The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-21 00:00:00

HIGHWAYS.

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

Mr. PAKINGT ON presented petitions from Walsal
and Birmingham, praying for a material modification ol
the Beer Act.

Mr. SVARBURTON 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. D UGD ALE presented a petition from Birming.
ham, against the Beer Bill.
Mr. ALSTON presented a petitioe from Aylesbury, in
favour of the repeal of the Beer Act.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from Ashtoa_
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 presented a'petition from Yoxford, Suf.
folk, against the Beer Law.
Mr. WAK LE Y presented a petition from Chester,
praying the House not to place the beer shops wholly
under the controul of the Magistrates.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from 968 licensed
victuallers of Liverpool, praying for a repeal of that clause
in the Beer Act which allows beer to be drunk on the
premises.

Mr. PAKINGTON then rose to move the second
' reading of the Bill for the amendment of the Sale
of Beer Act. It had become indispensable that Par-
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 those who
were opposed to the Act, that it would be impossible that
it should come into operation without producing the most pre-
judicial and dangerous effects upon the morals of the people.
All these predictions had been verified, and the evil had
become even greater than had been anticipated.--( Hear,
hear.) The Beer Act, instead of conducing to the com-
fort of the labouring classes, had only pandered to their
vices.--( Hear.) Not a year had elapsed from the passing of
the Beer Act before these evils came into operation, and in
1833, three )ears after the passing of the Act, they had
increased to such an extent 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 Beer Act be either totally repealed or
greatly modified. He had no doubt he should be opposed
en financial grounds, and then Hon. Gentleman opposite had
moved for returns which showed an increase in the malt-tax.
since the passing of the Beer Bill. Now this tax, although
not to the same extent, had increased in Scotland, and
when it was considered that the duty was taken off beer
at the same time, he did not think they could fairly attribute
this increase in the malt-tax to the passing of the Beer Act.
When the question was last before the House, the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer wished then to consider the vast
amount of capital invested in beer shops, but the Bill
which was now under discussion would leave untouched

all those houses where capital to any great extent
was vested. —(Loud cries of " hear, hear." When
the Beer Act was introduced no tenderness was shown to
the licensed victuallers, notwithstanding the very large
amount of capital invested in public houses.—(floar. )
The House would hear no doubt of the necessity for free
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 1533 and
1831 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 that 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 calamities
that could befal human nature. By the evidence
of Sir H. Ellis, it appeared that in one year, out 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 their
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 had 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 men of all
parties attended, Liberal as well as Conservative, and
expressed their abhorrence of the crime and outrage
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 incontestable evidence of
the mischievous effects of these laws. The Hon. Member
then read a letter from the clergyman and church-
wardens of a parish in the county of Worcestershire,
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 then was
what was the best mode of correcting and remedying those
grievances. At first be was inclined to think that no
measure would be effectual that did not prohibit the
drinking of beer on the premises ; but upon further con-
sidering the subject, he was disposed to think that a
corrective measure, provided it could be made sufficiently
strong, would be the best. Before the Committee of
1833 the Mayor of Leeds was asked, " Do you think
that preventing the sale of beer on the premises would
tend to remove the inconveniences of the present sys-
tem ?" The answer was, " I think something of that kind was
tried sometime ago, but it was evaded in this way. Persons,
after procuring their beer at a beer shop, would go to a
kind of partnership concern over the way, where they
would drink the liquor." There was a difficulty in ap-
plying police regulations to such houses. If drinking
on the premises was allowed, the old system must be
resorted to, of licensing public-houses. But though he
did not wish to throw any reflections on the Magistrates
--he did not think it expedient, if any other remedy could
be devised, that the licensing should in these excited times
be committed to the Magistrates, as it would doubtless sub-
ject them to a suspicion which it was desirable should not
attach to the Bench. He trusted this Bill would be suffered

to go into Committee, when he would explain its provisions.
He would only state that the fixing the rating had been
suggested by the Committee of 1833. He had fixed a
rating of 101. per annum in country towns, as being neces-
sary for a license to sell beer, and it should be remem-
bered that by the Parochial Assessment Act the rat-
ing must be a real one. It might be said that the
rating was not a proper test, because the value
of property was different in different counties, but he did
not think this objection of importance, because the value
of property was always in proportion to the popu-
lation.—(Hear, hear.) It had been found in large
towns that a rating of ten pounds was insufficient
to secure the respectability of the parties keeping these
houses, and therefore he proposed to raise the rating under
those circumstances to 15/. annually. He also proposed,
as a further guarantee, that the person applying for
a licence should be known to have occupied the pre-
mises for a certain time pi evious to applying for his
license. This he thought would prevent improper persons
from applying for licenses, and also prevent brewers from
building houses for the purpose of selling beer by means of
their agents. Ho should wish to prevent the too great
facility of transferring licenses; at the same time he
would introduce a clause allowing the transfer of
licences to the widow or the children without delay or
hardship. He would also correct an error in the 7th
clause, which had crept in, relative to the sale of
beer on the premises. He trusted the House would
permit the Bill to go into Committee. He enter-
tained the most sanguine hopes that the House would
allow the Bill to pass in its integrity, and not muti-
late it in Committee. If the Bill was not calculated to
meet the wishes of every Member, it was calculated to
remove many of the evils which were so much complained
of. Looking to the question before the House—looking
to the peculiar interests involved on the one hand and the
t, highest interests of human nature on the other, he trusted
;the matter would be discussed with calmness and quietness,
and that Hon. Members would approach the subject
with an anxious desire to correct the evils which now existed.
He therefore moved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. WA RB URTON said, upon the last discussion of
this subjeet the Hon. Member said that if the Bill was
made one of police, if it was to regulate beer-shops, it
would meet with no opposition. if the Hon. Member
would defer the Committee until after Easter, he
would offer no opposition to the second reading
of the Bill. Evers, crime that was now commit-
ted was attributed to -beer-houses.--( Hear, ar.d cheers.)
Why, crimes existed before beer-shops—(Cheers)—andeven Mr. Wright, who had been quoted, said that criminals
had made confessions, and before the beer-shops were
opened, and then they attributed their folly to the associ-
ates they made in licensed houses. Mr. Wright attri-
buted the incendiarism of 1829 and 1830 to the beer
shops, when the fact was the Beer Bill did not
come into operation till October, 1830. Crimes, he
was prepared to prove, bad not only not increased but
had actually decreased. It was` boasted of only a few
nights ago that the deposits in Savings' Banks had much
increased. Was that a sign of greater drunkenness ? So
long as beer was made good it would be drunk. To prevent
that they must either make the beer much worse, or pre-
vent its sale altogether. He had no doubt but the country
would be more moral if the sale of all intoxicating
liquors was prohibited. But were they able to do
so ? At all events let them not allow beer to
be sold under one set of circumstances, and prevent a free
trade. Under this Bill the landlord would have the whole
power of the licensing Magistrates, and he would prefer the
old system. Under the Bill, a new house built on purpose
for the trade could not be opened at all, and if a person
disposed of his business in the beer trade, that house
could not be opened by the buyer under one twelve-
month.—( Hear, hear.) Then by the Bill the sellers
of beer were to be much heavier taxed—the licence was
tol, be raised from 3/. 3s. to 5/. ss. He wished to know
whether the Hon. Member was prepared to defer the
Committee on the Bill till after Easter.
Mr. PAKINGTON never had any intention of pro-
posing the Committee before the holidays.—( Hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the question having been satis-
factorily answered, it would not be necessary to go into
details.--( Hear, hear.) He believed it was almost gene-
rally the opinion throughout the country that beer-shops
had much demoralized the morals of the people. In the
county he had the honour to represent, at the Assizes, the
Judge, the Grand Jury, and the Magistrates all said these
shops were the fertile sources of crime. He had not the
slightest wish to curtail the enjoyments of the people, on
the contrary, he wished to elevate them in their moral
state, and make them more happy.
Sir C. BURRELL said in the country (beer shops were
the resort of poachers and thieves, and in them many great
crimes had been planned. When the Beer Bill was before
the House, it was said the poor would have the benefit of
cheap and better beer. But was that the case—had not

the whole trade fallen into the hands of the large brewers.
He knew one brewer who had no less than sixty of these
beer shops of his own.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not give his assent to the second reading of this Bill, with-
out reserving to himself the right of exercising a proper dis-
cretion upon the details of the measure when it went into
Committee. He admitted the principle that where
intoxicating drinks were sold some police regulations
were necessary; but if they applied a different rate
to one description of public-house to that which
they applied to another, they would raise an invi-
dious distinction, and create the very mischief which
their legislation was intended to avert. The rule for
limiting the hours should also be common to all these
houses. He objected, however, to giving the landlord
such a power over the tenant as the Bill proposed. He
never would lend himself to any proposition which would
introduce a new and most unheard-of covenant between
the lessor and the lessee. Then with respect to licenses,
it appeared to him that they would not raise the respect-
ability of any trade in proportion as they raised the amount
of the licenses, and that taking too high an amount of duty I
was not always the best plan for such a purpose. The
amount which ought to be fixed, however, could be better
discussed in Committee. It was said that the amount of
the capital engaged in the beer trade was trifling, but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) denied that. But
even admitting the amount was trifling, the House would
recollect that the trade had been called into existence by
the legislation of that House, and that was an additional
reason why the subject should be approached with
great caution. He (the Chancellor of the Exhequer)
had been recommended by the Hon. Gentleman not to
raise the question of revenue on the present occasion, and he
would admit that the question of revenue was not to be
decisive of any vote of that House ; but this he would say,
that if any step was taken by which a stop would be put
to the sale of beer in these houses, and the monopoly again
placed in the old licensed public houses, it would affect a
greater amount of revenue than any other vote that had been
come to by that House for sometime.—( Hear, hear.) He
would add that the rents of the barley growers and the in-
terests of the agriculturalfclasses were more deeply involved
in the present question than many Hon. Members imagined.
—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME was glad be had given way to the Right
Non. Gentleman, because his statements would be of im-
portance in enabling the House to come to a proper deci.
sion. The House would not, however, take the statements
of the Hon. Gentleman opposite without some reservation
for it was well known that tens of thousands of the working
classes, for whose accommodation these shops had been es-

tablished, had stated that they now got much bet tea • an
He
cheaper beer than formerly.—(Hear, hear.)
denied that there was any immorality or sntem-
perance practised in these shops. The poor man . .could
enjoy his beer in moderation, and perhaps in that respect
set an example to persons of a higher rank, and he n eed not
refer to club-houses and hot-hells—(Great laught er)--111
proof of the immorality and intemperance preys. .iling .
these circles. He was warranted in making that st atement
by what had occurred during the fair in Hyde F ark after
the Coronation, and the evidence there ws s that tl sere were
more ptrsons of the class of the Hon. Gesstleman, in point
of rank and property, engaged in riot and drunkenness
than of the lower classes.—( Oh, oh.) The Hoc ourable
Member then referred to the evidence of Col. Roy ran and
Mr. Mayne for the purpose of showing that drun kermess
and crime had diminished in the metropolis aisd its neigh-
bourhood, and that was ascribed to the increase .of beer-
houses and the diminished sale of spirits. It appeta.sed
also
from the same evidence that the number of c onv ictions
which had taken place were much greater in t'ae case of
puhlic houses than in beer shops. Of every 1(10 persons
who had been convicted for adulterating beer 93 were pub-
licans and 7 the keepers of beer shops. He thou ght be had
offered sufficient evidence to the House to show t hat the as-
sertions of the Hon. Gent. were not warranted by the fact.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL would rather re-
serve what he had to say until the Bill went into Com-
mittee. He thought, however, that the lion. Gentleman,
whatever might be the cause, had taken up a very strong,
prejudice against the Licensed Victuallers.—(.. No, no,
from Mr. Hume.) He thought the Government ought
to take the question into its own hands, and introduce
some general measures for the better regulation of both
beer-houses and public-houses. This would probably best
please all classes.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Hen.
Gentleman would have great difficulty in getting his Bill
passed.
Mr. SLANEY thought the Hon. Member for Kilkenny
was mistaken in his criminal statistics—the fitct being
that crime, instead of having diminished, as he had said,
had fearfully increased. Thirty years ago the committals
for crime in this country, were only 5,000, now they
had swelled to 30,000, while the growth of the
population had not been in anything like a
corresponding ratio.— (Hear, hear.) He thought the
beer-houses held our irresistible temptations to the poor
and the lower classes, and tended towards general crime
and demoralization. He must, therefore, support the Bill
of the Hon. Member for Droitwich, and, whether the
Government should take the measure into its owe. hands or
not, the country would still be much indebted to him.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGL lONBY thought that the bear sellers should
not be rode over because they were poor.—(Hear, hear.)
He concurred generally with Mr. Hume that a most un-
just outcry had been raised against the beer sellers.
Perhaps it would be better if the Government would
in-
troduce a measure for the regulation of all parties con-
nected with the question. He (Mr. Aglionby) would
however at once agree to the second reading of the Bill,
but would most diligently overlook it when it came before
the Committee.
Mr. P. HOWARD objected to that clause of the Bill
which proposed that the prices of licenses should be raised.
Licensing should not be raised, except in the case of a WO
or some other great emergency. He could see no necessity
; for the Bill. He would prefer to see the present system
retained under the superintendence of an effective rural

police.
Mr. PARKER read a statement which asserted that
about Manchester, many of the beer-houses were conducted
as brothels, and the landlords were tried in great numbers
for theft at every sessions in Salford. There were as manY
as 480 beer-house keepers tried in 1138. He trusted his
Hon. Friend would not allow the Government to take his
Bill out of his own hands.
The Bill was then read a second time,
The Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock.

THE MARKETS.

ET.—March 20.

s. 6'
Walls End Whitwell
,6 5
Walls End Hartlepool ..„ 0
Walls Eud Adelaide
Walls End Barrington Tees '3 „
Walls End Brown's Deanery2o v
Walls End Oragwood 2O 6
3
Walls End Seymour Tees 9-1 0
Walls End Tees Tanfield
Walls End Tees 23 g
Walls End West Tees . .....
Blythe l7 "
Bampton Main ll 9
ca 6
Howard's Netherton Main ..- 9
Walls End .Elgin ,;11
last market-day, 65.