With regard to the next motion on the agenda which stands in the name of Senator Toal, Senators will see that there is a motion dealing with the same subject, but perhaps from a different point of view, to some extent, standing in the name of Senator Sir John Keane. In reference to Senator Sir John Keane's motion there is an amendment standing in the name of Senator O'Farrell. Senator O'Farrell is very anxious about his amendment but he has been detained on public business. I am expecting him here every minute. Perhaps if we passed on to the motions standing in the names of Senators MacKean and Fitzgerald we could deal with them first. With regard to these motions they are practically identical and, of course, I could not have a discussion on both. The only difference I see is that the drinks are not mixed. Senator MacKean deals with spirits and beer while Senator Martin Fitzgerald is confined to whiskey. I think the motions are practically identical and I would suggest to Senator MacKean that if he introduced into his motion the question of the excessive taxation of whiskey that would cover both motions.
BEER AND SPIRIT DUTIES.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am not a beer man, sir.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator MacKean's motion goes a little further than yours; it includes beer.
I am going into the question from the agricultural point of view and from the unemployment point of view. I am not going into the question of duties at all. I have made no reference to duties. There is not a single word with reference to duties in my motion.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You call it "taxation." Is not that the same thing?
I am simply calling attention to the amount of unemployment.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You use the words "excessive taxation." Supposing the words were "excessive duties," would not the motion be identical?
I do not say "excessive duty"; I say "excessive taxation."
CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot allow a double discussion on the distinction between duties and taxation.
We are not going to have one.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I will call on Senator MacKean to move this motion and you will probably find that that will give you an opportunity of speaking to your motion.
I am satisfied.
The motion which is in my name, is as follows:—
"That the Executive Council be requested to take into consideration for the purpose of their Finance Bill for the coming year, the existing duties on spirits and beer, with a view to their reduction and consequent relief to the trade and commerce of Saorstát Eireann."
It is confidently assumed not only by those connected with the liquor interests but by the general public that there will be some substantial remissions made in the duties on Irish whiskey and beer in our coming budget. I have tabled this motion before the Budget is introduced to this House so that the Executive Council and the Minister for Finance may have the help and guidance of the suggestions of Senators who will discuss this motion.
The Senate has no power to amend a Money Bill—only to make recommendations beforehand as when financial decisions have been arrived at they are not likely to be altered. At the present moment there is a universal outcry against oppressive taxation not only here but in every European country. The pessimists and the "grousers" and those opposed to the Free State Government, have focussed their hostility on this question of taxation, and can always command a sympathetic audience as the burden of taxation is almost intolerable, and it would seem if something to alleviate it is not done soon, the country will drift into bankruptcy. It is a duty of the members of the Oireachtas to offer what helpful suggestions they can to the Government, and it is in this spirit that I hope the suggestions on this motion will be taken.
There is no interest that can put forward a stronger claim for the remission of taxation than the liquor trade. Directly and indirectly this great trade contributes a large share of the taxes which enables the Government to carry on. Taxation which draws away from a trade so much capital that cripples its initiative and expansibility is unjust and an economic crime. Month by month we see the diminishing returns in the duty on spirits, showing that this trade is being slowly but surely wiped out. The Government, on the one hand, is financing out of the taxes a beet-root project, the result of which is extremely problematical, and, on the other, they are taxing to its depth an industry which is giving more employment and is of much more financial benefit to the State than ever the beet-root project can hope to be. The decline in Irish distilling is keeping pace with the increase of taxation. In 1901 when the duty was 11/- per gallon on whiskey, there were thirty distilleries in Ireland, which kept in constant employment 10,000 families; but as taxation increased year after year and time after time, the industry was being gradually crushed out. In 1921 the duty was raised to £3 12s. 6d., and in a few years there were only twenty distilleries, giving intermittent employment, and to-day not three distilleries in the Free State are working full time. During these years Persse's Galway Distillery expired; Devereux, Wexford; Cassidy's, Monasterevan; Walker's, Limerick, to mention only a few of the principal distilleries, have also closed their doors and thrown their workers out of employment and forced them to emigrate.
Like many of the corn and the flour mills, the ruins of the distillery buildings will stand as reproachful reminders to our people of the downfall of another industry which formerly gave much employment. But not alone the workers in these concerns have suffered, but also the farmers whose oats and barley were bought by the distillers and the brewers, and the railway companies, the shipping companies, the canal companies, as well as carters and tradesmen, will also suffer. It is a great pity, at the present time, that some of the Irish distilleries should be wiped out of existence and that Scotch whiskey should be allowed into the country to compete unfairly with the home-made article. Scotch whiskey comes in 30 underproof. It is to the benefit of the shopkeepers to sell it in preference to Irish whiskey, the strength of which is 25 underproof. Scotch whiskey, therefore, is a few shillings a bottle more profitable to retail on the part of the publicans than the Irish-made article. The Cathaoirleach, some nights ago, stated at a social function that he was glad to see the people of Ireland were beginning to laugh again. It is easy enough to laugh at a well-prepared festive board, but I think that the workman who has to pay 8d. for his bottle of stout and 1/8 for a glass of whiskey will not laugh much until the Government sees its way to give him a chance.
I would point out further that the by-products of the distilleries afford valuable feeding stuff for pigs and cattle and were utilised for many purposes. Now foreign feeding stuff has to be bought whose value as a food is not in it with the products of the distilleries. I submit it is obvious then from these facts something should be done to lighten the burden of taxation on Irish whiskey and beer. The teetotal people should remember that the present high duties are not assisting their cause but are increasing illicit distillation. Some years ago there was much controversy over the respective merits of pot still, which is now practically the only whiskey manufactured in Ireland, and patent still, and Scotch whiskey is mostly patent still. In those days I heard the different kinds of spirits thus described as follows: Pot still, a liquid stimulant; patent still, liquid excitement; potheen, liquid madness.
In this humid and variable climate of ours most people find the necessity for some stimulant to increase physical and mental vitality. Teetotallers should also remember that if there are not luxuries to tax the Government will, in the inspired words of the Governor-General, have to tax stir-about.
Now criticism which is merely destructive and has no constructive suggestions to make is of little use. Therefore. I would suggest to the Executive that they take off as much duty as will permit Irish whiskey to be sold at 1/- per glass even if it necessitates the general reducing of the standard strength to 30 u.p. With regard to stout I would suggest that the Government should approach Messrs. Guinness and Co. who are making an abnormally large profit, so that by equally reducing the manufactured price, and remitting duty, they should permit stout to be sold at 4d. per bottle or per pint. If this were done the ordinary middle-class people and workers would laugh again and a good deal of the hostility to the Government would be abated and the pessimistic feeling now so common would disappear. The pessimistic feeling is largely responsible for the want of of effort and efficiency in work. The younger generation, fed up with the perpetual fault finding, now consider their country as a fit place to live out of. Of course there would be a serious loss of revenue but the revenue month by month is rapidly diminishing anyway. To make up for this loss extra duty should be put on foreign spirits—Scotch whiskies, gin, rum, brandy, etc.
I would also suggest to the Minister that he should put a prohibitive tax on the medicated and faked wines which are now flooding the country, and which analysis show to be rotten trash. Such wines as Wincarnis, Hall's wine and the other worthless trash are sold with nothing of any value connected with them, but the label and advertising matter. Our Ministers seem to be bitten with the fine frenzy of legislating, but the country is fed up with legislation. It has got legislative indigestion, and it would be much better if our Government turned its attention to work of a constructive kind. This generation has suffered enough and made sacrifices enough to secure the measure of liberty we now enjoy, and something should be left for the next generation to do. The Minister for Finance has told us the London Agreement has enhanced the credit of the Free State and increased its borrowing possibilities; why not then float a loan which would help to ease the burden of taxation for the next few years? It would ease the great burden of taxation which is now pressing generally on the people, and which is specially oppressive to the trade on whose behalf I move this motion.
I second the motion. I would like to point out that we had in Ireland a very valuable industry in distilling, for which we had a world-wide reputation in the past. A number of the distilleries have been wiped out. In dealing with this matter I will confine myself to recent dates, as there is no use in going back to ancient history. In 1900 the taxation on whiskey was 11/- per gallon. The quantity of whiskey then made in Ireland would have been about 14 million gallons, roughly. In 1909 the taxation on whiskey increased from 11/- to 14/9. Immediately after that taxation came into operation the production and consumption of spirits went down, and the revenue derived from the taxation of spirits was much lower in 1910 and 1911 than in 1908. Even as late as 1921 we had 12 large distilleries working and giving employment to a great number of men. In Dublin three distilleries employed over 800 men, and paid in wages over £100,000. These three distilleries are now carrying on business with less than 70 men and with wages under £15,000. We are talking about unemployment. These distilleries bought over one million barrels of barley and oats in the year, and the total of barley, oats and rye bought this year would not exceed 70 thousand barrels. In the years 1923-24, in the County of Carlow, the average price was 25/- per barrel.
This morning I was speaking to a man who told me that in other years he bought 12,000 barrels, but this year he only bought 4,000. Another man also made the statement at a meeting of farmers that in 1923-24 he bought 25,000 barrels, and this year he did not buy a barrel. The fact is that what produces the revenue, what makes the mare go, is being absolutely wiped out. I would like to call attention to the fact that in a small district consisting of Kilbeggan, Tullamore, and Monasterevan there were three distilleries, and none of them is working to-day. These, between them, purchased and gave a good price for the produce of 5,000 acres of land. We are asked to till the land. They gave 25/- a barrel for barley, and then the land was tilled. Now they are giving 17/6, and the thing is absolutely wiped out.
These distilleries have not made one single gallon of whiskey this year. In 1923 we had twelve distilleries working, and to-day we have three, two on middling time, and one on practically no time. That is the state of affairs in the twenty-six counties. The duty on whiskey in 1909 was 11/-. Then it was increased to 14/9, and during the whole period of the war the duty on whiskey remained at 14/9. In 1919 the duty was increased to 30/-, and in 1920 to 50/- —that, of course, was under the British Government—and in 1921 it was increased to 72/6. I would like the House to consider what that tax means. The cost of production of whiskey at proof gallon, after giving a good price to the farmer for barley and oats, would be about 4/-. Any man who cannot make a decent profit as a manufacturer at 4/- ought to get out of the trade. You pay a duty on that of practically twenty times the cost of production. If a man bought a collar for 6d., but before he put that collar on his neck it cost him 10/-, how many collars would he wear? There is no industry or product, I do not care what it is, let it be even gold or diamonds, would bear a taxation of six times the cost of production, not to say twenty times the cost. Here you are wiping out an industry in which there is actually invested over £5,000,000, not to speak of the immense amount of employment that the industry gives. In Carlow we have invested £152,000 for the production of sugar. What does the production of sugar mean? I can buy and ship into the Port of Dublin to-day and deliver all we want of sugar at 15/- per cwt. In round figures that is 1½d. per lb., yet we are creating an industry in Carlow and giving a bonus of 2½d. per lb. for the making of sugar.
We go and spend in ten years a great deal over a million pounds of money in producing what can never pay. I wonder what is the sense of establishing an industry in Carlow, and, for the purpose of doing that, taxing us here for it and taxing the man in Kinvara. A man in Kinvara raised a field of barley and sold it here in Dublin. He had a market for the stuff. But the man in Kinvara who grew his barley cannot send that barley to Carlow. The man who grew barley down in Bandon sold it to the distilleries in Cork. Where can he sell it now? Still he is being asked to grow more barley. Where the man got 25/- for his barley in 1924, he is now getting only 17/6. But he cannot get even 17/6. That is only a nominal price. He cannot sell it at all. The barley is on his hands, and he is told to feed pigs with it. That reminds me of the man who complained that his chickens were drowned by the bursting of a water pipe and when he complained of this to the water rate man, the latter told him to keep ducks!
Here you are deliberately wiping out an industry which is a credit to the country. In any part of the world wherever one went, one found that Irish whiskey was held in very high repute. Now what do you do? You have here an item of £50,000 to put up a bottle works. And we were told last year that you could have any kind and colour of bottle you like, black, white, yellow, green, or any other colour. You have not even white, green or yellow bottles and if you import those bottles you have to pay 1/- a dozen duty. Any Dublin merchant who imports bottles into Dublin will have to pay 1/- a dozen. You can bring them in holding Scotch whiskey which represents a by-product of yeast at sixpence a dozen. All the bottles you want you can bring in under a by-product of yeast which will compete with the high-class product of our own home-grown barley.
I do not like to take up the time of the Seanad with too much figures. But in the Dublin Distilleries alone the amount of employment given would come to £70,000 a year. These men were earning good wages under decent and good conditions of employment. Every man of these was earning on an average at least £3 per week. Now you take these men and you put them with their backs to the wall and give them the dole. Is it not most disheartening? Then you ruin an industry that has made a good name for Ireland, has given so much employment and has purchased so much agricultural produce from the farmers. I say it is not only unhealthy but it is immoral. It is ruinous. Things happened in the past when the old woollen industry was ruined here, many strange things happened. Now we have what is supposed to be a Free State. There is no reason why we ourselves should follow in the steps of England. The Minister for Finance and the Executive Council did a wise and bold stroke last year. I take off my hat every time to the Ministers we have in the Saorstát. I think they are the most wonderful body of young men that has ever come to the front anywhere. I think that if they would only take into their counsel men of older experience than themselves they would do much better even than they are doing.
I saw yesterday where the Minister for Finance remarked when somebody spoke of setting up a Geddes Committee that the officials could put their fingers in the eyes of the Committee and fool them. I do not think that any set of Government officials or civil servants would be able to fool the Members of this House. I do not think these officials would be able to fool Senator Foran or Senator Farren or the Chairman; I think the man who would be able to put the winkers on them would have to get up very early in the morning. I say that while the Minister for Finance is a very able man, he has not yet attained that experience which comes from age and being matured and having grown up in business. He has not as yet attained that sort of experience. I look at the Executive Council as being the most wonderful body of men in the world. Compare them with the Ministers in France. We here at home do not recognise their abilities fully.
But look at France. France is a country where finance has made one gigantic blunder after another. Gigantic blunders have been made by finance in England. One day the Cabinet there is up to its eyes in one thing and the next day they are up to their noses in something else. Here you had a young untrained Government and it has done extraordinarily well for the country. With a little more thoughtfulness they might do better, and I suggest that permitting a big industry to be wiped out is a thing that ought not be thought of, unless the industry was a bad one and I do not think anybody can say that this is a bad industry. From a revenue point of view I might point that there is far less revenue being got now than formerly from this industry. And then you have fifty times more potheen being made than you had in the past. Any day I want it I can buy 500 gallons of potheen. That is an absolute fact. There is no trouble about it. It is being made wholesale. The men who start to make potheen know their ground. You might as well try to catch them as to catch a poacher. If you want to prevent a poacher from catching a rabbit you will have to catch him before he catches the rabbit. If you take into consideration the wages paid in this industry of distilling, the capital employed, the market that this industry gives the farmer, and the injustice that is being done to the revenue, you will admit that there is a strong case made for the motion. The revenue that was got in the past from this industry is not now raised from it.
The Government is losing in many directions. A distillery that is making no money not only pays no duty but it pays no income tax. The employees who worked in that distillery are not paying income tax because they have now no revenue from which to pay it. I can, if the Seanad wishes it, give figures which would astound it as far as the returns go. These figures show what we did produce a few years ago and what we are down to now. This year the amount of whiskey produced in this country is less than one-twentieth of what it was ten years ago. That is caused primarily by the high taxation on spirits. The industry cannot stand the high taxation that is put on it. Scotch whiskey, made as a by-product of yeast, is competing with Irish whiskey. Irish whiskey cannot compete with whiskey which does not cost more than one penny a gallon to make. If this whiskey were not taken into their stocks in Scotland at one penny a gallon it would go down their sewers.
It is sold in this country at 35 u.p. The only regulation is that a shopkeeper is to put up a card marked "Scotch Whiskey, 35 u.p." A man can have more than 35 u.p., and he buys it cheaper. Here, if an Irishman has whiskey 30 u.p., except he puts the card in such a way that every customer will see it, he is fined under the Food and Drugs Act. There is another thing. Good whiskey will not bear reducing by water and be clear the same as other whiskey will. With these few remarks I ask the House to say that the distilling and the other taxes are entirely too high and that an opportunity should be given to this important industry to live.
Senator Fitzgerald has talked a great deal about barley and about the small amount that is being produced now in comparison with former times. I should like to say something very interesting with regard to barley. There is hope for the Irish farmer still. You have all heard of Webb and Sons, great seed merchants. I know Mr. Webb. This is what happened. You must all remember that this season has been the worst season for barley known for many years owing to the rain. Webb and Sons, one of the largest seed merchants in the United Kingdom, look for their seeds everywhere throughout England and Europe, because they wish to sell their customers the best seed they can.
After Mr. Webb had searched everywhere for good barley seed he came to Ireland. That barley was grown on the border of Queen's and King's Counties. He bought the whole of the produce of that farm and paid a record price for it. That only shows you that the Irish farmer, under most exceptional circumstances, could grow as good seed as anyone in the world. I think fifteen to twenty tons of barley were taken. It was sampled, and after sending a man over, Mr. Webb took the lot.
I do not profess to know very much about the importation, sale or manufacture of whiskey, but I think Senator Fitzgerald has raised a very important point as regards industry. I cannot understand why the Government has not taken action long ago. I refer more particularly to the substitution of Scotch for Irish whiskey. Irish whiskey cannot be sold unless it is lower than 25 under proof, but Scotch whiskey can be sold at 50. My attention was drawn, some time ago, to large casks on the country roads in the district from which I come. I asked some of the men what they were carrying home, and was told that it was whiskey and other articles of that kind. I was also told that where formerly there would be eight or ten cases of Irish whiskey with one of Scotch, now there would be ten of Scotch to one Irish. The Government will hardly meet the question of taxation in a hearty spirit, seeing that it means a loss of revenue, but why they could not put an embargo on Scotch whiskey, and compel Scotch distilleries to sell on equal terms with our own, I cannot imagine.
I have been told that the taste of people for Scotch whiskey has been changed. So long as Scotch whiskey is in consumption why should the Government allow it to come in on such favourable terms to the detriment of our own whiskey trade? If the publican gets greater profit on the sale of Scotch whiskey, then it is his duty to tell his customers that Scotch is better. Even with a reduction of taxation it will take some time to change the tastes of the people again, but if the present taxation goes on, as Senator Fitzgerald said, soon you will not need any Irish distilleries. It is decidedly a loss from every point of view, and a most serious thing for the country.
I rise to oppose this motion. If a motion is moved here which will take away any advantage the importation of Scotch whiskey may have over Irish whiskey, I will support it, but I must confess that this motion which has been argued is really suggesting that more whiskey should be sold in Ireland. That that would be a relief to the trade and commerce of Ireland, is cant. I have no other word for it. I think it is very reprehensible to have a representative of any trade to come here and use his legislative position for the furtherance of his own industry or interests.
On a point of order, is it in order to make such allegations about a Senator as that he brings forward a motion here to benefit himself?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think that was exactly what the Senator said, and personally I do not see why the fact that a Senator happens to be employed in a particular industry should deprive him of the right of advocating the benefits of that industry. I think it is a perfectly legitimate thing; I think on that account it is a fortunate thing that we have, in the Seanad, representatives of the different industries and interests in the country, and I do not think that any imputation could, profitably or reasonably, be levied against a Senator by reason of that fact.
I understand that it is imputed to him that he did it to benefit his own business.
CATHAOIRLEACH
No. I think what he said is, he objected to a Senator raising a motion about a matter in which he was personally interested. That is a question of taste. For myself, I can see no objection to it.
Further, he said, "cant."
CATHAOIRLEACH
That was only a reference to your eloquence.
Cant only comes from Cork.
I was referring to the manner in which Senators argued and the statement that if you reduced the taxation there would be more revenue. That means that there must be more drinking.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do not put too much spirit into your observations. Senator.
It has been represented that enormous quantities of barley and oats are now used for the production of whiskey. Surely the resources of civilisation as to the use of barley and oats are not exhausted if these crops are not turned into whiskey. People are encouraged to produce more of these crops and they can be used more generally for the production of food which I submit is more advantageous to the country than the production of whiskey. The Government wants money for a great many things. We had a Minister here to-day who frankly admitted, as the President admitted in the Dáil, that money is wanted for education and for school buildings. I submit that if money can be raised in this way, which is optional taxation, it is very much better than any other form of taxation that is suggested at the present time. We have other interests pressing for the relief of taxation. Most of us would be pleased if we got relief on income tax. I believe it would mean that capital would be available to finance trade and industry. If we are to take the duties off liquor I can see no relief of taxation in our time. It does not need a very astute mind to recognise that a great deal of the expenditure necessary in this country has been caused by the abuse of drink. It is only necessary to read the returns of the mental hospitals and the prisons. I am not here to make a temperance speech but when we see the misery, which is preventable, that is caused by drink and when we see people who are interested in these trades standing up to advocate the remission of taxation I repeat it is cant. I oppose the motion.
I rise not for the purpose of opposing this motion, or of discussing it, but to suggest that the occasion on which it has been brought forward is not at all opportune. It is brought forward less than three weeks from the introduction of the Budget in the Dáil. The Minister knows perfectly and accurately what money he has to get, and I am perfectly certain that both he and the Government have made up their minds how they are going to get it. If the Minister for Finance has made up his mind to reduce the duty on spirits and beer, then the motion before the Seanad is unnecessary. On the other hand, if he has made up his mind to leave those duties as they are, we will be only stultifying ourselves by passing the resolution. Another reason why I think we ought not to do more than discuss this subject, and certainly not allow it to go as far as a division, is that it is no use suggesting that the duties on spirits and beer ought to be lowered, unless you have some alternative plan by which the money which is necessary for the running of this country can be provided. Neither the mover nor the seconder of the resolution suggested any alternative by which the money now produced by these duties would be obtained. I suggest to the Seanad that this is an inopportune time to have brought forward this motion, and for our own dignity it would be better, after discussing it, as thoroughly as Senators please, to let it be withdrawn.
I confess that I am astonished at the arguments of Senator Brown. I really never heard an argument in principle which seemed to be so absolutely wrong as he has brought forward. He suggests that it is a very inopportune moment to press for a reduction in taxation; firstly, because the Ministers have already made up their minds or intend to make up their minds on the matter. I really forget now what reasons he put forward secondly, but they seemed to me to be very unreasonable. Are we to close our mouths here and not say anything about a reduction of taxation? He also suggests that unless a Senator can provide an alternative method of raising taxation, he is not to say anything. As far as I know, and as the Senator himself must know perfectly well, it is not our business to suggest alternatives. It is the business of the Ministry appointed for that purpose, to find out the best method of raising taxation. It is our duty, and the duty of the Dáil, to say that taxation should be reduced if we think so, and it is the business of the Ministry to find out how that could be done. To suggest that nobody is to criticise anything unless we go into all the details of how it is to be done, seems to me to take away entirely from the duties of the Ministers themselves.
Senator Dowdall made a very extraordinary attack on two Senators. He is, himself, I understand, a business man. He deals in various things and does that mean that he is never going to raise any question dealing with his own business because it might help himself? Are the farmers here to say nothing regarding their own business because it concerns themselves? They represent the farmers, and they are bound to bring forward anything here concerning the farming class. I think it is rather insulting to raise the question in that way, and I am astonished the Senator did so. I do not intend to argue the liquor question. I am, myself, opposed to intoxicating drink, but the main point in this matter is the question of Scotch drink, which is notoriously very bad, while the Irish whiskey is very good. That matter was inquired into at great length a few years ago. The whole question of distilled spirits was gone into. The pot-still whiskey is manufactured on entirely different basis to the Scotch whiskey, which is patent-still.
Those Senators who oppose this motion seem to think that taxation must be allowed because the Minister wants it, but it has been shown that there is an actual reduction in revenue owing to the excessive taxation. The State has been taxed to such an extent that there is a reduction of the income provided by taxation. I do not know why they glossed over that point. For many years one of the greatest questions between England and Ireland was the question of taxation on Irish whiskey, and all our Parliamentary representatives resolutely opposed the taxation of Irish whiskey, because it was an unfair burden on the industry. Now these matters have changed, but the taxation is still too excessive.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The House will recollect that we adjourned, with the consent of Senator Toal, the motion that stands in his name in order to take this motion. I have just received a note from Senator Toal to say that he is compelled to leave at 6 o'clock to catch a train. I think, therefore, that we should adjourn for the moment the further consideration of the present motion. I think we should allow Senator Toal to have an opportunity of moving his motion and speaking to it now. When that is disposed of, we will see whether we will adjourn consideration of the motion at present under discussion to the next sitting or resume it this evening.
Debate, by consent, adjourned.