The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-27 00:00:00

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair on
going into committee on this bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought it would be fairer at once to state the coulee he in-
tended to pursue in committee. He understood that his
noble friend the member for Lynn intended to take the
whole case by his motion. instead of taking it in detail, and
I that the same question would not be renewed again. When
he first moved the resolutions with regard to colonial rum,
he stated that the duty would be 6d. higher than that on Bri-
tish spirits. Since then he had had interviews with distillers
I and other persons interested, who contended that this duty
I was not an adequate protection. He did not say that his
own opinion was changed, for ha still thought a
differential duty of 6d. would fairly meet the case.
Still he had reconsidered the matter, and as
lit was impossible to fix the precise amount on
principle, he thought he might fairly give way to those
representations. His intention therefore was, in committee
I on the bill, to move that the duty be fixed at ninepence. lic
would not go into the reasons one way or another, but he
thought it fairer, before his noble friend rase to make his
speech, to state what he purposed to do.
Lord G. BENTINCK felt that be required the indul-
gence, he might say the toleration, of the house, in twinging
forward the motion of which he had given notice ; for of all
the dry and dull subjects—{great laughter)—which could be
brought forward, he kad the misfortune to be about to deal
with the driest and dullest—nor had he wit, talent, or inge-
I nuity to enliven it. He believed it was the wish of his
right boo. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do
justice to all parties; but he (Lord 0. Bentinek) did
I think that he was mistaken in his judgment. (Hear,
hear.) If the question was one of pounds, shillings. and
pence, it would be dull and complicated enough ; but it was
I narrowed down to pence, farthings, and fractions of far-
things. It was on this very ground, however, that he felt
justified in his proposal that instead of going into • corn
mittee of the whole house, the bill should be referred to •
committee upstairs ; for Bever a subject required the calmest
and most deliberate attention, it was this--of the differential
duty between rum and British spirits. The case of the
Irish and Scotch distillers differed each from the other, and
one part of the Irish case differed from another, ar.ri one
part of the Scotch case differed from the other. If he felt
justified in asking for a select committee when he gave
notice of his motion, he was far from being dissuaded from
pressing it by the announcement of his right hon.
friend—indeed he was encouraged by it to per-
severe, for it appeared that his mind was not
made up—that the proper duty was ed., for he had consented
to give way, and if he bad not changed his mind he had
changed the measure of the government. He (Lord 0.
Bennock) had therefore a good case for the appointment of
a select committee is assess the proper duty which should be
paid en rum and British spirits. He could assure his right
hon. friend that if he (Lord G. Bentinck) was put on that
committee, so little prejudice had he, Sr desire to give any
advantage to the British distillers over the colonial producers
of rum, that if he could prove either that • duty of 9d. or no
duty at all was justice, he (Lord G. Bentinck) would be the
first man to propose perfect equality. He could show to a
committee upstairs, though not to one of the whole house,
that the British distiller was entitled to a larger duty than
9d. Not long sixes an act was passed to fix the differential
duties between spirits distilled in the Channel Islands
and Great Britain. It was the 65th of 8& 9 Victoria,
and was entitled en act to determine what should be the
countervailing duty between Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney,
and Sark, and Great Britain and Ireland. That bill was
introduced by the right hon. gentleman the member for the
university of Cambridge, and it recited that la 2d. was a
due countervailing duty on the spirits manufactured in the
Channel Islands, and those manufactured in Great Britain
and Ireland. Nothing had occurred since then to alter those
duties, except the change in the corn-laws. To what extent
had that change affected them? As the act in question was
passed in 1845, the question must be decided under the duties
imposed by the corn-law of 1842 ; and the average duty on
barley from 1842 to 1845 inclusive was ss. I Id. A
quarter of malt or grain produced nineteen or twenty gallons
of spirits; and if the duty was 35., it would cause
an addition of 2d. a gallon on spirit'; and if
the duty was se. 11d., it would not be reckoned
that more then half was paid by the consumer, and the
other half by the producer. If so, 2.1. a gallon was all the
difference that existed between the present duty and that of
I 1845, when the government introduced the bill to fix the
countervailing duties between the Channel Islands and Great
Britain. He might, therefore, assume that Is. or 111 d. was
a just assessment between rum and British spirits; because
that very at recited in its preamble that its object was to
determine to what extent the excise restraints went ; and by
its enactment it was decided that the amount was Is. 2d.
(The noble lord then read the sections of the act referred to.)
lay this he had priesd fools evidence to show that parlia-
ment thought that 18.2 d., in 1845;was a fair duty in conside-
ration of the restrictions of the excise. But he was prepared
to show that it was an inaccurate estimate of the real cost and
expense created by the excise laws. It would be in the
knowledge of the house that the excise laws were altered
in 1823, not for the advantage of the distillers, but to secure
the collection of the excise duties. The result was that
every distiller who was put under those restrictions was no
longer permitted to distil and brew at the same time, or to
distil or brew at all on the same premises on which he recti-
fied. He was put under a vast number of other restrictions.
But the effect was that she was not to brew and distil at the
same period, it was necessary for every distiller to have a
double plant and premises of double the sin, and a double
number of coppers. The result was, agiven in evidence
before a committee that then pit, let the distiller whose
business was previously carried on for 40,0001., required a
capital of 80,000/. Ile was now speaking of the Irish case.
A committee which sat in 1833 bad it before them in evi-
dence that an Irish distiller wko produced 60,000 gallons of
whisky or corn spirit, and who previously required 5,0001.
for a plant for that business, in consequence of the
new restrictions, required 5,0001. mere to increase his
plant. Ten per cent., which was • fair calculation on
property of this perishable description, gave 5001. a year to
be charged against 60,000 gallons, and this 5001. divided by
60,000 gallon., gave a charge of 2d. a gallon. This was the
first item of excise reirLictien. The next item was a loss of
material, arising out of these restrictions. It was well known
to those engaged in distillation that those restrictions obliged
the, distiller to brew at a certain gravity, and to give so
many flays' and no many hours' notice of every movement he
made, and fixed the time at which a brewery must be closed.
It was necessary, therefore, to stop the works for twelve hours
between each brewing and distilling, and the furnaces were
extinguished, causing a loss and waste estimated at one-
twelfth of the produce. This item the Irish distillen esti-
mated at Id. a gallon at the lowest. Another important
item was the loss in wages. For the samereason that it was
necessary to double the plant, it was necessary to increase
the number of palatine engaged. The same man could not
superintend the brewery and the distillery and he was
obliged to work double time, and received double wages.
Another most remarkable item was that of yeast. In the
course of distilling it was necessary to use yeast, but by one
of the restrictions of the excise, the distillers were for-
bidden to use any article which was made in the same
brewery, and they could not therefore use the yeast they
themselves made. In order therefore that the excise laws
should be carried out, every distiller let his yeast ran down I
into the gutter, and went elsewhere to purchase it. He was
assured that this was the case with the distillers of Galway,
Belfast, Drogheda, and Cork. Those of Cork and Galway
purchseed their yeast in Dublin, while throe of Drogheda
and Belfast came to London for it, and the expense was
Id. in the gallon. There were 26,000,000 gallons of
spirits distilled every year in England, Scotland, and Ire-
land, and Id. a gallon charged on these amounted tolBo,oool.