The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-04 00:00:00

TO TILE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS.

Sr , I agree with your correspondent, Kri thoph Hue, that '
the interest of the community forcibly demands a redue-
of the duty upon beer; but I am not so much tine-
lured, as he seems to be, with the general antipathy against
tits brewers and the licensing system. .Iceutiling to my
notions the brewers are more sinned a.,:aii.st than sinning ;
and they are much less benefited by the licensing system
than is commonly imagined.
From the returns which have been laid before Parlia-
ment, it appears that the trewers in the country are in
number 1591, by whom 22,074 public houses are supplied
with beer. • But in these houses a large proportion of the
patlicans are not under the contrail of the brewers, and I
are consequently at liberty to purchase their beer where
they give the preference. (here are besides 22,268 lieensta
sktuallers who brew their own beer; and hence it appears
that, in the country the domination of the brewers cannel
be exercised to a very great or injurious extent. The London
brewers amount to 136, who supply 4,316 public houses ;
sad there are besides 56 victuallers, who brew their own
beer. If the brewers have in many instances purchased
public houses, and have acted on the general principle that
trade can be conducted with more advantage upon a large
scale than a small, it may be proved that this circumstance
has not orterated to the detriment of the consumer; for in
those parts of the kingdom where public breweries are most
extensively established, beer is cheaper and better in pro-
portion to its price. The parliamentary returns to which
I have referred, evince that the beer trade, instead of being
aucentrated in large and overwhelming muses, is eaten-
sleety divided, and consequently open to the salutary
agency of general competition. Whatever may be the
uerefous effect, or the immoral tendency of public houses,
,fear that your objections on that head will not be re-
moved by the new regulations. Some of the worst charac-
firs abstain from the public hare in order to elude the
observation of the police ; and the publican himself must
beslw.ari more or less circumspect in his conduct, limn the
*!ad of losing his license.
'the capital. which is employed in the breweries and
*Awed houses will he found to fall very little short of
mitliona, from which the government derives a revenue of three
**ions, exclusive of that which azerues from the duty on malt and
hop. has not therefore an interest of thin magnitude and import.
Ow a powerful claim upon the equitable mosiaerstion of the go-
garment, a ought that interest to be wantonly attacked without
spine proportionate benefit to the community ? The beer duty is
an unjust, because it is a partial tax ; and its pressure is most
severely felt by these whore st ought to be most the object of the'
government to relieve.
The present hostility of the public towards the brewers appears
to have originated in the year 10111, when the duty was raised to its
protest exorbitant rate; and as this duty only reaches the con.
awn through the brewer, the principal share of the odium is at-
tached to the latter by those who do not reflect how large a portirm
oi site price of the article is made up of tax. This tax is so high,
that, as the returns will shew, it has defeated its own object, and
hostrated the intention of the Government.
Ca an amuse of three years previous to 1861, when the popula-
den.of England and Wales, to which the present calculation ap.
Om, was about rise millions, 6.461,028 barrels of strong beer wire
annually brewed ; but is 1821, when the population had increased to
banarrieV2 millions, the annual average of beer brewed was 5,419,098
Hence it appears, that the augmented duty diminished
the consumption of the commodity ; and it is probable that, if the
ditty bad been more moderate, there would have been an increase
of snarly two millions of barrels. ilas the high duty, therefore,
been consistent with good policy ? 11 as it conduced to the interest
of the revenue, to that of the brewer, or to that of the con-
unser ?

I.do not advocate a total repeal of the duty, I oely call for a rca.
sonahlt reduction. A duty of di. a barrel on strong beer, and of
a barrel On small beer, might be safely retained, and the deficiency
in the n.venue, as far as it w.ty not made up by the increased eon-
,stniption, mi;;ht be supplied by a small additional duty of about
C. a quarter upon malt.
You have stated the new table beer duty at 3s. per barrel ; but
}oar should not have omitted to mention that this was an advance
from Is. Itid., thus making the duty Is. 2d. higher than it wee
beam . . . . .

But if the consumer will not be contented with beer at eight bar-
role trim the quarter of uteh, the duty must be paid in the next
seal: in the graduation of the new this will be 31. Md. per ,
barrel, and will consequently make an advance of Is. 71J., or nearly
Wiper cent., on the present duty.
You neat advert to the beer or porter of the quality of front three
reknit bowels from the quartet of malt, and which being rated in '
dee no* Bill at lie. per barrel, exhibits a reduction of Is. 2d. from .
the present duty ; and if the brewer can i; dime his customers to ;
consume benr of te quality of your barrels to the quarter, the duty
will be only 6e. Here, and here only, I admit that there is a re-
daction of duty ; but is there not, at the same time, a strong temp-
mien held out to the brewer, to dimitnish the quantity of malt ?
seid is this in unison either with the interest of John Bull, or with'
thee of the agriculturists ?
The next gradation in the scale of duty, according to the new ;
BA, is that of beer unite: throe barrels from a (loaner, which in
to be churg.xl at 12s. per barrel, or 2.. likl. higher than ate
present. 'this increase of outy will affect a large part of the king-
4oin : for, addle:ugh beer of this and the higher quality may'
mu be brewed in the proportion of more than one-fourth of the
trlni quantity, yet the consumption is extended over a great
astrinse of country, where good beer is hi request, and where
s~ will ocsution considerable discontent, to And the brewer un-
ttiiYa of the new Act, incited by a premium of .fs,
sit twat less duty to make above three barrels from a quarter
rate of duty is that of 2:%. per barrel. To illus.:
orsomiebeh'lJrre:`
of this, I will state a particular fact :—A respect-
obit house his informed me that, taking, the average of their
anent brewino, the thity• on the strong and table beer antotims
at Iresen; to 'MAIL which by the new plan would be charged at
17ut. t and they are so circumstanced so not to have a demand
fie beer of a lower quality, so as to bring it into the reduced scaly
of duty. Your Corressndent Krithophilus is therefore comae:
in stating that under the new Act only one of the scales of duty
is lower, and that the other three scales will br considerably higher ;
Anti to this I might add, that they are calculated to reduce the
consumption of malt in the different breweries to the lowest prac-
tisable quantity. I am, sir, your humble Servant,
A AA'Elt OF (.t)OD 111:Elt.