BEER BILL. (Hansard, 9 July 1823)

§ Mr. Brougham
rose for the purpose of moving, that the order for the committal of the Retail Beer Bill be discharged indefinitely. He observed particularly upon the strong opposition which this bill had met with from the brewers whom it was intended to aid, and from the landed interest, whose distresses it would most importantly alleviate. Because, however wheat had risen, he had been abandoned by the latter, and left to struggle against all the influence of the former. He hoped that both parties would know their interests better next session. He should always be at their service, and should be ready to moot the subject again, whenever they should support him; but unaided, he should not be disposed to make any exertion on behalf of parties who seemed so blind and indifferent. His measure for Educating the Poor had met with precisely the same fate. The bills were drawn, printed, and even the blanks filled up, and might be introduced again at any time. He had spent days and nights in perfecting the measure; and because it was beneficial generally, but offered no increase of emolument to any one party in particular, he had been compelled to abandon it.

Mr. Western
said, that if the hon. gentleman had persisted, he should have given the bill his support. He complained that, in the taxes repealed this session, there had been an entire forgetfulness of the peculiar distresses of the landed interest. It had been his intention to have moved for a considerable reduction of the malt-duty, but he had been prevented by circumstances; and he now gave notice, that early next year, he would submit a motion for reducing the malt tax to the amount imposed prior to the last war.

Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that he was assured his hon. and learned friend had not read the returns made to the House, of the number of public houses in England. The number in London was 4,142; in the country, 43,919; making together 48,061. 1495 Out of which number 20,612 brewed their own beer. How, therefore, could his hon. and learned friend charge this as a monopoly? The quantity brewed by the brewers was 2,192,371 barrels; by the victuallers, 2,152,644; being nearly the same quantity as brewed by the common brewer. It should be observed, that all the houses in one county did not draw on an average more than 100 barrels a week; and supposing one-third of this to be retailed out of doors: this would be about 33 barrels. He would suppose one person only to become a retailer under this new bill, and that the publican retained one-half of his trade, he would only sell 16 barrels in a year; his licence would be 4l 8s.; this would add rather more than 5s. per barrel, or one halfpenny per quart of beer. He therefore asked, how his learned friend would secure the public by his new bill? He would ask, whether the beer would be equal in quality to that drawn by the publican, who had cellars and every convenience, together with a quick draught? The retailer would have such considerable expenses in the management of his trade, that it would leave him no profit. He would suppose, that in each public-house there were six in family, making 288,000 persons, and, without entering into any calculation of the number of brewers that would be injured, he might venture to say, that their families would be nearly ruined; for at least 24 millions of property was invested in that trade, and if the breweries were included, at least 40 millions. The government would lose at least 100,000l. a year in the stamp duty on transfer. And was it nothing that these publicans maintained soldiers, paid several licences, and very heavy taxes? The magistrates had control over their houses. They would have none over the retailer. He might send beer to the next door, where persons might assemble without control. The publican had to accommodate every traveller, and keep his house open at a great expense. They were generally a very active, industrious class of men, and very few of them saved money. With regard to the statement of his hon. friend, that it would assist the farmers in obtaining a higher price for barley, this he denied. It was the capital of the brewers that assisted the farmers. They had only to show a good sample of barley, and they were sure to sell, and very frequently got their money before the barley was delivered. They never 1496 would have received from 70s. to 80s. a quarter, had there not been a consider able capital employed. That capital enabled the brewer to force a trade, and by that means to keep down the price, which caused a larger consumption of barley. If the government would take off the duty on beer, it would be reduced to 3d. per quart. This was the only fair and equitable mode of legislating, that the poor or labouring man should not pay more for his beer than the rich. If this plan were adopted, the public would require no other.