BEER ADULTERATION BILL.

HC Deb 25 March 1896 vol 39 cc86-137

*MR. CUTHBERT QUILTER (Suffolk, Sudbury)

, after bringing up a large petition in favour of the Bill, said he had been desired to present a petition on behalf of West Suffolk, East Cambridge, and the three Saffron Walden Divisions of Essex. It was the outcome of a meeting of a large number of farmers in the neighbourhood, who subscribed over £70 in order to—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member must not go into any subjects outside the subject matter of the petition.

*MR. QUILTER

It has been signed by all classes, from the Bishop of the Diocese down to the agricultural labourer and his wife. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member will have an opportunity presently. [Laughter.]

After the petition had been read,

*MR. QUILTER

rose to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He said, although the subject was no new one, yet it was ten years nearly since he had an opportunity of laying such a Bill before the House. So many new Members had since entered the House that he thought it was only right that he should attempt to give them some history of the movement and the reasons urged for and against the Bill. The origin of beer was lost in remote antiquity. [Laughter.] They heard of it in connection with the learning of the ancient Egyptians. [Laughter.] Herodotus spoke of wine made from barley, and there was no doubt that from the earliest ages the secret of making beer, or what was then called wine, from barley was understood. [Laughter.] In their own history the first mention of the subject he found was in the reign of Edward the Confessor [laughter]—when it was duly recorded in Domesday Book as follows:— "Malam cerevisiam faciens, in cathedra ponebatur stercoris." That is, for making bad beer a brewster was put in the muck-cart. [Laughter.] In those days, and in later times, the ale-tester was a well-known municipal officer. He was not sure that it would not have been a good thing if that official had survived to this day, and, indeed, if he had taken the place of the Poet Laureate, they might have been spared much of the inferior stuff they had recently had. [Laughter.] In olden times, too, there were simple methods of testing the quality of beer, one of which was very effectual. In the Middle Ages beer was not only tasted, but the following primitive method of assaying was adopted:— Some ale was spilt on a wooden seat and the ale taster sat on it, attired in leather breeches. If sugar had been added, the taster became so adherent that rising was difficult. [Laughter.] It was within the bounds of possibility that a plentiful supply of sugar beer had been the cause of several Members of this House sticking to their seats. [Loud laughter.] But to return. The history of legislation relating to beer dates back to the 14th century, but he could only deal with the present century. In 1802, an Act was passed imposing penalty on all persons "who mixed or prepared "from" any material or ingredients whatever, except malt and hops, any liquor to imitate or resemble beer or ale." In 1811, this prohibition was relaxed and a preparation from burnt sugar and water, for colouring, was permitted. In 1816, it was apparently found that this was leading to abuses, for the Act of 1811 was repealed, and henceforward nothing could be used "for, or as a substitute for, barley-malt and hops," and, for colouring, only brown malt. Mr. Brougham, speaking in that House on April 2nd, 1816, referred to the case of a brewer who was fined £500 for mixing and compounding from deleterious drugs, etc., a certain liquor to imitate beer. In 1847, the use of sugar in the raw state was legalised. In 1862, legislation was again changed, and then in 1882, came the repeal of the Malt Tax. Only two years later, Colonel Barne (one of the Members for Suffolk), brought in a Pure Beer Bill, which on Division was defeated by 35, amongst the well-known Members voting in favour being the hon. Members for West Mayo and North Louth, and the present Minister of Agriculture, etc. In 1885, the representation of West Suffolk was reorganised, and the mantle of Colonel Barne fell upon himself, and he and Sir Edward Birkbeck, who was then Member for one of the Divisions of Norfolk, and Baron Dimsdale, each brought in Bills with the same object. His Bill got first place, and from then till now he had regularly introduced a Bill almost identical with this one. In 1886 the Bill obtained a Second Reading. On that occasion the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, assented to the Second Reading, subject to certain reservations, but, perhaps, the most important contribution to the Debate was made by the late Minister for Agriculture, who said:— He wished to confirm the statement that there was a widespread feeling amongst the working classes on this question. This was not an Anti-publican Bill, for confidence in the quality of beer would increase the consumption of it; it was not an Anti-brewers Bill, because there was no prohibition in respect of the articles that might be used All that was asked was that the public should know what they drank—whether a pure beer or some substitute. The late Minister for Agriculture had, alas, followed the other eminent makers and supporters of pure beer into another place. But fortunately the Member for West Monmouth (Sir W. Harcourt) was still with them—[laughter]—and he would no doubt lend them his kindly assistance that day. The Member for West Monmouth was very much quoted by the opponents of the Bill, but he was not going to let them have a monopoly of the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] In fact, it had been under his consideration whether he should not send the right hon. Gentleman a dozen of Guinness's stout, and had he done so he thought he should have gone to Robert Burns for an appropriate label and should have said:— Oh, had the malt thy strength of mind, Or hops the flavour of thy wit, 'Twere drink for first of human kind— A gift that' seen for Malwood fit! [Loud laughter.] The Bill of 1886 had now been superseded by that before them. Its promoters were animated by no other motive whatever, except the best interests of the consumer and of agriculture. A statement had been made that he was considerably interested in a certain section of the brewing trade, but this he denied. His interests in the shares of one of the large brewing companies was small, and he could safely say he was in no way biassed. The petition which he had presented in favour of the Bill had been got up in a fortnight, at the sole expense of the farmers themselves. It contained 26,000 signatures, and was accompanied by an intimation that 260,000 names might have been secured if more time had been given. There could be no doubt that in the eastern counties there was a deep feeling that legislation in the direction proposed would tend to increase the health and comfort of the working classes, whose interest, as well as those of agriculture, they ought to have at heart. He had alluded to the interest taken by women in the signature of the petition. Those who knew the eastern counties well must be aware that the wives of the labouring men were a most important part of the household. Their frugality and industry often enabled the home to be kept up, and the wife knew far better often than the agricultural labourer himself what was good for her old man. [ Laughter.] The House would expect him to give some justification for the introduction of the Bill, and he would say, firstly, that it followed the lines of previous legislation. Every man had a right to get what he paid for, just as much as the purchaser of butter or coffee. Pure beer gave a greater food value, was more digestive, and—gravity for gravity—less intoxicating. A curious circumstance was going on in the brewing trade, which showed that some eminent members of it were not satisfied with what others wore doing. Messrs. Guinness were, practically, doing of their own accord what was proposed to be done in this Bill. They were issuing a trade-mark! label to bottlers, binding the user not to buy stout from any other brewer, the! object being to secure the purchaser against receiving for Guinness's stout that which was not, or only partially, theirs. This was the same principle. As to the poorer classes, especially in country districts, they could not drink what beer they liked, but had to buy the beer supplied by the particular brewer or association of brewers who dominated the houses. A great deal had been said about the growing preference for light ales, and that the brewers brewed what the public demanded. There was no doubt something in that, but, on the other hand, the public learned to like what was supplied them. It was made very nice. [Laughter.] But the public had no adequate opportunity of choice. Beer was brewed to - day twenty degrees lighter than formerly, but was the same price. As the taxation increased, so the gravity decreased, and the brewer's contributions to the Revenue, about which so much was heard, were really derived from the consumers. Then he came to one of the most important and difficult parts of their contention—the interests of agriculture. The Bill was honestly brought forward in the interests of agriculture. Speaking as an agricultural member from the eastern counties, he thought that to keep arable land in cultivation was a matter of vast-concern. The brewers derived double advantage from using substitutes for home-grown barley, for not only did they save the difference between the cost of such materials and barley-malt, but by lessening the demand for barley they depressed its price, and were enabled to purchase what they were obliged to buy at a correspondingly lower rate. At present, the official Returns did not disclose the amount of barley-malt used separately from malt from other corn, but he was glad to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now sanctioned some alterations he had suggested in the brewers' entry books, enabling one to see how much barley-malt was used. Dealing with the increase of sugar, and the diminution in the proportion of malt, the Somerset-House Returns showed that the total amount of sugar used in 1856 was 1,790,000 lbs.; in 1876, 98,000,000 lbs. and in 1895, it had risen to 254,704,000 lbs. The number of brewers in 1853 was 45,294; in 1873, 29,969; in 1893, 10,143; in 1895, 8,937. These figures showed the rate at which the small brewers were being swallowed up in this country. Taking the proportion of malt used to the hundredweight of sugar, he found that the large brewers (brewing over 800,000 barrels each), used in 1882, an average of 576 bushels of malt to the hundredweight of sugar; in 1893, they used only 350 bushels, and in 1895,349 bushels. The medium brewers (brewing over 1.000 barrels a year), used in 1882, an average of 39 bushels. In 1893, only 22½ bushels, and in 1895, two bushels less, i.e., only 20 bushels. The small brewers (brewing under 1,000 barrels a year) used, in 1882, an average of 165 bushels per hundredweight of sugar; in 1893, the proportion fell to 94 bushels; and in 1895 still lower to 89 bushels. A summary of these figures showed that in 1882 the average quantity of malt used to the hundredweight of sugar was 42 bushels, in 1893 it was only 26 bushels; and in 1895 only 24 bushels. As examples of the variation in the proportion of malt used during the year to 30th September 1895, he showed that the Dublin brewers averaged 112,000 bushels to the hundredweight of sugar; Irish brewers generally, 256 bushels; Scottish brewers, 65 bushels; English and Welsh brewers, 20 bushels; Burton brewers, 42 bushels; London brewers, 17½ bushels. The South London and Derby districts showed very nearly the lowest average, with 13 bushels as against Dublin's 112,000. If all the brewers used the same proportion of barley-malt as the Inland Revenue Returns showed to be used by Bass and Guinness, it was estimated that one million additional quarters of malt would be required annually. There was one consideration which ought not to be excluded in connection with this matter—namely, the example of Bavaria. He had been in correspondence with a leading brewer in Munich as to this subject, and his correspondence told him in effect that the extremely stringent laws which had prevailed for centuries there were regarded, both by brewers and consumers, with satisfaction, and that an infringement rarely occurred; no adjuncts in the brewing of beer were permitted, and disregard of prohibitions entailed under certain conditions a heavy fine and six months' imprisonment. [Laughter.] Anyone who was acquainted with Bavarian beer knew what an excellent compound it was. When in Germany last, he was astonished to hear from a Bavarian that his father, who had been a music master, had been enabled to carry on his profession to the age of 84, and in explanation of this longevity it was explained that the old man never drank fewer than 16 flaschen of beer every day between 1 and 9 o'clock. [Laughter.] He shuddered to think what the ultimate condition of a teacher of music would be in this country if he had to drink 16 flaschen of some of the decoctions sent out by some of his hon. Friends. [Laughter.] He and his friends had always been told that the Bills they introduced year after year were subjects for laughter and ridicule; but, whereas the first announcements of these Bills were received with laughter, that laughter was changed soon after into laughter and cheers, and this year when it was announced, to cheers only. [Laughter.] He would now deal with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, at any rate, was drawn straight; it said what they meant, and if it was read a Second Time its promoters would be willing in Grand Committee or in Committee of the whole House to modify the Definition Clause, or indeed, any clause in which it could be shown that it dealt unfairly with the interests of the great trade with which it had always been the boast of agriculturists in the past that their relations were most intimate and friendly. The Definition Clause was an important one, but it was the same as in previous Bills, except that certain adjuncts were permitted. "Beer" for generations prior to the repeal of the malt tax, had always been understood to mean liquor brewed as defined in the Bill. Beer so brewed contained valuable nutritive, digestive, and strengthening properties, which were only found in liquor brewed from substitutes in small quantities, if at all. Pure beer would keep for years, whereas substitute beer deteriorated rapidly. With regard to hops, he would remind the House that there had been no failure of the crop since 1882, and another failure was now less likely because growers were more alive to, and more competent to deal with, disease. The fairness with which the Bill had been prepared would be seen from the contents of the clause relating to "adjuncts." With regard to '' fining,'' which was described as a process of clarifying after fermentation by gelatinous or other substances, such as isinglass—and "colouring," a process by which a standard colour was maintained by the brewer—the framers of the Bill could not see that there was any harm in adding those definitions to the old definition clause, though they had put in the words "subject to the approval of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue," thinking it safer to be under the Commissioners' wing. With regard to "priming," i.e., adding to beer after fermentation, unfermented sugar or sac-charum to give it body and impart a full taste, they proposed to permit the use of sugar to an amount not exceeding 3 per cent. in volume, about one gallon per barrel. At present the limit fixed by the Excise was 1½ per cent. Section 4 of the Bill required that the retailer who offered for sale any fermented liquor made in imitation of, but not being, beer, ale, stout, or porter, as defined in the Measure, should give legible notice of the fact. There was, he admitted, a difficulty in their previous requirements that ingredients should be declared. The Bill would not affect temperance drinks, Kops ale. ginger beer, etc., which were exempted by Section9. Hon. Members who heard his speech on the Budget last year might remember what extraordinary substitutes were sometimes used for the ingredients of beer. The other day he saw on a wall a placard relating to a mysterious unnamed drink which was described as follows:—" It looks like beer, it smells like beer, it tastes like beer, and yet it is not beer." [Laughter.] Thinking that this must be a temperance drink, he suggested that it ought to be called [here the hon. Member exhibited placard contaning the words — '' Cockermouth mixture."] [Laughter.] The constituency of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Lawson), who had been identified with the temperance cause for so many years, might well give its name to this beverage. In dealing with this branch of his subject, he would like to remind the House that last year the sub stitutes to which he felt it right to refer included "aphrodite" and "ecumin," and at the close of his speech a portentous conference took place between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, the late Member for Bedford, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon. What took place at that conference he did not know, but the participation in it of the grave Member for Bedford, who was a model of propriety, forbade the idea that the word "Aphrodite" could have been! mentioned. [Laughter.] The other substitute, however, was probably discussed, and he suggested that this celebrated conference should in future be remembered as the "Ecuminical Council." [Laughter.] As to "marking," nothing new was proposed. It was now the custom for casks and bottles to be marked or labelled, and this was necessary for the protection and convenience of the brewer, the retailer, and the consumer. He had with him a label that had been sent him by a country brewer. On it in large letters was "Brewed only from malt and hops." There could be no difficulty in fixing a label of that kind on a cask of beer. The solicitude professed by brewers and others who were responsible for the use of substitutes in the manufacture of beer their solicitude for the interests of the consumer, the retailer, and the agriculturist-—appeared to him to be rather extraordinary, and reminded him of the story of the wolf and Little Red Riding Hood. What consideration had the brewers shown in the past for the consumer, the retailer, and the agriculturist? They had shown that they were ready to use inferior materials and to adopt a system which jeopardised the trade of the small publican, and their action had not been particularly encouraging to the growers of British barley. For malting purposes, homegrown barley, he asserted, was not generally inferior to foreign barley. Foreign barley had only once taken the champion prize in the Malting Barley Competitions held at the Brewers' Exhibition. Professor Long, the well known agriculturist, in a recent article, said:— Whatever may be the quality of individual humpies of imported barley, there is no doubt about one fact, that until last year no samples of imported barley in competition at the Brewers' Exhibition approached the British barley in quality from a malting point of view. It was said that home-grown barley was too heavy. Before the malt tax was taken off heavy barleys used to be required by brewers, but since then the cultivation had altered, and farmers, by attention to manuring, rotation of crops, and the selection of seed and soil, were able to grow barley to suit the brewers' present requirements. That improvement would continue from year to year, for farmers realised that they must attempt at any rate to grow crops that suited their best customers. British agriculturists recognised that foreign barley in some seasons had the advantage over ours for some purposes, and they must be prepared to see, if the Bill passed in its present form, a larger proportion of foreign barley used by the brewers for a short time. The Measure might have that effect, but he did not believe that that state of things would continue long. They would no doubt hear a good deal to-day about foreign barley; they would doubtless be told by brewers that if the Bill passed, they would use nothing but foreign barley. There were whispers to that effect last night, but he hoped that such a threat would not be hurled at the depressed agriculturists across the Floor of this House. He could well imagine that if the Bill passed an object lesson would be administered to our farmers,— long processions of wagons filled with foreign barley, marked " Grown in Germany" would perhaps be seen in Long Acre, Clerkenwell, Wimbledon, and elsewhere. That sort of thing impressed the agricultural mind, which was easily frightened. There were many agricultural Members in the House who would like to vote for the Bill, but would be afraid to do so. He wished it was in his power to speak to them as authoritatively on this question as he hoped some other supporters of the Bill would. Personally, he believed that English barley was, to some extent, absolutely necessary in the brewing of that class of beer which was most affected, certainly in London, and therefore the threat that no English barley would be used by London brewers was of no avail. Farmers felt their impotence. Agriculturists as a body, those especially in the Eastern counties, were very poor, and they looked with dismay at the prospect of not being able to sell their barley. The power of the great brewing trade over them was enormous, but they should be prepared to accept the result of the Measure. He certainly was prepared to do so or he would not have so repeatedly introduced the Bill. Its supporters undoubtedly believed the Bill was for their good. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, a former well-known and highly respected Member of this House, told the First Lord of the Treasury the other day that there was no question on which the East Anglican farmers and agriculturists were more agreed than legislation in this direction. He was not a hop grower, but he had extreme sympathy with the people of the hop districts, who could no longer cultivate hops and obtain a fair return. He had no doubt what was said with respect to barley would be said with regard to hops. He remembered that at a temperance meeting in a city, not many miles from where he lived, one of the tradesmen said he was not at all surprised that there was so much bad beer sold in the city, because he lived opposite the principal brewery of the city, and he had never seen a single pocket of hops go into that brewery. The next market day a collision took place opposite that tradesman's door. Two very heavy lorries laden with pockets of hops collided near the man's door, and for a considerable time there was a mountain of hops there obstructing his business, and affording him an object lesson of the absurdity of making reckless and false statements. [Laughter.] Now, it was said that sugar was necessary for light ales to suit the public taste. Light sparkling ales could be brewed without sugar. He had a letter from the head of one of the largest concerns in the country, in which that gentleman said:— Guinness' use no sugar at all; we use none in our pale ale or strong ale, and we could turn out without sugar mild ales and stouts which would he looked upon as perfection. A small pure beer brewer wrote:— As to my opinion of light or any strength beer, there is nothing to take the place, in my idea, of good sound barley-malt and English hops. I am brewing from nothing else, and, without boasting, I am giving entire satisfaction, more especially in—. Mechanics know as well, or better, than any other class, what really good sound beer is. But there is hardly a chance for a small man like myself, for as soon as I work up a nice trade, whether public house or beer shop, the large brewers at once buy the places up at enormous prices. I am satisfied I can suit the popular taste with beer made from malt and hops, and shall use nothing else. Trusting you may prove successful with your Bill. He did not wish to weary the House with reading too many letters. but there was one from a firm of brewers in Gloucestershire which he particularly desired to read. It was as follows: We heartily wish von success with your Pure Hour Bill. We think it a very reasonable and necessary Measure. Necessary for the good of the public, and necessary for the good of the agricultural interest. There is, we believe, a great deal of insincerity in the arguments generally brought forward aganist it. He did not. venture to speak in any way the sentiments of that powerful body, the Licensed Victuallers, hut he under- stood that a large number of the trade protection societies had passed resolutions recently approving of this Bill. One licensed victualler writing to him said: Brewers should be made to put a distinguishing mark on all casks which contain beer made from other than malt and hops so that it could be seen on the drays in the streets. This is only one of the evils of the tied-house system. It was not proposed by the Bill to inter for in any way with the method of taxation, no additional supervision would be necessary, and there would be under the Bill no more espionage than at present. The same system of checks now practised would suffice to secure the practical objects of the Bill. The number of brewers was decreasing annually, but he was not aware; the staff at Somerset House had been reduced in the same proportion. There was one serious question raised by brewers, and that was that the Bill would give an unfair preference to the foreigner, that the importation of foreign beer would be fostered. If it was desired the promoters of the Bill would be, quite prepared to assent to the insertion of a clause that the word foreign should be added to the name of all such liquors—that Pilsener should be sold as Foreign Pilsener for instance. But the sale of foreign beer was comparatively insignificant because he was unable to trace it in the Board of Trade Returns under a separate head; he could scarely believe it was included under the heading of "drugs." [Laughter.] Why should beer be deprived of its name? Previous to the repeal of the malt tax the name of beer was associated with the product of barley- malt and hops, and, therefore, they were not taking the name away but only talking it back. The use of substitutes to the extent now practised was not contemplated when the Free Mash Tun was granted. Liberty was converted by the brewers into licence. Only two years afterwards (1882), and almost every Session since, Bills had been introduced to protect the public against such abuse of this liberty. There was another point he must allude to, it was but courteous to an important body like the brewers to do so. There was the reported compact or compromise of 1880 This is held up as something which must on no account be violated. If such a compact was ever entered into, this Bill would not interfere with it as suggested; brewers would still enjoy such freedom as the compact secured to them. This freedom, however, had not been unrestricted in the past. For instance, the use of saccharin was forbidden by the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had broken the "bargain" by increasing the duty. Brewers, however, had a happy way of turning increases of duty into a source of enhanced profit. Before he sat down he must read a few words from a letter he had received from the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council. That gentleman said:— I am fully convinced that the worst forms of drunkenness may largely develop themselves in consequence of the poisonous nature of the beverages often supplied as beer, I heartily wish you success. And he must allude for a moment to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. To a recent deputation of East Anglian farmers the right hon. Gentleman spoke in terms of the warmest sympathy with the agricultural interest, for which, on behalf of all those interested in agriculture in the Eastern Counties, he desired to offer him their grateful thanks. The First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to Mr. Clare Sewell Read, said:— He could, at all events, go this length with his friend (Mr. Quilter), that it was a matter of great regret that other articles were gradually being substituted for barley in the making of beer. That was a misfortune undoubtedly for the fanner, and also, he thought, for the consumer. It only remained for him now to thank the House for the consideration it had extended to him, and the attention with which it had listened to the remarks he had made. The House had always shown indulgence towards an hon. Member who, however mistaken his views might be deemed, could show that he had done his best to ascertain the facts relating to the subject on which he spoke, or in regard to which he proposed legislation. The promoters of this Bill introduced it in the full and firm belief that it would confer great benefit on the country, on the agriculturist, on the public generally, and especially on the labouring man; and he trusted the House would not disappoint the hopes and expectations the Bill had encouraged among the agricultural community by refusing to assent to the Second Reading. He would therefore ask hon. Members to set aside all private or Party considerations, and strike another blow in the direction of health and temperance, and of that honesty of trade which used to be the boast of the English nation. [Cheers.]

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, he desired to see the Bill fairly and fully discussed on its merits, and, in supporting it, to make his own position perfectly clear. He said there were two or three propositions which induced him to do so. In the first place he based his support on the principle that a consumer when purchasing any article was entitled to have it as genuine as possible, and to be safeguarded against adulteration. That principle underlay the Bill, and it was one which had been made the basis of a great deal of recent legislation in regard to articles of food. It was accepted and acted upon in the case of the Margarine Acts, the Merchandise Marks Act, and only a few days ago the House again recognised it in regard to the marking of foreign meat. The Measure had two main objects— one, to benefit the consumer by insuring him full knowledge of the article he was buying, and the other to benefit the producer of the raw material requisite for the brewing of pure beer by enhancing the demand which would follow the production of a pure article. He believed the public really desired pure beer, and that they only purchased other beer because they were misled in the matter. "Were the two objects he had mentioned desirable from an agricultural and also from a national point of view? He maintained that they were. From the producers' point of view—and the producers of whom he spoke and whom he desired to benefit were, of course, the growers of barley and hops— he contended that it was of paramount national importance, under the existing circumstances of agricultural depression—that the cultivation of arable land should be maintained in the country. [" Hear, hear!"] In the recent returns of the Royal Society of Agriculture it was shown that in 1895 there were 289,000 fewer acres under arable cultivation in England than in 1894—an area in the aggregate as large as the county of Bedford. Reckoning that every 100 acres gave employment to four men, the withdrawal of this large quantity of land from arable cultivation meant a loss of employment for no fewer than 11,560 men. Even if it was assumed that the land was utilised for pasturage purposes, and that employment was found for one man to every 100 acres, then the withdrawal from arable cultivation showed a loss of work for 8,670 men. [" Hear, hear!"] The returns further showed that in the same year there were 600 fewer acres of hops cultivated, and 500,000 acres withdrawn from the cultivation of corn, which meant loss of employment to 15,000 or 20,000 men. The only redeeming point in all those figures was that there was an increase in the area of barley cultivation of 78,000 acres; so that, to that extent, the increased cultivation of barley had mitigated the withdrawal of land from corn cultivation. What was the state of the case now? Present prices, as against the producer of ordinary malting barley, were so bad that there was an inclination to give up the continued production of barley and to throw that further amount of land out of cultivation. If, then, prices were so low as to make that contingency possible, the House and the nation were face to face with the fact that the only crop which stood between the country and the loss of its arable cultivation was threatened by the position to which it had been reduced; and, therefore, he urged that it was of paramount importance to bolster up that special industry by every fair and legitimate proposal possible. ["Hear, hear!"] The objections to the Bill were of two kinds. There were the objections of the substitute makers, who seemed to lay down that the consumer should not be interested in the Measure because the continued use of substitutes would not injure him in any way. On this point he should like to submit to the House briefly the opinion of one or two scientific men who were certainly competent to judge in the matter. He referred to Mr. W. C. Young, public analyst for the districts of Poplar, Whitechapel, and St. George's-in-the-East, and Dr. Bernays, the chemist of St. Thomas's Hospital. In a paper which had been issued, Mr. Young said:— 1. Barley-malt contains important nitrogenous and mineral constituents, possessing valuable nutrition, digestive and strengthening properties. 2. Maize, malt, saccharine and other malt substitutes do not contain these matters, or only in very small quantities. 3. Beer brewed from barley-malt differs from that brewed from any of its substitutes in containing the above-mentioned important constituents. 4. Beer brewed from malt substitutes is practically only a solution of alcohol, so that of all the properties beer should possess, it has only the worst-that of intoxication. 5. The alcohol produced from barley-malt is purer than that from maize, rice, etc., the latter containing appreciable quantities of fusel oil. 6. Beer brewed from these substitutes will not keep sound for more than a few days. 7. After a long study of the subject I have been assured by a gentleman who was for many years a medical officer of health for one of the poorest quarters of the East End of London, that in the majority of cases that had come under his notice of the worst form of confirmed drunkenness, he could trace the effects to the continual drinking of such beer, as what is commonly known as 'fourpenny ale' He attributes much of the squalor, dirtiness, and wretchedness of the poor in his parish to the use of this 'fourpenny ale.' Further, Mr. Young said:— It is untrue, as recently published analyses will show, that English barley-malts contain more nitrogenous matter than foreign. It is not proved that more than a certain proportion of nitrogenous matter is most detrimental to the success of brewing operations; on the contrary, authorities say that the results of experiments show that on no account should malt be condemned for English brewing purposes, because it contains a high amount of soluble nitrogenous matter, and further, that the best malts are amongst those containing the highest percentage of soluble nitrogen, and that the worst of all contains the least. Dr. Bernays said:— The value of beer made from barley-malt and hops has been so well understood in the past, that at the present day, owing to the uncertain character of beer, various substitutes, under the name of 'malt extracts' etc., etc., are much recommended by the medical profession. Again:— A beer made from malt and hops has a slight nutritive value; but, as a rule, a drink is not for nutrition. The faculty of promoting digestion gives to such beer a unique character. But as regards beer made from nearly all so-called substitutes, the effect upon the general health of the beer-drinking community is distinctly bad, and encourages to my knowledge, the additions of the gin and other mere alcoholics. That was somewhat strong evidence, taken, of course, for what it was worth, proceeding, at all events, from rather a knowledgable quarter. They were told that the beer brewed in London was exactly what the taste of the town desired. He did not profess to be any judge of the taste of London for beer, but he knew that in the Black Country, not long ago, objection was taken to the beer supplied from a certain quarter as being apparently very much doctored and thick, and apparently not at all genuine or wholesome. The reply was:— Ah, but that is the taste which prevails in the Black Country, and of course we must provide that which the Black Country prefers to drink. That went a long way to show that something was needed in the direction of a definition of what was a wholesome and clean liquor. Let him now deal with the other classes of objections to the Bill, the objections taken by brewers, and addressed chiefly to the producers of barley and of hops. It was perfectly true there had been, as between the agricultural party and the brewers' party, a very close, and, on the whole, a very genuine alliance. He had been in the House ten years, and during a great part of that time he had found himself solicited to support and uphold the brewing interest when it had been challenged by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and he did not know that he had ever hesitated to give to that interest what little support his vote and influence amounted to. But now he wished to utter a fair warning to the brewers, and it was that, although agriculturists were perfectly willing to continue the alliance, it must not be based on the idea that agriculture was to be the subordinate partner, and that agriculture was to be dragged after the brewing interest. It would not be wise for their allies to press too hardly the doctrine of a common alliance, lest the subordinate partner should find it necessary to take exception to the terms of the alliance. Reference was often made to the compact of 1880. It would be unfortunate for the continuance of that compact if it could be shown that, under the terms of that compact, the brewing interest was continually prosperous and the agricultural interest was continuously depressed. He hoped and believed the alliance would continue, but it could only continue on fair and equitable terms. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] The agricultural interest had no wish whatever to impute to the brewers as a body any hostile inclination in this matter. He had no wish to impute that the brewers did not wish to act fairly and squarely, and he desired to take battle on this ground, that agriculturists, in promoting this Bill, were promoting that which they genuinely believed to be ultimately for the good of the agricultural portion of the community. The brewers argued that the present proposals would work in an opposite direction to that which the promoters of the Bill believed. He did not agree with the brewers. He was willing to listen to their arguments, but at all events let the conflict between the parties be absolutely free from imputation of bad motive on either side. His hon. Friend who moved the. Second Reading said the brewers denied a double advantage from the use of substitutes, because they not only saved the difference between the cost of barley and that of the substitutes, but by lessening the demand they also depressed the price of barley. An hon. Gentleman who represented the brewing interest took exception to that statement, but it seemed to him an unanswerable proposition. Brewers must derive an advantage from brewing from a cheaper material, and must, by using it, lessen the demand for the more expensive material. It could not be gainsaid that if the Bill passed there must of necessity be a much larger consumption of barley, whether foreign or home grown, and there must, consequently, be a rise in the price of the article. In that enhancement of price home growers must decidedly participate. They did not for a moment say that brewers would entirely fill the gap in their materials by home-grown barley. They allowed it was probable that brewers would, to a certain extent, use foreign barley for certain purposes, but they felt that in the extra consumption home-grown barley would find a place. They could not, therefore, see how it was possible for the position of the home growers to be worse than it was now. It was asserted that foreign barley was more fitted for brewing purposes, but his hon. Friend had answered that by showing that in open competition foreign barley had only once been able to hold its own with home grown. Putting on one side for a moment first-class barley, which it was conceded would always command a high price, was it true that the great mass of second-class malting barley would be pushed out of cultivation and demand by the necessity to use foreign barley owing to the properties foreign barely had inherent in it? That was the crux of the situation. It was one of those questions which could only be submitted to the common sense of the House. At the present moment there were many lands which for many years had been celebrated for the goodness of the malting barley they had grown, barley which had been readily bought. How was it that this year the product of those lands was almost unsaleable in the malting market? It was not because the sample was worse, the sample being very similar, in some respects even better, than that which in recent years had commanded a better price. There had been a greater introduction of foreign barley, and that had forced down the price of the home-grown commodity. By all the returns he could get, a curious fact was that the importation of foreign barley had been particularly restricted during the very time this home-grown produce had fallen in value, and if, therefore, it was neither by foreign barley or by home-grown barley that beer was made, were they not forced to the conclusion that there must be utilised for the purpose of brewing very large quantities of some material other than barley, of some sort, whether foreign or home grown? There was another point he wished to mention. Was it not possible to correct the so-called deficiency in home-grown barley by a wiser and more skilful method of cultivation? Farmers were not dullards or fools, and when they saw that one sort of article was likely to bring a better price in a letter market, they naturally turned their attention in the direction of that better article. If it be the fact that our barley be deficient in quality by reason of the process of cultivation, he was quite sure farmers would be found quite ready to correct matters, and produce, if possible, a barley which would meet the demand. It was only fair to remind the House that the Bill did not prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquid from any other compounds besides those of barley, malt, and hops. All they asked was that there should be a definition of beer. The statement had been made that, to bring medium English barley up to the quality which was necessary, a greater inclusion of sugar should be permitted. If that was proved, the promoters of the Bill, who were not unreasonable, would be willing to meet Amendments. They did not wish to set up any iron line of refusal. This was no electioneering Bill. None of the seats of those who backed the Bill depended upon their attitude with regard to the Bill, whether they were in opposition to it or supported it. It was desirable to know whether this Bill was worth supporting, on whether it had better be withdrawn; or, further, whether they had better consider some Measure in favour of the re-introduction of the malt tax. They were not going into action without reserves behind them. The Bill was based on an honest principle, and its objects were clear and laudable. There should be a free vote for or against the Bill, and it was in that view that he gave his cordial support to the Bill.

MR. THOMAS USBORNE (Essex, Chelmsford)

said, he had risen to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months, not because he disapproved of its objects, but because he felt sure that were this Bill ever to become, an Act, it would have exactly the opposite effect to that intended by its promoters. The first thing that he ob- served was that all except one connected with the promotion of this Bill were hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies. But he also represented an agricultural constituency, than which not one in England had suffered more from the low price obtainable for its cereal products, and as an agricultural Member, and that only, he meant to speak that afternoon. Of course, he was a brewer, and meant to use his knowledge as such to enforce the few arguments he proposed to submit to the House; or, let him put the case in another light. Were he not a brewer, he should not be aware how great an injury to agriculture the passing of this Bill, in any form, would work. The objects of the Bill were two: (1) to secure pure beer for the consumer: and (2) to raise the price of barley. He would gladly pass over the first object, but in ordinary civility to the promoters of the Bill, he could not move its rejection and take no notice of the words "Purity" and "adulteration," which were to be found on its front page. Beer was manufactured as follows: What brewers called a sweet wort was obtained from saccharine producing substances soaked in the mash tun with the required amount of water, which sweet wort was afterwards converted into beer by the process of fermentation, during which process 75 per cent. of the saccharine matter was converted into alcohol, and did not, therefore, so far as that 75 per cent. was concerned, affect the wholesomeness of the beer, whatever the original saccharine producing material might have been. So much for what he would call his preface. Now he would deal with the words "pure beer." He had looked out the word "pure" in the dictionary, and found one of its meanings to be "unmixed" and, as such was the case, he was precluded from objecting to its use; but what it certainly did not mean was a beer that was either bright, wholesome, or palatable. There might be the sweet wort composed of all barley and consequently pure by the dictionary, but if the composition of that wort was such as to prevent the fermentation from being healthy and complete, it did not produce a bright, wholesome, and palatable beer, and he distinctly stated that from the great bulk of English barley his 30 years experience had told him that it was impossible to produce a wort that would give the brewer a healthy and complete fermentation He now came to the nasty word "adulteration.'' He knew nothing of adulteration in the manufacture of beer; neither did the promoters of this Bill. What they wished the House to believe was that the substitutes for malt used by the brewers were used to adulterate the beer. What were these substitutes? Sugar in various forms, prepared rice, and maize; these, as a country brewer, were the only substitutes he knew of. He found that the quantities used throughout England were, sugar, 14 per cent., and the others 4 per cent., or 18 per cent. in all, and as both rice and maize were used for the same purposes as sugar, and were certainly not unwholesome, he would, during this Debate, speak of sugar only. Now, no one could seriously assert that the use of sugar was adulteration in the ordinary sense; but if it was, why were the brewers to be allowed to add 3 per cent. of it to the finished beer? That 3 per cent. represented as much sugar left in the beer as the whole 14 per cent. added to the sweet wort, because, as he had stated, 75 per cent. of the whole saccharine matter in the sweet wort was, during the process of fermentation, converted into alcohol. But he would not detain the House by labouring this question of adulteration. He would be content to read part of a speech delivered in this House on the 10th of last May by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:— No doubt the Pure Beer Bill prohibits the use of any other material for the manufacture of beer than malt and hops. It is not disputed that brewers do not put deleterious articles into their beer, although no doubt they use considerable and increasing quantities of sugar in its manufacture. For the reason I have already given, I believe that sugar is a good material for brewing the lighter kinds of beer, and besides sugar other substitutes for malt and hops are rarely used. I am informed that in addition to sugar a certain quantity of maize is used, but there is nothing unwholesome in that grain. The real truth is that brewers are bound to brew a beer which their countrymen want. There can be no question at all about that. Now, he wished to offer two observations on this quotation he had made. The first was that he very much wished that he possessed to-day 25 per cent. of the debating power of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or that he could express in four times as many words such a complete defence of the brewers against the charge of adulteration. The second was that he wished that when making his speech on the 10th of last May, the right hon. Gentleman had known as much of this particular subject as he did to-day, because he would then have added to what he said at that time some words as the following:— But besides this lighter kind of beer, there is the mild beer, largely—indeed mainly, consumed by the working men of this country. Their taste in beer has been rapidly changing, so that whereas 25 years ago they drank a beer at least three months old, and more often 12, they now drink it one week old, and will not touch it if it is four weeks; and for the production of such a beer, I am informed sugar is almost a necessity, owing to the beer having to be brewed in the hottest months of the year. But now he came to the second and real object of the promoters of the Bill, and the real reason why he had moved its rejection. Their second object was to force the barley grown by their constituents into the brewer's mash tun. Would keeping sugar out of the tun force the barley into it? Most certainly not. It would force it out by forcing in far more foreign barley than the amount of sugar withdrawn. What was it that the operative brewer wanted in his tun, so as to get a sweet wort that would give him a healthy and complete fermentation? Why, the sun! The sun is the creator of all saccharine substances. How much English barley would leave the tun with the sugar was no doubt a matter of opinion, and men might differ about it, but one fact was beyond dispute—namely, that sugar, rice, and, to a somewhat less extent, maize, were grown under a much hotter sun than German or French, or, indeed, any foreign barley. It was, therefore, evident that the equivalent of one quarter of sugar contained far more sun than one quarter of foreign barley, and his experience told him that it was at least as three to one in the average of 3amples of those barleys. If then, one quarter of sugar would do the work (in sun providing) of three quarters of foreign barley, it would be evident to the House that the brewer must add to the foreign barley he used, three quarters, and reduce the English by two quarters if he might not use sugar. Now, he would put this matter in another light. He brewed, himself, with slight variations for the time of the year, as follows: He used 80 per cent. of Essex barley, 10 per cent of foreign (Smyrna), and 10 per cent of sugar. If this Bill ever became law he should certainly be forced, in order to get enough sun into the mash tun, to use 40 per cent. of foreign barley, and 60 per cent. of English. It might of course be argued that he was wrong, that his 30 years' experience in various country breweries had taught him nothing; but he hoped to hear his views confirmed in the course of this Debate, and if it was held that he was wrong, which he did not think would be the case, as to the proportion of three to one, still he was certain that the fact would not be denied that there was more sun in sugar than in any barley, and that, therefore, sugar would better supply the great deficiency of sun in our English barleys, than an equal quantity of foreign barley, be it grown where it might. With reference to the Bill as it would affect the brewers' pockets, possibly some of his brothers in the trade might be anxious about it. He was not. He did not believe it would make any difference to the brewers, because to the extent that it would raise the price of foreign, it would, to his great regret, lower the price of English barleys. What he knew, and what he was anxious to avoid, was this: that in the event of the Bill passing the amount of money that he now paid to his friends and neighbours for the produce of the land they now farmed would be reduced by at least 20 per cent. But the promoters of this Bill might fairly say to him, "You approve our objects, what do you propose?" And his answer was "Your first object I have, with great assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, demolished the necessity to legislate for. Your second object I would attain by going back to the Malt Tax. And why? The Malt Tax was a tax on the measure of the barley. The beer duty is a tax on the weight of the saccharine matter obtained. Now the average number of the brewers pounds of extract obtained on English barley is 10 to 15 per cent. more than that obtained from foreign of the same bulk, and therefore, if the tax on the same quantity of both is the same, the desire on the part of the brewer for profit will force him to use all the English barley he possibly can." Of course the loss of the free mash tun to the brewers would be a great inconvenience. But if the Government would, either in their Budget proposals or by a Bill, go back to the Malt Tax, he should, as an agricultural Member, feel it his duty to support them. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to his first, and he hoped, last effort at making a speech. He hoped they would give them a majority against the Second Reading of this extraordinary Measure, and that so he might have contributed something towards rescuing his unfortunate constituents from what he was prepared to admit was an honest and well-meant effort on the part of his hon. Friends to serve them. He begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

*MR. H. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

seconded the Amendment. He observed that it was evident from the speech of his hon. Friend that the brewers could take care of themselves and were well represented there, while it was also evident that they would not be damaged by the Bill. He desired to speak for an interest that would be very seriously damaged, and people who were not in the wealthy position of brewers and able to take care of themselves, but who were powerless unless the House protected them. He must refer to the period at which the Malt Tax was repealed. There was no doubt that if ever there could be a compact between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the Treasury of this country and its fiscal system and the public of the country, a compact was made then -a compact under which the nation had admittedly gained, at that time he thought, at the rate of £400,000 a year, certainly over £300,000, and he believed at the present time over £500,000 a year. The Malt Tax was repealed, and instead of it the Beer Tax was imposed, in consideration of which it was distinctly understood that the brewers should have a free mash tun. That was to say they were to be allowed to brew beer by whatever name they chose to call it, with any ingredients that would make beer, and it was for the public to determine whether they would drink it or not. That system had resulted largely to the benefit of the country. It had called into existence a number of beneficial trades which had been productive of good to the country, employing many hundreds of the poor of the labouring classes in the manufacture and supply of a substitute. Many hon. Members, he dared say, had received a circular letter signed by as many as 14 firms and establishments of considerable magnitude, some of which happened to be located in his constituency. That was the only interest he represented as against the Bill, other than that which every hon. Member ought to represent, namely, the interest of justice. The Mover and Seconder of the Bill had dealt in a fair way in launching the Measure before the House. The principle of the Bill, to put it shortly, was to call a spade a spade. That was a good principle to which he had no objection, but let them see how the principle was to be worked out. The objects of the Bill were two in number. The first was to enable everybody who bought beer to know what he got and paid for, and the second was, from a financial point of view, to do a great benefit to the large industry of agriculture. The latter he took to be the main object of the Bill, and was one with which every hon. Member would sympathise. But in endeavouring to find a remedy for one great evil they must be quite sure they did not create half-a-dozen others. One incident of the system of free trade which this country had adopted, with the fierce and dreadful competition which sometimes exceeded all bounds and drove out of existence one manufacture or another, had this compensating advantage, that it did, somehow or other, call into existence other trades, avocations, and manufactures which found employment for the thousands who were thrown out of work from the disused industry. It thus came to pass that on the total roll call of the labour of the country they found that notwithstanding the increase in the population the residue who were unemployed, and who went to the wall, was, on the whole balance of the trades that went out of existence and came into existence, not more but rather less than it was before. Let him appeal to the supporters of the Bill and their agricultural friends not to be carried away by any idea that they would do a large benefit indirectly to that oppressed and suffering industry to such an extent as to make them forget they might be throwing out of employment thousands of others in the ancillary trades that had been brought into existence by the repeal of the Malt Tax and other similar causes. Let him point to another consequence of the passing of this Bill based upon this same alteration of the law that was then made. It was, perhaps, right that he should read the terms which Mr. Gladstone—who, whatever they might, think of his views upon other matters was, at any rate, looked upon as a great fiscal authority, and whose opinion would be respected—used, in June, 1880, in proposing to repeal the Malt Tax. The right hon. Gentleman then said:— I am of opinion that it is of enormous advantage to the community to liberate an industry so large as this with regard to the choice of those materials. The tax upon the fiscal product we must retain, out, when we remember that fifty million pounds is the value of the article produced, I would ask the House whether it is not a great object of policy, whether it is not a great step towards a more perfect fulfilment of those principles of freedom of commerce we have been endeavouring to maintain for the last forty years, to liberate— as to choice of materials and as to the process of manufacture—an industry so vast in its scope as is this particular industry. Let them see what would be the consequence of altering this now. The Bill proposed that all beers containing more than three per cent. of sugar, although they had been selling all these years as beer, and had become known, it might be as good brands, should no longer be entitled to the name of beer. That was to say that they were going to abolish that denomination altogether as regarded two-fifths of the whole beer produced. What was to be done with that kind of beer and those who brewed it? "Were they to be deprived of the right to sell what they brewed as beer? Were they going to give those people any compensation out of the half a million which the Revenue obtained under the compact of 1880? The Bill, as he had said, broke the compact of 1880. He would not go over the ground covered by the Mover of the Amendment, but he agreed with him that the Bill would only lead to an increase in the imports of foreign barley. The Mover of the Bill and the Seconder admitted that if passed it would lead to an increase in the use of foreign barley, but that the British farmer would improve his barley and his method of cultivation, so as to produce barley of the same character as the foreign. Hut why did be not do so now? There was nothing to hinder him. He did not; agree with the Mover of the Amendment as to the comparative value of home-grown and foreign-grown barley, but there was nothing now any more than there would be under the Bill to hinder the home grower improving the quality of his barley. Brewers did not want to use foreign produce if they could got home produce. An analyst had said, according to his hon. Friend the Seconder of the Bill, that many of the substances now used were noxious, but if that were so then the analyst must have examined substances which were never used by any respectable English brewer and some beer which no working man would drink. The British workman knew good beer, and selected his own house where he got his beer good. He was told that, owing to the physiological structure of maize, it was impossible to produce from it the fusel oil of which this analyst spoke. The analyst must have experimented in his laboratory on substances which were not used in brewing by any respectable brewer. Hut if these deleterious substances so injurious to health, were being used, what was the public analyst doing He should have brought the culprits before the bar of justice under the Food and Drug Acts of 1875, and had them punished by a fine of £50 or a term of imprisonment. Last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Harcourt) had had, for inland revenue purposes, many tests of beer made in different parts of the Metropolis, and he stated to the House that of 2,044 tests there was not one case found in which there were ingredients injurious to health. He thought that that testimony was more eloquent than anything else, as showing that at all events the substitutes used were innocuous. Brewer's and the substitute makers made no secret of their trade. What they brewed from was well known, and they used their products in the light of day. They told what things they used and the quantity used. If the House committed this breach of good faith and destroyed the compact of 1880, they would substitute for it a system under which a number of new evils would be created. For these reasons he begged to second the rejection of the Bill.

MR. F. W. WILSON (Norfolk, Mid)

said, he rose with diffidence to make what was his first speech on a subject, which was the important one of beer. In the part of England in which he lived beer played an important part in social: life, and was coming largely to affect constitutional issues. The adulteration of beer was an old grievance. In an exceedingly interesting work, ''The Origin of English History," if was stated that in ancient times the Greeks fitted out an expedition at Marseilles to visit England, and Pytheas, in describing the British, said that "they made a drink by mixing wheat and honey,'' which was still known as Methgelin in some of the country districts, and he was probably the first authority, for the description of British beer which the Greek physicians knew by a Welsh name, and against which they warned their patients as "a drink producing; pain in the head and injury to the nerves." Yet every man, woman, and child in this Kingdom had, in the course of a year, to drink 46 gallons of beer. This consumption all of us were compelled to undergo. He referred to the authorities which defined beer, and he found that it was universally defined as "a drink made of malt and hops," and Cassell's and Lloyd's dictionaries said that genuine beer should consist of water, malt extract, and alcohol. Therefore, what the supporters of the Bill asked was that that House should give a definition of genuine beer as a liquid brewed from malt and hops. They did not wish to prohibit brewers from brewing other liquids. They were at liberty to brew what they pleased, but genuine beer should be brewed from malt and hops. They had heard a great deal about the changed taste of the English nation, and that it liked light beer. Who were the first people to brew light beer? Why the Basses and Allsopps, who, he understood, used almost exclusively malt and hops, and viewed this Bill not with disfavour. The supporters of the Bill proposed to stay no one from brewing any liquid he pleased, but it must not be called beer. It could be called Allsopp's Double X, Stingo, or what they pleased, but it must not be called beer. It was an established principle of commercial morality that articles offered for sale should be really what they professed to be. He supported recently the Bill for the marking of foreign imported meat, which was on the same principle. Margarine had been prohibited from being sold as butter. If a man went to his grocer's and asked for coffee, the grocer had to supply him with coffee, and not with a mixture of half chicory and half coffee; if he asked for mustard he was bound to supply him with pure mustard. At present beer had a very ill-defined meaning, and all kinds of adulterates were used. They had heard much that day that if this Bill were passed into law the principle of Free Trade would be violated, and that the real object of the promoters was to introduce Protection. In the Debate last year the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was an authority on the subject of beer—[laughter]—said:— The real truth is that brewers are bound to brew a beer which their countrymen want. There can be no question at all about that. The contrary was the fact. They were dealing with an absolutely protected industry, protected to an extent which no other industry enjoyed. Brewers were wise and sagacious men, and had bought up every house where it was possible. In some parts of Norfolk the brewers had bought up all the houses. Four firms of brewers owned over 1,000 houses in Norfolk and Norwich. How could competition exist under such circumstances as this? In the city of Norwich the great brewers there had, as nearly as possible, a monopoly of the sale of beer. Of 601 houses in Norwich with out-licenses, 430 were owned by four brewing firms; in St. Helens, of 260 houses, 127 were owned by a single firm; in Liverpool, out of 2,000 houses, 567 were owned by four firms; and in Manchester, out of 2,400 houses, 540 were owned by five firms. It would thus be seen that brewing was a protected industry. In the liquor business no free trade existed. Competition was absolutely hopeless. Many men would be glad to compete in it if they could, and, if free competition, existed, he believed pure beer could be sold at l½d. or even Id. per glass instead of 2d. The brewers contended that all the trade were against this Bill. But that was not so. The Burton brewers, as they had heard, would support the Measure, and he had a letter from one of his neighbours in Norfolk—a small brewer—in which he wrote that the Bill had his hearty support, and added that in the manufacture of his beer he had never used any foreign malt or hops or any foreign substance whatever. The effect of the passing of the Bill would be largely to put hope into the breasts of the farmers. Although some brewers might declare that they would be driven to the use of foreign barley, he had no doubt that in time they would cease to adopt a policy of vengeance and come back to their old friend the English farmer. Then not only would there be a new triple alliance of the farmers, the brewers, and the Church, but the English artisan and labourer would be able to find wholesome-drink, and, when that happy Elysium arrived, no doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth would consent to a clause which should render pure unadulterated beer a teetotal drink. [Laughter and cheers.]

*SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said, he had for many years taken a great interest in beer. It was a most powerful factor in our social and political life; in fact he might say in our national life. He was justified in saying that, because he read not long ago in Marion Crawford that "beer is the natural irrigator of Conservative principles." [Laughter.] Beer, indeed, was the very ark of the British Constitution. In these days it was the only thing on which this House or anybody else got really enthusiastic. [Laughter.] Last year the hon. Member who introduced the Bill quoted these lines about it:— Inspired by thee the warrior fights, The lover woos, the poet writes And pens the pleasing tale; And still in Britain's isle confest Nought animates the patriot's breast Like generous, nappy ale. [Laughter.] No doubt, beer might make people happier for the time, but he did not know that they would be very much better. He read some time ago how this Christian country brought in the new year in "London, how thousands of people gathered round St. Paul's, some of them with bottles in their hands, others with liquor concealed about their person. Directly the clock struck 12 the crowd inarched round this glorious church shouting Glorious beer, Up with the sale of it, down with a pail of it. Glorious, glorious beer. [Laughter.] As he understood it, this Bill was merely a definition Bill; it was to define what was made and what was sold. The question, however, was, who was to benefit by the Bill? In his opinion, it did not matter what the beer was made of so long as there was alcohol in it. It was the alcohol that did the harm. What said Mr. Montagu Williams, who knew the habits of the working people of this country? He said —"Truly this country is a land flowing with beer and blood." His point was this, that no human being would venture to say that the effect of alcohol on the British working man or anybody else who drinks it would be different, whether it was made from barley, or from maize, or from malt, or from sugar. ["Hear, hear! "] It was the alcohol in the beer which was the predominant partner, and which he had to deal with. They were told that the Bill would benefit the farmers, but who knew that the people would prefer barley beer to sugar beer? Quite possibly they might prefer the sugar beer, and the last state of the farmer would be worse than the first. He believed there was some legislation with regard to marking certain articles of foreign manufacture, which it was supposed would do a great deal of good to manufacturers at home. But what was the result? "Hullo!" people said, "this is foreign manufacture; its cheaper, we'll buy it," and so the legislation did more harm than good to the home producer. These things did not always work out as the prophets said. He thought the brewers had pretty well made out a case with regard to inferior barley. The right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) was very active in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to spend most of his time addressing distressed agriculturists and dining with licensed victuallers. [Laughter.] At the last of those banquets about a week ago, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about this Pure Beer Bill, and said:— In his opinion the prohibition of the use of various ingredients by the brewers would increase the use and consumption of barley, but he did not see the advantage of that if the place of other ingredients was taken by barley not grown in England."' The right hon. Gentleman hit the right nail on the head. Why did hon. Gentlemen opposite not come forward and j say that they wanted Protection? They j won the election on Protection; nine farmers out of ten believed in Protection—more fools they, for they would not get it. [Laughter] He would let the brewers speak for themselves. They had many distinguished brewers in the House, but lie asked, was it for the people who drank beer that this Bill was brought in? Did they care two straws whether the beer was brewed from barley or from sugar? Not they. If it was good strong intoxicating stuff they were quite satisfied. All this ticketing of beer from sugar and malt was all nonsense, and was no better than the ticketing of one man opposite as a Tory and the other as a Liberal Unionist. He did not think that this Bill was of first-class importance. It would not do a great deal of harm and it would not do any good, but he thought the effect of it would be to disturb the brewer, disappoint the farmers, and delude the drinker. It was a sham Bill, and he did not wish to give his vote for adding another to the series.

*MR. A. GRTFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

had expected to find the hon. Member a supporter of the Bill, and not an opponent of it. But this curious state of affairs had arisen. The hon. Baronet was in alliance with the brewers —a circumstance not seen before in the House. He congratulated the hon. Baronet, and the brewers; but when the hon. Baronet asked the House to vote against a Bill because it would disturb the. brewers, he thought hon. Members must accept the statement with a little hesitation. He had always understood that the object of the hon. Baronet's life was to disturb the brewers, but now he was against the promoters of the Bill and with the brewers. He represented a large hop-growing constituency, and so far nothing had been said as to how the Bill would affect the hop industry. It had been contended by the promoters of the Bill that it would benefit the barley growers; on the other hand, the opponents of the Measure said it would not benefit the barley-growers; nothing, however, had been said about the question from the point of view of the hop-growers. He agreed with his hon. Friends in thinking that the Bill would benefit the barley-growers, though he had no right to speak for them. But representing a constituency in which more hops were grown he believed than in any other in the kingdom, he was clearly of opinion that if the Bill became law it would confer a distinct boon on the hop industry. This industry was a very important one. For some years past it had been in a condition of great depression. There had been a heavy fall in prices, and a large decrease in the acreage of hops. Between 1885 and 1889 the acreage fell from 71,000 to 57,000 acres, and that decrease had been maintained. This was not merely a local but an important national question, because there was no agricultural industry in which so much labour was employed as in the hop industry. His predecessor in the representation of the constituency had stated that on 29 acres of hops he had spent £400 a year in wages; and, in addition, he employed every year upwards of 100 hop-pickers from the east of London and other large towns. They had to consider, therefore, whether the Bill would stop this decline in the acreage of hops. He was prepared to admit, in the first place, that this decline in hops was not primarily due to the use of hop substitutes. It was due, first of all, to foreign competition, and secondly, to the fact that in the class of beers brewed now for the public taste less hops were used than formerly, owing to the fact that lighter ales were preferred. It was also true, however, that hop substitutes had played some part in the decline of the hop industry. It was perfectly true that at the present time only 1½ per cent. of hop substitutes were used, but the reason was because the price of hops were very low at present. If the price went up then the hop substitutes would immediately be used more than at the present time, thus depriving the hop grower of the chance of making up for many of the lean years he had to encounter. Hops were not only a varying crop, but the price varied immensely, and therefore, it was necessary to consider, not one year, but several years. He did not charge the brewers generally with the use of substitutes, because he believed that the best class, and the majority, did not use them; but a certain number did undoubtedly use them. 1882 was a year of very great scarcity in the hop trade, and hop growers expected to obtain high prices. But what happened? Substitutes were used to a great extent, and the prices of Colombo root greatly increased; camomile rose from 40s. to 120s., and quassia from £5 to £40. This great rise in other forms of bitters caused by the scarcity of hops was due to the fact that those substitutes were being used to the detriment of the hop growers. The advertisements in the Brewers' Journal showed to what an extent hop substitutes were being used, and he asserted that if the unfair competition in an article which he believed to be deleterious could be prevented by the Bill, not only would the hop trade receive a stimulus which would be of great advantage not only to his constituents but to the consumers of pure beer as well. One advertisement said:— My hop substitute has been before the brewing trade for upwards of 13 years, and is acknowledged by thousands of brewers to be an economical and perfect substitute for hops. From Burton-on-Trent came an advertisement of a substitute for which it was claimed that it gave beer the "fine Kent aroma" of hops. If the "fine Kent aroma" was really produced by some chemical compound, no wonder the Kent hop-growers asked that these substitutes should be declared, and not used surreptitiously. The Report, of the Select Committee said that, although the depression in the hop industry could not be largely attributed to the use of substitutes, the evidence taken was sufficient to show that their use was prejudicial to the interests of the growers, and the Committee accordingly recommended that they ought to be declared. He might be asked why he supported the Bill as a whole. The reason was that he was told by hon. Members from districts where barley was grown that the use of barley substitutes was as prejudicial to the interests of their constituents and the public health as substitutes for hops were to the interests of his own constituents. The supporters of the Bill were asking for nothing impossible. The question had been asked in The Times, "How can you detect these substitutes?" All he could say on that point was that two expert witnesses, Mr. Allen and Mr. Adams, stated before the Committee that they knew a process by which they could distinguish between the bitter in the beer produced from hops and the bitter produced by chemicals. There was nothing unreasonable in this Bill. Its provisions were law in many countries abroad, notably in Bavaria, where they brewed excellent beer. In 1885 no fewer than 12 brewers at one place in Bavaria were sent to prison for 21 days for using hop substitutes. But he did not suggest that brewers should be sent to prison in this country. All that the supporters of the Measure asked was that substitutes should be declared, and that there should be a definition of beer confining the use of that term to liquor brewed from malt and hops. If their request was granted a very distinct benefit would be conferred on the people engaged in the hop industry.

MR. SYDNEY EVERSHED (Staffordshire, Burton)

, referring to an advertisement alluded to by the last speaker said, that he had lived for 40 years in Burton-on-Trent, and he had never heard of the existence there of a manufactory for the preparation of hop substitutes, and he did not believe that any such manufactory could be found. If the hon. Member and his friends could succeed in keeping the price of hops at the level which had prevailed for the last year or two, no brewers would wish for any hop substitute. He was perplexed by the contradictory character of the literature which had been sent to hon. Members in the last few days. Happily for him he was not particularly interested in the fate of this Bill. It was evident that there was a great deal to be said on both sides in this controversy, and it was equally evident that there were two classes of brewers in this country. One class was greatly dependent on the use of other articles than barley, malt, and hops, and he thought that they had a very strong case. When the compact was made between Mr. Gladstone and the brewers, when the right hon. Gentleman substituted the beer duty for the malt duty, his great contention was that an important trade like the brewing trade should have a free mash-tub, that they should be able to use any article in the manufacture of their product which they thought desirable. Out of that had grown up the use of other articles besides barley, malt, and hops. The statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year as to the amount of substitutes used was very interesting. From that statement it appeared after all that barley-malt provided four-fifths of the substance used in the brewing of beer, and this Bill, therefore, was only concerned with one-fifth. Barley-malt had been proved to be the best material out of which beer could be made. No doubt there were cheaper materials, but barley-malt was the best, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the best made, the most wholesome, the most expensive beer—for example, export beer sent to hot climates —was brewed exclusively from barley-malt and hops. No doubt there was a large amount of beer of a different character. The demand of the public was now largely for very light beer, and in beer of that kind there must be a certain amount of sugar. He alluded to the light beers made for immediate consumption. If this Bill passed—to which he had no objection—it would have to be very severely handled in Committee in order to permit the continued use of sugar to a greater extent than was contemplated by the Bill, and in order to provide against injustice to the brewers who had got into the habit of using other materials. Whether the Measure would promote the use of British-grown barley was a question admitting of much difference of opinion. He believed that they could no more restrict the brewers of the United Kingdom to the use of English barley when the English climate had not been kind, than they could persuade the millers of the United Kingdom to use British wheat when the climate had not been kind. Both brewers and millers would get their materials from places where the sun had shone, and where the harvest had been good. The conditions under which the brewing trade was carried on had materially altered during the last few years. Very large amounts of capital had been imported into the trade, and many Companies had been established. The result was that, instead of there being a large amount of keen competitive trade in the country, the business was rapidly developing into the tied-house system, and the development of that system and the greater and greater use of other materials than barley-malt and hops advanced side by side. He had very little hope that much would be done by this Bill in the direction of assisting the British farmer or even the consumer. Its promoters would possibly effect more good if they were to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not assist the use of barley-malt by making, in connection with the incidence of the beer duty, some slight preference in favour of the product from that substance. That would discourage the use of substitutes. He felt bound, however, to vote for the Bill, as he should for any Measure that had purity for its object. It would be a great pleasure to see the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division go into the same Lobby with all the brewers in the House. He hoped it was a good omen, and that on future occasions the brewers might have the help and the countenance of the hon. Baronet.

MR. W. R. GREENE (Cambs., Chesterton)

said that, as a representative of a purely agricultural constituency in the eastern counties, and as one who, at the same time, was interested in the brewing trade of this country, he should like to make a few remarks upon the Bill. He had come to the conclusion, after listening to the interesting speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury, that he wished them to believe that this Bill was to be one of those that was to be all things to all men. In the first place he was told that it was to be a benefit to the consumer by improving the quality of the beer he drinks; and in the second place that it was to be of assistance to the English agriculturist by increasing the demand for, and so raising the price of, the barley which he grew; and, further, he learned that the Temperance Party in the House of Commons were going to support this Bill because, in some way or other, it was going to advance the principle of temperance; and, finally, he had been told that the brewers were supporting this Bill because it was going to cause more beer to be drunk. He did not think he need pause to inquire how far these various results might possibly be compatible with one another. If he thought it could be satisfactorily shown that any one of these desirable objects might be gained by the passing of this Bill, he felt sure it would commend itself to the support of all sections of the House. But he ventured to think that those who expected any such results from this Bill would be most grievously disappointed. He did honestly believe that no legislation of this kind could possibly improve or better the quality of beer that was brewed at the present time. Brewers, like those engaged in any other trade, had to cater for the public tastes, and the disappearance of those heavy, headstrong and thick beers which some hon. Members seemed so much to regret, was due not to any dark design on the part of those who manufactured beer, but to an alteration in the public taste. That alteration had been brought about by the introduction into this country of the light foreign lager and Pilsener beers, and it was, he ventured to assert, to meet that foreign competition and the alteration in the public tatste that the brewers had been obliged to modify in some degree the principle of brewing that had hitherto obtained. This competition was growing, for, whereas in 1880 some thing rather more than 10,000 barrels of beer were introduced into this country from abroad, in 1894 that number had risen to something over 34,000. That was sufficient to show that if any difficulty was put in the way of English manufacturers of turning out a certain class of beer, the introduction of foreign beer from abroad would increase by leaps and bounds. He thought it had been admitted that the Bill was brought forward, not so much in the interests of temperance or of public health, but in the agricultural interest, and he maintained that the support it had found was due to the belief that it would raise the price of English barley. Brewers were not going; to buy foreign barley to spite the English producers, or because it was a cheaper material to use, but they would be obliged to buy foreign barley because, as was well known, fully one-third of the barley grown in this country lacked those qualities which were absolutely essential to the production of popular beers at the present time. The interest of the brewers in this country and the interest of the agriculturist were identical, and, if any increase in prices took place, the first people to benefit by those higher prices would be the brewers themselves. It was objected to this Bill that it flavoured of Protection. He took exception to it because there was no Protection in it. The only protection he could see was protection for the foreign brewer and foreign grower of barley as against the English brewer and the English grower of barley. The rejection of this Bill was one of far greater importance to the agricultural interest than it was to the brewing interest. At the present time, amongst the agriculturists who were in favour of the Bill, were those who would suffer most if it became law. He did not intend to take any part in the Division, but he was much obliged to the House for listening to what, he had to say as a protest against the argument of those who would lead the British public and the British farmer to believe that they were going to confer any boon upon them by the passing of this Bill. He felt quite certain it would only lead to dissatisfaction and disappointment.

*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

I have listened to this Debate from its commencement with some instruction, but with much more amusement. To see the change of parts which has taken place in the Party opposite, contemporaneous with their change of seats, is one of the most amusing transformation scenes I have ever witnessed [Laughter.] My hon. Friend who made this Motion has always been consistent, and in him there is no variation at all, but the speech of the Seconder of the Motion, the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, had in it something of a warning and minatory tone towards those whom he admitted were their former allies—the brewers. It has been referred to by my hon. Friend behind me as a triple alliance —an alliance of the brewers, the barley growers, and the Bishops—[laughter]— and this triple alliance seems at this moment to be rather shaky. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire said that they had always stood by the brewers. I believe that to be true, and he warned them that if the brewers did not stand by them it might be the worse for them. Yes, but I think he rather fails to measure the power of the brewers. [Cheers.] I can assure him that he and his interest are not nearly as strong as the brewers in this country, and if they come to measure swords with the brewers, the brewers will defeat them—[''hear, hear!'']—and therefore he is, I am afraid, at their mercy on this question. He warned the House, and I think very wisely, not to flirt or coquet with this Bill, as had been done on political platforms throughout the country. That is perfectly true. We know the part the Pure Beer Bill played in the last election. [''Hear, hear!"] But he also gave what I think was rather a singular warning to his friends around him. He said:— You pledged yourselves to the Pure Beer Bill throughout the country, hut if you are only convinced by the arguments of the brewers I strongly advise you not to vote for it. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] That is a very comfortable doctrine—["hear, hear!"]—because you can obtain the advantage of pledging yourselves to the Pure Beer Bill at the election, and then, when you come to this House, if you take the advice of the hon. and gallant Member, you need not vote for it. ["Hear, hear!"] That seems to me to be the convenient principle upon which the alliance between the brewers and the agricultural interest can be maintained. This question involves some considerations to which I do not think sufficient attention has been paid. I suppose before we have done the opinion of the Government on this Bill will be stated. I am glad to see in his place, though he has only lately arrived, the Minister for Agriculture. I wish he had been here a little earlier, so as to have held evenly the scales of justice between the brewers and the farmers, and I hope, before the end of this Debate, he will advise the agricultural interest whether this Bill is for their good or not, because, of course, his opinion upon that matter will carry great weight with the agricultural interest in the vote that they will give. ["Hear, hear!"] There has been a very strong opinion among the farmers of England that the Pure Beer Bill would be an advantage to the barley growers of this country, and we should like to have the official opinion of the Agricultural Department on that subject. I should say that the Agricultural Department exists very much for such a purpose as that, and therefore when the Minister for Agriculture has informed us of the view of the Government as to whether this Bill will be an advantage or a disadvantage to the barley growers of England we shall be assisted in this Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] There is another Member of the Government whose opinion I think I can forecast—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chancellors of the Exchequer have no prejudices whatever upon this subject; it is immaterial to them of what ingredients beer is made. [Laughter.] The only question with them is how much money they are sure to get out of any proposal, and that, I venture to say, will be the point of view from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will regard the subject to-day. An hon. Member opposite has recommended the farmers to go back to the old malt duty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, doubtless, state whether he has come to any definite opinion on that point. But whether he gets his money from the malt tax or the extract, his governing consideration in the matter will be the amount of money he will receive. Under present arrangements he gets a great deal more than he would get out of the malt tax, and he certainly will not go back to the malt tax unless a sufficient amount is put on that tax to make up for what he would lose by sacrificing the present system. ["Hear, hear! "] I venture to think, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only impartial man in the House on the subject of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] An observation was made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth which, I think, is a material point in the consideration of the subject. The hon. Member said that the English workman wanted to know where he could get the best beer and the beer that was suited to his taste. We have heard a great deal in the course of the Debate about particular tastes for beer, and it has been said that the brewer brews for the tastes of those whom he supplies. I am not quite certain that there is any strong guarantee for that, because in order that a man might be able to get the best beer or the beer that he likes he ought to have a choice between one house and another. But that is not the case now. ["Hear, hear!"] I know parts of the country where for distances of 20 miles every free public house has disappeared. Therefore, the working man has not a choice and cannot get the particular beer he may wish. He has to take whatever beer the brewer chooses to provide, and consequently the whole of that argument falls to the ground. There are only a certain number of public houses under the existing licensing system, and the brewer if he has capital enough gets possession of the whole of them, and, having got possession of them, he supplies exactly that beer which suits his purposes and his pocket best, and he need not consult the taste of his customers at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Another peculiarity of this trade is that it is the only trade with which I am acquainted in which the price of the article has no relation whatever to the cost of the production. [Cheers.] If the price of malt or barley falls the price of a glass of beer remains the same, and T know of no other article to which that condition of things would apply. That is due, of course, to the absolute monopoly which the licensing system gives to the brewer in this respect, and, therefore, he can brew exactly as he pleases. The consequence of that is that any drop which takes place in the price of barley or hops redounds exclusively to the benefit of the brewer with the exception of such part as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day might be able to extract from it.

MR. USBORNE

said that during the Crimean War an extra 10s. was put upon malt, and the price of beer was not raised.

*SIR W. HARCOURT

The Crimean War was some time ago. [Laugthter.] When the addition 16d. of duty was put upon beer the brewers declared that they were likely to he ruined, but I ventured to point out that the extra profits which have been made by them in consequence of the fall in the prices of material have been three times, nay, four times, more than what they lost by the imposition of the extra tax. I will increase that figure now, and say that in another 12 months they will have gained five or six times what they have lost by the tax through the fall in the price of material. ["Hear, hear!"]

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

I think that the argument used at the time, was that the price of barley was likely to fall in consequence of the imposition of the tax. That statement has been only too amply verified.

*SIR W. HARCOURT

No, I think that was said to be in consequence of monometallism. [Laughter.] This additional 6d. on the barrel of beer was said to be a disadvantage equal to 2s. per quarter on barley. The hon. Gentleman opposite thought it would be removed by the present Government. We shall see what the Minister for Agriculture says on that matter, and when the agriculturist gets a pure beer Bill and gets the extra 6d. taken off, if it is taken off, that will no doubt be a contribution to them, and we do not know what the price of barley may then be. [" Hear, hear! "] In my opinion one of the most important questions that will have to be dealt with in reference to this trade in liquor is the tied-house system, which has a far more material bearing on the whole of this subject and upon the relation of the trade to the consuming population than this Bill. The fact is that this gigantic monopoly is passing every day into fewer and fewer hands, and when you talk of the old taste of the English people for beer, and when they had their homebrewed ale, that sentiment of the "nappy ale" has entirely disappeared. ["Hear, hear! "] The trade is passing every day into the hands of a few score of people, who have got hold, through the instrumentality of the licensing system, of such a monopoly as never before existed in this country. There is no relation between the producer and the consumer such as there is in other industries of the country, and this is a matter which will demand an early solution. ["Hear, hear!"] It is intolerable that, through the monopoly existing in the licensing system, it should be possible for people who have an unlimited command of capital to engross a trade of this enormous character, and to become absolute masters of the whole situation as to the material to be used and the quality of the article to be supplied. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the Bill, I doubt whether it will accomplish much. First of all, there would be great difficulty in enforcing the penalties. In the next place, in spite of what the agriculturists have expected in this matter, I doubt whether their hopes will be realised. It is certainly not with any desire to prevent them from having any relief they can get that I should offer any opposition to the Bill. If I thought it would do them the least good I would strongly support it. I certainly should not oppose the Bill from any fear lest the brewers should suffer. Their increase of profits has been going on, not by tens of thousands, not by hundreds of thousands, but by millions. Whether they are induced to use cheaper materials—foreign barley or hop substitutes—is a matter of indifference to myself, and probably to the great majority of this House. But I do think that what is wanted is some security against a monopoly of this description. The purchaser should have the power of obtaining what he desires, and should not be at the absolute mercy of a monopoly which is so powerful that nothing can resist it.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down expressed surprise that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture had not addressed the House on the Bill now before us. In that my right hon. Friend was only following the example—I think a very good example—of his predecessor in that office, when, under the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman opposite took this subject into his charge, instead of leaving it to the perhaps more friendly hands of the Minister of Agriculture of the day. [Laughter.] As the right hon. Gentleman has said, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, ought to be impartial on this matter. He has first to think of his revenue, and afterwards he has to think, I hope, to some extent of the interests that contribute it. But the right hon. Gentleman showed an impartiality in this matter to-day to which I cannot pretend. He said something, in the first place, about the agricultural interest; he said a good deal more about the brewers, and what I gathered from his speech was that he was impartially hostile to both. [Laughter.] I confess that that is not my position, and I do not think it was the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself when, ten years ago, he held the office which I now have the honour to hold, for, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury, in 1886, introduced a Pure Beer Bill and developed his case with that genial humour which the House always delights in, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported the Second Reading of the Bill. [Laughter.] I hope in that action he was not influenced by any idea of flirting or coquetting either with the agricultural interest or with the brewers. [Laughter.] But I really think there is great force in the argument from sentiment in this matter. The hon. Member for Suffolk, who sits on the opposite side of the House, and who addressed the House as a supporter of this Bill, told us that beer plays an important part in all our social life. I think even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has found that out by this time—[loud laughter]—and I will venture to add that all the consumers of beer, to whatever class they belong, are anxious that their beer should be pure, and that, in the minds of many persons, and especially of the inhabitants of the eastern counties, there is a very strong belief that beer brewed from malt and hops is in some way a better beer than that brewed from other substances. We surely can gather that from the speeches which have been addressed to the House from that part of England to-day, for, without regard to the side of the House on which hon. Members sit, this Bill has been supported on that ground. In former days there was a doctrine which was very dear to the political economist —the doctrine of caveat emptor. The seller might sell any article he chose, and the purchaser must take care of himself in the purchase. But that doctrine is not popular now. In the matter of coffee and in the matter of butter, Parliament has deliberately departed from it in order to secure to the purchaser that if coffee be mixed with chicory or if butter be mixed with anything else, the person who sells articles so mixed shall declare it to the purchaser. Again, it was only last Wednesday, with regard to the question of home and foreign meat, both being equally wholesome, that the House, by a very large majority, asserted the principle that the seller should declare whether he sold home or foreign meat; and, therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk asks us, as I understand, by his Bill to extend that principle to the article of beer, he is, I think, making a request which, at any rate, is not without precedent in the legislation which has already been sanctioned by Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not' gather that in the course of this Debate much has been said about the manufacture of beer from deleterious ingredients. It was, I think, alleged that this was true with regard to hop substitutes; but the main object of those who have brought forward this Bill seems to be to secure that the brewer of beer and the seller of beer shall declare the material of which it is composed, when it is composed of substances which, though not malt or hops, are assumedly wholesome. I confess that, personally, that is a principle with which I have very great sympathy, precisely as the right hon. Gentleman sympathised with it in 1886, and I do not know that, as a principle, there is anything in it of which the brewer and the retailer of beer need complain. I am quite convinced that there are many kinds of beer brewed, perhaps from maize, from rice, or from sugar, which are equally as wholesome as beer brewed from malt and hops, and which many persons consider, like lager beer—which, I believe, is brewed wholly from rice —to be even more palatable. If that be so, and if it be also true that the purchaser of beer will much more be guided in his purchase by what he considers the goodness of the article rather than the material of which it is composed, then I really do not see what the brewer or the retailer of beer can lose by declaring the wholesome materials which compose their beer. But when I come to the provisions of the Bill, I am bound to say I find myself at considerable difference with my hon. Friend who proposed the Bill. In the first place I think my hon. Friend has himself admitted that the title ''adulteration'' is absolutely misleading. ["Hear, hear!"] He does not think so much of what is properly called adulteration by the use of deleterious articles as he does of the use of other articles besides malt and hops, which are equally wholesome. Secondly, I cannot concur with him that in any fairness to the brewers, the use of the term "beer" could rightly be confined under a penalty to beer brewed solely from malt and hops. ["Hear, hear!"] As I have ventured to argue to the House, I believe that other beer is equally wholesome and equally palatable, and it is quite certain that beer brewed from other substances has been called beer for many years, and I do not think Parliament would have the right to disallow the title. More than that, I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that, from my point of view as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would be acting directly contrary to the interests which I think he desires to protect if he did anything of the kind, because I think that the provisions of the Bill, as they now stand, would practically exempt from taxation, as beer, beer composed of any other article besides malt and hops. ["Hear, hear!"] That, at any rate, cannot be his object. Then I come to another difficulty. The value of this Bill really arises when the article passes from the retailer to the consumer. I am told it is absolutely impossible by any analysis at that stage to detect whether beer has been brewed from malt and hops or from sugar, or maize or rice. Then you are necessarily thrown back on the brewer. What may be the result of that? I fear the result of that may be a very vexatious interference with that liberty of brewing from any kind of wholesome material to which, I must say, the brewer has a fair right, and which I think Parliament will maintain. ["Hear, hear!"] Thus, to put it very shortly, my view of the question is this. I cannot separate myself from the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman opposite showed in 1886 with the principle of this Bill. [Laughter.] In humble imitation— [laughter]—I accept that principle. But I trust my hon. Friend will see that there are very grave difficulties in its application. I think he must admit that the Bill which he introduced at the time to which I am referring, while based upon that principle, proposed to carry it out in an entirely different manner from that which is proposed in the Bill introduced to-day. I am afraid that, with every goodwill to the principle, its application will be found to be practically impossible. [Opposition laughter.] What I would venture to suggest to my hon. Friend—who, and whose constituents attach so much importance to this question, which I do not think is quite to be laughed away, for we must recognise the importance of popular sentiment in this matter—is that I should endeavour to provide for some kind of expert Inquiry both into the necessity for any further Measure to prevent the use of deleterious substances in the manufacture of beer, and also to ascertain whether, in the opinion of experts, it is possible and desirable to define the materials of which beer is composed without undue interference with the freedom of brewers to use any wholesome material in its composition. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.] If my hon. Friend will be content with the Debate which has taken place on this Bill, I will do my best to secure that in some way or other such an Inquiry shall be instituted. The result of it would, I think, set this matter at rest, and would convince those on whose behalf he is acting, that if Parliament cannot meet their wishes, it is at any rate desirous that this question shall be fully inquired into, and the possibility of dealing with it as they would desire fully considered. [''Hear, hear!"]

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the hon. Member who had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bread would hardly be content with a stone. He could scarcely decide in his own mind whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking seriously or in banter. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; the Chancellor of the Exchequer sympathised with the principle of this Bill. Then he demonstrated that the application of the principle of the Bill was practically impossible; and then he said he would give an Inquiry to see whether the principle could be applied. [" Hear, hear!"] He could not make out what the position was. If the Bill were presented in the interests of pure beer, he thought that some kind of a case could be offered for it in the interests of the consumer, but that had not been suggested. What they were told was that the Bill was brought forward in the interests of agriculture — ["Divide!" from a Conservative Member]—in the sole interests of agriculture. Was it in the interests of agriculture? What did the hon. Member say?— You must be prepared, if this Bill passes in it a present form, to see a larger proportion of foreign barley used by the brewer. So there was to be an increase, not of British but of foreign barley. He was, therefore, entirely unable to see what benefit would accrue to agriculture from the passing of this Bill. He failed to see, even if the Bill were passed, how it was possible to ascertain the materials of which beer was made; and he, therefore, for these reasons would vote against the Bill.

SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

was aware that the House was anxious to come to a conclusion, and he should not stand in the way of such a consummation. The subject was one of vital importance, and particularly in this way: If they made a mistake in regard to this question, it would be very grievous, and would complete the wreckage which now was threatening agriculture throughout the land. He must point out that this was not the old Bill, and the position of agriculture was more serious now than it was ten years ago. If that discussion had shown anything at all, it had shown that amongst many of them who were experts in the matter, there was a wide difference of opinion. ["Hear, hear!"] They had good-humoured speeches from the late and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the latter had said, "Why should they go to a Division on this question?" Was it necessary that they should do so? Would it not be better to offer you the best expert information? In the face of this, if he were to vote, he might make a huge blunder, and deal a blow, with the best intention on his part, to the great industry which he had at heart. If they could get the information of experts, he thought it would be far better to withdraw the Bill.

*MR. QUILTER

After the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me in perfect good faith, and after the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I have no hesitation in saying that I accept the offer in the same good faith. I am perfectly aware how difficult it is for any body of Gentlemen in this House, however anxious they might be to solve the question, to arrive at a decision without inquiry which may lead to a desirable consummation, and so strengthen our national industry. I withdraw the Bill. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" front the Opposition Benches.]

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! Is the Amendment withdrawn? Cries of "No!"]

MR. USBORNE

! Of course I withdraw the Amendment if the Bill is withdrawn. [Laughter.]

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.