supply the public with that which is really to many one of the necessaries of life. They supply the national beverage. It is for the interest of the people that this beverage should be pure and good, and that its supply should not be in the hands of a few persons only, but the fair subject of trade competition. Sir, I am not going into the question of whether this tax falls on the brewer only, or whether the consumer shares it; I am not going to overburden my case with other arguments, for I think I have said enough to condemn the tax against which I protest. I do not know what course the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take. He informed me, indeed, the other day, that he should certainly oppose my Motion; but he is a Gentleman of an amiable, I had almost said of a pliant disposition, and I am not without hopes that he may have been convinced by the strength of the case, which even so poor an advocate as I am have been able to present to the House, and that he will be induced to grant the inquiry to which, at least, I think my clients are entitled. It would have been easy for me to go into greater details as to the operation of this tax, in order to illustrate its unfair pressure upon those whom I represent to-night. But I have purposely abstained from doing so-first, because I have been anxious to avoid unnecessarily occupying the time of the House; and, secondly, because to investigate and criticize those details will be precisely the work of that Committee which I ask the House to appoint. My clients come before you to-night with a very humble request. They say-"We are a recognized and legitimate trade; if there are those who think we ought not to be so, let them come forward boldly and propose to Parliament that we shall be suppressed and our trade abolished. But if we are to continue to be legitimate and recognized, do not inflict upon us an unjust and exceptional burden to which no other trade is subjected. We ask you to inquire whether or no this is a fair description of the burden against which we protest. If we fail to prove that it is so before a Committee of the House of Commons, our agitation is ended, and we will for the future submit to your taxation without a murmur. But, if we can prove our case, then we only ask you to remember our claim to remission, whenever remission shall be Mr. Knatchbull-Пugessen possible. For we are satisfied that when we shall have been allowed to show to Parliament and to the public, by unimpeachable evidence, the gravity of the injustice under which we labour, the removal of that injustice can only be a question of time, and that removal will at once commend itself to the fair and equitable spirit in which Parliament ever seeks to distribute the burden of taxation over the whole body of the taxpayers of the country, as well as to the general wisdom and justice of the House of Commons." To that wisdom and justice, Sir, I make my confident appeal, and I now beg to move for the Select Committee which I have given Notice. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and incidence of the Tax upon Brewers' Licences,"-(Mr. KnatchbullHugessen,) instead thereof. proposed be left out stand part of the Question proposed, "That the words Question." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was impossible to deny the ability or the moderation of the speech to which they had just listened, and he was prepared to admit that there had been many points which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had brought before the House which, although he could not say they were very new, had been exceedingly well stated. He had been a little disappointed, however, at finding that nothing had been advanced by his right hon. Friend which had not, in one form or another, been already brought to their notice on former occasions; and he must also say that he failed to see the close connection between the speech of his right hon. Friend and the conclusion to which he wished to bring the House. His right hon. Friend's argument was one which went directly to the abolition of the brewers' licence duty; but he did not ask the House to pledge itself to that conclusion. He asked for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into-it did not clearly appear what. There were one or two observations he wished to make upon the opening remarks of his right hon. Friend; and more especially was he anxious to asso ciate himself with him in some of the remarks which he had thought necessary to clear away all prejudice, which he was quite satisfied did not, and certainly ought not, to exist. His right hon. Friend began by saying that the difficulty, or one of the great difficulties, under which those who advocated the cause of the brewers laboured, was thisthat the brewers were popularly supposed to be a wealthy class, and there was very little sympathy with them on that account. He would say now, what he had said before, that, in the first place, he did not believe the brewers, as a body, were a wealthy class. There were, no doubt, a certain number who were very wealthy men; but there was no doubt, also, that there was a large body of highly respectable men who were carrying on a business of an important character in a most thoroughly honourable way-men of small capital, who were in every way respectable, and who were struggling under considerable difficulties. He fully admitted the extent of those difficulties, and he sympathized with those who had to encounter them; but, at the same time, he must point out that this was not the first time that attention had been called to the fact that the number of small brewers was steadily decreasing. But he entirely disputed the assumption of his right hon. Friend, when he said that the reason why they were decreasing was on account of this burden. There was really not the slightest ground for that assumption; and when his right hon. Friend made that observation, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not refrain from expressing his amusement at it. He could assure the House that it was not because he treated it as a matter of levity that there should be a diminution in that class of persons, but because he thought the argument that it was the result of this licence tax was too transparently fallacious to be allowed to pass without challenge. There were one or two considerations which would show what a fallacy there was in these arguments. In the first place, the diminution in the number of the small brewers had been going on for years, and was not the result of the imposition of the licence tax in 1862. For 10 or 15 years before that tax was imposed, a very steady diminution had been going on in the number of brewers, ness and, of course, in the number of the smaller brewers. But anybody who gave himself the trouble to think of the matter would see that as society advanced, and as capital was invested more and more in great businesses, and as the means of communication increased, the advantage in favour of the great capitalists, who sent their products all over the country, would become increasingly great. This was shown in many other businesses besides brewing. There was another, and an analogous busi-that of the maltster. The maltster was not affected by the licence duty. It had nothing to do with him; but yet it had been the case that there had been a considerable diminution in the number of maltsters since 1862. In 1862 the number of maltsters was 6,500, and in 1878 it was 4,200. This was a very large decrease, and was, no doubt, duo to the same class of causes as those which had operated in the case of the smaller brewers. There was also this consideration, which must be borne in mind. The large brewer, spreading his profits over several years, could afford to stand one or two bad years and recoup himself in good years. The smaller brewer was not able to do that, and a single bad year had an effect upon him which it had not upon the larger brewer. Besides this, there had been legislative changes, to which no allusion had been made by his right hon. Friend, which had had some effect upon the small brewer. In former times, there were long malt credits, and long hop credits. They were of advantage to the small brewer; but they had now been abolished, and the case of the small brewer was worse in consequence of the legislation of recent years. Indeed, his right hon. Friend admitted that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), within the last year or two, had done what he could to diminish the disadvantages in which the small brewers were placed, so far as legislation bore co-relatively on one or the other; and if any other particular could be pointed out in which the position of the small brewer could be improved, it would be his duty to advance still further in the direction of endeavouring to improve it. They were told that the small brewer was injured and driven out of the business by this peculiarly unjust tax, which was exacted from him, but which was not levied thing might be said in regard to every one of them. His right hon. Friend certainly made a point, when he declared that it was not reasonable to call this a licensing tax, it being, in fact, a mere addition to the malt duty. Now, let them look at the matter in that point of view. What was the case in 1862? Up to 1862 it had been the policy of the Government to levy duties upon various intoxicating liquors. Duties were levied on spirits, on wine, and on beer, but in a different form. In old times, they used to have a duty upon beer itself. That was done away with, because it was found intolerably vexatious, and they were left with the malt tax and a tax upon hops. Those were two taxes which fell upon the materials from which beer was made. In 1862, the duty on hops was repealed; and, at the same time, an addition was made really and truly to the tax upon malt, but it was made in the form of a licence duty on the brewers who used and brewed the malt. Malt used for other purposes than brewing was not affected by that addition, and malt used by private houses in brewing was also exempt from it. There fore, his right hon. Friend was right when he said it was something of a misnomer to call this a licence duty, because it was not imposed in connection with a privilege, but fell upon a certain class engaged in brewing. But what were they to do in order to get rid of this anomaly. If they were in the happy condition of being able to remit this taxation and sacrifice the duty, it would have to be considered in connection with other claims which would be made in other quarters; and, probably, when they came to deal with matters of that kind, a good many questions would arise as to the relative taxation upon various articles which came into competition with beer, and the taxes which fell upon other upon the private brewer. As his right hon. Friend said, the tax was falsely called a licence duty, because it did not not fall upon the private brewer. In theory, there could be no doubt that the arrangement of taxation seemed to give an advantage to private brewers; but if that were actually the case in practice, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) supposed they must assume that if there were no causes in operation which reduced the number of small brewers except this tax, and if the private brewer was exempt from the tax, as he was, it would follow that the number of private brewers ought to increase. If the licence duty was so injurious, and if the private brewers were not subjected to it, they had an advantage, and one would suppose that they would increase. But, in point of fact, the number of private brewers had not increased. Everybody knew that, although there were still a certain number of great houses in which private brewing was maintained, and in which it would probably be maintained under any circumstances, yet, in point of fact, a large number of private families were now abandoning the habit of private brewing, and were going to the great brewers to supply them, and that was in accordance with the natural law which induced them to go where the practice and the large capital employed gave them advantage. Under all these circumstances, they might set aside, at all events, the argument that the effect of this tax was to destroy and to injure the small brewers to the advantage of the larger brewers. He did not believe that that was the case. It might be said that the small brewers, and the large brewers also, were subject to certain restrictions in connection with the tax, and that it would be a good thing for them to get rid of it. He did not for a moment deny that. Of course, it would be a good thing for anybody subject to the In-industries. That, however, was not a come Tax and the restrictions connected with the Excise to get rid of such burdens altogether. But it was not possible to deal with taxes in that way. They could not take a single tax, and say that they would subject it to examination, and see if it imposed difficulties and inconveniences upon anybody, and if they found that it did, say then, "Let us get rid of that tax." If they did that, there would be no taxes left, for he would undertake to say that someThe Chancellor of the Exchequer matter which at the present moment was before them. His right hon. Friend did not ask them to take off the tax now; but he took refuge in proposing a Committee, which Committee, so far as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could see, had nothing whatever to inquire into, because all the facts were known; besides which, the Committee might lead to a certain amount of misconception and other inconveniences, and, after all, would not point out what his right hon. Friend wished to bring objects his right hon. Friend proposed the House to-namely, a means of get- to gain by his inquiry? They had ting rid of the tax. If they could not been told that the system of licences afford to get rid of the tax, could they at present involved arrangements which see their way to commute it, so as to were inconvenient to the trade; that obtain the same amount of Revenue in there were too many notices required, a less inconvenient manner? In that and too many arrangements as to separespect, his right hon. Friend had not rate rooms; that the trade was subject given them as much information as he to vexatious penalties; that a careless (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hoped or malicious servant might expose his they might have been furnished with. master to serious evils; and other matters It was obvious that there were two ways of that kind. No doubt, it was most open to them by which they might re- desirable that there should be frequent, duce the tax to a nominal amount with- or, at all events, occasional examinaout any sacrifice of Revenue. One of tions of the manner in which the duties them would be by an addition to the were raised, in order to see that no unmalt duty. By adding something like necessary vexation was imposed on the 5 per cent to the duty on malt, with- subject in reference to these duties. He out any sacrifice of Revenue, they would felt very strongly that it was quite posbe able to obtain the same amount of sible that, through the want of that Revenue and abolish the licence duty. periodical revision of obsolete rules His right hon. Friend did not say he which was really necessary for the conwould recommend that; but it was an im-venience of the public, needless restricportant question on which they ought to have some information. If they were not to add to the malt tax, there was another way in which the difficulty might be met, and that was by getting rid of the licence duty, and probably the malt duty itself, and substituting for them a simple beer duty. Did his right hon. Friend recommend the adoption of that course, or was the Committee to go into the question whether it would be possible and desirable to substitute a beer duty? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that would be a very large proposition; and if it were in the contemplation of his right hon. Friend that the Committee should go into such matters as that, he ought to enlarge the scope of his Order of Reference, and give the House some of his arguments on that subject. A beer duty was one of which, in former times, the country had some experience, and upon which a good deal of information could be obtained from the shelves of the Library. It would, therefore, be interesting to know whether the recommendation which his right hon. Friend wished the Committee to consider was the abolition of the malt tax and the substitution of a beer duty. But if he understood his right hon. Friend to ask the Government neither to sacrifice the Revenue, nor to make an addition to the malt tax, nor to consider the substitution of a beer tax for the malt tax, then, he would ask, what were the particular tions were sometimes forced upon those who were carrying on a business which was subject to the Excise. It seemed to be thought that if they got rid of this licence duty, they would get rid of the necessity of all these restrictions, and that they would hear nothing more about those interests of Excisemen, and other things necessary to prevent the evasion of the duty. He himself very much doubted whether that would be the case-whether, under any circumstances, they would be able to get rid of the inspections and the visits from the officers of the Excise which were now made the subject of complaint, because, unless they could abandon the idea of raising revenue from beer, it would be requisite to ascertain what the processes in the breweries were, in order to see that the brewer was not using improper substances. A certain amount of inspection would be necessary over those carrying on the business. He ventured to doubt whether, upon the whole, it would be very useful to submit questions of the sort to a Committee of the House of Commons. He did not know whether hon. Members thought it would be desirable that they should have all the proceedings and processes of manufacture the subject of a long inquiry, and every sort of investigation carried on in public before a Committee of the House. Many of these discussions were extremely inconvenient. They agitated the trade, caused expectations, and brought about a good deal of confusion. He thought it would be far better that they should have, on the part of the Government a departmental inquiry into complaints which might then be brought before them with regard to the working of the present system. The proposal of the abolition of the duty was a matter which they could not for the present entertain. As to the remission of the malt tax, he thought they had not had any case made out that would justify them going in for such an alteration. But if it could be shown that the licence duty was unequally assessed; that the mode in which the quantities were fixed was not a proper mode; that the malt assumed to be used for a barrel of beer was not what it should be; or that there were restrictions which might be in any way disadvantageous, these points might be brought before them by practical members of the trade, and the Government would be most happy to examine them patiently. He did not think, however, in spite of the very able way in which his right hon. Friend had introduced the subject again to their notice, and the ingenious way in which he had put his arguments before them, that a case had been made out for the Motion he had brought before the House. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he had felt, during the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. KnatchbullHugessen) would result in nothing practical. To that Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and incidence of the Tax upon Brewers' Licences,' he had intended, if the Forms of the House would have allowed, to move the addition of the words "and upon the best mode of supplying a substitute for it." It was, he thought, impossible to contemplate the abolition of this tax without also looking at another great taxnamely, the tax upon malt. The brewers' licence duty appeared to him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to be wholly indefensible, and one of the worst taxes that could be imposed upon the industry of any country; indeed, there was hardly another example of a similar tax upon the manufacturer. He believed that the brewers' licence duty pressed with peculiar hardship upon deserving The Chancellor of the Exchequer and poor men, numbers of whom were being driven, as they believed, out of the trade in consequence; and although other causes might have contributed to this result, there could be no doubt that the tax was felt by them to be peculiarly hard and galling. The parallel drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the cases of the private brewer and the professional brewer, who made his livelihood by brewing, was, in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion, inapplicable. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the private and small brewers were decreasing in number; and, therefore, that as one was taxed and the other was not taxed, the tax had no effect upon the professional brewer. But that was not so, for the reason why people had ceased to brew privately was that they got better ale by buying it from the large brewers, for with the private consumer the question was not trade but quality and convenience. The question, however, ought to be ap proached in a much broader spirit and on a larger scale. He believed that it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the tax upon brewers' licences, as also the tax upon malt, which, in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion, was quite as bad, unless a substitute were provided for them. Therefore, he asked permission of the House to propose a direct substitute for the two taxes in question. He would at once state that his proposal was to revert to the old practice of placing a direct tax upon the manufactured article of beer; and he believed it could be shown that this tax would not in the slightest degree interfere with the consumption of beer, or be felt seriously by the consumer. On the other hand, the tax would provide the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a very large Revenue, and enable him to abolish both the malt tax, and the tax upon brewers' licences. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned, this tax did exist in former times; but in consequence of the inconvenience attending its collection, it had been abolished almost 50 years ago, and, eventually, a tax had been imposed upon the unmanufactured article of malt. He was not there to contend that it was possible to lay a differential tax upon the various descriptions of beer which were brewed, of which there were at least seven or eight |