How adulterated.

Chemical analysis.

Adulteration of spirit.

Adulteration of beer.

Result of comparative strength of samples at the Breweries and Public-houses.

of liquor be put into it there is that amount of profit (1738). The beer is dashed, there is what he calls five per cent. of water put in the beer. As to spirits, the same witness states that paying 12s. a gallon for gin he is obliged to mix water with it to sell it at 4 d. a quartern, which is but 10s. 8d. a gallon; and that there is added, besides the water, sugar to sweeten it. Mr. Ridley, who has been long connected with the wine and spirit trade, and who has under his management certain offices for the analysation of alcoholic liquors, states that the standard price of all the large porter brewers-and as to which there are agreements amongst them -is 33s. a barrel, with five per cent. off, that is 31s. 6d. net; the barrel is 36 gallons; it is increased to 48 gallons by the addition of water and sugar, and then sold at 3d. per pot, which yields a profit of 15s. a barrel (4706. 4730), whilst in the genuine state the profit would be about 4s. (4746). The Witness had sampled the beer of a house on the Surrey side of the water where they sell at 3d. a pot, and draw 48 butts a month, and found that from their fraudulent process of reducing, they had a profit of 45 per cent. (4733, 4734). The Witness further states that there are several recipes for the adulteration, such as, "to a barrel of porter 12 gallons of liquor, four pounds of foots, one pound of salt; and then there is sometimes, to bring a head up, a little vitriol, cocculus indicus, also a variety of things so very minute, that unless they are admitted by recipes in their hands, we cannot easily detect the small proportions" (4700).

Dr. Hassall, a London physician, who for several years has devoted his attention to the adulteration of liquors and articles of food, states that a "solution of cayenne pepper is commonly used to increase the pungency of gin; it is used in the shape of a tincture, so that it mixes readily with the spirits; but the addition of water to any strong spirituous liquid has the effect of making the mixture turbid and milky, and this necessitates a subsequent process of fining. To fine this mixture of water and ordinary spirits, carbonate of potash (commonly called salt of tartar) and alum are employed; those subside to the bottom, and carry with them the essential oil upon which turbidity depends, leaving the spirits clear and bright. The use of potash and alum is very frequent indeed in gin' (4350). The same Witness gives as the result of the analyses of nearly 50 samples of beer, ale, porter, and stout, that they are weakened by the addition of water, which is as essentiaily an adulteration as any other mixture (4318. 4309).

Mr. John William M'Culloch, an analytical chemist, for 10 years in the employment of the Board of Inland Revenue, states that he has analysed many hundred samples of beer, both for the Excise and since he has left their employment; that since Christmas 1853, he has analysed 480 samples. In 40 samples of brewers' beer, he found the strength invariably 10 gallons proof spirit to every 100 gallons of beer; but at several of the licensed victuallers' supplied by those brewers, it did not exceed 6 gallons and 8-10ths; and of 150 samples from licensed victuallers dealing at these breweries, there was not one of them within 20 per cent. of the brewery standard. In the instance of a publican at the St. Katherine's Docks, who sends out an immense quantity of beer, it was reduced to 6 gallons proof spirit in the 100; so that by the addition of water he had increased his 100 gallons of beer to 170 (4388 to 4394). His beer is sold at 3 d. a pot, and the profit made on the 100 gallons, by the addition of the Largeness of profit water, would therefore be 37. 15 s. (4450.) The same witness states that a sample of gin recently analysed, contained 75 lbs. of sugar to every 100 gallons (4456).

on adulteration.

Insufficiency of

vent adulteration.

For this almost universal practice of imposition upon the public, wrong existing law to pre- to the honest trader, and fraud upon the revenue, the extent of which, by the substitution of water for beer, Mr. M'Culloch estimates at one-fourth of the malt tax, the law appears to afford no sufficient remedy. The parties are liable to heavy penalties for adulteration, to forfeiture of the licence, and Proof of difficulty, disability to hold any future licence, but there is difficulty in convicting for adulteration, because there is no fixed standard of strength. The brewer may manufacture any strength, and the publican or beershop-keeper have any strength for sale. Where there are considerable profits upon fraud, pecuniary penalties are readily paid, and neither in the instance of the sale of articles not included in the licence, nor of adulteration, does the ultimate penalty of the withdrawal of the licence seem to be enforced. A witness, who has long been con

from being no

fixed standard of strength.

The profit covers the penalties on the few cases of conviction.

nected

nected with trade, states, that "The magistrates do not take pains to investigate how these houses are conducted, and instead of putting in force the power they have to deprive them of their licence for adulterating their liquors, they Publicans' licence take no notice whatever" (4685). The power to forfeit the licence in the not withdrawn by case of beershops, rests not with the Excise, but with the magistrate; the magistrates. Excise grant, but they cannot withdraw the licence. The Commissioner or collectors of Excise can act only on written notice of the adjudication of the magistrates. Mr. John Wood says, "The justice may fine the party, and he may in addition to the pecuniary penalty adjudge that he should forfeit his licence, but if he does not so adjudge, and if he does not give notice of such adjudication, either to the Commissioners of Excise or to the collector Excise have no of Excise, as the case may be, then we, having no notice of such adjudi- power over Beercation, have no right whatever to interfere; and in practice we never have shop licence but such notice. I believe we have not one single instance in which such an conviction by adjudication has been forwarded to us. The magistrates, as it appears to magistrates. me, generally decline that part of their duty; having the option, they do not so adjudicate; it appears to me that they generally consider it sufficient

to convict the party in a pecuniary penalty, and they do not communicate to us,

on notice of

as the Act of Parliament prescribes to them, the fact that there has been a con- Magistrates do not viction; that is, they consider the conviction in the penalty sufficient, and they convict. do not wish it to be followed by the consequences which the Act of Parliament

prescribes."

Your Committee have not sufficient evidence to enable them to judge of the extent to which the adulteration and dilution of beer and spirits prevails, that it is very general there is reason to believe; it is the almost natural fruit cf the unequal and unjust competition established by the distinction between the publi.. cans and beershop-keepers; still Your Committee, are satisfied that there are many, both publicans and beershop-keepers, who do not engage in these discreditable practices, and whose business is fairly and honourably conducted.

vent adulteration

below which beer

It has been suggested that it would afford an easy remedy against adulteration, Suggestion to preif a standard were fixed below which the retailer must not have any beer upon his premises. The establishment of such a restriction must, however, be undertaken by fixing standard with the utmost caution, lest, in the effort to prevent the adulteration of beer of the and spirits not to be strength ordinarily manufactured, the legitimate manufacture and sale of beer of on premises. inferior strength should be prevented. In the case of spirits, there does not seem to be any difficulty; the rectifier cannot send it out beyond 17 to 20 under proof, and it is only necessary that the publican shall be prohibited from having it on his premises below that standard.

The matter of adulteration and dilution is, however, sufficiently important to Important to have form the subject of a distinct inquiry; and Your Committee are of opinion, that further inquiry into as early as may be convenient, an inquiry should take place into the whole adulteration of question of the adulteration of food, drink, and medicines. The suppression of food, medicines, adulteration is of the utmost importance, not to the consumers only, but in checking the dishonest competition, so recklessly carried on to the ruin of fair trade.

&c.

The beershop system has proved a failure. It was established under the belief Original grounds that it would give the public their beer cheap and pure, would dissociate beer- for establishment of Beershops. 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. The Committee of the Lords which sat in 1849-50, however, report that of the beer-houses, "a very large proportion Opinion of Lords are, as in the case of public-houses, the actual property of brewers, or tied by that the Beershop advances to them; that they are notorious for the sale of an inferior article; that system has failed. 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." Much of the evidence before Your Committee is to the same effect.

Your Committee have already adverted to the connexion of beerhouses with crime. In the Report on the Sale of Beer Act, brought from the Lords, 30 May 1850, their Lordships state that—

"It was already sufficiently notorious, that drunkenness is the main cause of Report of Lords, crime, disorder, and distress in England; and it appears that the multiplication 1850, on Beer Act. of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, which, under the Beer

Driven to attract

custom by prac

tices injurious to morality.

There are numerous beerhouses well conducted.

Licences in hands
of brewers.
Liverpool.
Brighton.

Norwich.

Yarmouth. Lyme Regis. Ipswich.

Shields.

London.

Report of Com

mittee of 1817 on subject of brewers

and licences.

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 own character, and most injurious to morality and order.

Your Committee fully concur in the further statement of their Lordships, that notwithstanding the general concurrence of testimony against beershops, "there are highly rated houses under the beershop licence, in London and other places, kept by parties of respectable character, conducted with propriety, and even advantage to the neighbourhood, and which furnish a valuable accommodation to the middle and working classes." This is confirmed by the Superintendent of the Southwark Division of Metropolitan Police, who says:-"As far as my experience goes, I think the beerhouses, taking into consideration that they are subject to more stringent rules with respect to closing, are equally as well conducted as public-houses, that is, so far as my own immediate district goes. It should be borne in mind that beerhouses are necessarily resorted to by a lower class of persons than the generality of public-houses" (5092).

On the matter of advances by brewers, Mr. Robertson Gladstone, one of the Liverpool borough magistrates, states, that the brewers of Liverpool have become possessed of a vast number of licences in their own hands (983). Mr. Partridge, of Brighton, holding the commission of the peace for Sussex, Herefordshire, and Monmouthshire, states, that the great evil of the present system is, that the publicans are completely under the thumb of the brewers; the houses belong to the brewers, who put people in to hold them (5742, 5743). Mr. Palmer, recorder of Norwich, gives the number of houses in Norwich, bound to each brewer, showing that, of 566 licences, but 18 are free to deal with whom they please (1845); and at Yarmouth, of 182 houses, 105 are bound to brewers (1845); at Lyme Regis, of 124 who sell beer, wine, and spirits, 100 are tied to particular brewers (1867); at Ipswich, where there are 125 licensed houses, 102 belong to brewers (1876).

Mr. James Mather, himself a wine and spirit merchant at South Shields, states that there are 191 licensed houses in South Shields, of which 123 are tied to take their supplies from brewers and spirit-merchants, and there are 48 beerhouses, nearly all so tied (9510).

As to London, the fact of the great brewers, either owning the public-houses or having mortgages upon, or holding the leases as security for loans, is sufficiently notorious to need no confirmation. It would seem that money is not even always really advanced. Mr. M'Culloch states that "a man who occupies a house called the York Hotel, in Gordon-street, Islington, for four years had been applying for a licence for that house, and had been refused until an appeal this year. There has not been a single house built in the neighbourhood since he first applied for a licence; the inhabitants are less numerous than they were before. On the appeal this year, he got his licence. He went into that house (it is a well fitted-up house) as a beerseller, with the understanding with the brewer that he should pay 100 l, a year rent, and in the event of procuring a licence he should pay 20. a year more; that makes 120 l. rent; and he should also pay down to the brewer 3,000 l., or become liable for the amount, and pay five per cent. upon it (4490). His rent was increased 20 l. a year, and he became indebted to the brewer for the sum of 3,000 l.; not one fraction of that money had ever passed between them (4411). The brewer holds his lease as security (4412).

66

The Committee appointed to inquire into the police of the metropolis, and the execution of the laws relating to licensed victuallers, went very fully into evidence upon this subject, and in their reports dated May 2d, 1817, observe upon it, “ that a practice seems to have gradually grown up, and to have increased to a great extent, within these few years, for brewers to become the owners, purchasers, or equitable mortgagees of leases of public-houses; nearly one-half of the victualling-houses in the metropolis are held in this manner; and Your Committee think, that under the confined and restricted power, which the public at large possess, of employing their capital in the trade of victualling-houses, this system is very prejudicial to the interest of the community at large." The community would not, however, suffer if there were no such restriction, and only

by

by abolishing it is it possible to reach the evil. Brewers and publicans must of course be left at perfect liberty to make advances, and receive them as they may find profitable.

Beerhouse-keeping requires but little capital; many are attracted to it, and The hope of obtainoverstock the trade, by the hope that it will lead to a licence, and, though dis- ing a licence inappointed and unsuccessful, continue in the business. The trade of a publican creases number of beershops. is looked upon as a peculiar privilege (2923); but in proportion as the magistrates endeavour to keep down the number of public-houses, does the number

of beerhouses increase.

In Liverpool, where the magistrates have readily granted licences, there are The fewer victu1,450 public-houses and 1,000 beershops; and in Manchester, where the allers the more magistrates have so rigidly restrained the increase of public-houses, that they beershops. were actually reduced from 490 in 1844 to 481 in 1852, the beershops have risen from 850 in 1844 to 1,460 in 1852. But the beershop is not only the first attraction from its cheapness, and the hope of a licence to numbers to enter upon the trade in intoxicating drinks, who, were the whole upon the same footing, would for want of capital never attempt it, but it forms a mischievous refuge for those who have failed discreditably, or been deprived for offences more or less serious of their licences as publicans. Mr. Stinton says, "I recollect a case in which the magistrates of Birmingham stopped a licensed victualler's house; they gave him special notice that he had bad company in his house, and at last they stopped the licence. What did he do? He went to the Excise Office and took out his licence, and snapped his fingers at the magistrates, and carried on ten times worse" (3813). And another witness states, that "beerhouses are often kept by persons who have lost their licences as publicans ; sometimes they are kept by discharged convicts" (4040).

Publicans who have forfeited their licence open

shops.

beer

Committee recommend the distinc

tion between beershop and pub

In view of these facts, Your Committee feel justified in recommending that the distinction between beershops and public-houses, both as to the extent of the licence and the manner in which it is granted, shall be discontinued ; and they are fortified in the recommendation by the opinions of persons of consider- lic-house licences able experience in the working of the existing system. Mr. John Wood states, to be discontinued. "that he does not see any reason whatever for the distinction between publichouses and beer-houses (515), and that with regard to licensed victuallers, there should be one general licence allowing them to sell beer, spirits, and wine,"

(389). Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey: "Except as to reference to character, and Opinions in favour other circumstances, which the magistrates or the law might prescribe as the of the clause. best mode of preserving public order and social regulations, would allow any man to sell malt liquor or spirits" (9340-1). Mr. Nathaniel Palmer, recorder of Norwich, is of opinion "that every man who wants it should have a licence,' (1826). Mr. William Partridge "thinks that every respectable rated inhabitant should be entitled to a licence to carry on the trade of a licensed victualler " (5760). Mr. Robertson Gladstone "is of opinion that the trade would better regulate itself if it were thrown open to any man who had not been convicted of an offence, on giving proper security to the public for his good conduct" (1015).

At a meeting of the Liverpool Bench of Magistrates, held 24th January 1853, it was resolved, "That all houses for the sale of ale, beer, spirits and wine, should be exposed to free competition in trade, imposing only those restrictions which may be deemed expedient for the purpose of police regulation." (See Appendix.

The Honourable Frederick Byng states, that "his idea of licensing is, that any man should have a licence on sufficient evidence and good security for his good conduct, under certain regulations" (9207.)

man Wire.

It is objected that this freedom of obtaining licences would entail serious losses Objections to upon existing publicans. Mr. Alderman Wire, solicitor to the Licensed Victuallers' abolition of disAssociation, says, "I should say, that the licensed victuallers, as a body, tinction. Alderthroughout the country, and my impression is that the public concur in that opinion, for reasons that the licensed victuallers do not concur in, are opposed to any change whatever. They think that the present laws, which were exceedingly well considered in the year in which Mr. Estcourt brought in his Act, have worked beneficially for the public, where the attention of the magistrates has

The apprehensions groundless.

been particularly directed to their administration; that they have preserved temperance; that they have protected the revenue; and that they have afforded great accommodation to the public. Now, if I might be permitted to say one word as to the largeness of the interest affected by these laws. We say there are 6,000 licensed victuallers in the metropolitan district, and it is impossible to put those houses down at less than 1,000 l. each in value. Then, if you see the number which would be thus affected, you see the largeness of the interest you are about to deal with and destroy by any alteration of the law. That interest in the metropolitan district alone would represent 6,000,000/. of property. Yes; I use the word destroy' advisedly, because any alteration of the law, by throwing the trade open, would destroy the interest; and would, therefore, so far infringe on the capital and industry of 6,000 people, who have depended on the law as it is now in existence" (10065-6).

Your Committee do not see reason to entertain these apprehensions. The same fears that are now expressed as to opening the trade of public-housekeeping were as eagerly uged at the time against the establishment of beershops. Several of the leading brewers deprecated the mischief that would be brought upon publicans in common with themselves, and entered into calculations to show that general ruin was inevitable. Your Committee, however, find that higher sums were not at any time paid than now for the goodwill of publichouses. The facts stated by Mr. Alderman Wire, that "the public-house Publicans will not interest in the metropolitan district alone represents 6,000,000 7. of property, and that there are 6,000 licensed victuallers in the district" (10065-6), are in themselves sufficient evidence that the interest has not suffered to any ruinous extent from the establishment of beerhouses, and this would seem to be confirmed by the fact that, although there are 41,547 houses licensed under the Beer Acts, there are 59,963 licensed victuallers, with the advantage, as against any new competitors, that they are established in the best situations, and have capital and connexions in their trade.

suffer.

Existing licences

not to be interfered

with.

Your Committee, however, do not propose to place those who may hereafter become publicans upon the same footing with those already holding licences. It seems desirable that in future a higher rate of duty shall be paid for a licence, and more stringent regulations enforced as to character and sureties. It is intended that existing beershops shall be suffered, as they now are, to take out separate licences for drinking on and off the premises. It will not be possible for any new beershop to obtain a licence without payment of a much more conSale of drinks with siderable sum than existing beershops will have to pay; it will therefore be only the better class of them that will become spirit sellers; whilst the more stringent supervision of all places of public refreshment, in common with places for the sale of intoxicating drinks, which Your Committee consider it essential to have established as a part of the new system, will tend to prevent the unlicensed sale of intoxicating drinks, and to suppress those discreditable practices which, in many localities, give an advantage to dishonest traders.

out licence will be checked.

Population, not rating, to regulate payment for

licence.

Sureties to give

to be stringently enforced against

them.

It seems to Your Committee advisable that, under the new system of licensing, the sum to be paid for a licence shall not be varied by the amount at which the premises are rated, but shall depend solely upon population, that being the more simple, certain, and equitable test.

Your Committee also consider it esssential to the effective working of the bond, and penalties system that penalties against the sureties shall be strictly enforced, and that before granting the licence the position and character of the sureties as well as the applicant, shall be fully inquired into. On this subject, Mr. D. W. Harvey says, "I consider the bond to be no slight test of character; if a man who proposes to have a house licensed can find two persons who will be his sureties, which, in fact, means that he will conduct himself according to law, it is no slight testimony to the character of the man; but, of course, the law will provide against a series of penalties. After a man shall have incurred two or three penalties, there ought to be a very summary mode by which he can be divested of the licence" (9863). Fines are so (9863). Fines are so frequently paid for the parties, and are so usually inflicted at the lowest amount provided by the licence in certain law, that Your Committee would suggest that the penalty for certain offences against the law, or tenor of the licence, shall be, instead of a fine, the closing of the house for any period from one day to a month; such a mode of punishment would

Instead of fine,

cases to be sus

mended.