SALE OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. (Hansard, 29 June 1836)

§ Mr. Gillon
in moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and the House go into Committee upon the Sale of Spirituous Liquors' Bill, stated it to be his wish, that the law should be carried into operation as to spirits sold on the premises.

Sir George Clerk
considered that the present Bill would only have the effect of inducing persons to spend more money in the purchase of spirits than at the time of using them they were able to pay for. The supporters of this Bill had, in his opinion, made out no case for the alteration. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill be committed that day six months.

§ Mr. Buckingham
felt great pleasure in seconding that motion. If they legislated at all, let them do this at least, to make it more difficult for men to get intoxicated, and not to increase the facilities for doing so.

§ Mr. Hume
thought it was vain for men to suppose that they could keep persons sober by means of legislation.

§ Mr. Pease
regarded this as a Bill to enable fraudulent publicans to take advantage of intoxicated customers, to the utter ruin of the families of the latter.

§ Mr. Gillon
was disposed to adopt an amendment, which would exempt from the operation of the Bill, all liquors drunk upon the premises.

§ The Lord Advocate
was in favour of the Bill going into Committee, in order that it might then receive such alterations as would be considered desirable. He was most willing to admit the inefficacy of the law on this subject, both in this country and in Scotland.

Mr. Goulburn
did not consider that an alteration as to the consumption of spirits upon the premises, and giving a liberty upon that subject, was at all an improvement in the existing law. The question was, whether, by sanctioning this Bill, they would afford a temptation to the poor man to ruin his family?

Mr. Wahley
stated, that no application had been made to him from a single publican to support this Bill. If they had the means of preventing the use of spirituous liquors, they certainly should not relax those means, particularly when they saw the pernicious consequences of the use of those liquors. As to liquors not being drunk upon the premises, as proposed by his hon. Friend, it was, in his opinion, anything but an improvement; as, instead of the man consuming the stuff himself, he would infuse the poison amongst the families of cottagers.

§ Mr. Potter
observed, that whenever the people attempted to amuse themselves, they were interfered with, and their only resource, therefore, was going to the gin shop.

Colonel Thompson
desired to state, as a contrast to the experience of the Member for Finsbury, that he had presented a petition, numerously signed, from publicans, praying for the removal of the present law. He should be glad to accede to the wishes of Gentlemen opposite, if he thought they intended there should be an equality 1052 in the legislation for different classes of society. The rich, surely did not mean to say they had any exclusive claim to lecture the poor upon sobriety. For his own part, he would take an assembly of rich men, chosen by any test or qualification that might be fixed upon, and he would venture to say, there would be found among them more instances of disgraceful disorder from excessive use of strong liquors, whether drunk upon the premises or not, he did not feel competent to say, than in any assembly of operatives he ever attended in his life. If hon. Gentlemen doubted this, he would invite them to accompany him to an assembly of operatives, and see. If hon. Gentlemen desired it, he would in six weeks produce a committee of operatives, class-leaders among the people called Methodists, if that would be a recommendation, who should take charge of all that hon. Gentlemen should drink, determine when they should pay their wine bills, and put a stop to the complaints of those desolate ladies and forsaken children who were sorrowing at home, while the Gentleman was indulging at a fashionable tavern. But would the rich submit to this; if not, why did they impose it on the poor? He could point out much better ways of promoting sobriety among the poor, than legislating for their drink. Allow them to get knowledge; take off the taxes upon their press; remove the imposts which prevented any man of the richer classes, who desired to improve them, from reaching or getting at them;—he was rather sore upon this subject, because, as was well known, he had the prospect of a red cap and prison dress;— but do this, and there would be effected what would never be reached by regulating drinks. There should be some fairness upon these points; and if the rich refused to deal fairly with the poor now, they would be obliged to do it in that state of things to which the world was tending.

§ Sir Robert Bateson
did not know what company the hon. Member for Hull kept, but in the company he kept, he never saw any instances of the intoxication spoken of by that hon. Member.

§ Mr. Brotherton
supported the amendment. The hon. Member for Hull had himself shown, that education could not prevent drunkenness. He thought the House should not remove any of the restraints upon it. The law, perhaps, could not make men sober, nor honest either, 1053 but if they wished to preserve the fruit in a garden untouched by thieves; the worst thing they could do, was to break down the hedge.