HC Deb 28 February 1896 vol 37 cc1392-3
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, was it for one offence, or for several offences, that the wine merchant of Upper Sackville Street, Dublin, has been fined the sum of £300; if for more than one offence, how many; and what is the legal fine attached to each of the several offences?

MR. MCCARTAN

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him if this is the case of Mr. Adam Scott, and why there should be any hesitation, if a fraud has been committed on the public, in giving the name of the person and thus removing suspicion from innocent persons?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

I should have no hesitation in giving the name if I knew it, but it has not been communicated to me.

MR. MCCARTAN

I shall put a Question on the Paper on the subject?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

With regard to the Question on the Paper I may say that the Inland Revenue authorities had reason to believe that the offence was committed on more than one occasion, but as the matter was not brought into Court it is not possible to speak of the fine as if it corresponded to a definite number of proved offences. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Court on conviction is £200 for each day on which the offence is proved to be committed. That may be reduced to £50, and I believe it would be generally reduced by the Court.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR

May I ask what form of trial took place in this case. Was the case heard in private or was it brought into Court?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The fine of £300 was a compromise. It was inflicted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the discretionary powers vested in them by Statute.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR

Have they the power to condone a crime of this kind?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No, Sir; it cannot be described as a power of condonation. It is a discretionary power vested in them by Statute, and they were advised by the solicitor that it was better to deal with the case in that way owing to the difficulty of obtaining convictions in those cases.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation why the name of the offender was kept back?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.