RESOLUTION. BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 12 May 1857)

§ MR. HARDY
moved, that the Acts to Regulate the Sale of Beer be read at the table.

§ MR. HARDY
rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the general sale of beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment; and observed, that it was not his intention to occupy the Committee with any lengthened remarks in introducing this measure, because it was before the House last Session, and it was quite clear that the subject to which he referred required legislation. Indeed, the Secretary for the Home Department stated, only a few days ago, that the whole of the licencing system required consideration, but at the same time did not hold out any expectation that the Government, either in this or in any other Session, would introduce a measure upon it. [Sir G. GREY: I said that I should not oppose its introduction.] But even if it had been the intention of the Government to have done so, he should have felt it to be his duty to persevere with his Bill, in favour of which he had received the strongest assurances of support from all parts of the country. Now, without referring to the details which had been laid before the Committee who had sat upon the subject of the Bill, he should content himself with appealing to the experience of those hon. Gentlemen who were accustomed to act as magistrates and grand jurors whether that subject was not one which demanded the most careful scrutiny?
At present there was an extraordinary anomaly existing in connection with it to which his attention had been particularly directed, and which consisted in the fact that there were two descriptions of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors—namely, those public-houses which had been established for the sale of wines and spirits, and those houses known under the name of beer-shops, which had been established since the year 1830. Now, it seemed to him to be somewhat remarkable that the latter class of houses, which had originally been licensed for the purpose of meeting the wants of the poorer classes 217 of society by supplying them with a wholesome beverage, which they might either drink on the premises, or carry home to their own houses, should be permitted to receive their licenses without any satisfactory examination being entered into as to the characters of their proprietors or the general fitness of the establishments themselves, while the higher class of public-houses were liable to a much stricter scrutiny. It was also, in his opinion, a great anomaly that, when magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction deprived the keepers of public-houses of their licences in consequence of some misconduct, those very persons, as a matter of every-day occurrence, opened beer-shops for the sale of intoxicating liquors, under the very noses of the magistrates, and gathered around them the very class of people who had previously been their customers, and who had brought their establishments into disrepute. He wished, therefore, to see both descriptions of houses placed upon the same footing, and the main object of this Bill was, that beer-shops should be licensed in the same manner as public-houses. It had been said that the question was one with which it was difficult to deal on account of the amount of capital which was invested in the trade; but he had also directed his attention to that point, and he did not propose to interfere with the existing beer-shops, which would still continue, as at present, under the Excise while in the same hands, unless by some misconduct upon the part of their proprietors they were brought under the cognizance of the magistrates. When such an occurrence took place, he proposed that the person who sought to obtain a licence should go to the magistrates and not to the Excise, as was at present the case, He wished, moreover, to extend the operation of the Tippling Act, and thus to put a stop to that system of giving credit in beer-shops which was the cause of the ruin of so many families. It constantly happened that men under the influence of intoxication ran up considerable scores at those places, the payment of which they always disputed, for a man when drunk could not tell what quantity of liquor he had had, and the consequence was that the County Courts were very frequently occupied in trying actions for debts of that description, which under the beneficial rule which prevailed in the old Courts of Request could not lawfully be recovered. That was an 218 evil with which the Bill proposed to deal. There was also another matter, in reference to which he wished to make a few remarks.
A question had been asked as to the manner in which he would treat places of public entertainment—not public-houses in the ordinary sense of the word. That question was gone into very fully by the Committee of 1853–54, and the result of their inquiries was to convince him that it would be beneficial to place coffee-shops, and places of that description where spirituous liquors were not sold, under the superintendence of the police, and to regulate them so, that if their proprietors happened to lose their licences for misconduct, a certain time should elapse before the licence could be renewed; and his firm conviction was, that by making these coffee-shops more respectable, a great benefit would be conferred upon the classes by whom they were frequented. He had heard a great deal said upon the subject of unfair licensing, but he felt assured that anybody who had paid attention to the report of the Committee must perceive that the imputation of unfairness which had been cast upon the magistrates was to be attributed rather to the colouring which disappointed applicants for licences had given to their acts, than to any want of fairness in those acts themselves. As the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had informed him that he would not oppose the introduction of the measure, he should not trouble the Committee further, but would at once conclude by moving to resolve— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the general Sale of Beer and Cider by retail in England, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment.

§ MR. KER SEYMER
regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not asked for leave to introduce two separate Bills to effect the two distinct objects which he seemed to have in view—namely, the licensing, under certain restrictions, of coffee as well as of beer-shops. There was no doubt in his (Mr. Seymer's) opinion that coffee-shops and similar places of public entertainment, did require regulation, and that they ought to have a moderate licence imposed upon them as a means of bringing them from time to time under the cognizance of some public authority. If his hon. Friend had brought forward a Bill to effect that object, he would have had his sup- 219 port. He, however, not only did so, but proposed to carry to a greater extent the anomalous state of things in reference to public-houses and beer-shops which had been already condemned by the report of a Committee of that House. That anomaly of having two classes of licensed houses for the sale of wine, spirits, and beer, the Committee had suggested should be got rid of by granting but one licence, and by the institution of a strict investigation into the character of those establishments. No magistrate, however, ought to be called upon to decide what were the wants of a district or neighbourhood; and the present system under which the beer trade was regulated involved, in point of fact, the question of monopoly or free trade. His hon. Friend, however, had adopted a different course, and as he (Mr. Seymer) believed the question involved in the Bill to be one of principle, he should most certainly oppose it when it came on for second reading.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that he felt great regret that Her Majesty's Government would not deal with the subject of the Bill instead of leaving it in the hands of a private Member. He was a Member of the Committee which had just been referred to, and should much have wished to see legislation follow on their Report. The evils connected with the existence of the present state of things was so great that he for one felt disposed to support any measure by which relief from those two evils could be obtained. He could not, however, hope that his hon. Friend near him was likely to carry his Bill to a successful issue, considering the brief period which would probably elapse before the close of the Session, and he therefore was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether, considering that the Committee had been presided over by a Member of the Government—had been promoted entirely by the Government—and that fourteen years had elapsed since their reports were presented to the House, he could hold out any hope that in the next Session of Parliament the Government would themselves bring in a Bill upon the subject? If any such hope could be held out, although he could not pretend to say what course his hon. Friend might choose to adopt, he should advise him not to press his measure now, but wait the appearance of a Government Bill.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the hon. 220 Gentleman who asked for leave to introduce the Bill under the notice of the Committee had last Session brought in a similar measure, which had stood for a second reading, but which, the House had never had an opportunity of discussing at that stage of its progress. He had therefore informed the hon. Gentleman that he should offer no opposition to its reintroduction. He had not, however, pledged himself to support the Bill, and he might now state to the Committee that he had received several communications expressing the strongest desire that it should not pass into a law. The enormous amount of capital which was invested in the beer trade rendered it necessary that the question should be dealt with with the utmost care. Coffee-shops might be much more easily regulated than the other establishments to which reference had been made, but he must at the same time observe that he did not think it would be advisable to consider the two classes of houses separately. In answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he could only say that the Government had no intention to introduce a measure to regulate the sale of beer during the present Session, nor could he make any promise with reference to the introduction of a Bill next year which would justify him in asking the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw the Bill which he had submitted to their consideration. They must, first of all, see what were the evils it was desired to remedy, and also the difficulties in which the subject was involved. The discussion on the second reading of the present Bill might clear the way to a considerable extent; but if the measure was the same as that introduced last year, he was afraid he could hold out very little hope of its receiving the support of the Government.

§ MR. HARDY,
referring to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. K. Seymer), said, that if the hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill in strict accordance with the suggestions contained in the Report of the Committee, but—as he (Mr. Hardy) should undertake to show—not in accordance with the evidence, he should be prepared to offer to it as strenuous an opposition as the hon. Gentleman had promised to offer to the measure under the notice of the Committee. It had been said that the Bill he proposed was contrary to the principle of free trade. But the report of the Committee was not in favour 221 of free trade. It was free trade with a prohibition, for it was recommended to put on such a duty as would prove a prohibition to all but the richer class of tradesmen.