Two Proposals, Humbly Offer'd to the Honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament. I. That a duty be laid on malt, in the stead of the present duty on beer and ale; and likewise, that the several engagements that revenue lies under, be transferr'd on that of malt. II. That a duty be laid on malt, and the present duty on beer and ale be continued. To which is annex'd an accompt, what in all probability the frauds of brewers do amount to, and wherein such frauds are prejudicial to the king, to the subject, and to the trade itself: Likewise by what means such grievances are most properly redress'd.

BURNABY, Anthony.

Edité par [n.p.] 1696, 1696

A propos de cet article

[ii], 26pp, title within double-ruled border. Small 4to. Old sugar paper wrappers. A nice copy. ESTC R20847. FIRST EDITION. An interesting and important work on systems of taxation. In 1696 the conflict that would become known as the Nine Years' War had been in progress since 1688 between France and the so-called 'Grand Alliance' of the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Savoyard State, Scotland, and England. The war had been expensive for all countries, but England was also suffering from a separate monetary crisis caused by the clipping of coins minted prior to 1662 that reduced their weight value, and the forgery of machine-struck silver coins. The English government under the direction of William III attempted to replace the hammered silver coins of the Restoration period with new currency, called the Great Recoinage, though it was ultimately not a financial success. In order to augment wartime finances, William III also considered another rise in the duty on beer. However, he was persuaded to consider the arguments of economists Charles Davenant, who suggested a malt tax of 3d. per bushel in addition to the existing beer duty, and Anthony Burnaby, author of this proposal. Here, Burnaby suggests a duty of 8s. per quarter of malt as a replacement for the beer duty, or 2s. per quarter if the beer duty remains. According to him, taxing malt rather than beer would raise more money while having a lesser impact overall on the people paying taxes: 'such a tax will be less felt than usually taxes are, by reason every person will pay proportionable in the price of malt. The more universal any tax is, it is to be supposed (unless in some particular cases) to be the more equal; and I presume, no person will deny that such a tax will prove so universal, that not any person will escape paying his proportion according to his consumption; ergo, no person can complain; who consumes little, will have but little to pay'. Despite some good arguments in favour of a new system of taxation, the King decided in 1697 to retain the beer duty and to impose a malt tax of 4s. per barrel, double the amounts that were proposed by both Davenant and Burnaby.

N° de réf. du vendeur 104130

Détails bibliographiques

• Titre: Two Proposals, Humbly Offer'd to the Honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament. I. That a duty be laid on malt, in the stead of the present duty on beer and ale; and likewise, that the several engagements that revenue lies under, be transferr'd on that of malt. II. That a duty be laid on malt, and the present duty on beer and ale be continued. To which is annex'd an accompt, what in all probability the frauds of brewers do amount to, and wherein such frauds are prejudicial to the...
• Éditeur: [n.p.] 1696
• Date de parution: 1696
• Reliure: Couverture souple
• Édition: Edition originale