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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 27, 1847.

of waste turned into the gutters. This made the charge
bid. In Ireland, the distillation of corn spirit seas about
two-thirteenths of the corn malted, therefore there was
charged an amount equal to two-thirteenths. The malt
duty being Is. 4d., it would give 21.1. a gallon for malt duty.
A high authority on these matters in former times—Mr.
Haslossen—maintained that the whole malt duty was in
itself a heavy charge, but that the restrictions upon it added
as much se the one half the duty to the real cost of malt.
It depended upon the state of the wi ether how long malt
ought to remain steeped. He believed that forty hours was
the time allowed by the excise regulations, hut if the
weather was cold—unusually cold—forty hours was not time
sufficient to allow barley to remain in steep, in order to be
productive to the distiller, because in cold weatoer within
that period the essence of the barley. could not be
extracted; whilst on the other hand, in hot weather,
the barley would, in the operation, begin to sprout
long before the forty hours had expired. (Hear.) If
the barley should sprout, the maltster was forbidden from
saving it from destruction, in consequence of the provisions
of the existing excise laws. This was only one of many re-
strictions upon the trade of the maltster, and he (Lord 0.
Bentinek) was assured that the common average loss arising
from barley sprouting too soon, amounted to 2s. 61, on
every quarter of barley submitted to the process. ( Hear.)
Therm ire, he (Lord G. 13entinek) thought that Mr. Hus-
kisson bad good cause for the statement which he had made
in that house, that the very least at which he could fix the
cost of these restrictions tote maltater was at 50 per cent.
on the cost of the corn (so we understood the noble lord).
He now came to that which among distillers was called "de-
cree/age." The duty was charged upon British spirits at
the time it left what was technically called the spout, or
the worm end, but with regard to ruin, the matter was en-
tirely different. Upon rem the duty was not charged uit
left the East or West Indies—neither was it charged as it
arrived its this country. Rum, when it arrived in this
country, even when it had suffered from leakage, and the
evaporation consequent upon a voyage from a hot climate,
was put into bond, and the duty upon it was charged, not
upon the quantity which went into bond, but nn
that which came out of bond. Now, be found from
returns which were laid upon the table, and ordered
to be printed on the 29th of May, 1848, that the allowance
made to the rum producers amounted, in England, to 3d.
and six-tenths of a penny—in Ireland to 7d. and seven-
hundredths of a penny—and in Scotland, to &I. and five-
tenths of a penny upon each gallon. In England, the
allowance to the producers of rum appeared to stand thus
it appeared that 76,794 gallons had been allowed out of
2,411,000 gallons imported, and that the amount of duty re-
turned for "decrerwge and waste" was 36,2481. In Ire-
land the number of gal lone, as appeared from the same re-
turn, allowed was 737, upon 30,;17 gallons admitted for con-
sumption, and the money returned was 347!. While in Scot-
land the state of things presented these facts, that upon a
consumption of 43,335 gallons which arrived, 3,287 gallons
had been 'Bowed, involving a money return of 1,5341. Bat
he (Lord G. Bentiock) was not about to adopt this
calculation as to the position which would result
from the reduction which the government proposed to
introduce. lie now proceeded to the calculation of what
would be the amount of drawback which, for leakage and
evaporation, would be allowed to the rum producers in
England, Scotland, and Ireland ; and he found that in Eng-
land the drawback (if such it could be called) to the rum
producers would still, under the proposed arrangement,
amount to 3d. and four-tenths of a penny; in Ireland, to 2d,
and one-eighth of a penny; and in Scotland, to 4d. and
three-tenths of a penny. (Hear, hear.) Now, the house
would observe, that before this the duty on rum wan Bs. 10,1.
per gallon in the three kingdoms; it was now. however,
proposed, he believed, to be reduced to 85. 4d. in England,
to 414. 2d. in Scotland, and to 3s. 2d. in Ireland. The result
of the whole would be, that under these substantial
restrictions, of which it was impossible to estimate
the disadvantages, the Irish distiller would require
a reduction of 111 and one eighth of a penny to
be placed upon a par with the rum producers of the colonies.
The British distiller was by law forbidden the use, for the
purposes of distillation, of the very molasses from which rum
was made ; and more than this, the distiller, the malutee,
and the brewer of this country were engaged in the only
trades which were restricted, by the operation of the excise
laws, from improving their own manufactures. The conse-
quent loss to thine engaged in those trade it was impossible
to calculate. He could, however, rs.fer to the improvement
which had taken place in two other trades, when the excise
duties formerly imposed were removed. In 1831 excise du-
ties existed upon printed cottons. In 1831 it was re-
moved, and what had been the effect? Why, in the course
of the three years following the removal of those excise
duties, the exportation of British printed cottons increased
by 51 millions of yards, and in 181.5 that increase of 61
million yards was enhanced to the extent of 238 million
yards. For this result, as well as for that which he
was now about to allude to, the country was indebted to the
course of policy pursued by the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Tarnworth. (Hear, hear.) The effect of the re-
moval of the excise duties on glass had led to similar results
Even though those results had not realized the sanguine ex-
pectations of the right hon. baronet, new establishments in
that branch of manufacture had grown up in Belfast, Dublin,
Hull, and other places; and the only difficulty arose from
the want of mechanical means, and hands to carry out the
business which the removal of excise restrictions had brought
ta the froteMilswieuts The want of skilful and expe7kaistsi
el'e al2-Se wtz vi la, that =cm
earn from 41. to 81. per week—in short, wages had increased
30 per cent., and still the masters wire unable to meet the
demand upon tnern for supplies of the commodities they
produced. On this he was justified in the supposition that
if excise restrictions upon the distillers were abolished, an
enormous increase on consumption would he the result.
But, with respect to the case of the Irish distillers, in refe-
rence to the operation of the existing excise duties, was
another consideration well worthy the attention of the
house. It could not be doubted that whiskey was the drink
of Ireland. Under the operation of the existing laws a
very small portion of that drink was distilled from malt.
Now he was not aware if hon. members were cognizant of
the fact that but a very small portion of that drink was made
from malt. Neither, perhaps, were hon. members aware of
the further fact, that the advantage which arose from
malting was to take from the grain the essential
oil—that was to say, its poisonous qualities. Now, the effect
of the present excise regulations was, that in Ireland only
100,000 gallons of whiskey were distilled from malted grain,
and the remainder of the consumption in that portion of the
realm was of the poisonous and unwholesome spirit distilled
from corn. Another evil arising from the present system con-
sisted in the disadvantageous position in which the drawbiek
allowed to the distillers of Oreat Britain and Ireland would
be placed. The result of this system was, that whilst on
the average of the lest three years foreign gin and spirits
to the extent of 303,000 gallons had been exported,
no British spirits of any description had been en-
abled re be exported from this country. (Hear, hear.)
The case of the English distiller differed from that of the
Irish distiller, inasmuch as the former could only employ one
half the quantity of malt that the Irish distiller consumed;
but, on the other hand, the English distiller was enabled to
have recourse to the process of rectifying, in order to purify
the spirits he manufactured. This made the trade of au
English distiller a monopoly, because no man, unless pus
eased of a large capital, could venture to engage in it. In
England there were about six or eight distillers. They were
not allowed to use the yeast of their own production, and
they were obliged to increase the number of their " plants,"
each of which, he was informed, would cost 40,0001., in order
to meet the trade, and on the whole, to protect the English
distiller, there ought not to be a discriminating duty lengthen
131 d. and Meths of a farthing. With respect to the Scotch
distiller more than two-thirds of the spirits distilled in Scot-
land were malt spirits, and, therefore, to them the principal
question was the malt duties, and the result of the examina-
tion of the returns showed that for their protection, as against
the rum producers, there ought to be a discriminating duty
of 161 d. and 3-20ths of a farthing per gallon. These were
intricate calculations, and he thought he had stated enough
to show the necessity for an inquiry up stairs. Ile was no
advocate for any prefereniwoor partiality towards either
England, Ireland, or Scotland, over the colonies; he sought
only equal and exact justice for all, and he was convinced
that the only means prsctically to secure that justice to all
parties was by the appointment of an impartial select com-
mittee to inquire into all these motions up stairs. With
these objects he begged now to move that the Customs
Duties Bill be referred to a select committee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought his noble friend had shown most convincingly that
the bill ought not to be sent to a select committee up-stairs.
It was not a little remarkable that the noble lord had over-
stated the cue of the distillers; for they themselves had
stated their claim at a much smaller amount, and in much
more reasonable terms than those put forward by the noble
lord. As to the privilege of distilling from molasses, it had
been admitted by a large and eminent distiller that it could
not be granted without running a great risk of fraud. The
house would remember that, at the close of the last session,
areinvenelluuereanheof tbeefileincot n suu rod Lie de
, butmuch
w hthe the benefit
West ol
f the
n di
body believed would be most detrimental to their interests.
Up to this period, their fears had not been realised • but
they had taken a course which ought to be followed by all
protected interests they had consented to give up their
protection, on condition that other interests should not re-
ceive protection against them. (Hear) This was a moat
sound principle of free trade, and of freedom from commer-
. Mal restrictions, by which the public and the great body
of the consumers would be most materially benefited.
He trusted this course would be pursued on other
occasions ; for the principles of free trade were
now too thoroughly established ever to he shaken again.
(Hear.) He had all along admitted that there were grounds
on which the distillers were entitled to a differential duty;
and though he had increased the amount of that protection
from what was originally proposed, he thought he should be
able to satisfy the house that it was not without good reason
that be had fixed the lower sum, and that, in giving a dif-
ferential duty of 9d., he gave fully as much as, if not more
than, could be shown to be claimed by the great body of dis-
tillers in the kingdom. There was undoubtedly a great
difference in the way in which distillation was carried on in
different parts of the country ; and hence, although rum
would come into competition with spirits, produced in a dif-
ferent manner, it was perfectly impossible to impose dif-
ferent differential duties. For if this principle were adopted
and carried out, a different duty must be imposed in Scot-
land upon the spirits distilled from malt and from grain,
Though distillation differed in its circumstances in different
parts of the kingdom, yet the spirits produced in different
I Parts entered freely into competition with each other and with
colonial spirits. Therefore, if he established his ease with
regard to any one part of the country, he should claim to
have established it with regard to all. As the spirits pro-
duced in Scotland and Ireland and sent to this country came
into competition with English spirits here, it was quite clear
that English, Scotch, and Irish spirits, competing with
each other, must stand upon perfectly equal terms. In 1546,
the quantity of spirits made in England was 6,264,000 gal-
lons ; imported from Scotland to England, 2,136,000 gallons,

land from Ireland, 1,418,060 gallons. It was evident from
these figures that the spirits made in Scotland and Ireland,
' paying the English duty, entered freely and fairly into
competition with those produced here • hence, what was an
adequate protection for the spirits iroduced in England,
must be so for those produced in Scotland and Ireland, and
an adequate protection for grain spirit' in Ireland and Soot-
land must be so fur malt spirits. (Hear.) He had not
much faith in the statements that had been put forth by
various parties, at different times ; for be found that, on
whatever basis the calculations proceeded, they all arrived
at the same result. When the Earl of Ripon was chancellor
of the exchequer, the differential duty was fixed at 18d. •
the duties were 18d. last year, and the statements which
he had received showed that the distillers claimed • pro-
tection of 18d., although on • totally different basis. In
the statement of their claim of 18d., made by the distillery
themselves, in 1830, they admitted that 9d. per gallon was
claimed in respect of the duties on foreign corn. There
being ne such duty at this moment, it was clear that 9d. a
gallon warthe maximum amount of protection to which on
any. conceivable supposition they were entitled, even on
; their own showing. (Hear.) nerefore, in carrying the
claim beyond ltd., the noble lord was contradicted by the
evidence of the distillers themselves. Last year the duty
had been reduced from is. 6d. to Is., which after some re-
monstrance was acquiesced in by the distillers, though they
had laid claim to a duty of Is. 4d. It shocked his faith in
those representations to find that Is. 4d. had been claimed,
that it was admitted that Is. was a fair protection, and then
that the noble lord came down and claimed a much larger
sum, in making which claim he had shown a great want of
discretion. (Hear.) He had claimed lid. a gallon for
malt, the sum put forward by the distillers themselves ; but
the precise equivalent was I id. a gallon. Fourpenct a gallon
was claimed as excise restrictions; but this was coetradieteel
by the excise returns themselves. The extraordinary per-
versity of the argument put forward by the distillers was
shown by the fact that, in estimating their decreases, they
assumed the same amount of decrease as took place upon
rum, although the latter necessarily suffered a much greater
leakage in crowing the ocean. Ile found, from the excise
returns, with regard to six of the greatest distillers about
London, whose stock was upwards of five millions of gallons,
that their average decrease amounted to Id. and 48-100 tbs,
being not quite Id. per gallon. The same return, taken
about fourteen years ago, showed that the decrease was not
quite so much as Id. 'gallon at that time. Upon the Scotch
spirits, the actual decrease was about 19-100ths percent.,
or about id. a gallon; and in Ireland the allowance was id.
and 15-100ths. Therefore, instead of 4d. or 3si. 9-10tIts
per gallon, as estimated by the noble lord, Id. per gallon was
the maximum allowance, which, upon any assignable calcu-
lation, could be claimed as an equivalent allowance for de-
creases. As to rectifying, he entertained very great doubts
whether any claim could be set up in respect to that. Rec-
tifying was not carried on in Scotland and Ireland ; it was
only adopted in England to suit some particular tastes ' • and
why should a claim be set up here for that to which them
was no corresponding process in Scotland or Ireland ? It
was quite clear that I Id. a gallon was the full value of that
process in Ireland, which might be considered equivalent to
rectifying : and if this lid. a gallon was allowed, it was
as much as the distillers were entitled to ; his own conviction
being that they were not entitled to any allowance what,
ever. Formerly, for the purpose of putting down illicit dis-
tillation, a drawback had been allowed in Scotland ; in 1832,
it was found expedient to diminish this drawback from 14d.
to Bd. a gallon ; but that produced no injury to the distillers
of malt spirits in Scotland ; in 1829, the quantity of malt
(not grain) spirits brought into consumption in Scotland, was
5,213,000 gallons ; in 1830, it was 5,529,000 gallons ; in 1831,
5,339,000 gallons ; in 1832, the drawback was reduced ; in
1833, the amount fell to 5,305.000 gallons ; but, in 1834, it
was 5,466.000 gallons; in 1835, 5,486,000 gallons ; and, in
1836, 6,066,000 gallons. Thus, it was evident, that the
diminution of the drawback had produced no pre-
judicial effect whatever on the quantity of spirits
brought to charge,—the increase having been to
the extent of 500,000 gallons in the four years after
the reduction. But a considerable quantity of malt spirits
was sent from Scotland te Ireland, and that quantity had
much increased after the reduction of the drawback. In
1842 the drawback on malt spirits in Ireland was repealed
altogether ; and then the distillers of malt spirits in Scotland
had positively this most unfair advantage over the malt dis-
tillers in Ireland that they had a drawback of &I. • gallon
in consequence of paying the malt duty, while the m.,lt
distillers in Ireland had no suck drawback. Notwithstand-
ing this, the exports of malt spirits from Scotland to Ireland
were increasing. Nothing could be more destructive of the
claim made by the distillers to extraordinary indulgence.
In 1840 the quantity of malt spirits sent from Scotland to
Ireland was 427,000 gallons; in 1841, 432,000 gallons.
Then the drawback on malt spirits in Ireland was repealed ;
consequently the Scotch distiller ceased to be entitled to the
drawback on the spirit sent there. In 1843 the quantity
fell to 329,000 gallons ; in 1814 it was 399,000 gallons ; in
11845, 507,000 ; and in 1846, 624,000 gallons. Therefore,
these much-injured aad much-oppressed people, with a bonus
of Bd. per gallon, were actually successfully competing with
the malt distillers in Ireland, where there was no such bonus.
He must confess he had been astonished by the claims that
had been brought forward. He gave the distillers lid. a
gallon in respect of the malt duty, Id. for decreases, and lid.,
to which, however, he thought they were not entitled, for the
lois of rectifying, making 31d. 'gallon. The excise restrictions
were estimated by the Irish diztillars st M. a gallon. by the
English distillers at Sd ; bet as the hi, was the aatr a in
both countries, the extra 2d. might fairly be struck off the
claim of the Irish distillers. He had ascertained that the
coot of producing spirits was 2s. the gallon, Is. bd. for the
cost of the materials, and 6d. the cost of the manufacture;
this he had from the distillers themselves. It was said that
the cost of the manufacture was advanced by the excise
restrictions; but when the actual cost of the manufacture
was Gd., gentlemen would be more credulous than he was if
they supposed that 4d. extra was to be added for excise
restrictions. He believed that lid. would be the utmost,
and that he did the distillers fair justice in giving them the
differential duty of 6d.; in fact, 51d. was the utmost
to which the Irish distillers could possibly make a claim.
The documents from the Excise-office showed tke amount of
malt duty, the proportion allowed for decreases (about
which there could be no dispute, it being settled between
the distillers and the excise officers themselves), and the
process which was really equivalent to rectifying in Ireland;
and these documents he was perfectly ready to lay upon the
table of the house, sad have them printed. The facts of
the case were perfectly understood by every one who chow
to look into them.

Lord G. BENTINCK Not entirely so.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ;said, that
if the noble lord would not take his friend's statement of
their own cue, as shown by printed document., he feared
they should come to an agreement; but if the house
was to take the statement of the distillers themselves, put
forward in their own cause, there could be no doubt about
the substaa'ial justice of the measure. (Hear.) He had
now shown that there was really no difference in the cases
of the English, Scotch, or Irish distiller ; and that in prov-
ing his case sa to one, he had proved it as to the whole.
According to their own showing, sixpence was the amount
they were entitled to : he did not think they were entitled to
so much. At the same time, he had hoped that he might
have brought this matter forward in such a way as to be sa-
tisfactory to all parties ; he was sorry to find this was not
the case. He was convinced that the most reasonable
of the distillers would be satisfied with the differential
duty of 9d. ; the sufficiency of this it was ut-
terly impossible for them to dispute, as they had
expressed themselves satisfied with a duty of lfid. when
9d. was allowed for the duty on corn. As they had made
thin admission, how could the noble lord demand more than
they did themselves ? The fears entertained on this subject
were the most chimerical that had ever entered the mind of
man. Looking at the enormous amount of British spirits
consumed in this country, and the small amount of rum, the
notion of the distillers being ruined by the importation of
rum was too ridiculous to bear further notice. In 11445, the
whole quantity of spirits consumed in the United Kingdom
was 26,672,000 gallons, of which 2,400,000 gallons only were
rum. Did any one suppose that that quantity could
materially affect the consumption of British spirits, which
amounted to 23,122,000 gallons (Hear.) But it was well-
known that every improvement made in the manufacture of
sugar tended to diminish the quantity of the material from
which rum was made. Sugar was the moat valuable shape
in which the West Indian produce could be sent to the
market ; and everything which improved the means of its
manufacture and thus tended to diminish the residuum
from which rum and molasses were made, had the
effect of reducing the quantity of the rum produced.
The West Indians preferred sending the raw material to
this country to making spirits themselves. He would un-
dertake to say that the introduction of rum into this country
would not injure the English distillers, who entertained the
most vain fears on that question. He believed that he did
ample justice to the distillers of this country, who, in his
opinion, would not be injured whether the differential duty
was either 6d. or 9d. The only parties to be affected by this
measure were the consumer., who would by its mesas be
enabled to get good and &mei/Ide rum instead of a bad mil-
-1 tare with • little foreign spirit to colour it. He concluded
by saying that he thought this measure would be a
great benefit to the consumer, and would not be injurious to
the British distiller, or to the colonial interest.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN said that the right hoe, gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his statement mixed
up the case of the Scotch distillers with that of the Irish dis-
tillers, and the case of the latter with that of the English dis-
tillers, and that they should receive with great caution the re-
marks which he had made. The right hon. gentleman would
fail to show any instance in which the Irish distillers admitted
that they were not disadvantaged to the amount of 9d. or
Is. per gallon of rum introduced into this country. They
clears claimed a differential duty of Is. 6d., and never
made a claim under that amount. The Chancellor of
Exchequer was unable to contradict the claims put
forward by the Irish distillers lately. He did not
know perhaps, that they were obliged to pay •
higher rate of duty on spirits imported into this country
than
than was provided by the act of union. They were obi
to pay the English duty at any of the ports from which they
sent their cargoes, and those connected with the Treasury
never took into account any loos or waste that may take
place on the passage over.
Mr. BERNAL said, that though be entered into the eon
sideratien of this matter perfectly unbiassed, he could not
but say that the West India or colonial interests were neither
equitably of fairly treated in the present cue. The
distiller in England, Scotland, and Ireland, had no'
right to demand a higher discriminating duty than the mu-
pure of the duty he paid on malt independent of the duty he
paid on the liquor distilled from malt. Let them show him
what they suffered by the duty on malt and then he would
say, so much and no more ought to be the duty paid upon
the colonial spirit as compared with the British spirit. The
discriminating difference between British colonial and foreign
sugars having been destroyed, he was entitled aa a British
colonist to that degree of justice which it was promised
should be meted out. ( Hsu, hear.) That was the ground
ipon which he stood, and he would not discus the fiscal part

of the question lest he should weaken it by •
cooY ape,
considerations.
Mr.trood. GRtoocoOnAteN.,dwthhoatwaths
evcoeryloninisdtishtiandellywehrl.d, wztat.
de
over the British distiller, inasmuch as he could use his IQ
and ingenuity in producing an article at the lowa possible
cost without any hindrance or disadvantage being thrown is
his way, whereas the home producer was subject to the con-
trol, inspection, and interference of the excise at every step
he took.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought the problem to be solved ww
the apportionment of the customs' duties on colonial produw,
and the excise duties on the home produce, so that all par.
ties might have equal and fair play. (Hear, hear.) He
did not, however, think that the larger portion of the Scotch
di-tillers would be placed in that position by the propane! of '
the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ceders
these circumstances, he could not support the propontioa of
the government. ( Hear.)
Mr. FORBES desirous of doing justice to all parties—te j]
the colonial, as well as the home produce, would vole for the 111
motion of the noble lord, the member for Lynn.
Mr. MOFFATT and Mr. BARELY likewise opened it.
Mr. SHAW was assured by one of the most unhurt
distillers in Ireland that the large capital invested
them did not return them .5 per cent. ' and, if a dutyof 9.4„
was imposed, the trade would be ruined.
Mr. GOULBU RN said, that as he had at an antecedent
period attempted a reduction of the differential duties be.
tween colonial and British spirits, and had the
subject on both aides much discussed before him, he
might, perhaps, be able to give some infoomatioa
to the house. The noble lord proposed that this bill should
be referred to a select committee, but he (Mr. (Southern)
thought from the speech of the noble lord that he made this
motion under a misapprehension, for he would find that he
would be precluded by the forms of the house from entering'
into evidence of the minute details he had gone into, an
this motion could not carry out his object. lie pr.-sumed he
wished the committee to inquire into the whale subject a(
distillery. To this he (Mr. Goulburn) objected, for then
was nothing to be gained by it, which those who bad ion
quired into it were not possessed of. Referring a question to
a committee was generally known to be an endeavour, hy a
keg and tedious inquiry to postpone a measure, and the 4ftt
of this would be to defeat the change of duties for the
present session, and to lease the matter in doubt
and uncertainty; and this was more especially apparent
when he considered the speeches which had been made to-
night, and the various subjects of inquiry soggetted by dif-
ferent members. Previously to the year 1826 there was no
naminal distinction of the duty charged on British spirits
and imported rum, for the same duty was charged on nun
at proof as on British spirit at seven over proof, making a
difference in favour of the latter of ltd., and this was at •
the time that the corn laws were regulated by the act of
1815. The real difference of duty was then extremely low,
and he adverted to this in order to calm the apprehension
that the charge of this duty would inflict serious injury, :or
British (mints still kept their hold on the market. In 1623
the quantity of rum consumed was 3,803,000 gallons, while
in 182.5 it was 3,684,000 gallons, while the consumption a
British Spirits, was, in 1823, 9,600,000, and in 1825, it was
18,928,000, showing that the reduction of the differential
duty did not interfere prejudicially with the consumption of
British Spirits. In 1825, Mr. Robinson introduced a new
regulation of the duties on spirits so as to make what was
thought an adequate allowance for the expenses incurred by
reason of duty and restrictions. Of these Is Id. arose out
of the duty on corn, out of the duty on malt I id., and the
restrictions were eatimatedat 4d., making altogether, 10. 6.1.,
and with this the distillers were satisfied. In 1830, he
(Mr. Goulborn) introduced a measure for reducing the
differential duty on Rum to Is., but owing to the
change of government, it was abandoned. They
had then the diffeinet opinions of the distillers
as to what amount of duty was assignable to the restrictions
placed on them, and they stated that the burden imposed by
the law for the regulation of the importation of corn was 91d.
of the whole duty. If this was true, when the law of 1829,
which allowed the duty en corn lower than that of 1815,
was is operation, it followed that, in 1847, 94d. shouldbe de-
ducted from the duty of Is. 6d., which, in former times, wee
imposed on the introduction of rum, and that the dirty
ought not to be more than 84d., oa the showing of the die
tillers themselves. In 1825 new regulations were imposed
on the distilling trade, and they were obliged to have large
additional buildings in their establiehnsents, and parts of
them were separated from the others, which earned a large
outlay of capital. That outlay, however, was stated by the
distillers in their communication to him (Mr. Goal.
burr) as amounting to 25,0001., one distillery with
another. He ( Mr. Goulburn) came to the same eonclusioa
as the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, that the differential duty of Gd. covered all the
extra burdens imposed on the British distillers. It was said,
however, that the right hon. gentleman had allowed 9d.;
but he (Mr. Goulborn) concurred with the right hon. gentle.
MD, that if strict justice was done 6d. was the utmost the
distillers could claim. But when it was considered that be
was dealing with an interest which had been very highly
protected in England and in Ireland, and Scotland enjoyed
a duty almost prohibitory, he thought the right hon. genie-
man was justified in dealing tenderly with the Ca.! With
regard to Ireland, in 1830, when he (Mr. Goulborn) was
considering the subject, the Irish distillers presented a me.
morial, which set forth that they were ready to cone
pete with any clan of spirit-makers; but to enable
them to enter into ouch a competition they mug
be unrestricted, and have all the advantages of
free-trade, that the home-consumption and foreign market nn
murt be open to them. if this was given to them :they ?,
would be without complaint, but until this was so the same
principle must govern the spirit-trade as governed others; and '
while their trade was restricted they must be protected, but
if it was free they required no protection. He thought
those arguments ought to apply now. With regard to the
Scotch distiller, it was said, as he distilled chitfiy from
malt, he paid a large duty of Is. 4d. upon it ; but it was
not a fair calculation, because he obtained malt from other
means then from grain, and got it at a far cheaper rate.
Whatever might he the ground of alarm to the distillers,
they still had a great advantage over the colonial producers.
The right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
was quite right in stating that the introduction of two and a
half million gallons of colonial spirits would produce no per-
ceptible effect with reference to the price of the home pro-
duction. His (Mr. Gonlbum's) own views were, that each
commodity should be placed upon the same footing of moo
lity. This had been offered to the distillers of England and
refused, and they now, therefore, had no right to claim a
equalisation of duties. In 1825 a reduction was miggeolei
and refused, and on all these grounds he should mesh*
vote against the proposition of the noble lord the member for
Lynn. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the amendment, on the
ground that the statements which had been made on both
sides of the house, in the course of the pretest discussion,
could only be sifted by an inquiry before a select committee.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the right hon. baronet, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, after dilating upon the advan-
tages of free trade, had, in the course of his observations
anight, put himself forward as the champion of protection,
inasmuch as, prepared as the house had been to discus a
differential duty, the discussion might have terminated, but
that the government, through the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, had announced their determination to increr se the
amount of protection. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
baronet, in a manner with which he (Mr. Disraeli) was not
prepared to quarrel, had ahewn by his argument that the
change from sixpence to a differential duty of nine-
pence was a fitting subject for the consideration of such
a committee as that moved for in the present instance by his
noble friend the member for Lynn (Lord G. lteutinck). t
(Mr. Disraeli) thought that his noble friend had proved dist
the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer need Pot XI
have stopped short at the ninepence duty, but that in ma- •
ing down from Downing-street, borrowing from his data. 111
might have prevented the present discussion by annoomag
that the government did not mean to disturb the armee-
mint which had been made at the fag-end of the session of
last year. He (Mr. Disraeli) concurred in the opinion which
had been expressed, that protection ought not in any dips
to be made en argument on the present occasion. "Tlee ma
question was this is it possible with the present salts
system to permit free competition in those products often*
facture in this country ? (Hear, hear). It was admitted
that at the present moment, with the present excise laws,
it was impossible that this could be done, and hem the
question resolved itself into one, not of competition, but of
compensation to those traders who were suffering under the
operation of the excise laws, Remembering the law of last
year—remembering the admissions made in the course of the
present debate by free-traders, and especially by the hoec
member for Leominster, it would seem that the emancipated
' commerce of this country concurred in the feeling that thn
compensation ought to be awarded, and the only different
between the movement made to-day by the free-traders sod
the proposition of his hon. friend was now only a matter of
threepence instead of sixpence, which he had anticipsted
when he entered the house. What ought to be the just
and exact figure of compensation to the English trader
in these commodities, in consequence of the existing else*
restrictions ? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was the
very person to select as an excellent mediator in this Fair
jest. In 1845 an act had bean passed for the regulative ci
these matter., in so far as the Channel Islands were con
armed, and in that arrangement a duty of fifteen pence `www
was fixed. Tho Inland of Sark was exempted. That V.t
a great fart. But it was and that this question had been I
settled in 1830 by the distillers themselves when at a meet-
ing of their body, they declared that Is. 6d. duty they con-
sidered to be a just compensation, but they at the sum
time announced that 9d. of that amount was in consequent
of the then existing duty on barley. At that time three of
the most important of the distillery body had met as
deputation. Their opinions had been referred to in the course w
of the present debate. It appeared, however, that the opinion
then had been reduced to writing, ton whet was the fad. Theta
distillers denied that the statement of opinion so reduced to
writing had been submitted to them, and as such it was not
an authentic document. They protested against it, and one,
of the body, though now eighty yearn of age, was prepared
to give his evidence before a "elect committee agamet a don'
meat which had been framed in the absentee o the deputy
lion, and suggested by three rein. officer'. Surely
teas d
itself was a ground for such an inquiry as that sought II
his noble friend the member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinak).
The greatest injury to the English
not permitted to rectify his spirits, and have a claim
part for compensation. The whole question was one
.!
distiller was that
o hne whi.
for investigation before a select committee. It B
was
that it was now too late in the session to seize
such an investigation to a select committee. "I
UP*
that as it might, this question was one
which a committee ought to be appointed.
report at the end of a week. How was the na g
ce
mittee going on—were they prepared to report onl
Easter? (Hear.) The right hon. the Chancellor of
tM
Exchequer had alleged that 9d. per gallon of the prottetix
claimed in 1830, was in respect of the duty upon G?
ieiga
corn; whereas the price of barley at that time was ww-
atii!
on ine
committee eat every any they might bringn

re quarter, and the sum of 9d. the gallon was only equi-
valent to about 16e. This question, though not an exciting
me, amongst large bodies of people, intimately affected
a eery important clue of the community, who sought
only inquiry. They had already been &fleeted by
the legislation of last session, by a bill passed at the
close of the session, against which they bad scarcely time
to retest ; and now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
come down, with a scheme so rude and ill-matured, that be had
been compelled at once to concede half what the distillers
asked. Nothing could he less calculated to inspire confidence
in the measure. Considering that an important change had
taken place last year, and that the government had shown
themselves so fickle, it would he better for the house to make
themselves acquainted with the case, and to inquire before
they decided. (lieu.)
Mr. CARDWELL contended that there was, there-
fore, no reason to depart from the ordidiary course of
commercial legislation. Let the house take the question at
once into consideration, and restore confidence to the trades
concerned. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS said it was more in the ordinary
course of cumin. rei il legislation that a measure of this kind
kind should he investigated upstairs. So far from there being
no facts in dispute, it must be obvious to every one who had
listened to this debate that great doubts existed on many points.
Even if the distillers of England, Scournd, and Ireland, were
willing to bow to the decision of the house, it was evident the
West India interest would not accept it as a settlement. And
even if they did, it did not appear at all certain that minis-
ters might not, either in this parliament or the next, come
down and propose a further alteration. (Cheers.)
The house divided—For the amendment 6B
Against it lB5-117
The house then went into committee, and the clauses of
the bill having been agreed to,
Mr. HUME expressed his regret that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should have exhibited such inconsistency as
so suddenly to change his opinion on the question of keeping
the discriminating duty at 6d.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The house hiving resolved itself into committee of Ways
and Means,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the sum of 18,500,0001. be raised on Exchequer Bills.
Agreed to.
SUPPLY.
The house then went into committee of supply, when
the sum of 500,0001. was granted to defray the expeuses of
purchasing arson for the relief of distress in Ireland up to
the 21st of nest March. The sum of 600,0001. wu also
voted on account of the expenses of the Board of Works in
Ireland, sad of donations in aid of subscriptions to the 31st
of March.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in
to of the absence of his hon. friend the Secretary
of the Treasury in consequence of the death of a near relative
of his, who fell a victim to the destructive fever new existing
in Ireland, he would move that the sum of 50,0001. on ac-
count of civil contingencies be granted.—Agreed to.
The sum of 50,0001. was also voted on account of the new
houses of parliament.
On the motion of Sir R. Prat., the sum of 20,000!. was
granted on account of the British Museum.
The report having been ordered for Monday next, the
house resumed.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHTS BILL.
. _ . .

On the quistion of going into committee oa this bill being
SKr. NEWDEGATE said that he did not agree with the
mode in which this bill was framed. He made this state-
ment because hr, thought that he, being one of the committee
who were appointed to take the bill into consideration, might
be supposed to have given his sanction to it. The
fist day the committee met, he understood that they were
to meet again, but he found that the committee bad closed
its proceedings. That occurred either through some irregu-
larity on the part of the chairman, or through some misap-
Fehension of his. He now only begged to state that he
believed that the relation between landlord and tenant
should undergo a further and more strict inquiry before
they should pp es such a bill as this
Kr. PUSEY said that he acted as chairman on that com-
m ittee. and he would assure the house that there was no
irregularity on his part, and that the business of the com-
mittee was understood by the members of the committee to
have ceased. He wished the hon. gentleman to retract the
statement which he had made, attributing irregularity
of conduct to him as chairman. . .

--„
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that very probably he misun-
devetood the matter.
Mr. JAMES said that this bill did not bear the light of
day. It was nothing more than an act to enable fraudulent
tenants to rob their landlords with greater facility than they
enjoyed at present,
Mr. ACLAND corroborated the statement of Mr. Posey.
Sir R. PEEL thought there would be a great advantage '
in giving the tenant as assurance that if he permanently
improved the soil, and were removed by the caprice of the
landlord, he should recover full compensation ; but he con-
sidered
that they had not sufficient information before them
to legislate on the subject. There were two points to be
attended to first, to procure full information as to the
custom with reference to tenant right in various parts of
England ; and secondly, to ascertain how far it was possible
to give to existing regulations the sanction of law. (Hear,
hear.) He would ask the hon. member whether they could
legislate on the subject without a previous inquiry on these
two points ?
Mr. PUSSY said the right hon. baronet was present
when the committee was appointed, and they did not take
power to obtain evidence. The committee sat three days,
and although there were only ten clauses in the bill, they
made twelve--(a laugh)—and therefore they devoted an
hour to each clause. He implored the house not to discuss
the bill at that hour : be had expressed his wish to post-
pone it until the 21st of April, and he only asked the house
to give him sn opportunity of fairly discussing the bill.
Sir G. GREY thought it would be better to postpone any
further discussion until the bill came fairly before the
house.

After a few words from Col. &armour,
Sir J. Y . BULLER suggested to the hon. member (Mr.
Posey) the propriety of withdrawing the bill, as further in-
quiry was necessary.
Mr. PUSEY, so far from consenting to withdraw the
bill, would do all in his power to have it passed in the pre-
sent session.
The bill was then postponed till Wednesday, the 213 t of
April.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
Lord LINCOLN having moved the second reading of this
tall,
Col. SIBTHORP said he objected so strongly to the
measure, that he should move the adjournment of the
house.
Mr. Henley, Sir J. Trollop., and Sir O. Grey appealed to
the hon. and gallant member to withdraw his motion ; Lord
LINCOLN declared that it was solely on public grounds he
had introduced the bill, and was willing to postpone it to a
future day; but the hon. and gallant member persisting in
his motion, which was seconded by Mr. C. BERKELEY, who
said he entertained just as strong an objection to it, the house
divided—For the adjournment 1
Against it 49-48
The bill was then read a second time.

STATIONS OF TROOPS DURING ELECTIONS.
Mr. FOX MAULE, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
he regulating the stations of troops during electrons, said
that, by the law of Geo. 11., it was directed that troops
Amid be removed two miles from the places of election.
And, as it was difficult to find stations for the troops, in
massquence of the number of polling places ; and as great
inconvenience would arise during a general election, both to
the public and the troops, if some law was not passed to
rowdy it, he proposed to bring in the present bill for that
parpose.—Leave given.
IMPROVEMENT OF LAND IN IRELAND.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN moved for and obtained leave to bring
in a bill to provide further facilities for the further improve-
ment of landed property in Ireland by the owners thereof.
The house then adjourned at half-past one.