SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 April 1881)

§ MR. STORER,
who had given Notice of the following Amendment:— That the proposed alterations in the licences on private brewing will inflict further hardships upon farmers, inasmuch as raising their assessment by including farm buildings with farm houses, and at the same time raising the exemption from duty from £10 to £15 houses, will only have the effect of exempting the same class of farmers who now can brew free of duty at £10, but by making them pay an additional three shillings for their licence, while those who at present are excluded from that privilege will remain so, only many of them, by having their assessment raised, will become liable to house tax; that the alterations also are unjust to farmers as compared with other classes, by estimating farm buildings necessary for the cultivation of the land, and separate from the house, as part of the house, for the purposes of the duty, whereas other persons residing in houses under £15 value, without any business premises, or who may have business premises unattached, will be entitled to brew free of duty; that the alteration gives no relief to the labourer, who justly complains, that, when he brews only two bushels for harvest, he is subject to a higher duty, as licence, than he paid under the malt tax, although the Law was professedly altered for his relief, said, that the statement of the Premier on the subject of this Bill had relieved him from asking the House to express an opinion on the first portion of the Amendment of which he had given Notice; and it would, therefore, be only necessary to say a word as to its concluding paragraph. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the case of the labourer as well as that of the farmer. There was no doubt that the great brewers had gained immensely by the change introduced last year by the right hon. Gentleman, for, as he himself had acknowledged, they were going to use rice, maize, and other articles, and would be able to get a profit which they had not realized before. From the arguments which had been used against private brewing, he had feared that this would not have received adequate consideration from the right hon.
1516 Gentleman, whom he could not help comparing to the youthful Hercules, placed between the rival attractions of vice and virtue—on one side the glaring public-house interests, the lucrative brewing interest, and the Excise; on the other the modest claims of domestic brewing; but he was glad to see that he had not yielded to the temptations with which he was beset. He need hardly remind him of the very great claim possessed by private brewing. He (Mr. Storer) had often thought that the labourers of the country did not got half the amount of beer they deserved. Private brewing did no harm; on the contrary, he knew—and it was a view he would commend to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—that the men who had their malt regularly every day in harvest time were the most sober and industrious, because they were released from the temptations of the public-house, and were less likely to go to excesses. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of altering the Bill so as to meet the just claims of the labourer. He begged to move the 3rd clause of his Amendment.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
said, that after the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to his (Sir Baldwyn Leighton's) Question of yesterday, as to whether it was intended to include farm buildings in assessment of farm-houses for the brewing licence, the complexion and effect of the clauses of the Bill relating to private brewing was considerably altered, and favourably altered. The right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that in his Budget Speech he used the words "farm buildings," perhaps inadvertently; but it was now clear that farm buildings were not to be estimated in the valuation of the 1517 £15 farm-house. [Mr. GLADSTONE assented.] That was an important concession; but he would again urge the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider whether the differential licence of 9s. for a £15 house should not be for a £20 house, with perhaps an increased licensed duty, and for the reason that the trouble and friction which it would cause to the public and the officers of Inland Revenue would be very considerable; whilst, if the £20 limit was taken, the fact of the house being rated to the Inhabited House Duty would at once settle the question without friction or trouble. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer or decide the question; it was, perhaps, a question for Committee; but he would venture to ask him, with all deference, between that time and then to give the matter his consideration. There was another element of novelty introduced into this Bill as regarded these licences—that was, that the Inland Revenue were to be themselves the judges of the value of the house. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) thought that required some amendment, for the Inland Revenue officers were themselves at present not agreed upon the question. His proposal would obviate all that difficulty; and he ventured, therefore, to recommend it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, this Bill is intended to meet the public engagements of the Empire to the extent of many millions; yet the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) has thought fit to interpose an obstacle in the way of the second reading by a Motion which he grounded on the assertion that the change from the Malt Duty to the Beer Duty would impose an Income Tax upon the labourer of 7d. in the pound. But that is hardly an adequate reason for a Motion on the second reading of the Bill, which, even if carried, would have no effect whatever upon the measure. The hon. Member congratulates himself upon the fact of the absence of the brewers on this occasion; but the hon. Gentlemen who represent the brewing interest are absent because they know that we cannot now import the slightest alteration into the clauses of the Bill in which they are interested. No doubt, when the time arrives when it will be possible to make alterations in the Bill which will 1518 affect their interests, they will be found in their places. I have been filled with pleasurable surprise at having been made the subject of an undeserved compliment from the hon. Member opposite, who alluded to me as the youthful Hercules. I do not think I should have deserved that compliment 40 years ago, and I am, therefore, unable to accept it now. The hon. Member, however, says that this youthful Hercules is placed between the rival allurements of vice and virtue, by which he evidently means himself on the one hand, and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney) on the other; but which is vice and which is virtue is a matter which he judiciously left behind a veil, and placed it within the range of private opinion for each person to settle for himself. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), I cannot hold out any expectation of raising the £15 exemption to £20. When the proper time comes, no doubt the proposition of the hon. Member will be opposed with sufficient warmth by the brewers, who, I am sorry to say, deny that they have derived the benefit which is imputed to them. It is, of course, very difficult to balance the comparatively minute considerations which I admit may be fairly urged by one side and the other; but I must say, with regard to this exemption, we have done our best to get at what is fair as between conflicting interests. I do not in the least desire to shut out the discussion of these details when we reach the period most proper for their consideration; but I must not be understood to hold out any expectation of making further changes, although I am glad to remove a misapprehension for which I am myself responsible, and thereby, as I trust, to do something towards retaining the favourable opinion of the hon. Member opposite.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some information with regard to the very important change which had been announced with regard to the duty on silver plate. It had been stated that this duty would be abandoned; but, notwithstanding this, he was somewhat surprised to see a notice in the newspapers that the Government intended striking 1519 the clause relating to its abolition out of the Bill. It appeared that this was to be done, not because it was a tax on a luxury, but on account of representations made by persons concerned in the trade. When the right hon. Gentleman announced the proposed remission of the duty, he stated briefly that the effect of the change would be to give greater facilities for the importation of silver plate from foreign countries, inasmuch as the skilled manufacturers abroad would have an opportunity of importing their wares into this country. This he (Sir George Campbell) believed would be of great advantage to this country, and still more to the people of India. At this point, however, being reminded that the right hon. Gentleman could not, in accordance with the Rules of the House, speak again upon that stage of the Bill, he would not proceed further with the observations he had intended to address to the House.