The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-01 00:00:00

(1:s. Bet be foresaw at the time of the passing of the Beer
Bill the evils which would follow from the establishment of
houses in rural districts where the beer should be drunk on
the premises. He gave his cordial support to the Bill of
his Honour able Friend.
Mr. 'WARBURTON did not think the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down could have read the Bill.•
The first clause certainly raised the tax upon the certifi-
cates of persons where beer was sold upon the premises,
but other clauses raised the rating of persons who sold beer
to be consumed not on the premises, and placed other dif-
ficulties in their way—what, then, became of his admission
that be wished to see beer sold freely like bread or cheese?
The object of this Bill was io restore the monopoly as it
existed before beer-shops were established. The com-
plaints of Gentlemen had been hitherto confined to
beer-houses where beer was consumed on the premises,
but this Bill would put down nine-tenths of the beer-
houses of all descriptions. This was a measure not for
confining the sale of beer to respectable houses, but for
destroying the trade entirely. The Hon. Member for Hert-
fordshire had alluded not to the large brewers,butto those who
had brewed purposely for these houses, and who had invested
large amounts of capital in their trade. Hon. Gentlemen
opposite seemed to have a romantic attachment to publics
houses and persons who brewed their own beer. It was
nonsense to attempt preventing the same laws which regu-
lated capital in other trades regulating it llewise in the
beer trade. They heard a great deal of the immorality
of their houses, but nothing of the immorality of the vic-
tualling houses. There was tippling in clubs and in vies
walling houses, and it was rank hypocrisy to talk of the
tippling in beer houses. It was proposed to put on an ad-
ditional tax on the licences. Why these, houses already
paid 45,0001. a-year more than the victualling houses.
He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer never would
sanction such a plan. Then, with regard to increasing the
rating, he would contend that property was not the test
of respectability, and in this he was borne out by the
Noble Lord the Member for Cornwall. Every crime had
been attributed to these houses. Chartism, it was said,
had sprung out of them. How Hon. Gentlemen blew hot
and cold. It you looked to Ireland and Father Mathew,
they told you temperance was the origin of all evil. If you
looked to England, every crime was attributed to beer-
houses, so that whether the people tippled, or whether they
were temperate, there was no satisfying Hon. Gentlemen.
The Noble Lord, the other night, in allusion to the out-
break in Monmouthshii e, had said that it was not the tip-
plers who were Chartists—the Chartists had other objects
in view. There was a Mr. Wright, who attributed all the
riots in the agricultural districts, to the beer houses. He
was glad to hear that charge, because it showed what ex-
cellent historians Hon. Gentlemen were. Those riots oc-
curred before the Beer Act came into operation.
The fact was that Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to get
back the power they had lost by this Bill. The remedy
for crime was what Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so
averse to—a good system of police, and an extension of
education. He hoped if the Bill reached a Committee
the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the
course pursued by his predecessor.
Lord SANDON would not follow the Hon. Gentleman
n attributing motives ; the complaints against the Poor-
laws originated not with the Magistrates alone, but with
all classes of the community. The whole of the Roman
Catholic clergy of Liverpool had petitioned against the
present Beer-laws. He intended to adopt the course he
bad pursued last year when the Bill was in Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
not attribute motives to any Gentleman. Undoubtedly,
there was a great and, he believed, a most exaggerated idea
throughout the country of the evils produced by these
houses. The Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware
that there was an interested and a rival party which had
been very active on this subject—he meant the Licensed
Victuallers.—( Cheers.) They had, during the course of
last year, instituted a very active canvass on this subject,
not on the score of morality, but because they thought by
putting down beer-houses they should improve their own
property. That, however, he believed to be a most mis-
taken view, and he thought that if a Bill sim;lar to that
which was brought forward last year in the House of Lords
were to pass into a law, the result would be that they would
have annual motions on the subject, and the licensed vic-
tuallers would be placed in the same situation in which the
beer-sellers were now placed : they would not know for twelve
months together whether they could venture to carry on
their trade or not. He should, with regard to this Bill,
pursue the same course that his Noble Friend bad pur-
sued last year with regard to a similar Bill, and not oppose
the second reading. There were two modes of consider-
ing this question—the one was by returning to the old
system of monopoly, and destroying beer-houses alto-
gether ; and the other was by the introduction of mea-
sures for their better regulation. If he thought the object
of the Right Hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill
was to return to the old system, he should feel bound to
oppose its second reading—( Cheers)—but he believed his
only object was to introduce a better system of regulation.
It was, however, his duty to look narrowly into the pro-
visions of the Bill, in order to guard against its having
the effect of destroying, when it was only desirable to re-
gulate. He did not disapprove of the regulations being
made applicable to houses which only sold beer, as well as
those where the beer was consumed on the premises, be-
cause the result of limiting its application to the latter de-
scription of houses would be, that persons would take out
a license for beer to be sold out, and they would violate
the law by permitting it to bo consumed on the pre-
mises.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Berkshire had admitted that those houses
which sold beer for consumption off the premises ought to
be encouraged ; it therefore behoved them to be very care-
ful in the examination of the provisions of this Bill, as if
they were of too stringent a nature, it should be recol-
lected they would act equally upon those whom they ought
to encourage, as well as upon those whom the Hen. Gen-
tleman wished to discourage. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was of opinion that the rating and rental were,
by the proposed Bill, fixed at much too high a rate. The
object of the Hon. Gentleman lie understood to be, merely
to put down those houses which were the worst conducted,
and, from returns which he had seen, he did not think that
object would be attained by the means proposed. He
must object to the rating clause—the operation of it in
rural parishes must necessarily be to throw the trade in
beer into the hands of one or two individuals, and a great
power into the hands of the squire or his steward. So
also the necessity of certificates. The result would be
that no one obnoxious to the steward would ever
get their'
licenses. —( Hear, hear.) The Bill required six certifi-
cates from persons rated at 12/., so that if a butcher
or a baker were rated at the desired amount, the plt apican
for his certificate must deal with them under all
circuni-
stances. If such a system was necessary he would rather,
much as he would object to going back, but if such a
power were absolutely necessary he would rather again
lodge the power in the hands of the Magistrates, for they
were gentlemen acting openly before the public. They
might pass what laws they pleased, but until they had an
effectual and efficient police—( Hear, hear)—they would
do no good. He had refrained from bringing the question
before Parliament because the House of Lords had last
year agreed to resolutions which showed him that they
would not agree to anything but a return to the old sys-
tem. Ile strongly deprecated the annual agitation of this
question ; its only effect must be to prevent any prudent or
honest man from venturing his property in a trade which
he is not sure he will be allowed to continue for six
months. For the reasons he had given he would not op-
pose the second reading of the Bill, but if it were not
greatly altered in Committee he would feel it his duty to
oppose it in a future stage.
Mr. DA RBY supported the motion, on the ground
that the beer-houses were, in the country, nothing but re-
ceptacles for crime, and places for the concoction of of-
fences against the law. The practical working of the
measure was, that the brewer generally put in a man who
had nothing but his tables and benches—generally men
who would not work, but were lazy and improper charac-
ters. Do away with the system of certificates as proposed,
and the evils of the present system must remain. Bill
upon the subject would be introduced year by year, unless
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would
afford their assistance in order to correct the evils now
existing. . _

Mr.-GISBORNE considered the Bill as one for the
suppression of beer-houses, not a Bill for their regulation,
and that was easily seen by a reference to the Bill, clause
by clause. Even the avowed intention of the Bill was to
very much reduce the number at present in existence, and
all its parts were eminently calculated to effect the object.
As to the certificates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had exposed that provision of the Bill. Undoubtedly it
was a correct principle, that houses open to public resort
should be liable to police regulations; but he ( Mr. G.)
believed this Bill would have the effect of undue repres-
sion of the trade, and he should vote against it.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said be should support the Bill,
though some of the provisions he thought were too strin-
gent, and should he altered. He knew that in many cases
the numbers of the beer.shop-kerpers were so great, that
they could with difficulty get a living—and thus their re-
spectability was lowered, and it would be desirable, by
some regulations, to reduce the numbers. He knew that
often, they were men of straw set up by the brewers.—
( Hear, hear.) He could state that in Buckinghamshire
the meetings of the rioters; during the late unhappy dis-
turbances, had taken place in beer-shops; and of the only
two men executed, one was a keeper of a beer house. Let
it be recollected that the Beer Bill passed in 1830, and in
subsequent years disturbances had occurred through the
country.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS concurred in the desirableness of
some distinct Legislation on that subject after such
repeated discussions —( Hear, hear.) He had wished that
a Parliamentary Committee should be appointed to con-
sider the question. He was one of those who had Leen
deeply disappointed by the result of the Beer Bill.—
( Hear, hear.) In large towns and populous districts
police regulations were more effective, and then the abuses
of the Beer-shops had been less glaring there than in
agricultural districts. One point he considered of great
importance—that tha hours of the beer-shops and the
public-houses should be made the same, or else it would
only encourage persons to go from the first to the
latter, closed at a later time —( Hear, hear, hear.)
It was his intention to vote for the second reading of the
Bill, in the hope that in Committee they might introduce
into it the necessary improvements.
Mr. GILLON was surprised at the speech of the Hon.
Member who had just sat down. lie wou'd for his part
oppose so tyrannical a measure as that before the House
—a measure which would materially interfere as ith the
comforts of the poor, and which he thought was entirely
ra.ncEli
vteS,
oTtluiCioduOgnUto,
thought
tact
rstfuhe pre
eprnowretiaet
measure
introduction,ewcooulli,lif.obretsa o fbea
non
e)f_fi octhe
Bill, lie thought that the meastwe would be a beneficial
uncalled for.
the
Mr. HUME aqreed with the last speaker, that whatever
onuiel: the drunkard.
i:*
the other House might do, this House should do its duty
in respect to legislation —( Hear, hear.) Ile agreed with
all that had been said by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would take
this subject into his own hands. He agreed with his Hon.
Friend (,Mr. Gam)
that the interference of the Legist,_
tore with the comforts of the poor was the great cause of
the discontent of the people, out of which Chartism leid
grown. What was the constant declaration of the Cilar-
fists ? That the House did not represent the people; and in