Star.
London, England, 1830-07-02 00:00:00

TILE BEER BILL.

Upon the order of the a..-yfo;Tiethit4reailing of the beer bill,
Mr. WESTERN said that he thought the bill, as proposed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not palatable to the public.
He wis in favour of the principle of the bill, but he thought that
'there should he a difference in the license respecting the police of
the public-houses at present in existence and those who should
hereafter be engaged in the sale of beer. The latter should not
be opened without the consent of the parish. The applicant to
open a house for the sale of beer should be a householder in the
This
in which he lives, and should be rated at 151. a year.
was a principle that was wished by many persons who
were favourable to the principle of the bill. Unless there was a
limit to the powers of opening places for the sale of beer, considera-
,ble mischief might ensue. The honourable member moved, that
every, person applying to sell beer should give ten days' notice to
the overseers of the parish of his intention to do so, and that it shall
he iii the power of the rate-payees of the parish to say whether or no
the applicant shall be at liberty to sell beer? The hon. member
' added to his motion this, that, if the applicant should not require
to sell beer upon the premises, it would not be necessary to give the
notice in question.
. Mr. ESTCOURT saw nothing in the beer bill calculated
to reduce the price of bear, nor to benefit the public gene-
*rally. He did not think that private families would be be-
ncfltted by the measure before the house. The case would
be different if the ditties upon malt were lessened. He thought it
would be impossible to prevent beer being drank upon the premises.
With respect to the influence of the Beer Bill upon the morals of
the community, he could say that he thought it was not at all cal.
culated to produce the effect anticipated by 31inistets. He con.
eluded by moving that the Beer Bill be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. BARING seconded the motion, and said, that although he
had voted against the bill in all its stages, he had never given his
opinions upon the bill. His objection to the bill was, that it was a
loss of income to the country. without affording any benefit to the
persons intended to be relieved by it. By reducing the duties, in
the case of candles; soap, and sugar, they would relieve the poorer
portions of the community' But not so with respect to the beer
ditties ; they only beneftwed the. beer.drinker ; they, perhaps, re-
lieved the workmen in the manufacturing towns, but they afforded
them a greater facility for combining against their masters for an
increase of wage.He thought the poor and the lowly would not
be benefited by the bill, in quntion.—(Heat, hear.)--He thought
that the bill was very ilefective, in respect to the police
the houses selling beer. The power of the country geotleman was
taken away by the present.: bill relative to the police of the beasts
where beer was to be :adds,- The whole order of the country rested
entirely upon the power of the country magistrates, and the moment
That that power was set el Asught by the keeper of a public-hence,
that moment WAS the mord the country placed is a very pros-
noun state. Upon the score of vested interests, he thought that the
Ilause should well consider the DUI before the Hots' previous to
their passing it. It was admitted. that the moiropoltwf the great

1111.

breweries would not be affected by the Bill, but the result of the
passing of the Bill would bete ruin the individuals at present keep-
ing, licensed houses.
Mr. AVODEHOUSE supported the amendment.
Mr. BATLEY also agreed in the psinciple of the Bill as far as it,
was intended to give good and wholesome beverage to the people,
but when it was intended to allow parsons to drink beer upon the
premises, he thought that the peat object which they all bad in
view would not be effected. He therefore was in favour of the
amendment.
Mr. LIDDELL was in favour of the Bill. lie thought that per-
sons were calculated to get their beer cheaper at the public-houses,
and that in itself was a great argument in favour of the Bill, be-
cause it was the nature of man to join with his neighbours in social
converse ; and was it not, under such circumstances, an advantage
to the poor man to get his beer at a-cheap rate lie saw nothing m
the present bill that might not be remedied in a subsequent session,
if such a course was considered necessary.
Mr. Alderman WA ITHMAN said that he was of opinion that
some other measure than that before the House might have been
introduced into the House to relieve the country of 3,000,000 L of
money. He thought that the measure in question would not have
the effect intended.
Colonel DAVIES said that the object of the Government was to
raise in pot-house licenses the deficiency occasioned by the loss pro.
duced by the reduction of the duty on beer. The bill would not
put down the monopoly of the brewer in town, and in the coun-
try no such monopoly existed; therefore the bill would be ineffec-
tive respecting monopoly.
Mr. BAhCbAY said it was well known that within the last few
years the trade in beer had considerably ;decreased, and the trade in
spirits increased. If the present bill were thrown out, the sale of
beer would decrease more than it had. The very system of mono-
poly in licensed houses by the brewers was generated in consequence
of the piesent system. The persons opposed to the bill before the
house forgot that they were likely to be benefited by the increase in
the consumption of beer. He gave his right hoe. friend great ere-
dit for introducing the present bill, because it would relieve those
persons upon whom the duty more immediately pressed. In ad-
verting to the clause about to be brought up by the hon. member
for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly), he begged to say that he was favour-
able to such a clause. He was anxious that time should be 'allowed
to the publicans to get out of their business if they pleased. This
would be some compensation to the publicans.
Mr. W. SMITH thought that the present bill would be the
cause of overrunning the country with pot-houses. lie considered
that this would lead to immorality. He was instructed by his con.
stitucnts to move a clause that would remedy the evil, and he would
do so at a future stage of the bill
Sir T. ACLAND could not support the amendment of his hon.
friend. He thought that the bill was calculated to produce much
good. He thought it was not fair to oppose the principle of the bill
now, after the manner in which it had been canvassed in the course
of the session. He was, however, favourable to time being given to
the publicans, as a sort of compensation for the loss which they
were likely to suffer from the operation of the bill. He was also
opposed to beer being consumed upon the premises. Ile would sup-
port the third reading of the bill, but he would also support the
clause of his honourable friend the Member for Abingdon, (Mr.
Maberly) when introduced.
Mr. H ERRI ES denied that his Majesty's ministers brought for-
ward the Beer Bill in consequence of public clamour. They brought
it forward, because they thought that the bill would have the effect
of taking away a burden from the labouring classes of the com-
munity. It had been said that nothing could be so calamitous as
cheap beer. iVhy, if you are to give beer to the people, give it them
freely, give it them cheaply. If immorality flowed from beer, he did
not know from what species of taxation the people should be relieved.
Mr. G. CALVERT intended to move for an alteration in the
title of the bill, if it should pass. Instead of being entitled a bill to
promote and encourage the sale of beer, it should be called a bill to
promote drunkenness and immorality. The hon. member concluded
by stating that he should support the amendment.
Colonel SIBTHORPE would oppose the bill in all its stages._
He considered it one of those bills which, if carried, would not tend
to recommend his Majesty ministers to the confidence of the coun-
try. It went to deprive a great number of persons of their vested
rights, sanctioned by Parliamentary enactments.
Mr. BENETT was of opinion, that a reduction in the duties on
beer and a free trade in beer, should go hand in hand. In answer
to those who apprehended an increase in drunkenness and immorali-
ty, by extending the number of ale-houses, he would ask did people
eat more beef or bread on account of an increase in the number of
butchers' and bakers' shops? (hear) Those who arc inclined to drink
could easily get what they thought proper to drink, even now. lie
denied that there was any immorality in drinking beer.—(Laughter.)
Those who now went to public houses were often induced to drink
spirits on account of the company which they met. If there were
bar shops near them, they would not have the temptation to drink
spirits. For these reasons he should support the bill as it stood,
and be entreated ministers not to submit to have any of the clauses
so changed as to alter the principle of the bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT explained.
Mr. CA LVERT observed that the present bill would hold out
an inducement to smuggle spirits to sell it in the ale-Mouses.
Mt. FY LEA hoped that the hon. member for Oxford would not
press his amendment until the amendment of Mr. Maberly was put.
Mr. MABERLY perfectly concurred in the principle of the mea-
sure' but said it had a dangerous tendency, inasmuch as it made an
inroad on property. He should oppose it in its present state. He
hoped he should satisfy the house that there was no necessity for
this measure. The licensing system had always been considered a
monopoly, but it was upheld and sanctioned by Parliament, and
consequently many persons under such a sanction were induced
embark property in it. What would now be the result if the bill
passed ? why a loss of at least 30 millions to those who had em.
barked in that monopoly, supported and sanctioned by several Act,
of Parliament. (Hear.) lie (51z. blaberly) had been an advocate
for free trade, but not to that extent as would interfere with private
property. The hon. member here read extracts from speeches made'
by ministers on former occasions, supporting the monopoly of the
licensing system. These speeches and consequent measures, he ob-
served, held out an inducement to persons to embark in the public
line. He submitted that the property of the publicans should be
protected at least for two years. If this were complied with, it
would prevent those who had embarked their property in that line
from being annihilated all at once ; he should introduce a clause Us
that effect, and he hoped the house would support him, to prevent
the tremendous crash which must be the unavoidable result of open.
lug the trade all at onto.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER concurred in what
fell from the member for Devonshire. As the House had approved
of the principle of the bill, and had discussed it so frequently, they
would not contribute much to their character for consistency if they
should now reject it ; but above all, they should not reject a mea-
sure brought forward for the benefit of the labouring chew. He
denied that there was any article which it would be more advantage-
ous for the poorer classes to have cheap than beer, u alleged by some
hon. members. The Act which passed in 1023, empowering any per-
son to take out a license to brew and sell beer on his premises, did not
injure the publicans, and the present bill differed from that only in
allowing the beer to be consumed on the premises. Tin right hon.
gentleman then proceeded to point out the consequences of the retail
brewers' act, which induced a considerable competition among the
brewers throughout the country. In some districts, where there
had been only front two to fourteen brewers, the number increased to
nearly 100, in consequence of that act. The right hon. gentleman
concluded by imploring the house not to reject now a measure
which had excited such considerable hopes throughout the country.
After a few words from Mr. Massasv and Mr. Eavcortaw,
respecting the propiiety of withdrawing the amendment of the
latter,
Sir R. VYVYAN observed that it was the opinion of many pat-
rons out of that house, and in that house, that the house had been
for the last ten years the arena for one interest to tax another, so
that there was not an interest in the country left untouched. Hi
felt strongly on many occasions when attacks were made on the me.
gistracy of the country, and a paid magistracy recommended. lie
was afraid that this bill would give rise to so many private recep-
tacles for drunkenness, that a new system of police would be intros
duced to guard against its evil consequences. It was vain to recur
to speeches made by hon. gentlemen twelve months ago, for con-
sistency was not the ceder of the day ; inconsistency implied that
members were open to conviction ' • to be consistent, implied that a
person did not keep up with the rapid strides of the march of in-
tellect. If the hon. member for Oxford would persevere in his
motion, he (Sir R. Vyvyan) would go along with him.
Mr. BROUGHAM took it for granted that the member for Ox-
ford would withdraw his amendment, to give way to the amendment
of the member for Abingdon, in order that the sense of the house
should be taken on the latter. He (Mr. B) took that opportunity
of saying that he should oppose the amendment of the hon. member
for Abingdon, because he t oh ght that no good benefit could arise
to the publicans by giving them two years' notice. He could not
see how a greater risk of contraband spirits should be run by ex-
tending the licensing system, as contended by the Member for
Southwark; for even in a licensed house for spirits such spirits
were not allowed, and contraband spirits would be more easily con-
cealed in such licensed houses than in the new alehouses, where use
spirits at all were allowed. This measure, he conceived, would be
the only salutary measure which this long and busy stamisa
should pass.
Mr. CALVERT explained.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL did not deny that this bill was intro-
duced fur the benefit of the poorer classes, but the Cbaneelloe of the
Exchequer was much mistaken if be thought the labouring gimes
would bank much ftowk it. He should oppose the bill.
The bill was Oda read a third time.
Mr. MABBItLY rose to introduce a clause to resew arc pearl.
sioas of the bill-owning into operation for two yeses. The loss which
the licensed victuallers would experience, if this bill was areeisd

Into immediate operation, would be immense ; he therefore did not
see why parliament should not prevent such &serious injury—(Cries
of Move, move.) The hon. member then read his clause, which
was in effect to prevent any person licensed updsr this Act
*A% heer.kkbe coustumed on the premises until after the cep
don of two years after the passing of this Act.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. WRSTERN opposed the clause, as destructive of the salu-
te) effects of the bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the clause ...
Against it

... 91
... 133

•
Majority ... • 42
Mr. ESTCOURT moved that nothing in the bill should enable
Commissioners of Excise to grant licenses on premises in any place
having less than 300 inhabitants.
After some discussion, this was withdrawn.
Mr. BATLEY proposed to revive the penalty imposed by the
Act of 21st James I. with regard to tipling. This, after some
discussion, was negativgd without a division.
The House then resumed, and the bill read a third time, and
passed.

LABOURERS' WAGES BILL..

Mr. LITTLETON moved the further consideration of this bilL
Mr. HUME objected to the discussion of this bill at so late an
I hour, and moved as an amendment the postponement of it for a
month. 6

lir. LITTLETON opposed the amendment.
Mr. BARING also opposed the amendment.
After a short discussion between Mr. Baring, Sir K. Peel, Col.
Davies, Mr. Huskhoon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Moberly, Mr. W.
Smith, and Mr. H. Gurney, Mr. Hume withdrew his amendment.
The house then went into committee upon the bill.
Mr. Hula and Mr. WansuaTow objected to the clause prohi-
biting workmen from spending their wages as they pleased.
Mr. WARBI7ITOW moved that the words recommended In the
bill be left out.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but there being only
36 member present, the house was counted out.
The house then adjourned at a QUASTER TO Two o'CLocir
'rats Moulin°.