18  j£yperimental  ‘Hegtslatton
salient  example  of  bad  legislation.  Yet  it  was
passed  by  the  almost  unanimous  wisdom  of  Parliament, ­
  the  division  in  the  House  of  Commons  on
the  second  reading  showing  245  ayes  and  only  29
noes.  The  Act  originated  with  Brougham,  in  the
sense  that  he  had  in  1822  and  1823  brought  in
somewhat  similar  bills,  which  were  partially
adopted  by  the  Government  of  1830.  The  idea
of  the  Act  was  to  break  down  the  monopoly  of
the  brewers  and  publicans  ;  to  throw  open  the
trade  in  beer  on  free-trade  principles;  and  by
offering  abundance  of  wholesome,  pure,  weak
beer,  to  draw  away  the  working  classes  from  the
gin-shops.  All  seemed  as  plausible  as  it  was
undoubtedly  well  intended.  Objections  were,  of
course,  made  to  the  Bill,  and  many  people  predicted ­
  evil  consequences  ;  but  all  such  sinister
predictions  were  supposed  to  be  spread  about  by
the  interested  publicans  and  brewers.  Nevertheless, ­
  the  new  Act  was  soon  believed  to  be  a
mistake.  Sydney  Smith,  though  he  had  not  many
years  before  pleaded  for  liberty  for  the  people  to
drink  rum-and-water,  or  whatever  else  they  liked
(Edinburgh  J^eview,  1819),  quickly  veered  round,
and  gave  a  graphic  account  of  the  beastly  state  of
drunkenness  of  the  Sovereign  People.*
It  may  be  safely  said  that  the  Beershop  Act
*  “The  new  Beer  Bill  has  begun  its  operations.  Everybody  is  drunk.
Those  who  are  not  singing  are  sprawling.  The  Sovereign  People  are  in  a
beastly  state.”