The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-20 00:00:00

HIGHWAYS.

On the motion of 11Ir. SHAW LEFEVRE, the High-
ways Bill went through a Committee.
SALE OF BEER BILL.

Mr. PACKING TON presented petitions from Walsall
and Birmingham, praying for a material meciificatiof, ot
the Beer Act.

Mr. WARBURTON presented four petitions from
London and Portsmouth, praying that any regulation
adopted with respect to the sale of Beer, might be made
equally applicable to the Beer-sellers and the Licensed
Victuallers.

Mr. DUGDA LE presented a petition from Birmings
ham, against the Beer Bill.
Mr. ALSTON presented a petitioc from 'Aylesbury, in
favour of the repeal of the Beer Act.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from Ashton_
under-Lyme, in favour of the repeal of the Beer Act;
also a petition from the Beer-sellers of that place, in favour
of the Bill.
Mr. GIBSON preseted a petition from Yoxford, Suf-
folk, against the Beer Law.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Chester,
praying the House not to place the beer-shops wholly
uncles the controul of the Magistrates.
Lord S AND ON presented a petition from 968 licensed
victuallers of Liverpool, praying for a repeal of that clsuse
in the Beer Act which allows beer to be drunk on the
premises.
Mr. PAKINGTON then rose to move the seco :el
reading of the Bill for the amendment of the Sale
of Beer Act. It had become indispensable that Per-
liament should interfere upon this subject, and he
would shortly explain the nature of the provisions
which he had ventured to suggest. It must be in
the recollection of Hon. Members, that when the pre
sent act passed in 1830, it was predicted by these wies
were opposed to the Act, that it would be impossible that
it should come into operatinnwithout producing the most pre-
judicial and dangerous effects upon the morals of the peoel
All these predictions bad been verified, and the evil had
become even greater than had been anticipated—( Hear,
hear.) The Beer Act, instead of conducing Ito the csm-
fort of the labouring (lassos, bad only pandered to their
vices.—( Hear.) Not a year had elapsed from the pessieg of
the Beer Act before these evils came into operation, sad in
1833, three bears after the passing of the Act, they leal
increased to such an exteat that a Committee was ap-
pointed to investigate this subject, and an Act passed to
remedy these evils, that Act had proved a complete nullity.
—( Hear.) The time had now come when the complaints of
the Clergy and Magistracy on this subject ought to be
attended to, and the Bee. Act ho either totally repealed or
greatly modified. He had no doubt he should be opposed
on financial grounds, and thea Hon. Gentleman opposite had
moved for returns which showed an increase in the Alalt-tbx.
since the passing of the Beer Bill. Now this tax, although
not to the same extent, had increased in
fairly attribute
anfd,
when it was considered that the duty was taken off beer
at the same time, he did not think they could
this increase in the malt tax to the passing of the Beer
When the question was last before the House, the ‘C. ha t.
cellor of the Exchequer wished then to consider the n-
vst
amount of capital invested in beer shops, but the Bill
which was now under discussion would leave untouched
l
ail
all those houses where capital to any great exte. 't
was vested. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear." \VI, i„
the Beer Act was introduced no tenderness was shown 'to
the licensed victuallers, notwithstanding the very lsrg`'
amount of capital invested in public houses._( Hear. )
The House would hear no doubt of the necessity for frt e
trade in an article so essential to the poorer classes
as beer, and of all the monopolies which previously
existed.—( Hear, hear.) But all this must give way-
before the paramount consideration of the demoralising
tendency of the Beer Bill. On that ground he took his
stand, and trusted he should be able to convince the
House of the necessity of interfering. In 1838 an .1
1834 Committees were formed, before which the
strongest evidence was given as to the true nature
and demoralising tendency of the Beer Bill. The
third resolution of the Committee on Drunkenness
stated shill there was a house for the sale of intoxicating
liquors for every twenty families throughout the country.
The House were bound to look also to the effects of
intoxication in entailing one of the worst calamitiss
that could befal human nature. By the evidence
of Sir H. Ellis, it appeared that in one year, cut of 28
patients who were under his care, 19 had become insane
through habits of intoxication. The evidence of Mr.
Wright, a magistrate of the county of Hants, showed
that, in the gaols of that county, out of 118 prisoners,
116 attributed their crimes and misfortunes to theie
frequenting beer-shops. He would call the attention of
the House to the case of several persons who had been
executed. The two who were executed in Cambridgeshire
for the murder of Lord Hardwicke's keeper, in the last
moments of their existence, attributed their crimes to the
associates they bad picked up in beer-shops. The same had
been said by two men who had been executed in Somerset.
Petitions from the Magistracy of no less than twenty-four
counties in England had been presented against these
laws; and a meeting was held in the county with which he
was connected ( Worcestershire), at which man of all
parties attended, Liberal as well as Conservative, and
expressed their abhorrence of the crime and outr.tg,
which these laws had generated.—(Hear.) He hoped the
House would bear with him a few minutes, while he pro.
duced what he conceived to be incontestible evidence of
the mischievous effects of these laws. The lion. Member
then read a letter from the clergyman and church_
wardens of a parish in the county of Warsestersh re,
complaining' of the evils caused by the Beer laws.
The Hon. Member then read a letter from Mr. Forster,
Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Manchester, giving
it as his opinion, that the establishment of Beer-
houses was destructive of the provident and in-
dustrious habits of the working classes. Such
being the evils of the measure, the question_thcontiwsses
what was the best rnode of corrFctininrderermbien?itn.,lat
these
grievances. At first he was inclinedh
of beer on thehe
measure would be effectual that
premises
butdid uponnot pf:rorrhbiebritetolnie.
drinking
was disposed to think thet a
sideriug the subject,
aesnketdi,le ``
premisesDo y
strong, would be the
corrective measure,
bsd
t. it cßoeufledrebethnetacdeemsfiteteezeitelyi
think
that preventing the ...a
1833 the Mayor of
,Lieecedest.
think something of that kind was
tem ?" The answer was,.
waswould
evaded in this way. Ise
tend to remove the incoinvenices of the present sys_
beer shop, would g
after procuring the beer at was
sr
over the way, where to
a
partnership concern o ,e they
tried sometime ago, but it a
kind of
There was a difficult i
would drink the liquor.
uch housess
. If 3 n
dr' a)- inkino
on the premises wa • s allowed, the
old ystem must lie
resorted to, of licensing
public-houses. But though
plying police regulations to s
fl vs on the )t : 'e
edient, if any other remedy
did not wish to throw any r.e es io . . ssgistrates
—he did not think it cap
cited times
as it would such'
be committed to the Magistrates,sl
hould not attach tojet them to
be devised, that the licensing should in these x " "
a suspicion most desiratlethe Bencle
to go
,Cot_ explain its provisions.
mittee, when he would
mvi.
SPEAKING.)
He trusted this Bill would be suffered into
.Co