The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-22 00:00:00

SALE OF BEER BILL.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the
Sale of Beer Bill, on which

Mr. MONCK rose for the purpose of moving the inser-
tion of the clause of which he had given notice for this
day. The Bill in its present state, he contended, was in
principle contrary to the common law of the country,
which pronounced public-houses to be public nuisances.
However desirable it might be to relax the restrictive
system of licensing, the House should not too hastily
change arrangements which had long been in existence,
and of which the present state of public-houses testified
the advantages. Hon. Members were bound, he thought,
to take into consideration the interests of those whose
property had been embarked in public-houses on the faith
of the continuance of a system which had been in force 300
years. By a clause which he should propose, he conceived
the principle of the measure—so far as the advantage of the
public against monopoly was concerned—would be secured,
while the consequences to public-houses of a hasty altera-
tion of the system under which they were established
would be avoided. Within the last five years the mono-
poly of the brewers had been much relaxed by the per-
mission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been
brewed. His clause would extend this relaxation still
further, and would permit the brewer to sell his commodity
in as many houses as he pleased. This was pretty nearly
the usage in Scotland, to the adoption of which in this
country he saw no objection. Should his clause receive
the sanction of the Committee, he should propose another,
to save the retail brewer of beer from the consequence to
which he had just alluded. The Hon. Gentleman con-
cluded with proposing his clause, to the effect of per-
mitting the sale of beer on premises besides those on which
it had been brewed.

Sir T. GOOCH had been at first friendly to the prin-
ciple of the Bill then before the Committee ; but a more
deliberate inquiry into its tendency convinced him that
its effect would be neither more nor less than to convert
England into one great ale-house.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.)—He was not opposed to the application of free-
trade principles to the beer trade, provided it was sub-,
jected to a proper and efficient controul.—(Laughter.)—
He was therefore inclined to give the Hon. Member for
Reading's clause, a couple of years' trial before he con-
sented to a great measure of change like the present.
Mr. SLANEY thought that Ministers had pursued the
most manly and beneficial course which the public weal
recommended, by adopting the present measure.—(Hear.)
—Within the last 40 years a great falling off in the con-
sumption of domestic malt had been experienced, owing
to the great tax on that necessary of life, imposed under
the present mischi.vous and unjust system, which pressed
with so much peculiar cruelty on the poor. He said the
poor, for what greater or more unjust tax could afflict
them than that which compelled them to pay 1,500,0001.
annually for the monopoly of public houses, and by which
they were compelled to pay for wkat their richer neigh-
bours might brew for themselves at a much cheaper rate
than they could purchase it. He was glad that Ministers
had determined on the present measure, for it would be a
particular boon to the poor. Too much encouragement
could not be given to the consumption of beer by the
working classes, indeed, the measure involved the question
whether beer or spirits should be the prevailing beverage
of the poorer classes. There could be no comparison be-
tween the relative merits of each, so far as the health and
strength of the workmen were concerned. Ale was sana-
tive, while the other was destructive to the constitution.
Of late years, however, the consumption of spirits, as in-
dicated by the extraordinary increase of spirit shops (not
less than 11,000 within the last few years) unfortunately
showed that ale had grown as much into disuse as the
consumption of spirits had increased.

Mr. C. BARCLAY contended that the present measure
would lead to a diminution of the revenue, for which it
would afford no counterbalancing advantage to the public.,
It was absurd to assert that there existed any union, or,
as it had been termed, exchange of monopoly between the
great brewers and distillers, so far as the licensing system
was concerned. He therefore supported the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Reading, upon the ground that
considerable capital had been embarked in the trade, par.
eicularly in the country, on the faith of the Act passed
two years ago. As to the brewers, they had been always
anxious to see the licensing system amended ; as a proof
of which be referred to his own evidence before a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons 12 years ago. He was
an advocate for the system of free trade, bet not in the
way in which this Bill would adopt it ; for it imposed
upon one class of the retail trade a ruinous loss, while its
benefit to the other was problematical.
Mr. WESTERN was decidedly hostile to the amend.
ment, which went, in his opinion, to defeat the object of
the Bill.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, that if this measure were
brought forward by the Government as a relief to the
country, they would find themselves eventually disap-
pointed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the proposed amendment was a direct infraction of
the principle of the Bill : were it carried, the effect would
be this—that the public, instead of being in a situation to
have an improved commodity, would remain in that re-
spect precisely as they stood now, with the superadded dis.
advantage of having a two-guinea licence instead of a five-
guinea licence to authorize the business of the retailer. He
would put it to the Hon. Mover of the amendment, whe-
ther this state of things was likely to promote the object
which he professed to have in view,—whether it was cal-
culated to satisfy the wants of the people, and remedy the
enormous abuses which the Hon. Member for Reading had
himself admitted, and which were daily growing into a
wider extent of complaint. The Hon. Member, in pro-
posing his amendment, had also broached some extraordi-
nary doctrines of law; he said, that by the common law,
the trade hail been restricted. Now he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) was not before aware that there were
any restrictions at common law respecting the sale of beer,
beyond those which were necessarily implied in the pre-
servation of the ordinary behaviour of the community.
The common law left the trade free ; it was the counter-
acting
operation of the statute law which imposed restric-
tions. But the Hon. Member for Reading had put his
view of this question upon two principles : first, as to the
necessity of preserving the property which has, upon the
faith of Acts of Parliament, been invested and engaged in
this trade in particular neighbourhoods; secondly, as to
the equal necessity of maintaining a strict police re-
gulation throughout the country, as referable to the
morals of the people. Now, no man could feel more
than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did, for the
well being of the pecuniary rights of this class of the
community; and no man was snore sensible than he was
that a certain diminution in the present value of their
capital was likely to follow the adoption of this Bill—a
result which he lamented as much as any man could; for
from what he had seen of them, he believed them to be of
a reputable class of the community, and well deserving
every special consideration which was not incompatible
with the general good of the country. However, the only
alternative before him was this,—whether he would lean
towards the supposed interest of the smaller class, or
towards that of the community generally. This being
his situation, be could not hesitate upon the decision
which he was bound to take under such circumstances.
It really was unfair to look at the Bill through the narrow
view which some Hon. Alembers were disposed to take of
its bearings. This measure went merely to extend the
means of selling beer for the benefit of the humbler classes
of the community; but the old restrictions still continued
to apply to those who sold beer, with other exciseable
articles; and it appeared from the evidence given before
the Committee upstairs, that the value of dealing in those
other excise ible articles was v,ry considerable—a profit
which, of course, the parties would retain, notwithstanding
the provisions of this Bill. Thee, as to the apprehended
mp
: competition open the trade, as it was
called
perfectly true that an increase of the num-
bers embarked in the trade would imply competition, yet
eoeinvas from throwing
was it likely that the existing possessors of large and well-
conducted houses would lose the advantages they had
and the formation
of a good connexion acquired by the proper manage-
ment of their business, by the mere setting up of a
fetealne individualsne perhaps, limited means, in the
same neighbourhood
? If Hon. 11Iembers would look into
igi,bour with,
the evidence given before the Committee, they would
see what was said by a gentleman who had a large
public-house, in a district where a free public-house had
afterwards, at no great distance, endeavoured to compete
with him. When this individual was asked the effect of
this competition, hie answer woo that he did not fear the

result ; his trade continued as good as before ; he took in
the newspapers, he looked after the comforts of his room,
he studied the disposition and wants of his customers, and
had therefore no apprehension as to the result. What dif-
ference, therefore, ought to be recognized between this in-
dividual's case and that of others under circumstances of
the like nature; the old establishments must have the ad-
vantage of experience and connexion, and therefore ought
to have nothing to fear. Upon the general question lie
would distinctly say, let the entrance into the trade be
free, and that once accomplished, let the individual en-
gaged in it be subject to whatever restrictions Hon.
Members deemed seasonably necessary. Indeed, if the
larger principle were conceded to him, he was prepared
with other clauses, which he was sure would obviate many
of the objections made to this Bill. Among them was one
to declare that none but an inhabitant householder should
be permitted to embark in this trade, so as to guard
against the introduction of persons without substance or a
local residence, which would make them known in the
neighbourhood. Ia the next place, he meant to propose
that the householder should give two sureties, who were
to be answerable for the penalties which the retailer was
liable to incur. If the House would add any other regu-
Intions for the better ordering of these houses, he should
willingly concur in them. But when the Hon. Member
for Reading said that his clause was necessary for the
protection of the public, be (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) must say, that he felt the contrary to be
the fact; the clause was, is his opinion, a double de-
lusion,.—first, as regarded the orderly car ying on the
trade; and next, as concerned the public. The com-
plaints had been heretofore mixed up as between the
public, the retail vender, the brewer, and the licenser, and
the Hon. Member for Reading said that, only give him
this clause, and he would find a remedy for all the other
abuses. He regretted that he could not acquiesce in his
temptation ; he should like to see the promised clause for
remedying the evils so much dwelt upon, of the move-
ments of informers, and trusting in future to the infor-
mations of men of respectable character. He confessed
he was unaware how this reformation was to be effected;
it was a process of legislation, with the fulfilment of
which he feared he must plead ignorance. From the best
consideration which he was enabled to give this subject,
he believed the most unfounded apprehensions prevailed,
both in the trade and out of the trade. He had seen a
series of resolutions, which were agreed to on the 25th
of March by the licensed victuallers of Nottingham, which
he took, from his knowledge of the general intercommu-
nication of the trade, to be a fair specimen of the general
understanding which prevailed in it through the country.
These resolutions were against the diffusion of retail
brewers, as prejudicial to the public morals—that increase
of profligacy had followed their extension, without the
slightest addition to the comforts of the humbler classes.
Now, he was perfectly convinced this was not true—it
was the fault of the system which he sought to remedy ; '
he was confident that the retail brewers as at present con-
stituted, gave no material addition to the comforts of the
poor, and for this reason—that they were beset with re-
strictions and dangers, which impeded and marred them
at every step under the provisions of the existing law.
They were every moment brought to the threshold of
informations before the Magistrates; the public morals
were, he knew, outraged under the extension of the pre-
vailing system, and that he believed must continue until
the proposed alteration were adopted. He was therefore
decidedly of opinion that the moral controul could be much
better executed within than without the walls of the
licensed victualler's house, and that even the contagion of
bad example would be less felt when excluded from the
public eye. In this respect he thought it very desirable
the consumption of beer should take place rather on the
premises than without the doors, for both the moral dis-
cipline could be under such circumstances better enforced,
and the public nuisance where it did arise more effectually
abated. With these opinions he must resist the clause of
the Hon. Member for Reading. If when the House de-
cided on that proposition, they would let him go through
and explain the other clauses, and then have the Bill as
amended printed, embodying the various practical sugges-
tions which he had received, they would be better able to
come to a clear view of the whole question before their
final decision. This was all he asked.

Mr. ESTCOURT said, as to the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Reading, he thought that instead of
improving matters it would make them worse. If it were
carried:he certainly should propose another amendment,
providing that the beer should not be drank within one
hundred yards of the premises where it was sold.—(A
laugh.)—He knew this was absurd, still it was a corollary
from the other proposition,—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CRIPPS spoke, but quite inaudible in the gallery ;
he was understood to say that he had many objections to
this Bill, which he thought ought not to pass in its pre-
sent shape.
Mr. MABERLY felt himself bound, though favourable
to the principle of free trade, to vote for the amendment.
Mr. R. COLBORNE was of opinion that if all the duty
on beer was to be repealed, a perfectly free trade in that
article ought to follow, which, though at first it might
create great fluctuations, would ultimately settle itself, like
all other trades.—(Hear, hear. )—He should, therefore,
support the Bill as it was now brought forward. Instead
of seeing the whole duty taken off beer, he confessed he
should have preferred if only ss. had been taken off, and
Is. off malt.

Mr. F. BUXTON, while admitting that the fears en-
tertained of this measure as far as the brewers were con-
cerned, had been greatly exaggerated, contended that the
loss to the publicans would be as great, if not greater, than
was anticipated. There had only been one or two in-
stances of petitions being presented in favour of the clause
under the consideration of the House, while hundreds bad
been presented against it. He did not mean to say that
the measure would be positively bad ; but it would, at
any rate, be questionable. By it public-houses might be
opened during all hours of the night, and in any places,
and r o security was granted for their being properly con-
ducted, for the fine and penalty proposed by the Bill was
no security at all. At present there was some difficulty
found in keeping public-houses in good order, though the
publican was liable to have his license forfeited, which was
equal to a fine of 5001. What, then, would be the state
of the case where the fine was only 21. 10s. ? He con-
ceived that the ether parts of the Bill contained innova-
tions, sufficient to satisfy the advocates of free trade, and
he hoped the House would refuse to accede to the intro-
duction of any more. If at a future period it should be
found necessary to make any fresh innovations, then let
them be done, but he thought some consideration ought
at present to be extended to the publicans. He should
support the amendment of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Monck), which was exactly in accordance with a clause
introduced into the Bill of an Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man some years back.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUSKISSON, who rose amidst loud cries of
" Question," promised that he would not trespass more
than five minutes on the patience of the House. He re-
minded the Committee, that when the Right Hon. Gen-
tlem in, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, informed the
House that the whole of the beer duty, amounting to
3,000,0001., was to be repealed, that intelligence, gratify-
ing as it was, was hailed with still greater delight, because
it was stated that the remission of the duty was to be by
no means the measure of relief afforded to the country;
but that the annual expenditure of a million and a half
would be saved to the country by the removal of those im-
pediments, restrictions, and obstacles, that grew out of
the then existing system of beer trade and licensing. It
appeared to him that the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Reading was neither more nor less than this—whether
or not the House was to give up the relief of one million
and a half of taxes. The present licensing system was a
great evil, and if allowed to continue, the evil would only
increase, and be rendered more difficult of removal. It was
his opinion, that if the monopoly which the brewer at pre-
,ent enjoyed were to be continued, and the tax taken off
beer, that monopoly would become more complete and
more injurious than ever to the public.—(Hear, hear.)—
Having promised not to exceed five minutes, he would
keep his word with the Committee, and sit down.
Mr. BROUGHAM did not think he should trouble the
House so long as five minutes; but he could assure the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisaon), that he had never
known, a promise, such as he had made, so accurately
kept before.—(Hear, hear.)—He was perf-ctly ready to
admit that the Bill respecting beer, introduced about six
years ago, contained a clause expressly prohibit'ng the con-
sumption of beer on the premises where it was sold ; but
the ground on which he allowed the introduction of that
clause was, because he had not the slightest chance of
carrying any part of the measure, unless he bad consented
that the clause should form a portion of it. He, how-
ever protested against it, considering that it created a great
defect in the measure, and he had not altei el his opinion
on the subject.—(Hear.)
Lord MILTON thought the House should not came
to any conclusion on the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Reading, until more information was afforded as to the
mode in which the scheme of the Right Hon. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was to be carried into effect.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL hoped the Hun. Member for
Reading would postpone his amendinont until the Bill was
presented to the House in a more amended form. In all
large towns, the result of the measure may have been
correctly stated by its advocates ; but in country districts
he was sure it would lead to the opening of public-
houses, not fur the purpose of selling beer, but for the sale

`\,_

of spirits, and those too not brought legitimately into
this country. Before two years should pass over, the
Right Hon. Gentleman would come down to the House
with a proposition to amend his Bil. For these, and in
consideration of the immense property embarked in the
beer trade, he should support the amendment.
Mr. MONCK was understood to say that he should
press his amendment to a division.

118
143

The Committee divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment —25
On our return to the gallery, we found

Mr. BRIGHT making some observations upon the
clause respecting the prohibition of the use of deleterious
ingredients, the effect of which, he contended, would be
to keep up the excise laws respecting beer, and destroy the
principle of competition, on which the Bill was founded.
A desultory conversation took place, in the course of
which.—

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that it was his intention that the sale of cider should be on
the same footing as that of beer.
The report was then brought up, and ordered to be
taken into further consideration on Tuesday next.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter-past Two o'clock.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
OF THIRTY-TWO WHO VOTED FOR MR. HUME'S MOTION,
" To lay before the House the case submitted to the Law Offi-
cers of the Crown, and their opinion on the same, on which his
Majesty's Ministers have transferred the Customs' Duty on
the 4% per cent. Sugar, to the amount of 35,0001. a year, from
the public revenue to the 4% per cent. Fund, and out of the
controul of Parliament."
Althorp, Viscount Easthope, J.
Attwood, M. Fazakerley, J. N.
Bentinck, Lord G. Graham, Sir J.
Baring, Sir T. Gordon. It.
Bright, H. Guest, J. J.
Brownlow, C. Heathcote, E.
Cavendish, W. Jephson, C. D.
Crompton. S. Monck, J. B.
Calvert, C. Milton, Viscount
Calvert, N. Newport, Sir J
Davenport, E. O'Connell, D.
Davies, Col. Poyntz, W. S.
Dawson, A. Rice, T. S.

Rickford, W.
Waithman, Ald.
Warburton, H.
Western, C. C.
Whitmore, W. W.
Wood, Alderman

TELLERS.
Bernal, R.
Hume, Joseph

PAIRED OFF.
Carter, J.
Denison, W. J.
Wood, John

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.

1. An Account of the Amount of Stamp Duties on News-
papers received during each of the last Twenty Years,
in England and Scotland.

SCOTLAND.