HC Deb 28 August 1848 vol 101 cc590-6

On the Motion that the House go into Committee,

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL (in the absence of Mr. Moffatt) moved an instruction to the Committee on the British Spirits Warehousing Bill, that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill, so far as to apply to spirits distilled in the united kingdom the privileges at present enjoyed by the owners of foreign and colonial spirits, in respect of the mode and time of levying the duties chargeable thereon. The mode of levying the duty gave a great advantage to colonial spirits, on which the evaporation had been greatly exaggerated. A quantity of brandy, containing at the time of landing 350 proof gallons, was reduced, at the end of five years, to 299 gallons, being a loss of 51 gallons, or 14.6 per cent, and a loss, taking the average bonded price, of 36.2 per cent on the prices. Another quantity of brandy amounting to 345 gallons, which was three years in bond, lost 42 gallons, or 12.2 per cent, and on the short price, 33 per cent; whereas with respect to rum, which had been described as greatly exposed to evaporation from being the production of a warmer climate, on a quantity of 669 gallons three years in bond, the loss was 38 gallons, or only 5.7 per cent on the quantity, and 14 per cent on the price. Taking the losses on the decreases of spirits, according to the calculation which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted, at 3¼d. per gallon on English spirits, at 33–100ths of a penny on Scotch, and at ¼d. on Irish, they amounted for each country to 28,125l., 2,250l., and 9,100l., or 39,475l. in all. Mr. Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, who was in favour of charging the revenue on spirits at the worm's end, declared, in his evidence before the Sugar and Coffee Planting Committee, that he had completely made up his mind, from long experience, in favour of the mode he thought most desirable; he was unwilling to bring into practice a mode which was less desirable, and which he thought afforded greater opportunities for fraund. But Sir T. Fremantle had given it as his opinion that the time of charging the duty might be changed without any danger to the revenue. Articles of commerce were, generally speaking, charged with duty, not on the quantity going into store, but on the quantity taken into consumption. As regarded the West Indian and the home distiller, this was a question of equality of privilege. In pleading for the change, be supported the interests of the consumers throughout the country.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the calculations which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think derived from some peculiar source were founded on and deduced from certain documents laid on the table of the House, namely, returns with respect to spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland, moved for chiefly by the hon. Member for Limerick. The main ground on which the hon. Gentleman rested his Motion was, that the Excise allowances ought to be put on the same footing as the Customs allowances. But the whole system of the Excise duties was entirely different from that of Customs duties. When articles were imported from abroad, the policy of the country had for its basis to give every possible facility for warehousing, so as to make this country the great depot for foreign goods; nay, so far was this principle carried out, that goods which might never directly benefit the country, but which were warehoused here, were allowed to be exported, that being for the advantage of the foreign trade. Every possible freedom was given with respect to goods under the Customs; and therefore the duties were taken on goods under the Customs at the last possible period at which they could be levied. With respect to the Excise duties, again, the great object was to levy the duties at the earliest possible period, that the supervision of the Excise might thereby be terminated. Such was the case with respect to soap, malt, spirits, and other articles chargeable with duty under the Excise. If the hon. Gentleman said the method of charging the spirit duties was an exception to the ordinary rule, he proceeded on fallacious grounds; for the rule was, that the Customs levied duties at the last moment, and the Excise at the earliest. The hon. Gentleman had said he had altered the duty proposed to be levied on colonial spirits. No doubt he had. But he stated in 1846 that in the then state of information 1s. was as much the distillers were entitled to as a protection against the co- lonial distillers. He then stated 6d. as a fair amount, when further light had been thrown upon the subject, concurring with the Chairman of Excise, who had assigned the grounds on which that opinion rested. If the hon. Gentleman accused him in that and other respects of not holding the same opinion at different times, did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that whatever experience he might acquire he was never to alter an opinion for the benefit of the consumer and the trader of this country, and introduce relaxations which, had earlier explanations been obtained, would have been earlier adopted? It was on the evidence of two practical distillers that the Government proceeded. Science was brought to bear on the subject; and they were enabled to relax the old-fasioned restrictions with which neither the Excise nor the distillers had thought it possible to dispense. The Government deserved credit for removing those restrictions which were formerly considered indispensably necessary to the protection of the revenue. The question at issue really resolved itself into a question between revenue and trade. He could not assent to the proposed alteration. One of the largest distillers in this country, Mr. Currie, had given evidence before the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, showing, that under such a system there was the greatest possible opportunity of committing fraud. The consequence would be to endanger the revenue. That was not the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chairman of the Excise, but of one of the largest distillers in the country. The present system secured a degree of care on the part of distillers which could not otherwise be secured; for it was their interest to prevent a decrease. To make the proposed alteration would be merely to surrender so much revenue to the distillers. He held in his hand an account of the quantity of English spirits taken out of bond in 1847, and he found from that that the maximum amount of revenue which would be risked by the proposal now under consideration was no less than 118,000l. He did not mean to say that a loss to that extent would positively occur, but only that it would be risked; and this was an amount of risk which he was not prepared to run. He maintained that it was the fairest way, on the whole, that the duty should be paid at the worm's end on the quantity actually produced. There would then be no risk to the revenue; and al- though, ultimately, the duty on the quantity consumed might be somewhat in creased, this higher duty would fall upon the consumer, as it ought to do, because he would get a better article, in consequence of the improvement of the spirits by being kept in bond. His hon. Friend seemed to think that there was no disposition on the part of Government to make any relaxations in favour of the dealers. Now, from the beginning to the end of the Bill, the effect of its provisions would be the removal of restrictions and obstructions, especially upon the Scotch and Irish distillers. Considering that such were the provisions of this Bill, he did not think he could be justly chargeable with neglecting the interests of the dealers, or with being unwilling in any way to remove restrictions from the trade, where their removal could be shown to be consistent with the safety of the revenue. He hoped, therefore, the House would support him in resisting the Motion of his hon. Friend.

MR. MONSELL

was happy to be able to confirm the statement of the right hen. Gentleman with reference to the general tendency of the Bill. The proposed relaxations had given the greatest possible satisfaction to the Irish distillers. At the same time, however, they felt that they suffered unjustly from the charge of the duty on decreases, which served entirely to neutralise the benefit held out to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of allowing them to bond their spirits in England.

LORD G. BENTINCK

expressed his surprise at the extraordinary statement which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the distinction between the duties of the Customs and the duties of the Excise. It might be true in the case of soap, malt, glass, printed cotton, and some other articles, that it was desirable the duty should be paid at an early stage, because in those cases there was no waste, and the duty was thus paid upon the amount of these various articles that finally came into consumption. But the complaint here was, that the distillers were charged a duty upon what might never come into consumption. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, as spirits improved by being kept in bond, and became more valuable, it was right that a higher duty should be paid upon the article; but did not the same rule apply equally to colonial spirits—to foreign gin, hollands, and brandy, for instance? All that the Irish and British distillers sued for was to have equal justice dealt to them as was given to the foreigner—to be released from the grinding extortion of the Excise, and brought under the regulations of the Custom-house; and anything more reasonable than that he could not conceive. Such was the opinion of Sir H. Parnell's Excise Inquiry Commission in 1833. The noble Lord quoted a passage from the report of the Commissioners, stating that in their opinion it would be but just that the mode of estimating the duties on rum and hollands should be extended to spirits distilled in this country, and that they saw no reason why foreign traders should possess any advantage over our home manufactures. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly a very comical Chancellor of the Exchequer; for whenever it suited him to argue against the colonial distillers, he then endeavoured to show the House that the leakage and wastage was next to nothing; but when he wanted to avoid putting the British distillers upon an equality with the colonial and foreign distillers, he then immediately discovered that the leakage and wastage was exceedingly large. It reminded one of the fable of the Satyr and the Traveller; for the right hon. Gentleman could warm his hands and cool his porridge with the same breath. But there was no doubt upon this point; for they had the authority of an Act of Parliament as to the amount of leakage and wastage in the case of foreign spirits. By the 8th and 9th of Victoria, cap. 91, sect. 22, the allowance for wastage was one gallon for every 100, for six months; three gallons for every 100, from six to eighteen months; five gallons for every 100, from eighteen months to two years; six gallons for every 100, from two years to two years and a half; and so on. All that the Irish distillers asked for was to be treated with equal justice with the foreign distillers, and that they should have the same advantages which the foreign distillers enjoyed.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that the Bill did not go far enough, and that if the right hon. Gentleman should refuse his assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kerry, he would inflict deep injustice upon the distillers of Ireland and Scotland. As to what the loss to the revenue would be, the calculation was guesswork; but if the storing of spirits were encouraged, the consumption would be increased, and so far the revenue also. Coupling this Bill with the Rum Duties Bill, it seemed clear that the Government were sacrificing the interests of Ireland to those of the West Indies. If spirits remained in bond for seven years, the colonial manufacturer would have an advantage equal to 6d. per gallon. If the Government persisted in their refusal of the claim in question, they ought to take out a patent for making converts to repeal; distillers who had been opposed to repeal were beginning to say that it was folly to expect justice from an English Parliament.

The House divided on the question that it be an instruction to the Committee, &c.:—Ayes 37; Noes 76: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.
Anstey, T. C. Hume, J.
Barkly, H. Jones, Capt.
Bentinck, Lord G. Keogh, W.
Blackall, S. W. Knox, Col.
Broadley, H. M'Gregor, J.
Callaghan, D. Matheson, Col.
Carew, W. H. P. Monsell, W.
Cocks, T. S. Moore, G. H.
Currie, H. Morgan, O.
Devereux, J. T. Muntz, G. F.
Disraeli, B. Newdegate, C. N.
Dodd, G. Reynolds, J.
Duncan, G. Tennent, R. J.
Dunne, F. P. Thompson, Col.
Fitz Gerald, W. R. S. Vesey, hon. T.
Forbes, W. Vivian, J. E.
Greene, J. Willoughby, Sir H.
Henley, J. W. TELLERS.
Herbert, H. A. O'Connell, M. J.
Hood, Sir A. O'Connell, J.
List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N. Hodges, T. L.
Adair, H. E. Jervis, Sir J.
Adair, R. A. S. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Anderson, A. Lacy, H. C.
Anson, hon. Col. Langston, J. H.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Bellew, R. M. Lewis, G. C.
Bernal, R. Locke, J.
Bowring, Dr. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Boyle, hon. Col. Milnes, R. M.
Brockman, E. D. Mitchell, T. A.
Brotherton, J. Morpeth, Visct.
Brown, W. Morris, D.
Bunbury, E. H. Paget, Lord C.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Parker, J.
Childers, J. W. Perfect, R.
Craig, W. G. Pigott, F.
Divett, E. Pinney, W.
Dundas, Adm. Price, Sir R.
Ebrington, Visct. Rice, E. R.
Forster, M. Rich, H.
Grenfell, C. W. Romilly, Sir J.
Grey, R. W. Russell, Lord J.
Hardcastle, J. A. Salwey, Col.
Hawes, B. Scholefield, W.
Hay, Lord J. Scrope, G. P.
Hayter, W. G. Seymer, H. K.
Henry, A. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Heywood, J. Shelburne, Earl of
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Smith, J. A.
Hobhouse, T. B. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Stanton, W. H. Williams, J.
Talfourd, Serj. Wilson, J.
Tancred, H. W. Wilson, M.
Tollemache, hon. F. J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Turner, E. Wyld, J.
Vane, Lord H.
Villiers, hon. C. TELLERS.
Ward, H. G. Tufnell, H.
Watkins, Col. Hill, Lord M.

Bill passed through Committee.

Report to be received.