[BILL 82.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 July 1882)

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, it was impossible that the second reading of a Bill of this character could be passed without remark. It was a Bill to prohibit the sale of any beer which was not made from hops and malt made from barley, and to impose a penalty upon anybody who sold beer made from any other ingredients. Long before the repeal of the Malt Tax beer was freely made of sugar, and this Bill for the first time proposed to draw a distinction between beer made from sugar and beer made from hops and malted barley. It was desirable that some arguments should be adduced before the House assented to an alteration of what had been a long practice. He failed to see why the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Colonel Barne) did not show the House why the Bill should be accepted. He supposed some arguments could be adduced against the use of ingredients other than those mentioned in the Bill, though, it must be remembered, there was already a stringent law to prevent beer being adulterated. Beer made from sugar might be as pure as that made from hops and barley; and therefore, on the ground of adulteration, there should be no restriction placed upon the sale of the one kind as against the other kind. He was utterly at a loss to know on what ground the discrimination in favour of beer made from hops and barley could be based. Suppose a person sold beer which was not made from malt, but made from sugar. As he was instructed, there were no means of discovering whether beer was made from the one or the other ingredient. The Inland Revenue were supposed to find out what ingredient had been employed; but it was quite impossible for them to do so by means of analysis. The Bill introduced a novelty in legislation, and it was one which, in his opinion, could not be accepted; and therefore he would move that it should be read a second time this day three months.

§ COLONEL BARNE
said, the Bill required no explanation. In the first place, the Bill was brought in in order to give an opportunity to men who wanted a pure glass of beer to get it. If men liked to drink beer made from other substances than hops and barley they could do so; but if they preferred beer made from hops and barley they could do so. The majority of the people of England liked to know what they drank. The Bill was a popular one: for the majority of the Chambers of Agriculture and a vast number of Working Men's Associations had approved of it. He mot a meeting of working men last year, and explained to them the object of the Bill. Mr. Hodgson Pratt, the Secretary of the Central Association of Working Men's Clubs, was in the chair, and a resolution was unanimously passed approving of the Bill. The Working Men's Clubs in his own county—Suffolk—which he had the honour to represent in Parliament, had approved of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) said there was a certain novelty in this legislation. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that up to now tradesmen selling coffee mixed with chicory had been obliged to state that they were doing so. Now, he believed, the Government were about to introduce a Bill making it legal to adulterate coffee with chicory. The hon. Gentleman said, also, there was a penalty attached to the sale of beer that was not made from malt and hops. In point of fact, there was none attaching to a publican unless he did not put up a notice in his bar to the effect that his beer was adulterated. If a publican put up in a conspicuous place in his bar that there was no coeulus indicus in his beer he would not be fined.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, coeulus indicus was now prohibited to be used.

§ COLONEL BARNE
said, that was so; but a publican was not obliged to declare that his beer did not contain any of it; so that, at the present time, beer with all sorts of stuff in it besides barley 160 and hops could be served out in public-houses. If a working man wanted to drink beer which contained coculus indicus he could do so even under this Bill. No interference with the liberty of the subject was proposed; but, at the same time, if a man liked to drink a glass of pure beer, the Bill would insure his getting it. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman said the Bill imposed the duty upon the Inland Revenue of finding out that beer was adulterated. It did nothing of the sort. What a man who fancied that beer was adulterated would have to do would be to take some of the beer to the nearest analyst and find out, if he could, what was in the beer. If the man found that the beer contained anything it ought not, he was able by the Bill to get part of the penalty, which was £20 for the first offence. There were a good many people in this country who were in want of £10 or £20, and they would be glad to earn it through the medium of this Bill. He believed that the Bill would effectually stop adulteration of beer, and, therefore, he trusted it would now be read a second time.