be charged for beer. In 1611, the ever vigilant Delft brewers noted that ex
ports of beer from Holland and Zeeland to Flanders and Brabant, still under
Spanish rule, had to pay a high license fee. They urged the imposition of a
similar high charge on beer coming from Brabant and Flanders50.
Haarlem, like Delft, relied on the 1411 legislation to stop discriminatory
charges. Gouda in concert with Delft or sometimes alone also pressed for
equal taxation. In 1506 Goes decided to punish Gouda for failure to fulfil a
contract to supply good beer at a competitive price. Goes changed her tax
laws, favouring Delft beer in the charging of excise. Gouda went to court and
got a ruling from the Hof van Holland, the high court of the province, that
Goes had to charge all beer the same. Goes appealed to the Groote Raad at
Mechelen, the appeals court of all the Low Countries, but before there was a
decision presumably all parties found a compromise and the principle of
equal tax treatment remained in place. Gouda tried but did nol succeed be
fore the Groote Raad in 1535 in a case against the village of 's-Heer
Arendskerke on the island of Zuid-Beveland. The fact that it would press the
matter against such a small and even remote village indicates the importance
of the principle involved. The village argued that they had been granted the
power to fix taxes and, in response to Gouda, said that the Gouda privilege
would prevent the emperor from making grants to other jurisdictions to set
taxes. No one should be in a position to limit the power of the central author
ity so the village argued. Gouda might not like the argument but the Groote
Raad did and found in favour of 's-Heer Arendskerke".
The agreements between Middelburg and Delft on supply of beer to the
Zeeland capital led to the emergence of a select group of Delft brewers who
specialized in supplying Middelburg. In 1499 two tax men became virtual
agents of those Delft brewers handling all the beer. Such a virtual monopoly
needed the approval of the count. In 1554 four Delft brewers and the town of
Middelburg agreed that two or three specific individuals would handle all
beer sales for both parties. The brewers had to supply credit, up to a specified
maximum, to the dealers. The dealers did not speculate in the price but re
ceived a fix fee for each barrel. Such arrangements continued in effect and
were extended to the countryside around Middelburg in 1545 and to the town
of Arnemuidcn in 1566, but seem to have disappeared in the 1570s. Zierikzee
had a similar agreement for monopoly supply with a Delft brewer in 1613.
Having one officer or a small number of designated individuals responsible
for import and wholesale distribution of beer had obvious advantages for tax
collection. Middelburg not only considered the option but in the case of Delft
beer contracted to direct the imports through certain hands'52. The suppliers
then paid the tax due. The excise master, the man responsible for collecting
tax on beer production was proposed early in the sixteenth century at Middel-
50. ZA, Arch. Sl.v.Z.: inv.nr. 3231, [1611]: Timmer. 'Bierconflicten', 118; linger, Bronnenvol.3,
nrs. 720, 733, 799 and 854.
51Egmond. 'De strijd om het bier'. 16-17, 22-23.
52. Timmer, "Aanvoer van Delftsch bier'. 563-569; linger. Bronnenvol.3, nr. 667.
20
