§ Mr. Brougham, in rising to move the second reading of this bill, begged to premise that he meant to cast no reflections on either of those two large and respectable bodies who conceived themselves to be principally interested in opposing it. The hon. and learned gentleman having proceeded to show that within a very few years the population of this country had increased from ten to fifteen millions, while the consumption of beer had considerably decreased, observed that several causes might be assigned for this fact. He was not one of those who suspected the brewers of having adulterated their beer by all those drugs which they were, he believed, with great exaggerations, accused of using; but one of those causes, he certainly, in common with the poor man, did believe to exist, and did absolutely find. It was not that he tasted the deleterious coculus Indicus, or quassia, or nux vomica, but it was the tax, the cruel tax, which he found in the pot. It was a tax which bore with peculiar hardship on the poor, and very slightly on the rich; for the malt duty was 20s. the quarter; besides another duty of 10s. the barrel on strong beer. Now, reckoning three barrels to the quarter—the poor man had to pay a duty of 30s. per quarter. This was the unjust proportion in which the poor man had to pay for his beer. Out of every 50s. paid for that beer, 30s. was paid by the poor man who purchased it at the common retail price. The gentleman of 20,000l. a year paid 20s. a quarter for his share of the 50s. total duty. The rich man, who in the exercise of a generous hospitality brewed beer for his own servants and those of his neighbours, paid only 20s. where 50s. were paid in duties. This alone would furnish him (Mr. B.) with a sufficient ground for calling on parliament to protect his effort to obtain for the poor man a better article at a cheaper rate. He had now to come to closer quarters with the two bodies of men of whom he had spoken—the victuallers and the brewers. And first as to small beer. The law at present permitted men to vend that article without a license. As to this small beer, unquestionably no liquor was ever better named; but if there 1693 was another word in the language more expressive of littleness and poverty than "small," as applied to this composition, he would use it. It was not of this that he was speaking, however, but of strong beer. Gin-drinking was that peculiar vice in the character of our artisans which he wished to put down. As to selling strong beer, an excise license and a magistrate's license were required for it, and it could not be sold in barrels containing less than five gallons each. If the excise licenses were done away with, and the magistrates were enabled to grant their licenses for the sale of strong beer to whom they chose, there would be but little difference between that course and the one which he should propose to night, except, indeed, that still the poor man would have to pay too dear for his beer. But one great evil would be prevented. Several of our laws were directed against tippling, but with admiral inconsistency they sent the poor man to the tippling-house before he could get his pot of liquor. He was ready to concede to his hon. friend, that however contrary to the principle of a free trade it might be for the legislature to grant monopolies, yet, as long as the law under which those monopolies were authorized, was in force, the parties to the monopolies had vested rights in them. But this was not the case with the brewers; for he totally denied that the law had given them any such monopoly, nor could he see how the extension of the magistrates' licenses could induce or encourage the vice of tippling. The brewers were, for the most part, the landlords of the public-houses; and of late, so far had they proceeded, step by step, in acquiring the possession of this species of property, that an instance was adduced the other; day of there being in one parish 49 public-houses, only one of which was not their property. At present, the only competition was amongst the brewers themselves. A most insufficient competition this for the public advantage! And though the argument did not apply quite so strongly to London, where there were many and large capitalists, he could point out a district in the country where there was only one brewer. The consequence of all this was, that these brewers had made their monopoly complete by buying up all the property of a particular description which they could lay their hands on, so as to command the funnel by which the liquor was conveyed to the 1694 mouth of the public. The brewers had round it advantageous gradually to reduce the quantity of malt and hops in their beer, until at length it was no longer that liquor of which Boniface once declared, that he could eat, drink, and sleep upon, and which was also clothing to him. The consequence of passing this bill would be, that a better and cheaper beer would be brewed; and, what was incalculably the more important consideration, instead of a man being obliged to go himself to the tippling-house, and being there perhaps tempted to drink—or sending his daughter or female servant, or his wife thither—he would go to a shop for it, where no bad example would prevail to taint either his own morals or those of his family; to the great injury, of the poorer classes of society. Then too, the good old wholesome English beer would once more flow in the country, and become a competitor (and he ventured to say, that on any fair terms it would be a triumphant competitor) with that which was a liquor pernicious alike to be health and the morals of a large proportion of the community. He concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time.
§ Mr. F. Buxtonexpressed his concurrence in all the early and general observations of the hon. member regarding the effect of taxation upon the poor. He contended that this bill would ruin not less than 50,000 persons, and interfere with thirty millions of property; but if it were clear of all other objections, the lateness at which it was brought forward ought to sure ha rejection. He begged the House to separate the case and conduct of the brewers from that of the publicans; for the latter at least were not monopolists; and had not, as had been said, overcharged the trade with capital. As to the London brewers, he was prepared to show that they had not sold any such beer, in quality, composition or strength, as warranted the remarks of the hon. gentleman. After stating the class of persons of whom publicans were generally composed; namely, servants who had made savings out of their wages—he went on to argue from his own knowledge, that the most important part of the business of a victualler was not the beer he sold in his house, but that which he sent out to customers in the neighbourhood. If chandlers and barbers, and other small shopkeepers, were allowed to sell beer, the consequence would be, that a most respectable, industrious, and numerous de- 1695 scription of persons would be utterly annihilated. The existing law was establishes as long since as the reign of Edward 6th, and until very lately he had had a lease of a public house in his possession, granted by a distinguished citizen, and a member of the House—no other than Praise-God-Bare-Bones, which house was kept by a victualler at this moment. From the time of Praise-God-Bare-Bones to the present, it had retained its license. The hon. gentleman had talked largely of the increase of the increase of the growth of barley, and of the improvement of the revenue which this bill would occasion; but he knew no law by which a man could be deprived of his property and his rights, without a full and fair equivalent. If the argument of public good and public convenience were to prevail in, this instance, he saw no reason why it should not be extended to the national debt. This was the first step towards an attack upon private property, and no man could tell which would be the last. He proceeded, on the contrary, to insist that the change in the law would be ruinous to the public morals, detrimental to the revenue, and injurious even to the growers of barley. If the bill were passed, the control which the revenue had over public houses would be destroyed. Obscure persons, without character and without money, would commence selling beer in private places; persons who would not fear fines, which they could not pay, or dread infamy which could scarcely make them more degraded. The practice which was now sought to be established with respect to beer, prevailed in the year 1742. With respect to the sale of spirits at the period, so little were public morals or even public decency regarded, that venders or spirits in the streets of London put up boards, standing, in large letters, that persons might get drunk for one penny, dead drunk for twopence, and be allowed straw who had, within a week, pronounced and invective against bills passed on the 10th of July—who said they were open to the suspicion of injustice—to bring forward a measure affecting s great a portion of society, and embracing so many important consequences.
§ Mr. Huskissonthought it injudicious at this period of the session, to legislate upon private property, when the parties interested could not be duly heard. He therefore recommended that the bill should be withdrawn for the present. He contend- 1696 ed, however, that the publicans had nothing like a vested interest in the sale of beer, and that their case was not in any respect to be likened to that of the public creditor. He saw no material objection to a measure, if it could be devised by which other persons besides licensed publicans might be allowed to sell beer of some what better quality than that now called small beer. It seemed to him that there could be no true ground for asserting, that all the publicans in the kingdom would be ruined by the bill upon the table. In a future session, he thought some plan of this sort might be devised by which the revenuer might be augmented, and the growth of barley increased, without material injury to the licensed victuallers. The best mode of encouraging the consumption of beer by the people in general ought to be steadily kept in view by the legislature. No person who had lived to long as he had but must perceive that a greater degree of sobriety prevailed, amongst the lower classes now than was formerly the case. This was occasioned by a diminution of the quantity of spirits that used to be drank; and to that might be attributed the very great improvement which was known to have taken place in the average duration of the lives of the lower orders. He implored the chancellor of the exchequer to ascertain, during the recess, whether, consistently with the protection of the revenue, and even its improvement, and without violating the rights of the publicans and others who embarked their capital in the beer trade, he could not devise some plan to enable families who did not wish to frequent public houses to procure a better article than small beer, from indifferent persons.
Mr. Alderman Woodcontended, that the bill would be injurious to a large class of persons without a corresponding good to the public. The great quantity of beer which a publican was enabled to draw, made the beverage he supplied superior to that which would be afforded by a chandler, who would keep perhaps single barrel, which would, like the small beer now sold in the same way, be sour summer and vapid in winter. In many parts of London good beer was now to be had at 4d. a quart, of which 1½d. was duty. The vested rights of parties were surely to be regarded. Houses were taken and built on the faith of the existing law, and many widows and orphans would be ruined by the violation of it. There was, in point 1697 of fact, a great competition in beer; for it was obviously the interest of the brewers to supply the public houses with an article that would please their consumers.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that on the failure of a principal clause in the Licensing bill, he had thought it his duty to introduce the present measure; and finding so much interest and prejudice working against it, he had thought it necessary to persevere to the present stage. He should now consent to postpone the measure to the next session. He implored the chancellor of the exchequer to turn his attention to some arrangement with respect to the beer duty, so as to afford a middle kind of beer between that which paid the 10s. and that which paid the 2s. duty. By the 43rd of the king, there was no medium. There was, however, no obstacle to private brewing. People generally had no notion how savingly private brewing could be carried on. They saved 30s. per barrel, and their proportion of the licensing duty, which produced 600,000l. a year. The first difficulty was the cost of the apparatus; but 3l. or 4l. would purchase brewing, utensils sufficient for the poor and even for the rich man. If one person, could not purchase the whole three or four might club their mites and brew in each other's houses, taking care (for there the exchequer stepped in) not to sell the beer to one another, but to share the produce of their common property. He recommended gentlemen to make the gift of this apparatus one of their bounties to the people in their neighbourhood. The only other obstacle was the supposed difficulty in the operation of brewing. There was a small pamphlet which gave all the instructions necessary on this subject: it was Mr. Cobbett's Sermon on brewing. He had never known a person who had read it, who was not able to compete with the most skilful brewer. Mean, time, he would recommend that, those who felt an interest in the bill, should petition for it. If half the activity was shown by those who had an interest in promoting the bill that was shown by those who had an interest in opposing it, the table would be covered with the prayers of hundreds of thousands of petitioners. For himself, he should be found in his place next session, ready to assist the people in obtaining one of the most important boons, as regarded their wealth, and health, and morals, that was ever granted by a legislature to a people. He should now withdraw the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that ministers were not inimical to the principle on which the measure proceeded. On the contrary, the subject had been under the consideration of the Treasury and means, he believed, had been devised to enable the public to brew a middle sort of beer, of a proper strength and body, and at a proportionate duty.
§ The bill was withdrawn.