HC Deb 06 June 1851 vol 117 cc561-74

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd June].

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. HUME

said, he should have been content with simply moving that the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be added to this Committee, if it were not that he understood the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Deedes) intended to move the adjournment of the debate. He was not aware on what ground the adjournment was to be moved; but the circumstance made it necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the position in which they were now brought in consequence of the difficulties connected with the nomination of the Committee. It was usual for those who moved Committees to make the best arrangement they could, and to obtain the fittest men to serve upon them; and his object in appointing the Select Committee on the Income and Property Tax had been to name it fairly from the different parties into which the House was divided. The Members, however, who were originally selected to be on it, had, some of them, refused to serve, and one whole section had refused to serve at all. This had led to several changes, so much so that he had been obliged to intimate at the last meeting that the names of those willing to serve should be put down on paper. He was convinced that the House must adopt some new, mode of naming Committees on public business. This had been a long-established practice in the United States of America, and it had been found to work admirably well. There were, for instance, the military, the legal and the commercial Committees, and to these, respectively, military, legal, and commercial matters were referred. In all, nine different Committees were selected by the Speaker at Washington, and thus the objectionable system of packing was prevented. But here, one person after another backed out. Nearly twenty years ago he made a proposition, which did not then find favour with the House, that at the meeting of Parliament the Speaker should name a certain number of Committees, each consisting of Members versed in the different departments of State, and that when a question arose it should be referred to that particular Committee to whose department it belonged. The House had reformed the system of nominating private Committees, and he did not see why they should not also reform the system of nominating public Committees. He would now state to the House how this question stood. Four Members were named by himself; four names were given him by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which, though he did not adopt them all at first, he had now taken. It was now discovered that the Members of the Peelite division had refused to serve, which he thought was a pity; he thought no party had a right to refuse the wish of the House. He had applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for four names, who had given him the names of himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), Mr. Labouchere, Lord Harry Vane, and Colonel Romilly. He did not at first adopt the name of Colonel Romilly, because he had previously obtained the consent of Mr. Frederick Peel to serve; but as some other hon. Gentlemen had since declined, he was now ready to insert the name of Colonel Romilly. But now the noble Lord said he intended to withdraw the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think the noble Lord had a right to withdraw him. The noble Lord accepted the vote of the House, and declared his intention to support the Committee: why did he draw back now? But it was desirable that the public creditor should receive some protection on the Committee from a Member of the Government, and therefore he was resolved to retain the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his list. He had substituted the name of Mr. Villiers for that of Mr. Labouchere, and he had allowed the name of Colonel Romilly to stand. Leaving the House to decide for itself, he had now to propose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer be elected a Member of the Committee.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the difficulties which had arisen in the nomination of this Committee had been very fairly stated by the hon. Member for Montrose; but there was no reason to complain of the ordinary mode in which the nomination of Committees worked in that House. He only recollected one other occasion on which a similar difficulty to the present had occurred. The circumstances under which this Income and Property Tax Committee came to be named, differed from those under which Committees were usually named. This Committee was the result of one of those cross votes in which parties voted together, though they had totally different objects in doing so; and hence the present difficulty. The Government had certainly stated that they would not oppose the nomination of the Committee; still he had distinctly said, that although he believed little or no good would result from its appointment, he was anxious to have such a Committee nominated as would carry weight with the country, and give satisfaction in the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, that financial questions ought to be referred to those best acquainted with questions of finance, and he had endeavoured to procure the attendance of some of the adherents of the late Sir Robert Peel, believing that they were well qualified to inquire into financial matters, and also of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries), whom he might call the financial Nestor of the House. Those Gentlemen had, however, declined to serve. That was no fault of his, as he had done his host to secure them. He then felt himself placed in a difficult position, if he were to be the only one on the Committee that had practical experience of financial questions, and he did not think he ought to be placed on that Committee without any support at all. He had asked for four Members who generally concurred with the Government to be on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) only gave him three. Now, it was perfectly impossible that a Gentleman holding a department which was so hard worked as his should attend this Committee constantly, and therefore he did not think he should go into the Committee with the slightest chance of doing his duty to the public unless he had some persons present on whose assistance and support generally he might depend. As the proposition now stood, there was to he only one person of adequate financial experience, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was to be supported by only two hon. Gentlemen on whom he could rely. He believed it would not be for the benefit of the public to place a Chancellor of the Exchequer in that position. There were, besides these, other reasons why he hesitated to take that position. He had already repeatedly expressed to the House his opinion to the effect that the modifications suggested in this tax were not practically possible. Mr. Pitt had said—Sir Robert Peel had said, and he himself had said—that they would not be able to keep faith with the public creditor if they went to the extent of these modifications in regard to this tax. Now, in the Committee proposed by the hon. Member, there were right hon. Gentlemen upon it who, by their speeches and votes in the House, had declared themselves in favour of modifications which he believed to be unjust and unfair; and he found that altogether there was an unfair preponderance of opinion in the Committee against the landed interest, which might be said to pay one-half of the income tax. The Committee ought at least to represent fairly all interests and parties and opinions in the House. The opinion of the House, by a majority of more than two to one, had been declared against these modifications. The majority of the Committee were in favour of modifications. Could any one then get up and say that the Committee fairly represented the opinion of the House? It would be quite unreasonable, on the other hand, to require that the Committee should be composed of two to one against modifications, on the ground that, if so constituted, it would truly represent the opinion of the House; but, at any rate, the majority ought not to be so decidedly against that expressed opinion. He wished for the present to with draw his name, though he was perfectly ready to serve on a Committee fairly and reasonably representing all classes and all interests; and he was satisfied, unless that fairness was obtained, the appointment of the Committee would be worse than useless. He had not the slightest desire to throw the Committee overboard altogether, but unless they could get a good Committee, he was satisfied that the House would prefer to have no Committee. The duty of defending the tax, in its present form, would of course fall upon him; and he thought that he could not justly be asked to go into such a Committee without being satisfied that he could place dependence on two or three Gentlemen to take the same side at such times as he would himself be unable to attend the Committee. He, therefore, thought that it was no unreasonable request that he should be permitted to recommend five names for the Committee. It would be invidious to object to any particular name. He did not say the names individually were improperly selected; but he did not think they fairly represented the opinions of the House. Under these circumstances, and seeing that it was impossible to appoint the Committee that evening, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman an adjournment of the question. The proposal of the Government was a perfectly fair proposal; and if other parties, and leaders of parties, in the House, would regard the matter in the same light, then they might, if they did not make the Committee useful, at least endeavour to make it such as would have the confidence of the House and of the country.

MR. DEEDES

said, the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified him in the course he was about to take in this matter, which was to propose the postponement of the nomination of the Committee until after the Whitsuntide recess. Upon the last occasion when the nomination of the Committee was before the House, he voted with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Fresh-field), feeling bound by the vote given before, that the Committee, according to the expressed feeling of a majority of that House, ought to be appointed, lie entertained the same opinion now. He had seen no reason to alter that opinion; on the contrary, it had been greatly confirmed by what then took place. The noble Lord at the head of the Government alluded to the confessedly great difficulties which surrounded this question; and no man could deny that great, he would not say insuperable, hut assuredly enormous, difficulties did exist. To his mind that was a greater reason why, the public having been led to believe, and this House having pledged itself to a certain extent, that a Committee should be appointed, the Committee to which so important a question was to be entrusted, should be such a one as to deserve, not only the confidence of that House, but the confidence of the country. If the inquiry were not conducted upon the principle of arriving at the truth, and seeing whether any modification could be made in the inequalities of the pressure of the income tax, the proceedings of this House would be merely a delusion, and the public might rightly and properly say they had not been fairly dealt with by this House. The report of a Committee on so important a subject ought to be such as would carry with it the greatest possible weight. He had asked the lion. Member for Montrose to defer for a further period the nomination of this Committee. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the present mode of forming Committees. He (Mr. Deedes) was not there to defend altogether that course; hut this result must follow the observation that, in this instance, every possible care should be taken that the ordinary measure for securing an impartial Committee should be pre-eminently followed. He did not think that had been the case in the present instance. He did not impute any motive to the hon. Member for Montrose, except a desire for a fair inquiry and an honest report. He admitted the hon. Gentleman had met with great difficulties in his endeavours to nominate the Committee. Some of those difficulties arose, perhaps, from the unwillingness of Members to servo, who entertained a difference of opinion with the hon. Member on the subject in question, and also from the Committee being about to be named at a very late period of the Session. He agreed, however, with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that, unless hon. Gentlemen could allege some more valid objection than had as yet been given, they ought to serve upon this Committee. He hoped the example of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in withdrawing his objection to servo, would not be lost, and that those hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, would also withdraw their objections. He always understood the principle of electing Committees was, that good and sufficient time should be given to the House to judge of the qualifications of the Members whoso names were proposed. When so great a difference of opinion existed as to interests being properly represented, as had been expressed on this question, time ought to be given for Members, if so inclined, to propose other names. The hon. Member for Montrose had been driven from day to day, and almost from pillar to post, by objections to those hon. Members he had named, and the numerous refusals to serve. The names which appeared yesterday were different from those to which they were now called on to assent. Objection might be made to a particular name; but if ten Members were to he named to-day and four added afterwards, without knowing who those four Members might be, it was impossible to judge of the whole complexion of the Committee. He felt strongly, with the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those interested in the laud should be properly represented. The public were most hostile to this tax. No fitting or proper inquiry had been made at any time, certainly not recently, as to the possibility of modifying its operation; and he believed, if the Committee had the confidence of the public, though the result should be to perpetuate the tax, they would be more satisfied, and would submit with greater readiness than now, because at present they felt that injustice was imposed without inquiry. Under these circumstances lie thought he was not asking too much in requesting the hon. Gentleman to postpone the nomination of the Committee until after the Whitsuntide holidays; and, feeling that the landed interest was not properly represented in the present list of Members, he felt it his duty to move that this debate be now adjourned.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

was of opinion that no beneficial results attended the appointment of any Committees, because they were partially made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to serve on the Committee if he could command a majority. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, no!] That was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, and no other meaning could be attached to what he had said. It was in effect, "Give me a majority, and I shall be happy to serve." The hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes) was of the same opinion; and if he could command a majority in favour of the landed interest, he would be perfectly satisfied. More than a month had elapsed since the Motion was carried, the essential part of which was that a Committee should be appointed, and he deprecated any further delay. Unless there was an entire change in the system of nominating Committees, they would neither be found to be beneficial in conducting inquiries, nor to answer the expectations of the public.

MR. W. MILES

said, the question they had to deal with was, whether the names now nominated could be said to give confidence to the country in any report which might emanate from the Committee: After the statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not disposed to accept the Committee. Not one hon. Gentleman well acquainted with the mysteries of finance was nominated. His own opinion was, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, who were acquainted with finance, ought to serve on the Committee. The Gentlemen on that side of the House had declined to serve, and other names wore substituted. On the eve of the Whitsuntide recess, they were asked to assent to the appointment of the Committee, without the power of giving notice of other names. Mr. Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, and the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of Exchequer) had all admitted the injustice and inequality of this tax, and, though they were willing to remove that inequality and injustice, they confessed it was impossible. What chance, then, was there of a Committee composed of Gentlemen unacquainted with finance bringing up any report, or doing anything satisfactory to the public? He would ask the hon. Member for Montrose if he thought it possible the Committee could thoroughly inquire and investigate a subject involving five and a half millions of revenue, and before the end of the present Session present a proper report? Because, if he did not think so, he (Mr. Miles) recommended him again to consult those Gentlemen who, all agreed, ought to be upon the Committee, and endeavour to persuade them at the commencement of next Session to agree to serve. With a Committee so constituted, the hon. Gentlemen might enter upon the discussion with the prospect of giving more general satisfaction than at present.

MR. ROCHE

was strongly impressed with the opinion that the mode of appointing Committees was exceedingly unfair and unwise; and the present discussion bore out that opinion, because both the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, refused to serve unless each had a majority on this Committee. Unless a man would so demean himself as to canvass to be put on a Committee, no independent Member had a chance of being nominated on any Committee of that House. He believed in Prance Committees were appointed on a sound and safe plan. The House was divided into bureaus, which selected proper men to discuss great public questions of this kind in Committee, The question raised by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was a very important question, and he contended they ought to discover some other means of choosing Committees on public subjects, for a worse system than the present could not be devised.

MR. MOWATT

did not agree with the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles) that it was impossible to discover in the present day any remedy for the inequalities of the income tax, because it was not discovered in the last century by Mr. Pitt. He thought that argument had been demolished in the course of the late debate, when the Motion for limiting the tax to one year was accepted with the view of having an inquiry. Granting that the landed gentry were interested in the subject, in the hope of shifting a portion of the burden from themselves, the hon. Members who represented that interest, having availed themselves of that Motion, ought not to throw impediments in the way of the nomination of the Committee. He regretted that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would refuse to serve on the Committee unless a portion of the Committee entered upon the inquiry with a foregone conclusion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, what he stated was, that he objected going into the Committee with a majority committed in opinion against the income tax.

SIR JOHN B. WALSH

thought that the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt) had misunderstood the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles). He understood that hon. Member to have said, that however respectable the names suggested for the Committee, since those hon. Members had no knowledge of finance, it was not probable they would arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on so difficult a question that it had eluded the powers of eminent financiers of bygone times. [Mr. W. MILES: Hear, hear!] The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had repeated the charge of cross-voting. Now, he (Sir J. Walsh) wanted to know how he—having great objections to this tax, agreeing with the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that any modification was difficult, perhaps almost impossible, and at the same time being anxious to get rid of the tax altogether in the quickest possible time consistent with the preservation of the public credit—he wanted to know how he was to vote, when the Motion was put from the Chair, simply that the tax be limited to one year? He did not agree with the question of going to a Committee; but that was not the question; and, because of some implied understanding, which, he did not admit existed, and which never existed in the smallest degree as far as he was concerned, was he not to vote at all, or vote for three years, when he conscientiously thought one year was the most preferable period? He had never imagined that by voting for the hon. Member's (Mr. Hume's) Motion to limit the duration of the tax to one year, he was pledging himself to vote for a Committee of Inquiry with the view of modifying the tax. He would like hon. Gentlemen who talked of the inconsistency of hon. Members like himself, to tell him how, with the opinions he entertained, he could have voted otherwise than he had done. He thought the anomaly arose from the unusual course taken by Her Majesty's Ministers, when, having lost the confidence of that House, and having been placed in a considerable minority, they still persevered in holding the reins of power. From that cause many of the difficulties had arisen. He could not offer any opposition to a Motion so reasonable as that of the hon. Member for East Kent; and after the speech of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the postponement of the Committee appeared to him not to be a matter of choice but of necessity.

MR. BAILLIE

said, that if by proposing the Amendment the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes) wished to get rid of the Committee by a side wind, the Amendment was doubtless well calculated to attain that end; but if the object of the hon. Gentleman was that an inquiry should really take place, and a report be made by the Committee, he could not conceive how he should propose the postponement of the appointment of the Committee till after the holidays, seeing that the Session was drawing so near to a close. In fact, he thought that those who wished to see an inquiry take place, had already some reason to complain that the hon. Member for Montrose had put off the appointment of the Committee so long. He would recommend the hon. Member for Montrose to select three or four Gentlemen of his own party to carry on the inquiry, and leave the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to nominate the rest.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

recommended that the nomination of the Committee should be postponed till that day week.

MR. DEEDES

said, the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) seemed to have some doubt as to his (Mr. Deedes') motives in the course he had taken. Now, he would only say, that from the beginning to the end of this question, he had voted bonâ fide for the purpose of having an inquiry into this subject. He had no wish now to shelve the question; on the contrary, he only wanted an honest and fair inquiry.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he understood it was a principle of the hon. Member for Montrose that no Member should be on two Committees at once. Yet he would find that one hon. Member, whom he had named, and who, no doubt, would be a great acquisition to any Committee, the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), was already upon three Committees.

MR. HUME

wished to show how unjust all those allegations were that had been made against him; for, if ever man had tried hard to get a fair Committee, he had endeavoured to do so in this case. Upon the subject of the nomination of the Members, he had consulted both sides of the House, and had consulted the three sections and the half section into which it was said the House was now divided—the Radicals, the Protectionists, and the Government, as well as the followers of the late Sir Robert Peel, who were so few that they had obtained the name of the half section. The four hon. Members named by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) were on his (Mr. Hume's) list. The four Gentlemen suggested by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with one exception, were also on his list; and the name he substituted for that exception was that of his hon. Friend Mr. C. Villiers, a consistent and unerring supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the Committee he had proposed? He had named four Gentlemen—Mr. Horsman, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Cobden. Let him have those, and he would give the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer a carte blanche to fill up the rest of the list.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he thought that in the present position of the case, they could not do better than agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes); for if the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) were agreed to, the debate must still be adjourned. With respect to the nomination of the Committee, he thought he was right in what he had said the night before, that it was not a fair proposal for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go upon a great financial question into a Committee of fifteen Members with only two supporters. His right hon. Friend had made a proposal rather too moderate when he suggested that he should nominate only three Members of the Committee in addition to himself. He fully believed that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose wished to constitute a fair Committee; and as he had not succeeded, there was no better course to pursue than for the House to agree to the adjournment of the debate, with the view to enable them to choose a Committee of which the House would approve. Upon the observations that had been made by the hon. Member for Lam-both (Mr. W. Williams), that Committees of that House were of no use but to produce blue books, he would venture to remark that some of the most important measures ever adopted by Parliament had been grounded upon inquiries by Committees of that House; and, as instances, he need only mention the Bullion Committee, the Slavery Committee, and the Committee upon Import Duties. Committees had also sat since that time upon most important subjects, and their reports had been taken by Parliament as the basis of legislation. He thought that the question now under discussion should be thoroughly sifted, and that reasons should be stated to show whether any modification of the tax was practicable. Therefore, in the present state of circumstances, he should vote for the adjournment of the debate, not, certainly with any view of getting rid of the Committee, but with the hope that a conclusion might be gained which would be satisfactory to the House.

MR. HUME

wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the task of nominating the Committee—he (Mr. Hume) merely stipulating for the four names he had mentioned?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would do his best, but he could not say that he felt confident of succeeding. He had already stated that he had endeavoured to induce three or four Gentlemen, whose presence everybody would wish to sec on the Committee, to serve upon it, and it was not his fault that he had not succeeded.

MR. HUME

Then I leave the Committee entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. COBDEN

soid, it had been stated that two or three Gentlemen on the other side of the House had refused to serve; and one of those who was mentioned was the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), who was the only man on that side who had had any official experience in finance. That one fact was sufficient to warrant the observation of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) as to the absolute necessity of providing some better plan for the framing of Committees, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, the only Member of a large section of that House who had had official experience in financial matters, had distinctly stated that he would not serve, without assigning any public ground for his refusal; and the rules of the House gave them no power to compel him. Therefore the House stood before the country in this position—that having resolved that there should be a Committee, they had not the power of carrying out their own vote. But he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking that it was at all necessary to have Gentlemen of official experience on matters of finance as Members of the Committee. The House were not going to select certain hon. Gentlemen to carry out the resolution of the Committee: what they proposed was merely to devise a plan of levying the tax. He did not sec that official experience would give them any advantage over other hon. Members on that subject, in as much as all previous Governments had proceeded on the assumption that no alteration of the mode of levying the tax was possible, while it was obvious that by considering the presence of such Gentlemen on the Committee absolutely necessary they would put it in the power of a small number to paralyse the House in carrying out its own resolution. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer adhered to that opinion, he would come to the House next Session encumbered with the same difficulties as in the present. It appeared to be /n the power of some half-dozen Gentlemen on the opposite side to stop the proceedings of that House whenever they thought fit; but he asserted that their objections formed no valid reason why his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose should non have his Committee.

MR. HERRIES

said, he rose merely to say that the reasons he had stated to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer for declining to serve on the Committee, wore altogether of a private and domestic nature, and which would prevent him from devoting that attention to the subject which its importance demanded. He had no notion of offering contumacious resistance. He might hero say that he did not consider this question to be a mere financial one, but of rather a wider character, relating as it did to the manner in which one of the heaviest burdens now imposed on the country could be made free from the inconvenience. For the consideration of such a question he did not think a merely financial experience was requisite.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.