INLAND REVENUE (STAMP DUTIES) BILL— [Bill 159.]—CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 27 June 1864)

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he had an Amendment to propose.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
The Motion is to postpone the older.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he was quite aware of the fact, but being anxious to move that its consideration be postponed to that day week, he desired to give reasons in favour of that course. The Bill had been introduced on the 17th of June, and until it arrived at the stage of Com- 401 mittee no conversation took place in the House upon its provisions. It was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was founded upon three Resolutions, none of which authorized a very important portion of the Bill relating to the brewing and sale of beer. He would not discuss the regularity of the mode in which it was sought to deal with a very important trade in Ireland; but he thought it very desirable that an opportunity of considering the scope of the measure should be given to that trade. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, intimated that the Bill, so far from imposing greater penalties upon brewers in Ireland, was a relieving measure. What was the fact? Section 9 repealed a number of Irish Acts, for which others in force in England were substituted by Section 10. Among these was the 7 &c 8 Geo. IV. c. 52, s. 54, requiring brewers to make entries of all their brewing utensils, vats, &c, under a penalty of £100. For that section the English Act, 1 Will. IV. c. 15, if substituted, would impose a penalty of £200. The 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 52, s. 50, as to the entry of quality of malt, contemplated a penalty of £100 for infringement. That was to be done away with, and the 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 22, s. 1. substituted, by which in like manner the amount of penalty would be doubled. With reference to washed malt, in the same way the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to double the present penalty. Every Irish Member present would corroborate the statement that not a brewer in Ireland could be aware of the nature of the Bill before the House. He therefore moved that its consideration be postponed to that day week.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would not follow the irregular example of the hon. Member in discussing the details of clauses on a Motion to postpone the consideration of the Report—a very unusual Motion, he must add. The usual practice was to allow the Member in charge of a Bill to name a time, and then, if disapproved of, to object at that time to its being proceeded with. But his object in pressing the Bill was to obtain a decision of the House upon a clause which, for the convenience of hon. 402 Members, he had delayed for some time—namely, that relating to an Act under which prosecutions for illicit distillation were conducted in Ireland. If the Report were agreed to he had no objection to postpone the third reading of the Bill, which would, in fact, be giving every opportunity for consideration. If thought desirable the recommittal of the Bill might be moved as an Amendment to the third reading. The hon. Member for the King's County was entirely wrong in the view which he had given of the effect of the Bill. He should be prepared on the next occasion to make good his statement, that the alterations introduced were in favour of the brewing trade in Ireland.

§ SIR HUGH CAIRNS
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of irregularity, but it would be found that the irregularity rested wholly with himself. There would be another opportunity of considering the grave question, whether the Resolutions adopted by the House warranted the propositions contained in the Bill; at present, all he desired to say was that the Bill had been exactly one week before the House, and from its title was not at all likely to attract the attention of the brewing trade. The right hon. Gentleman had, on the introduction of the Bill, not vouchsafed any explanation which would show to those interested in the brewing trade what the real intention of the measure was; nay, more, two or three nights ago, when explanations were asked, there was very great difficulty in getting any at all, and the explanation ultimately given was that the Bill would have no operation at all upon the brewing trade, or if it had, that it would be solely for their advantage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head, but he had heard him repeat the statement only a moment before. He had only been able to look very hastily into the Acts which were quoted in the Bill, but he undertook to say, that in one instance certainly, and he believed in a considerable number, the statement of the hon. Member for the King's County was perfectly borne out. The very first penalty dealt with in the Bill was doubled by being increased from £100 to £200. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently was not aware of the effect of his own Bill, or he would not have made his former statement and repeated it that evening. A cloud of statutes were dealt with in what he must call a most slovenly way, the whole English law as to brewing being extended to 403 the Irish trade in a space of three or four lines. It was a matter which required serious consideration by the trade. Nothing had dropped from the Government to direct attention to it, and it was only that day and the day before that hon. Members had been able to send copies of the Bill to the persons whose interests it affected. He thought the postponement asked for a very fair one. On the third reading Amendments could not be moved or a particular clause struck out, if that should appear desirable, and to recommit a Bill at such an advanced period of the Session would be a perilous proceeding.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would consent if the particular clause to which he had referred were sanctioned on the following day to defer the consideration of the rest of the Bill.