HC Deb 04 May 1830 vol 24 cc401-22
Mr. Calcraft

said, in rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Beer Bill, that he had hoped that it would have been unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House; he had flattered himself that the second reading of the Bill would meet with no opposition, and that any objections might be made in the committee, to which he understood it was the intention of an hon. Member to move an instruction—and that allowing the Bill to go into a committee, it might then receive such modifications as would make it palatable to the country. But having heard from the hon. member for Dorset shire that he intended to defeat the Bill in its present stage, he hoped, in deference to the strong feeling which had been expressed in the country, and in deference to the large body of publicans, whose interests it concerned, that the House would allow him to say a few words as a preface to the Motion for the second reading. The object of the Bill could not be misunderstood, he thought, by those who had read it. That object was, to promote the more general sale of Beer, and give an entire free trade to that article, permitting persons, on applying to the board of Excise in town, and to Excise-officers in the country, to obtain a license for selling Beer, on the payment of two guineas. He would not discuss the question, whether or not any qualifications or recognizance's should be required of these persons, as that subject would be properly discussed in the committee. In the committee also he should be ready to give his attention to every proposition which was not a breach of the principle of the Bill; but at present he would confine himself to the two great objections made to the principle. The publicans objected to the Bill that it would interfere with their business, would diminish their profits by introducing a great competition in their trade, and would be hurtful to their interests. So far he thought their opinion fair, and nothing more natural than their opposition; but. when they presented petitions to the House—and he had heard an hon. friend of his, the member for the city of London, support such a petition—claiming a vested right in their trade, they pushed the matter further than the nature of the case warranted. By pushing it so far, they hurt their own cause. When they advocated the propriety of defending vested rights, he must put it to the House whether there was any thing in the Bill which could fairly be interpreted as a diminution of vested rights. It was only necessary to remind those publicans who made this complaint, of the uncertainty of the tenure by which they held their licenses, and of which they had themselves not long ago complained. Magistrates might interfere, and take away their licenses; and they depended on those magistrates to renew them from year to year, though they were not in general interfered with, if they did not misconduct themselves. He was aware that the capital invested in the trade amounted to many millions. Supposing that there were 60,000 publicans, and supposing that each of them had only a small sum embarked in the business, that would make, on the whole, a large capital. It ought certainly to be dealt with carefully; but the House ought not to suffer the consideration for that to bear down all consideration for the great body of the people, the chief object for the attention of the Legislature. The object of the committee, the object of the Government in giving its support to the committee of which he had had the honour to be Chairman, was disinterested, and it was only intended to introduce a better beverage into the country for all the subordinate ranks of the people. That was the simple object of the committee, which had no wish or intention to injure or promote the interest of any one class. By giving a free trade in Beer, it was expected that competition would introduce among the labouring classes a good old English beverage, which could not now be got in any part of the country, nor in many parts of town. He wished it to be understood that he was not by these remarks making any reflections on the great brewers. If the publicans would only let their customers have what they received from their brewers, they would get, he believed, a good beverage. But when it was seen every day by the newspapers that publicans adulterated their Beer, and when it was known that at present from five to six hundred publicans had had information's laid against them by the Excise—perhaps not those publicans who had petitioned the House, but others—and when it was known that these men were charged with selling liquor mixed with deleterious ingredients—he thought he might with great propriety say, that some measure was necessary to put an end to the practice of supplying the people with a spurious and an unwholesome beverage. Even when the publicans did not mix deleterious ingre- dients with their Beer, they lowered it from twenty-five to thirty per cent after they received it from the brewer; that was, indeed an avowed custom, and though they did not thereby render it noxious, they still sold an article for which their customers did not bargain. Then again in the country, it was well known that the brewers owned the public-houses, and without that advantage, they would not be able to sell so much bad Beer as they now sold. It was hoped, that by the present Bill, this power would be taken from the brewers, without any infringement on their property, and that by a more general competition than at present, a better article would be sold, and that Beer would be made of various qualities, to suit all palates. The next objection made to the Bill was, that, adopting no limitation, no license, no restraint on publicans, there would be an unlimited number of tippling-houses in every part of the country. In the opinion of the petitioners, and this, too, seemed the opinion of most of the Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, the Beer ought not to be drunk on the spot where it was sold. Those parties would, he believed, rest satisfied, if a restriction were imposed, not allowing the Beer to be consumed where it was sold. This would give, they contended, a great extension to the trade, and try that experiment on a limited scale, which, if it succeeded, might be afterwards extended. In his opinion, however, a limitation of that kind would prevent the principle of the Bill from having a fair trial. With respect to these tippling-houses, though it was intended to grant a license to every person who applied, they would still be subject to certain penalties, and exposed to restrictions—a control would be exercised over the new houses as strong as over the old ones; the magistrates were empowered to interfere with them, and if any nuisance of which they had reason to complain were not abated, they might put down the houses. It had been made necessary to take out a license, in order that too many such houses might not exist. No doubt some little confusion would arise at first from the great number of persons who would embark in the business, but that would soon subside. If the business were over-done, some of those who embarked in it would give it up. Persons would not willingly pay two guineas for a license to carry on a losing trade. The publicans who carried on their trade under the present system would be left in the same situation as now, under the control of the magistrates, for it was not intended to interfere with them. They would carry on their business as before, with a Beer and a Spirit license, which the new description of Beer-sellers would not have, and they would continue to be regulated by the provisions of Mr. Estcourt's Act. The Bill, he believed, would not injure the publicans, except they allowed the new tradesmen to sell better Beer than they sold. An old house had a much greater chance of retaining its old customers than a new house would have of taking them away, if the old house only sold as good Beer as the new one; and to compel the present publicans to sell better Beer, which would thus be accomplished, or they would be ruined, was the object proposed by the Bill. If the measure should be unpalatable to the publicans of the town, and to the country brewers, they ought to recollect that they brought it on themselves by the numerous examples which had come to light of their having adulterated their Beer. The vender of bad Beer in the country could not get rid of it if the houses were not his own, which was the reason why the brewers obtained as many public-houses as possible. Something had been said about indemnity for those vested interests; but the House must give up legislating altogether, if it were never to interfere with any interests whatever. There was not a turnpike-road made, nor a steam-boat started, that did not interfere with one of those vested interests. He remembered that when he represented Rochester, some of his constituents, very respectable men, who kept inns, petitioned Parliament to put a stop to steam-packets, because they floated away their customers. He had told them that Parliament could not assist them, and that he believed, if they had a little patience, they would find themselves not injured by these new methods of traveling. It had turned out, as he expected it would, there were plenty of customers both for steam packets and stage-coaches; and all the injury the landlords suffered was to be obliged to be as attentive, and make their houses as comfortable as possible. Indeed, they might as well petition against stage-coaches, because they interfered with post-chaises, as against steam-packets. A new shop could not be set up without interfering with some other shop, or some vested interest; the legislature could not move to the right nor the left, without interfering with some vested rights, and therefore, when interference was necessary, the legislature ought not to be debarred from interfering by an imputation that it was meddling with vested rights. It was not necessary, he believed, to trouble the House any further. He hoped that his hon. friend would give the Bill fair play, and allow it to go to a committee, where it might be made palatable to the petitioners, agreeable to the parties affected, and satisfactory to the great majority of the House.

Mr. Portman

rose to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He felt that it was necessary to make an apology to the House and to his hon. friend, from whom he was at any time sorry to differ, particularly as he had obtained much of his political knowledge from his hon. friend, for the course he was taking. He begged however, distinctly to disclaim having any feelings on this subject in common with the brewers and publicans; his opposition to the Bill being founded on general principles. His object was to stop the further progress of a Bill which he considered would prove most injurious to the people, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might be then induced to repeal a portion of the Malt-tax, which would confer far greater benefit on the country, or else that he would directly relieve the people by taking off the Excise-duties from soap and candles. The Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposed was not, in his opinion, what it professed to be. It was a Bill to establish a certain species of retail Beer trade, but it did not entirely relieve the publicans from magisterial control. Now he considered, that if magistrates were to have any authority at all, they should have sufficient authority to preserve order, as they were bound to do by the tenour of their oaths. The right hon. Gentleman, should either relieve them completely from the responsibility, or else invest them with befitting powers. He now opposed the Bill, because he thought it fairer to do so at that, the second reading, than to endeavour to stultify it by the introduction of some clause in the committee. He on tended there was no control in the provisions of this Bill against the use of dele- terious drugs. At present the Excise might search for deleterious drugs, which was a great impediment to the use of them; but by this Bill all the power of the Excise was taken away, and the only thing substituted for it was competition. But it was not easy to get that competition in all districts of the country; and he was persuaded that when the competition did exist, it would be a struggle, not between new and old brewers, but between the brewers who were at that moment possessed of many public-houses, and those who had only a few. He wished the House to recollect that, were it only for purposes of police, the magistrates ought to have some control over houses, in which all classes and descriptions of persons assembled; for otherwise, the whole system of police must be destroyed. Suppose, the case of a Justice of Peace inquiring of a publican respecting a suspicious person traced to his house; according to the provisions of Mr. Estcourt's Act the person would be compelled to give a civil answer, affirmative or negative; but under the present Bill he might decline giving any answer whatsoever: he believed that the present system of licensing houses was essential to the police of the kingdom, and on that ground he should oppose the alteration. In his opinion, too, the Bill was not, as set forth in the preamble, expedient; because there was no party on whom it could confer any benefit. He did not believe an increased supply of Beer was necessary, for the number of brewers did not increase: increasing the number of persons who sold Beer only added to those who had to make a living by the trade. The Bill could not be of good to the poor, because the relief was not direct—nor would it make Beer cheaper, or of a better quality; it could not be of use to the agriculturists. True it had been held out by the right hon. Gentleman that there would be a great increase in the price of Barley; but if this were the case, how could that reduce the price of Beer? and even supposing both advantages could be co-existent, he maintained that they would not recompense the farmer for the destruction of morality amongst his servants, and the consequent loss of the control he had previously exercised over them. Neither could this Bill be of use to the anti-gin people. He was himself one of those who wished to discourage the use of spirituous liquors, but it was impossible to regulate the tastes of the people by Acts of Parliament. He likewise opposed the measure, because it would occasion a great loss of property, for which any good it might produce, being so remote and obscure, could never compensate. He also, in common with all gentlemen well acquainted with the Western counties, felt an extreme horror of tippling-houses, from the experience they had acquired respecting Cider-shops, and the great difficulty in preserving-order in those villages in which they were. Then in distant villages, where there was no magistrate, how much greater would not the evil be? In conclusion he stated, that no modification of the Bill would satisfy him; he opposed its principle, and moved, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Dickenson

rose to second the Amendment. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions, but thought his Bill would be highly injurious. It would not be any bonus to the common people, who were now in a most deplorable state, and who were nevertheless, he regretted to add, in the habit of expending more money upon Beer than upon food. He did not think the brewers would produce a better liquor under the new regulations. He deprecated the destruction of property which would ensue, and the deterioration of the morality of the people which would be caused. Under these impressions he would support the Amendment.

Mr. Benett

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and consequently felt it his imperious duty to support the Bill. The three parties who, it was argued, would be injured by it were the common brewers, the publicans, and the public at large, whose morality was to be compromised. As to the first, he had simply to observe, that there was a tax of three millions and a half taken from Beer, and that therefore this must increase the consumption of the article. This would be materially the case with respect to brewers' Beer, because it was the common brewers who paid the tax, and not the individuals who brewed their own Beer, who, even with this advantage, were not able to compete with the others in the quality of the article. Accordingly the common brewers would now derive a benefit from the taking off of the tax, in the increased sale of Beer, which would amply compensate them for the loss they would sustain by their public-houses. As to the publicans, they undoubtedly would lose to a certain extent; but then it was positively absurd to talk of their vested rights. They had no vested rights. They had no more right to enjoy a monopoly of the sale of Beer, than any other class of persons had of the sale of provisions. Besides, these publicans had for a length of time made great profits, while they committed many faults. The practice of adulterating their Beer was proved by the fines so frequently imposed on them. Lastly, as to the public, and the destruction of their morals, he contended it was better that the unmarried labouring man should have a private room, in which he might drink his Beer, procure his provisions, and enjoy the advantages of fire and shelter, which he believed would be supplied him by such houses as this Bill would permit to sell Beer, than that he should be driven to the kitchen of a public-House, where he was liable to be brought in contact with all that was debauched and vicious throughout the country. He conceived that the Bill would both tend to supply the labouring classes with a more wholesome beverage than they now enjoyed, and preserve their morals from contamination. He begged to remind the hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill, that they had the power of introducing restrictive clauses into it, to prevent the existence of common tippling-houses. For himself, he thought the Bill was worthy of the times, and worthy of the hon. Member who proposed it to the House. It was the first step in the right path towards the reduction of the taxes pressing on productive industry. He trusted more would be done; he should have preferred the abolition of the Malt-duty to the abolition of the Beer-duty, but he was not willing to reject what had been offered. He anticipated from this measure, that in the course of next Session they might perhaps get rid of the Malt-tax, and proceed in this salutary course till the country was freed from all taxation upon its productive industry. It was a principle that must work its way through. The country could never go on unless the pressure was removed from the springs of her productive industry.

Mr. Heathcote

said, he thought Government had exercised a sound discretion in choosing the Beer-tax instead of the Malt-tax for repeal, intending to confer a benefit on the people, and he approved of the measure, especially when he considered that it would enable Government to do away with a most oppressive monopoly. Nothing could be worse than as things stood now. Taxes on Beer had been repealed, yet the price of it remained nearly the same. Upon a computation, made from the parliamentary returns, it would appear, that the quantity of malt used in brewing Porter was two bushels the barrel, just the proportion requisite to brew small Beer. It appeared that the tax upon Beer was charged treble to the public, and removing it would give nearly three times as much relief as repealing the tax on malt, besides getting rid of an odious monopoly. He would be ready at the proper time to examine any modification of the Bill which might be suggested: at present he was only defending its principle. To show in what manner this monopoly affected the public, he would observe, that the price of barley had fallen nearly one-half, while the price of Beer remained the same. As to the objections to the principle, he had to remark, that the object of the measure was, to increase the consumption of Beer, by enabling those to drink it who could not have done so before, and he really could not see how it would injure the morality of the people, that they should drink this Beer in three houses instead of one—that they should have a good instead of a bad beverage, or that they should have private rooms to drink it in, instead of congregating in the tap-room of a public-house. When hon. Gentlemen talked of morality, they frequently attached to it no definite idea, and without wishing in the least to oppose himself to the class to which he belonged, he must take leave to say, that he had on more than one occasion observed too great a disposition upon the part of gentlemen to interfere with the amusements and gratifications of the people. The poor had a right to procure their Beer where they liked: if they did wrong they might be punished; but certainly it was not fair or right to anticipate evil. As to the license laws, they were made, not for the benefit of the brewers, but for that of the public, although their effect had been directly the contrary of that intended. The holding of public-houses by brewers was an evil, and that evil the Bill would get rid of. He would be glad indeed to see a clause introduced, demanding from all licensed publicans sureties for good behaviour, and certificates of previous good conduct. This, however, was not the time to dwell on such a topic; he would reserve what he had to say for the committee.

Mr. Sadler

agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Dorset shire, in thinking the Government would have acted wisely in preferring the repeal of the Malt-tax to the repeal of that tax now proposed. Considering, however, the present measure us one of relief, he objected to it as partial. In many of the rural and agricultural districts of England, which were the most distressed, the people wore in the habit of brewing their own Beer. To them, consequently, the Bill brought no relief. The consumption of Beer on the ale-bench might be augmented, whereas the consumption at home would not be increased. He regretted that the Bill held out no inducements to private brewing, but on the contrary, by diminishing its comparative advantages, tended to encourage the trade of the brewer. Hitherto the arrangements connected with the supply of Beer to the public had been connected with the magistracy, and he would take upon himself to say, that they had always exercised the power which the law had put in their hands with credit to themselves, and with benefit to the community. No one could attempt successfully to carry on the business of a publican, without having obtained for himself a good character; and the great security for maintaining that previous good character was, that it was his interest to do so. It likewise appeared to him, that the supervision of the Excise was another security for the good quality of the Beer supplied to the public; though he would not enter further into that branch of the subject. The proposed system appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than offering a bonus to tipplers, with no likelihood of affording advantage to the body of the people. But besides the injury to arise to the community, the greatest damage would, by this measure, be inflicted on the vested interests of those most concerned in the measure. That publicans and brewers had gone on embarking their property in the trade was the fault of the Legislature, for it was the Legislature that, by its previous conduct, had persuaded the publicans that there was no intention of altering the system. The principle that at present existed had not only been tolerated by the legislature, but actually dictated; and therefore it was bound to guard against injury before it committed an act that would otherwise lay waste the property of thousands and tens of thousands. He did not wish to look at this question with a cynical eye, neither was he for depriving the poor of any of those comforts which were calculated to afford them solace or support; on the contrary, there was nothing he wished for more than to extend their enjoyments: he had no desire to deprive them of those houses of entertainment, where company, in the beautiful language of the poet, conferred An hour's importance on the poor man's heart, but he did wish to make him rather find that importance in the increase of his comforts at home, than of enjoyments abroad. Moreover, public decency and public morality were paramount considerations; and they alike called for opposition to the measure that had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. For these reasons, therefore, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.

Mr. Fowell Buxlon

had always thought that the hon. member for Newark was the advocate of the poor. He therefore had been not a little surprised when he heard him advocate the repeal of the Malt-tax, in preference to that on Beer. Taxation ought to apply equally to the rich and the poor; or, if there were any distinction, it ought to be in favour of the poor. But how did the case stand with respect to the Malt and Beer taxes? If any body brewed his own Beer, it was some man who was comparatively opulent; the poorer classes, particularly in towns, were one and all obliged to buy Beer. Those who brewed their own Beer paid only the Malt-tax; those who bought their Beer paid also the tax on Boer. Barley was 35s. a quarter, and the duty for the rich therefore, or those who brewed their own Beer, was sixty-five per cent, while to the poor, or those who bought their Beer, it was 166 per cent. For his part, therefore, he thought, as far as giving the people relief went, the Government had done wisely in abolishing the tax on Beer, instead of the tax on Malt. He had no complaint to make against the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, except that he had brought a charge against the brewers and the publicans of having demanded compensation; and this charge he founded on an isolated expression of the hon. member for London. As chairman of the committee, the right hon. Gentleman might have looked at the evidence, and he then would have seen whether so outrageous a claim had been made by the publicans. He would take upon himself to speak for the brewers of London, and say, that nothing could be more ridiculous than to suppose that they ever dreamed of demanding compensation. As well might the agriculturists say, that as corn was reduced from 80s. to 40s., they had a right to compensation! As well might the West-India planters claim compensation, because their property was not protected against deterioration. As well might the ship-owners demand compensation for the depreciation of their ships! But though the publicans had no claim for compensation, he hoped that the House would, in committee, remember that their interests were much injured by this Bill, and that it was but fair to do what could reasonably be done in their behalf: in order in some measure to meet the case, he thought that the House might very well prevent the drinking Beer actually in these new houses. It was not a permission called for by the public, because, though many petitions had been presented against it, he had not heard of one in its favour. The steps that were taken by the Legislature two years ago, when the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Estcourt) brought in his bill to regulate the Licensing System, were such as to induce the publicans to believe, that there was to be no alteration in the system; and in order, as it were, to confirm that belief, the right hon. Gentleman had stated in his place, that it would be necessary to continue the measure, if not for purposes of revenue, at least for purposes of police. It was unfair to charge the publicans with looking for compensation, or with having put in a claim on the ground of vested interests. They had done no such thing; but having embarked a large capital in this trade, on the implied faith of the Government, that no alteration would be made in the system by which it was regulated, they had now a strong claim to the consideration of the Government and of Parliament. As to the brewers, they were not afraid of the competition that was about to take place; they were, on the contrary, anxious that the public should have an opportunity of seeing that it was not by selling a bad article, but by the advantage of large capital, and consequent machinery, and large consumption, that the London brewer was enabled to carry on his business successfully.

Sir C. Burrell

thought, that the hon. member for Weymouth was wrong in his argument. If the Malt-tax were taken off, every man would be able to brew his own Beer, and would be encouraged to do so, while the removal of the Beer-tax appeared to be a benefit in favour of the rich, to the disadvantage of the poor. A parallel case to the present was that of the Leather-tax, in which it had been contended, that on its removal every shoemaker would become a tanner; but to prepare the under-leather for shoes required three years, and consequently a large capital. The same was the case with regard to Beer; the large brewers would still have the advantage of capital, and would monopolize the whole trade of the country. He did not intend to deny that the intention of Government, in the removal of the Beer-tax, was good: but it certainly appeared to him that they were proceeding upon fallacious grounds. They should consult practical men before they brought forward measures for the relief of the country, for otherwise they run a risk of bringing forward measures like the present, which would not be followed by the effects which they anticipated. They might as well try to learn in the depths of the sea, as in the streets of Lon-don, what would be beneficial to the country at large.

Mr. Maberly

would vote in favour of the Bill, the general principle of which he approved of, though he thought that something ought to be done in behalf of the publicans. He admitted that they had no claim upon the consideration of the House on the score of vested interests, but they had strong claims, on other grounds, to its consideration. They had embarked an immense capital in this trade, under a system which had continued for years, and which, at the time they embarked their capital, they had no reason to suppose would be disturbed. Ministers now turned round on them and said, that that system was founded entirely upon principles of bad legislation. He would, therefore, throw out a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that the permitting the Beer to be consumed on the premises of the new houses should not be allowed at first: such a principle was adopted by Government when it found it necessary to take off the bounties on the linen trade. They were not removed all at once, as so much capital had been embarked in the trade, in the faith of those bounties being continued; but ton years were allowed, and a tenth each year was reduced. With respect to the brewers, he was bound to say, that their representatives in that House had always displayed the most liberal feelings; and he was glad to find that they had not departed from that feeling in the present instance. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. Culvert

agreed with the hon. member for Weymouth in all that had fallen from him, and he should support the measure of the right hon. Gentleman. But when the House was in a committee, he hoped that something would be done for those persons whose property they were about to destroy, to an extent of which the House was not probably aware. As to any claims for vested interests, he, in behalf of the London brewers, disdained all such idea. Neither had the London victuallers claimed one farthing of compensation. The hon. member for London had not said a word to that effect which he had heard, and he had listened attentively to what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman. It however rested with that hon. Gentleman to explain what he had said.

Mr. R. Palmer

said, he should have preferred the reduction of the Malt-duty, and thought the present measure went too

Mr. C. Barclay

said, that the hon. Baronet had contended that the taking off this duty would afford little relief to the poor in comparison with the removal of the Malt-tax. He was not of that opinion; and to bring the thing within the comprehension of every body, he would just state that the removal of the Malt-tax would save the public only a halfpenny per pot in the price of beer, while the removal of the Beer-tax would lower the price one penny. The result of taking off the Malt-tax would be that private brewers would pay no duty whatever, but hat would be of little benefit to the public at large; for it appeared that during the last year, the quantity of malt consumed was twenty-nine millions of quarters, of which only four millions was consumed by the private brewer. The private brewer, therefore, would have to pay nothing, while the public brewer and all those who bought of him would have to pay the Beer duty amounting to twenty-five per cent on the retail price. He, therefore, gave his entire support to the measure, and also agreed with what had fallen from the hon. members for Southwark and Weymouth. What he had then stated was no new opinion of his. In the Committee of 1817, he had been one of the first to state that the present system was bad, and since that period it had been getting worse instead of better. He feared, however, that the present measure would not obviate any one of the evils now existing. He believed that the competition between the small retail beer brewers and the publicans would be such as to be extremely injurious to the peace of the country. Several plans had been proposed to obviate this evil, and among the rest it had been suggested to obtain securities, and to call for recognizance's. This would be inoperative. It had been so under the old system, for people often recommended persons for licenses who were worth nothing, and whose character was not worth having. He should certainly support the second reading, in order to afford the means of examining the Bill in the Committee, and because he believed the principle to be good; but when the Bill went into the Committee he should support the proposition of the hon. member for Reading, for though he thought the principle of the measure was good, he was not of the same opinion as to the details.

Lord Milton

said, that this Bill ought to be considered, not as a separate measure, hut as a part of that system of finance which the government had introduced in the present year. Looking at it under that aspect he was not disposed to object to it, but there were other considerations which would induce him to vote against it. He did not like the ambiguous support given to the Bill by the hon. members for Weymouth and Southwark, especially when he recollected that the former had confidently stated that the skill and capital of the brewers would save them from the effects of competition. The hon. member for Southwark would find that he had been mistaken in supposing the publicans did not claim compensation, for if he looked into the evidence of Mr. Alderman Brown, who acted as their agent, he would find that they complained of no means of compensation being afford-ed them. Some hon. Members had attempted to show that this measure would benefit the rich, and not the poor; for the removal of the tax on Beer, while the tax on Malt remained what it was, would be no advantage to the lower classes. They would have to pay as much for their beer as before, the removal of the tax tending only to the advantage of the brewer and publican. Under these circumstances, he agreed with the hon. member for Newark, that the relief of the country, by taking off the Malt-tax, would be greater, and the benefit to the poor more than in taking off the Beer-tax. The present measure, indeed, seemed little calculated to benefit the people; for though it would diminish the price of beer to artisans in large towns, he did not think it would be any advantage to the agricultural peasantry. There was one point in which he even thought this measure would be injurious. He was informed, on very good authority, that the operatives of Bradford, Halifax, and Huddersfield, brewed for themselves. He believed that the reduction of the duty on Beer, and not on Malt, would tend to discourage domestic brewing, and to diminish that practice among them; and they would go to the beer-houses and public-houses for their beer, a change which he was far from being desirous of producing. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in what situation the revenue would be placed? Brewing would be free from the Excise, but malting would be still under its inspection. But, by far the larger portion of the tax paid by the consumer consisted of the tax on Malt, and the temptation would therefore be infinitely increased to use drugs instead of malt; and when the House considered the advances which chemical science had made in this country, there could be no doubt that such would be found to be the result. He was afraid, therefore, with respect to the revenue, that the effect of this measure would be to diminish the productive duty on Malt. He was satisfied that those who were now friendly to this measure would find themselves deceived in its operation.

Mr. C. Culvert

explained, that alderman Brown was not the agent of the publicans, and they were no more answerable for what he said than a client was for the argument used by his counsel. Alderman Brown was the counsel employed by the publicans.

Mr. Houldsworth

said, that the cider-houses in the West of England were great evils; but that the regularly licensed alehouses were well conducted; and he feared that the beer-houses to be created by this Bill would be like the cider-houses of the West. He objected particularly to a clause which went to mix up the jurisdiction of the county and borough magistrates.

Lord Granville Somerset

supported the Bill, and did not think it would be found liable to the objections made by the hon. Member. He should vote for the Bill, because he thought the peculiar circumstances of the times and the bad quality of the liquor now sold by publicans required some alteration. He did not, however, impute the bad quality of the liquor to the great brewers. The provisions of this Bill were, in his mind, more likely to prevent the improper conduct of persons keeping ale-houses than were any of the enactments of the old law. He did not mean to find fault with the magistrates—it was their duty to be strict in granting licenses, but it was also well known, that the decisions of different magistrates in different parts of a county did not always harmonise with each other. He believed that the old system had occasioned much of the adulteration of beer and the habit of gin-drinking, and he therefore objected to it. The present Bill went upon the principle of substituting good beer for an abominable adulteration and for gin, and he thought it was well calculated to effect that object. He could not conceive why the noble Lord opposite should imagine that the Bill would only be of advantage to artisans in towns, and not to labourers in the country. It was said that the vested interests of brewers and publicans would suffer from this Bill, but just in the same proportion was it clear that the public would be benefitted by it. He should, therefore, cordially give it his vote.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that the great point which he thought the House ought to consider in this case was, whether the proposed measure would be a relief to the poorer classes. Now one noble Lord had said it would be but a partial relief to them. In his mind the relief to them by this Bill would be but as a flea-bite. He trusted that, for the benefit of these classes, the House would go much further, and following up the vote of last night, and the demonstration of opinion they then made, that they would, by opposing this Bill, throw such a stumbling-block in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as would compel him to give them the greater relief of the reduction of the duty on Malt.

Mr. Brougham

said, that with respect to this question he stood in a peculiar situation. In the year 1822 he introduced a bill on the subject, which went the length of a second reading. In the year 1823 he introduced a similar bill, which reached the same stage. Into that bill he introduced a restrictive clause, more in deference to the opinion of others than from any conviction of his own mind; but the bill was thrown out. As to the present measure, there were those who thought that the restrictive clause would have been an improvement to it. He expressly added that clause, because he found that, in the then state of men's minds, there was no chance whatever of its otherwise obtaining the concurrence of anything like a majority of that House. He expressed his confident belief, that not only would the present measure afford great relief to the landed interest, by the increased consumption of malt, but that it would be a substantial improvement to the condition of the humbler classes, by producing an improvement in the quality of the article supplied; that improvement in the liquor, he considered, would be a great and valuable relief to that class; and he marveled much that his hon. friend, the member for Dorset did not see the matter in that light. To open the trade must be attended with the inevitable consequence of improving the quality of beer, for whereas brewers and publicans were, up to the present time, without competition, when that alteration was made which the Bill proposed to effect, brewers on a small scale and of moderate capital could get into the trade and promote competition. But it was more important to recollect that there would also be less adulteration of the liquor, for he believed that all the adulteration of the liquor took place at the publican's. The brewer was subjected to the visits—he might more properly say the visitations—of the excise officer, and he was also open to the influence of the informer. The publican was open to no such superintendence. He might tamper with the liquor in private—not that there was any suspicion of his putting into it any deleterious drugs—no, there was no danger of that—no apprehension that he would put anything into it, except good wholesome spring water, by which he would be enabled to make four quarts out of three—what they might now expect was, that they would have better and honester beer brewed; more than all that, they would also effect, if he might be allowed to borrow a phrase from the hon. member for Newark, they would effect an improvement in their "moral police;" they would bring beer into competition with gin—the brewer into competition with the distiller—the beer-shop against the gin-shop; and they would effect that upon sound principles; they would effect it at the same time that they respected the rights of the subject, by taking care not to impose a high tax—they would proceed by surer and more wholesome and juster means than by high duties; they would have good beer instead of bad spirits; and so long as it might be thought necessary or expedient to afford to the people that species of exhilaration, and to encourage them in its use for the sake of avoiding a worse, so long he thought the lawgiver was best performing his duty by giving to them what, under present circumstances, might be called a moral species of beverage. The hon. Baronet, the member for Shoreham had laid much stress upon the information which practical men were capable of affording, and upon the weight and value of their opinions; and he feared that that hon. Baronet would chide him as visionary and speculative in calling the attention of the House to the great and fatal increase of gin-drinking, and the necessity of furnishing the people with a cheap and wholesome beverage. But he, as a practical man, would state to them some facts which came under his own observation. He was not a brewer nor a distiller of gin, but he had some means of practical observation. The facts he spoke of were sworn to, not by one or two, but by a cloud of witnesses, on a recent trial; and the effect of their testimony was, that many present, who thought that beer-drinking could never be made to supersede the consumption of gin, were then induced to alter that opinion. The subject of the trial was a public-house of considerable value, the property, of course, of a neighbouring brewer,—the publican was also, of course, compelled to take beer of his landlord; but then it happened that the brewer brewed very bad beer, and at his death, the brewery falling into other hands, the beer fell off from bad to worse, and the consumption of it at the public-house sunk to little or nothing—gin, rum, and brandy supplied its place. The publican could bear this no longer, he resolved to face the indignation of his landlord, and he went to another brewer. The demand for beer at his house before the end of a month reached its former pitch, and supplanted the spirits. These were facts, and they could not be overlooked by those who valued themselves on regarding that alone which was practical. Take off the Malt-tax, and the rich were relieved; but the removal of the Beer-tax gave relief to the poor man, while the repeal of the Malt-tax would but diminish the expense of one amongst a thousand other luxuries and superfluities already enjoyed by the man of wealth. To the poor the Beer was next to a necessary of life. The conduct of the brewers upon the present occasion did them infinite credit—it even did them infinite credit when brought in contrast with their own former conduct six or seven years ago.—When he brought forward his bill in the year 1822, he had them all on his back; and, after having diluted them with some deleterious ingredients, he found that he might as well, after all, have retained the adulterating portion of his bill—have kept in his water and coculus indicus, for his measure was thrown out as speedily, and by as great a majority, as if at that period he had brought in that very Bill without the restrictive clause which was then before the House, and which he anticipated would be agreed to, leaving its opponents in a very small minority. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the Bill then under discussion had been brought in under happier auspices than was his bill. He could not, however, allow himself to doubt but that the previous propositions had contributed to that object. It was an observation of one who well knew that House, who long had been an ornament to it, as he was to the country and his profession—he alluded to the celebrated Lord Coke—that "Never was a good proposal made in Parliament that was wholly lost to the coun- try. Make the proposal once, it may be defeated; repeat it—it may be defeated again; still persevere, and depend on it that if it be worth acceptance, it will ultimately be accepted."

Mr. Bransby Cooper

approved of the general principle of the Bill, but disapproved of the clause allowing Beer to be drank on the premises where it was sold.

[The remaining observations made by the hon. Member were rendered inaudible by universal cries of "Question."]

The House divided, when there appeared—For the original Motion 245; Against it 29—Majority 21G.

List of the Minority.
Bell, M. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Milton, Lord
Byron, T. Rick ford, W.
Chandos, Marquis Sadler, M. T.
Drake, T. T. Sibthorp, Colonel
Drake, W. T. Tynte, C. K.
Fane, J. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Foley, E. West, F. R.
Fremantle, Sir T. M. Wells, J.
Gordon, R. Williams, O.
Heathcote, R. E. Williams, T. P.
Heatheote, Sir W. Willoughby, H.
Hodgson, H. A. TELLERS.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Dickinson, W.
Keck, L. Portman, E. B.