Star.
London, England, 1830-05-22 00:00:00

BALE OF lEEE.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order
of the day for the house to resolve itself into& committee on the sale
of beer bill.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr.HOLDSWORTH begged to say he wished that cyder should
be put on the same footing.
Mr. MUNCK rose, and said a few words which were Inaudible.
The SPEAKER said that if the hon. gentleman wished to move
an instruction to the Committee, he would inform him that It was
unnecessary.
The House then went into a Committee.

Ant the clause relative to the fieenWsWing read,
Mr. lIIONCK said that the licensing system was a preventive
one, and not of a corrective nature. The common law said that no
man should sell beer unless he had a good character, but this bill
said that any man should have a licence. (The hon. member, in
consequence of the great noise in the house, and his own occasional
low tone of voice, was frequently indistinct.) We understood him
to object to the proposed alteration in the system, and uphold the
old one. He contended that, were the proposed measure passed,
it would lead to a general ruin of those who had embarked their
all in their several establishments. Many of the publicans bad
been gentlemen's servants, and had entered into this line of
business, vesting the whole of their life's savings, all of which,
were this bill to pass, would be lost. This measure carried
the thing to too great an extent. He would move as an amendment
on this clause a resolution, which would tend to do away with this
threatened evil. He objected Wallowing every man to sell beer on
his premises. The brewers did not wish to have the beer con-
sumed on their premises, neither did private shopkeepers who might
take out licenses, wish to have their private houses thrown into pub-
lic-houses. His clause would also protect the shopkeeper from the
malicious informadons of informers. The hon. member then moved
a clause, to the arid that all persons obtaining licenses under the
new Act should not he at liberty to allow it to be consumed on the
premises; and that those who did do so should be obliged to take
our their licenses according to the 9th of Geo. 4.

Sit T. GOOCH had at first been of opinion that the repeal of
this tax was the best which could be made ; he had, however, since
consulted his Mother magistrates, and he was now convinced that it
would be attended with considerable inconvenience. He was a
friend to a free trade in beer, but he thought they ought to have
slime oontroul over it: he meant, that the magistrates ought to have
some controul over the licenses. He would the Wore suggest, whs.
then It would not answer the purpose, were the clause first
by the hoe. member for Heading to be tried for two years. Pr=
of opinion that it might be adopted in that manner with great ad-
vantage to the country. Should it, however, be found, after the
two years' trial, that the end was not answered, then they could but
3:, revert to the new plan. He threw out this suggestion, ;
hoping that it t have the effect of calling general attention to
that point in .
Mr. SLA HY, alter a few preliminary observations, said that it
bad boa land dim the camumption of barley and of malt bad ow-
dim* dbmbilisd, sad it bad ososequauly boss domed requisite

rittiwleassedvierTo.byterntadt:trle,atonhcitsa:4;.....
cotonilnpq,,nuilered inwtioththreese
were loaded with duty and reetrictimis—alicar, hear.)—it artl: "
restriction, of when
nf
rest on. There was the heavy duty on malt, whichne‘vr.
facture. Then there was the on bee '
. Not on te
how ever, which was ronsutned by duty
the riche and powerfulh
but
that which was drank as a means of sustenance by th
poor a tea-
bouring chines. T them
That beer which was drank by eas a suppose
under the heaviness end fatigues of manual labour. (Ifr -
hear.) The rich man was allowed to escape from this a:
but the pool man who could not afford to buy the brewing ut a.
was compelled to pay this exorbitant and unprincipled
burden
(Hear, hear.) Then, again, there were restrictions on retailina --
beer y the licensing system. The only mode of preventing :eti,'`
nopoly In any trade or business, was to afford all persons pirate's:
such business equal advantages. The proposition of the lion yea
of the amendment would do away in a great measure with
substantial advantages of the bill. If this amendment sa
carried, it would confer on the public no greater advantage
than they now had : for the retail brewer might sell a,
much as he pleased on the premises at present. Twoallit
of the malt liquor consumed was consumed on the premises e 7.
which it was sold ; so that if a consumption on the premises al,
prohibited, the public would derive but little advantage from th.
bill. With respect to the morality of the subject, he maintained
that all the disorder and immorality consequent on tippling, nos,.
from the drinking of spirits, and not from drinking beer. Tice hos
member here concluded, by thanking the Chancellor of the Excite.
quer for the liberality he evinced in bringing forward this measure.
Mr. BARCLAY observed, that so far from the brewers benefit.
ing by the reduction which had taken place heretofore in the wad-
duties they were losers by it. If the proposed reduction of Ss, in
the barrel were carried into effect, it would be a saving to the public
of 12s. in the barrel. lie denied that tee re sa. any rush thing as a,
understanding between the London brew tr. :mil the spirit mer.
chants. There was not a stronger advoeate for a free trade in bee.
than himself. The freer the trade was the better for the Loras
brewer. He was aware, as stated by some hon. members, that Oh
great capital of the London brewers gave them great advantages, s•
the same time he was not ignorant that this measure must opera,
oppressively on many individuals who bad vested large capital in as
trade. Before the committee it appeared that one individual Isa
22,8001. vested in 10 houses in London, another 10,0001. sada.
6,1)001. and several others having similar investments. He weals
ask the house if tonic ri.odification should not be adoseed, fur a .
purpose of relieving those who were likely to suffer from this
tie knew that a small sum would satisfy those victuallers, and he
put it to the sense of the house, if they should not receive some cote.
pcusation, if the bill should pass into a law in its preseut state.
Mr. WaSTEItN was decidedly opposed to the amendment, a,
destructive of the benefits of the bill. The great object of the bill
was to deprive the magistrates ,of that despotic power which they
' possessed over licences. lie did not mean to say but that Wits
amendments should be made in the bill as it now stood. Ur
would be extremely sorry to see any of those evil consequences re.
suit front the bill which some members apprehended ; but he had
no dread of such evil consequences. With respect to the ir.
wrest which brewers and licensed victuallers had in houses, h.
begged to say that their interest in those houses depended on aa
discretion of the magistrates. who might refuse to grant a licera
when they pleased. He knew of a borough where the magistrate,
took it into their head to reduce the number of public houses. err.'
accordingly refused licences to many. What became of the
rest vested in these houses then ? The present bill would do awa)
with the control of the magistrates, so that the Interest in house!
would not in future depend on the whim of individuals. For
reasons, and because he felt that it would redound to the pall:
good, lie should support the bill.
Sir E. SNATCH BULL wished to know if it was the inti.mix.
of ministers to make any alterations in the present shape of the 11:::
He (Sir Edward) had made up his mind what course to pursue,
he wished to reserve himself until he learned if it was the inter--.
of ministers to make any alteration or not.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH EQUER considered the pro-
posed amendment a direct infraction of the principles of this bill. The
only difference it would make in the present system would be, L.)
change the license from live to two guineas. If the amendment were
carried, it would deprive the public of all the proposed advantages e:
the bill. He maintained that the proposed hill was only a neva
tion of the common law license, which permitted every person to deal
in any trade he pleased, without any restriction. lie was aware
that the publicans would suffer by this measure ; but when their
loss was compared with the good which the public would derive
from it, it could not for one moment stand in the way of the bill
The publicans and brewers had many ;advantages over any (irkr
persons who should embark in the trade, for they. being established
In the business, knew better how to conduct it with advantage. Taa.
would have their customers, and other advantages. which new con..
petitors would not have. Let it be permitted to sell beet
free from restrictions, and he (the Chancellor of the Esehe.
quer) would take care to Introduce into the bill such amend.
meats as would prevent the peace or morals of the community
from being injured. He should propose that the person licensed
should be householder, and give a bond with two sureties to pay
any Gnu that might be inflicted on him. He should not altos
one publican to be a surety for another, so that they could not plan
into each other's hands. These, with the other mtrictiora
the bill contained, would ensure to the public a cheap Nana.
without any danger to the peace of the community, as soe..
honourable members seemed to apprehend. The right he:..
Gentleman again adverted to the amendmenawith a view to show
that it would thwart the object of the bill. He then read sort
resolutions agreed coat a meeting of the licensed victualkes
March last, pointing out the few advantages which had been ta.
rived from the permission to sell intermediate beer, and informs
from thence that the public could not benefit from throwing open
the trade in beer. The right bon. gentleman perfectly agreed sr
with the publicans, that very little advantage had been derived fur
the permission to sell beer, but not to consume it on the prenii.L•
and that was a strong argument against the amendment ; for it
only giving permission to consume it on the premises alone that sr.!
advantage could be derived from It. For these, and other masons,.
should oppose the amendment, at the tame time he would peas,
such clauses as would guard against the evil consequences so mai .
apprehended.
Mr. ESTCOURT was an advocate for a free trade In beer;
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to the suggestions a
honourable gentlemen proposing restrictions upon licensed houses
then the bill before the house would be anything but a bill giving
a free trade in beer. If the amendment wire carried, he should per.
pose that the beer should not Ise drank within 100 yards of the pre-
mises.—(Laughter.) He admitted that the proposition was an ah.
surd one; but he thought that it was the only method of mee:ir
the clause proposed by the honourable member for Reading.
Mr. CRI PPS considered that the beer bill, in its present shape.
would, if it posed, be a great nuisance.
Mr. MABERLY said if the Hon,. Member for Reading woula
propose any limited period in his clause, say five years, to enable
the publicans to get out of their business, he should vole fer tl.e
clause. He was an advocate for the principle of the bill, but he was
not for shutting out the publicans from all chance of getting out o:
their business without incurring great lam He deprecated ti.:
licensing system, which he considered to be both dangerous arc
bad. But Parliament recognised that system, and passed an Act
support of it two years ago. Upon the faith of this Act of Paths-
' meat publicans embarked their property, and it would be beet far
to afford them an opportunity of getting out of business with as little
loss as possible ; and he was therefore an advocate for inscruce a
limited period in the hon. member's clause, before persons war:
allowed to drink on the premises.
Mr. COLBURN considered that parliament would not be dealing
fairly by the public, if it admitted any restrictions into the bill be-
fore the house. He would support the bill as now brought lentos.
but perhaps next year it would be advisable to modify some of
clauses.
Mr. F. BUXTON said that the brewers would certainly benent
by the proposed measure t but the publicans would be very gnat
losers by it. He contended that the public were not anxious for a tree
trade in beer: for where were their petitions to show their feelirg •
Several hundred petitions, however, were presented against the prins
ciple. He deprecated throwing open a trade, by which persons et
every character, and of no character, would be allowed to sell beer.
Mr. HUSKISSON was an advocate for the measure, because it
would do away with the system, which was an evil of
great magnitude, and which increase, if it were allowed to
continue.
Mr. BROUGHAM begged to set an hon. member right with
respect to a bill which he introduced upon this subject six or seven
years ago, and which was lost. He admitted that he allowed a
clause prohibiting s from drinking on the premises to be in-
serted in his bill. cat why did hew? Because he knew that with-
out such a clause at that time, he would have had no chance with
his bill. He however strongly protested against the clause at the
time.
Lord MILTON said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought
to make the house acquainted with the entire nature of the bill be.
fore they were called upon to vote in favour of it. The right bon.
gentleman admitted that various alterations would be made in du
bill. The house could not therefore come to a fair decision without
that information.

Mr. IiION6IE replied.
81r E. KNATCHBULL, although favourable to the chute.
thought it ought to be withdrawn, until the bill came before the
house in its amended shape. If however the clause was not with.
drawn, he should vote Air it.
After a few words from Lord MILTON, the house divided,
when the sambas were—
For the motion llB
AgainMajst t
ority against the Clause . 26