§ MR. MEEHAN (Queen's County, Leix)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue officer in charge at Glenglassaugh Distillery on 28th October, 1905, when striking the final balance in the spent stock book, found an increase, and in accordance with Sub-section 9 of Section 43 of 43 and 44 Vic, c. 24, and the Board's Distillery Instructions founded thereon, charged duty on excess and received payment from the trader, which he forwarded to the supervisor at Portsoy; that the supervisor refunded the duty to the trader, censured the officer, and directed him to alter the accounts; that the officer claimed to have acted in accordance with the law and the Board's instructions, and refused to alter the books without written directions, which the supervisor refused to give; and whether, seeing that this officer was ordered to remove under displeasure to another station, and was refused a fair trial or inquiry and was suspended in March last, this officer will be restored or an inquiry be held.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,) Monmouthshire, S.I am informed that the facts are in substantial accordance with the hon. Member's statements except that the exaction of immediate payment from the trader was in accordance neither with the law nor with the Board's instructions. I have carefully considered the case, and I am satisfied that it is simply one of disobedience of orders which calls for no further inquiry.
§ MR. MEEHANI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Collector of Inland Revenue, Aberdeen, withheld proper and definite instructions or orders in the excess matter; and whether Mr. Haslam had asked him for advice and guidance in the case.
§ MR. MCKENNAMr. Haslam asked his collector for advice on 30th October and received it by telegram on 31st, and further by letter of the same date.
§ MR. MEEHANI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the 310 Collector of Inland Revenue, Aberdeen, did not, until the 2nd November 1905, give definite orders concerning the cancelling of the Excess Duty; whether the collector accompanied these orders with a document giving the substance of the supervisor's Report, dated 1st November 1905, against Mr. Haslam for alleged insubordination; whether the collector withheld the orders for cancelling the Excess Duty until after the accounts had been delayed on the 1st November and so made Mr. Haslam liable to a charge of alleged insubordination; whether the collector had the Board of Inland Revenue's authority for his ordering, in his letter of 2nd November, Mr. Haslam to cancel the Excess Duty; and, if he had this authority, why was it not quoted, as is usual, on his letter.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe collector's instructions were given as soon as he was in full possession of the facts. His order, to which reference is made in the last part of the Question, was given in pursuance of the Board of Inland Revenue's printed and standing Regulations and required no special authority from the Board. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative. I may add that in this and the succeeding Question the hon. Member refers to the cancelling of the Excess Duty. The charge of Excess Duty was not questioned but merely the date of its exaction.
§ MR. MEEHANI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Portsoy, neglected to give orders in writing to Mr. Haslam to cancel the duty on the excess or increase which was charged with duty at Grlenglassaugh Distillery on the 28th October 1905 in the spirit store stocktaking, seeing that Mr. Haslam had asked him for written orders, which request he acknowledged to have received.
§ MR. MCKENNAMr. Haslam received verbal instructions from his supervisor which were confirmed in writing by his collector.