§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
asked whether it would be lawful under this Bill for a man who brewed without having a licence to give away any of the beer he so brewed for domestic purposes? Because, if so, it would be to establish a drinking shop in every hamlet, for a return could be made for beer without its being possible to prove that something in the nature of payment had been given. If this clause meant anything, and should have any effect, 1649 and come into general operation, it would reduce the Revenue, and cause an outcry from the Licensed Victuallers, and would have to be repealed, and then poor people would suffer by having to sacrifice their brewing apparatus, after having been at the expense of obtaining it.
§ LORD BRAMWELL
(in the absence of the Lord Chancellor) said, that no doubt if a man gave away beer colourably he would be committing a breach of the Act. A clause of the Bill provided that in the case of a brewer—Who shall be an occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding £8, and shall brew beer solely for his own domestic use, no licence shall be required.If a person coming within the limits of that clause should give away gratuitously the beer which he brewed he would not be committing a breach of the section; but if he really in truth bargained for a return, then it would be open to the authorities to say that he did not brew solely for domestic use, but for other purposes, and consequently he would require a licence.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.