The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-29 00:00:00

The Bill was read a second time.
POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) Bill.
The Marquis of LANSUOWNE moved the resump-
tion of the adjourned debate o❑ the third reading of this
Bill.

After a conversation, the Bill was read a third time,
and passed.
The House then adjourned at Nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 28.
SPIRIT (DEALERS IN) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the House should resolve itself into Committee on
this Bill.
Captain PECHELL complained of the delay of the
Government with respect to this measure, and then
forcing it on at the present late period of the session.
From the 9th of June to the 28th of August not the
slightest statement had been given by the Government
with respect to a measure that affected so large a body
as the licensed victuallers and wine merchants of this
country. lie had endeavoured to extract from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the objects of
the Bill, but his attempts had been unsuccessful. Be
trusted that the Government would now give some ex-
planation with respect to the measure.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
stated, on the introduction of the Bill, what its mein
provisions were, and the reason of its delay was to meet
the suggestions that the Government had received from
the licensed victuallers in different parts of the country.
He believed that the Hon arid Gallant Member was the
only person who objected to the measure.
Mr. MACGREGOR trusted that no further opposi-
tion would be given to a measure which every one
seemed to approve of, and bore testimony to the saes'
Lion that had been given by the Chancellor of the Ex'
chequer to the deputations that had waited upon him on
the subject of the Bill.
Mr. BERNAL also bore similar testimony to the
kind manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had received deputations on the subject of the Bill.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
The clauses were agreed to after a short discussion,
with the exception of clause 7, which was struck out.
Clause 25 was then read, whereby a penalty of 251. is
imposed on any person found carrying one gallon of
spirits without a permit, and authorising a policeman to
apprehend and carry before a magistrate any one 'ee
offending, and on conviction imposing the above fine or
six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Mr. HUME objected to the creation of so many thou-
sand excise officers as the present clause called into er
istence.

Lord G. BENTINCK said that the penalty oethe
alternative confinement was intolerable and ought to be,
reduced.
•.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER e%..
pressed his willingness to reduce the penalty to 104 r.
with three months' imprisonment.
Mn HUME moved that the penalty be fixed at Oar
with liberty to the magistrate to reduce it according to
his discretion.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the original clause
For the amendment
Majority
—lB
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 10°'
posed that the minimum penalty of 101. be imposed ee
each conviction.
Mr. HUME moved that the justice be empowered to
mitigate the penalty to any amount at his discretion.
Mr. HENLEY said that the system of minimal
penalties was a very bad one, and ought to be abolished.
Magistrates ought to have a discretionary power of nit'
tigating penalties. He entirely agreed with the HO.
Member for Montrose that it was a monstrous thing t°
create so many thousand excise officers out of a class of
persons certainly not qualified to exercise the duties of
excise officers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said tbst
the amendment now proposed had been already decided
on by the previous division.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the original clause
For the amendment 3l
Majority
—25
Mr. HUME would retain the maximum of punish'
ment, but thought the minimum should be struck 011,ti
There might be cases in which the magistrates would
wish to dispense with punishment altogether.
Mr. HENLEY was of a similar opinion.
Mr. FORBES moved that as a minimum " one hour
be inserted.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place. On our return we found that the clause had been
agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the House
resumed.

BRITISH SPIRITS WAREHOUSING BILL.
On the order of the day for the Committee on thi°
Bill,

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, in the absence of Afr•
Moffatt, moved as an instruction to the Committee,
" That they have power to extend the provisions of. the
Bill, so far as to apply to spirits distilled in the United
Kingdom, the privileges at present enjoyed by the owners
of foreign and colonial spirits, in respect of the mode and
time of levying the duties chargeable thereon." Ilia ob-
ject was to give to the British distiller the same indul-
gence as was enjoyed by the foreign and colonial pro-
ducer. When the privilege of paying duty out of bond
was being granted to the latter it was ascertained that of
350 gallons of foreign brandy bonded, only 299 remained
on being taken out of bond at the expiration of five
years. From that calculation the House might guess
what were the losses suffered by the British distillers
under the present system.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequers
when asked before to concede this boon, had Tr
fused, on the ground that the British dis-
tiller had equivalent advantages in the excise ree;
lations. This was strange doctrine that escili
regulations!were an advantage to the dealer. Sir R. f.ee.
thought differently, for, on removing the glass datle"
he considered the advantage of freeing the trade fr 7
restrictions greater than the amount of duty repealed'
The only feasible ground on which the alteration was
opposed waspathssaatgeitofwtohuoldspibriet
firmomp
fraud in the osthsiebwleorm to
'sPfurevonell3ll
to the bonded warehouse, but the chairmen both of
es-
cise and customs had given their opinion that proper
security might be taken against fraud. One other ground
on which he asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to accede
to his proposition was that the consumer would be much
benefited by the alteration. At present the interest of
the distiller was to get his spirits into consumption 0,
soon as possible, whereas, if allowed to pay duty oatpuri::
bond he could allow it to remain and acquire that
which was only attainable by age.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that it was not he who attached any value, as regarded the distiller, to excise regulations, but his
predeceel“),„ in office. With regard to the motion, his Hon. Frient: in proposing it, sought to put the excise regulations °"4, the same footing as the customs, while the tact was tilt
they were essentially different. With regard to
customs, the policy of this country had always been t°
encourage in every way the importation of foreign good
in transitu, so as to make our warehouses as far as pos-
sible a depot for the rest of Europe. In the case of the
excise a precisely contrary principle was in operation.
The duty was levied on articles of home manufacture
and for home consumption, and the great object was 1°
levy the duty at the earliest possible period, so as to re-
lieve the trade from all restrictions as soon as
possible;
The boon had been asked before and bad been refused
on the opinion of two eminent distillers, who had de-
clared that if it were conceded the prevention of fraud
would be impossible. On these grounds he felt bonedto resist the motion of his Hon. Friend. The maximam
loss to the revenue, were the duty collected as proposed
by the Hon. Gentleman's motion, might be as much ss
118,0001. in a year. This was a loss which he co
not risk.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the advantage
to the consumer in enabling him to consume old instead
of new spirits, it was only just, if a better article Wer''
given, that a higher duty should be paid. In every ether
respect but the period of levying the duty the Bill w°
from one end to the other a Bill of relaxation, and a re-
moval of restrictions from the British distillers, by
al-
lowing the full amount of duty as drawback, the sweet-
ening and flavouring in the warehouse, the transfer 01
spirits in bond, ar.d giving other facilities which here-
tofore bad not existed.
Mr. MONSELL admitted that the relaxations Nail
this Bill would effect were important, and that they 11,11_
given great satisfaction, especially in Ireland ; but the
question was whether the arrangements which bad been,
made this session did give a protective duty in favour o;
colonial and against Irish and Scotch spirits or 1101
He contended that they did to the amount of at least 3ci.
or 4d. a gallon, and the Irish and Scotch distillers wo°o
much rather be placed in the same position as the colo-
nial distiller in regard to the duty on the decreases and
waste than have a protection which was merely nominal.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN supported the amendment.
The only difference between the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was as to the duty on the decreases. It was
great tax on the distiller, who depended on the hot/
trade, to be compelled to pay duty on that portion eo
the spirit which evaporated and.waa lost. He could W.%
danger to the revenue in levying the duty on the 8.1)110
when it came out of the warehouse instead of at t. 5
worm's-end. The alteration in the duties on colonial
spirits had placed the Irish and Scotch distillersin _
worse position in regard to this waste than they were lu
before.

Chancellor Mr.
j 00
f' C Ne NEExlcihLe saiduer tandea
donly
eadr gaugma
iennstt the
motion was that in his opinion it was an advantage
°
o rbdb e
ud
13(
EANI alulgNh . c
the revenue that the Irish and Scotch distillers shouldb e 1
Lord )1i: expressed his surprise at the
extraordinary statement which had been made by t"
Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the
dis-
tinction between the duties of the customs and the
duties of the excise. It might be true in the case of
soap, malt, glass, printed cotton, and some other articles,
that it was desirable the duty should be paid
wast
st 3e'n
early stage, because in those cases there was no
and the duty was thus paid upon the amount of these
various articles that finally came into consumption. But
the complaint here was that the distillers were charge"
a duty upon what might never come into consumption.
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had said
that, as spirits improved by being kept in bond, and be-
came more valuable, it was right that a higher duty
should be paid upon the article; but did not the same
rule apply equally to colonial spirits—to foreigngi9,
hollands, and brandy, for instance? All that the Irish
and British distillers sued for was to have equal justice
dealt to them as was given to the foreigner;
to be released from the grinding extortion of
the excise, and brought under the regulations
of the Custom-house ; and anything more rea-
sonable than that he could not conceive. Such was the
opinion of Sir H. Parnell's Excise Inquiry Commission
in 1833. The Noble Lord then quoted a passage from
the report of the Commissioners, stating that in their
opinion it would be but just that the mode of eetigutting