§ Mr. John Woodpresented a petition from the Petty Jurors who attended the last Quarter Sessions for Knutsford, praying that the Act for regulating the sale of beer might not be further altered than to permit the retail dealers to keep their houses open for the sale of beer, during the same time as the Licensed Victuallers; and also complaining of certain representations, which the Grand Jury had recently made with reference to the operations of the new Beer Bill. They represented, that among these persons were several who had made money by licensing public houses. They stated, that they had a better opportunity of witnessing the effects of the Bill than the Grand Jury, whose representations that it was a measure injurious to the morals of the people, they declared to be unfounded, and they expressed themselves decidedly in favour of the new system.
Mr. Humesaid, that during the whole of his experience as a public man, he had never known so extraordinary a course to be taken by the Magistrates and clergy out of doors, and in the other House by the highest dignitaries of the church, as had been by them adopted with reference to this bill. They were constantly declaiming against the beer-shops, and bemoaning the numerous evils to which those establishments were said to give rise, while the gin-shops were kept open at all hours. 540 These complaints were made upon the plea of morality, and a strong desire to preserve the purity of the lower classes. Now, he would say, that if ever cant and hypocrisy were signally manifested in this country, it was observable here. Was it not cant and hypocrisy to allow and to encourage gin-shops, where ardent spirits might be procured at all hours, while, at ten o'clock at night, a poor man could not procure a pint of porter at one of those beer-shops? Indeed, at some meetings, he understood, that it had been proposed to close the beer-shops at five o'clock in the day. He hoped, however, that those who passed this Act last year would oppose any alteration in it, until it had received a fair and proper trial. The interference with the measure, which was so anxiously pursued by individuals who were interested in its destruction, was contrary to common sense, honesty, and justice; and, in his opinion, it was likely to do much harm, if it were persevered in.
Mr. Fyshe Palmersaid, he believed he was the first person who endeavoured, to open the trade in beer, thus to enable the labouring classes to procure a wholesome beverage. About ten years ago he had introduced the subject, and on that account he felt considerable anxiety for the success of the retail beer-shops. He must say, that so far as his experience went, he knew not of any mischief having resulted from them, but quite the reverse. In consequence of the adoption of this new system, he was prepared to say, that barley had increased in consumption and price, to the great benefit of the agricultural interest. The effect of it had been, to give to the poor man, at a cheaper rate, a wholesome, nourishing, good beverage, instead of the abominable drug-manufactured article which he had before been supplied with. He trusted, that those, whether clergy or others, who opposed this bill, would not succeed. If it were provided that a Constable should go round and see that those houses were shut up when the brewers' houses were shut, he could have no objection to it. There was, he believed, a bill in the other House, into which some regulation of that kind would be introduced. To that he would agree; but if it were attempted to do more than to regulate the internal economy of those beer shops,—if an attempt were made to go back to the old brewer's public-house system, he hoped that every one who was 541 connected with the agricultural interest, that every one who wished the poor man to obtain a cheap and good beverage, would oppose the alteration.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that he had a petition of a similar description to present, from a number of highly respectable and intelligent individuals, who stated, that the morals of the people were improved, as well as their comforts increased, since the beer monopoly had been done away with. Those beer-shops were, in his opinion, entitled to the protection of every man who thought that the poor ought to have something to solace themselves with after the fatigue and labour of the day.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyancould not conceive why the hon. member for Middlesex had indulged in such language as he had used with reference to those whose duty it was to administer the law, and who had expressed their opinion, that this Bill had produced many evils. To say, that a Bishop was a hypocrite, because he wished that an alteration should be made in this measure, for the purpose of improving the morals of the people, was unjust and unfair. He was glad, so far as the beer monopoly had been done away with, that this measure was carried; but he hoped that provision would be made for the better regulation of Beer-shops. He trusted that, in the Bill which had been alluded to, this point would not be overlooked; and that poachers and other dangerous characters would not be afforded facilities for meeting and endangering the peace of the country.
§ Mr. Best rose, to defend the Bishop of London from the reflections cast upon him by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Humedenied, that he had cast any reflections on that right rev. Prelate. He had never named him.
§ Mr. Bestthought, the hon. Member had done so, in referring to a petition which had been presented in the other House on this subject. He apologized for his mistake.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, that in the houses which existed before the bill was introduced, there was a great consumption of ardent spirits. It was that practice which was mischievous to the habits and morals of the lower orders. It was a great advantage to the country, to adopt any measure that tended to create a diminution of the consumption of ardent spirits, and increase the consumption of beer. 542 He should oppose any alteration of the present law, that would go to deprive the lower classes of the means of getting some cheaper and better beverage than that of ardent spirits.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex, had not accused any persons of cant and hypocrisy, because they manifested a wish to take care of the morals of the poorer people, but because, under pretence of doing so, they endeavoured to introduce measures that would again throw into their hands, or the hands of their connections and friends, the means of creating a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of an article of necessity to the poor man. He thought the Legislature should abstain from this perpetual intermeddling with the habits of the poor. They often possessed as much wisdom as their superiors, and were quite as attentive to their moral duties. If any change was to be put in operation respecting them, other things ought to be changed. The only superiority which the higher classes possessed over the lower, was the free enjoyment of a greater number of comforts, and in the use of finer clothes. Why were the poor to be meddled with? No man attempted to meddle with the quantity of champagne which the rich man drank, nor did any one affect to go to Crockford's to talk to him of morality. If any person should affect to talk of regulating the morals of the higher classes, by Act of Parliament, he would be laughed out of good society. Yet the same thing was to be attempted with the poor man, and if he drank a quart of beer, where in prudence he ought only to drink a pint, the Legislature were to interfere, to protect his health and his morals. He objected strongly to this interference; but if it was to be adopted, then he should express his hope, that the same law which was thus given to control the follies of the poor, might be extended to regulate the dissipations of the rich.
§ Mr. Dixonthought, that the comparison just now instituted, between the regulation of the conduct of the poor and the rich, was not fairly introduced, nor was that the way in which this subject ought to be treated. He could assure the hon. and learned Member (though he was not a friend to any improper interference), that the orgies of the lower orders, if not restrained by some police regulations, would be found materially to interfere 543 with their own comforts, and with the advantage of society at large.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the charge of cant and hypocrisy, if made against the Bishop of London, was unfounded and unjust. There was no man less subject to such a charge, nor to the imputation of wishing to lessen the comforts of the lower orders. On the contrary, his wish was to increase them. The observations which that right rev. Prelate had made in the other House, related to the evils of gin drinking, which, most certainly, did materially interfere with the morals, the comforts, and happiness of the poor.
§ Mr. Huntreminded the House of the nature of this petition, the object of which they seemed to have forgotten. It was a petition, signed by eleven out of the twelve Petty Jurymen of Chester, contradicting the Grand Jury, and accusing them of cant and hypocrisy, of robbery and falsehood, and of living by plunder, arising from gross corruption. That was the nature of this petition. The hon. member for Middlesex had not had his words explained properly by any one, except by himself. The hon. Member did not accuse any one of cant, for wishing to put down the beer-shops, but for endeavouring, at the same time, to license the gin-shops, which were the real evil. No other Member had taken notice of that. But he could assure them that was the evil. He could take them round, and show them on a Sunday morning, scores of people lying dead drunk at the gin-shops. The hon. member for Reading had spoken of the advantage of poor people brewing beer for themselves, but the mischief was, that they did not do that, they had the poison from the brewers still, for it was the brewers' poison that was sold in these cheap public-houses. He should be glad to see that system altered, and every man able to drink the beer he brewed himself.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, there was no class of men who could possibly wish to encourage the system of gin-drinking, or who wished to put down beer-shops for that purpose. It was a misrepresentation to say, that any class of men in the country wished this; above all, the Bishop of London was the last who would encourage anything of that sort, or who had a wish for anything but the prosperity and happiness of the whole of his flock. He wished to take that opportunity, of setting 544 at case the minds of some persons, as to the alterations about to be proposed in the Beer Bill. There was no intention of altering the power of persons to consume beer on the premises where it was sold. He had always doubted the policy of allowing such a power, but now that the law had been passed, he should think it most unwise to alter it, till there had been more time to know its effects.
Mr. Atherleysaid, he had a Petition from the town he represented, upon the subject of the proposed alterations, and he took that opportunity of confirming the statement just made by the hon. Baronet. The bill now before the other House, contained no new restraints as to the consumption of beer on the premises, in these beer-houses. He hoped they would be allowed to continue open, until, at least, ten o'clock. He knew of no serious disorders they had occasioned.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.
§ Mr. John Wood moved, that it be printed.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, it was the wish of the Magistrates that the poor should have their beer as cheap and good as possible; but, as it was now allowed them to consume beer upon the premises, as the beer shops were kept open to any hour, and as that practice operated differently in the country from what it did in towns, the magistracy complained, that they had not the same control in the country that they formerly had, and, therefore, they were less able to answer for the maintenance of its peace. It was clear, that as the beer-shops increased, and as the power of control in the magistracy diminished, there must be an increased necessity for a larger police.
Mr. Humesaid, that his observations had been much remarked upon. He should state again his conviction, that much of this outcry arose from the persons among the magistracy having an individual interest to put down those beer-shops, over which they had no control, and to keep up those other houses, the licensing of which depended on them. Why, the reason for putting down the system that had so long existed in the country was, that the magistracy had, in many instances, abused this power of control. What right had the magistracy to interfere with the poor man spending sixpence, in what way he pleased, provided he did not commit a breach of the peace? 545 If the hon. Baronet wished to do justice, let him say, whether he believed that any man who asked for champagne, at any hour of the night, would be meddled with by the magistracy? Then why should they meddle with the poor man, who asked only for beer? The attempt now made was to restore an unjust law. It was unjust when it was made by the rich, who had all the comforts of life, against the poor, who had but few of them. It was founded on very narrow views of policy—it was an excess of meddling. It was an attempt to perpetuate that tyranny over the people from which they had just escaped. He was against the proposed measure, for he thought there ought not to be one law for the poor, and another for the rich.
Mr. Wilksprotested against any principle of legislation which would make a difference between the rich and the poor. He therefore looked with suspicion upon a proposition that had been made elsewhere, to close the beer-houses at five in the summer, and four in the winter, which was unconstitutional and absurd. The real question was, whether they would encourage the consumption of gin, or beer. The publicans had a greater interest in promoting the use of gin, because they derived considerably greater profit from the sale of ardent spirits, than they did from that of beer. When they encouraged gin-shops, they, at the same time, promoted the commission of those crimes which the immoderate use of strong liquors was sure to produce.
Mr. Estcourtcomplained, that imputations were cast on those who discountenanced these beer-shops. It was surely most unfair to insinuate that those persons were influenced by interested motives. His objection to these shops did not arise from the facility which they afforded the poor man, to procure a cheap and wholesome beverage, but, because they formed a rendezvous for irregular characters, and were a decoy, to induce the lower orders to indulge in inebriety. It was highly necessary, therefore, that they should be placed under the control of the Magistrates. He could inform the House, that these shops were the property of brewers: those who kept them had not sufficient property to establish them. He agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that much delusion had been practised upon the public, with regard to this subject. He 546 confessed, that he was in the first instance favourable to the arrangement that the beer might be drunk on the premises; the principal inconvenience arose from an, error which was in the statute; in fact, those shops might be kept open all night, the Act having given no power to the Magistrates to prevent them. The object of himself and his friends was, to correct this defect in the Beer Act, and not to suppress beer-shops altogether. He was present when the observations upon this subject were made by a rev. Prelate in another place, and would take that occasion to say, that nothing had fallen from the rev. Prelate which could warrant the term "cant" being applied to them.
Mr. Humesaid, he was able to prove, that he had underrated the privations to which the poor were subject. All he had contended for was, that as sugar, tea, soap, and other articles were sold without restriction, so ought the sale of beer to be equally open.
§ Mr. John Woodsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the bill for building new churches, which was stealing sub silentio through the House, and which had been introduced at the suggestion of the Church-Building Commissioners. The measure ought to be narrowly watched, for many bad statutes had proceeded from that Board.
§ Petition to be printed.