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

morals to drink a good than a bad beverage ?—(Hear.) To t
morals in such a case was nonsense. There was. too great an iLd..
nation manifested on many occasions to interfere with the enjoy
meets and the amusements of the lower classes. lie thought
would be an improvement if some qualification were required for
obtaining a license.
Mr. SADLER raid he objected to the measure in toto
fisenetbing more effectual should be done towards relieve
the general distress which now existed. Ihe honoutabic get.:
tieman eulogised the conduct of the magistracy in the MOAN,.
ment and superintendence of public houses. By the pr,..
sent system, order and regularity was maintained, and every
individual permitted to open a public house found peotection
in his trade. The relief to the country by the proposed mea-
sure would be no relief at all. The repeal of the malt duty
alone would have been beneficial to the poorer classes. Th.:
repeal of the beer duty would do no good. He could not sec
how the order and decency of society could be kept up by the in.
tended alteration. lie considered the operation of the bill nothing
more nor less than a bonus to tipplers. When the sale of beer de.
pended upon the Excise it became a mere fiscal concern. There was
no security against the nuisances this new trade would produce in
almost every street. He knew that thousands and tens of thousands
would be victims to this measure. Numbers would be ruined by
this enactment, and their families exposed to want. The hon. mem.
ber supported the amendment.
Mr. F. BUXTON had always considered the honourable mom.
ber for Newark an advocate for the interests of the poor. How
that honourable member could advocate the repeal of the malt tax
rather than the beer tax, be really could not understand. By
the repeal of the malt tax, the rich would be relieved to die
amount of silty-five per cent. and the poor not at all. The lace,
by the repeal of the malt duty, woula fall heavily indeed upon the
poor, and lightly on the rich. He admitted that the monopoly et:
the brewers would go when the bill passed, but their skill and
capital would enable them to maintain an advantage in compe.
tition. The publican's Interest was not a vested interest, but
his peculiar condition ought to be favourably considered. His
hope was that the house when they came into committee
would not lose sight of what was due to the publican._
He thought that the public interest did not require beer
be consumed on the premises of the seller. They had pro.
wised to break the fall of the publican, and treat him le.
dead'', consequently they ought to protect, as far as they
could, the interest of that body. He had no doubt there would
be sonic indulgence extended to them. 'I he Government had
certainly told the publicans, on a former occasion, that the law
would not be altered. The Honourable Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford was two years modifying his plan, and was not
that a proof that Government did not mean to open the trade ? He
was not desirous of preserving the monopoly of the brewers. Let
it go with the licensing 9 stem, but if the brewers supplied the pub.
lie with the best and the cheapest beverage, they would sustain no
injury by opening the trade.
Sir C. BURRELL opposed the bill. He could not allow thee
the poor man would b. served by the repeal of the beer tax.
The brewers would derive the advantage. The repeal of the malt
duty would have been a bmefit to the people.
Mr. 111ABERLY admitted that the publicans had no vested in.
tercet in the trade, but this was a question of property. and they
ought to inquire whether the publicans had been induced to embark
their capital by the proceedings of that house. It had been de.
cided in a Committee of that House, that the beer trade was to
remain restricted. Publicans had no claim, and the question was.
could they do anything fur them ? He thought they could. Why
could they not give a bounty to the publicans ? Why not give
them the exclusive right, for a limited time, of selling beer on 11...
premises ? The hon. member threw out that hint, in the hope that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take it into his consideration.
Mr. CALVERT said it was not his intention to detain the
house but a few moments. He concurred in all that had fallen Iron.
the hon. member for Weymouth. He should support the mea-
sure of the right bon. gentleman, but his hope was that he should
see the publicans treated with indulgence, and that they would
find themselves in a better condition when the bill came out
of the committee than they expected. A great deal bad been said
about vested interests, but he denied that the publicans in their peti.
Lions bad ever said they had a vested Interest. The hon. membet
sat down, reserving his right to make the bill what it ought to be
in the committee.

Mr. C. BARCLAY said he was a little jealous of the opposition
given to the bill by gentlemen who had expressed their desire to
have the malt duty repealed. The malt tax was about a half.
penny in every quart of beer; the beer tax was one penny in the
quart. In the last year, of 29,000,000 quarters of malt consumed,
the private brewers consumed only 4,000,000, a proof that private
brewing was not to be relied on in point of consumption. He gave
the measure his decided support. The opinions he expressed
were not new. If hon. members referred to the Beer Committee o:
1817, they would find he reprobated the system of licensing. He
predicted that the evil would fall on the brewers and victuallers,and
the result had verified his prediction.
Lord MILTON considered the question with reference to the
peat system of finance. He should oppose the second reading art
the bill. His hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, had let them
into the secret. The hon. member had said the brewer's monopoly
would be done away, but the skill and capital of the brewers would
always secure their interest. That was the real secret of the bill.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH pointed out disorder which had occurred
in Devonshire in the cider houses, and described those houses to
have produced great trouble to the magistracy. With regard to the
principle at the end of the bill, which mixed up the jurisdiction of
county magistrates with the jurisdiction of borough and district ma.
gistrates, he gave it his decided opposition.
Lord G. SOMERSET considered the objection made by the last
hon. speaker a strong support to the bill. The hon. gentleman had
said that all the disorder in the cider shops of Devon had arisen
from want of police regulation ; now that regulation was to be found
in the bill Wore the house. The speech of the noble lord, the
member for Yorkshire, was opposed to the conduct of ministers, in
not taking of the malt tax rather than opening the beer trade.—
The noble lord had not applied himself to the question, whet!!tr
freedom in the beer trade was not beneficial to the country. He
supported tile bill from a knowledge of the situation in which •he
country stood.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that some six or seven years ago he
had lotroduced a bill somewhat similar to the present. The
only difference was, that he wished to restrict the consumption
of beer upon the premises. His own opinion was then clear
and distinct upon the subject, and if he had yielded, it was only
in deference of the prevailing opinion of the house. He now con-
sidered that the present bill would be of great advantage to
the agriculturist, that competition would be intledaced, that a
b and better beverage than at present existed would be pro-
cured, that the public would be bettered by the proposed plan. H:
did not find fault with the brewer, but this measure would keep the
publican in check, and there again do good. The e. moral police" o:
the country, to borrow the phrase of the boo. member for Newark, and
good beer woulticontend with bad gin. He might be considered as
a visionary upon this subject ; but when he stated the fact within
his knowled , he felt fully inclined to support the Bill now
under consideration. The tendency of the people of this awn-
try was to prefer beer to gin. He would give his hearty sup.
port to the present bUL It would tend to destroy the present
licensing spam, and, even so far, would confer a great be.
nefit on the people. The repeal of the malt tax would do
good to the tick ; but the repeal of the beer tax would confer
a blessing on the poor. It did great honour to the brewers
that they now so handsomely come forward, and after he bad
diluted them, they held together with the publican, and threw on:
his bill. Ile congratulat his majesty:a ministers, that under hap-
pier auspices they had,better suereoaod and that brewers,like °elms.
were in a happier state of legislation and impovement.
Serenity' were were then ordered to withdraw, when a divisien
took place i
For the Second Reading 248
Fee the Amendment

Majority .. 217
The other Orders of tbe Day were that disposed of, and the hot.:
adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock.

M4JORITY AND MINORITY
On Mr. Henne's modon--" Thu have be given to bring is a all
to revive, emend, and render perpetual, the set 67 Geo. 111. c
45, to continue every person in °See at the demise of the So-
vereign, until removed or discharge!d therefrom by the succee.i.
ing King or Queen of this Realm.'

MAJORITY.
Altiserp, Lord Inglis, Sir R. H. Wood. J.
Brougham. H. Moberly, J. TILLIULS.
Dawson, A. O'Connell, D. Mame, J.
Graben, Sir J. Tbeensen, P. Warburton, H.
Hobbes's,. J. C. Trani. W. H.

MINORITY.
Harries. Rt. Hoe. C. =Liam Croker. J. W.
Maroon. G. R. Helms, W. Lewis, F.
Gilbert. A Murray. Sir G. &saint, air J.
Goulbws, Itt.Hoo.H.Ptaota, J.

MINORITY ON THE BEER BILL
Bell, M. Hosthesto, IL R. Trite. C. K.
Burrell. Mr C. M. Hesthroto. Sir W. Vyvyso, &r R. R.
panda, Hodgson, IL A. West FR.
Marquis logi* Mr R. H. Weils. J.
Drake. t T. Tuck, L. Williams, 0.
DrakoirW. T. limatebben, Sr B. Wiliam, T. P.
Masai Lord Willoughby, H
Foley, I.Rifirked, W. susixas..
Preeemale. Sr T. M. Whir, 11. T. Dieldeme, W.
Genlee, 1L libtlterpo, CeL Portman, R. B.