§ Mr. Portmanasked, whether it was the intention of Government to prevent Beer sold by persons who might take out Excise licenses under the provisions of the Bill before the House from being drunk on the premises where it was sold?
§ Mr. George Dawsonsaid, that in the absence of some of his colleagues, who could more properly have answered the question of the hon. Member, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it certainly was the intention of Government to act upon the recommendation of the committee, and to permit Beer to be consumed on the premises where it should be sold. Government felt that if it should come to any other decision on the subject, it would be completely nullifying all the benefit to be derived from the project of throwing open the trade.
Mr. Heathcotesuggested, that no persons 324 should be permitted to open houses for the sale of Beer, until they produced sureties for their good conduct.
§ Mr. Benettwished a clause to be introduced in the Bill, rendering it compulsory on the keepers of the new public-houses to shut up soon at night, and open late in the morning.
§ Mr. George Dawsonthought, that hon. Members should reserve their suggestions until the Bill was in committee.
§ Mr. Portmansaid, that he would take the sense of the House with respect to the point to which he had referred on the second reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. Brightsaid, that he considered the Bill before the House only a half-measure, because it did not repeal the duty on Beer. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a separate Bill to repeal the Beer duty.
§ Mr. Monckcould assure the members of his Majesty's Government, that several clauses in the Bill were viewed with much alarm, and certainly they would inflict serious injury on the brewers and publicans. The Bill in its present state, would be an act of spoliation and confiscation of individual property. He certainly should, when the Bill was in a committee, move a clause to restrain those persons who might take out Excise licenses, from allowing the Beer they sold to be drunk on their premises. It was the intention of the legislature to make the trade in Beer free, but not to create an unlimited number of alehouses.
§ Mr. Humetrusted, that the Government would persevere in carrying this measure through, which he conceived would be highly beneficial to the community, not-withstanding the opposition excited against it by interested persons. He admitted that private property might suffer to some extent; but not equal to the benefit which would accrue from destroying an odious monopoly.
Lord Stanleycould also inform the Ministers, that a considerable degree of alarm and apprehension prevailed in the county of Lancaster, where it was supposed that much mischief would ensue from these new houses not being under the control of the magistrates. He was of opinion that, as the Bill then stood, it would cause considerable inconvenience; and he hoped that it would receive several modifications before it was passed into a law.
Mr. Denisonexpressed his hope, that when the Bill came before a committee, some means might be found to prevent effectually those scenes of drunkenness and debauchery which it was to be apprehended would ensue, from one end of the kingdom to the other, if the Bill were passed in its present state.
Mr. Slaneyhoped, that such restrictions would be introduced as would prevent the occurrence of those scenes which many Gentlemen anticipated, if the measure were allowed to remain in its present shape; but he wished at the same time, that the spirit of free competition in the Beer-trade should be preserved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his object was, to have a free trade in Beer, without any restriction as to its being drunk on the premises where it was sold. At the same time, he was willing and ever anxious to hear any suggestions which would tend to make the Bill more palateable to those whose interests ought to be considered; so far as that could be done without infringing on the principle of the measure.