BEER SHOPS. (Hansard, 18 April 1833)

§ Mr. Roebuck
presented a petition from nearly 4,000 in Merthyr Tydvil, in favour of the Beer Shops. This petition was a very singular one— 269 almost every person who had signed it, had signed it by affixing not their names but their marks; they could not write, therefore it was, in every respect, to be considered the petition of the poor man, and entitled on this subject to great attention. The petitioners denied that the increase of crime was in any degree owing to the Beer Shops; and he was decidedly of opinion, not only that that statement was correct, but that there was no increase of crime. Proof of increase of crime did not depend on the number of committals, or even on the number of convictions; but on the state, habits, and manners of the people. The state of the people had been improving for the last thirty years—the mode of spending their lives and their earnings had been regularly improving. Mr. Place, of Charing-cross, who was originally in humble circumstances, and was peculiarly well able to form an opinion on this subject, had told him lately, that forty years ago, in the alleys and courts of the neighbourhood in which he lived, almost every woman was a prostitute, and almost every man a thief ["laughter"]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, though the subject when properly considered, was far from being a laughable one; at present that very neighbourhood was occupied by exceedingly respectable and industrious persons; and it had been proved that a similar change had taken place in many other parts of London. He had other petitions to present, and those petitions were from persons in prison praying for relief, but as none of his Majesty's Ministers were in their places, it was impossible for him to present them. He thought it a serious cause of complaint that the petitions of the people were not listened to by his Majesty's Ministers. When it was first proposed that the sittings should be at twelve o'clock, it was distinctly stated, that there would always be at least one Minister present, but that had not been attended to. If the newspaper reporters were not present, neither the Ministers of the Crown, nor the public would know anything about the presentations of petitions in that House, which had become a mere farce. There were none of the Ministers present and the benches were nearly empty.

Mr. Parrot
said, that he was happy to see one petition on the subject of the beer shops which contained common sense. It appeared to him, that most of the petitions 270 which had been presented to the House proceeded from persons who had not duly considered what would be the effect if the Sale of Beer Act were repealed. By that Act, which had been so much abused, he thought most absurdly and unjustly, the poor man could now buy his pot of beer for 4d. instead of 7d., which he had paid during the reign of monopoly. The consumption of malt since the passing of that Bill had increased nearly one third; and the additional demand for barley arising from that increased consumption of malt was of vast importance to the agriculturist. For his part, he trusted, that the House would not concur in any measure which would interfere with the most perfect freedom of trade in beer. If any well-considered regulations for maintaining order in the beer-houses should be found necessary, to them he should make no objection; but he must protest in the name of common sense against placing it in the power of any set of men whatever to grant or withhold a license for the sale of beer, as it would lead to great abuses, and be, in his opinion, exceedingly injurious to the community.

§ Sir George Phillips
said, he did not want the beer-shops to be shut up, but only that persons should be confined to the purchase of the beer simply from the shops, and to carry it home, there to be drank.

§ Mr. Hardy
believed, that every Grand Juror throughout the country, was prepared to come forward to declare, that the beer shops were the most complete nuisances that could possibly exist. Men met there, not to obtain refreshment, but to concert schemes of plunder. They were nurseries of crime. Public houses afforded accommodation to travellers, beer shops could only encourage tippling. It was, supposed when the sale of Beer Act passed, that men would buy their beer as they did their bread and meat, and take it home and consume it, instead of which they went to these beer-shops to carouse and commit all kinds of excesses.

The Marquess of Chandos
rose to submit a Motion to the House with reference to the beer-shops, which, he said, had given rise to an alarming extent of crime and pauperism. It was not his wish to abolish them, but he wished them to be better conducted. At present they were receptacles for every thing bad. He attributed a 271 great deal of the agrarian disturbances of last year to the assemblings in these shops, of which there were no less than 26,000 in the country. He did not, however, desire to put these Houses down altogether, but to put them under the same regulations as the public houses, taking care that the owners of them should be known as respectable persons, which was very far from the case in a great many instances at present. In fact, many of these houses belonged to brewers who put into them the poorest and most dependent men; and when it was considered that these houses were scattered through the country, and that many of them were in remote situations, it could excite no surprise that they were the haunt of the smuggler and the thief. At least every person who kept such a house should be a rated inhabitant. He would not, however, go further into the subject, as he understood that his Motion was not to be opposed, but would content himself, by moving, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state and management of houses in which beer is sold by retail, under the Act of 1 Will. 4. cap. 64, commonly called Beer shops,' with a view to making such alterations in the law as may lead to their better regulation; and to report their observations, together with their opinion thereon."

Colonel Williams
seconded the Motion. He conceived the beer-shops to be fraught with unqualified abuses. They had added to the amount of pauperism in the country. The remedy for all these abuses was to revert to the original intention, and compel those who were allowed to sell beer, not to allow it to be drunk on the premises.

§ Lord Althorp
considered the inquiry desirable, and he would strongly support the appointment of the proposed Committee, though he did not go the length to which the hon. member for Ashton (Colonel Williams), was disposed to go. The hon. Gentleman said, that the original intention of the Legislature was, that beer should not be suffered to be drunk upon the premises. Now, that was a question of regulation; and he need hardly remind the House that a great deal of vexation arose from the manner in which in formations could be laid under such an Act. For instance, a man would purchase beer at one of these shops, and drink it with one foot inside the door and the other outside, and then he would lay 272 an information against the proprietor of the House, on the ground of having been allowed to drink beer upon the premises. The only effect of the regulation suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would be, that instead of the beer being drunk on the premises, it would be drunk on some adjacent spot, where more irregularity and greater disorder would take place. These beer-shops should be placed under the same regulations, and have the same restriction imposed upon them, as the ordinary ale-houses. It seemed to him rather a singular anomaly that ale-houses—the proprietors of which were subjected to a strict investigation into their characters before a license was granted to them—should be placed under greater restriction than beer-houses, the proprietors of which were subject to no such inquiry. These beer-shops ought certainly to be put under as strict police regulations as the other public houses, and the owners' respectability ought to be established. He was inclined to think, that the Committee might suggest many useful regulations; and he therefore should make no objection to the Motion.

Colonel Wood
said, that the Magistrates ought to have quite as much authority with respect to these beer houses as to public houses. If Ministers, however, wanted the people to get good beer, the best thing they could do would be to take off a considerable portion of the Malt-duties, and impose a small duty on Beer, by which means both they and the people would be satisfied.

§ Mr. Warburton
thought, that while these beer-shops were put, as proposed, under the same police surveillance as the public-houses, they ought, at the same time, to enjoy similar advantages, more particularly with reference to the hours of keeping open, which were at present very unequal. He had read one petition of a case where a beer-shop-keeper was fined for allowing his son to drink a mug of beer in his house after the hour at which he was required to close his shop; and the Magistrate even declared that he would have fined the landlord himself if he had done what he allowed his son to do. This was a most extraordinary state of things, that a man must not drink his own beer after a certain hour. As to putting these beer shops under proper regulations, he concurred in its necessity. He only desired that they should have fair play.

§ Mr. Hume
held the same opinion: instead of restricting their licences, he would have them extended. The difficulties under which the beer-shop-keepers laboured should be removed, not added to. He was decidedly of opinion, that these shops had been of great service, for the people had been provided with good and cheap beer by means of them.

Mr. Baring
was far from agreeing with the hon. member for Middlesex. Though the Sale of Beer Act might, perhaps, have worked well as far as concerned the single county of Middlesex, he had the best reason to believe that in all the rural districts it had been productive of the most ruinous consequences. The hon. member for Middlesex would find his opinion on this subject decidedly opposed to the opinion of the great bulk of the Magistrates, landlords, farmers, and respectable inhabitants of the agricultural districts; who, ninety-nine out of a 100, were strongly opposed to the Beer Bill, from their sad experience of its ruinous effects. The profligacy, the unmitigated mass of corruption and depravity arising from these beer-shops, throughout the country, was appalling. The Commissioners on the Poor-laws, whose experience must entitle their, opinion to the most serious attention, decidedly declared that they considered these beer shops had greatly aggravated the misery and distress of the lower orders. If the hon. member for Middlesex were right, nearly the whole country must be wrong. He was glad that the Committee was to be appointed, and he should certainly have gone further into the subject, but that he expected to have a better opportunity of explaining his views than in the House.

Mr. Pryme
thought, that the Act might be made beneficial if the keepers of beer shops were to brew their own beer, which would put an end to the mischievous monopoly of the beer brewers.