§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. QUILTER (Suffolk, South)said, he did not desire to treat this matter otherwise than in a serious vein, for it was one of immense importance to the constituency he had the honour to represent, and also to hundreds and thousands of working men in the Eastern Counties and in other parts of 869 England. This was not the first attempt that had been made to introduce a measure of this kind. It would be within the memory of those who were Members of the preceding House that a debate took place, at the instance of one of the hon. Members for Suffolk, in which they had arrayed against them official opposition. He had no doubt that any arguments in favour of the Bill that might be adduced in the course of the debate would be met by some official opposition, for there was never any question introduced which was likely to touch the Revenue of the country, but it was sure to bring up the whole strength of such opposition. He was convinced, however, that this simple measure, if granted, would prove of benefit to a very large number of working men. It was known by those who lived among the working classes that in many parts of the country beer was an important ingredient in their food. He regretted that very much; but he wished to inform hon. Members that in his division, where wages were 9s. and 10s. a-week, it was not possible for the working men to purchase for their wives and families meat or other nutritious substances, and milk was not always to be had. They were reduced to beer, or, at any rate, it was their habit to take beer for breakfast, beer for dinner, beer for tea, and beer for supper. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would agree with him that it was highly desirable that the poor man's beer should be pure. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who said "Hear, hear!" probably all of them had the privilege of ordering their Bass or Allsopp, or the drink which seemed to be the favourite beverage on the Treasury Bench just now—namely, "Whitbread's Entire." His poor friends had to have recourse to the "Thatchers' Arms" or the "Spotted Dog," and to drink that which was supplied to them there—a species of refreshment which he ventured to say hon. Members would not venture to take one glass of, and if they survived the first glass would register an oath they would have no more such muck. It was not for him to go into all the reasons which had brought about so sad a state of affairs. He really wished to do something which should somewhat remedy the existing condition of things, and in trying to do so he believed 870 he should not appeal to the sense of justice of the House in vain. As a humble Representative of the class affected, he would tell them with all sincerity that there was hardly any measure before the House which was regarded with more anxiety amongst the labourers of South Suffolk than that now introduced. When the question was last before the House he had prepared for the edification of hon. Members a variety of samples of beer from different villages, and he would have introduced them; but, unfortunately, their quality was so inferior that in the 24 to 36 hours that passed from the time they came from South Suffolk they all became bad, and there was only one which the analyst stated was in a fit state for analysis. After that experience he had not ventured on this occasion to provide himself with any samples, though he believed that the practice had been very effective in some former debates in the House. What he asked the House to do by the Bill—he was perfectly aware that it was rather a difficult thing—was to define what beer was. It was to provide that when persons went to a public-house to obtain a refreshing drink they should be enabled to discern between drinks made from barley-malt and hops, and those other drinks which were manufactured from other ingredients. Mr. Young, the public analyst for the districts of Poplar, Whitechapel, and St. George-in-the-East, stated that beer brewed from malt contained more nutritive and strengthening properties, and the intoxicating effects of it were less marked than in beer brewed from substitutes for malt. He (Mr. Quilter) could say a good deal about the effect of four-penny ale on the poor in the East of London; but this and other matters of controversy in connection with the Bill would be more properly dealt with when the Committee stage was reached. He should not venture to go into technicalities; but he thought he should be able to make out, or the hon. Members for Norfolk and Hertfordshire, who had Bills in almost every respect identical with his own, would be able to satisfy the House that there did exist a widespread desire for some legislation on this matter. What he asked the House to do was, at any rate, reasonable. It was the agri- 871 cultural labourers, who had been recently enfranchised, who made a special claim upon the House for this legislation. It was not those so much who lived in the towns, where they had access to beer brewed by large and good brewers. It was well known that hon. Gentlemen belonging to the trade sitting in that House were notorious for brewing the finest quality of beer, and, therefore, any remarks he made could not be considered as personal to them; but it was in the interest of working men with large families, whose cottages were too small and whose wives had too much to do to brew beer at home, that he asked the House to give this matter some few moments' consideration. He felt strongly the conviction that something must be done, and he did not think the House would ever regret having listened to the prayer of the many thousands of agricultural labourers who were asking for some reform. If the House would take the matter into its own hands, it could do something to protect drinkers of beer and to restore the national beverage to the position it formerly occupied, which was indicated by lines he recently saw at the foot of one of Hogarth's pictures—
Beer, happy produce of our Isle,Can sinewy strength impart,And wearied with fatigue and toil,Can cheer each manly heart.He trusted that would be the case in South Suffolk, and, in that hope, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Quilter.)
§ SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK (Norfolk, E.)said, he supported the second reading of the Bill most warmly, for he knew full well that what the hon. Member opposite had said was fully borne out in the Eastern Counties. He was about to present a Petition to the House containing 12,000 signatures, principally of labourers, in favour of one of the Bills before the House. There was not much difference between the Bill of the hon. Member opposite, who had just moved the second reading of the Bill now before the House (Mr. Quilter), the Bill of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Baron Dimsdale), and his own (Sir Edward Birkbeck's) Bill. The principle 872 of the three was the same; and, as far as he (Sir Edward Birkbeck) was concerned, he did not care which of the three was passed, and the hon. Member (Mr. Quilter) might rely on his assistance with his Bill. Beer was the national beverage of England, and it must strike the House as peculiar and anomalous that that beverage should not be protected in any way from adulteration. If milk, flour, or sugar were adulterated, consumers were protected by the Food and Drugs Act, which could be readily put into operation for their protection; but, let beer be adulterated ever so much, there were no means of putting a stop to it. He thought there could be no doubt that beer brewed from barley-malt and hops was much more wholesome than beer brewed from potatoes, sugar, maize, or some extraordinary chemical concoction, of the composition of which they knew nothing; and he ventured to say that 99 per cent of the community would infinitely prefer, if they could have the choice, to have their beer brewed from barley-malt and hops, without the substitution or addition of any other ingredient whatever. It was to the fact that beer was so much adulterated that when a labourer drank a glass of beer he became heavy, drowsy, and thirsty, instead of being refreshed as he ought to be. As beer was the labourer's sole luxury, excepting, perhaps, tobacco, he (Sir Edward Birkbeck) thought it was only fair and reasonable that the labourer should be protected from the deleterious effects likely to be produced by the adulteration of that one luxury of his life, and to have it pure, instead of that which was too often sold. The recommendation of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression was strongly in favour of legislation of the character now proposed. The beer of Bavaria, Baden, and Wurtemburg was very much purer than most of that consumed in this country. If there were any hon. Member present who had drunk beer in Bavaria, Baden, or Wurtemburg, they would bear him out when he said that there was no beer in the world which would bear comparison with that brewed in those three places. And why was that the case? The reason was that there was a severe law against the adulteration of beer. One important al- 873 teration in line 14 he should ask the hon. Member (Mr. Quilter) to agree to—namely, to substitute the word "that" for "what." It was too much to ask that persons should be compelled to describe in detail what ingredients the beer which was sold was brewed from. The Bill introduced by himself said that the publican should be compelled to state only "that" other ingredients besides barley-malt and hops were used. He trusted the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Quilter) would agree to amend his Bill by accepting that provision. He hoped the Government would support the Bill. So strong was the feeling in the agricultural districts on this question of the adulteration of our national beverage that he felt sure that if one of these three Bills was not passed this year, there would be, instead of three Bills, six or seven Bills next year. He would venture to suggest to the Government whether they could not assent to the second reading of the three Bills, and then refer the whole of them to a Select Committee, rather than shelve the question.
§ MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden), in supporting the second reading, said, he wished to affirm most strongly the remark that there was a deep and widespread feeling amongst the agricultural classes for this measure, or some one similar. The principle of the Bill was to guarantee that the important article of consumption—beer—should, like other important articles of consumption, be essentially what the consumers took it to be. He disclaimed that the intention of the Bill was in any way of an anti-temperance character. They recognized the evils done by the over-indulgence of intoxicating liquors. Neither was the Bill anti-publican, because it must be obvious, if pure beer was supplied, there would probably be no decrease in the consumption. Further, he did not think it was an anti-brewer's Bill; because there was no provision in the Bill to prevent brewers brewing from other materials than malt and hops if they wished to do so. All it sought to do was to provide that the public should know the ingredients of the beer they were consuming. Speaking for an agricultural constituency, and with an intimate knowledge of the agricultural classes, he most strongly urged the House, and especially hon. Members 874 representing agricultural constituencies who wished to further agricultural interests, to support the second reading of the Bill.
§ BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)said, that as it was undesirable that the question should be hung up any longer, he hoped the House would come to a decision on the Bill that day. The time had come when legislation of this kind should be passed for Scotland and Ireland, as well as England; and he hoped, therefore, the Bill would receive the sympathy of Irish Members. All the three Bills were more or less framed upon the model of a Bill introduced into a former Parliament by Colonel Barnes and rejected by a narrow majority. The principal objection taken to the Bill on that occasion was that it rendered it compulsory on the brewer to brew only from malt and hops. The present Bill did not interfere with a free mash tub. Alike to drinkers and to brewers it was a measure of vast importance. It was intended to confer a particular advantage on the public, and would enable them to ascertain what they were really drinking. The measure, too, was of enormous interest to the agricultural classes of the country, both the farmers and the labourers.
§ MR. SHIRLEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Doncaster)said, that as a Member whose sympathies were entirely with the temperance movement he should support the second reading. He thought, however, he ought to enter a gentle protest against the description of beer given by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk, that it was "the national beverage of the country." If it were, he hoped it would not long continue so. Statistics showed that the consumption of beer was diminishing, and he heartily hoped it would go on diminishing. But he quite agreed with hon. Members who had spoken that if beer were to be drunk at all in this country it ought to be wholesome. He was convinced, however, that much of the beer drunk in this country, and in the country districts especially, was produced from deleterious substances, and was very unwholesome. It had a bad effect upon the constitutions of the people who drank it, and was the cause of much drunkenness which would not otherwise exist. Therefore, as he was anxious to diminish the amount of drunkenness in 875 the country, he would support the second reading of the Bill.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)said, he wanted to say, with reference to the Bill, that the Government was not going to oppose the second reading. When the Bill went into Committee he must reserve to himself the right of considering what protection might be necessary for the Revenue. The objects of the Bill, he confessed, would not be entirely secured by its provisions. It would not prevent the adulteration of beer. The adulteration of beer was not done, generally, by the brewers, but by the publicans. They might, therefore, have beer brewed from pure barley and hops tremendously adulterated afterwards by the publican, and that the Bill would not be able to prevent. The hon. Member for Norfolk would not deny that his great object was to encourage the growth of barley, and to prevent anything else coming into competition with it; but the Bill would not prevent brewers from using other materials like sugar, if they thought better to do so. He was speaking not long ago to a great brewer on the subject of these Bills, and the brewer said—"I cannot find any heart to oppose the Bill; it will be so immensely to my advantage. It will destroy the small brewers, because it will diminish the use of the materials which they chiefly use in brewing, and will not affect me." That was one effect which the Bill would have as it at present stood. It would restrict the freedom of the use of materials, and he was afraid—because they might have a perfectly wholesome beer brewed with a certain proportion of sugar and other materials—it would not prevent adulteration.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed, for Wednesday 2nd June.