Parliamentary deliberations and debates upon the drink traffic.

Date:
[between 1864 and 1870?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Parliamentary deliberations and debates upon the drink traffic. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/22 (page 7)
    mitted, and on December 2nd; f upon engrossment; it was read and passed/ It was probably rejected by the Lords; for it did not become law; and this rejection may account for the Commons’ summary rejection; in the way of tit-for-tat; on December 10th of a bill ffor suppressing* ale-houses and tippling-liouses,’ which had originated in the Lords. Mr. Townshend says that when the question was put f whether it should be committed; all said “ No, no/’ but Mr. Wingfield; at which the House laughed.’ The bill of November 5th was discussed December 2nd; and was opposed by Sir Walter Raleigh, who objected to the clause disqualifying as an inn¬ keeper any one selling short measure. This bill seems to have been dropped; so that although both Houses had been much engaged with the drink question that session, no law was enacted; but in the various projects introduced, we may detect the originals and germs of several provisions contained in acts on drink-selling and drunkenness in the succeeding reign.* These acts were five: 2d James I., c. 9 (1603-4), fTo restrain the inordinate haunting and tipling in inns, ale¬ houses, and other victualling-houses.’ 4th James I., c. 4, f To restrain the utterance of beer and ale to ale-house keepers and tiplers not licensed.’ 4th James I., c. 5, f For repressing the odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness.’ 7th James I., c. 10, fFor reformation of ale-house keepers.’ 21st James I., c. 7, fFor the better repressing of drunken¬ ness and the inordinate haunting of inns, ale-houses, and other victualling-houses.’ These acts embraced a period of about twenty years (1604-23), and the discussions on various points must have been warm and protracted, for the provisions were in many cases new and rigorous; but the f Parliamentary History’ gives no echo of these debates. On another ques¬ tion, however, having relation to the royal prerogative and the old grievance of patents, the same reticence is not observed. To raise money James had sold a patent em¬ powering the patentee to place a pecuniary ^imposition’ on * Though not exactly germane to the subject of this article, it may be remarked that Mr. Townshend has preserved a report of the speech delivered by the Lord- Keeper, Sir Thomas Egerton, to the whole body of judges (February 13th, 1602) before going to their circuits, and among the tasks he enjoins them are, ‘to examine justices (of the peace) touching misdemeanors, to inform Her Majesty Iiovj many ale-houses they have 'pulled down; how many priests they have taken, and who harbour them ; and of all these matters to give an account to Her Majesty at your return, that she taking notice from you, the good justices may be rewarded, and the evil removed.’ Suppressing ale-houses and capturing priests may appear to stand in curious juxta-position, but the importance attached to the latter office enables us to estimate the conception formed by the statesmen of that age of the »evils associated with the ale-house system then prevailing. drinking- shops.