of public companies. But the general result would not be very different from that under the form of Return he proposed. It was a principle in his scheme to assess differently the products of property and the earnings of skill and intelligence. The impossibility of learning the amount of traders' capital must reconcile one to the necessity of taxing the combined product of skill and capital in private trade; but as joint stock companies distinguished their proprietors' capital, it was both practicable and just to distinguish for taxation the salaries of the skilled labourer and manager from the dividend of the proprietor. His right hon. Friend objected to the second Return he had moved for; and as his right hon. Friend had admitted the point he wished to prove-namely, that his scheme so far from raising the effective tax on landowners' residue of rent from 11 d. to 13 d., would actually reduce it to 10d.-he would omit it, and conclude by moving for the first Return only. [Then the Returns, as amended, comprised in the Tabular Statement only, were agreed to, omitting the paragraph follow. ing the same.] Returns ordered. CHANNEL ISLANDS. SIR FREDERIC SMITH said, he rose to move the Address of which he had given notice. He could assure the House that he felt the responsibility he incurred in bringing so important a subject before it. Every year they had a debate raised upon the propriety of holding Alderney as a military station, and forming a harbour of refuge there. If that was a fit subject for discussion, how much more fit for it was the question whether they should hold those two larger Channel Islands, which were far more difficult to defend, and of much less value than Alderneynamely, Jersey and Guernsey. On what ground did they attempt to hold them? He did not believe they were under any moral obligation to do so; and still less did he believe in the possibility of their defending them with the small military force they possessed. He understood that the Duke of Wellington had suggested that 10,000 men would be required for the Channel Islands. Of that number Alderney would take 3,000; but what could be said in favour of locking up the remaining 7,000 in the other two islands? With a properly organized militia Jersey and Guernsey could defend themselves. Some years ago the people of Guernsey maintained their own fortifications, but the works had been transferred to the War Department, and were maintained at the expense of this country. At Jersey England had always constructed the works. She built Fort Regent, placing it, however, in a wrong position, where the troops would be trapped instead of being sheltered; and it afforded no protection to the town of St. Helier's or the surrounding country. When the Duke of Wellington recommended 10,000 men for the Channel Islands, England had not the gigantic works now in progress at Portsmouth and elsewhere. The seventeen miles of fortifications proposed for Portsmouth would require a garrison of 25,000 men. Plymouth would require another 25,000, Chatham 15,000, Dover 6,000, Pembroke 8,000, the Isle of Wight 6,000, Sheerness 5,000, Ireland 10,000, and Scotland 10,000, making an aggre gate of between 100,000 and 110,000 men. The Militia and the Volunteers, however valuable, could not defend their great arsenals against the best regular troops in Europe except their own; and they could not possibly spare 10,000 men of their regular army for the Channel Islands. Previous Commissions had inquired into the subject of the defence of these islands, but the Commissioners were mostly naval and military men who, though very able in their respective professions, required to have been associated with statesmen, so that the financial and political bearings of the question might be duly considered. Great blunders had been committed. In 1845 the Government determined, on the Report of a professional Commission, to construct the harbour of St. Catherine's, in Jersey, at a cost of £300,000. The work was stopped in 1862. That money had been entirely thrown away, and the work would be more useful to an enemy than it would be to England. It was worth nothing at present except to an enemy, and therefore the Government should either complete it, or remove what had been constructed. The militia of the islands should be put upon a proper footing, which certainly was not the case at present; for, if the inhabitants of Jersey could not in a great degree defend themselves, the 2,000 or 3,000 men we could send there would be thrown away. The points of landing upon the island were not numerous, and if-us would be the case MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH moved, that the name of the hon. Member making the Motion be taken down. MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR seconded the Motion. MR. SPEAKER said, it having been stated that there were not forty hon. Members present, he must first ascertain whether there was a House before he could entertain any Motion. in the event of war-an English fleet oc- | duchy of Normandy, the population were cupied the Channel, no Imperial troops sincerely attached to the British Crown. ought to be necessary. With respect to An hon. MEMBER here moved that the Alderney the case was different, and he House be counted. did not object to expenditure of money in forming a harbour there. In former times England blockaded the enemy's ports; and doubtless that would be attempted in future wars, though some experienced of ficers doubted the practicability of effectually doing so with steam fleets; but in any event Alderney would act as a check upon Cherbourg; and if a harbour were formed there, vessels would not have to run to Portsmouth to coal and for repairs, as at present they were obliged to do. It was known that the Emperor of the French was constructing a port for gunboats on the coast of France immediately opposite to Jersey, and in the unhappy event of war between England and France we should require a force prepared to attack that port. The navy of England had always been in the habit of seeking its foes and not waiting to be attacked, and it was not likely to introduce a new practice now. It must be admitted that the inhabitants of the Channel Islands had ever been loyal to this country, and any protection that they required, and that England could afford, they seemed well entitled to, but the question was one demanding inquiry, and he therefore proposed that it should be undertaken by a Royal Commission, as suggested in his Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Iler Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the policy of the Military Occupation of the Channel Islands, and the practicability of ensuring their safety against Foreign Invasion." SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that the hon. and gallant Officer had expressed a confident hope that he would be able to accede to the Motion. He therefore lost no time in undeceiving him, and in declaring his inability to support the terms of the Motion. He collected from the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer that the conclusion at which he wished the intended Commission to arrive was, to negative both the propositions contained in the Motion. The Channel Islands had belonged to the Crown of England since the Norman Conquest, and, though inhabited by a population which, to a considerable extent, spoke French, and formerly formed part of the Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, June 18, 1862. SALE OF SPIRITS BILL.-COMMITTEE. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that before the House went into Committee he wished to move "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill and of the Act thereby amended, to the Sale of Beer, Wine, and Cider." He had opposed the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it better that the subject should remain as it was until it was dealt with by a general measure on the subject of licensing public-houses which could not long be delayed. As, however, the House had decided that the time had arrived when an alteration of the law as regarded the Tippling Act was necessary, he was desirous of making that alteration as widely useful as possible, and therefore he proposed to extend the operation of the Bill to beer and all other intoxicating drinks. As it stood, the Bill was limited to spirits and to licensed victuallers. He proposed to extend it to the keepers of beer-houses as well as to licensed victuallers. There was, he believed, a general feeling in favour of such an extension, and there could be no question of its necessity. The original object of the law was not, he apprehended, to make men sober by Act of Parliament, but to remove as far as possible the temptation to get drunk to which men were subjected. He would remind the House that a new class of public-houses had arisen since the Tippling Act passed-namely, the beer-houses-to which, had they existed at the time the Tippling Act passed, no doubt the provisions of that Act would have been made applicable. There could be no question that drunkenness was promoted by these beer-houses as well as by the public-houses, and experience showed that they ought to be placed under restrictions at least equally strict. In many instances, in the country, the working man was encouraged to run up scores at these beer-houses, and, being unable to pay, became, as it were, the slave of the beer-shop keeper, who obliged him to go on taking beer (payment being made by a shilling or two at a time) under the threat of taking proceedings against him for the recovery of the debt if he did not do so. The county court judges had testified to the evils of beerhouses, and instances were stated in which, by the system alluded to, the earnings of working men were forestalled by weeks for beer scores, while their families were reduced to the greatest suffering and distress. That view was taken by Mr. Marshall of Leeds, Mr. Harden of Salford; and, in fact, the opinion was almost general, amongst all who had opportunities of examining the subject, that the principle of the Tippling Act should be extended to these houses. Not being a total abstainer himself, he was no advocate for the Maine liquor law, but it was obvious that some means should be adopted to lessen the temptations now held out to the lower classes to waste their earnings in intoxicating drinks. There was, however, no subject which had taken such hold of the public mind as the licensing system; and it was obvious that ere long some general Bill on the subject of licensing all these houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors must be introduced by the Government. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill and of the Act thereby amended, to the Sale of Beer, Wine, and Cider." MR. HUNT said, he rose to second the Motion. It might be objected that such a provision could not be introduced into a measure the title of which was the Sale of Spirits Bill; but he thought, if that objection were urged, that the title could be altered in Committee. There could be no doubt, however, but that it was a great evil that the working classes should have such great facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquors on credit. Many a poor man had a large score run up against him when half drunk, and went on calling for more beer at a time when he had no control over himself, and when his memory was in such a state that he was not capable of checking the score which was put up against him. MR. DODSON said, the Tippling Act was passed during the last century, with a view of putting down drunkenness by Act of Parliament. It applied exclusively to the sale of spirits in small quantities; and though it had been generally admitted that the provisions of the Tippling Act were absurd, yet the hon. Member for Bradford proposed to extend those provisions to articles which they had never embraced before, and he hoped the hon. Member would explain why he had excluded perry from his Motion. His chief objection, however, to the proposal related to the time and manner in which it was brought forward. The House had carefully provided by a multiplicity of forms against anything like a surprise in the course of legislation. But the hon. Member for Bradford had violated the spirit, if not the letter of those rules, by bringing forward suddenly, and on very short notice, a Resolution which would seriously affect a trade in which 150,000 persons were engaged. In a Bill to remove restrictions from the sale of spirits, one would certainly not expect to find novel restrictions placed on the sale of beer. It was not right that the scope and object of the Act should thus be altered at the last moment. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he would admit that great evil arose from allowing scores to be run up for supplies of beer as well as of spirits; but at the same time he thought that the objection taken by his hon. Friend who had just sat down to the instruction was insuperable. It was only fair that when the interests of an extensive trade would be affected by a change in the law, the persons engaged in that trade should have due warning of it. That warning had not been given in the present instance, for the hon. Member for Bradford only put his notice on the paper which was issued on Saturday morning. He was not sure that there was not a positive objection in point of form to the course taken by the hon. Member, because the rules of the House required that any legislation affecting trade should originate in a Committee of the Whole House. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill (Mr. P. W. Martin) complied with that order; and it was a question whether the hon. Member for Bradford, in introducing matter so completely new and different from the scope of the Bill, should not have done so also. If these reasons should prevail against the acceptance of his hon. Friend's proposal, he should be sorry to say anything upon its merits. MR. LOCKE said, he was of opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member ought to be at once rejected, as having nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House, namely, the sale of spirits. He might refer to an instance when he had been prevented introducing a clause into a similar Bill, on the ground that it was not germane to the subject of the Bill. liminary Committee, if they proposed to deal with them by an instruction, they would pass by a stage which in due order and course ought first to have been gone through; and the instruction would deal with matters which, by the rules of the House, ought first to have been dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. For these reasons the objection to the proposed mode of proceeding would, if pressed, hold good. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that after the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman, he should, of course, withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. House in Committee. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would move that the Chairman report progress. If the Tippling Act were to be amended at all, it ought to be effectually amended. He thought with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be better to withdraw the Bill, and see if the Government would in the next year bring forward the consideration of the whole question of licensing and the sale of spirits. SIR LAWRENCE PALK said, he hoped the Committee would not support the hon. Member in his proposition. He agreed with the hon. Member that the one; but as it was not in form, and, above all, as it would have come on the parties interested by means of a side-wind, and in surprise, he thought they ought not to jeopardize the Bill, which contained some good provisions, by adopting such a course as that suggested by the hon. Member. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that with regard to the merits of the question, no substantial difference could be drawn between one intoxicating drink and another. The question was a moral question, and if the instruction could not be given accord-instruction he had suggested was a good ing to the form of Parliament, he thought it would be much better that the Bill should be withdrawn, and be brought in again in the next year with the proposed provision in it. With regard to the alteration of the Tippling Act, he could only say that that Act had been in operation for a hundred years, and he had never heard any valid objection to it, and yet it was proposed to be repealed upon the motion and authority of an unofficial Member. If such an alteration were necessary, it ought to be proposed upon official authority. He would therefore suggest that after the House had gone into Committee progress should at once be reported, in order that an arrangement might be come to as to the course which was to be adopted. MR. SPEAKER said, that with reference to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, the necessity for an instruction arose from the Acts relating to spirits being considered to be quite a distinct class by themselves; and therefore dealing with beer, cider, and wine would be dealing with different trades. As the House could not deal with these trades without a pre SIR GEORGE GREY said, he could not understand what was the object sought to be obtained in reporting progress. If it was intended to bring in another Bill, the proper course would be to move that the Chairman leave the chair. Moving to report progress would be merely to move that the Bill be postponed for a day or two. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that he had been informed by the highest authority that it would be more in accordance with order to move that the Chairman should report progress. MR. P. W. MARTIN said, the Tippling Act was used as a means of defrauding wine merchants, and he had been that morning informed that the wine merchants of the country had held a meeting, and they had come to the resolution that they could, under the present state of the law, only protect themselves by requir ing that none of their small customers, farmers and others, should take less than two gallons of spirits. Such was the present uncertain state of the law that they were compelled to adopt this course. The little Bill before the Committee was simply an act of justice in no way affecting the general question of temperance or the licensing system, which could be dealt with in a general measure next year. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he had no wish to get rid of the Bill by a side-wind. If the Committee consented to report progress, the hon. Member for Bradford might then move a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House, and introduce a Bill which might be combined with that under consideration. If, however, they passed the latter measure through Committee, that course could not be taken. The Bill, being but a partial measure, would not give satisfaction to the country. MR. AYRTON said, the Tippling Act was, in point of fact, a part and parcel of the licensing system, and therefore the subject ought to be treated as a whole. The measure before them was not asked for by the public, but by a trade for their own benefit. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford. the passing of the Bill, but, with the undestanding just announced, he should support the Motion for reporting progress. MR. LOCKE said, it appeared from the speech of the right hon. Baronet that the whole Committee was of accord with respect to the provisions of the Bill. Well, if that were so, what objection could there be to pass it as it stood? It was obvious, that if the provisions advocated by the hon. Member for Bradford were tacked on to the Bill, they would be adding something to it about which considerable difference of opinion existed. They were arrived at the 18th of June, and the hon. Member for Rochester was exceedingly fortunate in having pushed on his Bill to that stage already; but he should like to know what chance the hon. Member would have of again bringing on the Bill for discussion if he were to consent to the Motion for reporting progress. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Committee divided:-Ayes 50; Noes 130: Majority 80. Clause 1 (Section 12 of 24 Geo. II., c. 40, repealed). SIR LAWRENCE PALK observed that MR. DODSON said, the Motion to re- it was rendered incumbent on the seller to port progress was tantamount to moving prove that the spirits were actually dethe rejection of the Bill. He hoped there-livered at the house of the purchaser, and fore that the Motion would be rejected. he wished to ask what was to be proof of delivery? MR. PACKE could not understand what object was to be gained by reporting progress. If it was to alter the Bill, that alteration could only have been effected at a former stage of the Bill. The Motion was simply by a side-wind to defeat the Bill. MR. BRISCOE said, he was opposed to the Amendment. The Tippling Act sanctioned the grossest injustice, and ought to be repealed. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, nobody disputed the merits of the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochester. The question was, whether the matter, which formed a part of the licensing system, should be dealt with separately. The object in moving to report progress was in order to see if they could not embody the principle adopted by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin), and that of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in the same Bill. He had no desire whatever to postpone SIR GEORGE GREY said, the intention was to prevent spirits from being sold in small quantities except under exceptional circumstances, such as in case of illness. Delivery might be either by the servant of the seller or of the purchaser. MR. COX said, he thought there would be great difficulty in proving-first, that the person gave the order; and, next, that the spirits were actually delivered. MR. LOCKE said, he objected to the word "residence," which, in legal acceptation, meant the place where the person slept. A man might live out of town, and have occasion to get the spirits sent to his place of business. MR. MURE said, he wished to ask what was meant by a reputed quart.' MR. AYRTON said, a reputed quart bottle" was a term perfectly well understood in trade. MR. CAYLEY said, the phrase was well known, and had been employed and |