STAGE CARRIAGE DUTIES, &c. BILL. (Hansard, 13 July 1855)

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said he did so with reluctance, as no one was more desirous than he was for a reduction being made in the duties on stage carriages; but the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, had introduced a clause which had nothing to do with stage carriages, but was intended to subject the members of Building Societies to stamp duties, from which they had hitherto been exempt. The clause was first introduced in the Friendly Societies Act, and he only discovered it at the last moment by accident. By means of the telegraph he communicated with the building societies, and a deputation waited on the hon. Gentleman, and they agreed to a compromise; but when they came to put it in words, they found it could not be carried out. A clause, however, was introduced which was totally different from the compromise. The House of Lords 870 struck it out; and now the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity had suggested to him a mode of defeating both the House of Lords and the Building Societies, by inserting the clause in the Bill now before the House; because, being a Money Bill, the Lords must pass it or reject it as a whole, and thus they were deprived of their privilege of objecting to the clause. It was not right to charge the members of Building Societies, who were the most respectable of the working classes, with stamp duties from which they had been exempt for twenty years. If it was right to tax them, let them have the whole question of Building Societies brought before them, and let them not seek to tax them in this underhand manner. He only objected to that clause of the Bill.

§ MR. MASTERMAN
seconded the Amendment. He thought it most unjust that they should levy taxation upon the people, in respect to a subject of which they at present knew nothing.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the hon. Member who opposed the second reading of the Bill had stated, that there was only one clause of the measure to which he objected. That clause had passed this House during the present Session; it had received full consideration, and had been deliberately adopted by the House in the Friendly Societies Bill. The Bill then went up to the other House; and, as it was there thought that the clause referred to was a revenue clause, and ought not to be inserted in a Bill relating to Friendly Societies, it was accordingly omitted. Under those circumstances, he had introduced the clause into the present Bill for the purpose of again bringing it under discussion. He knew that the clause was objected to by Friendly Societies, but he protested against the doctrine that it would affect only the interests of the poorer classes, for he knew that many of these societies dealt largely in land and made purchases to the amount of 50,0001. or 60,000l., and he thought that no reason could be shown why, when purchases ware made exceeding the amount specified in the present clause, they should not be subjected to the stamp duties. When the 871 Bill was in Committee, they could then consider whether they would or would not adopt this clause, but as the greater portion of the Bill was not objected to, he trusted the House would agree to the second reading.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said that, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had spoken that night of the manner in which the public business was conducted in that House, he should in consistency instruct his colleagues not to conduct their business in the way his Chancellor of the Exchequer carried forward the present measure. The House of Lords had deliberately rejected the clause, as one introducing new taxation; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing a Bill on stage carriages, inserted that very taxation clause. He should support any opposition that could be made to the Bill.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he had done all he could to oppose the clause in the Friendly Societies Bill; but he did not like to risk that Bill by persevering in his opposition. He thought, however, it ought not to be urged that he and those who acted with him had deliberately passed the clause. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, when they went into Committee, agree to abandon that clause?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
in reply, said, that he had previously stated that it would be competent for the House in Committee to adopt or reject this clause as they might think fit. If they refused to read the Bill a second time, they would throw out a clause respecting the mileage duty which he had introduced in the Bill in consequence of the discussions which had taken place on that subject.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he considered that any Bill imposing taxation upon the people ought to be introduced in the regular way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) to reserve his opposition until the 6th clause came regularly before them, when he would attain his object in the most effectual and convenient manner. He wished to know what was the extent of the amount of taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to raise from the tax? He also wished to learn from the Government what was the composition upon which the Inland Revenue made 872 their calculations in regard to the mileage duties?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that he had introduced a clause into the Bill by which the power of compounding for mileage duty would be taken away. The reasons for retaining that power while the duty was at the rate of l½d. a mile would not exist when it was reduced to 1d. A report of the Board of Inland Revenue, containing a full account of their proceedings in respect to that subject, had been made, and was now in the hands of the printers, preparatory to being laid on the table of the House. If after that Report was presented further explanations should be required, he should be happy to give them.

§ MR. HORSFALL
said, he must complain of the levity with which the subject had been treated by the right hon. Baronet, who had said that the clause relating to Building Societies had been deliberately considered. Those societies, he told the House, had purchased property to the amount of 50,0001. or 60,0001. That was not correct. It was the Freehold Land Societies that had made those purchases; they were quite distinct from Building Societies, being formed for political objects; and the House would be surprised to learn that, under the clause, those societies were exempted from the tax to be imposed upon Building Societies, than which nothing could be more unjust.

§ MR. WILSON
said, the question put by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby), as to what amount of revenue was to be derived from the imposition of the tax, convinced him that the hon. Baronet did not understand the provisions of the Bill, which was not a measure for the imposition but for the modification of existing taxes. It was impossible to say what amount would be lost by a continuance of the exemption, the effect of which was to give to large associated bodies benefits which were denied to the poor man in his individual capacity.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he thought that Building Societies were deserving of every encouragement, and certainly ought not to be interfered with by a measure like the present.