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

be gNen to the' trade '*Outd 'largely increase the profits.
The Treasmy Minn& was perfectly explicit, as to the re-
duction of the wine duties, and the letter accompanying it
recognised no such distinction as that represented. The
Government was at liberty to revoke their own order, and
they had sent round that revocation to the trade, and by
that they intended to stand. He should like to know how
the half million deficit would bo made up if ho agreed to
this suggestion.

Mr. 1 ONCKTON MILNES explained, and said that
his right hon. friend was in error when he said the present
merchants would be no losers by his budget, because they
would have to give up to their customers the benefits that
would flow from the operation of the Government scheme.
He thought the course pursued by Government was one of
summary injustice. He was in the hands of the house on
this matter, but if he found any support he would take the
sense of the house upon it.
Mr. BALL thought the question of the malt duties was
immediately- connected with this question. Before consi-
dering the claims of wine merchants they should consider
those of the farmers in respect to the malt duties, which was
the most oppressive of all duties. The hon. member stated
the process of levying this duty, every stage of which, he
contended, was vexatious. During the discussion cf these
minute details, protection bad been ridiculed, but although
he had submitted to free trade he held now the same prin-
ciples with regard to protection which he had always held.
During the last seven years free trade had not given to the
poor a cheaper loaf. The poor were deceived and betrayed.
It was said pass the corn laws, and there would be no
fluctuations, but had not that also proved a
fallacy ? He believed that just the result that had at-
tended the repeal of the corn laws would attend the ope-
aticn of this budget. It would break many a man's
heart. The manufacturers had damaged the agriculturists
and shipping trade, and now they were going to damage
other trades. The assertion that this change woald benefit
them would prove a fallacy as other assertions of Free-
traders had done. On the subject of malt he meant to divide
the house, and he felt he was justified in so doing. There
was no class so oppressed as the agriculturists, and his ap-
peal to the right hon. gentleman was to give them relief
from the malt tax. The right hon'. gentleman was going to
allow the foreigner to introduce barley, and that would teach
foreigners by and by how to malt, but thero was no end to
the mischief this budget would inflict upon the country,
and he might truly say to the right hon. gentleman,—
" You rob Peter to pay Paul,
And tax the Briton to serve the Gaul."
Mr. BASS did not feel very sanguine as to the advantages
to be derived from repealing the duties on French wines,
big t let the Chancellor of the Excheque- reduce that on malt
and he was certain not to be a loser. The right hon. gentle-
man said the other day that there were many hon. members
in the house free traders, who were.not for free trade with-
out some exceptions. Now, he was for a free trade in itself;
and he believed he was the first brewer who ever said so.
It was well known that all the great brewers were entirely
opposed to it, and his opinion was, that no other connected
with the trade would make a similar declaration. If the
wines of France, and Spain, and Portigal were to be ad-
mitted into England, if spirits were to be imported from
Holland and from America, where he understood it was sold
at Bd. the gallon, if new houses were to take up this trade,
why not give the same advantage to English beer. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Liskeard, the other night,
quoted from a blue book the manner in which wines were
adulterated in this country; but a similar practice existed
in France. From the same authority it would be seen
that Spanish and Hungarian wines were often sold as
French wines, and under the new order of things he had
no doubt whatever that such wines would be introduced
to this country as French wines. He read the opinion of
Sir Emerson Tennent, given before that committee, when
be said that if they reduced the duty on wine, they must,
as a matter of necessLy, reduce the malt tax.
Mr. VANCE, as a representative for a city celebrated for
its manufacture of spirits, wished to say a few words, and
begged in the first instance to express his regret that the
hon. member for Derby did not make the speech he just
delivered in the course of last week. Had he done so many
hon. members would have voted, he had no doubt, in a dif-
ferent manner. He complained that the measure proposed
by tae right hon. gentleman would have a serious effect on
the spirit and wino trade of Ireland.
Colonel SYKES thought, the proposal of his hon. friend
was just, namely, that those who could prove that, within
the last two years, they had paid duty upon their stock of
wines, should be entitled to a drawback, and in support of
that principle he should give his vote in support of the pro.
position of his hon. friend. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said it would be well to inquire what
was likely to be the consumption of French wines in this
country. Now, on that question, he thought the best evi-
dence they could have was that of Sir Emerson Tennent.
The right hon. and learned gentleman quoted from the
evidence to the effect that Sir Emerson Tenant in his com-
munications with the French authorities, had heard that
it was a delusion to suppose that if the duty were taken off
the people of England could be induced to drink the light
wines of France. He then went on to state on the authority
furnished to him that the opinion of the Emperor was that
it would be well if the Bordeaux merchants would consider
what they were about to do ; and it was distinctly stated to
him on the highest authoritieL that the low wines of France
would not be held in esteem by the people of England.
hlifr. HENLEY considered the question at present
was, whether French wines were to be admitted at 3s.
per gallon duty. He had heard the Chancellor of
the Exchequer say that he was against the principle of a
drawback. He had not heard, nor did he understand
what the loss to the Exchequer would be by the right hon.
gentleman's scheme, as pointed out by the hon. member for
Coventry. If the scheme was to be carried out, he would
take that opportunity of saying that hp would not do any-
thing to weaken it. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was weak
enough as it stood. (Hear, and laughter.) He could not
conceive how persons would consent to pay 3s. per gallon
for those wines—(hear, hear)—but in his opinion they would
have to pay at a rate not of 35., but of ss. 9d. The right
hon gentleman said that wine merchants would not be in-
jured because they might have a stock of wines on hand
when the reduced duty on French wines would come into
operation ; but for his (Mr. Henley's) part, he could not see
how they could escape. He did not think there ought to be
any money granted by the Exchequer unless an equitable
claim were made out; and, for his part he did not see that
any equitable claim had been made out, nor did he hear of
any thing of the sort. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. MILNES hoped he would be permitted to amend
the proposition which had been submitted, and to propose it
in a more distinct manner, as follows, viz. :—" Or who can
prove by limy other process to the satisfaction of the Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue, that such stock has been ac-
quired, and duty paid on it, two years before the 10th of
February, 1860."
Lord J. RUSSELL would not now enter at all into the
question of the ane duties; but he must confess that the
proposal of his hon. friend the member for Pontefract
seemed to him to be the loosest proposition he had
ever heard. (Hear, hear.) Here there were three
rules which required a drawback. His honour •
able friend said—" If you observe these rules you'll
have a drawback, or you may not." Now, if that was to
be the effect, how could they expect any conditions to be
observed ? And they might say to the House of Commons
—" You have done wrong in grunting this large sum of
money—you did not know how much it was ; but you have
granted it to some, and you must grant it to others."
Every one might be at liberty to come and' say—" I hwe
not observed these rules ; but I have a right, and you are
bound to grant me a sum of money as a drawback." His
hon. friend said the assent to that proposition might cost
£600,000, but whether it would cost £600,000 or £60,000
was not the question. One could not say whether the stock
on hand was the stock of one year or of two years. He
thought his hon. friend could not maintain such a proposi-
tion.

Sir F. KELLY said if the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the grammatical
construction and plain common sense of the minute and the
order, and not rely upon any construction such as might be
put upon these documents by a special pleader, he believed
that he must come to the conclusion that the drawback
should be allowed to all wine merchants who had an equal
quantity of " such wine" as that they had paid duty upon,
though it could not be proved that it was identically the
same wine.
Mr. WOODD referred to the words "and of a like de-
scription," and contended that these words could not possi-
bly apply to the same wine.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that there were two questions before the committee. With
regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned member
opposite, he proposed that the committee should pass the
resolution as it steed for the present, if they were agreed
that parties were to receive a drawback who had complied
with the minutes; and then, if any doubt were entertained
as to the terms of those minutes, the committee would be
better-able to decide the question when they had not only
the minutes, but the orders that were made upon those
minutes, before them. (Hear, hear.) The question raised
by the lion. member for Pontefract was an entirely different
one. He wished the Government to allow a drawback
amounting to £600,000 to traders who had not complied
with the excise regulations, upon a principle, it seemed, of
generosity. [Mr. Milnes—" Of justice."] What his lion.
Mend called justice was the granting of a favour to parties
to a contract who had neglected to observe the terms of
that contract. The mischief did not stop there, for the same
indulgence might b 3 extended to timber, silk goods,
gloves, currants, raisins and figs, to an extent which would
break tke back of a richer Chancellor of the Exchequer
than he was.
Mr. MILNES said that there were persons who had
complied witk the spirit of the order, had submitted their
accounts to the excise officers, and entered them in their
cash-books, but had only omitted to observe the form of
keeping a tack book,-from which they had often been pre-
vented by the obstacles thrown in their way by the excise
officers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no one case of such conduct on the pax ;; of an excise officer
had been Nei:fied, and he was not able to believe that such
eases occurred, The stock book wes the only evidence, and
the only security which the trader was bound to preserve'
Mr. BENTINCK said he shoal support fho hon. mem-
ber for Pontefract if he went to a division. It was obvious
that to expect justice, patriotism, or go d feeling from her
Majesty's Government was a perfectly hopeless undertak-
ing. There was no attempt to convince except by majorities.
Sir E. GROGAN said that he had presented a petition
only the other day from merchants and traders in the wine
business, who complained that the officers whose duty it
was to carry out the minute had refused to verify and cer-
tify their stock sheets.
Mr. LAING said that cases of omission wore excep-
tional. The rule was to keep a book.
After a few words from Sir M. FARQUHAR, the commit-
tee divided :
For the amendment
Against it
---111
Majority
The resolution was then agreed to. _
Tlie CHANCELLOR of the EXC HE QUER moved the
following amended resolution, viz.:—
Resolved, that on and after the Ist day of January, 1861,
the following duties shall be charged, viz.:—

Containing less than the
following rates of proof •
spirit, verified by
Sykes' Hydrometer,
:

t
2.1 g
'et .4

18 deg.

26 deg.. 140 deg,

Wine of and from Foreign
Conn tries—
lted the gallon
White
Lees of such Wine „ .

Wine the growth and pro-
duce ,r any British posses-
sion, and imported direct
from thenco—
lied the gallon
White
Lees of such Wine „

1 0
1 0
1 0

2 q
4 0
2 0

The resolution having been put,
Mr. V ITg eERALD said the alterations Which the rit,lo
gentleman had resolved on increased the obiesAtions he
felt to the proposal, because as the resolution waS now pro-
posed it was equivalent to EA virtual vlceferentiai dnty on