The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-18 00:00:00

t ap-
form

ppose,

'ships
isley,
urn of
•nuck,
Lester,
rfieid
iouth-
Dor-
n and
to St.

EX-
nittes
nal in

for their production, in accordance with the additional
price of the commodity from which it, was manufac-
tured. He did not admit these claims to increased pro-
tection on the ground of their adoption of the
system of rectifying their spirits. That extra
expense in England would not exceed 21d. per gallon;
and further consideration convinced him that he was
right in the rejection of these claims on that ground.
In the same way he had resisted the claim of the raw
grain distillers on amount of the alteration of the corn
duty. With respect to the malt duty, they claimed be-
cause a certain quantity of malt was indispensably ne-
cessary to enable them to distil from raw grain ; the
proportion was 1-11th of malt to 11-11ths of raw grain.
T o that extent they were entitled to some allowance, in
consideration of the duty paid on. the malt so indispen-
'ably used. They claimed per gallon, but lid. per
gallon was a little more than they were actually en-
titled to. The next claim rested on the decreases, for
which they asked 31rl. per gallon; and this was the
amount put by Mr. Daley in his evidence before the
Select Committee—the same amount as was allowed on
rums; but a Parliamentary paper to which that gentle-
man had referred showed that in Ireland the deficiency
duty allowed on spirits warehoused in Ireland bad only
been equal to one farthiug 15.100ths per gallon, while
on that warehoused in Scotland the allowance was
56-100ths of a farthing per gallon. These figures dif-
fered in a very slight degree from the statement he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made in 1847. That
statement gave 33-100ths ot id.
for Scotland, an for
Ireland exactly the same—a farthing and 15-100thd sof a
penny. With regard to England there was not the
same means of drawing an accurate conclusion ; but it
was evident that if an allowance per gallon were made
equal to what he bad stated, it would 1:e an equivalent
for the whole loss from decreases to which spirits were
subject in the warehouse. He bad been very anxious to
allow the duty to be levied on the spirits coming out of
the warehouse instead of at the worm's end, as at pre-
sent ; but he was sorry to !say the risk to the revenue
would be to such an amount that he should not now be
justified in incurring it. As between the distiller and
the revenue this alteration would incur the risk of losing
100,0001. of duty, which amount would be sacrificed
by only levying the duty when the spirit came out of
bond, instead of levying it at the worm's end.
So far as protection against colonial spirits was
concerned, if he gave the British distiller id.
a gallon—the utmost they themselves asked—this
would be more than an ample protection for any loss
they might incur by paying the duty at the worm's
end. Taking lkd. as an equivalent for the malt duty,
and :id. as an equivalent for what they would gain by
being allowed to pay duty on the spirit coming out of
the warehouse—this.would be infinitely more advanta-
geous to them than an alteration in the mode of levying
the duty ; for in that case there would clearly be no
reason whatever for putting an additional duty on colo-
nial rum. Agin England spirits were not warehoused
at all, as a large quantity of Scotch spirits, and about
three-fourths, of the Irish, were sent into this country
without being warehoused, it was quite clear that a
greater benefit would be conferred on the home distiller
by giving him this protection than by altering the mode
of levying the duty. He now came to the last item, the
excise restrictions. A most formidable list of those re-
strictions had been made out by the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Lord G. Bentinck) in his resolutions ; but, viewing
them in the intelligible, business-like way of pounds,
shillings,tand pence, they did not run up to an amount
which need alarm the distiller.—(hear.) Various
doeuments stated the cost of manufacturing British
Spirits at shoat 2s. the gallon, before the duty was paid ;
of this, ls. 6d. was the cost of the raw material, and 6d.
the cost of the manufacture. He did not deny that the
excise restrictions interfered with the manufacture to
some extent, butit was to an extent much less than was
commonly believed ; and, in some instances, that inter-
ference had not been without utility for the protection of
the distiller himself. Be that as it might, the supposition
that out of the cost of manufacture, 6d. the gallon, more
than one-third, was due to excise restrictions, was a sup-
position that no one acquainted with the expenses of
production would readily receive. But that calculation
was not borne eat by the information before the House.
Gentlemen in stating their own case always took the
most favourable view of it ; and there were some remark-
able instances of this in the case of the distillers' claims.
To estimate the decreases at 30. per gallon,
when he had shown that they did not amount to
id., was a pretty strong proof of the partial view which
gentlemen took of their own case. Two years ago a
statement was put into his hand in which the distillers
themselves estimated the expenses of rectification at 6d.;
but by their statement given before the Committee this
year the estimate had dwindled down to 3d. Two or
three years before, their estimates bad been 10d. then
ed. Hence, he was warranted in saying that statements
made for the purpose of making out a case were not
made with all the accuracy that was desirable. He held
'in his hand a statement of a claim made on the Board of
Excise for loss by decreases on four casks of spirits im
-
ported into this country from Leith, on the 27th March
ast; and the amount claimed was id. and 53-000ths of
a farthing per gallon. The Chairman of Excise was a
little astonished at this, and was led to expect that the
instance was rather a singular one. He accordingly
took the quantities of decrease on certain other casks
imported by the same parties (Messrs. Frisk, Browning,
and Co.) about the same time; and he found that upon
twenty casks of Scotch spirits imported from Leith on
the 23d of March, four days before the other, the actual
loss amounted to 19-100ths of a farthing per gallon;
and upon twenty casks imported four days later, the 31st
March, the loss, calculated in the same way, was
. 43.100ths of a farthing—in both eases infinitely less
than the average as estimated by the chairman of Ex-
cise. That estimate had been formed on 9,591 casks of
. Scotch and Irish spirits imported into London from the
6th April, 1847, to the sth April, 1848, and amounted to
Id. and 42-100ths per gallon-50.109ths less than the
average formerly stated by the chaim man of the excise.
He did not deny that the loss might bo as stated on the
four casks imported on the 27th March, as there were
particular circumstances connected with that importa-
tion; but it showed how little single statements could be
•"1 relied on for forming a general average.
Lord G. BENTINCK—Hear, hear. Especially with
the excise.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
estimate of the chairman of excise had been more than
borne out by the fact ; he had not stated the case so
favourably to his own views as he might have done.
The proper course was to take a sufficient number of facts
whereon to found an induction, and then the conclusion
would probably be right.—(Hear, hear.) In this way
. 'the Noble Lord opposite would have found that the con-
clusion he had drawn from ;that single cargo was not
borne out by the general average. No man could sup-
pose that, of the whole cost of the manufacture of spirits
--4 d. a gallon—more than one-third was due to excise
restrictions. But Mr. Patrick Chambers, a distiller, of
Wixhaw, had sent in a statement, which appeared at
Page 83 of the report of the Noble Lord's Committee ;
ce was a highly respectable man, to whose statement
credence might be given.
Mr. FAGAN—Hear, hear.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
glad to hear his Hon. Friend behind him bear testimony
to the character of Mr. Chambers, whose statement was
the more entitled to reliance in this case, because it had
been plain for another purpose. He stated the quan-
tity of barley consumed, the quantity of proof spirits pro-
duced, the whole items of the expense of manufacturing
spirits, and the result of his calculation was that the net
charge, including the expense of making malt, amounted
to ltd. per gallon. He had no motive for exaggerating
that statement either on one side or the other; there-
fore it might be taken as a fair statement of the cost at
which spirits might be manufactured in Scotland. Could
any one believe that more. than one-half of that cost,
namely, twopence, was produced by the excise restric-
tions? Nevertheless, he proposed to allow 2d. a gallon for
the whole claim in respect to these restrictions; and, tak -
ing the test of the manufacture at 6d. a gallon—still more
if taken at 3d., which he believed would be nearer the
truth—it was perfectly incredible that the cost of produc-
tion could be enhanced at the rate of 2d. a gallon by the
Excise restrictions. He saw no other grounds on which
the distillers could claim protection against colonial
spirits. In awarding 4d. per gallon as a differential duty
to countervail the legislative disadvantages under which
the distillers and producers of British spirits were placed
be conceived he had given them a full equivalent. Look•
ing at the relative prices of the two articles, the differ-
ence was not greater than would be compensated by the
protection he proposed. In the draft report of the Noble
Lord, at page 174, he took the average cost price of or-
dinary whisky at 2s. 3d., and of rum at 2s. 41d., and
the prices of the other varieties ran very near each other.
With these prices there was no reason to suppose that
the English distiller would be ruined by the importation
of rum at a duty of 4d. The whole amount of colonial
spirits which had beeu introduced into this country last
year was only three millions of gallons, out of a total
consumption of upwards of twenty-six millions and a
half; and and no doubt there had been an increased con-
sumption of rum last year, owing to the deficiency of the
barley crop. But he did not suppose that, in future
-years, there would be any such increase in the consump•
tion of rum es to produce any sensible effect on the
large mass of British spirits consumed in this country.
With regard to the question of revenue, he assumed
' the loss at about 62,0001.; and he confessed he calcu-
' lated upon an increased consumption sufficient to pro.
duce that amount of revenue. An additional consump-
tion of 150,000 gallons in England would do it, or of
300,000 gallons in Scotland, or of 400,000 in Ireland,
aupposing the increase to take place entirely in ono
Country. It was not likely that the increase would take
Place wholly either in one country or another ; but.he
thought he might fairly assume an increase of about
200,000 gallons on the total consumption. Ile hoped it
would be more, for the sake of the colonists ; and a re-
duction in a differential duty always operated in favour
of The consumer. He believed the interests of both
would be consulted by the measure he had hoeprosd; and
he thought he had shown to any person would
fairly consider the subject, that in maintaining a diffe-
rential duty of 4d. per gallon between British and colo-
nial spirits adequate compensation wee given to the
British distiller, in respect of the malt duty, the de-
creases, the excise restrictions, and the other disadvan-
tages under which he alleged he was placed by the ex-
isting laws. With regard to the loss which would be
Produced in the colonies or in this country, he did not
profess to go into that at all ; his principle was, as far as
legislative enactment was concerned, to allow the pro-
ducers in the colonies and in this country to come into
competition on equal terms. That, he believed, would
be effected by the proposal he submitted to the Com-
mittee ; and he would now conclude by placing in the
hands of the Chairman a resolution, the effect of which
was to substitute for the present differential duty of 9d.
a duty of 4d. per gallon.
The CHAIRMAN having read the resolution at
length,
Mr. FAGAN said the proposition now made differed
Materially from that which the Right Hon. Gentleman
hadatink this
bims; question turned on benefit to the =loner;

the consumer was not at all interested in a quantity of
rum being introduced in lieu of a quantity of spirits of
home production. On the contrary, the introduction of
a more seductive and deleterious spirit, instead of being
an advantage to the consumer, would have altogether an
opposite tendency. Ho should not object to see the dis-
tilling interest of this country diminished by the spread
of temperance, or by the duty being raised so high as to
lessen the consumption of spirits. In 1846 the consump-
tion of rum in Ireland was only 74,000 gallons; last year,
with a differential duty of 9d., it was 176,000 gallons.
It was gradually increasing; and, should this measure
become law, the people in Ireland would acquire a
taste for that spirit, to their manifest injury. The
Irish distiller, in particular, had great cause for com-
plaint, when he saw that his interest as a manufac-
turer was sacrificed to the carrying of a measure pro-
pounded by Government, which had not given satisfac-
tion to any party—sacrificed, too, in the teeth of the
leaders and friends of the West Indi aparty, whose
opinions were decidedly against the Government mea-
sure. If the measure were one of a comprehensive na-
ture, carrying out the principles of free trade and
cheapening an article of consumption, it should have
his decided support ; but when he found that a measure
which had been universally condemned in the House and
out of it was to be made the pretext for ruining the
distillers—for such he believed would bo its effect—he
must oppose such a measure. There had been something
like a breach of faith with the distillers, for last year
the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that a protec-
tive duty of 6d. a gallon would only be a fair one. Not-
withstanding this, after receiving various representations
from the distillers, he had made the differential duty
equal to 9d., and the distillers looked upon that as
a set tlement.—(Hear, hear.) The distillers were
ready to carry out the principles of free trade in refe-
rence to their own trade as well as others ; and Mr.
Currie, an eminent distiller of the metropolis,
whose evidence the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed
to have overlooked, had stated that in his manufactory
40,000 quarters of grain were annually worked up into
800,000 gallons of British spirits ; but that if the Excise
restrictions were removed he could wcrk up annually
96,000 quarters of grain, and produce his spirits at la.
6d. per gallon, the average price, according to the Right
Hon. Gentleman, being 2s. Hence, the restrictions were
equivalent to an increase of 6d. a gallon in the price.
He and other Irish representatives had been much dis-
appointed in the course taken by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman : he therefore felt it his duty to oppose this mo-
tion. It was proposed, in the first place, to make an al-
lowance for the malt duty paid by the distillers ; but it
should be known that scarcely any malt spirits were
manufactured in Ireland, malt was little used in the dis-
tilleries except in Scotland. In Ireland the quantity of
malt used by the raw grain distiller was nearly double
that used by the raw grain distillers in this country ;
and 23d. a gallon would be more like an
equivalent for it than the 13d. proposed by the
Right Honourable Gentleman. Atter a careful exami-
nation of the various calculations placed before the
West India Committee, he found the allowance of a penny
a gallon for plant was a fair one; and that the. Right
Hon. Gentleman had entirely overlooked. For the alter-
ations between distilling and brewing which now neces-
sarily took place, and the consequent loss of saccharine
matter, an allowance of 2d. per gallon at least ought to
be made. As to the rectification, he believed the dis-
tillers were quite correct in estimating their loss at aid.
a gallon under the present system of chargiog the duty
at the worm's end. The Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken in supposing that no rectification took place in
Ireland; the Government distillers distilled twice in
in order to produce a good article, and that was a species
of rectification. That produced a loss of another penny,
making in all 73d. per gallon. On the subject of the
the decreases, the Right Hon. Gentleman had frankly
stated to the Irish deputation that there would be no diffi-
culty whatever on that head, and he stopped all discuason.
The justice of the claim was so evident on the face of
it, that he could not do otherwise. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had admitted that the West Indian distillers
obtained a protection of aid. through not being charged
the decreases ; hence, the British distillers were quite
justified in claiming that amount, even if the loss on the
decreases did not reach so much. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made a mistake in his calculation. The
mode of gauging adopted when the spirit came from the
worm's end differed materially from tho mode of gaug-
ing them when they came out of bond ; and hence the
miscalculation. One of the most intelligent distillers in
Ireland stated that upon an aggregate quantity of
225,780 gallons of spirits shipped to England, the total
deficiency was above 4,500 gallons, on which the duty
was 1,8581. 10s., and this they had to pay in full. He
contended that the sum of lid. a gallon was
only a fair allowance for decreases. If the Right
Honourable Gentleman persisted in maintaining
the view he now took, he ought at least, for the sake
of the home distillers, to keep the differential
duty at 9d. Mr. Wood had stated before the Commit-
tee that he had no means of contradicting the state-
ment of the distillers as to excise restrictions, though he
argued that where they claimed 33d. a gallon for de-
creases, only id. was due, and that therefore their claim
for excise restrictions ought to be reduced in the same
proportion. He admitted that 6d. a gallon was a fair
protection, but argued that the excise restrictions ought
to be fixed much lower than the distillers estimated
them. Following out the calculations of the Chairman
of the Excise and himself, the distilling interest in Ireland
and Scotland would be seriously injured by this measure.
According to the report of the Noble Lord (Lord G.
Bentinck), the sincere and able advocate of the West
Indian interests, that body had no just cause of com-
plaint against the present duties. He should, therefore,
move as an amendment that the Chairman report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again.
Captain JONES thought the measure of the Govern-
ment would prove extremely itjurious to Ireland. Ho
should. therefore, support the amendm. nt moved by the
Hon. Member for Cork.
Mr. REYNOLDS said it was the opinion of
the Irish distillers that if the differential duty
was reduced from 9d. to 4d. they would be almost
annihilated. He thought the Government would
not at least have gone below 6d., and that
they would allow for waste end leakage. Ho under-
stood the Right Hon. Gentleman to gay to the Irish
deputation that there would be no insuperable objection
on his own part to make the duty 63. He thought that
a great advantage was given to the colonial grower over
the native grower by this measure, for it was after all
an agricultural question—one between oats and sugar.
The Irish and Scotch manufacturers had intolerable
disadvantages to contend against in the Excise regula-
tions. The allowance to the colonial importer was 3d.
fur leakage and natural evaporation, while the allow-
ance to the Irish distiller was only a farthing and a
fraction of a farthing. He was a free-trader, but he
was opposed to the application of free trade as contained
in the present measure to Ireland.—(Laughter.) The
Irish Members who voted for free trade in corn, and
the Irish people who were in favour of that measure,
acted with the utmost disinterestedness, for that mea-
sure was not for the benefit of Ireland. Ireland had,
therefore, a claim upon the consideration of the House.
—(Laughter.) She had been called the right hand of
England; let them beware that they did
He thought
her into a left arm.—(Loud laughter.)
and that
that the colonies were a drag upon the country,
she would be better without them.
Mr. BARKLY looked upon the present proposition as
part of the general measure brought forward for the re-
lief of the West India interest, and he would deal with
it in that aspect. He differed from the Noble Lord, who
deserved so much credit from tho West India body for
his exertions in their behalf, with respect to this part of
the question. He could only account for the Noble
Lord's opinion on this subject by supposing, not that he
loved the West India interest less, but that he loved cer•
tain interests at home more. It was evident from what
had been proved before the Committee, how much the
price of rum would be under the 4d. duty; and he would
be much surprised if its effect would not be to give great
benefit to the West India body. As a West India owner,
he would consider his situation much more desperate if
they did not derive considerable advantage from the
change of duty. The position of the home dis-
tillers had been much improved of late years, so that
they had less to fear from competition than formerly.
He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
completely cut away the ground from the Scotch
distillers. If they were able to compete with the Eng-
lish distillers in the English market they had a very
poor case indeed against the introduction of colonial
spirits. In a pamphlet lately published, called " Ob-
servations on the Evidence before the Committee on
Coffee and Sugar Planting," by a Scotchman, it was
stated that from 150,000/. to 200,0001. was paid to five
or six Scotch distillers as hush money. The same ob-
servations applied to Ireland, so that the consumers of
this country not only paid the distiller here, but they
also paid fur keeping the Irish and Scotch hisky out
of the market. The Chairman of the Excise, who was
the best authority on this subject, said that 4d. would be
a fair'differential duty, and he hoped the Government
would not be induced to set aside an authority of so
much weight. The colonies would watch the conduct of
the Government in dealing with the question of the
duty of rum, and would test the sincerity of their free-
trade opinions by the manner in which they dealt with
it. If the colonists now saw free-traders linked together
in support of a Government monopoly they would come
to a conclusion that that body was a very selfish one.
He accepted the present measure as an instalment of
what was'due to the colonists.
Lord G. BENTINCK assured the House that he had
never heard any complaint from Norfolk barley-growers
on the subject of the spirit duties. The Hon. Gentle-
man appeared so credulous about the matter of hush
money, that ho really did not wonder at the rest of his
arguments. When the Hon. Gentleman declared that
the Chairman of Excise was the only person who gave
reliable evidence before the Committee, he probably was
not aware that Mr. John Wood had himself declared
that what he had stated was mere matter of opinion,
and that it ought to be taken by the Committee with con-
siderable deduction on that account. Mr. Wood took
upon himself to arraign the evidence and impeach the
statements of all the distillers of England and of Scot-
land. lie declared that people as high in station and
character as himself—men whose veracity he could not
pretend to question—were to be dealt with on the prin-
ciple of the rule of three as far as their evidence
resocctng decreases was concerned.—(Hear, hear.)
This was the Whig Chairman's insolent way
of treating gentlemen and men of unimpeachable
integrity. But in reference to this very evidence
of Mr. John Wood: on the subject of decrease that in-
dividual was obliged subsequently to amend his own
evidence, and to admit that ho had himself erred in the
truth to the extent of 75 per cent. Who, then, was to
he trusted—the trade, or this Chairman of Excise ?
(Protectionist cheers.) But the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer made another statement respecting the excise
gauge, with a view to prove that the trade were wrong
and the customs right. But why had not Mr. Wood
made that statement to the Committee, where its truth
or falsehood Could have been fairly tested? No, the
statement was reserved for the House of 001111110118,

where of course it was impossible to test its accuracy.
Where Mr. Wood, therefore, gave au opinion, he ac-
knowledged himself that his evidence was worth very
little; whilst where he spoke as to matters of fact it
was clear that that evidence was worth still less.—
(Hear, hear.) The preamble of the Channel Islands'
Act of 1845, framed by the Right Honourable Mem-
ber for Cambridge, fully admitted the principle of
the right of the British distiller to peculiar pros
tection, in order to countervail the various burdens
placed by the excise duties on that industry. The Hon.
Member for Dublin had stated that, in acceding to the
repeal of the corn•laws the Irish Members had involved
their country in an annual burden of three millions
sterling, and therefore he claimed mercy to the Irish in-
terest on the present question; but the Irish Members
had been fully and distinctly warned, that did they as-
sent to that measure, they would be among the first to
suffer from its operation, and therefore they were en-
titled to no commiseration for the injury they had wil-
fully brought upon themselves and upon their country.
As to the West Indians, the pretended boon would turn
out little, if anything. better than a mockery. They
were there to do justice—not to favour one party or
another, but fairly to assess the duties as was best adapted
to the interests of the country. Give the colonists com-
pensation, but not at the expense of the Irish and Scotch
distillers, but at the expense of the slave dealers, who
were at present reaping all the profits of the sugar trade
of this country.— (Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that if the objections to the
Government proposal were on account of the excise re-
gulations, his opinion was that those latter were if any-
thing too favourable to the British distillers —(llean)
He denied the extent of hardship complained of ny that
body as arising from the excise. In some cases the
excise might be an inconvenience but in others it was an
advantage, and in no case more so than that of spirits.
It gave a great additional protection to the manufacturer
against the frauds of his servants.—(Hear.) Tho heavy
penalties had been much dwelt upon by witnesses before
the Committee, but they were seldom inflicted, being,
generally speaking, merely held up in terrorem to protect
the honest portion of the manufacturers. When the
grievances of the excise on spirits were spoken of, let them
consider the case of soap. The excise was lid. on hard,
and Id. on soft soap, while the duty on colonial soap irn •
ported into this country was precisely the same, and yet
he never had heard an instance of a British
manufacturer complaining of the competition. In Ire-
land, also, there was no soap duty, nor was there any
restriction on the manufacture, neither was there any
countervailing duty on its importation into this country.
And yet, what was the consequence? Did Ireland over-
flow the country with soap?—(Loud laughter.) The
fact was, that England sent 6,000,000 cwts. of soap to
Ireland every year.—(Hear, hear.) And this, notwith-
standing those tremendous excise restrictions of which
so much had been said. He, therefore, excluded from
consideration any allowance to the distillers on the
ground of excise restrictions.— (Hear, hear.) The next
point to which the Noble Lord had alluded was the
question of decrease; and here he must express his dis-
sent from the Noble Lord's estimate of the value of the
evidence given by the Chairman of the Excise. The Noble
Lord attached no value to that gentleman's evidence
because it had been given with diffidence.
Lord G. BENTINCIC.—What I said was, that I had
read the evidence of the Chairman of the Excise Board,
in which he expressed himself diffidently as to the re-
strictions, but most positively as to matters of fact, and
that in matters of fact he was wrong in the proportion
of four to one.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN had understood the Noble Lord to
express himself as attaching no importance to the Chair
man's opinion. For his part, he should attach the more
value to a man's evidence who expressed himself with
diffidence and caution.—(Hear, hear.) But to return to
the decrease. The differences of opinion which had
been exhibited on this point arose from one party rely ing
on an isolated case, and the other taking a fair average
spreading over a reasonable number of years. What he
(Mr. Goulburn) contended was, that taking a fair ave-
rage of years—the allowance made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, namely—three farthings a gallon, was a
fair and reasonable allowance for decreases.—(Hear,
hear.) He therefore saw no reason for opposing the
Government proposal on that ground. It there was
one duty more than another with which the Excise au-
thorities ought to be satisfied, it was the excise paid on
spirits in England: it gave them no trouble, being
paid by eight great houses; and yet both the late and
present Chairman had told him that, in their opinion,
the advantage of the British distiller was too great as
over his colonial competitor. The Noble Lord objected
that the Government proposal would give a boon of only
64,0001. per annum to the colonial producer. Be it so,
and if the advantage to the colonial producer were small,
so would be the injury to the British distiller. If the
latter could give 150,0001. to keep his Scotch competitor
out of the market, he could hardly be injured by a sum
of 64,0001. conceded to the colonial producer.—(Hear,
hear.) He should not further detain the House, save by
expressing his full concurrence in the justice of the pro-
posal which Government had submitted.
Mr. FORBES regretted that he could not give his
support to the proposal of her Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. FAGAN intimated that as his object had been
obtained by the discussion which had taken place, he
would not call for a division.

...... . _
The CHAIRMAN—Then, will any Hon. Gentleman
move that I leave the chair?
Mr. FAGAN—I will move that you leave the chair.
—(Cries of " Divide.")
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 75
...,.

Noes I6S
Majority —93
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL declared his intention of
giving every opposition to the main resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
his proposition would give the Irish distiller more pro-
tection than the colonial distiller.
After a few words from Mr. CURISTIE and Mr. P.
HOWARD,
Mr. MAUNSELL moved that the Chairman report
progress.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL suggested to his Honourable
Friend, that at this period of the session he would nut
attempt to defeat the Government by adjournment, but
take the sense of the House on the main question.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped also that that course
would be adopted. The whole subject had been fully
gone into before a Select Committee. He hoped that a
course which used to be the exception, but which had
lately become almost the rule, would not be persevered
in. It was often complained that the Government were

not active enough in passing the measures they brought
forward, but if constantly met by that mode of opposi-
tion it was impossible for them to do so.—(llP4r.)
Mr. KEOGH thought the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Limerick not an unreasonable one; for Irish
Members had been induced to believe, on the occasion
of a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
no such proposition as that before the House would
have been brought forward. They had, on the con-
trary, been led to suppose that the si ttlement of last
year, which was one of great importance to the distilling
and agricultural interest, would not he disturbed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-
peated the reasons which had induced him to bring for-
ward the present resolution, and denied that any such
hope had been held out to the deputation alluded to. Ile
thought that the further consideration of the question
ought, to be adjourned.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. KEOGH
and Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
Mr. BARKLY said that, in justice to the rum trade,
the Irish Members ought to suffer the question of the
differential duties to be settled as speedily as possible,
for the uncertainty that had prevailed so long had been
very injurious to those who dealt in rum.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN urged the Hon. Member for
Limerick to persevere in his motion for an adjournment
of this question.
Limerick
terlsld
uiclut o
Col. DUNNE said that the evil which the present
measure would inflict in Ireland was so great that, not-
withstanding time
fo r
he regretted
the
atohne. loss of
Member
persist in his motion to report progress. He had another
roeitchsr, ahntediog must h
reason for wishing the debate to be adjourned,
which
because every Irish question was brought on in the
• the absence of the representatives of WAS
House durlng
Ire-
land.
Lord G. BENTINCK admitted that there was some
truth in the Hon. and Gallant Member's last obser-
vation, for there was not an Irish Member on the West
India Committee, notwithstanding the interests of the
distillers of that country were involved in the questions
discussed by that Committee. If the Bon. Member for
Limerick persisted in his motion be (Lord G. Bentinck)
thought that both the Irish and scotch distillers had a
claim to a postponement of the debate.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN,
Mr. P. S. BUTLER denied that the deputation of
Irish Members had waited on the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer with any dishonourable motives, and urged the
adjournment of the debate on a question of much more
grave importance than some Hon. Members seemed to
suppose, on the ground that so many Hon Members were
absent in the discharge of paramount duties at the as-
sizes in Ireland.
The Committee then divided on the amendment that
the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit
again, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

48
127
Majority
Col. DUNNE then moved as a further amendment
that the Chairman do now leave the chair,
The Committee again divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 4B
Against it 125

Mr. CALLAGHAN deMniaej
doritthyat the Irish —111t77
b
were factious.—(Laughter.) to be factious.—(Lau hter ) He hgnimseelsi
had come into the House without ha 'tngs:lced.
The consulted any
other
eCHANCELLOR
Member as the
ofh
t courseex
toE be u c
EQUFR had no
wish to accuse Honourable Members of being factious;
bailittuotwol,
Honourable
ehsu erpnaeoqbrttiii
eoef
asdi‘it
there
hm.(ewrbeaeHvrwti
Honourable
been
poopuorbsaaibtreleedl
hyi
as
forty
Gentlemen,
ris
tsue,sd for
r
tAip e omi nfivbt,t,e, e hours, .
ridisoodt
present.iit
not
choose to be in their places at the proper time, subse-
quently to opiose the progress of a measure on the
ground that it had not been properly discussed.
Lord G. BENTINCK said the House was not so
utterly destitute of speakers when the Honourable Mem-
ber for Leominster rose as that lion. Gentleman ap•
peared to suppose, for he (Lord G. Bentiock) had risen
to address the House at the same time.—(llear.)
Mr. CARDWELL said that he, out of a feeling of re-
spect for the opinion of the House, had abstained from
addressing it upon this subject. For if they were all to
speak, they would go on speaking for evermore, and
the progress of public business would be very much im-
peded. The West India interest was suffering exceed..
ingly. Their speeches would do it very little good,
while passing the Bill would do it a great service.
Mr. MACGREGOR addres
hich arose in SOMO mea-
sed the House amidst
shouts of continued laught,er, w