The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-23 00:00:00

EXCISE DUTIES.

Mr. TENNYSON presented a petition from an_
individual starch-manufacturer, resident, as we under-
stood, in Bermondsey, praying the House to inter-
fere with the Treasury in his behalf. The petitioner
stated that he had paid 2581. excise duty on a cer-
tain quantity of starch in an incomplete state of
manufacture, which starch was destroyed by a fire.
that had consumed the petitioner's premises. The
petitioner then addressed the Excise, and afterwards
the Treasury Boards, to have all the duty refunded
to him, on the ground that the article was not
finished nor disposed of—but without success ; and
he therefore prayed the interference of the House.
The Honourable Member supported the prayer of
the petition, and said he considered the case to be,
one of great hardship.
Mr. G. DAWSON would not deny that this case
was one of individual hardship; but contended that
it was one of those which was sometimes unavoid-
able in the general collection of the revenue. It was
true that the petitioner had paid 2581. duty to the
Excise, on starch that was subsequently destroyed
by fire ; and that the Treasury had refused to refund
that duty. It was a rule that the duty on starch,
spirits, and other exciseable commodities, should be
paid in a certain early stage of the manufacture of
those articles, so that if those articles were after-
wards destroyed before consumption, the Crown
would not lose the amount of the duty. In cases
like that of the petitioner, it was very natural to be
supposed that the warehouse and its contents were
insured against loss by fire and other accidents; and
it was not to be expected that the Treasury should
indemnify against the consequences of not insuring.
As the revenue should be paid, it was but fair that
the Crown should not be the loser in consequence of
the manufacturer's improvidence. This was the
general rule, in all those cases, and he would only
add in reference to that before the House, that it
had received the most careful investigation at the
Treasury.
Mr. TENNYSON contended, that the Crown
could not be the loser, inasmuch as the duty would
be made good by the additional quantity of starch
that must necessarily be manufactured. There was
a preeedent.for the Treasury's refunding the duty in
analogous cases on the records of the Treasury.
About two years ago, the Treasury returned the duty
in the case of a fire at London-bridge.

Mr. G. DAWSON was understood to dissen
From the Hon. Member.

The petition was ordered to be printed.
- -

Mr. 'BROUGHAM presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Lambeth, for a reduction of
the duty on foreign corn.—Ordered to be printed.

RESUMED CONFERENCE.

A message from the House of Lo►ds requested
further conference with the Commons on the subject
matter of the former one. The Committee of
Management accordingly again proceeded to the
Painted Chamber.

The Committee having returned,
Mr. HERMES informed the Speaker that the
conference had been conducted, on the part of their
Lordships, by the Marquis of Lansdowne; that their
Lordships had expressed themselves always desirous
to continue on the best terms with the House of
Commons, and regretted that the mistake should
have occurred in consequence of the trifling alteration
of two words,—namely, " to include," in proposi-
tion 1, line 20; of the Bill, not being notified to the
Commons, as their Lordships had ordered; and that
their Lordships entertained no doubt that the House
of Commons would he satisfied with this explanation.

On the motion of Mr. HERRIES, the House ac-
cepted this explanation, and he subsequently moved
for leave to bring in a Bill, as is usual under such
circumstances, to render valid and effectual the Bill

to alter and amend the law relative to children em-
ployed in cotton-mills and factorie'. Leave was
given, and the Bill went subsequently through all
its stages, and was sent up to the Lords for their
examination and approbation, by Sir A. GRANT.
Mr. H. VANE presented the petition of a num-
ber of millers, formerly engaged in the manufactory
of flour, complaining of want of employment in con-
sequence of the late relaxation of the protecting du-

ties on foreign flour.
Mr. WESTERN supported the petition. He
was acquainted in his own district with four mills
which had employed a number of men formerly, and
were let at a rent of near 4,0001. a-year, which had
been obliged by the influx of foreign flour to discon-
tinue working, nor could thd proprietors obtain, on
any fair terms, tenants of these mills, in which had
been embarked very considerable capitals.
Mr. HUME apprehended the explanation of all
this complaint was perfectly easy and natural. For
several years corn had been cheap in this country,
and our flour had been ground and manufactured at
home. Latterly the price had risen, and a conse-
quent inundation of foreign flour followed. Now, if
the Hon. Member for Essex would endeavour with
him to facilitate the importation of foreign wheat,
and keep down the prices of corn, he would undertake
that all our mills should be again in a state of acti-
vity, and the people would be again in a condition
to buy bread instead of being half-starved, as they
were at present.
After a few words from Mr. TRANT, the petition
was ordered to be printed.
ADJOURNMENT.
On the motion of Mr. HERRIES, it was agreed
that the House, at its rising, should adjourn to
Wednesday next.

DISSECTION.
Mr. WARBURTON gave notice that he should,
early in the next Session, move for leave to bring
in a Bill for the better regulating schools of dissec-
tion.

Lord NUGENT also gave notice of a Bill to re-
gulate the registration of births of children of Dis-
senters,in consequence, as the Noble Lord observed,
of the many inconveniences experienced by persons
of that class in establishing their title by descent or
bequest to property of their ancestors.
Mr. EWART gave notice of a motion for insti-
tuting an inquiry into the practice of courts of com-
mon law, more particularly that of the ISing's
Bench, with a view to ascertain whether the practice
might not be altered so as to afford conveniences
and better accommodation to both the public and
the members of the legal profession.