The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 23.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given to-day by Commission
to the following Bills:---
The Exchequer Bills Bill, the Mutiny Bill, the
Marine Mutiny Bill, the indemnity Bill, the Markets
ni Fairs Clauses Bill, the Gas Works
and
Bill, the Commissioners Clauses Bill, the
Waterworks Clauses Bill, the Troops during
Elections Bill, the General Register House Edinburgh
Bill, and the District Fire Insurance Company of Bir-
mingham Bill.
The Lord Commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor,
the Earl of Minto, and the Marquis of Clanricarde.
The LoaD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from Stour-
bridge in favour of a national poor-rate.,
In reply to a question from the Earl of WICKLOW,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was his intention
to move the second reading of the Encumbered Estates
(Ireland) Bill on Tuesday next.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the
guardians of the North Eastern Union of the county of
Suffolk against the Poor Removal Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions against
the Poor Removal Act.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition
cor-
poration of Dublin against the Cu from the
stoms' Duties Bill.
The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the eight
distillers of England against the further reduction
of the !differential duties on rum. After reading ex-
tracts from the petition, he said that although there
were only eight
signatures to this
_petition, the
interests which they represented . might be judged
of tetra the amount of Excise duty they paid
into the revenue. This amounted to no less a
sum than 3,500,0001. a year, the whole amount of
the revenue from the Excise being about six millions.
Se had also to present a petition from Scotland regard.
ing a case which was somewhat different to the one be
had just troubled their Lordships with. It was from
the distillers of Scotland, and they complained that
while they were subjected to both the Customs and
Excise duties they were only allowed a draw-
back of half the duty they had originally paid.
He had also petitions to the same effect from Suther-
land and numerous other places in Scotland.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from seve-
ral large distillers in Ireland against the Bill, and pray-
ing their Lordships not to pass the Bill into a law with-
out bestowing upon the subject the gravest considerations.
He also presented a petition from some gentlemen of
the highest respectability in some part of Scotland, the
name of whom did not reach the gallery, complaining of
the hardship inflicted upon them by the present regula-
:ions with respect to " the allowances."
VENTILATION BILL.
The Earl of FITZWILLIAM gave notice of a mo-
tion on the susWect of the Ventilation Bill.
IMSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
The Earl of CLARENDON moved the second reed-
it).- of the Customs' Duties Bill. The differential duties
of 6d., would be sufficient to meet all the incidental ex-
penses. The duty on rum at present was, for England,
—S. "d for Scotland, 4s. id., and for Ireland, 3s. sd.
The duty last year was reduced from Is. 6d. to Is., and
there was no complaint heard from the distillers in
consequence. His Noble Friend ascribed that to the
circumstance of the alteration being made nearly at the
close of the session, but this could not operate to pre-
vent the distillers from expressing their feelings on the
subject, bad they felt aggrieved. A claim, however, had
since been put forward for a differential duty
of ls. 4d. per gallon, but it was estimated on the other
hand, that making every allowance they were not en-
titled to a differential duty of more than 2d. He would
now the state the grounds on which this claim was sought
to be supported. The Noble Lord then went over the
various details, which in the estimation of the distillers
entitled them to this difference. The claims of the dis-
tillers in Scotland reached so far as Is. 6d., but on a
careful examination of the subject they were allowed
90. only. But the Irish distillers had an allowancelof I s.
made to them, because it was supposed that
they laboured under greater disadvantages than the
distillers of England. Originally the allowance made
to the Scotch distiller was is. 4d., but it was
afterwards reduced by a Committee of the House of
Commons to Sd. The Irish distiller claimed a penny,
but he thought the claim could not be supported, in as far
as the Irish distiller was amply compensated by the aid.
allowed to the English rectifier fur his loss in the pro-
cess of rectifying. If the whole of the spirit distilled in
this country wore to be distilled from malt, the duty
must be charged as a differential duty, in the same way
as it was charged upon the foreign or colonial export
introduced. The Scotch distillers did not, however, use
malt. It was used only for the purpose of making a
better spirit, in improving its quality ; and if the Scotch
distiller were allowed a drawback on the malt, he might
just as well claim something for the spices and essential
oil which were used in their manufacture. Now, if they
were to give protection according to the ingredients
used in the manufacture of spirits, they ought at once
to listen to the claim of the English distiller for protec-
tion against the competition to which they were sub-
jected by Scotland and Ireland. The quantity of spirit
manufactured in England was 5,500,000 galls. per annum.
The quantity imported from Scotland was 2,150,000 galls.
and from Ireland, 1,400,000 gallons; making a total of
3,530,000 gallons imported from the two countries,
showing a competition with British spirits to the extent
of three-fifths. He did not think, therefore, that the
clai its of the Irish and Scotch distillers to further pro-
tection could be entertained. They were already in a
most favourable position to enable them to compete with
the British manufacturer, and with that adraatage they
ought to be satisfied.
Lord STANLEY said, the great question to be con-
sidered was, what amount of ditty ought to be paid
which would be most equitable between the English dis-
tilleries, and those of the colonies.
The Duke of MONTROSE said this question had
never been fairly discussed. The Scotch distillers did
sot ask for further protection. What they wanted was,
so be placed in such a position as to be enabled to com-
pete successfully with the colonies. The pro-
tective and differential duties were originally pro-
posed by parties who never consulted the dis-
tillers, or any portion of their body, upon the
subject, or a broader distinction would have
been drawn between spirits produced in Scotland and
the spirits of the colonies. The consequence was the
excise regulations inflicted great loss upon the Scotch
distiller In cold weather the excise did not allow
sufficient time to admit of malt going through the pro-
cess of distillation. Besides the foreign distiller was
only charged for the amount of spirits which was taken out
of bond, whereas the British distillers were charged for
the spirit when it left the etill. The loss incurred by
this alone amounted to a considerable sum, and entitled
the distillers of this country to the differential duty they
claimed. The various processes also which the English
distillers were obliged to carry on in different places,
and at different times, in the manufacture of their spirits,
was an additional argument to induce the Government
not to propose any reduction on the differential duty.
Mr. G,,ulburn stated that the case of the Scotch distillers
had been much over-rated, but he (the Duke of Mon-
trose) thought that the ex Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not come to a correct conclusion in making such a
statement; for when the various excise regulations and
reatrictons were carefully considered, there could be very
little doubt that the estimate of claims had not been over-
stated. He had not the least hesitation in saying, that
if these various restrictive regulations were removed,
there would be some grounds for proposing a further re-
duction in the duties, but so long as they remained as
burdens on the British distillers, it was only fair and just
they should have that protection, which placed them on
a level with the colonial spirit producers. He would,
therefore conclude by proposing, as an amendment, that
the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He
did not think their Lordships were competent to judge
of the present question without a knowledge of details
with which they were not at present acquainted. It
was his firm belief that if their :Lordships acceded to
this Bill they would arrive at a judgment without a due
knowledge of the subject. They had to deal with a question
in which a vast amount of employment was required. The
only effect would be to throw a large amount of poor
on their respective parishes, and that at a period when
the landed interest and the poor were enduring their
respective necessities with the greatest forbearance.
There was another view in which the measure was to be
considered. The taste for whisky was so strong that it
was not to be supposed that the inhabitants of Scotland
would quietly accede to a measure like the present.
Lord CAMPBELL—This was a subject of consider-
able importance to the interests which it would effect.
He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would refer
this matter to a Committee of the whole House.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that perhaps his
Noble Friend knew better how to drink Islay whiskey
than how to make it. His Noble Friend did not appear
to be very conversant with the subject in all its bearings.
A mature consideration had been promised for this
measure at the close of the last session, and the result of
that promise was a further protective duty imposed by
the Chancellor of the Excheouer. That addition of 31,
which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
the sum which he at first proposed, was made on the
representation of the distillers themselves. His Noble
Friend thought that the sum of 6d. was quite sufficient
for these distillers,o
and then unconsciously made out a
still stronger reason for the inquiry, which was de-
manded. He hoped n
trustedt that a long time would
not elapse before the malt tax would be repealed. That
tax was a burden which long since to have
been removed from the statueb
brear,kan. The people had
d they would now
long since agitated for cheap
insist upon cheap beer.
Lord STANLEY said that it might be
rue that the
question of free trade did not enter into this
but a question of justice to two great interestsdiclieduins*
fere--two interests which might be materially affected
by the course which might be taken by the louse, He
had heard with much astonishment the declaration of the
Noble Lord opposite, that 6d. was a fair and sufficient
compensation to the distillers. He was not one of those
who would call upon their Lordships to make great sa-
crifices for the West India interests, but he did say that
neither the West India proprietors, the Brazilian, or the
Cuban proprietors, had any right to ask to be placed in
our markets, in a position superior to the native manu-
facturer.—(Hear, hear.) He granted that they might be
admitted upon an equality. This question was one
which turned upon the accurate calculation of the smallest
MUDS. His Nob!e Friend had said that he would give
3d. to these distillers, though they claimed 6d. His reason
that sum, was that he thought, from cal-
for giving only
culations which he had made, that that sum would
meet the demapd upon them. That was really begging
the whole question, for it then came to the consideration
of which was right—his Noble Friend or the distillers.
There were many restrictions placed upon the distiller
which were most injurious to him. Due notice had to
Z given of every operation that was to be performed in

the distillery. They were not allowed to open more
than one vat of wort at the same time, and if there were
two vats of wort in the distillery, and one of these vats
burst, although there was a plug from one -vat to the
other by which all the wort could be saved, yet the
distiller was prohibited by a heavy penalty from drawing
that plug; and, if the excise-officer were not present, he
must see the liquor run to waste. At the same time, let
their Lordships remember that the value of the contents
of one of these ordinary vats was 1,500 L, and the duty
which was paid upon it was 1,2001.; so that not only did
the distiller lose 1,5001., the value of the wort, but
1,2001. the duty paid upon it, and not one shilling of
which would be returned to him by the Excise. Should
their Lordships allow any interference with the rights of
people so heavily oppressed as the distillers already
were, without some inquiry into the mode by which they
were about to alter a system which had existed for
years. fie trusted that their Lordships would not
refuse their assent to the motion of his Noble Friend
behind him.

Earl GREY admitted the ability of the speech of the
Noble Lord who had just sat down, but he could not
agree with his conclusions. He considered the argu-
ments of the Noble Earl who had made the motion for
the second reading had not been answered, and he would
simply confine himself to the question as it had regard
to the colonies. With regard to the differential duty,
he thought 6d. a gallon would be a fair difference, but
in the other House it was found that it would be difficult
to carry that, and therefore it had been changed to the
9d. now proposed. The amendment of the Noble Duke
for a Select Committee, was only a side way of getting
rid of the Bill altogether, as they were well aware they
had no power to alter any of its provisions. Should the
Select Committee report and recommend to alter any of
its provisions, and they should attempt to give effect to that
recommendation, the Bill would be lost altogether. The
Bill, in its present form, had received the sanction of a
large majority of the other House, and he could see no
benefit that could arise from the course now proposed.
The case of the Scotch and Irish distillers had been as
fully stated by the Noble Lords who opposed the Bill,
as it could be before a Select Committee. On the other
hand, the advantages of the Bill had been as well stated
by the Noble Lord, who moved the second reading.
This, then, was the proper stage for deciding the ques-
tion, instead of leaving it to a Select Committee. In
1830, the distillers of the country made a representation
to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, pressing their
case on his attention. All they then claimed was a
differential duty of ls. 6d. a gallon. By their own
showing, 9id. of this, was on account of the extra price
of grain. Since then the corn-laws had been repealed,
and now the real difference they could claim, according
to their own showing was but Bid. Now, the pre.
sent Bill gave them a differential duty of ninepence,
which was full as much as they claimed in
1830. This was a full and paid duty. But it might be
told him that this applied only to the English distillers,
and left out of consideration the Irish and Scotch dis-
tillers. Now he considered the latter were as well off
as the English distillers. This was shown by the fact
that the Scotch distillers could at present meet the Eng-
lish distiller in his own market, and beat him. This was
further shown by the fact, that at present, of all the
spirits distilled in Great Britain, the quantity distilled in
Ireland and Scotland was as fire to four. This arose
from the superior flavour of the article made in those
countries, as compared with that of England. These
distillers, therefore, would be as able as ever to compete
with the English distillers. He trusted that their Lord-
ships on these grounds would agree to the passing of the
Bill. There were other reasons why they should do so.
Last year the colonies had been exposed to great com-
petition, and ill feeling and excitement had been the re-
sult; but by the late advices the report of the measures
now in progress of being passed, had done much to pacify
them, and a better tone and feeling now prevailed. He
could conceive of no course more fatal to the prosperity,
of the colonies than the rejection of this Bill, and there-
fore he implored their Lordships to assent to it, sanc-
tioned as it had been, by an overwhelming majority of
the other House of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said their Lordships, in passing
the former customs, had been guilty of a great injus-
tice to the distillery interest of this country. Upon
former occasions, in justice to himself, he had occupied
a good deal of their Lordships' time and attention, in
endeavouring to induce them to resist several proposi-
tions on former Customs Duties Bills ; but unfortu-
nately his warning was not listened to ; and now their
Lordships, or rather the Government, seeing the folly
they had been guilty of, were retracing their steps.—
(Hear, hear.) He entertained many objections to
the present measure, and he must again occupy the
time of their Lordships while he pointed out to
them, that in passing this Bill they would be again be
guilty of injustice towards a large manufacturing interest.
The distillery trade was most complicated, and with the
scanty information their Lordships had before them, he
was sure their Lordships were not in a position to come
to any positive conclusion upon this subject. Why, then,
should their Lordships resist inquiry ? It was a matter
which required the most careful and minute investiga-
tion. By their former legislation, their Lordships had
nearly ruined several of the most extensive distillers of
this country, and with such a lesson as that before them,
he thought that not only their Lordships, but
her Majesty's Government, ought to be anxious
for inquiry. But no. The Ministers who
had already addressed their Lordships, not
content with resisting the particular inquiry, had
gone so far as to declare that all inquiry was unneces-
sary. Many eminent political economists and commer-
cial men differed in their opinions upon this subject ;
and, with the knowledge of that fact, it was their boun-
den duty to institute an inquiry. A miscalculation of
Government upon a former occasion had nearly involved
many parties in ruin ; and, to guard against another
such catastrophe, he trusted their Lordships would
not be led away by the specious arguments of Noble
Lords who are opposed to an inquiry. Upon these
grounds, therefore, he should vote fur the amendment of
his Noble Friend opposite.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 4B
Against it
Majority against it
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COALVONS, April 23.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
ROCHDALE WATERWORKS.

On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the report on the
Rochdale Watem orks Bill was further considered and
agreed to, and ordered to be engrossed.
BATHWICK CHURCH BILL.

Mr. W. MILES moved the second reading of the
Bathwick Church Bill.

Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the second reading of the
Bill, and moved that it be read a second time that day
six months. The object of the Bill was to levy
fresh rates upon the parishioners, to raise funds
which had been rendered necessary by the !aches of
the trustees of the parish for the last thirty-five years.
They had misappropriated funds that had been com-
mitted to their charge upon a most sacred trust, and it
was too much, after they had placed themselves in such
a situation, to come down to that House and ask them
to sancti,)n an Act of Parliament to get them out of
their difficulty.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the amendment.

➢ir. W. MILES justified the conduct of the trustees
who had been great losers, and trusted that the liou.e
would sanction the Bill.

Lord DUNCAN supported the amendment.
Lord W. POWLETT was in favour of the second
reading of the Bill.

Mr. iDICKINSON said that, if the Ilouse sanctioned
the second reading of the Bill, he should be prepared to
go into the consideration of the measure in Committee
without bias either to one side or the other.

Mr. ESTCOURT supported the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. HENRY BERKELEY,
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading

Against it
Afejority in favour of the second reading -52
The Bill was then, after a few words from Mr. Hume,
Mr. Hudson, and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, read a second
time.