barley, of some sort, whether foreign or served was that all except one connected home grown? There was another point with the promotion of this Bill were hon. he wished to mention. Was it not pos- Members representing agricultural consible to correct the so-called deficiency stituencies. But he also represented an in home-grown barley by a wiser and agricultural constituency, than which more skilful method of cultivation ? not one in England had suffered more Farmers were not dullards or fools, and from the low price obtainable for its when they saw that one sort of article cereal products, and as an agricultural was likely to bring a better price in a Member, and that only, he meant to better market, they naturally turned speak that afternoon. Of course, he their attention in the direction of that was a brewer, and meant to use his better article. If it be the fact that knowledge as such to enforce the few our barley be deficient in quality by rea- arguments he proposed to submit to the son of the process of cultivation, he was House; or, let him put the case in quite sure farmers would be found quite another light. Were he not a brewer, ready to correct matters, and produce, he should not be aware how great an inif possible, a barley which would meet jury to agriculture the passing of this the demand. It was only fair to remind Bill, in any form, would work. The the House that the Bill did not prohibit objects of the Bill were two: (1) to the manufacture and sale of liquid from secure pure beer for the consumer; and any other compounds besides those of (2) to raise the price of barley. He barley, malt, and hops. All they asked would gladly pass over the first object, was that there should be a definition of but in ordinary civility to the promoters beer. The statement had been made of the Bill, he could not move its rejecthat, to bring medium English barley up tion and take no notice of the words to the quality which was necessary, a "purity" and "adulteration," which greater inclusion of sugar should be per- were to be found on its front page. mitted. If that was proved, the proBeer was manufactured as follows: moters of the Bill, who were not unrea- What brewers called a sweet wort was sonable, would be willing to be willing to meet obtained from saccharine producing subAmendments. They did not wish to set stances soaked in the mash tun with the up any iron line of refusal. This was required amount of water, which sweet no electioneering Bill. None of the wort was afterwards converted into beer seats of those who backed the Bill de- by the process of fermentation, during pended upon their attitude with regard which process 75 per cent. of the sacchato the Bill, whether they were in oppo-rine matter was converted into alcohol, sition to it or supported it. It was and did not, therefore, so far as that 75 desirable to know whether this Bill was per cent. was concerned, affect the worth supporting, or whether it had wholesomeness of the beer, whatever the better be withdrawn; or, further, whether they had better consider some Measure in favour of the re-introduction of the malt tax. They were not going into action without reserves behind them. The Bill was based on an honest principle, and its objects were clear and laudable. There should be a free vote for or against the Bill, and it was in that view that he gave his cordial support to the Bill.

MR. THOMAS USBORNE (Essex, Chelmsford) said, he had risen to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months, not because he disapproved of its objects, but because he felt sure that were this Bill ever to become an Act, it would have exactly the opposite effect to that intended by its promoters. The first thing that he ob

original saccharine producing material might have been. So much for what he would call his preface. Now he would deal with the words "pure beer." He had looked out the word " pure in the dictionary, and found one of its meanings to be "unmixed" and, as such was the case, he was precluded from objecting to its use; but what it certainly did not mean was a beer that was either bright, wholesome, or palatable. There might be the sweet wort composed of all barley and consequently pure by the dictionary, but if the composition of that wort was such as to prevent the fermentation from being healthy and complete, it did not produce a bright, wholesome, and palatable beer, and he distinctly stated that from the great bulk of English barley his 30 years experience

But

had told him that it was impossible to the debating power of the right hon. produce a wort that would give the Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, brewer a healthy and complete fermenta- or that he could express in four times as tion He now came to the nasty word many words such a complete defence of "adulteration." He knew nothing of the brewers against the charge of aduladulteration in the manufacture of beer; teration. The second was that he wished neither did the promoters of this Bill. that when making his speech on the 10th What they wished the House to believe of last May, the right hon. Gentleman was that the substitutes for malt used had known as much of this particular by the brewers were used to adulterate subject as he did to-day, because he would the beer. What were these substitutes? then have added to what he said at that Sugar in various forms, prepared rice, time some words as the following and maize; these, as a country brewer, But besides this lighter kind of beer, were the only substitutes he knew of. there is the mild beer, largely indeed He found that the quantities used mainly, consumed by the working men throughout England were, sugar, 14 per of this country. Their taste in beer has cent., and the others 4 per cent., or 18 been rapidly changing, so that whereas per cent. in all, and as both rice and 25 years ago they drank a beer at least maize were used for the same purposes three months old, and more often 12, as sugar, and were certainly not un- they now drink it one week old, and wholesome, he would, during this De- will not touch it if it is four weeks; and bate, speak of sugar only. Now, no one for the production of such a beer, I am could seriously assert that the use of sugar informed sugar is almost a necessity, was adulteration in the ordinary sense; owing to the beer having to be brewed but if it was, why were the brewers to in the hottest months of the year. be allowed to add 3 per cent. of it to the now he came to the second and real finished beer? That 3 per cent. repre- object of the promoters of the Bill, and sented as much sugar left in the beer as the real reason why he had moved its the whole 14 per cent. added to the sweet rejection. Their second object was to wort, because, as he had stated, 75 per force the barley grown by their consticent. of the whole saccharine matter in tuents into the brewer's mash tun. the sweet wort was, during the process Would keeping sugar out of the tun of fermentation, converted into alcohol. force the barley into it? Most certainly But he would not detain the House by not. It would force it out by forcing in labouring this question of adulteration. far more foreign barley than the amount He would be content to read part of a of sugar withdrawn. What was it that speech delivered in this House on the the operative brewer wanted in his tun, 10th of last May by the then Chancellor so as to get a sweet wort that would of the Exchequer. He said :-give him a healthy and complete fermentation? Why, the sun! The sun is the creator of all saccharine substances. How much Engish barley would leave the tun with the sugar was no doubt a matter of opinion, and men might differ about it, but one fact was beyond dispute-namely, that sugar, rice, and, to a somewhat less extent, maize, were grown under a much hotter sun than German or French, or, indeed, evident that the equivalent of one any foreign barley. It was, therefore, quarter of sugar contained far more sun than one quarter of foreign barley, and his experience told him that it was at least as three to one in the average of samples of those barleys. If then, one would do the work (in quarter of sugar

"No doubt the Pure Beer Bill prohibits the use of any other material for the manufacture of beer than malt and hops. It is not disputed that brewers do not put deleterious articles into their beer, although no doubt they use considerable and increasing quantities of sugar in its manufacture. For the reason I

have already given, I believe that sugar is a good material for brewing the lighter kinds of beer, and besides sugar other substitutes for malt and hops are rarely used. I am informed that in addition to sugar a certain quantity of maize is used, but there is nothing unwholesome in that grain. The real truth is that brewers are bound to brew a beer which their countrymen want. There can be no question

at all about that."

Now, he wished to offer two observations on this quotation he had made. The first was that he very much wished sun providing) of three quarters of that he possessed to-day 25 per cent. of foreign barley, it would be evident to Mr. Thomas Usborne.

the House that the brewer must add to the foreign barley he used, three quarters, and reduce the English by two quarters if he might not use sugar. Now, he would put this matter in another light. He brewed, himself, with slight variations for the time of the year, as follows: He used 80 per cent. of Essex barley, 10 per cent of foreign (Smyrna), and 10 per cent of sugar. If this Bill ever became law he should certainly be forced, in order to get enough sun into the mash tun, to use 40 per cent. of foreign barley, and 60 per cent. of English. It might of course be argued that he was wrong, that his 30 years' experience in various country breweries had taught him nothing; but he hoped to hear his views confirmed in the course of this Debate, and if it was held that he was wrong, which he did not think would be the case, as to the proportion of three to one, still he was certain that the fact would not be denied that there was more sun in sugar than in any barley, and that, therefore, sugar would better supply the great deficiency of sun in our English barleys, than an equal quantity of foreign barley, be it grown where it might. With reference to the Bill as it would affect the brewers' pockets, possibly some of his brothers in the trade might be anxious about it. He was

not.

pounds of extract obtained on English barley is 10 to 15 per cent. more than that obtained from foreign of the same bulk, and therefore, if the tax on the same quantity of both is the same, the desire on the part of the brewer for profit will force him to use all the English barley he possibly can." Of course the loss of the free mash tun to the brewers would be a great inconvenience. But if the Government would, either in their Budget proposals or by a Bill, go back to the Malt Tax, he should, as an agricultural Member, feel it his duty to support them. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to his first, and he hoped, last effort at making a speech. He hoped they would give them a majority against the Second Reading of this extraordinary Measure, and that so he might have contributed something towards rescuing his unfortunate constituents from what he was prepared to admit was an honest and well-meant effort on the part of his hon. Friends to serve them. He begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

*MR. H. KIMBER (Wandsworth) seconded the Amendment. He observed that it was evident from the speech of his hon. Friend that the brewers could take care of themselves and were well represented there, while it was also He did not believe it would make evident that they would not be damaged any difference to the brewers, because to by the Bill. He desired to speak for the extent that it would raise the price an interest that would be very seriously of foreign, it would, to his great regret, damaged, and people who were not in lower the price of English barleys. the wealthy position of brewers and able What he knew, and what he was to take care of themselves, but who were anxious to avoid, was this: that in the powerless unless the House protected them. event of the Bill passing the amount of He must refer to the period at which money that he now paid to his friends the Malt Tax was repealed. There was and neighbours for the produce of the no doubt that if ever there could be a land they now farmed would be reduced compact between the Chancellor of the by at least 20 per cent. But the promoters Exchequer, representing the Treasury of of this Bill might fairly say to him, this country and its fiscal system and "You approve our objects, what do you the public of the country, a compact was propose?" And his answer was "Your made then—a compact under which the first object I have, with great assistance nation had admittedly gained, at that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader time he thought, at the rate of £400,000 of the Opposition, demolished the a year, certainly over £300,000, and he necessity to legislate for. Your second believed at the present time object I would attain by going back to £500,000 a year. The Malt Tax was the Malt Tax. And why? The Malt repealed, and instead of it the Beer Tax was a tax on the measure of the Tax was imposed, in consideration barley. The beer duty is a tax on the of which it was distinctly understood weight of the saccharine matter obtained. that the brewers should have a free Now the average number of the brewers mash tun. That was to say they were

over

was, at any rate, looked upon as a great fiscal authority, and whose opinion would be respected-used, in June, 1880, in proposing to repeal the Malt Tax. The right hon. Gentleman then said:

to be allowed to brew beer by what- the trades that went out of existence ever name they chose to call it, with and came into existence, not more but any ingredients that would make beer, rather less than it was before. Let and it was for the public to determine him appeal to the supporters of the Bill whether they would drink it or not. and their agricultural friends not to be That system had resulted largely to the carried away by any idea that they benefit of the country. It had called would do a large benefit indirectly to into existence a number of beneficial that oppressed and suffering industry trades which had been productive to such an extent as to make them of good to the country, employing forget they might be throwing out of many hundreds of the poor of the labour- employment thousands of others in the ing classes in the manufacture and supply ancillary trades that had been brought of a substitute. Many hon. Members, into existence by the repeal of the Malt he dared say, had received a circular Tax and other similar causes. Let him letter signed by as many as 14 firms and point to another consequence of the establishments of considerable magni- passing of this Bill based upon this tude, some of which happened to be same alteration of the law that was located in his constituency. That was then made. It was, perhaps, right that the only interest he represented as he should read the terms which Mr. against the Bill, other than that which Gladstone-who, whatever they might, every hon. Member ought to represent, think of his views upon other matters namely, the interest of justice. The Mover and Seconder of the Bill had dealt in a fair way in launching the Measure before the House. The principle of the Bill, to put it shortly, was to call a spade a spade. That was a good principle to which he had no objection, but let them see how the principle was to be worked out. The objects of the Bill were two in number. The first was to enable everybody who bought beer to know what he got and paid for, and the second was, from a financial point of view, to do a great benefit to the large industry of agriculture. The latter he took to be the main object of the Bill, and was one with which every hon. Member would sympathise. But in endeavouring to find a remedy for one great evil they must be quite sure they Let them see what would be the condid not create half-a-dozen others. One sequence of altering this now. incident of the system of free trade proposed that all beers containing which this country had adopted, with more than three per cent. of sugar, althe fierce and dreadful competition which though they had been selling all these sometimes exceeded all bounds and drove years as beer, and had become known, it out of existence one manufacture or might be as good brands, should no longer another, had this compensating advan- be entitled to the name of beer. That tage, that it did, somehow or other, call was to say that they were going to abolish into existence other trades, avocations, that denomination altogether as regarded and manufactures which found employ- two-fifths of the whole beer produced. ment for the thousands who were thrown What was to be done with that kind of out of work from the disused industry. beer and those who brewed it? Were It thus came to pass that on the total they to be deprived of the right to sell roll call of the labour of the country what they brewed as beer? Were they they found that notwithstanding the going to give those people any compenincrease in the population the residue sation out of the half a million which the who were unemployed, and who went to Revenue obtained under the compact of the wall, was, on the whole balance of 1880? The Bill, as he had said, broke Mr. H. Kimber.

"I am of opinion that it is of enormous dustry so large as this with regard to the choice advantage to the community to liberate an inof those materials. The tax upon the fiscal product we must retain, but, when we remember that fifty million pounds is the value whether it is not a great object of policy, of the article produced, I would ask the House whether it is not a great step towards a more perfect fulfilment of those principles of freedom of commerce we have been endeavouring to maintain for the last forty years, to liberateas to choice of materials and as to the process of manufacture-an industry so vast in its scope as is this particular industry."

The Bill

their trade. What they brewed from was well known, and they used their products in the light of day. They told what things they used and the quantity used. If the House committed this breach of good faith and destroyed the compact of 1880, they would substitute for it a system under which a number of new evils would be created. For these reasons he begged to second the rejection of the Bill.

the compact of 1880. He would not go over the ground covered by the Mover of the Amendment, but he agreed with him that the Bill would only lead to an increase in the imports of foreign barley. The Mover of the Bill and the Seconder admitted that if passed it would lead to an increase in the use of foreign barley, but that the British farmer would improve his barley and his method of cultivation, so as to produce barley of the same character as the foreign. MR. F. W. WILSON (Norfolk, Mid) But why did he not do so now? said, he rose with diffidence to make There was nothing to hinder him. what was his first speech on a subject, He did not agree with the Mover of the which was the important one of beer. Amendment as to the comparative value In the part of England in which he lived of home-grown and foreign-grown barley, beer played an important part in social but there was nothing now any more life, and was coming largely to affect than there would be under the Bill to constitutional issues. The adulteration hinder the home grower improving the of beer was an old grievance. In an quality of his barley. Brewers did not exceedingly interesting work, "The want to use foreign produce if they could Origin of English History, it was get home produce. An analyst had said, stated that in ancient times the Greeks according to his hon. Friend the Seconder fitted out an expedition at Marseilles to of the Bill, that many of the substances visit England, and Pytheas, in describing now used were noxious, but if that were the British, said that " they made a so then the analyst must have examined drink by mixing wheat and honey," substances which were never used by any which was still known as Methgelin in respectable English brewer and some some of the country districts, and he beer which no working man would drink. was probably the first authority, for the The British workman knew good beer, description of British beer which the and selected his own house where he got Greek physicians knew by a Welsh his beer good. He was told that, owing name, and against which they warned to the physiological structure of maize, it their patients as "a drink producing was impossible to produce from it the pain in the head and injury to the fusel oil of which this analyst spoke. nerves. Yet every man, woman, and The analyst must have experimented in child in this Kingdom had, in the course his laboratory on substances which were of a year, to drink 46 gallons of beer. not used in brewing by any respectable This consumption all of us were combrewer. But if these deleterious sub-pelled to undergo. He referred to the stances so injurious to health, were being authorities which defined beer, and he used, what was the public analyst doing? He should have brought the culprits before the bar of justice under the Food and Drug Acts of 1875, and had them punished by a fine of £50 or a term of imprisonment. Last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Harcourt) had had, for inland revenue purposes, a definition of genuine beer as a liquid many tests of beer made in different parts of the Metropolis, and he stated to the House that of 2,044 tests there was not one case found in which there were ingredients injurious to health. He thought that that testimony was more eloquent than anything else, as showing that at all events the substitutes used were innocuous. Brewers and the substitute makers made no secret of beer? Why the Basses and Allsopps,

found that it was universally defined as "a drink made of malt and hops," and Cassell's and Lloyd's dictionaries said that genuine beer should consist of water, malt extract, and alcohol. Therefore, what the supporters of the Bill asked was that that House should give

brewed from malt and hops. They did not wish to prohibit brewers from brewing other liquids. They were at liberty to brew what they pleased, but genuine beer should be brewed from malt and hops. They had heard a great deal about the changed taste of the English nation, and that it liked light beer. Who were the first people to brew light