§ Order for Committee read.
§ MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, before the Speaker left the Chair he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the Conference on the Sugar Duties now sitting in Paris. It was stated by the newspapers in the latter part of last month that France and England were agreed upon the question with the exception of a few matters of detail, but that Belgium and Holland raised difficulties. It had since been stated that Belgium alone was opposed to refining in bond, to which the other three Powers had assented. The trade in this country was very anxious upon these points. Under the present system, the import of refined sugar into this country had increased from, in round numbers, 37,000 tons to 89,000 in nine years, and, at the same time, the number of refiners in London had dwindled from 23 to 3. This was very serious, and was caused, they learnt, by the large bounty given in France to the exporter, amounting to nearly £5 per ton; so that duty-paid French sugar was sometimes cheaper in London than that in bond in Paris. The circumstance that sugar was assessed according to colour led to the 1685 artificial colouring of refined sugar, called by a new term déclassement, the result of which was that sugar thus browned sold for more than white sugar because it paid less duty. The Convention had never worked well, though frequently amended. In this, as in other cases, we had been out-manœuvred by the foreigner. But we should be in a still worse position if the Convention were abrogated altogether, as some hon. Members had suggested. The English refiners were not afraid of their French rivals on fair ground with no favour; hut they could not compete with those who were heavily subsidized out of the national Exchequer; and though the consumer, doubtless, profited for the moment, yet if the English trade was destroyed it did not require much foresight to predict that he would eventually pay dearly for his temporary advantage. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what position the negotiations were at present; and whether there was any prospect of some really satisfactory arrangement?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had given him Notice of his Question he would have given him exact information upon the subjects to which it related. The Conference, as he understood it, was at an end, and they had arrived at three resolutions. It had, however, come to no resolution about refining in bond. The Conference had come to a resolution that for the future the colour of sugar should not be the principal test in France for refiners, and that; he apprehended, was favourable as far as it went to the trade. If the Question was repeated to-morrow, he should be in a position to give a more definite reply.
§ MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that in some parts of London houses bonâ fide occupied for the purposes of trade had been rated from 6d. to 9d. in the pound, and complaints had been made on the subject to the Inland Revenue. He wished to know whether a clause would be introduced into the Bill to render the liability to rating of such houses clear, and whether the Secretary to the Treasury could give the House an undertaking that business houses should continue to be rated at 6d. in the pound?
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he had been assured by the proper authority that it would not be necessary to introduce a clause, as what was necessary could be done by a Government regulation.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he hoped that the House would receive some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the manner in which he proposed to secure the large sum of about £3,000,000 which he would require to pay the Alabama Indemnity. There were already symptoms in the money-market which led the commercial community to apprehend that, possibly, there might be such a disturbance of the market as would place them under severe pressure. It was not a question as to the Bank raising its rate to 6, 7, or 8 per cent, but whether a panic, with all its disastrous results, might not be occasioned. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the importance of this matter, as it affected the commercial interests of the country, and would let them know his plans in order that they might form their own.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short title).
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought this a convenient time to make one or two remarks in answer to an appeal made to him by the Prime Minister the other night. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him why he had not brought forward the malt tax in opposition to the income tax, and the right hon. Gentleman had answered that question himself. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Colonel Barttelot) perfectly well recollected his statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was that he (Colonel Barttelot), who brought forward the malt tax in opposition to the income tax, could vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)? The answer to that was that no division took place; but with regard to the second point he would venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he (Colonel Barttelot) had brought forward the question of the malt tax in opposition to the income tax the Prime Minister would then, like his right hon. Friend who sat near him (The Chancellor of the Exchequer) have become the poor man's 1687 friend, and he would have stated that the income tax pressed very severely upon certain classes, and it would, no doubt, have been a very unwise course to have run the malt tax against the income tax. He had, however, received indications from certain quarters of the House which showed him that the malt tax question was making way. The question having been intrusted to him, he could only say that he should take what he considered a fitting opportunity of bringing it forward in this Session or the next—without entangling it with other questions which some hon. Members might think of as great or greater importance. He should, however, at the proper time do what was necessary to test the feeling of the House on the subject.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Exemptions of hotel keepers, &c., from duty on servants, under 32 & 33 Vict., c. 14).
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the clause related to the exemption of tavern and hotel keepers from duty in respect of servants wholly employed by them for the purpose of their business. He wished to know whether it rendered hotel-keepers who employed occasional waiters liable to pay duty in respect of these occasional waiters? There was a class of waiters who went about from hotel to hotel to do occasional work when any dinner was being given in any hotel where the ordinary staff of waiters was insufficient for the work, and it was to men so taken in for a day or two that this question applied.
§ MR. BOWRINGasked for a definition of male servants, because he said that a large number of tradesmen in Exeter had been charged 15s. for male servants because a porter or an errand boy in their service had occasionally cleaned a pair of boots or had cleaned knives. If the duty was rightly levied in such a case, the evasions were enormous. But as the only category under which such persons could be charged was as pages or waiters, he did not think the interpretation of the Board of Inland Revenue could be correct; he therefore appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some words by which such persons would be relieved from 1688 duty, as a real grievance was now experienced by their employers.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the clause was to exempt hotel-keepers and persons engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors from duty in respect of persons wholly employed by them for the purposes of such business. Of course, if they were employed otherwise they would not come within the exemption. [Mr. CRAWFORD: Are occasional waiters to be charged for?] That does not seem to be touched upon by this clause at all, inasmuch as he does not serve his whole time.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the understanding on the part of the public certainly was that hotel-keepers and other persons who were obliged to call in an additional number of waiters for temporary purposes were not to be charged. The waiters might be employed once only.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERunderstood the word "wholly," used in the clause, to refer to persons employed in no other capacity. However that might bear on the question of his hon. Friend he did not know. In reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring), he should say that any amount of employment in the capacity of a domestic servant would render the employer liable to the duty on male servants.
§ MR. HERMONSuppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself gives a dinner party and employs extra waiters, I want to know whether he pays, or do they pay their own taxes?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI cannot say whether they will pay their own taxes, because it is not put upon waiters; but I am quite certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule A.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEI wish to avail myself of this opportunity to make an observation or two before the Bill passes into law. In the debate which took place the other night the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, at the close of a very eloquent speech, stated broadly that under the present Customs' tariff of this country the luxuries of the poor man are taxed, but that 1689 the luxuries of the rich are free of duty. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said generally.] Yes, generally. Now, I am quite aware that I am entering upon a very wide subject; but I think it my duty to call the attention of the House to the danger indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and, indeed, to a great extent, created by himself. Since the year 1852, according to the Statistical Abstracts, more than £14,000,000 of Customs' duties have been abandoned—that is to say, more than £17,000,000 of these duties have been repealed or reduced—but something more than £3,000,000 of them have been re-imposed. So that, on the whole, £14,000,000 of Customs' duties have been abandoned since the year 1852, and among these duties—and forming a great part of them—were the duties upon the luxuries of the rich, precious stones, articles of decoration and of vertu, silks and other luxuries. Upon all these articles the duties have been repealed, and I hold that this excessive simplification of the tariff is dangerous in the extreme; because, when we have it stated on the highest authority in the House that the luxuries of the poor are taxed, whilst the luxuries of the rich are untaxed, I see nothing to withstand the process which this Bill is carrying out—namely, the gradual abolition of the remainder of the Customs' duties—and nothing in the condition of our financial regulations to prevent an additional aggregation of duties upon property. Years ago I entertained this apprehension, and, by anticipation, expressed this opinion; but now that I find the Legislature taking step after step to reduce the financial condition of this country to the dangerous point to which it is approaching, I think it my duty again to call the attention of the House to these facts.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule B.
§ MR. MACFIEsaid, that already a very large proportion of the reduction of duty on sugar had reached the consumers, and very shortly the whole of it would reach them. As to the malt duty, there was a very strong opinion growing in favour of temperance, and he did not think that it would be acceptable to the country that they should lower the duty upon malt or beer.
§ MR. BOWRINGpointed out that the proportion which Scotch and Irish farmers paid under Schedule B as compared with English farmers, was not a fixed proportion, but varied with every variation in the amount of the tax. He would like to know, in the case of the present year, how it was that whilst the duty under Schedule B in England was 1½d., in Scotland and Ireland it was only 1¼d.?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that one good reason was that the distinction had existed so long. He believed the reason why Scotland was charged less was that the people there paid higher rents than in England.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.