The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-05 00:00:00

WINE DUTIES.

Mr. SPRING RICE brought in a Bill for the equali-
zation of the dutie3 on wines.

Colonel TRENCH gall. notice that on Monday next he
should move for the appointment of a Select Committee,
to consider the mode of making the House of Commons
more commodious and less unwholesome.—(Laughter.

Mr. LAMBERT withdrew his notice of motion, which
he had given for to-night, on the understanding that he'
should have the permission of his Majesty's Ministers to
make that motion on the first day after the Reform Bill
had passed through the Committee.
Mr. ATT WOOD accused his Majesty's Government of
holding in the Treasury Chambers private meetings of
the Members of that House—collecting their tutored 'Dojo.
rities, and sending them instructed to vote on a question of
the wine duties. That question was brought before the
House by surprise, and the resolutions of the 1I th
of July were carried by that majority, and with-
out any other Parliamentary authority. The Go-
vernment had carried them into effect on the 20th.
He considered such proceedings a mockery to the House,
alike censurable and illegal. And he felt bound, in order
to vindicate its authority and the rights of the people,
to move that his Majesty may be graciously pleased
to cause to be laid before the House a copy of the authority
under which the Board of Customs had proceeded to levy
additional ditties on all wines, not Fiench, delivered out
of the warehouses for home consumption, since the 20th
of July last.
Lord ALTHORP would make one remark respecting a
question which the lion. Member had stated be (Lord
Althorp) had put to him on a former occasion, whether
he knew of any meeting of Meml era out of that House.
That Hon. Member had denied having attended any meeting,
but when he asked the question, he implied no censure on
any gentleman even for attending there; knowing as he
did the advantage to the House of gentlemen acting to-
gether, it would, indeed, have been extraordinary in him if
he had deemed such conduct at all censurable. The Hon.
Member had said that previous to the ovine-duties
being brought before the House, he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) h-ad engaged a large number of gentlemen to
support them. He believed'he might say, in answer to
that, that he bad never at all, on any occasion, men-
tioned the wine duties ; nor had the House been taken
by surprise, as the Hon. Member had alleged. He was
asked by an Hon. Member opposite when he should bring
forward the question of the wine duties, and by an ar-
rangement which he entered into it was brought on
on the 11th.—(Hear.) He had no objection to a
copy of the order under which the duties had been
levied up to the present time. But as such was the uni-
form practice of Government he would move, as an amend-
ment, for the production of all orders of the Treasury
by which duties had been varied on authority of the re-
solutions of the House since January, 1800, together with
the resolutions on which they were founded.
Mr. ROBINSON thought thr.t tilt Noble Lord might
suceeed in establishing a precedent for the practice, but if
resolutions in Committee were to have the effect of law,
the Bill should be brought in immediately, and passed
through both Houses without delay.
Mr. GOULBURN did not deny that when duties
were to be imposed, it was expedient that they
should be imposed at the period at which the
resolutions were first passed in Committee ; but it
had always been the practice, distinctly and spe-
cifically, to state in the resolutions the precise pe-
riod from which the new resolutions were to attach.
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by complaining
that the original resolutions omitted to state the ditty ac-
tually levied, and the date from which the duty was levied.
Mr. P. THOMPSON said the mode adopted in levying
the duty had been adopted, not from its convenience in
the collection of the revenue, but of the parties from whom
it was to be collected. It had been the custom, on former
occasions, to adopt the same course as the Government
had pursued in the present instance, and they had in
fact taken some resolutions of the year 1825 as
their guide. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had looked
at the resolutions of 1825 he would have found that the
present Government had taken it as a precedent, for those
resolutions were as similar as possible to the present.—(Mr.
Goulburn here observed across the table, that the resolu-
tions of 1825 were for a reduction of the duty.) It was
not a question of reduction but of date ; the Right
Hon. Gentleman said, these resolutions should state the
date from which the duty was to he levied ; the question
of whether they were resolutions for reducing or for
increasing the duty was not applicable, for if the resolu-
tions for reducing the duty bore no date from whence
it was to be reduced, those for increasing the duty
need not state the date. The case of 1825 was a'so
similar to this in another point ; for, after these resolutions
were passed (although it was a considerable time after-
wards) a Bill was introduced, enacting that the reduc-
tion of the duty should take effect from the period
of passing the resolution, and that would be done
in the present case. As regarded the wine trade, it had
been found a great convenience to the traders to levy the
ditty from the period that the resolutions had been
passed ; but then this was upon the understanding
that a Bill would be brought in for that purpose. He
had heard no complaints upon that subject; on the con-
trary, be understood it had been very convenient to the
trade.

Mr. GOULBURN believed there had at one time been
a very different feeling at the Treasury upon this subject
than seemed to be entertained now,

After some observations from Sir Charles Wetherell,
Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Callaghan, and Mr. Attwood, the
amendment was agreed to.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP the report of the
Committee on the King's message for the better provision
of the Duchess of Kent was brought up, and a Bill or-
dered to be brought in according to the resolutions.