HC Deb 17 July 1848 vol 100 cc534-61

House in Committee, for the consideration of the Duties on Rum; Mr. BERNAL, in the chair.


rose for the purpose of proposing the second of those measures which the Government had announced for the benefit of the West Indian colonies, by promoting the introduction of their produce into this country; and he was happy to state that, in this measure, the interests of the consumer, as well as of the West India producer, were consulted. It had not been without regret that, in the measure on the subject of the sugar duties, which the Government had lately submitted to that House, they had for a time somewhat neglected the interests of the consumer; but in the proposal he was about to make, the interests of the consumer and of the producer were alike consulted. The principle which the Government laid down three years ago, with reference to the duties upon rum, was, that so far as legislative measures went, the colonial producer should be allowed to bring his produce into this country on equal terms with the British producer; and the measure he was now about to submit to the House was based upon that principle. He had stated, during the last Session of Parliament, that he considered a differential duty of 6d. between British and colonial spirits would attain this end; but, upon further consideration, he had been induced to propose a lower rate of duty. Although in the spring of 1847 he had thought 6d. was a fair differential duty, it was not in the slightest degree inconsistent with that opinion, that, considering the measures which had since then been introduced for the benefit of the British distillers, he should now think that, in the altered state of circumstances, a less sum would be a sufficient protection. No doubt the consumption of British spirits had fallen oft' during the last year; but he believed that fact was to be attributed to the peculiar circumstances of the times. There had been, during the last year, owing to the failure of the spring crops, a considerable falling-off in the quantity of malt brought into consumption; and to that circumstance he attributed, to a great extent, the deficiency of the revenue, which had disappointed his expectations with regard to the amount to be derived from the Excise. In the early part of 1847 he did not anticipate any very material falling-off in the revenue from malt; and he was encouraged in his anticipations by being informed that, if the crop in this country was short, foreign barley would be brought in. He found, however, that the grain which had been imported into this country from abroad had, to a great extent, been re-exported, in consequence of the deficiency of food in foreign countries; and this circumstance, in a great measure, accounted for the falling-off in the revenue from malt. Between 1846 and 1847, there had been a falling-off in the quantity of malt charged with duty of 6,700,000 bushels. He thought it was apparent that this falling-off was not attributable to increased entries of colonial spirits for home consumption, because, though the entries were considerable, as compared with former years, both in Scotland and Ireland, the quantity of rum actually consumed in those countries was most insignificant compared with the total quantity of spirits consumed. He found, from the evidence given before a Committee of that House, that the total quantity of spirits entered for home consumption in Scotland, in 1847, was 6,193,000 gallons, of which only 382,000 gallons consisted of rum; while the total quantity of spirits entered for consumption in Ireland, during the same year, was 6,037,000 gallons, comprising only 176,000 gallons of rum. He would now proceed to state why he thought the duty upon colonial rum should be reduced. The noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) had submitted to the Committee of which he had recently been Chairman, a report and resolutions which contained a perfect mine of information on this subject, and in which great stress was laid upon the different positions of the distiller from malt and the distiller from grain. Now, he thought it was impossible to draw a distinction between the two. It was quite clear that, at present, they competed successfully in different parts of the country; and he conceived that, whatever protection was adequate for one, must be adequate for the other. He conceived that the malt distiller was paid for the additional cost of his materials by the additional price which he obtained for his produce. He considered, also, that another ground on which the distillers founded a claim to a higher differential duty was untenable—he meant the claim of rectifying. He had said last year that he did not admit the claim they put forward on the ground of rectification; for he considered that rectification was in fact a further process of manufacture, for which the producers were amply remunerated by the higher price which they obtained for the purer article. He did not think, either, that there was any force in the complaints which had been made by the distillers with reference to the corn duties, or any ground on which they ought to claim a differential duty against the colonies. The grounds upon which the distillers claimed protection in consequence of the payment of malt duty, was, that a certain quantity of malt was necessary to enable them to distil from grain. Now, he found that a quarter of grain produced 20 gallons of spirits, 1–11th of malt only being used. The distillers themselves claimed, on this ground. 1½d. a gallon; but the amount which came nearest to a fair claim was 1¼d., and that, in fact, exceeded what they were entitled to. The duty upon a quarter of malt was 22s. 8½d., and, as he had stated, 1–11th of a quarter was used in distilling from a quarter of grain, that would give rather less than 2s. 1d. a gallon; which, on 20 gallons—the produce of the quarter of grain—was 1¼d. per gallon. The next claim made by the distillers was for decreases, for which they required 3½d. a gallon. Now, he could not conceive on what ground a claim for so large an allowance was made. If the duty was taken on British spirits when they came out of the warehouse, the precise amount of decrease in the warehouse might be ascertained; and it was only to the extent of that decrease that compensation ought to be given. Mr. Carrie, who was examined before the Committee, said, in reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridge University— I am far from wishing the Committee to understand that the decreases in our trade amount to 3½d. per gallon; but what I mean to say is this, that I have here a Parliamentary paper, by which it appears that, in the year ending the 5th of January, 1846, the amount of duty remitted on allowances for deficiencies and leakage on rum in bond amounted to 36,248l.; that upon the quantity of 2,411,000 gallons, gives over 3½d. a gallon. It appeared from Parliamentary papers moved for in May, 1846, that the amount of duty allowed for decrease upon the quantity of gallons of rum warehoused did amount to 3½d. a gallon; but the same papers afforded the means of forming an accurate calculation of the decrease in Ireland and Scotland, It appeared that the allowance for decrease upon rum warehoused in Ireland was ¼d and 15,100d. per gallon, while in Scotland it was equal to 56–100ths of a farthing—or rather more than half a farthing—a gallon. He stated to the House, in 1847, that, upon an average of several distilleries, be found the result brought out was, that the actual deficiency in the case of Scotland was 33–100ths of a farthing per gallon; and in respect of Ireland, ¼d. 15–100ths per gallon. If an allowance was made to the extent he had mentioned, namely, rather better than half a farthing per gallon in Scotland, and not so much as a farthing and a quarter in Ireland, it would be equivalent to the whole loss to which the spirits were subject in warehouse. This is the extent to which the distiller would be benefited, if he was allowed to pay duty on taking his spirits out of warehouse instead of at the worm's end; and this, therefore, was all that he was entitled to claim compensation for. If he paid the duty on taking the spirit out of warehouse, he would be in precisely the same situation as the importer of colonial spirits, and would have no cause of complaint. This he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not consent to, for the opportunity for fraud would be so great, that the risk to the revenue was more than he should be warranted in incurring. It had been estimated by the Excise at not less than 100,000l; and in the present state of the revenue that was too large a sum to be put in danger. In order to obtain the same amount of revenue from the spirits duty as at present, if the period of taking the duty were postponed, it would be necessary then to increase the rate of duty, which would come to very much the same thing. He proposed, then, to continue the period of taking the duty as at present, and to compensate the distiller by placing a duty on colonial spirits equal to the loss on British spirits. In regard to the question as between the British and the colonial producer, he considered that three-farthings a gallon would be a most ample protection for the loss incurred by paying the duty upon the quantity produced at the worm's end rather than when taken out for consumption. Therefore, be considered 1¼d. as equivalent to the malt duty, and ¾d. as equivalent to all that would be gained by paying the duty on taking out of warehouse, instead of the worm's end. This latter sum he believed would be greatly more advantageous to the distiller in England, considering how little warehousing there was hero. Then with regard to the only other point—the excise restrictions—the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) had certainly drawn out a formidable list in his resolutions, when he spoke of increased plant, loss of yeast, raking out of fires, inability to improve the manufacture, and so forth; but when the loss was brought down to actual pounds, shillings, and pence, it did not run up to anything that need alarm the British distiller. The cost of British spirit was calculated at 2s. before payment of duty, 1s. 6d. being the cost of the raw material, and 6d. the cost of manufacture; the excise restrictions might to some extent interfere with the process of manufacture, but, as he believed, to a much less extent than was commonly supposed; and in some instances the excise interference was not without its utility as a protection to the distiller himself. But suppose that out of this 6d., 2d. were to he allowed for excise restrictions, surely that would be more than almost any one would he disposed to set down as really attributable to that head. Of course, when Gentlemen were making statements to prove their own case, they were apt, without intending unfairness, to put as strongly as possible the points they thought favourable to them; and there were some remarkable instances of this in the mode in which the claim of the distillers had been shaped. There was, for example, the 3½d. for decrease, which he had shown to be not so much as a halfpenny. Two years ago a printed statement was put into his hand of the cost of rectification, and a similar statement was inserted in page 180 of the noble Lord's draught report; it gave 6d. as "extra expense in rectifying, in consequence of the law;" and only two pages before there appeared an estimate in which it had dwindled to 3d.—one or other of those estimates must have been very loose. Two or three years ago it was charged at 10d., and then at 8d.; so that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was warranted in saying that the statements made on the part of those who preferred this claim were not quite made with that accuracy which was desirable for forming a just estimate respecting their expenses. There was one rather laughable statement, to which he would call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck). He held in his hand a paper which he would lay on the table in the course of the evening, that the House might see it. A witness stated before the Committee, that the loss by decrease upon four casks of spirits imported from Scotland to London came to ¾d. 53–100ths per gallon; the Chairman of Excise was a little astonished at this, seeing that he had stated the loss on importation at ¼d. 92–100ths; he was led to suppose that it must have been a singular case in which so much loss took place, and that there were circumstances which rendered that importation liable to a greater loss than ordinary. In order to verify the statement, the Chairman took the deficiency upon other quantities imported by the same parties, Messrs. Twiss and Browning, about the same time; and he found that upon twenty casks of Scotch spirits imported by them from Leith four days before, namely, on the 23rd of March, 1848, the actual loss amounted to 19–100ths of a farthing; and on twenty casks, on the 31st of March, the loss was 43–100ths of a farthing; in both cases it was far less than the loss allowed by the Chairman of Excise as the average. To make the matter certain it was ascertained that the average loss on 9,591 casks of spirits imported into London from Scotland and Ireland from April 6, 1847, to April 5, 1848, was exactly ¼d. 42–100ths per gallon, which was also less than the Chairman of Excise had allowed by 50–100ths of a farthing. Mr. Browning might be right enough as to the particular case he mentioned; but at any rate it showed how very little single cases were to be depended upon in forming an average. Now, with regard to this question of the amount to be set down to excise restrictions, he did not think, if the whole cost of manufacturing spirits was 6d. a gallon, that any man would say that more than a third of that was due to those restrictions; but he found, from page 83 of the sixth report of the Committee on Sugar and Coffee Planting, that a statement had been sent into the Excise (entirely for another purpose than that of showing the expense) by Mr. Patrick Chambers, a distiller at Wishaw, a highly respectable man, upon whose statements reliance might be placed; and he gave the quantity of barley consumed, the quantity of proof spirits produced, and the whole expense of manufacturing spirits, and the result showed was, that the net charges, including the expense of making malt, amounted to 3¾d. per gallon. The statement being made for another purpose was less likely to be coloured than a statement put in to prove a particular calculation or case. But would anybody, calmly considering the subject, say that of 3¾d. cost of making, more than half, namely, 2d., was produced by excise regulations? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to allow 2d. for the whole claim in respect of excise regulations; and even taking the statement of the cost at 6d., and still more, if it were taken at the calculation of this party, that must surely be a fair allowance. He saw no other ground upon which the distillers could claim protection against colonial spirits. If price was looked to, there was no such great advantage in the price of rum. The noble Lord's report stated the average price of three qualities of whisky to be 2s. 2½d.; and the average of rum 2s. 4½d. In ordinary years the introduction of rum was not likely to have any material effect upon the large quantity of spirits produced in this country. With respect to the question of revenue, the loss would be about 62,500l.; but we might calculate on an increased consumption. 150,000 gallons in England would suffice, or 350,000, supposing it all in Scotland, or 400,000 in Ireland; but he hoped the increase would be a great deal more, for the sake of the West India interest. He believed the interests of the producer and the consumer were alike consulted by the measure he proposed; and he thought he had shown that a differential duty of 4d. upon colonial spirits, due partly to the malt duty, partly to decrease, and partly to excise restrictions, would be at least adequate to the disadvantages under which the British distiller was placed. The principle upon which the Government proposed to proceed was this—that so far as legislative enactments went, the producer in the colony and the producer in this country should some into the market upon equal terms; and that, he believed, would be effected by the proposal he had now the honour to submit. He had only further to put into the Chairman's hands a formal resolution, the effect of which was that, instead of the present differential duty of 9d., a differential duty of 4d. per gallon be imposed upon British colonial spirits.

Resolution put— That, in lieu of the Duties now chargeable, there be levied," &c


considered the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very unfair towards the home producer of spirits. If the distilling interest in this country, and particularly in Ireland, were to be affected by the spread of temperance, or even by raising the duty on spirits so as to lessen consumption, he, for one, would approve of such a result; but when he found that the effect of the present measure would be to introduce, to a greater extent than hitherto into this country and Ireland, a deleterious and seductive spirit, he confessed he could not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the consumer upon it. He found that, in 1846, the consumption of rum in Ireland amounted only to 14,000 gallons; while last year, with a differential duty of 9d., the consumption amounted to 176,000 gallons; and he believed it was still gradually increasing. He thought, therefore, that the manufacturer of British spirits, and particularly the Irish manufacturer, had very great cause of complaint when he perceived that his interests were to be sacrificed to the carrying out of a measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government (referring to the Sugar Duties Bill), which gave satisfaction to no party. He thought the home producer had reason to complain, not precisely of a breach of faith, although it was certainly something like it; inasmuch as he broke through what was understood to be the settlement of the question in 1847, when, notwithstanding his own opinion that 6d. would be a fair and just protection, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, after various negotiations with the distillers, fixed the amount at 9d. per gallon. The unwarranted change now proposed, amounted, in his judgment, to something very close to a breach of faith. He admitted there must be excise restrictions, and there must be consequent expenses. This being so, he contended there must be something in the shape of Protection; but, then, the question was as to the fair amount of that protection. He would follow the right hon. Gentleman through his calculations to show that they were, in many instances, erroneous, and that, there-fore, the right hon. Gentleman's amount of protection was also wrong. He would take the case of malt. The right hon. Gentleman had not placed his calculation high enough in this respect; the right hon. Gentleman only allowed 1½d., while the Irish distillers conceived they were fairly entitled to have 2½d. The next item was only casually glanced at, namely, loss for distilling and brewing. The use of acids, not now permitted by the excise laws, would give 4 or 5 per cent more of saccharine matter. These circumstances ought to be considered and allowed for. Then, as to the process of rectification, it was alleged that the Irish distillers had no claim on this head. But this was a mistake. The Irish distillers did not rectify so highly, but they distilled the spirits which were consumed, twice; and this, to some extent, was a species of rectification. There ought to be an allowance on that ground. Then, with reference to the decreases, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have no difficulty. Indeed, there was no difficulty in the question, as justice required that the foreign and British distiller should be put on the same footing. But the foreign producer had an advantage in the item of decreases to the extent of 3½d.—which amount the British distillers were perfectly right in adding to their claim for protection. The mode adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this question was neither fair nor just. From all the information he had received from distillers, he was satisfied that the amount of decreases was at least 1½d. per gallon. This amount, added to 7½d. per gallon, which the Irish distillers, on other grounds, claimed as a fair protection, made a total of 9d., which, he asserted, ought to be the differential duty between British and colonial spirits. It was upon the statement of Mr. Wood, the Chairman of Excise, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and proposed a differential duty of 4d. instead of 9d., which he believed was the proper sum. Mr. Wood had given his opinion in favour of a differential duty of 4d., and had in his evidence stated that the disadvantages of excise restrictions were by no means so great as to warrant a differential duty even of 6d. When they considered, however, the great expense incurred by the Irish distillers—the necessity of damping fires more than 500 times in the course of a year—the obligation to purchase yeast, which was afterwards thrown into the gutter, they would agree in the able report made by the noble Lord opposite, that the differential duty at present maintained could not be diminished with justice to the distillers. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Chairman do leave the chair.


said, that he did not rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, although he agreed with him in the observations he had made, He believed that if this measure was carried in conjunction with other measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government, great injustice would be done to the distillers. In the year 1842, when an additional duty of 1s. per gallon was put upon Irish spirits, he had told the Government that they would lose money. Previous to the imposition of that duty the distillers had been enabled to produce good spirit at so low a price as to give the illicit distiller little or no advantage; but this increased duty gave an encouragement to illicit distillation, and in the end reduced the duty received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By running into the opposite extreme, they would do as much injury, without benefiting the public in any material degree. If the Government wished to prevent illicit distillation, and prevent crime, even of murder, they would, to a certain extent, reduce the duty on spirit, and thus ensure the prosperity of this branch of manufacture. Their present course of legislation would give a final blow to the manufacture of spirit in Ireland.


said, that the community which he represented contained many individuals who were deeply interested in the manufacture of spirits. Looking to the welfare of these individuals and the trade generally, he had hoped that the Government would have placed the Irish distiller on the same footing with the colonial distiller, as regarded reasonable allowance to be made for waste and natural evaporation. By this measure the West Indian interest would gain an advantage of 5d. beyond what it enjoyed before. He protested against the change in the name of the agricultural interest, for it was as much an agriculturist's as a distiller's question; it was, in fact, a battle between sugar and oats. The duty of 9d. was held out as a final measure, and ought to be maintained. It must not be forgotten that the colonist was exempt from the harass and annoyance of excise regulations to which the English, Scotch, and Irish distillers were exposed, to whom, by way of an additional expense, no allowance was made for loss by leakage and evaporation. He claimed some consideration on behalf of Ireland, if it were but for her disinterested support of the measures of free trade, in the advantages of which, as an agricultural country, she was unable to participate. He called upon the Committee to pause before it put the broad stamp of its approval on the measure before them; and hoped that the Chairman would be allowed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He declared that he was actuated by no spirit of jealousy towards the colonies, though he could not but regard them as a drag on the mother country. They had gone so long on crutches that they would probably never be able to do without them. At all events, however, lot them not, in watching over their interests, shut their eyes and ears to the claims of that country which had been called the right arm of England.


would not have addressed the House had it not been for the course adopted by hon. Members from Ireland. But he must say that the measure of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell short of the measure to which the West Indies were entitled in regard to an equality of duties. There was a market in this country for the spirits produced in those colonies; and the differential duty was, therefore, taken out of the pockets of the colonial producers. Were the proposed reduction not carried out, the position of the West India planter, had as it was, would be rendered worse; and he strongly deprecated the rejection of a measure favourable to those colonies, which had already suffered so severely, for the advantage of any interest such as that represented by the hon. Member for Dublin. He was of opinion that the Irish and Scotch distillers were at present in a condition to compete with the colonies. It appeared from a pamphlet which he hold in his hand, that the hush money paid by eight or ten English distillers to Scotch distillers amounted in one year to 150,000l or 200,000l. That showed that the Scotch distillers were able to enter into competition with the English. He would accept the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an instalment due to the colonies.


I can assure you, Sir, I never heard any complaint from any of the barley growers of Norfolk on the subject of the rum and spirit duties. At all events, I am not the representative of Norfolk, but of the commercial borough of King's Lynn; and, therefore, whatever judgment I may come to upon this subject, there is no man in the House more disinterested, or who can have a greater desire to arrive at the truth than I have. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has quoted from an anonymous pamphlet, in which it is stated that from 150,000l. to 200,000l a year is paid by the English distillers to the Scotch distillers as hush money. If the hon. Gentleman is so credulous, I am not surprised at the speech he has made to-night. I think no other Gentleman in the House could he so credulous as to believe that the six distillers in England paid 150,000l. or 200,000l. a year to the distillers in Scotland. But an hon. Gentleman has told you that I cross-examined Mr. J. Wood for nearly four hours. I certainly did cross-examine him, and rather sharply, too, though not for four hours. I shall now state to the House what Mr. John Wood's own opinion of his evidence is. He says— With regard to the decreases, those, I take it, are matters of fact. A great deal of the evidence I have given is, of course, matter of opinion, and, I hope, will be taken by the Committee, and those before whom the evidence may come, with a considerable allowance, because it is mere matter of opinion. At another time he says that all he states, except as regards those matters of fact, he states with the greatest diffidence. As (Chairman of the Excise he had the privilege—and I did not interfere with that privilege—of having a prompter at his elbow, who whispered in his ear the answers he was to give to the Committee. It it quite true that I did cross-examine Mr. John Wood as to his matters of fact, because Mr. John Wood took upon himself to arraign the evidence and impeach the statements of all the distillers of England and Scotland. He presumed to say that they made exaggerated statements. Having declared that the decreases alleged on the part of distillers were decreases for which allowance was made, Mr. John Wood, a gentleman of station, and whose veracity we could not attempt to deny, said the decreases they made, instead of being worth 4d., were only worth ½d. Having remarked that he made this statement with diffidence, he applied a rule-of-three test to the decreases, and said— I find that, as 4d. is to 1d., so is 3d. to ¾d., and, therefore, instead of allowing the 3d., I should be much inclined to say that 1d. was the utmost that can be made out as the value or cost, to a distiller, of the excise restrictions. This was Mr. John Wood's mode of dealing with the subject of restrictions on the Excise, and anything more theoretical to come from a Chairman of Excise I never heard propounded. That statement was denied on the part of the distillers, and they came well out of the ordeal. The distillers stated the decrease on spirits in transitu in Scotland to he 114 hundredths of a gallon per cent. The excisemen in their gauge stated the decrease at 32 hundredths, Comparing the gauging of the Excise and the gauging of the trade, there appeared a difference of four to one. The whole question, then, turns upon who is right. Before the Committee came to a conclusion, Mr. John Wood was obliged to send in for papers correcting his evidence; and then it was admitted that, according to the mode of gauging for the Customs, the trade were not so very far wrong, for, instead of being 114 hundredths to the gallon per cent, as they had stated, they were 111 hundredths per cent. The man who diminished the truth by 75 per cent was found to be Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise. Is the trade to he trusted, who only differed from the Customs by 3 hundredths in 114, or Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, who tells you that the decrease is only 32 hundredths of a gallon, when, according to the Customs, it is 111 hundredths? The Chairman of the Excise then gave us an example of a gauging by the Excise, in which a still less decrease had taken place; and this measurement was taken upon various cargoes imported at the same time as those on which his former statement was based. But, let me ask, why did not Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, make that statement to the Committee when we could have tested its truth by cross-examining him? No, Sir, this was kept for the House of Commons, where it cannot be tested. Where you have had an opportunity of testing the truth of the statements of the Excise, there you are able to show that the trade was right, and the Excise wrong. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said that this cargo of the Royal Victoria was a remarkable cargo; but there was nothing remarkable in the cargo at all except that in the original account given by the Excise they showed the decrease to be less than the average decrease admitted by the Chairman of Excise upon the large quantities. The decrease, as measured originally by the Excise, was only 32 hundredths in the gallon, but it turned out to be 110 hundredths; and the result is, that the decreases are very nearly threefold what they were admitted to be by the Chairman of Excise. But the peculiarity in this case, as the Chairman of the Excise explains, is, that the decreases in the cargoes of spirits by the Royal Victoria were attributable to the heat produced by the steam used in that vessel. Why, it is not necessary that I should refer to the report. Every Gentleman who knows the character of spirits, knows that spirits do not contract, but expand under the influence of heat. Therefore you have here Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Excise, acknowledging that while he gives a mere opinion upon the value of restriction, his opinion is not worth a great deal; and you have it proved to demonstration that while he speaks of matters of fact he is wrong to the extent of three to one. Well, then. Sir, if this be so, I think we are entitled to place some reliance on the statements of these distillers. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, have both admitted that we are entitled to assume that the malt distiller and the raw corn distiller are on an equal footing. But that is my case. Admit that once to me, and I have no difficulty whatever in showing to you what disadvantage the corn distiller will labour under as regards the revenue if this proposition is carried; for I can show you, by a demonstration which anybody who can count five on his fingers can understand, that the malt distiller pays a much higher duty than the corn distiller. I know there are some Gentlemen who say that because the Scotch distiller pays the duty at twice, that is to say, because he pays 1s. 4¼d. out of one pocket as duty on malt, and 7s. 10d. out of a different pocket as the duty upon spirits, that you have no right to think anything about the malt duty. But I think no man of any sense will propound such an argument as that in this House. And, therefore, it is quite clear that the malt distiller of Scotland, for sending his raw spirits to England, or the malt distiller of England (or the barley grower of Norfolk, if the hon. Gentleman is determined to state the case in that way) pays 7s. 10d. spirit duty, and 1s. 4d. malt duty, or 9s. 2¼d. in the whole, while the corn distiller pays only 8s. 7d. Now, it is very easy for any hon. Gentleman to calculate and understand the difference. It is impossible for any man to dispute that the malt distiller of England or of Scotland pays already 7¼d. more duty than the rum distiller; and if you reduce the duty on rum 5d. more, he will pay just 1s. 0¼d. more duty than the rum distiller. In Scotland, half the malt duty is returned as drawback to the malt distiller if the spirits are sent to England; consequently, the difference in Scotland is 8⅛d. less than it is in England. The result of this will be, that if your present proposition passes, the malt distiller in Scotland will pay absolutely 4d. more than the rum distiller. And the same case applies to the malt distiller in Ireland, The result, then, of your measure, if it pass, will be, that in England the malt distiller will pay Is. 0¼d. more duty than the rum distiller; and in Scotland and Ireland he will pay 4d. more duty. Well, then, if you admit to me, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have both declared, that the malt distiller and the raw corn distiller are practically upon an equality, it is quite clear that the raw corn distiller will be under the same disadvantages that the malt distiller is—things that are equal to the same thing being, as the hon. Gentleman said, and as we all know, equal to one another. I have shown you that the malt distiller is by this plan under a manifest disadvantage, and the raw corn distiller in England will have to pay an additional duty of 1s. 0¼d. and of 4¼d. in Scotland and Ireland. But then they tell you that the malt distiller can well afford to pay the additional duty. The malt distiller does compete with the raw corn distiller in Scotland; but you will see that for the last six years the malt distiller has been gradually losing ground in the race—that in the course of the last six or seven years I think the consumption of malt whisky has fallen off nearly a million gallons, whilst the consumption of raw grain spirits has increased in like proportion; which is pretty clear evidence that it is a very hard race between them. But we now come to the question of value. The hon. Gentleman says, and so said the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is true that they paid higher duty upon raw-spirits; but they satisfied the tastes of the consumers better, and they fetched a better price. But let us see what is the price which they fetch, as compared with rum, and if I show to you that the price of malt spirits is lower than the price of rum, while your duty on malt spirits is considerably higher than your duty upon rum, you must admit that the duty is higher than it ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted from the report which I had the honour of submitting to the Committee on this question, and he made a calculation from it, to the effect that, upon an average, the price of malt spirits in Scotland was 2s. 8d. Now, I think that that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was rather disingenuous, and I will tell you why. The report of the Committee was printed and presented, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the 3rd of May; but, after that date, on the 8th of May, a letter was addressed to me, and which did not reach me until the 10th, stating that I had made a mistake altogether in the prices of the Scotch spirits, because, although it was true that there was Highland whisky sold at the prices stated, yet the whisky sold at the high prices quoted only bore the proportion of one gallon in twenty, and consequently instead of taking 2s. 8d. as the average price of whisky, I ought to set it down at 2s. 1d. That letter was subsequently appended to the report of the Committee, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer totally overlooked it; and omitted to explain that 2s. 1d., and not 2s. 8d., was the sum upon which the ad valorem duty should be assessed. Well, this is the way the matter stands. The duties now are on malt spirits, 9s. 2¼d. in England; on rum, 8s. 7d.; in Scotland, 4s. 4½d. on malt spirits, on rum 4s. 5d.; and in Ireland the duties are 4s. 0¼d., and on rum 3s. 5d. But the new duties are to be—ill England 9s. 2¼d. on malt spirits, 8s. 2d. on rum; in Scotland, 4s. 4¼d., and on rum 4s.; in Ireland, 4s. 0¼d. on malt spirits, and 3s. on rum. Well, then, we come to the raw grain spirits; they are 7s. 10d. in England, 3s. 8d. in Scotland, and 2s. 8d. in Ireland; to which 1½d. is to be added also for malt duty, making the duty 7s. 11½d.,3s.9 ½d., and 2s. 9½d., respectively, in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now let me call the attention of the House to the effect of these ad valorem duties; and I take the case of good Scotch whisky, of which the price is 1s. 11d., being the instance given by Mr. Greene before the Committee. The duty in England is 9s. 2¼d., and in Scotland 4s. 4¼d.; so that the ad valorem duty upon good Scotch whisky is 480 per cent in England, and 227 per cent in Scotland. On Jamaica rum, of which the price is 3s. 3¼d., according to the statement of Mr. Greene (which I think will not be disputed by the hon. Member for Leominster), the duty in England is 8s. 7d., and in Scotland 4s. 5d.; but if you allow 3½d. for the decrease, which cannot be disputed, the result will be that the ad valorem burden shows a duty of 280 per cent on rum in England, against 480 per cent of a burden on Scotch whisky in England; and 144 per cent against 224 per cent ad valorem on Scotch whisky in Scotland. I now come to the English raw grain spirits. The duty on the 28th of April last was 7s. 11½d. in England, and 3s. 9½d. in Scotland, and the prices at that time were raised 3d. a gallon. The result is that the ad valorem duty is 160 per cent in Scotland, against 280 per cent. But, Sir, there is another point of view in which this question may be viewed; and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster voted for that measure as it was brought in by Sir Robert Peel's Government—as it was introduced and framed, I believe, by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn)—I think I may appeal with some force to what is called the Channel Islands. With regard to the Channel Islands there is an Act for distillation, the preamble of which sets forth that it was deemed requisite to determine by Act of Parliament what were the proper countervailing duties that should be imposed with respect to it. Now this was a remarkable circumstance; this Act passed in 1845, after the corn law of 1842 had been three years in operation. The average duty paid upon barley, was, I believe, 5s. 11d.; and I pray the House to attend to this preamble, for I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the framer of this Act, who is now free from the trammels of Government, and is able to vote and speak as a sugar planter to-night, will forget the obligations of the late Government, and we shall hear him advocate to-night the reduction of the differential duties of this his own preamble. The preamble concluded as follows:— It is necessary, therefore, to determine the same [fitting countervailing duties] by the imposition of a differential duty of 1s. 2d. upon spirits the produce of the Channel Islands. So, here we have the Government of Sir Robert Peel, in the year 1845, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, contriving to bring in a Bill to settle this great question, and inserting in the preamble of their Bill a clause, if not setting forth the motives of the arrangement, at least distinctly stating that it was fitting that the countervailing burdens in the case of the Channel Islands should be met by a 1s. 2d. differential duty. Now, Sir, I do not pretend to answer for the votes of any Gentleman in this House, or account for any changes of opinion; but there must be a great revolution in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer between the time when he was in Office, a servant of the public, and now, when he is free to act as he pleases—to support, if he can, this proposition to reduce that differential duty imposed by this Act, from 1s. 2d. to 4d. Sir, it will be argued by the right hon. Gentleman, that the average duty upon barley is 5s. 11d and that that must be taken as a part of the countervailing duty, because no duty is paid upon it in the Channel Islands. But when the distillers claimed 1s. 2d. as a set-off, it was 1s. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the one shilling duty on barley, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I agree entirely with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that the one shilling duty cannot be taken into account—that is no charge upon the distiller." So, here we have this avowal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the duties on corn are paid by the foreigner. That is what I always insisted on; and, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman takes a leaf out of my book, when I am talking about rum I may be permitted to remind him of this avowal on future occasions, when I am discussing these financial questions, that the duty on foreign imports is paid by the foreigner and not by the consumer in this country. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin. He took great credit to himself, and great credit to the Irish Members, that in repealing the corn laws two years ago, they had, for the sake of the manufacturers of England, inflicted on themselves a burden amounting to 3,000,000l. annually, and, therefore, he argued that the Irish Members and Irish people were entitled to great mercy from the House of Commons for this voluntary sacrifice. But the hon. Gentleman ought to know that from the protectionist party—from the hon. Gentlemen around me, they are not entitled to any mercy at all. How does the case stand? Why, that about 28 only out of 105 Irish Members tried to ward off from Ireland that heavy blow, by which a loss of 3,000,000l. annually was inflicted in perpetuity. I was one of those who used an humble endeavour to dissuade the Irish Members from taking this fatal step; but in vain. So do not let the Irish Members come to us now and tell us that Ireland was the country which suffered first and heaviest from the repeal of the corn laws. Let them not come and ask us English Gentlemen for money because you, Irish Members, in the earnestness to carry out a theory and to support a Government, forgot the interests of your own country. No, Sir, there will be no mercy from this side of the House upon those grounds. The only mercy that I can conceive could be shown to Ireland would be, if some omnipotent power would altogether change its representation. Without that, I see no hope of rescuing a country whose Members imposed upon it a burden of 3,000,000l. a year in perpetuity, in order to please the Government of the day. But, Sir, with regard to the question immediately before the House, I avow that neither the Irish distillers, nor the Scotch distillers, nor the British distillers, nor any sect or party in this country, have my sympathies. My wishes do not lean to one side or the other; all I wish to see is justice fairly and impartially dealt out to all. I wish to see this question, like all others, tried upon its real merits, and a real not a merely nominal equality established. For instance, no man feels more strongly than I do that the West Indies has been through our own policy brought to beggary and ruin; but I will not seek to retrieve them at the expense of any other class. I will not sit in this House to set one class against another, nor help the planters in the Mauritius and West Indies to prey upon the English, Scotch, and Irish distillers. If justice is to be done at all let it be done in a fair and open way, and let us not endeavour to shift the burden upon the British distillers. But it has always been a part of the Government policy to set class against class. As regards the effect which those duties would have upon the West Indies, there was a letter addressed by Mr. Greene to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it will not be denied that Mr. Greene is the very highest authority upon this question, yet he thought that the great boon which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) said was equal to 1s. 6d. per cwt. weight upon sugar was (and he proved it to demonstration) only equal to threepence-farthing per cwt. in sugar to the West Indies, to the East Indies one Penny and three-eighths, and that to the Mauritius the great boon did not exceed two-fifths of a penny. How any person can come to a different conclusion from that of Mr. Greene I am at a loss to understand, unless he assume that the West Indies are to get the whole duty. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Barkly), thinks the planter will get the whole duty; and here I must say, that as far as the West Indian question is concerned, I do not know any Member that has done more mischief than the hon. Member, for his speech furnished the only peg upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite could hang an argument. The hon. Gentleman agreed that if a differential duty of 10s. were to be imposed for more than two or three years, the planters would not get the benefit of it, but the labourer. Now I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he draws the line of distinction between the permanent differential duty on sugar, and the permanent differential duty on rum. Does he think that the Creoles will not find out that the West Indians obtained that great boon from the reduction of the differential duty on rum which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing promises? If the argument upon which the Government relies be that the negroes will demand higher wages in cases of a permanent differential duty in favour of colonial sugar, then I think that argument equally applies to the case of rum. It is true that when the report of the Committee upon this subject was drawn up, there was understood to be a majority upon the Committee in favour of a differential duty of 10s. upon sugar. It is also true that colonial sugar then went up 2s. per cwt., and that foreign sugar fell 1s. 6d.; but I never heard that the recommendation of the Chairman, which was rejected by a majority of nine to five, had an effect upon the price of rum, which since then has had a downward tendency. But with respect to this question, and the boon which the West Indies are to gain, hon. Gentlemen ought to know that they cannot have more of the cat than the skin, and that if the whole amount of the boon is to be 65,000l., that 65,000l. is to be divided between the East Indies, the West Indies, and the Mauritius: in the opinion of Mr. Greene the amount of such boon is not greater than 43,000l. Now, Sir, I have shown the House that this boon, of which so much has been said, is almost valueless. I have shown that the distillers are already under great disadvantages; and I maintain again that you have no right to oppress the British distillers because they may happen to be a wealthier or a poorer class than the West Indian planters, in order to benefit any party, or class, or section of Her Majesty's subjects. You ought to deal out justice to all parties without favour or affection. I say once were that I will never, whilst I have the honour of a seat in this House, advocate the interests of any one class against another, and that I will never countenance the principle that English, Irish, and Scotch are to be burdened and oppressed in order to benefit their fellow-subjects on the other side of the Indian seas; or that the West Indians are upon the other hand to be unjustly burdened for the sake of any class in these islands. But I defy any man to show that if the duties are altered, the duty will then be fairly assessed between the British distillers on the one side, and the West Indians on the other. If the West Indian deserves and needs compensation, give it to him fairly and honestly—give it to him not at the cost of his fellow-subjects, but give him compensation at the cost of the slave-traders and slave planters in Cuba and in Brazil.


did not advocate the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he looked upon it as a compensation given to the West Indians for the losses they had sustained; but he advocated the proposition because he believed it was a just settlement between two classes of their fellow-subjects who produced similar articles, and had a right to stand on the same footing. The question for the House was one which was to be decided by a calculation of the duties and restrictions imposed upon the two articles which were the subjects of legislation; an he entertained the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had made on the whole a fair calculation upon the subject. If he had any objection to that calculation, it was this—that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the British distillers. With regard to the difficulty imposed upon the British distillers by the restrictions of the Excise, he could not agree altogether in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must certainly be admitted that the effect of the collection of the excise duty upon the manufacture of an article, is, in some respects, calculated to produce inconvenience to the manufacturer; but there are some respects in which it is of the greatest advantage to a manufacturer to have the supervision of the Excise, and in no article is that more observable than in the article of spirits. The Excise supervision gave an additional guard to the proprietor of the manufactory against the frauds which could be so easily committed by the servants he employed in that manufactory. The Government wag protected from the abstraction of a quart of spirits, on which they were entitled to receive duty; but, at the same time the manufacturer was guarded from the frauds that might be committed upon him by those who possibly might be inclined to abstract gallons if no duty were charged upon it. He knew it was said that a great hardship was inflicted upon the distillers by the penalties that were imposed upon every step they took in the manufacture of spirits; but it should be recollected that these penalties were not frequently exacted, but were held out in terrorem, to protect the honest trader from the fraudulent one. He begged, in support of his view of the subject, to call the attention of the House to the state of the soap duties in this country. The soap excise duty is 1½d. per lb. on hard soap, and 1d. per lb. on soft soap. And what was the regulation with regard to the soap of the British colonies? They imposed a duty of 1½d. on hard soap, and only 1d. on soft soap; precisely the amount of duty levied in this country, not taking into consideration in any degree the restrictions which the Excise imposed on the manufacturer in this country; and he never yet heard it complained of any manufacturer of soap in this country that he was likely to be ruined by the competition of Canada, or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick. But look how the matter stood with respect to Ireland. In Ireland there was no soap duty at all—there was no restriction on the manufacturer—he had every advantage possessed by the manufacturer in this country. The commodities and labour were cheaper; and was there any countervailing duty imposed upon him? The Irish were permitted to introduce their soap at a duty of 1½d. for hard soap, and of 1d. for soft soap; and what was the consequence? Did Ireland overflow this country with soap? No; but England sent into Ireland a very great quantity of soap every year. When they had to deal with West India rum, was it right that the excise restrictions were to be made a subject for compensation? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the restrictions upon soap were less than the restrictions upon spirits? Did they ever hear of the enormous penalties imposed in every stage of the soap manufacture? A man could not open a copper without leave, and the penalties were far more severe than those imposed on spirits. He would next refer to the question of the decreases; and he must say that he differed from the opinion expressed by the noble Lord with respect to the conduct of the Chairman of Excise, who was examined by the Committee on Sugar. The noble Lord said the evidence of the Chairman of Excise was to be taken as nothing, because he expressed himself diffidently. [Lord GEORGE BENTINCK had stated that the Chairman of the Excise had expressed himself diffidently as to his opinion upon the restrictions, but most positively upon certain matters of fact, and that on all those matters of fact he was wrong four cases to one.] He considered that the man who expressed himself with diffidence, and admitted that he found it difficult to ascertain the exact amount of decrease, was the man of all others on whom they should be most inclined to rely; and that was exactly (on matters of opinion) what had been done by the Chairman of the Excise. The noble Lord said the Chairman of the Excise had the assistance of an attendant who was whispering in his ear; but they all know perfectly well that all questions connected with distillers were best understood by those who conducted the practical operations of distilleries; and in every instance he had attended of a Committee in which the Excise business was the subject of discussion, the Surveyor General or some inferior officer of Excise was in attendance to assist the Chairman. What they maintained was this, that, taking the whole course for a long-period, on which alone an average could be ascertained, the amount was loss than was allowed by the Chairman of the Excise and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would say, therefore, that, allowing for the leakage, there was no ground for objecting to the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as between the distillers in the colonies and in this country. His own views on the question of rum and British spirits had been known ever since 1830, when he proposed his measure for the reduction of the duties on rum. The noble Lord had objected to his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, for having quoted an anonymous pamphlet; but the part which his hon. Friend quoted was word for word the report of the Commission that had been appointed by the Crown on this subject. It had been said also, that they had paid too much attention to the views of the Commissioners of Excise; but if there were any party who should be more jealous of the Commissioners of Excise than another, it was the colonial producer, because the part of their labour which the Excise Commissioners found most satisfactory was clearly the collection of the duty on English spirits, seeing that it was all paid without trouble by eight great houses. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee; but before sitting down he must say that he had heard with some regret an expression that had been used by the hon. Member for Dublin. That hon. Gentleman, as representing an Irish constituency, talked throughout his speech of "your colonies." He would maintain that the colonies were as much the property of Ireland as of England—that they were maintained as much for the advantage of Ireland as of this country; and he could not, therefore, consider any benefit conferred on the colonies in any other light than as an advantage conferred on children of the united kingdom who had embarked their capital in cultivation in a distant country. As he regarded the proposition as one based on justice and sound policy, he trusted that it would receive the approbation not only of the House but of the country.


could not help remembering the arguments used on this question in 1847 by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then proposed a duty of 9d., though he said that 7d. would be strict justice. The noble Lord had stated that the Chairman of the Excise had fenced with the question; but he thought that a man who did so had some fixed view to maintain, and the Chairman of Excise had shown no symptom of that. He could not conceive how either the present or the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not approve of a 4d. duty, after formerly supporting a duty of 1s. 2d.

The Committee divided on the question, that the Chairman do leave the chair:—Ayes 75; Noes 168: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.
Anstey, T. C. Gore, W. R. O.
Archdall, Capt. Granby, Marq. of
Baldock, E. H. Greene, T.
Bateson, T. Grogan, E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Gwyn, H.
Bentinck, Lord H. Halsey, T. P.
Beresford, W. Hastie, A.
Bourke, R. S. Henley, J. W.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Herbert, H. A.
Bremridge, R. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Broadley, H. Hodgson, W. N.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hood, Sir A.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Hudson, G.
Cole, hon. H. A. Ingestre, Visct.
Cowan, C. Jones, Capt.
Crawford, W. S. Keogh, W.
Devereux, J. T. Knox, Col.
Dick, Q. Lascelles, hon. E.
Disraeli, B. Lockhart, W.
Duncan, G. Lowther, hon. Col.
Dunne, F. P. M'Cullagh, W. T.
Emlyn, Visct. M'Gregor, J.
Farnham, E. B. Manners, Lord G.
Farrer, J. Masterman, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Monsell, W.
Floyer, J. Morgan, O.
Fox, R. M. Napier, J.
Fuller, A. E. Newdegate, C. N.
Galway, Visct. Noel, hon. G. J.
Gaskell, J. M. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Gordon, Adm. Nugent, Sir P.
O'Brien, Sir L. Sturt, H. G.
O'Connell, M. J. Sullivan, M.
Reynolds, J. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Sadlier, J. Wawn, J. T.
Scott, hon. F. Wodehouse, E.
Scully, F. TELLERS.
Somerset, Capt. Fagan, W.
Spooner, R. Forbes, W.
List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N. Greene, T.
Acland, Sir T. D. Grenfell, C. W.
Adair, R. A. S. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Anson, hon. Col. Grey, R. W.
Anson, Visct. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Armstrong, Sir A. Hall, Sir B.
Armstrong, R. B. Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.
Baines, M. T. Hastie, A.
Barkly, H. Hawes, B.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Hay, Lord J.
Bellew, R. M. Hayter, W. G.
Benbow, J. Headlam, T. E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Henry, A.
Berkeley, hon. C. F. Hervey, Lord A.
Birch, Sir T. B. Heywood, J.
Bowring, Dr. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Boyd, J. Hobhouse, T. B.
Boyle, hon. Col. Hodges, T. L.
Brocklehurst, J. Hogg, Sir J. W.
Brockman, E. D. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Brotherton, J. Howard, hon. J. K.
Brown, W. Howard, P. H.
Browne, R. D. Howard, Sir R.
Buller, C. Hutt, W.
Butler, P. S. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Cardwell, E. Jervis, Sir J.
Carew, W. H. P. Johnstone, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cavendish, W. G. Kershaw, J.
Childers, J. W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Clay, J. Lacy, H. C.
Clifford, H. M. Langston, J. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Compton, H C. Legh, G. C.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Lemon, Sir C.
Craig, W. G. Lewis, G. C.
Dalrymple, Capt. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Dashwood, G. H. Littleton, hon. E. R.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Lockhart, A. E.
Deedes, W. Mackinnon, W. A.
Denison, J. E. M'Taggart, Sir J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Marshall, J. G.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Matheson, A.
Duncuft, J. Matheson, Col.
Dundas, Adm. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Dundas, Sir D. Miles, P. W. S.
East, Sir J. B. Milner, W. M. E.
Ebrington, Visct. Mitchell, T. A.
Egerton, Sir P. Moody, C. A.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Morpeth, Visct.
Euston, Earl of Morris, D.
Evans, Sir De L. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Ogle, S. C. H.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Paget, Lord C.
Foley, J. H. H. Paget, Lord G.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Palmerston, Visct.
Freestun, Col. Parker, J.
Frewen, C. H. Patten, J. W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Pechell, Capt.
Glyn, G. C. Pennant, hon. Col.
Godson, R. Perfect, R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Pigott, F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Pilkington, J.
Pinney, W. Thompson, Col.
Pugh, D. Thornely, T.
Pusey, P. Tollemache, hon. J. F.
Raphael, A. Towneley, J.
Reid, Col. Towneley, R. G.
Repton, G. W. J. Turner, E.
Ricardo, O. Turner, G. J.
Rice, E. R. Tynte, Col.
Robartes, T. J. A. Verney, Sir H.
Romilly, Sir J. Vivian, J. H.
Rumbold, C. E. Ward, H. G.
Russell, Lord J. Willcox, B. M.
Russell, F. C. H. Williams, J.
Rutherfurd, A. Wilson, J.
Sandars, J. Wilson, M.
Seymer, H. K. Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wood, W. P.
Shelburne, Earl of Wyld, J.
Simeon, J. Wyvill, M.
Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Spearman, H. J. TELLERS.
Talbot, C. R. M. Tufnell, H.
Thicknesse, R. A. Rich, H.

Original question again proposed.

MR. MONSELL moved that the Chair, man report progress.


deprecated the course of moving adjournments at that hour, which was becoming, not as formerly, the exception, but the rule of the House, to the prevention of business. In the single combat, as it had been designated, which had there taken place between the Chairman of Excise and the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, the whole subject had been gone into in all its details; and again, the House had been discussing it the whole of that night. He hoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) would not proceed with his Motion.


hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) would persist in his Motion, He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the question had been fully discussed in the Select Committee, and he regretted that Her Majesty's Government had proposed a measure the contrary of that which the Committee had recommended.

After a lengthened discussion in reference chiefly to a supposed promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Irish Members, which the right hon. Gentleman explained was misunderstood and misdescribed, in which he was supported by the Irish Members who had waited on him.

The Committee divided on the question, that the Chairman do now report progress:—Ayes 48; Noes 127: Majority 79.

[It will suffice that we insert the Ayes only of the last of these two divisions.]

On the original question being again put.

COLONEL DUNNE moved that the Chairman do leave the chair.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 125; Majority 77.

List of the AYES.
Anstey, T. C. Hudson, G.
Archdall, Capt. Ingestre, Visct.
Arkwright, G. Jones, Capt.
Baldock, E. H. Keogh, W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Knox, Col.
Boyd, J. M'Cullagh, W. T.
Butler, P. S. M'Gregor, J.
Callaghan, D. Monsell, W.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Cole, hon. H. A. Nugent, Sir P.
Crawford, W. S. O'Connell, M. J.
Devereux, J. T. Reynolds, J.
Fagan, W. Sadlier, J.
Floyer, J. Scott, hon. F.
Galway, Visct. Scully, F.
Gaskell, J. M. Sibthorp, Col.
Gooch, E. S. Spooner, R.
Greene, J. Sullivan, M.
Gwyn, H. Taylor, T. E.
Halsey, T. P. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hastie, A. Waddington, H. S.
Haves, Sir E. Wawn, J. T.
Henley, J. W.
Herbert, H. A. TELLERS.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Dunne, Col.
Hodgson, W. N. Fox, R. M.

Original question again put, and after some discussion as to the further proceeding then or the next day at noon, part of which took place with closed doors, the Committee divided;—Ayes 116; Noes 37: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Ebrington, Visct.
Anson, hon. Col. Elliot; hon. J. E.
Arkwright, G. Evans, Sir D. L.
Armstrong, R. B. Fitzgerald, W. R. S.
Baines, M. T. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Barkly, H. Foley, J. H. H.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Freestun, Col.
Bellew, R. M. Frewen, C. H.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Glyn, G. C.
Birch, Sir T. B. Godson, R.
Bowling, Dr. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Boyle, hon. Col. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Brockman, E. D. Greene, T.
Brotherton, J. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Brown, W. Grey, R. W.
Buller, C. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cardwell, E. Hall, Sir B.
Carew, W. H. P. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Hardcastle, J. A.
Childers, J. W. Hastie, A.
Compton, H. C. Hawes, B.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Hayter, W. G.
Craig, W. G. Henry, A.
Dashwood, G. H. Hervey, Lord A.
Deedes, W. Hoywood, J.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Hobhouse, T. B.
Duncuft, J. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Dundas, Adm. Howard, hon. J. k.
Dundas, Sir D. Howard, P. H.
Jervis, Sir J. Romilly, Sir J.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Rumbold, C. E.
Lacy, H. C. Russell, Lord J.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Rutherfurd, A.
Lewis, G. C. Sandars, J.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Scholefield, W.
Lockhart, A. E. Seymer, H. K.
Mackinnon, W. A. Shelburne, Earl of
Marshall, J. G. Simeon, J.
Masterman, J. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Matheson, Col. Spearman, H. J.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Talbot, C. R. M.
Miles, P. W. S. Thicknesse, R. A.
Milner, W. M. E. Thompson, Col.
Morpeth, Visct. Thornely, T.
Morris, D. Turner, G. J.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Tynte, Col.
Ogle, S. C. H. Willcox, B. M.
Paget, Lord C. Williams, J.
Paget, Lord G. Willoughby, Sir H.
Palmerston, Visct. Wilson, J.
Parker, J. Wilson, M.
Patten, J. W. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Pechell, Capt. Wood, W. P.
Pigott, F. Wyld, J.
Pilkington, J. Wyvill, M.
Pinney, W.
Raphael, A. TELLERS.
Ricardo, O. Tufnell, H.
Rice, E. R. Rich, H.
List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C. Ingestre, Visct.
Archdall, Capt. Jones, Capt.
Baldock, E H. M'Gregor, J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Monsell, W.
Butler, P. S. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Callaghan, D. Nugent, Sir P.
Chichester, Lord J. L. O'Connell, M. J.
Cole, hon. H. A. Reynolds, J.
Crawford, W. S. Sadlier, J.
Devereux, J. T. Scott, hon. F.
Duncan, G. Scully, E.
Fagan, W. Sibthorp, Col.
Floyer, J. Sturt, H. G.
Fox, R. M. Sullivan, M.
Galway, Visct Taylor, T. E.
Greene, J. Tyrell, Sir, J. T.
Grogan, F. Waddington, H. S.
Halsey, T. P. TELLERS.
Hayes, Sir E. Dunne, Col.
Herbert, H. A. Keogh, W.

Resolutions agreed to.

House resumed. Report to he received.

House adjourned at a quarter to Throe o'clock.