Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England: A History

by Richard Valpy French

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 for the 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 who had 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 the Report 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 to extreme 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 are adulterated, as well as diluted. Mr. Ridley, who has under his management certain offices for the analysation of alcoholic liquors, states that there are several recipes, 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 little vitriol, 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 disorders supposed to attend exclusively on 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 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, 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.’