§ MR. CAINE (Barrow)asked the Under Secretary of State for India (1), if it was true that there is a large brewery established at Poona by Messrs. Meakin and Co., and that under a Government Resolution, No. 34, 5th January, 1886, the malt liquor brewed in this firm is 379 exempted from the payment of any Excise Duty, and that, under Government Resolution, No. 1,652, 2nd March 1886, a wholesale licence was granted to Messrs. Meakin and Co. for the sale of their malt liquors in Bombay for a fee of 50rupees; (2), if it was true that there are in all 68 other wholesale licences in the town and island of Bombay charged sums varying from 100 to 1,000 rupees; (3), why was it that Messrs. Meakin and Co. pay no Excise Duty, and obtain a wholesale licence on exceptionally favourable terms; (4), were the malt liquors brewed by Messrs. Meakin and Co. the same as those described as "Government porter, of 11 per cent strength, and Government ale, 11.7 per cent strength, of proof spirit," on page 12 of the Report of the Bombay Abkari Commission, 1885; if not, can he state what is the alcoholic strength of Meakin's beer and porter; (5), was any other firm of brewers in India exempted from the payment of Excise Duty; (6), whether his attention had been called to the statement on the same page of the Report, that the tax on toddy was 6 rupees on 40 gallons in 1885, and that its alcoholic strength increases 5 per cent in 24 hours, and is he aware that large quantities of toddy are consumed freshly drawn from the tree, in which state it is entirely free from alcohol; (7), was he aware that the Duty on imported malt liquors is only one anna per gallon, while that on toddy, whether alcoholic or not, is an average of two annas per gallon; (8), was he aware that there is a widespread feeling of discontent all over the Bombay Presidency with regard to these inequalities of taxation, which found expression in the evidence given before the above-mentioned Commission, and that the Report of the Commission recommends an assimilation of the Duties on malt liquors and toddy; and (9), was it the intention of the Bombay Government to carry out this recommendation by raising the Duty on imported, and the Excise on malt liquors manufactured within their jurisdiction?
§ *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,) Chatham(1) (2) (3) and (5). No exceptional favour is shown to Messrs. Meakin and Co. Malt liquor is not charged with Excise Duty in Bombay, nor, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, in any other Province of India. 380 Messrs. Meakin's wholesale licence is for malt liquor only. The licences with which theirs is compared are for wines, beers, and spirits. (4) The Secretary of State cannot identify the beer and spirits mentioned as Messrs. Meakin's, nor does he know the precise alcoholic strength of their liquor. (6) (7) and (8) The Secretary of State is aware of the facts stated. (9) The Secretary of State has not been informed by the Governor of Bombay whether it is their intention to raise the duty, and establish an excise, on malt liquor.
§ In reply to a further question,
*SIR J. GORSTsaid the Secretary of State was not able to identify the particular ale and porter mentioned in the report.
§ *SIR J. GORSTI must have notice of that question.