§ MR. BARKLYreminded the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had stated to the hon. Member for Inverness-shire that it was the intention of the Excise to give all possible facilities for the use of sugar in distilleries. He understood, however, that it was not in the power of the Excise to afford such facilities as distillers required. By the present law, a period of six weeks must elapse from the discontinuance of distilling from grain to the commencement of distilling from sugar. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—"What are the additional facilities which he intends to give for the use of sugar in distilleries, and whether it is his intention to propose during the present Session the repeal of so much of the Act of 6 Geo. IV., c. 80, as forbids all attempts to distil sugar in combination with grain, or checks the use of sugar in existing distilleries, more especially of the 44th Clause of that Act, which prohibits distillation at the same time from sugar and grain; the 45th Clause, which requires six days' notice to be given by the distiller of his intention to use sugar; and the 46th Clause, which requires an interval of one month between distilling grain and sugar, or sugar and grain separately."
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that he had said, on a former evening, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in any measure for prohibiting the use of grain in distilleries. He could only give the same answer to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman which he had before given to a question on the same subject from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). What he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) undertook to do was to give every facility consistent with the existing law for the use of sugar in distillation. The Chairman of the Board of Excise had stated to a deputation from the distillers, who had waited upon him on this subject, that he would be happy to afford them any facilities consistent with the law which they 1168 could point out to him. Beyond this he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not go, because, in the present state of the expenditure of the country, he felt it his paramount duty to keep up the revenue. He might state, in reply to the questions which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Barkly) had placed upon the Notice Paper, that it was not his intention to propose to repeal any portion of the Act of Parliament which forbade distillation from sugar in combination with grain. The hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in the statement he had made with regard to the period which was required to elapse between the use of grain and sugar in distilleries. All that was necessary was that such an interval should elapse between distillation from sugar and grain as should allow the work made from the one to be cleared off the premises before distillation from the other was commenced. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that under the existing law the permission to distil from sugar was perfectly nugatory. He could assure the hon. Gentleman this was not the case, for there were three large distilleries in Dublin, Glasgow, and London, where distillation from sugar was now extensively carried on.