said, he desired to move a Resolution standing in his name on the Paper to re-commit the Bill to the former Committee—

^* : The hon. Member's Motion does not refer to the Bill now before the House.

My Motion relates to the Bill, a Report on which has come down from a Committee of this House.

^* : This is not the Bill. This is a Bill from the Lords. I have the highest authority for saying this is not the Bill the hon. Member refers to.

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

River Suck Drainage Bill

Can any Member of the Government tell us what this Bill is about?

^* : It is to extend the borrowing powers in order to admit of the completion of the works.

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—( Dr. Farquharson .)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

BARRY RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

said, he begged to move—

"That the Barry Railway Bill [ Lords ] be re-committed to the former Committee, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.

That it be an Instruction to the Committee to hear the case of the Glamorgan County Council, Petitioners against the Bill, and that the Committee have power to insert a Clause providing that the railways of the company shall be adapted and opened for the convenience of passenger traffic within such reasonable period as the Committee shall think fit."

^* : Order, order! The Motion must stand over until Friday next.

The Rivers Pollution Bill and the Leicester County Council

said, he desired to present a Petition from the Borough of Leicester, which contained 180,000 inhabitants, objecting to be placed, so far as the Rivers Pollution Bill was concerned, under the County Council, a body which had little sympathy with, and less knowledge of, the requirements of urban communities. They preferred to be, as now, under the Local Government Board. They thought the present jurisdiction—the County Court, with an appeal to the High Court—to be distinctly better than what was proposed in the new Bill—namely, the Bench of Magistrates, with appeal to what was practically the same body—that is, the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions.

^* : It is only usual in presenting a Petition to state its general purport.

said, he would only add that the Leicester Corporation had no fear on their own account, inasmuch as their sewage was purified splendidly over a farm of 1,600 acres.

said, that in moving to leave out the words "Great Britain" in order to insert "England," it would be obvious to the Committee that his intention was to exempt Scotland from the proposed increase of the Spirit Duty. He had taken this course for two special reasons. The first was, that he considered Scotland already much too heavily taxed for Imperial purposes as compared with England; and, secondly, he thought that this proposed tax was out of all proportion on the beverage of the Scotch people as compared with the beverage of the English people. In an able paper contributed some time ago to The Scottish Review a well-known financier went into statistics on the subject. He pointed out clearly and indisputably that, taking the population and taxation, the Scotch people were much more heavily taxed per head per annum than the English. In Scotland each person was taxed annually for Imperial purposes £2 5s. 8d., while in England the tax was only £2 2s. 3d., and in Ireland £1 11s. 3d. In a paper contributed to The Economist , a well-known and impartial magazine, a writer went into the relative proportions of the Spirit and Beer Duties of England and Scotland. The Economist pointed out in that article that the tax per head for beer and spirits in Scotland was £1 3s. 4d., while in England it was only 10s. 5d. Coming to the tax in the present Bill, it amounted to this: that while the English cask of beer—which contained 36 gallons, and, as far as he could ascertain, 3½ gallons of proof spirit—was to pay 6s. 9d., 3½ gallons of proof spirit in the form of whisky was to pay 38s.6d. Why should that be? He would have liked to have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question if he were present. How was it that he was not present? [At this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the House.] It was to be remembered that it was the proof spirit in the beer that was taxed and not the beer itself, and as the cask of beer contained 3½ gallons proof spirit it was obvious that Scotland was unfairly treated, because she was charged nearly six times as much. He had been accused of voting against his Party on this question; but he had to say that his vote was intended to go against injustice to Scotland without regard to Government or Party. His reason for standing up today was to protest against this injustice to Scotland. It was not because it was a tax upon whisky per se , but because he considered it a tax on a Scottish industry, and that Scotland was being un- fairly treated as compared with the predominant partner. He objected to this state of things from three points of view—first, as a Scotch Nationalist; secondly, as a consumer—[ laughter ]—yes, as a consumer, but he could assure the Committee, a consumer of very moderate proportions; and thirdly, he objected as a medical, and, therefore, as a temperance man. And his objections did not take origin yesterday. He rose on the Second Reading of this Bill six or eight times to protest against this proposal, but was not fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye. Perhaps that was because he sat beyond the range of vision of the Chair. He sat far back because, not having a hankering after the Treasury Bench, he did not wish to add to the crush on the Benches below. They were not overcrowded to-day, but sometimes there was not elbow-room upon them. What hon. Members who were responsible for this crushing expected he did not know. They could not all expect office, though many of them might get knighthoods, and decorations of that sort. As a Scotch Nationalist, he protested against this duty because it was a disadvantage to Scotland. In consequence of climate, it was found that spirit suited the Scotch population better than beer. It was found that the water supply in Scotland was peculiarly suited to the distillation of whisky. It was found also that the character of the soil in many parts of Scotland was well suited to the cultivation of barley. For those and other reasons the distillation of whisky had become an industry in Scotland. Therefore, he considered that to tax an industry of this kind unfairly threatened to crush it. There was a point beyond which, if they taxed any industry, they would crush that industry. They had in the annals of Scotch history an illustration of this very fact. Before the time of the union of Scotland with England the beverage of the Scotch people, especially of the better class, was claret. Little or no whisky was distilled, but very soon after the Union the Englishman at once had his eye upon Scotland, and he insisted on taxing it heavily and imposing on the people, against their will, port, which would bear a higher duty. Hume, the historian, in a moment of irritation and sarcasm, had immortalised this historical fact in the following couplet:—

"Stern and erect the Caledonian stood;

Old was his mutton, and his claret good.

'Let him drink port,' the English statesman cried.

He drank the poison and his spirits died."

[ Laughter .] In these dull times of exhaustive debate he took credit to himself that he was able to create a merry laugh occasionally in the House. His efforts, however, were sincere and earnest, though he did not mind a laugh. He meant what was said, his arguments being founded upon history and upon statistics. It was then that the Caledonian, in order to revive his spirits, took to the distillation of whisky. He appealed to the Temperance Party whether, in crushing the beverage of claret by over-taxation, they had not substituted a more injurious and powerful commodity in whisky—whether now, in seeking to over-tax whisky, they would not substitute, perhaps, worse forms of excess among the community? As a consumer—[ laughter ]—yes, he spoke here as a consumer, and repudiated the notion that he spoke for the producer. The brewers and distillers were able to take care of themselves, and it was no part of his duty or intention to take his stand in their favour. On the contrary, he stood up as a consumer to protest against the tax being put upon the consumer and not upon the producer. He was well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended that the tax should fall upon the producer, but everyone who knew the methods by which duty could be evaded by the producer would understand that the producer would not suffer by the increased impost. Who would suffer? Why the consumer would suffer from the tax. What would happen would be this: The distiller would launch upon the market raw and less mature spirit, and also spirit produced from inferior grain. Not only would he do this, but he would mix that spirit with inferior produce, probably foreign spirit—spirit distilled from potatoes, rice, diseased barley, and from sawdust, for all he knew. The result would be that, instead of recouping this 6d. per gallon, the consumer would probably suffer at least to double that extent. And it was not only the increased charge of which he com- plained, but the increased tax now proposed would simply lead to the drinking of an inferior whisky—a whisky that would produce a worse form of intoxication, disease, and destitution, of outrage and of crime. Therefore, he trusted the Temperance Party would not proceed to encourage the over-taxation of a wholesome product when properly, consistently, and moderately used, and not abused. He was well aware that many temperance men made martyrs of themselves for the sake of their fellow-men, who were less able than they were to exercise self-control. But if he might in a humble way, as a medical man—a man of the people, a man who had mixed with all classes of society to a great extent for over 30 years of professional life—if he might sound a note of warning to the Temperance Party he would say this: "Beware that you do not defeat your own objects and aims by expecting too much, and by seeking legislation that will never pass in a free country like this." In seeking local veto and the proper control of the drink traffic he sympathised with the Temperance Party, but if they aimed at the abolition of the traffic entirely it would defeat their own objects. The peoples of every nation would always have a narcotic of some sort or other, whether it was alcohol in this country, opium in India and China, or the chewing of roots in certain savage countries, or the mastication of leaves in others. Was it not consistent with common sense that this traffic, if properly regulated, need not be injurious, but might be positively useful? From the point of view of the physician and the temperance man, he said that if they over-taxed alcohol, and drove the producer to adulterate, it would have a more injurious effect on the community and lead to more drunkenness and crime than that which obtained at present. Therefore, he called upon the Temperance Party to reconsider their position, and to go into the Lobby with him and vote against this increase of taxation, so far at least as Scotland was concerned. He would suggest that instead of increasing the Spirit Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have increased the Death Duty, especially on the higher class of estates, or, if that was impossible, it would have been more popular and less oppressive on the masses if he had put another ld. on the Income Tax.

reminded the hon. Member that he was out of Order in speaking beyond the Amendment.

would not go further into the matter. He hoped every friend of Scotland and every lover of justice and fair play would go into the Lobby with him. He apologised to the House for his disconnected and incoherent speech. Unfortunately, be had caught a shill in the Lobby last night, and was not in his best form to-day.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 5, to leave out the words "Great Britain," and insert the word "English."—( Dr. Macgregor .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

I would condole with my hon. Friend on the chill he caught in the Lobby, but my hon. Friend is in form enough to menace my Budget in his very amusing and able speech. My hon. Friend bas evidently not indulged in the poison to which he has referred, because nobody can say that his spirits have died under the effect of that poison. The full amount of duty, as I have explained before, will be really ¾d. a bottle; therefore, if whisky is charged ld. a bottle extra it will be sufficient to cover the duty. In the situation in which the country now finds itself I do not think that ld. a bottle is an inordinate tax upon the consumer.

It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

I do not think that ld. a bottle on spirits will break the back of the Scotch camel. If the ld. is divided into as many parts as a bottle is divided into glasses you will get at what the ordinary consumer will have to pay. The Committee will not think the tax is an inordinate contribution to the £4,000,000 required for the Navy. A claim is made for justice to Scotland, but it would involve injustice to the English consumer. I should like to point out the inconvenience that would arise from the adoption of the Amendment. If we put an extra duty upon English whisky and not upon Scotch whisky it would be a very serious inconvenience to gentlemen crossing the border, because if my hon. Friend were coming here to fulfil his Parliamentary duties lie would have to be carefully examined at Berwick-on-Tweed to see whether he was endeavouring to evade the tax. The establishment of Customs along the line of the old Roman wall would not be very convenient to the inhabitants of the two countries. My hon. Friend's arguments are in favour of the Scotch people, and he intends to leave things as they are in England. No doubt there is very good reason why the Scotch people prefer whisky. What is said about the high quality of the water in Scotland is a fact of which I have had a pleasant experience in former days. I remember many years ago being upon Loch Katrine with the late Lord John Russell. We had a very intelligent boatman—the boatmen are all intelligent in Scotland. We saw the great works, which supply Glasgow with water, and I said to the boatman, "I did not know that they drank so much water in Glasgow." The boatman replied, "Oh, Sir, don't you know that it makes the best toddy in the world?" That bears out the view of my hon. Friend. The Committee will not expect me to go more fully into the questions raised. It will recognise that the same treatment must be meted out to both countries; and, therefore, I hope that the proposal for a differential duty will not be pressed.

inquired how the right hon. Gentleman justified the imposition of a tax of 6s. 9d. upon the same quantity of spirit in England compared with 38s. 6d. on the same quantity in Scotland?

[No reply was given.]

said, that he represented a county in which probably the largest amount of whisky was made of any county in the world, and he desired to call attention to the remarkable fact that, although the Finance Bill had been before the House for a very considerable time, he had not received from a single constituent a remonstrance against the increased duties. He had not received a single communication from any brewer or distiller in Argyllshire. This showed that the people in that part of the world acquiesced in the necessity for the imposi- tion of the extra duties. In times long gone by it was considered unjust to ask people to make bricks with straw, but nowadays Chancellors of the Exchequer were asked to make ironclads without money. The House had rightly pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity for more ironclads, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman must be supplied with the money. but everybody was in favour of the expenditure being defrayed by somebody else. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had occupied most of the time, whilst the Bill had been in Committee, in trying to exempt the landed classes from its operation. Amendments of every description had been moved—some more foolish than others, which was all he could say about them. He had learnt this lesson from listening to all these speeches: that he would never again place any limit to human folly and selfishness. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had noticed, had never denounced the principle of the Bill, because he hoped to be Chancellor of the Exchequer again; and whenever he rose on the Opposition side of the Table the ghost of Banquo rose at the other side and shook his gory head at him. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say against the Bill, but he (Sir D. Macfarlane) would not go into that matter. All he wished to point out was that from the greatest distilling, county in the United Kingdom he had received no remonstrances against the measure.

^* said, he had listened with great attention to the hon. Member (Dr. Macgregor), and was surprised that he had expressed expectation that he would be followed into the Lobby by the Temperance Party belonging to Scotland. He had had some means of ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland as to this Bill, and he could hear out the testimony given by the hon. Member for Argyllshire on the subject. He had heard no one find fault with the additional duty upon spirits; rather the reverse. Even the trade themselves would have preferred the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting on ls. instead of 6d., because in that case they would have had some reason to raise the price of the gill. It had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that ld. upon the 2s. or 3s. paid for a bottle of spirits was not a large sum to contribute towards the expenditure necessary to meet the demand for an increased Navy. But he would point out that in Scotland little whisky was bought in bottles. It was mostly sold in gills, and the new tax was not ¼d. upon a gill. He hoped the hon. Member for Inverness would not expect me to follow him into the Lobby or the opposite Lobby to partake of a gill in order to set up his constitution. He had expected his hon. Friend, like most medical men who were to the front, would have shown the mischief that was done by drinking, even moderately, alcoholic liquor. It was well-known that now most medical men had given up the use of alcoholic drink as medicine, and mostly discountenanced the use of it. He hoped that the decision of the Committee would be such as to encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand firm with regard to his Budget.

^* said, that after the remarks of the hon. Member for Argyllshire it was his duty to say that lie represented upwards of 22 distillers at Campbeltown, who had asked him to use his influence to further their views in this matter, and to vote against this imposition. They had desired an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman, owing to his multitudinous duties probably, bad not been able to receive a deputation. He himself intended to vote against the Amendment, and he had endeavoured to reconcile his constituents to the change proposed by reminding them that when the Conservative Government were in Office they imposed the same duty, 6d. per gallon, with the distinct pledge that the impost was to be dedicated or ear-marked as a special fund for compensating and endowing the liquor trade. The Conservative Government, however, never saw their way to ratifying the promise then made to the trade. He had indicated, further, to his distiller friends that whatever conditions the Liberal Government made in this matter they certainly would not follow the example of the Conservative Government and break their pledges.

^* said, he had an interest like his hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire in this matter, and must speak on behalf of Ross-shire, where the finest whisky was produced. He had had applications from distillers asking him to vote against the Government, but that he would not do. He was sorry for the Member for Inverness-shire, with whom he sympathised very much, but thought he had gone too far. If he confined his Amendment to the Highlands, where good whisky was made, he could understand him, but why should the Lowlands be exempted, where they only made vile raw whisky. He had heard lately of whisky being made not only from potatoes, but from sawdust, though he would not say that was done in the Lowlands. It could not be denied that people would be much better without such vile stuff mis-called whisky. He hoped his hon. Friend would not be so insane as to go into the Lobby with the brewers. He should not vote to bring back to power the enemies of the Highland people. They had had six years of Tory rule, and he should not be a party to giving them six years more of it.

^* explained that what he had condemned was the abuse of whisky and not its use as a wholesome article of diet. If this industry were crushed, something far worse than whisky might be substituted—some cheap, injurious drink which might have far worse consequences (several of which he could name) morally and bodily, physically and mentally.

assured the hon. Member below the Gangway that he need be under no apprehension whatever as to putting the Government in a minority, as the Opposition had no intention of supporting an Amendment which separated the two countries in this matter. If any Scotch-man wanted to demonstrate his feeling against the Government in regard to the increased duty he could do so with the most absolute safety.

Question put, and agreed to.

^* moved an Amendment to exempt from the duty spirits taken out of bond for bonâ fide medical purposes. He said that chemists objected very much to this extra duty of 6d. per gallon. It was too small to be recovered from the purchasing public on each article sold, and practically they would themselves be the losers in a business which certainly ought not to be discouraged. A short time ago a question on the subject was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who referred, in reply to a speech made a year or two ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in which he dealt with the matter. He could not accept the objection that it would be difficult to make a distinction, and that it would be practically impossible to carry it out; because other proposals, said at one time to be impossible, as, for instance, making allowances upon property under Schedule A, had been carried out.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 14, after the word "spirits," to insert the words "except spirits taken out of bond for bonâ fide medical purposes."—( Mr. A. C. Morton .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

objected to any proposal to exempt chemists and druggists from payment of the duty on spirits. To do so would be to permit an extensive trade possibly to be carried on in the sale of spirits by the mere admixture of a few drops of some preparation which would come within the words "for medical purposes." He could not accept the Amendment.

suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment, in order to allow a Division to be taken upon the next on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for York, upon which the subject could be better discussed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

, moved to insert at the end of the clause the following:—

"Provided that, on all spirits used in the preparation or making up of medicines or drugs for medical purposes, a drawback of sixpence per gallon shall be allowed."

He said that, while some of them had not received complaints from distillers or others, there were very few Members of that House who had not received complaints from the chemists in their constituencies as to the hardship of this. clause in regard to medicine. The quantities in which drugs were sold were so small that it would be impossible for chemists to charge the amount upon the articles sold to customers. This proposal would operate as a direct tax, therefore, upon medical dispensers. Medical preparations of this description were often used as antidotes for the abuse of spirits, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having already got his extra in the other direction, ought not to refuse this exemption from an increased duty, which in this case meant direct increased taxation.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 18, at end, insert—

"Provided that, on all spirits used in the preparation or making up of medicines or drugs for medical purposes, a drawback of sixpence per gallon shall be allowed."—( Mr. Grant Lawson .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, it was impossible for him to agree to the proposal, as it would possibly be made use of in such a way as to cut down the receipts of the Revenue far too much. How would it be possible for the Revenue officials to ascertain whether the spirits upon which the drawback was allowed were really employed in the preparation of drugs to be used solely for medical purposes? Opinions differed also as to the meaning of the words "medical purposes." The hon. Member for Ayrshire said that whisky was used for medical purposes. Was whisky to be considered, therefore, a medical drug? Hon. Members opposite could, of course, go on pressing any number of Amendments of this kind upon the Government, but they seemed entirely to have forgotten that if such Amendments were carried they would impose upon the Revenue authorities new duties which they would be quite unable to perform.

said, that apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the Amendment because the drawback asked for would cause such an enormous loss to the Revenue. If that were the real ground for his objecting to the Amendment, it seemed to him to show how enormously unjust the burden must be that was intended to be placed upon one class of traders. It was proposed that the drawback should be allowed on each gallon of spirits used in the preparation of medical drugs, and not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seem to imply, upon each gallon of drugs in the manufacture of which spirits had been employed.

said, the Revenue would be defrauded.

said, that would not be the case, for, after all, but a small quantity of spirits would be so used. He considered the question of such importance that he hoped the Committee would divide upon the Amendment.

said, there were certainly some hon. Members of the Committee on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House who did not consider the Amendment involved a question of great importance, and that he must, at all events, acknowledge that he had failed to convince the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. It was idle to take a Division upon a question such as that raised in the Amendment they were considering. If it were agreed to, where would its provisions stop? If a man wished to obtain the drawback on a certain quality of spirits, all he would have to do, he supposed, would be to add a little extract of nutmeg or some such harmless ingredients, and then he could claim that the spirit had been employed in the manufacture of a medical drug. He considered that the wish of the hon. Gentleman to press the matter to a Division was most unjustifiable, and amounted to nothing less than an attempt by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to break down the Revenue.

^* said, that having had experience for 40 years in the wholesale and retail drug trade, he was perfectly certain that those who were most competent to represent the interests of the trade did not desire to see the Amendment passed. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain would certainly have raised a strong protest against the clause had they not considered that the difficulties in the way of claiming an exemption from the tax would be altogether insuperable. If such an exemption were to be claimed it would involve the constant attendance

said that, whil difficulties that would be raised in the way of collecting the Revenue and the opportunity that would be given for fraud if the Amendment before the Committee were accepted, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Amendment had been placed upon the Paper with any desire to break down the Revenue. He himself had received assurances, not so much from, the large traders, but from very many of the smaller manufacturers, that they wished the question with regard to articles used for medical purposes to be very carefully considered, in the hope that some relief would be allowed from the present heavy taxation they were subjected to. He did not think it would be desirable for the Committee to divide upon an Amendment which, if agreed to, would not remove the grievance it was intended to meet.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25.

moved an Amendment providing that additional Excise Duty of 6d. per barrel should only apply to beer "brewed from substitutes for barley-malt and hops." He said, that his object in doing so was to protect, as far as possible, the interests of the agricultural classes against the operation of this clause imposing an additional duty of 6d a barrel on all beer brewed in the United Kingdom, and to throw the proposed burden of taxation upon the shoulders of those better able than they were to bear it. Many persons justly regarded pure beer absolutely as a form of nutrition, and every encouragement to the brewing of beer from English hops and malt should be given by the Government. The question of the supply of pure beer to the people of this country was so important that he intended to press his Amendment to a Division. When the question of legislation in this direction was brought before the House it was too often treated by hon. Members as a matter of merriment; but he did not consider it a subject for levity at all; it was rather one of "specific gravity." This proposal for securing pure beer had received the support of very large numbers of his fellow-countrymen. Whenever there had been the slightest chance of legislation on the subject Peti- tions in support of it had been extensively signed by all classes of the community—by Bishops, Magistrates, farmers, and labourers alike, and he did not believe there was any other subject in the world on which such unanimity of feeling had been shown. He remembered seeing on one occasion in particular Sir E. Birkbeck, who was no longer a Member of this House, hardly able to stagger to the Table under the weight of a Petition with 30,000 signatures in favour of the Bill. Although lie was not speaking at that moment in support of the Pure Beer Bill, it was evident that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper tended in the direction aimed at by the Bill, which had the support of almost every Chamber of Agriculture. The Central Chamber of Agriculture had on several occasions unanimously recommended it to the consideration and sympathy of the House, and, still more recently, a large Organisation, which he was glad to see spreading its roots far and wide—as some hon. Members would find to their cost at the next General Election—he referred to the National Agricultural Union—had included this question in its programme, and had discovered that it was one of the most popular of their proposals. In appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he felt that he was appealing to sympathetic ears. He well remembered with gratitude the prompt manner in which the right hon. Gentleman in 1886, at the request of some of them, took off the cottagers' brewing licence, and the right hon. Gentleman's short tenure of Office on that occasion would be memorable by reason of the fact that that was the only time on which they had reached the Second Reading of the Pure Beer Bill. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give his support to this Amendment as being one which would commend itself to millions of his fellow-countrymen. There were upwards of 32,000,000 barrels of beer brewed every year—nearly a barrel for every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom. Out of this number a very large proportion were brewed with substitutes for barley-malt and hops. The Amendment he previously placed on the Paper—and which proved to be out of Order—was designed to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase his Revenue. It was applied to the same clause and same line, and read thus—

"For every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees, containing ingredients other than barley-malt and hops, the duty of 1s., and so on in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity."

The effect of this Amendment would have been to give the right hon. Gentleman a sum of £400,000 more, and that would have rejoiced his heart as well as that of every well-wisher of the agricultural interest. But as the Amendment did not conform to the Rules of the House, he had to amend it and put it in the form in which it was now submitted to the Committee. He thought he would be able to show that even if this Amendment were accepted the Revenue would not suffer to any material extent. By the kindness of the officials at Somerset House he had been able to check the figures placed at his disposal. So far as he was able to judge, his proposal would have the effect of reducing the amount payable to the Exchequer by a sum of £250,000. How was that to be made up? His suggestion was that it could be made up by a licence to the users of substitutes for barley-malt and hops—on the same lines as the licences formerly given to those who used sugar—the licence to increase in proportion with the number of barrels brewed.

In fact, a graduated duty.

That was so. The hon. Member for Wimbledon was a great authority on this subject, and must be regarded as the spokesman of a powerful section of the brewing interest. On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the hon. Member said—

"If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to insist on running up the taxation on beer to such a point that it could not be made from malt and hops, the brewer, like any other manufacturer, would naturally seek other ingredients."

That was direct evidence of the source from which rich incomes were made. It would be seen from the figures he had to quote that there was some truth in the hon. Member's prophecy. And he would like to say, in passing, that this country appeared to be drifting into somewhat the same condition as obtained in our Australian Colonies, for in Victoria 13,500,000 gallons of beer were brewed from sugar and other materials as against 516,000 gallons from malt and hops. That was prè;cisely what we were coming to in this country. The quantity of beer made from sugar and not from barley-malt and hops was rapidly growing, and he believed that the Inland Revenue was alarmed at the amount of licence which was now superseding the liberty which the right hon. Member for Midlothian meant to give when he assented to the repeal of the Malt Tax. He looked at this matter in the light of actual official Returns, and he proposed to lay before the House half-a-dozen figures in support of the case he had to submit. How were they to distinguish between brewers who used substitutes and those who only used barley and hops? That could, he submitted, easily be done by a slight alteration of the forms issued by Somerset House for use by brewers by amplifying one head "definitions" and providing an extra column in which other materials used should be entered. The Somerset House authorities would then be able to distinguish between those brewers who used substitutes and those who used the genuine article. He was one of those who thought that the repeal of the Malt Tax was one of the greatest mistakes made in the interests of agriculture. He went even further, for he would heartily support the re-imposition of that tax, believing that it would get rid of many of the difficulties which this Amendment sought to deal with. It was impossible to deal with this question without troubling the Committee with figures, and he was compelled to give statistics as to the number of brewers and maltsters before and after the repeal of the Malt Tax. He had taken three separate periods of 20 years. He found that in 1853 the number of brewers was 45,294; in 1873, 29,969; and in 1893, 10,143. In 1853 the maltsters numbered 7,805; in 1873 the number had diminished to 4,977; and in 1880 it had dwindled to 3,835. The figures were obtained from—(1) First Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 1857, Appendices 28 a, b, c, pp. LXI-V.; (2) Twenty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 1885, Appendix page 164; and (3) Return Brewers' Licences March 12, 1894, No. 11, page 8. Several remarks were made in the course of the previous day's Debate as to the use of sugar in brewing. As far as he could gather from the official Returns, the use of sugar in brewing was not absolutely necessary. For example, two of the largest brewers, who brewed between them 3,000,000 barrels a year, used practically none. In the year ended 30th September, 1893, the number of common brewers was 10,143, and the quantity brewed was, roundly, 32,000,000 barrels. An analysis giving the proportions of malt and sugar came out as follows:—

In the Return for the year ending September, 1892, one brewer was shown to have used as little as six bushels of malt per hundredweight of sugar, and there were, doubtless, many more who used similar small quantities, although the Returns did not disclose the fact. And in that connection he wished to compliment the Sister Island on the very satisfactory state of the brewing interest there as far as regarded the comparative use of sugar in brewing. He believed the action of the brewers on the other side of the Irish Channel in this respect had largely conduced to their prosperity, as was especially noticeable in the case of one or two firms. He hoped he would have the support of the Irish Member on this Amendment. It would be of interest to hon. Members to know the total amount of sugar used in brewing The figures were:—

The Amendment did not aim at preventing the moderate use of sugar for priming beer; but he contended that the additional duty proposed by the Government should be imposed upon beer actually brewer from substitutes for barley-malt and hops. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he believed a small per- centage of sugar, not exceeding perhaps 2 per cent., might be safely and wisely used in priming beer, as was the custom of some who actually brewed from nothing but malt and hops. He desired, too, to make it quite clear that he did not seek to tax the use of bisulphite of lime as a preservative. Many Members of that House must have travelled between Stuttgardt and Munich on the hot red velvet cushions in the burning heat of the summer, and they would all be able to recall the delight they experienced at the sight of a tray with those slender glasses full of a delicious, foaming, deep-coloured beverage, the pleasure of drinking which was unalloyed afterwards by the slightest headache or mischief. Even Members who never partook of beer in their own country must have succumbed, under stress of circumstances, to this temptation. He was himself led to ask how this drink, which was so delicious and harmless, was made, and he found that under the laws of Bavaria every person who brewed was compelled to brew exclusively from malt and hops; and not only was the man who brewed from other ingredients liable to be fined and imprisoned, but the vendor also ran the same risk. It was hard to contemplate the idea of the hon. Members for Cheltenham or Bedford spending the summer in one of Her Majesty's suburban retreats because the articles which they dealt out to Her Majesty's subjects had been impregnated or adulterated with other materials than barley-malt and hops. Even he did not propose such strong and stringent legislation, neither did he think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would venture to suggest it; but he did believe that if they adopted the course he had suggested, it would be fraught with benefit to very large numbers of the people of this country. There was the question of Protection—

Order, order! The question of Protection is hardly germane to the subject under consideration.

^* said, he thought that the Chairman misunderstood his meaning. The protection to which he referred was protection for the stomach and health. [ Laughter and cheers .] But he would not further press that point. All he would say was, that was what he had in view when he put his Amendment upon the Paper. The Amendment ought to have the support of Members who were connected with the temperance movement. Real temperance was the moderate use of those drinks which Providence and skill—[ Laughter ]—provided us with, and such temperance was vital to the health and well-being of the community. He therefore looked for support to the hon. Members for Cockermouth and South Tyrone, although he could not answer for the hon. Baronet, whose idea of temperance seemed to differ from that of anybody else. If the effect of his Amendment should be to obtain for the public a purer article, a decided step in the direction of temperance would be made, and therefore he hoped that the Temperance Party in that House would vote with him on that occasion. It was the experience of farmers, especially of those in the Eastern counties, that the conduct of labourers in the harvest-field who drank home-brewed beer contrasted favourably with the conduct of men who were supplied with beer from the public-house. He was thankful to say there were hundreds of thousands of these men who did their work steadily with a view to earning money, whereas those who got their beer from the public-house were noisy, troublesome, and intemperate. Over and over again had he heard farmers say that they would not send their men with drays to such or such a place, and when asked for an explanation they replied, "We do not trust our men away from home, where they can drink home-brewed beer. If they are sent to a place where they can get one sort of stuff at one public-house, and another sort at another public-house, our horses are likely to return home without the men." A farmer had told him recently that when beer was procured from the public-house it affected the legs of his men so seriously that they seemed to want wooden legs, meaning thereby that they were not able to stand up in the hayfield. If the Amendment brought about a better state of things they would surely not regret it. It was impossible on an Amendment like this in Committee to adequately deal even with one part of this large subject, for brewing was a great mystery. Though he had worshipped at a distance for many years, he had never yet been able to penetrate beyond its portals. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exche- quer to raise the money he required from those who made large profits out of the adulteration of the national beverage, and not from those who, while they provided healthful and invigorating drink for the people, were also reviving and benefiting a national industry, the decadence of which they so much deplored.

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been for the moment absent from the House, he should have been prepared to congratulate him sincerely and honestly on having had placed before him an Amendment which he would joyfully accept, and which would be likely to carry out some of the main objects which he had so often assured the House he had at heart. Some Members of the House might be pardoned if they did not absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Budget contained all the cardinal virtues rolled into one. The right hon. Gentleman had, at all events, asserted that it contained certain elements which would command general approval, that it would be a burden on the rich but not on the poor, and that it would not impose any impost upon those who were not in a position to meet it. The right hon. Gentleman had also asserted that his Budget was so framed and arranged that it would not injure any British industry, and that even if it should for a moment tread on the little toe of any British industry, it would not touch the industry of agriculture, of which the right hon. Gentleman professed to be not an enemy, but a champion. Then the right hon. Gentleman asserted that his proposals would not affect the bulk of the working classes in any way. The Opposition had challenged the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, and had asserted that his Budget was not composed of these various virtues, and would not carry out these objects. There was now offered for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman an Amendment which was in exact harmony with his professions. It would most distinctly and positively retain the burden upon the rich, and it would differentiate between two classes of wealthy brewers—those who supplied the public with an article which was not genuine, and those who gave the public an unadulterated and pure article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to view the Amendment most favourably, because it would not remove the burden from the class of brewers as a whole; it would only remove it on to those shoulders which certainly ought to be called upon to bear the heaviest burden, and would relieve the shoulders of those who carried on their trade according to a method of which everyone approved. It had been said that certain of the leading firms of brewers would benefit by the acceptance of the Amendment. If, however, any firm laid itself out to sell a more absolutely pure article than other firms supplied, it ought to be the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect that firm, or, at all events, to see that it did not suffer from the fact that it was doing all it could in the interests of the community at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said also that his Budget would not injure British industries, more especially the agricultural industry. Well, the Amendment sought to remove any injury which might fall upon British industries under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and especially any injury that might fall upon agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had further urged that his proposals would not affect the community at large, and, here again, the Amendment would operate in the direction desired by the right hon. Gentleman. A far larger number of persons than perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was aware were watching the progress of the Amendment with very great interest, and with a strong desire for its adoption. The reason was not far to seek. Of course, he would allow that the Amendment raised the question of what was called pure beer. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney), like his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Quilter), had been for several years endeavouring to introduce a Bill on the subject, but the chances of the ballot had not enabled him to do so. He felt, however, that he had some little right to speak in favour of an Amendment which was in the direction of that Bill. If the Amendment were adopted it would remove a most distinct injury and injustice which at present pressed on those who sought for its removal. The consumer and the nation at large had a right to have a genuine article supplied to them. That principle bad been acknowledged in the Merchandise Marks Act, in the legislation enacted for preventing the passing off of margarine as butter, and in the efforts that were being made to prevent people selling foreign as English meat—efforts which had been largely assisted by that most sensible Report which had been issued by the other House, which seemed to him to be generally the place where sensible legislation was initiated, and which certainly in this case had done more to help agriculture than anything that had emanated from the House of Commons as at present constituted. He supposed that 99 out of every 100 persons in this country who asked for a glass of beer expected that it would be what it pretended to be—a concoction of barley-malt and hops. There were, however, three sorts of beer that could be bought—namely, (1) pure beer; (2) beer which, though harmless, was not brewed purely from barley-malt and hops; and (3) beer that was absolutely noxious and poisonous. The last-named beer was issued only by the lowest class of public-houses, and was not sold by the higher class breweries. If by adopting this Amendment the Committee could drive it out of existence they would certainly be conferring a very immediate and direct benefit upon the masses of the community, who were driven by force of circumstances to obtain liquor more or less from these tainted sources. He would ask what were the experiences of any hon. Member who had been called upon to act as a Magistrate in a rural district? Such an hon. Member knew perfectly well that a great number of cases of drunkenness were due not to what was termed "boozing," but to the drinking of a moderate amount of beer of an impure and noxious character. The very first effect of this Amendment would be to knock on the head and drive out of the market the supply of this noxious and impure liquor. Possibly he might be told that existing legislation was sufficient to produce this result. He was afraid, however, that the Adulteration Acts were not sufficiently strong to cope with this particular evil. It was very difficult to detect the bad elements in beer after fermentation had taken place, and it required a long and weary process to secure a conviction. As to beer which was not pure but still harmless, the Amendment would not, lie believed, in any way interfere with the free sale of such liquor as Pilsener beer and Lager beer, which, although they might not be absolutely pure according to British notions of purity, were harmless and undoubtedly popular, and ought not to be subjected to any unfair impost. He came now to the pure beer, which he and those who thought with him did seek to bring into larger consumption throughout the country. They did not ask for any exceptional favour in regard to pure beer brewed from barley-malt and hops, but that it should be treated very much in the same way as butter was treated under the Margarine Acts and as foreign cutlery was treated under the Merchandise Marks Act. They asked that the consumer should have a right to know that when he asked for a pure article he was not getting an impure one. If this were a class Amendment brought forward with the object of relieving from taxation those who ought to be taxed, and therefore making the necessity of taxation in other directions larger, it would possibly be open to some sort of criticism. This Amendment was, to a large extent, demanded by the farming interest and the producers of barley, as well as by the consumers of beer. He could, from his own knowledge, support the assertion of the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment, to the effect that the greatest interest was felt in the question by both the classes mentioned throughout the rural districts of the country. He was not sure that he knew of any subject of possible legislation on which the attention of farmers was more concentrated at this moment than that which was aimed at in the Amendment and which was generally known under the name of "pure beer." If they came to consider what an important part of farm production barley was, and how around the price of barley ranged the question of profit and loss on many farms in the country, they could not wonder that farmers were vitally interested in an Amendment which they thought would have the result of maintaining the price of that commodity. The Amendment did not seek to impose a prohibitive or protective duty on foreign barley. That might or might not be a wise thing to do, but, at any rate, it was not cognate to the present proposal. The Amendment simply sought to apply the same lines of legislation to beer as were applied to other articles of general consumption; and surely that was not an unfair thing to do. An hon. Member opposite had said that he grudged any assistance to the agricultural community. But he (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) took it that the hon. Member was almost alone in that opinion. Certainly if the Amendment were to have the effect he described it would not be grudged by the majority of Members on the Ministerial side, and be did not think that it would be grudged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the Amendment would not be prejudiced by the consideration that its adoption by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would help those who were struggling to carry on an industry on which so much of the welfare of the country depended. Incidentally, he would point out that all encouragement given to the cultivation of barley had a direct effect on the wages of the people employed on the land. The demand for the Amendment, therefore, came in a large degree from the barley growers, and there seemed to him to be a very fair primâ facie case for its acceptance. For one farmer, however, 50 or 100 working men had expressed to him their desire that the Amendment should be adopted, and for one producer of barley 100 consumers were interested in the subject. The best class of agricultural labourers, the very men they wished to maintain on the land, were injured by impure and noxious beer. Some people might say, "Ah! You agricultural labourers don't know what is good for you." No doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth would like to treat them, as he treated so many other classes in the community, as if they were babies in swaddling clothes to which he had the sole right of acting as nurse or pupil teacher. But the agricultural labourers knew what was good for them a great deal better than the hon. Baronet, and if they preferred pure beer they ought not to be prohibited from getting it by the refusal of this moderate Amendment. He had tried to prove that the first effect of the Amendment would be to deal fairly and properly with the different classes of beer produced; and, secondly, that the demand for the Amendment came from those who had the best right to make it—namely, from the producers and consumers. Hon. Members might think that the change in the law proposed would be an innovation; but he wondered if they had thought at all upon what had been the course of legislation on the subject in past years. He believed he was correct in saying that in 1802 a penalty was imposed for brewing from anything but malt and hops, the reason being that the use of other substances was injurious to health and to the Revenue receipts. In 1811 burnt sugar and water were allowed to be added; in 1816 a wave of common sense came over the country, and this extension was revoked; in 1847 sugar was again allowed; in 1862 substitutes for hops were allowed; and in 1880 any material was allowed which could be called saccharine and which was not injurious to health. The tendency, therefore, had been to give more and more liberty to the brewers as to the use of substitutes. Inch by inch Parliament had been driven from the position it had taken up in 1802. The Amendment did not seek to prevent brewers from using other substances than malt and hops, but only to give preferential treatment to genuine beer. The effect of the Amendment would be felt only by the compounders of noxious rubbish and by the vendors of substitutes. He maintained that the Amendment would not injure the legitimate traders or the Revenue. On the other hand, the agricultural interest generally would benefit considerably. It might be urged that such a provision would throw all the trade into the hands of the large brewers who brewed pure beer and would kill out the smaller brewers who could not afford to be so scrupulous. He was opposed to monopolies in brewing, and he would rather see the brewing trade conducted by a large number of small brewers than a small number of large brewers. But if the former alternative meant adulterated and impure beer he did not see how it could be advocated by social or temperance reformers. If the result of passing the Amendment should be to throw the trade more into the hands of those who issued the purest article, sympathy with the small traders would not prevent some hon. Gentlemen opposite from going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. To all who sympathised with the agricultural interest he appealed with a considerable degree of confidence. He desired to echo the appeal made by the Mover of the Amendment to the Temperance Party, and he thought he might appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, who was perhaps the most difficult representative of that section. He challenged the hon. Baronet to say whether an appeal to statistics would not make it perfectly clear that a great deal more death and disease was the result of bad water rather than the use of good beer. If he wanted to prove his case by a witness, he should ask the hon. Baronet, "if the effect of what a man drinks is to be seen in what he says and does, how is it possible that you can stand up and advocate the use of water, and water only, when a speech such as you delivered at Leeds the other day was the result of the continued use or abuse of water." The only possible excuse on which they could forgive the tone of such a speech was that the hon. Baronet had been indulging too freely in the use of water contaminated at its source. In conclusion, he would repeat that a good case had been made out for the Amendment; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should prove a little deaf to his arguments, he would urge those who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman to draw away from his lead and follow the supporters of the Amendment into the Lobby.

There have been many rather remarkable arguments used in the course of this Debate. The hon. Member for Sudbury informed us that the manufacture of pure beer from particular materials was part of the Providential arrangements of the universe aided by the skill of man. That view of Providential arrangements reminds me of what I remember Lord Beaconsfield said of a well-known and popular work by Sir Archibald Alison, which he described in one of his novels, I think Coningsby , as

"A work by Mr. Worth in 15 volumes, intended to prove that Providence on the whole was on the side of the Tories."

The hon. Member has attempted to prove that Providence on the whole is in favour of beer manufactured exclusively from malt and hops. One thing which has struck me as rather remarkable is that the hon. Member for Sudbury and the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down have not been successful before on this subject. They had for six years a Government of their own and a Pure Beer Bill. They had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who put an additional duty on beer, and they had a Minister of Agriculture to help them. Why did they not carry out this doctrine of pure beer? These proposed arrangements were not made when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer put his extra duty upon beer, and this Providential doctrine had not an operative effect upon the late Minister of Agriculture. Why did he not give facilities for pure beer? It is a remarkable fact that only now, under the new Budget proposals, do gentlemen opposite become so alive to the nature of the manufacture of beer. It would be interesting to know why the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks I ought to jump at. There is another rather remarkable thing about the matter. Last night we were discussing the brewers. They were presented to us, and they presented themselves, as a sort of angels without wings. They used no materials except malt and hops—not they! But there was one gentleman who blushingly confessed that he used a little sugar, but, like the baby, it was very little, and it was of the very best quality. That was the hon. Member for Wimbledon. Then the Member for Mid-Armagh, the accredited representative of the firm of Guinness, said, "We never use any thing for beer but malt and hops." The hon. Member for Sudbury is not merely a worthy Representative of an agricultural county, but a most influential member of the firm of Allsopp.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not a member of the firm of Allsopp.

Oh, he has not an interest!

I am not sure that is a fair question—I certainly have an interest.

The hon. Member acknowledges an interest in the business of Allsopp. A few months ago I might not have envied him; to-day I do. I will point out that these gentlemen will be exactly served by this Amendment, because they, being the manufacturers of the high-priced beers, who do not use, as we all know, any commodities but malt and hops, will, by the help of this Amendment, be able to squeeze oat all their competitors who do as a fact use sugar and other things. Therefore, I have not the smallest doubt that the most ardent supporter of a Motion of this kind is the Member for Mid-Armagh, whose Aaron's rod of Guinness would swallow up all the other serpents at once. Under such circumstances, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon would not be ready to sacrifice the "very best sugar" to a moderate amount. All the competitors of these great breweries will disappear. Who are the people who brew this wretched beer? Of course, the smaller brewers, who sell beer at a more moderate rate. We heard nothing last night of those brewers who brew what the Member for Sudbury described as such beer that after the agricultural labourers had drunk it they appeared as if they had wooden legs, and could not stand up in the hayfield. That is the description of the British brewers—not such brewers as the Member for Bristol referred to, for he told us his was not a paying concern.

I am not the Member for Bristol. [ Cries of "West Derby!" and "Liverpool!"]

I beg pardon; he is the agricultural Member for some great town. Well, there are these sinful brewers all over the country who are brewing beer which prevents people from standing on their legs in the hayfield. What is it they use? They use sugar. They are not to use sugar any more, not even "sugar of the very best quality;" and they are not to use grain of any kind except barley. I observe that the hon. Member is moderate with his demand, for he does not say that it shall be British barley. Russian barley is one of the cheapest grains that can be bought, and therefore brewers may use as much Russian barley as they like; and we are assured on the authority of the hon. Member for Wimbledon that at the Institution of Brewers, where those who were learned in the science of brewing met to discuss all the subjects connected with the industry, it was decided that 10 per cent. of raw grain might be used in brewing without spoiling the article. Therefore, the brewer can use Russian barley to any extent he likes, or raw grain to the extent of 10 per cent., without spoiling the commodity. The hon. Member for Wimbledon also says you may use to any extent, without spoiling the commodity in any way, maize, sago, and rice. Are these the commodities I that prevent people from standing on their legs in the hayfield? I should like to know whether, if you substitute in the manufacture maize, sago, and rice for British barley or Russian barley at half the price, then no longer can the British, labourer stand on his legs in the hayfield. Are we to have a clause put into this Bill, for the first time in English legislation, providing that the manufacture of a commodity shall be confined to using special articles for it? The hon. Member opposite used an illustration with reference to margarine as compared with butter, but allow me to point out that that is a perfectly different case. We do not insist that butter and margarine shall always be made from cow's milk; all we demand is that when the article is made of other materials it shall be so declared. Here I must stand up in defence of the British brewer as against the British agriculturist. The brewer last night was all in favour of the agriculturists. He did not care for himself; he only cared for the growers of barley. But here the growers of barley are going to destroy all except the very greatest brewers. There never was such a case of returning evil for good! It is perfectly well known, and I am satisfied that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wimbledon would not deny it, that the great majority of the brewers—I do not say the greatest brewers; I do not say Allsopp, or Bass, or Guinness—use other materials. He knows perfectly well that in their manufacture the great majority of brewers in this country do use other materials. That is the basis of the Pure Beer Bill. Then you are now proposing to legislate against the great majority of the brewers, whom you are prohibiting from using materials which they are using now. The hon. Member for Essex said he had tasted beer made from other materials, and could not make out the difference between it and beer brewed from malt and hops. At all events, whether the labourer can stand up in the hayfield or not, the hon. Member was able very well to stand up here last night. It is asserted by the hon. Member for Wimbledon that this beer is just as good as that made from anything else. By the pundits of the Institute of Brewing, those learned in the science of brewing, who met to discuss all the subjects connected with that industry, it was decided that 10 per cent. of raw grain could be used in brewing without spoiling the article. Is the right hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen) going to say by this Amendment that brewers who use sugar now shall not use sugar hereafter, except under a differential penalty? Are you going to say that those whom the Brewers' Institute say may use maize, sago, and rice to the extent of 10 per cent. without injuring the article shall use them no longer? Everyone knows that the result—I do not say it is intended—would be that the great business of those in whom the Member for Sudbury, the Member for Mid-Armagh, and the Member for Wimbledon are interested would be placed at such an advantage as compared with the great majority of the brewers of this country that they would have a practical monopoly, and would annihilate all the other brewers in the Kingdom. As many Members know better than I do, this legislation would be of a most penal character against the great majority of brewers in this country. I am bound in the interest of the Revenue to resist a proposal which would be absolutely destructive, in my opinion, of the Revenue which is now derived from this source; and I should be extremely surprised if anybody with any regard for the maintenance of the existing Revenue could support a proposal which will be absolutely fatal to the Revenue in the future. It is said that this is all the result of the repeal of the Malt Tax, and gentlemen opposite say that they regret very much the repeal of the Malt Tax, and that they were entirely mistaken in their action. I am very sorry if they were injured by it, and if they were mistaken; but I do hope that they will bear it in mind in the future, when they are advancing what they consider to be remedies for agricultural distress, that after years in which it was made one of the great grievances of the agricultural interest that the Malt Tax existed—and when, if anybody in our unfortunate position ventured to express doubts on the subject, we were told that we were ignorant Cockneys, who knew nothing about agricultural affairs and were not qualified to judge of agricultural interests—they, who for years demanded this reform, come down now and say, "Ah! that is the thing which has injured and destroyed our industries.' I hope that reflection may inspire them in the future with less confidence in the remedies they propose and with a little more charitable feeling towards those who may have doubts on the subject. We have said to the brewing trade of England, "You are free to manufacture the article of beer as you please. If you manufacture badly "—as the hon. Member for Wimbledon truly said the other night—" you will suffer for it, and your customers will suffer for it." The people who frequent public-houses will no longer go where bad beer is sold. Everybody knows that people are very intelligent on these subjects, and know perfectly well where they get good beer and where they get bad beer; and that constitutes the defence of the public in the matter. I said the other day, and I adhere to it now, that the brewers are the great customers of the Exchequer. I respect them as such; but we are obliged once a year to shear our sheep, yet we desire to preserve that useful animal, and when we take the fleece we desire that the sheep shall be nourished and well fed. But when it is required of us, as guardians of the Public Revenue, that we should make this fatal attack on the brewing trade, and in that manner destroy one principal source of Revenue, I say that is not a reasonable proposal, and it is not a proposal that any responsible Government could accept. The late Government would not accept it. It was pressed upon them over and over again, and they refused to accept it. It is not a new question. It has been pressed upon Government after Government. It was pressed for six years on the late Government and they rejected it, and we are bound, in the public interest and in the interest of the trade itself, to decline to accept the Amendment.

^* said, the right hon. Gentleman had appeared in a new character, that of the brewers' friend, and more especially of the inferior class of brewer who, he (Mr. Brookfield) contended, was more responsible than any other for the great amount of drunkenness which existed in the country. He thought the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division was to be congratulated upon having at length found an opportunity—however unfavourable the circumstances—of bringing this subject before the House. The hon. Member had been trying to do so for many years. Apart from the financial effect of the proposals brought forward, there were two principles underlying this Amendment with which he should have liked to have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal in his reply. One was the principle of encouraging brewers in providing a wholesome beverage, and the other of encouraging farmers and others in providing the legitimate material for the national beverage, and so giving a great stimulus to agricultural labour in their respective districts. He would not deal with the temperance question on this occasion. He thought they clearly understood the great points of difference between them. He should, however, like to hear some extreme advocate of what were called temperance principles explain whether he carried his abhorrence and dislike to brewers and publicans so far as to insist upon their providing the worst and most unwholesome materials if they chose to do so. He believed himself that the greatest amount of drunkenness did not proceed from drinking beer at all. The greatest amount of drunkenness proceeded from spirits, and it would be to the real interest of temperance if a great deal more beer were drunk instead of a great deal less, provided it were of a wholesome character. But he had risen to say a few words in the interest of a body of men whom the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared to have forgotten. He meant the hop growers and the enormous number of men, women, and children who were dependent upon the hop growers for their livelihood and for a flourishing occupation. It was not quite fair to say that the late Government turned an entirely deaf ear to this question, and he never could forget his obligations to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in assenting to a Select Committee which inquired exhaustively into one branch of the subject. The Select Committee went into the question of pure beer, and reported that it was desirable that brewers should be made to declare the presence of what were called "hop substitutes" when they were used. It was proved that in years when hops were exceptionally dear there was a remarkable rise in the price of certain chemicals used as substitutes for hops. In the famine year of 1882, when hops became very expensive, quassia, which was the best known chemical substitute for hops, rose in price from £5 to £40 per ton. He remembered a gentleman connected with the firm of Bass saying he did not care what the price of hops was, because it was always necessary for a firm of that kind to use them, even if they were £30 instead of 30s. per cwt. He did not think it was fair for the right hon. Gentleman and others to attack these great firms on the ground of any advantage they would derive from the passing of this Amendment when, after all, it would only be rewarding them for supplying the public with a good article. As to any monopoly which large firms might enjoy, it was perfectly well known that in some foreign countries where the greatest and most elaborate experiments in the way of temperance legislation had been tried, they had taken the form of offering a monopoly to the best brewers and the brewers of the purest article. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment did not say very much on the effect which the diminished use of barley had had upon the counties they respectively represented, and he should like to have heard from some practical Member representing a division of Essex of the disastrous effects which the diminished use of English, and perhaps the increased use of foreign, barley had had upon the barley growers of those districts. Certainly, in the County of Suffolk there were many miles of waste land to be seen together. They could, he believed, drive through 20 miles of waste land which formerly looked like those waving yellow fields which the Irish Chief Secretary once stated would be the result of the advent of a Liberal Administration. The case of the agriculturists whom he, in a certain measure, represented, differed entirely from that. Instead of their land being turned into a desert for those mysterious reasons which had made Essex assume the appearance it had, they had in the hop districts these green oases, in what would otherwise be a desert, entirely as a result of the cultivation of this exceptionally remunerative crop. It was not fair in considering this subject to entirely dismiss as unworthy of serious argument the immense encouragement which was given to the hop growers as well as the barley growers by the free use of hops and barley instead of the deleterious and noxious chemicals which took their place. It had been calculated that the use of hop substitutes was responsible for 10 per cent. of the diminution that had taken place in the hop acreage. Though he did not go so far as to endorse that, he still believed it was responsible for diminished employment, and it would be more so after the open advocacy of adulteration they had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Member for the Sudbury Division calculated that if this Amendment were carried it would mean a loss to the Revenue of £250,000, and he proposed to make good this deficiency by imposing a licence which should be taken out by those who used substitutes for barley or hops. He was not sure that the hon. Member was quite right in his calculation, or that the tradesmen would altogether like advertising the fact that they had taken out licences to poison their customers. On the other hand, he was far from agreeing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that where a house was known to sell bad compounds the consumers had the remedy in their own hands by leaving that house. For some extraordinary reason many of the rural population, he believed, actually preferred bad beer to good beer; and considerations of distance and the existence of tied houses often gave them no choice but to go to places where an adulterated article was supplied. As to this deficiency of Revenue, he must say two or three words on a subject that had been already referred to—namely, the Malt Duty, and a subject that had not been mentioned, the Hop Duty. He only wished to refer hon. Members who were curious on the subject to a Report recently presented to the Royal Commission on Agriculture by the Assistant Commissioner who was sent into the hop district round Maidstone. This gentleman said that the general opinion there was that, next to Free Trade, the repeal of the Malt Duty was the greatest misfortune that had befallen the farmer. With regard to the Hop Duty, that repeal was effected entirely under misconception as to the two duties at the time. It might fairly be said that there was a strong agitation among the growers for the repeal of one of them—namely, the Excise Duty; there never was any agitation, quite the reverse, for the repeal of the Customs Duty on foreign hops, which the growers always wished to retain. Instead, therefore, of imposing this Licensing Duty to make up the deficit of £250,000, he should personally be in favour of re-imposing a duty for Revenue purposes upon foreign hops and foreign barley. Last year there was an importation of 185,112 cwt. of hops; and if a duty of 30s. had been imposed upon that it would have realised a revenue of £277,663, which was more than was required, or, with a 15s. duty, a revenue of £138,831, and the rest might very well have been made up by a revenue duty on barley. He should vote for this Amendment, and he earnestly hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the Sudbury Division would persevere in taking the sense of the Committee upon it.

said, the previous night the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth said the hon. Member for South Tyrone would be driven through the Lobby in a brewer's van, but it appeared to him the Member for Cockermouth had a chance of being driven in a very rickety brewer's van by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on the lines of adulterated beer. What was this Amendment? The question was, whether they should have a tax on barley or on the adulterated substitutes used in making beer? No one could doubt that the Beer Tax was nothing less than a tax upon barley. The Member for Wimbledon said the brewer did not intend to pay the tax on beer, and the Member for Bedford practically corroborated him, although he made a speech one way and voted the other.

I did not corroborate him. I said that I intended to pay the tax myself.

said, the hon. Member qualified it by a private intimation he had got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that be should only pay it for one year, and he thought that was practically what the Member for Wimbledon said—namely, that it was only a temporary tax; that they would not disturb their relations with the trade, but that if it went on beyond that time they would not pay the tax. He had taken a great deal of trouble to inquire what would be the effect of the tax, and all persons agreed that its effect would be an imposition of 2s. per quarter on barley, and now his hon. Friend proposed that, instead of having this tax on barley, it should only be charged where barley was put on one side in order to use other substances. He considered that the Amendment was in the interest not only of the trade, but of temperance. The great temperance advocates said they did not like the people to be stupefied by drink: What did that mean but bad beer? All Magistrates would agree with him in saying that there were far more cases brought before the Police Courts of men being made ill and stupid by bad and adulterated beer than of men who became intoxicated through drinking good beer. Wholesome beer was self-satisfying and did good, but adulterated beer was not self-satisfying, and encouraged men to drink more. The trade ought to vote for the Amendment, because it would enable them to continue their business with good material and without any chance of unfair competition from those who used substances other than barley. With regard to the Malt Tax, lie always opposed its repeal, both in the Chambers of Agriculture and in this House. He believed that the demand for its repeal was an infatuation which seized the country party, and which they had eventually had to pay for, and he was very glad to bear from them that they had come round to those opinions for the advocacy of which he was so much abused many years ago in the Chambers of Commerce, and that those who opposed him were now agreed that they had made a false step in regard to the Malt Tax. He believed the best thing would be for the Malt Tax to be re-imposed and the Beer Duty done away with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very hard upon the Member for the Sudbury Division for not having raised this question before. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that for the last 10 years there had been a Bill for pure beer before Parliament, but those who promoted it had received no facilities from any Government for bringing it forward, and consequently had been unable to pass it. He entirely agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Essex the previous night, that, whatever anyone might say, either inside or outside the House, this Beer Tax was, in reality, a tax upon barley. He wanted to know why they should not have pure beer in this country? They had pure beer in a country from which more beer was exported than from any other—namely, Bavaria, and he believed there was less drunkenness and Less spirits consumed in Bavaria than in almost any country in the world. Hops, barley, and yeast, with water, were all that were allowed to be used in brewing beer in that country, and the use of any other substances was punished as falsification by fine and imprisonment. The effect of this Amendment would be practically a fine on falsification or the adulteration of beer, and would only be acting on the good precedent which had been set for so many years in Bavaria. He regarded this 'Amendment as being in the interests of temperance, and of the health of the people, and he should certainly support it. It should be understood that those who voted for it were voting in favour of the pure article and those who voted against it in favour of adulteration.

(whose opening observations were very imperfectly heard in the Gallery) said, that as he was going to vote against this Amendment, he desired to explain his reason for doing so. He did not believe himself that if this Amendment were carried it would have the effect of increasing largely the price of English barley. The ground upon which British barley had been at such a high price under the old Malt Tax, and was in such great demand was that they got better extracts from British than from foreign barley. But they did not now propose to go back to the old system of the Malt Duty. If they could put it back, by a wave of the magician's wand, into the system which formerly existed, no one would be so glad as he, but a great many other things had happened. They would have to put up the old rate of duty, and he wondered what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to that? They would have to put back another thing—and that was the public-houses—to the prices they were at then. If they could not do these things, then it was no good. What would be the immediate effect of this Amendment if carried? The immediate effect of this Motion, if carried, would be to encourage very largely the consumption of foreign barley in substitution for some of the materials that were now used. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down talked about adulteration. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by adulteration? Was it the use of anything that was not British barley?

said, he had quoted the statement that in Bavaria nothing but malt and hops were used; and he should be glad to sec that the case in England also.

asked his right hon. Friend to define the term "malt."

said, he had never heard of any good malt but that made from barley.

said, that a Definition Clause would have to be introduced into the Bill, if the Amendment were carried, and that Definition Clause would be very difficult to draw. When the great change was made against the wish of every brewer in the Kingdom, and the duty was shifted from malt to barley, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day openly proclaimed to the brewers that they might use whatever materials they liked, always providing that they were not deleterious. Was it imagined that by this simple Amendment that liberty was to be taken away? The effect of the change would be that it would tell in favour of the larger and wealthier firms, but disastrously against the smaller brewers. It had been charged against the larger firms that it was their greed which was swallowing up the smaller brewers, but this Amendment would provide a way of escape for the large firms, and levy the tax upon the small brewers. He was not at all sure that rice, maize, and sago were deleterious substances to use, in the sense of being injurious to health, although they were not the best articles for brewing with; but, having given liberty and encouraged a large number of brewers to provide cheap beer, made from cheaper materials, on what ground could Parliament turn round and say they should no longer use them, and thus practically ruin them? He supported the Government last night, and he was not going now to lay himself open to the charge of exposing to an adverse change the smaller houses that were less able than others to protect themselves against its consequences.

said, the hon. Member for Bedford had told the Committee that he de- clined to support the Amendment because it would cast a burden, which he, in his generosity, was willing to bear himself on smaller and less fortunate brewers. But the proposal before the Committee was to present to the small brewers the alternative whether they would continue the practice of brewing from materials such as rice, sago, and maize, and pay the tax, or brew from English barley and avoid the tax. Consequently, it was inaccurate and unfair to present this Amendment as a proposal to shift the burden from the richer to the smaller brewers.

I said I would not be a party to putting a tax on the smaller brewers, and finding a way of escape for myself.

said, the hon. Member was one of the most sagacious Members in the House, and surely he must see that the same alternative would be presented to the smaller brewer as to the larger brewer. The hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was not only a great brewer, but a virtuous brewer, and also so prosperous that, unlike other brewers, he intended to pay this duty himself, and not cast it upon the beer he brewed, and also that he would not support any proposal which would enable him to avoid the burden at the expense of his poorer brethren. But the hon. Member seemed to forget that his poorer brethren would have to bear the burden, whatever might be the extent of his individual patriotism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to let the hon. Gentleman have the opportunity of displaying his generosity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that all brewers—great and small, prosperous and poor, virtuous and vicious—should alike bear this additional burden. Therefore, the excellent intention of the hon. Gentleman could not be carried out, because his poorer and less fortunate brethren would have to pay the tax, whereas the Amendment would give them the opportunity of imitating the great and virtuous brewers or of being taxed for using less satisfactory ingredients. He desired to note the remarkable change which had taken place in the attitude of the hon. Gentleman opposite in consequence of the moving this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never lost a chance of jeering at landlords or brewers. [" No, no! "] Hon. Members would not upset his contention by saying "No, no"; they could not have been present during the Debates—the Chancellor of the Exchequer never lost an opportunity of jeering—whether it was the landlords or the brewers that were under discussion—and of attributing to them motives that were not altogether of an agreeable character, and of suggesting that they were acting altogether in self-interest. But now the right hon. Gentleman resisted this Amendment, and asked his temperance supporters to oppose it, because he said it would strike a fatal blow at small brewers and interfere with the Revenue by seriously injuring a class to whom the right hon. Gentleman looked to provide a large portion of the taxes of the State. That was a curious change of position taken up by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He doubted, however, that they would be able to upset the argument which had been advanced in support of the Amendment. It might be admitted that the Amendment presented a question which would be better dealt with in a Bill. For his part, he would rather see the issue raised in the form of a Bill, but then they could not always have things as they liked in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to attack the Conservative Party because while in Office they did not find time to pass this proposal into law. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that during the greater part of the time they were in Office they were in the position which the right hon. Gentleman himself now occupied, for the right hon. Gentleman had many projects he would be glad to see passed into law, but his desires were governed by the time at his disposal, and the mere fact that this proposal did not find its way to the Statute Book whilst the Conservative Party was in Office was no indication that there was not considerable sympathy in the Party with the proposal that some steps should be taken by Parliament to ensure that beer should be brewed from the most pure and healthful English ingredients. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also referred to him as the agricultural Member for a great town. Well, if he, being identified with the agricultural interest in the West, represented a Northern constituency, it was an honour he shared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he could only hope that they were both equally happy in their new homes. He supported the Amendment, because it tended to secure that beer would be brewed from natural and wholesome ingredients; and because he believed it would not have a bad effect on the Revenue.

^* said, he felt himself in rather a peculiar position, because he was, possibly for the first time, in accordance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford as to the effect the Amendment, if carried, would have on small firms. He further believed that the proposal would render the Beer Act of 1880 unworkable, and he could not support an Amendment, however small, which would upset the compact arrived at in 1880. If a great change was to be brought about in the collection and assessment of the Beer Duty it must be after an exhaustive inquiry. He should vote against the Amendment.

I hope the Committee will bear in mind the important testimony borne by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. My statement that if this Amendment were carried it would lead to the destruction of the Revenue has been confirmed by those hon. Members. The Amendment is absolutely inconsistent with the settlement made in 1880 when the Malt Tax was repealed and when the whole trade was permitted to use whatever material they liked. Why were not Amendments like this moved in the time of the late Government? Where were the agricultural interests then? Where were the Members who wanted pure beer for the people and protection for British barley? Why were not these Amendments moved during the time of the late Government? I will tell the Committee. Because it is a very convenient Amendment to move against a Liberal Government and a very inconvenient Amendment for a Tory Government. I said again in the presence of the Committee, and I am confirmed by the Members for Bedford and Wimbledon, that this Amendment is destructive of the Revenue which is produced from beer. The hon. Member for Liverpool referred to the small brewers and the large brewers, but everyone knows that the great brewer has resources in machinery—resources of science—by which he can extract, and properly extract, from barley a greater amount of that which goes to make beer than the smaller man can extract. But there is another matter. This Amendment is moved upon the Excise Clause alone. We have passed the Customs Clause, and therefore we may import any amount of cheap beer made from any kind of material which a brewer on the Continent may care to turn out. What effect would that have upon British barley and the British brewer? Any amount of sugar or sago and maize may be used in that beer. I cannot think the Committee will vote for this Amendment, which is absolutely unworkable, and under which it would be absolutely impossible to collect the Revenue.

said, many appeals had been made to the Temperance Party to support this Amendment, on the ground that it made in favour of temperance, but they did not admit that at all. He was sure the Temperance Party would give their votes without hesitation: Their antagonism was against alcohol, and they did not care whether it came from sugar, grain, or any other material. There had been many foolish arguments advanced in support of this ridiculous Amendment. It had been said, for instance, that in Bavaria the law enacted that beer should be made exclusively from barley. The law did nothing of the kind. It enacted that beer should be made from germinated grain, and germinated rice, maize, or wheat might be used. In fact, there was an attempt in this Amendment to set up in this country the worst form of Protection—that of bounties. It was proposed that bounties should be given to the brewing trade if they used English barley, and in that way Protection would be given to the agricultural interest. The whole discussion might be summed up in the following epigram, the authorship of which he was not permitted to divulge—

"It seems as sure 'as eggs is eggs,'

From all that has been said,

That impure beer affects the legs

While pure affects the head."

said, that at Burton-on-Trent, at any rate, they had always prided themselves on brewing only pure beer; and he could, therefore, assure the hon. Member that the graphic description of the effect of drinking beer which he had just cited could not have applied to any beer that had been brewed in his constituency. Last night the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth had described the brewing industry as the one green spot in the oasis of depressed trade and commerce. That description of the trade might have been given before the late Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the Beer Duties; and now that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had added another 6d., he wished someone would tell the brewers how they were to get their daily bread. He was afraid his tendency was to vote against the proposed increase in the Beer Duty in whatever form it might be raised. He did so last night. He felt bound to say that his votes were given upon the conviction he held, that it was rather hard that the working classes in this country who made beer their favourite beverage, and bad none of the many comforts and luxuries of the rich, should have to pay this additional taxation upon the one article which they drank. He was not sure that the Government did not very much underrate the feeling of the working classes of this country, and he was afraid it would be felt at the next General Election. They all knew that as a general rule taxes were paid by consumers, and it was they who would have to pay the additional tax. They recognised also that the favourite drinks of the upper classes, which they themselves could not afford to pay, were untaxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not just that the rich, who could afford to drink expensive wines, should not have a proportionate increase of taxation placed upon their beverages also. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the tendency now was for the smaller brewers to disappear, and for the trade to get into the hands of large capitalists and companies. That was practically true; but was it desirable in the interests of the public? Did they desire to squeeze out the small capitalists and to have all the brewing trade in the country in the hands of the rich? The effect of that process had been going on for a considerable time, and it was to develop the tied-house system which was at the root of so many of the evils that they all deplored. He would undertake to say that before many years had passed those old free houses, the traditions of which were so interesting in our social life, would have disappeared altogether, and that the mechanical arrangements involved in the tied-house system would be perpetuated throughout this country, and very much to the disadvantage of the working classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a man of many resources, and he did not think it would puzzle him much to obtain £500,000. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman looked forward to be Chancellor of the Exchequer for many years to come; he trusted his hopes might be fulfilled, and he invited the right hon. Gentleman to do that which had apparently been beyond the powers of any Chancellor of the Exchequer of recent years to do —to keep down, control, and moderate the monstrous expenditure to which this country had attained.

^* said, he was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford had taken pains to make it clear that on this question there was no temperance issue involved, and that Members holding the strongest temperance views might reasonably take different views. [ Ironical cheers .] He had repeated just what the hon. Member for East Bradford had said, and if the Committee was looking for a temperance authority, perhaps they would choose his hon. Friend rather than some Members below the Gangway on the opposite side. If there was any temperance principle involved in this question it lay in this: that every shilling of revenue derived from drink made temperance legislation more difficult to obtain. They were now at the close of one of the most remarkable Sittings they had ever had. The Sitting began with a lively Scotch Debate—which was a remarkable thing in itself—and was continued by a controversy between agriculturists and brewers, which was another extraordinary thing; but the most extraordinary thing was a remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his last speech. The right hon. Gontleman was talking about shearing sheep, and he hoped that his friends the brewers would keep themselves in good condition for the shears to he used again. That was said by a gentleman who had a notice on the Order Paper for the Second Reading of a Bill to enable householders to abolish the trade altogether. He did not know that there was such a thing as a Temperance Party in the House; but if there were, surely they could understand an intimation like that, and could see what the value of the temperance pledges of the Government was. With regard to the rival kinds of beer, he did not know whether they were good or bad, adulterated or not. What was the poor unfortunate man who wished a glass of pure beer to do? His hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said that if the proposal were carried it would be impossible for the brewer to live. Let the Committee fancy that calamity being brought on the country! He was accused last night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth of being driven through the Lobby in a brewer's van. What was his hon. Friend going to drive in to-day? He was, he thought, going in a brewer's dray, horsed by the hon. Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Wimbledon, to follow a triumphant course through the Division Lobby under the auspices of those two eminent temperance reformers. It was difficult to get at the merits of this question; but as his hon. Friend was for pure beer, and those two gentleman were for adulterating it, he had come to the conclusion that if there was any virtue in it at all, pure beer must be the best, and he was going to vote for it. These things could only be of a temperance character if they proposed to reduce the consumption of drink, and from 1851 no increase of duty had ever tended to lessen the consumption of drink in this country, as we were consuming the same amount per head of the population as was drunk before the duty was raised. He did not know very well what he was doing, having no experience in the questions of good and bad beer, but he thought he would, on this occasion at any rate, vote for the Amendment on the assumption that it aimed at providing beer that was pure and less harmful than the article manufactured by the hon. Member for Bedford, whom he saw described the other day as "an umpire who never once gave his own side out."

^* said, he much regretted that some hon. Members who had spoken during the Debate seemed to consider that hon. Gentlemen would give their vote for or against the Amendment, according to whether they were supporters or not of the adulterated or of the unadulterated article. That had nothing to do with the point before the Committee. For eight years his name had been on the back of a Bill brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury, and if that Bill were to be brought forward in a substantive form, he would support it in the future as he had supported it in the past. That Bill proposed to recognise the principle that the purchaser should be entitled to know what he was buying. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said he was going to vote, not knowing what he was going to do. What he (Mr. Stevenson) wanted was that the purchaser should know what he was doing, and the proposal contained in this Amendment differed absolutely from the proposal which was in the Bill of the Member for Sudbury, which provided that it should be stated what ingredients were contained in the beer offered for sale. The present proposal was, in effect, to impose a penalty upon those who brewed beer in a particular way, but it did not provide the adequate machinery by which that proposal could be carried into effect, and no provision to prevent the public from being taken in by unscrupulous traders. That being so, while he was heartily in favour of the proposal that the purchaser should know what he was buying, he was not prepared to vote for, the present proposal until it had been more fully considered.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 253 .—(Division List, No. 132.)

moved, in page 17, line 5, after "gravity," to insert—

"but this extra Excise Duty of 6d. per gallon shall not be chargeable upon those brewing 1,000 barrels or less per annum, and that a graduated and reduced duty, to be here- in after fixed by the Inland Revenue Department, shall be chargeable upon all persons brewing less than 5,000 and more than 1,000 barrels per annum."

He said that he had been induced to move this Amendment entirely owing to facts that had come within his own observation. He had seen with great regret the diminishing number of the smaller brewers, and, as this was generally considered a democratic Budget, he thought the Amendment would afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to do something for those smaller traders, whom he did not wish to see annihilated. They had heard in this Debate of those who brewed beer of such a character that those who drank it went into the hayfields with wooden legs. He would be accused, perhaps, of supporting that class of manufacturers, but that was not his view. He believed there were among the smaller brewers many who brewed the most legitimate article entirely from malt and hops, and who were not sufficiently educated to know the merits or demerits of any particular nostrum which might be added to beer to improve its quality. He was prepared to take a much smaller class of brewer than that indicated in his Amendment. He had brought it forward to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of doing that which he had done in regard to the Income Tax, of protecting this smaller class from a duty which they could ill afford to pay. He was quite sure that this extra duty would have the effect of closing many of the smaller houses.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 5, after the word "gravity," to insert the words—

"but this extra Excise Duty of 6d. per gallon shall not be chargeable upon those brewing 1,000 barrels or less per annum, and that a graduated and reduced duty, to be hereinafter fixed by the Inland Revenue Department, shall be chargeable upon all persons brewing less than 5,000 and more than 1,000 barrels per annum."—( Mr. Bigwood .)

Question propose, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member could not be accepted, though he should be very glad to do something for the small brewers if it were possible. It was, however, extremely difficult to make differential charges in matters of this kind. The hon. Member proposed that the Inland Revenue should be empowered to fix a scale of graduation. That was a very tempting offer, and he thought he might make a very good thing out of the plan if it were practicable. He doubted, however, whether it was practicable, and it certainly would give rather too much power to the Inland Revenue. The Amendment was not workable, and he feared, therefore, that he could not assent to the hon. Member's proposal.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

said, he did not wish to divide the Committee, but he still held the opinion, in spite of the very fair reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to him last night, that by imposing this extra duty upon beer the Government were really forcing the brewers to use other than English materials; in fact, they were creating a protective duty in favour of foreign materials as against honest English barley.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

raised an objection from the Irish point of view. He opposed the clause on the ground that the additional tax would injuriously affect Irish interests. An additional sum of £195,000 would under this provision be collected in Ireland this year. Were he to vote for the clause he would be abandoning the position occupied for 20 years by the Irish Party, who had maintained throughout that period that Ireland was over-taxed. They would by assenting to this proposal be admitting not only that Ireland was not over-taxed, but that she had not even been defraying her fair share of taxation in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had fulfilled his promise that the tax should only be imposed for one year, but he had carefully abstained from promising that he would use his influence next year to prevent the re-imposition of the charge. The object of all this additional taxation was to provide means for increasing the Fleet, but this expenditure on war material ought not to be provided out of income, but by a loan or by the suspension of part of the payment for the reduction of the National Debt. Irishmen were not particularly interested either in the Navy or in questions of foreign policy, and therefore he did not see why they should pay this extra duty. None of the dockyards were in Ireland; all the dockyards were to be found in Great Britain, and consequently none of the money spent on shipbuilding went out or the country. Even when the fleets were despatched to the Irish Coast for manœuvres there was no expenditure for the benefit of the people there. The fact was, that this extra duty would be taken out of Ireland and not spent in that country. All the Irish Members ought to protest against this increase. It was urged that they ought to support the Budget because the Liberal Party bad brought in Irish measures; but in submitting to this taxation he contended that they would weaken their position for obtaining reforms and concessions from England.

, apart from the general question of the bearing of the clause, objected to this duty on the ground that it would tax spirits used for medical purposes.

said, he was compelled to rise to Order. The hon. and learned Member was not present when an Amendment on the same subject was moved on a previous clause and when he gave his explanation on that Amendment and it was negatived. An understanding was then come to that the same question should not he raised both on the Customs and on the Excise Duties.

ruled that any discussion on that subject would be out of Order.

thought he might be allowed to state his reasons for objecting to the clause. It was generally known that spirits were used very largely for medical purposes.

Order, order!

I have already called the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that such a discussion as he proposes to raise would be out of Order. The Amendment on that point is no longer before the House.

^* moved to report Progress, as he was aware several hon. Members wished to speak.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. Bonsor .)

said, that under the circumstances he could not assent to that. An understanding had been come to that the clause was to be taken.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 238.—(Division List, No. 133.)

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business:—

Whereupon The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose in his, place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes.183—(Division List, No. 134.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 27 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 237; Noes.182—(Division List, No. 135.)

It being after Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.(No. 5.)

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 244.)

As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

It being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

House adjourned at eight minutes after Six o'clock.