BEER ACT AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 18 August 1831)

§ The Duke of Wellington
observed, that it might be proper to introduce a clause for preventing the beer-houses from being kept open at unseasonable hours, as he had suggested when the subject was last under consideration.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, it was very difficult to determine what ought to be 211 considered as an unseasonable hour. The hour of ten o'clock had been already fixed upon, and he therefore suggested that the noble Duke should allow the matter to remain as it was for the present. With regard to towns, it was necessary that the houses at any place should not depend upon the caprice of the local magistracy, and in consequence, he would make some other arrangement with regard to country places.

§ The Duke of Wellington
said, the arrangement proposed by the noble Viscount, satisfied him with regard to towns, for, from all the information he obtained, the abuses of the beer-shops were hitherto most apparent in the country; and there the licensed houses were more under the control of the magistracy than in towns. The object of the Legislature was to give the poor the advantage of good and cheap beer, but without holding out any temptation to excess and irregularity. The sale of beer might go on till rather a late hour, but then it ought not to be drunk at a late hour on the premises. He apprehended they must make some further alteration in the Act, for the police regulations had not answered. But notwithstanding this, he thought the Act, on the whole, had been a great benefit. It had destroyed the monopoly of the brewers, and given the public the full advantage of the repeal of the duty. It was necessary that all existing evils should be checked, and though he was not particular as to an hour, and would leave that to the further consideration of the noble Viscount, yet he must insist, that further restrictions were necessary.

§ Viscount Melbourne
admitted, that many evils had arisen from this measure, but he hoped they were of such a nature as might be mitigated, if not entirely removed. There were reasons for believing so many licenses would not in future be given; but as the whole Act might be regarded as an experiment, he thought they would in another year see their way more distinctly than at present.

§ Lord Tenterden
said, there was a proviso in one of the clauses of the last Act, by which power was given to the magistrates, to enable them to guard against abuses as to the time these beerhouses were allowed to be kept open. He, therefore, hoped some similar clause might be now introduced which should have the effect of closing those houses at 212 an early hour. It had been clearly ascertained that great crimes and disorders had been committed, particularly in the country, by persons sallying from them at late hours.

The Bishop of London
expressed his hope, that at least a clause would be introduced to limit further the time for keeping open these shops on the Sundays. There ought to be no distinction between them and the regular licensed houses, in this respect; the latter class had large capitals embarked in them, and were under the control of the magistracy. This was not the case with the former. The object of the Legislature was, to give the poor the advantage of good and cheap beer, but without putting temptation in their way, or giving them additional opportunities for intemperate indulgence, or for profaning the Lord's day. He also wished to have a clause introduced in order to prevent people playing at skittles at these beerhouses. The practice of keeping skittle-grounds at them was not only injurious to those who frequented them, by leading them into excess, but was injurious to the owners of adjacent grounds. There were instances in which the existence of these skittle-grounds had been found injurious to the letting of the adjacent houses.

§ Lord Wynford
had heard it said of these houses, that people remained in them until it was time to go out poaching, or to commit other depredations. He should, therefore, propose, that they should close at eight o'clock in winter, and nine in summer; in which case the guests must move out before the honest part of the community had gone to bed. He thought, also, that constables should be authorized to enter at all times, without a warrant, when they had reason to believe that any riot or disorder was going on, and when persons were drinking in those houses at hours, not allowed by law. Some regulations were also necessary with regard to Sundays. It was, in his opinion, improper to allow those houses to be open or persons to enter in them during the hours of Divine service, and it might be advisable to subject the master to a penalty if persons should be found to remain more than one hour in the house on that day at one time.

The Earl of Carnarvon,
referring to the control given to the constables over 213 these houses, remarked, that there was not a more inefficient animal in the world than a country parish constable; and it was absurd to suppose, that rioting or tippling could be prevented by such an instrument. The old public-houses in the country were intended entirely for the accommodation of travellers; but these beer-shops seemed calculated for no other purpose than the encouragement of tippling, to remedy which he would prevent the beer being drank on the premises. At present, however, there was no other remedy against the drinking of beer at any hour on these premises, except the superintendence of these constables, under a Magistrate's warrant. But the constable could not effectually interfere, considering the odium and the vengeance to which he might be exposed, so that penalties could not be enforced. In towns the matter rested on a different principle, and yet it was very difficult to distinguish between a town and country parish. That difficulty had been experienced in other matters besides the present—it had been found very difficult to settle whether some boroughs in schedule A and in schedule B were in town or country. With respect to country parishes, this Act had been founded in mistake, and therefore the effect was mischievous. The beer-houses absorbed nearly all the money that the labourer received, to the material injury of his family, and it was absurd to imagine, that after every facility had been afforded to the poor man to get drunk at discretion for one year, that this habit could be got rid of by diminishing the number of licenses in future. Nothing would remedy the evil except prohibiting the drinking of beer on the premises.

§ Viscount Melbourne
did not concur in the observations of the noble Earl who spoke last, as to the inefficiency of the parish constable; and as to the remarks of the right rev. prelate, in regard to shutting these houses on Sundays, he thought they should be put on the same footing as the regular licensed houses, which were not allowed to be open during the hours of Divine service. As to skittle playing, he thought it unadvisable to enter upon any minute legislation in regard to such matters. The police would find no greater difficulty in causing their authority to be respected in this, than in other matters. He thought it unwise to withdraw the measure. Intoxication 214 arose as much from the reduction in price as from increasing the numbers of the places where beer was drunk.

The Bishop of London
contended, that it was not necessary for competition that skittle-grounds should be attached to those houses. This was a kind of game which encouraged vast numbers of the working classes to resort to them, and the most pernicious consequences followed. If it was "minute" legislation to discuss this point, he begged to remind the noble Viscount, that certain sedentary games had been prohibited by law, because they encouraged people to sit. He did not wish to restrict the means of amusement of those classes, but there were games of a much more manly character in which they might indulge, and which did not lead to the same bad consequences of gambling and tippling. He would, if he stood alone, persist in pressing a clause to prevent retail beer-houses from having skittle-grounds attached to them.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, that the prohibition of skittles in those houses would be giving an additional advantage to the licensed public-houses.

The Bishop of London
thought, that the allowing of skittle-grounds on these premises was far from being a matter of indifference, and therefore he would move, if he stood alone, to introduce a clause to prohibit skittle playing.

§ Lord Tenterden
was of opinion, that the power of the constable, as the Act at present stood, was too limited, and therefore he proposed to add a clause, by which the constable should have the power to enter, as at present, under a Magistrate's warrant; and next, that in addition to this he should have the power, without warrant, to enter at all times when the houses were legally open, and at any time, upon being required to do so by an inhabitant of the vicinity, or on his having reasonable cause to suspect that persons were remaining there at an improper time, or that something improper was going on. If the constable abused this power, it would be at his peril. He therefore did not apprehend this would infringe on the liberty of the subject; he should therefore propose to introduce into the clause these words, "where a riot or disturbance exists, the constable may enter the house, for the purpose of quelling it, without a warrant."

The Bishop of London
then proposed his clause, to the effect that any person licensed to sell beer or cider, who allowed skittles or any other game to be played on the premises for which he took his license, should forfeit 40s. for every such offence.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, that if the right rev. prelate thought this clause of importance, and that it was likely to be effectual for its purpose, he should feel some reluctance to resist it. Perhaps the right rev. prelate would not object to its postponement for the present.

§ Lord Wynford
stated, that according to the existing law, playing skittles, or other games, for money, was illegal, and the offending parties were liable to a penalty.

§ The Duke of Wellington
thought, that time ought to be afforded to consider the clause. There might be cases in which it would operate harshly, as for instance where the proprietor of a skittle-ground had been induced by the Act to add a beer-house to it. At the same time it was most desirable that the law which sanctioned the existence of such houses should not be subject to abuse. They were permitted for additional accommodation to administer to the comforts of the people, and to break down the monopoly of the brewers, and keeping these legitimate objects in view, the Act ought to be framed to prevent the abuse of them.

The Marquis of Lansdown,
in addition to the strong ground taken by the noble Duke, of fair protection to the new interests, which had been created by the Act, saw another reason why they should hesitate to adopt the clause proposed by the right rev. prelate. He feared it would be ineffectual. That House seldom legislated with much success against the habitual amusements of the people. A skittle-ground might, in defiance of the clause, be opened by some other person than the occupant of the house, in the adjacent field, and be supplied with beer from the beer-shop.

The Bishop of London
replied, that if they could not abolish an evil altogether, that was no reason why they should not attempt to mitigate it. He did not think that in any considerable number of instances the penalty would be evaded. He should, however, withdraw the clause for the present, in the hope that the noble Viscount would propose it at a future stage of the Bill. He should now pro- 216 pose that the houses should not be kept open after seven o'clock of the evening on Sundays and Good Fridays.

§ Viscount Melbourne,
with respect to this clause also, would request time for consideration, and he had great doubts whether any enactment in this respect would prove effectual.