The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-11 00:00:00

SALE OF BEER.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. KER, SEYMER moved as an amendment that
the bill be read a second time this day six months. Ho
believed drunkenness was the besetting sin of the work-
ing classes of this country, but he thought it was now
decreasing. The influence of good example amongst the
upper classes, the increased desire on the part of em-
ployers to promote the moral, religious, and physical
welfare of their servants, the establishment of parks, and
the increase of education, were the causes of this, and it
was no Utopian idea to imagine that these would have a
still further beneficial effect on the habits of the working
classes. They had seen a great change in the habits of
the upper classes, in respect of drunkenness, and there
was no reason to doubt that a similar change from the
causes now in operation would take place in the habits
of the lower classes. He condemned the restrictive
principles of this bill, and remarked that no body of
men would think of restricting the number of shops
in any other trades to be opened. He stated in
support of his argument relative to the restrictive
character of the licensing system generally, that
during five years 2,343 persons applied for licences in
the Metropolis, of whom only 493 were successful, and
of these 72 were granted in the Tower Liberties. He
considered there should be some regulations for the trade,
but not the restrictions proposed by the present mea-
sure. The hon. gentleman referred to the connection
existing between the brewers and publicans relative to
obtaining licenses, on the ground of the former supply-
ing the latter with ale and porter, and also to most of
the public houses being the property of the brewers, or
mortgaged to them. The licensing system, coupled
with the malt tax, was the great upholder of the brewers'
monopoly. It was absurd 'to draw distinctions between
beer shops and public houses, because there were bad
in both branches, and it was a notorious faht that a
number of public houses were kept by prize-fighters,
who were a class of men he could never consider as re-
spectable. It was all very well to talk about the
morality of publicans and brewers, but their object was
to sell as much beer as they could. Although
the licence was strict as to adulteration and dilu-
tion, the publicans and beer shop keepers were obliged
to have recourse to dilution for their profits, and Mr.
Hawes, a celebrated brewer, who was examined befure
the committee, stated that the retailer bad to " pump
the new rives," fox his profits—(a laugh)—in other words,
dilute the beer with water. The present system of li-
censing was bad and required alteration--magistrates
being very often placed in unpleasant positions when
they were asked to grant licenses, and sometimes
charged with partiality. The Beer Act had been success.
ful, inasmuch as it gave the public the reduction of duty,
and allowed many persons, such as shell-fish shop
keepers, to supply beer, who did not require
a spirit license as well. He approved of one license in-
stead of two as now in practice, which would give the
beerseller permission to sell beer and spirits, or either,
only as he thought most desirable far the purposes of his
trade. Statistics of drunkenness were very fallacious,
because no two towns had the same regulations for ap-
prehending persons under the influence of drink. In
some towns the police had orders to take only
such men as could not take care of themselves,
whilst in others they took men who were a
little the worse for liquor. The honourable gentle.
man also referred to the present system stigmatising a
man as not being respectable by withholding his
license, and at the same time preventing his rising in
the class to which he belonged. Beer-shops, generally
speaking, he thought were better kept than licensed
housee. He approved of that part of the bill which
referred to coffee-houses that were kept open all night,
and he regretted it had been made a part of this
measure. The application of the Tippling Act
to these shops he thought desirable and be
complained of an omission in the bill relative
to the privileges of Free Vintners, and called attention
so a house now open in Piccadilly under a free vintner's
licence. He called upon the " strong Government"
to take up the question, and not be afraid of the licensed
victuallers, who, it could not be doubted, were a strong
else, and very influential in elections.
Mr. W. BROWNE supported the amendment, and
explained that his name had been put on the back of the
bill under a misapprehension. When he first saw the bill
he found it so different to what he a xpeoted that he wrote
to request the reenovel of his name from it, but he was
told it was too late, and could not he done. After

reviewing the labours of the committee appointed
two sessions since, of which he was a member, he
a r pressed a hope that the Government would, next year,
be prepared with a measure founded upon the report
which the committee presented to the house.
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not accede to the doctrine
that, because the Government did not deal with an ac-
knowledged evil, private members attempting to
legit late upon the subject should be considered as inter-
fering with the duties of the executive. He deprecated
too much responsibility being thrown upon the Govern-
ment, as inconsistent with ant freedom and independence
of hon. member...
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS supported the second reading
of the bill.
Sir G. GREY said that as a direct appeal bad been
made to the Government, he took an early oppor-
tunity of stating the views of tlse Government on
this question, and his views on this bill. The
bon. gentleman who bad brought in the bill was not
liable to censure for so doing, but rather praise for caus-
ing the subject to be discussed, and hon. members it.-
formed thereby. The principle of this bill was sub,tare.
tinily to repeal the Act of 1330, and revert to the system
that existed before, restricting the sale of beer absolutely
to persons licensed by magistrates according to their
arbitrary will, without anything to guide them. To
that he entertained the strongest objections, and he pro-
ceeded to review the course of legi,lttien that had taken
place for many years past on this subject. This bill was
at variance with the recommendation of the com-
mittee of 1854, and the honourable member aske,l
for this bill because the morality, &c., of the
country required that certai❑ checks should be im-
posed on the trade. The general result, however, of the
evidence before the committee was, that drunkenness
had decreased in the country, and where it existed it
was attributable mostly to the use of ardent spirits. The
towns in which drunkendess was said to have decreased

were Birmingham, Norwich, Manchester, and Liver-
pool; and when gentlemen said drunkenees was on the
increase, they spoke of some local observation, and not
of it generally throughout the kingdom. There could be
no doubt that still it was too great, and was the
cause of the commission of much crime. The law was
more stringent with regard to the new house-keeper
than the licensed victualler, for on a third convicti:in
the magistrates bad power to shut up snob beer shop for
two years, aid report it to the excise ; yet no such third
conviction had taken place. Many of the evils corn«
plained of arose rather from the administration of the
law than its defects. As to the licensing system he thought
the evidence before the committee showed that the
licensing system hail failed to secure the morality
of the people. It was impossible for magis-
trates to form a just estimation of the quantity of
beer and spirits required for a given district, and it eras
impossible for them properly to protect the morality of
the public from a fear of trenching on vested rights,
which they were bound to consideras well as the question
of public morality, and from that a house was rarely de-
prived of its licence. Before 1830 complaints were made
against certain houses which he believed still existed,
and the true remedy for the evils complained of
weresr_not to be found in the bill before the house.
"" "ichard Mayne said that the beer shops were not
Ivor" ,Conducted in the metropolis than the licensed
public-houses, d
a Ilhaerygeayv, the same evidence was given by Mr.
Wn .
gave tie
to the beershops in the City,
d
e numbers, that out of 138 beershops
within the City, 131 were well cmductecl extend
the system of magistrates •
comes licear,ing all these houses
would he a retiorao
movement. On the part of the
17
Government he ,rtd
to say that they considered
better regulations should be
and to make it the int ,I"Pted—(hear, hear)—
to better conduct their houeZest by Of the publicans
.intlicting a penalty
for doing wrong on the house,
d
ap( natty
o
make the property
sutler, iestead of inflicting
bent
consideration
occupier.
He .would give Vie suhject his
during
the recess, and introduce a measure next session, if the
hon. member wool I withdraw his bill.
Alter some remarks from Mr. Ids "'La _
and Mr.
PACES,
Mr. HARDY replied. He did not consider the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary,
satisfactory, and expressed his doubts that any measure
would be brought forward D« xt session founded on the
report of the committee referrel to. Already it Lai
been allowed to remain in abeyance three years, and
private men had been obliged to interfere :n this ques-
tion. He denied that the movement arose with the
licensed victual'ers, but from the public generally, whe
believed that the time bad arrived when an alteration
should took place in the law. He intended to go
to a division. The hon. gentleman then proceeded
to! reply to the arguments that had been
need againt the measure, reviewing the licensing system
from the reign of Henry 7th to the year 1830, when the
'public-houses and beershops were one to 269 inhabitants.
Tne beershops then numbered 24,342, and after watels
they went up to 45,000, but subsequently, in 1855, after
increas,ng the amount of rating, there were 43,648 be, r-
shops, the public-houses numbering 62,570, and the
cider shops .521, being at the rate of one.
to 164 inhabitant', including women and clol
then. After referring to the consumption of spirit

in this country, and in those where no licensing system
existed, he said tbat if the report of the committee
were carried out, things would be worse than now, for
the great browers world be the sureties for the publicans,
and thus they would monoporse the trade by getting all
the houses into their hands. Ho had no wish to pre-
vent the association of the poor, but he wanted to secure
them from the demoralising practices of beer sellers. He
complained of the present system of licensing, which
gave no security to the public ; because if magistrates
marked their sense of the disgraceful manner in which
a house was conducted, by withdrawing the license,
application was made to the excise, and the house con-
tinued open to the injury of morality. The Home Secre-
tary had said that magistrates had power to shut up a
beer-shop for two years after a third conviction, but the
law was evaded, for after a second conviction, the busi-
ness was made over to another member of the family,
and the convictions had to be gone over again. He con-
sidered the magistrates the best person to decide on the
number of public•houses required for a district, and that
the discretionary power of licensing could be safely placed
in their hands, more especially as they bad to deal with
crime, and the liberty of the subject, many of those houses
being the hotbeds of the former. He hoped to
bring the free vintners of London under the provi-
sions of this bill, which would be the means of getting
rid of a nuisance, and the evidence taken before
the c.imrniitee showed how necessary it was to place
coffeesbops under regulations similar to public-houses.

Mr. VILLIERS, as chairman of the committee which
had sat on this subject, could not allow the hon. and
I3arned gentlemen to represent the report of that com-
mittee to the house in a light not warranted by the facts.
The aject of the committee had been to inquire into
the evils connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors,
which the hon. and learned gentleman had brought be-
fore the house, aiid to inquire further whether the pre:

sent law which regulated publichouses could be amended
with a view to the better protection of public morals and
for the better accommodation of the people. The hon.
and learned gentlemen, however, spoke as though the
committee had been utterly regardless of all those con-
sideration', as if their only object had been to establish
what he celled free trade in spirits, utterly reckless of
the consequence, which he professed to detail, and has
argued upon that assumption in favour of his own mea-
sure. (Hear.) If the house did not adopt this most erro-
neous view of the labourers of that committee, he (Mr.
Villiers) could not conceive that they were likely to sup-
port this bill in the face of all the evidence collected by
the committee, and now in their possession—(hear)--and
further, in disregard of the assurance given by the Secre-
tary of State (Sir G. Grey) that the Government was
about to take up the subject, and would be ready
to propose a measure in • the course of next session.
(Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman wanted, he
presumed, to raise the character of houses for the sale of
intoxicating liquor, and to limit their number. But how
could he attempt to lead the house to suppose that the
committee had been indifferent to these objects, and had
taken no precaution whatever for the future conduct and
character of these bouses, and, indeed, he had implied
that their object was to multiply them indefinitely ?
Why, the first proposition made was that no man should
get a license without the certificate of the magistrate as
to his being a fit person in point of character to receive
it. At present, any man might go to the Excise and
claim a beerhouse license on payment of 1/. 2e., while
the proposal of the committee was that the lowest pay-
ment should be 61., and should go on increasing gradu-
ally in proportion to the papulation. Then the hon. and
learned gentleman, very conveniently for his own mea-
sure, ignored altogether the evidence as to the working
of the present licensing system, and its inefficiency in
checking the evils of which he complained, because he
had proposed a measure which, in direct opposition to
that evidence, purported to extend it. The hon. and
learned gentleman had observed the two things that the
evidence before the committee most prominently con-
demned—one being the division of the business of the
publican, into the sale of beer only, and the sale of every-
thing else in which he usually dealt, and the present
licensing system—(bear, hear)--and he had adopted
them both as the basis of his plan. The present system
of separating the sale of spirits from the sale of beer
was found to be most unsatisfactory, for it was almost
impossible for a man to live by the sale of beer alone,
and the evidence taken before the committee Ehorred
that this was the occasion in many cases of the disre
putab!e practices adopted in those houses. (Hear,
bear.) The honourable and learned gentleman, however,
proposed to perpetuate this artificial distinction occa-
sioned by law between the two classes of houses, and the
only difference in the scheme from the present wool I be
that the persons who were to sell beer alone would
get the magistrates' certificate for a license—the very
system which was attended with se little good and
was so generally complained of. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman ought to have told the house how
he intended to meet the evils of the licensing system, or
to have told them that the evidence was un.rue. (Hear )
This subject was intentionally referred to very untidy in
the report, but the evidence teemed with statements
made as to the manner in which these licenses were
granted, the system being shown to be of the most irre-
gular and unsatisfactory kind. (Hear.) Nobody at•
tacked the magistrates as a body. The committee did
not feel called upon to make any reflections on the
magistracy, because they had good reason to believe that
the great body of the magistracy were as much dis-
pleased at these irregularities as anyb•dy else—(hear)—
that it was a task that devolved only upon a few ; and
that generally they would gladly be relieved from a duty
they deemed very odious. (Hear.) It was, indeed, one
which appertaine 1 rather to the police than to men
having judicial functions, and it was felt by some that
suspicions which attached to them in this matter tainted
their character in the administration ofjustice. (Rear.)
On this subject, however, in consequence of the obser-
vations of toe hon. and learned gentleman, he wished
hon. members would read the evidence of the Recorder
of Yarmouth, who spoke from an experience of 17 years,
and who was equally acquainted with that town, Nor-
wich, Lynn, and Ipswich, and who said that the present
licensing system was one of unqualified mischief, and
that in the granting of licenses there was favoritism,
interest, and wrong of every description. (Hear.) It
was mainly on account of the startling evidence exposing
the evils of the licensing system that he (Mr. Villiers)
advised the committee not to report in the first year of
the inquiry, in order that this evidence should circulate
through the country, and that if anything untrue had
been stated that it might be contradicted, and that the
committee should only make its report upon the truth.
Now, he called upon the house to remember that the main
point involved in the vote they were about to give was
this, whether the licensing system, as it existed at present,
should be extended or not. Thetis what the hon.and learned
gentleman proposed, never admitting, and expecting
the house to ignore altogether, the evils shown to exist
in connection with the licensing system. At present the
difficulty which was felt in dealing with this subject was
the enormous value which had artificially been given to
property by the licensing system. " Vested interests"
presented themselves in this matter ; yet the hon. and
learned gentleman wanted the house to increase these
difficulties by the plan he proposed, and which would
work with respect to beerhouses precisely as it had done
with the other houses. He (Mr. Villiers) did not say a
word himself against the magistrates. (Oh!) He only
referred to the evidence which had been given which was
credible. He had no interest in the matter. They were
magistrates themselves that had come forward to speak
against the system, and ask to be relieved from the duty
at present imposed upon them. But he begged to say
there was evidence in the report to show that it was
not the magistrates alone who were to blame in this mat.
ter, and that there were other people of station in society
or possessed of great wealth who had interest in the
houses that were ill-conducted, and who interfered with
the maeietrates to protect them ; and if they would turn
to Mr. Palmer'e evidence they would see how the magis-
trate; were sometimes told that they were injuring pro-
perty when they were about to suspend a license. The
hon. and learned gentleman had hoped to dispose of the
evidence against the system by saying that it referred
only to the metropolis ; but if the report was referred to
they would see that from every part of the country it
was implied that there is an absence of ad rule in grant-
ing or withdrawing licenses. The solicitor of the Victu-
aller Association at Liverpool was sent up to the corn-
inittee to give evidence in favour ofthe system, but when
he was asked upon what rule be thought the magistrates
proceeded in granting licenses, replied "None at all,"
and it was very much determined by the varying hu-
mour of the magistrates who attended, and that he
thought many applied and got licenses by that means
who would not otherwise. (Hear.) Now, when evidence
of this kind was submitted to the committee, they were
compelled to notice it, and in considering what amend-
ment they would recommend, it was utterly impossible
that they could pursue the course of the learned gentle-
man and advise this faulty system to be extended fur-
ther. But, far from justifying what the learned gentle.
man implied, that the committee had no views of its
own, and, therefore, that his scheme'should be adopted,
he might see by their report that their opinion was that
a matter so important as that of the sale of intoxicating
liquors should not be left to the mercy, or caprice, or in-
terest of any set of men, and that ample security should
be taken for the character and conduct of a person en•
gaging in the bniness, and that the conditions on which
he might enter that business should be defined and
known, and that it should be left to some public re-
sponsible officer to determine whether he bad complied
with those conditions, and whether he was entitled to a
renewal of his 1 csnse. He believed that would give more
satisfaction than to leave it to the discretion of so varying 1
a body as the justices of the peace. The boo. and learned
gentleman had no right in proposing an experiment that
had failed, to claim ter hiniselt that he alone had devised
a remedy fur great and admitted evils, while tho com-
mittee had ['reposed nothing in lieu of what they hail
displaced. He (Mr. Villiers) bed only risen to vindicate
the report of that committee from some of the charges
which bad been by implication made against it. He
hoped the house would not consent to support this mea-
sure without minutely examining the evidence upon the
whole subject now before them, which, as he believed,
would lead them to the conclusion that the plan proposed 1

by the hon. and learned gentleman, however well meant,
would be no security against many evils, and would in
some respects be a❑ aggravation of the mischievous sys-
tem at present exi,ting. (Hear, hear )
After some remarks from General Thompson and Mr.
Barrow,

The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading lBO
Against it .
Majority --33
The bill was accordingly rejected. (Cheers.)
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

Mr. L. KING moved the second readinof this bill.
The only objection made to it when it was fir: t .
brought in was that woull interfere with the
Governments promised measure of reform, but the
noble lord at the head of the Government had given the
best answer to the objection by the introduction of the

Oaths Bill, which dealt the same as this, viz., with the
elected and not the elector.
Sir G-. GREY moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months, the Government considering
this and another bill on the paper should form the sub.
ject of discussion next year on the question of reform.
He declined then to enter into the merits of the case.
Mr. COBBETT could not assent to the withdrawal
of this unless the Government pledged themselves
that the question should form part of the new reform
bill.

Mr. COLLIER thought it was asking too much of the
Government to state the details of their proposed mea-
sure of reform for next session. The time of the house
could be better employed this session than in
discussing this measure. (Hear, hear.) If, when the
Government measure was before the house, no pro-
vision was made relative to this question, and the
hon. member for Surrey moved an amendment, he would
support him. _ _ _

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE protested against the principle
that the House of Commons should not discuss questions
of Parliament reform. Hon. members were " piping
hot" from the hustings, and were in a position to give
the Government much information on questions
of reform, and therefore it was desirable this and
other questions on the paper relating to represen-
tation should be discussed. Unless the Government
gave-a pledge that this question and the more frequent
registration of votes should form part of the new reform
bill, he advi-ed his friend to go to a division, and show
the country wbo were and who were not reformers.
Mr. GREER supported the second reading of the
bill. Money was no test of honesty or intelligence, and
be opposed the qualification clause, because it limited
the circle of choice of representatives. Educa-
tion and intelligence should be the only test, and
he thought an eeminination of members as to their legis-
lative qualifications desirable. There was no qualifica-
tion fir the members of Scotland, who were as respect.
able, intelligent, and good members as the English mem-
bers. (Loud cries of " Divide.")
Lord PALMERSTON hoped that the house would
follow the recommendation of his right hon. friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that
they would concur in that which he tnought was a gene-
ral understanding—though it was not an engagement on
the part of anybody—that questions affecting the con-
stitution of that house should •be postponed to
the next session, seeing that in the present there really
was no probability of there being sufficient time to give
that consideration to these questions which their import-
ance undoubtedly deserved. (Hear.) That remark would
alio apply to the next two bilk upon the order paper.
He forebore from entering at all into the merits of the
bill which his hon. friend had proposed ; but his hon.
friend must of course be aware that, whatever he might
think of the merits of his own proposition, there might
be others who entertained the strongest objections to it f
and when it came to be argued—as it must be when it
should be brought under the deliberate consideration of
the house—much might be stated in opposition to the
views of the promoters of the bill. (Hear, hear.) He
forebore from sketching any of those easy topics which
must naturally enter into the mind of everyone in con-
nexion
with the property qualification ; but he earnestly
recommended his hon. friend 'to let the measure stand
over for future consideration, and not to press the house
to a division on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. L. KING could not agree with the excuse of the
noble lord, and should press his motion to a division.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —s9
The bill was accordingly rejected.
ELECTION EXPENSES BILL.

Lord R. GROSVENOR in consequence of the deci-
sion of the house on the Property Qualification Bill,
withdrew the motion for the second reading of the Elec-
tion Expenses Bill.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE also withdrew this bill on the
same grounds.

VACCINATION.

Mr. T. DIINCOIVIBE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to repeal the Compulsory Vaccination Act, 1853.
The other orders of the day were postponed, and the
houee adjourned at half•past 5 o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.

NEW STREETS IN SOUTHWARK AND
COVENT-GARDEN.

The committee appointed to consider the bill for
the formation of a new street from the Town-hall,
Southwark, to Blackfriars-road, and a street from
King-street, Covent-garden, to Cranbourne.street,
Leicester-square, met yesterday in Committee-
room., No. 19. The committee consisted of Mr.
Cornwall Legh (in the chair), Mr. Davey, Mr.
Holland, Mr. Crook, and Air. Portman.
Mr. Gray appeared for the promoters of the bill
(the Metropolitan Board of Works), Mr. Russell
Gurney in opposition, for the Corporation of Lon-
don.

Mr. Gray entered into a detailed statement of
the great benefits which would be derived from a
direct communication being formed between West-
minster and London Bridges, which at present did
not exist, and it would clear away a great deal of
almost valueless property, and be a great conve
nience to the inhabitants not only of Southwark
but of the entire metropolis.
Mr. Russell Gurney urged the claims of the Cor-
poration of the City of London, and believed that
if the bill were pas,:ed it would take a larger sum
from the coal duties than was justified. _ _

The room was ordered to be cleared. On the
readmission of till parties,
The chairman reported that the committee had
passed the preamble of the bill.
Some of the clauses were then gone through and
agreed to.
On clause 47 being considered,
_ _

Mr. Russell Gurneysaid, in' respect to this clause
applied to the new street in Covent-garden, by the
bill, in addition to the sum of 50,000/. agreed to be
given towards the formation of that street by the
Duke of Bedford, a sum was to be applied from the
London-bridge appoaches fund of 30,0001.
Mr. Gray opposed the clause, as its effect would
be to tie the hands of the Metropalitan Board of
Works, when it would be impossible to say the pre-
cise cost of the street, however carefully such aft
estimate might be formed. Contingencies might
arise which would altogether upset the most elabo-
rate calculation, and therefore he hoped that the
committee would not agree to the clause.
The room was again cleared, and after an exclu-
sion of about half an hour the parties were again
admitted.

The chairman said the committee had carefully
considered the subject, and they were of opinion
thit the clause should contain the maximum charge
which would be required from the London-bridge
approaches fund, and that the amount should be
limited to 35,0001.
The other clauses were then gone through, and
the bill was ordered to be reported.