INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 7 August 1851)

§ MR. HUME
, in moving that the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Property and Income Tax be laid upon the table of the House, complained of the unfair way in which he had been treated throughout the whole of this question. When he first voted for the imposition of the income tax, it was to enable Sir Robert Peel to carry out those reforms which had been so long next his heart; and when, in 1845, a renewal of that tax was demanded, the career of the right hon. Baronet had been so successful that he was not willing to cramp his efforts. But when, in the present Session of Parlia- 1952 ment, he succeeded in limiting the duration of the tax to one year, he obtained leave to place the whole question before a Select Committee. Every obstacle had been thrown in his way. The Committee was not constituted for one month after the time he had obtained leave to have it appointed. He then told the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him three or four Members whom he had promised to place on the Committee, and that he would leave the nomination of the rest to him. That offer was accepted, and he abided by it. The Committee sat nine times, and examined seventeen witnesses. With the exception of three, they were all public officers of the Inland Revenue Department. Not one of these persons gave evidence which it was not important should go before the public; not a particle of it was evidence which could be contradicted, or required to be put forward side by side with evidence which tended to modify it; but the Committee refused to agree to a resolution by which that evidence would be placed in the possession of the House. The fullest information ought to be given upon every subject connected with the incidence of taxation. If changes were contemplated, the public ought to know what those changes were, and whether they could be made with justice and safety. The effect of the inquiry in this instance had been to prove, that for nine years the income tax had been attended with inequality and injustice, which, he believed, might have been removed the first year it was imposed. The Committee had, by a majority of seven to four, decided against the publication of the evidence, in the absence of himself and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). But who were the seven who objected? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two nominees, and the Gentlemen from the opposite side of the House, who did not want any property tax at all. He could not understand how any member of the Government, or any free-trader, could wish to conceal that evidence; but so it was, by an unnatural, inconsistent combination the evidence was to be suppressed. He said again, an "inconsistent combination," for the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not carry out free trade without a tax on property and income; and, if he was sincere in his support of that liberal policy, why did he join with the hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) and the protectionists in stifling the in- 1953 quiry? There was no evidence given before the Committee which ought not to be in the hands of every individual in the country. If the House would not call for that evidence, it was in his possession, and it should go forth to the public. But, with the view of diffusing general information and general knowledge, he ventured to appeal to the House to allow of this evidence being published in a regular way.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
had listened with a great deal of pleasure to the greater part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman; because it was a satisfactory proof that he had recovered from his recent illness, which, he was quite sure, was regretted and deplored by every one. But he could not say he had listened with any pleasure to the unjustifiable attack which the hon. Member had made upon himself and upon other parties. His hon. Friend had stated very truly, the question of printing the evidence was discussed in Committee at some length, and the majority came to the conclusion that as the evidence was so incomplete it was inexpedient to lay it before the House. The fact was, a great deal of the evidence taken would be contradicted by other evidence; and, to print that which was imperfect, might mislead the public. But when the hon. Member spoke of unnatural combination, he should remember how his Motion was carried, upon which the Committee had been appointed. [Mr. HUME had never asked for any combination.] When the hon. Member said he voted on the same side as the hon. Member for Bucks in the Committee, he would remind him that Mr. Disraeli and a large proportion of Members on the opposite side of the House voted with the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) to limit the tax to one year, distinctly disavowing the intention of having any inquiry at all. His hon. Friend ought not to run away with the notion, that in that combination those who voted with him agreed with him in the principles of free trade, or in the object which his hon. Friend himself had in view. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not quite aware whom his hon. Friend considered as "his nominees," unless they were the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Ellice); but they 1954 happened to vote in the Committee, one each way. He trusted hs hon. Friend would, in future, be more cautious in making insinuations so utterly unjustifiable in fact. With regard to the question, whether the House should interfere to order the printing of evidence which the Committee, after full information and full knowledge of the facts, thought it inexpedient to print, the House would not, he believed, entertain that question for a moment. He thought the Committee came to a wise determination. The evidence as it stood would be imperfect, and would give incorrect views to the public; and he trusted the House would not overturn the determination of the Committee not to print the evidence at this stage of the inquiry—a determination which they had come to after long discussion, and which he believed to be right.

§ SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY
regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not acceded to the Motion; but the right hon. Gentleman had spoken entirely beside the question, and had not favoured the House with a single reason; he merely said the majority of the Committee opposed the production of the evidence. But that majority was composed of seven to four, three Members being absent, as well as the Chairman himself. Whether the evidence went forth from the House, or not, it must go forth, and probably at quite as early a period as if authorised by the House. He wished it to go forth in a regular way, and that the public might have the opportunity of rebutting or confirming that evidence, bearing, as it did, on the great question of direct and indirect taxation. If it was imperfect it could be made more perfect hereafter; and he trusted the House would support the Motion.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
advocated the printing of the evidence, on the ground, that there were many precedents of evidence being printed before the inquiry to which it related was complete. The withholding the evidence would render the Committee perfectly useless, and would reflect no credit on the Government.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
would not offer any observations on the general question; but he wished to refer to the statement which had been made, that if the House determined not to have the evidence printed, still hon. Members would give the public that evidence. Such a course would be very irregular, and a contempt of the authority of the House, and a proceeding 1955 which could not he justified in any Member of the House.

§ MR. URQUHART
expressed surprise at the state of the benches on which he sat. Here was a question of the greatest importance, and he was left absolutely alone, the only representative of the Opposition and of the old Tory party, who, when there was a country party in fact, and not in name, did represent the necessity of burdens being placed on those who could properly bear them. He was also surprised at the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, because the inquiry was not complete, the evidence ought not to be printed. The idea of evidence being complete on the subject of taxation, passed his conception of the extravagant and the absurd. They were only at the commencement of the end. They were only taking up the principle of direct taxation, which they dropped years ago, and which had been completely forgotten.

COLONEL THOMPSON said
I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to preserve the income tax; and I desire to see him successful, because I stand here in the name of the working classes, who are made to pay at eleven times the rate of the rich by indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Montrose also declares he desires to preserve the income tax; but he took a strange way of doing it, when he united with those whose object was to put it down altogether. And further, there is a grand fallacy in the arguments of the supporters of his side of the question. When hon. Gentlemen call for a diminished tax on industrial property, they always mean on temporary incomes, though they have endeavoured of late to avoid the term. Now, it is as fair that a property held for a term of years should pay the tax for a term of years, as that a property held for ever should pay the tax for ever; there is not a farthing of inequality in the case. On the whole, therefore, he must go with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preference to the Member for Montrose; and be was glad to have had the opportunity of stating the reason why.

§ MR. HUME
explained, that, in using the word "nominees," he adopted the phraseology of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had insisted on nominating three Members of the Committee. He had done his duty in bringing the subject forward, and he left it to the House to decide upon it as they should think fit.