against one party for having allowed the debate to drop, the accusation could not be sustained if the last speech in the debate was one in favour of that side of the question, supported by the party accused; and yet such had been the case in the debate of that night. The debate had been opened by his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, with a very able speech, the arguments of which remained yet unshaken; and with that speech he would be willing to rest their part of the question. He was followed by the hon. member for Durham, and the member for Northumberland, who both opposed the bill. They were followed by the hon. member for Bristol, who declared he would vote for the indemnity, and his vote was the more valuable, having given a vote against ministers on the question of the suspension [No, no! from the opposition]. He was sure that was the course of his argument. His argument was, that even those who voted against the suspension, were nevertheless bound to vote for the indemnity. This hon. gentleman had been followed by another hon. gentleman on the same side of the House (Mr. Stanhope), who again was followed by the hon. member for Cambridge. The hon. member for Cambridge was again followed by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Marryat), the first who spoke on his side of the House, but not the first who spoke on his side of the question: who, though he voted against the suspension, stated that he was prepared to vote in favour of the indemnity. The hon. and learned gentleman in question was followed by a noble lord (Althorp), of whose efforts in opposing the bill he certainly did not mean to speak with any disparagement, but he might safely say they were much second to that of the hon. gentleman whom he followed. However, the effect of that speech was completely done away by an hon. gentleman, who usually voted with the opposite side of the House (Mr. Fremantle). He was was followed by a noble lord (Nugent), who had certainly had his share of the debate, and had done his best. [a laugh.] He did not mean to under-rate the noble lord's abilities, but, however ingenious or eloquent, the noble lord's speech might have been, he thought it completely answered by the argument of the hon. member who succeeded him. This was the history of the debate in which his majesty's ministers were blamed for not having taken a part. He would be glad to know in what part of the debate they could with propriety have come in? But, indeed, he would observe, that a debate in which the conduct of ministers themselves was in question, and in which they were personally implicated, was not that in which they should be too ready to take a part. In addition to the history of the debate, which was itself a sufficient reply to the two hon. and learned gentlemen, he must remind the House, with regard to their threat about forms, that the course of debating a bill on the first reading, which had been done that night, was a very unusual course. The usual coure would have been to have had the first reading on the samne night that the bill was brought from the Lords; and the second reading on this night. That course was interrupted by a request from an hon. member opposite, out of courtesy to whom his hon. and learned friend had consented to postpone the first reading till this night; and now in return for this, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite came forward with his threats. His noble friend seemed to hint that if the other business which stood for to-morrow should occupy the House to a late hour, the second reading would not be pressed. Now, after the conduct of the hon. and learned gen. tleman opposite, he, for one, hoped that no postponement would take place to-morrow on any account whatever, and that the House would, by going through the second reading, then testify its sense of this interruption, so uncourteous and unprovoked [Hear, hear!]. Sir J. Newport said, he would follow the example of the right hon. gentleman, by also giving a recommendation to his honourable friends. He would recom mend them to avail themselves of the forms of the House, for the purpose of protecting the minority within those walls, and the people of England at large. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that if any protracted discussion should take place on any preceding question, ministers would not persevere in pressing the measure. He could inform that right hon. gentleman, that there was a question which, according to the rules of the House, had the priority, on which a discussion was likely to arise, unless the right hon. gentleman was prepared to maintain, that the salt duties did not present a question of importance to the country? Would it be right, after a long debate on such a was contrary to order to interrupt a speaker, but it was in perfect consistency with the practice of the House to correct, as soon as possible, a fact accidentally misrepresented, in order to prevent the waste of argument founded on such misrepresentation. Such a course was by no means unusual, and he never knew an instance before the present, in which it was not taken in good part. However, as the right hon. baronet preferred the more regular and formal proceeding, he had yielded to his desire, and should now correct the misrepresentation of which he complained. The right hon. baronet had stated, that he had omitted in his enumeration the members for Northumberland and Hertfordshire; he should answer without any apology, that he had omitted neither. Sir S. Romilly withdrew his amendment, on the understanding, that if the second reading of the bill could not come on tomorrow before a late hour, it would be postponed. subject, to proceed to discuss the principle of the present measure? The right hon. gentleman had left out of his calculation, in the historical statement which he affected to give of the debate, the speeches of the member for Northumberland and the member for Hertfordshire, [cries of No, no!]. [Mr. Canning rose, and was about to address the Chair, but sir J. Newport refusing to give way to him, he sat down.] Sir J. Newport observed, with some warmth, that such an interruption was contrary to order, and he would no more tolerate it from the right hon. gentleman than from any other man in the House. The amount of what he contended for was this, that, according to the right hon. gentleman's own argument, the bill ought not to be brought forward to-morrow. He had said, that it was intended as an accommodation to the member for Durham, but the member for Durham had made no request of the kind, so that it was in fact only meant for the accommodation of ministers themselves. But even if the statement were correct, would the House agree to sanction them in granting such a favour to any individual, when the effect of it must be to prevent that deliberate, dispassionate consideration which they were bound to give to all questions, and particularly to questions of such magnitude. If it was to be laid down as a principle, that any stage of a bill could be hastily passed over, the very principle on which those different stages appeared to rest, would be contradicted. They were marked out for the purpose of insuring a fair and full discussion; and while it could be contended, that any member had a right to oppose a bill in all its stages, it must be admitted that he had a right to debate it in all its stages, and consequently a right to insist that he should not be deprived of the opportunities necessary to admit of such debate. Upon these grounds, he trusted that those gentlemen who promised to avail themselves of the orders, by proposing a call of the House, would persevere in their intention; and he had little doubt, that if they did so, ministers would find themselves in the same difficulties which they had experienced on former occasions, when the same expedient was successfully tried. Mr. Canning assured the right hon. baronet, that it was not from any disrespect towards him that he had offered himself to the attention of the House. It (VOL. XXXVII.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, March 10. PETITION AGAINST THE MONOPOLY OF BEER.] Mr. Lockhart rose to present a Petition, which he said was signed by 14,000 persons, inhabitants of the metropolis and its vicinity, complaining of the monopoly carried on in the brewing of porter by certain brewers in the metropolis. Some of the petitioners, he observed, were magistrates, and a great number tradesmen of respectability, but all of the petitioners were persons interested in the price of porter. They complained that the present price of porter was entirely too high, and that its quality was extremely bad, and this they attributed to the monopoly of certain brewers, who, notwithstanding the fall which had on one occasion, since the war, taken place in the price of malt and hops, the removal of the heavy war malt duty, and the abolition of the property tax, still kept up the price of their porter, alleging, as a reason, that they had a great stock on hand; but though that stock had long since been consumed, they kept up their high prices, and they were still advancing them. Now, when every article used in the manufacture of porter was, with some few exceptions, cheaper than at any former period, for a considerable time, they not only sold their porter at a dearer rate, but made it (30) of a very inferior quality, so that this ne- | committee on the police of the metropocessary article of consumption was no lis. The remedy which the petitioners longer a nutritious beverage to the poor suggested, though without pointing out man, whose means did not allow him to any in particular, was, that the trade seek for any other. The petitioners also should be thrown open, and that the stated, that the monopoly was caused by power of the magistrates should be rethe principals of the eleven chief brew-moved from the patronage and entire coneries in the metropolis, who met together trol over it, to the legal one of correcting like the partners of one concern, and fixed its abuses. That instead of their own unthe price at which porter should be sold. controllable power, as to who was or who It was said also, that the circumstance was not to exercise the trade, they should was mentioned in the report of the police be restricted to the application of those committee; but he could not find that legal remedies which were calculated to that committee had noticed the circum- correct its disorders. This, in his opinion, stance. He should, however, say, that if would have the effect of removing all the this monopoly existed, it was so dangerous principal grounds of complaint, as far as in its nature and effects, so subversive of concerned the mode of licensing, and every fair principle of commercial specu- would go, in a great degree, to remedy lation, that he hoped no man of charac- all the others; for if the victuallers were ter, honour, or fortune, in the city, would left to their own choice, without the terbe found to be engaged in it. It was, if ror of a magistrate's power hanging over it existed as described, a species of mo- their heads, they would deal with those nopoly which interested every member of brewers who gave them the best beer, and the community; for there was no man they would thereby destroy that monowho could be insensible for a moment to poly which it was now alleged existed. the consequences of giving an inferior The high price of porter, and its very inkind of drink to the lower classes of ferior quality, were another complaint people, and thereby driving them to the made by the petitioners. It was his duty use of those liquors, the effects of which to recommend the prayer of the petition had been found so destructive to the mo- to the House, and if the allegations menrals of the community. The petitioners tioned were found to be true, it would be stated, and he agreed with them, that the the duty of the House to correct the whole of the evils complained of on this abuses they stated. He would not say, subject, arose out of that power which of his own knowledge, that the monopoly was vested in the magistrates, of saying, existed as it was described; but if it did without any control, who should, and so exist, it ought to be put down, as it who should not, have their authority for was against every principle of law and fair selling beer. The power they exercised commercial policy. This petition, it ought in this way, was not, in his opinion, re- to be observed, was not merely founded cognised by any legislative enactments. upon the authority of the petitioners themWith many of them, the right to exercise selves, it was borne out in some important the business of a publican was not granted parts by the report of committees on the or withheld from any view to the public police of the metropolis, who had paid good, but from a wish to promote the most particular attention to the subject, interest of those who were their particular as far as concerned the system of licens. patrons and friends. Another complaint ing, and the monopoly of victuallingof the petitioners was, that the power of houses by the brewers. This committee taking away licences was not regulated by was also aided by the evidence of several any fixed rules with which those concerned brewers of considerable eminence. The in the trade were acquainted, but seemed committee stated, that they had observed to depend entirely upon the caprice or in- the practice which had lately taken place terest of the parties exercising that power. of brewers becoming the proprietors, Why any man should, upon slight or trivial either by purchase or loan, or mortgage, grounds, take away the means which an- of a vast number of victualling-houses, other possessed of earning his bread, or and the proportion of houses so held by why he should be deprived of that which them in the metropolis, was nearly half was his only property, perhaps it would the entire. This they describe as exbe difficult to determine upon any fair le-tremely injurfous to the community at gislative principle. But that such abuses large. And in another place they obexisted was proved from the report of the serve, that the practice was also growing in the country, and ought to be put down, | great reductions in their accustomed as most injurious. From this it appeared, charges, they did not make such reducthat the petitioners were not without tions, but kept up their prices, until after foundation in their assertions; for there their conduct had excited animadversions was in these instances direct evidence of in the House of Commons, alleging, as monopoly in several places. He con- a reason for their doing so, that their ceived, on the whole, that the petition stock in hand must be first disposed of. was one of considerable importance, and required the serious attention of the House. The Petition was then brought up and read, and was as follows: To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the inhabitants of London and its vicinity, "SHEWETH-1. That your Petitioners are much aggrieved by the high price and inferior quality of the beer which is obtruded upon them in consequence of the supplying of that necessary of life being confined to certain privileged individuals and places. 2. "The high legal authorities have declared all monopolies to be against the ancient and fundamental laws of the realm, and injurious to the public-first, by raising the price of commodities; secondly, by diminishing their quality; thirdly, by impoverishing poor manufacturers. 3. "That the legislature has passed numerous statutes to punish such as are guilty of creating monopolies-particularly monopolies of the necessaries of life; and so early as the 2nd and 3rd of Edward 4th, very heavy penalties were imposed on victuallers who combined together to raise the price of victuals, extending upon a second repetition of the offence to the pillory, to the loss of an ear, and perpetual infamy. 4. "That, notwithstanding the illegality of such conduct and its injury to the public, a monopoly in the supply of beer has of late years been raised in various parts of England; insomuch that nearly the whole custom of the metropolis is engrossed by eleven great breweries, whose principles act in combination meeting together like the partners of one concern, and fixing the price at which beer shall be sold. 5. "That when the reduced price of malt and hops, of horses provender and labour, the lessening of the tax on malt, and the subsequent abolition of the property tax, enabled the brewers to make 6. "That so soon as the failure of the harvest in 1816 caused the price of malt to look up, and while their stock in hand was wholly unaffected by the rise in the materials, they revived the high prices of have lately still farther advanced. beer to the consumer, which prices they 7. "That beer as now made is so void of the nourishing and invigorating qualities which it formerly possessed, and is oftentimes so ungrateful and even injurious to the stomach, owing to the deleterious ingredients of which it is in some instances composed, that consumers are frequently driven to use a mixture of gin with it, to give it the semblance of strength and spirit, or still more prejudicially to the drinking of gin instead of beer. 8. "That these and numerous other evils are justly attributable to the monopoly which the great brewers have established. 9" That this monopoly is produced and upheld by the unconstitutional power given to justices of the peace in their respective localities, to prevent any persons from vending beer, excepting such persons and in such houses as they please; a power which being subject to no human control, and being exercised in many instances by needy or avaricious men, is naturally applied by them in preventing competition in trades in which they or their friends or patrons are interested. 10. "That a desire to prevent an unnecessary number of houses, the reason generally assigned for refusing permission to open houses, built for public-houses where the reasonable wants of the public require them, is evidently insincere; because the same licensers grant licences to public-houses in clusters where the interest of their friends is thereby upheld, although such houses can only be sup ported by allowing and encouraging bad practices. 11. "That the similar pretence, that competition is prevented in order that the landlords of the favoured houses may flourish, and not be induced through necessity to suffer disorderly conduct on their premises, is equally fallacious; because the owners of the favoured houses, who are generally brewers or spiritdealers, always require premiums of their tenants, equal to the value of the monopoly to them, or an additional rent, thus keeping the tenants profits down, however valuable the licence may be to the principal. 12. That the supposition of correcting the licentiousness encouraged at some public-houses by denying licences for others, is only calculated to benefit the monopoly system: it being evident, in principle, that men will not drink less, or be less disorderly when drawn together in one house than they would be if divided among two or three; and notorious in practice, that some of the houses which command a superior share of custom and profit, are among those which are most injurious to the public health and morals. 13. That such is the value, however, of the prohibition of competition, that thousands of pounds are frequently given for the consideration of a licence to a house, in other words, for permission to trade, which expense, together with the extra profits secured by the monopoly, fall upon the consumers, and become a grievous burthen to the lower classes of the community. 14. "That it is unreasonable to invest justices of the peace with the right of issuing exclusive powers for trading in victuals, when the issuing of such powers by the sovereign himself is declared to be void in law. 15. "That it is equally unreasonable to authorize the said justices to disseize 'men of their liberties and free customs,' at their own will and pleasure, without being accountable to any human being, while the king on his throne is interdicted from hurting or injuring' the meanest subject, unless by due course of law; and is answerable for his acts in the persons of his ministers. 16. "That these extraordinary and unconstitutional powers, even in the purest hands, are wholly inefficient for the object of keeping victualling-houses in good order; because they are only in action on one day in the year, when punishment, as regards the past, is easily got rid of by shifting the tenant, and as regards the future, it is as impossible for the licensers to know that such houses as they patronise will be well conducted, as it is that those which they refuse to license would be disorderly. 17. "That it is therefore equally in vain to expect an effectual control over public-houses, or a termination of the wrongs inflicted on the owners of houses, on victuallers, and on the public at large, under the present licensing system-a system which is proved to be all-impotent for good purposes, and all powerful for bad ones-erecting a despotic control over the comforts, the property, and the rights of the subject, which is anomalous in the constitutional government of this country, and which is believed to be unknown in any other. 18. "That to produce a remedy, it is necessary for the magistrate's power to be removed from the patronage of the trade of victualling, to the correction of the disorders which sometimes arise out of it-from the exercise of their own uncontrollable wills, to the administration of legislative rules, equally applicable and extending to all, and in which the penalties are proportioned to the offences, and are operative immediately. 19. "That in as far as it is deemed expedient to restrict the number of publichouses, that end will be most fairly and beneficially accomplished by imposing a large duty on the licence to open any new house, thus diverting the value of the restriction from the pockets of the licensejobbers to the uses of the state. 20. "That with a large duty imposed on leave to open a new house, and due means provided for immediately stopping a trade conducted in a disorderly manner, no persen would risk the capital necessary to establish a new trade, unless he could do it upon safe grounds, and therefore no good reason can be advanced against restoring to the public the benefit of a free competition, and to victuallers the common rights of their countrymen-namely, the liberty to carry on their trade in such places as they find most eligible (not being locally offensive) and to purchase their goods of such manufacturers as offer to supply them on the best terms. "Your petitioners humbly submit the above propositions to the wisdom and paternal care of your honourable House, in the hope that your honourable House may restore to the public generally the right of a free trade in beer, and to the victualler in particular the protection of laws, instead of the wills of individuals, subject to such legislative regulations for the trade as shall be deemed conducive to the public welfare.-And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c." |