FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—BILL FOR REPEALING THE DUTY ON BEER, ETC.
On the 15th of March the chancellor of the exchequer produced his annual exposition of the finances, and of the financial measures to be adopted in raising the expenditure of the present year. His statements presented no remarkable features except the repeal of the beer, cider, and leather duties. By this measure ministers desired to show their wish of alleviating the pressure of taxation on the lower classes. With reference to the extent of the repeal, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that “the amount of the three duties which I thus propose to repeal will be, on freer, £3,000,000, on leather from £340,000 to £350,000, and on cider, £25,000. These reductions will give direct relief to the people, amounting, at least, to £3,400,000., and will give them relief indirectly to a further amount; so that in fact the whole relief cannot be estimated at less than £5,000,000 a year.” The remission of duty on beer was proposed to take place on the 10th of October following, and the reason given for such delay was, that the repeal should take place conjointly with an opening of the trade, when the time arrived for renewing the licences of public-houses. There can be no doubt that the measure proceeded from excellent motives; but it is certain that by encouraging the increase of public-houses to an indefinite extent, immorality and crime had been introduced into every nook and corner of the land. The picture which the poet Cowper drew of the evils of public-houses in his day have been increased a hundredfold by such a measure so that it is literally true, that,
“Pass where’er we may, through city or through town, Village or hamlet of this merry land, Though lean and beggar’d, every twentieth face, Conducts th’ unguarded nose to such a whiff Of state debauch, forth issuing from the sties That law has licensed, as makes temperance rec.”
It is probable that this measure has occasioned more evil than any act passed during the whole period to which this portion of the history of England refers. Yet there can be no question that ministers conceived that they were legislating for the poor man’s comfort; experience, however, has proved that it was for the poor man’s bane. After stating the intention of ministers on this subject, the chancellor of the exchequer next gave his estimate of the revenue of the present year. The demands of the public service, including the charge of the national debt, were £47,812,000, and the available income was estimated at £50,470,000, leaving a probable balance of about £2,500,000 only for the sinking-fund. In the revenue of last year a deficiency of more than £500,000 below the estimate was acknowledged; but at the same time a clear surplus of £4,000,000 had been applied to the redemption of the national debt. To compensate for the loss of revenue from the repeal of the above duties, it was proposed to consolidate all the laws relative to the stamp-duties, for placing the management of the whole of that branch of the revenue under the stamp-office in England, and make similar articles everywhere subject to the same duties. It was also proposed to levy an additional duty on spirits; and also to effect a yearly saving of about £800,000 by the conversion of four per cent, stock into three and a half. These measures were subsequently carried into effect. The chancellor of the exchequer finally held out hopes of a reduction in the amount of expenditure, by the consolidation of various departments of the public service: this he said was likely hereafter to place at the disposal of the government a great surplus revenue which would enable ministers to make a further repeal of taxes. The principal reduction promised by government this year, that of the beer-duty, was not carried without great opposition. Brewers and publicans alike were arrayed against it, as it would break up their monopoly. The latter complained loudly of the deterioration to which the capital invested by them in the trade would be exposed, since every man who could pay two guineas might take out a licence. The landed interest, likewise, was against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member of an independent borough, who in the morning might possibly be brought before him in a state presenting a good imitation of the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, which called down the wrath of the moral legislators of the age of King James. Sir Robert Inglis having reminded Mr. Brougham that a higher authority than that of James I. had denounced drunkenness, and that if he himself were found in the street in a state of inebriety, no magistrate performing his duty would fail to punish him, Mr. Brougham replied, that he had not the good fortune to be educated at the university represented by the baronet. It was, indeed, well replied by Dr. Johnson to a lady who inquired of him to which university she should send her son: “Why madam, I can only say, that there is an equal quantity of port drunk at each.” He was perfectly aware that a higher authority than King James had denounced drunkenness, but the difference was, that that high authority made no distinction of persons, whereas the act of James did. Could the right honourable baronet point out one instance of a member of parliament having been punished for drunkenness? Sir Robert repeated, that if Mr. Brougham would go into the street drunk, he would soon meet with due punishment; he replied, that it would be grossly unfair, inasmuch as there were thousands of gentlemen in the same situation never noticed. This was an unanswerable argument, and the subject was dropped.