114 John Wood, Esq. 1 April 1848.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE
in obedience to the excise restrictions ; that you have seen ?—I have seen them taking- out the tires. 15102. That is very hard and very hot work, I dare say ; is it not ?—It is. 15103. That is spoiling the British distiller's trade, is not it, by occasioning so much inconvenience and so much loss to the distiller who wishes to keep his fire in, and would do so but for the interference of those excise restrictions ?— I do not suppose it would be possible to keep the fire in continually. I take it that every steam-engine fire must occasionally be put out. 15104. Do you think that would he necessary in every steam-engine; did you ever hear that in an iron foundry the fires were put out 585 times in the course of a year ?—On the contrary, I believe that in an iron foundry, which is a very peculiar manufacture, it is considered that putting out the blast furnace is equivalent to the destruction of the whole factory; I believe that the fire once put out, is in fact considered as the ruin of the works, and that the fire in that peculiar process is never put out, excepting when the furnace either wants repair, or when the proprietors abandon the trade. It is a very different thing, I believe, from an ordinary steam-engine. 15105. This is a miniature case, if we can believe the British distillers themselves, of an iron foundry?—I take it that there is not much analogy between the cases. 15106. But Mr. Currie tells us that he would have continued his fires, but for the restrictions of the Excise ; and though the furnace is not so large as in the case of an iron foundry, and the consequences are not so great from your obliging them to put out their furnaces, as to amount to absolute ruin, yet Mr. Currie has gone into detail, and has shown that it is a loss of 1,170 hours, involving an ultimate sum of wages paid without profit, equal to 48 days and 18 hours, in the course of the year, and those are on the restrictions which you value at nothing ?—I beg your pardon, not at nothing. On the contrary, I have allowed in my estimate 3 d. for excise restrictions, which is exactly the amount which Mr. Currie himself has put. 15107. You cut them all down afterwards, in summing up, to 4 d., and then the British distillers have set the disadvantage of not being able to rectify at 6 d., whereas you allow them nothing for that ?—I allow them nothing; I do not dispute the expenses of rectifying; but I say that I do not calculate them at anything in my estimate; that is a matter of principle. 15108. You are aware that the distillers stated, that if they were allowed to be distillers and rectifiers, and to brew and distil at the same time, they would be enabled to make use of their own yeast, which now runs into the gutters, and that that is equivalent to 1 d. a gallon?—Yes ; I believe that is the statement. 15109. Do you dispute that ?—The understanding of the Excise is this, and it is confirmed, I believe, by very high chemical authorities, that the yeast produced by the distiller is not sufficient for his purpose; at least, that it is not the most valuable and most economical yeast that he can employ. That on the contrary, porter yeast being much stronger than the distillers' yeast, arising from the difference of gravity at which it is worked, is more economical, and that the distillers' yeast is not strong enough for the distillers' purpose. The evidence in corroboration of that is this, and it is a difference of opinion on a scientific subject, that we find that the very remote distilleries in Scotland and in Ireland go to the expense of yeast from the London porter breweries. 15110. Do not you know that that is one of the great grievances set forth by the Irish and Scotch distillers, that they are obliged to send to London for yeast, whilst they allege that they would rather have the yeast from their own backs than the brewers yeast?—I am perfectly aware of that, but the authority of scientific men is this, that the porter yeast is so much more effectual, and is to a very great extent the most economical yeast which can be employed. 15111. But the practical men who are supposed to understand their own trade, you are very well aware, say the contrary ; that they would prefer to use their own yeast, which you oblige them to allow to run down the gutters; is not that so ?—There is a great difference of opinion upon that subject. I believe that scientific men usually are of opinion that tin; porter yeast is the most