§ The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Beer Duties acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that at that late hour he should feel it his duty to put his observations into as short a compass as possible; but still he feared that he should have to trespass on the attention of the committee longer than he could wish at such an hour. The subject of the beer duties was one which had been postponed for some time, and it was important to the country that the knowledge of the intentions of government with respect to them should not be longer delayed. The propositions which he should that night submit would relate; first to the duty on beer; next to the individuals who manufactured it; and thirdly, to those by whom it was sold. When, in an early part of this session, an hon. member (Mr. Maberly) had proposed, that the duties on beer should be transferred to the malt, he had felt an objection to the measure, because he thought at the time, and his opinion had not yet been altered upon the point, that such a plan would be only transferring the burthen from one class of persona to another, which he could not think advisable. But, at the same time, he was not insensible to the objections to the 228 state of the law, with respect to the sale of beer under particular circumstances: he had, therefore, given the subject his most serious attention, and had considered, whether an improvement might not be made in the law, by such arrangements in the scale of duties, as might not only facilitate the sale, but at the same time secure to the public—he meant that portion of the public which were the principal consumers of beer—such a quality as would answer the object which the hon. member for Abingdon had had in view by his motion. Any plan of this kind, considering how the law stood, would not be without its difficulties. He would first endeavour to explain what the nature of the law was with respect to the sale of beer. There were three sorts of beer which might be sold under the existing law, and which were liable to three different descriptions of duty. In the first place there was a duty of 2s. per barrel on beer which could not be sold at a higher price than 16s.; there was a duty of 5s. per barrel on an intermediate quality of beer, not sold at a higher price than 22s.; and on all beer sold at a higher price than 22s. there was a duty of 10s. per barrel. The intermediate quality of beer was authorized to be brewed and sold, by an act of last session; but, to prevent frauds in the collection of the revenue, it was necessary to impose a restriction on individuals brewing this intermediate beer, by which they were prevented from brewing at the same time, or at least on the same premises, beer of any other description. It was quite clear that the effect of this state of the law was to charge the same rate of duty on beer of every quality. The beer liable to a duty of 5s. was beer made by converting a quarter of malt into five barrels, or five barrels and a half; this would not, therefore, be a very strong beer. All beer of greater strength was liable to the high duty of 10s.; it was evident, therefore, that, under the present law, beer having great varieties of strength, was liable to the same duty. Porter, the beverage in most general consumption among the great mass of the community, was made by brewing three barrels and seven-eighths from one quarter of malt. Porter paid a duty of 10s. per barrel, while beer, of which one barrel and a half, or two barrels were brewed from a quarter of malt, did not pay a higher duty. The state of the law rendered a great number of restric- 229 tions on the manufacturers of this beer necessary, in order to prevent frauds, which would materially injure the revenue. It had occurred to him, that a much sounder principle would be, to endeavour to find the means of regulating the duty on beer, more directly with respect to its quality and value. He was not aware of any mode by which it was possible to establish the value of beer, except by a reference to the quantity of malt used in its manufacture. He had endeavoured, therefore, to frame a scale of duties on this principle, the effect of which would be, that, although the very best quality would pay a higher duty than at present, and the lowest quality would pay a somewhat increased duty, the ordinary beverage of the great mass of the community would be liable to a less duty than it paid at present. By the arrangement which he proposed, every individual would be enabled to obtain beer of any strength he pleased, paying a duty proportional to that strength. By this system, a vast number of restrictions to which beer was now liable, would be rendered unnecessary. The scale which he proposed was as follows:—Where one quarter of malt was employed in making any quantity of beer short of two barrels, he proposed a duty of 24s. per barrel; where a quarter of malt was employed in brewing between two and three barrels he proposed a duty of 12s.; where the quantity brewed amounted to between three and four barrels, which comprehended porter and beer of similar strength, he proposed a duty of eight shillings, instead of 10s., the present duty; between four and five barrels, a duty of 6s.; between five and six, 4s. 9¾d.; between six and seven, 4s.; between seven and eight, 3s. 2½d and above eight, 3s.—The effect of this arrangement would be, to produce a great reduction of duty on that quality of beer which constituted the general beverage of the community, and to enable individuals to obtain beer, of any degree of strength, by paying a proportional increase of duty.—The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the committee was a matter which had excited a great deal of attention in the course of the present year, and upon which the state of the law was extremely uncertain; he alluded to the liberty of persons to sell beer by retail. The committee were aware, that, in the course of the last year, a question was put to him as to the powers which brew- 230 ers had of selling beer by retail. He replied on that occasion, that he was not aware of any Excise law, which prevented individuals from selling beer by retail, provided they chose to forego the advantage of the allowances made to wholesale sellers. A similar question was put to the Board of Excise, or their solicitor, and a similar answer returned. In consequence of those answers, retail breweries were opened in various parts of the country, and beer was sold, as it was conceived by the parties, as the law permitted. This had created considerable alarm among other classes of brewers, and the consequence was, that having doubts as to the law, they had instituted prosecutions against these parties for retailing beer without a magistrate's licence for that purpose. As the cases were tried, the magistrates, in what no doubt appeared to them to be the fair construction of the law, convicted the parties accused. Appeals were made in all the cases, and the matter was eventually brought for decision into the court of King's Bench; but, owing to the press of business in that court, the appeals were not yet heard, and of course the law remained still undecided. For his own part-though he was not a good judge of the construction of an act of parliament, yet he had no doubt that as the law now-stood, there was nothing in it to prevent a brewer from selling by retail (the beer not to be consumed on his premises) without requiring a magistrate's licence for that purpose. But it was better that all grounds of doubt should be removed-and therefore he would propose, that brewers should be allowed to sell by retail under the circumstances already mentioned. It was for the interest of the public, as it would greatly excite competition; and this was a case where the feelings of the public ought to be particularly consulted. He was not prepared to go the lengths of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) who had last year introduced a bill, by which any party might sell beer (not to be consumed on his premises) without any restriction as to licence. Considering the interests of those who had embarked large capitals in the retail trade of beer, and who must be most materially affected by such a general and sudden change, and looking at it also as connected with the police of the country, he was not disposed to go to such lengths as to permit the indiscrimi- 231 nate sale of beer, without any control of the magistrates; but still be thought, that the giving the means of greater competition in the retail trade would afford that greater facility for the sale of a wholesome beverage which would tend materially to the public benefit. He would therefore allow all public brewers to sell by retail, where the article was not to be drunk on their premises, they, of course, foregoing the allowance to which they would otherwise be entitled as wholesale brewers; at the same time that he would agree to this extension of the trade, or rather of the competition in it, he thought it was right that the brewer who was allowed to sell by retail should have a licence as such, and pay for it, He would fix the price of the licence not too high to destroy competition, nor too low to put in jeopardy those interests to which he had alluded, of persons who had embarked their capital in the retail trade. The present brewers' licence cost, for all who brewed 2,500 barrels in the year, 2l. 10s.; and for all who brewed 40,000 barrels in the year, 75l. The mode he proposed to deal with brewers was this—(always keeping in view, that one of their objects was, to give relief to the smaller class of brewers, who were not unfrequently publicans, and that while they allowed a competition, they should at the same time reduce the tax upon such)—he would say, that for all who brewed twenty barrels in the year, a licence would be 10s. and from 20 to 100, 1l. or 1l. 5s. He could not then go through the whole scale, as he had not the paper by him. The power of selling by retail should be confined to brewers who paid for a licence 2l.; which would be for brewing from 100 to 1000 barrels in the year. The brewer should also pay a retail licence. This would be an act of justice to the publicans already in business; because it would be putting them under considerable disadvantage, if those who were to sell in competition with them should be exempted from paying for the power to sell by retail, while the publican was obliged to pay it, was also under the authority of the magistrates, and subject to the billetting of soldiers. He would therefore propose that the brewer should pay for his licence to sell by retail a sum of five guineas, in addition to the sum which he would have to pay as a brewer. Thus, in case he brewed over 100 barrels, and not exceeding 1,000 in the year he would have to pay 7l 5s.; 232 and if he brewed above 2,000 barrels, he would have to pay in proportion to the quantity.—Another subject on which he would propose an alteration was that of Excise licences. There had been several petitions presented this year, in which a remission of the duty of those licences had been prayed. He thought it but fair that some reduction should be made with respect to that duty, and it was also but fair that it should be applied in the greatest degree to the small lines of business which were likely to suffer most by the competition. At all events, he would propose some reduction. The Excise licences, as the law now stood, were upon the following scale:—If the house in which the business was carried on was under 15l. a-year, they paid two guineas Excise licence duty; if under 20l., three guineas; and if under 30l. four guineas. In 1814 they had all paid two guineas. What he should propose was, that in all cases where the rent was under 20l. the excise licence should be one guinea; and all above 20l. it should be three guineas. Thus it would be a reduction of three guineas in the case of the small houses, and of one in the others. There were other licences to which a publican was liable, in which he would also propose some reduction; for instance, in the licences for dealing in spirits. At present all public-houses paying a rent of less than 15l., paid five guineas for this licence; and all under 20l., 6 guineas. In 1814 the former paid 4l. 10s., and the latter 5l. 2s. He would put these two into one class, and make the duty on each, 4l. 14s. In the next classes the duty would be—on a rental of from 20l. to 25l., six guineas; from 25l. to 30l., seven guineas; from 30l. to 40l., eight guineas; from 40l. to 50l., nine guineas; and 50l. and upwards, ten guineas. He would also, he added, reduce the duty on wine licences to 2l. 4,s, The effect of those reductions would not be inconsiderable. The sum lost to the revenue would be 90,000l. or 100,000l.; but then there would be something gained by the licence on the retail brewer, and also by the increased consumption which would arise from the increased facility of sale and the competition. On the whole, the loss would not exceed 60,000l. or 70,000l.; but, at all events, it would increase that competition by which the working classes would be supplied with a better and cheaper beverage than they now 233 could be. If it should be objected, that because of the property vested in public houses, they should not be touched, he would say, that such an argument would go the length of defending all monopoly. He would, however, for the reasons he bad stated, touch such property as lightly as possible; but, at the same time, the public interest required that something should be done to increase the competition. He concluded by moving his first resolution.
Mr. Bernalwished to be informed, whether the resolutions, when printed, were to be discussed before or after the recess. They appear very complicated, and required serious consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the best course would be, that the resolutions should be reported, that he should have liberty to bring in the bill, and, after the bill should be printed, the discussion might be taken on the whole question.
§ Mr. Buxtonwished to know whether the right hon. gentleman proposed to lay the duty on the quantity of malt employed, or on the barrels of beer?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the duty would be imposed on the barrels of beer. He assumed that a certain quantity of malt was employed in a given number of barrels.
Mr. Maberlyprotested against this most unfair and unprincipled measure. The effect of the proposition was in fact to lay an additional duty on malt, upon this most vicious principle, that the poor man was compelled to pay it, while the rich man was left untouched. The measure afforded no relief whatever. It merely removed the duties from one description of beverage to another. The only part of the measure of which he approved was the reduction of the duties affecting licensed victuallers.
§ Mr. Humethought the proposed plan would but increase trouble and inconvenience, without being productive of any real good. Why not put the duty on the malt, and let the brewer make the beer as strong as he pleased, as was the case in Ireland?
Mr. F. Palmerthought, that although the measure was not in every respect what he could have wished, yet it was still a very great improvement on the existing system. The hon. member for Aberdeen was not accurate in stating that the poor man was to pay 24s. per barrel more than 234 the rich man; for in fact the poor man, for want of the utensils, could not brew on so extensive a scale as to reap all the advantages which the brewer had.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the saccharometer was to be used only as a means for detecting frauds; but the estimation of the duty would be, by compelling the brewer, in addition to the notice which he was at present obliged by law to give, to add at what rate he intended to brew the beer. When the measure came in the form of a bill, it would be seen, that a great many restrictions which at present existed would be removed.
§ Mr. Spring Ricewished to know whether the right hon. gentleman meant to propose any thing respecting Excise licences in Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the subject had not escaped his attention; but it was by no means an easy matter to deal with the licences in Ireland, the lawand regulations respecting them being so extremely unintelligible. But he hoped that, if not in the present session, he should soon be able to make some improvement in the system. At present they varied according to the towns; and he understood that in towns which sent members to parliament, they paid higher duties [a laugh]. He could not tell why, but so it was; and it was a proof of the existence of very absurd regulations.
§ Mr. Monckthought the measure would operate a great improvement in the state of the beer trade. In the neighbourhood where he resided, it would, he was convinced, be received with very great satisfaction.
Alderman Woodwished to know how the right hon. gentleman proposed, with such an extensive scale of duties, to protect the consumer from paying the higher instead of the lower duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not profess to attempt that. It could not, indeed, be done without such a number of inconvenient regulations, as would prevent persons from following the trade. The consumer must, under his proposed regulation, take his chance, as he did at present, for being supplied with a proper quality of beer. It would be competent for the brewer to supply him with a great many qualities, varying 235 according to the duty which he would pay: if he supplied an article as having paid the higher duty which had only paid the lower, to detect that, the consumer must exercise his own sagacity, or depend upon the respectability of the persons with whom he dealt.
Mr. Gordonwished to know what would be the difficulty in levying the duty on the malt instead of on the beer, as he understood to be the case in Ireland? He supposed it was not to be conceived, that the brewers in London brewed from any other materials than malt and hops; and yet, from the right hon. gentleman's laying the duty on beer, it would seem as if he intended to catch those persons who brewed from some other article.
Mr. Calvertsaid, if the hon. gentleman bad any doubt as to the articles of which London porter was composed, he would refer him to the evidence of Mr. Carr, given before a committee of that House, which would, he thought, afford him complete satisfaction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not understand the hon. member to have intended to make a charge against any body, and certainly he himself had no such intention; but he did know officially, that such frauds had been practised, and that convictions by juries had followed. If the course of proceeding recommended by the hon. member for Abingdon were agreed to, he feared that the facilities for such frauds would be greatly increased; and one of his reasons, certainly, for adopting this duty was to render that mode of fraud more difficult. Without referring to any individual cases, it was clear that, in every exciseable article, frauds were committed, and, therefore, in framing the regulations, it was desirable to endeavour to prevent them.
Mr. Calvertsaid, he did not imagine that his hon. friend had intended to make any charge; but he had spoken so enigmatically, that it might give rise to misconstructions.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that he did not see how, if the duty were on malt, this species of fraud could be more easily practised. He was far from believing it was done by any respectable brewers; but if it were practised, good beer could not be brewed; and then, according to the right hon. gentleman's own principles, the brewer would get no customers;
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, the hon. member appeared to forget, that the greater part 236 of the public-houses were in the bands of the brewers.
§ Mr. Buxtonsaid, as his hon. friend had risen to defend the brewers from an indirect charge, he must now rise to repel a direct one. It was not correct to state, that the greater part of the public-houses were in the hands of the brewers. The firm he was connected with supplied 700 houses, of which only 57 were in their own hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he thought that he had sufficiently guarded against any supposed imputation, by stating that the regulations were framed on general principles.
§ Mr. Huskissondisclaimed the idea of making a charge against the brewers, but he would put it to any gentleman, whether the number of free public-houses in the country was not extremely small.
§ The resolutions were then agreed to.