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 coop try
I could be conceded, but he feared that the sanguine ex-
pectations of the Noble Lord woulii not b., jieti3.d I y
i the result. The Noble Lord had represented
in very lively colours the fears which were
entertained by the home manufacturer fur the competi-
tion which might be given by the colonial producer, but
these fears he considered were greatly exaggerated, and
without foundation. He considered that these fears were
exaggerated, yet, with a view to meet the opinions of
persons who differed from him, he had increased the
differeetial duty to a higher amount than he had previ-
lously intended, and one reason fur 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 bad 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
lie confessed 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 he held an excise
return which showed that in the stock of six of the
largest distillers the decrease did not equal id. 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was altogether repealed, and the quantity manufactured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 3-7,1 d. 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 ou 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 c.ncerned 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. Ile should, therefore, oppose
the within 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
Is. as a differential duty, that amingcmont would not
do for the Irish, who claimed a duty of Is. 6d. The
cost of rum in Calcutta was from ls. 7d. to Is. Bd. per
imperial proof gallon, and the export was increasing in
quantity. From the 31,it of October of 1842, to the
same period in 1843, the quantity exported from Cal-
cutta was 560,000 gallons, and in the year 1845 to
1546. it was respectively 600,000 to 706,000 gallons.
The Irish distillers had further to complain that this re-
duction came on them suddenly ; on which point the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not think at all.

Mr, BERNAL did not think the colonial interests
had been well or equitably treated on the present occa-
sion. He thought the case was one beset with difficul-
ties ; but after the most careful consideration of every-
thing connected with it, the greatest reduction which
the Chancellor felt himself bound to make was sixpence
per gallon. There were just eight proper distilleries in
England ; in Scotland the trade was shared by 150 ;
but in Ireland he could not say how many there
were. The trade, however, in England was an
anomaly. With reg•:rd to the colonies, he thought
i that they had nothing to do with the pres-
s sure of the fiscal duties on the home dis-
tillers. If these duties pressed hard upon the home
. distiller, let them be removed ; but they must look to
the. justice of the question. And if they did not enter
into the grievances of the colonies, he denied their right
to look to the pressure of the fiscal duties on the home
distillers. He protested against sending the matter
again to a Select Committee. It had 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 be 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.
He 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
an extension ought to be made. What he would say to
the sister countries would be, show me how much you
suffer 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
of 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
of the duty on the liquor produced from it. He stood
there, not merely as an English, or an Irish, or a Scotch
representative, as the case might be; he stood there as
the representative of the colonial subjects also,. and he
demanded for them equal rights and privileges.
Mr. GROGAN said he would second the feeling expressed
by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he did not
rise as an Irish Member to ask any preference for the Irish
distillers over the colonial producers. But what he deprecated
in that Hon. Gentleman's speech, was the peculiar burdens
under which the Irish distillers laboured, and that was the
view to which he ( Mr. Grogan) would confine himself.
Now, if every other charge was assumed to be equal in the
case of the Irish and the colonial producer, the raw materials
from which the liquor was produced differed most signally in
price. That was an element deserving of attention in the
calculation. But then, proceeding onwards from the raw ma-
terial, the mechanical means and the expense of production
deserved next the attention of the House ; for whatever
science, ingenuity, or wealth could add in assisting to produce
the liquor, the colonial producer could make use of them all.
Bet was thatl the case with the Irish distiller ? Why, from
the time the first stone of the establishment was laid down till
the moment when the cask of liquor was sent out, the Excise
interfered and trammelled him in every movement. Yet the
Hon. Gentleman had said that 61, as it was formerly, and
now 9d., was not sufficient protection. But he begged to re-
mind that Hon. Gentleman that the actual reduction
in England would just be 9d., and no more ;
whilst in Ireland, though the reduction proposed was
also 9d., it actually turned out to be 55. 3d. But the Irish
distillers conducted their processes at very great risk and very
great loss, on account of the impediments opposed in their way
by the excise. They could not brew and distil at the same
time, and the loss occasioned by this impediment in the mate-
Hats necessary, which were wasted by the delay, was admitted
on all sides. Now, again, were they allowed to use those mix-
tures which they believed would be beneficial in working off
their processes of distillation. Another great loss arose
staotrtienng,ioonf
of
fondthede
lfro.
rmits. the
Hweastewatiolcdeasjiuesnted
direct in
thtehe
House to a single instance. A friend of his
in May of the year 1842, stored six puncheons of whiskey,
containing 660 gallons 25 overproef in the Queen's stores,
Dublin ; and in the month of May, 1846, when duty was paid
upon them, time puncheons had to be tilled up anti the decrease
was found to be just eight gallons upon three of them. That
was 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
any class, the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet did not meet
this object, for it appeared to him to press too severely on the
Scottish distiller. There were two classes of spirits
distilled in this country, namely, from raw grain and
from malt. In Scotland, the great proportion of spirits
manufactured was from malt, the consumption being
four times the amount of grain liquor. But the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said that the better price received for the
malt liquor, as compared with the lesser price of grain, gave
an equivalent for the increased duty. But was this the case
with foreign rum ? If the raw grain distiller was entitled to the
decreased duty on his one eleventh of malt used in the
manu-
facture of his spirit, the distiller who used malt entirely
w
entitled to the same decrease en his eleven-elevenths of malt.alass.
For these reasons he would oppose the measure of the Right
Hon. Baronet.
ES contended that extraordintahry advantages had
FoR
Ai r.
been given to the colonial producers 1.))' e measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet. The Noble Lord, the Member
l for Lynn,
had asked for the appointment of a committee some six weeks
ago, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had then granted
that committee, the question would have been by this time set
at rest. The Hon. Member felt that an
inquiry into the opera-
tion of the Excise law was necessary, and he should support
the motion of the Noble Lord
Air. MOFFATT said that. he had heard many complaints
from the Irish Members of the want of protection to distillers
in that country, but he really g
thou ht that they did not know
their own interest. He thought that an equalisation of the pro-
tection to Irish produce and colonial spirits would be most for
their benefit. They ought to be enabled to sell their spirits
from bond in the same manner as the colonial rum—as the
abser.ce of that permission enforced the consumption of a very
unwholesome article, and, at the name time, did an injustice to
the producer. .
Mr. BARFLY said that he thought that the English and
I Irish distillers would have better consulted their own interests
had they consented to receive the protection of 6d. per gallon as
heir annual produce of 24,000,C00 gallons—give
originally proposed under this Bill. That amount alone--
wou!d upon t
considerable revenue after the
. long monopoly
60tahry
(;1111..d eAnjvoeyeld. The distillers of the three
,1 kingdoms had long been considered as the supports and strong.
1 holds of monopoly, and they had naturally tried to hinder any
ilcompetition by their brother distillers in the colonies. The
only question that remained for the House to ascertain was.
what amount of direct taxation should he imposed upon the
, distiller. In his opinion is. ld. per gallon in England would
be ample protection for the distillers, for he thought that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had sufficiently shown, in re-
futing their exaggerations, that they did not require any more.