§ COLONEL BARNEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is it the case that the malt drawback was allowed to some of the London brewers on the quantity as shown by their books, and not taken by gauge; is it the case that Mr. Morse. waited upon Mr. Forcey at Somerset House on the 4th. October to protest against the injustice of the way dry malt was gauged, and offered on behalf of his firm to forfeit all the drawback if the quantity of malt did not measure six per cent more than they were allowed upon; is it the case that Messrs. Morse and Woods were allowed only £4,491 4s. 4d. drawback on malt they had in stock, and on which they were compelled by the Act to allow the parties to whom it was sold £4,763 5s. 8d. drawback; this £4,491 4s. 4d. was the return of three collections, Ipswich, Norwich, and Lynn—Ipswich, £1,879 15s. 3d.; Norwich, £692 4s. 6d.; Lynn,£1,919 4s. 7d.: total, £4,491 4s. 4d.; and, will he restore to Messrs. Morse and Woods the £272 1s. 4d. so received from them?
MR. GLADSTONESir, as regards the first portion of the Question, no drawback has been allowed upon any malt stocks that were not gauged by the Inland Revenue. With regard to the second portion of the Question, it cannot possibly be ascertained on what day the gentleman named called at Somerset House; but an answer can be given to the substance of the Question—namely, that the proposal which he appears to have made was a proposal which the Board of Inland Revenue were not able to entertain, because the legal time which was allowed for stock-taking, within which it might have been acted upon, had at that period expired. With regard to the third portion of the Question, the Board of Inland Revenue contended that upon the figures supplied to them by this firm, their stocks were properly and accurately taken, and the Board are quite ready to abide by any judgment on the subject.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLDoes the answer of the right hon. Gentleman apply to the Dublin brewers as well as the London brewers?