The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-04 00:00:00

."NE 4, 1839

either in town or in the country, were persons
of a somewhat superior class in life to those who frequented
beer-shops. They were better behaved persons, and they
went to better regulated places. To what good, or with
what consistency should the clergy occupy themselves in
inculcating piety and morals on a Sunday, and visiting their
parishioners in order to tend their flocks and keep them in
the right path ? To what good was it that the Legislature
should pass laws to punish crime, or that their Lordships
should occupy themselves in finding out modes of im-
proving the morals of the people by giving them educa-
tion? What, in the name of Heaven, could be the use
of all the education they could bestow? What the use
of sowing a little seed here and plucking up a weed there,
if those beer-shops were to be continued, that they might
go on to sow the seeds—not of ignorance, but of what
was ten times worse—immorality, broad cast over the land,
germinating the most frightful produce that ever had been
allowed to grow up in a civilised country, and he
(the Noble and Learned Lord) was ashamed to add,
under the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing the
most baneful influence over the whole community ? When
he addressed their Lordships on these high grounds he
really felt ashamed to descend to the mere petty question
of finance. But if he dial sink down to that he would say
that he was perfectly confident that instead of a repeal of
this Bill being an injury to the revenue :it- would be an
increase to it. Why the utmost reye-,-*.--se,!eh the beer
shops afforded was 100,0001., and if th.' Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not receive that from beer-house keepers
he would receive it from a very superior class of persons.
He might prove the superiority of licensed victuallers to
beer shop keepers by looking at their average rating. Ia
Rochdale, for instance, the average rating of li-
censed victuallers was 521. a-year, whereas the rating
of the beer-house keepers was only 121. a-year.
It was said that in England from 1828 to 1839 there was
an increase of 3,306,000 bushels in the consumption of
malt, and that was attributed to the beer-shops. He would
prove that it arose from no such cause, but that it resulted
from an increase in the population of the country. The
Beer-shop Bill did not extend to Scotland, but there an
increase had taken place to a much greater extent in the
consumption of malt. In England its consumption had
increased as one in eleven, while in Scotland it bad in-
creased as one in eight. It was nonsense, therefore, to
attribute it to the Beer Bill. The object of his Bill was
not to extinguish beer-shops altogether, but to allow it only
to be sold but not consumed on the premises ; thereby
enabling the poor man to send to the public-house for his
beer, but not to drink it on the premises. A great num-
ber of the licensed victuallers brewed their own beer.
In the country there were 56,000 licensed victuallers,
5,000 of whom carried on their business in London, and of
that 56,000, no less than 26,000 brewed their own beer.
Of the beer-shops there were 45,000, of whichlonly 16,000
brewed their own beer; and the whole of these 16,000
were in favour of his Bili for regulating the beer-shops in
the same way as the licensed victuallers ' • namely, by not
allowing them to sell beer to be consumed on the premises
without a license from the Magistrates. The great ground
of objection to this measure was, that after having allured
people by the existing Bill to lay out their capital in beer-
houses, it was now proposed to adopt a measure that would
cause their ruin. It was absurd to talk of the capital they
had employed; he would venture to say in many instances
it did not exceed 123. or 155., and that it hardly
ever exceeded Si. But for his own part he would
sooner give some compensation to these parties than
allow the present intolerable nuisance to continue.
Those who brewed their own beer, had perhaps laid out
a capital of 50/. or 601. but that would not be lost because
they would be allowed to sell it still, though not to be
drunk on the the premises. He felt that he had done no
more than his duty in bringing forward the measure in
order,! if possible, to put an end to the dissoluteness and
vice that existed among the lower classes, and such being
his object, he trusted he should have the support of their
Lordships. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the
second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, in supporting the
second readineof the Bill, was anxious to say a few words.
Very shortly after the Beer Bill passed, the country became
aware that there were great objections to the measure, and
from that time to the present he had invariably supported
every measure that had been brought forward by any Noble
Lord is order if possible to remedy the defects of the Act
of 1829, but by some influence or other every attempt had
proved unsuccessful. Believing the Bill of the Noble and
Learned Lord would be attended with great good, he
should give it his support, and he earnestly recommended
it to the attention of their Lordships. He should in Com-
mittee do all in his power to render the measure perfect.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER had not been in-
duced either by the eloquence or the arguments of the
Noble and Learned Lord to alter the opinions he had al-
ways entertained soon the present subject, and he felt no
doubt that before Itta sat down he should be enabled to
convice their Lordships that it ought to be read a second
time that day six months. If the Bill passed he would
venture to say that instead of its being the ruin of 45,000
individuals it would ruin 300,000. He thought if the Noble
and Learned Lord had devoted his eloquence and wrath
to deprecate the gin-palaces, he would have selected a far
more proper object on which to cast his indignation.—
( Hear.) But he supposed the Noble Lord had refrained
from that knowing the powerful opposition he would meet
with if he did. He (the Marquis of Westminster) con-
sidered that the gin-palaces and the licensed victuallers
did far more to demoralize the people and injure their mo-
rals than the beer-shops.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore
felt bound to shield them if possible from the cruel, unjust,
and unfair attack that had been made upon them. If
this ;Bill passed it would either drive the beer-shop-
keept," to ruin, or to keeping public-houses. A
beer-shop beeper was called on every year to produce a
certificate signed by six rate-payers, of his good conduct ;
he had to close at 10 at night, and he subjected himself to
fines and penalties for the most trivial offence. If he
served a neighbour with a pint of beer two minutes after
the time of closing, he was liable to pay a fine of 40s. with
perhaps 51. costs, besides the risk of altogether failing in
obtaining a renewal of his license. The Noble and Learned
Lord had dwelt with peculiar emphasis and ability on the
subject of thieves and prostitutes being harboured in beer
houses, but he (the Marquis of Westminster) believed
they were harboured to a much greater extent in the
houses of licensed' victuallers. The Noble and
Learned Lord had also talked of the increase of
drunkenness, but there was as much drunkenness in
the one as the other. He could not account for
the extrordinary opposition the Noble and Learned Lord
had manifested against the present Beer Bill, but he (the
Marquis of Westminster) had been assured, with great
gravity and earnestness, by some individuals with whom he
had communicated that it was to be attributed to the
Noble and Learned Lord having purchased an estate in
the South of France, and that he intended to become an
importer of wine.—(Immense laughter.) One great
objection, however, to the second reading of this Bill was
that it ought to have been introduced first into the House
of Commons, and he understood the House of Commons
would not pass a Bill for the repeal of a tax which had
originated in their Lordships' House. In conclusion he
begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.
The Duke of RICHMOND felt he was taking the part
of the poor when he called upon their Lordships seriously,
to reflect on what had been the consequences of sanc-
tioning the establishment of these beer-shops.
He knew many instances in which boys and girls of ten
years of age had gone into secluded cottages in which beer
was sold—their morals were contaminated, and they were
shortly afterwards brought to the Sessions charged with
serious crimes. In allusion to what the Noble Marquis
who had just sat down, had said, he would observe it was
not very likely a Bill to repeal a tax would be permitted to
pass the House of Commons if it originated in the Lords;
but that was no reason why the Bill should not be referred
, to a Committee, so that they might be ready with any
1 amendments for the Bill that might come up from the Com-
mons. The beer-shops made the public-houses worse than
they would otherwise be. The Noble Marquis wished
gin palaces were destroyed. So did he (the Duke of Rich-
mond), for he believed theywei e worse than beer-shops--he
hated and detested them, and if he were in office the first
thing he would direct his attention to would be to correct
that detestable evil. A poor man ought to be allowed to
buy beer to drink in his own cottage, so that his family
would partake of it ; and if some regulation of that kind
could be devised it would be very desirable. He believed
that all the disgraceful riots and tumults that took place in
Sussex in 1830 were caused by the beer-shops—it was
the first year the beer-shops came into operation. It
would be an act of favour to most of the beer-shop keepers
to deprive them of their licenses—it was a losing concern ;
they were quite as much under the command of the
brewers as any of the licensed victuallers, and they did not
sell so good an article.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said if the beer-shops
were placed under the same restraint as the public•houses,
they would have no complaint whatever against them.
He was:rather disposed to vote against the second reading,
and wait for a Bill which was in progress through the
other House, but after what he had heard from the Noble
and Learned Lord, he was inclined to allow the second read-

ing to go, with the understanding that ample time should
be given before it was advanced another stage.--( Hear.)
Lord HARDWICK complained of the manner in which
convictions against beer-houses were treated; in many
cases the magistrates were brought into the COurt of
Queen's Bench, and actions brought against them with
heavy damages. All that was so well understood that con-
victions were at an end, and there was no controul over
the beer-houses as the law at present stood —( Hear, hear.)
He hoped this matter would be taken up by her Majesty's'
Government, and that some clauses would be introduced
to protect the magistrates and enable them to do justice.
Lord WYNFORD explained relative to the practice
of the Court of Queen's Bench, in cases of actions of
trespass. He hoped in the Bill now befere their Lord-
ships, a proper form of conviction would be provided to
prevent the recurrence of these actions.
Lord BROUGHAM.--There is a form in the Bill.
Lord WYNFORD was glad to hear it. He thought
the, evil of beer-shops was what it had been described by
his Noble and Learned Friend, in his eloquent speech ;
but the evil of beer-shops sank into insignificance when
compared with the :gin-palaces.—( Hear, bear.) He
hoped the Government would direct their attention to
that very important subject. If he were a Member of the
Committee to which the present Bill would be referred, he
would move the insertion of a clause to prevent any per-
son carrying on a beer-house who did not brew the beer
on his own premises ; and thus prevent his being, as was
too frequently the case, the agent of some great
brewer.--( Hear, hear. )
The Earl of WARWICK supported the Bill. The
evidence of the demoralizing effects of beer-shops in the
county with which he was connected was most extensive
and authentic.

The Earl of HARE WOOD said that although be was
connected with a very extensive district of this country, he
was not commissioned to state anything on the subject,
further than what he collected from the petitions, which
he bad presented ; but be could bear testimony to this,
that he had never heard anything from any human being but
a complaint of this system, and more particularly in the
neighbourhood of the large manufacturing towns, where
scenes were going on daily and nightly which it was quite
out of the power of the police and of the magistrates to con-