638 EEPOKT— 1882. 



within the six months — renders it, in fact, a tcix of 8f^. instead of 5d. for the half- 

 year — an increase of 60 per cent. 



Were this principle applied to the 18,500,000/. raised on spirits, it would 

 produce 5,500,000/. for the half-year. It must be admitted that this is an article of 

 luxury — one that can be done without — and therefore that its payment is entirely- 

 voluntary. It must also be borne in mind that at least one-half of the taxes 

 accruing from drink are expended by the State in preventinp-, punishintr, and 

 repairing evils the result of that drink being consumed ; so that on every con- 

 sideration the only limit to such taxation should be that which, being over-passed, 

 would encourage illicit manufacture or importation. 



Wine, which produces 1,300,000/., at present stands in a somewhat different 

 lio-ht, and when unfortified, is the most natural and least injurious of all intoxicating 

 liquors. Yet these duties are to be readjusted for political and economic reasons, 

 and in so doing might be fairly made to yield 500,000/. more, for at present the 

 alcohol in wine pays at the rate of aliout 6s. on the proof gallon, while spirit 

 pays 10s. It is quite right that alcohol .should be more highly taxed when produced 

 in a concentrated than in a diluted form. 



Beer partakes of the attribute of wine in its too low rating on the alcohol it 

 contains — only Is. 9(/. per gallon — and to bring it up to a right proportion should 

 be at least doubled. Yet as the poor man's drink, and from long usage, it might 

 not be possible to do this at once, although it shoidd certainly be increased by 

 fifty per cent., or, for simplicity of calculation, from Gs. 3d. to 10s. per barrel, thus 

 raising some 4,500,000/. more. 



For various reasons these new or 'consumption duties ' should be charged on the 

 retailers, who are all licensed, and therefore under the surveillance of the autliorities. 

 It might be paid by them concurrently with or following upon the sale of the 

 articles, and their thus having realised their value. This is a somewhat novel 

 mode, but analogous to that of the income tax, which is not received until after 

 the income has been accrued and lias even been spent. The nature of the business 

 requires a supervision which in other trades would be deemed inquisitorial, and 

 which for its right conduct might well be combined with the collection of the 

 duties ; indeed tliere are many reasons why this double rating would be desirable in 

 the interests of the Revenue. 



From these several sources the whole income to the State from alcohol, which, 

 including licences, now exceeds 30,000,000/., would amotmt to some 14,000,000/. 

 more. This gives an average contribution by each individual of 8s. per annum, or 

 say 21. for each family — scarcely more than the price of a glass of beer per day for 

 its head — by omitting which he might save the increased tax. Or, to take another 

 illustration, seeing that on 120,000,000/. a year, which is estimated to be spent on 

 intoxicants, the 14,000,000/. would be but one-ninth more, the moderate drinker by 

 dispensing with this portion woidd only be making a fair sacrifice to tlie needs 

 of his country, whilst the excessive consumer would be greatly benefited by tliis 

 partial restriction in the extent of his potations. 



Whether, therefore, such a scheme should prove a financial success in raising 

 the extra money — allof whicli, it is probable, will be wanted for Egyptian outlay — 

 or from the check it would gi^•e to consumption fail to yield thus much, it is every 

 way desirable. In tlie latter case it would achieve a moral success far outweighing 

 aU'disadvantages, really saving to tlie country that proportion of its income which, 

 though received with the one hand is disbursed with the other, to meet the results 

 of the very consumption which produces the revenue. 



3. The Influences of the Beer Duty. B)j H. Stopes, F.G.S. 



Two years' practical experience of the Beer Duty that replaced the Malt Tax 

 shows the direct gainers to be : — 



1. The National Exchequer, Excise branch. 



2. The lowest section of the labouring classes, living in houses of a less value 

 than £10 and £15 per annum. 



