COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 June 1880)

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that the Bill was a large one, and whenever he saw such a Bill he was afraid that it might have something to do with Ireland. It might relate to licences in Ireland; and as there were probably several important clauses in it he thought it ought not to be taken then.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he begged to assure the hon. and gallant Member that there was not the smallest chance of the Bill referring unduly to Ireland. The Bill was, in fact, 515 a consolidation of several small ones and had been most carefully prepared. No changes whatever were contained in it.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that there were important clauses in the Bill and penalties up to £500 inflicted, where in England only 5s. was enforced. One of the clauses contained a penalty of £500 for destroying permits. He had an Amendment to reduce that penalty; and he, therefore, hoped they would proceed slowly with the Bill.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that Clauses 7 and 23 would, no doubt, be put separately.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, he thought it right to ask the Government if there was any new matter introduced into the Bill. He further remarked that it would be a serious thing to pass rapidly clause after clause containing such heavy penalties as £500. He thought the Committee would not be justified in going on with the Bill in that way.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he could assure the hon. Member there was no new matter in the Bill.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, he should like to ask one question, which, no doubt, the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would be able to answer, as he, in all probability, had looked at the Bill. It was—what was the alternative imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine of £500?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he could only say that the question of alternative imprisonment would be discussed as the clauses came on. Many of the clauses, no doubt, the Committee would be willing to accept on the high legal authority under the supervision of which the Bill had been drawn up.

MR. GORST
said, he had understood the noble Lord to tell the Committee that there were no alterations in the Bill, but that it was simply one of consolidation. Subsequently, however, it had been stated that there were diminutions proposed in the case of some penalties. He thought that it was important to understand whether it was simply and solely a Consolidation Bill, or whether, as had been intimated, there were certain penalties in which a reduction was proposed. In the latter case the clauses of the Bill would require attention.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said there was only a slight alteration 516 proposed in the case of a fine of £500 in Ireland.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, he should like to ask a further question. He wished to know whether the heavy penalties that were mentioned in the Bill were absolutely incapable of mitigation by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which the case was triable? He wished to have a distinct answer upon that point.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he had already stated that all that could be discussed when they came to the penalty clauses. Till then he should not be able to answer the question of the hon. Member.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, that the noble Lord talked of coming to the penalty clauses; but there were penalty clauses throughout the Bill. For instance, by Section 19 a distiller could be fined £500, and by Section 22, Sub-section 26, the same fine could be inflicted. He thought he was entitled to some information with regard to the mitigation of such penalties.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he had already informed the Committee that there was no alteration in the present state of the law.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act there was a power of mitigation in certain cases.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said that the law would remain as before, and the power of mitigation would be the same.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, that on the second reading of the Bill the other night he had asked the noble Lord to postpone the Committee in order to allow time to look over the Bill. The noble Lord had then assured them that it was a Consolidation Bill that contained nothing new. He (Mr. Onslow) had looked over it, and quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was merely a Consolidation Bill; but, inasmuch as his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Paget) objected to some portions of it that were in fact not new, perhaps the noble Lord would consent to report Progress. So far as he himself was concerned, he saw no objection why the Bill should not pass through Committee; but still he thought that a little more time should be given, in order to give Members the opportunity of raising any question they thought proper.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he wished to ask the noble Lord 517 whether the Bill would not be interfered with by the Budget Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were some clauses—for instance, Clause 23—in which regulations were laid down in the case of distillers selling or removing malt. He wished to know whether the Bill that had been prepared from the Budget Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not make considerable alterations necessary in the measure now before them?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he would remind the noble Lord who had just sat down that the Bill before them referred only to spirits.

MR. GORST
said, the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) said the Bill referred only to spirits; but would he say that it did not refer to malt? If so, what was the use of Clause 23? That clause said that distillers were not to remove from the malting premises certain articles employed in malting. That section appeared to him clearly inconsistent with the Budget Resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have allowed the Irish laws on the question of malt to become the same as the English on the same subject. He did not see why Ireland should be treated differently in that matter. But the request that had been made had been refused by the Treasury. The refusal to adjust the Malt Laws of the two countries was one of the reasons for which he had objected to the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. That subject had been treated in the same way also by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The laws on the subject, he contended, ought to be identical. He should like to have Clause 23 explained to the Committee. The Revenue received from those laws in Ireland amounted, he believed, to over £4,000,000, which went into the Exchequer and defrayed the whole cost of the Army and Education. He thought the subject was sufficiently important to be examined narrowly; and knowing, as he did, how the House of Commons worked after half-past 12 o'clock, he thought it their duty to see that the Bill was properly passed.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, if the hon. and gallant Member wished for more time to consider the Bill it would be granted. He had stated the other day that the Bill was an important one; but, at the same time, that after being passed the law would remain substantially the same.

MR. GORST
said, that surely the question he had put could be answered. If the Budget Resolutions did affect that Bill, it would, he thought, be a sufficient reason for not proceeding with it.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that he did not believe that the clauses referred to would be affected by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Gentleman had been in communication with the Inland Revenue on the subject, and he did not think the present Bill would be in any way affected. Should it, however, be thought likely to be affected, he was willing to take any course that might be considered necessary; either it could be passed as it stood, and then be re-committed if found desirable to do so, or the Committee might then report Progress.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he supposed the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would wish for Clause 23 to be passed; but, for his own part, it was his desire that the Irish and English law should be assimilated in that matter. But he would ask nothing more than that malt which was used for feeding and fattening cattle should be excepted from the scope of the clause. If the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would agree to that, he should have no further objection to make.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he was assured that the Bill for the abolition of the Malt Tax would not affect the one under discussion. There would be no difficulty about feeding cattle; the malt referred to was only that which was in the malt-house.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that he had several Amendments to the Bill. The Bill was fair enough as regarded the malt. He wished, however, to see many reductions in the penalties proposed to be inflicted.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the question with regard to the malt struck him as being one of much importance. His reason for rising 519 about that was because he imagined, if the scheme of the right hon. Gentle-the Chancellor of the Exchequer was passed, all restrictions with regard to malt would be taken off, and there would be absolute liberty to feed cattle and to use malt for any other purposes. The whole question seemed to him to come to this—whether any restrictions ought to be included in the Consolidation Bill, because, if they were so included, and the Bill were passed—and no one would admit more readily than he the necessity of passing such a Bill—immediately afterwards it would probably be found that these clauses that contained restrictions were unnecessary. Had it not been for those restrictions, the Consolidation Bill which was before the late Government, and which they were all anxious should pass, would some time since have become law.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he hoped hon. Members would bear in mind one fact with reference to such Bills as the one under discussion, and that was that they were mainly for the convenience of persons out-of-doors. To the Revenue Department it mattered little whether there was a consolidation into one act or not, because, if not collected into one, they could easily discover when and how the separate Bills had been drawn up. The consolidation, of course, rendered reference less troublesome; but it mainly benefited the trade. With regard, then, to the principal question, that was, no doubt, the question of the malt. He hoped in the course of a few weeks to be able to state what exceptions there would be with reference to that tax. As a general rule, he believed the only exception would be where malt might be used among the materials that were higher taxed—articles such as spirit and raw material in certain cases. For that reason he hoped the clause would be allowed to be passed; and he thought that the Committee might be satisfied with the pledge given by his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish). In that case Members would not be put to the inconvenience of discussing the matter when the Speaker was in the Chair; but the Bill would be recommitted with respect to those particular clauses. He thought the Bill was considered on the whole satisfactory; and, therefore, he trusted they might be allowed to proceed with it.

§ MR. E. PAGET
said, he did not quite understand the course intended to be pursued by the Government, and he hoped that the noble Lord would move to report Progress. He desired to say this much, that he considered there was danger in their proceeding any further. He had ventured just before to ask the noble Lord a question whether the heavy penalties were subject to mitigation. He understood the noble Lord to say in reply that those penalties were not so subject: and he (Mr. Paget) was then under the impression that the noble Lord was wrong. Since putting the question, he had made inquiries of his hon. Friend near him, who had consulted the statute, and he now found that the Summary Jurisdiction Act did refer to that matter. Consequently the noble Lord did not appear to be well informed upon the subject; and he thought he had not that complete acquaintance with it that would justify him in asking the Committee to go on with the clauses of the Bill.

MR. GORST
said, he really did not wish to cause any embarrassment to the Government; but the 23rd clause of this Bill could not possibly be required when the Budget propositions of the Prime Minister were carried out. By it a distiller was not to be allowed to sell any malt out of his malt-house, and if he did he was to be liable to a fine of £200. Surely it was not intended that a distiller, of all persons in the Kingdom, should be the only person not allowed to sell malt. What was the meaning of abolishing the Malt Tax if they were going to impose upon the distiller this peculiar disability. A clause like that had obviously been drawn by some person in ignorance of the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Malt Tax; and now that those intentions were known, and it was understood by everybody that the Malt Tax would be repealed, it seemed to him it would obviously be better to postpone the further consideration of the 23rd clause until they had the propositions of the Budget Bill before them.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
thought the Committee would do well to accept the proposition of the noble Lord opposite. The only object of the Government, as he said, was to consider the convenience, and the wishes of hon. Members; and, for his part, he did not 521 believe that hon. Members had the slightest idea of the magnitude of that Bill, or that it would come on at such an hour in the morning. The original proposition of the noble Lord, to which he did not understand the Prime Minister to have dissented, was to report Progress, when hon. Members not then present could see by the Papers that the discussion on the Bill had commenced, and those interested in it would be prepared on a future occasion to represent their views to the House and to the Government. Therefore, he hoped he should have the support of the noble Lord in moving to report Progress.

MR. BARING
said, he had a few days ago proposed that the second reading should be adjourned, because hon. Members had not had time to make themselves acquainted with the Bill, and he was not quite sure that some alterations had not been introduced under the form of consolidation as had been occasionally done before. He was now perfectly satisfied that there was nothing of that sort in the Bill, except that in one or two cases there had been a mitigation of penalties; and, therefore, he was not at all prepared to accept the action of some hon. Members on his side of the House, because he thought they were confusing two very different things—namely, altering the law, and making it simpler. He, however, entirely agreed with the Prime Minister that it was very much for the interest of non-official and non-legal persons that the law should be as simple, practical, and clear as possible; and, so far as he could make out, this Bill was a good move in the direction of helping persons who were not official or legal persons to understand the law. If the propositions of the noble Lord opposite were carried, the law would not, as at present, be scattered through a great number of Acts; and while the result would be not to make the law at all more difficult, it would very beneficially affect its present state. He should prefer seeing the second leading of the Bill passed at once; and any alterations necessary, in consequence of the Budget Resolutions, could be made subsequently.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
considered the restrictions on the keeping of malt by distillers quite unnecessary, as the Malt Tax was to be abolished; and, therefore, he would advise the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to adjourn the discussion on this proposal, in order that he might, in the meantime, consult the authorities.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that as it appeared to be desired by some hon. Members that more time should be given to consider the Bill, he would be quite ready to assent to the proposal; but, at the same time, he must remind the House that it was necessary for them to get on with their Business.