Mr. Bennetpresented a petition from the licensed victuallers of the metropolis complaining of the present mode of Licensing Public-houses.
Mr. Bernalobserved, that the interests of those brewers who were freeholders of public-houses would be very materially injured by that clause of the bill which provided that a magistrate should grant a license to any individual who possessed the qualifications necessary to enable him to open a public-house. The clause would also hold out greater temptations to drinking.
§ Mr Alderman Smithexpressed himself inimical to the bill.
§ Mr. Littletonsuggested, that it was expedient to introduce a clause into the bill for encouraging the sale of beer of a diminished strength.
§ Colonel Trenchthought, that the brewers of London had too long enjoyed the monopoly of their trade.
Mr. Marryatbelieved that the proposed measure would operate injuriously upon the vested interest of the brewers.
§ Mr. Broughamconsidered it a measure of the first necessity, to break down the present system of licensing public houses, although in doing so, care should be taken to injure as little as possible, the vested capital of the brewers. He did not think that if the number of public houses were larger than at present, the amount of tippling would be increased. As well might it be contended, that, in a private party, the quantity of liquor that would be drank would depend upon the number of glasses placed on the table. He could see no objection to throwing open at once the retail trade in beer. At present, no 736 persons without a license could sell any quantity under five gallons, or two dozen bottles. There might, perhaps, be some doubt as to the propriety of increasing or decreasing the number of public houses, but there could be no doubt about allowing the poor man to procure his pot of beer with the same facility that he purchased his loaf. He therefore gave notice that, in the event of any misadventure happening to his hon. friend's bill, he would bring forward a measure, making it imperative on the magistrates to grant a license to any person wishing to enter into the retail trade.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that, in looking to the abuses which had so long existed in the licensing system, he felt that those abuses could not be fully remedied, or the monopoly broken up, without injuring the private properties of certain individuals. Therefore, his object, when he first brought the question forward was, with a view to have it discussed, and understood both in and out of doors. If the magistrates in the country, generally, would adopt the system practised in Wiltshire, there would be little fear of a monopoly of licenses. The magistrates of those counties, whenever they found that the brewer's had a monopoly in any one district, instantly granted a new license, by which means all monopoly was destroyed. He begged the attention of the House, while he stated a few instances of the extent to which the monopoly of the beer trade had been carried in some parts of the country. In Portsmouth there were 231 public houses; of these 168 were in the hands of brewers, 31 in the hands of spirit-merchants, and 29 were free houses. In King's Lynn there were 68 public houses, all in the hands of the corporation or of brewers. In Brighton there were 66 of which 55 were in the hands of the brewers. In Watford, St. Alban's, and Reading, all the public houses were in the hands of the brewers. In other counties, such as Staffordshire and Shropshire, where beer was brewed at home, there was another description of monopolists—he meant the malsters of those counties. In one district near London there were 180 public houses, all of which were in the hands of brewers except 19. In the eighteen excise districts there were 8,859 public houses in the hands of brewers, being a proportion of five to one of the whole number. Having thus pointed out the evil, he now came to the remedy. He had intended to open the beer trade 737 farther. To that measure opposition had been made: and he did not wonder at it. Persons who knew any thing of borough towns, would know, that the brewers there were no small persons. Next to his majesty's government there was scarcely an interest more formidable than the interest of the brewers. In fact, he found that if he attempted to carry his bill through in its original shape, he should have no support but from a few of his friends. He therefore intended to strike out the clause which made it compulsory upon magistrates to grant licenses when demanded. He admitted the force of the proposition suggested by the hon. member for Win-chelsea, but he feared that that measure would be as prejudicial to the publicans and brewers as the clause which he himself' had but then given up His objects at present were two-fold; first, to bring public houses under a certain discipline, and secondly to give a security to that sort of property, which it did not at present possess.
§ Mr. Humethought it would be expedient to adopt the licensing system practised in Scotland, under which no monopoly existed.
Mr. F. Palmerthought, if the hon. member abandoned the clause making it compulsory on magistrates to grant a license, he might as well give up the bill altogether.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.