§ MR. CRAWFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce 217 any Measure during the present Session for the modification of the duties of Excise upon spirits? His reason for asking the question was that an impression prevailed that there had been not only a great diminution in the consumption of duty-paid spirits, but also a very great increase of illicit distillation. Under these circumstances the whole spirit trade, and particularly the foreign portion, was in a state of paralysis, because it was believed that the Government would find it necessary in the present Session to bring in a Measure to modify the Spirit Duties. He should like to know whether there was any great falling off of revenue from spirits, or any great increase of illicit distillation.
§ THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would give an answer which he hoped would be sufficient for his hon. Friend's purpose. He held it contrary to the public interests, as a general rule, for the Minister charged with the care of the finances to answer questions as to the intentions of Government with respect to any financial subject before the period for making the regular financial statement, and he did not know of any exception to that rule when the question referred to the old-established duties; but the case with respect to a proposition made six or seven months ago, and only in full operation for five or six months, was on a different footing. With respect to the state of the revenue from spirits, he did not think that such a period had elapsed as would enable him to give any answer of value to the House, because the smallest time that could be taken as any test of the effect of an alteration of duty was the time which expired when the financial year closed. It was in the middle of the month of July that he made the proposal respecting the Spirit Duties last year, and up to the present time the Government had only been in receipt of the new duties for something more than five months. As regards the most important part of the question put by his hon. Friend in respect to illicit distillation, he could give an answer which would convey entire satisfaction, as undoubtedly that was a point on which the Members of the House might have felt sensitive and anxious at the time when the proposal of the Government was made. With respect to that point the evidence he held in his hand, and which he should have no difficulty in laying on the table if required, was, in his opinion, conclusive. He held in his hand a Return of the number 218 of detections and convictions and of persons sent to prison in the years 1859 and 1860 respectively. He would not trouble the House with all the details of the Return, which he might describe in a single word by saying that there was not a single comparative figure which did not exhibit a diminution, whether as respects detections, convictions, or commitments in every one of the three kingdoms—England, Scotland, and Ireland. This was evident in Ireland particularly, which, of course, might have been regarded as the most critical and dangerous part of the case. There the detections in the year 1859 were 1,829, and in the year 1860 only 918. He, therefore, did not hesitate to say, even at this early period, that on the subject of the increase of illicit distillation the Government considered the evidence before them to be, for the time which had elapsed, completely satisfactory and conclusive, nor did he hesitate to go one step further, and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, state, in answer to the question put by his hon. Friend, that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to propose any reduction of the duty which in last Session was laid on spirits by Parliament.