The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-30 00:00:00

BEER BILL.

The Bishop of LONDON stated he had petitions to presen
on the subject of the Beer Bill, and thought it imperative
on him to take the opportunity of saying something in an-
swer to certain calumnies which had been published against
him and certain of the Clergy and Magistrates of this
country. They had been stigmatised as being always bent
on exerting all their power and influence to abridge and re-
strict the innocent amusements of the people. With re-
spect to himself, perhaps, it was not worth his while to
make any answer to such a calumny. But as for the Ma-
gistrates and the Clergy, no class of men was better ac-
quainted with the habits of the poor, or more competent
to judge what was good for them ; and it was preposterous
to say that those wished to curtail the comforts of the poor
who had been the most active in promoting the institution
of saving banks, and every thing by which the comforts
of the poor could be really augmented. But they did wish
to diminish the temptations which were thrown in the
way of the poor to induce them to spend in drinking and
gambling the scanty earnings, which it would be much
More for their comfort to expend in support of their fami-
lies. The Magistrates and Clergy did not wish to abridge
the innocent amusements of the people ; but they did wish
to save them from temptation to vice and immorality. It
had been said that he himself was adverse to the system
which enabled the poor to supply themselves with good
and cheap beer. This was a calumny, for he had only
proposed that the people should not be supplied at the beer
houses with gambling materials, and that the shops should
be shut at seven o'clock on the evenings of Sunday,
and certain other days—all which was perfectly
compatible with the system of supplying the poor
with good and cheap beer. When the baker was
compelled to shut his shop at one o'clock on Sunday, and
the butcher at ten in the morning, he saw no reason why
the keepers of these beer-houses should not be compelled
to shut at seven in the evening. As to the Clergy, par-
ticularly, they were placed in rather a difficult situation
in these cases. If they remained silent, they were repre-
sented as careless and remiss in the execution of their
duty; and if they spoke out against practices which they
honestly believed to have a tendency to produce vice and
immorality, then they were represented as meddlers and
hypocrites. He really did not know what the Clergy had
done to give any one a right to say that they a lid one
thing when they meant another. It had been said of him-
self that he was always ready to set himself against the
vices of the poor, but suffered the vices of the rich to
pass unheeded. That accusation was groundless as far as
he was concerned; for he had exposed himself to ridicule
and censure for his opposition to the vices of the great.
But, from whatever quarter this abuse and calumny came,
be would not be deterred either by ridicule or censure from
speaking and acting, when he considered it a part of his
professional duty to speak or act. He concluded by pre-
senting a petition from the Clergy of Salisbury, praying
that the Beer Act might he so modified as not to furnish
temptations to vice and immorality. His Lordship also
presented a petition from the London Association, for pre•
venting the profanation of the Lord's Day, praying that
the beer shops might be shut at an early hour on Sunday.
Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from an indivi-
dual of the name of Evans Jones, of the county of Mid-
dlesex, praying that the effects of the Beer Act might be
inquired into before any material alterations were made in
it. His Lordship also presented a petition from William
Benbow, of London, to the same effect.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from
William Washington, of Middlesex, praying that the beer
houses should be placed on the same footing as the other
shops.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from
the parochial Clergy of a place of which we did not hear
the name, praying that the Beer Act might be so modified
as to afford as little temptation as possible to vice and im-
morality.
All these petitions were laid on the table.
Lord MELBOURNE stated that he had been induced
to abandon the idea of introducing a clause to determine
the hours at which the beer-shops should be closed in the
towns and in the country. He allowed it would be an
advantage they should be closed at different hours, but he
found it impossible to make the distinction between what
should be properly considered the town and what country.
He then moved that the report upon the Beer Bill be
brought up.
The Marquis of SALISBURY gave notice that lie
would, on the third reading, move a clause which should
have the effect of conferring on the Bench of Magistrates
the right of deciding upon the validity of the sureties
which were offered upon the part of proprietors of the
beer-shops.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after declaring his con-
viction of the importance of the question before their Lord-
ships, proceeded to say that it was necessarily exposed to
one sort of a mistake—namely, that of confounding the
Beer Bill of last year with the measure by which the price
of beer was reduced. The question decidedly was ex-
posed to this source of error—that the two measures which
referred to it were likely to be confounded; and that it
wes not easy to distinguish how much of the licentious-
ness, which was stated to have of late appeared in an in.
creased degree, had arisen from the beer-shops, and how
much from lowering the price of beer. He thought that,
in justice to the Noble Duke, the Right Hon. Gentleman
Mr. Calcraft, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Goulburn, and the other Honourable persons concerned,
this distinction ought to be made, and that he considered
all the mischief stated to have occurred arose not simply
from the Beer Bill, but from the reduction in the price of
the liquor. One of the great evils too, which existed at
present, he contended, was the distinction which existed
between the old ale-houses and the beer-shops. In the
one a man might have either his glass of beer or his glass
of gin, or he might have his beer first and his gin after—
and this last was what people generally preferred ; he
spoke practically on the subj-ct.—(Laughter.) He meant,
he spoke from the result of his observation—and this led
him to remark, that the lower class of persons generally
-eeferred commencing with the heavier and weaker liquor,
and ending the evening'a excess, as be would call it, or
the evening's enjoyment, as they would style it, with
the lighter, and stronger, and more noxious beverage.
He denied that if you doubled the number of houses Of
entertainment, you would double the number of drinkers.
For the number of pgracr-.4 740 required the simple
and innocent refreshment of a glans of beer, or wholesome
ale, would not be increased, and the only danger which
could arise would be in the c ise of their having, as in the
old houses, free excess to the stimulus of ardent spirits.
He highly approved, howeygr, of those previsions of the
ancient regulations which gave the Magistrates the power
of deciding, not only who should be the persons to have
the licence, but where the licence should be. He consi-
dered that these beer
s(fheroed it to be a thing highly
itary
places. Magistrates, in
former instances, took care that guch places of refreshment
should be in towns—in places, at least, where they were
in conspectu populi, when they were within the guard of
the public. Men engaged in criminal intentions and pur-

suits, were much more likely to resort to houses in solitary
places than to houses in towns. Every provision, therefore,
of the Bill before their Lordships, which tended to do away
with the great evil of those new houses being in solitary
places, where the Magisterial controul would have for-
merly prevented places of entertainment from being,
should be made. He stated this, while at the same time
he felt he was convinced of the extreme, the insuperable
difficulty of the remedy. Many things were recom-
mended to prevent this spread of licentiousness which
at first view appeared feasible, and even easy. It was pro-
posed to shut up these beer shops on Sundays, Christmas-
day, Good Friday, and other like days, at a particular
hour. This appeared at first sight a simple and easy
legislation. Yet it was, in fact, a question of great delicacy,
and encompassed with difficulties most formidable, as well
for weight as number. First, it tended to throw these houses
into a perfectly distinct class from the old houses—
and there was already a distinction of the utmost im-
portance, because in the one you could get either beer or
ardent spirits, whereas in the other you could have the
weaker liquor, beer—but now, in addition to this, it was
proposed that the one set of houses should be shut at seven
o'clock in the winter, and nine in the summer—whereas
the old houses might be open from before seven in summer
until past twelve ; and from nine in winter until past
twelve ; they might, in fact, be open at all hours of the
day and night. Thus, they would give, in addition to the
advantages of being able to gratify their customers with
any beverage they pleased, beer or ale, or wine, or ardent
spirits ; they would give the old houses a monopoly in
respect of time. The man who was at the beer-house
should leave it at seven o'clock ; but who was to prevent
him from proceeding to the old ale-house, which was
always open, always ready to receive him—" patet atri
janua ditis"—on Sabbath-day ; and Christmas-days, and
Gocd Fridays—at all times of the year—at all hours of
the twenty-four—at all days of the week, these houses
were open. Now, this distinction he most strenuously
objected to ; because his great object was to put down the
use of ardent spirits, and to encourage the use of beer.
He was most intensely anxious to promote this object ;
for, from the experience he had in the House of Commons
upon Police Committees, in the investigations into the
causes of crime in the metropolis, he was convinced that
the most cruel evils did arise from the consumption of
ardent spirits in the haunts of the lower orders in the
metropolis and the other great towns of the kingdom. If
he had the power, as strongly as he had the disposition,
be would decidedly put down the consumption of ardent
spirits in this kingdom. If he could see his way to a
prohibition of the use of ardent spirits, he would pursue it.
All his principles of free trade, and in favour of unfettered
industry, he would throw overboard, if he thought he
could thereby ensure the vessel's being safely moored in
the desired port. He said he would fling aside all his
principles of unfettered industry and free trade, if he were
sure that he could by any force of legislative enactment
prohibit the use of ardent spirits by the lower classes in this
country. But he knew this could 'tat be done, and in
despair he gave up the speculation he had entertained.
He found that not without an invidious and tyrannical,
and, therefore, in this free country impracticable distinc-
tion between the two great classes in this country—the
rich and the poor—he could not see his way. Impressed
then with this conviction, that he could not prevent the
use of ardent spirits, the next best thing he felt that he
could do, was to discourage, as far as in him lay, the con-
sumption of it. And here, incidentally, he begged to re-
mark, that he lamented exceedingly the reduction in the
duty on spirits, as it was clear, from the fact of the revenue
having scarcely suffered, although the duty had been re-
duced by one half, that the consumption must have been
encreased enormously—even allowing for a quantity of
contraband spirits now paying duty. As the object then
should be, as far as possible, to discourage the consump-
tion of spirits, instead of raising any distinction to the
prejudice of the new beer shops, their object should be to
level the distinction ; instead of holding forth a tempta-
tion to men to go to the old houses, they should bold forth
every inducement to men to cleave to the new beer shops
and abandon the old houses. He stated these things as his
wishes and opinions, and concurred with the Right Rev.
Prelate (the Bishop of London) in neglecting and despising
the charge of cant and hypocrisy which might be pre-
ferred against him for the conduct he thought proper to
pursue. The result of his experience in this world, and
in public affairs, was, that men of little principle were
prone to make attacks upon those who had principles, and
that these charges of cant and hypocrisy did most fre-
quently come from persons who did not pretend to prin-
ciples themselves, and had not even that reverence which
most men entertained for those who professed, and had the
virtue to act upon principles, since they themselves gloried
in their want of principle. He bad been led to observe
this ever since he had come into the other House ; he
therefore despised any charge of cant which might be
brught against him, as so justly did the Right Rev. Pre-
late. There was nobody less obnoxious than the Right
Rev. Prelate to the charge of canting, or drawing a dis-
tinction between the poor and the rich, for he had actually
earned the ill-will of many by the boldness with which he
bad denounced the vices of the richer and higher classes
in the pulpit and in his works—in season and out of sea-
son, as was his duty—and as he had dune in the same
voice of sacred authority wherewith he had protested
against the sins of the poor. He felt the same difficulty
respecting another thing, which bore in the same direc-
tion—the prohibition of gambling. They might pass a
clause to prevent the playing of skittles in beer-shops;
but of what avail would this be ? The man might go
and play at a gin-shop ;or at least, drink at the ale-house,
and play where he pleased. His wish, however, was, to
put both the beer. shops and the ale-shops equally and en-
tirely under the controul of the Magistrates, the police,
and the law. As long as there were three or four gaming-
houses open in St. James's-street, he (Lord Brougham)
said now, as in a place leas sacred, as the Right Rev. Prelate
had done in the pulpit—he said it was idle to legislate
against, exclusively, the vices of the lower classes. As
long as these gambling-houses (over the threshold of
which he did not mean to say that any of their Lordships
were capable of crossing, but which were decidedly fre-
quented by people of the same class, and moving is the
same society), lay open night and day, that men might
there embarrass themselves, ruin their wives and families
and dependants, and, in short, place themselves in a situa-
tion which renders them fit only for Botany Bay, to
which they would not go, or else to get out of this world
altogether and enter the next, where he hoped they bad too
much religion to hurry themselves ; he said, as long as
these things were, their Lordships ought to tie most cau-
tious before they prevented, by legislative enactment, the
poor man from playing a game of skittles either at the
old ale-house or the new beer shop. Ile was most anxious
to have all gambling put dawn. It was a crime by the
law of the land. He had known convictions against a
man because gambling had been practised in his house.—
The law then ought to be put in force against all houses
fairly, as well against those frequented by one class as by
another. lie wished, as he said before, to have these
beer shops and the old houses placed upon an equal foot-
ing ; but he acknowledged there were great difficulties
likewise in the way of this. In fact difficulties beset him
in front and on both sides,—nowhere except in the rear
he might retreat, but he could not advance. This
amended Bill proposed that the beer shops should be
shut at seven o'clock on Sundays and Christmas-days, and
certain other days; but the fact was, that in the Church
of England the performance of divine service on the days
which succeeded Christmas-day was not regarded as de-
manding ceremonious observance. This was, in fact, a
regular and legitimate distinction between the Puritans and
our Church. And he knew that, acting upon this principle
and this distinction, an Archbishop of Canterbury (not the
last, but the Most Rev. Prelate before the last)—he stated
this upon the authority of the late Dr. Parr, who had
been present on some of these occasions at Lambeth
Palace—the Most Rev. Prelate never suffered a Christmas
evening to pass over without playing a rubber of whist,
although he was not particularly attached to the game.
In fact it was a regular and legitimate distinction between
the Puritans and the Church of England, and was first
made in the seventeenth century. He would next beg to
call their Lordships' attention to another point. How
could they, in common justice, shut up the beer-shops,
without shutting up all the inns or ale-houses, for in the
eye of the law they were no more than ale-houses; and if
they did shut up all these ale-houses, how were their
Lordships to travel on Sundays or Christmas-days, or
Good Fridays, or any day after seven o'clock ? 'Would
not their Lordship be prevented from undertaking any
after seven
exercise of pleasure, any journey of
summer—would
refreshment
in winter, or nine in sumer—would they not pause
before they restricted themselves from the means of travel-
iipg tinder these circumstances? From London to York
there was no plac.a except an ale-house at Which they could
obtain either a feed of oats for their horses; or
for themselves. Besides, they should consider that ail
travellers would be placed under the same circumstances.
He felt, accordingly, that their Lordships could not con-
sent to draw an invidious distinction between the classes;
and feeling this, he observed that the difficulties in the
Way of putting down the gin-shops were insuperable ; lie
had already explained the difficulties which applied to the
Collateral consideration of gambling. 4t first he had looked
upon the question as one to be settled with comparative
ease ; but it was only after having frasised clause after
clause—after having grappled with the difficulties
after having come to close quarters with them—that he

found they were too many for him. Therefore was it that
he had now recourse to their Lordships.
Lord WYNFORD said the Noble and Learned Lord
had fallen into some mistakes, in which he was sure he
(Lord B.) would he obliged to him for setting him right.
In the first place, he concurred with the Male Secretary
(Lord Melbourne,) as to the expediency of not attempting
the clause which he (Lord W.) had originally recom-
mended, and which would have appointed different hours
for the closing of beer shops in towns and in the country.
In reply to the Noble and Learned Lord, he had to lament
that to put the new beer shops and the old houses upon
the same level would require a great number of additional
clauses to the Bill before their Lordships. In the
public houses, all the evils of which the Noble and
Learned Lord complained were guarded against—first, by
the discretionary power of the Magistrates, who were sure
to select proper persons, and next by various provisions
of the statute law. When the Noble and Learned Lord
stated that any man might enter a public-house after nine
o'clock, or after twelve o'clock, he was mistaken, because
by the 9th Geo. IV. c. GO, it was provided that the Ala
gistrates of each district should have the power of deter-
mining the hour at which all public houses in that district
should be closed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that by saying
twelve o'clock, he meant any hour later than that at which
it was ordered the beer shops should be closed.
Lord WYNFORD said it rested absolutely with the
Magistrates to prescribe the time in each district; and as
to gambling, any man permitting it in his house might be
prosecuted ; it was expressly guarded against by a clause
in the Statute. And moreover, the Noble Lord was mis-
taken as to the provision in the Bill now before them—it
was simply to prevent the lower classes from playing at
skittles in those places for money, by which they might
leave destitute their wives and families, not to prevent
them from playing altogether, which God forbid they
should legislate against any more than they would against
the playing of cricket by a higher class. Again, as to
the case of travelling, which the Noble and Learned Lord
put forth with his usual pleasantry—he was again mis-
taken. It was expressly provided by the law, that travel-

lers should be accommodated at all hours and under all
circumstances. The exception existed invariably in their
favour, and would, of course, even in the case of levelling
all distinctions between the two classes of persons, con-
tinue to exist. He was informed that although the beer-
houses were not licensed to sell gin, a great deal of gi❑
was drank in them It undoubtedly was a measure which
required great consideration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in explanation, observed
his whole argument was against making any distinction
between the old and the new houses.

The Marquis of SALISBURY thought if the beer-
houses were put precisely on the same footing as the pub-
lic-houses, there ‘yould be no longer any reason for com-
plaint.
_ _

The Earl of lIARROWBY, as various opinions had
been expressed on the measure, and as there was no im-
mediate cause for pressing it forwards, suggested the expe-
diency of postponing the reception of the report.

Viscount MELBOURNE observed the terms of the
license to the beer-house were almost similar to those of the
license of the public-house. Any violation of those terms
was, in either case, disorderly conduct. lie had no ob-
jection whatever to the postponement of the reception of
the report.
The report was, consequently (as we understood), post-
poned to Tuesday the 6th of September.—Adjourned.

HO USE OF COMMONS, Auatisr 29.
MR. AND MRS. DEACLE.
Colonel EVANS moved the printing of the petition on
this subject that was presented by him last week.
Lord ALTHORP objected to the printing, on the ground
that if that was done the other party might think it right
to present a petition, the printing of which would be asked
for, and the consequence of which would be that that House
would be called on to carry on a paper war between the
parties.
Sir T. BARING did not object to the printing of the
petition ; but as he had been charged, as a magistrate, with
tampering with the witness Barnes, he begged to say that
he had the positive testimony of Mr. Long to contradict
that statement.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the petition having been
printed in the public Papers, there was no necessity for this
motion.
Mr. ROBINSON concurred with the last speaker.
Colonel EVANS then consented to withdraw the petition.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the brewers
and maltsters of Warrington against the use of molasses.
LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Liverpool,
praying the House to give directions to issue a new writ
for that borough.
Mr. EWART supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. BENETT did not see how they could entertain the
prayer of the petition, as it was very well known that it
was an understanding of the House that this writ should,
go down to Liverpool till his (Mr. Benett's) motion
II was disposed of.
Mr. WILKS thought that in keeping hack this writ,
they were not only punishing the borough of Liverpool,
but the whole country; besides which, an election, since
the one complained of, had taken place, and at the latter
one no suspicion of bribery or illegal conduct had arisen.
An HON. MEMBER said that they had the testimony of
the present single Member for Liverpool bow onerous it
was for him to have upon his own shoulders all the Par-
liamentary business of that important town. He was
the more convinced of the injudiciousness of withholding
the writ from Liverpool, when he remembered what had
taken place with respect to Retford, the inquiry in which
case had cost the country an immense deal of money.
Mr. WASON--If the writ for Liverpool were moved,
should resist the issue of it, as the bribery there was more
extensive and established than in any place the corruption
of which had been hitherto exposed.
Mr. E. DENISON complained of the manner in which
the writ had been indefinitely delayed by the promised
motion of the Hon. Member for Wilts, which, owing to
the Reform Bill, could not come on on Thursday.
Sir G. CLERK contended that the question was one
gofivseo
ninatylchpo
thimitortnanTceb,utrh,,adtayev. eriTthe Reform
hatineasurße il ought
would
l tin-
crease the constituency of Liverpool by 17,000 new votes,
and bribery in future would therefore be impossible.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that the Hon. Member
for Wilts would take upon himself a heavy responsibility
if he delayed the Reform Bill on Thursday by his motion.
The Scotch Reform Bill would next have to be discussed,
and that would be followed (as Ireland was always post.
poned to the last) by the Irish Reform Bill. He was glad
to see that the Scotch Members were pressing forward
their own reform, and were so anxious to purify the Scotch
representation.
Mr. EWART said, that as so many new voters would
be given to Liverpool by the Reform Bill, it was, perhaps,
needless to delay the issue of the writ longer.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY, the petition was
read and,laid upon the table, and ordered to be primed.
Mr. VERNON gave notice (as we collected) that he
would move for the issue of the writ to Liverpool on
Thursday.