HC Deb 17 February 1832 vol 10 cc510-25

On the Motion of Mr. Francis Baring, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Malt Drawback Act.

Mr. Francis Baring

hoped the Committee would allow him to make a few observations before submitting the Resolution which it was his intention to propose. There were two classes of spirits—the one distilled entirely from malt, the other partly from raw grain. The spirits entirely-distilled from fine malt paid a double duty—that which is charged on the malt, and likewise that charged upon the spirit; while the spirits distilled from the mixture of raw grain, of course, paid only the duty on the spirit. In Scotland, the spirit was entirely distilled from malt; and the smuggler was able to beat the legal distiller out of the market, inasmuch as he paid duty neither on malt nor spirit. The Government, in 1821, allowed a drawback of 1s. a bushel upon malt used in distillation. The drawback was increased in 1823 to 1s. the gallon of spirit, which was equal to 2s. upon a bushel of malt; and, subsequently, when the duty was fixed at 2s. 1d. a bushel, 2s. 4d. was paid, by way of drawback, to the distiller of pure malt. The distiller of raw grain received no drawback for the malt he consumed. This circumstance, combined with the great reduction of duty, had improved the revenue, and put an end to illicit distillation. The malt drawback had effected a decided good, while the reduction of the duty on spirits had been of great service in putting an end to smuggling, enabling the fair and legal distiller to meet any competition in the market. In Ireland and in England the reduction of the duty on spirits had produced the same beneficial effect as in Scotland. The amount of drawback, however, soon came to bear an enormous proportion to the sum received for the malt duty itself. In a few years the malt drawback more than doubled itself, and, at the present moment, the allowance amounted to between 300,000l. and 500,000l. At the same time it was generally supposed that this drawback was no longer a protection to the fair and legal distiller, but was become a source of great profit to the fraudulent trader. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, and they had come to those Resolutions upon which he had the honour to address the House. The Committee was of opinion, that the present system of allowing a drawback on malt spirit afforded opportunities of fraud, and that no due precaution had been taken to prevent it, which the Committee conceive could only be effected by a reduction of the drawback. He would not go into the evidence adduced before the Committee, and on which these opinions were founded. Excise officers were, in one instance, sent down to examine a distillery, when it appeared that every opportunity existed for committing fraud. He was far from saying that every person in the trade was fraudulent; but in every trade there were persons less honest than others. The case does not, however, rest entirely upon this proof. The Committee inquired of some Scotch distillers upon what calculation it was, that they were able to undersell the Irish distillers. He was bound to say that the explanation was not satisfactory. There were also distillers before the Committee who had actually received a large amount of drawback, and who admitted that, though they did not commit it, that some fraud was practised. If the Committee were able to find out the existence of fraud, it would be by referring to the table which showed the quantity of malt used in the distilleries of raw grain, and the quantity of spirit produced from a certain quantity of malt. The fraudulent practice consisted in removing malt from a distillery of one description to that of the other. The proportion of malt to the quantity of spirit produced in England and Ireland is much the same, but in Scotland the proportion of spirit to malt is much more considerable. He was, however, anxious to bring forward the case, not upon any special grounds, or in reference to a particular branch of trade, but upon more general calculations: and what he had stated would entitle him to call upon the House to act upon the recommendation of the Committee, and reduce the drawback. But the case stood upon very strong grounds, even if they entirely put aside the question of fraud. The drawback was granted at first, not as a permanent, but as a temporary protection. It was meant to obtain for the legal distiller a fair position in the market. That object had been accomplished; and although he was far from wishing to take away that protection so rapidly and incautiously as to re-produce the evil which it was intended to destroy, and to cause again all the evils of smuggling, yet he was fully prepared to say, that Government ought carefully and cautiously to put an end to a system, the necessity for which no longer existed. Formerly Scotland and Ireland were combined together to defraud the revenue, and injure the fair trader, but that combination was broken up, and the habits of the people were changed. The trade no longer required the amount of protection which was formerly requisite. What, then, was the degree of protection now required? It would be remembered that the present amount of the malt drawback was 1s. 2d. upon the imperial gallon. The Resolution he was about to submit, proposed that this amount should be reduced to 8d. He would state one circumstance to show that the Committee did not recommend a reduction which would excite smuggling. One of the distillers, who received the malt drawback, was asked the question whether, if he were allowed a drawback of 9d., he could carry on his trade with a profit?—and he answered, yes. It was, therefore, upon the assurance that 8d. would be an adequate protection to the trade, that he begged to move, that the allowance of drawback now paying upon every 100 gallons of spirit, distilled in Scotland and Ireland, from malt only, shall cease and determine, and, in lieu of such allowance there shall be allowed upon all spirit in Scotland and Ireland, a drawback on every bushel of barley-malt the sum of 8d.

Captain William Gordon

was unwilling to trespass upon the House, but he could not allow this stage of the measure to pass without expressing his apprehensions of the serious consequences that must result from the alterations now proposed to be made. It ought to be recollected that the present regulations were adopted after great deliberation; and they had proved efficient for the purposes they were intended to accomplish. They had effected the complete extinction of illicit distillation, and had increased, in an equal degree, the trade of the legal distiller. He, therefore, begged to assure the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if this alteration were carried into effect, he must be prepared for a very considerable increase of illicit distillation, and a great deficiency in the revenue. He was the more satisfied of this, because, since the last Session of Parliament, illicit distillation had actually commenced in many parts of the country. He was not prepared to go further into the question, but he should certainly give his most strenuous opposition to the proposed measure.

Mr. Gillon

said, it was with very great regret that he had heard the hon. Gentleman, the member for Portsmouth, make his proposition for reducing the drawback allowance on malt. Any change of that kind was a bonus for the production of a spirit of inferior quality; it would be an excitement to smuggling; and would sacrifice the interests of the small distiller, to those of the great monopolist. The measure had been brought forward partly in ignorance, and partly from interested motives. It had been brought forward by those who were anxious to prevent illicit distillation of every description; but it was urged on by the Irish distillers, who were anxious to put down the competition of Scotch distillers, that they might be able to bring into the market their own articles at higher prices. It had not been denied that illicit distillation had materially decreased in Scotland since these regulations were introduced. Previous to the year 1821, the amount of duty collected was 5,000l., and in the last year, it amounted to 100,000l.; and in one small island there were, in 1821, no less than 300 convictions against illicit distilleries, and last year there were only three. He was also borne out in stating, that great advantage had resulted to the agricultural interests of Scotland by this change. Formerly the whole population of that island were in league with the illegal distiller. They were forced to be so; and the farmer obtained a very precarious return for his grain, and was subject to much loss. They now had a steady and permanent demand for their produce. Another reason for this very excellent regulation was, that it gave employment to a great many persons; and the people of the sister kingdom who complained of a superabundant population, might be glad to have the opportunity of finding such a source of employment for this population. The hon. Gentleman, the member for Portsmouth, had stated, that his Resolution was founded on the Resolutions of the Committee on this subject. He had been a Member of the Committee; and would venture to say, that the Resolution of the Committee was not conformable to the evidence adduced before it. He hoped Government would pause before it proposed any alteration in a law which had been found beneficial to the revenue of the country, and afforded employment to a great part of the population. It benefitted agriculture, and materially improved the morals of the people. It was said by the hon. Gentleman, that while the malt drawback had most materially increased, the duty on malt in Scotland had not in- creased. He was astonished to hear that statement, because, upon the reduction of the malt duty taking place, we were led to expect a great reduction in the revenue arising from that tax. It was insinuated that smugglers were concerned in the frauds imputed to the distillers. The fact, however, was, that the smugglers purchased their malt from those who had paid the duty; so that while the illicit distiller was paying the malt duty, the legal distiller was free from it. It was attempted to be shown to the Committee, that frauds had taken place, and it was said, that the mode in which they were carried on was, by removing the malt, upon which the drawback had been paid, to the raw grain distillery; but there was no evidence to justify them in believing that any such fraud had existed, except in one single instance; and he should like to know what plan the ingenuity of man could devise which could not be abused? But the practice of smuggling from the still mouth was much more extensive, being more easy of execution. The object of the parties interested in illicit distillation was to prevent the legal distiller from competing with them in the market, and, therefore, they wished to reduce the drawback; for, as the drawback was reduced, so would the relative profit of the distillers be diminished; actuated by this motive, their object was to get rid of the drawback. The removal of malt to the raw grain distilleries, could not take place unless the premises belonged to the same individual. It so happened that there were only three distillers in Scotland so circumstanced; and since the Committee sat, one of them had ceased. He was able to solve the question why the Irish distillers were undersold in their own market. The answer was, that the Scotch distillers had been selling under prime cost. It was so stated by a large distiller before the Committee; and his conscientious belief was, that this new regulation, by diminishing the malt drawback, would throw the malt distiller entirely out of the market; it would render his buildings and machinery useless, and throw the whole trade into the hands of the large monopolists. One of the arguments of the hon. member for Portsmouth was, that illicit distillation was checked, not so much by the malt drawback, as by the reduction of the duty on spirit. He was not prepared to say, that the malt drawback alone decreased the illicit distilleries, but it must be observed, that, previous to that time the amount of malt drawback had been very small. It had been 1s. upon a bushel of malt. Subsequently to 1824, the duty was reduced 1s. a gallon on spirits, and at a subsequent period 2d. more. He, therefore, thought he was entitled to conclude that the reduction of illicit distillation was as much owing to this excellent regulation, as to the reduction of duty on spirits. The distillers of Scotland were as anxious as the hon. Member, or the distillers of Ireland, that an end should be put to all illicit distillation, and were ready to concur with the Government in putting a stop to every species of fraud; and they suggested that, by the introduction of an additional regulation, every species of fraud would be prevented. The regulation was, that the stock should be kept of the malt in the raw grain distilleries as well as in the malt distilleries; and another regulation which they proposed, and to which he begged the attention of Government was, that there should be a better look-out by the Excise: because there existed at present a much greater opportunity for fraud being committed by getting spirits at the still's mouth, than by any other practice that could be adopted. He would not trouble the Committee further; but it would be his duty hereafter to oppose any regulation that might be introduced, founded upon the Resolution now proposed. The noble Lord, he was sure, would be disappointed in the result of this change, and would find, that, he had been led away by the clamour of interested parties. In the name, and on behalf of the people, both of Scotland and England, he protested against forcing upon them an unwholesome and unpalatable liquor. Deeming the measure equally injurious to the revenue of the country, and to the morals of the people, he should give it every possible opposition.

Colonel Conolly

thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not done much credit to the Irish Members for the part they had taken in this matter. He stood before the Committee, both for the distiller and the agricultural interest; and he believed that the Scotch Members would stand up for their country. He was glad that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed his readiness to bring forward the proposition, which rested upon the broadest basis. It was submitted to him last Session that a manifest injury was inflicted on Ireland through the means of an equally serious injury done to the revenue of the country. This was the unanimous opinion of all the Irish Members assembled in this city, and they expressed that opinion to the noble Lord. A Committee was granted; and the hon. member for Portsmouth had stated the evidence submitted to that Committee. The injury sustained by Ireland, in consequence of illicit distillation, was very considerable, not only to the revenue, but to the morals of the people. There were a great number of facts on which he rested his assertion. The Government, a very short time since, reduced the duty 1s. 3d., and the effects were soon seen. He had lived for many years in a part of the country where illicit distillation prevailed to a considerable extent; but, by reducing the duty, illicit distillation was almost done up. It would appear clear, to every person conversant with the subject, that the duty was even now too heavy for the licensed distiller to compete with the illicit distiller. He hoped he need not expatiate very largely on the subject; but it was one in which the character and morals of the people were involved, and everything should be done that was possible to encourage legal distillation in Ireland, as a means of improving the morals of the people. He did not consider this either as an Irish or Scotch question, although he would not give way to any man in his feelings for Ireland; but he had considered it so far as it was likely to affect both countries; and he could not but feel that the local interest of Ireland would be more materially injured, and he could not but observe how hard it was that, for the sake of preventing a partial injury to the highlands of Scotland, the lowlands of that country, as well as the greater part of Ireland, should be called upon to suffer. The whole system of drawbacks was bad; and an alteration ought to take place in the whole system of the Excise. This system had been so frequently altered partially, that now it ought to be revised altogether. It was carried on at enormous expense, and in spite of this, great frauds had been committed, and no steps had been taken to remedy these evils. It had been attended with great injustice to one part of the country, and tended to affect the morals of all. He would give his support to any measure brought forward for the protection of the highlands of Scotland; but he never would consent that a large district in Ireland should be injured, in order that a small portion of Scotland might be thereby benefitted.

Mr. Dixon

said, this question was about to be carried by the numerical strength of the Irish Members, who had forced his Majesty's Ministers under the fear of losing their votes, to bring it forward without allowing any time for deliberation. What else could induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring it forward? If he submitted to this, he would lay the foundation of all those evils against morality which had been dwelt upon. At this moment there were large districts in Scotland where smuggling was carried on to a very great extent, and none of the Members from Scotland, he was sure, would wish for the sake of any measure to give an encouragement to fraud. He hoped that the English Members, on this occasion, would assist the Scotch in opposing a knot of Irish Members.

Sir George Clerk

, having given his best attention to this measure, was willing to support the Resolution of the hon. member for Portsmouth. He thought it would be better to take away the whole of the drawback, and to make the measure as general as possible. His hon. friends, the members for Scotland, had not considered the subject with regard to its proper bearings. In 1819, a very great increase was made in the duty on malt generally, and from that period to the time when a distinction was made, an increase in illicit distillation took place. In the course of the next year, there were complaints made that it was impossible that the malt in Scotland could bear this duty; and it was urged, that a distinction ought to be made, and it was stated incidentally that if this plan were adopted it would tend to do away with illicit distillation in that country, and it was carried in a Committee in 1821. In the three following years there was no diminution in illicit distillation, but in 1824 a complete change took place in the whole distillery laws, and it appeared that, in the very next year, there was an increase of more than double the former number of small stills, and illicit distillation considerably decreased. It appeared, from the evidence before the Committee, that very great, frauds had been committed on the revenue; and these frauds were said to have arisen from its having been repre- sented by the distillers that it would be improper to remove from their premises so great a quantity of malt; and, therefore, when the hon. Member alluded to these frauds, it must be observed, that they were not committed by the small distiller, but by the large. Although illicit distillation prevailed more in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than it had done since the drawback existed, yet, in his opinion, the reduction of the drawback would not have a similar effect.

Mr. Walter Campbell

thought it likely, from the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman to the measure as it stood, that his mind had been biassed by information obtained from his own neighbourhood. It had been inferred, that this capability of fraud had arisen from the adoption of a particular measure; but in what single instance, where any measure had benefitted the revenue, had fraud not followed in practice? though it did not appear that frauds had been carried on to any great amount. Officers were sent down to examine into the case, and they reported that they could not discover, that frauds had taken place; and if any had been carried on to the extent represented, there could be no doubt that they must have been discovered. He would vote for any regulation which would prevent fraud. As to what had fallen from the hon. member for Donegal, it was his (Mr. W. Campbell's) most earnest wish, that Ireland should thrive, but not at the expense of Scotland. These new distilleries were not created until 1824—the year when the whole of these drawbacks were brought before the notice of the House; and if the drawback were reduced, the consequence would be, illicit distillation; and he verily believed that it had already had that effect. Before the Resolution was passed, if pass it must, it ought first to be ascertained whether the accusation of fraud was just.

Mr. Mackenzie

said, there had been in the highland districts of Scotland, a complete range of illicit distilleries; but, since the reduction of the duty, illicit distillation had been entirely suppressed. The present measure was likely to have an injurious effect on the morals of the people of Scotland, as well as, in a great degree, to diminish the revenue of the country. It would not only affect the highland districts, but also the farmers of the neighbouring country. Such a measure as this ought not to pass without ample information being laid before the House. If the distillers in the highlands were accused of having been guilty of frauds, the facts should be proved, and then it ought to be ascertained whether this measure would prevent it in future, which he, for one, very much doubted.

Lord Althorp

assured the hon. member for Glasgow that it was on his own conviction of its propriety, that he had proposed this measure. That conviction was founded on information obtained, not from Irish Members alone, but also from those of Scotland, who had attended the Committee; and it was from the recommendation of that Committee, and the evidence taken before it, that he considered this reduction of the drawback could be safely made. Hon. Members had rather exaggerated the importance of the question; but he looked upon it as a measure which might benefit the revenue. Illicit distillation existed in Scotland to a great extent in 1821, in consequence of which drawbacks were introduced. In 1824 a great reduction took place in the duty, not only in Scotland, but in Ireland, after which illicit distillation ceased, not only in Scotland but in Ireland; and, therefore, the cessation of illicit distillation could not be attributed solely to this drawback; the diminution of duty was the principal cause, and the diminution of the drawback could not have the effect of causing a return to illicit distillation. It was said that proofs ought to be brought as to actual fraud having been committed. But there was always very great difficulty in procuring proofs of this nature; for, if it escaped the observation of officers immediately on the spot, it was still more difficult to be ascertained by strangers. A great deal of smuggling had been proved, before this Committee, to have existed, and there was great facility for smuggling existing at present. It was possible that illicit distillation which had been destroyed in the highlands of Scotland, would recommence on the adoption of this measure. Smuggling was now carried on, and, as a preventive to that practice, this measure was proposed. The expectation of the drawback being taken away, or rather diminished, could not be the cause why illicit distillation should be on the increase. If such increase had taken place, it was not from this cause, but from the rise which had taken place in the price of spirits. From the circumstances he had now stated, he considered that there was no reason to believe, that this partial reduction in the drawback would have the effect imagined. The people of the highlands had been brought to feel the benefits of legal practices; and, in his opinion, there were grounds for the Motion in the information which had been laid before the House.

Mr. Callaghan

would not detain the House by a repetition of any of the points so properly urged by the hon. member for Portsmouth, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the propriety of the measure before the House; but he would make some few observations in consequence of what had been stated by hon. Members opposed to this Resolution. In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to this point: the Resolution altered the existing law by only reducing the amount of drawback from 1s. 2d. to 8d. per gallon. The advocates for continuing the former alleged, that it was necessary, in order to induce a manufacture of spirit from malt suitable to the taste of Scotland. It appeared in evidence before the Committee, that such was the preference for what was called "wee still whiskey" in Scotland, that it commonly obtained 3s. per gallon more in price than other spirits. It must, therefore, be evident, that where so decided a preference existed, a deduction of 8d. from this preference of 3s. the gallon could not materially affect the trade of the wee distiller; but this preference arose not from the manufacture being from malt, because nearly all the witnesses examined before the Committee agreed, that what was called malt was only a very inferior malt, in fact, a grain only partially malted; and, therefore, differing little, if in any degree, from a mixture of raw grain and malt, which was invariably used in the raw grain or large stills; therefore, the superiority must arise from other causes, not necessary now to argue. The hon. Baronet, the member for Edinburgh, had so clearly stated the cause of allowing this drawback, shewing, also, that it could have been intended only as a temporary, and not a permanent measure, that he (Mr. Callaghan) did not think any of the Members of the Government then existing would advocate the measure being continued; indeed, when the Finance Committee, of which the right hon. Baronet, the member for Queen's County, was Chairman, resolved on the abolition of all bounties, and reported especially that this malt drawback should be discontinued, the trade expected an immediate abolition; and it was only last year, when the importations of spirits into Ireland from Scotland appeared to so great an extent, that the Irish distillers in vain looked for any cause of that except the effect of this bounty; Scotland being able to receive barley and oats from Ireland, and after distilling them, to send them back to Ireland at heavy charges in the shape of spirits. They then found, on the official returns, that, in some cases, more drawback on malt was paid in Scotland than the whole duty received there. The hon. member for Argyle said, the Irish distillers then charged the Scotch with fraud, and that the evidence showed that no such fraud existed; that all the Excise officers examined proved this. The Irish distillers did no such thing as charge the Scotch distillers generally with fraud; they only undertook to show that the system was in its nature susceptible of fraud at the expense of the revenue; and, in revenue matters, where fraud could be practised, it would be practised by some persons. The evidence of Excise officers, that they did not know of frauds committed, was no proof that fraud did not exist; for how could Excise officers be cognizant of fraud, and not have made seizures and detections? The Irish distillers knew well the practicability of committing fraud, and they never undertook to prove more than a primâ facie case, that frauds were committed. They were not manufacturers or residents in Scotland, but they were supported by the opinion of many of the most respectable of the trade in Scotland in their view of it. There could be no doubt that some persons had an undue advantage from it. He agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Ross-shire, that this should be looked upon, not as a Scotch or an Irish question, but as a national question, affecting the trade of the three countries; and it was certain, that any undue advantage enjoyed by some traders, however partial, operated injuriously, in many cases, to all. This undue drawback, by reducing the cost of production to some, lowered the price, and the rate of profit generally, to the manufacturers of Scotland, and this extended itself to the trade in both England and Ireland. The Committee were almost unanimous in the resolution that this drawback should be abolished. And the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having acceded to it, he was bound to support it. He (Mr. Callaghan) found fault with his decision in not having gone far enough. He ought at once to abolish the whole 1s. 2d.; but if, in the exercise of his discretion, he thought that a part should be kept up in order to prevent illicit distillation reviving, he might, perhaps, be justified. Attention to the subject would show, however, that the drawback and illicit distillation had no connection. The abolition of the drawback would increase the duty and the price of spirits in Scotland; but it was the price and the high duty that alone would encourage illicit distillation. The Scotch Members asserted, that already, even the expectation of this drawback being repealed, had given rise to some smuggling. In Ireland, where the drawback had never been taken advantage of to any but the most trifling extent, illicit distillation had also begun this year. The low price of grain, and the cheapness of fuel or peat, to be had this year in abundance, and which could not have been had for the few last years in Ireland, were the causes of it; and, if the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanted to prevent smuggling, he must take away some of the duty now existing. In fact, the Committee had nearly decided on recommending a reduction of duty simultaneously with a cessation of drawback or bounty; but they left this, more properly, perhaps, to his decision. He mentioned this, to guard the Chancellor of the Exchequer against what he (Mr. Callaghan) was apprehensive of—that, next year the Scotch Members would want a renewal of this bounty, or that the remainder should be continued. And they would beard him on the subject. The revival of illicit distillation would, doubtless, be found also in Ireland; and he should protest against the cause—namely, too high a duty on spirits—being confounded with the repeal of this malt drawback. He was certain that many of the Scotch Gentlemen who were then present, agreed with him that the whole drawback should be done away; but, as they had told him in private conversation, they were obliged to yield their opinion to that of interested traders—their constituents. The advocates for a continuance of any bounty, were advocating a principle generally abandoned in that House, and they were bound to make out a strong case for the continuance of any; and this had certainly not been done in this debate.

Mr. Warburton

considered the debate of that evening a good proof on which to form an opinion as to the religious feeling which pervaded the House; for one night was occupied in talking of religion, and the next night in debating as eagerly about gin. This might lead any one to suppose that the humane motive would be to prevent Cholera; but from what took place last night, it might be imagined that the same motive would induce the proposing a measure to prevent the drinking of gin. Here was Scotland trying to get the advantage of Ireland, and Ireland seeking to get the advantage of the poor West-Indian. If there were any parties who had a right to complain of this drawback, he should say the West-Indians had; for the cause of the West-Indian had been considered for a whole fortnight—and the question at last turned on the protection which was given to Scotland over Ireland, and the poor West-Indians were to look on, and hear the dispute about the former having a protecting duty of 1s. 6d. per gallon over the latter. The House ought to direct its attention on these points to another object.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

never heard such reasoning as this. The hon. Gentleman had stuck so close to the point, that no one would have thought what was the subject of the discussion: he thought that the main point rested as to whether Ireland or Scotland should have the advantage. It had been said, that Scottish Members were subject to be pressed by the tradesmen and others, of the towns they represented, to give a vote on this measure, whether they approved of it or not. However, he could not be subject to this remark, as there was not a distiller in the town which he represented, and, therefore, his constituency did not feel any great interest in it; but he thought this Motion ought not to pass. He hoped that what had passed that night might not turn out so as to create a feud between his excellent Scotch and Irish friends. He would endeavour to say something in favour of Scotland, but the noble Lord would not yield to any of them. It had been stated, that there were no instances where fraud had been proved, and that there was no foundation for the measure, except a re- port that frauds had been carried on in Scotch distilleries. It would be unfair to Scotland, if this drawback should be taken away on mere report, when there was no proof of any fraud having been committed.

Mr. Shaw

did not mean at that late hour to enter into any discussion of the general merits of the question before the Committee, but would merely thank the noble Lord for having gone so far as he had in giving redress to the Irish distiller, and express his hope that he would speedily carry the same principle to the entire extinction of the system of malt-drawback. He was gratified that a question had arisen upon which all Irish Members could be united; and this was the very first instance of their joining in approbation of any measure of his Majesty's present, Ministers. This ought not, however, to be considered as an anti-Scotch question, for he, for one, was almost as much attached to Scotland as to his own country; but hon. Members from Scotland must allow there was this great difference between them,—all that Irish Members asked was, that the trade should be left free; whereas, the Scotch advocated the continuance of restrictions and regulations, which they must at least admit were cumbrous and difficult. From the sentiment of the hon. Member below him, that there was upon this occasion any bargain or compromise with the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must altogether dissent; for he meant the noble Lord to be provided with full notice, that though he supported his views on this occasion, he was not aware of any other upon which he was likely to support him.

The Resolution agreed to.