PORT WINE DUTY. (Hansard, 5 August 1842)

§ Mr. Masterman
moved the following resolution: That it having been the uniform practice, for many years past, to allow or to charge the wine-merchants upon their stocks in hand for any variation of duties that have taken place, 1093 this House is of opinion that it is but just and reasonable that the same course should be pursued in the event of a reduction being made of the duty upon port wine consequent upon the tariff to be annexed to the treaty with Portugal, notwithstanding the transfer of the collection of the whole of the wine duties to the Customs.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, opposed the motion, because it called upon the House to pledge itself to a course in anticipation of an event, the time or circumstances of which were yet unknown and also because the wine-merchants to whom it applied had had two years' notice of the intended change, and therefore quite sufficient opportunity of disposing of their stocks in hand.

§ Sir Robert Peel
trusted that no consideration would induce the House to accede to the motion of the hon. Member for London. They had recently revised almost the whole of the Custom duties in almost every article they had exposed the holders to an unexpected competition, and in no case had they allowed a drawback. But the hon. Gentleman, in his resolution, proposed that Government should allow a drawback, not in reference to an act done, but merely in the event of a reduction being made. If the House should agree to a pledge of this prospective nature, there would be no check to the frauds that would be committed, and he, therefore, trusted that the House would not sanction the resolution.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
supported the resolution. All the petitioners asked was, that Government should not depart from the uniform practice of former Governments, and he, hoped the House would view the resolution with more favour than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done.

§ Mr. Hawes
Though he admitted the justice of the resolution, he yet hoped that under all the circumstances the hon. Member for London would not press his motion to a division.

Mr. Alderman Humphrey
could not support the motion, because he thought the Government had made out a strong case against it.

§ Mr. Masterman
would not press his motion to a division if the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would give him an assurance that he would take the subject into consideration, in the event of a treaty being entered 1094 into with Portugal for the reduction of the duty on wine.

§ Sir Robert Peel
declined giving any assurance on the subject. He objected to the resolution on principle, and could not purchase the hon. Member's forbearance by any assurance whatever.