The Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act of 1901 provided, briefly, that:
A landlord must not knowingly sell to children under 14 any liquor, except in sealed and corked bottles, and he cannot supply less than a reputed pint to such children; nor must he sell spirits to any person apparently under the age of 16 years.
Previously open jugs of beer were commonly sold to young children, in theory on behalf of their parents. The Hastings & St Leonards Observer, 4 January 1902, printed a lengthy article after sending a reporter to interview landlords for their reactions, which were mostly of outrage. Some comments were also unintentionally comic, and implied that little children were almost servants in the household.
The text of the Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act of 1901 can be found online. This was under a Conservative government. The Tories traditionally supported the breweries and publicans, so it surprises me that legislation was passed which was detrimental to that trade.
The first to be interviewed was the chairman of the Hastings Licensed Victuallers’ Association, Mr C. Hopson, ‘mine host of the Globe Hotel, Queen’s-road’, who said:
‘What do I think of the Act ?’ he said. ‘Well, in my opinion it is an absurd one. By this Act a man cannot now send his child to fetch him a half-pint of four ale for his dinner, even providing it is put in a sealed vessel. He is bound to have a reputed pint, even if he only wants half that quantity. I consider this Bill a wicked thing…’ He pointed out that ‘the woman who is in the habit of sending for twopennyworth of gin will now have to buy a bottle, unless she comes herself to buy it, and when women come to a public-house, and commence gossiping together, you know what that means.’ He mentioned special ‘jug entrances’, already existing, for those buying drinks to take away. Apparently the counters at such entrances often had steps to enable children to get high enough to ask for the drinks, according to an 1884 temperance journal.
Another comment by Hopson was ‘Why should a man have to go to a public-house to get his dinner beer, or a woman leave her wash tub, when the children could well fetch what was required ? It seems out of all reason.’
Albert Todd of the Wellington Hotel, White Rock, pointed out that it was easy to accidentally serve an under age child. He made a fascinating comment: ‘I have been in the licensing trade in London, and have seen little children, not more than three years old, come into a public-house for beer for their parents – so young, in fact, that they could not ask for what they wanted, and it was only be seeing what money they had in their hands that the barman could find out what they wanted.’ He suggested that an age minimum of five years rather than fourteen would improve the bill.
The reporter next went to Mr Hobbs, the landlord of the Yorkshire Grey, London Road, ‘who disagrees with the Bill, although it will not affect him, holding similar views to those expressed above.’ This pub was later the Admiral Benbow, and is now the Benbow Arts Space.
‘On the other hand, Mr Lewis, of the Horse and Groom, thinks the Bill will work all right, as far as the sale of beer is concerned, but fears a falling off of custom in the spirit department.’
‘Within gunshot of the Horse and Groom is the Coach and Horses, the licence of which has been held by Mr C. Page for the last ten years, who, by the way, was for many years previously a fly proprietor in the town. At this house, which is situated in the centre of a large working-class population, a large jug and bottle business is done.’ An interesting discussion then ensured, which I reproduce below:
“That’s a fine piece of legislation, isn’t it ?” we said (pointing to the large placard setting forth the new Act).
The bait took, and taking his pipe from his mouth, Mr Page, addressing his customers generally, said with conviction: “Presently we shall be as bad off as they are in Russia. It’s the thin end of the wedge. They are going to bar our children from going shopping.
“Personally I shan’t vote for the Conservatives again.
“What, are you going to turn Radical ?” queried a customer.
“No, I shan’t do that,” was the reply. “I shan’t vote at all; but what is wanted is a strong agitation to amend this law.”
“How would you have it amended ?”
“Instead of 14 I would make the age limit ten. I consider by experience that any child ten years old is quite capable of coming to a public-house and asking for a pint of beer to take home to its parents.
“Yes, I do a very large jug trade here, and some little ones have come whom I have had a difficulty to understand.
“Now, here’s a curious law,” added Mr Page, pointed [sic] to a bright little girl who just then ran into the bar. “This is my little daughter. She is only seven years old, and I can send her out with as much beer as I like, and yet no one under 14 can come in and buy it except under these restrictions.”
“What do you say to the statement that children drink the beer out of the jugs going home ?”
“There isn’t much of that done, because the parents look too smart after the measure. I have seen children stop in the passage and drink, but it has been very seldom.”
“Did you get any children in yesterday, Mr Page ?”
“Not one, and I suppose that is because the parents, knowing the penalty, are now afraid to send them.”
The comment about Page’s daughter referred to the act allowing licensed persons using servants or family members to deliver alcohol to customers. His pub, the Coach and Horses, was about halfway up Mews Road, on the right hand side going from East Ascent to Maze Hill Terrace; it closed in 1950. Charles Page’s daughter must have been the Ethel Page, age 6, born St Leonards, in the 1901 census at the pub, one of three daughters.
The reporter ended his pub tour at the North Star, near Bohemia, where the landlord was Mr A.C. Henbrey. He was out, but the landlady said the hotel did a large jug and bottle trade. ‘As to children being kept waiting and listening to objectionable language, the landlady said that was impossible, because in nearly all public-houses there was a jug department.’ Children there were given priority over adult customers to get rid of them. She was quoted as saying ‘Only that morning a woman told her that she considered it a great nuisance having to come to the public-house now to fetch her husband’s beer, but if she didn’t fetch it he would have to go without, because he had no spare time. The alternative was that if he came to the public-house himself he might, meeting friends, be inclined to stay, and lose both his work and his money.’ From the 1901 census the landlady was Isabel, 42, who was born in Hastings, as well as her husband Alfred; they had three children.
The Hastings and Bexhill Independent, 9 January 1902, commented that many publicans were refusing to sell to children at all, presumably for fear that they were under the age of 14. Children were being sent to grocers to buy a single bottle of beer [the grocer would require a liquor license]. The publicans were saying that the new act was not favourable to temperance, and ‘they say that the parent who comes for dinner beer stays for a gossip, and in the meanwhile enjoys an extra drink on his or her own account.’