The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-28 00:00:00

founded entirely upon the supposition thattis deficit would
be bet Ween nine and ten millions, whereas he (Mr. Baillie)
was prepared to show that it must be at least £3,000,000
more than he bad estimated, and it would be necessary for
him either to retain the excise duties he proposed to lower
or remit partially, or to impose an additional income tax to
make up these £3,000,000. The Government and the right
hon. gentleman were about to enter into a war with China.,
fo. the extraordinary expenditure of which they estimated
only half a million this year That estimate was already
proved erroneous, having mounted up to £850,000. The best
way to judge of the real and probable expenditure of the
Chinese war this year would be to take the facts connected with
the Persian expedition in 1856. That expedition was fitted
out at Bombay, and consisted of 4,000 Europeans and 8,000
native troops. From the time they landed in Persia until
peace was ratified at Bagdad in May, 1857, that expedition
was on duty five months and a half, and the extraordinary
cost was £2,195,728, or, in round numbers, £2,200,000. The
Chinese expedition preparing in the three presidencies of
Bombay, Madras, and Bengal, was to be compssed of pre-
cisely the same number of troops, but with this difference in
the composition of the expedition, that there were to be 7,000
Europeans and 5,000 natives, and consequently the expense
of the commissariat would b.) greater. He had no hesitation
in saying that six months in China with such a force would
cost a million more than the Persian expedition, or 13,200,000.
As to any indemnify from the Chinese, it was out of the
, question, as the Government of China had no money. He
trusted that means would be found to provide for this extra

expenditure.
Alr. CRAWFORD rose to express his belief that the al-
coholic test by means of which the wine duties were proposed
to be collected would be found entirely unsuited to the pur-
pose. It would depend on the skill of the manipulation,
the accuracy of the instruments, and even the state of the
atmosphere, and one gauger might return a wine at ls. 6d.
the gallon duty is London, whilst another might put it at
Is. in Liverpool, the first representing it 15 and the second
only 14 degrees of strength. Classification had been found
to fail in tea, and a uniform duty was established ; and in
the case of sugar the question was a constant source of dis-
pute between the Customs and consignees. With respect
to the drawback, the duffers understood that, they were to
receive a drawback of 2s. 9d. per ge'lon on all wines in
stock, provided they complied with the Treasury minute of
July, 1842, but they complained that when the Ist of Alan
1861. arrived they would be deprived of their right by the
operation of a subsequent minute.
The CHANCELLOR o':theEXCHEQUER wishedthat
the poirt alluded to by his hon. friend might be reserved.
Mr. CRAW FORD was rejoiced to receive th;s intimation,
and trusted that the hesitation which it evinced on the part
of his right hon. friend had arisen from what he had heard
that day from the deputation.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said, with reference to the draw-
back, that the dealers were prepared to abide by the minute,
but they complained of its ambiguity. They believed that
the minute of 1813 was la a considerable extent revoked by
the subsequent one of 1852.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the minute of 1852 oily revived that of 1843, and the
one last issued vas sent to c very dealer in the trade. The
order of 1843 was revived by that of 1852, at the request of
the trade.
Mr. H. BENTINCK was afraid that the result of the
proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to
introduce the practice of adulteration of wines upon a greater
scale on the continent. With regard to the importation of
French wines he believed they would not bear carrying, and
thLt they were hardly drinkable even in France itself. He
only hoped the merits of the budget would be thoroughly
understood throughout the country, and that the labouring
population would at last see who were their real friends.
(Cheers.) He contended the budget was nothing but a
sequel to the proceedings of the hon. member for Birming-
ham and his friends, who in 1816 succeeded in passing mea-
sures extremely beneficial to themselves under the disguise
of a wish to benefit the whole mass of the population. He
trusted they would have en opportunity for ample discus-
sion as to how the deficiency caused by the budget could be
made up. At present they had had no explanation u on the
subject, but merely a series of asset tions as to what would
be the result of the proceedings of the right hon. gentle-
men.

Mr. CROSSLEY had been vele, much pleased by the
statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with
regard to the reduction of the wine duties. He thought
the right hon. gentleman had clearly shown that such a
measure would improve directly the position of the middle
classes of the country, and eventually the position of the
laboui ing population generally.
Sir E. GROGAN must enter his protest againit the plan
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the re-
duction of the duty on wine. The general feeling of the
trade was that there should be a uniformity of duty, and
that the alcoholic test was lil- .1v to lead to injustice and dis-
putes. This was the opinion of a meeting of the trade held
so lately as Saturday last. A uniform duty would veil
greatly simplify ell the transactions of the trade, whereas
the alcoholic test world require a great deal of skill and
nicety, and would occupy in each case about half an hour.
Mr. B. WOODD read the general order of 1852, and said
ho could not agree with the construction which the Chan-
"or of the Exe'iequer put upon it. It was not a revival
of any order which was issued ex proprio motu by the Trea-
sury itself. It was the duty of the stipereisor to have de-
livered this order to any one obtaining a licence, which had
not been done. The trade thought naturally that the same
words had the same meaning in 1852 as in 1843. The order
was reissued word for word in 18.52, and he had no doubt
on the subject. The present proposal of the Chancellor of
Exchequer held out a premium to fraud, because it was ut-
terly impossible for any excisemen to identify wines in
stock so as to say whether they were wines bought within
two years or not.
Mr. M. MILNEB said it was an illustration of the
fluctuating nature of opinion in that house, that when the
question of the reduction of the wine duties had been dis-
cussed in previous years with considerable ability by an
hon. gentleman who was then his colleague, it excited
very l'ttle attention. (Hear, hear.) He had no special
private reasons for doing so, but he thought it was only
due to Mr. Oliveira that he should recal to the
house the great assiduity with which that gentleman
brought for ward this question year after year. (Hear, hear.)
He need not remind them of the labour and expense em-
ployed in getting up the facts and illustrations which he
placed before the house. (Hear.) He little thought that
he was then sowing the seeds of this great financial mea-
sure. He (Mr. Milnes) considered that the alcoholic test
was the very worst that could be selected. The effect of it
would necessarily 13 to introduce into this country the
worst and most acidulous kind of wines, and keep out those
better productions of the Feninsela, the stronger and haler
wines of Spain and Portugel, which would accommodate
themselves to the taste of the British public, and most ma-
terially carry out the designs of the right hon. gentleman.
He thought that the Government appeared to be about to
deal unjustly with the present holders of stocks of wine.
There was something repulsive to his sense of justice in the
fact that the right hon. gentleman should talk of dealing
with it as a matter purely of contract, to be carried out
with the strictest legality, and not as a question of justice
to be de.lt with liberally. It would only be just to
the holders of stocks of wine to treat them as they would
have been treated in 1843 had the treaty then been carried
out ; and if they were to have been no losers by that treaty,
why should they be so now? (flee-, hear.) Why draw
such a distinction between 1843 and 1860? There ought
also to be the greatest liberality in dealing with the
question of the identity of stocks.. Many members of the
trade had ceased keeping stock-books, which was winked
at by the officers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would do well to abstain from requiring the production of
any such merely formal documents, anu to content himself
with the production of the pass-book, regularly drawn up,
and accompanied by duplicat3 certificates supplied to the
trade by the Inland Revenue, and by them transmitted to
the Excise. The right hon. gentlemen would be no loser by
this plan, and he would do justice to the persons whom he
would wish least ta injure, viz., those wine merchants who
had small stocks in trade. The larger merchant:- who could
bee- any loss without the least injury to themselves had
b- an more correct than merchants holding smaller stocks.
The latter had been, he would not say culpably negligent,
for they had been encouraged in their negligence by officers
of the Crown. He proposed that after the words " 2s. 9d.
per gallon" these evords should be inserted, " or by such
other process as might prove satisfactorily to the Commis-
sioners of Inland Revehuo that such stocks have been ac-
quired before the Ist of February, 1860."
Mr CAYLEY, who was very imperfectly heard, was
understood to suggest that our beer shorld be admitted
into Franca at 11. rate of duty proportionate to that charged
by us on wines imported from thence.
Mr. DODSON said
.the duty upon beer imported into
France was about eql2tvalent to the duty upon French
i
wine imported nto this country. A duty upon wine of 6s.
a gallon was equivalent to a duty of Is. per bottle. The
duty noon wine was. about one-fourth or one-fifth of the
value otbeer. The right hon. gentleman had said that his
budget was one to sweep away the last remnant of protec-
tion, but the duties levied upon wine should- not
be made so as to establish a protection to the foreign pro-
ducer. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was afraid that he might be accused of disrespect to hon.
members, if he did not at once achleess one or two remarks
upon the points to which they referred ; at the same time,
he did not think when they were in committee on a parti-
cular vote on the Customs Act, it was the proper time for
considering all the questions which had been put to him,
and particularly as tithe expenses of the war with China,
inasmuch as when they were in a committee of supply they
would be enabled to deal with that question. The questions
of one or two of the hon. gentlemen who had last spoken
appeared to him to be more germane to the 'subject now be-
fore them, than having reference to malt, hops, and beer.
IVith respect to the article of beer, he did not think that in
the official correspondence there had been any mention
made of that article ; it was mentioned by the negotiators at
Paris, but it was not thought advisable to introduce the article
suggested in the treaty. If they had endeavoured to weigh in
opposite *cities, the advantage given on the one side and the
advantages received on the other, they would have broken
down, and have kite I altogether. Therefore, there was that
reason why they should not have persevered as to the admis-
sion of English beer into France; for if they had founded
a demand for the admission of English beer into France,
upon the reduction of the duty upon French wines, it
might have been justly asked, what duty was going to be
levied on French wines ? because the French duty on beer
was now considerably, less, according to value, than the
Englishduty on wine, and would continue to be after the
proposed change had been carried into effect. The French
charge on beer was 2d. 2-sths per gallon, or about 18 per
cent. on the ordinary value ; and in regard to the wine
duty here, it would be 40, 50, and even 100 per cent. He
perfectly agreed with the hon. gentleman that it would be
inexpedient and unfair to put a higher duty on malt, which
was the produce of their own soil, than upon wines which
came to thorn from abroad. But with respect to' the dif-
ferent qualities of light nines, he thought it would be im-
possible to draw a clear distinction bet ween the rate of duty
on wine and beer, but it would be on the lower class of
wines which would come into competition with beer. The
hon. member for Dubliu had said that if a graduated scale
were good, why should it not-be applied immediately ; but
lie did not think it necessary to give the same facilities for
the introduction of :heap wines until the plan should come
fully into operation. The gradual scale would not apply to
the ititermeeiate period, but after that period was worked
out, then they should have recourse to the graduated scale.
Then, as to the subject of drawbacks, he denied the justice
of rho system of drawbacks generally, as they had been
taken of late years, but they should be conformed to the
class of cases in which the identification of the goods was
practicable. That could be done under the Excise, but not
under the Customs. The Treasury minute of 1813 placed
wine under regulations similar to those of the Excise. What
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would suggest to the
committee was, that they should confine themselves to the
disposal of the suggestion of the hou. member for Pontefract.
The hon. gentleman proposed that they should be prepared
to make a return of duty on their stock. He (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) would not call that duty on his part,
but extravagance, and a course which the house would
never agree to. There was no ease under the specific terms
of the contract for the return of one farthing. The wine
trade was not going to be losers, but large pint o§ by 1113
proposals, and they recognised tile enopmcais bcPentilthgt
would result foul the chimp, 1 e stitniehes which would