COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 13 May 1869 vol 196 cc780-808

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Re-committed Resolution relative to Customs Duties on Beer read, and amended, as follows:—

(1.) Resolved, That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Beer and Ale, as denominated in the Tariff, on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, the following Duties shall be charged, viz.:

Beer and Ale, viz.	£	s.	d.
Mum, the barrel of 36 gallons	1	1	0
Spruce, the worts of which were before fermentation of a specific gravity not exceeding One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons	1	1	0
Exceeding One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons	1	4	0
Of other sorts, viz.:
Beer, the worts of which were before fermentation of a specific gravity not exceeding One Thousand and Sixty-five Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons	0	8	0

	£	s.	d.
Exceeding One Thousand and Sixty-five Degrees, and not exceeding One Thousand and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons	0	11	0
Exceeding One Thousand and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons	0	16	0

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be granted, charged, levied, and paid on and after the 1st day of January 1870, in and throughout Great Britain the following Duties of Excise upon Licenses to be taken out annually by the Persons who shall employ any Male Servant, or who shall keep any Carriage, or Horse or Mule, or who shall wear or use any Armorial Bearings, or who shall exercise or carry on the Trade of a Horsedealer.

Male Servants.	£	s.	d.
For every Male Servant employed cither wholly or partially in any of the following capacities, viz. Maître d'Hôtel, House Steward, Master of the Horse, Groom of the Chambers, Valetde Chambre, Butler, Under Butler, Clerk of the Kitchen, Confectioner, Cook, House Porter, Footman, Page, Waiter, Coachman, Groom, Postillion, Stable Boy or Helper in the Stables, Gardener, Under Gardener, Park Keeper, Game Keeper or Game Watcher, Huntsman and Whipper-in, or in any capacity involving the duties of any of the above descriptions of Servants by whatever style the person acting in such capacity may be called	0	15	0
Carriages.
For every Carriage drawn by a Horse or Mule, or by Horses or Mules (except a waggon, cart, or other vehicle used solely for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, and whereon the Christian name and surname, and place of abode or place of business of the owner, shall be visibly and legibly painted),
If such Carriage shall have four or more wheels, and shall be of the weight of Three Hundredweight or upwards	2	2	0
If such Carriage shall have less than four wheels, or having four or more wheels, shall be of less weight than Three Hundredweight	0	l5	0
Horses and Mules.
For every Horse or Mule (including a Horse or Pony of any sex or description or age, but not including a Foal, Colt or Filly, or Mule which shall never have been used for any purpose of draught or riding)	0	10	6

MR. HUNT

said, he had placed some Amendments to this Resolution on the Paper. They were apparently about trifling matters; but they affected the comfort and convenience of many persons in the country, and he therefore hoped the Committee would think them worth discussing. This Resolution carried out the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to substitute license duties in the case of articles which heretofore had been liable to assessed taxes, and he approved the principle of that substitution; but the question of the scale of duties that was to be adopted in the case of the new licenses was quite a different matter from the general principle. In some of the propositions he made the right hon. Gentleman sacrificed a great many people in order to have a simple and uniform system. No doubt a simple and uniform system was a great convenience to the tax-collector, but it did not follow that it would suit the tax-payer. The right hon. Gentleman was not the founder of the school of simplicity and uniformity, because it was instituted by a gentleman named Procrustes, who, if a bed was too short for a patient cut him shorter, and if it were too long stretched the patient. He had received a few letters from his own constituents, and a good many from different parts of the country, from persons of all politics, and they all concurred in describing the Budget in this part of it as a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's Budget. There was truth in this description, for. in order to have a uniform and simple system, the right hon. Gentleman had lowered the taxes which were paid by rich people upon their establishments, and he had raised the taxes paid by poorer people. Many illustrations had been sent to him, and he would give the Committee a comparative statement of the effect upon certain establishments in one of the Midland counties. The head of one large establishment paid, under the present system, £49; under the new system he would pay £32; so that he would save £17. The head of a still larger establishment was now taxed to the amount of £76, and would save £30. In a third instance the owner paid £51; he would have to pay £36; so that he would save £15. These were the establishments of noblemen and gentlemen; and he now came to the establishment of one who might be a tenant of a noblemen. In this establishment there were a servant under eighteen and a two-wheeled carriage and a horse; and the taxes now amounted to £1 16s.: but under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman they would come to £2 0s. 6d.; so that the State would gain 4s. 6d. A country coal-dealer having one horse over thirteen hands and two ponies under thirteen was now taxed £1 1s., but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition were adopted he would be taxed £1 11s. 6d. Such cases might be multiplied, for he had received numerous letters from country doctors and others, complaining that their richer neighbours were being relieved of taxation at their expense. It was rather hard that the coal-dealer and tradesman should have their taxes raised to enable the Chancellor of the; Exchequer to reduce the duty on the saddle horses of rich men; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not presume upon the fact that there was not much chance of any great outcry being raised against the change. Pleasure horses formed a very fair subject for taxation, and there was no reason for reducing; the taxation upon them: but taxes upon servants were altogether objectionable. They had been regarded as taxes on luxuries, but he would avoid them as taxes on the employment of people. The reduction in the taxes on carriages would be a relief to the carriage making trade, because people resorted to all manner of shifts at present in order to make one carriage servo the purpose of two, and tints save the tax. But there was no excuse for altering the duty on servants unless it were by way of clear remission. He thought it bad enough to tax skilled domestic labour; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise the tax on unskilled domestic labour. This alteration in the duty would prevent persons from taking young persons into their establishments, and he might mention that he had more letters in reference to the difference of tax upon men and boy servants than upon any other thing. Now what was the amount of the gain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by raising the tax from 10s. 6d. to 15s.? According to the Returns published last year there were 85,881 as to whom the tax was to be altered, and the addition of 4s. 6d. in each instance would produce £19,323. He believed that this increase of tax would tend to prevent boys being taken as servants in places where they might learn a business, and that it would be a hardship upon employers where they were so taken. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could dispense with this £19,000 altogether; but if not, he hoped that at all events he would revert to the old tax of 10s. 6d., instead of having the new one of 15s. In conclusion the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to the Resolution, which would have the effect of preventing male servants under eighteen being taxed more than 10s. 6d. each.

Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the words "Male Servants," to insert the words "above eighteen years of age."—(Mr. Hunt.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee, but the country had heard so much about economy, cheap breakfast tables, cheap newspapers, and cheap all sorts of things for workpeople, that he wished to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the practical effect of his Budget, and the enormous decrease in the revenue he was making by remitting the taxes of the rich. The right hon. Gentleman was creating considerable dissatisfaction by proposing in this, the people's House, to sacrifice the poor for the benefit of the rich. A Return recently presented to the House on his Motion (Parliamentary Paper 161) showed the proposed remissions of taxation for the benefit of those who could well afford to be taxed was much larger than hon. Members had any notion of. The male servants on whom duty was paid last year numbered 274,000, and 173,000 of these being above eighteen brought £1 1s. each to the Exchequer. On these 173,000 there would be a loss of 6s. each, or £52,000. In the case of carriages, which were certainly luxuries, he found 32,000 having four wheels and two horses, upon which, the proposed remission was £1 8s. each, or £45,000. The reduction on horses would result in a loss of £102,000: because there were 195,000 horses, and the tax upon them was reduced by 10s. 6d. each. On hair powder there was a clear loss of £1,000. The proposal respecting armorial bearings was a case of peculiar hardship, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had claimed credit for procuring a gain to the Revenue by his changes. Every man who kept a carriage; with four wheels and two horses obtained now a reduction on his taxes of 10s. 9d., and that would bring a Joss to the Revenue of £8,000, which would have to be made good out of the pockets of the poorer classes. Armorial bearings had been taken to mean any sign or device; which a person happened to wear, whether on a seal or otherwise; and for these he had to pay a tax of 13s. 2d. Now, adding up all the items, it appeared that there was a total of £207,000 a year remission of the taxation falling on the richer classes in regard to assessed taxes. But these classes were well able to pay, they had made no complaint, nor had they grumbled. He was quite aware it might be said that, as far as servants were concerned, Many persons not wealthy—some professional men for instance—paid their £1 1s. for a man-servant. Well, he was willing to make the necessary allowance for that in his calculation; but he found by the Returns that of all those who kept men - servants there were only 144,000 with one. That would yield about half the amount, and deducting on that head £26,000, there remained a clear remission of taxation upon the rich, who were well able to pay, of £181,000 by this Budget. He did not think many of his constituents would be gratified at that, which was a different state of things from what the Prime Minister, when among them, had led them to expect.

MR. STAPLETON

wished to draw attention to what he believed to be a slight imperfection in the otherwise admirable Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he meant the increase of small sums and odd figures. It had been observed by several persons that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech spoke of guineas and half- guineas, though such sums had long ceased to exist either as coins or as figures of account. The duty on horses was to be 10s. 6d.; the duty on armorial bearings £1 1s. or £2 2s. In this case an odd sum, 13s. 2d., was got rid of, but another was introduced. In the duty on carnages the £1 1s. was introduced where there were only decimal figures before. At present the tax upon carriages drawn by two horses was £3 10s.; by one horse, £2; by two ponies, £1 15s.; by one pony, £1, and so on. The Committee would observe that these were round numbers. But his right hon. Friend was putting the tax upon a carriage drawn by a single horse at £2 2s. A rich man, who could afford to keep two horses and pay for them, would have a saving of £1 8s., whilst the poor man, who only put one horse to his carriage, would pay 2s. more than he did before. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was that these odd shillings did not in their net result bring into the Exchequer as much by a great deal as they took out of the pocket of the tax-payer. It cost as much to carry 6d. or 1s. through an account as to carry £1. There were many things that showed that this doctrine was very well understood by the Exchequer. For instance, the clerks' salaries were now paid monthly, but when there were odd shillings or pence they were, retained and allowed to accumulate until at last they were paid once for all in order to avoid the expense which would otherwise result from keeping the accounts; and the Secretary for War had declined altogether to pay the officers of the army on the retired half-pay list monthly instead of annually on account of the expense by employment of extra clerks. But the strongest point was this, that the Exchequer would not now receive odd sums at all from the accounting departments. All payments made by them into the Exchequer were made in thousands. He understood that since; this rule had been established there had been, along with great simplicity, very great economy in keeping the Exchequer accounts. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider this matter, and if in another year he made another step in Administrative Reform, he would strike off these odd shillings and sixpences which had this great characteristic of bad taxes, that they did not in their net result enrich the Exchequer in anything like the same proportion in which they impoverished the tax-payers.

MR. BARROW

thought the taxation of servants under eighteen most objectionable, not so much in the interest of the tax-payers as of the labouring man, whose eldest boy was often taken off his hands and employed from fourteen to eighteen.

MR. RYLANDS

said, his hon. Friend the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) had characterized the Budget as being a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's, and had stated that it was viewed with dissatisfaction by his constituents. As he happened to be a constituent of the hon. Gentleman, he begged entirely to dissent from his statements. He did not gather from his hon. Friend whether he was supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), but presumed he was, and in that case his views were entirely inconsistent with the object of the Amendment. The Amendment, if carried, would exempt from taxation all male servants under eighteen years old, and to that extent would clearly be to the advantage of the rich rather than the poor. He entirely dissented from his hon. Friend's remarks respecting the Budget. When the Committee recollected that the abolition of the 1s. import duty on corn amounted to £900,000 a year, and that that import duty necessarily raised the average price of all the corn grown in this country, it must be evident that the advantage to the working classes from the Budget would be very much greater than to those who were in a better position in life. Nor was the reduction of the taxes then under discussion exclusively for the benefit of the wealthier classes. The reduction of the tax upon servants would have a tendency to increase the employment of servants: and that upon carriages would lead to a greater use, of carriages, and in consequence to a greater employment of labour in the manufacture of carriages. So far as he had the means of ascertaining the opinions of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman in Southwest Lancashire, they were decidedly in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that puppies were always puppies, and men-servants never got beyond eighteen years of age. He had seen men with grey hairs set down as eighteen. Would it not be better, therefore, to leave out eighteen altogether? He had found that there was a general objection not only to this but to all other kind of taxes. It was pleasant to hear an English Chancellor of the Exchequer recommending economy; and. when they came to one item in the Estimate he should give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) an opportunity of showing that he was sincere.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the assessed taxes, which (hey were considering that night, and in lieu of which his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed a system of license duties, affected a considerable number of the population. They fell upon their households, they came home to their consciousness and their intimate knowledge, and it was therefore not unnatural, considering the position which the right hon. gentleman occupied in the late Administration, that he should have received many communications on the subject of that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had made two remarks on the Budget of his right hon. Friend. He said that its policy of uniformity justified him in giving it the name of a Procrustean Budget, and he called it in the second place a rich man's Budget. Well, there was some amount of truth—and he would endeavour to show how much—in the first of those assertions; but to the second he believed there was a complete and unanswerable reply. It was perfectly true that the idea of his right hon. Friend in proposing to abolish the system of assessed taxes and to substitute for it a system of licenses was an idea of the benefit, with reference to the ease of collection and to the probable profitableness of the tax, of the substitution of a system of licenses founded on a principle of uniformity for the assessed taxes, various and uncertain in their incidence as they had proved themselves to be. Now, the right hon. Gentleman would understand that if. per se. something like simplicity and uniformity in a tax was to some, extent to be admitted as an advantage, in this case the advantage was enhanced if they arrived at the conclusion that it was admissible to substitute a system of licenses for one of assessed taxes, because in the case of assessed taxes they taxed a man on articles which he had in his possession, and which he had used under certain varying conditions that affected the amount of the tax which they were to charge him during the past year. But if, in place of that, they adopted a system of licenses, they dealt not with the past but with the future. They called upon the man at the beginning of the year to inform them, by a Return, of the number of articles, whether servants, horses, or carriages, which he intended to keep, and they required him to pay a license for them; and therefore it was extremely desirable, in order to facilitate the making of that Return, that they should simplify the incidence of that taxation, and render it as uniform as they could. There was that amount of truth in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that something had been sacrificed for the sake of uniformity. But it would be impossible to simplify and render uniform those taxes, or in any respect to change then incidence, without some cases occurring, and without some communications being made to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen, showing that some of those who paid those taxes before were likely to pay more than their neighbours in future. Now, if they entered into the comparative fairness of that Budget, and the existing state of things, at least they ought to look at the Budget as a whole; or at the very least they ought to look at the part of the Budget they were then discussing as a whole. But the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course. He spoke of the saving to the rich man possessing many horses and carriages; and the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) spoke in the same strain, comparing the rich man's case with that of those who had few horses and carriages. But all reference had been omitted to certain figures which were conclusive on that subject, showing that not only if they took the Budget as a whole, but if they took the particular part of it effecting the transformation of assessed taxes into license duties, so far from being a rich man's Budget, it consulted the convenience of the pocket of the greater number who possessed limited means. If they took the assessed taxes proposed to be remitted, they were £1,167,000; while the license duty imposed amounted to £1,113,000. The difference between the two sums was only about £50,000; but if, travelling a little further, they went on to the repeal of the post horse duty, the stage carriage duty, and the hackney carriage duty, they would find that there was a remission of no less than £293,000, affecting the convenience and relieving the expenditure of persons of limited means. Therefore, his right hon. Friend was not open to the criticism that that was a rich man's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment proposed that there should be no tax on male servants under eighteen years of age. Now, he thought the insight into the operation of the present law afforded to the Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was in itself almost a sufficient answer to that suggestion, and a proof of the wisdom of his right hon. Friend in adhering to his notion of uniformity and simplicity of taxation. The natural alternative to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to tax male servants under eighteen would be to leave the tax upon male servants above that age at £1 1s. and keep it at 10s. 6d. for those under that age. The Budget of his right hon. Friend, for the sake of uniformity and simplicity, proposed to halve the difference, and charge 15s. for male servants all round.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he was the last person who would object to the substitution of a system of licenses for assessed taxes, and he did not believe that anything had fallen from his right hon. Friend which warranted the inference that his right hon. Friend objected to such a principle. It was, however, an undoubted fact that the proposed remission of the assessed taxes would be a been to the wealthier class, and would produce a considerable net saving to them in respect to taxation. But he could not agree with the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) when he referred to the case of the carriage duty as illustrative of his argument. He had always been of opinion that the assessed tax on carriages operated as a very considerable restriction on that trade of the country, and that any great reduction of the tax would give a stimulus to the coach-making business, inasmuch as many gentlemen of large fortune would keep an increased number of carriages when they were no longer taxed as they had been heretofore, almost to a prohibitory extent upon that head. He. therefore, cordially approved that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he would make no change in the incidence of those taxes, and would impose no new tax on servant. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would call his attention to a word which had been introduced into the Resolution—namely, "game watcher," in the place of the word "gamekeeper" formerly used. He would suggest the omission of that word, and with respect to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), he must say that he thought the remission of the tax on servants under eighteen would be a great been to the working classes.

MR. GREENE

said, he was not inclined to quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking off some of the duty on his horses; but he would impress on him the importance of that matter, as it affected the training of young servants. All who were acquainted with the training of boys in stables knew how frequently a boy was taken at nominal wages merely to learn his business; and it was not improbable that, if employers had to pay a tax on them they would refuse to be bothered with those boys.

MR. HENLEY

said, he agreed with the description of the tax as given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and he (Mr. Henley) having calculated its operation with regard to his payments he found he should save 25 per cent by the proposed change. Personally he should be disposed to take his hat off to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thank him, and say he was a very pleasant follow; but when he considered how it would act on persons in a lower position in life, and he found that it would increase their assessed taxes something like 100 per cent, it became rather a serious matter. It was hard that this increased amount of taxation should be put upon the class of persons to whom be referred. They were not the persons likely to be benefited by the reduction of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty, and he thought it was a matter well deserving the re-consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having acted as an assessed tax commissioner, and knowing the trouble and difficulty of appealing against a surcharge, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what penalty a man would be liable to for not making a return, and taking out a license under the proposed new system?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that no persons were more glad than the Conservative Members that the 1s. duty had been taken off corn. His objection to the Budget applied simply to the conversion of assessed taxes into Excise licenses. That portion of the financial scheme of the Government would, beyond all doubt, have the effect of relieving the rich man and imposing an increased burden on persons who were comparatively poor.

MR. READ

said, he could not agree in the principle enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which the assessed taxes were to be converted into Excise licenses. It might be all very well to have uniformity, but it ought not to be adopted by putting a heavy pressure on the poor man, and by relieving the rich man. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) introduced the principle of licenses he said, that in order to make the duty equal, they must put the tax at a reasonable figure, and he placed the dog duty at 5s., whereas it had been previously 12s.; but here the Chancellor of the Exchequer inflicted a great hardship on the farmer or small trader, who kept a boy. by making him pay 15s. duty, instead of 10s. 6d. The imposition of the extra amount of duty would have a great effect in reducing the number of boys kept, and it would tend to discourage the training of youths. A rich man who now kept a carriage and pair of horses and one servant paid £6 13s., but under the proposed Budget he would only have to pay £3 18s.; and if they added to it the advantage to be derived by the alteration of the armorial bearings tax the saving would be £3 5s. 9d., or nearly 50 per cent. The poor man, however, who, for the purpose of his business, was obliged to employ a lad, and to keep a pony and cart of some sort or other, would have to pay £2 0s. 6d. under the new system, whereas he now had to pay only £1, or at the utmost, £1 10s. It was therefore essential there should be some kind of exemption. His right hon. Friend, when he introduced the dog license, made an exemption in favour of puppies, and it was to be hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make an exemption in favour of the lads. Under the old system, the assessors acted on the principle that every man was considered honest until he was proved to be a rogue, but by the Excise a man would be considered, a rogue until he had proved himself to be honest.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), wished to state that the penalty which would be imposed under the Act on anybody violating its provisions was £20. That penalty however, would be sued for only when a person neglected to send in a declaration as to the taxable articles in his possession after a special notice had been served on him for the purpose. Then came in the General Excise Act, which permitted the magistrate adjudicating on the question of the penalty to be imposed to remit three-fourths of it, while the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have the power to remit it altogether in such cases as they might deem proper. Practically, it would not be enforced, unless in those instances where it was shown there had been a wilful attempt to defraud the Revenue. In reply to the objection which had been urged by several hon. Gentlemen to the proposal of the Government to the effect that it would relieve the rich at the expense of the poor, he might observe that one danger which must be guarded against was that those assessed taxes might become such a nuisance that they would have to be swept away altogether. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, if their permanency was to be secured, that they should be made as simple and as easy as possible, not only to the tax-gatherer, but to those by whom they were paid, while he thought it would be advantagous to the Revenue that they should be collected by way of license, instead of under the present system. The only way to attain that object was by uniformity and simplification; and in order to do that he was sorry to say it was necessary to take from the rich and add it to the poor. No doubt, that was the effect of the criticism of the Budget, and it was perfectly well founded. It had been said that the taxes ought to be apportioned at different prices for the same article; and so it ought, if they merely desired to tax each person fairly and equally one with another. But when they sought to establish uniformity, which was essential to the cheapening of the tax, it could only be done in the manner he proposed. If he had left the rich man heavier taxed than the poor man, uniformity could only be obtained by increasing the amount paid by the poor. The whole squabble was about 4s. 6d., the difference between 15s. and 10s. 6d. It was not to be supposed that his plan benefited the rich exclusively; because-its effect would be to give increased employment to the poor, and to add to the number of boys who would be kept as servants, and who did not become full-fledged servants all at once, but must learn their trade. He would much rather have attained his object in another way—namely, by leaving the rich heavily taxed, and lightening the burdens on the poor—and in other parts of the Budget he had endeavoured to do so; but as regarded the assessed taxes he could only attain uniformity in the way he proposed; and he trusted, therefore, the House would approve of the proposition.

MR. HUNT

said, he fully anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to ridicule the difference of the tax on the ground that 4s. 6d. was a small amount; but if he was so well acquainted with persons in humble rank as he (Mr. Hunt) was he never would have made that observation. The effect of the tax would be that a farmer, instead of keeping a boy to attend to his nag horse, for which he would have to pay 10s. 6d., and 15s. for the farm servant to look after the farm horses, would make the latter attend to both. That would be a very serious matter, not so much to the man who had to pay, but to the boy, who frequently got his first start in life by getting into such situations. He should take the sense of the Committee upon the point. The Third Lord of the Treasury denied that this was a rich man's budget, because he said the Committee must not look to these assessed taxes solely, but must remember the remission of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty. He doubted whether the remission of these duties would touch the class to whom the hon. Member referred. Then, it was said that the remission of the corn duty to the amount of £900,000 was in favour of the poor man; but he thought it would be found that if this amount wore divided among the number of quartern loaves consumed in the country there was no coin in the realm that would denote the poor man's share. He believed that most people who kept a servant would much rather pocket that 4s. 6d. than have their share of the remission of the 1s. duty on corn.

MR. HIBBERT

thought that the question for their consideration was not whether the Budget was a rich man's or a poor man's Budget, but how it affected the general interests of the country. He liked neither the proposal of the Government nor that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). He thought the tax on male servants was a bad tax, because he had always considered it a tax upon labour. He objected to the tax, either at 15s. or in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The objection might be met by reducing the tax on all male servants to 10s. 6d. He thought all exemptions bad in principle, and could not agree to exempt, as proposed, those under eighteen years of age. ["Move!"] He feared that as there was an Amendment before the Committee he should not be in Order to move another Amendment.

MR. HUNT

said, that if the hon. Member voted for the Amendment now before the Committee he could afterwards move to reduce the amount to 10s. 6d.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 150: Majority 79.

MR. CORRANCE

rose to move an Amendment in the second Resolution in line 9, after "employed," to leave out "either wholly or partially." He did not mean to challenge the merits of the Budget; no doubt it was a very good one if they could understand it, and would be very popular if they had not to pay tinder it; but he wanted to know what did a watcher of game, "wholly or partially." mean.

Amendment proposed, in line 9. to leave out the words "wholly or partially."—(Mr. Corrance)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the proposed Resolution"

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had given a sort of pledge that there should be no alteration in the law in this respect. He would restore the word "under-gamekeeper" as it stood before.

MR. CORRANCE

thought the words "wholly or partially" were a trap for tender consciences—possibly to catch those who sent five-pound notes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted a precise definition of these words "wholly or partially" as well as of those upon whom they took effect. It was well known there were periods when employment both in town and country was scarce, and a great many were almost entirely dependant on casual jobs. If they were thrown out of employment they became pauperized, and—under the admirable operation of the Poor Laws—perhaps for life. He had no doubt these ambiguous terms in the Resolution were very convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even his convenience must give way when placed in opposition to the social considerations involved. Let him define exactly what these words "wholly or partially" implied—if he employed a man for a week, a fortnight, or six weeks—let it be clearly understood what was the meaning of the words. He moved the omission of the words "wholly or partially."

MR. STANSFELD

said, the object of the words "wholly or partially" was not to catch tender consciences. According to the Board of Inland Revenue and their legal advisers there was no criterion so exact and reliable in the imposition of these taxes as the existence of the relationship of master and servant. If the words "wholly or partially" were omitted a man might be employed as a servant on a contract of service in a combination of capacities, and the question might arise as to liability to taxation in this capacity. However difficult it might be to understand the exact line of demarcation between the employment of a person as a servant and employment as a hired labourer, the distinction was known to the Inland Revenue and to the law. The object of the Resolution was to make taxation depend on that distinction, and he knew no other definition or distinction which was so exact or reliable.

MR. BARROW

said, he had no doubt the distinction was appreciated by the Inland Revenue; but he had found it exceedingly difficult, as a Commissioner of Taxes, to decide whether a man was a servant or a hired labourer. He suggested that the matter would be greatly simplified, and the principle of uniformity kept up, if they omitted the tax on male servants and labourers altogether, and left the tax on horses and carriages pretty nearly at its present amount. It would be bettor to get rid of a tax on servants subject to so much distinction, and to retain it at its present amount on such undoubted luxuries as horses and carriages.

MR. REBOW

begged to state that he had occasion to bring this matter before the Board of Inland Revenue, and he found that "under-gardener" meant a foreman under the head-gardener.

MR. BARNETT

wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorsed that interpretation. If he did it would be a great relief to many people who had to employ men in their gardens.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he apprehended that an under-gardener was a gardener working under the direction of another gardener. However, the definition given by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Rebow) was perfectly correct.

MR. HUNT

hoped that whatever definition the House might adopt of an under-gardener would be plainly set forth in the Bill. According to the right hon. Gentleman's definition a man employed simply to dig potatoes in a garden was an under-gardener.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had not said so. An under-gardener was a skilled labourer, employed under the direction of another gardener; and an unskilled labourer employed in a garden was not an under-gardener.

MR. HUNT

remarked that all he wanted was to have that definition put into the Bill.

SIR HENRY HOARE

wished to know what was the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a "game watcher;" and whether "mole catchers" and "rabbiters," employed under the direction of a head-keeper, were under-keepers?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

That is withdrawn.

GENERAL PERCY HERBERT

was disposed to move the omission of the words "under-gardener," as a great number of persons acting in that capacity were but labourers.

MR. HENLEY

understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that an unskilled labourer working in a garden was not an under-gardener, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would introduce words to make the matter clear, as the construction hitherto acted upon was not in accordance with that liberal view.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the principle of these assessed taxes was based on the distinction between service and labour. "Service" was the employment of a person with some skill or dexterity—not merely ordinary work. It was not a question of the amount of wages or of the time when they were paid, it was what a person was employed for. He could not pledge himself as to what words would be introduced into the Bill.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

asked whether a person who called a man from his farm to take a pony out of his carriage would have to pay for that man as a. helper in the stables?

MR. STANSFELD

said, these questions could he considered when the Bill was in Committee, He thought that it was unnecessary at the present stage to carry the discussion any further. The whole of the Resolution was governed by the leading words "every male servant employed." No one could be charged for who was not a servant.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

also thought they had better not waste time in discussing these matters, as the collection of these taxes was to be placed in the hands of the Inland Revenue, and as one uniform system throughout the country would thereby be secured instead of a variable one, differing according to the opinions of different local authorities, he would suggest that when the resolutions became law the Inland Revenue Department should issue instructions explaining distinctly on what principle these taxes would be levied.

MR. READ

said, there ought to be some limit as to age, for it was not right that the boy who blacked one's shoes should be charged at the same rate as the most gorgeous flunkey.

MR. HENLEY

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the various definitions were made clearly, so that there should be no difficulty in the construction of the law. It should be made so clear that no one should be brought before the magistrates on the information of the Department when there was no ground for it, as might otherwise be the case.

MR. CORRANCE

, in withdrawing his Amendment, objected to any increase of taxation on unskilled labourers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GENERAL PERCY HERBERT

proposed another Amendment to omit the words "Under Gardener" from the Resolution, on the ground that, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all skilled gardeners, whether under-gardeners or not, would be liable.

Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "Under Gardener." —(General Herbert.)

VISCOUNT GALWAY

objected to the charge which it was proposed to impose for stable-helpers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that hon. Members opposite complained that this was a rich man's Budget, and yet they proposed the omission in that case of under-gardeners and stable-helpers, who were to be supposed to be kept by people in straightened circumstances. These things would be in the hands of the Excise, and a uniform construction of the law would come about, not from anything said or done in that House, but from the practice which would gradually spring up, and which would become uniform all over the country. He could not see that any good would be done by omitting what had always been in the Acts hitherto.

MR. HUNT

said, the Committee wanted an assurance that in the Bill there would be a definition of what was meant by an under-gardener.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

declined to give such an assurance.

MR. HENLEY

thought the words ought to be defined by the right hon. Gentleman, as a guide to magistrates who might have to deal with questions respecting them here after.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the clauses of the Bill would, no doubt, be carefully drawn; but, as his right hon. Friend had said, a good deal must be left to be settled by the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue. The practice would operate as the interpretations of courts of law operated in explaining statutes, and he did not think that uniformity was to be secured by heaping words upon words and definition upon definition in an Act of Parliament.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said that the insertion of the words "stable-helper" would be a serious matter to gentlemen who kept hounds. A stable-helper was not a skilled labourer, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to tax him.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the words "Game Watcher" be omitted and "Under Keeper" inserted.

Amendment made, in line 16, by leaving out the words "Game Watcher," and inserting the words "Under Keeper."

MR. HIBBERT

hoped the Motion he was going to submit would not place him in any position of antagonism to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Budget had been received with general satisfaction. On this question, however, two opinions were allowable. The tax on male servants was one bad in principle, but if the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the tax a permanent one, it ought not to be felt to be unjust to any portion of the public. The proposal was certainly one for reduction of taxation for what might be called the richer classes; but it was an increase of taxation for the less rich class, and he trusted that the motto of the right hon. Gentleman would be justice to all. If the tax were lowered to 10s. 6d., a much larger amount in proportion would be obtained. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would treat this matter in a generous spirit. The Budget had given general satisfaction, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not include in it any alteration of a tax which would press unjustly on any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. In conclusion he moved that the sum be altered from 15s. to 10s. 6d.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "15s.," in order to insert "10s. 6d."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER

said, the total amount of the tax upon servants was £220,000, and the hon. Gentleman proposed that about £60,000 should be taken off. Of this £60,000 about £20,000 would be in respect of servants under eighteen years old, and the remainder in respect of servants above that age. The Committee would, therefore, perceive the real character of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and it would be for them to say whether it should be accepted or not. He had been charged with being kind to the rich and pressing too hardly on the poor. The question was whether a tax, which had been already reduced by 6s. on every servant in favour of the rich, should be reduced by 6s. more on every servant, two-thirds of which latter sum would go to the relief of the rich and one-third to the relief of the poor. That was a plain statement of the case which he would now leave in the hands of the Committee, merely observing that if the Revenue were impoverished by the carrying out of the proposal some other tax must be found to supply the deficiency.

MR. RYLANDS

appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. His hon. Friend was wrong in assuming that all the boys under eighteen years of age were employed by persons of small means.

MR. CANDLISH

opposed the Amendment, and thought the Committee could find many better ways of disposing of £60,000 than in relieving the taxes on male servants.

SIR JOHN HAY

believed the reason why a tax was originally put on male servants, was that their employment in a domestic capacity deprived the army of certain recruits. He should recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit the word "male" from his Resolutions, and let those ladies who desired the suffrage and others equalize the tax on all descriptions of servants.

Question, "That 15s. stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that under the proposed system a carriage with two wheels would be charged 15s., a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing less than 3 cwt., £2 2s., and a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing more than 3 cwt. was also to be charged £2 2s. The effect of this method of taxation would obviously be to encourage the manufacture and use of two-wheel carriages, which were more dangerous than those with four wheels. As an instance of this he might mention that many accidents were caused in Dublin by the two-wheeled cars, and in order to discourage their use the corporation taxed them as much again as the four-wheeled cabs. Any system which would influence the mode of the construction of carriages was a bad one. Great difficulty, he might remark, would be experienced in some country districts in ascertaining the exact weight of carriages, and for these reasons he moved to omit the words "having four or more wheels," in order to insert the words "drawn by two or more horses."

Amendment proposed, In line 27, to leave out the words "have four or more wheels, and shall be of the weight of three hundredweight or upwards," in order to insert the words "be drawn by two or more horses."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the changes now under consideration included omnibuses, cabs, and other vehicles used for the general purposes of locomotion, and, accordingly, it was impossible to say what the effect of the proposed alteration would be. The results of the change would certainly be serious, for £l 6s. would be lost upon every brougham; and there must be a corresponding reduction upon flies at railway stations, a class of vehicle upon which taxation already had been largely diminished. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would entirely vitiate all the calculations upon which the taxes upon locomotion had been based, and abstract a large sum of money from the Revenue which he would not know how to make good. With regard to the weight of vehicles he had made inquiries, and found that 4 cwt. would be about the most satisfactory figure at which to place the limit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would accept that as a satisfactory compromise.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

, who looked upon upon gigs as very insecure, conveyances, supported the proposition before the Committee.

Mr. SCOURFIELD

said, that one effect of the Resolution would be to cause people to be deceived. They would purchase carriages upon the understanding that they were of a certain weight, and would find out afterwards that they were more.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

, after what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HUNT moved that the words "five hundredweight" should be inserted in the Resolution in place of the words "three hundredweight." The standard fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be very desirable for London, but it would not be suitable for country carriages. Basket carriages, for instance, were, upon an average, from 3½ to 4¾ and 5¼ cwt.; and if the standard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were adopted, the effect would be to make the owners of pony carriages sell thorn, and buy vehicles of a more expensive description. Should the right hon. Gentleman not be willing to accept the 5 cwt., he would compromise the matter by agreeing to insert the weight at 4½ cwt.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had already advanced half-way to meet the right hon. Gentleman; but having made inquiries through the Inland Revenue, he felt that he should not be justified in going further.

Amendment negatived.

Other Amendments made, in lines 28 and 30, by leaving out the word "three" and inserting the word "four."

MR. HOWES moved an Amendment having the effect of reducing the duly upon carriages of less than four wheels to 10s. 6d. By his Amendment he wished to save a small kind of pony carriage, on which the present tax was 10s., from the additional burden proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would make the tax on this class of carriages 15s., whereas he had reduced the tax on the highest class of carriages from £3 10s. to £2 2s. The Amendment which he (Mr. Howes) proposed would probably entail a loss to the Revenue of £30,000. That amount was not to be disregarded; but the adoption of his Amendment would remove a great deal of the irritation felt by the owners of this kind of pony carriage at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman's plan dealt with them, while he reduced the tax on the highest class of carnages nearly one-half.

Amendment proposed, In line 31, after the word "hundredweight," to insert the words "unless such carriage shall have two wheels only, then 10s. 6d."—(Mr. Howes.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

could not imagine that the Committee would accede to this Amendment. As at present proposed, every four-wheeled carriage would pay £2 2s., being but a small part of what that class of carriages had hitherto paid, but still it would pay a considerable tax; whereas every Hansom cab would pay 15s., a. very disproportionate sum. He should have been very glad if, without producing inconvenience, he could have made these two taxes approach each other more nearly. But the effect of the Amendment would be to lower the tax on Hansom cabs to 10s. 6d. That arrangement could not stand. It would necessitate a review of the whole question of the taxation of cabs in London. The truth was that there would be no great hardship in a tax of 15s. The Amendment would apply to every two-wheeled carriage—to gentlemen's dogcarts, to every gig and every cab, such as gentlemen might drive about London. The tax on horses had been reduced from £1 1s. to 10s. 6d., and the owners of two-wheeled carriages would profit very largely by that reduction without any further reduction. The Amendment would not only cause a loss to the Revenue; it would be a step in the wrong direction, because the plan that had been adopted by the Committee had been rather to raise low taxes and to lessen large ones.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOWES moved that two-wheeled carriages, drawn by ponies under thirteen hands high, should be chargeable with the duty of 10s. 6d.

Amendment proposed, In line 31, after the word "hundredweight," to insert the words "carriages with two wheels drawn by ponies under thirteen hands, 10s."—(Mr. Howes.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would add another column to the accounts, which it was the desire of the Government to simplify. He did not feel called upon to encourage the practice of driving small ponies. More accidents occurred to pony carriages than to any other description of vehicle, and, besides, that there was a certain amount of cruelty in making an animal that cat but little do the work that ought to be performed by a horse.

MR. HUNT

said, he had not so much morbid sympathy for small ponies as for the owners of them. There were certain persons exercising the profession of costermongers, who were very hard worked and a very useful class of the community, who were only able to drive small ponies. It would be very hard upon them if they had to pay 15s. for their carts.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it must be remembered that costermongers had not to pay the taxes which were paid by persons who sold the same goods in shops.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

MR. CHARLEY

hoped that, during the Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to the Memorial which he had presented to him on behalf of a large body of cabmen, in public meeting assembled, at the Cabinet Theatre, Gray's Inn Road, who, while very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the proposed reduction of taxation, objected to the assimilation of the duties paid by seven-day cabmen and six-day cabmen. Since the time that the two scales were adopted the number of the six-day cabs had increased in much greater proportion than the seven-day cabs, which had fluctuated: thus, in 1863, there were only 1,887 six-day cabs; in 1868, 2,356. During the same period the seven-day cabs decreased from 3,720 to 3,470. The six-day cabmen were, as a rule, a more civil class of men than the seven-day cabmen. As the comfort of hon. Members largely depended on the civility of cabmen, he might, mention that the six-day cabs were all numbered on the plate in the real, "10,000," and upwards—five figures. The seven-day cabs never had more than four figures—from 1 to 4,000. The memorialists thought that a reduc- tion of one-seventh ought still to be made in favour of the six-day cabmen.

MR. VANCE

asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the promise he had made here in respect of the duty on hackney carnages in Dublin?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it would be carried out in the Bill.

MR. WELBY moved an Amendment to exempt brood mares from duty. They were very useful animals.

Amendment proposed, in line 36, after the word "riding," to insert the words "or a mare kept solely for breeding purposes."—(Mr. Welby.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that brood mares were very useful animals; and, consequently, he thought they ought not to be exempted from the duty paid for horses and for other mares.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put; and negatived.

MR. HUNT

suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be advisable to have two scales of duty for armorial bearings. If the President of the Board of Trade were present, probably he would say "armorial rubbish." as on a former occasion he had said "ecclesiastical rubbish." This was a poor man's question. The £2 2s. duty would press heavily on the owners of little pony carriages who had had their crest painted on the panel, for they must either go to the expense of having it painted out or pay the duty.

Amendment proposed, in line 39, after the word "called," to leave out to the word "used," inclusive.—(Mr. Hunt.)

ADMIRAL ERSKINE

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) in thinking that the new arrangement would press heavily on the owners of the humbler styles of vehicle.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could conceive nothing more absurd than the present system, by which a person with armorial bearings on his ring or seal paid 13s. 2d., but if he had a carriage drawn by two horses, for which he paid £3 10s. to the State, he had to pay £2 12s. 9d., instead of 13s. 2d., and that, too, whether he put his armorial bearings on his panel or not. His proposal, which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think so absurd, was that a person using armorial bearings should pay £l 1s. and if he placed them on the panels of his carriage he should pay another £1 1s. in addition.

MR. HUNT

, though concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the absurdity of the present system, thought it was also absurd that a man who placed his armorial bearings on the harness of his carriage should pay £1 1s., but if he placed it on the panel of his carriage, where it would not be more displayed, should have to pay £2 2s. instead.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

thought it a still greater absurdity that the thirteen-and-twopenny man should have to pay £1 1s.

MR. DALGLISH

objected altogether to the taxation of armorial bearings; he had made what, little he possessed by calico printing, and he did not see why he should not be allowed to emblazon a calico printing machine on his carriage. Why should he be taxed for it? He objected to armorial bearings being taxed, because he thought that every man had a right to develop his little ideas on his harness.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

thought the proposal would oftentimes press heavily upon persons of limited means and upon widows reduced in circumstances by the death of their husbands, if they were compelled to pay £1 ls. per annum, because they desired to retain some seal or spoon upon which there was an armorial bearing. He. therefore, moved the insertion of words which would exempt from the payment of this tax those persons who did not contribute to the Revenue on account of their keeping a male servant, a horse, or a carriage.

Amendment proposed, in line 42, after the word "used," to insert the words "by any person keeping a male servant, or a horse, or a carriage."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

presumed that it would be impossible to get through a discussion on our taxes without the irrepressible widow being brought forward. He would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the tax was only to be paid in case the articles were "used" or "worn;" and that if they were merely kept their owners would not be liable.

MR. M'ARTHUR

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Amendment. He himself knew several widows and persons in reduced circumstances who had plate left to them, and who would feel the tax and the visit of the Excise officer severely.

Question. "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Resolution, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Re-committed Resolution, as amended, and the other Resolution, to be reported upon Thursday 27th May;

Committee to sit again upon Friday 28th May.