DISTILLERIES. (Hansard, 12 March 1811)

§ Sir John Sinclair
opposed the measure, chiefly on the ground, that the growers of barley ought not alone, out of all the community, to be subjected to the burthen of relieving the West India proprietors. If relief was to be given, it should be from the common stock.

Mr. Coke,
of Norfolk, was not present when the measure was proposed, otherwise he would have opposed it. If the value of land had increased, so had the taxes upon land, the poor rates, &c. What did the colonies furnish to the country in comparison? It was in vain to introduce a scale between barley and sugar in this way. To frame any just scale was utterly impossible. He felt for the distresses of the West India Proprietors; but this was the worst way of assisting them that could be devised. The House would 358 remember, that in 1808, the warmest supporters of the measure considered it as merely temporary.

Mr. Rose
maintained, that a scale might very well be adjusted, and that it was fairly done by this measure.

§ Mr. Curwen
opposed the scheme, as one of the most pernicious tendency. It was an object to have abundance; there must be a supply beyond the general consumption of man, and the distilleries were most useful in this respect. But the advantage was lost by this perpetual meddling. Barley was absolutely a drug in the market. The time would come, he said, when magazines must be formed to store up grain in years of plenty, and sell it out in times of scarcity. This would be a burthen, but it would prevent the calamity of famine.

§ Mr. Fuller
voted on the subject as independently as any man. If they would not allow him to distill his sugar he would the better sell his barley in Sussex. The West India interest had supplied the country with seamen, with ships, and with every thing of that sort; why, then, should the West India proprietors be considered as so abject a race? This measure would help to keep our money at home. Our bullion had gone abroad for corn till we had not a guinea remaining, and we could not get change for it if we had. The measure was wanted only for one year. The property of the land owners had, independent of the taxes, risen from 30 to 40 per cent. while the property of the poor West India proprietors had fallen 50 per cent.

Mr. Marryatt
contended that the planter of sugars could not with any fair advantage bring them into the market cheaper than 75s. while the present scale was fixed at 70s.

Mr. Coke
urged the propriety of lowering the scale as to grain, in consequence of the various petitions from Scotland last year, stating the low price of it.

§ Sir T. Turton
contended, that the prices of grain were now such, as, compared with the price of labour, would scarcely repay the farmer. At the same time he was by no means prepared to say that 70s. 9d. was a fair price for sugar. He should give his support to the detail of the measure, but he must afterwards oppose it in particular parts.

§ Mr. Brand
wished that a mode should be devised, by a full inquiry, to equalise the interests of both.

§ Mr. Hibbert
stated, that the produce of 359 the old British colonies was equal to the supply of the whole kingdom: but that great benefit had been derived to the country from the re-exportation of colonial produce. The malt duty, it appeared, had not taller of during the last year, so that the growers of grain had the sale in one way or in the other.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied to the principal arguments which had been urged in the debate. He contended, that agriculture and commerce depended one on the other, and that to neglect either was to injure both. The principle of the regulation he had proposed was, to make the duties such that if the price of barley did not exceed 38s. it must be the interest of the distillers to use grain in the distilleries. The reception his plan had met with proved at least that he had not been led into error by the representations of those most interested in the result, and that no one was favoured to the injury of the others. He had taken barley at 38s. He had been informed he ought rather to have taken it at its present prices, 26s. or 28s. He had anticipated an objection of a different nature, and expected that it would be said he ought rather to have taken it at 40s. 41s., &c. If, however, he had taken the price higher than it happened to be at present, there was the greater reason to believe the agricultural world would be the more benefited by the measure. It might be a question, whether or not the measure proposed ought in policy to be adopted. But he contended that there was nothing in it which could reasonably excite alarm. He had no objection to the measure being adopted for one instead of for two years. It was his particular wish that it should be felt by the House and the country that there was nothing dangerous in it. They ought not to be too ready to give credence to the gloomy predictions so often thrown but. Three years ago, when the distilling from corn was prohibited, it was predicted that its consequences must be ruinous. It was stated that the spirit of agriculture must be instantly annihilated and a period put at once to the cultivation of barley. What was the fact? Why, now the prophecy was seen completely falsified: and it was now said there was so much barley where ever they turned their eyes, that it would fetch no price whatever. Did not this prove that the measure then adopted had not been so fatal to the interests of agriculture, as had been asserted? Before 360 he sat down, there was one circumstance to which he ought to allude, but with which he believed the House was already acquainted. The circumstances under which the law prohibiting distillation from grain had expired, had induced ministers to apply to the distillers in this country, to ask if they would restrain themselves from the use of it, when they were no longer restrained by the law. To this proposition they had with great liberality acceded. This circumstance, in justice to them, he ought not to have omitted to state before. In conclusion, the right hon. gent. observed, that though gentlemen opposite, expecting some measure was about to be proposed for continuing the prohibition of the use of corn, might very naturally come down prejudiced against it, as they had been averse to such a proposition before, he, however, hoped when it was fairly considered, it would be felt that, it could be safely adopted, and that there was nothing in it could occasion serious alarm.

§ Mr. Adam
only begged, after the observations he had made on a former night, to say a few words. When a proposition for affording relief to our colonies was introduced some years ago, it was only proposed that it should exist from year to year, and should not be a permanent but only a temporary accommodation. Now, however, the case was different: sugar was now proposed to be brought into the market as a competitor with corn, and that great consumer of corn, the distilleries, was allowed the option to chuse between them. This was a new æra introduced into the law of this country, so far as our agricultural interests were concerned, and one, too, which he thought ought not hastily to be adopted. His hon. friend the member for Norfolk, than whom agriculture had not a more sincere or better informed advocate, had already pointed out the impolicy of any innovation prejudicial to the interests or to the promotion and encouragement of agriculture. He (Mr. Adam) only objected to this as a new principle; and all he asked was, it might be preceded by a Committee to inquire into the fitness of adopting it.