Fourpence a pot for porter! Mercy upon us! Ah! it’s all owing to the war, &c. Have not they ruined the harvest? Have not they blighted all the hops?
Fourpence a pot for porter! Mercy upon us! Ah! it’s all owing to the war, &c. Have not they ruined the harvest? Have not they blighted all the hops?
Wine was manufactured in England at this period. Sir Richard Worsley tried the experiment of anEnglish vineyard. He planted the most hardy species of vine in a rocky soil at St. Lawrence, Isle of Wight, and engaged a French vine-dresser. He achieved a success, but only temporary. He abandoned the project. A certain Mr. Hamilton attempted the same at Painshill, on a soil of gravelly sand. His first attempt at red wine failed. He then turned his attention to white wine, in which he tellsSir E. Barry, the experiment surpassed his most sanguine expectations. Many good judges thought it better than any champagne they had ever drunk. Such an experience was certainly exceptional.
Faulkner (Antiquities of Kensington) quotes the following memorandum from the MS. notes of Peter Collinson:—
October 18, 1765.—I went to see Mr. Roger’s vineyards at Parson’s Green [at Fulham], all of Burgundy grapes, and seemingly all perfectly ripe; I did not see a green, half-ripe grape in all this quantity. He does not expect to make less than fourteen hogsheads of wine. The branches and fruit are remarkably large, and the wine very strong.
October 18, 1765.—I went to see Mr. Roger’s vineyards at Parson’s Green [at Fulham], all of Burgundy grapes, and seemingly all perfectly ripe; I did not see a green, half-ripe grape in all this quantity. He does not expect to make less than fourteen hogsheads of wine. The branches and fruit are remarkably large, and the wine very strong.
George IV. was born in 1770, and came to the throne in 1820. Intemperance, amidst other vices, was a feature of his moral career. The surroundings of his birth augured ill. Mrs. Draper, who attended the Queen with her two first children, was dismissed from her duties in consequence of her habitual inebriety. His proclivity very nearly cost him dear while yet a youth. At a dinner party at Lord Chesterfield’s house at Blackheath, the whole company drank to excess, and betook themselves to riotous frolic. One of the party let loose a big fierce dog, which at once flew at one of the footmen, tore one of his arms terribly, and nearly strangled a horse. The whole party now formed themselves into a compact body and assailed Towzer, who resolutely defended himself, and had just caught hold of the skirts of the coat of his Royal Highness, when one of the party by a blow on the head felled the dog to the ground. In the confusion, however, the Earl of Chesterfield fell down the steps leading to his house, and severely injured the back of his head. The Prince, who scarcely knew whether he had been fighting a dog or a man, jumped into his phaeton, and there fellasleep, leaving the reins to his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, who took him safely to town.[230]
The Prince was a member of the Catch and Glee Club at the Thatched House Tavern. He is (says Huish) the reputed author of the second verse to the glee of theHappy Fellow, ‘I’ll ne’er,’ &c.; and of the additional verse to the song, ‘By the gaily circling glass,’ which he used to sing in his convivial moments with great effect. Nothing more distinctly points to the ineradicable nature of his diseased habit, than his conduct upon the arrival of his bride-elect—Caroline of Brunswick. Lord Malmesbury, the sole witness, tells the story:—
I ... introduced the Princess Caroline to him. She very properly attempted to kneel to him. He raised her (gracefully enough) and embraced her, said barely one word, turned round, retired to a distant part of the apartment, and, calling me to him, said: ‘Harris, I am not well; pray get me a glass of brandy.’ I said: ‘Sir, had you not better have a glass of water?’ upon which he, much out of humour, said with an oath: ‘No; I will go directly to the Queen.’
I ... introduced the Princess Caroline to him. She very properly attempted to kneel to him. He raised her (gracefully enough) and embraced her, said barely one word, turned round, retired to a distant part of the apartment, and, calling me to him, said: ‘Harris, I am not well; pray get me a glass of brandy.’ I said: ‘Sir, had you not better have a glass of water?’ upon which he, much out of humour, said with an oath: ‘No; I will go directly to the Queen.’
The remark of the princess to Malmesbury, was: ‘Mon Dieu, est-ce que le Prince est toujours comme cela?’
Lord Holland has stated that at the wedding the Prince had drunk so much brandy, that he could scarcely be kept upright between two dukes. The reckless extravagance of the Prince involved him in pecuniary straights:—
Not a farthing could be raised on the responsibility of any of his immediate associates; the whole of the party were actually in astate of the deepest poverty; and Major Hanger, in the history of his life, mentions a circumstance in which he, Sheridan, Fox,an illustrious individual, and a Mr. Berkeley, repaired to a celebrated tavern then known by the name of the Staffordshire Arms, where after carousing with some dashing Cyprians who were sent for on the occasion, the combined resources of the whole of the party could not defray the expenses of the evening. On this occasion, Sheridan got so intoxicated that he was put to bed, and on awakening in the morning, he found himself in the character of a hostage for the expenses of the previous night’s debauch.[231]
Not a farthing could be raised on the responsibility of any of his immediate associates; the whole of the party were actually in astate of the deepest poverty; and Major Hanger, in the history of his life, mentions a circumstance in which he, Sheridan, Fox,an illustrious individual, and a Mr. Berkeley, repaired to a celebrated tavern then known by the name of the Staffordshire Arms, where after carousing with some dashing Cyprians who were sent for on the occasion, the combined resources of the whole of the party could not defray the expenses of the evening. On this occasion, Sheridan got so intoxicated that he was put to bed, and on awakening in the morning, he found himself in the character of a hostage for the expenses of the previous night’s debauch.[231]
It must, however, be admitted, that when once upon the throne, he had the rare capability of uniting dignity with hilarity. An incident in connection with a publictoastis worthy of narration. When the King visited Scotland, a banquet was given by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in the Parliament House. The King, in returning thanks for the reception given him, said:—
I take this opportunity, my Lords and Gentlemen, of proposing the health of the Lord Provost,SirWilliam Arbuthnot,Baronet, and the Corporation of Edinburgh.
I take this opportunity, my Lords and Gentlemen, of proposing the health of the Lord Provost,SirWilliam Arbuthnot,Baronet, and the Corporation of Edinburgh.
Thus did the King confer the baronetcy upon the president. A complication of disease terminated his reign in 1880.
The Public-house Regulation Act of 1758 was in force till 1828, when a consolidating Act was passed, with an appeal to justices in quarter sessions.
Its chief provisions are:—
1. Licences to be grantedonly from year to year, at a special session of magistrates; with power of applicant to appeal to the quarter sessions in case of refusal of licence: and the refusing justices not to vote there.2. Applicants for licence to affix notice of their intention ofapplying, on the door of the house, and of the church of the parish in which it is situated, for three prior Sundays, and serve a copy on one of the overseers and one of the peace officers.3. In case of actual or apprehended tumult, two justices may direct the publican to close his house: disobedience to be esteemed as disorder.4. The licence stipulates that the publican shall not adulterate his liquors,or allow drunkenness, gaming, or disorder; that he shall not suffer persons of notoriously bad character to assemble therein; and that he shall not,save to travellers, open his house during Divine Service on Sundays and holy-days.5. Heavy and increasing penalties for repeated offences against the terms and tenor of the licence; magistrates at sessions being empowered to punish an alehouse-keeper, convicted by a jury of a third offence, by a fine of 100l., or to adjudge the licence to be forfeited.
1. Licences to be grantedonly from year to year, at a special session of magistrates; with power of applicant to appeal to the quarter sessions in case of refusal of licence: and the refusing justices not to vote there.
2. Applicants for licence to affix notice of their intention ofapplying, on the door of the house, and of the church of the parish in which it is situated, for three prior Sundays, and serve a copy on one of the overseers and one of the peace officers.
3. In case of actual or apprehended tumult, two justices may direct the publican to close his house: disobedience to be esteemed as disorder.
4. The licence stipulates that the publican shall not adulterate his liquors,or allow drunkenness, gaming, or disorder; that he shall not suffer persons of notoriously bad character to assemble therein; and that he shall not,save to travellers, open his house during Divine Service on Sundays and holy-days.
5. Heavy and increasing penalties for repeated offences against the terms and tenor of the licence; magistrates at sessions being empowered to punish an alehouse-keeper, convicted by a jury of a third offence, by a fine of 100l., or to adjudge the licence to be forfeited.
The Distillery Act of 1825 requires notice.
By the enactment of 1825, no person can obtain alicencefor conducting a distillery, unless he occupies a tenement of the value of 20l.a year, pays parish rates, and resides within a quarter of a mile of a market town containing 500 inhabited houses. Before obtaining a licence, the amount of which is 10l., he must lodge with the collector, or other officer of excise, an entry or registry of his premises, the several apartments and utensils, specifying the contents of the vessels and the purposes for which they are intended; and every such room and utensil must be properly labelled with its appropriate name and object. With the registry must be delivered a drawing, or description of the construction, use, and course of every fixed pipe in the distillery, as well as of all casks and communications therewith connected. Pipes for the conveyance of worts or wash must be painted red, those for low wines or feints, blue; those for spirits, white; for water, black. No still can be licensed of a less content than 400 gallons, nor can the distiller make spirits at the same time from different materials. The distiller must give notice of the gravity at which he intends to make his wort. These are specimens only of the conditions imposed. Before this enactment,distillation was confined to a few capitalists; but, with a view of encouraging a fair competition in the trade, and inducing the people to take the spirits directly from the distillers, the Act was passed.
The drink temperature was maintained throughout all classes of society. Charles Knight gives an apt description of a Christmas in London in 1824:—
The out-door aspects of London enjoyment at Christmas were not unobserved by me. Honestly to speak, it was a dismal spectacle. In every broad thoroughfare, and in every close alley, there was drunkenness abroad; not shamefaced drunkenness, creeping in maudlin helplessness to its home by the side of the scolding wife, but rampant, insolent, outrageous drunkenness. No decent woman even in broad daylight could at the holiday seasons dare to walk alone in the Strand or Pall Mall.
The out-door aspects of London enjoyment at Christmas were not unobserved by me. Honestly to speak, it was a dismal spectacle. In every broad thoroughfare, and in every close alley, there was drunkenness abroad; not shamefaced drunkenness, creeping in maudlin helplessness to its home by the side of the scolding wife, but rampant, insolent, outrageous drunkenness. No decent woman even in broad daylight could at the holiday seasons dare to walk alone in the Strand or Pall Mall.
The stronger spirituous liquors were all the rage; and it was under the impression that by making beer, &c., more readily accessible, there would be less demand for the fire-water, that the Beerhouse Act was passed, of which we shall soon speak. But before doing so, let us recall the names of one or two who ranged themselves on the side of temperance.
James Montgomery writes:—
Many might be profited by the resolute perusal of the ‘Confessions of an Opium Eater’ with self-application, for every habitual indulgence of appetite beyond what nature requires or will endure for the health of body or mind is a species of opium-eating. Such cordials, exhilaratives, and stimulants are generally, in the first instance, resorted to as lenitives of pain, reliefs from languor, or resources in idleness; they soon become necessary gratifications, affording little either ofpleasure or of pain in the use (though non-indulgence is misery) till in the sequel they grow into tyrannous excesses that exhaust the animal spirits, debilitate the mind, and consume the frame with disease which no medicine can reach. The drunkard in this sense is an opium-eater; he puts an ‘enemy into his mouth that steals away his senses,’ and the fool’s paradise, into which liquor transports him, lies on ‘the broad way that leadeth to destruction.’ The snuff taker and the tobacco smoker in this sense are opium-eaters; these luxuries, as well as eating and drinking, may be enjoyed in moderation, but where does moderation end and abuse begin? That fine line of distinction was never yet traced with assurance, and the only safety lies many a league on the right side of it. The Indian weed may be less promptly deleterious than the Asiatic, but in this country it is scarcely a question that the former destroys more victims than the latter.
Many might be profited by the resolute perusal of the ‘Confessions of an Opium Eater’ with self-application, for every habitual indulgence of appetite beyond what nature requires or will endure for the health of body or mind is a species of opium-eating. Such cordials, exhilaratives, and stimulants are generally, in the first instance, resorted to as lenitives of pain, reliefs from languor, or resources in idleness; they soon become necessary gratifications, affording little either ofpleasure or of pain in the use (though non-indulgence is misery) till in the sequel they grow into tyrannous excesses that exhaust the animal spirits, debilitate the mind, and consume the frame with disease which no medicine can reach. The drunkard in this sense is an opium-eater; he puts an ‘enemy into his mouth that steals away his senses,’ and the fool’s paradise, into which liquor transports him, lies on ‘the broad way that leadeth to destruction.’ The snuff taker and the tobacco smoker in this sense are opium-eaters; these luxuries, as well as eating and drinking, may be enjoyed in moderation, but where does moderation end and abuse begin? That fine line of distinction was never yet traced with assurance, and the only safety lies many a league on the right side of it. The Indian weed may be less promptly deleterious than the Asiatic, but in this country it is scarcely a question that the former destroys more victims than the latter.
Sydney Smith writes thus to Lady Holland, in 1828:—
Many thanks for your kind anxiety respecting my health. I not only was never better, but never half so well; indeed, I find I have been very ill all my life, without knowing it. Let me state some of the goods arising from abstaining from all fermented liquors. First, sweet sleep; having never known what sweet sleep was, I sleep like a baby or a plough-boy. If I wake, no needless terrors, no black visions of life, but pleasing hopes and pleasing recollections: Holland House, past and to come! If I dream, it is not of lions and tigers, but of Easter dues and tithes. Secondly, I can take longer walks, and make greater exertions, without fatigue. My understanding is improved, and I comprehend political economy, I see better without wine and spectacles than when I used both. Only one evil ensues from it: I am in such extravagant spirits that I must lose blood, or look out for some one who will bore or depress me. Pray leave off wine:—the stomach is quite at rest; no heartburn, no pain, no distention.
Many thanks for your kind anxiety respecting my health. I not only was never better, but never half so well; indeed, I find I have been very ill all my life, without knowing it. Let me state some of the goods arising from abstaining from all fermented liquors. First, sweet sleep; having never known what sweet sleep was, I sleep like a baby or a plough-boy. If I wake, no needless terrors, no black visions of life, but pleasing hopes and pleasing recollections: Holland House, past and to come! If I dream, it is not of lions and tigers, but of Easter dues and tithes. Secondly, I can take longer walks, and make greater exertions, without fatigue. My understanding is improved, and I comprehend political economy, I see better without wine and spectacles than when I used both. Only one evil ensues from it: I am in such extravagant spirits that I must lose blood, or look out for some one who will bore or depress me. Pray leave off wine:—the stomach is quite at rest; no heartburn, no pain, no distention.
In 1824 Carolina Nairne,néeCarolina Oliphant, became Baroness Nairne, her husband, Major Nairne, being restored to a barony granted to his family in the time of Charles I.
She appears to be the first writer of a thorough teetotalsong. It was entitledHaud ye frae the cogie.
There’s cauld kail in Aberdeen,There’s custocks in Stra’bogie;And morn and e’en they’re blythe and beinThat haud them frae the cogie.Now haud ye frae the cogie, lads:Oh, bide ye frae the cogie!I’ll tell ye true, ye’ll never rueO’ passin by the cogie.Young Will was braw and weel put on,Sae blythe was he and vogie;And he got bonnie Mary Don,The flower o’ a’ Stra’bogie.Wha wad ha’e thocht at wooin’ time,He’d e’er forsaken Mary,And ta’en him to the tipplin’ tradeWi’ boozin’ Rob and Harry?Sair Mary wrought, sair Mary grat,She scarce could lift the ladle;Wi’ pithless feet, ‘tween ilka greet,She’d rock the borrow’d cradle.Her weddin’ plenishin’ was gane—She never thocht to borrow;Her bonnie face was waxin’ wan—And Will wrought a’ the sorrow.He’s reelin’ hame ae winter’s nicht,Some later than the gloamin’;He’s ta’en the rig, he’s missed the brig,And Bogie’s o’er him foamin’.Wi’ broken banes, out ower the stanes,He creepit up Stra’bogie,And a’ the nicht he prayed wi’ michtTo keep him frae the cogie.Now Mary’s heart is light again—She’s neither sick nor silly;For auld or young, nae sinfu’ tongueCould e’er entice her Willie;And aye her sang through Bogie rang—‘O haud ye frae the cogie;The weary gill’s the sairest illOn braes o’ fair Stra’bogie.’
King William IV. (1830-1837) rigidly practised temperance. Indeed he zealously promoted it before his accession to the throne. One incident may serve as an illustration. On the death of the keeper of Bushy Park, the King, then Duke of Clarence, appointed the keeper’s son to succeed him. This young man broke his leg, a circumstance which elicited the practical sympathy of the Duke. After his recovery, the young man took to drinking; so the Duke, in order to cure him of the propensity, required his attendance every night at eight o’clock, and if he appeared in liquor reprimanded him the following morning. But all to no purpose. The infatuated keeper died from the effects of intemperance.
The King however was fond of givingtoastsafter dinner, when his prosy speeches were notorious.
The following specimen of toasts at a public banquet is taken from that given on the occasion of the opening of London Bridge.
As soon as the royal visitors had concluded their repast, the Lord Mayor rose, and said: ‘His most gracious Majesty has condescended to permit me to propose a toast. I therefore do myself the high honour to propose that we drink His Most Gracious Majesty’s Health, with four times four.’ The company rose, and, after cheering him in the most enthusiastic manner, sang the national anthem of ‘God save the King.’ His Majesty bowed to all around, and appeared to be much pleased.Alderman Sir Claudius Hunter then rose, and said: ‘I am honoured with the permission of his Majesty to propose a toast. I therefore beg all his good subjects here assembled to rise, and to drink that ‘Health and every Blessing may attend Her Majesty the Queen.’’ Which was accordingly done, with the utmost enthusiasm.The Lord Mayor then presented a gold cup, of great beauty, to the King, who said, taking the cup: ‘I cannot but refer, on this occasion, to the great work which has been accomplished by the citizens of London. The City of London has been renowned for its magnificent improvements, and we are now commemorating a most extraordinary instance of their skill and talent. I shall propose the source from whence this vast improvement sprung, ‘The Trade and Commerce of the City of London.’’The King then drank what is called the ‘loving cup,’ of which every other member of the Royal Family present most cordially partook.His Majesty next drank the health of the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, for which his lordship, in a few words, expressive of the deepest gratitude, thanked his Majesty. The chief magistrate soon after was created a Baronet.
As soon as the royal visitors had concluded their repast, the Lord Mayor rose, and said: ‘His most gracious Majesty has condescended to permit me to propose a toast. I therefore do myself the high honour to propose that we drink His Most Gracious Majesty’s Health, with four times four.’ The company rose, and, after cheering him in the most enthusiastic manner, sang the national anthem of ‘God save the King.’ His Majesty bowed to all around, and appeared to be much pleased.
Alderman Sir Claudius Hunter then rose, and said: ‘I am honoured with the permission of his Majesty to propose a toast. I therefore beg all his good subjects here assembled to rise, and to drink that ‘Health and every Blessing may attend Her Majesty the Queen.’’ Which was accordingly done, with the utmost enthusiasm.
The Lord Mayor then presented a gold cup, of great beauty, to the King, who said, taking the cup: ‘I cannot but refer, on this occasion, to the great work which has been accomplished by the citizens of London. The City of London has been renowned for its magnificent improvements, and we are now commemorating a most extraordinary instance of their skill and talent. I shall propose the source from whence this vast improvement sprung, ‘The Trade and Commerce of the City of London.’’
The King then drank what is called the ‘loving cup,’ of which every other member of the Royal Family present most cordially partook.
His Majesty next drank the health of the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, for which his lordship, in a few words, expressive of the deepest gratitude, thanked his Majesty. The chief magistrate soon after was created a Baronet.
Prominent amongst the legislative beacons of the present century is the famousBeer Actof 1830. Spirit drinking was terrible; a remedy was sought; the expedient adopted was the Beer Act.
At the Middlesex Sessions, held on Thursday, January 21, 1830, Mr. Serjeant Bell alluded to the increase of the consumption of gin as a dreadful and horrible evil. A year ago there were 825 inmates in the Middlesex Pauper Hospital, but now the number was between 1,100 and 1,200, the increase being mainly attributable to the practice of gin drinking. Sir George Hampson said that the gin-shops were now decorated and fitted up with small private doors, through which women of the middle, and even above the middle classes of society, were not ashamed to enter, and take their dram, when they found they could do so unobserved. Sir Richard Birnie bore testimony to the dreadful prevalence of drunkenness in the Metropolis:there were 72 cases brought to Bow Street on the Monday previous, for absolute and beastly drunkenness, and what was worse,mostly women, who had been picked up in the streets, where they had fallen dead drunk: but while he deplored the enormity of the evil, he declared that it was difficult to find any remedy for it.
Hoping to do good by substituting beer for spirits, an Act was passed in the 1st Will. IV., ‘to permit the general sale of beer and cider by retail in England.’ The following are its main provisions:—
1. That anyhouseholderdesirous of selling malt-liquor, by retail, in any house, may obtain an excise licence on payment of two guineas, and for cider only, on paying one guinea.2. That a list of such licences shall be kept at the Excise office, open to the inspection of the magistrates.3. That the applicant must give a bond, and find surety for the payment of penalties incurred.4. Penalty for vending wine and spirits, 20l.5. In case of riot, magistrates can command the closing of the houses.6. Penalties for disorderly conducting of the house.7. Not to open before foura.m., and to close at tenp.m., and during Divine Service on Sundays and holy-days.
1. That anyhouseholderdesirous of selling malt-liquor, by retail, in any house, may obtain an excise licence on payment of two guineas, and for cider only, on paying one guinea.
2. That a list of such licences shall be kept at the Excise office, open to the inspection of the magistrates.
3. That the applicant must give a bond, and find surety for the payment of penalties incurred.
4. Penalty for vending wine and spirits, 20l.
5. In case of riot, magistrates can command the closing of the houses.
6. Penalties for disorderly conducting of the house.
7. Not to open before foura.m., and to close at tenp.m., and during Divine Service on Sundays and holy-days.
How did it work? How did it operate upon the consumption (1) of beer, (2) of spirits? During the ten years preceding the passing of the Beerhouse Act, the quantity of malt used for brewing was 268,139,389 bushels: during the ten years immediately succeeding, the quantity was 344,143,550 bushels, showing an increase of 28 per cent. During the ten years 1821-1830, the quantity of British spirits consumed was 57,970,963 gallons, and during the next ten years it rose to 76,797,365 gallons, an increase of 32 per cent. All this clearly proved that the increased facilities for getting beer created a greater demand for spirits. During the year following the Act, more than 30,000 beer-shops were opened in England and Wales. In Sheffield, as one instance, 300 beer-shops were added to the old complement of public-houses; and it is especially to be noted that before the second year had transpired, 110 of the keepers of these houses had applied forspiritlicences to satisfy the desire for ardent drinks.
On the motion of the Marquis of Chandos, April 18, 1833, it was ordered in the House of Commons ‘That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state and management of houses in which beer is sold by retail under the Act 1st Will. IV., cap. 64, commonly called beer-shops, and with a view to making such alterations in the law as may tend to their better regulation, and to report their observations, together with their opinion thereon.’ Thirty-two members were appointed as the committee, and April 22, ten others were added to it. The committee sat April 24, 26, 30, May 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24. The witnesses examined were in number 59, among whom were A. Magendie, late Assistant Poor Law Commissioner: A. Crowley (brewer of Alton), magistrates, magistrates’ clerks, beer-sellers, farmers and others. The Marquis of Chandos presided at most of the sittings of the committee. The committee’s report, dated June 21, 1833, contains fifteen resolutions, of which the first was:—‘That it is the opinion of the committee from the evidence that has been adduced that considerable evils have arisen from the present management and conduct of beer-houses.’ The other resolutions expressed the committee’s opinion that every applicant should produce a certificate of good character signed by six rated inhabitants of the parish or township (not beer-sellers)—the certificate to be signed by the overseer or assistant overseer, as a proof that the six persons named were rated inhabitants; that, besides other penalties, magistrates should be able on a second conviction to suspend licences for two years or less—a third offence to involve a disqualification for three years; that beer-houses should be closed till half-past twelve on Sunday, that the hours of keeping open at night should be extended in towns and restricted in country districts; and in the last resolution the committee ‘suggest the revisal of the system under which all beer and spirit shops are licensed, and (without expressing a decisive opinion on this extensive subject) your committee feel that very serious reasons of justice and public advantage may be adduced in favour of the assimilation of all the regulations as to hours and management to which every description of house licensed to sell beer or spirituous liquors by retail should be subjected.’ No legislation was superinduced upon this report.[232]
In 1834 Mr. Buckingham moved ‘that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the extent, causes, and consequences of the prevailing vice of intoxication among the labouring classes of the United Kingdom, in order to ascertain whether any legislative measures can be devised to prevent the further spread of so great a national evil.’
This committee, composed of some of the most eminent members of the House, including the late Sir Robert Peel, sat for upwards of twenty-one days receiving evidence. The official report tendered a number of recommendations for repressing the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic liquors, showing that this national disease of drunkenness stood in need of sharp and speedy remedies; and that the administration of these remedies was clearly within the province of the Legislature.
The report is much too long for transcription; butthe principles they lay down are worthy of all acceptation.
(1) That therightof legislative interference for the correction of any evil which affects the public weal, cannot be questioned.
(2) That thepowerto apply correction by legislative means cannot be doubted, without supposing the better portion of the community unable to control the excesses of the ignorant and disorderly, which would be to declare our incapacity to maintain the first principles of government by ensuring the public safety.
(3) That thesound policyof applying legislative power to direct, restrain, or punish the vicious propensities of the evil disposed, cannot be disputed, without invalidating the right of government to protect the innocent from the violence of the guilty, which would in effect declare all government to be useless; an admission that would undermine the very first principles of society.
Then follow what they propose as:—
Immediate Remedies, Legislative and Moral.The separation of the houses in which intoxicating drinks are sold in four distinct classes. (1) Houses for the sale of beer only—not to be consumed on the premises. (2) Houses for the sale of beer only—to be consumed on the premises, and in which refreshments of food may also be obtained. (3) Houses for the sale of spirits only—not to be consumed on the premises. (4) Houses for the accommodation of strangers and travellers, where bed and board may be obtained, and in which spirits, wine, and beer may all be sold.The limiting the number of such houses, of each class, in proportion to population in towns, and to distances and population in country districts: the licences for each to be annual, and granted by magistrates and municipal authorities rather than by the excise; to be chargeable with larger sums annually than are nowpaid for them, especially for the sale of spirits; and the keepers of such houses to be subject to progressively increasing fines for disorderly conduct, and forfeiture of licence and closing up of the houses for repeated offences.The closing of all such houses at earlier hours than at present, and for the most part uniformly with each other. The first and second classes of houses, in which beer only is sold, to be closed on Sunday, except for one hour, afternoon and evening; the third class of houses, where spirits only are sold, to be entirely closed all Sunday; and the fourth class, as inns or hotels, to be closed to all visitors that day, save only travellers and inmates.The making all retail spirit-shops as open to public view as provision shops.The refusal of retail spirit licences to all but those who would engage to confine themselves exclusively to dealing in that article: and consequently theentire separationof the retail sale of spiritsfrom groceries, provisions, wine or beer, except only in inns.The discontinuance of all issues of ardent spirits (except medicinal) to the navy and army, &c., and the substitution of articles of wholesome nutriment. The abolition of all garrison and barrack canteens, and the substitution of some other and better mode of filling up the leisure of men confined within military forts and lines: the opinions of most of the military officers examined on this point by your Committee being that the drinking in such canteens is the most fertile source of all insubordination, crime, and consequent punishment inflicted on the men.The withholding from the ships employed in the merchant service the drawback granted to them on foreign spirits, by which they are now enabled to ship their supplies of that article at a reduced scale of duty, and are thus induced to take on board a greater quantity than is necessary, to the increased danger of the property embarked, and to the injury of the crew. The prohibition of the practice of paying the wages of workmen at public-houses, or any other place where intoxicating drinks are sold.The providing for the payment of such wages to every individual his exact amount, except when combined in families: so as to render it unnecessary for men to frequent the public-houses, and spend a portion of their earnings to obtain change.The payment of wages at or before the breakfast hour in the mornings of the principal market-day in each town, to enable thewives or other providers of workmen to lay out their earnings in necessary provisions at an early period of the market, instead of risking its dissipation at night in the public-house.The prohibition of the meetings of all friendly societies, sick clubs, money clubs, masonic lodges, or any other permanent associations of mutual benefit and relief at public-houses, or places where intoxicating drinks are sold; as such institutions, when not formed expressly for the benefit of such public-houses, and when they arebonâ fideassociations of mutual help in the time of need, can, with far more economy and much greater efficacy, rent and occupy for their periodical meetings equally appropriate rooms in other places.The establishment, by the joint aid of the Government and the local authorities and residents on the spot, of public walks, and gardens, or open spaces for athletic and healthy exercises in the open air, in the immediate vicinity of every town, of an extent, and character adapted to its population; and of district and parish libraries, museums, and reading rooms, accessible at the lowest rate of charge; so as to admit of one or the other being visited in any weather, and at any time; with the rigid exclusion of all intoxicating drinks of every kind from all such places, whether in the open air or closed.The reduction of the duty on tea, coffee, and sugar, and all the healthy and unintoxicating articles of drink in ordinary use; so as to place within the reach of all classes the least injurious beverages on much cheaper terms than the most destructive.The encouragement of Temperance Societies in every town and village of the kingdom, the only bond of association being a voluntary engagement to abstain from the use of ardent spirits as a customary drink, and to discourage, by precept and example, all habits of intemperance in themselves and others.The diffusion of sound information as to the extensive evils produced to individuals and to the State, by the use of any beverage that destroys the health, cripples the industry, and poisons the morals of its victims.The institution of every subordinate auxiliary means of promoting the reformation of all such usages, courtesies, habits and customs of the people, as lead to intemperate habits; more especially the exclusion of ardent spirits from all places where large numbers are congregated either for business or pleasure, and the changing the current opinion of such spirits being wholesome and beneficial (which the frequent practice of our offering them to thosewhom we wish to please or reward so constantly fosters and prolongs) into the opinion of their being a most pernicious evil, which should on all occasions be avoided, as poisoner of the health, the morals, and the peace of society.The removal of all taxes on knowledge, and the extending every facility to the widest spread of useful information to the humblest classes of the community.A national system of education, which should ensure the means of instruction to all ranks and classes of the people, and which, in addition to the various branches of requisite and appropriate knowledge, should embrace, as an essential part of the instruction given by it to every child in the kingdom, accurate information as to the poisonous and invariably deleterious nature of ardent spirits, as an article of diet, in any form or shape; and the inculcation of a sense of shame at the crime of voluntarily destroying, or thoughtlessly obscuring that faculty of reasoning, and that consciousness of responsibility, which chiefly distinguish man from the brute, and which his Almighty Maker, when He created him in His own image, implanted in the human race to cultivate, to improve, and to refine—and not to corrupt, to brutalise, and to destroy.
Immediate Remedies, Legislative and Moral.
The separation of the houses in which intoxicating drinks are sold in four distinct classes. (1) Houses for the sale of beer only—not to be consumed on the premises. (2) Houses for the sale of beer only—to be consumed on the premises, and in which refreshments of food may also be obtained. (3) Houses for the sale of spirits only—not to be consumed on the premises. (4) Houses for the accommodation of strangers and travellers, where bed and board may be obtained, and in which spirits, wine, and beer may all be sold.
The limiting the number of such houses, of each class, in proportion to population in towns, and to distances and population in country districts: the licences for each to be annual, and granted by magistrates and municipal authorities rather than by the excise; to be chargeable with larger sums annually than are nowpaid for them, especially for the sale of spirits; and the keepers of such houses to be subject to progressively increasing fines for disorderly conduct, and forfeiture of licence and closing up of the houses for repeated offences.
The closing of all such houses at earlier hours than at present, and for the most part uniformly with each other. The first and second classes of houses, in which beer only is sold, to be closed on Sunday, except for one hour, afternoon and evening; the third class of houses, where spirits only are sold, to be entirely closed all Sunday; and the fourth class, as inns or hotels, to be closed to all visitors that day, save only travellers and inmates.
The making all retail spirit-shops as open to public view as provision shops.
The refusal of retail spirit licences to all but those who would engage to confine themselves exclusively to dealing in that article: and consequently theentire separationof the retail sale of spiritsfrom groceries, provisions, wine or beer, except only in inns.
The discontinuance of all issues of ardent spirits (except medicinal) to the navy and army, &c., and the substitution of articles of wholesome nutriment. The abolition of all garrison and barrack canteens, and the substitution of some other and better mode of filling up the leisure of men confined within military forts and lines: the opinions of most of the military officers examined on this point by your Committee being that the drinking in such canteens is the most fertile source of all insubordination, crime, and consequent punishment inflicted on the men.
The withholding from the ships employed in the merchant service the drawback granted to them on foreign spirits, by which they are now enabled to ship their supplies of that article at a reduced scale of duty, and are thus induced to take on board a greater quantity than is necessary, to the increased danger of the property embarked, and to the injury of the crew. The prohibition of the practice of paying the wages of workmen at public-houses, or any other place where intoxicating drinks are sold.
The providing for the payment of such wages to every individual his exact amount, except when combined in families: so as to render it unnecessary for men to frequent the public-houses, and spend a portion of their earnings to obtain change.
The payment of wages at or before the breakfast hour in the mornings of the principal market-day in each town, to enable thewives or other providers of workmen to lay out their earnings in necessary provisions at an early period of the market, instead of risking its dissipation at night in the public-house.
The prohibition of the meetings of all friendly societies, sick clubs, money clubs, masonic lodges, or any other permanent associations of mutual benefit and relief at public-houses, or places where intoxicating drinks are sold; as such institutions, when not formed expressly for the benefit of such public-houses, and when they arebonâ fideassociations of mutual help in the time of need, can, with far more economy and much greater efficacy, rent and occupy for their periodical meetings equally appropriate rooms in other places.
The establishment, by the joint aid of the Government and the local authorities and residents on the spot, of public walks, and gardens, or open spaces for athletic and healthy exercises in the open air, in the immediate vicinity of every town, of an extent, and character adapted to its population; and of district and parish libraries, museums, and reading rooms, accessible at the lowest rate of charge; so as to admit of one or the other being visited in any weather, and at any time; with the rigid exclusion of all intoxicating drinks of every kind from all such places, whether in the open air or closed.
The reduction of the duty on tea, coffee, and sugar, and all the healthy and unintoxicating articles of drink in ordinary use; so as to place within the reach of all classes the least injurious beverages on much cheaper terms than the most destructive.
The encouragement of Temperance Societies in every town and village of the kingdom, the only bond of association being a voluntary engagement to abstain from the use of ardent spirits as a customary drink, and to discourage, by precept and example, all habits of intemperance in themselves and others.
The diffusion of sound information as to the extensive evils produced to individuals and to the State, by the use of any beverage that destroys the health, cripples the industry, and poisons the morals of its victims.
The institution of every subordinate auxiliary means of promoting the reformation of all such usages, courtesies, habits and customs of the people, as lead to intemperate habits; more especially the exclusion of ardent spirits from all places where large numbers are congregated either for business or pleasure, and the changing the current opinion of such spirits being wholesome and beneficial (which the frequent practice of our offering them to thosewhom we wish to please or reward so constantly fosters and prolongs) into the opinion of their being a most pernicious evil, which should on all occasions be avoided, as poisoner of the health, the morals, and the peace of society.
The removal of all taxes on knowledge, and the extending every facility to the widest spread of useful information to the humblest classes of the community.
A national system of education, which should ensure the means of instruction to all ranks and classes of the people, and which, in addition to the various branches of requisite and appropriate knowledge, should embrace, as an essential part of the instruction given by it to every child in the kingdom, accurate information as to the poisonous and invariably deleterious nature of ardent spirits, as an article of diet, in any form or shape; and the inculcation of a sense of shame at the crime of voluntarily destroying, or thoughtlessly obscuring that faculty of reasoning, and that consciousness of responsibility, which chiefly distinguish man from the brute, and which his Almighty Maker, when He created him in His own image, implanted in the human race to cultivate, to improve, and to refine—and not to corrupt, to brutalise, and to destroy.
Ultimate or Prospective Remedies.
The ultimate or prospective remedies which have been strongly urged by several witnesses, and whichtheythink, when public opinion shall be sufficiently awakened to the great national importance of the subject, may be safely recommended, include the following:—
(a) The absolute prohibition of the importation from any foreign country, or from our colonies, of distilled spirits in any shape.(b) The equally absolute prohibition of all distillation of ardent spirits from grain.(c) The restriction of distillation from other materials, to the purposes of the arts, manufactures, and medicine, and the confining the wholesale and retail dealing in such articles to chemists, druggists, and dispensaries alone.
(a) The absolute prohibition of the importation from any foreign country, or from our colonies, of distilled spirits in any shape.
(b) The equally absolute prohibition of all distillation of ardent spirits from grain.
(c) The restriction of distillation from other materials, to the purposes of the arts, manufactures, and medicine, and the confining the wholesale and retail dealing in such articles to chemists, druggists, and dispensaries alone.
Finally they conclude:—
As your Committee are fully aware that one of the most important elements in successful legislation is the obtaining the full sanction and support of public opinion in favour of the laws—and as this is most powerful and most enduring when based on careful investigation and accurate knowledge as the result, they venture still further to recommend the most extensive circulation during the recess, under the direct sanction of the Legislature, of an abstract of the evidence obtained by this inquiry, in a cheap and portable volume, as was done with the Poor Law Report, to which it would form the best auxiliary; the national cost of intoxication and its consequences being tenfold greater in amount than that of the poor-rates, and pauperism itself being indeed chiefly caused by habits of intemperance, of which it is but one out of many melancholy and fatal results.
As your Committee are fully aware that one of the most important elements in successful legislation is the obtaining the full sanction and support of public opinion in favour of the laws—and as this is most powerful and most enduring when based on careful investigation and accurate knowledge as the result, they venture still further to recommend the most extensive circulation during the recess, under the direct sanction of the Legislature, of an abstract of the evidence obtained by this inquiry, in a cheap and portable volume, as was done with the Poor Law Report, to which it would form the best auxiliary; the national cost of intoxication and its consequences being tenfold greater in amount than that of the poor-rates, and pauperism itself being indeed chiefly caused by habits of intemperance, of which it is but one out of many melancholy and fatal results.
By 4th and 5th William IV., the preamble whereof recitesthat much evil had arisen from the management of houses in whichbeerandciderare sold, it was enacted that each beer-seller is to obtain his annual excise licenceonly on conditionof placing in the hands of the excise,a certificate of good character signed by six rated inhabitants of his parish(none of whom must be brewers or maltsters), if in a town of 5,000 inhabitants; but the house to be one rated at 10l.a year. This Act also distinguishes between persons who sell liquorto be drunk on the premises, and those who sell it only to be drunk elsewhere. By a Treasury order, beer sold at, or under, 1½d.per quart, may be retailed without licence.
It is well known that Lord Brougham was a warm advocate of the Beer Act in the first instance. He entirely changed his opinion. In 1839, he said in the Upper House:—
To what good was it that the Legislature should pass laws to punish crime, or that their lordships should occupy themselves in finding out modes of improving the morals of the people by giving them education? What could be the use of sowing a little seed here, and plucking up a weed there, if these beer-shops were to be continued that they might go on to sow the seeds of immorality broadcast over the land, germinating the most frightful produce that had ever been allowed to grow up in a civilised country, and, he was ashamed to add, under the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing its baleful influences over the whole community?
To what good was it that the Legislature should pass laws to punish crime, or that their lordships should occupy themselves in finding out modes of improving the morals of the people by giving them education? What could be the use of sowing a little seed here, and plucking up a weed there, if these beer-shops were to be continued that they might go on to sow the seeds of immorality broadcast over the land, germinating the most frightful produce that had ever been allowed to grow up in a civilised country, and, he was ashamed to add, under the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing its baleful influences over the whole community?
Queen Victoria had scarcely ascended the throne before she was reminded that the evils of the drink traffic were upmost in the minds of many of her Majesty’s subjects. At a Conference held at Carnarvon, August 2, 1837, a congratulatory address to the Sovereign upon her accession was drawn up. It stated:—
To this declaration not less than one hundred thousand of your Majesty’s loyal subjects have already subscribed their names, some thousands of whom had previously been drunkards. And could we convey to your royal mind the incalculable benefits resulting from the simple means of total abstinence from intoxicating liquor, we would with humble confidence earnestly entreat your Majesty to condescend to patronise our endeavour to wipe away from Britain the plague-spot of drunkenness.
To this declaration not less than one hundred thousand of your Majesty’s loyal subjects have already subscribed their names, some thousands of whom had previously been drunkards. And could we convey to your royal mind the incalculable benefits resulting from the simple means of total abstinence from intoxicating liquor, we would with humble confidence earnestly entreat your Majesty to condescend to patronise our endeavour to wipe away from Britain the plague-spot of drunkenness.
In the treatment of this period, we have to confront an apparent anomaly, viz. the largest drink bills on record, and the most strenuous efforts to get rid of drink altogether. That the Statute Book bristles with legislative interference, is sufficiently accounted for by these two circumstances. In no period has legislation been to the same extent an index of the precise situation. Let us at once address ourselves to its salient features.
By the 2nd and 3rd Victoria, called theMetropolitan Police Act, operating within a circle of fifteen miles from Charing Cross, all public-houses are to be shut on Sundays until one o’clockp.m.,except for travellers: and publicans areprohibited, under penalties of 20l., 40l., and 50l., for the first, second, and third offences,from selling spirits to young persons under sixteen years of age.
By the 3rd and 4th Victoria a licence can only be granted to therealoccupier of the house; and the rated value to be 15l.in towns of 10,000 inhabitants; 11l.in towns of between 2,500 and 10,000; and 8l.in smaller places. The hours for opening and closing within the metropolitan boroughs are 5a.m.and 12p.m.; but 11 o’clock in any place within the bills of mortality, or any city, town, or place not containing above 2,500 inhabitants. In smaller places 10 o’clockp.m.On any Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, the houses are not to be opened before one o’clockp.m.Licensed victuallers and keepers of beer-shops who sell aleto be drunk on the premises, may have soldiers billeted on them.
On June 15, 1849, a Select Committee of the Lords, on the motion of the Earl of Harrowby, who became its chairman, was appointed ‘to consider the operations of the Acts for the sale of beer, and to report thereon to the House.’ The Committee held sittings June 25, 28, July 5, 12, 13, and 20. Next session it was reappointed, and took evidence February 28, March 5 and 19; and the report agreed upon bears date May 3, 1850. Fifteen witnesses were examined in the first session, and ten in the second session. The Committee’s report refers to the evidence and petitions which had come before them, and then proceeds: ‘On a review of all the statements and opinions which have thus been brought before them, the Committee have no hesitation in stating that the expectations of those who proposed the existing system have not been realised. Their object appears to have been to create a class of houses of refreshment, respectable in character, brewing their own beer, diminishing by the supply of a cheap and wholesome beverage the consumption of ardent spirits, and thus contributing to the happiness and comforts of the labouring classes. But it appears that of these houses only one-twelfth brew their own beer; that a very large proportion are, as in the case of public-houses, the actual property of brewers, or tied by advances to them; that they are notorious forthe sale of an inferior article; that the consumption of ardent spirits has, from whatever cause, far from diminished; and that the comforts and morals of the poor have been seriously impaired. It was already sufficiently notorious that drunkenness is the main cause of crime, disorder, and distress in England, and it appears that the multiplication of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, which under the Beer Act has risen from 88,930 to 123,396, has been thus in itself an evil of the first magnitude, not only by increasing the temptations to excess, which are thus presented at every step, but by driving houses, even those under the direct control of the magistrates, as well as others originally respectable, to practices for the purpose of attracting custom which are degrading to their character, and most injurious to morality and disorder.’ The increase of crime is next adverted to, and the defects of the system pointed out, such as an ‘unlimited multiplication’ of the worst class of beer-houses, the want of security as to character, the low rating, the opening of beer-houses in obscure localities—‘But, perhaps, the evil of all the most difficult to deal with is the absence of all control save by legal conviction almost impracticable to attain.’ ‘The magnitude of these evils has led to a widely-extended feeling in favour of an abandonment of that part of the existing law by which consumption on the premises is permitted. But the existence of houses conducted under a beer licence with propriety and advantage, and the length of time which this system has already endured, have made the Committee unwilling to contemplate a change so extensive until experience shall have proved that it is impossible by other means to abate the evil.’ The suggestions of the Select Committee were to the effect that all beer and coffee-shops should be open to the visits of the police; that new applicants for a beer licence should be compelled to procure certificates from the magistrates in Petty Sessions that they were satisfied as to the rating and character of the applicant; that the rating should be in places with less than 2,500 population, 10l.; under 10,000, 15l.; above 10,000, 20l.(the rating required by the existing law being, severally, 8l., 11l., and 15l.); that applicants should give one month’s notice, the notice to be affixed for three weeks to some public place, before the Petty Sessions, at which three out of six of the certifiers to character should attend with the overseers of the respective parishes, rate-book in hand; no magistrate’s certificate to be granted to any person convicted of misdemeanour or whohad forfeited a spirit licence; no person licensed to sell beer for consumption on the premises to sell any other article except refreshments and tobacco; that debts for intoxicating liquors drunk on the premises not to be recoverable by law.[233]
On June 15, 1849, a Select Committee of the Lords, on the motion of the Earl of Harrowby, who became its chairman, was appointed ‘to consider the operations of the Acts for the sale of beer, and to report thereon to the House.’ The Committee held sittings June 25, 28, July 5, 12, 13, and 20. Next session it was reappointed, and took evidence February 28, March 5 and 19; and the report agreed upon bears date May 3, 1850. Fifteen witnesses were examined in the first session, and ten in the second session. The Committee’s report refers to the evidence and petitions which had come before them, and then proceeds: ‘On a review of all the statements and opinions which have thus been brought before them, the Committee have no hesitation in stating that the expectations of those who proposed the existing system have not been realised. Their object appears to have been to create a class of houses of refreshment, respectable in character, brewing their own beer, diminishing by the supply of a cheap and wholesome beverage the consumption of ardent spirits, and thus contributing to the happiness and comforts of the labouring classes. But it appears that of these houses only one-twelfth brew their own beer; that a very large proportion are, as in the case of public-houses, the actual property of brewers, or tied by advances to them; that they are notorious forthe sale of an inferior article; that the consumption of ardent spirits has, from whatever cause, far from diminished; and that the comforts and morals of the poor have been seriously impaired. It was already sufficiently notorious that drunkenness is the main cause of crime, disorder, and distress in England, and it appears that the multiplication of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, which under the Beer Act has risen from 88,930 to 123,396, has been thus in itself an evil of the first magnitude, not only by increasing the temptations to excess, which are thus presented at every step, but by driving houses, even those under the direct control of the magistrates, as well as others originally respectable, to practices for the purpose of attracting custom which are degrading to their character, and most injurious to morality and disorder.’ The increase of crime is next adverted to, and the defects of the system pointed out, such as an ‘unlimited multiplication’ of the worst class of beer-houses, the want of security as to character, the low rating, the opening of beer-houses in obscure localities—‘But, perhaps, the evil of all the most difficult to deal with is the absence of all control save by legal conviction almost impracticable to attain.’ ‘The magnitude of these evils has led to a widely-extended feeling in favour of an abandonment of that part of the existing law by which consumption on the premises is permitted. But the existence of houses conducted under a beer licence with propriety and advantage, and the length of time which this system has already endured, have made the Committee unwilling to contemplate a change so extensive until experience shall have proved that it is impossible by other means to abate the evil.’ The suggestions of the Select Committee were to the effect that all beer and coffee-shops should be open to the visits of the police; that new applicants for a beer licence should be compelled to procure certificates from the magistrates in Petty Sessions that they were satisfied as to the rating and character of the applicant; that the rating should be in places with less than 2,500 population, 10l.; under 10,000, 15l.; above 10,000, 20l.(the rating required by the existing law being, severally, 8l., 11l., and 15l.); that applicants should give one month’s notice, the notice to be affixed for three weeks to some public place, before the Petty Sessions, at which three out of six of the certifiers to character should attend with the overseers of the respective parishes, rate-book in hand; no magistrate’s certificate to be granted to any person convicted of misdemeanour or whohad forfeited a spirit licence; no person licensed to sell beer for consumption on the premises to sell any other article except refreshments and tobacco; that debts for intoxicating liquors drunk on the premises not to be recoverable by law.[233]
In 1853, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to examine into the system under which public-houses, &c., are regulated, with a view of reporting whether any alteration of the law can be made for the better preservation of the public morals, the protection of the revenue, and for the proper accommodation of the public; which sat for 41 days, examining witnesses and considering evidence, under the able presidency of the Right Hon. C. P. Villiers (§ 29). The report and evidence, now published, form two ponderous Blue-books of 1,174 folio pages. The chief points of theReport from the Select Committee on Public-houses, July 1854, are the following:—
1. The distinctions as to licences lead to evasion of the law.2. The distinction between beer-shops and public-houses give rise to unhealthy competition, under which both parties are drawn toextreme expedients for the attraction of custom. Mr. Stanton, a publican, says:—‘There is a great deal of gambling carried on in Birmingham, although the police do all they can to put it down. If the licensed victuallers did not allow it, the parties would go to a beer-house.’3.Beer is seldom at the public-house what it was at the brewery.A late partner in one of the metropolitan breweries says:—‘It is quite notorious if you drink beer at the brewery, and at a public-house a little way off, you find it a very different commodity’ (4538).4. The drinks areadulterated, as well as diluted. Mr. Ridley, who has under his management certain offices for the analysation of alcoholic liquors, states that there are severalrecipes, such as‘To a barrel of porter [add] 12 gallons of liquor, 4 lbs. of foots, 1 lb. of salt; and sometimes to bring a head up [and lay it down?], a littlevitriol,cocculus indicus, also a variety of things very minute’ (4700). Mr. J. W. McCulloch, analytic chemist, in 40 samples of brewers’ beer, found 10½ gallons proof spirit to every 100 gallons, but at several of the licensed victuallers supplied by those brewers it did not reach 7; and out of 150 samples there was not one within 20 per cent. of the brewery standard.5. That magistrates do not enforce the law, or very rarely.6. ‘The beer-shop system has proved a failure.It was established under the belief that it would give the public their beer cheap and pure; would dissociate beer-drinking from drunkenness, and lead to the establishment, throughout the country, of a class of houses of refreshment, altogether free from the disorderssupposedto attendexclusivelyon the sale of spirits.’7. The Committee concur in the statement of the Lords’ Report on the Sale of Beer Act, that ‘It was already sufficiently notoriousthat drunkenness is the main cause of crime, disorder, and distress in England; and it appears that the multiplication of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, under the Beer Act, has risen from 88,930 to 123,306.’8. That throughout the country ‘the publicans are completely under the thumb of the brewers.’9. The trade of a publican is looked upon as apeculiar privilege. The hope of obtaining a licence increases beer-shops.10. It seems desirable that a higher rate of duty be paid for a licence, and more stringent regulations enforced as to character and sureties.11. Statistics of intemperance defective. The evidence before the Committee is sufficient to show that the amount of drunkenness is very much greater than appears upon the face of any official returns.12. There are many places where beer is sold without a licence. Some of them, under cover of the law permitting beer at 1½d.a quart to be sold without licence, sell also porter and ale (6882). ‘At the single town of Fazeley there are about 30 houses that sell porter, ale, and beer indiscriminately; they are private houses, known as “Bush-houses,” from their having a bush over the door as a sign to their frequenters’ (4838, 6840). At Oldham ‘there are from 400 to 500 such places, known there asHush-shops, wherethey brew their own beer, and have each their own known customers.’ At Bolton, at Preston, and in Hampshire and London, similar practices are more or less prevalent (3664, 3679).13. ‘Thetemptationis strong to encourage intemperance,and a vast number of the houses for the sale of intoxicating drinks live upon drunkards and the sure progress of multitudes to drunkenness.’14. ‘Your Committee do not feel itnecessaryto follow the evidence upon the connection of intoxicating drinks with crime; it has, directly or indirectly, been the subject of inquiry at different times, and has been reported upon by numerous committees of your Honourable House, who bearunvarying testimonyboth to the general intemperance of criminals,and the increase and diminution of crime in direct ratio with the increased or diminished consumption of intoxicating drinks.... The entire evidence tends to establish that it isessentialthat the sale of intoxicating drinks shall be under strict supervision and control.’15. ‘The testimony isuniversalthat the greatest amount of drinking takes place on Saturday night, and during the hours that the houses are allowed by law to be open on Sunday.’16. ‘It need not be matter of surprise that in view of the vast mass of evils found in connection with intemperance, it should have been suggested altogether toprohibitthe manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks. Laws to that effect are in force in the States of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Michigan, in the United States; and your Committee have had before them several zealous promoters of an Association established to procure the enactment of similar laws in England.’[234]
1. The distinctions as to licences lead to evasion of the law.
2. The distinction between beer-shops and public-houses give rise to unhealthy competition, under which both parties are drawn toextreme expedients for the attraction of custom. Mr. Stanton, a publican, says:—‘There is a great deal of gambling carried on in Birmingham, although the police do all they can to put it down. If the licensed victuallers did not allow it, the parties would go to a beer-house.’
3.Beer is seldom at the public-house what it was at the brewery.A late partner in one of the metropolitan breweries says:—‘It is quite notorious if you drink beer at the brewery, and at a public-house a little way off, you find it a very different commodity’ (4538).
4. The drinks areadulterated, as well as diluted. Mr. Ridley, who has under his management certain offices for the analysation of alcoholic liquors, states that there are severalrecipes, such as‘To a barrel of porter [add] 12 gallons of liquor, 4 lbs. of foots, 1 lb. of salt; and sometimes to bring a head up [and lay it down?], a littlevitriol,cocculus indicus, also a variety of things very minute’ (4700). Mr. J. W. McCulloch, analytic chemist, in 40 samples of brewers’ beer, found 10½ gallons proof spirit to every 100 gallons, but at several of the licensed victuallers supplied by those brewers it did not reach 7; and out of 150 samples there was not one within 20 per cent. of the brewery standard.
5. That magistrates do not enforce the law, or very rarely.
6. ‘The beer-shop system has proved a failure.It was established under the belief that it would give the public their beer cheap and pure; would dissociate beer-drinking from drunkenness, and lead to the establishment, throughout the country, of a class of houses of refreshment, altogether free from the disorderssupposedto attendexclusivelyon the sale of spirits.’
7. The Committee concur in the statement of the Lords’ Report on the Sale of Beer Act, that ‘It was already sufficiently notoriousthat drunkenness is the main cause of crime, disorder, and distress in England; and it appears that the multiplication of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, under the Beer Act, has risen from 88,930 to 123,306.’
8. That throughout the country ‘the publicans are completely under the thumb of the brewers.’
9. The trade of a publican is looked upon as apeculiar privilege. The hope of obtaining a licence increases beer-shops.
10. It seems desirable that a higher rate of duty be paid for a licence, and more stringent regulations enforced as to character and sureties.
11. Statistics of intemperance defective. The evidence before the Committee is sufficient to show that the amount of drunkenness is very much greater than appears upon the face of any official returns.
12. There are many places where beer is sold without a licence. Some of them, under cover of the law permitting beer at 1½d.a quart to be sold without licence, sell also porter and ale (6882). ‘At the single town of Fazeley there are about 30 houses that sell porter, ale, and beer indiscriminately; they are private houses, known as “Bush-houses,” from their having a bush over the door as a sign to their frequenters’ (4838, 6840). At Oldham ‘there are from 400 to 500 such places, known there asHush-shops, wherethey brew their own beer, and have each their own known customers.’ At Bolton, at Preston, and in Hampshire and London, similar practices are more or less prevalent (3664, 3679).
13. ‘Thetemptationis strong to encourage intemperance,and a vast number of the houses for the sale of intoxicating drinks live upon drunkards and the sure progress of multitudes to drunkenness.’
14. ‘Your Committee do not feel itnecessaryto follow the evidence upon the connection of intoxicating drinks with crime; it has, directly or indirectly, been the subject of inquiry at different times, and has been reported upon by numerous committees of your Honourable House, who bearunvarying testimonyboth to the general intemperance of criminals,and the increase and diminution of crime in direct ratio with the increased or diminished consumption of intoxicating drinks.... The entire evidence tends to establish that it isessentialthat the sale of intoxicating drinks shall be under strict supervision and control.’
15. ‘The testimony isuniversalthat the greatest amount of drinking takes place on Saturday night, and during the hours that the houses are allowed by law to be open on Sunday.’
16. ‘It need not be matter of surprise that in view of the vast mass of evils found in connection with intemperance, it should have been suggested altogether toprohibitthe manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks. Laws to that effect are in force in the States of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Michigan, in the United States; and your Committee have had before them several zealous promoters of an Association established to procure the enactment of similar laws in England.’[234]
On July 13, 1854, Colonel Wilson Patten strove to give effect to the provisions of the Villiers Committee. His Bill, known as the ‘Sunday Beer Act,’ was ‘A Bill for further regulating the sale of beer and other liquors on the Lord’s day.’
This Act closed public-houses and beer-shops onSunday, from half-past two o’clockp.m.until sixp.m., and from ten o’clock on Sunday evening until foura.m.on Monday. During the few months of its operating, there was a sensible abatement of drunkenness and disorder, as is testified by the returns from the police, throughout the country. We cite places by way of specimen.Warrington: ‘A most remarkable difference is observable in the general order which prevails throughout the town, as well as by the discontinuance of fearful affrays, and riotous conduct.’Liverpool: ‘The new Act,’ says Mr. Greig, head constable of the police, ‘has been attended with the most beneficial results.’London: Mr. G. A’Beckett, magistrate of the Southwark Police Court, in a letter to theTimes, Jan. 8, 1855, says, ‘that on the Monday mornings before the Act, the business of the court was greater than on any other days, but that since, it had only averaged two cases of drunkenness for each Sunday.’ In 1855, the Wilson Patten Act was superseded by the New Beer Bill of Mr. Henry Berkeley, which extended the hour of closing to eleven at night, and gave a little more freedom to the traffic on the Sunday afternoon. The history of this remarkable piece of legislation is worth preserving, as a monument of its author’s—character. In a speech delivered by him, at the second anniversary dinner of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, Bristol, reported in theBristol Mercury, of Nov. 4, 1854, he said, that after Wilson Patten’s Bill had passed the second reading, he had been waited on by a deputation, but that being the ‘eleventh hour,’ no successful opposition could then be offered. He believed the words he used to the deputation were, ‘If nobody else comes forward I will have ashyat it.’ This it will be seen, was justbeforethe Bill became law, and, therefore,beforeit had gone into effect. Mr. Berkeley opposed it without trial, and stood pledged against it without regard to its results. On Feb. 20, 1855, immediately after the meeting of Parliament,Mr. Berkeley, in his place in Parliament, inquired of the Government, whether they intended to do anything in reference to the Act, and received a reply that it was not their intention to repeal it. Mr. Berkeley then recommended the appointment of a select committee. This created considerable division among the publicans, who held many meetings for discussion, at all of which Mr. Berkeley was recognised as ‘theirexperienced and talentedadviser.’ (See theDaily News, April and May, 1855, andThe Eraof April 22.) On April 23 a meeting of delegates is reported, inThe Eraof the 29th, to have been held in Mr. Painter’s public-house, Bridge Street, Westminster, which resulted in the appointment of a deputation toconsultwith Mr. Berkeley. The deputation is reported to have waited on Mr. Berkeley in the lobby of the House of Commons. ‘A long desultory conversation ensued, after which Mr. Berkeley advised the delegates to confer among themselves, and to consider well the course which would be most beneficial for them to pursue.He would postpone for a week his motion for a Select Committee....Eventually his advice was accepted, and on June 26, 1855, his motion for a Select Committee was agreed to by the House—Mr. Cobbett, the seconder, remarking that no legislation could be attempted that session.[235]
In 1860, Mr. Gladstone’sWine Licences Actwas passed. This measure permitted foreign wines to be sold for consumption on the premises to various classes of refreshment houses. It gave concurrent power to grocers, &c., to sell those wines in bottles for consumption off the premises. The introducer of this measure, then Chancellorof the Exchequer, stated that the proposal was not intended merely as a means of raising revenue, but as one carrying out the principles of free trade, and contributing to the comforts and conveniences of the people.[236]The following statistics have been carefully gathered by Mr. Samuelson, from which some estimate may be formed of the effect produced by this legislation of Mr. Gladstone:—Beginning with the year 1859, the wine imported from France was 695,911 gallons; from Spain and Portugal, 4,893,916 gallons; whilst in 1876 the wine imported from France was 6,745,710 gallons, and from Spain and Portugal, 10,186,332 gallons. The importation of strong wines had therefore actually fallen below the average of 1863-65, whilst that of French wine had increased tenfold by the reduction of the duty.[237]
In 1863, Mr. J. Somes introduced into Parliament hisSunday Closing Bill, which proposed to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, except tobonâ fidetravellers, from eleven o’clock on Saturday night to six o’clock Monday morning. The Bill was rejected.
In March 1864, Sir W. Lawson introduced into the House hisPermissive Bill; which provides that on application of any district, the votes of the ratepayers shall be taken as to whether the traffic shall exist in that district or not; a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers being necessary to decide the question. This Bill was the embodiment of the principles of the ‘United Kingdom Alliance.’
In 1868, the Bill of Mr. John Abel Smith was rejected; which, while prohibiting Sunday drinking on the premises,allowed four hours for the sale of dinner and supper beer.
In 1869, the Government adopted the Bill of Sir H. Selwyn-Ibbetson, entitledThe Wine and Beerhouse Act, which transferred the power of licensing beer-houses from the excise to the magistracy, who now could exercise over all applications for new beer and wine licences the same discretionary control, as in the case of spirit licences. By this measure the number of such houses was limited. But the 50,000 existing houses, with the exception of a few denounced dens, were perpetuated—a new monopoly and with it a new vested interest was created, and a point of reform was reached much below that for which the public opinion of the country was prepared.[238]
In 1869, Mr. Peter Rylands moved for the adoption of his Resolution,—‘That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that any measure for the general amendment of the laws for licensing public-houses, beer-houses, and refreshment houses, should include the prohibition of the sale of liquors on Sunday.’ This fell through. But in 1871, the same member succeeded in getting read a second time a much modified Bill, which was, however, negatived when it came on for Committee.
In 1871, Lord Aberdare (then Mr. Bruce), the Home Secretary, introduced a Bill on behalf of the Government, with the professed object of reforming the laws relating to the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors. He denounced, in his introductory speech, the existing laws as seriously defective, and tending to undermine the best interests of the community. The Bill was thorough, honest, and calculated in ten years to have changed the face of the community, by its many provisions calculatedto restrain the traffic as well as the hours of sale, week day and Sunday.
Amongst its wisest provisions was the appointment of inspectors of the trade. But a panic set in, and Mr. Bruce was obliged to withdraw, and a suspensory measure preventing the issue of any fresh licences for the next year, was introduced by Sir R. Anstruther, and became law. In two years, however, it was succeeded by an amended Bill, which rendered its chief provisions practically null.
In 1872, Mr. Hugh Birley introduced his Sunday Closing Bill into the House. But it got no further than its first reading.
In 1876, Mr. Joseph Cowen’s Bill for the establishment of licensing boards was thrown out.
In 1877, Mr. Chamberlain introduced a motion for the adoption of the ‘Gothenburg System,’ the main principle of which is, that municipal corporations should have power to buy up and become owners of public-house licences, their agents to have no personal or pecuniary interest in the profits, but rather be encouraged to push the sale of food and non-intoxicants, and all profits derived from the sale of intoxicating liquors be devoted to the relief of the rates, &c. The motion was rejected.
In 1876 ‘The Lords’ Committee on Intemperance’ was appointed, on the motion of Dr. Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘for the purpose of inquiring into the prevalence of habits of intemperance, and into the manner in which these habits have been affected by recent legislation and other causes.’[239]
In 1877-78, the committee, not having as yet acted, was reappointed. One hundred witnesses were examined, including members of Parliament, magistrates, clergymen, constables, municipal authorities, doctors, merchants, &c. In their bulky report, issued in 1879, they recommend:—