§ Sir Thomas Goochpresented a Petition from the occupiers of land in the hundred of Gosford, praying for the Repeal of the Malt and Beer duties.
§ Mr. Charles Barclaywished to take that opportunity of explaining what he had said a few nights before. He had then stated, that in his opinion the removal of the Beer duties would be a great benefit to the public brewers; but he meant that opinion to apply solely to brewers, and no other class of persons. He knew that a great difference of opinion existed on the subject; but he had been very cautious in delivering his own sentiments. 696 It had been said, however, that he sacrificed the publicans, because he did not at the same time state their claim to protection. He had in fact advocated their claims both in the House and in the Committee; he had always supported, and never compromised their interest, though he had also a duty to perform to the public, which he would discharge, undismayed by the threats of either individuals, or bodies of men. The publicans, however, being of opinion that they would be injured by the Beer trade being thrown open, he had been attacked in their behalf by a Newspaper, probably unknown, to the Members of that House, but much circulated among publicans, "The Morning Advertiser:" that attack contained a threat that he should be made to feel that it was necessary to support the publicans. He had been connected with that body for thirty years, and he should have thought that they knew him well enough by this time to know that threats could have no weight with him, though he had every inclination to favour their wishes. He was accused too of having combined with his right hon. friend to take off the Beer duties, and regulate the licenses. He believed that it was hardly necessary for him to say that such was not the case, and he had no other wish on the subject than to see the publicans far less aggrieved than they imagine themselves likely to be. He had always expressed his opinion that the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of great benefit to the public, while it would not injure the licensed victuallers. As he had always used every exertion in his power in their favour, he hoped the House would excuse him for having thus expressed his opinions.
§ Mr. Benettwished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to refund the duty on Beer to those who had a stock on hand; otherwise those persons, he conceived, would be placed at a great disadvantage by the intended abolition, of duty, as compared with those who would not purchase stock till after the 10th of October. If the drawback were not allowed, only a very small stock of Beer would be kept up, and none would be brewed but for immediate consumption. The consequences too would be injurious to the agricultural interest, for the sale of old Barley, for the purpose of Malting, would be entirely stopped.
§ Mr. C. Calvertcontended, that throwing open the licensing system would be highly injurious to the vested interest of that numerous and respectable body—the publicans—and he hoped that the duties might be taken off Beer, without at the same time doing away with the licensing system. He wished to see the former measure tried by itself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. Member, begged leave to say, that the object he had in view in repealing the tax on Beer—namely, the interests of the large majority of the people—would be defeated unless he could at the same time throw open the Beer-licensing system. If that were not done, the abolition of the duties on Beer could only benefit the dealers in Beer. He could not take too early the opportunity of stating, that he considered the freedom of the trade in Beer to be essential to the abolition of the duties on Beer. He did not deny that the free sale of Beer would be a partial inconvenience to publicans; but he was bound not to consult any interests but those of the public at large. In reply to the hon. Member for Wiltshire, (Mr. Benett) he begged leave to state, that although those who had a stock on hand might be inconvenienced by the intended abolition of the duty on Beer, still it was deemed the best course to have no refunding, and let the Act of repeal come in force on the 10th of October. The interests of the people at large were the rule of his conduct, and not the advantages or disadvantages of individuals. He should be certainly ready to be brought before the Committee; but he must warn Members against adopting the exaggerated views of interested parties out of the House.
§ Mr. Benettwished to know if the situation of those who took out no licenses would not be better than that of the public brewers.
§ Lord Althorpexpressed his hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not depart from his plans, or if he did, that he would couple the repeal of the Malt tax with that of the Beer tax.
§ Petition to be printed.