§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short Title).
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)said, on going through the clauses, he found that the Bill dealt only with sparkling wines, and had for its object the imposition of a differential duty on wines of a cheaper kind—wines of a character and nature which, as a medical man, he could not but think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wiser to tax heavily, while allowing the pure productions of the juice of the grape to be introduced free of duty. With that, however, he could not now deal; he only now suggested that, inasmuch as this was a Bill for imposing a duty on sparkling wines, it would be in the interest of accuracy if the word "sparkling" were introduced in the parenthesis.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ DR. TANNERsaid, he really must press for an answer.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's,368 Hanover Square) said, he did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but he really thought the hon. Member's remarks were rather good humoured banter than in support of a seriously proposed Amendment. It was an Amendment he was unable to accept. The Bill had been carefully drafted, and in reference to the remarks on the character of the cheaper wines it would be observed that the proposition had no relation to the alcoholic strength or purity of the wines.
§ DR. TANNERsaid, after that explanation he would not press the matter.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Duty on sparkling wines in bottle).
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)said, he had an Amendment to this clause, to omit the words "sparkling wine imported in bottle." That would bring back the proposal to the form it assumed when it was originally put before the House. On the previous night, he made a few observations on the second reading, and called his right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the wine trade generally approved of the original proposal, and could see no reason why "still" wines should be exempted from the duty. He would not pretend to speak on the subject with any authority himself; but he had had the opportunity of conversing with leading members of the association which represented nearly all the principal wine traders in the country, and he was able to say in their name, as to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on their action in regard to light wines, that the effect of the alteration of duty, as the Bill proposed, would be to give encouragement to the adulteration of still wines in this country. His right hon. Friend last night committed himself to the proposition that it would be of advantage to the consumer if still wines were imported in bottle; but for reasons supplied by the authorities he had referred to, and from the opinions of experts, he was able to say that the proposition of his right hon. Friend was entirely fallacious, and that no consumer of the cheaper light wines would have suffered from the legislation proposed by his right hon. Friend. There was no doubt whatever that all the poor wines that were imported, whether from 369 France, Germany, or Italy, could be best imported in cask.
§ THE CHAIRMANI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on a point of Order. The point is one of very considerable nicety; but this clause carries out a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means, authorizing the imposition of 2s. 6d. a gallon on sparkling wines. Before that there had been a duty of 5s. a dozen on all wines; but, inasmuch as the duty being imposed by the gallon, increases the duty on wines imported in larger bottles, it is impossible to go beyond the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means. If sparkling wines were struck out, it would impose on magnums, jereboams and larger bottles, a greater duty than is now levied; the Amendment therefore cannot be moved.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he regretted that that ruling had not been given earlier; it would have saved his occupation of the time of the Committee. Accepting the decision, he had only to say that he should support the next Amendment, if moved by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSON (, &c.) Kilmarnocksaid, his Amendment was aimed at that seriously objectionable principle in the Bill, the establishment of an ad valorem duty in our Customs regulations. He was quite sure that the scheme as embodied in the Bill for imposing a differential duty of 2s. 6d. a-gallon, or 5s. a dozen, in addition to the present duty on expensive wines, and establishing a lower duty of 2s. on wines under 30s. value, would open the door to a great deal of fraud, which he did not see how it was possibe for the Customs to check. He was quite sure that shippers would ship "green" wines, possibly unfit for sale at a high price at the moment, but which would after an interval be worth 60s. or 70s. But they would be invoiced at 30s. a-dozen, or 15s. a-gallon, and he did not see how the Customs Authorities could check the practice. Of course, they might be tested; but, still, he defied the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the Committee how there would not still be open the means of fraud of a very serious character. What was quite as had was that while fair traders would be subject to a disadvantage, unscrupulous traders would gain an advantage on wines that in the course of a year or two would be worth 50s, or 370 60s. a-dozen, but which would be imported as costing 28s. or 30s. The honest trader's invoice would fairly state the value of the "green" wines; but not so the invoices of the unscrupulous shippers. How could the Customs apply a test? The invoices would be produced, and evidence would be given, all in perfect order. Unfortunately, he had had some experience of what was possible, and what had been done in invoicing. Foreign merchants entered into keen competition with us, and much as was said about the progress of Continental trade, he was afraid that much was done by unscrupulous invoicing and the defrauding of Customs abroad. He felt sure that the Government proposal would work injuriously to the fair trader, and with no advantage to the Revenue of the country. His proposal was that instead of a duty of 5s. a-dozen on the better class wines in addition to the existing duty, and 2s. on the common wines, to place a duty of 4s. all round. He was quite sure that the fair traders, even when importers of cheap wines about 30s. would rather pay 4s. than be subjected to the risk of unscrupulous competition. For that, and a variety of other causes, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. Should it commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would, probably derive from it a larger revenue than from the Bill as it stood. As a natural consequence, Clause 3 would come out, and the other Amendments would fall to the ground.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "bottle," to insert the words "in bond, bottles, and in cases, or other packages."—(Mr. Stephen Williamson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, as he understood the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it was to impose a duty of 4s. a-dozen on all wines. [Mr. S. WILLIAMSON: All sparkling wines.] The duty would be 4s. on Saumur and cheap wines of about the price of 20s., as well as on the high priced Champagnes. But the general view of the House, so far as he had been able to gather it, was that a heavy duty should not be imposed on cheap wines; that it would not be wise 371 to handicap cheap wines in the manner suggested. He was aware that there was on the part of a large portion of the trade an anxiety to have a heavy duty put upon cheap wines. Importers of high-class wines viewed with great disfavour the importation of cheap wines at 24s. or 30s. a-dozen, and were annoyed somewhat that a change in duty should enable these cheap wines to be introduced without the penalty of the same duty as was paid on the dearer wines. He did not wish to argue the question at length, for he considered it was more or less decided by the previous debate; but, of course, if the hon. Member desired to press his Amendment, he would be prepared to meet him and maintain the contention that the cheaper wines should not be excluded or handicapped by a heavy duty. He did not know whether the hon. Member put forward his proposition simply to avoid the ad valorem principle, or whether he shared the feeling of hostility existing in some quarters to these cheap wines; but he rather gathered it was because the hon. Member felt the difficulty of levying an ad valorem duty, that he desired to make the duty uniform? [Mr. S. WILLIAMSON assented.] Then he would address himself to the argument of the difficulty of ascertaing the value. The hon. Member suggested a mode of fraud or evasion of duty by shipping wine in a green state, when it would be worth 30s., and then waiting until it had matured to its full quality, and that commended itself to his hon. Friend also (Sir Robert Fowler) who was somewhat hostile to the Bill. A very important question here arose connected with Champagne, whether the wine would develope as well in its green state in cellars in England as in the Champagne country? He had inquired carefully into the matter, and could re-assure the hon. Gentleman. If green Champagne—unripe Champagne—were immediately shipped in the state described, the result would be that the wine would be spoiled. Champagne had to be treated with the greatest delicacy in its earlier stages. It had to be kept at a particular temperature in vaults specially constructed for the purpose by the great Champagne houses. The wine would spoil in the bonded warehouses of this country. There was the strongest evidence that the wine must be so kept for two or three years in France. The wines 372 of 1884–5 were being now imported; but the vintage of 1887 could not be shipped now for the purpose of escaping the difference between the 5s. and 2s. duty. The higher temperature to which the new wine would be subjected in transit to this country would lead to much loss through the bursting of bottles; a loss to the merchant much more serious than the amount of the duty he could expect to evade. This had been considered. Champagne required special treatment beyond that of any other wine to develop its full quality. The great houses who shipped Champagne were not going to degrade the commodity in which they dealt by attempting to introduce it below its value. They had built up the reputation of their wines at an enormous expense of capital and trouble over a long series of years, and he was not prepared to admit for a moment that it would be to their interest, even if they were all rogues and wished to evade the tax, to attempt devices that would probably spoil their wines, degrade their reputation in the market, and cause them infinitely more loss than the gain they could hope to secure in the attempts.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)said, he was sorry to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he might say that in his constituency (London) the original proposition was received with great satisfaction, and great regret was expressed when the right hon. Gentleman deviated from his original purpose, and made the alteration the Committee were now discussing. There was a general feeling—it had been pointed out to himself, and no doubt similar representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman—that it would be very difficult to meet the question of duty on wines above and below 30s., and that it would lead to a good deal of fraud on the Customs. He certainly concurred in the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) that a uniform duty on all sparkling wines would be a much better plan than an ad valorem duty, such as was proposed in the Bill. He very much regretted that the alteration had been made. He knew there was a good deal of cavil at the original proposition, and that this Bill was brought in in pursuance of a pledge given to right hon. Gentlemen 373 opposite; but it was much to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had run from his guns.
MR. BARING (London)said, he was sorry to say he did not entirely agree with anybody who had spoken in the discussion. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Williamson), for he was not opposed to an ad valorem duty; but as he did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was out of Order, he was bound to vote for that before the Committee. He did not see why this particular change should be made in favour of what be considered the most unwholesome drink anybody could put down their throats; therefore, if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock went to a Division, he should vote with him.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, a misconception had taken possession of the mind of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen), if he supposed the wine trade were at all opposed to the consumption of cheap wines. What they said was that there ought not to be the vast difference sought to be established between the two qualities, and why should this differential duty be established against sparkling wines? He believed the trade got a larger profit out of cheap wines than from dear wines; but they felt that the present proposal created a large difference of treatment absolutely without precedent. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said Saumur and other cheap wines should have an advantage; but why not apply the same principle to Sherry and Maderia? Maderia, it might be said, cost 5s. or 6s. a-bottle; but then the consumer, who could not afford Maderia, bought Marsala, and an excellent cheap wine it was, costing 2s. or 2s. 6d. Why, again, when the ordinary duty on wines was the same, should particular wines be surtaxed on a different principle? That was an argument that had considerable weight with him, and which induced him to support the Amendment. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment referred to frauds that might possibly be carried out, and surely he had reason on his side. He would put a case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, perhaps, his financial genius could explain. Suppose a Champagne worth 32s. a-dozen. If that Champagne 374 were imported and declared to be of that value, it would be subject to a surtax of ,5s., raising the price to 37s. But if the dealer dropped 2s. from the original price, and declared it of the value of 30s., he would only have to pay 2s, duty, so, therefore, according to the great authority of Cocker, the importer would make 1s. a-dozen on the transaction, for, while he would lose 2s. on the wine, he would save 3s. on the duty. That was one case out of many that might be proposed; but, without detaining the Committee further, he did not hesitate to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the leaders in the trade who were interested in the trade being fairly conducted were in favour of a uniform duty, and the proposal of the hon. Member seemed to be a fair one, though the particular sum to be fixed might be a matter for subsequent consideration. But it was perfectly clear that the gross inequality of the system would never be got rid of, and there would be no check to fraud until an analogous proposal was adopted.
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, in using the words "green wine," he did not mean wine of last year's growth, which he knew would be in an unfit state to ship, but wine of two or three years old which it would be impossible for the Custom House officers to value. It could not be denied that the door was opened to fraud. The honest trader would invoice his wine two or three years old, and which would be valuable two or three years later, fairly at 32s. or 33s. a-dozen; but his trade might be ruined by the less scrupulous man who declared the value at 29s., securing a difference of 10 per cent.
§ MR. WILLIAM LOWTHER (Westmoreland, Appleby)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined to put that Question.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, there was no such fear of injury to the honest trader. Hon. Members surely were aware that the general price of Champagne was, unfortunately, such that the difference to the consumer of 3s. a-dozen, on this expensive wine would not be such as greatly to affect the merchant one way or the other. The great bulk of Champagne came to England, even after two or three years, at a much higher price than 30s. All the great houses who 375 imported wines of well known brands, "Moet and Chandon," "Cliquot," and other great firms, shipped wines worth for the most part much more than 30s. Here and there there might be a small proportion of wines the price of which might fluctuate about the dividing limit; but he did not believe the honest trader would suffer the loss suggested. The wines coming in of about the value of 30s. bore a very small proportion indeed to the whole. That was the answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)asked, was he to understand that the main object and intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to tax the true and good Champagne highly, and at the same time admit, on more favourable terms, the deleterious, he might almost say poisonous, compounds such as Chante, Barolo, or the villanous spirituous Asti Spumante—he really could not stigmatize it strongly enough? If the Bill passed, it should contain provisions for securing that some so-called wines should bear labels conveying similar warnings of their poisonous nature as was attached to some bottles sent out by the apothecary.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had no particular acquaintance with the decoctions mentioned by the hon. Member; but he could tell him that there were many of the wines of the Saumur class which were not deleterious, which were agreeable, and which were largely consumed by a portion of the community in this country who could not afford more expensive wines. These wines were perfectly wholesome, though they might not commend themselves to the more educated palates accustomed to wines of a higher class.
§ DR. TANNERimagined that the right hon. Gentleman's acquaintance with them had not been of a personal nature.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 110: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that, seeing what the opinion of the Committee was, he would not proceed with the next Amendment.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Reduction of duty).
376§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)said, the hour was late, many Members had had a long day's duty, and it was evident from the Notice Paper that the remaining clauses would meet with considerable opposition. The new Rules, he always understood, were devised in a humane spirit, to enable Members to go home in reasonable time, and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should avail himself of another opportunity to proceed further.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. He was as anxious as anyone not to prolong the Sitting; but he was afraid hon. Members had been a little spoiled by easy hours under the new Rules, and the hour was early compared with the experience of former Sessions. He might urge that which might have some influence with the hon. Member, at all events it had with himself, that it was important to the trade that this matter should be settled. The duty could not be altered until the Bill passed; and though the longer it was delayed the longer the Revenue received the higher duty, it was only fair to the trade to terminate a state of uncertainty, and come to a decision as soon as possible.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)said, he only wished to say that a leading member of the trade had, in conversation that day, strongly urged the postponement of the Bill.
MR. CUNYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, he could not agree with the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some Members had been in attendance on Committees or in the House since half-past 11, and had also paid close attention to the discussion of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill. He also reminded the right hon. Gentleman that when the question was raised on a previous occasion, the House was asked particularly to postpone discussion to the clauses. [Mr. GOSCHEN: To the second reading.] He did not know what discussion there might have been then; but it was only 377 in Committee that questions of detail could be adequately dealt with. He was strongly opposed to the exemption of Money Bills from the Rule closing Business at a certain hour; they were just the Bills that ought not to be urged forward for an unlimited time.
§ DR. TANNERsaid, he thought some consideration should be shown to Members, who by making a House, had enabled any progress to be made with the Bill. It would be wise, and, indeed, only reasonable, to yield to the wish that had been expressed from both sides, instead of sitting late to further a Bill which, it seemed, would not benefit the Revenue, and certainly would not benefit those who swallowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's had champagne.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 107: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 157).
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, the object of his Amendment he now moved would be apparent. It was that it might be distinctly understood that the invoice price must include the cost of packing.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 25, after the word "gallon," to insert the words "in bond, bottled, and in cases or other packages."—(Mr. Stephen Williamson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, the object of the hon. Member would be met by an Amendment to Clause 8, by inserting in line 30, after "customs," the words "but including freight and all other charges." He had consulted with the legal advisers of the Customs, and they believed that these words would make it quite clear that the price included all those charges.
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, that would scarcely meet his object. Clause 8 referred to two classes of invoices; first, to wine imported by the consumer, and paid for by him; but the words proposed would exclude the other part of the clause.
§ MR. JACKSONbelieved the Amendment would apply to both cases.
§ MR. S. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was not sure that the Amendment specifically met the point. It was his intention, however, to vote against the clause.
§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)said, he would appeal to the Government to allow the matter to rest for the present. When the Government called upon the House to give them an extra Morning Sitting, surely it was not desirable to choose the occasion for putting down a Money Bill, by means of which the Sitting could be prolonged for an indefinite time. The least that should be done was to avoid making the Sitting unusually late as well as unusually early. He would rather not make a Motion to report Progress; but unless the Government yielded to the protest he must do so.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, looking at the remaining Amendments in the light of decisions arrived at, he did not think they need give rise to long discussion. They were Amendments to omit clauses containing the substance of the Bill which had already been discussed and decided. He admitted the force of the objection urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was sure his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would not wish to persevere if there was any general desire for a long discussion. But, at the same time, he reminded the Committee that the alternative was to resume the Bill at a late hour on another night. [Cries of "No!" and "Why?"] The course of the Local Government Bill could not be interrupted, and the Rules of the House permitted the continuation of this Bill after 12. But the Government had every desire to be conciliatory, and would not press the Committee now beyond the present Amendment if there was a strong desire against doing so. In the interest of the trade, however, it would be well to terminate the period of uncertainty, and to resume the discussion on Monday would be to again prolong the Sitting. The balance of convenience was certainly in favour of going on now.
MR. BARING (London)said, if the Bill were set down as First Order on Monday there would be no difficulty in getting it through, and then other Business could be proceeded with.
§ MR. WADDYsuggested that, inasmuch as the time of the House was practically at the disposal of the Government, there would be no difficulty in taking a little of the time intended for the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, remembering how materially the Government had lightened the latter 379 Bill by the determination to omit clauses that would have consumed much time and given much trouble.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, he should be exceedingly glad to meet the wish expressed from both sides; but he was under a pledge, repeated only at Question time, to proceed with the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill day by day as the principal Government Business. It would be for the convenience of the House to proceed now; but he did not wish to press that, though he was sure it would save time to do so.
MR. SINCLAIR (, &c.) Falkirksaid, he came down to a Committee at half-past 11, and should do so again on Monday, and he urged the Government to persevere and finish the Bill now. It could easily be done, not much debatable matter was left, and it would be preferable to having another late Sitting on Monday.
§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)said, that from 2 o'clock the Government had had practically the whole time of the House at their disposal, with the exception of an interval in which a supporter of the Government ventilated a supposed grievance. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members on the other side had an equal right with his own Party to have or invent grievances. It would be only reasonable now for the Government to conform to the spirit of their own Rule—that Business should cease at 1 o'clock. He had no objection to the Bill, and in the last Division upon it gave his vote in favour of the Government. Let the Government make the Bill first Order on one of their own days, or even take it last, and perhaps the Committee would be more disposed to go on with it.
§ MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument in favour of the trade interest failed when one of his supporters, who seemed to be a spokesman for the trade, informed the Committee that the trade were anxious the Bill should be postponed. Seeing also that, on the other hand, as time ran on, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the advantage of the higher duty levied, there was no necessity for pressing the Bill with unusual celerity.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)urged the Government to act up to the spirit of 380 the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks, and defer to the strong desire for adjournment expressed on both sides.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WADDYsaid, when he made his appeal to the Government he stated that, unless that appeal were responded to, he should be impelled to make a Motion to report Progress. To bring the matter to a crisis he would now move it.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Waddy.)
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should withdraw that Motion, and allow the Committee to take the clause. Then, if hon. Members insisted, he would not contest the Motion any longer. He had promised representatives of the trade to bring the matter to an issue as soon as possible, and he regretted that the state of uncertainty should continue.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)said, the clause would give rise to considerable discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had been reasonable and conciliatory in his remarks when he referred to the alternative of sitting late on Monday. But the inconvenience to Members would be less on Monday, than on Friday at the end of a week's work.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he was very sorry the Government had given way. They might be assured that they would find themselves in the same position on Monday night. The Committee might make up its mind that it would then be too late to proceed with the Bill any night after 12. A proposition had been made to put the Bill in front of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill; but he submitted that that Bill had not made such extraordinary progress as to justify that.
§ DR. TANNERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," and negatived.
381§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say no serious question remained, for he had Notice of a Motion to omit the clause in relation to which questions arose as to which no explanation had been given by either the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary to the Treasury. The clause provided that where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Customs that the market value of any wine imported in bottle was not more than 5s. a-gallon duty should be levied as proposed. He did not wish to go over old ground again; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to the Committee how it was proposed to establish the value of a wine. There had been no indication of the method how that interesting task was to be executed. He was told by authorities in the trade, that it was impossible to do it, that no agent of the Customs would be equal to the task. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, then, in an unfortunate position. If the right hon. Gentleman had stuck to his original proposition all would have been plain sailing; but he deliberately walked into the pitfall prepared for him by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who then left him in his difficulty. Members of the trade declared that it was extremely difficult to distinguish the relative value of wines a little above and a little below 30s., and common sense would incline one to accept that statement. He was told that an experienced expert found it next to impossible to distinguish between two bottles of Champagne valued at 30s. and 32s. How then would the Customs Authorities prove to their satisfaction that a wine was worth a little less or a little more than 30s. a-dozen?
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not wish to imply that no opposition remained to the Bill. He said there were no Amendments, except to do away with clauses altogether. In reply to his right hon. Friend, it was not proposed to test the wine by a taster trying every bottle. He could understand that no palate, however highly trained, could distinguish between wines at 30s. and 32s. What he proposed was that documents should be forthcoming, such as invoices 382 and bills of lading, and that a statutory declaration should be made when any wine claimed to come in under the lower rate of duty. He refused to believe that the great majority of the trade in this country were going to enter into a combination for carrying out a system of wholesale fraud upon the Customs. There would be heavy penalties for false description, and there would be the risk of confiscation if false declarations were made. He admitted there might be a difficulty with regard to wine just about the border line of 30s.; but there would be no difficulty in the case of at least two-thirds of the Champagne imported, for there would be documentary proof with regard to the price. Careful forms of declaration would be drawn up; but his right hon. Friend need not fear that the Customs were going to embark in the extremely troublesome and difficult task of deciding the value of a wine by tasting.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked did he understand his right hon. Friend to say that the value of a wine would be determined by documentary evidence?
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, great latitude would be given to Custom House officers, and if there was reason to suspect fraud, of course there would be an opportunity of testing the wine. The attempt to pass a wine unfairly at 30s. would be attended with much risk of loss, and his right hon. Friend's knowledge of the trade and study of the subject generally would show him that of the great majority of Champagnes, the brands were fairly known, and none of the great and well-known houses would attempt to introduce wines at a low price when their value in the majority of cases was well known.
§ Question put, and agreed to
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.