ATTORNEYS, &c., CERTIFICATE DUTY BILL— [BILL 53.]—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 25 June 1867)

§ MR. DENMAN
, in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said that the attorneys were at present subject to what was really a quadruple tax. They had to pay a fee of £80 upon their entrance to the profession, another of £25 upon taking out their articles, the ordinary income tax upon their professional earnings, and also the annual tax (which was £9 in London and £6 in the country) for the renewal of their certificates. No other profession had to pay a tax for permission to work. He had authority for believing that the average income of attorneys in the kingdom did not exceed £360 a year, so that, in fact, this duty was equal to an additional income tax of 6d. in the pound upon all the members of the profession whose income did not exceed the sum he had stated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the present Lord Chancellor, and Lord Cairns, had all voted against the tax. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had objected to his (Mr. Denman's) dealing with this question because 550 he was a barrister. Others might impute to him what motives they pleased; he should feel himself a coward if he allowed himself to be deterred from proceeding with this Bill, because, forsooth, some persons, who can attribute none but low motives to others, might, as his hon. and learned Friend suggested, impute unworthy motives to him. His hon. and learned Friend had disclaimed any such suspicion on his own part, but in using the argument that a banister ought not to deal with such a subject, because others might make unpleasant insinuations, he had only confirmed him (Mr. Denman) in his resolution to proceed with the Bill. In undertaking the conduct of this Bill he was conscious of no other motive than the wish to repeal an unjust and oppressive tax. He felt confident that that was the only motive which actuated the distinguished persons he had mentioned, when they voted against this tax, being at the time practising barristers; and he was sure no other motive had induced Lord Robert Grosvenor (now Lord Ebury), when in this House, to wage a persevering warfare for its repeal. Another argument against the Bill was that an objection against licences should be taken, not singly, but in a lump against all licence taxes. But if this argument prevailed, no licence, however objectionable, could be touched without including in the operation an attack on other licences which might not possess the same objectionable features. Still another argument against this measure was the time argument. But that meant nothing more than this: "Do not attack the duty now, because you do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do in his Budget;" but when the Budget was over the language was changed; it was then—"Do not attack the Budget, for see what the Chancellor has done." And this argument being applicable at each and every moment of the Session, amounted to holding that no tax should ever be repealed except at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being. It was because the tax was unjust and oppressive to the poorer portion of the legal profession that he asked the House to abolish it. He moved that the Speaker leave the Chair.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been in the House until just now, had no particular Amendment to insert, and therefore did not oppose any of the clauses; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must not suppose that the Bill would pass unchallenged upon the third reading.

§ MR. DENMAN
said, that was entirely contrary to the understanding come to with the Government, because he was told the discussion would be raised on going into Committee.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the understanding was that the discussion would take place at a future stage. The discussion had not taken place at this stage, but would on the third reading.