HL Deb 02 February 1847 vol 89 cc692-4
LORD STANLEY

presented petitions from Linlithgow and Dalkeith, against the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries. He did not wish to enter upon any premature discussion on this subject; but he must say that if the measures were to be of any effect whatever, if, in fact, they were to do good or harm, they would effect an enormous change. They would affect most materially the consumer, the Irish and Scotch distiller, whose interests, he must say, ought not to be affected by any hasty legislation. Without wishing to express any opinion as to the scale of duties proposed to be levied, or as affecting those different interests on which they were proposed to be levied by Her Majesty's Government, he hoped that no measure would be passed through Parliament, without all parties having their case fully stated and fully considered. There was one point to which he would call the attention of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which was an important matter, and that was, the relation to be established by the law now and in future between malt and sugar, as used in breweries and distilleries. By the Act of last Session, a material alteration was made in the sugar duties; but that was not the only alteration intended to take place. The duty on British colonial sugar was 14s., and on foreign sugar 21s. Now, the differential duty of 7s. was to be in process of reduction until the year 1851, when the duties would be assimilated, and the duty on foreign sugar would, consequently, be 14s. If sugar were used in breweries and distilleries, and if foreign sugar should enter into competition with malt at its present rate, the reduction of one-third of the duty on foreign sugar at the expiration of that period would give the foreign producer a very great advantage. In that case it would supersede the use of malt in breweries. He did not mean to say what course should be adopted; but he must say that Parliament ought not to adopt any measures without being fully satisfied, and unless the country was fully satisfied, as to the effect of the measures which the Government was about to introduce. They might either repeal so much of the Act of last year as related to the progressive decrease of the duty on sugar, or they might take a different course, and accompany the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar with a reduction of the duty on malt, so as to keep permanently the existing relation between the duty on sugar and the duty on malt. If these two articles were to compete on a fair and equal footing, and if no reduction were to be made in the duty on malt, the foreign producer would be placed in a better situation than the grower of malt in this country. He would, therefore, conclude by asking his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table a copy of the report made to Her Majesty's Government by the Commissioners of Excise as to the comparative value of malt and sugar when used in breweries and distilleries?

The EARL of CLARENDON

said, that he would, to-morrow, tell his noble Friend whether the report could be communicated without inconvenience to the House. With respect to the other matters mentioned by his noble Friend, he thought it would be obviously inconvenient to discuss these measures, as they were not now before the House. He could only assure his noble Friend that any interest that could be affected by these measures would have full opportunity of being heard; and that the matter would receive the fullest consideration from Her Majesty's Government before the measures were proposed.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, that nobody could be more averse than he was to complain of any misrepresentation; but at this time, when so much anxiety, almost feverish anxiety, prevailed on the subject of the existing distress in Ireland, one was naturally very anxious that what he said should not be misrepresented. He was stated to have expressed an opinion as to a poor law for Ireland. He had expressly stated, in presenting the Liverpool petition, that he would give no opinion whatever as to what sort of relief there should be. He was represented to have said that it ought not to fall on the Irish landlords. What he said was, that it should not fall on the mortgagees. He said, that if they were to relieve the country by throwing it on the mortgagees, they would commit one of the greatest blunders that was ever committed, for they would only be taxing the landlords through the means of the mortgagees. He gave no opinion that they should not let it fall on the Irish landlords.

Forward to