kinds in ordinary consumption; but it average, although he was prepared to could be shown, and he believed that it assume that it was a reasonable one. would be admitted by the Chancellor of But as he desired to be perfectly fair in the Exchequer, if he looked at the ques- his statement of the case, he would tion from a practical point of view, that assume that it required 2 bushels of the imposition of the tax upon beer malt to make 36 gallons, or one barrel, would neither raise the price of the of beer; and on that basis he would article to any appreciable extent, nor be found his calculation that 115 gallons of attended with any intolerable hardship beer would be produced from every to brewers. It was not his argument quarter of malt; and that, as there that evening to enter upon the question, were 8,000,000 quarters used in the which he had already raised once or course of the year, the total quantity of twice, of equalizing the tax upon the al- beer which ought to be produced would cohol contained in spirits, and the alcohol be 920,000,000 gallons annually. There contained in beer. At the present time, were several classes of beer; but he they raised on alcohol-that was, upon would deal first with such beers as beer, wine, and spirits, upon licence duty Bass's and Allsopp's ales, as examples and upon the sugar used in brewing, of beers of the highest class, which conno less than £33,000,000 a-year, and it tained from 8 per cent to 11 per cent of was a circumstance of very considerable proof spirit. Upon these beers, then, importance to know that they spent of the highest class, and containing from £155,000,000 annually in buying al- 8 to 11 per cent of proof spirit, he procoholic liquors. He maintained that, posed that there should be a tax in the by the adoption of the proposition shape of an Excise stamp duty of 98. which he was about to submit, there per half-barrel. How would that affect would not be the slightest difficulty in the producer and consumer? The beers getting, in addition to the £9,000,000 in question, upon which, according to taxes now practically levied upon beer, his calculation, about 4s. 6d. per halfin the shape of the malt tax, brewers' barrel was already levied indirectly, licences, and sugar duty, the additional were being sold at hotels, railway sum of £6,000,000, which would enable stations, and refreshment rooms, at the the Government to abolish every one of rate of 6d. the reputed pint, or 3d. those Customs' duties which pressed so a-glass. Upon these beers alone, repreheavily upon the people who did not senting about one-third of the total prodrink alcoholic liquors-that was to duction which, as he had already pointed say, it would permit the abolition out, amounted to 920,000,000 gallons, of the tea and coffee and other such would be raised, by the addition of the duties. The brewers' licences produced proposed duty of 9s. per half-barrel, £433,000 a-year, and the sugar used £7,500,000 annually, and that by inin brewing £526,000 a-year; while creasing the price to the consumer less the sum derived from the malt tax than d. per glass. Indeed, he believed, amounted to very nearly £8,000,000. from the competition which would ensue, He did not think the country could do if the trade were thrown open, that without that taxation, which amounted it would be found that this additional in all to £9,000,000 a-year; but how-d. would never be added at all, and ever that tax was levied, whether upon that the beer would continue to be sold the article of beer itself, or upon the to the public at 3d. per glass. But even material used in its manufacture-whe- if the price were raised by d. per glass, ther upon the meal or the malt-it was there was, in his opinion, no reason to still a direct tax upon beer; and, for believe that with regard to an article of that reason, in suggesting some modifi- such great popularity with the higher cation of the duties on beer, he was not and middle classes as pale ale, the proposing a new tax. The quantity of consumption would be in the slightest malt used in brewing was as nearly as degree diminished. Besides the beers possible 57,000,000 bushels, or about mentioned, there were in ordinary con8,000,000 quarters. Now, it had been sumption four different classes of beer, assumed by the Excise authorities that containing from 5 to 8 per cent of proof one barrel of beer should be produced spirit, which he proposed to take tofrom two bushels of malt; but this gether, and tax at the rate of 4s. 6d. per had been considered as too high an half-barrel. How would that affect the

prices to the consumer? The class of
beer which came next to Bass's, and the
rest to which he had referred, was sold
at 4d. a-pint, and its present cost was
488. per half-barrel of 18 gallons. The
proposed tax of 4s. 6d. per half-barrel
would not raise the price of this kind of
beer to the consumer by more than 1d.
a-glass. The next class was sold at 3d.
a-pint, and the cost was 36s. per half-
barrel; in the same way, the price of this
beer to the consumer would be raised
by less than d. a-glass. The next
class was sold at 2d. a-pint, or 30s.
per half-barrel, and upon this, and the
rest of the beers, the increased price
would be so small to the consumer as to
render the calculation unnecessary. He
had endeavoured to show that by a
duty of 98. per half-barrel upon the
manufactured article of the first class
the sum of £7,500,000 would be raised.
A like sum would also be raised from
the remaining classes of beer-namely,
those which contained from 5 per cent
of proof spirit and upwards; so that
altogether, if his proposal were adopted,
a total sum of £15,000,000 would be
obtained annually. It was an important
question to consider whether that
amount could be raised in a manner
which would not be intolerable to the
brewers. At the present moment, the
brewer was subject to a number of re-
strictions, to which the right hon. Gen-
tleman who introduced this Motion had
referred. All that would be necessary
in the new tax would be a book of
stamps like the delivery books given by
railway companies. The Excise would keep
the counter-part, and the stamps, which
would be several inches wide, would be
affixed by the brewer under the super-
vision of the officers of Excise. The
stamps might be put over the bung-hole |
of the cask. [Oh, oh!"] An hon.
and gallant Member opposite seemed
surprised at such an absurd notion; but
was it more absurd than the present
mode of settling the malt duty, or col-
lecting the brewers' licences? The sys-
tem could be carried out with the
greatest ease. The brewers could pur-
chase the books of stamps, taking out a
nominal licence in proportion to the
number of gallons of beer which they
manufactured. There would be no diffi-
culty in that respect, for already there
was a Return which showed the quan-
tity of beer produced by every brewer in

Mr. Mitchell Henry

the United Kingdom. But what would
be the other effects of carrying out his
proposal? The country would lose
£9,000,000 of taxes by the abolition of
the brewers' licences, the tax upon
sugar used in brewing, and the malt
tax; but the brewers and agricul-
turists would very much appreciate
the abolition of taxes which now fell
upon them; while, on the other hand,
£15,000,000 would be raised by the
plan he proposed. From this would
result a surplus of £6,000,000, which
would enable the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to abolish all the Customs du-
ties, except those on tobacco-that was
to say, the duties upon chicory, coffee,
currants, figs, plums, prunes, &c., which
amounted to something like £900,000
annually; and, in addition to these, the
duty upon tea, which amounted to about
£4,000,000 a-year. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer would then have
£1,000,000 remaining, which he could
devote to any purpose that pleased him.
He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) considered the
suggestion which he had made well
worthy of the attention of the right
hon. Gentleman, who, it was to be
hoped, having stated his willingness
to appoint a Departmental Committee to
inquire into the nature and incidence of
the tax upon brewers' licences, would
also allow the Committee to inquire
earnestly and seriously into the feasi-
bility of imposing a tax upon the manu-
factured article of beer, in place of those
duties now imposed upon the raw mate-
rial used in brewing and upon the trade
of those persons who were struggling
to make a living by this manufac-
ture. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) be-
lieved the figures quoted by him to be
absolutely correct; and he had, more-
over, the authority of hon. Members in
the House, who were able to speak upon
the subject with greater weight than he
could pretend to, for saying that his pro-
posal was perfectly feasible; and he,
therefore, hoped that on the appoint-
ment of the Committee it would receive
the serious consideration of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, that everyone knew that the whole incidence of the tax upon brewers' licences was before the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, therefore, what was the use of an inquiry? If the necessity for such an inquiry was so im

perative as the right hon. Gentleman | and, according to what they wanted, so the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatch- the Bill should be drafted. His right bull-Hugessen) assumed, why had he hon. Friend had chosen a very curious not drawn attention to the matter when time to make an appeal to the House on he and his Friends were in Office, and behalf of the brewers. The brewers when what he wished to have done in the had been doing very well; they always matter might have been effected? In did well. The drink trade was always that case, however, he (Sir Walter B. prosperous. At a Licensed Victuallers' Barttelot) thought that, supposing a dinner that took place at Burton, one of duty were imposed on beer, the small the speakers, speaking of the bad times, brewers, as a class, would be annihi- the great distress that prevailed, said lated. In spite of the depression in the Burton was the only green spot-the country during the last few years, the oasis in the desert. Coal and iron were brewers had been doing well; while, as depressed, but drink_was bringing in to a remission of the tax, the present was lots of money still. But, although the no time for taking off a tax of the kind, brewers were so prosperous, they were which was not oppressive, though, per- always complaining-they complained haps, it was to some extent vexatious. of the Excise, of the magistrates and He altogether denied that it was looked the police, the Good Templars, and the upon generally, even by the brewers whole community. In fact, they reprethemselves, as an unjust tax, and he sented themselves as a class of men believed they would rather endure it whose sole object it was to benefit manten times over than have a tax imposed kind, yet they were harassed by every on beer. He was of opinion that no case had been made out for a Select Committee; and, looking at the present consumption of liquors throughout the country, he thought this tax was one of the last that this House would think ought to be repealed.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON thought his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been rather hard on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), in asking him why he had not moved in this matter when a Liberal Government was in Office. The fact, however, was that agitation of this kind was always very vigorous when a Liberal Government was in Office, but it generally relaxed when a Conservative Government came in. There was a French statesman who had been described as having spent his life in coming to the rescue of the strongest. This seemed the aim of the right hon. Gentleman in coming to the assistance of the brewers, that powerful body, who were alone prosperous in these hard times, and who were very well able to protect themselves. He knew the great and sincere interest his right hon. Friend took in anything connected with the liquor traffic. He remembered his attending a dinner of the Licensed Victuallers; there was the same idea of a Bill being brought in for their relief, and he said the proper way would be that the publicans should be consulted, VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

one.

the

The Association for the Repeal of Brewers' Licences was formed in 1874. Shortly afterwards there was a grand deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; 208 brewers and 58 Members of Parliament were present. Some conversation took place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what effect the repeal of the duty would have on the price of beer? One of the deputation replied, none whatever; the consumer never paid the tax. Whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would not detain the deputation any longer. When the present Government, which owed a good deal to the publicans, came into Office, they did something for the brewers, which ought to have satisfied them. Whatever the brewers or anybody else might say, he believed there was no doubt that the tax was paid by the consumer somehow or other. If, however, it was paid by the producer, he was the last person who should be relieved in a time of national distress; and if it was paid by the consumer, the House ought not to encourage him to drink more by making his drink cheaper. So that, whether the consumer or the producer paid, there was no case for alteration. The beer drinker had been described by the hon. Gentleman below as a distressed man. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: The small brewer.] Well, was that any reason for encouraging the drinking of more beer? He would not give his own opinion. It was not well

Y

sion. Its character was very compre- | Acts, and added new obligations with hensive, as it sought to provide for the regard to sulphuric and other acids whole Kingdom, wherever a noxious upon the manufacturers, in order that as trade was carried on, or noxious gas little as possible might be emitted during emanations injurious to the health of the process of manufacturing. The the public were produced, such a re- second part was devoted to the trades medy as would be readily applicable that were placed for the first time under without unduly interfering with the these obligations. The third part cataindustry of the country. It was in- logued all the remaining trades that tended by the Bill to raise from the were to come under inspection, and trades and manufacturers themselves a that were to be liable to be called upon comparatively small sum of money to adopt such preventive methods as which, with the amount already pro- were from time to time shown to be apvided by Parliament, would be suffi- plicable. In this way, the inspection cient to supply an adequate machinery hitherto confined to alkali works would for giving effect to its object. In con- be extended for the benefit of the whole nection with the history of previous community. Existing works would be legislation with regard to the subject, allowed a certain time for re-registration, he would remind the House that the without which no new works would be original Alkali Act, passed in 1863, was allowed. Licence fees would have to be designed to cure the mischief done to paid and would reduce the cost of invegetation from the evolution of muriatic spection, and a sanitary district, or a acid gas. It limited to a great extent combination of two or more districts, the mischief done by isolated works; but might apply for the services of an Inthe progress of trade had led to the spector, who would be paid by the Goestablishment of a great aggregation of vernment, the district to guarantee a these manufactories in many districts, certain proportion of the salary. Comespecially on the Tyne and Mersey, and plaint had been made of the supposed the result was that vegetation was leniency of the Alkali Inspectors in inentirely destroyed in those neighbour- stituting proceedings, but he doubted hoods. Accordingly, when he entered whether there was any ground for such upon his present office, applications were complaint. The efficiency of inspection made to him by gentlemen connected was not to be tested by the number of with the localities thus affected for an proceedings against works, for much amendment and extension of the Act. good was done indirectly and without That was affected by the Act of 1874, resort to legal measures. If the law which required the owners of those fac- with regard to nuisances arising from tories so to conduct their operations as noxious gases were made uniform to allow only an almost imperceptible throughout the United Kingdom, he amount of muriatic acid gas to escape was satisfied that manufacturers would from the chimneys of their works at one readily adopt any regulations on the time. Complaints, however, were still subject which might be laid down. In made that vegetation continued to wither conclusion, he would move the second from the effect of these gases, and the Go-reading of the Bill. vernment consented in 1875-6 to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Act and report on the whole subject of the injury to the public done by noxious vapours. Concurrently with the appointment of the Royal Com-journment of the debate, and his reamission an Inspector of the Local Go-sons for doing so he felt sure the House vernment Board was engaged to examine would accept. This was a very imporfactories and ascertain what means were available to diminish the mischief the caused by the evolution of gases; and he recommended that provisions analogous to those in the Alkali Acts should be applied to several trades. The first part of the Bill consolidated and reenacted the main provision of the Alkali

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Sclater-Booth).

SIR HENRY JAMES moved the ad

tant Bill, in which many persons were strongly interested who were absent, and it seriously affected certain manufacturers in, for instance, the 29th clause. Therefore, when the Bill was discussed it ought to be discussed fully. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was asked on Thursday when he would take the Bill,