Commons Sitting of 10 June 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Succession Duty.

SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, said that it had been his intention to resist the second reading of the Bill, and to have moved the usual amendment that it should be read a second time that day six months, because entertaining strong objections to it upon principle, he had intended to have availed himself of this the proper opportunity for opposing it on principle. But after what had occurred, he did not intend to adopt that course. He found that, in consequence of the manner in which this Bill had been postponed, his friends on that side of the House—not being at all aware when it would come on—had not anticipated its discussion until the schedules were prepared, and were therefore not now ready to enter upon it. Having consulted several of his friends who desired to express their opinions on the principle of the Bill, he thought that it would not be convenient to take the discussion that night, but to allow the Bill to be read a second time without opposition, distinctly reserving to themselves the right to discuss the principle of the Bill on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, in order that the House might go into Committee upon the measure. He hoped there would be no misunderstanding as to the day when that debate would come on—that they would have that fair notice of it to which the House was entitled, and that in the meantime the schedules would be printed and distributed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he thought, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be convenient to the House to commence the discussion which he had stated his intention to raise on going into Committee upon Monday next. He had only now to discharge a pledge which he had formerly given to the House, that he would on the second reading of the Bill state generally the proposals which Government intended to make with respect to corporate bodies. The Government were of opinion that, on the one hand, it was obviously just

1381
and right that if a succession tax was to be imposed on property passing from one private individual to another, it would not be just that the property of corporations, which enjoyed the same privileges and the same protection under the law, should be exempted from some corresponding payment. The question then arose in what way that payment should be made. Corporations never die, and if the Government had adopted the plan of imposing upon them a tax, assumed or calculated to be equivalent to a succession tax, once in twenty-five or thirty years, it would have been very difficult indeed to say when that cycle should begin. Corporations would have fairly objected to its being assumed that they all died on the coming into operation of this Act. Besides it seemed more convenient, as there was nothing analogous to succession in the case of corporations, to propose a commutation in the shape of an annual tax, instead of laying on one in the lump on the capital of the property. They had then to consider in what way it should be framed in reference to the question of amount; whether the commuted tax adapted to the continuous existence of corporations should be fixed as to its amount, on the assumption that the transmission of their property was analogous to the transmission of the property of individuals in the direct line, or to its transmission from one set of strangers to another, or to what intermediate case. The Government had thought it would not be fair to take either of the two extremes. They proposed that upon corporate property, speaking generally—for there were important qualifications to that statement—there should be ultimately laid an annual tax of 6d in the pound on the net revenue as an equivalent for the succession duty; but that for the period of seven years from the 5th of April last—inasmuch as it would not be fair to cause the duty to accrue fully from the period of the imposition of the succession duty, the tax should be 3d. in the pound; but that after the 5th of April, 1860, the rate should be 6d. in the pound. Then with respect to the various descriptions of corporations, they had to consider how far this tax ought to apply to these corporations universally—how far some should be exempted, and how far other bodies ought to be considered as corporations for the purposes of the succession tax. He would glance very briefly at the different classes of corporations. It was quite obvious, with respect to municipal corporations,
1382
that the House would act safely in adopting a rule corresponding with that which had been adopted in the Act imposing, the income tax—namely, the rule which considered as liable to the tax the realised property of corporations, but exempted from the tax such of the revenues of the corporation as were derived from rates and taxes laid upon the community. With respect to trading corporations, he did not consider that they fell within the purview of a plan of this kind at all. They were corporations to carry on business; the whole proprietary interest in them was divided into shares; it was represented in the form of individual property, and in that form was liable to the succession tax. They now came across a very large and a very miscellaneous class of corporations, which must be called charitable or eleemosynary corporations. This included the charities of the City of London, academic corporations, and schools and colleges and ecclesiastical corporations aggregate, and all these would be dealt with under the proposition of the Government in the same way, namely, under the rule he had already described, and would be subject to a tax of 3d. in the pound on their aggregate revenues for seven years, and would be taxed at the rate of 6d. in the pound thereafter, as an equivalent for the succession tax. He had alluded now briefly to all the important class of corporations aggregately, with the exception of one limited class, which was not of importance in a fiscal point of view, but which interested the feelings of many persons, and he might therefore refer to it specifically. He referred to religious corporations strictly so called, and benevolent societies which were supported in the main by annual donations or by the results of invested donations and subscriptions; and with respect to these they did not propose that they should be subject to the tax at all except in reference to such portion of their property as they might have derived from bequests, or as they might have been in possession of anterior to the commencement of the present century;—because nothing was more antagonistic to sound policy and repugnant to the feelings of the House and the country, than to lay upon the donations and contributions of living persons, which really represented the principle of charity in its full and free action, anything in the nature of a tax. The House showed a just disposition to draw a distinction between that which was done by men in their lifetime

1383
as an act of self-denial out of that which they would otherwise enjoy, and that which, though they were permitted by law to give, was in reality not their gift at all, but that which they took away from their natural heirs and successors, and which was usually called death-bed charity. He had now done with the question of corporations aggregate; but a question of considerable difficulty arose from the provisions of the law which recognised besides another description of corporations under the denomination of corporations sole. He believed they were exclusively—the exceptions were quite insignificant—and they were, in point of fact, the clergy of the country. The cases of the incumbents of all our parishes, and the bishops, were cases which it was desirable for them to consider as corporations sole. The question was, how they were to be regarded? Ought the provision which had been made for the support of those corporations sole to be considerate as corporate property, and made on that account liable to the tax, or ought it to be regarded as a provision made for the discharge of certain official duties? The two views with respect to the corporate character and the official character met at this particular point, and the whole question really turned upon this—would they say they were corporations according to the doctrine of law, and, excluding their official character, subject them to the tax; or, on the other hand, would they say their incomes were a mere provision for the discharge of official duties, and that therefore they should no more tax a clergyman on his accession to a rectory than they should tax any Judge in Westminster Hall on his accession to a Judgeship? The Government had considered the question, and their opinion was, decidedly, that the sound and fair view to adopt as the basis for legislation would be this—that the provision for the ecclesiastical offices, though regarded by law as corporations sole, ought to be regarded as a provision for the discharge of certain duties, and that therefore the acquisition of those offices ought not to be taxed as a succession. He might say there was anothor very good reason—rather in the nature of a grievance as it stood—why they should not be taxed as a succession, namely, the present provisions of the law which entailed a very heavy expense upon the accession to these offices. Whether on that ground, or on the general ground, he had no doubt the House would be of the same opinion as the Government, that the
1384
large portion of ecclesiastical property that was devoted to the support of corporations sole should not be considered property for taxation under the Bill which lay upon the table, any more than the income of the Lord Chancellor or the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and that the two kinds of succession formed equally no matter for consideration in an Act of this kind. There was only one other point upon which he wished to remark. The Government proposed to tax corporations generally, making the Bill bear upon corporations aggregate, and excluding corporations sole. He had stated what would be the exceptions to the rule. He would now state, further, that there were certain other bodies or associations of men which, although not corporations in the view of the law, would yet be considered as corporations for the purposes of this Act—namely, combinations of trustees, under whatever name, who were the actual holders and administrators of property for uses of one kind or another, and through whose hands property was continuously transmitted without a change of hands by any succession upon them. The Government Bill would be so framed that those bodies of trustees would be regarded for the purpose of the Bill as being virtually corporations, and property in their hands would be treated as if it were the property of corporations.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the House would feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very explicit statement he had made with respect to corporate property. He wished, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman two or. three questions on the subject: first, he should like to know whether the proposal for imposing this tax upon corporations would form a part of the Succession Duties Bill now before the House, or whether it would come before them as a separate and distinct measure; and, if it was intended to introduce the proposal into the present measure, at what stage of the Bill it would be most convenient to bring forward the clause? He wished to know, also, whether, among the corporations aggregate liable to this tax, the right hon. Gentleman included municipal corporations in general, which, as the right hon. Gentleman would be aware, were possessed of very considerable property, though now that property was applied to public purposes. The last question he would ask was, as to how this tax upon corporations was intended to affect the corporation of the city of London?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, taking the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the inverse order in which they had been put, would first state that, with respect to the corporation of the city of London, the Bill would not make any distinction between the case of the city of London and other municipal corporations. Upon the other question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought he had stated, with respect to municipal corporations, that they would be brought under the action of this plan much as they were under the Act for levying the income tax—that they would be liable to pay the tax upon their realised property, but not upon the revenue derived from their taxing powers. With respect to the third question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the view of the Government was, that it-would be decidedly more convenient to deal with this subject in a separate Bill, because the whole of the present Bill was founded upon the one idea of succession in consequence of death. That idea was not applicable to corporations; any clause applying to them would assume a different form from the rest of the measure, and it would be therefore more convenient that the subject should be treated in a separate Bill. That Bill he hoped to be in a condition to lay upon the table of the House in a few days.
MR. HUMEdesired to know in what way the property of the country was to be registered for the purposes of the Act? He conceived that without a registry it would be impossible to secure the tax upon succession that was now proposed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question of the hon. Member for Montrose was, no doubt, an important one, and should receive the full attention of the House, and ample discussion during whatever debates might take place on the Bill. When asked on a former night whether it was intended by the Government that the Registry of Assurances Bill should be pressed upon the House, in order to have it passed into a law, to become the basis of this measure, he answered in the negative, and he now repeated that answer. The Government did not think it was necessary that there should be any general registration of property with a view to this Bill; their belief was that the tax which they meant to impose might be efficiently collected without any such general registration of property as the hon. Member referred to. Therefore, whatever course the Government had taken with reference to
1386
this Bill, the general registration of property—a most important question—should not be in any manner prejudiced by the measure now before the House.
MR. WALPOLEhad understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he was going to bring in a similar measure to that by which property was liable to succession duty on the death of the owner, and that by a separate Bill the right hon. Gentleman was about to render corporate property and property in the hands of trustees, also, liable. He wished to ask whether the exemption of corporate property would begin at the same amount as the exemption contained in the Bill before the House, where parties succeeded upon the death of another? He saw that in the Bill before the House the amount at which the exemption was to commence was to be left in blank; and he wished to know whether, in the separate Bill, the amount would be the same, whatever it might be. The question was one of great importance in reference to the property of the smaller charities vested in trustees. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could state whether a similar exemption was to be made in respect to property held by the trustees of the small charities; and, if so, at what sum the exemption was to be considered as commencing?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the minimum point at which the tax would be levied, had not yet received his attention—it was a point of detail, and he was not sure whether any exemption in the case of corporations would be necessary.
Mr. HEADLAMdesired to know whether property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was to be entirely exempt, or whether any charge would be imposed on that description of property?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question reminded him of an omission in his statement. The proposal of the Government would be that all ecclesiastical corporations aggregate should be liable to the tax; but the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commission having been cut and parcelled into small amounts, or rather into given and definite amounts, which were limited as the provision for certain offices, he thought it clear that this property fell under the description, which the Government considered as attaching to the revenues of the corporations sole. Any portion, therefore, of the property which might be detached from

1387
deans and chapters, and the revenue paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be thereafter distributed by them in the formation of new districts, or eking out the provision for small benefices, would be an official provision, and not liable to the tax,
MR. HUMEwished to know whether the funds left in certain cases for the payment of dissenting clergy would be put upon the same footing as the property of the clergy of the Establishment?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that where there was an endowment for the purposes of a religious community other than the Established Church, which could be assimilated to that of a corporation sole, the same benefit would be extended, quite irrespective of the question what these religious denominations might be. In cases where the funds were held by trustees the matter was one of difficulty; but the Government would come as near as they could to the principle that where property was left to religious communities, bond fide for the provision of certain official duties, it would be exempt.
MR. HUMEwished to ascertain whether funds provided for education and the payment of schoolmasters would come within the exemptions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no general exemption of a provision for the purposes of education, in consequence of the difficulty they would have in framing the measure. They should be obliged to let in all eleemosynary cases, and the construction given to it would be so wide that the whole of the corporate property might escape.
Bill read 2°.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
Clause 1.
CAPTAIN JONESrose to move the rejection of so much of Clause 1 as imposes an addition of 8d. per gallon to the duty now payable on spirits taken out of warehouse for consumption in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member contended that the history of these duties showed that every addition to the amount of duty was followed by a corresponding diminution in the quantity of spirits on which duty was charged for consumption, and by an increase of illicit distillation. When the duty was high in 1833, the quantity of spirits brought
1388
to charge had fallen to 8,000,000 gallons. When, in the following year, the duty was reduced to 2s. 4d., the quantity rose to 9,000,000. In the next year the quantity was 11,000,000, in the next 12,000,000, in the next 11,000,000, in the next 12,000,000, and in the next (1839) 10,000,000 gallons. Then came the temperance movement, and Sir Robert Peel raised the duty to 2s. 8d. A small falling-off was the consequence; but in 1842 Sir Robert Peel raised the duty to 3s. 8d. In consequence of the change, the quantity of spirits brought to charge fell to 5,295,000 gallons. Sir Robert Peel, however, again altered the duty from 3s. 8d. to 2s. 8d., and in the year following the reduction, the quantity of spirits charged amounted to 5,540,000, the next year to 6,000,000, the year after it exceeded 7,000,000 gallons, and the same for the next year; in 1845, however, in consequence of the famine there was some slight apparent diminution; but in subsequent years the increase was gradual until at the end of March, 1853, the quantity brought to charge reached to 8,208,000. All that proved that invariably an increase in the duty was attended with a corresponding loss to the revenue. It might not be generally known that every bushel of grain would yield two gallons or more of spirits. Oats fetched in the Irish market 22 d. per bushel; and they now proposed to charge the spirits which may be obtained from a bushel of oats with a duty amounting to 7s. 6d.; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only take into consideration the great facilities afforded by the mountainous districts in Ireland for illicit distillation, the poverty of its inhabitants, and the small size of their farms, he must see that it would be impossible to resist the temptation to illicit distillation. He would now point to the effects of the increase of duty on the Irish criminal returns. For the year 1830, when the duty was first raised, there were no returns; but in 1832 the number of detections for crimes against the revenue were 5,434, and the numbers of persons in gaol were 648. Well, the duty was again reduced from 2s. 8d. to 2s. 4d., and, as a consequence, the number of persons charged with offences against the Excise laws fell from 8,192, 1833, to 4,904, 1834, and the number of persons in gaol from 1,296, 1833, to 842, 1834. After that the duty remained steady at 2s. 4d. for some years, and crime continued to diminish until 1841, when the number of offences was but 881;

1389
while the commitments only reached to 171. In 1842, however, Sir Robert Peel raised the duty, and the effect was to double the number of offences and number of commitments; while in the last year, that of 1852, the number of offences against the excise laws amounted to 2,504, and the number of persons in gaol were 537. Now by a reference to the returns for the seven years ending in 1837 he found that the average number of gallons brought to charge each year was 11,281,000; and on comparing this with the returns for 1853, which showed, as he had stated, an entry of but 8,000,000 gallons, the inevitable conclusion must be that the difference of 3,000,000 gallons was made up by illicit distillation. He had heard the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) state upon more than one occasion—and he believed it was a sentiment which was shared in by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it was desirable to raise the greatest possible amount of revenue from the duties on spirits. But, let him ask, was that result to be brought about by the imposition of a high rate of duties? No such thing; for it was by a low scale of duties that the largest amount of revenue had been realised. Their annual average receipts under this head had been upwards of 1,400,000 l.; and in 1838 it reached its highest level, namely, 1,434,473 l., while at the present moment the duties obtained amounted only to 1,000,940 l. What they were about to do now was only a repetition of the policy of Sir Robert Peel in 1842—a policy which that right hon. Baronet based upon the idea that the organisation of the revenue police in Ireland was so perfect that under no circumstances could any increase take place in illicit distillation. That idea was, as he (Captain Jones) predicted at the time it would be, very quickly renounced; and an alteration had again to take place in the scale of duties. He was afraid that the proposition of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based upon a similar calculation; and, if so, he believed that the result would be corresponding. He referred to the carefully prepared petitions sent from Scotland against the proposed increase to the amount of duty. One of these petitions stated that illicit distillation had provailed in Scotland to a great extent; that all the efforts made to suppress it having proved vain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1824, was induced to try the effect of a reduction of duty—a re-
1390
duction equal to nearly half the amount of the duty. The result had been most satisfactory. Crime was diminished, and in the first year, the gross amount of duty received increased very largely—about 200,000 l. he believed. He would beg permission of the House to refer to an article in the Economist newspaper, relating to the regulations under which a mixture of chicory and coffee was permitted to be sold, and the numerous instances of fraud which had occurred. It stated that high duties and restrictions never deterred the bold knave. It referred to the futile attempts of the Government to prevent the smuggling of foreign silks into this country—the success which had attended the reduction of the duties—reductions carried to such an extent as to take away the premium from the smuggler. He would say, that this article, although written with a view to the chicory question, and the frauds attending it, was equally applicable to the spirit question, then before the Committee: it pointed out the true and correct mode by which the largest possible amount of revenue might be obtained from spirits in Ireland. He believed the question to be one of the greatest consequence to Ireland, and as such he submitted his proposal to the House.
Amendment proposed, in p. 2, 1. 9, to leave out "and Ireland respectively."
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, having given some considerable attention to this question, he had laid it down as a maxim, that from spirits and other articles, not being those of necessity, they should raise the highest possible duty. The principle that he went upon was to levy the same duty on all spirits, wherever produced, and from wherever imported. With regard to Ireland, he should like to see the duty raised to 5s, It could not be good for the morals of the people to have spirits at a low price in any country. He should support the plan of the Government, and he should have done so all the more willingly, if, with respect to Scotland, they had increased the duty on spirits by 2s. instead of 1s.
MR. BAILLIEcould not believe that a Gentleman usually so well versed in statistics as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor) had upon the present occasion consulted them, otherwise he could never have stated that it was a matter of little importance to the people of Scotland that an additional duty of 2s. or 1s. per gallon upon spirits should be imposed. For, had

1391
he clone so, he would have found that in 1823, the year in which the reduction upon Scotch spirits took place, the number of gallons brought to charge was exactly doubled. And he would also have ascertained that in 1826, two years subsequently, when the Government thought they had reduced the duty upon spirits a little too low, having imposed an additional duty of 6d. per gallon, the effect was that in the following year the number of gallons brought to charge were diminished by 2,000,000. But to maintain that the actual consumption of spirits in Scotland had been reduced to that amount would be absurd, as the fact was nothing more or less than that the deficiency had been supplied by illicit distillation.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORadmitted that an increase did then take place in the amount of illicit distillation.
MR. BAILLIE: But if the hon. Member imagined that there was no illicit distillation now going on in Scotland, he was very much mistaken. Why, it was only last winter that a very large still had been discovered in the woods near his own residence, at which no less than sixteen men were engaged; and when the officers of excise made an attempt at seizure, they met with a defeat, and the distillation was still carried on.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORwished to explain that though illicit distillation went on in Scotland, it proceeded to a much greater extent in London, where the duty levied was much higher.
MR. M'MAHONdissented totally from the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the two hon. Gentlemen who last addressed the House. He (Mr. M'Mahon) contended that the imposition of this tax was for the purpose of carrying out the one-sided system of free trade, which enabled the manufacturers of this country to protect their own manufactures against foreign and colonial competition by high duties; to sell those manufactures in the dearest market, and then to buy the produce of agricultural labour—in a market cheapened to the lowest possible point by unlimited competition with foreign and colonial producers. Freedom of trade was a very good thing, but freedom of tillage was equally good. The whole system of free trade had tended to favour the foreign at the expense of the home producer. Throughout the whole Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no remission of duty was made to the agri-
1392
culturists; all that was done was done in favour of trade and commerce; and he (Mr. M'Mahon) did think it was most unjust to carry out that system in favour of trade and commerce at the expense of agriculture. At present the agriculturists were prohibited from raising tobacco on their lands—they could not make sugar from beetroot, without paying a duty the same as the foreign producer; they could not grow hops without paying a duty equivalent on the average to 10 l. an acre; while all excise restrictions were substantially removed from the manufacturers, and their trade was protected from competition by heavy duties on foreign and colonial manufactures. The French farmer might grow tobacco, or hops, or make sugar from beetroot, without restriction, and yet it was pretended that he came on equal terms into competition with the agriculturists of this country, who were subject to so many restrictions, under which it was impossible for them to prosper. He protested against the imposition of those additional restrictions on agricultural produce for the mere purpose of carrying out the indefensible and one-sided system of free trade.
COLONEL DUNNE, as no Member of the Government would rise to meet the question which had been raised, must enter his protest against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of the proposed increase would inevitably be the increased consumption of illicit spirits, and, consequently, of the great demoralisation of the people of Ireland. For the last few years that country had been remarkable for its habits of temperance. But when corn was cheap, and the duty on spirits was high, it was impossible that the Government could prevent illicit distillation. He believed that the increased duties would not be worth the trouble of collection, and in a few years they would be obliged to follow the late Sir Robert Peel's course, and repeal those taxes. The men enlisted latterly in Ireland were of a much more sober character than they had been previously. He would refer particularly, as a proof of his assertion, to the gallant 88th Regiment, or Connaught Rangers. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by declaring his opposition to the measure of the Government.
MR. M'CANNcandidly confessed that he was not opposed to this small increase of duty upon Irish spirits. He, however, implored of the Government not to employ that admirable force the constabulary in

1393
any of the duties that were discharged by the revenue police. The constabulary were now a most popular body in Ireland, but nothing was more calculated to injure that corps than to make them still-hunters.
SIR JOHN YOUNGadmitted that great caution ought to be, and no doubt would be, used in employing the ordinary police for the collection of revenue. At present, no resolution had been come to of the kind which the hon. Gentleman supposed. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Irish constabulary had the general confidence of the people; and this was owing to their uniform good conduct. The practice of illicit distillation had not at any time prevailed generally over Ireland. In some large counties—Meath, for instance—there had been scarcely any. It had been for the most part confined to the poorer and more hilly districts, where oats were extensively grown, and the people were generally poor. The want of roads in those districts had also stimulated illicit distillation, but in the last 20 years much had been done to remedy this. The people were now enabled to bring their oats to market, and there was no necessity for them to resort to illicit distillation. There were good grounds to hope that this very small increase of duty might be safely made. A few years ago there was great excitement about allowances being made for waste in bond; and it was said that if the distillers had this concession made, they were quite ready to submit to a shilling duty. This had been done; and taking the allowance at an average of 2d. only, the increase of duty was really 6d., and not 8d. per gallon. He hoped that the question of employing the constabulary would be reconsidered; the increase of duty was so small that it might not be necessary. Illicit distillation prevailed very partially; farmers had greater facilities for bringing their oats to market, and the wages of labour were so good that he hoped the people would not fall into these practices.
MR. GEORGEcomplained that no answer had been given to Colonel Jones's statistics. The question had not been considered as one of Irish taxation at all. The important consideration was whether the proposed increase would have the effect of increasing or diminishing the revenue from Irish spirits. A tabular statement for the last 21 years showed that the amount of duty and the amount of revenue realised, were exactly in an inverse ratio to each
1394
other. Whenever the duty had been increased, the revenue had fallen; and vice versâ. The increase of duty had so greatly increased the temptation to illicit distillation, that the result had been a great increase of crime. It was said the distiller had received a boon in the allowance for waste. This amounted at the utmost to 40,000 l. or 50,000 l.; while the proposed increase of duty was no less than 238,000 l. Not only would the increased duty cause an increase of illicit distillation, but it might lead to illicit practices in the regular distilleries. He also deprecated the employment of the Irish constabulary in aid of the revenue police. To make them spies and informers would destroy the confidence of the country, and render the force useless. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his best attention to the tables that had been referred to, showing that every increase of duty had diminished the revenue, and tended to demoralise the people.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 38: Majority 62.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the distillers would not object to the increased duty on spirits if they were allowed to distil from malt.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, the Scotch distillers enjoyed a great advantage over the Irish distillers in the matter of the drawback. In 17 years the former had received drawbacks to the amount of no less than 4,248,584 l.; while the Irish distillers had received in the same period only 70,211 l. This was felt by the Irish distillers to be a great grievance.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he wished to see all spirit duties equalised, wherever the article was produced, whether the increase was 1s. or 2s. He would support this Bill, but regretted that it did not go to the extent he had suggested.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Members of the Committee, and especially Irish Members, would bear in mind the emphatic testimony to the moderation of his proposition which had been borne by the hon. Member for Glasgow. No doubt it was very difficult to make this question of spirit duties at all intelligible to the unitiated; he hardly knew a more hopeless task. A cruel contest had long been raging between Ireland and Scotland on the subject of the malt drawback enjoyed by the latter. He be-

1395
lieved that, while Scotland was anxious to retain that drawback, she took very little interest in the question of allowances for waste—a boon which had just been conceded to the Irish distillers; and as it was customary with Irish distillers to keep their spirits longer in the warehouse, in order that they might acquire a mellow flavour, that allowance was of more importance to them. He did not propose to make any change with regard to the malt drawback; but he would give the Committee the assurance that the whole question was under the careful consideration of the Government—whether it was possible or not to arrange a system by which distillers might be enabled to distil from duty-free malt. That would be an immense boon to Scotland; and it might be the means of assisting them to a settlement of this great spirit-duty question on a larger and broader basis. The Irish distillers, who objected strongly to the drawback of the Scotch distillers, would be perfectly well satisfied to have the boon of distilling from duty-free malt, though undoubtedly that would be a greater advantage to the Scotch distillers. Such a proposal it would be impossible to connect with the present Bill, on account of the vast amount of revenue dependent on the collection of the malt duties, and the necessity of avoiding any opening for their wholesale evasion; these were matters which required the most minute, detailed, and elaborate consideration. A great question of that kind must not be made to wait upon the political convenience of putting forward a fiscal measure like the one before the House. The question would receive the most serious consideration; to him it would be a matter of great satisfaction if they were able to arrange it; but, at the same time, after the very fair concession that had been made for wasteage, he thought that Ireland should be content to allow the Scotch distillers to enjoy their drawback on malt. Though that malt drawback appeared to impose an extra duty on Scotch whisky as compared with grain spirits, the difference in reality did not amount to so much as was supposed, owing to the improvements which had taken place in the mode of distilling.
SIR TIMOTHY O'BRIENsaid, it was the practice of the Scotch distillers to ship their whisky to Ireland, and get the drawback there; the spirit remained in the warehouse perhaps ten years, and the distiller enjoyed the advantage all that time.
1396
It was not just to allow half the drawback to the Scotch, and deny it to the Irish distillers.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive.
Clause 15.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now state the principle on which he proposed to allow for the waste in spirits. He understood from the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) that the Irish distillers complained they did not receive the same allowance for waste that the foreign and colonial distillers received. Now, that was not a very rational complaint, because much depended not only upon the nature of the spirit, but also upon the vessel in which the spirit was kept. If there were any difficulty in ascertaining the waste of home spirits, that might be a good reason for adopting the rule laid down in the case of foreign and colonial spirits; but, in truth, there was no difficulty whatever. The maximum allowance for waste provided for in the Bill was one gallon in the 100, and he could state, from a return he held in his hand, that during the quarter ending the 5th of January, 1853, out of 2,000,000 of gallons distilled by eleven distillers in England, the officers of excise had ascertained that the actual waste of spirits was one-third per cent. In Scotland, for the same period, out of 1,250,000 gallons, the waste was one-eighth per cent, and in Ireland, out of 1,500,000 gallons, the waste was one-fifth per cent. That being the case, and seeing there was no difficulty in ascertaining the facts, it was thought far better to ascertain the actual amount rather than resort to any imaginary standard, such as that of the home and colonial spirits.
MR. GROGANsaid, there was great dissatisfaction among the distillers on this point, and he could not understand why, if the actual waste was so easy to be ascertained, the same rule was not applied to foreign and colonial spirits.
MR. BOWYERsaid, there was a committee of distillers who sat last year who gave it as their opinion that, as a general rule, it would be impossible to ascertain the exact amount of waste.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Dublin, that the rule adopted with regard to foreign or colonial spirits might be a very good one for the Customs, and yet not suited for the Excise.
MR. SERJEANT MURPHYsaid, he understood the allowance for waste was not to be made till after the passing of the Bill, while the increase of duty had already taken effect. As the one was considered as a set-off against the other, he thought the allowance ought to take place at the same time with the increase.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that as the Bill was to allow only for the actual waste, that presupposed a close inspection of the spirits according to prescribed regulations, which could not be made till after the passing of the Bill. The Government was open, however, to a reconsideration of the question if any means could be shown by which the revenue would not be injured.
SIR TIMOTHY O'BRIENasked whether any drawback would be allowed on the spirits that were now in bond, and for waste that had occurred previous to the passing of the Act?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite impossible to give the drawback any retrospective effect.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed; Bill reported.

TAXING OFFICER COMMON LAW BUSINESS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for consideration of Bill as amended read.
MR. I. BUTT MR. I. BUTT moved an Amendment, that the principal officer, instead of being a barrister of five years' standing, should be an attorney or solicitor of ten years' standing; and that the yearly salary of the assistant taxing master be 700 l. instead of 500 l. a year. He moved that Amendment out of respect to the profession to which he had the honour to belong, and in order to maintain its dignity and independence. The office was one which did not properly belong to the bar, but to the profession of a solicitor, and he protested against this system of making situations for barristers which their education did not qualify them to fill.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the question had been fully considered, and it was the opinion of the legal Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill that the office ought to be filled by a barrister. It was said that the Government desired to transfer patronage from the attorneys to the barristers, because the latter were, politically, more powerful. But the reverse was the fact, for attorneys were possessed of far greater
1398
political influence. He (Sir J. Young) dissented from the Amendment, and hoped that the Bill would pass as soon as possible.
MR. R. S. MOOREalso opposed the Amendment because it would exclude barristers from the office of taxing master. The question was, what would be best for the public and the suitors. It was best to have one of the officers a barrister and the other an attorney, but they ought to be placed perfectly upon a par.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDwould have voted for the Amendment, had it been only to this effect, that the attorneys should be eligible; whereas it was to this extent, that they should be exclusively eligible. He denied that Irish barristers had their fair share of patronage in any department.
Amendment negatived.
MR. R. S. MOOREthen proposed an Amendment that the two masters should be placed on a par as to jurisdiction and powers.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he could not assent to this, as it would increase the salary of one of them. Moreover, this could not be done except in Committee.
MR. I. BUTTsuggested that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose.
House in Committee.
MR. VINCENT SCULLY, in the absence of Mr. George, moved an Amendment, that the yearly salary of the principal taxing officer should be 1,200 l. instead of 1.000 l. a year. Heretofore there had been two principal taxing officers, each with 1,200 l. a year salary. It was now proposed to have only one chief officer, with the reduced salary of 1,000 l. a year. The labour and responsibility were greatly increased by the new arrangement. It would now be necessary for the chief officer to give his personal attendance throughout the entire year. The amount of business done by the Irish taxing officer greatly exceeded that performed by the English taxing officers, each of whose salaries was far higher than 1,200 l. a year—he believed at least 2,000 l. a year. There existed no longer any just reason for paying officers engaged in Irish departments of the public service on a lower scale than persons filling the like offices in similar departments in England. Both countries were about to be equally subjected to income tax. The price of living in Dublin was in many respects fully as dear as in London. This had been shown to be the case in a recent article in an English

1399
Conservative newspaper—the Standard. Money had become much more plentiful, and of comparatively less value than it was three or four years ago, whilst the prices of butchers' meat had become greatly raised in Ireland, and were equalised with the prices in England. Therefore, what was an adequate salary in Ireland some few years since, might be very inadequate at present. It was a bad principle to underpay a responsible public officer, and there was no office involving more trustworthiness, or a greater amount of personal labour or professional knowledge, than that of taxing officer. There were other strong reasons that might be urged in support of his view, that adequate salaries should be provided for the Irish taxing officers, and that 1,200 l. a year would not be too high a remuneration for the chief officer. He thought the salary of the assistant taxing officer ought to be at least 800 l. a year. In regard to the gentleman whom it was now proposed to make sole principal officer at a salary of 1,000 l. a year, true it was that at present his salary as a second taxing officer was fixed some years since at 800 l. a year; but then it was proposed by the present Bill to deprive him-altogether of the patronage of an office worth 300 l. a year, and, as already mentioned, he would, by recent arrangements, be subjected to income tax. Upon the whole, he trusted the Government would see the justice of adopting his Amendment, by fixing the salary of the principal taxing officer at 1,200 l. a year. He might add that the Irish taxing office was a self-supporting one, yielding a surplus revenue of 1,200 l. a year. The Public Commissioners who had recommended a reform in the office, had not recommended any reduction in the chief officer's salary.
MR. BROTHERTONobjected to this Amendment, as being an intended "pull at the Exchequer" on the part of the Irish Members. The duties which these officers had to discharge demanded no very high order of talent, and it should be remembered that part of their salaries came out of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. WHITESIDEcomplained that the arrangement recommended by public commissioners twenty-five years ago, to the effect that there should be two taxing officers, at salaries of 1,200 l; each, had
1400
been lightly departed from. He objected to the principle of this Bill, in making a distinction between the rank of the two taxing officers. The same scale of salary ought to be fixed for both, and competent and duly qualified persons should be selected for the responsible duties they had to discharge, involving, as those duties did, the disposal of the funds of the suitors to the extent of between two and three hundred pounds per annum and upwards.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDapproved of the distinction that was drawn by the Bill between the superior and the subordinate taxing officer—a distinction which was based upon a difference in the importance of their respective duties. He thought, however, that the principal officer's salary ought not to be less than 1,200 l. a year.
SIR JOHN YOUNGdefended the original proposal of the Bill, fixing the salaries of the two taxing officers at 1,000 l. and 600 l. respectively, which he believed were amply sufficient to secure the services of two gentlemen of adequate legal knowledge, and of a character high enough to place them beyond the reach of temptation.
MR. VINCENT SCULLY, in reply, stated that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) was mistaken in supposing that the costs taxed by the Irish taxing officer were less than 100,000 l. a year. The precise amount taxed last year was 123,338 l., besides a considerable amount which was taxed not entered in the books—making, he should conceive, on a moderate estimate, a gross total of at least 150,000 l. a year. As it thus appeared that the reduced salaries had been fixed by the Government under a misapprehension as to the amount of business done, perhaps upon having now received more perfect information, they would consent to the increase he had proposed. He admitted that if his proposition were nevertheless still opposed by Government, he could not hope to carry it in the present state of the House; and, in that event, he would not wish to damage its future discussion by pressing it now to a division.
Amendment withdrawn.
House resumed; Bill reported.
The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till Monday next.