The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-19 00:00:00

suirieninfi

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 185

In the House of Commons, yesterday, the Sunday
Trading Bill was rejected, by a majority of 77 to 42;
and the Landlord and Tenant Bill passed through
Committee.

Ministers complain, and with justice, of the perti-
nacity of the Irish Members in continuing an useless
opposition to a measure which has on several occasions
been affirmed by decisive majorities. It is not our
purpose to defend " the Brigade" against the charge
of unnecessarily wasting the public time, or of exhi-
biting a contemptuous disregard for the wishes of
the great body of the popular representatives.
Although we censure their conduct, we can-
not but acknowledge that it is not on a
matter of light or trivial importance that they
have entered on such a contest. They conceive—er-
roneously conceive—that the religion which they
conscientiously profess is assailed, and they resort to
every possible system of tactics to retard the passing
of the law, and to annoy the Government by which
it has been introduced. But if even such a cause
cannot afford an adequate justification for their
proceedings, what can be said in favour of
the dogged and obstinate pertinacity of the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in refusing
to yield to the wishes of several successive majorities
of the House, clearly and unequivocally expressed,
for the redress of the serious grievances under which
the distillers of Scotland and Ireland are suffering ?
What right have the colleagues of Sir CHARLES
WOOD, who abet him in his continued opposition to
the " Home-made Spirits in Bond Bill," notwith-
standing five successive defeats, and who sanction his
determination " to resist the measure at every stage
of its progress," to complain of factious conduct on
the part of any Members of the House ? They have
no locus siandi; they cannot come into court with
clean hands, or justly complain if the course which
they themselves pursue in a matter of comparatively
trivial importance should be followed by others in a
matter which they consider of the most vital conse-
quence to themselves and their co-religionists.
But let us for a moment pause to consider the
point in dispute, the question respecting which
our sagacious Minister of Finance thinks it right and
proper to exhibit his mulish propensities of resistance
and palpable disrespect to the House. If ever there
was a demand based upon plain and simple equity, it
is that preferred by the distillers of the sister king-
doms. If ever there was a case where the cry of
" Justice to Ireland," aye, and to Scotland—for both
countries are equally injured—could be fairly and
properly raised, it is that now under notice. No dis-
interested person could hesitate for a moment as to
the full and unconditional recognition of the mode-
rate and equitable claim. It is in fact difficult to
conceive how even Sir CHARLES WOOD himself could
raise a doubt on the subject.
The Irish and Scotch distillers seek no favour,
They have not put forward any complaint at the
gross partiality which deprives them of any share in
the public contracts for the supply of spirits to the
navy. 'We believe no person will allege that Scotch
or Irish whisky is not as pure, as wholesome, and as
cheap a spirit as rum ; that it would not be in every
respect as acceptable and as beneficial to the seaman, and
yet no part of the quantity required is taken from
Scotland or Ireland,—all is the produce of the colo-
nies. Now, although we freely admit the right of
the colonists to claim equality with their Irish, or
Scotch, or English brethren, we cannot concede any
superiority, or acknowledge that they are to be given
a monopoly. Fair competition—a clear stage, and
no favour—should be allowed to all. Let the
productions of the colonies and of the Bri-
tish isles be brought fairly into the market,
with equal advantages, and then " let the best
man win," or the most useful article bring the price
and command the sale to which it is fairly entitled.
But, revenons a nous moutons, we are, to a certain
extent, travelling out of the record. The point at
issue under Lord NAAs's Bill is not the undue fa-
vouritism exhibited towards the colonies in giving
them the exclusive supply of the Royal Navy,
although that, along with many vexatious

Excise-- regulations, which materially lessen
the demand for the article, may form fitting sub-
jects for future comment. The simple point is
whether duty at the rate of three or four
hundred per cent. is to be paid on an ima-

ginary thing, which has evaporated, vanished
into thin air, soaked or leaked away, but
which is certainly not available for the producer ?

The Irish and Scotch distillers say that they are

quite ready and willing to pay duty on all the
spirit that is brought into consumption, and for
which they receive payment. They are also
willing to submit to the loss in strength
and quantity that is inevitable even when the
article is stored in the best circmstanced warehouses,
in !stores of special security, where there is no possi-
bility of itsbeing tampered with, but they doreasonably
object to have that original loss more than quadrupled
by being compelled to pay duty on that which has
been completely wasted, and that objection is ren-
dered more striking by the fact that, not only their
colonial, but even their foreign rivals, are altogether
exempted from this grievance.
Aswe may mention the followingfact,,anthe
accuracy of illustration,
which is vouched on the highest
authority. Four quarter casks of brandy were
landed and stored in the Customhouse of
Dublin, in February, 1849, and taken out between
the July and January followipg. on the gauge and
trial of strength the contents of these casks when stored,
were found to be 108 gallons, but when brought
into use, and the duty paid, they had reduced
to 102 gallons, on which duty only was charged-41.
103. being thus remitted to the producer. Messrs.
GORGE Roy- and Co. had some time previously
stored 113 gallons, 25 per cent. over proof, equivalent
to 141.25 proof gallons. There was subsequently 4
gallons, 25 over proof, added, making altogether 146.
25 proof gallons. When taken out of bond there
Was only 112 gallons, 5.9 over proof, equivalent to
118.60 proof gallons ; Messrs. ROE being thus
charged for 27.65 proof gallons, which was deficient,
and absolutely wasted. The free-trade CHANCEL-
LOR Of the EXCHEQUER, however, desires to afford this
protection to the foreigner, and if possible to drive the
native producer from the market.
We trust, however that the Right Hon. Baronet