COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 12 May 1862 vol 166 cc1561-98

Order for Committee read. [Bill. No. 90.]

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that in the course of the last session he called the attention of the House to the very inconvenient form in which the Supply Bill was submitted for the consideration and decision of the House; and he regretted to find that the same objectionable form, or something very like it, had been adopted upon the present occasion. He believed the House had become aware, from the confusion of the debate which had taken place on the second reading of the Bill now under consideration, that it was impossible to discuss with any advantage on that stage of the measure the principle of any of the various proposals which it contained. The House, by accepting that form of Supply Bills, were virtually abandoning that which had always been considered one of their principal functions—namely, the exercise of a careful control over the mode in which taxation was imposed upon the people. They decided last Session that they would not require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to divide his then Supply Bill so that they might deal separately with each of the great charges proposed in the Customs, in the Excise, and in the income tax. He regretted that decision. The result was that afterwards, in the course of last Session, a Bill was introduced relating to the Inland Revenue which was, in point of fact, supplementary to the Supply Bill, and which contained a vast aggregate of provisions, most of which, however anomalous, were absolutely necessary to give vitality to the taxation which the House had sanctioned; but that Bill was of such a complex character, that it had been designated by the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) as an "omnibus Bill," and still more appropriately by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) as a "plum-pudding Bill." So obvious had it become that the House could not in that case have performed the functions intrusted to it, that on the urgent representations of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman was induced to divide the measure. But let the House consider what was the form of the present Bill. It was exactly like the Bill of last year, an "omnibus" or "plum-pudding" Bill. In it they had provisions for the imposition of a vast amount of Customs duties, for the continuation of and for alterations in Excise duties, for a considerable change in the Stamp duties, and for the reimposition of the income tax under a new process of collection. Now, no one had attempted to discuss those proposals on the occasion of the second reading of the measure, because any such discussion would have been absolutely futile. The necessary result of entering upon it would have been that one Member would have spoken of the Income Tax, and of the altered manner in which it was to be assessed and levied; another would have dilated on the changes contemplated in the department of Stamps; a third would have rushed into the Customs, and a fourth would have stated the objections which his constituents entertained to the proposed mode of dealing with the Excise. It was manifest that such a debate must have been simply a game of cross questions and crooked answers. The only opinion which the House could give on the second reading of such a Bill was, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a nice man or an objectionable character. The discussion must have been reduced to an examination of the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that was the course actually taken on the second reading of the measure. They had a discussion as to the propriety or the impropriety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having gone down to Manchester and made a financial speech in that populous city instead of having addressed his observations to that House—and he (Mr. Newdegate) really thought, that so far as related to the discussion of that Bill on the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman might just as well have spoken in Manchester as in the House of Commons. Then let them look at the position in which they would have been placed if any condemnation had been expressed of any considerable part of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. He would then have got up and told hon. Members in one of his eloquent diatribes that they might entertain whatever opinion they thought fit with respect to him and his conduct; but that if they ventured to vote against the second reading of the Bill, they would be virtually voting for repudiation, because the House had already granted in Supply the men to be kept on the rolls of the army and of the navy, and the military and naval establishments which were considered necessary for the defence of the country. He would have said, if the House had objected to the second reading of the present Bill, there could be but one interpretation put upon their Vote, and that was that they intended to repudiate the obligations which the country had contracted to the public creditor; for the amount of taxes which it was proposed to impose under that measure was £24,000,000 or £25,000,000, and that was a sum nearly equivalent to the whole of the interest of the National Debt. Under these circumstances he believed hon. Members would see, that if that House intended to deal practically with the financial proposals in the Bill, it ought to be divided into probably as many measures as there were schedules attached to it. Schedule A related to the Customs, Schedule B to the Excise, Schedule C to the Stamp duties, and Schedule D to the whole mass of the income tax; and he asked whether the continuance and the alteration of any one of those great branches of taxation did not form a sufficient subject for a separate Bill? But the effect of framing the measure as it stood was that no adequate discussion could take place either on the principle involved in the proposed taxation or on the mode in which each tax was to be levied, except in Committee on the Bill. If in the Committee they attempted to discuss one point they would find it so involved with other matters contained in other portions of the Bill that the discussion would have no effect whatever. If the Bill were divided, each matter might be discussed and determined upon its merits, and that too with very little loss of time. He would not move that the Bill should be divided; but having called the attention of the House to the matter, he had done his duty. He could not, as an individual Member, prevent such a course of proceeding as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he could not help thinking that, if persisted in, it would entail great difficulties, and induce restriction on the House of Commons which might produce lamentable results to the country.

MR. BASS

wished to repeat the objections he had already urged to the Bill before the Speaker left the chair. The Bill was without any precedent in one respect. It imposed taxes to the amount of £5,000 upon a small body of individuals—a measure which had never been heard of before. He objected to the principle introduced by the Bill. It could not stop at this point—either it must be carried further, or the House must retrace the step it had taken. The right hon. Gentleman said the brewers would obtain an advantage by the substitution of an addition to their licence for the duty on hops. But that could not be the case, because he imposed the tax in another shape. He (Mr. Bass) was surprised at the acquiescence of Members connected with the agricultural interest, especially those who represented the barley-growing districts, in the proposal to increase the malt duty. He was told that the change was approved of by the brewers in London; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was almost unanimously disapproved of by the country brewers. He denied that the proposition had been approved of by the brewers; and he believed that when the right hon. Gentleman paid the drawback on the stocks on hand, he would have a deficiency instead of a surplus of £180,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that justice to the common brewers required that in increasing the cost of their licence he should impose a tax on private brewers. Now, on the part of the common brewers, he (Mr. Bass) disclaimed any such compensation. If there was any compensation in the measure, it was a mere shadow; and, besides, it would be a most vexatious measure to those whom it would affect, and would certainly be unproductive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would amend this part of his proposition, and not subject the public brewers to the odium of having fixed upon their private competitors this miserable impost.

MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very fond of taunting hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House with the success of the French commercial treaty, which he seemed to regard as the panacea for all our financial evils. Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) quite admitted that anything which tended to strengthen our commercial relations with France must be of a beneficial character to both countries:—what he objected to was, the mode in which that treaty was effected and the time it was carried out. He objected altogether to the principle of making the financial arrangements of this country depend upon a treaty with a foreign country, combining our budget with a French commercial treaty, and mixing up direct and indirect taxation. That was a most objectionable principle; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that it had conferred benefits upon the country, he was rather exaggerating his case. He doubted if the treaty had conferred much benefit on the working classes. The chief articles which had been exported to France in consequence of that treaty were coal and iron, and it was obvious to every one who had any knowledge of the subject that neither the coal nor the iron trade of this country was in a depressed state be fore that treaty was made; whereas, on the other hand, the articles which had been imported from France were not articles which were largely consumed by the working classes of this country. Another thing worthy of remark was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have been able to have effected that treaty if he had not been guilty of a public injustice and a great political inconsistency. The income tax, the House would remember, was, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, to be taken off in the year 1860; but when the time arrived for its total abrogation the right hon. Gentleman actually doubled it, the secret being that it was necessary to do so in order to provide for the gaps made in the revenue in consequence of the Anglo-French treaty. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to abolish the paper duty in 1860, and actually did succeed in passing a Bill to that effect through this House. Fortunately, however, the House of Lords exercised their undoubted prerogative and threw out the Bill, and so diminished the deficit in the revenue by more than a million. In the following year the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in getting a measure for the repeal of the paper duty passed, although Her Majesty's Opposition had plainly told him that he could not do without it, and that, even if he could, it was not a tax which he should have chosen to remit when the income tax was so high and the tea and sugar duties stood at the war rate. The right hon. Gentleman said that remission of those taxes would have involved a much larger amount. What of that? Such a proceeding would have only been a reduction of the duty, not a total remission of the tax. The paper duty, he apprehended, was gone for ever, and could never be reimposed; and the right hon. Gentleman always chose to lose sight of that fact when he spoke upon revenue questions. Well, then, in the present Budget he made a proposal to remit the hop duty, and to impose an extra licence duty on brewers and home-brewed beer, which was an injustice which was not decreased by the remission of the hop duty. Such a remission, it was also to be observed, would only benefit a very small portion of the agricultural interest, while the imposition of 1s. per quarter on malt, and a duty on beer, would subject the great body to an obnoxious and inquisitorial tax in the shape of brewing licences. The arrangement was tantamount to increasing the malt duty, and the malt duty was already an unpopular tax, and could not be depended upon as a permanent source of revenue. Under these circumstances he objected to the form in which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to introduce this Bill, agreeing as he did with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire that it was a most objectionable process to mix up so many financial measures in one Bill. The fact was that, the House of Lords having established its right to reject a Money Bill if they chose, the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to make separate Bills of his budget propositions, thinking, no doubt, that if they were all included in one measure, the House of Lords would not take upon itself the responsibility of rejecting it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, by the form of his Bill, while endeavouring to assail the prerogatives of the House of Lords, did, in fact, curtail the privileges of the House of Commons by diminishing the opportunities of discussion. They had not now the same opportunity of discussing the various points of the Budget as when they were introduced as separate measures; and he had not the slightest doubt of the soundness of the judgment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when he stated that the time would come when the practice of including all the propositions of the Budget in one Bill would be very inconvenient and a serious public disadvantage. A good deal had been said on various occasions in that House upon the importance of reducing the expenditure, which seemed now to have reached a rate of £70,000,000 a year. This he thought far too high; and it would be a great advantage if it could be reduced; but looking at the state of Europe, looking at the state of America, and looking at the various causes of the present high rate of national expenditure, he could not indulge in any very glowing anticipations with respect to the reduction of the expenditure within the next two or three years. In those circumstance it was most important that the financial affairs of this country should be conducted in a fair, just, and equitable manner; and it was because he thought the financial management of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open to criticism that he had not hesitated to rise in his place and enter a protest against it.

MR. LOCKE

objected to the 12th clause, which he contended had no right to be in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to repeal the duties on hops, both British and foreign; but if they searched the Bill from end to end, they would not find a word on that subject. This was a remarkable fact, as Clause 12 directly interfered with the rights of the owners and holders of hops. At present, the English grower of hops, after drying them, was liable to pay on the 1st of January 14s. per cwt., whether the quality of the hops was good, bad, or indifferent. What was the position of the foreigner? The foreigner was enabled to bring his hops into this country without paying any duty at all, and put them into bond; and when he took the hops out of bond to sell them, and not till then, the duty was paid. The foreigner, therefore, had an advantage over the English merchant. In addition to that, the English hop merchant had a right to export his hops to a foreign country and receive back the amount of duty which had been paid upon them. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do away with that right, and he provided by one of the clauses in this Bill, that if previous to the 16th of September, 1862, the English hop merchant exported hops, he could not re-import them for the next six months after that date, although foreign hops would then be allowed to be imported duty free. That was a glaring injustice done to the home producer. When the duties on paper, foreign timber, wines, and other articles were repealed, a certain amount of drawback was given, and it was extremely unfair to deny it in this instance.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he had given notice of a Motion to allow a drawback to brewers on the hops which they had in their hands at the time of the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he intended to take off the duty on hops, and to recoup himself by putting a duty on beer. If the hops had already paid duty as hops, and were subsequently rendered liable to a duty as beer, it was obvious that they would be taxed twice over. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to allow a drawback on hops, in order that his darling expedient of taxing beer might be adopted. He wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do on that point.

MR. DODSON

said, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had put the case of the hop merchants a little stronger than he was entitled to do. The right to a drawback upon the exportation of hops was given when there was a duty upon their importation, so that if they were exported and the drawback obtained, a duty would have to be paid upon their re-importation. If, however, that right was to be continued after the abolition of the import duty, the holder of a stock of hops would be able not only to export his hops and obtain the drawback, but immediately to re-import them and take the chance of the English market.

MR. BUXTON

said, that although the imposition of a tax upon private brewers was but fair to the trade, still he believed that neither the brewers in London nor those in the country were inclined to hold the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his promise in that respect.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not think that it would be convenient to the House that he should follow in the track of hon. Members who had opened questions of great breadth and importance not immediately connected with the scope of this Bill. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had referred to the framing of the Bill, a question which involved matters of controversy that had been very carefully considered in former years, and upon which the House had arrived at a deliberate conclusion. He had no desire that that controversy should be revived; but, if it were, it would be better that it should be revived with the fulness and gravity of consideration which its importance deserved. On similar grounds, and also on others, he should decline to follow the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Duncombe), because he could not conceive any task more hopeless than to endeavour to mitigate the displeasure with which that hon. Member regarded the financial proposals which he had made on behalf of the Government. So far was this displeasure carried that the hon. Member could see nothing but hostility to the landed interest in a Bill the only important new proposal of which with regard to taxation was to remove a tax from an agricultural product, so far, at any rate, as its immediate incidence was concerned, and lay it upon a class of traders. And let the House look at the other proposals of the hon. Member. The hon. Member complained that it was a breach of faith on his part not to obtain the repeal of the income tax in 1860, but, at the same time, he said that our expenditure amounted to nearly £70,000,000, and in another part of his speech, apparently referring to declarations which fell a few nights ago from the leader of his party, he took the opportunity of recording his dissent from those declarations, and said that he did not see how there could be any material reduction of expenditure. At one and the same moment, and in one and the same breath, the hon. Member declared there must be an expenditure of £70,000,000, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been guilty of a breach of faith in not obtaining the repeal of the income tax. To ordinary minds those propositions were a little difficult to reconcile; but, as the hon. Gentleman was able to reconcile them, the most becoming course which he could adopt would be to leave him in possession of that satisfaction, and not attempt to dispute their reconciliation.

MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE

explained that he had said that he thought an expenditure of £70,000,000 too high.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

had then misunderstood the hon. Member. He certainly understood him to say, that looking at the condition of Europe and at the circumstances which had led to that expenditure, no material reduction could take place at present. To the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who was always so vigilant in guarding the interests of his constituents, he might more conveniently reply when the House, having gone into Committee, came to the clause to which it referred; and with regard to private brewing licences he would only say that he never proposed those licences as an essential part of the financial scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was a matter upon which they should feel themselves at liberty to give way to what might appear to be the prevailing sense of the House.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that what the right hon. Gentleman had just told them was what he was always in the habit of saying when discussion was inconvenient. He said he would not follow all the points of the discussion, because he did not wish to raise a controversy. That might be a very convenient course for the right hon. Gentleman to follow, but it was not very likely to meet with the approbation of hon. Members. Then the right hon. Gentleman resorted to the plan of putting his own construction on what fell from hon. Members, and then proceeding to argue upon it. The right hon. Gentleman accused his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Duncombe) of inconsistency; but he had misrepresented the purport of his hon. Friend's observations. He (Mr. Bentinck) understood his hon. Friend to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for getting rid of sources of revenue which, without resorting to new burdens, would have enabled them to meet their financial necessities and to deal with the income tax with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was of all men pledged to deal. Hon. Members opposite seemed almost as much to misunderstand the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to misunderstand his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had recommended the abandonment of the duty on private brewing, and said that such a course would add but little to the deficit. Why, it seemed as if the plans adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last three years had been designed for the purpose of producing a deficit, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) seemed to understand the feelings of the hon. Gentleman still less. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the foreigner had a great advantage over the Englishman. The right hon. Gentleman's object had always been to give the foreigner an advantage.[A laugh] The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be amused at the suggestion; but he appealed to the House whether the policy of the right hon. Gentleman had not been to take money out of the pockets of the English people and put it into the pockets of the foreigner? Those hon. Members who dissented from that opinion had better controvert it. The right hon. Gentleman had on various matters preached in one way and acted in another. Having agreed—as he must have done in his official capacity—to the whole of our expenditure, he had systematically, and both directly and indirectly, discouraged that expenditure. He had invariably gone out of his way to declare that the expenditure, for which he was responsible, was in excess of what it ought to be, and that no man regretted it more than himself. The right hon. Gentleman had succeeded, to use a phrase of his own, both in "deluding the nation and embarrassing the Government" by the financial policy which he had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman had stated this to be a time of exceptional circumstances—that there was great distress arising from causes that had never existed before. He (Mr. Bentinck) was quite willing to admit that the causes of the existing distress had never been known before. But what he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this, was not that distress foretold before it occurred; and did not he and his colleagues wilfully and in the most determined manner, when their attention was called to the subject, deny the possibility of the occurrence of the distress of which they now complained? As one of those who took various opportunities of alluding to the subject—so repeatedly, indeed, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government suggested that the remarks would probably be reprinted once a fortnight—so frequently did he remind the noble Lord of the probability of the consequences of the coming distress that the noble Lord took exception to the number of reminders; and the noble Lord himself stated, towards the close of the Session, that he was convinced there was no reasonable expectation of a decrease of the revenue from the distress of which the Chanceller of the Exchequer now complained. The Government, although warned of what might be expected, were determined to be revenged on those in another place, for the purpose of gratifying a few men on their own side of the House who had an interest in the penny newspapers, and the country was now suffering from the occurrence of that distress the possibility of which the Government so emphatically denied. He could not avoid taking the opportunity of reminding the Chancellor of of the Exchequer of two proposals which he had made some years ago. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was at considerable trouble to give a legal sanction to the practice of gambling on the Stock Exchange. Now his great object seemed to be to transfer that vice to another class of society, and to encourage gambling among the lower orders. But that was not the only meritorious proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The effect of the 9th clause would be to encourage a large amount of tippling where it would not otherwise take place; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of vice to be so created would be compensated by the wretched sum of money which he expected to gather into the Exchequer from that source.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that while he could not concur in all the financial propositions, he was not disposed to agree to the wholesale condemnation which, had been passed upon the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The general policy of relaxing commercial restraints on foreign commodities was one which hon. Members would not venture to resist; but there could be no doubt that the particular details for carrying out that policy were a fair subject for criticism At the time when Sir Robert Peel introduced his new commercial system there was a general chorus of approval throughout the country; but he (Mr. Griffith) did not see why relaxation should have been carried so far as had been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why a moderate duty should not have been imposed on all the manufactures of foreign countries, and why the Customs should have been denuded of so many articles of revenue. A duty of 10 per cent on foreign silks and similar articles would not have infringed the principle of free trade in the slightest degree. Some points of general policy had been referred to on that (the Opposition) side of the House in respect to which he did not agree. They were said to be willing to support a policy in Italy entirely different from that of which the public approved, and that they looked with approbation on a policy which would preserve to the head of the Roman Catholic Church his present temporal power. Was that a policy agreeable to the Conservatism of England, or of the sister country? No; it was the policy of the Holy Alliance which they were thus called upon to approve. But the times of 1815 were not the times of 1862. We were just then recovering from the waves of a great convulsion, and were willing to adopt almost any expedient for the promotion of peace and quietness. The question of the supremacy of the Pope was not then agitated. ["Question!"] We were now dealing with a question affecting £25,000,000 of money, and he considered that a legitimate occasion for referring to general topics. Would it accord with the feelings of the country if any party in the House were to raise a finger or spend a silver of taxation in supporting the ancient state of things in Italy? If there were any such men in the House, they were very few in number, and would be repudiated by the country. Nothing could be more foreign to the feelings of the people of this country than the exercise of any influence in support of a power which they believed to be erroneous and contrary to the liberties of mankind.

House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 (Provisions of former Acts to apply).

MR. HENLEY

said, he had intended to call attention to the operation of the Excise Act with regard to private houses; but there was an idea abroad that the right hon. Gentleman meant to get rid of the difficulty in another way, and he would like to know what was the fact, as it would probably save him the trouble of making any remarks on the clause. He wished to know how the Bill would affect the opera- tion of the Excise Act in reference to private houses.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was ready to give a pledge that under this Bill no question could be raised as to the application of the Excise Act to private or dwelling-houses.

Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive.

Clause 8 (Penalty for brewing Beer (not for sale) without Licence, 10l.)

MR. BALL

remarked, that the observations which had just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer induced him to hope that his feelings were softening towards the agricultural interest. If so, he hoped to achieve a victory on the present occasion, and would much rather do so than make a speech; and therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman intended to give up the clause, he would not address the Committee on the subject.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I will put my hon. Friend out of his pain in a few words. This proposal regarding private brewing was a proposal which the Government thought it to be their duty to make, upon the ground that when they were about to impose upon the brewers for sale a charge in lieu of the hop duty, abstract justice undoubtedly required that they should propose a corresponding charge upon private brewers. They were sensible that some inconvenience must attend the operation of that charge; but it was a choice between two difficulties, as is commonly the case in all matters of legislation. After what I have heard to-night stated in this House by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby and Maidstone, I cannot but feel that the relative weights in the scales are altered, and I admit that the principle of volenti non fit injuria does apply after such a declaration from Gentlemen of such influence in their places in this House. Undoubtedly, the charge is a small one, and I can quite understand the argument of those who say the advantages of economy in brewing for sale are such that the charge to be paid in lieu of the hop duties may be put out of view entirely. After that declaration I can have no difficulty on the part of the Government in making over to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball) the triumph he desires, cordially congratulating him upon the success which he has obtained; and I hope (although the hope is a faint one) that the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Duncombe) will, after the character I have received from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, not think me irreconcilably hostile to the Agricultural interest. I shall, therefore, not press the proposal for a licence upon private brewers, and when you, Mr. Massey, put the clause, I shall allow it to be negatived.

MR. BALL

suggested, that as the right hon. Gentleman had given way on a point of comparatively small importance, he should take into consideration one of much graver interest. Upon all occasions when he proposed the remission of taxation upon different articles of consumption, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that reduction of taxation did not always mean diminished revenue. Now, if he would only carry out this principle with regard to the malt tax, he would bestow a great boon upon the agricultural interest, and would afford a great accommodation to the country at large.

THE CHAIRMAN,

interrupting the hon. Member, said, that this Bill did not deal with the malt tax, and the clause now before the Committee referred to a specific tax on beer.

Clause negatived.

Clause 9 (Occasional Licence may be granted to Victuallers to sell Beer, Spirits, &c., at such Time and Place as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall approve).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he wished to draw attention to the Amendments of which he had given notice, and also to state, that there might be no misunderstanding on the subject, that the object of this clause was not to raise revenue; it was a matter of police regulation, and must be judged upon its own merits, irrespective of the fact that a small revenue would be derived from it. The clause applied to certain descriptions of public assemblies a principle which had already been recognised by the law as applicable to certain other descriptions of public assemblies. The law had provided for such public assemblies as were periodical and recurring with regularity, but the law had omitted to provide for such public assemblies as were occasional, although in principle the two cases were alike. When large public assemblies took place there, was a disposition among a portion of the community to provide themselves with liquor, and this disposition was generally found to be so strong, that, in fact, liquor always was provided. At any rate, it was not an object on the part of the Go- vernment to facilitate a provision of liquor in cases where such provision was not already made, and he proposed to leave it not only to the discretion of the Commissioners of Excise, who would be bound under this clause not to grant an occasional licence except where it was thought conducive to public order, but he proposed also to leave it to the discretion of the local authority—namely, the magistrate, to determine whether a licence should issue or not. At present the local authority, however expedient it might be deemed with the view to public order, had no power to issue, nor had the Board of Inland Revenue power to issue such a licence, and the consequence of this was, according to complaints which had reached him from various quarters, that liquor was provided for these assemblies, but clandestinely, in part by licensed victuallers, and in part by persons altogether unlicensed; and the traffic, therefore, had not been under the supervision of the police. The effect of this clause would be to give to a particular class of people already licensed to sell liquors the exclusive right of providing them on these particular occasions; and having given that exclusive right to those persons, who would themselves be under the control of the police, they would become the most effective auxiliaries in preventing the sale by unlicensed persons who would not be under the supervision of the police. At present, when a licensed victualler sold at a regatta, or any occasion of that kind, strong liquors, he found there unlicensed people doing the same, but he did not give information against them because he had no title to be on the ground himself; and in cases where a traffic of that character was likely to take place, it was wise on their part to interest those over whom they could have a hold, and who might assist them in enforcing the law against those who might endeavour to evade it. As the clause was at first proposed it would have left the authority exclusively in the hands of the Commissioners of Excise—that was, the Board of Inland Revenue—they would have had a right to grant the licence, not only on fiscal grounds, but having regard to public order. He was of opinion that it would be an improvement to the clause if the power was given to the local authorities; and the Committee would understand, that if his Amendments were adopted, it would rest entirely with the magistrate having jurisdiction in the place to determine whether the licence should issue or not. Provision had been made that no such licence should avail to authorize the sale of liquors on the Sunday; and he should also propose an Amendment in line forty-three, which would prevent authority being given for the sale of liquors during the night—that was to say, that the sale would only be permitted within the hours after sunrise and before sunset. He therefore proposed to insert the words, "and with the consent of a magistrate having jurisdiction at the place of sale."

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

observed, that "the magistrate having jurisdiction on the spot' was any magistrate in the county, and by the Amendment, therefore, as it stood a licensed victualler could obtain the licence from any magistrate with whom he might happen to have influence. That would be an unwise provision, and might give occasion to great offence in the neighbourhood where the assemblage took place. He thought the power ought to be restricted to magistrates sitting in petty sessions within the district, to the chairman of petty sessions, or to some really responsible authority.

MR. AYRTON

said, he was glad to find that some alteration was to be made in the direction now proposed. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to have embodied in this measure the clause introduced last Wednesday into the Public-houses Bill for Scotland. The clause to which he referred had reference to occasional licences, and provided that the consent of two justices of the peace, having jurisdiction in the district where the licence was to be granted, should be obtained before any such licence should be issued by the Excise, and that the whole bench of magistrates should have power to make regulations for the sale of liquors under such licences. By adopting this clause they would secure the advantage of assimilating the law for England and Scotland. The Act of last Session repealed the former Acts, that allowed only beer to be sold at fairs and races; and the sale of all excisable liquors was now permitted. This tended to make every public assembly a place of debauchery. Instead of enlarging the permission for the sale of liquors, it ought to be brought under the control of the law, as in Scotland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause as framed for the Scotch Bill.

MR. PACKE

thought that the licence ought to be granted by two magistrates instead of one.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

remarked, that if the House had determined as to the mode of arranging such a clause for Scotland, that was a very clear and important precedent, affirming the principle of the proposition before the Committee; but he thought the proper result from that was, that they should exclude Scotland from the operation of this clause. He admitted the force of the objection taken by the hon. Baronet to the jurisdiction of a magistrate who might not be acquainted with the district or the circumstances of the case; and he would suggest, therefore, with the view of requiring that the magistrate should be locally acquainted, to insert these words—"usually acting in petty sessions for the district." It had been suggested that these licences should be signed by two magistrates; but he was inclined to think, as the operation would only last, perhaps, for one or two hours, or at the most only from sunrise to sunset, that it would be imposing too heavy a burden upon the magistracy to require the attendance of two of their number for the purpose. The argument that this was a measure tending to increase the consumption of spirits, was in the nature of an objection to the principle of the clause, which it appeared had been affirmed by the House a few days ago for Scotland. He believed, however, that the fact would be the reverse. It would substitute a controlled and regulated sale for what was at present unchecked and irregular. He thought it would be better to give the power to one justice of the peace.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

thought the licence of two magistrates was quite in accordance with all recent legislation that required magistrates to act. It would be no more inconvenient to obtain the signatures of two justices than of one.

MR. PULLER

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his objection. Whenever an Act spoke of two justices of the peace, a meeting in petty sessions was contemplated; and in a small matter, such as in granting occasional licences to sell beer for a few hours, to require that two magistrates should come together, perhaps from a long distance, for the purpose, would be creating unnecessary difficulties, the extent of which would be understood when they remembered how difficult it was sometimes to get two magistrates together to transact the ordinary business of the petty sessions.

MR. WARNER

quite concurred in the opinion, that some further restriction was required than the signature of one magistrate, for half-a-dozen magistrates might licence as many different publicans to sell beer and strong drinks in places where, perhaps, nothing of the kind was required. He would suggest that the words should be, "a stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace."

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

thought the whole matter should be left in the hands of the Excise, without the interposition of the magistrates at all. If the Excise authorities were allowed to grant occasional licences for a period not exceeding three days, they could send to the police a list of the names of those persons to whom such licences had been granted, and that would be sufficient to give the police jurisdiction.

MR. LAWSON

thought there was a fallacy in the argument that no more intoxicating liquors would be sold than were sold now, because the legalizing the sale of any article must tend to increase its sale. The working classes honoured the right hon. Gentleman, and esteemed his policy, and he sincerely joined in those feelings; but the right hon. Gentleman could not do a greater injury to the working classes than by facilitating the sale of intoxicating drinks, and thereby promoting disorder and immorality.

MR. WYLD

said, the effect of the clause would be most injurious in the mining districts of Cornwall, on the occasion of the pay meetings. In the Cornish mines 500 or 1,000 men were paid their wages on a particular day; and if the clause stood, there would be enterprising publicans availing themselves of it, and tempting the men to spend their earnings in drink. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersham (Sir William Jolliffe) if he intended to press his Motion for the rejection of the clause, because if he did not do so, he (Mr. Wyld) would certainly move that it be struck out.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, that if his objections were not removed, he should certainly divide the House against the clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, the question raised was a curious one, and had been discussed in a curious way. It had been discussed as though it was not well known that beer was sold now at these places. But people did not assemble at cricket-matches and wakes and fairs without having beer. Make what laws they pleased, the people would have beer. The great thing they had to do was to prevent their having it in excess. This very discussion would convince anybody that this was a subject not easy to legislate upon. He believed, after a not very short experience, that it would be better to leave the law as it stood; because if any irregularities were committed, the magistrates would give information to the Excise authorities, and they could exercise their discretion in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Mr. Henley) knew more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman did. He knew many cases in which the magistrates had communicated with the Excise, and the Excise had laid informations. It was a thing that did not occur often, as the people were wise enough not to go to extremes. The people of England were not such fools as they sometimes obtained credit for being. They knew how to be merry and wise. If there were any excess, the Excise on a proper communication would lay an information. He knew this, because he had had the pleasure, or nuisance as it might be, more than once in his lifetime of hearing these informations. He thought there would be great difficulty in the clause being made to suit everybody. The hon. Baronet the Member for Petersham (Sir W. Jolliffe) wanted two magistrates, while the hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Trollope) did not want any magistrates at all. Now, what would happen if the Excise should grant licences to everybody who asked for them at 5s. each? Why there would be four or five publicans at every wake or fair, where only one was needed, and then they would use all sorts of temptation to induce the people to go to them. It was impossible to stop the people having beer. Every village in his county had a cricket match once a year. A barrel of beer was brought to the spot, and in the evening there was a dance. What harm was there in that to anybody? and yet they would come with a stringent Act of Parliament, and say the people shall not drink a glass of beer after sunset. These meetings were usually held about Michaelmas, when the sun set about six o'clock; but the dance did not commence till about half-past nine, and the people were not to have a glass of beer while they were dancing. He did not believe the clause could be enforced, and therefore his advice to the right hon. Gentleman was to withdraw it altogether.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that notwithstanding the inti- mation from the right hon. Gentleman, he must correct an important part of his statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that beer and strong liquors were universally drunk at these meetings. [Mr. HENLEY: I said nothing about strong liquors—only beer. Well, beer—and the right hon. Gentleman said there was no harm because the Excise interfered whenever there was cause. He could not agree that no harm was done when the law was systematically broken. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he knew more about the subject than himself, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the best sources of information regarding it. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Excise could interpose for the protection of the public morality was founded on a fundamental mistake. The necessity for the clause arose from the fact that the Excise had acknowledged that they were powerless to enforce the law, and had been compelled to issue general instructions to their officers not to interfere. [Mr. HENLEY: Hear, hear!] He had the best authority for stating that there was no case of interference within the recollection of the officials at Somerset House. He held that the tendency of recent legislation had been to place such indulgences as this under some sort of government, and must therefore adhere to the clause. He was quite willing, however, to amend the clause so as to require the signatures of two justices of the peace. He would, therefore, put his Amendment in the following words:— And with the consent in writing of two Justices of the Peace usually acting at Petty Sessions, in Petty Sessional Divisions within which the place of sale is situate.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, there was no such clause in the Scotch Bill as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had stated. The clause to which he probably meant to refer was intended merely to afford an extension of the hours of business to hotels on the occasion of a public ball or similar entertainment.

MR. AYRTON

observed, that the clause sanctioned the sale of liquors not merely beyond the regular hours, but in any place whatsoever within the district.

MR. LESLIE

trusted the clause would not be extended to Scotland. The clause in the Scotch Bill answered every purpose.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought this clause was very much out of place in a Bill of this kind, which was to raise £25,000,000 of taxes. It ought to be considered as a provision in a Bill dealing with the whole licensing system, which was acknowledged on all hands to be in a most unsatisfactory state. The whole system required to be remodelled. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the clause, and embody it next year in a Bill reforming the whole licensing system.

MR. BENTINCK

hoped the clause would be rejected altogether.

MR. BARROW

felt that the scheme for legalizing the sale of liquors was the best way of placing that sale under effectual control. In the present temper of the country it was impossible to enforce the existing law. Not merely at cricket matches and fairs, but at Volunteer meetings, beer was necessary, and it; ought to be supplied in a legal manner.

MR. KER SEYMER

said, that for the first time they had heard in the House an advocate of the Maine Liquor Law; but he had better bring in a permissive Bill on the subject, in order that it might be fairly discussed, than attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer for giving those facilities for drinking beer which the people desired. Englishmen would have beer just as the higher classes would have iced champagne at dinner. They could not put down drunkenness by an Act of Parliament, and they must look for such a result to the general improvement in the habits of the people. That process was going on at present, and he saw no reason why they should not allow a man who liked his beer to have it.

MR. BAINES

reminded the House that as the clause stood it was proposed to allow spirits to be sold as well as beer at fairs, which was a very serious matter, and would be dangerous to the morality of the people. Drunkenness, as they well knew, led to every description of crime, and be implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt the advice of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and leave the law as it at present stood.

MR. WARNER

proposed the insertion of words excluding spirits from the operation of the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that to adopt the Amendment would only lead to the violation of the law, and give rise to the odious employment of common informers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to.

MR. BLACKBURN

moved an Amendment excepting Scotland from the operation of the Act, calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the foot that there was already a Bill in the House regulating the sale of beer and spirituous liquors in Scotland.

MR. STEUART

hoped the Committee would not sanction the principle of applying one law to one part of the kingdom and another to the rest.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed,

that the hon. Member seemed to forget that the whole of the law regulating public-houses in Scotland was different to that of England. He had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

then rose to move the total rejection of the clause. He should have been glad if he could have escaped dividing the Committee on the question; but he felt that not to enter his protest against this measure would be to fail in doing his duty to the country. He must therefore call the attention of the Committee to the evils which he believed would be the result of this measure. He thought that there was not a Member on the other side of the House who would not admit that much evil was caused in this country in consequence of a large part of our revenue being derivable from the sale of excisable liquors. There was not a single magistrate to be found, whether he resided in a rural district or a manufacturing town, who would not tell them that crime was greatly aggravated by the facilities afforded for obtaining drink. Under those circumstances, and believing this to be an extension of the power of vending intoxicating liquors, he felt it impossible to permit the Committee to give their assent to such a clause without appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to persevere in pressing it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had said that he believed that the clause, even if it passed, would be attended with little effect. It would certainly not prevent the people drinking beer, and he had no wish whatever to prevent the people drinking beer. He had, however, a strong wish to prevent the extension of intoxication, which, he believed, would result from the passing of this clause. What was the meaning of increasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors? it meant more crime of all kinds, more starvation, more deserted families; it meant every misery which could afflict the rural population and the humbler classes of this country; and if by passing this clause they aggravated—as he feared they would do—the amount of intoxication, they would inflict a great and lasting injury upon the country which, would far outweigh any advantage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from the increased revenue resulting from consumption. Depend upon it they could not increase the consumption of intoxicating drinks in this country without increasing its charges. They would add to the expense of prosecutions, they would add to the charge of maintaining the poor, and they would add to many other charges if they passed this clause. Let the Committee consider how large was the extent of ground thrown open for the first time upon which spirituous liquors were to be drunk; for they were going to extend all over the country the facilities with which spirits could be obtained. Such a proceeding, he was quite sure, would prove a fertile source of national misfortune— far greater than the evils which were incurred from the passing of the Beer Act. Independently of all these considerations, see how unjustly this clause would operate. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to exclude beer-shop keepers from selling beer at fairs, and give an exclusive right of supplying it to the comparatively small body of licensed victuallers— for that would be the effect of the clause—and henceforth those who sold spirits, beer, and tobacco, would be permitted to supply the people at all fairs and on occasions of festivity. If the Chancellor himself did not contemplate the evils which he said would arise from passing such a clause as this, let him ask his hon. Friend the Secretary for the War Department what he supposed would be the condition of the neighbourhood of our permanent camps and military stations? Remember that the sale of spirituous liquors at such places would not be carried on by the respectable class of licensed victuallers. They would not have the quiet orderly keepers of the best licensed houses vending liquors in such places; but the licences were to be granted indiscriminately, and they might have people going down from London making a permanent business of attending country fairs; and they would have a sort of cheap-jack ambulatory gin-shop wandering all over the country, demoralizing the inhabitants, and spreading the worst of vices, because the parent of all others, throughout the land. They would, in point of fact, exclude by this legislation alike the beer-shop keeper and the licensed victualler from supplying refreshments at such places; and upon all these grounds he did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, and leave the law as it stood, rather than pass this clause, amended as he admitted it to have been.

MR. LOCKE

said, that having for some years had the pleasure of sitting under the presidency of the right hon. Baronet, as chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions, he knew how difficult it was for almost any person to obtain a licence to sell spirits; and he reminded him that, after all, the magistracy would have the means of checking the evils he anticipated if they should arise, by withholding the licence.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee d divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 63: Majority 53.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (British Hops re-imported chargeable with Duty for Six Mouths after 16th September, 1862).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would now reply to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) before the Speaker left the chair. In his financial statement he announced that the Government were prepared to repeal the hop duty upon the condition that the greater part of it should be levied in another form. Since then many representations, as might be expected, had been made in favour of granting a drawback on hops. There were two main arguments urged in favour of that being done. One was with regard to the case of hop factors in London and the other great ports: they represented that it would pay these parties to export their hops, and keep them abroad for a sufficient time at a profit, and that therefore it would be much better to make a payment to them directly rather than that money should be wasted by exporting the hops for the purpose of bringing them back again. There was another argument made use of by some brewers, not by all. They said—"You are going to put on us a sort of commutation for the hop duty in the shape of augmented licence. We shall begin to brew in October with hops upon which we have already paid the duty; and yet upon the beer thus brewed we shall have to pay the tax which is to be levied as a substitute for the hop duty: we shall therefore in effect pay the duty twice upon the same article." Now, this question of drawbacks was not a question to be settled on principle; but it seemed only just that a concession should be made. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark referred to the drawback which was granted last year on paper and on wine. Now, with regard to both those cases, the drawback was a simple boon to the parties who had stocks on hand. The reason in the case of wine was an engagement they had entered into; the reason in the case of paper was that unless they had allowed the drawback, they could not have kept the trade alive, and they would have received no duties from spring until autumn. Neither of these considerations applied to the present case. But still there was an argument very fairly urged by factors, who said they could export the hops and thereby get the drawback. Under these circumstances Government had considered what concession they would make, and they had come to the conclusion that they would be justified in asking the Committee to grant to holders of British hops on September 15 a pecuniary allowance at the rate of 7s. per cwt. He should therefore propose to pass the present Bill through Committee as it was, because it contained in the 12th clause and the schedules the conditions upon which the Government plan was founded; and he would give notice to-night to insert in the Bill a provision to grant 7s. per cwt. on the stock of hops in hand on the 15th of September. If these provisions were satisfactory to the Committee, the plan would go forward to the country as it was originally announced, subject to that single modification. On the other hand, if those conditions were not satisfactory to the Committee, Government would have no option in the present state of the finances but to recede to the position which they occupied on the 3rd of April. He thought they had gone to the utmost limit that equity would allow. They would have no alternative but to let the matter drop. He need not say that it would be with great regret that he should fall back upon such an alternative, as expectations had been raised which he should be sorry to disappoint. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark would not persevere in his Amendment.

MR. MALINS

said, he could not see the justice of the principle on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal was based, for he could not perceive the difference between the case of hops and the case of other articles on which duties had been reduced or removed and drawbacks allowed. Unless the stock of hops in hand was so considerable that the difference between the 7s. rate and the 14s. rate would embarrass the hon. Gentleman's finances, he hoped the principle of justice would be acted on, and that the full allowance would be made. He would, however, accept the proposition rather than that the bop duty should continue.

MR. LOCKE

also considered the concession insufficient; but as the parties interested were at the mercy of the Government and the House, he saw no hope of inducing the right hon. Gentleman to improve his offer. He had expected that a much larger sum than 7s. would have been accorded, seeing the position in which the trade now stood and the losses they had sustained during the last two or three years.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that under the circumstances, he should accept the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should withdraw the Motion which stood in his name, leaving it to the right hon. Gentleman to do what was required in this matter.

MR. HADFIELD

said, that the allowance of 7s. per cwt. would be a temptation to the hop factors to export their hops, as they would, on re-importing, be entitled to the whole 14s. The expense of sending their stocks abroad, of warehousing them, and bringing them back at the end of six months would, he was informed, be about 4s. and it was hardly worthy of Parliament to put the trade to such an expense.

MR. BASS

was anxious to know what amount the right hon. Gentleman computed he would have to pay to the hop factors for drawback. In the case of paper the drawback amounted to 150 per cent more than had been reckoned for.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was impossible to ascertain the quantity of hops in the country. Some facts would induce the belief that the stock was very large, and others that the stock could not possibly be so large, because his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had himself consumed so many. Upon a conjectural estimate, probably the drawback of 7s. per cwt. would cost the country between £50,000 and £100,000.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 13.

Clause 14 (9 Geo. 4, c. 18, granting Duties on Cards and Dice, repealed).

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had never heard that card-playing was conducive to the morality of any human, being; and whatever might have induced the right hon. Gentleman to facilitate access to beer, he could not understand on what ground he proposed to facilitate access to cards. He wished to know on what ground the proposition was made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not think that an assembly whose members had every facility of access to cards, and to whom price was no object, ought to be so extremely fastidious when a proposition was made in favour of those to whom the question of cost was one of some importance. He did not propose the reduction in the same sense as he had proposed the reduction of duty on a large number of commodities for the health and advantage of the people. It was simply a question of superseding a law that was constantly evaded—substituting an honest system for a dishonest one, which encouraged dishonest men at the expense of the fair-dealing trader. The quantity of cards sold without paying any duty at all was enormously out of proportion to those on which the duty was paid, and he believed that by reducing the duty to 3d. a larger amount of revenue would be raised than by retaining the duty at 1s. He did not want either to proscribe or to encourage card-playing. His object was to obtain a certain amount of duty.

MR. BENTINCK

remarked, that if the object of the right hon. Gentleman was not to encourage card-playing, that certainly would be the result of a change cheapening the article which was indispensable for the purpose.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal the duty on dice, which at present amounted to a prohibition?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied, that owing to the impracticability of enforcing the payment, the duty on dice had been practically repealed for some time under a Treasury order.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 28 inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 29 (The Sums assessed under Schedules (A.), (B.), and (D.), for 1861, to be taken as assessed for 1862).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it had been the intention of the Government, as the Bill was originally framed, to have no new assessment under Schedule D in the present year, believing that they should thereby be sparing a great number of persons a great deal of trouble. He found, however, that the public opinion on the point was very much divided, and the Government had therefore decided on having a new assessment under Schedule D, but not under Schedules A and B. Of course the assessors would, under the circumstances, receive the bounty. He moved to amend the clause accordingly.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

asked, whether, in some cases, this clause would not make the local Commissioners responsible for the acts of persons whom they did not appoint?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,

did not think any such inconvenient consequences were to be apprehended.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, it would appear by the construction of this and a subsequent part of the Bill, Clause 31, that there was an intention entirely to override the present system of appointing collectors, and to assume for the Commissioners powers which hitherto had belonged to the parish alone.

MR. BARROW

thought that the assessors should be appointed by the Income Tax Commissioners to whom they were known; such was the case in the country, and the consequence was that a re-assessment was hardly ever required.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Commissioners referred to were not the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but the local Commissioners.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, the objection taken was, that no alteration ought to be made in the existing system of collection and assessment, of which the fundamental theory was that the people should tax themselves.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, as there was to be no new assessment under Schedules A and B, there would be no assessors; and, consequently, it would be impossible for assessors to present the collectors named by the parish. The clause merely sought to provide for the lapse which would otherwise be created.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

asked, whether assessors would not be appointed under Schedule D?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied in the affirmative.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, great complaints were made of the harsh operation of the system of quarterly payments. Many persons, especially clergymen, who received their money half-yearly, were obliged to pay taxes on their incomes three months before they were received.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought the Committee would see that he would not be justified in coming to the Committee and asking for £25,000 for the assessors on Schedules A and B for doing nothing. On Schedule D the work was done, and on it it ought to be paid.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

wished to call the attention of the Committee to a practical grievance, and hoped he should obtain its assent to a fair remedy, though it must also have the sanction of the Government, as it would involve, to a small extent, an outlay of the public money. In some parts of the country great numbers of income tax payers were summoned to have their appeals heard. Of these many had to attend twice for this purpose. In many cases the appeals were not heard at all; in the majority of cases the appeals were confirmed. He wished to impress on the subordinate officers a little more care in their mode of summoning persons liable to the tax. The proviso he proposed to add to Clause 29 would give to persons whose appeals were not heard, or, on being heard, were decided in their favour, the reasonable costs of 6d. per mile on the distance from their homes for each day of their attendance. This would have a tendency to check the practice of reckless summoning. There was a direct precedent for giving such costs in the Act 48th of Geo. III. The taxpayers were entitled to have their time and their duties considered. The tax ought not to be made infinitely more odious by the manner in which its machinery was worked. The subordinate officers required some check of the kind he proposed, to make them more careful in this matter. The charge the proviso would entail was not great, and the Government would be a gainer by inducing a better feeling among the taxpayers than existed at present. The hon. Member moved that the following proviso be added to Clause 29:— That all persons entitled to appeal from assessments of income tax, who shall attend the meetings of the Commissioners when duly summoned, shall be, if the appeal is not heard, or, if heard, is decided in favour of the appellant, entitled to costs at the rate of 6d. a mile from their place of abode for each day of such attendance; such costs shall be given in a certificate from the Commissioners, and shall be paid in such manner as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall direct.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Motion was informal, and could not be submitted to the Committee; but regarding it as an appeal to the Government, which could come from no one with greater title to respect and considerate attention than the hon. Baronet, still it was impossible to entertain it. The real principle involved was that all subjects of the Crown should be reimbursed out of the taxes for the trouble which they might be legitimately called upon to take in respect of the payment of taxes. No one could know the full extent to which such a principle, if once admitted, would necessarily lead. They could not levy any tax without imposing an additional tax in the shape of time and trouble. He admitted that they were bound to make this as light as possible; but he could not admit the principle that such trouble ought to be represented in money, and that repayment should be made out of the public purse. If there were abuse or an excessive use of power by public functionaries, it was a proper matter for the notice of the Government, or of the House when the Government failed to do their duty. The carelessness, the indiscreet and improper use of power, or the insolence of Government officials, was to be treated as a fault and an offence, and punished accordingly. A Return [No. 172] which had been recently laid upon the table with respect to a number of appeals in a district in Northamptonshire conveyed a most fallacious impression. It gave the House to understand that a Government officer had to deal with about 1,000 cases, and in 800 of them he was wrong. He was so startled by the Return that he at once called for an explanation. The business of assessing fell upon local officers; and when they did not do their duty, it was thrown upon the surveyor. In this particular district no less than 3,248 properties were entirely omitted by the parochial assessors, and the surveyor had to surcharge in 2,720 other cases. It was not possible for any man who, through the gross default of the local officers, was called upon to deal with nearly 6,000 assessments, instead of exercising a general supervision, to show minute circumspection in the circumstances of each case, and he thought the surveyor deserved praise for the manner in which he had encountered the difficulty, rather than cen- sure. Of the 5,985 cases, 1,297 were disposed of by him upon his own responsibility; and out of those remaining there were only 979 appeals; of the 979 appeals 219 were confirmed, and 760 were either discharged or the assessment reduced. The result proved that in seven cases out of every eight the surveyor was absolutely right, and in only one case out of fifteen was he wrong in his judgment. The case was eminently illustrative of one thing—the extreme imperfection of the working of the system under local officers. It was right he should mention how appeals under the income tax arose; for the Motion of the hon. Baronet proceeded on the assumption, that wherever a party was called upon to appeal, presumptively there must have been some excess on the part of the Government officer in charging him. Now, that was not so. The officers were obliged to charge all property; and when once charged, there was no other mode of getting relieved than by appealing. It was neither the fault of the Government or of the parties—it arose absolutely out of the structure of the tax itself. They were quite inseparable from the nature of the tax. A large majority of those appeals were confirmed, but it would be absurd to compensate the parties by payments out of the public purse. He believed that so far from the charge on the public being insignificant, if the principle of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would entail a very heavy charge. Then there were those who neglected to make a return of their incomes, and were assessed conjecturally, and a great many appealed against their own returns, and obtained their correction; but surely they were not entitled on that account to payment out of the public purse. This discussion would certainly tend to dissipate the unhappy delusion which prevailed in some quarters, that if a tax be only direct, its collection must be attended with no difficulty. If Government officers misconducted themselves, nothing was easier than to call them directly to account, through the Government or in that House. The case of collectors was different. They were not Government officers. The control over them was in the hands of the Commissioners. But he was bound to say, as the result of a very extensive experience as to the collection of income tax, that although these local officers were not under direct Parliamentary control, in general their duties were discharged not only with fide- lity, but with considerable care and caution; but to say that compensation should be allowed for the default of local officers to taxpayers at the charge of the Exchequer, involved a principle which was full of danger. He therefore could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Baronet—he should object even to any approach to its principle.

THE CHAIRMAN

interposed and said, that as the Motion of the hon. Baronet involved a grant of public money, in the absence of any recommendation of the Crown to that effect it could not be entertained by the Committee.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

called attention to the extraordinary harshness and severity with which the law had been enforced in Northamptonshire, particularly in the district of Peterborough. The people had been scourged to the utmost; the surcharges which had been made were most irritating, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, 1,200 appeals had been struck off as not sustainable.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

begged to set the hon. Baronet right. There were 1,200 cases where parties were not brought forward, no trouble being given. They were exempted before, and the exemptions were continued.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

understood there were 2,720 cases of surcharge, and of these a very small number were sustained. These proceedings had created quite a ferment in the county; and if the tax was to be collected on that principle, the Government would be compelled, as a far stronger Government was compelled in 1816, to abrogate the tax, whatever the necessities of the country might be.

MAJOR EDWARDS

said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) was not in the House, because he was too unwell to attend. He had been taken suddenly ill while on a Committee of which he was a member, and had been ordered not to leave his house.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

said, he could himself bear testimony to the frequency of surcharges in two districts with which he was well acquainted. Numbers of the small freeholders had besought his interference, under the mistaken impression that as a magistrate he could procure redress. In one instance a curate, whose whole income was only £100, was surcharged without any reason; and, as he was assessed in two different districts, he had to spend a couple of days in attendance at the public-houses where the appeals were heard. It was ultimately found that he had been certified by mistake

MR. CHILDERS

said, he could also: bear testimony to the unnecessary harshness with which the income was in some cases assessed; and as it was not a popular tax in itself, care ought to be taken that it was not rendered still more disagreeable by the mode in which it was assessed and collected. But he rose to point out that by the Customs Consolidation Act it was provided that in inquiries by the Custom House authorities, very similar to those under consideration, the persons summoned were entitled, on the certificate of the magistrate, to reasonable expenses. The principle held good in the present instance.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, that there seemed to be a general system of sending surcharges right and left throughout the country without consideration. The people generally strongly objected to the mode of appeal prescribed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted in a very singular manner with regard to the income tax. He had squeezed five quarters into the year, and thus kept the applications for income tax perpetually before them, he believed that nothing would tend more to the extinction of this abominable tax than this petty mode of collecting it. He hoped the public would continue to state their grievances. With regard to the Return from North Northamptonshire, it was strikingly to the point, and set forth complaints which demanded immediate attention. The petitioners complained of the various methods resorted to for surcharging them, by which agricultural tenants were made to pay on a much higher sum than they actually paid for rent; and they had been vexed and harassed, and put to every conceivable expense and trouble.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was an entire mistake to imagine that any undue pressure had been authorized in the collection of the income tax. The estimate of the tax for last year was £10,350,000, and the return was only £10,365,000. That did not look as if any stringent or novel means had been employed to extract money. A new assessment must always be attended with considerable difficulty and inconvenience.

MR. SEELY

strongly urged the justice of repaying to a man who had been unjustly surcharged the money out of pocket by the appeal.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that the proposal for renewing the income tax came with a bad grace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was more than any other man pledged to its repeal. As we were saddled with the tax, however, it ought to be made as little burdensome in collection as possible. He did not, for a moment, impute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer participation in the abuses connected with its collection. There was another abuse which was somewhat general, though of course it would not be proper for him to mention names or places in connection with it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Then how are we to find it out?] He did not ask for any remedy in the particular case, but to inquire whether the Government would deal with the practice as an offence in the event of its being brought to their notice. He had had a letter from a gentleman of great respectability, who stated that on their appeal day, the 6th October last, many parties attended to prove their exemption from the tax. The surveyor required a printed form to be filled up, and the surveyor's son filled up many of them and was paid from 1s. to 2s. 6d. in each case for so doing. This was done in a room apart from the Commissioners; but, on a former occasion, the surveyor himself pursued the same course. He (Mr. Bentinck) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever heard of such a practice, for it was believed to be general in many parts of the country, and whether he would deal with it as ail offence?

MR. FRANK CROSSLEY

said, that what he most strongly objected to in the income tax was its inquisitorial character. No doubt surcharges were frequently made unjustly; but the grossest cases of fraud upon the revenue were perpetually occurring. Frequently, when very large profits were known to be made in trades, either no returns, or returns obviously false, were made; and surcharges were made sometimes to the extent of £15,000 and £20,000 a year, which were paid without a word. He hoped the services of the surveyors were duly appreciated by the Government. They were a class of men who endeavoured to do their duty fairly, and deserved support; and he hoped they would not be deterred from doing their duty by the charges that had been made against them that evening.

MR. WHALLEY

confirmed the very great dissatisfaction that was felt at the surcharges in the neighbourhood of Peterborough. But with respect to the com- plaints that had been made, he found that he should not be justified in bringing them before the House, seeing that those surveyors had acted merely in discharge of their duties. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this description did not confirm the view that it was quite impossible for him to sustain this particular portion of the income tax? Why should not the taxes in Schedule B be raised in the nature of a land tax?

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

drew attention to the complaints which had arisen in Shropshire in consequence of surcharges, and suggested that some instructions must have been given by Government to cause these surcharges.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

complained that the hon. Baronet should have made this statement, when he had just told the Committee that there were no such instructions; and he challenged a further investigation into the matter. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for West Norfolk, there was very little use in stating cases without names. If the names were given, he could make inquiry and ascertain the facts, but not otherwise. At present, he could only state that no person had ever complained to him of payments exacted by any officer of the Government for preparing or filling up forms or returns. Very recently he had heard that persons had employed some man in the room of the Commissioners, and paid him 6d., apiece for filling up their returns. He did not understand that he was a person in the employment of the Government. As far as he was able to judge, it would not be the duty of a Government officer to fill up returns; still less would it be compatible with his duty to accept payment for filling them up.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

begged to explain that he was out of the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his observations, or he certainly should not have said what he had said.

MR. BRADY

bore testimony to the faithfulness and fairness with which the surveyors of the income tax discharged their duties.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, that no general charge had been made against the surveyors.

MR. HENLEY

said, he could confirm what had been said by other hon. Members by what had come within his own experience last autumn, and which convinced him, that if assessments were made every year to the income tax, it would soon come to an end; for the necessary curse which attended a re-assessment would cause a blister of such a kind, that unless a little time were allowed for it to heal, there would be one universal kick against the tax from one end of the country to the other. He believed that every district throughout the country could make a similar return to Northampton, for there were numbers of people holding small cottages and other property who could not get off the tax except by some process they satisfied the Government officers that they had no other property of sufficient amount to render them liable to it. The first day of appeal this happened. They had a whole string of appeals. The parties came in one after the other, a few simple questions were put them, and then they were dismissed. The surveyor, when the proceedings were over, was asked if some means could not be devised by which this could be avoided, and he said the same thing would occur at every meeting. This was one of the curses incident to the tax. He had never seen any disposition whatever on the part of the surveyors to act with oppression, and he could not, as an honest man, refrain from standing up and saying so. The tax was a curse in itself. It was a most painful thing to examine humble people as to whether they made £98 in a year or £102. For his sins he had had to go through many such examinations, hut he had never seen any attempt on the part of the officers to put an extra squeeze on. He thought they did their duty fairly between the Crown and the subject. The tax had gone on for twenty years, and it had claws in all directions, and those claws, from the very nature of the tax, were continually extending, and the curse would become greater the longer it lasted. He could not hope to live long enough to see it got rid of, but he felt that the longer it lasted the greater would be the desire to get rid of it.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGEBY

said, the grievance he complained of was that a number of persons were summoned—poor cottagers and others—they were dragged from their homes several miles, and then their cases were not decided. Instructions should be given by the Inland Revenue Department that no more persons should be summoned than could have their grievances heard. He was sure, with regard to this tax, that the country would ultimately come to the position they were in in 1816, when Lord Brougham recommended that all income tax papers should be burnt by the least reputable person in the State.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

explained, that the reason he had taken no notice of the hon. Baronet's complaint was that it did not depend upon him or upon any Government officer, who should be summoned, but it was done by the authority of the Commissioner. If the hon. Baronet could point out anything that the Government could do to remedy the evil, he should be happy to entertain the proposition; but he was afraid that it was incident to the nature of the tax, and he was convinced that the payment of compensation in such cases would only make matters worse. The hon. Baronet seemed astonished at the increase in the assessment last year as compared with former years. Last year was the first new assessment for five or six years, and of course in a district like that to which the hon. Baronet had referred, the value of property had risen considerably; and if no increase had taken place in the assessments, it would have been a proof that the officers of the Government were neglecting their duty.

MR. HENLEY

observed, that the hon. Baronet was not correct in speaking of persons being summoned; they were amerced, and notice was given that upon a certain day they could appeal, and no possible skill could enable either the Commissioners or surveyors to know how many would avail themselves of the right.

MAJOR EDWARDS

quite agreed as to the hardship of poor people being required to attend again and again at the court before their appeals were heard, and suggested that in these cases the principle adopted in the Revising Barristers' courts should be followed, and that costs should be allowed to persons where the opposition to their claim was frivolous or vexatious.

Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses and the Schedules.

House resumed.

Bill reported; to be printed as amended [Bill 109]; recommitted for Thursday.