The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-02 00:00:00

THE MILITIA.

The Chatsworth Rifles (2d Derby Militia) will
assemble at Chesterfield on the sth of October for
21 days' training, under the command of Lieute-
nant-Colonel F. Cavendish.

WHISKY DRINKING IN SCOTLAND.

(From the Scottish Press, Aug. 31.)

Mr. Duncan M'Laren has succeeded—so he tells
the public—in blowing all our whisky drinking
statistics to the winds—the surprise being that a
task so easy of accomplishment should have re-
quired such an expenditure of time and effort. The
truth is, that never was so lame and impotent an
attempt made, or one so characteristic of Mr.
M'Laren's genius. It is an old trick of the hunting
field to draw a herring across the scent, but we
have rarely seen it so clumsily performed as in the
present instance. That painful elaboration of
figures, which have really to do with the question,
down to those twelfths of a penny which meet one
at every turn, will only blind persons who cannot
judge for themselves, or who are so steeped in pre-
judice that they never get beyond one side of a
question. It is gratifying to turn away to the tone
and manner of the press—the London press espe-
cially—who, taking their cue from the Times,
manifestly feel that on questions involving conside-
rations of social importance the less of personal
animus that is imported into the discussion the
better.

Before we advert to any of the statements, from
whatever quarter, before us, it is necessary, to avoid
confusion and misrepresentation, that we repeat in
a sentence or two what we did affirm—taking sta-
tistics published under the authority of Parliament
for the basis of our calculations. We stated-1.
That, in the two years 1857 and 1858, the people
of Scotland consumed 146,687 gallons of whisky,
on which duty was paid, more than in the two
years 1851 and 1852. 2. That we selected these
years because the two periods formed a natural con-
trast, being free from the speculations which the
known determination of Government to equalise the
duty in England and Scotland imparted interme-
diately to the trade. 3. That the price of the
article having risen, in consequence of the duty
having risen from 3s. Bd. to Bs. per gallon, the
consumpt being not less but greater, our expendi-
ture on whisky, instead of diminishing in propor-
tion as the price rose, had entirely disregarded and
inverted this ordinary law of political economy.
4. That, as the Parliamentary returns showed that
we consumed in Scotland, in 1851-52, 13,928,539
gallons, representing at the average selling price of
6s. 6d. £4,494,274.—and, in 1857-58, 13,975,226
gallons, representing at the average selling price of
12s. 2d. £7,802,842, we were expending £3,308,568
more in 1857 and 1858 than in 1851 and 1852.
5. That, if we added to the aggregate a million
gallons each year of water, mixed by the retailers
with the whisky, to enable them to approach nearer
the old gill standard than the increased price of the
article warranted, but which, when mixed with
whisky, was sold and paid for as whisky, and paid
for on the same scale as if the distiller and the
Queen had had their clues out of it—we obtained
an increase, not certainly to the duty paid or tile
price paid by the retailer, but to the sum disbursed
by the purchaser, of £588,333 per annum ; and, 6,
that as the diminution of the licences to retailers
had not diminished drinking, either the gain of
those who remained had increased or drinking had
been driven into unlicensed and disreputable or
domestic quarters.
Most of these statements, resting upon data open
to the community, have not been: denied, have
scarcely been challenged, and what part of them
has been assailed has been so either upon mere
assertion, unsupported by a single testimony, or
upon misapprehension or insufficient information.

Mr. M‘Liiren does not venture to deny that we
have drunk more whisky in 1857 and 1858 than in
1851 and 1852, or that it cost the sum we say dur-
ing the one and the other sets of these years. He
occupies himself with an elaborate examination of
the rates of duty paid—a most interesting topic,
doubtless, had the controversy related to the taxa-
tion of whisky, or the effects which a high or low
duty has on drinking, or smuggling on the public
exchequer ; but perplexing, without any counter-
vailing advantage, to the subject under discussions
And. even his own statistics, as adopted by " A
Spirit Dealer," whose letter appears in our columns,
and who knows the trade as well as any man in
Scotland, leave our figures behind when fairly
wrought out to their issue. For example, the duty
on whisky for the two years ending the Ist of April,
1857, as given in Mr. M'Laren's letter, amounts to
£5,719,765

Add the price of whisky at 3s. on the
number of gallons in the Parliamen-
tary return 2,096,283
Add 25 per cent. for retailers' profits .

£9,770,060
By our calculation we brought out .. . . 8,919,508

In excess of our calculation
Mr. M'Laren rebukes us for not including
foreign and colonial spirits, and actually gives
the Forbes Mackenzie Act credit, " by closing
the public houses during the whole day on Sun-
days, and at 11 o'clock at night during the other
days of the week," for the diminished consumption
of these, and claims their comparatively slight dimi-
nution as a "set-off" against so much of the whisky
consumed. We really refuse to complicate the ques-
tion by any such ridiculous suggestion. If brandy,
rum, and gin have diminished in quantity they
have increased in price, so this is a set-off in another
direction ; but there are not half-a-dozen men in
Scotland who believe that the consumpt of a single
gallon of whisky is contingent upon the price of
articles that have never been a people's drink. Pur-
suing his minimising process, and proceeding to re-
mark upon malt liquors, which do form a large con-
sumpt, especially ale, Mr. M'Laren says :
"In so far as the duty on the malt consumed in
Scotland for these beverages is concerned, effect has
been given to the diminution of the malt-duty
tables already quoted; but I have no materials en-
abling me to estimate the decrease in the quantity
of malt liquors really consumed, nor the cost of the
manufactured article, irrespective of duty ; nor have
I any materials for ascertaining the quantity of
pale ale and London porter brought from England
to be consumed in Scotland. It is, however, quite
certain that a very large decrease in the quantity
of malt liquor consumed in Scotland has taken place
during the last four years, as compared with the
consumption of the four earlier years, and therefore
a large sum ought to be deducted from the above
£1,565,991 on that account, although I shall not
venture to estimate the amount ; and this correction
would manifestly still further disturb the assump-
tions of the Scottish Press, that the increased cost
for whisky had been £6,428,646 during the last
four years."
We shall show the recklessness and total ignorance
of his facts with which Mr. M‘Laren deals where
he has a theory to support. In order to get at the
exact statistics of this " very large decrease," which
is so sensibly to " disturb" our figures, we yester-
day obtained the Excise returns of the Edinburgh
brewers and found, as we expected, that whereas
in dearthe
1851, when' our whisky statistics com-
menced, the malt used on which duty was paid
amounted to 63,194 quarters, it amounted in 1857
to 70,073 quarters, and will amount on the Ist of
year 1858
October next, when
least 80,000 quarters, andcloses, to at
this
although barley was
ss. cheaper in 1851 than it is now.l
be also importing, as Mr. NL,
pale ale anti
Lon-
n
S seemso that if we
to
sug-
gest, an increased quantity ofP
don porter," we make him a present of the "large
sum" which " ought to be deducted," although with
singular diffidence he has " not ventured to esti-
mate the amount.
We shall not follow him in his analysis of "the
water hypothesis." We only regret that, when
the price of nun, he
engaged in making inquiries "of a gentleman in
the trade ,'l on the subject of
did not tilink of inquiring whether our statement

THE-SETN, LONDON

was correct. Had he done so, he would have found
it was entirely beyond dispute ; and if he will do
so yet, we will accept the reply, which he may
elicit from any re-spect'able retailer in the trade, as
a settlement of the water controversy. . _

The Economist has some admirable discussional
remarks on this subject ; and, in replying to him,
our observations in one direction will dispel the
strange and incredible delusion into which a re-
spectable firm of distillers in the south of Scotland
have fallen in the communication to us 'given else-
where. In fact, the statistics of the Economist,
rightly read, entirely upset their theory.
The Economist says, as say our correspondents,
there are no data, since the equalisation of duty, to
distinguish between whisky consumed in Scotland
and England. This is -a mistake, into which we
observe Mr. Caird, M.P., among others, has fallen,
in a letter he has addressed to the Times, which,
by the way, bears a most suspicious resemblance to
letter from the same quarter in our own columns.
It was in the belief of this that Parliament refused
in the first instance to make a return of the discri-
minating kind we have now got. But it was dis-
covered that in the Excise-office there were mate-
rials for the purpose. Each retailer is compelled
under a severe penaltyto enter on the counterfoil of
his certificate-book—exactly resembling a bank
check-book—the name of the person to whom and
place to which every gallon of whisky is sent ; and
in the same way every distiller or person who pays
duty and takes whiskey out of bond is compelled
to have entered in the permit, of which a counter-
foil is also kept, the person to whom and place to
which the whisky is sent—so that if it is sent to a
London house it is included as whisky entered for
consumption in England, and if a Scotch house it
is included as whisky entered for consumption in
Scotland. That there might be no mistake, we
ascertained the fact yesterday from the collector of
Excise at Edinburgh. This will also clear
up a discrepancy between the Economist and
us. The Economist enters in "the net revenue
collected," all the duty paid in Scotland, al-
though the whisky may afterwards be sent to
England, or even to France, as much of it is to be
turned into inferior brandy ; whereas we confined
ourselve to what was collected on the article entered
for home use.

We cannot help remarking, before we close thes6
remarks, how entirely the figures, given in the
Economist, of the quantity of home-made spirits,
on which duty has been paid for consumption in
the United Kingdom, tally with the gradual pro-
gressive increase in Scotland since 1854, the year
of the Forbes Mackenzie Act :-
1855 22,270,000 gallons.
1856 23,620,000 „
1857 24,804,000 „
If we were to object to anything said by so im-
partial a writer as our brother of the Economist, it
would be for asserting that we have raised these
" exclusively in reference to" the Forbes Macken-
zie Act. We have not said so, and we did not so
intend. We agree very much with our contem-
porary in his views of that legislation, and in no
respect more than when he says " that there are
many and important elements besides the effect of
this much-contested Act." It is a most mischievous
thing, in our judgment, to bring down great social
problems to be measured and manipulated by some
piece of handicraft, substituting a mechanical slide
for moral exercitation, and dealing with mind as
men would with mattet. We have had no wish in
these discussions to hold up our country to the re-
probation of other notions. Our wish has been, by
exposing our infirmity and shame, to awaken the
people to a just sense of their condition, and to
stimulate them to those measures of social refor-
mation which alone can cope with so great an
evil.