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

One part of the Irish case differed from the other pftr,t
of the Irish case, and one part of the Scotch case do
fered from the remainder. If he were justified in ask'
ing for a Select Committee—if he were justified wiles
he gave notice of the motion—he was so far from
being dissuaded from it by the annouceras,ol
made by his Right Hon. Friend, that he was still
further encouraged to persevere irom the very resist)°,
that the mind of the Right Hon. Gentleman was 11°'
made up upon this subject. Whilst up to tbee
present time he had thought that the•
ferential duty should be sixpence, he had 110?1,4
consented to give way; and, though he did
not acknowledge that his mind was changed, still be
had changed the measure of the Government. He could
assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that if he were pul
upon that Committee, so little was he prejudiced nen°
the subject, so little was his desire to give any advantage
to the British distiller over the colonial producer of nun,
that if it could be proved to him that there was a neces'
sity for 9d. instead of 60., or that there should be no
differential duty at all, he would be the first man to pro'
pose such a measure to the Committee. It was n°'
-very long ago since an Act was passed relating
to the differential duties between the Channel Islands
and Great Britain. That Act was the 65th sec. of the
8 and 9 Viet. In that Act it was stated that
Is. 20. was the amount of the countervailing duty bra
tween the spirits from the Channel Islands a°
the agricultural produce of Great Britain'
He had, therefore, a right to assume that the sum of Is.'
or at least 111 d., was a just assessment as between run
and British spirits, because the Act of which he we
speaking recited in its preamble that the object of we
Bill was to determine what was the extent of the 1„1•
cise restrictions, and the House by passing that Bill
had decided that the extent of the Excise restrictions
amounted to ls. 2d. The Excise laws were altered in
1823, not for the advantage of the distiller, but for the
better collection of the Excise duties. The result was
that every distiller was forbidden to distil and brew e`
the same time, and to brew and distil on the same Pre'
muses. Every distiller was consequently obliged t°
double his plant, to increase the size of his premises'
and to increase the number and size of his coppers. Ta°
effect of which was that a distiller, whose businesi
could be carried on for 40,0001., required
capital of 80,0001.—(Hear.) He was ' putting the
Irish part of the case first. Now it was given in evident!
before a Committee which sat in 1823, that an Iris?
distiller, who produced 60,000 gallons of whisky in his
business, and who previously required but 5,000 L as
his capital, was in consequence of these new re'
strictions obliged to increase his plant, and to
out 5,000/. more in order to conduct his business.
101. per cent. would be the result, or 5004 a year,
which would have to be charged against 60,000 gallons.
500/. divided over 60,000 gallons would give exactly this
result. The next item was the loss of materist
arising out of these restrictions. These re-
strictions obliged the distiller to brew at s
certain gravity—to give so many days' notice of his in.
tendon to brew, and ss many hours' notice of any
removement he makes. Thus he was sometimes
obliged to stop his works for twelve hours—to
allow his furnaces to become extinguished, causing a
waste which was estimated at one-twelfth of the
whole produce. The Irish distillers estimated the loss
in this way at 2d. a gallon. Then there was the loss in
wages, because it was necessary to pay the worknsei
during these temporary stoppages ; in fact it Was
necessary for the distiller to increase the W;
ber of persons in his employment, to exeen;
double time, and to pay double wages.—(Hear.)
distillers put this at ls, 2d. per gallon (as we under
stood). Then again with respect to yeast.—(Bear,
hear.) In making spirits, owing to the restrictions,
was necessary to use fresh yeast at every brewing, wille
would not be necessary if the restrictions were removed.
It was a fact that under the operation of the Excise laws
the distillers were obliged to let their yeast run down
the gutter, and to purchase the same from other parties'
The distillers of Galway, of Belfast, and of Drogheda'
were thus obliged to come to the London mare
ket in order to purchase yeast, while they then;
selves were obliged to waste it. The expense of yea
to the gallon was a penny. There were 26,000,000 of
gallons of spirits distilled in England and Ireland, whit
at Id., would give an amount of 110,000/. of waste turned
down the gutter, under the operation of the Excise Jail',
That made sd. They then came to the malt duty.
,„,
was now speaking of Ireland. In what
swr,.
called the raw corn spirit, about two-tn" ;
teenths of the corn was malted ; theretos;
if they charged an amount equalling two-thirteent'e
on the whole quantity employed, the malt duty he„ill
ls. 40. a gallon, it would give a duty of 21d. per ge"°-
for malt duty alone. A high authority in these matters
in former times—he meant the late Mr. Huskissone"'
maintained that the whole malt duty was in itsell
heavy charge, but that the restrictions on malt add 1
one-half to the amount of duty, to the rel:4
cost of malt ; for the same restriction that opPliD.
to spirits applied also to the making of lots
In cold weather the barley required more than ford
hours for its proper steeping, but in warm weather less'
The Excise laws would not, however, change the 110,114
and in many instances in warm weather the barley
sprouted and was spoiled. The loss in this way Was
2s. 6d. per quarter. He then came to another subiee;
which was called, in the language of distillers,!
decreases. In England the duty was charged Upon
British spirits as they left the worm head, but it 110,
charged upon rum, notes it left the East and West Indl.
nr arrived in this country, but as it came out of boo
He found ;by a return, ordered by that House on the
29th May last, that the allowance made to the ratunParr
ducers was—in England, three six-tenths of a Pe'",-`;‘,l
in Ireland, seven seven-hundredths of a penny ; seu '),-
Sestland, eight five-tenths of a penny, upon each
gallon. In England, out of 2,411,001 OW!!
imported, 76,794 had been allowed, the money for
which, as returned for deficiency and leakage'
was 36.2481. In Ireland 737 gallon were allowed'
at a suns of 347/. upon 30,770 gallons introduced, and
in Scotland the sum of 1,534/. was allowed for 3,287
gallons, out of 43,135 gallons imported. He would COW
calculate chat would be the amount of drawback (if
such it might be called) to the rum producers of Eng'
land, Iroland, and Scotland. He found that the
drawback to the rum producers of England would
be three 4 10ths of a penny ; Ireland two 1-Bths;
and Scotland four 3 -10ths of a penny.—(Hear, hear.)
The result of all these disadvantages, as far as the dis-
tillers were concerned, was that it would take 11id. and
kof a penny to put them on a par with the colonial
rdeisrtigllaelriso,nss..helrneaasddi
tooffco9nd.-
tend with many other disadvantages.
pdoissetdi
lletros kade
Another example
ittiwonastootnhlyispthroe
of the same kind was the removal of the glass duties.
For that measure the country was indebted to the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Although his:(Sir
R. Peel's) sanguine expectations bad not been realised, .
yet the result was perfectly surprising. By a return laid.
on the table of the House last year it appeared, that
owing to the increase for sheet and piste
glass, the manufacturers had increased their
works. New works had been erected in Dublin+
Belfast, Hull, and other places. The want 01,
skilful hands was much felt—in fact, so much was this
scarcity felt, that the workmen who could be obtained
had forced their employers to allow them hit her wages'
and they had been increased in consequence 301. per cent.
—as they received from 4/. to 81. a week. He thoug9.
in the case of glass he had shown a very strong example°
what the removal of Excise duties would accomplish, for
it must be borne in mind that as regarded the glass duties,,
the removal of the Excise duties upon it had not led to any
increased exportation of the article. The increase was
created at home, as shortly after the repeal of the duties
in this country the duties on foreign glass were re'
pealed, so that English and foreign glass came at once
into competition, and they competed on equal terms'
He was justified from the increase of the home u°11:
sumption in these articles to suppose,7that if the Excise
duties were amended, tvid greater facilities given 1°
to the distillers in their manufacture, an' enormous
increase would be the result. As regarded the
case of Ireland, there was another conside-
ration which the House was bound to enterluill' -
Whisky was the great drink of Ireland, but s'
very small proportion of that whisky Wss,
made from malted corn. The advantage which
arose from the malting of barley was that
it was deprived of its poisonous qualities. As °nit
100,000 gallons were distilled from barley so prepared,
it followed of course that the mass of the Irish populate
tion drank a poisonous instead of a wholesome liquor'
The exports of foreign spirits from this country Wore
enormous, but no British spirits were enabled to be ex.
ported at all. That was the case with Irish spirits ;.
what was the case with regard to England. The Eng;
lish distilleries did not consume half the quantity 01
grain that was consumed by the Irish distillers, for they
rectified the spirits they manufactured instead of malt'
iug them. The English distiller also claimed id. Per
quarter on foreign barley employed in the manufacture
of spirit. If, then, the house would consider the several
items they would find the duty on barley amounted 1°
id., on malt 21d., the charge on increase plant id., the
interest on money required for increased plant id., the
loss by allowing the yeast to run down the gutters 1c 1;t
the loss on material 2d., the duty on the decreases 3°*,
4-10ths, the interest on the amount of duty paid in acv
vance, id., and the loss by the prohibition to allow the,
distillers to rectify their own spirits 3d., they would fist!
that upon the whole of the items a charge was made of
Mid. and 3-20ths of a penny on the home producer,.
He would now finish with the Scotch case. It differed

from the English and the Irish case in this, that tAo'
thirds of the spirits made in Scotland was malt spirits•
They had the same restriction with regard to the excise.
As a set-off to the aid. to which he had referred in the
Irish case, and the 2id. in the English case, they bad
the entire malt duty to pay, with the exception of the
Bd. of drawback. In the manufacture of Scotch

spirits, a duty was paid on the malt of Is. 4d. per
The various items made altogether 19fd. and 3 20th. 0,1
Id. in addition to another id. which ought to be charged
for interest ; or, taking Mr. Huskisson's estimate, at 4d.
less, 15/d. and 3 20ths of ld., to which Scotland would
be entitled, to put her on equal terms with the produce
of foreign countries.—(Hear, hear.) He thanked the
House for the patience with which they had listened to,
his statement.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he had
shown the House just reasons for referring the subje.o.,.
to a Committee up-stairs,—(Hear, hear,)—where wit'
nesses might be examined, and where they might deli'
berately ascertain what was the exact justice of the case.
He was no advocate for any wanton interference with
the En'lish, Irish, or Scotch distillers, or for giving then
any undue advantage over the Colonial distillers.
He was no advocate for any monopoly whatsoever, but
sought only exact justice between both parties ; and the
case he sought could only be properly investigated in
Select Committee up stairs, consisting of impartial per.
sons. The Noble Lord concluded by submitting his
motion, and resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who
was very imperfectly heard, said, that he thought that
his Noble Friend, in his anxiety to make a good cart
had somewhat exceeded the anactint of glievtinceg