MONEY BILLS—ORDER OF PROCEEDING. (Hansard, 14 March 1845)

§ Sir W. Clay
said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, the task devolved upon him to bring forward a Motion on the subject of compensation to sugar refiners for the sugar now in process of refining. He understood that some difficulty arose as to the form of proceeding, in consequence of the manner in which the Notice had been given. He was anxious to ask the Chair whether it was competent for him, after the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth had been disposed of, to bring the question of a drawback forward, under the shape of an instruction to the Committee, or whether he could bring forward his Motion in the Committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
said, that as the Notice stood on the Paper, the Motion of the hon. Member was intended to be made on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair; but the hon. Member for Lambeth had a prior Notice on the Paper, and when that was disposed of, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose a second Amendment on the same Question. He apprehended also that the Motion could not be brought forward in the Committee on the Bill without a previous 905 instruction, which instruction would not be regular unless after a resolution to the same effect had been agreed to in a Committee of the whole House.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his wish to give every facility to afford the hon. Member the opportunity to take the sense of the House on the question.

§ Mr. Hume
had intended to have brought the subject forward when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means; but he had been requested by the right hon. Gentleman not to do so at that stage, as it was most desirable to pass the Resolutions without delay. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that facilities should be afforded for bringing it forward on a future day. It would be most unfair to the parties to prevent their case being heard, as it was evident that the impediment had been occasioned by a misunderstanding.

§ Sir R. Peel
considered that it was of the utmost importance in proceedings on Bills, and above all on Money Bills, to adhere as strictly as possible to the rules of the House. There were undoubtedly circumstances in this case which might offer some ground for departing from the rule; but the evil would be, if they once admitted an irregularity, that when the circumstance which gave rise to it was forgotten, it would be established as a precedent. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that the Government would not throw any impediment in his way in bringing forward the Motion. Suppose that when the Bill had passed through Committee and the House resumed, the Motion was made pro formâ, that the Bill be recommitted, then the hon. Member could bring forward his Motion; or the same course could be adopted on a future day when the Motion for bringing up the Report was proposed.

§ Mr. F. Baring
observed, that this was a very important question, and it was most desirable that it should be settled at once. He thought that the best course would be for his hon. Friend to make his Motion on the Question that the Bill be re-committed. He was not quite sure that because the Resolutions had been agreed to in the Committee of Ways and Means, as to the reduction on the duties, that they would not introduce arrangements to carry out the object of the Resolutions, 906 both as regarded the duty and the drawback.

Mr. Bernal
thought that it was desirable that the question should be at once decided. On the first glance of the Motion of his hon. Friend, it would appear as if his proposition involved the imposition of a burden on the public in the shape of the drawback; and if that was the case, it was clear that it must originate in a Committee of Ways and Means. He did not say that this was the case, but it certainly appeared so on the face of the Resolutions. He was sure that there was no wish to evade the question; therefore it would be better at once to determine what step should be taken.

§ Mr. Hume
suggested that the subject should be recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means. He trusted that, in consequence of merely a technical objection, they would not be prevented from bringing the subject forward.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no wish to let technical objections stand in the way of the Motion; but it was a matter of considerable importance that they did not establish a precedent which would give rise to serious evils. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth observed that he thought in Committee on this Bill they might make arrangements as to the levying the duty, and also as to the drawback. It should be remembered that the Sugar Bill was an annual Bill, and that it enacted specific duties for a limited period. They had already adopted in the Committee of Ways and Means the Resolution as to the amount of duty, and they had made an estimate of the sum that would be received. Would not a clause introduced in the Committee on the Bill, involving the question of drawback, imply the making a payment out of the amount of duty to be received under the Bill. If this were the case it was clear that it could not be introduced in Committee on the Bill.

§ Mr. F. Baring
could not help feeling strongly the hardship of the case. As he understood his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester, they could not now give the drawback, because it involved a charge on the public. He did not think that this could be a rule, as he could not conceive how a drawback could be regarded as a tax on the country.

§ Sir R. Peel
thought that the best arrangement that could be adopted, and that which was most in conformity with 907 the rules of the House, was to allow the Bill to pass through Committee, and that on the House resuming, a Motion be made for the recommitment of the Bill, and the discussion be taken on that Motion,