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

the distillers themselves complained of. He should be
as glad as any Hon. Member in that House, if the re-
ductions sought for by the distillers of this country
could be conceded, but he feared that the sanguine ex-
pectations of the Noble Lord would not be justified by
the result. The Noble Lord had represented
in very lively colours the fears which were
entertained by the home manufacturer for the competi-
tion which might be given by the colonial producer, but
these fears he considered were greatly exaggerated, and
without foundation. Ile considered that these fears were
exaggerated, yet, with a view to meet the opinions of
persons who differed from him, he had increased the
differential duty to a higher amount than he had previ-
ously intended, and one reason for adopting this course
was undoubtedly that he might meet less opposition in
Committee. If he established that the producer in any
part of the country had nothing to fear from foreign
competition, then he held that he had established his
case in all parts of the country, for the English, Irish,
and Scotch distillers stood precisely on the same ground.
He had no great faith in the statements put Forth
from time to time by parties interested in the manu-
facture of British spirits, for he thought that they had
exhibited great ignorance on the subject. In the year
1830, when the Earl of Ripon was Chancellor of the
Exchequer; the differential duty was 18d. per gallon, and
the distillers then alleged that they paid 9d. for the ex-
tra price of corn, thus showing that 9d. was the amount
of protection afforded them, and they were satisfied at
the time with that amount of protection.—(Hear, hear.)
He had received several statements from the distillers of
this country, in which they suggested that Is. per gallon
would be an equitable amount of differential duty, and
he confesses' that he was somewhat amazed to hear his
Noble Friend come down and urge grievances of a
greater magnitude than even they themselves did. His
Noble Friend had stated the " decreases" in the home
stock at 3d. 4-10ths per gallon. Now be held an excise
return which showed that in the stock of six of the
largest distillers the decrease did not equal :11. per gal-
lon. He held similar returns from Scotland and Ire-
land. There was still more remarkable evidence on the
subject. In 1842 the drawback of malt spirits in Ireland
was altogether repealed, and the quantity manufactured
increased very much. Scotland had still, however, a
drawback of Bd. per gallon, and yet with that drawback
they were enabled to compete with—and successfully
compete with—the Irish distiller, who had no drawback.
In 1840, the quantity of spirit exported from
Scotland to Ireland was 427,000 gallons; in 1842
it was 432,000 gallons ; in 1845 it was 507,000
gallons ; and in 1846 it was 524,000 gallons.
There were complaints made by England and Ireland as
to the loss upon excise restriction. He admitted that
there was some loss, but not the extent of 4d. per gallon,
as stated by the English, or 6d. as stated by the Irish.
The law being the same in both countries, the loss must
naturally be the same. He could not, however admit
that the loss was anything near the amount stated by
the Noble Lord. With regard to the question of de-
creases, he had the statement of themselves, and it was
proved that in England and Scotland, the amount alto-
gether was 31d. That being the case, he thought it
would be properly met by allowing them a differential
duty of 6d., but he thought that the distillers
themselves would be satisfied with a duty of 9d.,
which was the maximum duty that would ever be
Placed upon rum as a differential duty. In
the year 1845, the whole quantity of spirits
consumed in the United Kingdom was 26,672,000 gals.,
and of that 2,400,000 gals. were rum, all the rest being
British spirits. Could the duty on so small an article of
import materially affect the interests of the distillers of
this country ? The fear of such an injury was one of
the lamest that could be imagined, for the interests of
all those concerned were, as he had shown, to be pro-
perly protected. Those who would be mostly benefited
by the measure were the West Indians, and he did not
think that it would be by any means so great a boon to
them as they anticipated. He should, therefore, oppose
the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. CALLAGHAN said that the House should receive
With caution the statement made by the Right Hon.
Gentleman with regard to Ireland. He wished to re-
Mark upon some points of that statement. The circum-
stances of England and Ireland were such, that if the
English distillers were to consent to receive 6d., 9d., or
ls. as a differential duty, that arrangement would not
do for the Irish, who claimed a duty of Is. 6d. The
cost of rum in Calcutta was from is. 7d. to ls. Bd. per
imperial proof gallon, and the export was increasing in
quantity. From the 31st of October of 1842, to the
same period in 1843, the quantity exported from Cal-
cage was 560,000 gallons, and in the year 1845 to
1846, it was respectively 600,000 to 706,000 gallons.
The Irish distillers had further to complain that this re-
.,,action came on them suddenly ; on which point the
-night Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not think at all.
Mr. BERNAL did not think the colonial interests
had
s been well or equitably treated on the present occa-
t!!.M. He thought the case was one beset with difficul-
ties; but after the mot careful consideration of every-
elog connected with it, the greatest reduction which
e Chancellor felt himself bound to make was sixpence
er gallon. There were just eight proper distilleries in
but ;in Scotland the trade was shared by 150 ;
in Ireland he could not say how many there
here. The trade, however, in England was an
tteralYe With regard to the colonies, he thought
,301:1; they had nothing to do with the pres-
tinera_ of the fiscal duties on the home dis-
diatilf If these duties pressed hard upon the home
the justice o t them be removed ; but
if they they
did not must look to
into the grievances
the question. And
e grievances of the colonic s, he denied their right
to look to the pressure of the fiscal duties on the home
Wafflers. He protested against sending the matter
again to a Select Committee. It bad been investigated
over and over again, and he did not see what they could
gain by doing so. He did not wish that any injustice
should he committed on any class of her Majesty's sub-
Jects, but he did not think the proposition now made
would tend to throw any additional light on the subject.
sle begged to ask them whether, last session, it was
not argued over and over again, that if the free-trade
Principles were conceded on sugar, they would be ex-
tended to the rum producers of the West Indies? He
contended now, that on every principle of justice such
stall extension ought to be made. What he would say to
re sister countries would be, show me how much you
sailer from the duty upon malt, and by so much, and
no more, shall be the discriminating duty charged be-
tween the foreign and home producer; for as to the case
t)f England, Scotland, and Ireland, he must say that
the discriminating difference between the liquor there
Produced and that produced in the colonies, ought to be
the amount of the duty charged upon malt, independent
o
the duty on the liquor produced from it. He stood
rtepresentative,
not merely as an English, or an Irish, or a Scotch
2presentative, as the case might be; he stood there as
representative of the colonial subjects also, and he
meLnarided for them equal rights and privileges.
r. GROGAN said he would second the feeling eessed
by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for redd not
drl an Irish ember ask an for the Irish
Stiller, over the colonialto
producersy preference.
Bat what he deprecated
M that Hon. Gentleman's speech, was the peculiar burdens
: !tder which the Irish distillers laboured, and that was the
liew to which he (Mr. Grogan) would confine himself
1,,
:'we if every other charge was assumed to be equal in the
of the Irish and the colonial producer, the raw materials
Om which the liquor was produceci differed most signally in
That was an element deserving of attention in the
Zelculation. But then, proceeding onwards from the raw ma..
PIM, the mechanical means and the expense of production
deserved next the attention of the House; for whatever
Ittence, ingenuity, or wealth could add in assisting to produce
s liquor, the colonial producer could make use of them all.
at was that the case with the Irish distiller ? Why, from
the time the first stone of the establishment was laid down till
the
i moment when the cask of liquor was sent out, the Excise
oeriered and trammelled him in every movement. Yet the
ne Gentleman had said that 6d., as it was formerly, and
4;:.! 9d., was not sufficient protection. But he begged to re-
-14'4,1 that Hon. Gentleman that the actual reduction
wh„ England would ju
st be 9d., and no more ; e ;ebfr . '"t in Irelandgh te reonproposed was
.9(1., it actually, turnethou d
out ht
be 5 dus.cti p 3d. But the Irish
tillers conducted their processes at very great risk and very
treat loss, on account of the impediments opposed in their way
tf the excise. They could not brew and distil at the same
vials and the loss occasioned by this impediment in the mate-
-o'4 necessary, which were wasted by the delay, was admitted
tuu all aides. Now, again, were they allowed to use those mix-
%etre: which they believed would be beneficial in working off
fr.. processes of distillation. Another great loss arose
'll2l the waste occasioned in the storing of bonded
!putts. He would just direct the attention of the
Ilattse to a single instance. A friend of his
! May of the year 1842, stored six puncheons of whisky,
'ataining 660 gallons 25 overproof in the Queen's stores,
LuUblin ; and in the month of May, 1846, when duty was paid
4Pon them, the puncheons had to be filled up and the decrease
1:..0 found to be just eight gallons upon three of them. That
"es a very considerable loss that fell upon the Irish distiller.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that as the intention was se to
apportion the duties that they should not press too severely on
+c the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet did not meet
object, for it appeared to him to press too severely on the
.`,'Fottish distiller. There were two classes of spirits
ritilled in this country, namely, from raW grain and
,°,llll
_malt. In Scotland, the great proportion of spirits
manufactured was from malt, the consumption being
times the amount of grain liquor. But the Chancellor of
tZ.e,.E.xchequer said that the better price received for the
Act
liquor, as compared with the lesser price of grain, gave
I,447laivalent for the increased duty. But was this the case
def foreign rum ? lf the raw grain distiller was entitled to the
e,Weated duty on his one eleventh of malt used in tbe mann-
ettt:,re of his spirit, the distiller who used malt entirely was
por,ed to the same decrease •n his eleven-elevenths of malt.
For these reasons he would oppose the measure of the Right
T. Baronet.
Ae4ir. FORBES contended that extraordinary advantages had
" given to the colonial producers by the measure of the
ha_ilit Ron. Baronet. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn,
thaguo kilted for the appointment of a committee some six weeks
at and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had then granted
at recemmittee, the question would have been by this time set
ti n'et• The Hon. Member felt that an inquiry into the opera.
th°, et. the Excise law was necessary, and be should support
ljaotien of the Noble Lord.
f 50,11% AIOFFATT said that he had heard many complaints
lb the Irish Members of the want of protection to distillers
theirat country, but he really thought that they did not know
teeter interest. He thought that an equalisation of the pro-
their 11, to Irish produce and colonial spirits would be most for
4001 benefit. They ought to be enabled to sell their spirits
abservend in the same manner as the colonial rum—as the
thee, of that permission enforced the consumption of a very
e"elesome article, and, at the same time, did an injustice to
trodeeer.
Iris r EARKLY said that he thought that the English and
had
th_di!tillers would have better consulted their own interests
consented to receive the protection of 6d. per gallon as
noa"Y proposed under this Bill. That amount alone—
aq their annual produce of 24,000,000 gallons—give
10147 me of 600,0001. A very considerable revenue after the
itieed mendpoly they had enjoyed. The distillers of the three
hold °Ma had long been considered as the supports and strong.
eorn%.tnonopoly, and they had naturally tried to hinder any
atly'.lrl°l by their brother distillers in the colonies. The
aihr auestion that remained for the House to ascertain was,
elistilisolount of direct taxation should he imposed upon the
er. In . .
e his opinion ls. id. per gallon in England would
PeToprotection for the distillers, for he thought that the
tat "
in.their exaggerations, that they did not require any more.

They objected to the practice of warehousing spirits. That
was to say, that they would not bond themselves, nor allow
others to do go; 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 title,
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 1831 the Irish
distillers complained that the drawback, so placed, 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
to thrive, and they made considerable imports into this coun-
try. If they found that the burden placed upon their trade
was too heavy to allow them to compete with others, they
should bring the matter before the House by one of
their own members ; but in his ( Mr. Barkly's) opinion
there was little or no 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 sti 7jCUt 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 acekunt it was a very fitting one kr
investigation. He would not go into details, but he was bound
!or) 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

apon the showing, however, of the distillers themselves, the
differential duty ought not to be more than Bid. 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
sonntry had any claim in consequence of their increased burdens.
But when he reflected on the peculiar circumstances of the
'are he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in deal-
'ng.tenderly with the home trade. He could not doubt but
oy 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 case at the present moment, ann 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
coma to the Scotch distiller. He doubted whether, if the
case 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 case
still stronger against the admission of English corn spirits into
that country at the present charge. In fact, however, they
bad 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 make 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 gallon:.
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 free-trade, 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 lion. 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

trey 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 and 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 141 The Right Hon. Gentleman had told them
that at an interview with certain distillers, they had fixed the
amount of duty at IBd.. 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 3*d.; 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. 10d., 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 3id . 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 12% 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 must 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. 31d.—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 navigatien-laws.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Disraeli)
wanted to know how that Committee was proceeding—how it
going on—whether they vicre prepared to
Hon. give their report
hear. ) The Rght an
wasbef oreEaster.—(Hearl
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. The' 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
was called protection in the existence of that agricultural
legislation called the corn-laws, and the oily reason urged by
those Irish distillers at that moment was, that the corn-laws
as they then existed, made a difference to them of Is. per
gallon. That would be 20s. per quarter, and he held in his
hand the average prices of barley at that time. lie had taken
it fur a great number of years, for the Right Hon. Gentleman
did not state the time of his administration, but the number of
years he had taken would, he was sure, contain that period.
He found that the average price of barley was 295. and a frac-
tion. In 1822, it was 21s 10d., and ho wanted to know from
the Right Hon. Gentleman how it was possible that a duty of
205., for it was a duty, how could there be that duty on barley
selling at 21s. 10d. In 1821, the price was 265. per quarter,
and the average price or duty was Is. per gallon, or 20s. per
quarter. The price of barley in 1822 must have been Is. 10d.
per quarter according to the statement of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and upon the average of the period of his
Administration, it must have been Os. 6d. per gallon. That
reminded him also of another statement which had been made
by this Right Hon. Gentleman, or by another Right Hon.
Gentleman. At any rate it was by a Right Hon. Gentleman
---( A laugh)—for he never made any notes upon these sub-
jects 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 168.
per quarter, and yet in the average years to which the Right
Hon. Gentleman referred—in the year 1830, the price was as
high as he had already stated. At the end of that year, it
could be proved that the communication which was to decide
the fate of the motion on its merits, and which had recorded
the opinions of distillers in their absence, was made, and that
emaimunication could be disproved if the Select Committee
were granted to them. In 1830, 9d. per gallon, or 169. per qr.,
was in effect the duty which was the. foundation for the com-
pensation given to the domestic distillers, and the price of
barley was then 325, rd. He left the lime to form an opinion