LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 16 February 1863)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to give a certain extension of credit to those maltsters who might desire to avail themselves of it, in respect of a portion of the duty which they were called upon to pay. The Bill did not relate to the general arrangement of the malt duty and malt credits, which had been placed upon a footing that, he believed, was liable to no impeachment in point of equity. Upon the average at least nine weeks were given to the maltster between the time of charge and the time of payment of duty; and that would pretty fairly represent the period in which he would generally sell his malt and receive the money for it before he was called upon to pay the tax. There was, however, a certain period—the first half of the financial year—in which brewing was almost entirely suspended, and during which the maltster had to pay duty upon his malt before he could sell it. The Bill which be asked leave to introduce was intended 364 to meet that hardship and establish a fair equilibrium between the charge of the duty upon the maltster and his power of getting it back from his customers. For the collection of the malt tax the financial year was divided into eight periods called "rounds" of an average length of six weeks and a half each. Under the present system the duty was levied in the round next but one after that in which it had been charged. The duty charged in the first round—that was, between the 1st of April and the middle of May was levied in the third round—that was, between the 1st of July and the middle of August. A very considerable sum (about £800,000) was annually charged in the first round of the financial year. What he proposed was to authorize the Government to grant the maltsters, if they thought fit to avail themselves of it, upon the usual terms, bonds being taken and they paying 4 per cent interest, an additional credit of three months. That would enable them to postpone the payment of the duty upon the malt which they made during these six weeks until the fifth round—that was, until October; thus paying it in the third quarter of the year, instead of having to pay it, as heretofore, in the third round. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

§ MR. PULLER
said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to extend to the maltsters a more substantial measure of relief. The second contraction of the malt credit which took place three years ago had, as he then predicted, ruined many of the small maltsters, the number of licensed maltsters having in that time diminished by 400. It was true that there was a period of the. year extending from the middle of May to the beginning of October during which malt could not be made, and during which, therefore, the maltster was obliged to have a stock of malt in hand, for which he had no immediate market; and to that period the relief now offered was confined; but by the contraction to which he referred, the maltsters were placed at a great disadvantage during the whole year, because the revenue officers, when charging them with duty, included in the amount malt in its early stage of manufacture, and which would not be ready for sale for several weeks; and, moreover, it required several mailings to produce a sufficient quantity of malt to effect a sale. Although this was called 365 a duty upon malt, it was really a tax upon beer, and was paid by the consumers of that article; but, in point of fact, the duty was now got into the Exchequer long before it was paid by those on whom it ought really to fall. The burden of thus advancing the duties, requiring, of course, the employment of additional capital, must fall either on the maltsters or on the brewers. Under the old system, of giving eighteen weeks' credit in the collection of the duties, the Chancellors of the Exchequer obtained their money with much less loss than upon any other part of the financial system. The Exchequer gave eighteen weeks' credit to the maltsters, and the maltsters gave from three to four months' credit to the brewers. His right hon. Friend had contracted the maltster's credits; had he also contracted the brewer's? Quite the contrary. The maltster was placed far more at the mercy of the brewer than ever he had been before, because the brewer, a man of large capital, knew that the maltster must sell by a certain day, and by holding off was therefore enabled to cheapen the commodity. These disadvantages were aggravated by being compelled to manufacture within seven months the quantity required for a whole year's consumption. He believed that the old amount of credit was by no means an unreasonable one, but the trade would agree to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer half-way if he would consent to allow a period of twelve weeks credit instead of six.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the number of maltsters. There were, in fact, rather more of them in 1862 than there had been in 1860. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to reconsider his measure, and grant the agricultural interest two boons—first, to reduce the amount of the impost; and, secondly, to levy it on the manufactured article. The former of these propositions would stimulate consumption, and would thus avoid entailing any considerable loss upon the Treasury; and the second, while it might likewise be granted without any sacrifice of revenue would enable the farmer to malt his corn for the purpose of feeding his cattle.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down invited his attention to matters of a far wider scope than those contemplated by the present Bill. As to 366 the reduction of the malt duty he could say nothing—it was a question of great financial extent and importance, and could only be considered in connection with the financial arrangements necessary for meeting the current expenditure of the year. The commutation of the malt into a beer duty was in many points of view desirable, but he was afraid there were insuperable difficulties in the way of such a change. It had been established by a Committee of that House, consisting of its ablest men, and especially of its most intelligent agriculturists, that there was no reason to expect any general benefit to the agricultural interest from the use of malt in feeding cattle in preference to grain. It would, likewise, be a most formidable change to release some 7,000 or 8,000 men who, under the present system, were subject to excise supervision, in order to establish restrictions similar and quite as stringent over the class of brewers, numbering 40,000. The difficulty would also arise of dealing with private brewing. It would be necessary either to exempt private brewing from the duty which every trader was compelled to pay, or else the exciseman must enter into every private house. In whatever year the House thought fit to commute the malt duty into a beer duty it must be further prepared to surrender a very large sum—perhaps a couple of millions— because the duty would not be leviable until the article reached a point considerably more advanced than that at which payment was now called for.