HC Deb 21 May 1862 vol 166 cc1988-2000

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was not intended to interfere with the object, but to improve the action, of a particular section of the 24 Geo. II., c. 40, known as the Tippling Act. At the time of the passing of that Act drunkenness prevailed among every class of society, to an extent of which we happily could form no idea. Gin, in those days, was openly sold at the corner of every street. The intention of the Act was to prevent per sons whose intellects were clouded by drink from being made liable for public-house scores contracted while in that condition. He did not at all desire to interfere with that Act so far as it applied to spirits consumed upon the premises, but to prevent a perversion of that law, which was now daily employed as a means of defeating the just claims of honest tradesmen. The preamble of the Tippling Act recited that immoderate drunkenness prevailed among the lowest and meanest classes, and therefore there could be no doubt that its object was to protect the poor from unfair temptation and fraudulent demands. The amount of 20s. was fixed as the limit below which no single supply of spirits could be sued for, and the reason for that amount being taken was that, until lately, it represented the quantity which wholesale wine and spirit dealers could supply. Since the recent change of the law allowing smaller quantities to be sold by wine merchants and others, the existing law had been grossly perverted and abused. A person with a fraudulent intent, and never meaning to pay for what he received, was now able to go to a wine merchant or licensed victualler—to hotel-keepers of the most respectable class—and order spirits in small quantities, for which, when the bill was sent in, they refused to pay. If an action was brought against them, they pleaded the Tippling Act, and the Judge before whom the case was tried had no alternative but to give a decision in their favour. Thus the Act was used as an engine of fraud, in proof of which he had received accounts of hundreds of cases from all parts of the country, in which respectable persons had failed to recover debts of this kind due to them, and in which there had been no real infringement of the Tippling Act, a few of which he would state to the House. In one case an hotel-keeper at Nottingham supplied an attorney with a small quantity of spirits, and upon suing for his bill, which amounted to £14, the Tippling Act was pleaded, and he not only lost his money, but had the bailiffs put into his house for the defendant's costs, £7 15s., which he had to pay, together with the expenses of the levy. The next case was that of a wine merchant at Sheffield, who supplied goods to a clergyman to the extent of £15 8s. 1d., and was defeated in his action by the plea of the Tippling Act; but in that case the congregation of the reverend defendant were so disgusted with the plea that they subscribed and paid the wine merchant's demand. In a third case, a debtor was supplied at various times with brandy by a wine merchant—the spirits being actually bought as necessaries in medical practice; but when an action was brought for the amount of the bill, £40, the plaintiff was defeated by the plea of the Tippling Act, In another case, a lady of high rank, at Chatham, had set up the same plea to repudiate a debt for brandy which had been supplied for the use of her late husband when upon his deathbed. It was true that she also pleaded poverty as an excuse for non-payment. It might be asked—Why did not wine merchants and others insist upon having ready money for spirits? But it must be remembered that spirits were usually only a portion of the articles supplied, and a tradesmen could not require ready money for one article alone without implying that his customer had an intention to cheat him. He thought the facts he had stated proved that there did exist a certain amount of hardship upon persons who were engaged in a lawful trade. But was the remedy worse than the disease? His belief was, that by passing this Bill the House would not increase tippling or the consumption of spirits. The scamps who now bought liquor and afterwards refused to pay for it, would not try to obtain it at all if they knew that payment could be enforced; and therefore, in this point of view, the consumption of spirits would be diminished instead of increased. Again, his Bill entirely excluded the case of spirits drunk on the premises. He contended, that if the sale of spirits was bad, it ought to be prohibited; but if not, legislation with regard to it ought to be such that what was honestly sold should be honestly paid for. Those for whom he was now speaking were among the most respectable per sons in the trade, and he asked the House in the cause of justice not to refuse a second reading to this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. AYRTON

said, he rose according to notice to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He thought that when the reasons for the original law were balanced with those urged in favour of its amendment, it would be found that no real necessity existed for this Bill. In the first place, the Bill was confined entirely to spirits. He admitted that there was a distinction to be drawn between beer and spirits. Beer was an article of belief with Englishmen, but to this no reference was made. Now, gin was an innovation. It came over from Holland with the Revolution, and was, perhaps, the only misfortune attendant on; that great event. The people of this country had before that time got on very well without it; they effected the Revolution without it; and he was not at all aware that gin was necessary for the preservation of the national liberties. At first it was made and sold without restriction; but, in 1729, free trade in gin had produced such a demoralizing effect that repeated com plaints were made upon the subject. The drinking of spirits and strong water, it was declared, "had become very common, especially among people of lower and inferior rank; and the constant and excessive use of spirits tended greatly to destroy their health, to render them unfit for useful labour and business, to debauch their morals, and inciting them to perpetrate all vices." Legislative measures were accordingly taken to restrict the sale of spirits; but these measures were, perhaps, so se- vere as to defeat their own object, and for twenty years reaction followed reaction in the legislation on this subject. Fielding and other writers called attention to the evil, and the authorities of the City of London were alarmed at "the habitual and excessive use of spirituous liquors among the common people," which they said went on "to an extent unknown inform times," so as to be a reproach to our religion and civil polity. At last, in 1751 the Tippling Act was passed, the main feature of which was the clause which tin hon. Member now sought to modify. I struck at the root of the evil by providing, that if licensed victuallers chose to sol drink, they should not be able to enforce payment. The result was, that while be fore the Act nothing could exceed the debauchery which existed among the common people, the whole state of things changed in two or three years—not in the metropolis only, but throughout the kingdom, and the consumption of gin was reduced by one-half, while there was a great improvement in the morality of the people. Lord Hervey, in 1743, predicted that if the Government ever made spirits a great article of revenue, they would be ready to wink and connive at any measures for increasing the consumption. Notwithstanding, however, that the Government had in some degree cultivated the sale and consumption of spirits, they had always maintained the principle of the Tippling Act. Two years ago, however, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, than whom no Chancellor of the Exchequer had done more to give a stimulus to the drinking trade, introduced a clause into the Revenue Bill restricting the operation of the Act. When, however, he (Mr. Ayrton) pointed out that it was not a mere matter of Excise, but one affecting closely the morality and well-being of the people, the right hon. Gentleman omitted the clause. And so it was. His hon. Friend had taken a narrow view of this subject. The question for consideration was, not whether the interests of the licensed victuallers demanded the repeal of the law, but whether such a repeal would be for the interests of the community at large. His hon. Friend had looked at the dark places of the city which be represented, and had mistaken the interest which he ought chiefly to study. The Bill did not deal with frauds committed by people who went into taverns, and, after eating and drinking, refused to pay for what they had had; but it did permit a man to enforce payment for spirits sent by him to the house of the purchaser. To resist payment in such a case was de scribed as a fraud. Now, every publican knew it to be one of the conditions of his trade, that if he sent out spirits without then and there obtaining payment, he could not sue his customer in a court of law for the debt. Where, therefore, was the fraud committed upon him? There was no fraud on one side or on the other, because both parties conformed to the law. Licensed victuallers knew perfectly well what the law was. Why, then, should they not urge it as a reason for refusing credit, and so avoid the risk of loss? But, so far from this, they sent out spirits in order to drive their trade, hoping ultimately to get their money. Why, this was the very evil which the law was passed to repress. When a man was inclined to drink more than he could afford, or more than was good for him, it was some check upon him to say, "Money down." On one side there was only an inconvenience of which every publican could relieve himself by refusing credit; on the other hand, there stood a public law, which was of high importance for the maintenance of public morality. The licensed victuallers enjoyed exclusive privileges in respect of the sale of their commodities, and the law of which they complained was one of the conditions on which these privileges were granted. If, then, they offered to surrender their privileges in order to get rid of the condition annexed, he would gladly accept the offer. But they made no such proposal; and unless they did so, they could not expect Parliament to forego the condition. The Legislature had made a bargain with them, saying, "You shall have the monopoly of selling this noxious drink, provided you will do so under certain conditions which we think essential for public morality;" and they could not ask to be released from the restraints which had been put upon them without also foregoing the privileges which they enjoyed. For his own part, he did not want to see hungry publicans driving their trade. If this law were repealed, they would issue handbills, would take every means of attracting people to their shops, and, like other tradesmen, would use every art for he sake of increasing the consumption of liquor. But the Legislature had wisely said, "You shall employ no such temptation. We bestow upon you all the evils of monopoly and protection, and you must take these with their consequences and conditions." The Legislature had of late formally adopted the principle upon which this Act stood by refusing to give any right of action where the cause was improvident and unnecessary. Thus, a man could not recover a wager, because the Legislature said that wagering was wasteful and demoralizing. Gin-selling was an analogous occupation, and Parliament said that in neither case should there be any power of recovering the debt. The facilities presented by the County Courts for the recovery of small debts were such that tradesmen now almost forced their commodities upon the working classes, who then came entirely under their dominion through the machinery of these courts. Would Parliament set the same machinery in motion for the sale of gin, and give to licensed victuallers the same power to sue there? This Bill was unnecessary and uncalled for by the country at large, and was only brought forward with the desire of conferring on a limited class a benefit to which their peculiar position did not en title them; its effects would be injurious and demoralizing, and he should therefore move that it be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

MR. DODSON

said, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to be one of those who thought it possible to make people sober by Act of Parliament, and had quoted the Tippling Act as having effected the object. But he had made no allowance for changes in the feelings and habits of the people. It was true that in the latter part of the reign of George I., and in the beginning of the reign of George II., most restrictive laws were passed to suppress drunkenness among the people; but these laws were so excessively stringent that they defeated their own object, and the only result was that smuggling and illicit distillation, and every direct and indirect violation of the law, were superadded to intemperance. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Act of 1751, which contained this restriction, had operated in favour of temperance. But the Act mitigated the absurd stringency of the law previously existing, and the results to which the hon. Gentleman pointed only showed that temperance depended not so much upon the law as upon the general habits and feelings of the people. It was said that the common people at the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were infected by these habits of intemperance. Such habits, however, were then not confined to the lower ranks, but pervaded all ranks of society. They were not due either to the existence or the absence of law, just as you could not trace to this cause the present increasing sobriety among all classes. The clause of which the repeal was now proposed was a miniature Maine Liquor Law. He was not going to discuss the policy of that law, but those who sup ported it would at least like that it should be brought into operation under favourable conditions—whereas this clause did not prevent drunkenness; it only led to a considerable amount of fraud and dishonesty, and, instead of checking the consumption of liquor, tended rather to encourage it. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said the publicans had no right to complain, because they were a privileged class. Their privileges, he believed, chiefly consisted in having to pay a high licence duty, and having their business liable to certain police regulations in tended to preserve order, neither of which privileges he supposed the general public grudged them. The object of the present Bill was to prevent fraud and encourage honesty, and he hoped the House would consent to the second reading.

MR. DEEDES

said, he had come down to the House with a doubt on his mind as to the course he would take upon the Bill, and having listened attentively to all the speeches, he thought the case was one in which plausible arguments might be introduced on both sides. He could not agree that this was not a question of fraud. He held it to be a deliberate fraud for a man to purchase an article from another with out any intention of paying for it, and when called upon to pay for it to deliberately refuse to do so. The Bill was limited to altering the law with respect to small portions of liquor consumed off the premises; but had the innkeeper no remedy at present? He thought he had. He was not compelled to deliver his goods. He enjoyed a monopoly in his trade, subject to certain police and other regulations, and he ought to know that one of the provisions of the law was, that if he trusted people for small quantities of liquor to be consumed off the premises, he could not recover the money. He might say to his customer, "I decline to supply you with liquor on credit, because the law says you shall pay ready money." He had sufficient power in his own bands to prevent a fraud being practised upon him. Sufficient cause had not been shown for the introduction of the Bill. He did not know what course the Government intended to take with regard to the measure, but from the arguments in support of it he did not think a case had been made out for the alteration of the present law.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the hon. Member for Rochester would not press the second reading, not on the ground of any theory, but because of what he believed would be the practical effect of the Bill. Almost all who had any experience of the working of the Tippling Act among the population generally, knew that it had been of considerable advantage. It had been so, certainly, in the district he re presented, where there was an anxiety, not confined to the rich or any other class, but shared in by the poorer classes, that it should be applied to beer as well as to spirits. Even under his own Bill the hon. Member proposed to retain some of the advantages of the Act, for he did not enable a publican to recover for spirits drunk on the premises. But that restriction might, he thought, by the Bill as proposed, be easily evaded. The arguments by which the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) supported the Bill would go much further than the measure itself; they would apply to leaving the whole trade in liquor free. The hon. Member said, they could not make men sober by law. Certainly not; nor could they make men honest by law. Nobody expected to make men sober or honest by Act of Parliament, but they did hope to prevent the seller of intoxicating liquors inciting and alluring the humble classes to drink and crime. That was the real meaning of all the efforts of Parliament upon this subject. Why, otherwise, would they have had the licensing system, or interfered with the sale of this commodity at all? It was hardly fair to tax the opponents of the Bill with being advocates of the Maine Liquor Law. That law entirely prevented the use of the commodity; but they only tried to prevent its abuse. That was the object of the Tippling Act. He had another reason for opposing the Bill. The more they looked at any question relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors the more must they be convinced that an other session could not elapse without the whole subject being fully considered, and it would be better to postpone the Bill until that time arrived. If it were true that publicans were ignorant of the present state of the law, this discussion would have at least one good effect, because it would show them, that if they sold spirits without taking ready money, they did so at the risk of not being paid for it afterwards. If they were aware of that, their grievance disappeared, and the hon. Member would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had done good ser vice to his clients.

SIR GEORGE GREY

was bound to say that the hon. Member for Rochester had established a grievance which called for some remedy. The clause in the Tippling Act (Clause 12) was a valuable one as it affected liquors consumed on the premises. Nothing could be more injurious than to repeal that clause, and enable a licensed victualler to encourage persons of the lower class of life to assemble in his house and run up great scores for spirits of different kinds, consumed in small quantities. That would lead to great intemperance. But the hon. Member did not alter the law in that respect. He said that there was the case of persons in a higher rank in life who were supplied with small quantities of spirits upon credit. Those spirits were sent out quite legitimately by the licensed victualler or wine merchant—for both were equally affected by the law—in the full confidence that he would be paid; but when the Bill was presented, the parties refused to pay, and under the Tippling Act the amount could not be recovered. He admitted that was a discreditable state of things, and for that reason he was disposed to agree to the second reading of the Bill; but he thought the clauses would require some modification in Committee, so as to avoid those evils against which the Tippling Act was directed.

MR. ROEBUCK

hoped the hon. Member would not withdraw his Bill. The clause of the Tippling Act was a mere police regulation, and it had been turned to dishonest practices. Persons calling themselves gentlemen had sent for small quantities of liquor—a bottle of spirits or of wine; when the bill was sent in, if the items were kept under a certain sum the parties refused to pay, on the plea that the publican had broken the law. They drank the liquor, but were not will- ing to pay for it. What harm could be done by doing away with the law as it stood? Was it likely that a poor man would so easily get credit? The persons who got credit were supposed to be gentle men, though they acted just as gentlemen ought not to do. The only persons who gained by the present state of the law were the dishonest, who wished to secure an enjoyment at another man's expense. He approved of the Bill, because it protected the honest creditor against the dishonest debtor. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw the Bill on the supposition that the House might go into the whole question at some future time. Let them do right when the occasion for it offered.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, the Bill involved two considerations—a matter of police, and protection against fraud—which could not well be separated. If the hon. Gentleman so altered the Bill as to apply it solely to persons in a superior condition of life, he did not suppose there would be any particular objection to it; but in order to afford a remedy for frauds by such persons, he proposed to repeal an Act which had been in operation for a hundred years, and was admitted to have worked well. In seeking to get rid of the means of fraud, the hon. Member was getting rid of that which had been found to be useful in other respects. He was therefore sorry that the Government had consented to the second reading of this Bill. He was perfectly persuaded that the country was against the principle of the Bill, though he believed they would be ready to agree to any measure to prevent fraud; and if some measure could be framed which should have that effect only, he should have no objection to support it He thought the Bill was too wide, and that the hon. Member had better with draw it and introduce another to remedy the specific evil of which he complained.

MR. LAWSON

said, that the question ought to be considered, not in the interest of the publicans, but in the interest of the people. The publicans forgot that theirs was an exceptional trade. That it was regarded as a dangerous one was proved by the restrictions with which it was fenced. By numerous petitions the attention of the House had been directed to a subject of daily increasing importance—the Permissive Bill of the United Kingdom Alliance. He knew that some hon. Members looked upon it as a most absurd proposal, and therefore it required some courage in a Member to avow himself a supporter of the measure. He did not do so without having looked carefully into the question. At present persons suffered greatly from the trade carried on in their neighbourhood, frequently as much against their will as against their best interests, simply by the fiat of two or three magistrates. The Permissive Bill simply aimed at giving the people interested—those who would derive the benefit or suffer the injury—a veto upon a licence, and he did not think that was any interference with liberty. It simply took away power from two or three magistrates acting irresponsibly, and gave it to the people themselves. The Permissive Bill was not the prohibitory law known as the Maine Law. The general question ought to be considered as a whole with a view to the public good. The Bill before the House was a suspicious measure. The publicans evidently expected that it would promote an increase of their trade. Such an increase would be injurious; and therefore he could not support the measure.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that the man who sent for liquors from a publican to be consumed in his own house ought not to be enabled to evade payment. It appeared to him that the hon. Member who had brought forward this measure had precisely hit the line that was required to be drawn.

MR. HALIBURTON

said, the question was one very difficult to deal with. Laws that attempted to abolish the use of liquor altogether defeated themselves. It was impossible to carry them into operation. The Maine Liquor Law was practically inoperative. Liquor was sold all over the State of Maine, and all over the other States, and it was said to find its way into very high quarters. In his opinion, the consumption of liquors was rather increased than diminished in those States where the law was prohibitory. Still, the sale of liquor was a subject which required legislative direction. It ought not to be sold except by licence granted by magistrates to a proper number of fit persons carrying on the trade in suitable places, as they could then apply police regulations in the use of that which had a tendency to all evil. After a very long experience in the administration of criminal matters, he did not make too large an estimate when he asserted that two-thirds of all the offences which had been brought before him for adjudication had arisen from the use of ardent spirits. Viewing, on the one hand, the inutility of too great restrictions, and, on the other, the evil effect of free trade in liquor, he was in favour of the Tippling Act, and should therefore vote against this Bill. Objections of a very singular character had been urged against the pre sent law. It was said to encourage men to get possession of goods which they did not intend to pay for; but that argument was equally applicable to the Statute of Limitations. The last time he was in the United States he was told that some years ago there was a Scotchman in a small village on the river Mississippi who became the possessor of a small tract of land. He ran up a score with a man who kept a grog-store, and the whole of the score amounted to no more than a barrel of whisky. Being unable to pay, he said to his creditor, "Take my strip of land." The publican was not very well pleased, because it was a poor bit of land and seemed nearly valueless. One half of the land, however, was transferred. It was said to have subsequently become worth £1,000,000, and the man who owned the other half would not take £500,000 for it. This was a striking illustration of the evil of allowing the sale of liquor without restraint. It was a subject which required a great deal of consideration and ought to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. There was some excuse for their not taking it up this Session when they had so many matters of importance to deal with, when their time was so marvellously occupied, and when they had done so much in the way of effective legislation. It was not to be expected that in so busy a Session they could attend to this matter; but looking forward to an easier Session next year, he hoped they would apply themselves to it.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

in reply said, he never thought the Bill would apply except to the rich, believing, of course, that the poor would not be trusted; but, if it was thought necessary, he had no objection to provide for its special application to the rich, by fixing the quantity of spirits the value of which could be recovered at, say, a reputed quart.

MR. SPOONER

said, that before the division took place, he wished to address an appeal to the hon. Member for Rochester to withdraw the Bill, and let it be introduced in another Session.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 53: Majority 29.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday 18th June.