Four or five weeks ago— (to be precise on Monday, the 12th of May)— the House of Commons went into committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and there were discussions on several of its clauses— among others, on those proposing to give to persons already licensed the exclusive right of providing liquor on occasions of public assemblies, who (it was calculated) might thus be expected to become most effective auxiliaries of the police against unlicensed persons. There were speakers pro and con. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. HENLEY, Mr. EDWARD BAINES and Mr KKER SEYMER, Sir W. JOLLIFFE and Sir J. TROLLOPE and other honourable members, debated the several questions that were raised. The honourable member for Carlisle (Mr LAWSON) threw in his warning word against further facilitating the sale of intoxicating drinks; and the honourable member for Petersfield (Sir W. JOLLIFFE) not only put the question. ‟What was likely to be the effect of the ambulatory gin-shops this clause would encourage in our military camps?” but supplied the answer— “A sort of cheap-jack trade in spirits would be carried on by persons by no means of the most respectable class;” and Sir WILLIAM added his opinion, ‟that it would be far better to leave the existing law as it stood.” Not only was there this debate—there also a division:—and the CHANCELLOR had a majority of 53.