BEER BILL—MALT DUTIES. (Hansard, 15 February 1833)

§ Mr. Herbert Curteis
presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Battle, for a Repeal of the Duties on Malt. He expressed a hope that some other Members would join him in urging the Government to repeal these duties as well as those on hops, so that the poor man might have good wholesome beer at a cheap rate, which the Beer Bill had not given him.

§ Sir Charles Burrell
said, that as allusion had been made to the Beer Bill, he must say that he opposed it at the time, and considered it as a most unfortunate measure, and one which had tended to the demoralization of the people. One great object that it professed was to give to the labouring man wholesome beer for himself and his family, without the necessity of resorting to a public-house. But he would venture to assert, that scarcely an extra gallon of beer had been brewed in private houses since the Beer Bill had passed. If the House were anxious to protect the morals of the people, it would at least make great alterations in the law if it did not rescind it altogether. He thought the repeal or diminution of the Malt duties would prove much more advantageous to the labouring man than this Bill.

§ Mr. Robert Palmer
said, that he had been one of those who originally opposed the measure. He agreed with his hon. friend in the view which he had taken of the question. Those of the Members of the House who were Magistrates would find, upon inquiry, that it had proved very injurious to the labouring classes, and was the main cause of much of the immorality and insubordination which prevailed amongst them; and so far from giving the poor a cheaper and better liquor, the beer brewed by the large brewers was better and cheaper than that at the beer shops. It was his intention to move for a Committee of Inquiry on this subject. The noble Lord opposite, (Lord Althorp) had said, he would not object to such a Committee. He would, however, defer his motion till the noble Lord had laid before the House his financial arrangements, as he did not wish in the least to embarrass his Majesty's Government.

§ Mr. Warburton
said, that where beer 763 was brewed in large quantities, it might, of course, be brewed stronger at less expense than when brewed in small quantities. The hon. member for Berkshire if he expected the small beer shops to brew better and cheaper than the large brewers expected, what was contrary to the laws of manufacture. The hon. member for Berkshire said, it promoted immorality. It might have done so in his district—but as far as he (Mr. Warburton) could judge from what had taken place under his own view in the London districts, it had rather promoted morality than otherwise. He thought one great cause of the extraordinary hostility of the Magistrates to it was, that the Beer Bill suspended their powers, and took away from them that monopoly in the licensing of public-houses which they had before exercised.

§ Mr. Sanford
thought the hon. member for Bridport, had not answered the hon. member for Berkshire. He, indeed, admitted the fact. He concurred in the view taken by hon. Members of the bad consequences of the Beer Bill. With regard to the observation as to the Magistrates being displeased at losing their monopoly, it was neither correct nor honourable to make such imputations. In the towns, he believed much jobbing did exist; but that was not the case in the country. In the towns, too, the operation of the Beer Bill might have proved beneficial; but whoever compared its effects in the country by its results in large towns, would find himself most miserably deceived.

§ Mr. Lewis Fenton
bore witness to the demoralizing tendency of the Beer Bill: scarcely a murder, fire, or robbery, took place in the country but had its origin at a beer shop. The hon. Member defended the conduct of the magistracy.

§ Mr. Slaney
said, he had originally been in favour of the measure. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge did him the honour to put him upon the Committee; but he then, though he approved of the principle, thought it ought to be accompanied by greater restrictions. More security should have been required. At present the owners of the beer shops were all men of straw; but if they could only be opened by men of some little property, the public would have something like a guarantee for the manner in which they were conducted. By attention to this point, he thought they might introduce a 764 measure which would preserve the benefits of the Bill, and yet get rid of its evils.

§ Mr. Hume
said, the hon. member for Shoreham (Sir Charles Burrell) had asked, whether the House was anxious to protect the morals of the people. Did the hon. Member suppose, that the best method of protecting the morals of the people was by suppressing the beer shops, and thus driving the lower orders to the gin shops. Before the hon. Member attributed the immorality of the people to the existence of the beer shops, he ought to have inquired what was the state of morals in the United States of America, and in France, where no restrictions upon the sale of intoxicating liquors existed. He would find that in these countries the free trade in these commodities had been productive of none of the results which had been attributed to it in this country. The cause of crime, in his opinion, was neither the existence of beer shops nor of gin shops, as superficial observers asserted. The true cause of the increase of crime, was nothing but the want of education. The brutalizing effects of ignorance, and not the beer shops, was the cause of the demoralization of the people, of which complaints were so frequently made. Remove that ignorance, and they might allow the beer shops to be open as long as the beer-drinker pleased, without injury. That House and the Government had reason to be ashamed that some national system of education had not long since been adopted.

§ Mr. Harvey
observed, that there was one grand fallacy in the arguments of those who had spoken upon the subject of beer shops; and that was, that they supposed that the increase of the number of the houses in which beer was retailed, necessarily implied an increase of the quantity of beer consumed in these houses. Unless the quantity of beer consumed in these houses were increased, the whole of the argument fell to the ground; since the number of the houses could be of no detriment if the consumption was not considerably increased. The Legislature, in passing the Act upon the subject of the retail of beer, had not contemplated the mode in which these shops are supplied by the brewers. The best method of preserving the morals of the people, in his opinion, was, by giving them a wholesome beverage at a moderate rate. He thought, that there ought to be small brew houses, to which people might bring their barley in 765 small quantities. At present, the poor man could not brew small quantities of barley, for two reasons: the first was, the impossibility of purchasing the utensils necessary for brewing; and the next was, the penalty imposed upon any person lending brewing utensils. Any person who lent such utensils subjected himself to a penalty of 50l., and a friend of his had actually been subjected to that penalty. He contended, therefore, that the poor man ought to be enabled to brew a wholesome beverage from such small quantities of barley as he might have the means of obtaining.