§ Order for Committee read.
§ On Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcalled the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the necessity of the Government making provision in this Bill to exempt persons from having to pay income and property tax twice over, in consequence of defalcations of the collector.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that such a provision was already made by the Act for better securing the collecting and accounting for the land tax, assessed taxes, and income tax by the collectors thereof (17 & 18 Vict., c. 85). By that Act it was provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might require any person appointed a collector of taxes to give security, and in default of security being given, might appoint collectors themselves; and that where security was given, or the collectors appointed by the Commissioners, no parish should be answerable for the defaults of such collectors, nor should be liable to be re-assessed for any arrear or deficiency arising from any default or failure of such collectors.
§ MR. ALCOCKthought it would be much better if the Government would make it compulsory, and not permissive, for the Inland Revenue officers to collect the income tax.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the working of the Act referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been beneficial to the metropolitan parishes, for in three of the parishes in the borough which he represented serious losses had been suffered, owing to the Commissioners not having required security from the collectors.
§ House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the chair.
§ Clause 1,
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid that his chief object in troubling the House with a 2137 few observations upon this clause was, not to obstruct the Government in raising the supplies really necessary for the public service, but to record his protest against this, the first departure from the Act of 1853. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on more than one occasion asserted that the Act of 1853 was at an end, and that the tax with which they had now to deal was not that imposed by the Act of that year, but that which the people were now by law liable to pay; and that, in consequence, the proposition of the Government was for a reduction and not an increase of the income tax. To that statement he (Sir F. Kelly) could not subscribe. He would not take upon himself to say that there was a "compact" made between the Government and the people in 1853, because he did not seek to invite a controversy upon the words; but this he did say, that the measure brought forward in 1853 was expressly and emphatically stated to be a settlement of the question. It was now, however, said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the arrangement of 1853 was at an end. To that he (Sir F. Kelly) could not agree. Whatever was the arrangement actually made between Parliament and the country in 1853—whether there was a "compact," or what in another place he should call a "contract," between the Government and the people, the consideration for the settlement being the succession duty and the granting of the income tax for seven years—he maintained that the Act of that year was not terminated, but only suspended by the war. No one ever understood that in the event of a war the provisions of that Act were to be adhered to; but the first small and the subsequent large increase of the tax were accepted and agreed to by the country, in the belief that when peace was restored we were to return to the Act of 1853. The war was now happily at an end, and so was the year after the war for which it was intended that the war tax should be continued; and they now had to consider the amount of tax to be paid henceforward. There had been a contention between the right hon. Gentlemen the present and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether fixing the income tax at the rate of 7d. in the pound was, in fact, an increase or a reduction of the tax. This was really a mere question of words, a species of logomachy between these two great Oxford logicians, into which he would not 2138 presume to enter; he would merely suggest that the difference between these two right hon. Gentlemen arose entirely from the fact that one spoke of the war tax of 16d., and the other of the peace tax of 5d. in the pound; in the one aspect 7d. was a reduction from 16d., and in the other an addition to 5d. The House had heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman by way of ground for calling on the country to pay a higher rate of tax than the Act of 1853 contemplated. He (Sir F. Kelly) would not quote from Hansard any of the declarations made during the debate of 1853, but would merely observe that if without any statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the particular grounds upon which they were called upon to increase this tax, and without any estimate of the Supplies required for the public service they were upon trust and acting merely from their confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers to add 2d. in the pound—which meant the sum of £2,000,000 sterling—to the tax leviable under the Act of 1853, he saw no reason why upon any exigency, real or imaginary—existing, or alleged by the Ministers of the Crown—Parliament might not hereafter be called upon to add to and to continue this tax; so that the Act of his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) might really become a dead letter. He would not, at that period of the Session, enter into the many questions connected with the income tax, but there was one subject to which he should briefly advert. In the course of the year 1853, it had been his misfortune to differ upon many points from the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had three times proposed Amendments to remedy what the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted to be grievances. These Amendments had been overruled, but, at the same time, upon the understanding that the tax should expire in seven years from that date. The defects, however, which he had then pointed out, and the arguments which had been then employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, afforded a strong reason for making a stand now in favour of the Act of 1853, and he should therefore move an Amendment, that 5d. in the pound be substituted for 7d. as the rate to be levied in the ensuing year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he quite agreed with the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The amount of the Esti- 2139 mates for the year so much exceeded the amount of them before the war, that the Government could well afford to make this reduction of 2d., which would amount to about £2,000,000. He considered that a reduction to that extent might be made in the Estimates without impairing the efficiency of the public service. He could not understand on what grounds this increase in the Estimates was called for. We had two wars, it was true; but in these Estimates no provision had been made for the expense which they would occasion. The Estimates were £4,000,000 over those of the year before the war commenced, and unless the Government showed some reason for this large increase, he could not see that there was any necessity for this expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe hon. and learned Gentleman is not only too distinguished a practical lawyer, but also his mind has been too well trained in the study of jurisprudence, to dispute the position that the existing income tax, being levied under the Act of 1855, is levied under an authority not less binding than the Act of 1853. Nor do I think that he will dispute the fact, that if the present law remains unchanged—that is, if no measure be passed for reducing the rate as established by the existing law—an income tax of 16d. would be leviable, and would be levied in the ensuing year. I do not see that any advantage can be derived from continuing the discussion as to whether 16d. is higher or lower than 7d., or whether the Bill which I propose is or is not a reduction of the existing tax. I take the law as I find it, and, without going into the question of what the law might have been, I propose a reduction in the rate of the income tax which is now leviable by law. That being the case, I think the legal grounds urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman in support of his proposal are entirely swept away. I now come to the moral grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, putting aside the question of legality, there was a moral contract entered into in the year 1853 between Parliament and the nation, the consideration for that contract being that Government should impose certain duties on successions, and, in consideration of those additional burdens, that the income tax, after being lessened according to a settled scale, should cease within a fixed period. Now, I admit that if the state of things 2140 upon which the Act of 1853 was founded—namely, an uninterrupted continuance of peace—had continued, and the Government had come forward and proposed a large increase of income tax, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been of great weight. He might have said that, although you cannot bind Parliament by a legal obligation, still you have incurred a moral obligation, which you have broken. What has taken place, however, is wholly different. The very foundation of the settlement of 1853 has been subverted by the war, which rendered it necessary not only to provide for its expenditure during the years which it lasted—which we did partly by increasing the income tax, first to 14d. and then to 16d.—but also to make provision for debts contracted for the purposes of the war payable in subsequent years. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me how I justify the addition of 2d. to the 5d. at which the tax ought to stand during the next year according to the settlement of 1853. Well, Sir, during the next year we have £2,000,000 of bonds to meet which have been made payable in May next, to liquidate debts contracted for the purposes of the war, on the very ground that the income tax would take some time to collect. Then, again, there is a sum of £250,000 for the war sinking fund. So that altogether £2,250,000 of war expenditure will have to be defrayed during the next year. If, therefore, we view the case upon legal grounds, nothing can be more simple; and, if we look to the moral ground, I think I have advanced a full justification for the course which is now proposed; and if I have, there can be no reason why the Committee should assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government have shown no reason beyond their own will and pleasure why the House should consent to their proposal; that they have not shown that any need exists of so large a sum for the public service. Well, Sir, I can only say that on a recent occasion I trespassed at considerable length upon the attention of the House, and endeavoured to the best of my ability to show what would be the probable expenditure of the country, and also the means by which we proposed to meet it. The Estimates for the army and navy have been laid upon the table, and although they have not been discussed in 2141 detail, still their details have been exhibited to the House. Then, again, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) says that the Estimates are too large. Now, it is quite clear that I cannot at the same time be amenable to the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman of having kept the House in ignorance and to that of the hon. Member for Lambeth. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Lambeth says, if you can show that you have two wars upon your hands, and that you require this money to carry them on, then you have made out a case. I confess, if that is the case which we are called upon to establish, that I am totally unable to meet the view of the hon. Member. In the first place, with regard to the Persian war, a treaty of peace has been negotiated at Paris with the Persian Plenipotentiary, as to whose full powers no doubt can exist. It is well known to the House that no treaty is valid until the ratifications have been exchanged between the contracting Governments; but there is no reason to suppose that this, any more than any other treaty, will not be ratified in due course. At all events, the treaty has been signed, which is a great advance to make, and we are not entitled to anticipate that the war with Persia will continue. As to the expense of that war, I estimated it at a certain sum in the statement which I gave. All that the Exchequer of this country will be called upon to contribute is one-half of the extraordinary expenses of the war. [An hon. Member: "What is the amount?"] Until we know the total expense of the expedition, of which the account can only be prepared by the East India Company, I am unable to answer that question. But, whatever the amount may be, the whole of the ordinary expenses will be paid by the East India Company, and only one-half of the extraordinary expenses will fall on our Exchequer; therefore it is incorrect to say that the entire expenditure for the Persian war has to be defrayed from our Exchequer. With reference to the events that have occurred at Canton it is of course impossible for me, or anybody else, to speak with confidence. I can only say that, as far as Her Majesty's Government are at present informed, they see no cause to anticipate that the ordinary naval and military forces of the year will not be sufficient to afford to British subjects at Hong Kong and Canton the protection which will be required for their lives and property; 2142 and, as at present advised, we do not look forward to the necessity of presenting an estimate of an increased charge for hostilities in that part of the world. At the same time, I cannot pledge myself that such a contingency might not arise. Therefore I cannot claim my hon. Friend's vote on the ground of increased charges for either of the wars to which he referred. The Estimates are on the table; they are justified by the difficulty of making immediate reductions after a great war, a difficulty which has been invariably felt at the close of previous wars, and which, if hon. Members will look to the debates in 1816, they will find was distinctly pointed out by the Government of that day, and was to some extent recognized by this House. Other circumstances have also combined, as I have previously stated, to produce some additional charge for the army and navy. When the Estimates come to be closely and jealously examined in Committee of Supply, which they will be in the course of the summer, it will be found that they have been framed upon reasonable principles; and, therefore, we are not to assume that any further economy could enable us to dispense with another £2,000,000. I trust, then, that the Committee will see that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to reduce the income tax to 5d. would derange the finances of the year, and either lead to a deficiency or prevent you from discharging those war obligations which, under other circumstances, would be discharged. Before I sit down I would merely call the attention of the Committee to this fact,—that since the income tax was first imposed upon the proposition of Sir Robert Peel, in time of peace, it has never been lower than 7d. It was renewed at several periods; but it remained always at the same rate until 1853, when it was continued again for two years more at 7d., for another two years at 6d., and for three years more at 5d. in the pound. Before the 6d. scale came into operation the tax was doubled in consequence of the war; and it never, in fact, fell below 7d. in the pound. The general sense and rude appreciation of the country, entirely overlooking the niceties and refinements of the hon. and learned Gentleman, asked from the Government nothing more than the surrender of what was called the "war ninepence"—that is to say, the difference between the 16d. rate, which the present Act fixes for the ensuing year, and the 7d. rate which existed before 2143 the war. This general desire of the country is adequately met by the Motion now upon the table, and I therefore trust the Committee will find no difficulty in acceding to the scale which we propose.
§ Amendment Negatived.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid that the Bill consisted of only one clause, and he was desirous of striking out the proviso which imposed a tax of 5d. in the pound on all incomes between £150 and £100 a year. When this tax was originally proposed by Sir Robert Peel, that great statesman distinctly stated that £150 was the lowest point to which the impost should descend, otherwise it would inflict the most serious hardship upon a large and deserving class of the community. At each successive renewal of the tax the exemption of incomes below £150 was invariably continued, until the year 1853, when incomes as small as £100 were brought within the range of this impost, thus provoking loud and grievous complaint from those who were for the first time affected by it. The injustice of this provision lay in the fact that those subjected to it consumed as large an amount of the necessaries of life charged with excise and custom duties as was consumed by those who possessed the largest incomes in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, possessing a very large income himself, could not appreciate the pressure of this tax upon a man with only £100 a year. It deprived such a person of many of the comforts of life, and seriously interfered with the education they were most anxious to afford to children. The small shopkeeper, struggling to make both ends meet, the artizan, earning weekly in wages, with the aid of overtime, just £100 a year, and the hardworking and scantily paid clerk, striving to maintain a respectable appearance, were all entitled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's compassion. Moreover, the mode in which the tax was assessed was most oppressive to this class of persons. A striking illustration of this was furnished by the case of a poor man who kept a chandler's shop, the average weekly return of which he swore did not exceed £3 15s., yielding a profit of only 10s., and who, although his entire earnings, with the addition of 10s. from precarious employment as a dock labourer, were not more than £40 a year, was nevertheless charged to this tax on an income of £100. This poor person went before the Commissioners, and was put to great trouble before he 2144 obtained redress. He had been told of numerous cases of oppression by working men, and one of his constituents, whose income was a little above £100 a year, but who, having a family in a state of great distress, was absolutely unable to save the amount necessary to pay the income tax, was thrown into prison, where he remained about three weeks, and was then released through the charitable assistance of some friends. Clerks and shopkeepers were obliged to keep up a respectable appearance, and the deduction of £2 or £3 from their small incomes for the purpose of paying the income tax was a very serious matter to them; and he was convinced that the money now required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be saved by making a reduction in the expenditure. He concluded by moving the omission of the proviso to which he had referred.
§ MR. PELLATTseconded the Amendment. Many cases of hardship in connection with this tax on the lower class of incomes had fallen under his consideration. It certainly pressed very heavily on the description of persons alluded to by the hon. Member, and he would instance the case of a poor widow whose goods were seized for income tax due from her deceased husband. Supposing the income tax collector called upon a poor man for £2 at a time when, perhaps, he was out of work, how could he possibly be expected to pay the money? A poor working man might be able to make weekly payments of income tax, but he would find it difficult to answer a demand for the payment of the whole amount of a half year's income tax at once. Though Mr. Pitt's income tax went down to incomes of £60, it nevertheless exhibited in its graduated percentage greater consideration than the present proposition of the Government for the lower class of incomes. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, from motives of humanity, acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and it would be found that the nation would gain by giving satisfaction to the working classes.
§ MR. CHILDfully concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth with regard to the oppressive nature of this tax on the working classes. He understood that circulars had been sent from the Commissioners in London to the various large manufacturers in the country, requiring them under penalty to make 2145 returns of the incomes of their superior workmen, although there was not, he believed, any section of the Act authorizing them to do so. One of the firms applied to was that of the Messrs. Minton, the celebrated porcelain manufacturers at Stoke-upon-Trent; and he had received a letter from the managing partner in that firm upon the subject, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would take the liberty of reading—
Stoke-upon-Trent, Feb. 16, 1857.My dear Sir,—I should have replied to your note on Saturday, but was anxious to get at the exact facts of the case before doing so. The first application was made to our cashier in the autumn of 1855, by the collector of the district, for a return of all our workpeople whose wages amounted to £80 and upwards per annum, for which printed forms were handed to him to be filled up, giving the name, residence, and amount of earnings. As this involved a considerable amount of labour he at first demurred, upon which he received a peremptory message that it must be done, and that if it was not immediately sent they had the power and would enforce it.Upon this a return was made out and sent. It comprised about thirty names, all of whom, I believe, were charged income tax, although most of them were not legally chargeable, but were put to the expense and trouble of appealing, losing in consequence, from one to two days' wages—from 5s. to 10s. as the case might be. If this is not an iniquitous proceeding on the part of the Government (for they ought, like other people, to be held responsible for the acts of their servants), I do not know what is.The same application was made the following year, but upon my hearing of it I gave directions that whatever the consequences might be no such return should be made. You are quite at liberty to make use of this and my name in any way you may think proper. It is a simple statement of the facts as they occurred, and points to only one of the objectionable means which are resorted to for the imposition of this tax.—I remain, Sir, yours very truly, M. D. HOLLINS.To S. Child, Esq., M. P.He thought the Committee would agree with him that this showed a very strong case of oppression upon persons whose incomes were derived from the wages of labour, and he wished to know whether the Government would take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings as he had just narrated to the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, that the case of men with incomes below £150 is not likely to meet with much sympathy from a class of persons whose incomes are of a much larger amount, does not appear to me to have any foundation in fact. Although the Members of this House may 2146 not be included in the class of persons possessing small incomes, yet, I am sure, they have sufficient sympathy with that class, and sufficient appreciation of the position of the working classes, to make the case of a mechanic their own, and to take into their consideration the difficulties to which a man earning small weekly wages is exposed by being made subject to the income tax. It is true that Sir Robert Peel, when he proposed this tax, did not carry it below incomes of £150 a year; that change was of subsequent introduction. But the cases which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward are cases which did not arise when that change was made; they have arisen during the last two or three years, when the increased amount of the tax has pressed heavily upon persons of small incomes. When the tax was extended to incomes of between £150 and £100 it was only at the rate of 5d. in the pound, or £2 1s. 8d. per cent.; but it has since been raised to 11½d. in the pound, which is equivalent to £4 15s. 10d. per cent. Undoubtedly a half-yearly charge of nearly £2 8s. is a heavy burden on a man who earns a weekly salary of £2; but the hon. Member for Lambeth entirely overlooks the fact, that by this Bill that half-yearly charge will be reduced from £2 8s. to about £1—a sum which a man with £2 a week may not unreasonably be expected to be able to pay. It is not very easy to ascertain precisely the amount paid by this class of incomes, but as nearly as I can calculate the total amount of duty in question is £350,000—a much larger sum than I feel justified in surrendering, especially when it is borne in mind that by this Bill the charge on these incomes is so much reduced. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the case of a labourer in the docks whose wife kept a chandler's shop, and who was charged with the income tax. That case was carefully examined twice over by the Commissioners, who are officers quite independent of the Government, and after going into the circumstances of his expenditure they were of opinion that his income was more than £100 a year. No doubt it was a case of some hardship, and I believe that on reference to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue they felt justified in granting him relief. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) mentioned the case of a widow whose goods were seized for arrears of income tax owed by her husband; but, from the manner in 2147 which he described that case, it does not appear to have any particular reference to this class of incomes. The same thing might have happened to a widow whose husband had been possessed of an income over £150. If the hon. Gentleman, however, will give me the name and the particulars of the case, I will take care that it is properly investigated. The hon. Member told the Committee that Mr. Pitt's income tax bore less heavily upon small incomes than the present income tax. I am quite ready to meet the hon. Member on that ground, and if he can establish the fact that this income tax is heavier on persons of small incomes than Mr. Pitt's was, I will consent to remodel it. But I find that under the income tax of 1803, which was the second income tax, the rates were as follows:—On incomes of from £60 to £70, 3d. in the pound; £70 to £80, 4d. in the pound; £80 to £90. 5d. in the pound; £90 to £100, 6d. in the pound. Under that income-tax, therefore, there were four classes of small incomes chargeable which are now exempt. On the classes of incomes above £100 the rates were these:—from £100 to £110, 7d. in the pound; £110 to £120, 8d. in the pound; £120 to £130, 9d. in the pound; £130 to £140, 10d. in the pound; £140 to £150, 11d. in the pound; £150 and upwards, 1s., or 5 per cent. On all of these, except the last, the rate imposed by this Bill is only 5d. in the pound, and in the last case it is only 7d. I think, therefore, that I have satisfactorily established that, as compared with the income tax of 1803, this income tax presses with great indulgence on the small incomes. Looking to the exigences of the public service, and considering that the great reduction which I propose by this Bill to make in the tax on this class of incomes will very much alleviate the cases of hardship complained of, I trust the Committee will agree with me that it is inexpedient to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth.
MR. W. WILLIAMSintimated that he should withdraw the original Amendment, and propose in its place to leave out all the words in the clause after the word "shall," and to substitute in their place these words, "not be chargeable with any income tax on an income of not less than £150."
§ Clause 1, page 2, line 11:—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word 2148 "shall" to the end of the clause, in order to add the words ''not be chargeable with any income tax on an income less than £l50 a year."
§ MR. CHILDwished to know if the Commissioners had authority under the Act to direct such inquisitorial proceedings to be taken as those which were referred to in the letter he had read to the House; and whether workmen who had been returned as earning £80 a year were to be surcharged with the income tax?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the machinery of collection to enable him to answer the first portion of the question. He presumed that if the local Commissioners had made such inquiries they possessed the power of doing so; but whether or not it was the general practice he could not take upon himself to state. If persons returned at £80 a year had been charged with income tax he apprehended it must have arisen from their having other sources of income. For instance, a man earned £80 a year in wages, and by keeping a little shop made a profit say of £20 besides. In that case, he would clearly be chargeable to the income tax. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to give him the particulars of the case to which he had referred, he would make inquiries upon the subject.
§ MR. CHILDThe case, as he had already observed, was that of Messrs. Minton, the celebrated porcelain manufacturers at Stoke-upon-Trent; and their complaint was that 30 of their workmen earning £80 a year wages had been surcharged to the income tax.
§ MR. WILKINSONsaid he must oppose the Amendment of his hon. Colleague. All taxes should be made to press as equally as possible. If the House relieved the class of persons with incomes between £150 and £100 a year from this tax, it could only be done at the expense of those whose incomes were still less than that; neither was there any reason why they should excuse persons of incomes of £150, and make those of incomes of £151 pay.
§ MR. PELLATTthought a large addition to the revenue might be derived from an alteration in the mode of assessing farmers. They were now charged on half their rent, and he saw no reasons why they should not be compelled to show their books and be charged in the same manner as the industrial classes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the justice of the farmers' schedule had frequently been discussed in that House and elsewhere. It was well known that farmers did not keep their accounts in so clear and complete a form as was adopted in mercantile establishments, and he thought, upon the whole, that the existing arrangements with regard to that class of taxpayers were not unreasonable.
§ MR. PELLATTcould not allow such an observation to pass. It was holding out a premium to ignorance. What would the Commissioners of Bankruptcy say to a tradesman who kept no books? He believed that, in point of fact, farmers now kept their accounts as accurately as any other class.
§ LORD HARRY VANEsaid that the accounts of farmers might not generally be kept with the accuracy observed in commercial establishments, but he believed that the schedule which applied to them operated with great fairness.
§ Question put, "That the words 'be chargeable for the year, commencing as aforesaid,' stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 7: Majority 46.
| List of the NOES. | |
| Butler, C. S. | Morris, D. |
| Clay, J. | Oliveira, B. |
| Duke, Sir J. | TELLERS. |
| Ferguson, J. | Williams, W. |
| Hadfield, G. | Pellatt, A. |
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYpointed out that the word "property" was omitted from the proviso of the first clause, so that only gains and profits were included therein. He wished to know what necessity there was for having £2,000,000 in the present year for paying off the Exchequer bonds.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was not aware that there was any reason for the difference in the phraseology of the clause. He thought that the words gains and profits were sufficient, and would necessarily include gains from "property." The item to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was not merely the charge for the repayment of the principal of the debt, but was also the interest payable for the loans contracted during the war. The sum of £3,671,000 was the increased charge this year upon the increased debt owing to the war. The Exchequer bonds were not charged upon any particular 2150 fund, but came out of the general taxation of the year. If the House would support the proposition of 7d. income tax there would be no difficulty in meeting the Vote, and paying off this £2,000,000.
§ MR. BARROWagreed with the hon. Baronet that the omission of the word "property" in the latter part of the clause would tend to raise a doubt as to the construction of the Act.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERto avoid uncertainty was willing to insert the word "property," but he believed it could only be done by a recommittal of the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. THORNELYwished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great complaints were made of the trouble given to parties who had occasion to appeal to the Commissioners. They had frequently to leave their homes very early in the morning, to travel some distance, and then to wait the greater part of the day for their turn before they could go before the Commissioners. It would give great satisfaction if his right hon. friend would give such instructions to the Board of Inland Revenue as would obviate the inconvenience, expense, and waste of time now incurred.
§ House resumed; Bill reported, without Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved that the Bill be recommitted, with the view to the insertion of the word "property" in the proviso of the first clause.
MR. GLADSTONEwished to know the cause of this change of usage. Why was the Amendment made by the immediate recommittal of the Bill, rather than at a future stage?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid it frequently happened that an error in a clause was not discovered until the clause was agreed to, and the practice was to amend the error by the immediate recommittal of the Bill. Verbal alterations could be made on the third reading, but the insertion of the word "property" was more than a verbal alteration, and could not be made on the third reading.
§ Bill recommitted; House in Committee; Bill considered in Committee.
§ House resumed: Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.