[BILL 69.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 March 1871)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had not explained the object of this Bill, he would himself give some explanation of it. The object was to make a small alteration in the law with reference to licences. At present a tradesman employing any person in his shop to wait upon him as a servant was obliged to take out a licence for him as a servant, although he employed him in his business. If he only employed him in his business he would not be obliged to take out a licence, but if he employed him as a servant he would be obliged to do so. The alteration proposed was that where a tradesman employed a person mainly as an errand boy he should not pay any licence for him although he employed him also as a servant. Now, this was a very inconvenient course, for if they went on in this way they would have every Member who found fault with anything in the taxation of the country introducing a Bill in order to alter it. The Government every year brought forward a Bill for the amendment of the Customs and Inland Revenue Law, and if any hon. Member had an Amendment to propose it was usual to propose it by moving a clause in Committee. This had been represented to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; and he now repeated publicly that the course thus indicated would be that which would be most convenient to the hon. and learned Member and the House. If the hon. and learned Member acquiesced in that view, nothing need be said now on the merits of the question. [Mr. BOURKE dissented.] Well, then, the Bill did not give any criterion by which the tax could be imposed. It said that an errand boy was to be exempt from taxation if "mainly employed" as such; but how could any man say what it was to be mainly employed in such a capacity? No rule could be laid down, and it would be impossible to collect a tax under such circumstance. There must be a definite rule, or else the collection of the tax would lead to either tyranny or corruption. If there were no definite test an officer might tax a man unjustly without there being any possibility of convicting him of misconduct, and that would necessarily give rise to numerous appeals. No two men would agree as to what it was to be "mainly employed." 405 What was a tradesman and what an errand boy? There were no legal definitions of them. And where did the errand boy shade off into the shop boy? The Bill would introduce an entirely new principle of taxation, and would give far too wide a discretion to collectors. One collector would hold that a friend's errand boy was employed very little in the house, and another that an enemy's errand boy was employed a good deal. He had received a letter respecting the conduct of a tax-gatherer who was a milkman, and it was complained that he winked at a factory operative cleaning a horse as long as his milk was bought; but, when it was refused because it was too bad to drink, he discovered that the factory operative was a groom. This suggested the question why the hon. and learned Member stopped at errand boys and did not include adults who were employed in double capacities? Another objection to his proposal was that it was unwise to multiply exceptions.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, he had been anxious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. The reason why he introduced a Bill was that last year he had tried to effect his object by Resolution and failed. The House knew how easy it was for a Minister to give an assurance that a matter should be looked into. This was done last Session; but it had since been found that boys employed by tradesmen, who cleaned boots or knives, were transformed into male servants as much as if they were grooms of the chamber or valets. All shopmen were exempt from the tax, and à fortiori, these boys ought to be also exempted, as they mainly performed shopmen's duties, and it was not necessary to make special provisions to exempt adults, because menial duties were not required of them. Under the description he proposed he was sure no collector could have any difficulty in deciding who was liable to the tax. The great motive for pressing the Bill was that, in towns, it was desired by philanthropic persons to take boys out of the streets and find employment for them, and this tax of 15s. a-year was a great obstacle to their employment. He was not wedded to the form of a Bill if he could have an assurance that the object should be effected by a clause in the Government Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would set a most inconvenient precedent. It was most desirable to have all our enactments of that kind in the same measure. The proper mode of proceeding would be for the hon. and learned Gentleman to insert a clause in the Inland Revenue Bill, for which a convenient opportunity would be afforded him. If the Motion were pressed he should be obliged to give effect to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.