HC Deb 18 March 1822 vol 6 cc1187-90

On the bringing up of the report of this bill,

Mr. Huskisson

begged to express his regret at having been absent on a former evening, when some conversation had arisen upon the subject of this bill. On that occasion it was said, that the repeal of so considerable a part of the malt duty would not lead to any diminution in the price charged by the brewers for their beer; and that when the chancellor of the exchequer thought it right to remit a great portion of a public tax, the brewers had only to put the bonus thus remitted into their own pockets. The whole amount of the malt duty was about 1,500,000l.; and the proportion of that tax upon malt consumed by the brewers amounted to more than one half, or nearly 5-8ths of the whole consumption. Upon this estimate, then, the bonus which the brewers thought to put into their own pockets was about 800,000l. He could not believe that, when his right hon. friend had proposed the repeal of what was considered so heavy a burthen, he intended that the relief should be intercepted by the brewers. Nor would the people, he was convinced, submit to have such a bonus arrested, and diverted from the channels into which it was intended to flow. When such an interposition was avowed, he thought the House ought to interfere and prevent the intentions of the legislature from being frustrated by the brewers? What was the state of the case? The price of barley had become depressed to such a degree as to find no parallel for the last 20 or 30 years. It was, under such circumstances, considered, that a repeal of a large portion of the malt duty would, by increase- ing the consumption, afford indirectly some relief to the barley grower, while at the same time it went directly to remit a tax which most affect the price of beer. That being their intention it was their bounden duty not to suffer it to be defeated in any quarter. It was said, that all who could provide a barrel, or buy a single bushel of malt, might brew at home with more advantage than resort to the brewer. This was very well, where the parties were in a condition to avail themselves of it; but the great bulk of the people could not brew for themselves, and therefore ought to be protected. He believed that the repeal, under any circumstances, would be attended with this good effect; that through its operation, farmers would be induced to brew at home, and give a proportion of their beer, instead of an equivalent amount in money, to their labourers. It would also well become the licensing magistrates to inquire into the prevailing system of leasing public houses: it had been carried to such an extent, that there was scarcely a free public house to be found. When such combinations existed, and by their arrangements had the power of determining when the price of beer should be raised and when it should be lowered, it would well become the magistrates to consider the propriety of withdrawing some of the licenses from houses at present possessing them, and handing them over to free houses. But, as arrangements of this nature, however essential must be tardy in their operation, the House would perhaps see the necessity of carrying into full effect the intention of the legislature; which was, that the consumer should directly have the benefit of the repeal of the tax in the reduced price of the article, and that the grower should have the advantage of the probable increase of consumption which was likely to follow under such circumstances. If the brewers avowed that, notwithstanding the repeal, the price of beer was not to be lowered, it was fortunate that the information reached the House in time to prevent the public from being affected by that determination; for they had the power of defeating the intentions of the brewers, and compelling them to abide by the principle on which the bill was founded. If, then, the price of beer was not to be lowered, upon every principle of fairness, the legislature ought to impose a duty on every barrel of beer made by the brewer, equal to the present reduction of the malt duty upon that amount, and to be made contingent upon the present price by the brewer—for instance, if the duty now remitted was 8s. a quarter upon malt, and if that quarter made 3½ barrels of beer, be should recommend the chancellor of the exchequer to impose on the public brewer an additional duty, equal to his amount of increased profit on the barrel of beer by the present reduction of the malt duty. If there ever occurred a period when, quite independent of the present reduction in the duty, the public had a right to look for cheaper beer, this was that time. Either the brewers must have been at one time great losers, or they were now receiving a disproportionate and most inordinate profit. It was not enough for the brewers to say, that the price could not be lowered because the duty was not sufficiently reduced; they must know that the reduced expense of managing their business, in keeping their horses, and indeed in every other branch of their business, quite independent of the diminution of this tax, fully enabled them to brew at a cheaper rate than formerly. But when, to all these advantages was superadded a reduction of the duty, amounting to nearly a farthing in the pot of beer, it was high time for the public to derive the advantage intended for them by the legislature. He threw out these suggestions to the house, in the event of the brewers persevering in charging the present price, he should recommend the House to adopt a resolution for the purpose of taxing the stock of the brewer, in the proportion of the amount of the repealed malt tax. He by no means intended to renew the malt-tax as a source of revenue, but to make the partial renewal for the brewers contingent upon their attempt to maintain the present price of the article.

Mr. Calcraft

entirely concurred in the suggestion. Nothing could be more monstrous, when the legislature thought fit to ease the country of a burthen, than that the brewers, or any other great class of capitalists, should interpose and divert into private sources that profit which belonged to the public at large.

Mr. F. Buxton

thought, that nothing could be more monstrous, than that the sum about to be reduced should be allowed to go into the pockets of the brewers. But it should be considered, that the brewers had on hand a large stock of beer made from malt which had paid the full duty; and therefore a reasonable time ought to be given them to dispose of it. If after that the brewers did not lower their prices, he, connected as he personally was with the subject, would freely stand forward to second the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.