§ Sir Charles Burrellpresented a Petition, signed by twenty-nine Magistrates of the county of Sussex, complaining of the evils produced by the operation of the Act for the Sale of Beer, and praying for its total repeal. He viewed the question as one of the greatest importance to the agricultural interest of the country, and expressed his regret that no Minister of the Crown was present to state the views of Government on the subject. The Beer-shops had proved a fruitful source of demoralization in the country, encouraging drunkenness, gambling, and all kinds of vice. They had put the county of Sussex to an expense of at least 8,000l. for additional places of confinement to criminals. Altogether the injurious effects of the Bill were very conspicuous and alarming, and he trusted an effectual remedy would be afforded by repealing the measure.
The Marquess of Chandossupported the prayer of the petition, and took the opportunity of asking the noble Lord (the Under Secretary of State) whether it was the intention of Government to take any steps with reference to the Sale of Beer Act—a measure, in his opinion, which would be productive of ruin to the country?
§ Viscount Howick, in reply, begged to 1160 assure the noble Marquess that the loud and numerous complaints which had been made from different parts of the country had not failed to occupy the serious attention of the Government. His noble friend (Lord Melbourne) had not hitherto been able to determine on any effective measure of relief for the evils complained of. A Bill had been introduced by a noble Lord into the other House of Parliament which, in the opinion of many hon. Gentlemen would produce the desired effect. A notice of motion had also been given on the subject by the hon. member for Kent. It would be the anxious wish of the Government to support, if possible, any measures which might be suggested, that were likely to remedy the injurious effects complained of, but in making that observation he must not disguise the opinion he entertained, and which opinion was also entertained by many other hon. Members, that the evils attributed to the operation of the Beer Act did not arise so much from the recent alteration which had taken place in the law with respect to the sale of beer, as from a variety of other causes. He believed it would be in vain to attempt to meet the evils by direct legislation. Those evils, in his opinion, had been produced by the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, particularly in the southern counties of England, rather than the operation of the Law for the Sale of Beer; and he thought the measure which had been introduced a few days ago by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the amendment of the Poor-laws, was the remedy to which they must look forward. He could not help expressing a doubt whether the evils which had been attributed to the Beer Bill had not been greatly exaggerated. Drunkenness and profligacy had certainly much increased in the south of England during the last four years, but when he looked into the evidence which had been given before the Committee, and all the facts which had been brought under the notice of the public, it appeared to him difficult to understand in what manner the permission of the sale of beer could have been productive of such pernicious effects. The noble Lord referred to several passages in the evidence collected by the Poor-law Commissioners to show, that the mal-administration of the Poor-laws was the cause of the increase of crime complained of, and concluded by expressing a hope, 1161 that in the Motion of the hon. member for Kent, and in the Bill of the noble Lord, when it should be sent down from the other House of Parliament, would be found suggestions which would counteract the evils supposed to be produced by the working of the law relative to Beer.
§ Mr. Estcourtconsidered the subject was one of too much importance to be allowed to pass without making a few observations on it. He could not agree with the noble Lord, that the evils which existed were in consequence of the bad administration of the Poor-laws; the Poor-laws did not originate the mischiefs, for they had greatly augmented since the passing of the Beer-Act. By the operation of that law, the labouring classes were led into bad associations, and many, who had been respectable, honest, and provident, were now dissolute and improvident. Having been many years a Magistrate, and seen much of the distress of the poor, he could state that he had repeated applications for advice by females, who stated that their husbands, who were formerly industrious, careful, and in the habit of bringing their wages home, were now in the habit of spending their money, and what wages they got, at the Beer-shops. He could assure the House, that the pictures of wretchedness and profligacy which were continually exhibited before the Magistrates were extreme, and were daily increasing. It had been stated, that one cause for passing the Beer-act was, that it would enable the labouring classes to get good and wholesome beverage at a cheap rate, without resorting to a public-house, where they would get intoxicating liquors; but it was a fact, that such was the monopoly by the brewers (the beer-shop-keepers selling only by Commission, and as servants) that for a line of twenty, thirty, and even forty miles in extent, the beer-shops belonged to the brewers; and the consequence was, that the liquor that was sold was not genuine, and was a very unwholesome article. It could not be compared to the liquor sold by the regularly licensed victuallers, who were a respectable body of men, and were greatly injured by the beer-shops. He had it from authority, that there never was a time when such a vast number in that trade had become bankrupts as since the passing of the Beer-law. As to the difficulties which stood in in the way, he apprehended there were none that might not be easily removed.
Colonel Williamssaid, that the beer-shops had become essentially tippling-houses; they afforded no entertainment to travellers; they sold nothing but beer, which the labourer might drink as long as he pleased, but could get nothing to eat. The Beer-act was the coup de grace which the last Administration had given this country. It was hardly possible to conceive the mischief which that law had done—mischief, which he was afraid they could never undo.
§ Mr. Wilkssaid, he had the greatest possible respect for those who objected to the measure in question, but, at the same time, he was afraid that much of that opposition arose from an anxiety on the part of the great brewers to get back a monopoly of beer, and he felt sure, that if there were one thing which the Magistracy ought to avoid more than another, it was the possession of those suspicious privileges which before gave rise to many unpleasant remarks which would be renewed if no means were adopted to prevent the monopoly of the brewers. He had learned from various parts of the country, that the majority of persons keeping beer-shops brewed their own beer, and that the consumption of malt had increased considerably. They might talk of the demoralization of the beer-shops, but when they walked about the streets of London, and saw on every hand erections like palaces, which were entirely supported in a lavish and gaudy expenditure on gin, at the expense of the happiness and morals of the people, where the evils of pauperism were perpetually augmenting, what were the beer-shops in comparison with these giant haunts of vice? The Government derived a revenue of many millions yearly from the consumption of ardent spirits. If, however, there were evils in the administration of the Beer-law, let them be corrected.
Mr. John Stanleyregretted, that they must not expect any assistance from the Government on this subject. As there were many difficulties in the way of any alteration of this law, he, for one, would be willing to join any Member in proposing that it be entirely repealed.
§ Major Beauclerkthought that the only remedy upon the subject was, giving an opportunity to the poor man to brew his own beer, and that would be by repealing the Malt-duty.
§ Mr. Rotchcould not allow the hon. 1163 member for Boston to state, that the Magistrates of the county were anxious to have all the control they possibly could over the beer-shops. For himself he would say, that he hoped the day was not far distant when all control by the Magistrates, not only over the beer-shops, but the public-houses, would be taken out of their hands. It was his wish to promote the consumption of beer; he did not care how many beer-houses existed, but he most strongly objected to the beer being allowed to be consumed on the premises. He thought it the duty of Government to make an alteration in the Bill in that respect, and he hoped, if Ministers did not take the matter up, some hon. Member would.
§ Mr. Blackneywas glad that his Majesty's Government were slow and cautious in making any alteration in this law. He considered the House most unprofitably employed on the present discussion, and trusted that the good sense of Members would immediately put an end to it.
Mr. Hillcould not agree with hon. Members who spoke against the Bill, as it appeared to him that there was nothing worse in legislation than legislating backward and forward upon a subject that bore so materially and vitally upon the habits of the people. It was not the sale of the Beer Act only; there were many causes that had produced the present state of the poor, among them the taking away of common rights, enclosing lands, stopping foot paths, and a variety of measures interfering with them in every way, so that they had no other resource for amusement, and dissipating idle thoughts, than tippling.
§ Mr. Goringsaid, that the proprietors of beer-houses were competing, one with the other, who should allow the greatest enormity of intemperance, and the greatest irregularity, in his house.
Colonel Evanswas glad that the Government did not intend to interfere with the provisions of this Bill, but rather to wait to see the effects of the Poor—laws Amendment Bill, now in progress through Parliament. As to the Poor-laws, he believed that they had been worse administered in the county from which the petition came than any other part of England, with one exception.
§ Lord Howickwas anxious not to be understood as saying more than he really 1164 did. He had not stated, that his Majesty's Government intended resisting any alterations in the present Beer Laws. What he said was, that his noble friend (Lord Melbourne) was not prepared himself to bring forward at present any measure for checking the abuses complained of, but that he was ready to give his support to any proper alteration that would not interfere with the principle of the Bill, namely, that of open competition.
§ The Petition was laid on the Table.