HC Deb 17 June 1872 vol 211 cc1903-4

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

moved the addition of a clause exempting from the duties on inhabited houses any tenement occupied for the sole purpose of any trade or business, or of any profession, vocation, or calling, when inhabited as to part thereof by a servant or other person employed for the protection or care of such tenement and not being otherwise an inhabited dwelling-house. The clause proposed was in substance identical with one previously approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had only been rescinded by a majority of 1, upon a division taken quite unexpectedly.

New Clause (Enactments in Schedule repealed, and in lieu thereof exemption from inhabited house duty of trade and business premises under care of servant only,)—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. R. N. FOWLER

supported the clause, which would be a great boon to the City of London.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was the duty of the Government to propose taxes, and it was the function of the House to consider the propriety of exemptions. The House, after full debate, had rejected the clause by a majority of 1. He did not propose to go into the merits of the question, but the Government thought it their duty not to press the matter again on the House.

MR. CRAWFORD

supported the clause, and expressed his surprise at such a decision, and contrasted it with the conduct of the Government in the case of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery. He hoped the House would show that it did not approve of such inconsistent behaviour.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought that the question required further attention.

MR. GLADSTONE

defended the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was in such cases very nearly an established rule for the Government to acquiesce in the judgment of the House unless some strong public necessity rendered it imperative to disturb the decision. The decision arrived at the other night was not a surprise, but the spontaneous expression of the opinion of the House. At the same time he must admit that the question was not in a satisfactory position. It required a further investigation, but on a somewhat larger scale. In omitting one anomaly it might have rendered more glaring other anomalies. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his careful attention to the subject before he could be called on again to make financial proposals to the House.

MR. BARNETT

hoped the House would still adhere to the decision they formerly gave on this subject, and adopt the clause of the hon. Alderman.

ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCE

said, this question affected not London alone, but also Liverpool, Manchester, and every large town in the kingdom, and it was not fairly submitted to the House when it was previously under discussion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 80: Majority 29.

MR. MACFIE

moved an Amendment in Clause 4, page 2, line 34, to leave out after "goods," as far as and including "accordingly," in line 37, and insert "absolutely prohibited to be imported," the result of which would be that articles which professed falsely to be of British manufacture would be prohibited from being imported even for exportation. He made that proposal in justice to British manufacturers and as a testimony to the truth.

MR. MUNDELLA

supported the Amendment.

MR. BAXTER

saw no objection to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.