Star.
London, England, 1824-05-25 00:00:00

SEER BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the Order of the Day for considering the Report on the
Beer Bill.—The Bill was recommitted; and on the mo.
tion for the House going into the Committee,
Mr. M ABERLY said, that although the Chanceter
of the Exchequer had given up many objectionable pans,
the Bill was yet of a nature to demand the greatest con.
sideration. It had two objects: first, the altering of the
Malt Duty, and next, the throwing open of the Beer
Trade. But still it continued a most vezatious duty;
and even the proposed reduction only went to take oIF
the duty from one kind of beer to put it on anodic!.
With regard to the Beer Trade, the Bill was opposed
' by many Brewers and Victuallers' who declared that it
would be their ruin. He was in favour of free trade;
but he wished to be cautious in disturbing capital which
had been embarked for several years in property of this
nature under the authority of law. All that these per-
sons required was an investigation. before their interests
were destroyed. That this inquiry might be effectually
made, he should move that the present Bill be recom-
mitted that day siz months ; but he repeated, he should
do so only to prepare for a proper inquiry. He had no
interest of a personal nature in the question : but he did
not wish to see vested interests unfairly dealt with; and
indeed in this ca e, he really thought few people would
be able to avail themselves of the liberty given by the
Bill. The,. people, it should be observed, did not ask
for compensation, but only to be heard. He moved
as an amendment, that the Bill be recommitted that
day six months.
Mr. DAVENPORT opposed the Bill on account of
its being injurious to the publicans.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the arguments of the Honourable Gentleman had
already been discussed and decided by the House. He
did not know about what the Honourable Gentleman
thought it necessary to inquire in a Committee, espe-
cially as he admitted that opening the trade would
lower the price of beer. this was giving him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) the whole case for which
he contended. As to the argument about vested in-
terests, it would apply at all times, and if it were there-
fore allowed to prevail, no alteration could ever take
place. Besides, it was doubtful at this moment., whe-
ther, under the present law, a brewer could not deal in
beer by retail. Many individuals had tried to do so,
and being convicted for so dealing, their appeal to the
Court of King's Bench had led to a suggestion, from
the Court, that the law should be set at rest by a decla-
ratory Act. The brewers and publicans could not say
that they were now taken by surprise, as a Committee
had been appointed on the subject two years ago,
which had been frequently brought under the no-
tice of the House since that period. The evils of the
present system were admitted, and the advantages
which would follow from the proposed Bill were not
denied. He could not therefore consent to the post-
ponement of the measure, and he begged the House to
meet it with " Aye" or "No." He telt confident as to
the result, particularly as the Bill proposed measures
which would contribute to the comfort of the poorer
classes—((Hear, hear).
Mr. LOCKART supported the Bill.
Mr. 'l'. WILSON thought the interests of the brewers
and publicans deserved some consideration.
Mr. F. PALMER thought the Bill as it now stood,
would work a considerable benefit to the community.
Mr. CHARLES WHITBREAD assured the House
his opposition to the Bill was not caused by interested
motives, but by a regard to the rights of many of his
constituents, who were brewers and publicans. He
should oppose the Bill.
Mr. Alderman BRYDGES, Mr. CHARLES CALvilirr,
Colonel DAVIRS, and Sir EDWARD KR/81011MA, op-
posed the Bill.
Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT supported the Bill, in order
to check the monopoly of brewers.
Mr. CURWEN thought the Bill was deserving of the
support of every Member of the Horse. _

Mr. MONCK also supported the Bill. It had actually
been proved that the brewers brewed several kinds of
beer, the best for the free houses, over which they had
no controul ; and the very worst for their own houses.
Mr. Barclay, the great brewer, had very handsomely
offered to consent to open the trade.—Mr. Wonmouse
supported the Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD contended, that the measure
was one not calculated to benefit the people of England.
So far from relieving the poor, it had a direct contrary
tendency. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
put the duty on a quarter of malt at 24.5. as he had for-
merly held out, instead of 37,. 6J. it would be putting
the question on its right footing. Free trade ought to
be established in every department of national industry.
It was absurd that them should be free trade in one ar-
ticle and not in another.

Mr. DENISON supported the amendment. His Ho-
nourable Friend only called for inquiry r he did mot
pledge himself to any specific course of conduct or opi-
nion. His object was to reconcile the interest of the
public at large to the measure, to which in reality
he did not object.
Mr. CU RTE IS said, that in compliance with the prayer or the
Petitions which he had presented, he should vote against the Bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD supported the Bill, because it had been
altered from its original shape.
The House then divided—