§ The House having resolved into a Committee upon the Act of the 49th of his present Majesty respecting duties on Brandy;
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that, in consequence of the exportation of our colonial and other produce to the 220 enemy's territory, under the system of licences, a quantity of brandy had among other articles been imported in return, which brandy had been for some time, locked up in our warehouses, the home consumption of it being prohibited by the existing law; but the object of that law having been to secure our own market to colonial produce, which object was peculiarly warranted by circumstances now no longer existing, it was not deemed inconsistent to consider the case of the owners of the brandy alluded to, who had now to apply to the indulgence of the legislature, for relief. The hardship which these owners suffered must be obvious; and it must be recollected, that in bringing the brandy into this country they procured a vent for colonial produce, at a time when that vent was extremely desirable for the; relief of colonial traders, who, from the altered state of Europe, and the consequent multiplication of markets for their, commodities, could not materially suffer by the relaxation of the law which he had to propose. Besides, this relaxation would serve to bring into the Exchequer no less than 1,500,000l. The right hon. gentleman described his proposition as being to impose an additional duty of two shillings a gallon upon the brandy so warehoused, which addition would bring the whole duty to 24s. a gallon; consequently decided advantage would still be secured to our colonial and other spirits; and as the proposed arrangement respecting brandy would be limited to the 31st of March, those interested in the colonial trade would have less reason to complain, as the measure would cease before the arrival of their annual produce. The right hon. gentleman having moved accordingly;
Mr. Brownexpressed his dissent from, the proposition, because it involved an absolute violation of one of the first principles of our commercial interest, which was that of giving encouragement to our own colonial produce, to the exclusion of foreign brandy. That such a system of encouragement rested upon the wisest grounds, he thought a proposition quite, indisputable; and therefore the best course for government and parliament would be, firmly to maintain that system. He was extremely sorry then to witness the disposition of the right hon. gentleman, to depart from the principle of that system. If the right hon. gentleman would allow himself to be urged to such departure by 221 Particular cases of alleged hardship, he would find such cases so multiply upon him, as wholly to deprive the country of the practical benefit of the principle he had stated. As this question materially affected very important interests, he should be glad to know whether the right hon. gentleman's proposition had the assent of those interests; because, if so, his objection to it would be diminished? But as the case appeared, he could not satisfy his mind, without entering his decided protest against the motion; as he should ever do against the slightest deviation from a principle which ought, in his judgment, to be held sacred.
Mr. Rosedenied that the proposition of his right hon. friend would involve the departure which the hon. gentleman who had just sat down professed to apprehend from the principle which he maintained; that principle was, to secure to rum an advantage over brandy in our home consumption; and did not the very material difference of the duty on those articles produce that security? Nay, would not the security be augmented by the very proposition before the committee? for by this proposition the difference between the duty on rum and brandy would be still farther increased. The duty, indeed, on brandy would by this proposition become much higher than it had ever been before. It could not be unknown to the hon. gentleman, that the duty on foreign spirits had been always greater than that on domestic spirits; and therefore the legislature never lost sight of the principle, that every due preference should be given to our own produce. But he could not agree to the hon. gentleman's principle, if pushed to the extent which he seemed disposed to maintain. For, suppose in our commerce with friendly nations we were to raise our duties very high, with a view to the hon. gentleman's principle, the consequence might be, that they would so raise their duties in retaliation, as very materially to injure our trade. As to the West India interest, he could not see that it had any right whatever to complain of the proposition brought forward by his hon. friend; for it was through a wish to serve that interest, that the brandy alluded to was brought into the country. But with respect to the hon. gentleman's observation, that the consent of that interest to this measure ought to be obtained, he could never agree to the extraordinary principle that that House should not proceed 222 to legislate upon any subject, without obtaining the consent of the parties interested in the object of legislation.
§ Mr. Protheroe, concurred with the right hon. gentleman, that the West India interest could have no right to complain of his proposition; but protested against the principle, that a consideration of revenue should be preferred to that of our commercial interest; or that any encouragement should be given to the produce of the enemy, because such encouragement must obviously tend to lessen the pressure of the war upon him.
Mr. Rosemaintained, that no such preference as the hon. member had asserted had at all appeared, particularly in this transaction. If, indeed, any disposition to such preference existed—if a solicitude for revenue were the paramount consideration of the government, this brandy would not have been allowed so long to remain in the warehouses.
Mr. Brown, in explanation, stated, that he did not say that upon which the right, hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) argued. He only said, that if the parties interested in. this proposition approved of its introduction, his objection to it would be diminished.
§ Mr. Marryattsupported the motion; and observed, that the brandy had been imported into this country under the licence system; the object and policy of which was, not to encourage the produce of the enemy (as the hon. Member for Bristol appeared to apprehend), but to promote the disposal of our own.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to be clearly understood, that the proposition before the committee applied only to the brandy already warehoused, and that it was by no means intended to render the measure permanent.
§ The motion was agreed to.