The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

BEER DUTIES.

The House went into Committee on the Beer Dutite' Acts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to make
his statement respecting the Beer Duties. The proposition he
had to make would relate in the first place to the duty on
Beer; secondly, to those individuals who manufactured it ;
and thirdly, to those who sold the article. When at an early
Period of the Session, an Hon. Gentleman proposed the duty
should be taken off malt, he objected, but had never been insen-
sible to the difficulty imposed by law in the sale of beer. He
took upon himself to say there was a mode of removing that dif-
ficulty by a better arrangement of duties. There were three
Sorts of beer liable to three descriptions of duty. Porter was
brewed strongest, namely, three barrels and seven-eights to a
quarter of malt, and paid a duty of 20s. The duties on the dif-
ferent sorts of beer occasioned great restrictions on the trade,
and it had occurred to him that it would be the soundest prin-
ciple if they could find means of regulating the duties on beer
More with reference to its value. He had introduced a scale of
duties, by which beer of the highest quality would be charged
higher than the low beer. The great effect would be, that beer
of the quality which forms the mass of beverage used by the
lower classes would he under the duty it now bears. The scale
the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed was this ;
Where One Quarter of Malt is employed in making
any quaraity under two barrels, the duty is to be .£1 4 0
'Where the same quantity of Malt is employed in
making two or three barrels - 0 12 0
Between four and five barrels • . 0 6 0
Between five and six ditto .. 0 4
Between six and seven ditto - . 0 4 0
After eight barrels - 0 3 0
The effect of the whole would be to give a reduction of Duty
on all the qualities of Beer used by the lower classes. If
they wished for better beer they might have it by paying
more. The next point was one that had excited a deal of
attention. The Right Honourable Gentleman alluded to the
question raised some time since, as to the right of common
brewers to sell beer retail not to be drank on their premises.—
Ire was of opinion there was nothing in the law to prevent
a common brewer who does not claim the allowance from
the excise, selling beer retail as before described, and he
thought it would be .for the benefit of the public, if they were
to frame a law, which was to give the public free and open
toinpetion with regard to beer. Individuals would not be re-
Vired to have a Magistrate's licence, but he could not go so
'eras a Bill brought in some time ago by an Hon. Gentleman
who allowed any person to retail beer. He did not object to
the principle of that Bill, but considering the mode in which
Property had accumulated, it would be unjust to to say every
Person might be permitted to sell this beer. His plan did not
go that length. What he proposed was this :—The brewer
taking out a certain license should, on paying for another
,licence, be considered a retail brewer, and sell beer with-
out a licence from a Magistrate. With a view to the vested
Property in public houses, and police regulations, they could
not avoid regulating the trade by licences. If a brewer
brewed 2000 barrels he was to pay 21. ss. for his licence, and
itt proportion to the quantity brewed, the rates of licenses
would extend to 75/. It was intended to give lower retail
licenses. He proposed the power to retail should be licensed,
and the payment of 2/. for every 1,000/. barrels sold in a year.
--For the better protection of the publican, the licenses granted
te victuallers were to ear a reduced dut The lic for
the sale of wine was tob be reduced from 47. y.
Bs. to 21. Us.ense
The
lose to the Revenue by the reductions would be more than sup_
plied by the duties taken on licenses for the sale of beer. The
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving Resolutions which
eontained his propositions.
Mr. BERNAL wished to know whether the plan was to
be taken into consideration before or after the recess ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
Printiog the Resolutions, and bring in the Bill. In that
shape the subject would appear more intelligible.
Mr. BUXTON wished to know whether any alteration
would be made in the Malt Duties?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, these
Duties would remain as they are.
Mr. MABERLEY rose to protest against the intended
measure. It was putting a higher duty on brewers for the
purpose of relieving the publicans.
Captain MA BERLY wished the discussion postponed.
Mr. HUME contended that it would be better to take the
duty on malt, and leave the brewer to make beer his own way.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER conceived
'hat fraud could not be prevented by taking the duty on malt.
Mr. DAWSON could not see what difficulty there could
be in levying the duty on malt. He did not suppose the brewers
would brew any thing but malt.
Mr. CALVEItT said, if any doubt were entertained with
respect to the fair dealing of London brewers, the report of a
Committee of the House would remove it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the
House he had not charged any Hon. Member with fraud, but
lie knew there were persons who bad practised adulteration in

brewing, and they had been convicted. His plan would have
the effect of reducing those frauds.
Mr. CALVERT observed in explanation, that he had only
understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to speak enigmatically.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. .11 usicissoN
took part, the resolutions were agreed to. The House resumed,
and the report was ordered to be received on Friday.
The other Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Os o'Cr.ocir.