§ On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Malt Duties (Ireland) Bill being moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Mr. Hamiltonsaid, he had a petition to present in reference to the Irish Malt Bill, and with the permission of the House he would take that opportunity of presenting it. It was from a most respectable and intelligent commercial body, well known in the House—the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin. It stated, that the manufacture and sale of malt are now regulated by similar laws in all parts of the kingdom. That by the proposed Malt Bill, the manufacture and trade in malt in Ireland is subjected to vexatious regulations and penal restrictions, from which the trade of England and Scotland is exempt. That by the Report of the Commissioners of Excise inquiry and the return of penalties it was established that the malt-duties were extensively evaded in England. That while it thus appeared that illicit malting is common to the three countries, the Bill confined the remedy to Ireland, subjecting that country to different laws, and also subjecting brewers and distillers there to vexatious regulations, to which brewers and distillers in England and Scotland were not liable. That the prosperity of the brewers and distillers of Ireland was of great public importance—and that their produce forms one of the exports of the country; and it prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, observed that the present mode of collecting the Malt-duty in Ireland was exceedingly defective, and required speedy and efficient amendment. Many applications had been made to him by persons connected with the trade, to postpone this Bill, but after mature consideration he had stated to them that he felt bound in duty to the public to persevere with it. If, however, it should appear that hon. Mem- 997 bers from Ireland entertained strong objections to the Bill, he would not be averse to withdraw it for the present, with a view to introduce a similar measure in the early part of next Session. He prayed the House to consider the consequences which would follow if they allowed the law to remain as it stood at present for another year. The inevitable result of such a course would be, that illicit traffic would spread itself over the whole face of the country. If not armed with new and more effectual powers, he would be of necessity obliged to put in force the provisions of the existing law with greater severity.
Mr. Hamiltonwas very sensible of the magnitude of the evil which the Bill before the House was intended to remedy, but he was very sensible of the extent to which an illicit malt trade had been carried on in some parts of Ireland, and of the injury which in consequence had been sustained by the honest dealer, and also by His Majesty's revenue: at the same time it appeared to him very objectionable indeed if, at so late a period of the Session, when all Members were looking so anxiously for its speedy termination, and when so many Irish Members had left town, a Bill containing such important alterations, affecting a most important branch of Irish trade, and affecting especially one of the most rising and flourishing of her exports—the beer and brewing business—should be carried through that House, and that, too, under circumstances in which, though a Representation had been stated to have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a portion of the trade, it was quite impossible that the opinion of the trade generally could be adequately collected with regard either to the efficiency of the Bill for its own purposes, or to the nature and effect of its provisions; that he, therefore, very earnestly suggested the expediency of its postponement for the present Session; that, as he wished to place the necessity of its postponement on that occasion simply upon the question of time, it was not his intention then to enter at all into the merits of the Bill, further than to state, that he saw many and great objections both to its principle and provisions, which he should be prepared to argue in the event of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking fit to persevere with the measure. He had 998 stated, that the practice of illicit malting prevailed in Ireland. The Commissioners of Excise Inquiry had declared in their reports that the same practice prevailed in England, and to a very considerable extent; and, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer find, in the interval between the present time and the next Session of Parliament, that the powers with which he was at present invested were insufficient to suppress the illicit trade, he for one, would be quite willing next Session to go into the whole question, with the view to the adoption of some general measure applicable in its principle equally to both countries, to enable Government more effectually to protect the honest dealer, and to preserve his Majesty's revenue. For its prevention in the interval he would rely upon the increased efficiency of the revenue police, which, as he understood, was about to be reorganized and placed on a better footing by the right hon. Gentleman. He would also rely upon a decision which had recently been come to with regard to the construction of the law by the Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland. That decision, though it did not go the full length that had been anticipated, of throwing upon parties in whose possession suspected malt might be found, the responsibility of proving, that duty had been paid for it, imposed upon such parties the necessity of at least proving that it had been purchased from a licensed maltster; and even if it went no further, he thought the Excise department was thereby armed with a considerable additional power to counteract and prevent the evil; that, independently of his own opinion, and the opinion of that very intelligent commercial body the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, whose petition he had just had the honour to present, he had been authorized by both his hon. Friends the two Members for Belfast, who had been obliged to leave town, to state, that they concurred entirely in the expediency of postponement, and that there was a general feeling to that effect among the maltsters, distillers, and brewers of the north of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the Bill would not be further pressed.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, it was with extreme regret that he felt himself called upon to offer his most decided opposition to a Bill introduced under the sanction of his Majesty's Government, because be enter- 999 tained the fullest confidence in the sincerity of their disposition to promote good government in Ireland. It was true, that many of the measures which they had brought forward during the present Session had fallen very far short of his expectations; yet, because they contained some measure of good, and because he regarded them as instalments of a great public debt, he gave them his humble but earnest support; but while he did so, he, at the same time, determined to persevere in the suit until the last farthing of his country's claims had been liquidated, and Ireland placed upon a footing of perfect equality with the remainder of the empire. The Bill before the House was of such a nature that he could not conscientiously support it. It did not contain a single ingredient of good, while it inflicted direct palpable injury upon one portion of the empire, which was entitled to equal protection with the remainder. He felt, as a Representative of one of the largest and most influential counties in Ireland, and owing, as he did, his return to the people, that he should betray the trust reposed in him—violate the solemn pledges which he had given to his constituents, and be unworthy of a seat in that House, if he permitted such a Bill to pass without giving it his most decided opposition. If the opinions he entertained upon (his question rested upon no better foundation than his own judgment, he should hesitate before he resorted to any course which might have the appearance of factious opposition. But in order to ascertain how far his opinions accorded with the public feeling, he felt it his duty to address a letter to the people of Ireland, explaining his view on the subject; and he now came forward armed with their authority to resist the further progress of the Bill. He had received numerous communications, not only from his own constituents, but from persons connected with the malt trade in various parts of Ireland, expressing their strong disapprobation of the measure, and thanking him for the course he had adopted respecting it. The Chamber of Commerce of Dublin had, in the petition presented by the hon. Member for the metropolis of Ireland, called on the House not to pass the Bill, and the National Association of Ireland and the Trades' Union of Dublin, had expressed their opinions on the question in language too plain to be misunderstood. Under these circumstances he was 1000 quite willing to bear his share of the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would impose on the Irish Members who called upon him to withdraw this obnoxious Bill. For his own part, he would at once say, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intimated his intention of withdrawing it, he would have resisted it, by every means which the forms of Parliament allowed; and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in the determination he had expressed of going on with this Bill in the next Session of Parliament, if he stood alone, he would oppose it in every stage. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, as a justification of this Irish coercion bill, that smuggling prevailed to a very considerable extent in Ireland. He (Mr. Ruthven) did not deny that smuggling was carried on in that country; but he would maintain that it was not carried on to a greater, or perhaps as great an extent as it was in England and Scotland, as would be proved by documents which he would read with the permission of the House. The first to which he should call their attention was an extract from minutes of evidence taken before the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, and to be found in the 15th Report, a later authority than that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. In reply to a question respecting the smuggling of malt in England, Mr. Joseph Taylor, of Bishop Storford, maltster, gave the following answer:—
I think Government have never turned their attention sufficiently to protect the fair trader, and to prevent fraud; that an immense fraud is going on at this moment I am well aware. I am in the habit of seeing immense quantities of malt both in the country and in London, much of which is purchased in the London market, which I know never can have paid the duty, or it could not have been sold at the price.The next witness to which he should refer was Mr. Edward Churk, of Ware, maltster:—Is there in your opinion much evasion of the duty in England?—I can only say that at Ware we go justly to work; we work as closely as men can do; but malt frequently comes to market from Norfolk and Suffolk, and from the west of England, 5s. 6d., and sometimes even 7s. a quarter under ours; then I should make allowance for our better quality; but one cause of malt being bad is the running the duty. I should say that, sup- 1001 posing the difference to be 6s., half of it may be owing to the difference of quality; but I think the duty must have been evaded.The hon. Member quoted a variety of testimony to the same effects. He then said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the maltsters of Ireland had memorialed the Treasury for a restoration of the old permit system. He did not deny, that a certain portion of that body would be anxious for any measure which might have the effect of restoring the monopoly which they formerly enjoyed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not perhaps aware that permits or covers in the old system could be purchased for any quantity of illegal malt at 2s. per barrel. But he begged the attention of the House to a very high authority on the subject of the permit system—namely, Mr. Guinness, the eminent brewer of Dublin. The evidence of that gentleman was contained in the same report.Mr. Guinness—Would you propose to restore the old permit system?—No; I conceive that the old permit system was injurious to the fair trader, and ineffective in its operation.In what way?—There were, during the operation of the permit system, two prices for malt of the same quality; for the purchaser of a cargo of malt who would receive a portion of it without permit could get that portion at a reduced price.He would not trouble the House with further evidence on this point, but refer at once to the Report of the Board of Excise, in reply to the inquiry of the same Commissioners relative to the collection of the Irish malt duty, in which is to be found the following important passages:—Upon a review of the operation of the Irish acts, as compared with the system now prevailing, no conclusion can be drawn so favourable to the former as to warrant the re-enactment of a separate malt law for Ireland, connected, as such a step would be, with the complaints and inconveniences, which in a great measure led to the adoption of the present assimilated regulations.Upon a careful consideration of the whole subject, it is conceived that a recurrence to the old system, such as existed in Ireland previously to the consolidation, would be very obnoxious, and give rise to serious and perhaps well-founded complaints; and that no more effectual means can be resorted to for checking the progress of illicit malting in Ireland than the measures now in operation, which, it is confidently anticipated, will shortly be the means of convincing the dishonest trader that fraud cannot be profitably practised—that detection is almost inevitable, and that great pe- 1002 cuniary loss, if not ruin, will follow detection,Again the Chairman of the Board of Excise, Sir Francis Boyle, corroborated the evidence to which he referred. That the statement of Sir Francis Doyle was correct would be at once apparent from the following returns of the duty paid in Ireland on malt during the years 1833 and 1834:—Showing, on a comparison of two years, an increase of 27,000l. in the duty paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, and yet they were told that smuggling had increased to a frightful extent in Ireland. If such an increase had taken place, how did it happen that Scotland exported (as appeared from a return which he held in his hand) 7,349 puncheons of whiskey to the port of London, from the 1st of January to the 7th of August, 1836, while Ireland, during the same period, exported but 355 puncheons? He also found from an official return that the penalties awarded against the English maltsters in 1835, amounted to 10,954l.; against the Scotch 6,565l.; while those against the Irish were only 1,024l. The inference to be drawn from this evidence was first, that there had not been such an increase of late in smuggling as had been stated, because, by the latest returns, it appeared that there was an increase of 27,000l. in. the year 1834, as compared to the amount of duty paid on malt in the year 1833, while the exports from Ireland of whiskey to England, as compared with those of Scotland, were scarcely deserving of notice—secondly, that smuggling prevailed to an enormous extent both in England and Scotland, and to as great an extent (for all that appeared to the contrary) as in Ireland—thirdly, that this alteration in the law was in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Board of Excise, and opposed to the general feeling of the persons engaged in the trade. So that even upon the grounds taken by the right hon. Gentleman, there was no justification for the present Bill. But if all which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated were well founded, he would still oppose this Bill, because it coerced one portion of the empire, while it left the other unfettered—because it applied a principle to Ireland which would not be extended to England—a principle which, in its operation would, 1003 be a gross violation of the liberty of the subject. Upon this point, however, he would not dwell further, as the right hon. Gentleman, he presumed, had abandoned the Bill; but, before he sat down he begged to suggest a short remedy "for the more effectually securing the duty on malt" not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland. Let the right hon. Gentleman reduce the duty to half the present amount, and he would give a more effectual blow to smuggling than he could ever hope to accomplish by the most; severe fiscal regulations.
1833 £245,000 1834 272,000
§ Mr. Sharman Crawfordsaid, that as the Irish Members had been appealed to by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought he might be permitted to make a few observations. He was perfectly aware, and he freely admitted, that the malt trade in Ireland at present was in a state highly injurious, if not positively destructive, to the interests of the fair dealer. He, however, felt compelled to solicit the Government not to press the measure, and to suspend any new legislation on the subject till next Session. It was his impression that the Bill, whilst it imposed penal enactments of a most offensive description, would not effect the object intended, and his chief objection to it was, that its application was limited to Ireland, and not extended to the other portion of the empire. If the enactments of the Bill would have the effect of suppressing the illicit manufacture of malt in Ireland, what would be the inevitable result? Why it would be offering a premium for the illicit manufacture and importation of malt from other parts of the empire into Ireland, and thus impose on the honest dealer annoying and vexatious regulations, without giving him any adequate protection. He (Mr. S. C.) was decidedly of opinion that no measure could be safe or useful which was not universal in its operation? and as there was not time to digest the details of the measure, he preferred its postponement. He was quite satisfied that all attempts at putting an end to illicit traffic would fail, except by reducing the duty. He called on them to remember that all the arbitrary enactments which were passed, and which the police, and even the army, were for a long time employed in the enforcement of, were ineffectual with respect to illict distillation, till the duty was reduced—and what was more important, that reduction was followed by an actual increase of the revenue. But he objected to this Bill on higher and more 1004 important considerations. He objected to it, because it created a dissimilarity of legislation for Ireland as contradistinguished from the other portions of the empire. He objected to this practice, except under circumstances of clear and absolute necessity; but he objected to it, more especially, as it referred to penal enactments. If the system were continued, jealousy and irritation must be perpetually engendered, and every separate enactment afforded an argument and created a desire for a separation of the two Legislatures. He was of opinion that all minor considerations should be abandoned, and if, in particular instances, it should so happen that a degree of injury should be sustained, such partial injury would be infinitely more than compensated by the national benefit to be derived from the practical operation of uniformity in the laws of Great Britain and Ireland. He maintained that it was impossible that the minor and less wealthy country could have any security for her rights or interests when united in the same Legislature, except on the basis of uniformity of laws and institutions. The operation of this system of separate legislation was never more strongly manifested than by the effect produced on the public mind by the proposition contained in the Bill before the House. There never was a Government so popular in Ireland as the present—there never was one so deservedly so, and yet the Bill had produced an excitation of a most serious character. The Government was blamed even by their most warm and devoted supporters. Why was this? He answered because the Bill was partial, and because it was another sample of separate legislation. In justice, however, to the Government, he was bound to say, that they were not to blame on this occasion. He knew that pressing solicitations had been made for protection by persons of high respectability in the trade in Ireland, and he was aware that they contended that some measure should be passed during the present Session. He was convinced that the Bill was brought forward at the urgent entreaty of these parties, and he gave due credit to the Government for the desire they had manifested to acquiesce in the general opinion of the Irish Members on the present occasion. He also thought that it was unjust to charge any particular member of the Government with the unpopularity of this Bill from the incidental circumstance of his name having appeared on the back of it. He thought that at this particular period, when a great struggle was 1005 before them, that the principle of common legislation should be sustained and insisted on. What prospect had either country of a successful issue in that struggle, except by a complete union of interest and efforts? All minor considerations of partial interests or partial objects should be set aside, and Britain and Ireland should pull together in a combined and uncompromising demand for justice and for civil and religious freedom.
Mr. Walker, though individually in favour of legislation on this subject, was decidedly opposed to many provisions of the Bill. Under all the circumstances he recommended the postponement till next Session.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Members, so unanimously expressed, he would consent to defer the consideration of the question till that day three months.
§ Bill postponed.