HC Deb 08 April 1830 vol 24 cc15-26
Mr. Calcraft

said, that being Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the laws respecting the Retail Sale of Beer, it was his duty, by the direction of the Committee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the privilege of selling that ar- ticle. As the committee had not made any Report, and as the evidence that had been taken was not before the House, it would be unfair if he entered into any matters of controversy upon the subject in its present stage; and therefore, with the desire of avoiding any immediate discussion he should, in as few words as possible, explain the nature of the measure which he had to propose. The principles of a free trade in Beer had been debated in that House, and it could not be denied, he thought, that the general sense of Parliament, and the almost unanimous wish of the country were in favour of throwing open the trade. With a view also to give a more complete effect to the recent repeal of the Beer duty, he felt that it would be necessary to carry the freedom of the trade to its utmost extent. What he had now to propose to the House, at the command of the committee of which he was the chairman, would be found clear, plain, intelligible, and effective to the establishing a free trade. The principle of the measure was, that any person in London who wished to have a license for the Sale of Beer should apply to the proper officer of Excise, and he would be entitled to a license on payment of the sum of two guineas. In the country the application should be made to the Supervisor, and the applicant would be entitled to his license upon his paying the same sum. Thus the House would see that the measure he had proposed would be the means of immediately carrying the freedom of the trade in Beer to the fullest extent. It was to be followed up by many regulations for the government of those who might be placed under this Act. Having steered clear of those houses which came under the provisions of the late Act brought into the House by Mr. Estcourt, the Committee had been careful to provide a number of regulations, to ensure a certain and effectual punishment, if regularity and decency were not preserved in the houses of those who took out licenses to sell Beer under this Act. He thought it better, under the circumstance of the evidence which had been taken before the committee not being yet printed, to avoid entering into any further detail. Perhaps it was necessary for him to state, that his only motive for bringing forward the Motion before the evidence was printed, and in the possession of hon. Members, was, that this was the last day before the Easter Recess; and the Members of that committee, as well as himself, were anxious that the Bill should be circulated through the country during that recess. All parties concerned in it ought to see it, and have full time to consider its principles and provisions before the second reading came on. By this means he should be able to ascertain what were the opinions of the country upon the subject, and to sec what support the Members of that House would be inclined to give to the measure. He was fully impressed with the fact that the new principle introduced by the Bill was very important, with reference to the immensely large capital employed in the trade, and which was diffused so extensively throughout the country. He also felt that the Bill was scarcely less important with respect to its holding out to the poor and working classes of the community a chance of obtaining a better, a cheaper, and a more wholesome beverage than they had been as yet accustomed to drink. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Members present would not think of entering into any discussion of the Bill, for no good could arise from that in its present stage, and it would be premature, useless, and not altogether fair to the committee. The measure, he should observe, was not to extend to Ireland or Scotland; it was, in the first instance, to be limited in its operation to England and Wales. He should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the general Sale of Beer by Retail.

Mr. Charles Barclay

only wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain operations of the Bill, which he thought would render it incumbent upon him to modify it. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly have the opportunity of better considering the evidence during the recess; and if he went into it, and saw the very great and important interests alluded to in it, he hoped that he would be induced to modify the Bill very considerably. If any person without any limitations whatsoever, might be allowed to sell Beer by retail, anywhere and any how, without any restriction whatever—for the proposed licensing system would be no restriction—mischief and inconvenience would ensue, of which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be little aware. He begged to be particularly understood as not speaking on the part of the London brewers, for he was ready to acknowledge, what indeed had already been acknowledged distinctly, that the benefits derived to the trade by the reduction of the duty upon Beer would amply compensate them for any loss they might sustain in their property in public-houses or otherwise. But waiving the consideration of the brewers, he must beg leave to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the House and country, that there were two classes that would be most seriously injured by the proposed alteration of the long-established principles of the trade in Beer. He scarcely need say that he alluded, not to the great brewers in town, but to the country brewers all over England; and to that extremely numerous class of publicans, or licensed victuallers, who at present kept public-houses of their own. There were 50,000 persons of this description, of which 23,000 were in London. The greater part of these owned public-houses, and if this measure were to go through the House without alteration, it would destroy the greater part of the property belonging to these individuals. Many of these individuals were known to have mortgaged their property to others; and if this Bill were to pass without alteration, their property would be hardly worth more than what, in most instances, it was mortgaged for. This he thought would be a case of grievous hardship; for although it might be impossible to introduce alterations or reforms, without the sacrifice of some individual interests, such sacrifices ought never to be so extensive, general, and severe, as they would be in the present instance. He had attentively considered the subject, and had prepared a measure of relief which would prevent the evil he had pointed out, without interfering with the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. He had attempted to introduce his measure into the committee, but he was sorry to say without success; and if no other Member more capable than himself should propose it to the House, he should take the liberty of moving, that instruction should be given to the Committee on the Bill, that some relief be afforded to the classes in whose behalf he now felt it his duty to address the House. The relief which he contemplated would not in any respect interfere with the principle and the practical effects of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, whilst the mischief it would do to numerous indi- viduals would be alleviated or removed. He would repeat his conviction, that upon the whole the London brewers would be benefitted by this new measure; but he could not say so much for the brewers in the country, or for the very numerous owners of public-houses. He hoped that, after what he had said, the right hon. Gentleman, during the recess, would meet the case of these individuals, for the number of them, the property involved, and the extensive injury likely to be inflicted, rendered them well worthy of the most careful consideration.

Mr. Charles Calvert

should defer his observations upon the Bill until the evidence taken before the Committee was duly before the House, but in the mean time he could not refrain from saying, that he could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. friend who had just sat down. He felt that the brewers were so identified with the licensed victuallers of the metropolis, that any law which affected the one would, as a matter of inevitable necessity, affect the other. His hon. friend very well knew, and, indeed, it was notorious to everybody, that a very great capital was embarked by the great brewers of London with the licensed victuallers, and he wished he could say that the Bill would be beneficial to the former, for if so, they could act with consideration towards others. He believed, unfortunately, that the Bill now introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would prove more destructive to property on a large scale, and more diffusive of ruin to persons not very wealthy, than any measure which the House had ever adopted. The Bill, he was convinced, would cause the absolute ruin of the great body of victuallers, whilst it would destroy the property of the manufacturers of Beer. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that his Bill would admit of no modifications; that his principles could not be carried into operation without effecting the ruin of such great and important interests, and of such very numerous classes? He had hoped that Ministers would have been content with trying one experiment at a time, and would have waited until they had seen the effects of taking off the duty upon Beer before they proceeded to such extensive innovations. He believed that taking off the Beer duty would prove highly beneficial to the public; but he was convinced that ail the benefit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's removing that tax, might have flowed to the public through the old channels without having recourse to the new. Why should legislation upon this subject be an anomaly to the general rule of Ministers, not to innovate with a rapidity that destroyed extensively the property of any class of the community? He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the evidence that had been given by Mr. Carr to the committee of 1818, That gentleman stated, that all the deleterious Beer consumed in London was brewed by the inferior brewers; and he had no doubt, that as soon as this Bill passed, the town would be inundated by a deluge of trash, which would barely be drinkable, and which would also be most destructive of the health of those who swallowed it.

Mr. H Drummond

, in the present stage of the proceedings, would only avail himself of the opportunity of saying, that whatever opinions might be entertained of the Bill, he was extremely glad that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to extend it to Scotland. He did not think that it was requisite to interfere with the system at present prevalent in Scotland, nor that it would be deemed expedient, upon any pretence, to introduce such a bill as the present; for, in point of fact, the evil so much complained of in England—the monopoly of the Beer trade—had never existed in that part of the kingdom. Since he had risen he might be excused if he availed himself of the opportunity of briefly referring to a gross misrepresentation that had gone abroad respecting his conduct. It had been said, that he was the author of a bill which introduced into Scotland for the first time the evil of the English system of a monopoly of the Beer-trade. He denied that he was the author of any such measure. The Act he alluded to, the 9th of his present Majesty, gave magistrates a great power over brewers' certificates, the clause having been copied from the Act of 44 Geo. 3rd. The only alteration he had proposed was, to restrain the power of the magistrates, which, in the general opinion of the country, in which he fully agreed, had formerly been too unlimited. In making this declaration he was aware that he was speaking in the presence of many hon. Members who must have a recollection of all that had taken place, and would contradict him if he spoke erroneously.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, he could not hear what had fallen from the hon. Member that had just addressed the House without rising to say, that he was aware of the facts to which the hon. Member had thought fit to allude, and he could have no hesitation in corroborating the statement which the hon. Member had made. He believed that the hon. Gentleman had proposed to restrain, not enlarge, the powers of the magistracy with respect to certificates.

Mr. Stewart

intimated, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was of such importance, that it ought not to be introduced in so thin a House, and he should avail himself of there not being forty Members present.

Sir John Sebright

thought that the course proposed by the hon. Member who had spoken last was altogether unnecessary and objectionable, for the only effect of it would be, to compel the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the Bill on another evening. It was then introduced for the convenience of Members, that they might acquaint themselves with its provisions during the recess. For his part, he could say of himself conscientiously, and without fear of contradiction, that there was not an honourable Member in that House who could regret more forcibly than he did, that reforms and improvements should be effected at the expense of numerous individuals. It was, however, in this case unavoidable. He could not help saying, although he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, that the laws under which the great brewers alleged that they had invested their immense capitals were not laws made for the protection of their trade, or of any trade whatever. They were laws having trade neither for their principle nor object, but made solely for purposes of police. The great brewers of the metropolis had availed themselves of those laws to promote their own interests, finding that, although they were meant for the good government of the poor, and for the decency of society, they might be converted into instruments of profit. He did not mean to say that the brewers had not acted fairly—that they had been guilty of anything improper; but he did mean to assert, that having availed themselves of the state of the laws, they had no right to come down to the House and demand that the laws should be made perpetual. If these laws were bad, if they no longer suited the state of the country, if the feelings of the people were strongly and unanimously against them, they could not be perpetuated upon the plea that rescinding them would injure partial and temporary interests. He would not pretend to speak of the consequences of the present system in town; but would confine himself to its consequences in the country, which had fallen more particularly under his own observation. A house was built on speculation, of which the intrinsic value was not worth more than 10l. a year. A license was procured first, and its value rose immediately to 20l., 30l., 40l. or even 50l. a year. Now this rent was paid for by the consumers of the Beer. Any measure, therefore, which enabled the consumers to get rid of this extra payment for their Beer, must be to them an improvement. He would maintain that the existing system of licensing was an intolerable lax upon the community, and that the monopoly of the Beer-trade had been more oppressive to the lower orders in this country than any other that had ever been imposed upon them by the legislature. He highly approved of the objects of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. He congratulated the House and the country on the liberality with which the present Ministry went forward with the spirit of improvement that was now abroad; and which distinguished this Administration beyond every other which had preceded it. He owed it gratitude for its conduct, and hoped that its future measures would be conceived and executed in the same spirit as the past.

Mr. Fowell Buxton

could not suffer what had fallen in the course of the discussion to pass unnoticed, particularly as allusions appeared to have been made to the sentiments he had uttered, and to the line of conduct which, upon this occasion, he had thought it his duty to pursue. In the first place, he must repel the insinuation, that in any stage of the proceeding, or upon any occasion, he had ever said anything, or pursued any course, that could induce anybody to conceive that he had adopted the monstrous notion that the law was intended for the benefit of the brewers. There could not be any doubt that the law was passed for the advantage of the public, as a means of preserving order and decency among the lower classes of the community, The brewers, in adapting their trade to the state of the law, had done nothing that was unfair, and nothing more than every tradesman did, and had a right to do. Having stated thus much, he could not be mistaken in asserting, that the great body of the brewers had met this important measure very fairly. They had candidly said, that according to their calculations, and according to the views they took of the subject, they thought that eventually they should be great gainers by the alterations of the law which Government was determined to carry into effect. Having acknowledged that they would ultimately be gainers to a certain extent, they had likewise asserted, of the truth of which they were convinced, that in the first operation and effect of this change of system, they would be not only losers, but very great losers. He could take upon himself to say, that some of the great brewers' in the first instance, might lose even 100,000l. although eventually they might be great gainers. In the course, therefore, that the brewers had pursued, he did not see that any blame could attach to them; but on the contrary, as far as he could judge for himself, or as far as he could ascertain from others, the conviction on his mind was, that under the circumstances in which they were placed, they had acted with candour and great fairness. If, however, the brewers were likely to get eventually an ample compensation for their immediate losses, he must be allowed to call to the recollection of the House that there was another class of persons—a very numerous and important class that would be very great sufferers, both immediately and eventually; for they had no prospect, in the common course of trade, of getting any compensation whatever: he thought that the case of the publicans did, in every point of view, deserve the most serious consideration of every Member in that House. The great principle was, to make the value of property and of capital invested in trades as stable as possible, and all legislative measures that effected a sudden fluctuation in the value of property were to be avoided as much as possible. If such measures were necessary for the public good, they ought to be effected with the least degree of individual sacrifice. Now he conceived, that without infringing upon the Bill which the Committee had thought proper to author- ise the right hon. Gentleman opposite to introduce—without impugning its principle, or interfering with its details or operation, a remedy might very easily be provided for at least a part of the heavy and ruinous losses which would otherwise be sustained by the parties in whose behalf he was then speaking. Without infringing upon the principles and practice of free trade, in whatever sense the terms were taken—for they were construed in almost every sense—without in the least trespassing upon the theory of free trade, it would be easy, he thought, to adopt an amendment to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member, under the direction of the committee, by which the interests of the publicans would, to a great degree, be protected. The amendment to which he alluded had been adverted to by several hon. Members by no means hostile to the intentions of the committee, but who wished to see the views of that committee carried into effect with as little of individual sacrifice as was compatible with the full operation of the intended new system. The amendment which he should propose was, not interfering in the slightest degree with the brewing or sale of Beer—that it should not be legal to permit the Beer to be consumed by the purchasers upon any part of the premises upon which it was sold. Might not a temporary enactment of that kind avoid the ruin of numerous individuals—prevent the evils of a rapid and sudden transition in the value of property, in the channels of trade, and in the course of established habits, among classes of people among whom habits were not easily changed with advantage to themselves or security to the public? He would beg leave to remind the House, that upon all occasions he had been a supporter of the doctrines of free trade; and he saw no inconsistency between that support and his wish to pass from the old system to the new at the smallest inconvenience to individuals, and at the smallest sacrifice of capital already directed into particular channels by long existing laws. If he had always voted for free trade when the capital and interests of others were deeply involved, he would not desert those principles, or be lukewarm in their support, when his own were concerned. But notwithstanding this, he would still say, that there was a very large body of people whose rights and interests had been overlooked in the present measure. The publicans throughout the United Kingdom had upwards of four millions sterling embarked in their trade. It was absurd to deny that they would be great sufferers by the alteration of the law, and that their sufferings would involve those of very many other classes. Such a part of the community ought not to be disregarded, because the capital he had mentioned was greatly diffused, or because specifically the publicans were not represented in that House. After much application to the subject, it was his opinion that all the good proposed by the present Bill would be effected, and all the evils with respect to the publicans would be alleviated, if the open sale of Beer were allowed to its fullest extent, but the consumption of it prohibited upon the premises where it was sold.

Mr. Hume

said, that he did not intend to enter at any length into the merits of the Bill, or into the mode of introducing it, for future opportunities would present themselves for all such considerations. He merely intended to confine himself to a few observations which had fallen from the hon. Member on the Ministerial Bench (Mr. Home Drummond). That hon. Member had not, in the slightest degree, impugned the principles of the Bill, or found the slightest fault with any of its provisions. He evidently intended to support it without objection or amendment; and yet he had risen in his place to express his hope that it should not extend to Scotland. This was incomprehensible to him; and he was not a little surprised that hon. Members should venture to utter so much of what seemed to him incomprehensible. If this measure were good for England, he was not aware why it should not extend to Scotland; at least it was for the hon. Member to show some substantial reason why a measure, which he acknowledged to be good for one part of the kingdom, should not be applied to the other. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the evils felt in England under the existing law were not so severely felt in Scotland, although this arose from causes extraneous to the law, but still there was a great case of hardship in that country. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his efforts to put the Magistrates of Scotland under some control, for they needed it; but it was more easy to convince him of this, than persuade him that any reason existed why a Bill, founded upon such sound general principles, and expected to be bene- ficial to England, should not extend over the whole United Kingdom. He acknowledged, almost to the full extent, all the evils that had been urged as consequent upon the present Bill; but he must remind the House, without losing sight of those who would sustain loss by the measure, that in all reforms from a bad to a good system, it seemed unavoidable that some individuals and classes of individuals should suffer. He must beg leave to say, that he had devoted as much of his time, and of his earnest attention, to the subject, as any Member; and after the most mature consideration of all its bearings, he was convinced that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, at the direction of the committee, was the right course; and he hoped that nothing would interfere to stop the great work of improvement in which Ministers were engaged with such advantage to the public.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that it was not the intention of Ministers to extend the Bill now proposed to Scotland. He regretted to say, that from the period of the Session, only one day had been given to draw up the Bill for England, and that consequently, a sufficient lime had not been allowed to prepare the Bill for Scotland. The measure must, therefore, be tried in one part of the kingdom in the first instance; and if it were found beneficial, and to answer its intended objects, it might then be extended to the other.

Motion agreed to, Bill brought in and read a first time.

Back to