which had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), about women who would shrink from entering a public-house, entering into these grocer's shops and thereby contracting a habit of drinking, and becoming more and more its victims. He had heard also the same story about disputes between husband and wife, and that which was represented as a dealing in some article of grocery, was really a transaction in wine and spirits. As the representative of a considerable constituency, and having heard much of the evils of the grocer's licenses, he would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex.

grocers having these licenses, for the party who wanted to drink spirits in Scotland unobserved slipped into the grocer's shop, and thus escaped the notice of his neighbours. That was not all. Poor people, who frequented those spiritgrocers' shops for other articles got spirits also, and told the grocer to put the article down in the pass-book. Then, again, servant girls who went to these shops were often offered a glass of spirits, and in that way led to the commencement of a great evil. The trade was carried on in that way, and numerous bad results followed. As the magistrates had the licensing of public-houses from time to time, there was always the greatest objection on their parts to giving licenses to the grocers. One great evil that existed there was that there were no limits-no minimum quantity, than which the grocer was not permitted to sell less; and if the grocer should be permitted to sell at all, he should be confined, in his (Mr. M'Laren's) opinion, to the sale of reputed quart bottles, and the spirit should be sold sealed up. The system had been most demoralizing. He spoke with some experience in the matter. Although he was not in Parliament at the time, he had a good deal to do with the framing of the last Public House Act; and as an active magistrate, and taking a great interest in the question, he had for years devoted himself to watching its operation. He had thus acquired a considerable knowledge of the subject; and knowing the evils that had arisen from the system under his own eyes and the complaints that were made, he felt that he would not do his duty if he did not rise up and protest against the system being extended to England. He did not believe that much harm would arise from the sale of wine, but thought that the words about the sale of spirits should be altogether obliterated. MR. F. S. POWELL wished to corro-moting free trade in beer; but he must borate the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex. Having some acquaintance with the northern district, he knew that after the passing of the Act great anxiety was felt by those who were familiar with the condition of the working classes; and he grieved to say that their fears had been confirmed. There was great reason to fear that the grocers' licenses had been much demoralizing. He had heard the same story

SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, that appeared to him an important Amendment, and he should like to say one word upon it. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex with considerable interest, and was rather amused at the way in which those different classes of traders spoke of one another. The hon. Baronet had dealt rather hard measure to the grocers. He described them as demoralizing the people; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) must remind him that there was something to say on the other side, and that they had several letters in the newspapers in which Mr. Gilbey stated that he found a great deal of demoralization in the proceedings of the publicans; in fact, most of them were in the habit of getting a little cheap popularity by abusing the lower class of public-houses. The hon. Baronet opposite came down upon the grocers, and then the defendants of the grocers came down upon the publicans; so that they were reminded of the old fable of the pot and the kettle. The hon. Baronet, however, was right in what he said about the experience they had had of the Beer Act of 1830. He said that the Act was passed to benefit the public by pro

remember what was the state of things before the passing of that Act. It was said that when it passed the Duke of Wellington, under whose Government it became law, observed that in breaking down the publicans' monopoly he had gained a greater victory than Waterloo. If the hon. Baronet would read the debates that took place on that occasion, he would find that the reason why it was passed was that the state of things was

intolerable, and that the House rushed | Bruce) wished to bear the strongest testiinto free trade in beer. That system mony, admitted that there was no case went on for several years, but things against the existing grocers. He said still got worse; and his right hon. that their conduct had been thoroughly Friend the Home Secretary would re- satisfactory; that he had communicated member that in 1860, at the time of the with all classes of persons, and that he French Treaty, the Prime Minister had not been able to prove any evils brought in his Wine Act to extend the under the existing system. He had adpower of selling wines to other houses. mitted that he could not call evidence; They had now heard that these exten- but he affirmed, with a number of other sions had resulted in leading to the persons, that evils existed. He (Mr. drunkenness of women; and they now Bruce) had applied to the Board of Instood in the position that they were land Revenue, and they said that there asked to go back to the old magisterial was no proof of the alleged evils-no system, pure and simple, of 1830; for if proof either of the surreptitious sale of this Bill were passed they would come wine and spirits under the name of again to where they were in 1830, with other goods, or of the sale of liquor to the exception of the heavier penalty be drunk on the premises when they had which it imposed and the shortening of only got a license to sell it for consumpthe hours, which, no doubt, would do tion off the premises. The only breaches some good. The hon. Baronet said that of the law which had occurred had been if his Amendment were not carried, he in some cases where, mostly through was afraid the Bill would be little better ignorance, a smaller quantity was sold than a sham. There were many people than they had a right to sell by law. out-of-doors who looked at the Bill in His hon. Friend further justified his that light already; and although they Amendment by taking a prophetical in that House, who had gone more into view of the evils which were to arrive the question, believed it would do some hereafter. He referred to the action of good, yet a large number of people, the House in regard to the beerhouse viewing the Bill as a remedy for drunk- system; but he (Mr. Bruce) would reenness, thought they were trifling with mind the House that in that case they the question. It seemed to him that the had admitted evils. They knew that a proposition of the hon. Baronet was class of persons received the licenses quite fair, and that the grocers should who were notoriously improper persons be put upon the same footing as the to hold them, and that no sufficient publicans; and believing that its effect vigilance was exercised with regard to would be to do that equal justice to all, them. Was that said with regard to and that it would a little diminish the the class of men who applied for the facilities for obtaining drink, he would grocers' licenses? The license duty support it. which they paid for the right of selling these things was about £25, and that was a considerable security for the respectability of the person who entered into that sort of trade. There was, therefore, the strongest evidence with regard to the beerhouses, but none with regard to the grocers. His hon. Friend was obliged to take refuge in the example of Ireland, and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in the example of Scotland. The circumstances, however, were entirely different. In Ireland, they had admitted evils. Evidence had been taken, and there had been no difficulty in proving the existence of these evils; but no evidence had been procured in this case. He had communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police in London, and he and his officers were unanimous in saying that

MR. BRUCE said, that nothing could be more consistent than the speech which had just been made by the hon. Baronet. He objected to all facilities for the sale of spirituous liquors; and therefore he wished to put every obstacle in the way of their sale. But the great majority of that House were of an entirely different opinion. They were promoting a Bill to repress disorders; they were dealing with known and admitted evils; they were dealing with actual facts. Now, what were the actual facts which would justify the proposed interference with the issue of grocers' licenses? His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had moved this Amendment, with the fairness which had been characteristic of his conduct throughout the whole of this Bill, and to which he (Mr.

shown to arise from the grocers' licenses. But there was another thing which he would put to the hon. Baronet and the Committee. If they agreed to the clause which was now proposed, they would in fact be creating a new monopoly. If the grocers were in future to receive their licenses from the licensing magistrates, and to be brought under all the provisions of this Bill, a new vested interest would be created-a great and very formidable interest-with which they might find it hereafter very difficult to deal. It had been objected to the Bill that it would make closer the existing monopoly of the right of sale for consumption on the premises. But what grounds had they strong enough to justify a further extension of the principle of monopoly, and the creation of a new class of houses arbitrarily selected for carrying on a cer

had not only failed to prove that any evils had been produced by the present system of granting grocers' licenses, but he (Mr. Bruce) would add, that all the information which he had asked for and received from police superintendents and other officers conversant with the facts, had failed to show that there were any grounds even for the suspicion that these

there was no proof whatever of any of the alleged abuses with respect to the grocers' licenses. What was the difference between the case of Scotland and Ireland and the case of England? In England, the law was that a grocer could only sell in closed vessels, and they could not sell less than a quart of spirits; but in Ireland there was no such limitation. In Ireland they could sell in open vessels, and there was no limit as to quantity. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had rightly fastened upon the circumstance that they were able to sell in small quantities as being the cause of mischief; and that power was more liable to be abused in a country where, on account of the colder, bleaker, and moister climate, there was a greater demand for spirits than for the weaker beverages. In both these countries, therefore, they had the existence of ad-tain trade? The hon. Baronet opposite mitted evils; and his noble Friend the Chief Secretary would only be too glad, so far as the cause of temperance was concerned, to substitute for the law in Ireland the existing law of England. But they were now asked by the hon. Baronet to interfere with the sale of liquors by a certain class of dealers-not on account of any existing evils, not because any proof had been given of in-licenses were abused for the purpose of jurious results, but because such consequences might hereafter follow. To that proposal he would reply, why should they interfere to prevent persons from purchasing wine or spirits in such quantities as they required from persons duly qualified to sell them, and to take them home to be used at their discretion? Public-houses stood upon a wholly different footing. The difference between the grocers' shops and the public-houses was this that at the public-houses drink was sold for consumption on the premises, and at the grocers' shops it was not, and the sale for consumption on the premises was accompanied by intemperance; men gathered in considerable numbers, and intemperance led to disorder, which it was the interest and duty of society to prevent. But, apart from these evils, which were connected only with the sale for consumption on the premises, if it could be shown that great moral mischief ensued, the right of interference would still arise; but none had yet been proved. No such mischief or disorder as had been adverted to in the course of the discussion had been

promoting or encouraging drinking on the premises. He would, therefore, put it to the Committee, whether it would be right, and consistent with the principles of modern legislation, where no evil was proved, and when it was only suggested by surmises of the vaguest description, to throw impediments in the way of this trade? The greater the restriction on public-houses the greater would be the tendency to evasion, and for that reason they must grant facilities for the purchase of liquors by the public, provided that by so doing they did not endanger public order. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was consistent with his own position; but Government never interfered with the habits and enjoyments of the people, except for the purpose of preserving public order, which was not threatened by the description of trade which it was now sought to restrict. He had been told by deputations of publicans over and over again that the drunkenness of the country arose, not from drinking in the public-houses, but from the drinking of spirits sold by the grocers. If that were so, he should be

happy to co-operate with those who im- | grocers to exceed or abuse their power, peached the trade of the grocers; but, by supplying that which the publicas he had the means of knowing what houses had been prohibited from doing. the truth was, he had not the slightest Again, licensed victuallers were to be faith in the statements made about the subjected to severe penalties if they sold trade of the grocers. The publicans intoxicating drinks to young persons were exerting themselves to the utmost under a specified age; but spirit and to reduce the competition of the grocers; wine grocers were subject to no such the supporters of the hon. Baronet the penalties, and might sell to whom they Member for Carlisle wished to impede chose, and a child refused at a publicevery branch of the trade without dis- house might obtain ale or spirits at a crimination; he sympathized with neither grocer's shop, which the Bill contemparty in this indiscriminate attack, and plated he should not have. Licensed therefore, on the part of the Govern- victuallers, too, were to be subject to ment, it was his duty to oppose the heavy penalties, not only for selling Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite. adulterated liquors, but for having mateHe said there was no reason why grocers rials on their premises, whether knowshould not apply to magistrates for ingly or not, which might be used for licenses, but he had not shown any purposes of adulteration, and in the case reason why they should; and he abso- of two convictions they were to be comlutely proposed to vest magistrates with pelled to placard the fact of these concomplete discretion to grant or refuse, invictions on their own premises. Spirit which case, if they were prohibitionists, they might occasion great inconvenience to the public. On these grounds he (Mr. Bruce) hoped the Committee would not entertain the proposal.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that in his own Bill he had acted on the same principle as he now proposed, and brought two and threeguinea licenses within the cognizance and control of the licensing authorities.

MR. GREGORY said, the avowed object of the Bill was to extinguish a certain number of public-houses; but he would venture to caution the Committee lest in endeavouring to get rid of one evil, they found themselves creating another. The object of the Motion of the hon. Baronet was to prevent the continuance or extension of a new class of public-houses, placed under more favourable and less stringent regulations, and thus able to supply greater facilities and temptations for the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It was a fair and reasonable proposition that all such houses should derive their authority from the same source, and all be subject to the same regulations and the same penalties for the infringement of these regulations. That, however, was not the case here. The licensed victuallers were obliged to close at certain hours-the grocers might if they chose keep open all night. [Mr. BRUCE: That is dealt with under the Bill.] He was speaking of the present system, and contended that it offered a temptation to

grocers were exempt from these stringent penalties. He contended that that was unequal and unfair legislation, and he should certainly vote for the Motion

of the hon. Baronet below him.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT said, that looking at the quarters whence came the attacks upon the clause, he was tempted to make the inquiry-"Is Saul, too, among the prophets?" Legislation dictated by dread of the future and designed to meet conjured-up phantoms of the imagination must always fail; indeed, he thought it the chief duty of those who asked Parliament to legislate to make out a present case, a pressing necessity for the remedy advocated. He was astounded that any hon. Member who professed Free Trade principles should think of voting for this Motion. Free Trade seemed a lesson to be, with some, as easily learned as readily forgotten; but he trusted that no Free Trader would vote for the creation of a new monopoly. The attack made on the clause was only one other mode in which the interests of the public were apt to drop out when the interests of individuals stood in the way. If the publicans felt aggrieved with the grocers being allowed to sell spirits, let them form a large society for selling tea; but, as regarded the great body of the nation, he hoped the Committee would not throw difficulties in the way of obtaining the best article at the cheapest price.

MR. SCOURFIELD thought the remarks that had been made with refer

ence to his hon. Friend the Member for ger arose from tradesman's wives going West Essex were most unjust. His there to purchase articles of necessity Bill was rather unpopular, and it was for family use, but being tempted into accepted as a fair compromise. He also buying spirits for their own consumpobjected to the mode in which the other tion. There was a natural modesty about side put the question. In his opinion, women, and, in many instances, their the onus probandi lay not with his hon. sense of delicacy kept them away from Friend, but with those who held that the public-house; but this feeling did grocers should be allowed to sell spirits. not prevent them entering the grocers, Why should not stationers or any other and bringing away a bottle of spirits. shopkeepers be also allowed to sell spirits? It transpired in the Inquiry respecting [Mr. BRUCE: So they are.] Prideaux Habitual Drunkards that the practice of was asked by his publisher to put some drinking was spreading more than ever jokes into his Sacred and Profane History, among womankind. Some protection, in order to make the book sell; and in therefore, such as the hon. Baronet prolike manner the grocers now sold wines posed, was necessary, otherwise all that and spirits in addition to their other had already been accomplished with recommodities. He had always thought gard to beerhouses would prove comthat tea and coffee were the great anti-paratively useless. The object of the dotes to intoxication; but now it ap- Amendment was merely to extend to peared that the bane and its antidotes grocers those restrictions which they had were to be sold in the same shop. already determined should apply to

MR. T. HUGHES said, he was some-publicans. what surprised at the statement he understood the Home Secretary to have made-namely, that persons taking out those licenses paid as much as £25 a-year. Was his interpretation correct? He had always been under the impression that the spirit-grocer's licenses were £13 a-year-£10 for one and £3 for the other; whereas that of the publican amounted to £20 or £30.

MR. BRUCE said, the wine and spirit licenses together amounted to about £24 a-year.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON observed that his clause did not relate to wine licenses.

MR. DODSON said, that throughout the discussion there had been considerable confusion because hon. Members did not sufficiently distinguish between sale and consumption on and sale and consumption off the premises. For instance, his hon. Friend and Colleague opposite (Mr. Gregory), in alluding to the 7th clause, which forbade the sale of spirits to persons apparently under the age of 16 years, failed to notice that it applied solely to a sale for consumption. on the premises. It had been argued that the system of grocers' licenses encouraged secret drinking by women and young servant girls, and that, therefore, the licenses ought to be subject to a magistrate's certificate; but as a matter of fact, there would, under such a system, be just the same facilities as at present If any for women and servant girls to obtain spirits. The House ought to keep steadily in view the distinction between regulating houses in which people drank and took refreshments and shops which were only open for the supply of commodities which the purchasers took away to their own homes. Before altering the law in respect of grocers' licenses, a further trial ought to be given to the existing system.

VISCOUNT SANDON considered that in connection with these spirit-grocers' licenses the great danger to be apprehended and to be guarded against was that of clandestine drinking.

tradesman could obtain a license, then they would have the shops of the stationer, draper, tobacconist, and the like turned into lurking dens for the sale of intoxicating liquors. When the Home Secretary said that no evils had been proved to exist from the operation of the spirit-grocer system, he forgot evidently the testimony which had been quoted by the hon. Baronet of governors of gaols respecting the evils clearly traceable to the sale of spirits in shops of this description.

COLONEL AKROYD believed that, as a rule, licensed spirit-grocers' shops were not badly conducted, but the great danVOL. CCXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 95; Noes 65: Majority 30.

Clause, as amended, agreed to,

R