HC Deb 15 March 1842 vol 61 cc591-8
Mr. F. T. Baring

said, I rise to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite of which I have given notice. I shall punctiliously adhere to the practice of not introducing any matter for discussion, but confine myself to what is merely necessary for the purpose of explaining to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the object of my question. The House will recollect that, in the full statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House on Friday last, there was one point—and I do think one point only—on which he afforded to the House no information, and that is, the machinery which he intends to employ, and the powers which he means to exer- cise, for the collection of the tax which he proposes. A question was put to the right hon. Baronet, for the purpose of eliciting this information; but there was an evident wish not to press him to make further disclosures on that occasion. I do think, however, that this is a point on which the public have a fair right to be heard, and with that view I venture to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, for the purpose of remedying the omission in the announcement which he has already made. I do not wish the right hon. gentleman to go through all the small details of his arrangement; what I wish to hear from him is, some information as to what forms the essence of the tax now before Parliament, because I apprehend that, in all taxes, an essential subject of consideration is the mode in which they are levied; and the question, whether a tax is good or bad, is, whether it takes money out of the pockets of the subject in a convenient or inconvenient manner. I wish, therefore, to ascertain what is the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce; what are the powers he intends to give to the officers employed under this system; whether those officers are to be commissioners; what is the mode of investigation (for that is one of the main points) to which the party who is obliged to pay the tax will be compelled to submit, and what is the mode of compulsion proposed to be exercised towards any person who refuses. I do not wish to detain the House, but I was desirous merely to state what my view was in asking this question. I do trust that the information I have sought will be afforded, more especially after the announcement you, Sir, have made from the Chair, that after the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is once before the House, our doors will be shut to any petition or remonstrance that may come from the country as to this tax.

Sir R. Peel

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has put to me seven questions, to which he requires an answer. As I stated to the House, I shall bring forward a measure embracing the general principles which I have already disclosed, and on which the present Government proposes to found a bill for the purpose of supplying the enormous deficiency which has been occasioned by the disproportion which has been suffered to accrue between the revenue and expenditure. In the bill for raising the property-tax, there are about 218 clauses; and the right hon. Gentleman thinks it convenient for me to state, in answer to his question, what is the general purport of those clauses. Consistently with my public duty, I do not feel I could give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman without entering into explanations which cannot be properly made in replying to a single question, or a series of questions. The House, I am sure, must feel, that it is extremely difficult for any one who labours under the responsibility of proposing a great measure to Parliament, and upon which it is of the utmost importance that the intentions of the Government should be kept perfectly secret as regards its operation on the commercial and manufacturing interests, to disclose the principal provisions of his scheme in an imperfect shape before Parliament. The records of whole proceedings of the old property-tax commissioners were destroyed by a vote of this House. Almost all the officers employed under it have ceased to exist. I do not deny the importance of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman's question applies, and I think the machinery under the proposed tax a question of grave consideration. But it is the first privilege, as I hold it, of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have an opportunity of explaining in detail the provisions of an all-important measure of this nature. It is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to debate this question on Friday; but I do not think it fitting that I should explain, in answer to a mere question, what are the general provisions of a bill so complicated as one for levying a tax of this nature must be. I must, therefore, beg leave to decline answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Viscount Howick

said, that as the right hon. Baronet objected to state, in answer to a question, the nature of the machinery he proposed to adopt, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would take some mode of giving the required explanation before the House was called on to discuss the measure; because it appeared to him that the propriety of granting or refusing the tax turned to a considerable extent on the nature of the machinery to be employed for its collection. It was a little too hard that they should be expected, after hearing for the first time on Friday next what the machinery was, to give a vote, in a few hours afterwards, which, if once given in favour of the proposition, so far committed the House that no further petitions on the subject could be received. He, therefore, wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would object to take some mode of explaining the nature of the machinery he proposed to employ, so as to allow some interval of time to elapse before the House was called on to vote upon the proposition?

Sir R. Peel

said, that the noble Viscount and every hon. Gentleman would have the fullest opportunity, during the progress of the bill, of discussing the matter if the machinery should appear to them unsatisfactory, or so unsatisfactory as to constitute a fatal objection to the measure. Acceding to the preliminary resolution would not bind the noble Viscount to support every part of the bill. He was sure the House would not expect, in reference to a bill which might contain about 218 clauses, any Member should be bound to all the details. He would at the earliest period, whenever there was an opportunity of entering into an explanation (but not in answer to a question), state to the House the general principle on which he proposed the machinery should be constructed. He would do so when he had an opportunity of replying to the comments that might be made by various hon. Gentlemen, but not when he was limited to a mere answer to a question.

Mr. F. T. Baring

said, that as the right hon. Baronet had alluded to a bill with 218 clauses, he wished to explain that all he asked for was the principles of his proposed machinery. Mr. Pitt, when he announced the income-tax, thought it his duty on that occasion to explain the principle and mode of levying it. He certainly did not think he had asked an improper question.

Sir R. Peel

apprehended, that Mr. Pitt made his explanations in the committee on the bill, and not in answer to questions. The right hon. Gentleman would be at perfect liberty to ask for details on Friday next; but how was it possible for him to enter into explanations of the sort required, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's seven questions, as to who were to be the commissioners, what powers they were to exercise, what officers of excise or other department were to collect the tax, what powers each were to have, and so forth?—Conversation at an end.