INLAND REVENUE (STAMP DUTIES) BILL— [BILL 159.]—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 June 1864)

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would beg leave to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the discrepancies which, he contended, existed between the Bill and a Bill introduced last Session with respect to brewers. On a former occasion the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that it would not be wise to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland on this subject; but in the present Bill there was a proposal for uniformity. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state why the Irish brewers were included in the measure. He also wished to ask for explanation as to the 16th clause, which deprived magistrates of the power of allowing a person convicted of illicit distillation a few days for the payment of the penalty.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that hon. Members would readily understand why he had not made any statement on the Bill. It consisted of twenty clauses; but as no two of them related to one subject, he thought the better course would be to treat the Bill clause by clause. With reference to Clause 16, objected to by the hon. Member for the King's County, he would agree to postpone it, and the discussion could be taken on it when bringing up the Report. The 9th and 10th clauses merely facilitated the execution of the law; they imposed no new burden, and did not interfere at all with the provisions of the new Beer Act. One of them, indeed, would confer a great benefit upon licensed victuallers in Ireland, for it would allow them for the first time to brew their own beer.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
referred to an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion, that upon the introduction of the present mea 282 sure the half yearly licences of Irish hawkers should be obtainable on the same principle as those obtained by English hawkers.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that the clause must interfere with the Beerhouses Bill, because the Government recommended that Bill as exceptional legislation, which, they said, was necessary for Ireland, while the clause declared that it was expedient that the laws relating to brewing should be made uniform throughout the United Kingdom.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that as the Bill was only delivered to hon. Members on the 18th inst., and no opportunity had been given to the brewers of Ireland to see and consider it, he should like to have some explanation as to its objects.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he could only repeat the explanation which he gave before the Speaker left the Chair. He was willing, however, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired it, to take care that there should be an opportunity of discussing on the Report any clauses the meaning of which he did not understand. The Bill had nothing to do with the Beerhouses Bill, one being of a fiscal character, and the other relating only to police regulations.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he wished to ask for some explanation.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
It is comprised in what I have said.

§ MR. HENNESSY
See how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating me! What is "comprised?"

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
The statement which I made related to both clauses. They have both the same subject-matter.

§ MR. HENNESSY
That was a little irregular. The clause extended to Ireland certain sections of various Acts of Parliament, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House what would be the effect of them when applied to Ireland.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the hon. Gentleman had taken a course which was totally without precedent in that House. The regulations under which trades which were liable to revenue inspection were conducted were of the most voluminous character, and to call upon him to make such a statement as he had been asked for, and to read, as the hon. Member had done, to the House clauses which did not in the slightest degree explain themselves, was an abuse of the time and patience of the House. The hon. Gentleman had not raised a single definite objection to the clauses. When he stated that he objected to Clause 16, he immediately offered to postpone it, and he would have done the same with these clauses if any reason had been shown for taking such a course. Legislation of a complicated character could not be discussed in all its details, and he must decline to enter into all the details. He had already stated the general effect of these clauses. If objections were taken he would gladly meet them, and he would postpone the clauses if necessary; but he hoped the time of the House would not be wasted by pursuing the present discussion.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he had gone through the clauses, and could say that there was nothing objectionable in any one of those which it was proposed to extend to Ireland.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he thought this a peculiar mode of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to state the effect of the clauses.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
The effect has been stated.

§ MR. HENNESSY
No description of them whatever was given.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that if the Attorney General for Ireland would state that he had gone through all these Acts and could say that they were unobjectionable, he should be satisfied.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, all that was wanted was that there should be a plain statement of what the Act would do.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would postpone the clauses until the Report if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would promise in the interim to read the sections and make up his mind whether they were objectionable or not.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, the proposal was merely to substitute the precautions practised in England for those practiced in Ireland, and he really could not tell 284 which were the more effectual. The chief objection seemed to be that so short a time had elapsed since the Bill was before the House that the Irish brewers really would not have time to consider the effect of those provisions.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when appealed to for an explanation, had said that those clauses referred to some fiscal regulation; but he would inform the right hon. Gentleman of the scope of his own Bill. The effect of it would be in one instance to repeal an Act which prohibited adulteration, in the face of a recent statement by the Government that the adulteration of beer was increasing in Ireland. That was one mistake, and another was that a Bill only brought in on the 17th of June, which proposed to inflict on Irish brewers all the regulations existing in England, should be forced on by the Government without explanation, while, when a humble Irish Member asked for explanation, the right hon. Gentleman adopted a tone which was unworthy of his high position. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of looking into the Acts whose provisions he had incorporated in the Bill, but which he had evidently not read, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said that, having appealed in vain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an answer, he now put the question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, rather misunderstood his own position, and ought to have taken a lesson from what occurred not long ago. Having put upon the Notice paper several Amendments to one of the fiscal measures of the right hon. Gentleman, when it came on for discussion at a late hour a Motion of adjournment was made, and the right hon. Gentleman said—

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member was not in order in referring to what was said in a former debate.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he thought that he was speaking strictly to the question. With regard to a Bill imposing restrictions similar to those contained in that at present before the Committee, he had ventured to move the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said, that "an hon. Member who 285 knew nothing of the subject had moved the adjournment of the debate." What was the result? On the very next stage the Bill was thrown out by a majority of four. It was a much more satisfactory mode of conducting business, that when explanations were asked for, they should be given at the time.