The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-16 00:00:00

• the time has yet arrived, nor that it will arrive in the pre-
sent year, of any change at all. When it does come I hope
such minor changes as are required may be made, but I am
quite sure that when they are made the conduct of the Go-
vernment of France in respect to the commercial treaty and
the adjustment of its own laws will not be forgotten either
by the esent or any other Government of England.
(Hear.) So much, then, for the revenue from Customs, but
there still remains to be considered the Excise revenue for
the past year. The revenue from Excise was estimated in
1860 to be £21,361,000. Instead of that amount it was
£19,435,000, showing a deficit of £1,926,00). In point of
fact, if the members of the committee will be at the pains
of comparing the deficit upon the Excise with tho entire
deficit upon the aggregate revenue as compared with the
estimates, they will find that they correspond within a few
thousands. The deficit upon the Excise arises upon three
articles, firsthops, which was estimated to produce £870,000,
while it really yielded only £580,000, a deficiency in round
numbers of £300,000. The next item is malt, which was
estimated to produce £3,900,000, but which yielded only
£6,116,000, or a deficiency of £BOO,OOO. The third article
is spirits, which was estimated to produce £10,150,000, but
which actuallyyielded but£9,210,000, or a deficit of £96,000.
Thus the deficiencies upon these three articles together re-
present the source and form part of the failure of the re-
venue of the year to reach its estimated amount. As for
the hop duty, that is accounted for in a manner so plain
by the immediate operation of the season that I need not
detain the committee upon that point. The whole duty
chargeable upon British hops was £70,000, instead of
£300,000 which was estimated for the year, because two
years' crops are included in the £BOO,OOO which I have
mentioned. And of that £70,000 it became necessary for
the Government in the exercise of its discretion to allow
the payment to be postponed, so as to pass into the next
financial 'year. Thus £300,000 was disposed of. As to
malt I am sorry to say that the £BOO,OOO I have men-
tioned can scarcely be said to represent the whole evil.
There is no doubt the relation between the consumption of
beer and malt, although an essential relation, is not one
which takes immediate effect, but still it is un-
doubtedly true that with a favourable year we ought to
have had a considerable advance in the consumption of malt
and of beer, because malt has been benefiting for some time,
especially in Ireland, by an increase in the spirit duties,
and the sale of beer must have benefited materially during
the last year throughout the three kingdoms, in consequence
of an increase of duty upon spirits without any correspond-
ing increase in the duties upon malt. It is one main com-
plaint of the distillers of spirits, than whoin I never had the
pleasure of meeting with a more intelligent body of British
merchants or tradesmen—it is ono of their chief complaints
that they are taxed so inadequately in proportion to the tax
on malt. The alcohol in pure spirit pays 10s. to 10s. 6d.
per gallon, the alcohol in wine pays 6s. to 75., and the al-
cohol in beer pays but ls. 10d. per gallon. That is an
immense discrepancy which continues when we consider
the tax in relation to its value. The tax upon beer may be
said to be from 18 to 23 per cent. ; upon wine—that is, the
only wine that can ever be expected to compete with beer—
it is from 25 to 80 per cent., while the tax upon spirits is 5
times that amount, for it is hardly less than 400 per cent.
But the committee will be anxious to hear what is to be
said with regard to the spirit duties. We anticipated an in-
crease in the revenue from the duty recently imposed on
spirits of £350,000 ; there was altogether a diminution in the
actual yield of the spirit duty, as compared with the esti-
mate, of £900,000. Looking at this result, I cannot say that
at first sight it is satisfactory; but it is a result that de-
serves the careful attention oi the committee, and it is one
that will reward that attention, because the question of the
augmentation of the spirit duties does not refer exclusively
to any particular Ministry or Government. The proposal
we made last year was made with a general belief that the
result—at least the momentary and immediate result—
would be, in some degree, uncertain. We were all desirous
that the duty on this particular commodity should be carried
to the highest practical point. In laying before the commit-
tee the exact state of the case, I must observe that the whole
duty on spirits yielded £900,000 less than the estimate, and
£500,000 less than the same duty in the year before. I will
now entreat the committee to accompany me for a moment
while I exhibit the results of the spirit duty on the year
when broken into two parts, and the committee will be
not a little surprised at those results. The first part of
the year is from the Ist of April to the 14th of July,
when the addition to the spirit duty was not known, or per-
haps not dreamt of ; the second part of the year is from the
16th of July to the 31st of March, when the addition to the
duty had been made. From the figures I shall lay before it
the committee will see that a very considerable decline was
in operation before the duty was changed, and that the de-
cline was checked, and there was even some degree of abso-
lute increase afterwards. Especially is this the case if we
take England alone, for both in Scotland and Ireland social
causes are at work that have caused a pretty steady decrease
in the consumption of spirits. (Hear, hear.) But I will
give the exact case of England first, and that of the United
Kingdom as a whole afterwards. In England the spirit duty
received between the let of April and the 14th of July—
[An hon. member on the Opposition benches here made
some observation.] I hear a voice say, "It is all details."
Certainly it is all details. (Cheers.) lam in the hands of
the committee as to the degree of detail it will sanction. It
is my duty to give them ; but it is not my duty to force any
details on the committee beyond its disposition to receive
them. (Cheers.) Sir, I look on this question as one of very
great fiscal importance. (Hear, hear.) In England, then,
—presenting the countries in their order—the spirit duty re-
ceived in 1859-60 was £1,203,000; the amount received in
1860-61 was £1,045,000, showing a decrease of £158,000.
This was the general operation of the duty in England be-
fore the additional duty was dreamt of. Then, taking the
part of the year from July 16 to March 31, when the addi-
tional duty was in operation, the amount received in 1859-60
was £2,991,000, and in 1860-61, £3,245,000, or an increase
under the new duty of £254,000, which very nearly corres-
ponded with the estimate we made. (Hear, hear.) In Scot-
land there was a large increase before July, and a small in-
crease afterwards. In Ireland there was a decrease before the
spirit duty was altered and a considerable decrease afterwards.
In the United Kingdom there was a decrease of £634,000
before the duty was changed, and an increase of £90,000
after the 14th of July. These comparisons are of them-
selves valuable as far as they go, but the operations of the
spirit trade itself are such as to materially bewilder and de-
lude those who endeavour to understand them without the
advantage of a long experience. In 1869-60 there was an
extraordinarily large delivery of spirits, from an anticipa-
tion of an increased duty. This very materially diminished
the productiveness of the dutrin 1860-61. By the returns
of the Board of Inland Revenue it appears that in 1860 duty
was paid on 3 million gallons of spirits, and in IS6I duty
was paid only on 2 million gallons ; this decrease of 1 million
gallons represents a duty of £500,000. (Hear, hear.) This
has been the case with every augmentation of the duty since
1853. In 1853, in 1851, in 1855, successive augmentations
of the duty were made. They all, in the first year, produced
a loss by exhausting the duty paid on stocks; and where
the duty made such a largo proportion of the cost, it told
severely on the revenue returns immediately after the aug-
mentation of duty. We approved an additional duty in
1853 ; in 1851 I had the honour of proposing to the house
an augmentation, from which the return estimated was
£476,000 ; we did obtain from it £590,000, but this aug-
mentation was a small one, and the result is an exception
to the rule. In 18.51-55 a second augmentation was pro-
posed, from which the estimated return was £450,000; the
amount obtained was £373,000. In 1855-66 the right hon.
baronet the Secretary for the Home Department proposed
a third augmentation. That was expected to yield £1,000,000;
the actual return was £707,000. Lastly, the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) proposed an augmenta-
tion of the Irish spirit duty, on which the return expected
was £500,000 ; but in the first year it only yielded £85,000.
But in the second year this £85,000 rose to £304,000. The
experience, therefore, of all changes of this kind shows that
some time is required to bring them into regular operation.
But I am bound to say, after examining the subject with
great care, and all the inquiry into details I could possibly
make, that I am convinced the experiment is likely, even
in a fiscal point of view, to be successful, while on social
considerations it will be beneficial. It may diminish the
consumption of spirits, and I sincerely hope it may ; but it
has not yet given rise to the only evil we have to apprehend
—an increase in illicit distillation. (Hear, hear.) I have
hero the returns, though not beyond the end of 1860, of the
number of convictions and commitments to prison in each
of the three kingdoms of persons charged with keeping
illicit distilleries in the years 1859 and 1860, or in the
first nine months of the fiscal year of 1860, compared
with the corresponding nine months of the year pre-
ceding. In each of the three countries there has been a
considerable diminution in the number of convictions and
punishments, especially in Ireland, where the probability
of the evil arising was the greatest. IroEngland the num-
ber of persons committed to prison in the first period was
54 ; in the second period it fell to 39 ; in Scotland the num-
ber of commitments were 6 in the first period, and 5 in the
second; in Ireland the detentions in the first period were
1,829, and the convictions 101; in the second period the
detentions were 918, and the convictions fell to 84. The
machinery of detection employed in Ireland is so efficient
that the reports of the constabulary sent in to the Govern-
ment may receive the most complete reliance. (Hear,
hear.) No doubt the competition of wine may have had
something to do with it; but that can only have been slight
and insignificant. The consumption of malt liquor has
s einthaa
the consumption
that, tt; inits o
of ardent
l
more to dceorwtatitnhlythtehdreeerceias
a change
aspect, must be viewed with satisfaction. (Hear, hear.)
These are the facts with regard to the spirit duty that I
have ventured to lay before the Committee. And I pur-
pose to say one word of the general plan of the legislation
of last year, because there are those who think that a na-
tural fear may be entertained that the House of Commons
has,departed from its ordinary practice, and in some degree
shrunk from its duty, in consenting to have recourse to
temporary resources, instead of meeting the expenditure
of the country from an a iequate amount of taxation, and
from that exclusively. I think, Sir, I may really say that
no one is more anxious than myself to invite and stimulate
this House on every occasion to the greatest exertions for
the purpose of maintaining the credit of the country on the
only secure foundation of an equal balance between income
and expenditure. I think it is quite impossible in dealing
with the arrangements of particular years to omit all re-
t9 the peculiar ciNuotauccri Qf tkio triad t 9