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

J~

'They objezted to the practice of warehou,ang spirits. That
was to say, that they would not bond themselves, nor allow
others to do so ; and yet they came to that House and com-
plained that they were not allowed to bond their spirits, unless
after the payment of duty, which involved a loss of 3d. per
gallon. If the allegation of the Scotch distillers were true,
they had for some years been suffering-and in silence, too-a
great drawback. In 1821 a drawback was placed upon malt,
in order to encourage legal distillation ; and in 1631 the Irish
distillers complained that the drawback, so l p aced opened a
door for a system of fraud by distilling in Scotland from a
mixture of malted and unmalted grain, which had been sur-
reptitiously obtained. A Committee was appointed to inquire
into the subject, and the result was the reduction of the draw-
back. Since that reduction the Scotch distilleries continued
lace
to thrive, and they made considerable imports into
this coun.
try. If they found that the burden pd upon their trade
*as too heavy to allow them to compete
with others, they
House
should bring the matter before the by one of
their own members ; but in his (Mr. Barkly's) opinion
there was little or ne real cause of complaint. There was one
consideration which should weigh with the landed interest to
induce them to consent to this measure, namely, that the
home-growth of barley was quite independent of the foreign
supply, so that their interest could in no way be affected. He
thought that at the present late period of the session, and in an
expiring Parliament, the reference of this subject to a Select
Committee, would be productive of much delay and inconveni-
ence, and therefore he should oppose the motion.
Mr. SHAW said that he had listened with very great at-
tention to the difficult and complicated ject then
under the the consideration of the House.-(Hear, hear.)
He was perfectly satisfied that his Noble Friend should get
the Committee. The subject was a very difficult and compli-
cated one, and on that account it was a very fitting one for
investigation. He would not go into details, ut he was bound
to say that he understood' from an eminent distiller, that 5 per
cent. was the utmost profit that could lately be made in the
distilling trade, and that if this measure passed it would drive
those who were engaged in it to give it up altogether.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that if the Noble Lord's motion
were carried, the forms of the House would prevent him from
effecting the object he had in view. He did not think, how-
ever, that a Committee was necessary, as the subject had been
already sufficiently investigated. And if the Committee were
appointed, the consequence would be that the minds of all who
were engaged in the distilling business would be unsettled.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then went into some details to
show that the diminution on the dtfferential duties on colonial
spirits that had been made since 1823, did not cause any de-
crease, but the reverse in the consumption of home spirits. In
1830, he introduced a measure for the reduction of the duty on
rum, is. 6d. to is., but owing to the change in the Ministry
which then occurred, that reduction had not been made. Even
upon the showing, however, of the distillers themselves, the
differential duty ought not to be more than 80. He would
not go into the able calculations of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he quite agreed with him
that 6d. was the very utmost to which the distillers of this
country had any claim in consequence of their increased burdens.
But when he reflected on the peculiar circumstances of the
case he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in deal-
ing tenderly with the home trade. He could not doubt but
by increasing the amount of protection they would benefit the
producer and the consumer. He might recall the attention of
the House to a memorial presented through Mr. Pierce
Mahon, in 1830, by the distillers of Ireland, when they said
they would compete with the producer of any country, clime,
or colour, provided they had the advantages of free trade, and
should not be subjected to a corn duty. That was a statement
which did them credit. If they spoke to facts in that day,
they could have no cue at the present moment, and he asked
the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer how he could say that ninepence was not
sufficient protection against foreign competition. But to
Mlle to the Scotch distiller. He doubted whether, if the
ease were properly looked into, he had a claim for Is. 4d.
drawback on the malt. But if the Scotch distillers had a case
against the rum producers at the present duty, they had a ease
still stronger against the admissieu of English corn spirits into
that country at the present charge. In fact, however, they
had a monopoly as against rum in their own country, and they
sent in 2,000,000 gallons of their liquor into England besides.
He was amazed at the combination which had taken place that
night against the colonial trade with the West
Indies. The course which had been pursued would
injure not only the colonial producers but the colonial
importers who were obliged to mike up their cargoes with
sugar or to charter the vessel to unload part at Dublin and the
rest at Liverpool. Let the House only look at the effect pro-
duced. In 1821 the home spirits brought to charge amounted
to 9,820,000 gallons, and the rum to 2,321,060 gallons ; but
in 1845, when home spirits brought to charge amounted to
23,600,000 gallons, rum only amounted to 2,400,000 gallons.
He felt he must oppose the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he must support the motion
of the Noble Lord for inquiry, and the more that the
Honourable Gentleman had made such a speech as
perhaps could not be answered on the instant. That
showed the necessity of some tribunal of appeal.
But he must say that the figures quoted by that Hon. Gentle-
man to show the quantity of spirits brought to charge only
showed that a large quantity had been smuggled But the
distillers had been the subject of Parliamentary interference
and enactment, which made them more deserving of the con-
sideration of the House.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, after avowing himself the
champion of freeetrade, after preparing them for the adoption
of a moderate differential duty, terminated his exordium by
informing the House that the Government intended to increase
the duty against their colonies. He then entered into items
which furnished the duties from which his Noble Friend's re-
sults had been drawn. They were not aware of the doubts
which had prompted the Right Hon. Baronet in his walk from
Downing-street to that House, to alter the predetermined duty
of 6d. into 9d., but he (Mr. Disraeli) thought the Right Hon.
Baronet should not have stopped there. He took it for
granted that protection to the British distiller, entered into
the arrangement which was come to at the end of
the session of 1845, and was also to be an essential in the
Right Hon. Baronet's measure, and he would ask if free com-
petition could exist in this country under the operation of the
excise laws? He thought it was agreed upon by all who had
taken part in the debate. He thought, in fact, it was agreed
upon by all who had considered the question, that compensation
should be given to the traders who suffered under the excise
system-who were the collectors of the very revenue which
they contributed to the Exchequer. The question was what
compensation were they entitled to receive from the country
for fulfilling that peculiar office. Every one agreed that this
compensation should be given, and as the difference between
the Right Hon. Baronet and his Noble Friend was only 3d.,
the House might very readily decide upon the amount of com-
pensation ? The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for the University was a great authority, from his
past experience arid official knowledge ; and he (Mr. Disraeli)
thought that he should be the very first person, under these
circumstances, who should be selected as an excellent mediator
on the subject. Fortunately they had an Act of that House,
passed at the end of the session of 1845, which not only ad-
mitted, but laid down that the differential duty of is. 3d.
should be imposed. Now, in the phrase of the day, that was
a great fact. It was an Act regulating the commercial transac-
tions of the Channel Islands, concocted in the secret recesses
of the Treasury. He would assume that a fair compensation
would be 14d. The Right Hon. Gentleman had told them
that at an interview with certain distillers, they had fixed the
amount of duty at 18d.. and announced that 9d. out of that
18d. was on account of the existing duty upon barley.
The Right Honourable Gentleman said there was writ-
ten evidence of this-that the admission was re-
deced into writing at the time. But the distillers
denied that such writing existed, at least, they had never
seen it ; but he understood that the substance of the conversa-
tion whch had passed between the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer and the deputation, and had been reduced to writing
by three excise-officers, who were present. Thus the three
respectable distillers were changed Into three excise-officers.
The statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman was, he pre-
sumed, an official romance. If three virgins were changed into
three dragons, the transformation could not be more complete.
(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted the cor-
rection of his Noble Friend's statements with two great excep-
tions ; these were the amount allowed on decreases, and the
charges of rectifying. The Noble Lord has estimated the de-
crease at 3aci.; while the Right Honourable Baronet on the
authority of the three distillers gave Id. The distillers
complained that the rectifying houses were removed a quarter
of a mile from the place where they carried on the other pro-
cesses of their manufacture, and that the excise duties com-
pelled them to manufacture an article which they were obliged
immediately to part with. The cost price of the article was
2s. 6d., the duty was 7s. 101, and they were obliged to pay it
before they were permitted to remove a gallon of it. Thus
they were forced to sell an unripe, article which had to compete
with a matured article from the Colonies. His Noble Friend
had shown that the decreases were equal to 31d. per gallon,
and that the additional cost for rectifying was as 3d.
per gallon. The Right Honourable Baronet stated
that these amounts were greatly exaggerated. Let
them judge from the return he had before him. He found
that from January, 1845, to January, 1846, the amount of
foreign gin entered for home consumption was 9,392 gallons,
and of that no less than 1,280 gallons were allowed for " de-
creases," being at the rate of 121/2 per cent. He came now to
rectification; and here the Right Hon. Gentleman said that
the only individuals entitled to compensation were the Irish
distillers. His Noble Friend said that the distance of the rec-
tifying house from the other distilling premises entitled him to
sixpence per gallon compensation. Now the question was, what
amount of compensation should be really given? That question
could only be answered by a severe analysis in a Committee up
stairs. Ile could not help thinking that this was a very limited
question, and that a Committee mast very soon arrive at a
conclusion upon it. His Noble Friend had apologised in his
opening speech to the House for bringing before them a very
dry subject. He had stated that it was a question of pence
and farthings. It consisted merely of five or six items-the
greatest amount being Is. 311 d.-the lowest amount 6d., and
the middle course recommended to the Cabinet 9d. He agreed
with the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite that a Committee
might, if they worked every day, bring in a report at the
end of a week. The Right Hon. Gentleman who was so
opposed to Committees had voted for a Committee to investi-
gate the navigation-laws.-(Laughter.) He (Mr. Disraeli)
wanted to know how that Committee was proceeding-how it
was going on-whether they were prepared to give their report
before Easter.-( Hear, hear.) The Right Hcn. Gentleman
had offered the House a private communication upon the sub-
ject of a deputation. He had said that when he was in office
many years ago the distillers were then in communication with
him, and that the Irish distillers made the following
communication to him. They had stated the case in the
following way to the Right Hon. Gentleman. They re
ceived what they called compensation, but which in these days
Flee called protection in the existence of that agricultural
legislation called the corn-laws, and the only reason urged by
those Irish distillers at that moment was, that the corn-laws
of they then existed, made a difference to them of Is. per
guan'le ntl That would be 20s. per quarter, and he held in his
it fora averagegreat number
prices of barley at that time. He had taken
did mg nuember of years, for the Right Hon. Gentleman
years stag the of his administration, but the number of
He found that the taken would, he was sure, contain that period.
price of barley was 295. and a frac-
tion. In 1n22, it average
entsie2ls tOd., and he wanted to know from
the Right lion. G
how it was possible that a duty of
20e,, for it was a duty, aenel,4l,utll, there be that duty on barley
selling at 21s. 10d. In
wase price was 265, per quarter,
and the average price or duty
quarter. The price of barley in 1821.113er gallon, or 20s. per
ofth the Right Hon.
per quarter according to the statementtsthave been
Is.
Md.
Gentleman, and upon the average of
_gallon. That
Administration, it must have been ss. 6d. lit
Period of his
or by another Right H
reminded him also of another statement wig had been made
le7 this Right Hon. Gentleman,
these 11
Gentleman. At any rate it was by a Right lion. Gentleman
-(A laugh)-for he never made any notes upon
Oda unless it came from the highest authority.-(Laughter.)
He found that, according to the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement, the duty on barley, at the rate of compensation of
9d. per gallon to the domestic distillers, must have been I6s.
per quarter, and yet in the average years to which the Right
Hon. Gentleman referred-in the year 1630, the price was as
high us he bad already stated. At the end of that year, it
toold be proved that the communication which was to decide
the fade of the motion on its merits, and which had recorded I
the opinions of distillers in their absence, was made, and that I
communication could be disproved if the Select Committee
wore granted to them. In 1830, 9d. per gallon, or 163. per qr.,
leas in effect the duty which was the foundation for the corn-
pensatioa gives to the domestic distillers, and the price of
DatieY was then 325. 7d. He left the House to form an opinion

-- -
what must have been the price of barley if the quotation of '
the Right Hon. Gentleman were correct. It only showed
how easily statements were made by many great officials ; how
they quoted and referred to documents of the dusty ages of
1830, before even Parliament was reformed. It gave the
notion that it was impossible to contend for a moment against
men of such experience—who had access to such important
archives—who were masters of the price of barley any year
during the last twenty or thirty. What a mass of intelligence
stylist be required for such a knowledge—what an embroglio of
statistics—and how these Right Hon. Gentlemen complimented
each other over the table—one Chancellor of the Exchequer
saying that the other Chancellor's speech could not be answered
—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer crying "Hear, hear."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved satis-
factorily to the House that in 1831 barley was
selling at is. 10d. per quarter, and another Chancellor of the
Exchequer allowed that barley in 1830 was 16s. 7d. per quarter.
The question was to be decided upon these facts, and he asked
the House not to consent to any decision upon so limited a
knowledge. The question was one which at first sight might
not appear of vast importance ; it was very possible that there
might not have been meetings in popular halls to call upon the
people to advocate their interest. It was only legislating upon
a commercial question concerning the interests of a long-esta-
blished wealthy and loyal part of the population of this country.
They had come to them and asked from them nothing but
inquiry. If they asked not for an inquiry, and for a favour, he
could easily understand a Ministry saying—Do not let us dis-
turb this old-established state of things ; what you ask may be
right, but we do not wish to disturb that which is already
settled. What they required was an investigation into a
matter affecting the commercial industry of England ; here
were these men asking only for an inquiry into a wrong!
The Government had interfered a few years ago very sensibly
with the interest of these distillers, and it was so only last year
—ayear considered a year of settlement of this question, and after
the House had discussed one of the most important questions
connected with the commerce of this country which had ever
been submitted to its consideration. This question never
could have been settled except for that first-rate settlement. It
had been brought forward, he would say, not too harshly
or readily, but in a manner and with an expedition
not anticipated at any other time. After corn and
sugar, they had taken the question of distillers at
the end of the session, without any opportunity of
criticising their conduct in the two first instances. They had
interfered considerably withthe distillers' interest, and they did
not give him time to consider of it. They had taken him by
surprise. Like Englishmen, these men had got over the
shock—they were again pursuing their trade—again investing
their capital—and again came the Chancellor of the Exchequer
down to the House with a crude and undigested measure in his
mind. They bad come down to the House, not in a spirit
of faction, but in order to reason against the proposition ; but
before they could offer a word the Chancellor said he had
changed his mind, and said they were going to give them one-
half of what they were going to ask. He (Mr. Disraeli)
' should have had more respect for a Minister who had adhered
to his original proposition.—(Hear, hear.) They were asking
nothing of him but an inquiry into a change respecting a law
' interfering with a very important branch of industry, which
they had changed a few months ago, and respecting which the
Government bad not any defined or matured proposition. Was
it reasonable that they must have the injustice inflicted on them
when they said that they could find no convenience in any fur-
ther change ? They said that, considering the import-
ant change of last year—considering that the Govern-
ment of the present day had lately shown themselves most
fickle and capricious—they did net think it a measure likely to
lead to credit or character for consistency of the Government.
The Government ought to consider the policy and prudence of
a measure before they tampered again with the interest of these
distillers—they ought at least to make themselves masters of
the facts—they ought at least to inquire before they decided.
Mr. CARDWELL said, why was this inquiry demanded?
Was it asked for by any of those interested—by the colonists?
No, it was demanded only by the distillers, who, upon their
own admission, had concluded the case against themselves.
The Hon. Gentleman had, much to the amusement of the
House, made several attacks upon the Government, and had
stated that Chancellors of the Exchequer, by a species of leger-
demain, converted documents written in the absence of parties
into documents written by the parties themselves. He had in
his hand a document—a private document—of a Mr. John
Hadleigh, of Wandsworth, where it was marked—" Extra
costs arising from the existing corn-law, 96d."—(Laughter. )
He had also another document, from a Mr. Pierce Mahon— a
gentleman high in the confidence of the distillers—which went
in distinct corroboration of all which had been stated by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to him, the allow-
ance to the distillers was Is. when the corn-law existed. Now
that it did not exist, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to leave them 9d., and _that being the case, was there
any party which had a right to complain ?
The Noble Lord below him had not drawn any distinction be.
wren proving and overproving his case. The Noble Lord
had proved so much on his case, as to furnish the most con-
clusive arguments against it. He had proved that the loss by
the excise laws was tid per gallon, and it had afterwards been
proved that the whole cost of manufacture—loss on the excise
laws included—was only 6d. per gallon. The Noble Lord had
proved that a compensation of Is. 71d. was required, and the
distillers had for many years been contented with Is. 6d.
Lord JOHN MANNERS denied that the facts were so
clear, as the Hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, stated,
for they were very differently quoted by the different speakers
who had spoken on the (petition. The distillers and the ex-
cise authorities might know them, but they were;by no means
well known to that House. He predicted that the sstticment
proposed by the Bill before the House, would be no settlement,
for even if the distillers and the Excise were satisfied with it,
it was by no means certain that her Majesty's Ministers would
rot come down to make another alteration.—(Ch?ers and
laughter.) He thought a sufficient case had been made out
for inquiry, and he would support the motion of his Noble
Friend.—( Cheers, and cries of " Divide.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment... 6B
Against it
Majority —ll7
On our return to the gallery we found the House had go:ie
into Committee on the Bill.

The various clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and on
the question that the report be brought up,
Mr. HUME expressed his regret that the Chancellor of the-
Exchequer had shown sol touch vacillation, as to give way
to the persuasions of the distillers. He did not believe that be
had gained a single vote by such a course.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received on !Monday.
WA YS AND MEANS.
_

The House then went into Committee, and it was agreed to
raise the sum of 18,500,0001. of Eachequer-Bills, for the ser-
vice of the year 1847.

SUPPLY.

The House immediately afterwards went into a Committee
of Supply.
A vote of 500,000'. for the relief of the distress in Ireland,
up to the 31st March, was agreed to.
The vote of 600,0001. for relief of the destitute in Ireland, by
means of soup kitchens, for the year ending the 31st March,
1848, was then proposed, and agreed to.
The vote of 60,000/. to meet civil contingencies, for the year
ending the 31st March, 1848, was then agreed to.
On the vote of 50,0001. to defray the expenses of the works
on the Houses of Parliament being proposed,
Mr. HUME regretted that the building was so unsatisfac-
tory in its architectural designs and the working management.
He hoped they would have a House of Commons without all
the frippery which he saw—frippery which belonged to the time
of Louis Quaterz, without any of the taste characteristic of that
time. The estimate was originally 750,0001., but three times
that sum was found would not now finish them. Who, he
asked, was the responsible person who managed these
works? When and what room were the Members of the
Commons to have in the House of Lords ?
Lord MORPETH said the room provided below the bar
of the New House of Lords was 900 square feet.
The vete was then agreed to.
The vote of 20,0001. to defray the charges of the British
Museum, till the 31st March, 1845, was agreed to.
The House then resumed—and Mr. GREENE reported
progress.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he had been ene of the Com-
mittee on this Bill, and he appeared as assenting to the
present form of the Bill. But that happened altogether
through an irregularity, for he did not, and he could not agree
with it. He did not think sufficient inquiry had been made
into the state of agricultural interests, especially the jnterests
of the tenant. There was a strong wish in the north to have
the tenant-right more clearly defined, and the sums to be ap-
portioned for compensation. He must say he was not prepared
to go on with the Bill.

kr. PUSEY said he was chairman on the Committee,
and that the first day they they met they went through the
Bill except two clauses. The second day they had proceeded
so far that they might have reported that afternoon. They
met afterwards ; an amendment was made and carried, and he
as chairman put it to the Committee that he should report the
Bill as amended, which was carried, and it was also carried
that he should leave the chair. It was not natural after this
that the Committee should be brought together again. He did
not think that the Hon. Gentlemaa ought to have made the
charge which he did, and expected that he would withdraw it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said there was a decided misunder-
standing among the Members of the Committee.
Mr. JAMES thought this Bill had been carried through in
a way something like clandestine. It was a Bill which enabled
the ill-minded tenant to rob his landlord more effectually than
he could before.—( Laughter. )
Mr. ACKLAND said that the clauses were most maturely
considered, and gone through before the Committee broke up.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN had left the Committee
without understanding that they were to meet again.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not sure that the Bill itself
would not be improved if the tenant were allowed to claim a
pecuniary remuneration for the improvements effected, but he
thought the House could not legislate upon the subject without,
in the first place, knowing what the practice and custom of
tenant right was in different parts of the country, and secondly,
how far and how they could best give effect to those customs
by a legal enactment. The House was much indebted to the
lion. Member opposite (Mr. Pusey) for -the pains he had
taken and the ability he had shown in placing upon a proper
footing the subject of agricultural tenants' rights ; but he
thought the Hon. Member would consider that sufficient con.
sideration had not been given to the measure..
Mr. PUSEY said that it was scarcely fair to introduce a
discussion upon this Bill night after night, :and especially by so I
practised a debater as his Right Hon. Fri.€ nd ( Sir R. Peel).
There were only twelves clauses in the and the Commit-
tee had sat three days upon it, giving one Inour to each clause.
--(Laghter. ) He thought, therefore, that tthe objections urged
by the Right Hon. Baronet were scarcely ttenable.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE explained the custom as it pre-
veiled in the county of Lincoln, and contended, that as differ-
ent customs prevailed in other counties a m ore extended inquiry
should be made into the subject before the Bill was introduced.
Sir G. GREY and Sir J. Y. BULLER'. recommended the
Hon. Member to withdraw his Bill for the p resent.
Mr. PUSEY could not consent to any pro stponement of the
measure to a remote period.
Mr. HENLEY considered that if any interference were
offered to the Hon. Member's Bill he had hituself to blame for
it. The measure should be placed for a tettond reading on a
Wednesday, when it would be properly .thscus3ed, but when
placed on the paper on a Government n;,g ht it was sure not
to be brought before the House until one I)r two o'clock in the

morning.
Mr. PUSEY, after a few words in exAsnation, postponed
his measure to the 21st of April neat.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS' -.BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a & 'c and time,
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated any interference with
drainage—let those who wanted drainage, (Ix ain for themselves.
—(Laughter.) He had done so, and hope d others would do
likewise. He also considered that this was. one of those Bills
which ought not to be taken at that late It our, but ought to
have been fixed for a Wednesday, or some • other day when it
could be full)) discussed. He concluded by msu wing the adjourn-
ment of the House.
vent
Lod LINCOLN hoped the Gallant Col,ats el would not pre-
his r
neighbour from draining his land 'because he did so
himself. He (Lord Lincoln) had brought forward the Bill at
the urgent request of a vast number of 'ixndowners. If the
Gallant
second readinv. Colonel persisted in his motion, ho should postpone the
Colonel SIBTHORP said he should pet viat in his motion.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said the Ira!, was greatly re-
quired by landlords, and would
threw no. expense upon the