The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-06 00:00:00

anxious as I am to reduce the wine duties, I am not pre-
pared to recommend to the house to make an immediate
sacrifice of two millions a year for that purpose. With re-
gard to the question of revenue, I certainly differ in opinion
from the hon. gentleman. Though lam disposed to think
that in a series of years the duty at a shilling a gallon
would recover itself, yet as there would be a heavy loss
of revenue in the meantime, I feel that there are claims
which, in all probability, this house would consider prefer-
able, if they bad any surplus revenue to give away. As I
have stated, I shall think it my duty to advert again to
the subject when I have to deal with the question of
finance in general, but at present I regret that I cannot
go further than I have already gone. There is a collateral
question raised by the hon. gentleman, an to which I did
not advert, but it is evidently, as far as it goes, an aggra-
vation of the' difficulties of his case. He says, that if the
duty be reduced from ss. 9d. to ls. per gallon, there must
be a drawback on the stocks on hand. I will not dispute
that, though drawbacks on stocks on hand, so far as cus-
toms duties are concerned, have been abolished, and the
case of wine would not form, under ordinary circumstances,
an exception to the general rule. Adverting, however, to
the nature of the change proposed, I must confess that the
case of the wine merchants would be a very a strong one,
and it is probable that this house, which is always most
humane and tender when a demand is made upon the pub.
lic exchequer—for so I have always found it—would be
disposed to sanction the claim of the wine merchants for
reimbursement. That claim, however, could not be founded
on the Treasury minute of 1844, the object of which was to
protect the wine merchant while negotiations were going
on with foreign countries for i t would have been most cruel
to him, and cruel, indeed, to the revenue, to oblige parties
to conduct their trade under such an uncertainty as the
issue of pending negotiations might present. A special
Treasury minute was therefore made, stating that on a re-
duction of wine duties under treaty drawbacks would be
allowed on stocks on hand. In the present case, however,
no reduction in the duty would be made under treaty.
Still, I will assume that the request for a drawback would
be allowed, and the hon. gentleman himself says that it
would amount to 500000/. or 600,000/. I confess, then,
that, though I do not like hypothetical cases, if such a
case did 'occur, and the house should determine to allow the
drawback, I hope tie house would determine to provide
honestly—using the word of course not offensively, but in
a Chancellor of the Exchequer's sense I hope the house will
determine honestly to make provision for the loss out of
the revenue of the current year, and not throw it as a bur-
den upon future years. But then it is clear that that de-
termination would constitute a formidable addition to the
loss of a million, in the first instance, making a total
loss of a million and a half in the first year, which the
hon. gentlemen would cause by his reduction of the
duty to Is. a gallon. With these general views, I may say
that I concur in the wishes of the mover. I participate
with him in most of the advantages which he anticipates
would flow from the reduction. It is with great reluctance
that I am unable to follow him in his practical conclusions;
while with respect to any definite statement of the views
and intentions of the Government, it is my duty to defer
any such statement till the 18th, when I hope to bring for-
' ward the financial statement for the year.
Mr. JOHN M`GREGOR was glad that, he hon. member
for Pomfret had brought forward the motion, and were it
not for the formidable difficulties in the "way of the repeal,
which had been so clearly explained by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, he would have voted for his motion.
But he must say that he knew many other claims which
the great commercial interests of the country could make
upon the Exchequer which were quite as important as wine.
The principle which he thought should be acted on was this.
All duties that were levied for purposes of protection ought.
to be swept away at once ' • all duties that were levied for
purposes of revenue ought to be reduced gradually, so that
the revenue would not lose anything. It was in that spirit
he proposed to deal with the tea duties in the motion he
had given notice of some time ago, for their gradual reduc-
tion, but which he had not pressed, because he did not
think it right to do so until it was known what the house
intended to do with the income tax. He hoped his hon.
friend would, after the explanations given by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, withdraw his motion.
Mr. MOFFATT said he was exceedingly disappointed,
after listening to the excellent speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, saying all that could be said in favour of a
reductidn of the wine duties, to find that all this was said
in a mere Chancellor of the Exchequer sense, and that the
prospect of a reduction of the wine duties was as distant as
ever. Perhaps the reduction proposed by the hon. mover
was too low, and he would suggest that a duty of 2s. per
gallon would be a great advantage to the consumer, while
it would tend to save the revenue. That the consumption
of French wines would increase by such a reduction he had
no doubt. At present this country imported from France
gloves to the amount of 80,000/. a-year, watches to the
amount of 100,000/., potatoes to the amount of 400,000/.
Yet these were imports for which France enjoyed no spe-
cial pre-eminence ; while in the article of wine, for the
manufacture of which France was renowned all over the
world, the annual importation only amounted to 70,000/.
He did hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer would yet re-consider this question.
Mr. HUME was glad to.hear that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had condemned the wine duties. The first step
in getting rid of an evil was an admission that the evil
.existed, and that step they had obtained from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He advocated a reduction in the
wino duties as he advocated a reduction in the malt duties,
in order to reduce the consumption of spirits. (Hear,
hear.) There was no part of their taxes which was so inju-
rious as those duties. They had made food cheap, they
ought at the same time to have made the comparatively
innocent beverages of the people cheap also. If they looked
to the increase in the consumption of spirits both in Scot-
land and in England, they would find that as the duty on
malt was raised the consumption of spirits was. increased.
He thought, therefore, that on fiscal, as well as on moral
grounds they ought to grapple with this question. If expe-
rience was of any use at all as a guide to them on these
matters, then the fact that the reduction began and carried
on to such an extent by Sir It. Peel had had the effect of
lightening the burdens of the people to the extent of 17
or 14 millions without the revenue having at all suffered
ought to encourage them to proceed in the same course,
though he admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ought never to leave himself without a surplus. (Hear.)
The duty on tobacco stood on much the same footing as
the duty on wine ; in the one case the high duties encou-
wed smuggling ; while with regard to wine, if there was no
smuggling from without, there was what might be called
smuggling from within, and the revenue was defrauded to
the extent that the wines drank in this country were adul-
terated. (Hear.) But is was quite plain that reductions in
the duties could only take place if there was a surplus; and
it was in that point of view he regretted the lavish expendi-
ture that had lately taken place upon the national defences.
He blamed the house for that, and not the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He admitted that the storm was general in the
country. Therefore he said the less about it ; for when
people were mad, he made it a rule to get out of their way
as quickly as possible—(laughter)—but the evil was, that
in such cases the innocent suffered as well as the guilty.
He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now take
a bold and an enlightened view of the finances of the coun-
try—that he would not be afraid of losing a few hundred
thousand pounds of revenue ; but, at the same time, he
must say that if the Government went on to spend 15,0001.
on a school of design, he feared his surplus for more impor-
tant objects would be small indeed.
Mr. G. DUNCAN said this question was a deeply inte-
resting one to the trade of his constituents in Dundee, and
the house would perhaps be astonished when he stated to
them the falling off which the restrictions on the wine trade
occasioned in the exportation of linen and linen yarns, net
from Dundee or from Forfarshire only, but from Ireland as
well. He had lately waited on the right hon. gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade with a memorial from
Dundee upon this subject, and he thought that a quotation
from some of the figures of that memorial would be the
most efficient way of calling the attention of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the manner in which the wine trade
affected not perhaps the revenue, but certainly the manu-
facturing interests of the country. In 1844, when the
French tariff was reduced on the importation of linens,
they exported 8,823,500 yards of linen into France, amount-
ing in value to 281,0001., and in the following year they
exported 8,586,600 yards of linen, amounting to 270,0001.
But the restrictions on the importation of French wines
into England were still continued. The imports of French
wines amounted in value to only 70,0001., and in conse-
quence the French put additional imposts upon the impor-
tation of linens, and the value of the exported linens fell
in consequence from 280,0001. to 45,000/. He thought that
fact was sufficient of itself, without any words from him,
to show how intimately connected this question was with
the trade, not of Dundee alone, but of the country at large.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. OLIVEIRA replied, and said that after the very
courteous manner in which he had been met by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, he could have no difficulty in ac-
ceding to what appeared to be the wish of the house, and
withdraw his motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. BUTT obtained a report of several papers connected
with Kilmainham Hospital.

LANCASTER ELECTION.

—....._..,.....
Mr. W. BROWN moved that a new writ be issued for
the borough of Lancaster, in the room of Mr. Armstrong,
unseated. He was not aware of any opposition to his mo-
tion, and he did not think the house would refuse to accede
to the motion.

Mr. THORNELY thought it was unadvisable to issue
writs where much bribery and treating were proved to
exist. It was true the committee had not in this case made
any special report, but they had found that the late mem-
ber was by his agents guilty of bribery ; and he thought
to grant a new writ now would only be to encourage cor-
ruption, for of course nothing would suit the corrupt party
better than to have an election once a month. (Laughter.)
He thought no writs should be issued in any case till all
the defaulters were before them, and he would move that
no writ be issued for the borough of Lancaster for the
space of one month.
Mr. HUME rose to ask on what principle it was that they
were to deprive one place of its member and to give it to
another ? He understood that the noble lord the member
for the city of London meant to apply some general mea-
sure to all these questions, and he regretted that he was
not present to give his opinion on this case. For himself,
he could not see why Lancaster should escape while the
freemen and the borough of Yarmouth had been dis-
franchised.
Mr. AGLIONBY agreed that there was no principle
guiding the house on the mode of issuing or withholding
the writ. Indeed, it seemed to be determined very much
by the circumstance whether the case was brought on
before or after dinner. At the same time he must say
that there were few cases where there was less evidence of
bribery than in the case of the borough of Lancaster. He
thought it would be very unsatisfactory if without any
more solid ground than was yet laid before them, the house
should make an exception in this case from its practice in
previous ones.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed with
the honourable member who had just addressed the house,
which he thought should not appear to act in matters of
this kind otherwise than by certain rules and systemati-
cally. This really was a consideration of the utmost im-
portance. It was far better that they should abate some-
thing of their particular wishes than that they should
perplex the minds of the public by exhibiting symptoms
vacillation, and should thus convict themselves of injustice
and incapacity to deal with those questions. There was
now, no doubt, a rule they ought to follow here. Before
they issued the writs for Blackburn and Bridgnorth there
might have been much to be said on both sides ; now there
was not. If there were corrupt practices they could still,
though they issued the writ, inquire into the corruption ;
that, therefore, could be no hindrance in the present case ;
whilst, as to the extent of corruption there was no evidence
of it in the cases of Blackburn and Bridgnorth than here.
After due consideration on those eases, the house had de-
termined—and it was a wise determination in his opinion
—that no writ of this kind should be moved, except after
a certain notice. The meaning and intent of that plainly
was, that unless within the seven days something in the
way of well-founded objection should arise, the writ should
be issued. Applying that now, he said that the members
of the committee were not present, as they would have
been had they thought it their duty ; and that there was
no appearance of opposition from the inhOitants of the