anded interest, likewise, was
against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty
on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in
not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of
publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It
would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one
huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal
demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out
the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six
months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in
favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting
the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it
had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of
the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been
brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in
so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be
beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests
ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as
inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would
be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of
receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the
committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of
only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill
on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect
of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of
drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was
one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better
consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the
statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the
real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be
inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of
drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality
was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and
not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might
indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or
magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member
of an