Mr. Wilkspresented a Petition from 1100 persons, inhabitants of Boston, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the late Beer Act. The petitioners' opinions were entitled to consideration for they were of that class of persons most affected by the measure, and they declared, that they had received great advantages from it. They considered the alteration which had been recommended in the Act would materially affect the interests of the lower orders. They stated, that much of the opposition to the measure was got up from interested motives, and by interested persons. This was the case at Boston, where the publicans had distributed beer gratis, when the Act came into operation, and the consequence was that disturbances ensued, which were taken advantage of to decry the Act. He saw no reason why beer-houses should be shut at an earlier period than public-houses, for the result would be, he feared that many persons would resort to gin shops. He would only add, that the prevention of monopoly in the beer-trade was highly desirable, and the more so as he traced much of the increase of crime to the consumption of ardent spirits.
§ Mr. Trevorconsidered that some alteration of the Beer Act would be necessary, even for the benefit of the humbler classes. He was convinced, that the great demoralization which at present prevailed among them could be traced to the effects of the Beer Act. He considered it desirable that beer should be cheap, and every inducement held out for the consumption of it, instead of alcohol, but he thought the beer-shops were not at present under sufficient control. The houses should be closed at an early hour, for their object should be, to induce the poor man to remain at home with his family, but this Act held out inducements for him to visit the houses where beer was sold. He wished only for their comfort, and in that view he thought that the consumption of beer upon the premises should be prevented.
§ Mr. Huntwas of opinion, that the repeal of the salt-tax, and the present Beer Act were the only two great benefits which had in his recollection been conferred 157 upon the people. To complete the good effects of the last, however, there should be no difference in the time of shutting the different houses. The beer-shops should be open as long as the public-houses. The alterations spoken of by the hon. Member would tend to nullify the whole measure.
An Hon. Memberobjected, from practical experience, to the operation of the Beer Act. He had witnessed the greatest evils growing out of its operation. Drunkenness and idleness had increased to an alarming extent, and many persons who were formerly industrious, and staid at home, had been induced by its advantages to prefer drinking and gambling to the care of their families and children.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.
§ Mr. Wilks moved, that the petition should be printed, and said, he would support the Beer Act, upon the ground of its tending to the morality and comfort of the poorer classes. Objections had been taken to the beer-houses being kept open after ten o'clock, from the idea that men were tempted by that to remain from their families; but the gin-shops were then open, and persons would resort to them. He had heard it said, that one house in London sold no less than 40,000 glasses of gin a day, and to prevent such a consumption, he considered the Beer Act should be continued. Were hon. Gentlemen who opposed it aware, that the consumption of spirituous liquors in Great Britain amounted annually to 20,000,000 gallons? Was it not better that a wholesome beverage, like beer, should be used in preference to this, which led to all sorts of crime and excess. Every man who wished to see the poorer people contented and happy, must be anxious to reduce the consumption of ardent spirits. He rejoiced to think that one effect of the bill had been to reduce this consumption.
§ Petition to be printed.