EXEMPTION or THE CROWN FROM TAXES. (Hansard, 28 June 1831)

Mr. Hume
had looked over the Bill, and confessed he could not understand it. On whom would the tax fall now the clause was omitted which was contained in the former bill, and made the Crown liable to parish rates?

§ Lord Duncannon
replied, that the Bill was the same as that introduced last. Ses- 458 sion, with the exception of a clause which was then inserted by mistake, and was not intended to form part of the Bill.

Mr. Hume
again asked, upon whom would the tax be thrown by the proposed Act?

§ Lord Duncannon
.—By the clause which was introduced into the former bill, unknown to the authors of it, the right of the Crown not to pay taxes was, for the first time, controverted. The effect of this Bill would be, to throw the burthen on the parish.

Mr. Hume
saw no reason why private property should be taxed, and that of the King not,

§ Lord Duncannon
repeated, this was the first occasion in which an attempt to tax the Crown had been made. The clause proposed to be introduced was declined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, without obtaining the consent of the Crown. He did not see how the proposed object could be better effected than by the Bill.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, the clause now omitted was introduced by surprise. His hon. friend talked of the Crown not contributing to pay taxes. Why, to whom did the taxes go? To the Crown itself. But, passing that by, the clause was introduced without due notice, and contrary to the understanding between the parties. The Crown was taken by surprise, and so were those who were responsible for the Bill, for the obnoxious clause was introduced in the Committee without their knowledge; and it was for the purpose of guarding the Crown against that surprise that the present Bill was brought forward.

Mr. Hume
fully agreed in the impropriety of taking any unfair advantage, still he thought this might be done without the assistance of the parish.

§ Lord Althorp
said, his hon. friend was quite mistaken in his view of the subject; the taxes were paid to the King, and why should he pay them again? Would that be in accordance with the laws and constitution of the country.

Mr. Hume
said, his noble friend did not exactly understand his objection. If the King's property was not to be taxed, well and good; but then the whole community should be equally taxed for this purpose, not the immediate neighbourhood.

§ Lord Duncannon
said, parishes had always to pay this description of tax. This Bill would not have been brought in if the 459 clause had not been contained in the other enactment.

Mr. Hume
thought the parish should be allowed an opportunity of inquiring into the subject. Had notice been given it of this Bill?

§ Lord Duncannon
could not say he had given the parish direct notice of his intention to bring in this Bill, but he could assure his hon. friend, that the parish was perfectly aware of it. An individual in office had been spoken to, and had been informed that the Bill would this evening be considered in Committee, and he was satisfied that the Bill should pass in its present state.

Mr. Goulburn
said, there was no doubt but that the clause had been surreptitiously introduced, and an early opportunity had been taken to strike it out. Independently, however, of the question of charging any description of property, he should say, it was most important for the House, on the general principle, to mark its disapprobation of discussing public questions, affecting the interests of the Crown, on private bills. Nothing could be more improper, for if public matters were to be introduced into private bills, they would be delayed in every stage. He, therefore, said, independently of the question of taxing property, that they were really bound to pass this Bill to mark their disapprobation of such proceedings.

Mr. Hume
begged to know, whether any other Crown property was treated in a similar manner.

§ Lord Duncannon
replied, certainly. On general principles, all royal residences were free from this description of tax. It was the universal practice of parishes to pay all these rates, until the clause so frequently referred to was introduced.

Mr. Hume
said, it appeared rather a singular principle to tax one parish one year, and another parish another year. Looked at in this way, he was convinced the doctrine was unsound, and the course adopted by the noble Lord was open to many objections.

Mr. Goulburn
replied, the hon. Gentleman must see that it would be inconsistent with the Constitution to tax the Crown. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, that all Crown property, even in the hands of individuals, was exempt from the payment of rates; that was not the case, but only that part of it which was in possession of the Crown itself.