business. So many alterations had been made in Committee that he thought progress would be promoted by reporting progress and getting the Bill reprinted. He would, however, withdraw his Motion.

said, it was not desirable to proceed with other clauses till the question of the jurisdiction of the magistrate had been settled by the 12th and 13th clauses.

said, he hoped the Committee would proceed with the 14th clause. He had an objection to the last part of it. He moved the omission of the latter part of the clause, and to substitute for it "and a copy of such list and register shall be forwarded to the clerk of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, at the Mansion House of the said City, or to the chief clerk of the magistrate of the Metropolitan police-court, or to the clerk to the justices of the Court of Petty Sessions of the city, place, or county where such licence shall be granted, and where such house shall be situate, at Lady Day and Michaelmas in each succeeding year." Reference to the magistrate of the Metropolitan police-court must, however, stand over till the 12th clause had been settled.

remarked that it had not been decided that the magistrates should have the jurisdiction referred to. The Amendment would, therefore, have to be postponed with the clause.

observed that he saw no difficulty in the clause.

said, it was time the debate was adjourned. The hon. Baronet who was so indignant at the proposition had only come into the House about two hours ago. He protested against the hon. Baronet thus turning patriot at the expense of those Members who had been there all night without refreshment.

said, he was happy to say that he had had refreshment, but he had been present at the discussion of nearly all the clauses.

said, this was a high compliment to the hon. Baronet, as it showed that as soon as he left the House he was missed. However, as they seemed to have got into a chatting humour, perhaps they had better report progress.