The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-13 00:00:00

BEER BILL.

Mr. DENISON rose to present a Petition front certain
Brewers of Small Beer and Ale against one of the provisions
of the Bill now before the HOLM. By the present laW they
were allowed to brew an intermediate beer, which.by the new
Bill they would be prevented from doing without erecting new
brew-houses, at a distance of at least 200 vards from thole oc-
cupied by thei brewing of other beers. These -gentlemen had
embarked a large capital in their trade, and he would ask.i any
Hon. Member if it were fair to do them such an injury, and
only for the sake of an experiment, as the flight lion. Gentle-
man himself admitted his measure to be ? But it was said the
object of separate breweries was to prevent the mixture of beer;
1 and that was very proper. But to chew the good intentions of
these gentlemen, they said that they only wished the measure
to be put off for one year, in order that they might lay their.
case before a tlommittee, and if they could not satisfy it, that
no mixing of the beer would take place, • they would then sitb-
mit to any fines, or even the penalty of transportation upon
detection. But the way to avoid all these difficulties would be,
to take off the duties on beer altogether, and place them on the
malt. By that means they would remove the inustice of mak-
ing the poor man pay a tax of baween two unit three pounds,
where the rich man paid only ore.
31r. RICARDO condemned the provisions which compelled
the new kind of Beer, to-be brewed in separate brew-houses,—
The expaices of the new ones must all be paid by the people,
and by such measures as these, the people payed taxes far be,
yond the amount received by -the Treasury. - He would ask
his Hon. Friend the question, as to where could arise the harm
of laying all the tax on Malt, and leaving the Brewers to make
the Beer of what quality they liked,
Mr. 3IABERIN • said, that no petitioners ever came into
the House with a stronger case, yet he feared the Bill would be
read a third time without any relief being granted to them.
Such an experiment was useless mud unnecessary, because a
comprehensive investigation of the system of the Revenue
laws must convince the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exche.
quer that the Beer Duties ought to be removed altogether, and
pLeed. upon Malt.
Mr. Alderman C. SMITH, spike in favour of the duties
being; placed tm Malt.
31r. G. BENNET said, that the measure carried upon the
face of it the marks of injustice. It was absurd and improper
that the price of an article.should be fixed, whatever might be

the variations in the prices of materials from which it was
made. The interest of the poor man ought to be considered,
and if any difference were made it ought to be in his favour.
At all events he ought to possess at least equal advantages with
the ridh man. •

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that in
the Committee on the Bill, every one of the- arguments which
he had now heard, were advanced, and he at that time an-
'swered the objections as well as he could. Other stages still
remained, at which full discussion might be had, and when the
House might also come to a decision. But he did not Conceive.
that he could be expected to enter into the whole question of
the measure upon the presentation -of a Petition. The Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last, had applied harsh terms to his
measure, and such as he conceived were unjustly Applied.
Whatever might be its defects, it was certainly intended to be
a modification of some of the evils of the existing system.—
He must say that it was disheartening to any wishes for gra-
dually removing those evils, to find such opposition made to a
partial attempt of this nature. The measure, he was con-
vinced was one of improvement; but if the House did not
choose to pass it, the law must remain as it was.
Mr. HUME contended, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
was acting against his own principles in doing violence to so
large a capital as that, which would be injured and destroyed
by the Bill.
Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE thought the fair way of look-
ing at this measure was in comparison with the law as it now
stood. At present the poor could only get a beverage so strong
that they could not purchase it, or so weak that they could not
digest it. The object of this Bill was to supply beer of mo-
derate strength, and at a moderate price. He thought the
thanks of the House were due to his Right Hon. Friend, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the manner in which he had
taken up the subject.
Mr. F. PALMER contended, that as the duty being placed
uppn malt would 'enable every man to brew his beer, or to
purchase it upon equal terms, there was no ground whatever
for refusing to make the alteration.
Mr. MONCK took the same view of the question.`"
Mr. MABERLY asked whether the Right. Hon. Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer would allow a committee to be appointed
if he should move it, to take into consideration the propriety of
placing the duty on Malt instead of Beer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
not prepared to answer in the affirmative.
Mr. MABERIX then gave notice that he should, upon an
early occasion, move for the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. BROUGHAM had to thank his Hon. Friend for the
notice he had given, and to regret that the Right Hon. Gentle_
man had not consented to an inquiry. Every discussion of this
iniquitous tax would he useful, because it would open the eyes
of the country to the enormous. injustice of making the poor
man pay a duty of fifty shillings where the rich man paid only
twenty shillings. He was confident that.so cryingly iniquitous
a tax could not long be supported by any House of Commons.
After u few words from Mr. DENtsow and the CirAwcEL-
Lon of the EXCHEQUER, the Petition was ordered to be
printed.