RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 26 July 1878)

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
, in rising to call attention to the question of Brewers' Licences; and to move— That licences to conduct recognised trades are unjust and impolitic in principle, and that the licence tax inflicted on the interests of the Brewers ought to be repealed whenever the state of the Revenue will permit the remission of taxation, said, that in bringing forward the Motion, he was only actuated with a desire to remedy an injustice. He had always maintained that it was a mistake to tax any authorized or proper trade, and that this particular tax was vexatious and exceptional. From the many speeches on the subject by hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House, and notably by some Members of the Government, he was astonished that the subject had not yet been dealt with. The House would remember that in 1862, the duty upon hops was abolished; but in order to make up for the expected loss to the Revenue by the abolition of the duty, the tax was re-imposed on brewers. That was to say, that a man who brewed for sale, and not for his personal consumption, was taxed; while the man who brewed for his own consumption, or the consumption of his neighbours and friends, escaped taxation. The result was that the sale of beer as a trade was constantly diminishing, and as in the case of all taxes of the kind, the effect had been to give an advantage to the large producer to the detriment of the smaller one. The difference between the private brewer and the licensed brewer was very remarkable. In a few words, he would give a comparison between the licensed and private brewer, and the producer of cider and perry. The licensed brewer payed £113 6s. 8d. for 100 quarters of malt, which came to a taxation of 5s. 7¼d., in addition, of 477 course, to income-tax. The private brewer, on the contrary, paid but 1s. 4¼d. taxation. Then, beside this injury to trade, the licensed brewer was interfered with in the exercise of his industry by the Government supervising authorities. He had to give 24 hours' of his intention to brew, and two hours notice of the quantities of ingredients used. Then he had to pay his tax six months in advance, so that there was a direct levy out of capital, irrespective of private losses. In the case of a private brewer, he must buy his malt of a licensed maltster, and no other restriction was imposed. Home-brewed beer was used in part payment of wages to both in-door and out-door servants, and that was a matter of importance, seeing that the beer was brewed without a tax on the brewer. Then, in the case of cider, perry, and wines, there were no restrictions and no tax of any kind. As he was told the House was to be counted, he would move his Resolution without other words.

§ MR. CLARE READ
seconded the Motion.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, I do not wish to appear neglectful of the important question to which the hon. Gentleman has directed our attention; but I must say I hardly expected we should be called, upon at this time of the Session, and considering the state of the Business of the House, to discuss a question of such importance as that which he has raised. I have more than once had occasion— once every year, I think—to discuss this matter, and the House has several times been called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. I am afraid I cannot depart from the position which I have taken since we have been in 478 Office. I do not at all hold this or any other tax to be in itself a desirable thing, if we could do without it; but I do think there would be great difficulty in altering this system, and, at the present time, I do not see my way to making such an alteration. There are two difficult questions involved. One is, whether we can abandon the Revenue which is derived from the tax altogether, without any substitute? the other is, whether we can alter the incidence of the tax, so as to make it fall, instead of upon the brewer in the shape of a licence duty on the article he produces upon the article which he uses? You might possibly, no doubt, convert a licence duty into a malt duty, in order to get rid of the licence duty; or, on the other hand, you might do away with both the malt duty and the licence duty, and substitute for them a duty on beer. There is no doubt that, in argument, a great deal may be said for both of these propositions; but I think if anyone came to deal with the subject, he would find that either of them would involve him in very great difficulty, and would be more unpopular than the system which at present prevails. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the effect of this licence duty has been to drive out the small brewers; if driven out at all, it has been by competition with the large brewers, and in accordance with the natural law which operated in these cases. I do not think we have arrived at a time when it is possible to take away the duty.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he thought much might be urged in favour of the abstract proposition which had been urged by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin); but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked, the evil which was complained of could only be met by a proposal which might prove more objectionable.