SALE OF BEER. (Hansard, 5 April 1837)

§ Mr. Roebuck
objected to the motion. The best way for him to point out his objection would be to read those clauses to which he was more especially opposed. In the first place it was provided that no licence should be granted without a certificate from the parson of the parish. Now 772 he wanted to know if there ever had been such a proceeding as that which would compel a clergyman of the Church of England to tell where beer and cider should be sold, and he would inquire if it were the peculiar privilege of their holy office to tell where travellers could obtain good beer? He would ask if the House were likely to pass a Bill which would render the clergymen inspectors-general of beer shops? for it was now sought to erect them into anew set of functionaries, who would not have the spiritual requisites of the parishioners in view, but who would be made to tell at what particular place travellers would get good beer. But it was not only the parsons who were to be put into requisition by this measure, but the constables also, so that he supposed the system would be under the regulation of the parson, constable, and company. But mark the difference which was to exist between these functionaries! The parson was not to be punished, although the constable was, if he did not undertake the office assigned to him. The constable was to be liable to a fine of 10l. for neglect of duty. There was another extraordinary provision, which was, that the Bill should extend to England and Wales, except cities and boroughs. What was the meaning of that? Why, that country gentlemen did not like beer-houses. The hon. Gentleman knew the Bill would not be tolerated in towns; he dared not bring it into operation in cities and towns, but confined it to those places where the poor might be trampled on with impunity. It was further provided, that no licence should be granted for any house situated further than 500 yards from a turnpike road. The object was to prevent the poor labourers recreating themselves in by-roads and lanes, where they were in the habit of playing quoits and cricket, to thrust them out upon the high road; and, finally, to deprive the poor man, crossing the country, and who could not afford to ride in a post-chaise or on horseback, of the opportunity of slaking his thirst with a drink of beer. He could not help exclaiming against such a measure when he found hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were up in arms in defence of the rights of the poor, under pretence of taking care of their morals, attempting to foist such a Bill upon the House. Nothing was, in his opinion, so peculiarly contemptible as 773 the pretence set up of taking care of the morals of the poor by Act of Parliament. It Was not to be done in that form; but if the hon. Gentleman had the morals of the population at heart, why not enter at once into a crusade against the gin palaces? Let him try, and he (Mr. Roebuck) would be bound, that he would find hon. Gentlemen in that House who were connected in the distilleries standing up in their defence, and detailing the injury it would inflict on country Gentlemen, in the reduced consumption of malt, barley, oats, and rye. Anything they would countenance but an attack upon themselves, and under pretence of taking care of the morals of the poor they were grinding them down in every possible way. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ Sir Ronald Ferguson
agreed in what had fallen from the hon. Member far Bath, and wished, at the Same time, to remind the House, that the retailers of beer already laboured under many hardships to which the licensed victualler was not subjected.

§ Mr. Arthur Trevor
, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Bath, said, the clergyman's interference was to extend merely to the granting of a certificate as to previous character, and he had confined himself to the country parishes, because it was there the evil had been felt. Every county magistrate would say, that the evils were so great that there was an absolute necessity for something being done. He was taunted also for not interfering with gin palaces. He considered them the receptacles for every species of vice; but if he were to interfere with them at all, he would be told by the hon. Member, or some of his Friends, that he was interfering with the amusements of the people. The next charge was, that he was favouring country gentlemen, by obliging all beer-shops to be within a certain distance of the high road. The reason was, as country gentlemen knew, that many of those beer-shops were on the borders of forests, and it was notorious that they were the haunts of poachers, sheep-stealers, and persons guilty of every other species of crime. From the temper of the House, he had no doubt the Bill would be rejected, but it did not damp him: he would continue to turn his 774 attention to the subject until the evils were remedied. The hon. Member for Bath objected to the appointment of a clergyman to give the licence; but who could be a better judge than a clergyman of the morals of his neighbours? It was a subject of which the hon. Member was wholly ignorant. The hon. Member called himself the champion of the people. If he were really so he would support this Bill. He felt it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon his motion.

§ Mr. Thomas Duncombe
thought, that if the clergy had any reason to complain, it was of the hon. Member for Durham, not of the hon. Member for Bath. He (Mr. Duncombe) had heard of a place in Yorkshire, where the parsonage-house had actually been let for a beer-shop. As to the clergyman being allowed to licence of not, it should be remembered that a clergyman might be a member of a temperance society, in which case it was hardly to be expected that he would licence a place where liquor was to be had, which he thought injurious to those who drank it. In his opinion, a more ridiculous and arbitrary measure had never been brought under the consideration of the House.

Mr. Wynn
hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, would not press his motion to a division. The Bill would, in his opinion, impose a most invidious and irksome duty upon the clergyman of every parish.

§ Mr. Wilks
, on the contrary, advised the hon. Member for Durham to go to a division, because he was convinced that the opinion of the House would be distinctly expressed; and it was highly important that those persons who had invested their capital in beer-houses, should not be annoyed, Session after Session, by experimental notices and measures. He was convinced that, upon the whole, the establishment of beer-houses had been productive of great good, moral and physical, by diminishing the consumption of ardent spirits,

§ Mr. Trevor
would defer to the opinion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomery, and would not press the Bill to a second reading. At the same time he must protest against the doctrines of the hon. Member for Boston.