The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-20 00:00:00

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. FERRAND begged leave to give notice that to-
morrow night he should ask the Secretary for the Home
Department, if any inquiry was to be instituted into the
truth of a report now circulated in Sheffield, that the
body of John Darby, an inmate of the union workhouse
there, who died on the 10th of Dec., had been cut up
into quarters, and sold for 9s. a quarter, and that the
Governor had refused to the friends of the deceased any
inspection of the books or any information. Also,
whether, on the 19th of February, five weeks after the
death, a coffin, purporting to contain the body of John
Darby, was interred in the church of the district.
Mr. ENVART gave notice that to-morrow he should
present a petition from the inhabitants of Newcastle, in
New South \Vales, against the present system of trans-
portation to that colony; and also that on Tuesday after
the holidays he should move for an inquiry into the salt
monopoly in India.
SCOTCH REGISTRATION.

Mr. MACKENZIE gave notice that, on the order of
the day for going into Committee upon the Bill regu-
lating the registration of births, deaths, and marriages,
in Scotland, he should more that it be read that day six
months.

Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he should
ask her Majesty's Government if they had any objection
to lay upon the table of the House the instructions under
which the naval officers at Portugal at present interfered
in the affairs of that country.
HEALTH OF TOWNS' BILL.
In answer to a question from Sir J. DUCKWORTH,
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that on Friday, the 28th,
he would proceed with the Health of Towns' Bill. Per-
haps, on the same evening, if time permitted, the Govern-
ment would proceed with the Loan Discount Bill or
Committee of Supply. To-morrow he would state which
of these should have precedence.
Mr. BUCK hoped the Government would not press
hisMßri.ll3.fit?r
forward the Health of Towns Bill, as it was generally
opposed by the leading towns in the kingdom.
COLONIAL AND BRITISH SPIRITS.
FaFssAinaTilTat,iinngrtishiengt.aorebhroinugsinbgefoprreivtihleegHesouosne
bonding and
etholeonial and British spirits, said that he should trouble
House with very few observations, as this question
had been sufficiently discussed already. His object
was to assimilate the warehousing privileges on colonial
aonfdßritish spirits. In Scotland and Ireland the privileges
Paying duty only on that portion which
was taken out of bond was already conceded, and he wished
that England would adopt the same rule. The principle
of the Bill had been recommended by the parties most
interested, and therefore best acquainted with the sub-
ject, and he thought that on the question of revenue
little opposition would be given by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. With reference to any defrauding of
the revenue, he begged to remind the House, that while
there were 178 distillers in Scotland there had been only
67 informations lodged within the last few years,
while in Ireland, where there were ninety-seven
distillers, no informations had been lodged. Let them
contrast this state of things with England, where there
were few distillers and many informations. This regu-
lation only affected the manufacturers of spirits, and
therefore he was entitled to either one protection or the
other, and he believed that
distillers generally, if thpy
wire 1 -ft untriami,ell,4l, would rather distil from wet
4.,:n than ?rota sugar. On the oilier band, they would
'. glad it they had ihe
oepurtunity to distil frcm barley,
ioid, consequently if thiit were allowed, there would
be a much larger quantity exported. It was generally
believed that there were about
six million gallons of
spirits consumed in the United Kingdom, and as the
whole amount of the spirits distilled is nine million

gallons, there are three millions to be accounted for; and
as it is known that upwards of two millions are taken
by the English and Scotch distillers, in order to keep
them out of the export market, so that, allowing only 3d.
a gallon for the loss the English people are taxed to the
extent of 100,0001. per annum. He was, therefore,
anxious, he must confess, to ascertain what reason the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had to allege for any oppo-
sition to the measure. Whatever the article, rum,
brandy, or gin, the same evil was liable to occur to the
consumer of spirits, and he should therefore conclude by
moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the whole House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must
really resist the proposition of his Hon. Friend. True
it might please the English and Scotch distillers, while it
might not prove injurious to the revenue ; but it other-
wise might prove detrimental to the public service.
Mr. HUME said, as to what would please or
displease the distillers of England and Scot •
tland was not the question for that House or
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider.. The
question to be considered was, whether it was right and
just that all spirits should be put upon the same footing.
Why rum coming from Jamaica should be allowed to
be bonded, and rum coming from Scotland not, was most
extraordinary, and an anomaly he could not account for.
He thought that the House ought to accede to the mo-
tion of his Hon. Friend, and resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole House for the purpose of considering
the important subject brought forward by his Hon.
Friend.

Mr. BARCLAY thought that the House ought to
enter promptly into the redress of the grievance com-
plained of by the Hon. Member. The indirect result
of this question was far more important than it
at first appeared. The present Excise regulations required
an immense outlay of capital, and the consequenee was
that the trade of distillation was in this country confined
to a very few persons, and by means of this monopoly
the prices of the article were kept up very considerably.
He thought the first proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
was very reasonable, and that the second was based on
perfectly sound principles. Now he believed, if they
allowed British spirits to be rectified in bond,they would
lay the foundation of a considerable export trade in that
article.

Mr. MOFFAT replied. He had heard nothing from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the slightest weight
against his motion, and he hoped his opposition would
be considered equally unsatisfactory by the public. The
principal ground of the opposition of the Right Hon.
Gentleman was, that the revenue would lose if his Bill
became law ; but he (Mr. Moffatt) did not think that
any such result would follow.
The House then divided, when there appeated—
For the motion 5l
Against it
Majority against the motion
BRITISH SPIRITS.

Mr. MOFFATT moved that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the whole House, with a view to
adopt a Bill to permit British spirits to be rectified in
bond for exportation, and to permit rectified spirits and
compounds to be warehoused for exportation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the objection to this Bill was that it would
ultimately be impossible to rectify spirits at all, for
if the duty was only to be charged after the spirits
left the premises of the rectifiers, the excise would
not have the slightest check for levying the
duty on the spirits in the country. The Hon. Gentleman
said that his Bill was founded on the Bill of an Hon.

Friend of his, who some years ago wag Secretary to the
Treasury. But that Bill had not been proceeded with
from that time to this. Experiments had been made to
ascertain whether it was posbible to ascertain the different
state of spirits while they were in the hands of the recti-
fyer. It they succeeded, he should have no objection,
but at present he did not apprehend any such result.
The adoption of the Bill would result in a loss to the
exchequer, and he should, therefore, have to raise the
duty to supply the deficiency, which the state of the
country would not permit him to do.
Mr. HUME said, at the present time large quanti-
ties of spirits imported from Holland were exported to
the Colonies, in preference to a better and more

desirable spirit which could be expected from Scotland
if this measure were adopted. He was surprised that
more of his free-trade friends did not-support the last
motion. He was at all times ready to support the Mi-
nistry when they were acting rightly, but in oppos-
ing this proposal they were stultifying their
former votes upon free trade.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the best way to remove the difficulty would
be for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on
the subject.
Mr. FORBES said that if he understood the case
rightly, it appeared that a great portion of the
trade of this country found its way into the
way into the bands of the Dutch distillers. He really
hoped that those Hon. Members who were in favour of
the British distillers, and those who were in favour of free
trade, would give their support to the motion of the
Hon. Member.
Mr. BARCLAY thought so much weight ought ;not
to be attached by the Government to the objections of
the excise. If those objections were always to be
raised as a barrier against fiscal improvement, the effects
might be most disastrous to the best interests of the
country.
- Mr. MOFFATT replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place.
CASE OF MR. DILLON.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved for copies of the follow-
ing papers respecting Mr. John Dillon's claim for prize
money out of the proceeds of the smuggler brig Peru:—
Statements of George F. Young, G. Pryme, and Fergus
O'Connor, Esqs., as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
agreement in Mr. John Dillon's case. The decision of
Admiral Sir E. Codrington on said agreement ; and the
opinions of Admirals Sir C. Martin, Sir R. Stopford,
and the late Sir P. C. Durham thereon, and the
legal opinions of Justice Sir H. Maule and the
late Sir William Follett thereon ; also the affidavit
of Mr. William Burt, then chief boatman of the
Coast Guard station at Milk Cove, county Cork, with
referent e to the Peru ; and likewise the affidavit of
clearance from the Custom House of New York by
Mr. James Hitchcox, master of the Peru, and the
manifests of the cargo of the said brig, and the affidavits
of Mr. Patrick. Monaghan thereon ; also for a return
of the quantity of tobacco seized in the Peru, and the
amount paid to Mr. Henry Masters, Custom-house
officer at Kinsale, as prize money, on account of
such seizuro ; and, lastly, for a copy of the
letter addressed to the Lords of the Tieasury by
Mr. John Dlilon, dated the 20th day of March. 1847,
The Hon. Member went into the particulars which have
already been several times before the House, and con-
tended that Mr. Dillon had been badly used in regard to
this matter. It was said that he was not the actual
captor of the brig in question, or directly engaged in the
business ; but to that he would reply, that it was gene-
rally admitted, if it could be shown a party was in any
way a party to such a capture he was fairly entitled to
his share of the prize-money. That Mr. Dillon
had been so engaged had been satisfactorily
proved by high authorities. The Hon. Member
then referred to several naval and legal authorities, to
show that the claimant was fully entitled to his proper
share of prize money. He had no intention to follow
this out, but the officer was exceedingly desirous that his
character should be cleared of the charge of cowardice
under which he now laboured, and that he should receive
some remuneration fur his loss of pay and character.
He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take
the matter into their consideration, as the petitioner he
believed had expended much money and time too, and
was he believed in very reduced circumstances.
Mr. PARKER said that on the part of his Hon.
Friend of the Tresury, he had to say that the papers
were now in so different a shape that it was impossible to
render them as they were desired. The original
had been returned to the memorialists. Lord Spencer,
through the medium of Sir Edward Codrington, had
already decided the question, and he could not consent
to have it re-opened. The question had been decided
over and over again.