WAYS AND MEANS—REPORT. (Hansard, 12 April 1870)

§ SIR JAMES LAWRENCE
complained of the manner in which the house duty was levied in the City of London, and instanced the cases of solicitors, merchants occupying offices in the same block of buildings, accountants, dentists, and coffee-house keepers. He thought if they did not get rid of the duty alto- 1720 gether, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see to it that the mode of levying it was fair, equal, and just.

MR. MACPIE
wished to express the satisfaction which the sugar trade felt at the change which had been introduced, and to the general fairness of the drawbacks allowed; but begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the drawback to be given on sugars lodged in warehouses and delivered for ships' stores; and to urge that something should be done to prevent foreign refiners from having a decided advantage over refiners at home.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he could not consent to make any alteration in the Resolutions; but if any reason could be shown for modifying the practice he had no doubt there would be power in the Department to do so.

§ MR. MORLEY
hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do, in the case of sugar, what was done in the case of paper, and let an allowance be made on stocks proved to be in possession.

§ MR. GRIEVE
, on behalf of the sugar refiners of the Clyde, joined the hon. Member for Bristol in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider the propriety of granting an allowance to refiners who hold stocks of refined goods, the produce of raw sugar which had paid the old duty. He was aware that refiners, dreading their position, had actually sent as much as 2,000 tons to the Continent, to be bonded and brought back at very considerable expense, and to be entered at the new duty; but there was still a considerable quantity in stock, and it was fair they should get a drawback. Had the right hon. Gentleman only listened to representations which he and others had made to him, the trade would have gone on smoothly, and he would have had from £200,000 to £300,000 more money in the Exchequer—as the right hon. Gentleman had to acknowledge when moving his Resolutions last evening. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter favourably, and, if he did not see his way to alter the Resolutions, he would, through the Department, give some relief.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was sorry he could not make any change in his proposal; but if any application were made to the Go- 1721 vernment it would be carefully considered. The Committee might reasonably suppose that he did not himself pretend to have the technical knowledge requisite to understand that matter—it would take several years of a man's life to enable him to do so—but he acted on the responsibility of the competent officers of the Department. It would, he thought, amount to an absolute rescinding of their policy if they were to admit all sugar at once at the lower duties, and pay a drawback on stocks.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman could safely grant drawbacks in that case.

§ MR. OSBORNE
said, that in the very lucid and very admirable speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on the previous night, the only thing to which he could possibly take exception was the proposal in regard to firearms. The right hon. Gentleman had proved himself to be not so well acquainted with the history of gunnery, and particularly with revolvers, as with that of sugar and similar commodities. He (Mr. Osborne) looked on that proposed change as very mischievous. In doing away with the game licence—which was altered last year, so that a man could take out a licence for a month—and in putting a tax of £1 on every gun, the right hon. Gentleman was adopting an ill-advised course; and, moreover, he had made a very great mistake about the practice of carrying firearms, which did not exist in this country. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to go to an unfortunate instance which lately occurred in a foreign country, to prove that the practice existed abroad. A tax of £1 on every gun would be a manifest injustice. [An hon. MEMBER: A man will only have to pay it once, and may have as many guns as he likes.] Then the injustice would be still worse. What could be more unjust than that the gentleman who went out to a battue with three or four guns should pay only £1, while the poor urchin who fired a gun to frighten away crows paid the same? [An hon. MEMBER: If it be loaded.] But to frighten the crows the gun must be loaded. "Was he to understand that 1722 if the gun was not loaded with shot the urchin was not to pay? The right hon. Gentleman intended to put the urchin who frightened crows away from a field on the same level with the great proprietor who went out with three or four guns to shoot pheasants in his covers. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put a tax of 10s. or 15s. on each barrel; by which a great deal more money would be obtained for the Exchequer, and let the urchin employed in frightening away crows be exempt. Within the last few weeks he had seen a man who was going to take out a patent for a most excellent fowling-piece with three barrels. Instead of laying a tax of £1 on every gun, why not tax every revolver and every fowling-piece according to the number of its barrels? He wished the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Ireland, because there revolvers were used to a far greater extent than in England. But the right hon. Gentleman wished to make the schoolboy who came home for the holidays and shot a few sparrows liable to the same duty as the great proprietor who shot game with several guns. It was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his proposal in its present shape.

§ MR. PEASE
said, that many more persons went about in the possession of arms than was commonly believed, and he thought the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very beneficial. The dangerous practice of carrying revolvers prevailed in parts of the North of England among a certain class of persons, especially Irishmen who returned from America, and excited terror in particular neighbourhoods by their violent habits. That state of things had demanded the attention of the Home Secretary as well as of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How the duty should be levied was quite a different question; but he certainly wished to support the imposition of some tax on that most dangerous species of weapon.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
suggested whether there ought not to be some discrimination used in placing a tax on different weapons of that nature. He thought the appeal made on the previous night by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) was well founded. Those weapons were used frequently by poor people employed by farmers, and a 1723 tax of that kind would prevent the farmers from availing themselves of the services of such persons. Some discrimination should be exercised with regard to taxing different species of firearms. For instance, a moderate tax of 5s. or 10s. might be put on sporting arms, and a heavy one upon revolvers and similar weapons. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would keep up the tax for game licences.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he thought that the country would look with suspicion upon a change by which a sportsman who kept half-a-dozen keepers was relieved from taxation to the extent of £8 or £10, while a new tax was thrown upon a different section of the public.

§ LORD ELCHO
also thought that it was only reasonable that, the general licence duty being repealed, a sportsman should have to pay in addition a tax upon each arm in his possession. He was glad that a tax would be put upon revolvers, because the gentlemen who broke into houses at night now carried those weapons instead of life-preservers.

§ MR. C. S. READ
agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham that the tax should only be imposed upon guns loaded with shot or bullets.

THE CHANCELLOR OR THE EXCHEQUER
reminded hon. Members that the Resolution merely affirmed the general principle that a licence should be required to carry arms, and that it did not contain the provisoes that would appear in the Bill which would be brought in with the view of carrying the Resolution into effect. The suggestions of hon. Members would, however, receive every attention on the part of the Government. There were, however, one or two points upon which he felt it necessary to afford the House some explanation. In the first place, under the terms of the Resolution, it was proposed to impose a tax on persons carrying firearms, and not on those who merely had them in their possession; because if the latter principle were adopted it would have to be carried into effect by domiciliary visits of Excise officers, which was not a system that would meet with the approval of the general public. Were the tax to be placed upon the possession of arms, gentlemen might have to pay for ancient guns that had not been discharged since the Civil Wars of the 17th century. The 1724 questions whether the tax should be imposed at the same rate with reference to all firearms alike, or whether any distinction should be made between the different descriptions, and whether any and what trades should be exempted from the operation of the tax, could be better raised and discussed when the Bill embodying the Resolutions was brought before the House. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) had offered certain suggestions upon the subject, and, considering the place he represented, he, doubtless, was in a position to speak with some experience upon the question. The hon. Member had made a pathetic appeal to him, and had asked him how he could put the farmer's boy, who fired off a gun to frighten away the crows, upon the same level with the sportsman attending a battue with his breech-loaders. Were the hon. Member to be shot at by a boy who had put something into his gun, he would soon find himself upon the same level as though he had been shot at by the most aristocratic sportsman, with a breechloader of the most improved construction. It was unnecessary for him to discuss these matters at the present time, but he hoped to be able to introduce the Bill in such a shape as to insure the passing of its main provisions. Although he had observed last evening that the House had not received his statement respecting the increasing practice of carrying revolvers with any great favour, yet he must remark that the statements that had fallen from hon. Members that day had shown that what he had asserted last night upon that point was not entirely without foundation.

MR. E. SHAW
remarked that no one had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon the licence to shoot game, and as it produced £150,000 a year, and was paid without complaint, he hoped it would be retained. If the licence was abandoned, it would be virtually making a present of £150,000 to a wealthy portion of the community, and he suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should retain this tax, in addition to the licence to carry arms.

LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON
wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman intended to ascertain whether a man had got a revolver in his pocket. He thought some distinction in respect of taxation should be made between 1725 weapons of that character and guns used merely for sporting purposes.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
was of opinion that the tax on carrying revolvers was objectionable inasmuch as it could be easily evaded.

§ MR. JAMES HOWARD
thought that the love of sport in England would survive the repeal of the game laws; but he had never heard any sportsman object to pay the charge for game certificates; and it was singular that the right hon. Gentleman should be bent upon making them a present which they had never asked for. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Norfolk that guns used for field-keeping purposes should be exempted from this tax.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
remarked that, if this tax were to be put upon guns, it would be as well that it should be made to apply to Ireland, because, although there was not much game in the country, a good deal of shooting occurred there. It would be a most invidious thing were the game licences to be abolished.

§ MR. CANDLISH
also urged that this tax should be retained, and its proceeds made use of towards the reduction of the National Debt.

§ SIR THOMAS BAZLEY
said, that while he warmly approved of the excellent Budget of the right hon. Gentleman as a whole, he regretted that he had thought it necessary to impose a new tax in respect of the gross receipts for railways. He doubted whether railway passengers would benefit by the remission of the tax upon fares, and he feared that the railway companies would seek to protect themselves by increasing the rates upon goods, and thus the new source of revenue would actually be the raw material of manufacturers. This would operate very injuriously upon trade, and would cause great dissatisfaction in the industrial districts of the country. As it was not improbable that, after the discussion which had just taken place, the game licences would be continued, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, on consideration, find that he could dispense with the proposed new source of income, especially as there was every prospect of his having an abundant surplus at the end of the year.