Commons Sitting of 2 June 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Clitheroe, John Thomas Walshman Aspinall, Esq. PUBLIC BILL.—2° Bankruptcy (Scotland).

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF ELECTORS IN DOCKYARDS.
MR. MASTERS SMITHsaid, he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for London, whether he had any intention of introducing, during the present Session of Parliament, any measure for the disfranchisement of the electors in Her Majesty's dockyards?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The notice which I gave of introducing a Bill for disfranchising persons employed in the dockyards was in consequence of the Report of the Chatham Election Committee, for it seemed unreasonable to withhold the writ from Chatham without either bringing in a measure for disfranchising the dockyards, or else some Bill for preventing the exercise of undue influence upon persons employed in those places. But after I gave notice, it appeared that the measure would be one that would meet with considerable opposition, or that, at all events, would occasion a great deal of discussion, and that being the case, I do not think it would be desirable to interrupt business of great importance by a measure of this description. When the general question of the reform of the representation of the people comes before Parliament, it may be considered whether it would be possible to bring in some measure for the protection of dockyard voters, or whether they ought to be disfranchised. I do not, however, intend during the present Session, to introduce any measure upon that subject, and therefore I shall not offer any opposition to the issue of a new writ for the borough of Chatham.

INCOME TAX BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Income Tax Bill,
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he must appeal to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his determination, and to allow lands and houses to be assessed to the tax upon their net, and not upon their gross, value.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not undertake to comply with the request of the hon. Member. The House had had fully in its view the whole of this question during the debates on the income tax. It had been well understood at the outset of those debates that the mode in which lands and houses were valued at the present moment, unquestionably imposed on the classes charged for income tax under Schedule A a tax higher than 7d. in the pound; and it had been deliberately considered by the House whether it would be desirable to re-enact the tax with that undoubted inequality, or whether, on the other hand, it would be better to open up the whole of the question involving the comparative claims of different interests. The House had come to a deliberate conclusion on the subject, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), and afterwards on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams). On both occasions the House had been of opinion that it would be better to retain the tax as it was; and that being so, he could not promise that the Government would now reopen so important a question.
House in Committee; Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
On Clause 9.
MR. FREWENsaid, that he had an Amendment to move upon this clause, the object of which could be briefly explained. Under the existing law, seven Commissioners were elected both by the Commissioners of the land tax, and the magistrates in each division of a county, for the purpose of hearing appeals against the assessments to the income tax; and out of the whole seven Commissioners it was frequently difficult to get a sufficient number to attend for the purpose of transacting the business. Indeed, instances sometimes occurred, when only two Commissioners were present to decide appeals. To obviate this objection, therefore, he proposed that the magistrates of each division should be ex officio Commissioners of the property
1038
tax as well as Commissioners of land tax and assessed taxes, which latter offices magistrates filled at present. He would therefore beg to move, to add to the words of the clause designating the persons who should hold the office of Income Tax Commissioners, "and all Justices of the Peace for any county, riding, or parts or division of a county or liberty."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had been already understood that the Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen who had proposed to introduce certain clauses with respect to Ireland a full opportunity of discussing them. He should therefore be brief on the present occasion; but he thought it would not be expedient to adopt this Amendment for several reasons. In the first place, it would be a very great innovation, and he doubted whether it would be any improvement upon the existing law. The law with respect to the Commissioners had hitherto proceeded upon the principle that the functions to be discharged by the general Commissioners of income tax, being of a delicate and confidential nature in many cases, ought not to be entrusted to the Land Tax Commissioners generally, but to a select body chosen from among them. Now, the hon. Gentleman proposed to depart from that principle, but without effectually changing the law so as to give his proposition a general application, for he restricted its application to a particular manner, and with reference to a particular class. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had received many representations complaining of the unsatisfactory operation of the law connected with the present machinery; but he had heard of no instance in which the working of the Act had been found fault with through the defective number of Commissioners who attended to transact the business. Again, he was not prepared to assent to the doctrine that any person who was fit to be a county magistrate, was necessarily fit also to be entrusted with the functions of Income Tax Commissioner, and he thought it better to leave the appointment of these Commissioners to the Land Tax Commissioners generally, as the constituent body from whom they should be chosen. Another reason why the Amendment was objectionable was, that very great jealousies existed already in certain trading districts with respect to the mode in which the appeals were determined; and he was sure that these local jealousies would only

1039
be aggravated under this proposition. Believing, in short, that this Amendment would render the working of the Act more difficult, vexatious, and unsatisfactory than it was at present, he hoped that the Committee would reject it.
MR. FREWENsaid that he believed his Amendment would effect a very necessary and desirable alteration in the rural districts in particular; but he would not press it if the sense of the Committee was against it.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 (Duties under Schedule A, in Ireland, to be assessed on rateable hereditaments, according to the valuations under the Poor Relief Acts.—On whom assessments to be made).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to an important alteration, or rather addition, which he now proposed to make upon the suggestion of an hon. Gentleman who had given notice of a proviso, and furnished him with a copy of it. The proviso of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald) was to the effect that, whenever any lessor or landlord of lands in Ireland, subject to duty under Schedule A of this Act, shall have paid the duty chargeable by this Act in respect of any rent not received by him at the time of such payment, and which has been subsequently lost by reason of the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of the tenant by whom such rent was payable, then, and in that case, it shall be lawful for the said lessor or landlord to deduct from and set off against the duties payable by him, in the year next following, the full amount of the duties paid by him in respect of the rent so lost. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had prepared a clause based upon precisely the same principle, and designed to carry out the same object which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment had in view; although he thought it would be inconvenient to adopt the exact words of the hon. Gentleman, because the accounts of the tax collectors must be almost hopelessly complicated by the carrying forward of claims for abatement from half year to half year. His own proposition, therefore, was to the effect that if any landlord or lessor of any tenement or hereditament in Ireland, assesed under Schedule A, should have paid the amount of duty chargeable upon him, and it should afterwards be proved to the
1040
satisfaction of the Commissioners for Special Purposes that the rent due in respect of such tenement or hereditament, or any portion thereof, was wholly and irrecoverably lost, by reason of the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of the tenant, he should be entitled to the repayment of the tax upon so much of his rent as was so lost, provided he made application for the same within six months. The principle he proposed to apply in this case was now systematically and habitually applied in England in reference to house property. In case of an absenting tenant, when it was shown that the goods of the tenant had been removed from the premises, and that the landlord had no means of recovering his rent, the custom and practice of the Revenue Board was not to exact the tax from the landlord, although, in point of law, he was liable to it. He had already stated the general reasons which had led the Government to think that on the whole the most just and effective mode would be to pass by the occupier, as far as regarded agricultural tenants, and as far as regarded small tenants. The general rule would be to go against the lessor or the rentowner for the tax.
MR. I. BUTTobjected to the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed now to legislate for the owners of land in Ireland in a manner entirely different from the legislation adopted for the corresponding class in England. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed that it should be at the discretion of the Commissioners whether the tax should be assessed upon the landlord or the tenant. They might, and he was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would, as a general rule, assess the landlord; therefore the Irish landowner must pay the income tax whether he received his rent or not; he must pay it in the greater number of instances before he received his income, in many instances upon income which he would never receive. In the case of the English landowner the tenant paid the tax in the first instance; he deducted it from his rent, so that the landlord only knew of the tax on a deduction from income actually received. In Ireland he must pay it in the first instance: this he would feel as an oppressive advance, and an advance on account of income that might never be paid; and they made this difference in favour of the landowner in England, where rents were punctually paid, and against the landowner in Ireland, where they were

1041
almost always in arrear. He (Mr. Butt) asked only that the Irish landowner should be placed in the same position as the English. In England he found the landlord was assessed in every case in which the holding was under the annual value of 10 l. There might be a difference in the circumstances of the country; but he was certain he made ample allowance for all of these, if he substituted in Ireland a fifteen pound for a ten pound annual value. He, therefore, proposed that in Ireland, in all cases of a rating above 15 l. the tenant should in the first instance be assessed; in all cases under 15 l. the landlord. The farmer of a holding rated at 15 l. was a man of a certain amount of independence—one from whom there would be no difficulty in collecting the tax, and one who would feel it no inconvenience to advance on account of his rent 7s. 6d. whenever he was called on. He thought this proposal would apply substantially the same rule to Ireland and England, would create no inconvenience in the collection of the revenue, and would impose no hardship upon the tenantry; and, on the other hand, would protect the proprietors from the most grievous oppression. Now, what was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? To leave it in each case to the discretion of an exciseman whether he was to assess the ton-ant or to pass him by and assess his landlord! This was a discretion to be exercised in each individual case—not even to establish any general rule—not even to make any regulation for a district—but in the case of each particular estate, nay, of each particular tenant upon each estate, to determine at his own will and pleasure whether the tax was, in the first instance, to fall upon the tenant or upon the landlord! He (Mr. Butt) strongly protested against giving such a power to officials appointed by the Crown; he denounced it as utterly unconstitutional to leave it to any official of the Crown to determine from whom a tax should be levied. No Minister would dare to propose such a measure for England. Yet, in England, the officers administering the tax were to be appointed by local authorities; in Ireland, they were to be officers of excise—they gave no such power to the English officials. In Ireland they proposed to give it to excisemen, and yet they had argued the question of an Irish income tax as if the proposal was to extend the English income tax to Ireland. They now avowed the tax they inflicted on Ireland to be one
1042
different in every principle of its administration. He never could consent that the property of Ireland should be thus left at the mercy of the Excise. He must remind hon. Gentlemen who assumed to be the special guardians of the interests of the tenant, that if this was a landlord's question as to one class; as to another—and the largest class—it was a tenant's question too. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the tax collector the power, if he thought fit, of resorting to the tenants of small holdings, who in England never could be subject to the tax. In England, the tenant of a small holding was to be absolutely protected: in Ireland, only if the tax collector pleased. He (Mr. Butt) was not prepared to subject this class, at the caprice of the taxman, to all the inconveniences, and in their case the oppression, that would attend the collection of the tax. These were the class, and the only class, of tenants whom the collection of the tax could harass or oppress. He asked those who called themselves the friends of the tenants, were they prepared to vote this arbitrary power of extorting the tax from the lowest and the poorest occupier? He asked them to reflect in what cases this power would be exercised. Manifestly in the very cases in which it would be most oppressive. Whenever there was a difficulty in getting at the landlord, then the tenantry would be assessed. In the case of tenements in large towns, where the landlord might be unknown; in cases where the landlord was an absentee and beyond the reach of process; in cases where he was embarassed, and no mark for the tax; in the very cases in which you might expect a wretched tenantry—in all these cases the tax would be collected from them. The arrangement he proposed was infinitely better for the tenantry as a whole. Let the tenant be assessed in every case over 15 l., and in no case under it. If it protected the landlord in the one case, it protected the tenant in the other. It would apply substantially the same rule to England and Ireland; it would place the Irish landowner as to this tax, in nearly the same position as the English one; it would extend the same protection to the poorer tenantry in Ireland which the corresponding class in England enjoyed; and it would get rid of the insulting proposal of leaving it to an exciseman to regulate between Irish gentlemen and their tenants the mode of the collection of this tax.
Amendment proposed—

1043
"In page 8, line 40, to leave out the words, shall be made upon the landlord or immediate lessor of such tenements or rateable hereditaments, or, if it shall appear to the Commissioners for Special Purposes to be necessary or proper, the said assessment shall be made upon such person as the rate for the relief of the Poor shall be made upon in respect of any such property, under the provisions of the Acts in that behalf,' in order to insert the words 'in every case in which the said annual value shall amount to fifteen pounds and upwards, shall be made upon such person as the rate for the relief of the Poor shall be made upon in respect of such property, under the provisions of the Acts in that behalf, and in all other cases upon the landlord or immediate lessor of such tenements or rateable hereditaments' instead thereof."
MR. FITZSTEPHBN FRENCHsaid, he must claim precedence for an Amendment, omitting the words "in Ireland" from the clause altogether. The result of it, as it stood now, would he, to render it incumbent on the landlord to demand his rent as soon as it became due, instead of leaving "the hanging gale" over, as was the practice in Ireland. He doubted if it would be advantageous to the tenant, whom it was intended to assist; but his chief objection to it was that it was a departure from the principle of identity of legislation. That principle was only insisted on when it was necessary to tax Ireland. It was exceedingly disheartening, when he was addressing a few observations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman should select that time for conversation with the hon. Member, though he supposed there was indeed but little use arguing the question. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if it was advantageous to tax the landlords in the first instance, why he did not extend the principle to this country? He believed the object of the Bill was to force the landlords to drive out the small occupiers. It was one which had been sedulously persevered in by the party in power, and a great portion of the exodus which had taken place was the result. But that was not sufficient for them in their anxiety to get rid of the Catholic and Celtic population of Ireland, which was announced in the leading journal of Europe. In the justice of England he had no confidence, unless it was identical with her interest, and they could only obtain that identity in Ireland by refusing to accept any legislation which was not identical with that by which the interests of England were preserved and governed.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he objected to the clause, and he wished to know whether it would not be just as easy to come on the
1044
landlord of the occupier of 15 l. a year, as on the landlord of the occupier of 10 l. a year? It was as easy to get at the landlord of the tenant of a house, as at the landlord of a tenant of land. If it was just to except the humbler classes of tenants in England, the circumstances of Ireland rendered the same class in Ireland even more deserving of consideration.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he thought the reason given by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) for the Motion he had submitted, was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The hon. Member entirely distrusted and had no confidence in the justice of England, and said the only thing he could place any confidence in was identity of taxation in Ireland with England; whereupon, to carry out this identity of taxation, he proposed to omit the words "in Ireland" from the clause.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, the hon. Member for Malton had not the plea of inexperience for misstating or misrepresenting what fell from any other hon. Gentleman. In proposing the omission of the words alluded to, his (Mr. French's) object was to render the clause applicable to the United Kingdom. He had no desire to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill, but he did wish to make the clause a general one.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) was one of which he could not approve. He did not sec the justice of asking the tenant, and particularly the Irish tenant, to pay for his landlord. From the census and agricultural returns of 1851, it appeared that the number of small occupiers in that year was nearly 500,000; whereas the number of occupying tenants who had holdings to the extent of 200 acres, who would come under the operation of this Bill, would not amount to more than 7,000 or 8,000. From the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on previous occasions, he found that this Bill, and this clause in particular, was altered with the sole object of putting the tax upon the landlord, in the first instance, and he was of opinion that it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
MR. KIRKsaid, he was very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the alteration he had introduced into this clause, by which the injustice originally contemplated was remedied. He should decidedly oppose the Motion of the

1045
hon. and learned Member for Youghal, and would cordially support the clause as amended.
MR. LUCASsaid, he also felt obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the main, for the clause be had introduced; but he wished to ask one question with reference to its operation, which he did not perfectly understand. The object of the clause, so far as he could understand it, was to exempt the occupier, in all cases in which it was not necessary for the purposes of raising the tax, from paying the landlord's share. It was, however, left to the discretion of the Commissioners as to what cases should not be exempted; and he wished to know upon what grounds the Commissioners were to regulate these exemptions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated very fairly and properly the object of the clause, subject to the single reservation of the case of occupiers of messuages of a certain value. The case of occupiers of messuages was materially different from that of occupiers of land. In regard to messuages, a different standard was fixed by the poor-law rating in towns as to the point at which the occupier became exempt, and the landlord became liable to assessment, and he bad reserved under this Bill those cases which might require some consideration from peculiar circumstances, in particular localities, in regard to the point, at which the tax ought to be taken from the occupier. There was certainly a class of tenants in messuages in whose cases the tax ought to be taken from the occupiers; but in regard to lands he did not think it would be safe to take the tax from the occupier, and the occupier only, because the Government might often have great difficulty in getting at the other party. But the case did not he between the occupier on the one side, and the head landlord on the other. The person whom the Bill proposed to substitute for the occupier was not the head landlord, but the immediate lessor; and as the immediate lessor was a person whom they might often have great difficulty in reaching, this reservation was made to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished for some further explanation with regard to towns, and would like to know when the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say what class of occupiers were to be exempt?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, from the nature of the circumstances, it was impossible to arrive at any definite test generally applicable. Whether the landlord or the tenant would be assessed, must be left in many cases to the Commissioners to decide, though he believed the most practicable mode would be to assess the occupier.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that there was scarcely an occupier rated to the poor, from 8l., 10 l., to 15 l. in Ireland, to whom the payment of the tax in the first instance would not be a great and harassing burden.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, that rents in Ireland were paid in many parts of the country but once a year, and, therefore, in many instances, they would be making the landlords pay upon incomes which they had not received.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that the new clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave it in all cases to the discretion of the taxing officers whether they would assess the tenant or the landlord. Now, according to the English law, the tenant must be assessed if his rent were over 10 l., but could in no case be assessed if it were under that sum. The object of his Amendment was to take away all discretion from the Government officers, and to enact that the tenant in Ireland should be assessed in all cases where his rent was above 15 l., and that he should never be assessed when it was under that sum.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist the Amendment, for there was high authority to show that the landlord ought to pay all the taxes to which the land was liable.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 61: Majority 109.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he believed the Amendment he now begged to propose would alleviate a great hardship in the mode of assessment proposed by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, without diminishing the amount received under the tax, or without altering the persons upon whom the burden was to be imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a former evening stated that the tax was to be paid irrespective of the receipt of rent,

1047
because, as the owner of the rent was armed by the law with sufficient power to recover it, it was to be attributed to his own fault if he did not. If that answer had been given by a person conversant with the state of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should have been entitled to characterise it as a bold and inconsiderate statement. But he acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any other error than that of looking to the theory of the matter rather than to the practice in Ireland. He proposed, instead of assuming that every landowner in Ireland could recover his rent on the day on which it was due, to enact that if any owner of land in Ireland thought it would be an unsafe thing for him to pay his tax in advance, he should be allowed to state his unwillingness to do so in twenty days after the assessment had been delivered, and to offer to give a return of the actual receipts of the year last past; and that he should then pay upon those actual receipts, from which no deduction should be made, except for the half of the poor-rate, which the landlord in Ireland was obliged to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, indeed, that this was met by subsequent clauses, which enabled the landlord to demand a return of the tax if the rent was not paid within six months after it was due, and the tenant was bankrupt, insolvent, or had absconded. But was he not aware that no tenant in Ireland expected to be asked for his rent until six months after it was due? The result of the proposed clauses as they now stood would be to inflict the greatest evil upon the occupiers of land, by making it a matter of the greatest importance to the landlord to enforce the rent as soon as possible, and to take the most stringent means to ascertain whether the tenant could pay, in order that he might either recover his rent, or satisfy the Commissioners that it was irrecoverable. Then how was it to be determined whether a small tenant in Ireland was bankrupt or insolvent? These words were a mere mockery, as applied to that class of persons. As for a tenant "absconding," every one knew that the great annoyance in the management of landed property in Ireland was, that the tenants would not abscond. They stayed in possession, and would neither pay their rent nor leave the land. Under these circumstances he thought that the proposition made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point was quite illusory, and it was on these grounds he had brought the
1048
Amendment forward, not from any personal interest, but from a wish of exempting a class of persons from a hardship which seemed to him gratuitous and unnecessary.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of the Clause, the words 'Provided always, That any landlord or immediate lessor of any tenements or hereditaments in Ireland, charged with Duties under Schedule A of this Act, may, within twenty days after notice of such charge, by writing under the hand of himself or his agent, delivered to the officer making such charge, elect to be assessed in respect of such tenements or hereditaments upon his actual receipts, and thereupon the Duties shall be charged on such landlord or immediate lessor, computed on a sum not less than the amount actually received by him in respect of such tenements and hereditaments, within the year ending on the preceding fifth day of April.'"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had handled the concession which he proposed to make in a different way from his hon. Friends on the lower benches. He must say that the concession was not made to the necessity of the case, but was owing rather to the indulgence with which he desired to deal with the case, and with some recollection in his mind of the disposition which existed amongst the great bulk of the Members of that House to meet the demands that were advanced by Irish Members. With respect to the Amendment which he proposed to make in regard to bankrupt and absconding tenants in Ireland, he did not hesitate to express his apprehensions that Gentlemen connected with land in England would complain of his making such concessions in favour of the Irish landlords, and would ask to be placed on the same footing. [An Hon. MEMBER: Give us the same law as you have in England.] All he could say was, that a great number of Irish Members had made representations to the Government that valuation should be the basis of those proceedings. [An Hon. MEMBER of the Opposition: Not on this side.] The hon. Gentleman should know the rules of the House better than to make those interruptions. And a provision was introduced in the Bill to enable those persons who found they were aggrieved by the valuation, to show that the annual value was less than the valuation. That was a provision to which there was nothing analogous in England. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cairns) said the concession with respect to bankrupt and absconding tenants was illusory. He did not think it would

1049
be thought illusory if it were proposed with respect to Ireland; but with regard to Ireland every concession appeared to be thought illusory by some Gentlemen. He now came to consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he had never known a proposal made to that House during the discussion on the income tax which appeared to him to be open to more fundamental objections. If there were any evil greater than another, it was that which was called self-assessment. If there was one reason more than another which disinclined people to the income tax, it was because they could not get rid of that tremendous evil of the income tax, self-assessment. At the commencement, when self-assessment was generally resorted to, they only levied one-half of the amount which the tax might have given. They had now got rid of it except in Schedule D; but here was an hon. Gentleman proposing to introduce it into Schedule A, thereby leading to fraud and demoralisation in every form, and introducing a most invidious feature, because it would not apply to the owners of land universally, but merely to the owners of land in Ireland. But suppose the hon. Gentleman had proposed it universally; let it not be thought that on that ground it would meet with a favourable reception from him. He would say, on the contrary, that having found a certain mode of levying the tax mischievous in every way, from the fraud it produced, they were not going to adopt that mode of levying that tax again. The hon. Gentleman had objected to the measure as being likely to inflict hardship upon the occupier of land by causing him to be called upon for punctual payment of his rent; but if it had that effect, he could only say that it would, in his opinion, place the relation between landlord and tenant on a better footing, and, so far from considering that an objection, he thought it an argument much in favour of the measure. The hon. Gentleman complained that the landlord sometimes did not receive his rent, and yet had to pay the tax; but he would ask him if it did not sometimes happen that a tradesman made bad debts, and yet had to pay the tax; and why should the landlord be placed on a different footing from the tradesman? The hon. Gentleman said there was a hanging gale in Ireland; but was there no such analogous thing in England? Of course there was. But the question was, were the necessary expenses of the State to be raised by a tax which
1050
should be a primary charge upon the man's income, or was it a charge that must be postponed until every local and personal demand was fully satisfied? The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the system of arrears in Ireland was a very good system; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceived that if this proposition tended to the punctual levying of rent, so far from considering it an objection to the clause, it should be deemed a recommendation of it; for nothing was so mischievous to the tenant as that system of long arrears. The principle they proceeded on was this, that a year's rent was received during the year; and he protested against the Amendment, as aiming at the establishment of a system entirely exceptional in favour of a particular class, and tending to bring them back into all the worst abuses that had ever prevailed in the system. The hon. Gentleman proposed by his Amendment to deduct any sum paid by the lessor during the year for poor-rate of such hereditaments or tenements; but the landlord did not pay the poor-rate—
MR. CAIRNS: He pays one half of it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Is it not paid in the first instance by the tenant?
MR. CAIRNS: It is taken from the tenant in the first instance, but he only deducts one-half from the landlord.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The tenant paid it in the first instance, and the landlord did not receive it. He was to be charged on what he actually received; but the hon. Gentleman proposed that the landlord should deduct the amount of the poor-rate which he had never received. Suppose the landlord had 1,100 l. a year, the sum payable for poor-rate was 100 l., the landlord therefore got 1,000 l.; but he said he was not to be taxed upon 1,000 l., but should deduct the poor-rate which had been already deducted. He protested against an Amendment of such a character, which aimed at the establishment of a system tending to introduce all the evils which had ever attended the operation of the tax. He would oppose the proviso on the broad ground that it introduced, without any necessity, the obnoxious principle of self assessment, and that in a form much more objectionable and exceptional than any in which it had before existed.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEthought it was hopeless to expect any justice from that House, so far as Irish proprietors were

1051
concerned, after the vote that had taken place upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), which had been opposed by a very large majority of English Members. He considered that the income tax ought to be levied upon the ordinary valuation of property, and not upon the poor-law valuation, which was most defective and unsatisfactory. He should support the Amendment, because he believed that a fairer proposition had never been presented to the House. The measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be satisfactory to some of his supporters below the gangway, the Brigade; but if he appealed to the Irish Members on (Sir A. Brooke's) side of the House, they would give an opinion very adverse to it.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he should support the measure as an independent Member of the House, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration he had made; and if he had no other reason for thanking him, he would do so on the ground that the measure was objected to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. As the clause stood at present, landlords would have to pay the income tax whether they received their rents or not, and he thought the proviso would have the effect of inducing landlords to reduce their rents, which would, in that event, be more punctually paid. He might remark, that landlords would be called upon to pay the income tax in March, or April, while they would not, in many cases, receive the rents upon which the tax was paid until the months of November or December following, and he thought, therefore, it might be arranged that the Commissioners should not apply for the tax until the period of the year when the rents were paid.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that, though opposed to the clause as it stood, he was inclined to make every possible allowance for any misappreciation of the state of Irish property which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been guilty of. He confessed, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to show himself so practically acquainted with the management of Irish estates as it was to be wished; for when he attempted to draw an analogy betwen the circumstances of English and Irish property, he fell into an error, which very much depreciated the estimate to be formed of his plan. He regarded the proposal of the hon. Member
1052
for Belfast (Mr. Cairns), to be a necessary corollary to the imposition of the income tax upon Ireland. For the fact was, there was no such thing as a half-yearly collection of rents in Ireland; they were collected just as one could get them, all the year round. Neither was there any such thing as audit days, as was the case in England; and instead of 2½ per cent, Irish proprietors had to pay their agents 5 per cent upon the rents coming in; while in this country and in Scotland, agents received the lesser remuneration. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] He (Mr. Herbert) could speak from experience, for he knew many properties in Scotland where the agents only received 2½ per cent. Nor had hon. Gentlemen any clear idea of what was meant by "absconding tenants" in Ireland. That term did not imply tenants who ran away. [Laughter.] His words might produce a smile, but still such was the case; for the term rather applied to such occupants of land as removed all their produce and cattle from off the farm, leaving some one in occupation who was utterly unable to meet the demands of the landlord. He therefore believed the Amendment to be quite just and fair, and should accordingly support it.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he believed that in dealing with Ireland their purpose ought to be to look rather to the collateral, than to the direct, effect of any particular measure. He could not help feeling that it was rather an Irish practice to charge income tax upon incomes never received. Nor was it, he must say, a case of self-assessment at all—the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cairns), was in noways open to any such objection.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, that having supported the proposition that was favourable to the tenant, and having now to deal with a question which had reference solely to the interest of the landlord, he should from a sense of justice and equity of the case give his vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Belfast.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that in Ireland three-fourths of the rents did not exceed 12 l., while in England only one-fifteenth was under 12 l.; and therefore it was not right to take England as an example when laying down a principle for the collection of this tax in Ireland. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a case where an estate being in the Court of Chancery, the tenant did not pay the rent until two

1053
years were due; and he would ask how, in such a case, the tax was to be levied? Was it to be demanded from the Court of Chancery, where there were no funds to the credit of the estate, or was it from the estate it was to be levied? At the end of eighteen months or two years, a tenant might come before the Court to ask for a reduction of rent, and the rent might be reduced while the tax was levied on the high rent. That would be the case with a number of estates in Ireland at the present moment; and in other cases, the rent days in the south being the 25th of March, and 29th of September, and in the north the 1st of May and 1st of November, it would be found very difficult to levy the rate on the 5th of April.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that when he voted for an income tax, he voted for a tax that was to be imposed on every man's income, which he conceived to be the average amount of receipts; but to tax it upon the hypothesis of what that property might be would be a grievous injustice.
LORD NAASsaid, that the English landlord merely paid the income tax on his actual receipts; and the object of this Amendment was to enable the Irish landlord to pay only as much in respect of his income as the English landlord paid in regard to his, and no more. Independent of the inconvenience of the tax, he believed that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a very severe and harsh effect on the Irish landlords. He thought the Members of that House who set themselves up to be the true friends of the Irish tenantry were perhaps inflicting as great a hardship upon that class as was ever inflicted upon them by the original Irish Poor Law Act, which had led to such disastrous consequences.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. H. Herbert) had intimated that his (Viscount Palmerston's) right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not deeply acquainted with the management of land in Ireland; but the noble Lord who had just addressed the House had shown himself very imperfectly acquainted with the details of land in England. The noble Lord had stated that ID England landlords paid income tax only on the rent they received. The fact was, that in England each tenant paid the landlord's income tax upon the rent which the tenant was bound to pay, deducting-
1054
such tax when he came to settle with the landlord; but it did not follow that the landlord received the rent. The landlord had to get the rent as he could, and when he could. In England the landlord paid the tax only on what he ought to receive, but it did not follow that he did receive it. Moreover, if the tenant absconded, he meant in the English sense of the word, without paying the landlord's tax, the landlord must pay the tax on the whole of the rent of the absconding tenant, and even if he should lose his rent.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, in reply, he would take the case of a landlord in Ireland, with five tenants, who bad to pay him 100 l. a year each; and he would assume a landlord similarly situated in England. What was the difference between them? In England, the landlord paid no income tax till he got his rent, and if he did not get his rent he had not a shilling to pay. [Cries of "No, no!"] In the case of the Irish landlord he would be called upon to pay the tax in the first instance, and if he did not get his rent he would be out of pocket to the amount of the tax he had paid.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he thought the hon. Member had forgotten that, by the Bill as it now stood, the Irish landlord had the alternative of being assessed on the net annual value as fixed by the public valuation, or on his actual rent; and the knew that the valuation was generally below the rent. [Cries of "No, no!"] He meant, with certain exceptions. It seemed to him that the justice of the case was fully and far more satisfactorily met by the Amendment on the paper of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald), which did not interfere with any of the essential provisions of the Bill as applicable to Ireland, whilst it provided for the case of a landlord making a bad debt.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the Bill was unjust throughout; it began by taxing Ireland in a higher proportion than this country was taxed; and this injustice was carried out. It was well known that in some cases landlords never got any rent at all; and they would be in a worse position after this Bill passed, as it would make the country poorer. He should support the Amendment, believing it would tend to mitigate the injustice of the measure.
Question put, "That those words be here added."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 66: Noes 94: Majority 28.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no such person as surveyor of taxes in Ireland, and he therefore could not understand why such an officer should be mentioned in the clause. He also wished to call attention to the variation of the wording of the clause with that of Clause 18. As some difficulties were likely to arise from these circumstances if the measure was passed in its present shape, he would reserve to himself the right, upon the bringing up of the Report, of framing a clause that would obviate those difficulties.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when officers were appointed for collecting the tax in Ireland, the officers of excise might be made available in some cases; but these were matters of detail which must necessarily be deferred.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he still thought there would be extreme difficulty in carrying out the clause. The 18th clause provided that the assessment under Schedule D should be made by the officers of inland revenue; but that provision did not extend to Schedule A. He therefore thought an additional clause would be necessary either on bringing up the Report, or on the third reading.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the power proposed to be given under this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the collector shall be authorised to put in force against the landlord or lessor the most stringent remedy for the recovery of the tax. Now, one of the extraordinary powers given for the recovery of poor-rates in Ireland had been the sale of the fee of the land. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to give the same power under this Bill for the recovery of this tax? He thought that such a power would be most unconstitutional.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that, under the poor-law, power was given to sell the land of a proprietor for a debt contracted by a tenant who had fled to America, or any other place. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give a similar power under this Bill—namely, to sell the property of the landlord for income tax upon an amount of
1056
rent which he never received; and whether a power existed in England to resort to a sale under similar circumstances?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The sole object of the clause is to provide an easy remedy. [A loud laugh from Col. Dunne.] The hon. and gallant Colonel may adopt any mode of proceeding which he pleases in this House. I have seen quite enough of the insulting manner in which he conducts himself not to be moved by it. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] I must say I think the loud laugh with which he has received my statement was insulting.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is an expression which he ought not to use.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh, I will withdraw it readily; but I must insist on being protected against such a course of proceeding.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that his laugh was not directed against the right hon. Gentleman, but was in consequence of an observation made to him by an hon. Member near him.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. It will be for the Committee to consider the best course of proceeding. It may be that the remedies provided by the poor-law are the best; but that is a practical question, and one for the Committee to consider.
LORD NAASsaid, it was most difficult to ascertain what those powers really were which the Bill proposed to give; for it referred to one particular Act, and when they turned to that Act they were again referred to another Act for an elucidation of its meaning. He would suggest that the power of recovering arrears should be the same as was given in the first poor-law passed for Ireland.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that in England the corpus of the estate could not be sold for arrears of poor-rate; in Ireland it was different, for, by a process of law, the estate itself might be reached. He did not think the Amendment of the noble Lord would give a sufficient remedy, as the original poor-law was very defective in this respect. Under the first poor-law the greatest losses were sustained in seeking to recover the poor-rate from the immediate lessor. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention to give power for the sale of the estate itself, in order to recover this tax, but

1057
merely to give power of proceeding in the Civil Bill Court against the lessor.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought the better way would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold this clause over for further consideration. He would suggest an alteration in the early part of the clause, where the occupier who was charged with the tax was liable to a distress for the recovery of the amount; for, supposing that this party had nothing to be distrained, there appeared to be no alternative proposed as against him. He was of opinion that the whole of the clause ought to be well considered.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONsaid, that the powers given under the Land Improvement Act for the levying of instalments had been found to work most efficiently. The sums levied had been paid very regularly, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider whether similar powers might not be put in force with advantage under this Act.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, the powers to be granted to Ireland were to exceed those which were in operation in England.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson) in the opinion that the powers given under the Land Improvement Act had operated efficiently in Ireland; and if that were the case, it might perhaps be a saving of expense to adopt them in the present instance.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that however efficient the machinery under the Land Improvement Act had worked, it would be preferable to extend to Ireland the system which had been found to work so well in this country.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had now to bring up several new clauses. The first was one to which he had referred early in the evening, and which was in substitution of the one proposed by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald). It entitled landlords in Ireland to claim repayment of the tax paid on rent lost by the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of tenants; and he had added the words "by the land being left waste."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not mean to oppose the clause, but merely to say that its principle was the same as the pro-
1058
position he had made that landlords should not be called on to pay income tax on rent which they had never received. The right hon. Gentleman had opposed that proposition, and he wished to call his attention to his having adopted the principle; and he now asked him to extend it to all land.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was refreshing to him to be found fault with for having dealt more kindly with English than with Irish landlords, for hitherto he had heard of nothing but the immunities enjoyed by English over Irish landlords. This was, no doubt, an advantage the Irish landlords possessed over the English, who only enjoyed the right as regarded houses. There was, however, some inconvenience in levying the tax in the same form in Ireland as in England; and considering that the Irish landlords were made primarily liable to the tax, he thought, on the whole, that there was a balance of advantage.
MR. G. M. BUTTsaid, he would suggest that there should be some definition of the word "insolvency," so as to make it include cases of assignments to creditors and deeds of composition.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was assured by the legal adviser of the Board of Revenue that the word would bear that legal sense; but he would look into the matter again before the third reading.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been suggested by some observations made during the discussion on the Bill. It amended the position of parties with regard to the assessments in Schedule A. If on an appeal there was any dispute about the annual value of the land, the Commissioners now had power to order a valuation; and this clause was for the purpose of extending that advantage to the parties appealing, who would be enabled to require a valuation to be made; which power they did not hitherto have.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord Lovaine), and referred to the description of relief given two years ago under the 3rd section of 13 & 14 Vict., c. 12, which allowed tenant farmers who gained their livelihood solely by husbandry to have the power of a half-yearly appeal. It was proposed to extend

1059
that relief by making it applicable to tenant farmers who gained their livelihood "principally" by husbandry; but it was to be confined strictly to tenant farmers, and not to persons farming their own land.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been prepared in consequence of a suggestion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), and enabled clergymen and ministers of every denomination to deduct from their assessable income charges incurred in the exercise of their professional duty. It did not exempt them as clergymen, but only put them on a footing of equality with other professions. For instance, a medical man, if he used an equipage, was entitled, as a matter of course, to deduct the expense of it from his assessable income; and, in the same manner, a clergyman who used a horse wholly and exclusively in the discharge of his professional duties, would be entitled to deduct the expense attending it.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There was one other clause, one which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), and it was intended to enlarge the power of deduction with regard to bad and doubtful debts. At present, the Commissioners had no power to make allowance for bad debts, except those which were proved to be such; and although it seemed to be, in some degree, doubtful whether they had the power of allowing for debts proved to be partially bad, yet, on the whole, he believed that a more rigid interpretation had prevailed than was altogether consistent with fairness. The effect of this new clause would be to allow the Commissioners, in cases of composition, to put down as good whatever the composition amounted to; in cases of bankruptcy to allow them to put down the whole as bad, and to charge the party afterwards upon the dividends when received; and in cases of doubtful debts to allow them to make a reasonable estimate of their value.
Clause agreed to.
MR. M'MAHON MR. M'MAHON moved a clause to the effect as to the propriety of exempting a certain portion of a person's household furniture and wearing apparel from seizure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be impossible to introduce the clause proposed into the Bill. The question to be considered was, whether
1060
the claim of the State was a primary secondary one. The doctrine of the law was, that the claims of the Crown were paramount; and, indeed, the existence of law and order, which could only be maintained by means of the public revenues, might almost be reckoned amongst a man's implements of trade. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, however, would place those claims in a position of inferiority as compared with those of the landlord. The proposal was certainly humane and philanthropic in its character, but its adoption would be impolitic and unwise.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. I. BUTTthen brought up a new clause. He said, by the present law, if there were any defalcation it must be made good by a reassessment of the district. That provision was just, inasmuch as the collector was in the hands of the local authorities; but in Ireland the fact was the reverse, and to apply the same enactment would be manifestly unjust. The object of the clause, therefore, was to prevent its application to the sister country.
Clause agreed to.
MR. I. BUTTthen proposed a second new clause, the object of which was to allow the Irish landlords to deduct the amount they paid for poor-rates from the income to be assessed. There was this difference in the cases of the two countries: in England the rates were paid entirely by the tenant, but in Ireland the landlord was compelled by law to pay at least one-half of the rate. Thus, if a man had a farm in England worth 100 l, net, on which the rates were 10 l., the tenant would only give the landlord 100 l., and pay the rates himself. In Ireland he would give 105 l., so that in the latter case the landlord would have to pay income tax on 5l. more than in England upon a property of exactly the same value. Besides, there was an enactment by which an English landlord, if he agreed to pay any portion of the tenant's rates, or, in other words, if he voluntarily placed himself in the position in which an Irish landlord was placed by law, he was allowed to make the deduction.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the clause till the third reading. In its present shape he could not accept it, because from the valuation, which was the basis of the assessment, the poor-rate had already been deducted. There might, however, be cases

1061
in which the valuation was too high, and in which the tenant might appeal and prove that his rent was under the valuation. Some provision, therefore, might be necessary to meet that case.
Clause postponed.
MR. I. BUTTthen moved a third clause, the necessity for which he admitted had been in great measure removed by alterations already made. Its object was to provide, that wherever the Special Commissioners adopted the option of assessing the tenant, the latter should only be assessed to the amount which he would himself be entitled to deduct from his landlord.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he objected to the proposed enactment. It would afford only an insignificant amount of relief, at the expense of a great deal of inconvenience and expense.
MR. BUTTwould not divide the Committee.
Clause withdrawn.
Bill reported as amended.
House resumed.

CUSTOMS ACTS.
House in Committee.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the duty on raisins not of British possessions would be reduced to 10 s. per cwt., as proposed in the first edition of the new tariff?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the Resolutions were first published, he was under the impression, according to the best intelligence he then possessed, that raisins would be of great use to the community in mitigating the serious inconvenience occasioned by the extreme scarcity of currants. It was on that account that the reduction of the duty upon raisins was inserted in the Resolutions. After that period, the hon. Gentleman gave notice of a Motion to reduce the duty upon currants also. To this proposal he could not accede. A popular proposal it might have been upon many grounds, and he should be glad if it could be adopted, on account of our relations with the Ionian islands, had it been certain that the: consumer would get the benefit, or that the revenue would recover itself. But the accounts of the prospect of supplies, and the anticipations of the future supplies, were such as put an end to the question. In point of fact, there was a currant famine. They were at double their ordinary price, and we had arrived at a state
1062
of things under which any remission: of duty would be so much boon to the persons engaged in the trade. Whether this was the case or not, it was quite plain there would be little or no recovery of revenue from the remission of duty. At that time there were also alarming accounts with regard to the produce of raisins. We derived large supplies from the Levant. The Levant was our second source of supply—certainly inferior to Spain, but likely to become more important in consequence of a reduction of duty. Alarming accounts then were received of the ravages of frost and locusts upon both raisins and currants. But there had since been a change, and a very favourable change. The fears once entertained had passed away; the frost, instead of destroying the raisins, had destroyed the locusts. What was much more important was, that the actual stock of raisins of low quality in bond in this country had become extremely large. There was at this moment in bond so large a stock of the middling and low qualities, perfectly sound and available for use, that though it was probable a high duty might exclude a considerable quantity, there was every prospect that these would be introduced into the market, and that they would supply a large portion of the population with a substitute for currants. The stock was so considerable that there was every prospect that the reduction of the duty upon raisins would not be attended with any sensible loss of revenue. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
On the item of Cables, not of iron, new and old, tarred and untarred, on which it was proposed wholly to remit the duty,
MR. MITCHELLsaid, the proposed reductions upon cordage, which Russia supplied, was equivalent to twenty per cent. The manufacture of cordage was carried on chiefly by manual labour. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to sweep away the whole of the duty of twenty per cent upon the manufactured article. As a free trader he was not prepared to oppose this reduction, but he thought it a precipitate step. Russia supplied both the raw material and the manufactured article, and there was every facility for importing it into this country. In the execution of her own policy, Russia levied a duty upon the export of the raw material, but not on the manufactured article. The difference between the cost of the raw material and the manufactured article was 12 s. per ton.

1063
At the same time, he would beg to ask how long the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to retain the duty on foreign wood, which was a much more important article than cordage, and on which he (Mr. Mitchell) should certainly next year call for a reduction of duty?
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the best ropes and cables were not made by hand labour, but by machinery.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must complain of the large amount of revenue that was frittered away by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the present case he was not aware that any one had complained that the duty was excessive, nor would its repeal save anything in the cost of collection, nor would it even stimulate the manufacture in this country. He should propose, therefore, that the duty on these articles be retained.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the principle on which he acted was a very simple one. It was to simplify the tariff by the reduction of duties wherever they could effect it at a moderate cost to the revenue. With regard to duty-free goods, there was but one material office the Customs had to perform, that was to ascertain that the articles were really what they professed to be, and for that purpose searching was necessary. That was all that was necessary with regard to duty-free goods; with other articles, however, it was not so. However low the duty, there was the whole warehousing system involved. If the duty were only one penny, it was worth the importer's while to pay something for the postponement of the duty. Then it was necessary to charge the duty, to levy the duty, to account for it, to audit the accounts, and so on. By removing articles of this nature entirely from the tariff, great inconvenience and expense were obviated. He believed it would be found that no less a sum than 400,000 l. had been saved in expenses of collection by the abolition of Customs duties during the last few years. Of course he could not consent to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the Committee would agree with him that articles of luxury offered a fair subject for taxation. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was surrendering upon articles of that description a sum of upwards of 10,000 l. a year, He
1064
would further observe, that the right hon. Gentleman was not practising in that case a wise economy; for while he would not be able to reduce the number of public officers by ten men, he would diminish the revenue by a sum which would pay fifty men. There was involved in such a policy an absolute waste of revenue.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expected to save in the cost of collecting the revenue in consequence of the repeal of those duties? and the right hon. Gentleman had stated in reply, that the removal of Customs duties had not hitherto led to any perceptible reduction in the cost of collecting the Customs revenue, but that it had prevented that increase in the cost of collection which would otherwise have taken place in the midst of our constantly increasing commercial transactions. But he (Lord J. Manners) would remind the right hon. Gentleman, that while the cost of collecting the Customs revenue bad increased during the last ton years, the cost of collecting the Excise revenue had considerably diminished during the same period. The right hon. Gentleman would not surely contend that the difference in these results was to be attributed to the fact that there had been no increase during the last ten years in the consumption of articles subject to the Excise duties. The fair inference to draw from their experience in that matter was, that where Excise duties were repealed, a large portion of the expense of collecting those duties was removed, while no corresponding reduction took place in the case of the repeal of Customs duties. He found that the cost of collecting the Excise duties in 1842 had amounted to 823,682 l., and that the cost of collecting those duties in 1851 had amounted to only 673,826 l.; showing a decrease in the cost of collection to the amount of 149,856 l., while the Excise duties repealed had amounted to 1,619,000 l. But in the case of the Customs duties, he found that the cost of collection, which in 1842 had been 1,254,590 l., had risen in 1851 to 1,290,756 l.; showing an increase in the cost of collection to the amount of 36,166 l., while the Customs duties repealed had amounted to 1,450,000 l. How did the right hon. Gentleman account for these facts? His (Lord J. Manners') inference from them was, that where you repealed Excise duties, you diminished the cost of collecting the remainder by striking' off a

1065
number of those persons who had been employed to collect the duties; but where you repealed Customs duties, you did not diminish the number of those who were employed to collect the remainder; you only lessened the difficulties in the way of importers. With the view of testing the opinion of hon. Members on this subject, he should persevere in his Motion, and divide the Committee.
Question put, "That Coir Rope, Twine and Strands, stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 68: Majority 126.
Resolution agreed to.
The Resolution for a repeal of the duty on Pictures having been put,
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he felt bound to offer his decided opposition to the proposal. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was about wantonly to throw away 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year in that case. He did not see how the people of England could benefit by a repeal of the duty on foreign pictures; and the Resolution was, in his opinion, so objectionable that he should take the sense of the Committee against it. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was sorry that the guardians of the public purse should be so impatient whilst he was endeavouring to maintain a Customs duty, against which, he ventured to say, no intelligible objection could be raised, and which, when repealed, would simply have the effect of reducing the revenue of the country without rendering any benefit to the community. For the reasons he had stated, he should take the sense of the Committee upon this Resolution.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I confess, Sir, that I have heard the speech of my noble Friend with the greatest regret and surprise. I really had hoped that there was no man in this House—and if there was any man I should have thought that he would have been the last man—who would have exhorted us in tones so solemn to beware how we exempt pictures while we continue to tax beer. Why, Sir, we live in a utilitarian age, and utilitarianism is supposed to be the danger of this period—and perhaps it is the danger of this period; and here we come down to a popular assembly, to do something if we can to meet that spirit of utilitarianism. We are laying out large sums of money upon the education of the people—we are endeavouring to train their taste, to educate their eye, to make them—[De-
1066
risive laughter.] Are these sentiments, then, to be received with jeers by the Gentlemen who represent the counties of England? Why, Sir, I venture to say that there is no man who could rise in an assembly of working men in this country where such sentiments would be met as they have been met by hon. Members opposite. Well, Sir, this is a serious question. It is no mere question of 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year levied upon pictures. The question is this—Is it desirable, or not, to make the people of this country familiar with the works of great men, whether it be in art, or in science, or in letters? Is high culture valuable, or is it not, in a nation? Sir, I think it is valuable in a nation. Upon that principle we propose to remit this duty. It is not a mere question of trade. And what are we doing? We are but following the example of those who, even in the times of Protection, adopted the same course, and who, although the tax upon pictures had remained until now, had remitted the tax upon statues and works of art of other kinds. Well, will you retain the tax upon these articles, while other works of art are admitted free? Is that wise, or is it foolish? I should have thought that this would have been the last in this long catalogue of articles which would have been subjected to opposition; and if subjected to opposition, I confess that I should have thought that my noble Friend would not have been the foremost to object. Why, I should have supposed that he would have, set himself manfully against the utilitarianism of the age. I should have thought that if he had a bias or a leaning in his mind, it was towards what is ancient, and venerable, and great, and that he would have been disposed to look down upon the mere acquisition of wealth, and to have desired to teach the people that there is much more in this world than wealth that is worth having, and worth living for. These, Sir, are the principles upon which this proposal is founded; and yet it meets with opposition from him. I will not detain the Committee, for I am convinced that the matter does not require argument.' I am satisfied that there never was a proposal—insignificant in appearance although it may be, and small in its amount—which was more in unison with the spirit of the House of Commons, or more consonant with the spirit of the people whom we represent,
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that hon. Members might fancy they were teaching

1067
their constituents to respect them because they were labouring for the cultivation of art; but, perhaps, their constituents would remember that they were ministering to the comforts of the epicures, and increasing their taste for turtle and truffles. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be as anxious to train the taste of the people in turtle as in fine arts, and had put in the same category pickles and pictures. The right hon. Gentleman was thus labouring for the epicure as well as the artist. The right hon. Gentleman was rather affected in assuming such regard for art in taking off a duty upon pictures at so much per foot. But he also intended to put on a specific duty Upon musical snuff-boxes, of so much per tune, with an additional charge for variations; so that it would be necessary to have a skilled musical professor to levy the tax. He (Mr. Newdegate) regarded the plan of the right hon. Gentleman as a blind sacrifice of revenue to the ignis fatuus of free trade.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that after the eloquent appeal that had been made in favour of art and educating the minds of the people by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee might be surprised to know that the great inducement which the right hon. Gentleman held out to the artisans of England to study the works of the great masters of painting in foreign countries was to remit the amount of 1s. 6d. upon every picture of a Correggio or a Raphael, with an additional duty of 1s. 6d., and 6–10ths of a penny upon every foot that such a picture might occupy. The right hon. Gentleman filled a high position, which had been occupied by many distinguished men in his time, who had not been wanting in their desire to stimulate the taste of the people; but yet the House of Commons had never heard that they had laid claim to these great and noble ideas on account of having proposed to repeal an eighteenpenny duty upon pictures. Governments in recent days had offered some 10,000 l. or 11,000 l. for a picture to be added to the National Gallery; would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what additional cost this duty of 1s. 6d. per picture, and 8–10ths of a penny per foot, would add to a picture of that sort? He could hot believe that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest when he told them that in repealing this small duty on the importation of pictures, the Government intended to stimulate the demand for pictures, and improve the taste
1068
of the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been in earnest in what he said, but had taken the opportunity of throwing an unworthy taunt upon his opponents. After what had passed he felt bound to divide.
Question put, "That Pictures Stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 46: Majority 140.
Resolution agreed to.
On raw Apples,
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he must ask why the rates of duty were not uniform? The right hon. Gentleman's object was, of course, to prevent any protective effect. Thus there was a lower duty on apples, which we did produce, than upon oranges, which we did not produce. Why should cherries pay 2d. a bushel, and apples, 5d., and oranges, 8d.? He wished to know why it was that pines paid a duty of 2s. per dozen, while apples and pears paid only 3d.?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the answer to the hon. Baronet's question was, that it would be a very good thing if they could have all these fruits admitted free, but they were under certain necessities as to raising a revenue, and had gone as far as they could with safety in reducing duties. 2d. on cherries, an extremely perishable fruit, was as high as 8d. on oranges.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he should feel bound to take the sense of the Committee against Ministers on this subject. He should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEhoped his hon. Friend would not persist in the Motion, though he thought the arrangement of duties proposed by Government very unsatisfactory.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would propose an Amendment establishing a uniform duty of 6d. on all fruit.
Amendment negatived.
Resolution agreed to.
On Butter,
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he must object to the reductions on butter and cheese, as inflicting additional injustice on the agricultural interest, which had suffered so much from the removal of protection Oh cattle and dairy produce. With regard to cheese, he anticipated that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would occasion a certain loss to the revenue, without benefitting any class. He should, therefore,

1069
move the omission of butter and cheese from the list of articles in the Resolution.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that the remission which was proposed to be made in the case of glass and other articles would bear with equal severity upon the manufacturers; and that, therefore, those who were connected with land had no right to complain of being unfairly dealt with by the remission intended to be made with reference to cheese and butter.
MR. GEORGEsaid, that in the district which he had the honour to represent, a great many farmers had turned their attention to the manufacture of butter, and the improvement of the breed of cattle. Without offering any opposition to the principle of free trade, he thought the present moment ought not to have been seized for making such a reduction as that now proposed, and trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give Ireland a little more breathing time
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must inquire why the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to alter this duty? At the time when free-trade principles were first promulgated by Sir Robert Peel, that right hon. Gentleman fixed the duty on butter and cheese. What circumstances, then, made it necessary to alter it?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would venture to say, from a recollection of the transactions to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that when Sir Robert Peel fixed the duty on those articles, he fixed it with the hope that after a moderate period it would be unfixed. He thought it was quite obvious that, on the principles which that House had adopted, articles of food ought to be progressively relieved from duty.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must declare the principle of free trade to be entirely wrong, and he believed it would result in ultimately raising the price of articles.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that Sir Robert Peel had fixed a duty upon cheese and butter, which he meant to be repealed. He (the Marquess of Granby) would only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself would follow out the same principle, and take off duties at the present only in order to impose them again at a future day. He had to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of land throughout the country had been converted from tillage into pasture in consequence of
1070
what had, on a former occasion, been enunciated by a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. Having been advised by the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Admiralty to take that course, it was scarcely fair that the Government of which that right hon. Baronet was a member, should propose to take away the protection, in the case of cheese and butter, which the farmers of England at the present day enjoyed. With respect to the revenue of the country, he should say that it was his opinion that it was in considerable danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the income tax was to be retained only for a few years. But if that tax were repealed, and indirect taxation were to abolished to the extent which the Government proposed, he should like to know from what source the revenue of the country was to be derived? The people of this country would not stand the imposition of an excise duty, unless there were, at the same time, duties raised upon the importation of the produce of foreign countries into this kingdom. He should warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he followed out the system which he seemed inclined to pursue, he would find that the revenue of the country would shortly be insufficient to meet her expenditure.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he considered the reduction of these duties of the utmost importance, and as being calculated to do considerable injury to Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he was of opinion that these reductions, as affecting the revenue to the extent of upwards of 80,000 l., were worthy of serious consideration. He did not speak on the subject from any horror which he entertained of free trade; but because it seemed to him that the measure came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the wrong time, inasmuch as the part of the kingdom most affected by it had been dealt rather hardly with already in the financial measures of the right hon. Gentleman. The sister country was more affected by the proposed change than any part of the kingdom; and although he himself had he concern in the manufacture of butter, yet, concluding that the proposed change would affect the principal source of industry in Ireland, it seemed to him to come with a very ungracious appearance from the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEsaid, he should not be doing his duty unless he urged upon the Government the necessity of con-

1071
sideration before taking off the duty upon butter. The farmers had already suffered by the introduction of free trade, and now a reduction was to be made in the duty on butter, which was one of the principal articles of produce in Ireland. He should have preferred, if a reduction were to be made at all, seeing the duty reduced by one-quarter rather than by one-half.
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he should divide the Committee on the question that butter be altogether omitted, and that the duty remain as at present.
Question put, "That Butter (not of British Possessions) the cwt. 5s., stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 49: Majority 92.
Resolution agreed to.
On Cheese,
MR. COLVILEsaid, that he thought a heavier duty than 2s. 6d. a cwt. should be imposed on cheese, which was a manufactured article. He should prefer that the present duty of 5s. a cwt. should be retained, and would therefore move that the word "cheese" should be struck out of the Resolution.
Question put, "That Cheese (not of British Possessions) to be charged on the landing weight 2s. 6d. stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 40: Majority 95.
Resolution agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he should support the Motion. There must be some limit to their sittings, and, considering the time which hon. Gentlemen had been already occupied during that day in the business of the House, and the probability there was of a long and heavy debate on the following evening upon the Indian question, he thought it only reasonable that the Chairman should then report progress.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest that those parts of the Resolution to which there was no objection should be then taken, and that others, which were opposed, should stand over.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 125: Majority 114.
The Committee then went through the unopposed items in the tariff, and confirmed the proposed duties.
House resumed; Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.