HC Deb 10 April 1862 vol 166 cc787-96

House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had already offered explanations upon the proposed alteration of brewers' licences, but that if there were any other points on which hon. Members desired information, he would give it. Other parts of the proposal would be better understood from an inspection of the Bill. He would, therefore, move the following Resolution:— 11. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, the following Duties of Excise on Licences to brew Beer (that is to say):—For and upon every Licence to be taken out by any Brewer of Beer for sale,—

£ s d
If the quantity of Beer brewed by such Brewer within the year ending the 10th day of October next preceding the taking out of such Licence shall not exceed 20 barrels, the duty of 0 12 6
MR. HODGKINSON

said, he had to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a matter which he had already brought under the notice, of the House before they went into committee—namely, the difference in the duty payable by large and small brewers. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to raise the 12s.6d. duty to 15s., so as to make brewers' licences all equal.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must admit that the scale was not perfectly identical, and that compassion had been shown at both ends. The very small and the very large brewers had been favoured. These two anomalies were intelligible upon different principles. The principle applicable to the small brewer was that he should not be charged a sensible tax on his trade when upon the large brewer the licence was little more than nominal. The principle upon which uniformity had been departed from at the other end of the scale was that the large brewer, who had the responsibility of paying an equivalent for the hop-duty in ready money, should not pay more than he now paid in the double charge for licence duty and hop duty.

MR. BASS

said, that the brewers who used two bushels of malt per barrel of beer paid 5s. 5d., and those who used three bushels of malt per barrel of beer paid 7s. 3d. to the revenue. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should encourage the latter? With regard to the question of drawback, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any calculation as to the amount of hops which would be unconsumed on the 15th of September next?

MR. MOFFATT

said, he could but complain of the manner in which the Chancel- lor of the Exchequer applied his brewers' licences, always taking care that they should be paid in advance. The real principle on which taxation ought to be based was this—that the brewer should pay, not some supposed sum in advance, but when he had brewed the beer he should be called on to pay the .3d. per barrel imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The revenue would be got quarterly according to the extent of the brewing. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that part of his somewhat harsh and crude plan.

MR. BASS

said, he wished to put another question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whether, when all duty was removed from the article, he would allow any substitute for hops to be used.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had intended to dispose of the question put to him by the hon. Member for Derby, but, amid the multitude of details, it had escaped him. The question related to a technical point, though of considerable interest to the trade. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether it was intended to retain in force the prohibition which now existed by law to use any other bitter instead of hops. The prohibition was certainly founded on fiscal grounds, and, that being so, he did not see upon what principle that prohibition could be maintained after the trade in hops was set free, and after the Legislature took no cognizance of the quantity of hops that was or was not used. It seemed, therefore, to follow that, at any rate, that prohibition should not be maintained in force. As to drugs of a deleterious character, he was informed the law was sufficient to repress the use of unwholesome ingredients. It was extremely difficult to estimate the quantity of hops that would remain unconsumed in the country on the 15th of September. He was not in a position to give any information on that subject to the Committee. When he stated that there would be a loss of £40,000 or £50,000 a year by the repeal of the duty, he said there would also be a further charge in respect of hops exported. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Moffatt) seemed to think that the duty ought to be paid on the number of barrels brewed within the foregoing year; but if that were adopted as the basis, it would be impossible for him to propose the plan at all in the present state of the Exchequer without creating a deficit. He should, therefore, be under the necessity of imposing some new tax. He could not commute the duty on hops without proposing the substitution of a licence.

MR. MOFFATT

explained that what he meant to say was, that the 3d. duty on each barrel of beer brewed by each brewer should be payable at the end of each quarter of the year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought that that proposition would be still open to the same objection, as it would withdraw three-fourths of the whole £300,000 from the current year, and entail the necessity of a new tax. Whenever the tax amounted to more than £10, it would be optional to the party to pay it in two payments, on the 1 st of October and the 31st of March; and if the brewer thought fit to claim on any difference beyond the maximum brewing in his classification, an allowance would be made.

Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, the following Duties of Excise on Licences to brew Beer (that is to say):

For and upon every Licence to be taken out by any Brewer of Beer for Sale,—

£ s. d.
If the quantity of Beer brewed by such Brewer within the year ending the 10th day of October next preceding the taking out of such Licence shall not exceed 20 barrels, the Duty of 0 12 6
And if the same shall exceed 20 barrels and not exceed 50 barrels, the Duty of 1 7 6
And if the same shall exceed 50 barrels, the Duty of 2 0 0
And if the same shall exceed 100 barrels and shall not exceed 1,000 barrels, then for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above the first 100 barrels, the additional Duty of 0 15 0
And if the same shall exceed 1,000 barrels and shall not exceed 50,000 barrels, then, in addition to the Duty chargeable in respect of 1,000 barrels, there shall be charged, for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above 1,000 barrels, the further Duty of 0 14 0
And if the same shall exceed 50,000 barrels, then, in addition to the Duty chargeable in respect of 50,000 barrels, there shall be charged, for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or
number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above 50,000 barrels, the further Duty of 0 12 6
And for and upon every such Licence to be taken out by any person who shall first become a Brewer of Beer for sale, the Duty of 0 12 6

And there shall be paid by such last-mentioned person, within ten days after the 10th day of October next after taking out Such Licence, such further additional sum as, with the said Duty of Twelve Shillings and Six Fence, shall amount to the Duty hereinbefore mentioned, according to the number of barrels of Beer brewed by him within the preceding year.

The Duties aforesaid to be in lieu of the Duties now chargeable on Licences to be taken out by Brewers of Beer for sale,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that since he had addressed the Committee on a former occasion, he had ascertained that there were means of finding the rental of farmhouses when they were over £20 in value; and, that being so, he did not think there was any sufficient ground for creating a distinction between persons occupying farmhouses and other persons. He proposed, therefore, to strike out of the next Resolution all the words having special reference to farmhouses, so that there would be no distinction between farmers and other persons. That would simplify matters very much, and prove so far favourable to the farmer, who not only brewed for the consumption of his own family, but with some reference to the conduct of his trade.

MR. BALL

said, he did not consider that the concession which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer did away with the objectionable nature of the proposed tax. He did not intend to oppose the proposal at that stage; but on a more fitting occasion be should not only oppose it, but divide the House upon it. He protested against anything tending to increase the burdens of the farmer who had not participated proportionately in the relief of burdens which had been extended to other classes of the population.

MR. MALINS

said, there seemed to be a general impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already not steered clear of error in imposing petty vexatious duties, and he wished to know how much the right hon. Gentleman expected to get from this tax on beer brewed not for sale. With regard to the hop duty, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having got rid of an obnoxious impost on a most equitable principle; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would pause before he levied a tax like that under discussion, unless it was likely to produce such an amount of revenue as would compensate for the vexations it would entail.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that many farmhouses had been too highly assessed to the house tax, though many persons had submitted to the injustice rather than put themselves to the expense, the trouble, and the annoyance of making an appeal; but he protested against the adoption of the house tax as a criterion, for it was no longer a fair or just criterion; and if it were to be continued, an attempt would be very generally made by persons to bring the rating of their houses below the sums mentioned in the Resolutions. He hoped that the imposition of the tax would not he converted into such if an instrument of oppression as the income tax had in many cases been made, for he must say that he had never known the latter to be collected with so much harshness as within the last few months.

MR. BENTINCK

said, it appeared to him that by making this concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer had out the ground from under his own feet, because he admitted that he did not attach any great financial importance to the imposition of his new tax, but that he desired to place the public and the private brewer on the same footing. If that was the ground for adopting the proposed legislation, they ought to proceed to enter at once to the consideration of the incidence of taxation of every kind; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the question in that spirit, he ought to have listened to the hon. Member for Derby when he asked on what ground a tax was to be imposed on one class of industry and not on another. If a tax were to be imposed on o the brewer, why should the calico printer, carpet weaver, or other manufacturer, escape? The objectionable character of the tax had not been removed by its limitation, for it still intruded the excise officer into the private dwelling-house. It had been attempted to draw an analogy between the brewing licence and the shooting licence, but no fair comparison between the two could be made. The proposal would prove vexatious in its details, and opened up a question which would involve the consideration of others. He was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) intended, at the proper time, to meet it with a direct negative.

MR. DODSON

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ball) that when he complained, on the part of the agricultural interest, of the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he forgot that the hop growers, who were interested in being relieved from their present burden, were an agricultural interest. Besides, the farmer who paid a tax of 5s. for a brewing licence would get his compensation in the reduced price of hops, from which the duty would be removed. The proposition was not made from any animosity or desire to tax the private brewer, but simply as matter of equity to the public. The hon. Member for West Norfolk asked why a licence should not be imposed on every trade; but it should be recollected that licences were generally imposed for police purposes, or where it was thought necessary for the security of the revenue to keep the premises under some kind of inspection. The collection of the tax on private brewing would be exempt from the inquisitorial espionage of the exciseman, and would take place like that of other assessed taxes.

MR. BALL

said, the hon. Member for Sussex, no doubt, was filled with sentiments of gratitude for the great boon he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thus induced to become the advocate of that right hon. Gentleman. It would, however, be an additional misfortune to the agricultural interest if, in consequence of that boon, the hon. Member for Sussex should decline to lend that interest his support. The relief given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hop growers would not benefit the agriculturists generally.

MR. VANSITTART

said, he had received a communication from one of his constituents complaining bitterly of the paltry, vexatious, and useless tax on domestic brewing. His correspondent said that they might just as well tax his wife for making a cup of tea or baking a loaf of bread as tax him for brewing a little beer for the consumption of his family. He regretted that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was not prepared to divide the Committee against that trivial and obnoxious impost; and certainly if he saw any chance of obtaining support, he would himself take a division against it.

MR. MOFFATT

said, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter before he introduced the Bill, and would see the propriety of withdrawing the proposition, which was not only novel in its character, but would operate very unequally and unjustly, and would combine the largest amount of inconvenience to the taxpayer with the smallest possible benefit to the revenue. No estimate of the sum that would be derived from the impost had been given; but taking it at £5,000, surely the right hon. Gentleman could hardly contemplate putting 20,000 homes to the annoyance incident to the collection of so insignificant an amount? Even the inconvenience of having to go to a country town to obtain a licence would be serious in the case of persons living in remote country districts.

COLONEL W. STUART

said, he should be glad to learn how lunatic asylums hospitals, and similar institutions would be affected by the impost.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that such establishments would be treated as if they were private houses. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), as to what would be the amount of the proceeds of this tax, he might state that the fiscal importance of the tax was not such as to admit of the Government making it an essential point of the plan which they had proposed. The proceeds would be valuable so far as they went, but the amount would not be such as to make the tax a vital part of the plan. The discussion, however, which had taken place convinced him more and more that it would be but an act of justice towards the brewers that a charge of the kind should be imposed. If it were wholly impossible to collect such a duty, that might be as argument against its imposition; but in the form proposed by the Government there could be no very serious inconvenience in that respect. As to the amount to be derived from the tax, he could not give the hon. and learned Gentleman any further information than some figures from the very roughest computation. The proceeds might be guessed at £5,000, and even as high as £15,000; but the best and fairest criterion, upon the whole, might be formed from the quantity of malt used by private brewers. The paper which he held in his hand showed that the quantity used was 2,729,000 bushels, or between 6 and 7 per cent of the whole amount charged with duty; and the amount of the hop duty was £225,000. Therefore, if they took the proceeds at 6 per cent, that would give about £13,000 from this duty. Now, that might be too high or too low; but every Member of the Committee would be just as well able to form an opinion upon the subject as the Government.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, that as the proceeds from the tax, even upon the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be so small, public brewers would not complain if the Government name to the conclusion that it would not be worth while, for the sake of so very trifling an amount of revenue, to produce the great amount of vexation which attended these email taxes In all the rural districts the impost, if persevered in, was sure to excite a strong feeling of irritation.

MR. MALINS

said, he was of opinion that no new tax ought to be imposed unless it was shown that it would produce a satisfactory result. As the proposed impost would only produce a small sum, and would create a great deal of dissatisfaction, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be acting very unwisely in persevering with his Resolutions. He trusted that during the coming recess the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question, fend ask himself whether it was worth his while to embody the Resolution in his Bill under all the circumstances stated.

MR. BALL

said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant, by creating the duty to induce persons who had brewed, or might be inclined to brew, their own beer, to buy brewers' beer, instead of brewing it for themselves. If that were the view of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Ball) would tell him that such a practice would not conduce to morality.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUBR

said, he did not propose to impose the tax for the purpose of inducing persons to do anything of the kind. He, however, thought it would not be fair or just towards the public brewer, if there were an inducement held out to private parties to brew at home as against the public brewer.

MR. VANSITTART

said, as the amount expected from the tax was so small, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to impose such a burden upon his fellow-creatures, many thousands of whom would be affected by it. He was certainly disposed to divide the Committee upon the Resolution.

MR. MALINS

said, he rose to express a hope that his hon. Friend would not persevere in his intention to divide the Committee. He (Mr. Malins) should prefer leaving the matter to the good sense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to imply that he Was not indisposed to reconsider the subject.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I consider myself pledged to this part of the Resolution as an act of justice. Let not the hon. Gentleman withdraw from a division under the notion that I shall reconsider the matter.

Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs arid successors, for and upon every Licence to brew Beer not for sale, to be taken out by any person who shall intend to brew Beer:—

£ s. d.
Where the dwelling house and premises of such person shall be of the annual rent or Value of £20 or upwards, and less than £50, the Duty of 0 5 0
And where such House and premises shall be of the annual rent or Value of £50 or upwards, and less than £100, the Duty of 0 10 0
And where such house and premises shall be of the annual rent or value of £100 or upwards, and less than £300, the Duty of 1 0 0
And where such house and premises shall be of the annual rent or value of £300 or upwards, the Duty of 2 0 0

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.