HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc209-18
GENERAL WYNDHAM

said, he was desirous of bringing under the consideration of the House the state of the supply of troop and artillery horses, and the effect of the duties levied on stage carriages and omnibuses in diminishing the supply of useful and seasoned horses, suitable for the army, and also in discouraging the breed of horses generally. He considered that great injustice was done to the proprietors of stage carriages by the heavy duties at present inflicted upon them. By the mode in which the duties upon stage carriages were at present levied an enormous sum was exacted from the proprietor of stage carriages, while the owner of a private carriage was comparatively untouched. It was said that the sum raised by the tax could not be spared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already remitted taxation to the same amount in other instances, and there was no reason why a concession might not be made in this case. With regerd to the diminution of the supply of horses for the artillery and cavalry, he believed it was well known that in the late war 100,000 stage-coach horses were employed in the army, while during the present war there had been only 40,000 of these horses employed. He thought that it was highly desirable that the breed of this description of horses should be encouraged as much as possible. He therefore asked the House to agree to the Motion of which he had given notice.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

seconded the Motion. He believed that, while the duty on railways had been reduced from 5 to 3½ per cent, that upon stage-coaches was now something like 15 per cent. The railway was taxed upon its earnings, whereas the coach proprietor was taxed by mileage, whether his vehicle took its full complement of passengers or none. Now, where such competitions existed as there was between railways and coaches, the burden borne by both ought certainly to be the same. In addition to railways, however, these omnibuses had to meet the direct competition of cabs, in the duty upon which the House of Commons, last year, had made a great reduction, the result being that, while cabs had increased, omnibuses had diminished in number, and the revenue was falling off in the same proportion. He thought it behaved the Chancellor of' the Exchequer to consider whether the same privilege should not be granted to the omnibus proprietors here which had been granted to certain parties in Manchester, where the duty had been reduced from three-halfpence to one penny per mile. Believing that the loss to the revenue would be nothing like that which was expected; being of opinion, too, that, whether the country was at war or peace, an act of simple justice ought to be done, he cordially seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That, in the opinion of this House, the Laws relating to the Assessment of Duties on Stage Carriages in England, Scotland, and Wales, should be immediately modified.

MR. BROTHERTON

said, he was desirous of stating that the remission of the duty at Manchester had been productive of benefit both to the public and to the revenue.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that this was a falling revenue, and he believed it was universally the case that a partial remission of taxation in such an instance was attended with benefit to the revenue. There was one point in respect of which he was anxious to have an explanation from his right hon. Friend. The deputation which had recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented their grievances to him, and it was understood that all those grievances were alike. Judge, then, of their astonishment on finding afterwards that this duty had been remitted in the case of three firms at Manchester, while throughout the whole omnibus trade of London not one single halfpenny had been remitted. He should be glad to know the grounds upon which this distinction has been drawn?

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he felt convinced that the present duty was highly injurious to the omnibus proprietors, and he thought that great relief would be afforded to the public by the removal of the present high taxes upon horses. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his best attention to the subject with a view to the repeal of the duty. It was not only injurious to the omnibus proprietors, but, by diminishing the number of omnibuses, entailed upon the public serious inconvenience.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Cocker mouth divides itself into two portions. In the first part he proposes "to bring under the consideration of the House the state of the supply of troop and artillery horses, and the effect of the duties levied on stage carriages and omnibuses in diminishing the supply of useful and seasoned horses suitable for the army, and in discouraging the breed of horses generally." With respect to that part of the Motion, I will only say, I am not aware that the duty to which he refers exercises any prejudicial influence on the supply of horses to the army, or generally on the breed of horses in this country. The mileage duty upon horses drawing public carriages is a duty which has not only existed since the peace of 1815, but during the late war, at rates higher than the present; and it has never been argued, and certainly never proved, that that duty, which falls generally upon the owners of horses employed in that manner, can be said to exercise extensively any prejudicial influence on the supply of horses to the army. I was not quite able to follow all the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member; but I venture to assert that he has not adduced such facts as will induce the House to attach any great weight to that part of the Resolution. The material part for the consideration of the House is that in which he proposes that "the assessment of duties on stage carriages shall be immediately modified. By "duties on stage carriages" I presume he means the mileage duty on horses drawing public carriages, and not the licences on the carriages themselves, to which I do not understand that any great objection applies. I shall take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the fact that the mileage duty on horses drawing stage carriages, which at present is 1½d. per mile, is a reduced rate, as compared with the duties paid in former years. By the Act passed in 1815 a scale of duties was adopted, varying from 2½d. to 5½d. per mile according to the number of passengers, and the average charge per mile for each horse drawing a public conveyance was about 4d, as compared with l½d. That scale continued until 1842, when a new one was adopted varying from 1d. to 4d. per mile, also determined by the number of passengers, and the average charge per mile under that Act was about 3d., or double the existing duty. That rate existed until about two years ago, when the present rate of duties was imposed. It has been stated that the present is a diminishing duty in the amount returned to the revenue, and there is no doubt that statement is true to a certain extent. I will inform the House of the exact figures. In 1849 the total amount of mileage duty was 188,848l. In 1854 it was 185,378l. Therefore, it may be said to have been rather higher, taking the last six years for a comparison; but, although it has slightly fallen, it is really nearly stationary. In the metropolis, where the greatest portion of the mileage duty is produced, the result is very much the same. In 1850 the duty in the metropolis produced 113,123l. It was greater in the three following years, but in last year it only produced 112,961l., leaving, as in the former case, a slight diminution, but exhibiting a state nearly stationary. I have had communication with gentlemen from different parts of the country, and I am fully prepared to admit this interest is subject to considerable pressure. But the chief part of that increased pressure is, in my opinion, due to causes unconnected with the duty. It is owing partly to the high price of forage. It is owing to the increased price of horses. It is owing to the increased competition of railways and of steamers on rivers. With regard to the metropolis, I may also add, a disadvantageous effect has been produced on omnibuses by the increased number of cabs in consequence of the measure of two years ago, by which the radius within which hackney cabs can ply for hire was extended, from four to five miles of the General Post Office, to the whole metropolitan district, which is about fifteen miles. The result has been, that whereas in 1848 the number of hack cabs in London was 2,849, in 1854 that number had risen to 3,720. All these circumstances, coinciding with a somewhat high and not very well arranged duty, have caused a combined and accumulated pressure on this branch of industry, and the result is, that this interest is at present in a suffering state. I am quite free to admit that if I were bound to submit to the House a supplementary budget, and bring under consideration a plan for the modification of duties, in addition to those modifications which it has already been my duty to submit to the House, this mileage duty would be one entitled to a prominent place. There are also questions of its relations to the taxation of railways, which, perhaps, are not adjusted on terms of perfect equality. If gentlemen who wish to bind the House by abstract propositions, that the assessment of certain duties shall be immediately modified, without sketching, even in general terms, the nature of the modifications which they propose, would take the trouble to investigate the subject, they would find how difficult it is to select one duty of this sort for alteration without including other duties in the same plan, and they would hesitate before submitting such propositions to the House. After what I have stated, I can only add that if a favourable opportunity should present itself for the reconsideration of this class of duties, I am fully alive to the objections which exist to them in their present form, and I am quite ready to admit that they occupy a prominent place among those duties which require revision, whenever the state of the revenue shall be such as to admit of a diminution of the income of the country. Perhaps the House is not aware that, to carry into effect the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, we must make an estimated sacrifice of 50,000l. of revenue, and, although I do not say it is not possible to make up 50,000l. in other ways, the House must see that, if claims of this sort are admitted with respect to one duty, similar claims will be made for the remission of other duties, and the difficulty will be to make an equitable selection without taking a more general view of the subject. I have already said there are circumstances which render a consideration of this subject necessary; but at present I hope the House will not agree to the Motion.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I would observe that this is no new grievance. This question has been brought before the House on previous occasions, and I am sure it has been brought under the consideration of former Chancellors of the Exchequer. Now I want to know in what way redress can be obtained for a grievance which all admit to be a real grievance, because it is not founded upon merely momentary circumstances. In what manner can this question ever be brought to a satisfactory issue unless the House takes it up? We have had deputations for years, represented from both sides of the House, and we have had those representations sympathised with by those who have had official responsibility, and, notwithstanding the remarkable opportunities which have occurred during the last few years for adjusting the balance of taxation, no redress has been afforded in this particular instance. When in office I felt myself it was a case which demanded attention at the earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly acknowledged it was a case demanding attention. Let the House consider the causes alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the depression of this interest, and consider whether they are temporary or not. They are occasioned by railways, although nobody could expect that railways would cease to carry traffic; by steamers, but no one fancies that steamers are likely to disappear; by the high price of forage; it is possible that forage may not always be so high in price as now; by the high price of horses, but there is no great probability, at all events at present, of the price of horses diminishing. We want to know in what possible manner can redress be obtained for a grievance which has existed now for a considerable time, and has become permanent, unless the attention of the House is called to it by some Motion similar to that of my hon. and gallant Friend (General Wyndham). His motion has been called an abstract Resolution. Now I never heard a Motion which appeared to me to be less abstract—it complains of a practical grievance and indicates a practical remedy. It says that the duty is too high, which occasions unjust pressure, and it asks the Government to modify that high duty. If my hon. and gallant Friend had indicated the details of a measure by which those modifications should be carried into effect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have said "Leave them to me;" but if the tax is unjust, we say, let it be modified. Then it is said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has modified the tax. I thought he rose to explain that point. I did not think he rose to announce that the steam-engine had been invented, that railways had been constructed, that forage was dear and the price of horses high. I thought he rose to explain that he had done that which my hon. and gallant Friend practically recommended him to do; why he had modified this grievous impost at Manchester; and why he had not done that in London, where we are told the grievance presses more than in any other part of the country. I really think we ought to expect from the Government some satisfactory explanation of the experiment which, according to the testimony of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) has been so successful and satisfactory. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or some of his colleagues, will give us that information upon this interesting topic which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accidentally omitted to do. The right hon. Gentleman tells us the tax was settled in 1842. We know it is only within the last ten years that the railway communications of the country have been brought into complete play, and produced that intense competition with the suffering industry, the depressed condition of which is now under our consideration. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself must admit that the principles which railways so successfully carried on are taxed, and the principles of taxation upon the old mode of communication, are quite opposed to each other and are essentially unjust. The tax on successful industry is calculated on its profits, while the tax on depressed industry is really calculated on its capital. Now I ask can the House vindicate such a principle? It is hardly necessary to notice the previous portion of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, because the practical remedy is not directly stated, but I would only observe, that all your taxes upon horses are too high, while at this moment you are in want of horses. You are obliged to go to foreign countries for animals, and this land, which once was famous for its breed of horses, is absolutely unable to supply the public demand. You take no steps to diminish the high amount of taxation imposed upon them. I shall feel it my duty to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it one of the most proper and justifiable Motions ever brought before the House. I never wish to see any Chancellor of the Exchequer unduly pressed, but I put it to both sides of the House what chance there is of obtaining redress for a grievance which is now universally acknowledged to exist, unless the House takes the matter into its hands? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he will lose 50,000l. if he assents to the proposition. It is inconvenient and quite unnecessary to enter upou that point until it is put forth in a more business-like manner, and I shall content myself with saying I view that estimate with very great suspicion. After what has occurred this year with regard to taxes on newspapers, when 250,000l., with very questionable discretion, in a very improvident measure, which was accepted by those who first agitated and recommended the change in a very unthankful spirit, was given up, I think it would have become the Government to accede to this practical Motion, in which an important interest is concerned; and I further think they ought to have come forward in proper time to grant that redress which, I think, it is now the duty of this House to give.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I wish, Sir, to make an explanation with regard to the case of Manchester, which has been alluded to in the course of this discussion. It is quite true that the Board of Inland Revenue has by special indulgence allowed certain persons in Manchester an abatement of duty, but it was on the ground that their competition was exclusively with railways. I have had communication with the Board of Inland Revenue as to whether the same circumstances would not apply to the London trade, and I have received a most distinct assurance that the grounds on which alone this remission of duty was granted at Manchester do not apply in London.

MR. WALPOLE

I really, Sir, do not think the last observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pass unnoticed. Here is a general tax imposed. The people of this country are given to understand that it is to affect a particular class, and a few individuals of that particular class, upon application, are exempted from its operation. I think it is far too serious a question to pass over, and I trust the House will support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he was informed that in February, during the tremendous frost, the omnibus proprietors of London made application for a month's concession of the boon granted to the Manchester proprietors, and were refused.

MR. WILSON

said, that the concession made to the people of Manchester was not a peculiar concession made to them; but was an exercise of an unquestionable power given to the Board of Inland Revenue, which had been exercised both before and since it was given to Manchester. For instance, the Board of Inland Revenue compounded for the duty with the proprietors of the stage-coaches which ran in the Lake district for a part of the year only. He did not say that this case was analogous to what had been done in Manchester. All he said was, that what had been done was done by the Board of Inland Revenue on their own authority, and in the exercise of their unquestionable power, and not as some hon. Members seemed to suppose for political purposes.

MR. MILES

said, that the question of concessions made at Manchester had alone been referred to by the hon. Gentleman; but he understood that a similar concession had been made in the metropolis to Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, and he did not understand why they should not be placed on the same footing as all other omnibus proprietors.

MR. E. ELLICE

said, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yield to the Motion. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the case of the Lakes districts in England; but in parts of Scotland it was the summer traffic alone which could remunerate the innkeepers for keeping post-horses, and yet in their case no exemption had been made.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he wished to remind the House that this modification of the duties in the case of Manchester had not been made by the Treasury, but by the Board of Inland Revenue, and therefore it was a mistake to call upon his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to explain the grounds of an arrangement which was not made by the department to which he belonged. With regard to the question before the House, it must be admitted that the duty stood in a somewhat unsatisfactory condition, because, whether rightly or wrongly, modifications had been made which placed different places on different footings. Seeing, therefore, that the Government had the authority of the House to take the matter into their consideration, with a view to the modification of the existing duties, he was not disposed to oppose the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.