SALE OF BEER. (Hansard, 5 March 1839)

§ Mr. Pakington,
in rising pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the sale of beer, said, though he was fully aware of the importance of this subject, both as it affected the morals and the comforts of the people, and the finances of the country, he should not enter into any opinions of his own upon those points at the present moment, but should content himself with briefly stating the heads of the measure which he now proposed to introduce; reserving what he had to say upon the obnoxious and pernicious features of the present system till the second reading of the bill. He was the more induced to take this course, because he believed that there would be no opposition to the introduction of his bill, though he fully anticipated it would meet with a good deal of opposition from various quarters in its future stages. He begged to state, in the first place, that he had no intention to repeal the Beer Act, nor to do what would amount to a virtual repeal of it, namely, to impose any restrictions which should prevent the sale of beer. With respect to the consumption of beer on the premises, although he was not pre- 1310 pared to say, that nothing short of the abolition of that practice would meet the objects of improvement he had in view, yet he did not think he could give his support to any bill which did not impose very material restrictions in that respect. Looking at the complaints against the present Beer Bill, which had been made by petitions to this House, he thought that they principally resolved themselves to these two points, namely, the great number of beer-houses established under the new Act, and the low and disreputable character of a great portion of those houses. He should endeavour, therefore, to reduce the number of beer-houses, and also to impart to those which remained a more respectable character than those now existing generally enjoyed. To effect the latter object, he should propose, that, after a certain period, which he should fix at a distant day, in order to allow all parties whose interests were concerned to wind up their accounts, no licence should be granted to any person who was not rated to a certain amount—a distinction being made between the ratings in large towns and the rural districts: and he should also propose, as some additional security for the parties' respectability, that a certain extent of previous occupation of the premises should be required. He should likewise propose that the amounts paid on account of licences should be increased, varying according to circumstances. Though he was not sanguine that these provisions would meet all the evils attributable to the present system, he yet hoped that the Government and the House would give their consent to them, and that they would go far to remedy the abuses so loudly complained of by a large portion of the community.

§ Mr. A. Sanford
had great pleasure in seconding the motion. The measure proposed by his hon. Friend was of so moderate a nature, that he thought it would be very likely to be allowed to pass; but had it been of the same character as the one introduced in another place, he had no doubt it would meet with great opposition, and perhaps be defeated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had already, in answer to a noble Lord, stated the general feeling of her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject, namely, that they were not prepared to pass any measure for the repeal of this law. He admitted, that some regulation on the subject was neces- 1311 sary, but, at the same time, he thought, that the application of any such regulations should be general and impartial; not confined to the beer houses only, but to all houses in which beer or spirits were consumed. He did not know whether this principle were precisely that of the hon. Member's bill, but in any case he did not think, that his principle would be at all compromised by acquiescing in the introduction of this measure. The question, however, was one which should be approached with great caution and a most dispassionate feeling of impartiality, as the interests of no less than between 40,000 and 50,000 persons who had invested their property in business under the provisions of the new Beer Act were involved in the result. He would observe, that the Act itself was one which had been passed, not by the present Government, but by an adverse Government, although certainly with the support of the Members of her Majesty's present Government.

§ Mr. Warburton
said, if this bill were to be considered as a measure of police, applicable to all houses, as well those that sold spirits, as those that sold beer, he would give the hon. Member his best assistance to carry it through the House; but if it were to be confined to beer houses only, he should oppose it. A Committee of the House, which sat in 1835, recommended a general measure for the regulation of all houses that dealt in beer and spirits by retail; and as a proof that the beer houses were not conducted with less regularity and propriety than houses of other descriptions, he would refer hon. Members to a return which had been made this Session, by which it appeared that the convictions before magistrates, for disorderly conduct in spirit houses were 95 per cent., whereas the convictions in beer houses were only 5 per cent. With these facts before them were they to condemn the beer-houses and leave the spirit houses unnoticed? He wished the hon. Gentleman would distinctly state whether he intended his Bill to be a measure of police regulation, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended? If so, he would give him his support.

§ Mr. Plumptre
doubted whether the Bill of his hon. Friend would effect the object which the people of this country desired; or would remove the evils which now existed. For his own part, he was anxious to put an end to the system of licensing 1312 beer houses for the consumption of beer on the premises.

§ Mr. P. Howard
thought that every lover of even-handed justice would agree with his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, in the observations he had made. It would create great alarm in the country, if the House were to adopt the proposition in the shape now suggested by the hon. Member.

§ Lord Worsley
was of opinion, that many magistrates in the country were unaware of the powers which they possessed with regard to the regulation of beer houses. If they would carry those powers more stringently into effect, many of the evils now complained of might be prevented.