Star.
London, England, 1818-01-27 00:00:00

victuallers he was particularly ar.rious.not to be mis-
understood. Though they had a profit allowed them
on porter of '25 per cent. they had no more than
they deserved •, for a more deserving class of men
than the victuallers could not be found in the com-
munity; and many of them, though they gave all
their time to the public, could hardly gain a liveli-
hood—could not, indeed, maintain their families as
they ought to be maintained. Having thus shewn,
he hoped, that the high price of beer did not arise
from what was called a monopoly of the brewers,
but *aes the high price of their materials, and the
weig. e( taxes under which they laboured ; in the
article of foreign hops, to which they were obliged
to resort from the great scarcity, and extreme high
price of the home commodity, there was an addi-
tional duty of ls. 6d. per pound, which added a far-
thing per pot to the price of beer—so that the brewer
was under the necessity of charging his present price
for the commodity he sold, or of abandoning a bu-
siness which otherwise would yield no profit; he
wished also to set right some inaccuracies which had
fallen from the Chair, respecting the reduction in
the price of malt. Previous to the War Malt Duty
being taken off, the price of the best malt averaged
655. within three months afterwards the malt was as
high as 100 s. per quarter, and at the present moment,
the price of the best malt is from 80s. tot:Ws. It was
observed also, that Government had taken the war-
duty off the malt, merely to pit the amount in the it
pockets of the brewers ; whereas the fact was, that
though the reduction of the war duty was 16s. the
quarter on the sth July, yet the malt had since ripen
to 51. per quarter ; so that the high prices of maw-
rial, and heavy taxes, were the true cause of the rise
on beer, and not any fault of the brewers. It was
also stated, that the great fortunes vested by .the
brewers was another means of monopoly ; but expe-
rience has proved that the business could not be car
tied on by small capitals. The great capitalist,
bj working cheaper, and taking a smaller profit in
proportion, benefitted, instead of injuring the public.
The CHATPIAN said there was one point the gen-
tleman had not explained, and that was, how it hap-
pened that porter should be at a much bigher price,
when malt and hops were lower than last year.'

Mr. Davey said, in every former instance when
the price of malt had been high, that of hops wai,
low, atidyice versa. It had never happened in our
history till now, :that both had borne a high price
together. .
Mr. Baatistoser said, that as the Gentleman who
had just addressed the assembly bad concluded with-
out a motion, he should bring forward one for their
adoption. He would net have taken the ostensible
part he had taken on this occasion, without making
proper inquiries into the subject now under discus-
sion ; nor should he have come forward if he had not
seen the public had in many instances been wronged,
by the brewers—more—much more than they hai
been now. He had acquainted himself with the his-
tory of brewers, their advances, and their average
prices for twenty years, but particularly for the last
few years ; and he could prove, that the business, as
now carried on, was a complete monopoly, to the ex-
clusion of that fair competition which took place for
the public advantage in every other article of con-
sumption. He contended, that from a fair compari-
son of the prices of the present period, compared with
this time twelvemonth, there was a fall of Is. 2d. per
barrel in the expense of materials, and the conse-
ci;ense was the brewer, instead of lowering increased '1
the commodity five shillings per barrel. With re-
spect to the question of monopoly, nothing could be
more clear than that the brewers enjoyed one, at least
in the general sense of the word. At present there
was a superabundance of capital in the market, and
if monied men had any room for the employment of
it, they would be glad to do so. They would very
willingly contribute their capital by establishing new
breweries, if they could be allowed to share the pro-
, fits of the brewers, or they would be disposed to lend
it to minor brewers, but there could be no advantage
in doing so. Supposing that men were now to lay
out sheir capital in a brewery, how were the public to
get their beer ? Retailers of the article were neces •
sary, and where were they to be found ? All, or al-
most all, the shops for retailing beer, were in the
hands of the present brewers (Hear), or they were
at least under their influence. Could any new spe-
culators in such a business open new shops ? No—
the law was against it. They must obtain licences,
and that could be done only upon one certain day of
the year ; and, when that day arrived, would the
Magistrates license new houses ? He would say from
his own experience—No. About fourteen years back,
when the brewers of the metropolis discovered a
greater spirit of rapacity than at present, their con-
' duct drew down upon them the utmost execration.—
They raised the price of the article from sd. per pot
to 6d. The circumstance made much noise at the
time, and an attempt was made, in consequence, to
establish several new breweries, upon the principle of
competition. Among the rest was the Golden-lane
Brewery. The effect was, to reduce the price from
6d. to Sd. The Golden-lane Brewery then went on
for some time, to the advantage of the public ; but
the difficulty the proprietors found was, as some
of themkt informed him, to procure persons to sell
their beer. They applied for licenses for houses in
eligible situation, but in vain. Though they had
been the cause of reducing the price of the article to
the public—though they had compelled the Brewers
to make it of a much better quality, still they never
were permitted to open a house. They then bought
three houses ; but in a very short time they lost two
of them. The reason alleged by the publicans for
not dealing with the Golden-lane establishment, was,
that they lived in a poor neighbourhood, and had
frequent disturbances in their houses ; the proprietors
could not protect them, and therefore they must deal
only with brewers who had the power of defending'
them, when their license was in danxer. He knew
one person who promised to deal with the brewery
alluded to ; but he was told by one whom it would
not be St to name, that if he went to deal there, 'he
must take care of his license, and he was in conse-
qnence obliged to forego his intention. ( Hear.)—
}rum what he had just stated, it must be evident to
every person, that the advertisement did not go too.
far in calling the business of brewers as it stood at
present, a monopoly. He had taken considefable
pains with this subject, but, wishing to be as accu-
rate as possible, he had written down the result of his
inquiries ; and he honed the Meetis.g would psu-dor.

him, if'he took the liberty of reading a paper which '
hehad prepared.
Mr. kteatneoer then read the following statement:
I have at various periods heard the brewers say
that flieir trade was not worth following. Now, I
am disposed to attach every reasonable credit to the
declarations of Gentlemen of such eminence in so-
ciety. I will therefore admit what they say to be
true, thus far, that at certain times when the market
has run high, they (in their humane consideration
for the condition of the poor) forbore to raise the
price of beer, as they might justifiably have done ;
they made no profit, they even suffered loss; and
,that their trade at those tunes was not worth follow-
ing ; but when they did determine on the step, at all
times so reluctantly taken by them, of raising the
price, they would not themselves fix a losing pnce-
for a lieu of a shilling or two per barrel, continued
for years upon their great returns, would be ruinous
-would be too great a sacrifice to expect from the
public spirit of any men. I request my hearers to
consider well the fairness, or otherwise, of this con-
clusion, because much of the subsequent reasoning
is built upon it. Referring back, 'therefore, to the
prices per barrel, just quoted, and which are seen
to be, in one case, a little under the market price,
of the nominal quantity of the nominal material,
and, in other cases, a little above it, we may come
to an inference, that the market price of the nominal
quantities, and of the duty, is sufficient for the selling
price of the manufactured articles, as it has been
made of late years. I think this is fair reasoningll
upon their own data ; but let one, two, or three shil-
lings be added to the market price of the professed,
materials, as a necessary surplus of charge per bar-
rel. I have no objection to it. Let them have 35.1
and they will then have more than they had in seve-.
ral years, in 1799, in 1800, in 1810, in 1812, and
1813. It will then follow that the surplus difference
beyond such 9s. will be an extra profit to the brewer,
unless indeed he has proportionably added to the
strength of this beer, but the surplus difference of
the selling price of the beer over that of the material
has been in some years immense, 18s. and 20s. and
upwards. If the strengthening of the quality had
followed such an increase, we should have had an
extract of malt so strong that it would have glued
our lips together-in which case mine would now
be sealed. But there has been nothing of the kind ;
beer, generally speaking, for the last fifteen or twenty
years, has run on in a limpid and vapid stream,
without any material variation. The excess of sur-
plus then has been an excess of profit to the brewer,
and when we consider the immense returns in the
trade, that one hundred thousand barrels in a year
is by no means equal to the quantity brewed by the
principal houses-that in such a trade an advance of
only five shilling; a barrel is equal to 25,0001. and
that the advance in some years has been as much
beyond what according. to their own sheaving and
prices of their own fixing is a sufficient profit, we
may readily account for the princely fortunes which
have been made in this trade in a short time, and
the justice of the complaints of the labouring classes,
at whose expense such fortunes are made. Let us
now examine the alterations of the price in a succes-
sive order, with a view of discovering the occult
causes of their changes. For a year previous to the
first advance, made by the brewers in 1799, 45.6 d.,
per barrel was the nominal surplus above the mate-
rial. Upon its subsequent advance in 1804, the sur-
plus appeared sunk to 2s. In another in 1802, the
difference was 7d. minus, that is, the professed ma-
terials cost more by 7d. per barrel, than the beer
when made was sold for. The materials then be-
came cheaper 25 per cent. upon which the brewers
in 1802, lowered their price 11 per cent. and made
their surplus 7s. 9d.; this was taken so kindly by
the public, that in less than four months (the mate-.
rials all this while lowering from 275. to 235.), upon
the reduction of 4s. in the materials, the brewers
raised their prices ss. The materials sunk from 275.
to2Ss. and the beer was raised from 255. to 40s. but
a climax was yet wanting. In July, 1803, there was
a rise of Is. iri the materials, they still being 3s. un-
der the last price, when the barrel was at 355. and
under the price in 1799, when the barrel was 30s. ;
under these circumstances of cheapness in materials,
the price to the public was raised to 455. per barrel ;
in other words, beer was raised to sd. per pot, while
the malt, hops, and duty collectively were less than
they were in 1799, when beer was sold for Sid. per
pot ! An excess of three halfpence per pot over for-
mer profits, and be it always borne in mind, that an
advance of a single halfpenny gives 50,0001. to the
brewers of 200,000 barrels. At this period, the
brewers were far more insatiable than now. They
found by experience that they had only to fix.a price
and the public must pay it. Upon a small advance
in the materials, therefore, they raised their price
two steps at once-from sd. to 6d. per pot, the beer
at the same time being most wretched ; upon this
the Golden-lane brewery was projected, when the
brewers drew in their horns, and went back instantly
from 6d. to sd. This competition did the public
great service ; it caused the quality of the beer to be
mended, and the prices to be kept down while the
material rose : nor did the brewers then venture to
raise their prices for eight years. This establish-
ment throve for some time ; but, as I am told, owing
to mismanagement, to many disadvantages arising
from the hostility and power of the brewers, to their
customers in low neighbourhoods leaving them for
other breweries, where they might expect better pro-
tection in their licenses, and, above all, to their being',
obliged, from the public nature of their accounts, to,
adhere to malt and hops only, they have not prospered.
The next increase was made in 1813. It only left a
surplus difference of I/..5r. Old. between the price of
the materials and of beer when made. The value,
of the materials increased still higher, and the brewers
found it necessary to make a still further increase in
January, 1814. The price was now raised to its
highest pitch, viz, to the price we are now called
upon to pay, but the increased price only left the
brewers a surplus of 2s. 6d. above the market, price
of the Ma.teriaL Soon, however, the materials drop.'
peci..k.irice:i.aot so the price of beer. The brewers
were not now desirous of disturbing the settled order
'of thing& Their surplus rose to nearly 20s. per bar-
• teL Val:dinar; (I think it was) hereupon corn-
plained-ht tEe Roué of Coisimons of the unreason-
able prices of the brewers, when Mr. Whitbread re-
-1471, that they (the brewers) had conferred, and had
ihed not to lower the price, bet to increase
the quality. Before the neat sittiug. of Parliament,

howevet, they thought proper to takeoff
per pot, reducing their surplus, which had tin
19s. lid. to the yet large surplus cf 14s. sid.
next year they took on another•halfpcnny, 1,
titl
succeeding year, 1816, the price of the fit:•
rose, and upon this, strange tosay, the:: rcdi:ced,:. •
beer another farthing. The reason that
duce these Gentlemen, after continuing their pr:e
455. for a year and a half, upon the price of
materials, to lower their price to 40s. is quite :.
plicable ;unless, indeed, the investigations of tile:
lice Committee, then becoming riSlic.
decision. Since then there has been two s'ers Lf .
crease of prices, both in mate -rials and :n beer
since the rise in January last ::ear. the price cf
rials has lessened ; :he of malt. hnr..
duty, is Is. 2d. per barrel le,s than it wiisiA,t
Now what is done upon this decrease of experse._
The barrel of beer is raised ss. the quart is
from sd. to 6d. The materiali norst arnou,:
more than 455. 5Na, per barrel. and the pr'.ce tc
consumer is raised equal to ;he highest pricechird
during the war, when the srar malt tax was ca
the price of the materials "was 525. 6d. seven
more than at present. But let us view :he etf
this case in the aggregate, not :lint the peofi,
exacted is half so excessive as others in former
in 1803, 1813, and 1814, for instance. First.l:l;:4
we may fairly assume that the brewers did
year fix a price to carr: on a Toeing tra:lc. and
expenses have since beers !evening. I know :4.1
large sums were given by the brewers ding
year for terms in ucensed houses, that is, for
vilege of selling beer-8001. for one station,
for another, 1500/. for a third, and so
strong symptoms that brewing then comir.ar.:::.,
profit worth having. The 6s. '2d. per barrel.
above last year's prices of materials given by
rise, may therefore be considered as extra
We will first erarnine the effect of this the:7;l
of a single souse. One house, deserved;,:
brewed 300,200 barrels in ISI6. The eltra
that house upon one year's trade, therefore, i.
a sum of 101,8141. J 6e. but the whole amcun:

by the eleven brewers in the same year was I. Ve

barrels, upon which the extra pront gives 445 !•,:.
Is. 44. by far the greater part of which is
from the pockets of the labouri:;g poor of the
polls. A fine harvest trulz! Without any pr
lar exertions of intellect, without ar.7 rri•:k. tc".,t.s
tlemen, the heads of the eleven brewvries.
ther, combine, and give the word for n( 1:-:y
million sterling to be transferred from the
the poor to their own ; and it is done—s..vh

golden reward of a mere act of volition! L.:
would be the reward of eleven poor
should combine their wages only Is.
meet this new levy upon their necesitie..*: A
for three months I"

This statement called forth Olouts of app:..
Mr. BaAuxo!:? then resumed his speech,
ceeded to address the company. It appean
clearly from what he had stated, that kr ic:_r
_ _

years the public had been subjected to a c-r-
-series of wrongs from the brewers
times when the public voice was raised a,l'-
lowered their prices ; and afterwards wher...'H:
were dispelled. ventured to raise their i• ,:s
magnitude unknown in former times—= cr•
which no man could contemplate in any Het
except that of complete monopoly. He
be understood that he did not make a'v c

against the biewers personally ; many of tc
most respectable men, and so was the ge--;
then at the head of the table (Mr. Drury; .s.;:c
just addressed the company. It was the s-,t
he complained of—he meant that of arhitrars
ing, that gave a set of Magistrates privilege :0 ,
Who Should, and who should not, have licenses :o •
beer. or did he mean to say any thing ag
the Magistrates, but against the system which
them the unjust power -which they possessed; ad'
hoped to see the time soon arrive when the syr..
would be completely corrected—( Appleutee.)
Beaumont then proceeded to read abstracts frcn
different Acts of Parliament which had been pr.
in different periods of our history cn the sub:ee
brewing; and it would be seen that all these A
were first in favour of the liberty of the pecp:e:
that the Acts passed in modem times w,rt, :ore-
of a contrary tendency. An Act of Henry 111. E.
the price of beer according to the price of barley :
Act of the 23d Edward 111. fixed the assize of her
In the reign of Edward IV. letters patent were gran
to certain favourites, under which they were •
rized to demand of the brewers a silver penny
every barrel of beer brewed by them. This. e,-
Ilever, was so much complained of, that nine yeant.
ter an Act was passed reprobating this privilege.
declaring it to be null and void. In the reir
Henry N 111. and Edward VI. Acts were passed ag
brewers found conspiring to raise the price of •
and for such offences they were to be punished.
standing in the pillory, having one ear cut off.
to be subject to perpetual infamy. la the icip,
lEdward I. an Act was passed to empower M.;
trates to grant licenses to publicans ; but that ft
done only for the purpose of preventing the ba2 -
disorderly behaviour -.rhich prevailed in public.hyas,
James I. afterwards granted letters patent to
—his son Charles did the same, and made theni7:'
large sums of money for the licenses ; but his
in doing this was only to put the money into :rs •
Exchequer. In those letters it was stated. enC
the reasons fur issuing them, that the beer seas ttl
strong and heady, and caused intoxication—q;
laughter seemed that this King, in his pct.•
solicitude for the heads of his subiects—a
which they did not afterwards F.:eIV fer iris
( Loud laughter and applause )--thought proper t, -
sign this as the reason for issuing his patents. •;:.
this, in 1664, the trade became complete:\ f7,t
open ; because the oppressions of former times c..
no longer be endured ; and it was not until tau rer
of George 11. that the present system of licensing
adopted. The intention and avowed of iect was.:
check the disorderly practices that prevailed ill
lie-houses, and it was enacted that licenses shoul.l-,
granted only for one year, at the expiration of v.:-
time the licenses were to he renewed. It was this
which laid the foundation of that monopoly w
now existed, and rendered the fabric of it comp
It gave Justices the power of deciding without 2t
peal, what persons should obtain ; and
stitnted little parcels of Justices in every district•
absolute masters of the licensing trade. It wu