genious proposals for an ad valorem duty, but he did not think that any head of a revenue department would undertake to administer the law on such a principle. Having gone into this "dry and technical" statement, Mr. Gladstone took up the question of drawbacks. He held that there was no just ground for allowing drawbacks on wine, because the price of wine does not depend on the duty, but on its quality and age, and because the introduction of the new wine would not affect the consumption of the old. But there was a pledge to the wine trade. When negotiations for commercial treaties were going on with France, Spain, and Portugal, between 1838 and 1843, trade was much disturbed, and, to bring it into a healthy state, the Treasury in 1842 agreed to allow drawback on certain wines, not on a mere reduction of duty, but on a reduction of duty under treaty. In 1843 the Minute was maintained and extended to all wines, and limited only by the quantity which had paid duty within a specified time. So matters went on until the idea of a commercial treaty was abandoned. In 1852, there was a Committee on wines, and the wine trade was allowed to resume operations under the Minute of 1843, the extension being withdrawn. At present, there had been no delay; no long-drawn negotiations; no disturbance of trade. By the allowance of drawback, in a large number of cases, the dealers would pocket the money twice over. But finding a contract in existence, the Government would carry out its terms, grant the drawback to all who had fulfilled them, but resist any attempt to go beyond these terms. Mr. Gladstone then moved

so much of the resolution as enacted the fall of duty to 3s. a gallon, and provided for the payment of the drawback.

A desultory discussion followed Mr. Gladstone's elaborate statement. Mr. Crawford objected to the alcoholic test and to the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the claims of the wine trade.

Mr. Bentinck delivered a speech of uncompromising hostility to Free Trade, and taunted the Government with subserviency to Mr. Bright. Mr. Crossley applauded the firmness of the Government. Mr. M. Milnes argued in favour of the wine-dealers, and moved an amendment that would have entitled them to claim for all stock not paid before the 10th of February, whether the dealers had complied with the minute or not. Mr Cayley expressed surprise that beer was not mentioned in the correspondence with France. He asked whether any reference had been made to it during the negotiations. Mr. Dodson, admitting that the duties on French wine in England and on English beer in France were nearly equivalent, thought that the duty on the raw material of beer ought to have been reduced.

Mr. Gladstone said beer was not mentioned in the correspondence. There was no fight for equivalent advantages. Had there been so, the treaty would have broken down. Only the lower kinds of wine would come into competition with beer, and these kinds were more heavily taxed in proportion to value than beer. Mr. E. Ball argued, on behalf of the working classes, in favour of a reduction of the malt-duty. Mr. Bass demanded free-trade in malt,

a declaration, he said, "not made in that House by any brewer for these forty years." Mr. Henley contended that the change in the wine-duties would be equivalent to a differential duty in favour of France. Mr. Milnes withdrew his amendment, and submitted another, giving all wine-dealers a right to drawbacks for stocks acquired within the last two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, adhered to his proposal of giving the drawback only to those who had complied with the Minute, and on a division, the amendment was negatived by 183

to 72.

Mr. Gladstone next moved the second part of the resolution, which fixes the rate of duty to be paid on wines of different strength. In this part of the resolution, he said the Government had determined to propose two alterations. By the first, the 15th of January would be fixed as the time for the final fall of duty, instead of the 15th of April. By the second, 18 degrees instead of 15 degrees would be fixed as the lowest standard of alcoholic spirit, so that all wines containing less than 18 degrees of alcoholic spirit would enter at 1s. per gallon duty; those containing less than 26 degrees at 1s. 6d. ; and those containing less than 40 degrees at 28.

This led to another desultory discussion, but ultimately the resolution was agreed to without a division.

As a complement to his measure for the reduction of the wine-duties, it was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give increased facilities for the consumption of that article by licensing the sale of wine at refreshment houses. By this means he designed to make

it more accessible to the general public, and to benefit the revenue through the increased sale. Having brought in a Bill to give effect to this measure, Mr. Gladstone explained its aim and objects on moving the second reading on the 27th of March. He stated that it was a measure of practical importance, and had no party character. There were, however, he said, two parties taking their stand on independent grounds, but arrayed in opposition together: these were the licensed victuallers and the Temperance Societies, the former being the more formidable opponents.

The channels for the sale of wine were unduly, nay, ludicrously restricted. Such was the state of the law, that no man could have a licence for the sale of wine, unless he had a licence for the sale of spirits also; but he might have a licence for the sale of spirits without having one for the sale of wine. Thus the sale of wine was restricted in favour of spirits. Nor was the distinction theoretical; out of 63,000 licensed to sell spirits, only 25,000 were licensed to sell wine. The quality distributed was another reason for enlarging the channels of distribution, so as to introduce the principle of competition. Now the Government would not be re

sponsible for reproducing the existing licensing system. At present, duties were imposed on magistrates, which it was impossible for them to discharge. They were made judges of the quantity of liquor a given number of human beings ought to consime. This led to an inequality dependent upon personal discretion, and to the greatest heartburnings, while for moral purposes it was inefficient.

And that was the system with which the Government was asked not to interfere. The Bill before the House proposed to give enlarged means for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises, by giving retail shopkeepers power to take out licences for the sale of wine not to be so consumed. It was proposed that all houses whatever in which any description of refreshment was usually and ordinarily sold, should be brought under the control of the police, and with that view should be made liable to the payment of a small licence duty. All houses below 101. in value, in places containing less than a certain population, would be exempt. The third part of the Bill referred to licensing eatinghouses. Eating and drinking should go on together. "You have contrived a system of law which does everything short of absolute enactment to separate them one from the other. You have, therefore, got in England some 70,000 or 80,000 drinkinghouses that are not eating-houses at all; and not only that, but what else have you done? You have constituted a monopoly in the sale of drink, and to those who hold that monopoly you have not given a monopoly of the sale of victuals. What has been the consequence? That the trade in drink has been fostered, favoured, and prosecuted by those who have the monopoly of it, to the comparative neglect of the trade in victuals, which, not being the subject of a monopoly, has become the property of a different set of parties, the social result of which is, that you have done everything in your power, by the construction of your law, to separate the business of eating

Under

from that of drinking. this Bill every one who keeps a refreshment-house, subject to certain limited exemptions, will be liable to take out a small licence, and will so come under the control of the police. All those who keep eating-houses will be entitled to apply to the Excise for a wine licence, but before it issues the officer of Excise must make known the fact to the magistrates, who have power under the Bill-very large and even arbitrary power, I admit, power which cannot be justified unless you have confidence in their integrity and intelligence-to object to the issue of the licence, and to put an absolute veto upon it, provided they can assert either that the house is not an eating-house within the meaning of the Act, or that it is a house kept or frequented by disorderly persons. The reason why I have given such a power with respect to the application by the magistrates of the definition of an eating-house is, that if you were to entitle the parties themselves, upon undertaking to sell bread and cheese, to call themselves eating-house keepers, and to invest them on that ground with a title to take out a wine-licence, the effect would be that you would give licences to drinking-houses under the name of eating-houses. The object of the Bill is to give a wine-licence only in cases where the business of drink is so far subsidiary to the business of eating that the house can be declared to be kept open for the purpose of selling victuals. Then, as to the subsequent management of houses. In the first place, the licence must be renewed from year to year, and, though it would not be just to impose upon the party who wants a renewal of

his licence, the necessity of going through the same process of giving notice, yet the Bill, duly requiring the magistrates to take the initiative, gives them the same powers, to be annually exercised, if they think fit, in the case of renewals of licences, as they are to exercise upon notice received from the party in the case of the original granting of a licence.. . . There is, besides, in the Bill, a system of penalties. This portion of the Bill has been copied in general from the Beer Acts, which contained very severe penalties; but they have been improved and made more workable by changes of va rious kinds. I intend to propose an amendment, in one clause of which the necessity will at once be recognized. The words of that clause have been taken from the Beer Acts, and provide that everybody licensed under the Act who shall permit any person to be guilty of drunkenness or disorderly conduct in their houses shall be subject to certain penalties; but, oddly enough, the section which makes it penal to permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct does not make it penal to commit drunkenness or disorderly conduct. I propose, in Committee, to make an amendment to that effect."

Mr. Wyld and Mr. Ayrton expressed their hostility to the Bill, but an amendment moved by the former was defeated by 150 to 122. The debate having been adjourned,

Mr. Crook moved to defer the second reading for six months. He objected to the Bill, that it increased immensely the facilities for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, although the number of places licensed for the sale of

wines was ample, thereby tending to demoralize the people.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Digby Seymour, who contended that the fiscal benefit expected from this "French Wine Bill" had been much exaggerated; that upon sanitary grounds it would fail; and that upon moral and social grounds it was incompatible with the welfare of the community. He objected to the arbitrary machinery of the Bill, which, he said, would introduce with French wine a French police.

Mr. K. Seymer said he was not surprised at the opposition offered to this measure, which had to deal with two different but well-organized parties. He did not think any demoralization would follow the giving a fair chance to the consumption of wine, and that it was an anomaly to exclude it from houses of refreshment. The power which, in some cases, the Bill gave to the magistrates was, in his opinion, too large. He examined the plea set up by the licensed victuallers adverse to the Bill, disputing many of their allegations, and contended that their opposition was a selfish one.

Mr. Hardy observed that, whereas the primary object of the Bill was revenue, he agreed with Mr. Seymour that the revenue would not be materially increased by it. But assuming that there would be a large consumption of wine, according to the hypothesis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there would be no diminution of the consumption of beer and spirits, the object being to give perfect freedom from restrictions. This freedom of trade in liquors had existed long ago, and he showed the effects of successive experiments in legis

lation on this subject in multiplying beerhouses and the temptation to drunken men. This measure was to secure free trade in wine; but he denied that the principle of free trade applied to this case. Then, was there any call for this Bill? He asserted that opinion was strong against it. The definitions in the Bill were, he insisted, so imperfect, as to what were refreshment houses and what eating-houses that it would be impossible to establish checks as to the nature of the houses and against disorderly houses, while it placed a secret and irresponsible power in the hands of the magistrates and of the police. The former would become odious, and everything would be thrown into confusion. The consumption of spirits was diminishing, partly by the temperance movement, but principally through moral and social causes, and the increasing consumption of tea, coffee and cocoa, and he asked the House whether they would supply the place of these articles by wines from foreign countries, stimulating their use by increased competition.

Mr. Ayrton argued at considerable length against the Bill, the opposition to which, he said, was founded upon a great and intelligible principle, that the intemperance of the people was nearly in precise proportion to the opportunities and excitements for drinking offered by the number of houses established. The humbler classes had not the necessary selfcontrol, and it was no friendship or kindness to them to afford facilities for the coarse enjoyments to which they were prone and strongly tempted; on the contrary, it was the greatest kindness to them to

assist them by the pressure of legislation in avoiding these gratifications. He contended that the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that intoxication would be diminished by the increased consumption of wine were illusory. The theory that in wine countries there was an absence of drunkenness depended upon certain conditions, especially the poverty of the people; the question was, what the result would be in this country, when the opportunities to buy wine were increased, and high wages afforded the means of buying enough to procure intoxication. He urged the evil consequences of taking a wrong step in a matter so intimately connected with the moral and physical condition of the lower classes, and that the best course was to reject the Bill.

Mr. Liddell likewise opposed the Bill. After observing that it created a new temptation for the indulgence of intoxication, and that in large towns the youth of both sexes would be encouraged to congregate together in wine-houses, he argued against the case for the Bill, which rested, he said, upon an assumption which was not true, that there was a public necessity for opening new channels for the sale of cheap wines. He objected that the Bill virtually diminished the control of the magistrates, that it did not give them power at the right time, and gave them power at the wrong time.

Alderman Salomons supported the Bill, which he thought would supply a great public want without interfering with the interests of licensed victuallers or any other class opposed to the measure. The Bill, he said, contained a great