The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-02 00:00:00

BEER BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for the third rending or ita sale of
Ike Wl.
Wr.STERN highly approved of the principle of
ibis Bid, and of the two great objects which it bad in
view--vanity, to establish a perfectly free elle of beer,
and to put an end to the monopoly of the licensed pall.:
cans; and he thoughtthit quo)! aiterstione wore tiectssro
in the proilidni or 'lie ill, which would r, move many

o the olijections entertained to it, and render it more sa-
tisfactory to the cottony at large. He was anxious that
the utmost freedom should he allowed in the sale of beer;
but that some restrictions should he placed upon the open-
ing of ale loinseir, find clittintitiiithin of 1,44 t on
thelierlinistti, as otherwise many such houses might lx
oprmA in 'situitions where they might he injurious anti
detrimental to the community at large. He would pro-
ws* to. introduce it iirotialoh iiito the Bill, to render it
necessity fir tietbiti bOhing ilehrinics of that description,
to take tilt licences annually at the Quarter Sessions ; und
he would maloe it imperative upon the Magistrates to grant
such licences upon certain conditions. He thought that
the pereln applying for such a licence should i.e as inba-
hittint hott*ellolder Ili the- paiiihosho was rated to a villain
iirtibtint, and alit the licence should he gtanted to him, fin-
less i majority of the peiliinit assented for poor rates in the
perish shoidd 4ts4,kt to It: the Hon. Member concludyl
by proposing the insertion of a clause to the lhiil to the
effect he had stilted.

It was Mooted to the Hon. Member by the Selman,
that the Itisetikion of such rl Osumi girlish] not he proper!
At this gage of the ; rind the Mil. Attinbei wits un-
der.tood to withdraw it, with it View to propose it as a
rider on tie passing of the Bill.
Mr. rsTcouter said that he me no greater
afforded hy these houses for enabling Ibis roar to carry home
the beer which they might purchase from their pinistwors
thata there $llO citiPtin4 lint Ile would defy
any man muter the Authority tit Ws Bill to pima the
ennmnliption of beer upon the premises under A vdrieiy of
eircutnittinthe which uVcry %Weber would be aide to figure
to himself. if erety ens of three new hotaaes would
it cows nothing the than a common pot-loitistt. lie was
divided!y opposed to the principle of this Bill, and should
therefore Mote, at an amendment, that it be read a third
time this day sit tbontliii
Mr. BARING seconded the dolt/anima, stating, that
as he had already vote I against this Bill in itiety previous
stage, he should also vote against it in this its last stir.
lie had touch rather that the relief whichthis Bill was
in-
tended to afford had been given to the country in a resnis-
4on of duty on coal, candles, soap, tea, and sugar, especi-
ally as the remission on the NM would have been must
91eftli Vi an iljeFt,* 'Which was now suffering under the
,
p'ertttgul Utpre,Al.ll4
Mr. B. WOMOVSII also exprased himself in favour

of the amendment.
Mr. 11. BATON followed on the same side. He was
opposed to the Bill, because he conceived that. the increnard
eonstubpilott of beer would lead to itiereated immorality in
the country,
Mr. WWI was not inclined to believe that the in-
creased consumption °Cheer would produce increased im-
morality in the country. Quite the contrary. Ile thought
the immorality of the country was produced by the inor-
dinate consumption of Ardent spirits; and that by giving
the common people ;rod leer in exchange for spirits, a fa•
towable change would be effected in their moral chsractrr.
lie dit~ not believe that there was a general fueling against '
this Bill in the country. In the large county which he bail
the hfitionein represent, it had met with general apptolia
tion, Indeed, he had not received a; single lett r front
Northumberland against the Bill. Two petititino against it
had been received from that county, hut they came from
licensed victuallers. He believed the Bill to hare beers
brought forward with the belt intentions; and though it
was professedly amexperimental Bill, he saw nothing in it
which should prevent the House from pasting it. It any
evils shouldarisef
_lll9l which, though poraible, he slid
not think very probable, the Home would be competent to
coned them, at loon as they obtruded themoelres upon its

notice.
Mr. Alderman WAITHM AN felt himself obliged to di..
sent front this fill, though he mutt say that he thought
that Government had been very hardly used upon it. They
had been induced to hring it into Parlinment from the very
strong opinion in its favour which they believed to exist
put of door% Though they had been minled in forming
that opinion, he thought that they deserved commendation,
and out blame, for having submitted this Bill to the eons'.
Iteration of the House.
Mr. H. DAV iti felt himself *impelled, much against liii
inclination, to vote against this Bill. It would not put se
end to the monopoly of the brewers in London; and as t►
the monopoly of brewers in the eoentry, it bad no existence,
Mr. C. BARCLAY stated, that unless the Bill passel
and the duty en beer were taken off, the value of public
houses would be materially decreased. He believed that
the publicans who opposed the measure slid tint take int.
consideration the inereavil trade in beer which would re.
suit from the passing of the measure. His opinion wet
that the Bill would not affect the London so ruch as the
country brewers and publicans. He, however, wished the
time to be extended for bringing the Bill into operation,
lint he coal not support the proposition of the Hon.
Member fur Oxford for throwing out the Bill.
Mr. W. SMITH thought that the mealier* before the
House would have the effect of deluging the comae), with
small publics-hotter-a. lie considered this a great evil to
society. /lie chief objection to the measure was the de-
moralizing habits which would be introduced by its posing
into a law. He feared that the more wholesome the be-
verage might he, the more the people would drink.
Sir T. ACLANI) said, lee could not support tler
amendment. Considering the time which the measure bail
occupied to bring it to maturity, he thought it would be a
1 great evil, by one stroke of the pen as it were, to get ri.l
of the Bill altogether. Nevertheless, he thought that
time—perhaps; (see or two years—ought to be allowed to
the publicans who had embarked large capitals in their
house's, to enable then' tteeompeto with persons, who, He-
iler this Bill, mieltt open houses without the expenditure
of any money.
Mr. HERRIES supported the Bill, and said that the
Government, in proposing. the measure, had acted in con-
sonance with thy suggestions of reason, and not in com-
pliance with popular clamour. Cheap beer seemed to he
the great subject of apprehension' with some Members, end
yet leer wee an article which might be considered Orman
a neewasary of life.---(liese, hear.)
Mr. C. CALVERT said that the Bill was of a mom
epintopier nature, and *rigid half ruin the publieans it;
London and in the country:- He would propose to alter
the title of the fill, and to call it a Bill " for promoting
drunkermres and immorality."
Colonel SIBTHORPE opposed the Bill.
Mr. BRNETT emoted the nmenilmerst. He felt intr.
prised at his Him. Friend's attempt to get rid of the two
intatorei, of promoting a free trade in bier, end the retina-
tien of the duty nn beer. The wupposition that more beer
would he drank if the number of beer-Unites should he in-
creased, was groundless. There was not More meat estop
where there was ten increase in the number of butchers'
shops, The invent tneasure would produce competition,
and,competition would rabies the price of the article. As
to the argument about immorality, there was nothing in t.
moral in drinking of beer. (A leugh.)-Ifis wished t'
see snore beer drank, and that the poor especially might be
able to drink it cheaper and better..
Mr. Eerconwr and Mr. C.. (laurel explained.
Mr. EYLER expressed a wish (as we ultdetittod) skid
further time should le allowed.
Mr. MABER,LY was not opposed to the principle ql
the Bill, but he contended that there had not lwvn suf-
Went time afforded as notice to throe who were interested
in the monopoly, erel thereby to bresk the crash which
would Cal open* the holders of property to the attlhaat of
30,00%000/4 which had been invested in the beer Imel-
nets on the faith of Parliament. It was his intention to
promo*, ow thethird reading, that the operation of the
fill should nett take place for three yeam
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
net be surprised into a discussion of ii'matter not yet Kit-
'peed to the House. ' After proceeding so far .in this Be,O
If the 'Home should now reject it, it would porone ia
coupe that Would hut little redoUnd to its character in t
cntry. It was a measure bre
e
ou ught forward (Crfar therel f
of'the labouting'etwees and was hoped by . those eines ,
and would be received, with gratitude. As to the sudtb4-
, near of the measure, no one whts had Attended to the met
1 cures introtinced into Parliament reelecting Brie cumin -
' tlity could have been taken uutiwatc4, The tight - flor4