The Earl of Dalhousiemoved the Second Reading of the Bill for repealing the Auction Duties. This was not the first time that the duty on auctions had attracted the notice of Government; in 1835 a Commission had been appointed and had reported upon it. It had been found an unjust and oppressive tax, and easily evaded; in fact, for 8,000,000l. of property sold by auction which paid duty, there was no less than 37,000,000l. submitted to auction, but for which exemption was claimed. It was also proposed to have only one auctioneer's license taken out, instead of several, as at present; and certain property, such as property taken in distress for rent, was to be sold by any person, without his being compelled to go to the expense of a license.
Lord Broughamsaid this was the only part of the Budget which he did not exceedingly admire; or, to speak more properly, moderately admire. He highly approved of those measures which were in relief of trade; but this he thought a very unwise and ill-considered measure, proceeding upon a very erroneous view of the subject. The auction duty was almost the only tax to which no one objected; auctioneers themselves did not, and accordingly no gratitude proceeded from them now, but they were all complaining of the repeal; he knew this, for he had seen some of them, and among them one who was not long since chief magistrate of the city of London. He (Lord Brougham) would not pretend to understand their occupation; he was, as to it, a layman, though there was said to be a great analogy between it and the profession of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but he knew enough of it to warrant him in objecting to this Bill. A large and increasing revenue was to be sacrificed, when the surplus might have been far better employed. But there were two objections which he would particularly urge. The first was, that in one of the clauses (in addition to letting in a lower class of practitioners, by diminishing the sum payable for a yearly license) a stigma was attempted to be cast upon an auctioneer by requiring him to have his license always in his pocket at an auction; and any revenue officer, gauger, or other, 1437 might go up to him and call upon him to produce it, and if he did not "immediately do so," or pay down 10l. (though he might be a very respectable man, and yet have neither in his pocket) he was to go to prison for a month. Really the House of Commons must not send up such Bills, and expect their Lordships not to alter them. The other objection was with respect to distress for rent. For the first time, any person of the lowest degree was to be allowed to sell goods distrained for less than 20l. rent; any person whatsoever was to be allowed to take the goods of a poor man in distraint, and sell them for the landlord. He had said any person could now be employed to take the goods, because the fact was, that if an auctioneer was required by law to be employed to sell, he would be the person employed to distrain; and that gave the advantage of a better kind of person being employed in this summary process, and thus furnished more security against a sale at an undervalue. Now, this was part of the relief for which the country was to be content to pay the Income Tax! And that led him to mention a circumstance which he hoped would be taken due notice of; he would presently hand to the Government a paper stating the circumstances; he did not blame them, but he blamed the tax and the party concerned in this instance, and he mentioned it publicly that it might be a warning to Property-tax Commissioners all over the country, that the indignation of Parliament would visit such grossly negligent conduct. A citizen of London, living at the east end of the town, had occasion to purchase something or other at a chandler's shop, and when he got home he found it was wrapped up in a return — the original signed return—made the other day under the Property-tax Act, by a person whose name was appended to it, stating the profits of his trade under one head, and of his profession (for he had both) under another head. The paper had been shown to him (Lord Brougham), and might have been seen by twenty other persons; and if some of these returns were selling for waste paper, he should like to know where it was to end. It gave him great concern to find a case of negligence of so gross a description. A noble Friend of his had had a conversation with a Gentleman, a Member of the other House of Parliament, who lived near Clapham, and who stated that in a public conveyance he 1438 happened to say, "That is a handsome villa on the right;" when a stranger replied, "Yes, and it will very soon be in the market; I dare say, you may buy it cheap, if you like it." "Indeed," said the gentleman, "what do you mean?" "Why, I happen to know," was the answer, "that the owner, though he is supposed to be a respectable and wealthy merchant in the city, has given in his profits under the Property-tax as amounting to nothing for the last two or three years;" and therefore he inferred that he would soon be in the Gazette, and his villa for sale. The noble Lord who made this communication to him (Lord Brougham) told him that he had himself given in his income not at what it really was, for he had for three years, from the state of foreign trade, lost many thousands instead of gaining, but he had paid the tax, presuming (as the fact was) that profitable trade would return; it was on his mentioning that, and saying how fatal to his credit in the city the knowledge of such losses might at the time have been, that he was led to add this proof that the returns got known.
Lord Stanleyhad understood that the second reading of the Bill now before the House was to be taken pro formâ, and the discussion postponed to a later stage; and indeed the objections urged were not directed against the principle of the Bill. His noble and learned Friend had made one or two objections to the Bill. The first objection was, that whereas it was desirable to raise the characters of auctioneers generally, the alteration was calculated to lower them. He (Lord Stanley) differed from his noble and learned Friend upon this point; because, although it was true that the higher classes of auctioneers could carry on their business with a license of 10l. a year, a restriction was imposed upon the lower class, who could not act without a license of that amount, instead of 5l., as at present. The effect, therefore, was to raise the character of the lower class. His noble and learned Friend objected to the provision by which any auctioneer at an auction might be required to produce his license; and if he did not produce it he was liable to deposit 10l. But this could be productive of no inconvenience. If an auctioneer was required at any time to produce his license, such a provision might be oppressive; but it could be no inconvenience to be called upon at a time 1439 of public sale, when he would go provided with his license just as with a catalogue of the goods to be sold. Persons could be called upon to produce game licenses, and were liable to a penalty if they refused.
Lord StanleyAccording to the existing law, auctioneers were required to have over their heads a ticket, with their name and other particulars. He thought that, as his noble and learned Friend had not objected to the principle of the Bill, his objections would not prevail upon their Lordships to refuse to read the Bill a second time.
§ Bill read 2a.
§ House adjourned.