HC Deb 05 May 1825 vol 13 cc375-86

After sundry petitions had been presented against the Duties on Beer,

Mr. Maberly

rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the House a proposition for the repeal of the Duties on Beer. He observed, he said, with satisfaction the many applications which had been made to the House, praying that those duties should be removed; but, if there were not a single petition before the House on this subject, still he thought parliament was bound to alter the system which now prevailed, and to grant relief to the great body of the people. It was the duty of the legislature to act with impartiality; and he would say, that if ever there was a statute passed that was partial in its operation and contrary to justice, it was that which imposed the existing duties on beer. He had heard the chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. the pre- sident of the Board of Trade declare, that they wished to adopt a system of liberal policy in every respect; and from what he had seen, he believed their anxiety to do so was sincere and disinterested. After the liberal opinions he had heard them express on different occasions in that House, he had a right, he thought, to feel sure that he should have their votes that night. There was but one difficulty which stood in the way of his motion: there was but one argument which the gentlemen to whom he had alluded could advance against it; namely the loss which the revenue would sustain. The principle they must give up to him, unless they turned round on the arguments used by themselves in the course of the session. If they wished to do justice, this tax, if it must be continued, should be made to bear equally on all classes. It was unfair that it should fall heavily on those who were least able to afford it, while it did not touch the opulent part of society. It was probable that the House, in general, would not understand the situation in which the country stood with reference to those duties, unless he entered into some little detail on this subject. At present, there was a tax on malt of 20s. per quarter: but the House would recollect, that the effect of that tax was very different on those who brewed their own beer, when compared with the effect of the beer duties on those who purchased the beverage from the brewer. The rich man could brew his own beer; but the poor man, who had neither premises, capital, skill, or time, could not. He therefore was deprived of the benefit which the opulent man enjoyed. The beer duty was, in fact, a tax on the poor individual, from which the wealthy individual was exempted. He demanded of the House, whether they would continue to support so unfair and unjust a principle. The duty on beer was very considerable. It produced annually, 3,281,000l., which was charged with 295,000l. for collection. This was chiefly contributed by the poor; and he knew not how any man could reconcile it to his conscience, to vote against a motion which was intended to lighten such a serious burthen. The rich man paid 20s. per quarter for his malt. That was the only tax levied on him. But the poor man had to meet a double duty—20s. malt duty, and 35s. beer duty; making a total of 55s. If the calculation were made by the bushel, the rich man paid 2s. 64., while the poor man paid 6s. 10½. He would ask, was this a just measure of legislation? Was it fair or proper? Nothing tended more to bring legislation into disrepute, than a proceeding so unjust and partial; and therefore some measure ought to be taken to place this tax on a proper footing. The duty ought either to be removed altogether; or it should be put on in such a manner, that every class should pay alike. As the law now stood, the rich man paid 5s. for that which cost the poor man 15s.; the latter paid 4d. a gallon more for beer than the former.—With respect to the plan for introducing a new beer, which the chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured by a legislative enactment to bring into use, he believed it had not produced the contemplated effect; as, in the course of the year, but fifteen thousand barrels of beer had been brewed under that act. These duties, although in the opinion of some gentlemen they might be so unimportant as to need no alteration, were founded upon a principle which could not stand the test of examination. They enforced from the poor man, a tax or between 200l. and 300l. per cent more than was paid by the rich. To the latter, the article of beer was a luxury; to the farmer, it was one of the indispensable necessaries of life. The poor man required something more than the bread and cheese by which he supported his existence. He required some liquor; and none was better for the purposes of nourishment and refreshment than beer. The effect of spirits upon the lower classes of the community was known to be most injurious and demoralizing. Upon this statement, he asked, then, whether the House could resolve any longer to continue a tax, so partial in its operation, and which weighed so heavily upon the poorer classes? It had been said by some of those who were opposed to the view which he took of this subject, that the poor man might brew his own beer, and thus exempt himself from the payment of this tax. The poor man could do no such thing. To brew required time, which he could not give; it required money, which he did not possess; it required space, which he could not command. He was probably the inhabitant of a garret, and his daily earnings only enabled him to provide for his daily necessities. Where, then, and how was he to brew beer? He had, in reality, no option at all, and no means of avoiding the payment of this unjust and burthensome duty. There was, however, a means by which the weight might be removed: and that was, by placing the duty on malt instead of on beer. The expense of collecting the duty on malt was now 300,000l. per annum. If the alteration he recommended should be adopted, this sum would be saved to the country; because, although the duty on one was 20s. and on the other 40s., the expense of collecting would be the same. Upon the subject to which he now called the attention of the House, he had twice before approached it. He had then, as he trusted he had done now, treated the subject fairly. On the first occasion, in 1823, he had asked only for a committee to inquire into the matter, and he had given the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity, if he had chosen to avail himself of it, of doing what must have given satisfaction. The House then said, that the duty was so just, so fair, so proper, that there ought to be no inquiry at all; and this, too, at the very moment when the right hon. gentleman was dabbling (if he might use that expression) with a measure he had since carried respecting beer, and which, although it had done some good, had fallen far short of the remedy which the subject required. At the same moment, too, that the House rejected At the same moment, too, that the House rejected the inquiry for which he moved, there was lying on the table a petition from Scotland, in which doubts were expressed of the possibility of levying the duty. His wish for a committee arose from the experience he had had of the usefulness of such inquiries; for, perhaps the most valuable and correct information that had ever been obtained on any subject had been through the Committees of that House. In the following year (1824), he had proposed a committee to inquire into the expediency of substituting the tax on beer for a tax on malt of the same amount; and this, too, had been refused. If, therefore, in again approaching the House on the same subject, he should vary the terms of his proposition, he hoped he should stand excused. The motion he should now submit was much stronger and more extensive than those he had before suggested; but the evil was one which required a strong remedy. His motion would be, that from the 5th of January next all the duties on beer should cease. The inquiries he had asked for had been refused, and there was nothing left him but this course. If the principle of the tax against which he contended was right, why was it not followed up in other instances? Why were not tea, candles, soap, leather, glass, wine, and tobacco, all taxed in the same manner? Would the right hon. gentleman dare to put in a schedule to any bill that he should have to propose, such items, as that the poor man should pay 6d. a gallon duty on his beer, while the rich man paid only 2½d? And yet, this was the actual operation of the present law. It had been urged by way of excuse for this tax, that it prevented the mixing of noxious ingredients in beer; but if this were really the reason, why was it not applied to wine or tea; or why were not the consumers left to the exercise of their own judgment and taste in that as in other things? The system, as it existed, encouraged a monopoly, if not to the brewer, at least to the retailer, by means of the licenses. All the reasonable good that could be expected to result to the police of the country, would be from having public-houses placed under a proper surveillance; and this might be effected, by allowing officers to visit the houses in which beer was retailed, to prevent their being made the resort of improper persons. If this were admitted, the House could not refuse to come to the decision, that the sale of beer ought to be as free as that of any other commodity. It would be said, perhaps, that to take off this tax might interfere with what the right hon. gentleman called a sinking fund, but what he (Mr. M.) denied to be any such thing; because that only could be called a sinking fund which was an actual surplus in the revenue. He contended, that the debt was now twelve millions more than it had been in 1815, and that this was occasioned by the dead-weight act. If he had not already pointed out the injustice of the tax on beer, he would refer to the reduction which had been made in the duty on spirits, and which, as they were less necessary, ought to have been postponed in the course of relief to beer. He knew the right hon. gentleman would say that his object in this had been to put a stop to smuggling; but in this he had not succeeded, because the motive still remained strong enough to induce the practice. Looking at the subject, then, in this point of view alone, the people had a right to ask for a reduction. It would not, perhaps, be readily believed, but the fact was so, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, in their chambers in the Treasury, fixed the price of table beer. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more absurd than this. They might with as good reason fix the price of bread, as interfere with another article not less necessary, nor of less common consumption. After the opposition he had already encountered, he was prepared to believe it possible that he might lose the present motion; but he should nevertheless feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the resolution, unless the right hon. gentleman would allow the subject to go before a committee. He concluded by saying, that he hoped, if he were defeated, that his labours would at least have the effect of convincing the House of the injustice of continuing this burthensome tax on the people, and that some other more fortunate person would propose a measure which, if it did not do away with it altogether, would divide its weight equally between the rich and the poor. The hon. member then moved, "That from and after the 5th of January, 1826, the Duties now imposed on Beer do cease."

Mr. Brougham

said, that in rising to second the motion of his hon. friend, he could add little to what had been so ably urged by him. He felt, however, compelled to mention once again, in addition to the hardship on the poor man of paying 50s., while the rich paid only 20s.—it was, indeed, rather more than this; for the duty on beer exceeded 30s., and that on malt was only 20s.—that other tax which he was compelled to pay by reason of the retail trade not being free. Why the sale ofbeer should be placed on a different footing from that of any other commodity, it was impossible reasonably to conceive. Why it should be exposed to the operation of a restrictive tax so barbarous that it could not be equalled by any in the world, excepting that most barbarous Spanish tax of al cabala, no man could offer the semblance of a pretext. It was wholly impracticable for a person desirous to trade in beer by retail to do so; unless he made friends with the brewers, who had influence with those worthy persons the magistrates, by whom, in various parts of the country, the regulations were framed relative to licences. He knew he spoke this in the hearing of many worthy friends of his, who belonged to that class by whom beer was prepared for the use of his majesty's subjects, and he knew also that they had certain prejudices on this subject; but, if the duty were taken off, he believed those prejudices would be, in a great measure removed, and that they would consent to the freeing of the retail trade in beer from the present restrictions. To the persons interested in growing malt, this would be a decided advantage, because it would encourage the growth of grain upon middling land, which was at present used for grazing, and would thus materially benefit the open and barley countries. Another advantage attendant upon throwing the trade open, would be found in providing the poor man with a cheap and wholesome beverage, which he might procure without the inconvenience of sending his daughters or other females of his family to the public-house, to encounter all the inconveniences which at present could not be avoided. Gin would be, in a great measure dispensed with; and his notion was, that the more the beer-shops could be brought into competition with the gin-shops the better. He thought, too, that the duty on beer was peculiarly burthensome and unjust upon the poor, at this time, when the duty on wine had been reduced. He said nothing with respect to that upon spirits: God forbid that he should! He would rather even that the duty should be kept up unnecessarily high upon them: he would rather even that the natural liberty of the people should be in such a degree infringed upon, than that any facility should be afforded to the consumption of spirits; always, however, keeping the duty so high as to prevent the encouragement of private distillation, which of the two evils was the greater. He was sure that by encouraging the consumption of beer, the gap which the loss of the duty might occasion in the Exchequer would very soon be filled up. He gladly seconded the motion of his hon. friend. Whatever might be the fate of that motion, he trusted that his hon. friend, would bear his ill success with patience; from others he might learn fortune; but from his example, and from that school of disappointment in which they had both been exercised, he might be taught not to relax his labour and perseverance in a cause which was worthy of them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he had been compelled to oppose the former motions of the hon. gentleman, because there was nothing in the subject which required an examination by a com- mittee. Now, the hon. gentleman proposed to place the beer duty on malt; and on this he would make a few observations. As to the total repeal of the duty without any substitute whatever, he did not feel called upon to argue that question; because the hon. gentleman himself did not seem to think it was practicable to take off three millions. A few weeks ago the hon. gentleman had proposed the reduction of the window-tax, amounting to 1,250,000l. The same arguments which had been used against that measure applied to the present motion; and he did not think the House would wish to listen to a repetition of them. He was aware that in so immense a system of revenue as ours, there might be very sound objections brought against many branches of it; and this might, perhaps, be stated of all; but, beyond this general fact, the argument could not be urged. The petitioners probably believed that the substitution of the beer duty on malt would materially reduce the price of beer; but he should be able, he thought, to satisfy the House, that this would not be the case. The beer duty produced at present 3,000,000l. per annum. To raise this tax by the substitution proposed, it would be necessary to lay an additional tax of two shillings on the thirty million bushels of malt which must be consumed; this would raise the price of beer 10s. per barrel of 36 gallons, or about 1d. per quart. If, therefore, he admitted that the objections of the hon. gentleman were valid against the inequality of the present duty, still the burthen would rest as it did now, upon the consumer, who, although he would have the satisfaction of knowing that his neighbour paid more, would himself pay nothing less. Now, he could not admit that this tax was paid by the poor classes of the community exclusively, or chiefly. In London, a great portion of the consumers of beer were not of this description; and in the country, a great number of families were in the practice of brewing their own beer. Upon them this substitution would fall very heavily. The hon. gentleman had assumed, too, in his calculation, that the beer consumed by the rich and the poor was of the same strength—that it took, in all cases, only one quarter of malt to make three barrels and a half of beer. On the contrary, the beer of the rich man, whether he drank it himself or not, was much stronger than that brewed for ordinary consumption. In this point of view, therefore, the calculation of the hon. gentleman as to the inequality, was erroneous. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, it would be highly desirable to give greater facility to the retail trade. He agreed with him. It was that opinion that had induced him to bring in a bill to accomplish that purpose, and which he had got the House to agree to, but with no small difficulty. "The hon. and learned gentleman," said the chancellor of the Exchequer, "may learn fortunam ex aliis; but not ex me. To me the other part of the line, verumque laborem, only applies." He had endeavoured, at the same time, to effect another measure relative to the estimating and collecting the duty; and although all were agreed upon the principle, so many obstacles were thrown in his way, that he had been obliged to abandon every thing else, and to fall back upon the other measure, which was the real object of the apprehensions of those who caused the obstacles. It would be extremely imprudent in him to pledge himself on this subject, but he should certainly be most happy to feel himself able to reduce the amount of the duty on beer, or to take it off altogether. He did not, however, think it advisable to effect a reduction of this duty by such a substitution as the hon. member proposed. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member on the reduction of the duty on spirits, he had no hesitation in declaring, that he should prefer reducing the duty on beer to a reduction of the duty on spirits; but he had already stated, when he first brought forward this subject, that he felt it absolutely necessary to deal with the question of spirits, with a view to the prevention of smuggling. With respect to the reduction of the duty on wine, the hon. and learned gentleman had argued as if he had reduced this duty for the purpose of relieving a particular class of the community. This was by no means his object. The high duty on wine had diminished its consumption, and impeded our intercourse with foreign countries; and he had proposed its reduction, not with a view to the taste and comforts of a particular class of the community, but as a measure of commercial policy. If the expectations of the government from the system of policy on which they had been acting were realised, he should be ready to take advantage of that realization, and to extend still further the benefits which the country derived from a reduction of taxation. He should be happy to take the first opportunity of dealing with the subject of beer; but he could not acquiesce in the principle of commutation recommended by the hon. member, which would have the effect of imposing an additional tax on many of the poorer classes of the community, without affording any essential relief to the other classes. The hon. member supposed, that if the duty on malt were doubled, the expense of collection would not be increased; but he could assure him that, if he were a little more initiated in the arcana of collecting duties, he would find that he could not invent a more effectual method of inducing persons to evade the duty, and consequently of increasing the expense of collecting it, than by doubling its amount. Even at 2s. 6d. the duty was very often evaded; but, if the duty were doubled, the temptation to evade it would be doubled. For these reasons he could not acquiesce in the proposition of the hon. member, either in the form of a specific reduction of 3,000;000l. of taxes, or in the more modified form which the hon. member adopted last year, of referring the subject to a committee of inquiry.

Mr. Bernal

supported the motion. He maintained, that private brewing was very little resorted to by the peasantry of this country; and that the beer consumed by the operative classes throughout the kingdom, was furnished by the public breweries. There was no ground, therefore, for one of the arguments on which the right hon. gentleman had relied. He called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to bring to the consideration of this subject, that candour and fairness which he exercised upon every other, and he had no doubt that he would soon see the necessity of carrying the measure of his hon. friend.

Mr. Wodehouse

said, he still maintained the position for which he had always contended, that the transfer of the duty to the malt would not cheapen the article to the poor man, owing to his want of skill and capital. This he would prove by the test of cows and pigs. Let the grains of a private brewer, suppose of the hon. gentleman opposite, and those of the public brewer be placed before cows or pigs, and they would go to the grains of the hon. gentleman, because they contain more nourishment, and of course the beer less. So would the poor man naturally drink the beer of the public brewer; be- cause it must be more nutritive than that of the private brewer. He concluded with opposing the motion.

Mr. Hume

contended, that consistently with the principles avowed by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, the duty on malt was one of the first taxes to the reduction of which he ought to have directed his attention. He was inclined to try the experiment; and he thought the Exchequer would rather be benefitted than injured by the plan; at the same time that it would have the effect of putting the rich and the poor on an equality.

Colonel Davies

said, he should prefer a reduction of the duty of 5s., and a transfer for the remainder of the duty to the malt; and he was persuaded that, although that measure might lead to a present deficiency of about 600,000l., it would ultimately lead to an increase of the revenue, by an increased consumption.

Mr. C. Smith

deprecated the adoption of any measure that had the effect of causing the poor to pay more than the rich.

Mr. J. Benett

objected to the shifting of the tax, and would much rather hear of a proposition for a reduction of it; and if a deficiency should take place, the chancellor of the Exchequer might find out a mode of supplying it, by looking to the sinking fund. He could not see that any benefit would arise to the poor from the proposed plan.

Mr. Herries

expressed his opinion, that any extension of the system of drawbacks should be avoided as much as possible. He considered it a most important object to the public, at least throughout the parts of the country remote from the competition of the metropolis, that every individual had the power of brewing his own beer. In such an article of general consumption that power was a great security against the evil consequences of monopoly. In answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, he begged to say, that his right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer, did not pledge himself to bring forward the subject next session, in the view taken of it by the hon. member for Abingdon.

Mr. Alderman Wood

contended that the humble classes of society were entitled to the same consideration, in point of the remission of taxes, as the opulent. They had reduced the duties generally on foreign wines. On that principle, then, could they deny a reduction of the duties to the consumer of beer? Why should the comforts of the rich duke and the opulent commoner be attended to, while all relaxation was denied to the operative classes who consumed beer? He recommended the experiment of taking five shillings a barrel off beer; and he pledged himself that the Exchequer would not be a loser, on account of the increased consumption. There was no sort of reason why every man should not brew what beer he pleased.

Mr. Monck

agreed in the suggestion of the worthy alderman, and trusted his hon. friend would amend his motion, and propose the duty to be five shillings per barrel on beer. Should the chancellor of the Exchequer acquiesce, he was persuaded the revenue would be a considerable gainer, in consequence of the increased consumption. Another advantage would follow the reduction, that scarcely any beer would be brewed at home; where in general a more imperfect extract was obtained than at the public breweries.

Mr. Robertson

deprecated any reduction of the sinking fund in the present state of the world, when both France and the United States of America were endeavouring to reduce the public debt.

Mr. Cresset Pelham

opposed the motion; not, however, from any greater indifference to the wants of the poor than of the rich, but because he did not think the bulk of the people would be much benefitted by the proposed reduction of the duty on beer. The price of wages would be depressed in a corresponding, or perhaps a greater ratio, and possibly the labourer would be more distressed than at present, whilst the state would be a sufferer in its revenue.

Mr. John Smith

said, he had uniformly supported the propriety of upholding the sinking fund, and he was still attached to the same opinion. Yet he trusted that the chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the reduction of the impost on beer, as he could supply the vacuum, if any occurred, by another tax. For his own part, he should have no objection that the whole of the deficiency should be laid on malt generally. It was true the condition of the poorer classes in this country had been considerably ameliorated: yet they still stood in need of much relief. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to send the question to a committee for the purpose of examining the question in all its details, he was sure his hon. friend would abandon his motion.

Mr. Maberly

stated, in his reply, that he should not trespass long on the attention of the House. He regretted to see so very thin an attendance of members. Not one word had been said to disprove the injustice which he attributed to the present system. He maintained, in opposition to the right hon. gentleman, that nearly the whole, if not the whole amount of duty, would be saved to the country in the event of its repeal. Feeling that he should not stand properly in the eyes of the country if he consented to withdraw his motion, he should take the sense of the House upon it; although he owned he had little doubt that the result would afford an additional proof of the benefit which the people would derive from some measure, which should secure to them a more just, fair, and equal representation in parliament.

The House divided: For the motion 23: Against it 88: Majority 65.

List of the Minority.
Allen, J. B. Monck J.B.
Bernal, R. Palmer, C. F.
Calvert, C. Poyntz, W. T.
Cradock, col. Pryse, P.
Davies, col. Smith, J.
Denman, T. Smith, C.
Grant J. P. Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C. Western, C. C.
Honywood, W. P. Wilson, sir. R.
James, W. Wood, alderman.
Langston, J. H. TELLERS.
Leader W. Maberly, J.
Maberly, W. L. Hume, J.