§ Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
§ PART I.—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AS TO CUSTOMS.
§ Clause 2 (Import duties on tea).
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not allow this clause to be passed without entering a protest against the continued imposition of the exorbitant duty upon tea, which he considered to be one of the prime necessaries of life. The tax at present stood at 6d. in the pound, and the sum levied amounted, he believed, to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling. He protested against the tax because he believed it to be an unequal and unjust tax, which pressed most heavily upon the working classes of this country. He would ask the Committee to consider what the tax was. It was a tax producing nearly £4,000,000 upon an article the annual value of which, when imported into this country, did not amount to £12,000,000. It was practically, therefore, a tax of from 30 to 40 per cent upon a prime necessary of life. He understood that one of the great principles which had been introduced into the fiscal arrangements of the country was that no taxes should be levied on actual necessities, but, as far as possible, should be confined to luxuries. He maintained that all Customs duties were paid ultimately by the consumer, and this tax—a tax amounting to between 30 and 40 per cent upon the cost of the article—was paid principally by the working classes of the country. He knew that it was too late to raise the question except by way of protest; but he certainly did protest against the luxuries of the most luxurious age of the most luxurious country in Europe passing practically untaxed, while one of the necessaries which entered largely into the consumption of the working classes was taxed 1115 to the extent tea was. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would next year be able either to see his way to a reduction of the National Expenditure, which he (Mr. H. Fowler) considered to be excessive and altogether unnecessary, to such an extent as to enable him to dispense with this imposition, or that he would grapple with the question; and if it was still necessary to raise £4,000,000 a-year in the shape of Customs duties, the sum would not be raised upon one of the prime necessities of life.
MR. GLADSTONEMy hon. Friend will be aware of the reason why this imposition appears in its present form. Instead of the Tea Duty being enacted as a permanent duty it is put in the form of an annual Vote, so that Parliament may be able to maintain a control over it. That is the sole reason why it comes before us to-night. With regard to the duty of 6d. in the pound upon tea, I agree very much in what has been said by my hon. Friend. There is only one word which I object to—namely, the observation of my hon. Friend that this duty has remained unnoticed. That is certainly not the case. When I came into Parliament the average duty upon tea was 4s. a pound. It was then reduced to 2s. per pound, and now it has gradually got down to 6d., which I am sure my hon. Friend will not deny is a much more satisfactory state of things than when the duty stood at 4s. per pound. With respect to the question of economy, my hon. Friend seems to think that it is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine what shall be the nature and scale of the Expenditure of the country. I wish it were in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine the scale of the Expenditure of the country, I might then hope to give some satisfaction to my hon. Friend. But there are other things to be taken into consideration! which stand in the way, and reduce within very narrow limits indeed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his able and efficient coadjutor the Secretary of the Treasury can do.
MR. GORSTremarked, that it was very easy for hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House to make vague general protestations of their desire to secure economy in the National Expenditure. He should like to put the zeal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton 1116 (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to a practical test. In a short time, perhaps in the course of a month or two, the Irish Land Bill would have passed through Committee, and the House would go into Committee of Supply. When that event arrived, he would invite the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to attend in his place and point out to the Committee how the expenditure could be reduced, not by £3,000,000, but even by £1,000,000. If the hon. Member would point out to the Committee of Supply how it was possible to reduce the expenditure, either in the present or in future years, by the sum of only £1,000,000 sterling, he would render a great deal more service to his country and to his constituents than by making these vague, general, and meaningless harangues.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there was one word to which he must take exception in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H.Fowler)—namely, the part in which his hon. Friend described tea as a necessary of life. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that tea would be more correctly described as one of the luxuries in which the masses of the people indulged. There were, however, a great number of the luxuries of the rich untaxed while the tea of the poor was taxed, and he hoped the time would soon arrive when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be able to get rid of this tax, and give to the country a free breakfast table.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. He thought it was unwise to tax either tea, cocoa, or coffee; and he should like to know to what extent these and other dutiable articles were produced by our own Colonies? He was of opinion that we committed a great injustice in placing heavy taxes upon the produce of our Colonies, in addition to which we indicated to those Colonies that we were not sincere in our dealings with them. He failed to see, while the country professed to maintain Free Trade principles, why we should impose duties in England, either upon tea from our Indian settlements, or upon coffee from the Colonies, no matter whether they were regarded as necessaries of life or as luxuries. When the Government proposed to tax the produce of the Colonies they did a great deal towards indicating to the rest of 1117 the world that the present occupants of the Treasury Bench were not sincere in their endeavour to promote the cause of Free Trade. How could we hold ourselves up as the pioneers of Free Trade when we taxed the produce of our own Colonies? How could we reasonably go to foreign countries and ask them to reduce their tariffs in our favour on our home productions, when we set them the very bad example of placing a heavy tax upon our own Colonial produce? Upon these grounds he would appeal, not to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but to another hon. Member who sat on the Liberal side of the House (Mr. Macfarlane), to show that he had the courage of his convictions, and join with him (Mr. Mac Iver) in moving the rejection of this clause. He did not anticipate that his appeal would have much success, because, unfortunately, Liberal professions and Liberal principles were widely different from Liberal practice and Liberal politics; and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who composed Her Majesty's Government were not always ready, when in the possession of power, to carry out the policy they had indicated to their constituents when out of Office. He thought he was fully justified in moving the rejection of the clause upon two grounds—first, that the duty pressed heavily upon the people of this country; and, secondly, because, so long as we continued to impose it, we afforded a proof to other countries that we were not sincere in the professions we made in regard to Free Trade.
THE CHAIRMANIt is not necessary that the hon. Member should move the rejection of the clause. It will be quite sufficient to negative it.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERwished to say a word in reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. Member had been kind enough to address a lecture to him (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as, indeed, he was often in the habit of doing to young Members of that House. He was quite ready to answer the challenge of the hon. and learned Member, and he would tell him how not only £1,000,000, but £3,000,000 of annual expenditure, might have been saved. It was caused entirely by the warlike expenditure of the last Administration.
§ Clause 3 (Alteration of Customs' duties on beer).
§ MR. HICKSmoved, in page 2, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the words "not exceeding." He did not believe that the insertion of these words would have any practical effect upon the Bill; but he thought they would make the meaning of the clause more clear to all those who were interested in the operations affected by it. If the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after "of" insert "not exceeding."—(Mr. Hicks.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member admitted that the insertion of these words would not affect the meaning of the Bill. He (Mr. Gladstone) would therefore much rather adhere to the language of the clause, which had been drawn up in the most convenient form.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. HICKSmoved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "six shillings and sixpence," and insert "eight shillings." Without wishing to detain the Committee for any length of time, he thought it was desirable he should show why the proposed duty of 6s. 6d. should not be accepted. It might, perhaps, appear to hon. Members who had not carefully examined the subject that this was a trifling and unimportant alteration, and an increase of taxation; but it was not so in reality, and the object of his Amendment was to provide that the duty on foreign beer should remain as it was at present. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his second Budget, he used these words—
The Malt Tax is a well understood farmers' grievance, and the circumstances of the present time have made Her Majesty's Government consider it their special duty to examine, as well as they could, the position of the cultivators of this country in relation to the law of the country. We have exposed them to perfectly unrestricted competition, and the effect of that competition has, undoubtedly, become more severe during the last two or three years.Having admitted the grievance, and having pointed out the difficulties in which the cultivators of the soil were 1119 placed, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remove that grievance by substituting for the duty on malt a duty on beer, and making the latter duty some 15 per cent more than the Malt Duty was originally. The duty on malt was 21s. 8d., and it was proposed to substitute a Beer Duty of 25s. How that increase of taxation was to benefit the farmer, or how the right hon. Gentleman could suppose that it would be to his advantage, he (Mr. Hicks) was at a loss to conceive. But whatever the position of the cultivators of this country was last year, at the present moment their position was undoubtedly worse. They had had a series of bad harvests, and the price of barley had gone down. Yet, in the face of these facts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward now and asked the House to reduce the duty on foreign beer. He (Mr. Hicks) appealed to the Committee to reject the proposal in justice to the cultivator of the soil, in the interest of those who were desirous of brewing real beer for the consumers of this country, and also in view of the present financial position of the country. It was now something like 35 years ago that they started on a voyage in search of Free Trade. Since that time, it was true that they had had free imports into the country; but he had not yet been able to discover anything approaching to Free Trade. The more they had opened their ports the more foreign countries had opposed them. Their free imports were met with hostile tariffs. The more they preached Free Trade the more foreign countries laughed at them, and not only set up tariffs against them, but also imposed bounties on their own produce in order that it might be able to compete with ours. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward and asked the Committee to reduce the duty on foreign beer. At the present moment the duty on foreign beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees was 8s. a barrel, and he was informed that that was really a very low duty. It was now proposed to reduce the duty from 8s. to 6s. 6d. per barrel on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,057 degrees. This meant a reduction of 18 per cent with a still further reduction, which would ultimately reach about 45 per cent upon beer of a less specific gravity. It was further proposed to make this re- 1120 duction at a moment when there was no country in Europe that would admit English beer into its ports or towns at a less duty than 8s. per barrel. In France the duty was 7s. 6d. per barrel with a municipal tax of 6d.; in Germany the duty was 8s., and in Portugal the duty amounted to no less than 120 per cent upon the value. And yet, in the face of the present depressed condition of the agriculture and trade of the country, we were asked to reduce the duty on foreign beer. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he had no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject this proposal. He proposed to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out 6s. 6d. and insert 8s., which was the present duty. He was informed by the Clerk at the Table that he was perfectly in Order in making this proposition, seeing that the Amendment did not involve any increase of duty; but if there was any doubt about the matter he would move the omission of the clause.
MR. GLADSTONEI am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I have to point out that it is contrary to the Rules of the House, in a technical sense. The Rules provide that no proposal shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown for the increase of taxation, and the proposal of the hon. Member undoubtedly does involve an increase of duty, because the present duty, as he has truly said, is 8s.; but then it is 8s. on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees, and he proposes that it shall be 8s. on beer up to 1,057 degrees, so that at this rate there would be an increase of duty on beer above a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees.
§ MR. HICKSbelieved that he was strictly in Order in proposing the Amendment, the object of which was to retain the present duty of 8s. per barrel not only upon beer of a specific gravity of 1,065 degrees, but upon all other descriptions of beer of a less specific gravity.
MR. GLADSTONEThe clause reads "The worts of which before fermentation shall be of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,065 degrees."
MR. GLADSTONEYes; but to fix the duty at 8s. upon beer up to a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees would be in effect to increase the tax.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman will be quite in Order in objecting to the reduction of a tax; but it is not in his power, as a private Member, to propose any increase of taxation. Therefore it is not competent for him to move the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) applied to line 17, and it is not competent for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) to go back further than that line.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would propose, then, that line 17 be struck out of the clause. He believed he should be quite in Order in moving that Amendment. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire had not given to Her Majesty's Government the credit due to them for their consistency. It was only appropriate that a Government which proposed to tax our own Colonies should, in the next clause, propose to reduce the taxation upon the beer of foreign countries. He thought the Government deserved such credit or discredit as might be due to them for the consistency with which they were acting in the matter.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, to omit the words "and so in proportion for any difference of gravity."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThoped that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not persist with the Amendment. At the same time, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should have given some fuller and clearer explanation of the reason why this reduction was proposed, and why, when there was so small an amount of difference in the specific gravity, he should propose a reduction of duty on foreign beer. The Committee knew perfectly well that it was a change which was against the British farmer and the British producer; and it was upon that ground he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give them some more explicit reason than he had yet stated why he thought it wise and right at this particular time, when there was 1122 depression all over the country, especially in the agricultural interest, that favour should be shown to the foreigners. At the same time, whatever the reason might be, he hoped his hon. Friend would not move the rejection of the clause. He could not help thinking that it would be absurd to persist with the Amendment, because he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must have good reasons for making the proposition.
MR. GLADSTONEI think the effect of the Amendment would he that foreign beer, imported in worts before fermentation, of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,057 degrees, would pay a duty of 6s. 6d., while foreign beer with a greater specific gravity would pay nothing at all. As that would be the result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I may fairly appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and other hon. Members near him not to support it. What I am doing now is simply following the uniform practice upon all occasions when we have had to deal with Excise duties upon commodities imported into this country. The Excise duties remain for the moment unchanged, or only partially changed, so as to leave in them a good deal that is of a protective character. I have proceeded on the principle that, as we cannot propose the repeal of these duties, it is desirable to ascertain and fix an exact equivalent as far as we can. Then comes the question as to the amount of disadvantage, if any, at which the British manufacturer stands in consequence of the Excise restrictions. The home manufacturer pays a duty of 6s. 3d., and we place an additional duty of 3d. upon the foreign manufacturer, in order to counteract any disadvantage at which the British manufacturer may be placed. I believe that the difference which is imposed, as I have said, in consequence of the Excise restrictions is an ample addition. I do not say that it is an extravagant addition; but it is an ample addition to cover the small additional charge imposed on the home manufacturer.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was prepared at once to accept, in absolute indifference, and with entire good humour, the sneer of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did so for this reason—that he thought there was not a Gentleman on 1123 the other side of the House, or on any side of the House, who would not understand perfectly well that the object of the Amendment he had submitted was that the proposal of the Government to reduce the duty on foreign beer should not be allowed to take effect. If there was anything technically wrong in the form in which he had put the Amendment, he did not think it formed any ground why he should be laughed at, or spoken of with ridicule and scorn. He believed there were many people throughout the country who would be of opinion that, even if he were wrong technically, he was perfectly right in raising his voice in objection to the proposal of the Government to reduce the taxation upon foreign beer. He failed to see what advantage the British farmer was to obtain from the abolition of the Malt Tax. What the Prime Minister was asked for last year was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with something else to safeguard the interests of the farmers; but what the right hon. Gentleman had given them was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with increased foreign competition. There were many persons in the country who thought that in the change thus brought about the right hon. Gentleman had done an ill service to the agricultural interest of the country, and so far the views which they held had not been fairly represented. He believed that very few hon. Members even upon the other side of the House agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was just, right, or reasonable to cheapen the materials for the brewer. The Malt Tax enabled those only to brew who could afford to use good barley; but now any kind of inferior barley could be malted as well as rice and maize, and, in addition, beer might be made out of sugar and a variety of other things. All these changes would benefit the foreigner, and would prejudicially affect the interests of the British agriculturist. He could not believe that this state of things would be long permitted; and, if he was wrong in the technical form in which he had moved the Amendment, he asked permission to place it in a form that would be verbally accurate, and he did not think it would be wanting in support.
§ MR. WARTONcomplained that any 1124 alteration of the kind now proposed should be made at all. Whenever a change of the kind was proposed, the reason for it should be clearly stated. But, whether that were so or not, it did seem rather hard that when hon. Gentlemen brought Amendments forward they should be subjected to jeers and laughter, and told that there was some mystery about the matter which defied amendment. In the first place, directly the hon. Member for Birkenhead proposed one Amendment, he was fold by the Chairman that he was too late, as the Committee had already got past the point where the Amendment came in; and when he submitted another he was told that it could not be accepted, because it was wrong in technical form. Personally, he believed there was part of this clause which even the Premier himself did not understand—namely, the meaning of the word "mum." They had already been told by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not understand what "mum" was; and why, therefore, should he have included it in the present Bill?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion; but as far as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is moving to omit the last words of the clause. My hon. Friend, at this moment, is endeavouring to make an Amendment to the clause, when, in point of fact, what he means to do is to vote against the clause as a whole. As I understand my hon. Friend he means to object to the alteration of the Customs' duty on beer. [Mr. MAC IVER: On foreign beer.] On foreign beer; and, therefore, if my hon. Friend looks at it in that way he must see that what he must do, in order to give effect to his wish, is, by-and-bye, when the clause is put as a whole, to vote against it as a whole. If he resists it as a whole then the duties will be left as they are; and that is a more regular and intelligible course to take than to amend the clause by striking out these words, which would have the curious effect pointed out by the Prime Minister. It is perfectly consistent with the views expressed by my hon. Friend that he should object to the clause as a whole. I do not know whether I should be in Order in taking this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister if he will be kind enough 1125 to tell us what, according to the experience of the last few weeks, has been the progress of the Beer Duty? If I remember rightly, in the speech which he made, I think, upon this day seven weeks, I understood that his calculation upon the exchange of the Beer Duty for the Malt Tax had resulted, in the last financial year, in a disappointment of about £670,000. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the Beer Duty, as I understood from the speech of my right hon. Friend, was estimated in the last year to yield £3,690,000. It actually yielded £3,485,000, showing a deficiency of £205,000; while, on the other hand, the malt drawback, estimated at £950,000, cost no less than £1,319,000. Therefore it has cost £674,000 more than was estimated last year. Of course, one cannot judge merely by the result of 10 months or so; and there are, no doubt, reasons which would account for the Beer Duty not bringing in as much as was expected from it. But I wish to ask whether, during the seven weeks since the statement was made, the progress of the Beer Duty has been such as to confirm the anticipations of the Prime Minister? Or, to put it otherwise, does the right hon. Gentleman adhere still, in its entirety, to the Estimate which he gave in the Budget speech, as to the probable progress of the duty? I am not putting the question captiously, but will be glad to be informed what has been the result for the period which has elapsed since the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) seemed still to be troubled about the word "mum." But the word is very easily explained, and its particular application to the present state of things easily understood. A solution has been given to the House by a high authority which explains why the word is particularly applicable now, and why it has practically gone out of use for so many years. "Mum" was a kind of beer made without barley. It used to be made of wheat, ground beans, oatmeal, and a great many other things; and, as the English people were in the habit for many years of drinking beer made from malt and hops, the word has fallen into disuse. We have, however, changed all that, and now drink beer made from maize, rice, and oatmeal—or exactly the mate- 1126 rials from which "mum" was made; and it is important that the word should again take its place in our tariff.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I have listened with interest to the ingenious explanation which my right hon. Friend has given. It is perfectly true that people are at liberty to make beer of maize and rice; but we always call it "beer." The word "mum" is retained partly out of pious reverence for the wisdom of our ancestors, and partly for fear that if we omitted it some ingenious man should establish a demonstration against us which might result in a law suit. With regard to the state of the Beer Duties, when I demurred to the statement that our Estimates were disappointed to the extent of £670,000, or thereabouts, all I intended to convey was that it would lead to nothing but confusion to mix up two matters which have no connection with each other—namely, the excess in the drawback and the deficiency in the Beer Duty. The question that has been put with regard to the Beer Duty of the present year I can answer plainly, if not satisfactorily. We are in possession of the figures relating to the first month only of the present year, and, according to them, there has been a falling short of the Estimates to the extent of about 6 per cent. I have very great confidence in the opinions of persons more practically acquainted than myself with this subject, and I believe that they hesitate to form their judgment at present as to how far the deficiency in the Beer Duty for that month is ascribable to any special cause. Probably, before the close of the Session we shall be enabled to judge better; but there is not the least disposition at present to recede from the relative amount of the Estimate.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, if the terms of his Amendment were technically wrong he preferred to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Drawback on exportation of imported beer).
§ MR. STORERasked if the drawback referred to in this clause applied to stores shipped for the use of sailors on board ship?
MR. GLADSTONEIt is not connected with ship's stores; it is drawback on beer imported and then exported.
§ MR. STORERsaid, if that was the case, it clearly applied to beer taken as ship's stores for the use of sailors; and, that being so, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse him of desiring class legislation, when he came to ask for allowance for agricultural labourers.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Reduction of Customs duty on silver plate).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be omitted."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the grounds upon which he moved the omission of this clause. The right hon. Gentleman, among other reasons given for putting the clause into the Bill, said that it would lead to a considerable importation of silver plate from abroad; and he especially alluded to the great talents which Her Majesty's subjects in India possessed for the manufacture of silver. He had, of course, been much interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he could say from his own knowledge that these Indian workers in metals were both skilful and cheap in their work. Therefore, he had reason at the time to hope that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to a very large increase in the trade of manufactured silver between India and this country. But, so far as ho could now gather, a deputation from the trade in this country had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and placed before him reasons which had induced him to omit this clause from the Bill. This omission, he confessed, he regarded with some jealousy, for, as the matter originally stood, he had looked forward with hope to some good resulting from the abolition of the duty on silver. He could perfectly well understand that those engaged in the trade in this country were anxious that the duty should be retained, because, as the law at present stood, they enjoyed a complete monopoly. At his request, the Secretary to the Treasury had stated to him the conditions upon which plate could be imported 1128 from abroad; and it seemed to him that the system in operation was absolutely prohibitory of the importation of foreign manufactured silver. It was true that silver articles manufactured in India could be imported on payment of the duty. But it was also true that the goods in question must be taken to the Tower to be stamped, and he was correct in saying that the system was entirely prohibitory. No doubt, a good many articles in silver entered the country from India that were not afterwards stamped; but he fancied the explanation of that fact was that the difficulties of the process were so great that the practice of getting the stamp was not resorted to; but these small pieces were smuggled. It appeared to him that the persons engaged in the trade who had approached the right hon. Gentleman were in the enjoyment of protection of the largest and strongest description; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would state to the Committee, before they agreed to his Motion, the grounds upon which he moved the omission of the clause.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this question, like all others relating to duty, was extremely difficult and complicated. But the difficulties attendant upon the drawback were far greater, relatively to the subject, than any he had been acquainted with, because it was expected that drawback should be paid on goods that had long passed out of the Government possession. He had entertained considerable doubts as to the validity of the claim for drawback, and especially for full drawback. The clause, however, did not provide for any drawback at all. The Government had only proposed to substitute a very gradual method of reduction of duty, and the representations which had induced him to think he should not persevere with the clause were not so much connected with the trade as with the interest of the workmen employed in it. There was a temporary diminution in the purchasing power of the people, which affected in a very considerable degree the production of plate; and he owned that he shrank from applying to that trade a measure which, for a series of five or six years, would have had a more or less paralyzing effect upon it. It had therefore been decided to allow the matter to stand over, feeling that he could 1129 not be responsible for the difficulty likely to be created by a peculiar proposal made at a peculiar time.
§ MR. RITCHIEpointed out that if the proposed method of dealing with the duties on silver plate was not definitely abandoned the paralysis alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was likely to afflict the silver trade at the approach of each Budget. The right hon. Gentleman, when he gave Notice that the clause would not be proceeded with, led the House to understand that he did not altogether give up the idea of dealing with silver plate in the manlier at first proposed. The result of that communication was that this process of gradual extinction of the duty was held over all manufacturers of plate in terrorem, and that it was impossible for them to conduct their operations in the same way as they would do if they supposed that their trade would be dealt with in the same way as other trades under similar circumstances—that was to say, that the drawback would be allowed if the duty were taken off. On the approach of the Budget Statement all manufacture would probably cease, because those engaged in the trade would not care to go on with their manufacture under the anticipation that the process now postponed might be applied. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would be allowed to understand that the measure was not merely postponed but abandoned.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be contrary to usage to give a pledge that under no circumstances would the question be re-opened.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKregretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not speak positively with regard to the question of duty on plate, because it was a very serious matter for the constituency which he had the honour to represent, and which was very largely interested in the trade, that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be kept hanging over their heads. It would, he thought, be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of doing away with the duty once for all, for the matter was a very small one, and interfered much with the trade, which afforded occupation to a number of poor men. He had a strong sympathy with his constituents under these circumstances, for there was great com- 1130 petition in these days, and the trade of watch and clock making was leaving them altogether. Hon. Members should not treat this subject with levity. It was very easy to tell men to be contented, and buy in the cheapest market; but they answered—"We have nothing to buy with." It was a sad thing for those who were dependent upon the trade for their daily bread to be kept in suspense; and, for the reasons he had urged, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, having once made the proposal, would carry it into effect by altogether abolishing the duty on silver plate.
§ MR. ONSLOWwished to say a few words on this subject, because he had been a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the question of hall-marking. He believed he was the only one who had recorded his vote in favour of the retention of the duty, and he did so because all those who gave evidence before the Committee were of opinion that there was no necessity for its abolition. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had spoken of the great stimulus that the removal of the duty would give to the Indian trade in manufactured silver. If that result would follow, he should, for that reason alone, wish the duty to be abolished; but, having carefully gone into the facts, he was unable to see that the change would be attended with one iota of benefit to the Indian manufacturer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had alluded to the falling off in the trade amongst his constituency; but he pointed out that that was due simply to American competition. American gilt and silver work came into this country free of duty, while there was evidence that our work was very heavily taxed on reaching America. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way to this foolish idea of Free Trade, but retain the duty on silver plate, which was supported by everyone connected with the trade, and which he did not believe was in any way connected with the falling off of trade in this country.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, the position was in no way mended by what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The trade was at present paralyzed by the want of knowledge as to what would be done in the future. As a final settle- 1131 ment of the question, he ventured to suggest that, in conformity with the principles of Free Trade, the duty on silver plate should be absolutely abolished, so far as concerned the production of this country and the Colonies; but that it should remain upon the silver plate of foreign countries, drawback being allowed on exportation. This arrangement was one which was, at any rate, not likely to be disturbed by hon. Members sitting on that of the House. It was most desirable that the question should be finally settled, and he pressed that view of the case strongly upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause struck out accordingly.
§ Clause 8 (Alteration of duties on spirits imported).
§ MR. THORNHILL,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, pointed out that the two chief commodities of trade in the West Indies were sugar and rum. As was well known, the West India trade had been already injured by the foreign sugar bounties; a fact which, he believed, the Prime Minister had admitted to the deputation which waited upon him recently in connection with that subject. He ventured to say that if the additional 2d. per gallon was to be charged upon rum the West India Colonies would be still further injured. It would do a very considerable amount of injury to the Jamaica planters. It was said that a countervailing duty could not be placed upon sugar, because it was contrary to the "Most Favoured Nation" Clause. That might be so; but he felt that, in the present case, if, as the arrangement with regard to Spirit Duties proposed, an extra 2d. per gallon wore charged upon rum, while, at the same time, 1d. was taken off French brandy, the French nation would again be benefited, as it was in the case of the sugar bounties. One of the reasons foe the proposal to increase the duty on rum was that it was regarded as a manufactured spirit; but he held that it was not so, in the sense in which the term was applied to gin. It was made entirely from molasses, and was coloured with its own natural spirit. Whisky now paid 10s. per gallon, and 2d. per gallon 1132 under the Excise regulations; gin, as a manufactured spirit, paid 10s. a gallon, and 4d. a gallon under the Excise regulations. But if the Bill became law, whisky and gin would remain under the duties respectively of 10s. 2d. and 10s. 4d., while ruin would be placed in the same position as gin, and pay a duty of 10s. 4d. per gallon, and the reduction of ld. on brandy would make the duty on that spirit 10s. 4d. instead of 10s. 5d. per gallon. He contended that rum was not a manufactured spirit, and that it ought not to be placed in the same category as those which were. In conclusion, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the question of increasing the duty on rum, with a view to helping the West India Colonies, which had suffered so much already from the system of foreign sugar bounties.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 6, to insert "Rum of and from any British Possession.. 10s. 2d."—(Mr. Thornhill.)
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am truly sorry I cannot accede to the proposal of the hon. Member who has just sat down; but the tariff which now exists does not draw any distinction, in point of duty, between the British Colonies and foreign countries producing rum. One and the same rate is charged—namely, 10s. 2d. if the rum comes from the country of its production; 10s. 5d. if it comes not from the country of its production. I cannot, therefore, be expected to agree to the setting up of any distinctive and differential duty on behalf of the Colonies. The hon. Member says that gin is a manufactured article and that rum is not. Now, it is quite true that gin, which is the great English spirit and that with which rum chiefly competes, goes through a double process—first, the process of distillation, secondly, a process of rectification. I may, however, compare rum, not only with gin, but with other spirits. Brandy, for instance, does not undergo the double process of distillation and rectification. It is a more valuable article than rum. But I will take another article imported into this country, which is not of the same value, but of much less value than rum—namely, the potato spirit which comes in from Germany. Rum is also a manufactured article. The 1133 truth is, I entirely sympathize with the producers of this article, in the Colonies especially, because they have enjoyed a factitious advantage. They are to be sympathized with, when that factitious advantage is withdrawn. This advantage has been enjoyed by the Colonies for some years past—since the distinction between British and foreign rum has been abolished—not on the ground that rum is entitled to a protection, but on the ground that Sykes's hydrometer, which was used by the Department, does not enable them to ascertain, precisely, the amount of alcohol in a gallon of rum. It is the new process—the process of distillation which is substituted for that of Sykes's hydrometer—which enables us to ascertain the exact amount of alcohol, which will leave us no ground for apology, in point of consistency, if we were to exclude this one special duty on rum coming from the British Colonies. I am, therefore, afraid I must adhere to the proposal as it stands.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, for he thought the proposal was a very fair and just one. He, however, wished to point out a great inconvenience suffered by the trade. Rums and brandies, and all these foreign spirits, might come in at a greater strength than they ought to come in at, and might pay a less duty than they ought to pay. But he desired to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a great inconvenience that traders were put to. At present it took them two or three days to get their goods out of the hands of the Government officials, and the result was that they experienced great difficulty in transacting their business. They ought to get the goods tested in a day at the most; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that greater facilities should be allowed to the trade in this matter than they at present enjoyed.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that, owing to the hum of conversation around him, he had not been able clearly to follow the observations of the hon. Member opposite; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not ask for a differential duty, but only complained of disadvantages which would be experienced under the Bill. Mr. Walpole, in 1878, had reported that, as compared with foreign spirits, the British distiller was at a disadvan- 1134 tage of 1¾d. But the present Bill proposed to impose a difference of 4d., more than half of which was, therefore, clearly a Protection duty. No doubt if they compared rum with rectified spirits that would disappear, because the rectification of spirits was equivalent to 2d.; but what the West Indian Colonies said was that the spirit they produced was a plain, and not a rectified spirit, and that by treating it as the Government proposed to treat it now they would be placing it at an unfair disadvantage. The question was one of great difficulty, no doubt, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his most careful attention. He was quite sure, and he thought the West Indian Colonies could feel assured, that Her Majesty's Government would consider their representations most carefully, with every wish to do justice in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would not think it necessary, under the circumstances, to divide the Committee, but would rest satisfied with the assurance that the Government would consider the matter, which was one of the greatest moment to the West Indian Colonies, which they all knew were suffering very severely, in other respects, at the present time.
§ MR. RITCHIEwould only say, in support of the appeal made by the hon. Baronet, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said anything as to a comparison of the duty on rum and whisky. Rum was equally a plain spirit with whisky. Rum when it came in had to pay 10s. 4d., whilst whisky had to pay 10s. 2d. The produce of our Colonies—rum, which was an important part of the produce of our Colonies—would be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with whisky, though not, perhaps, as compared with brandy.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had not explained why rum should pay a less duty than other spirits. They had heard a great deal lately about giving fair play to the home producer; but he thought the home producer would have fair ground of complaint if foreign spirits paid less duty than the articles of home manufacture. It would be impossible to place a distinctive duty on rectified and unrectified spirits, for if that were done the home producer would be placed at a 1135 great disadvantage. As to what had fallen from an hon. Member with regard to the inconvenience to the trade in testing spirits in the warehouse, that difficulty was being removed. In future all spirits would be tested at once, on importation. The amount of spirit would be at once found out, and no delay would occur.
§ MR. RITCHIEhoped the observations of the noble Lord would not be allowed to pass without comment. Gin was the only spirit which was rectified and compounded. It had to be compounded to make it suitable to the English taste. It had been clearly pointed out, in the official Papers, that the cost of the excisable restriction amounted to 1¾d., which, added to the lOs., would make l0s. 1¾d., or, say, 10s. 2d. But, beyond this, gin had to go through a process to make it suitable to the English palate; and that process, it had been computed, made another 2d. per gallon, which, altogether, made 10s. 4d. But there was no other spirit—neither whisky, rum, nor brandy—which had to be compounded. All those spirits went into consumption as they were imported. With regard to whisky, the restriction amounted to 2d.; therefore, in calculating the amount of duty on whisky it should be put down at 10s. 2d. The duty on rum was 10s. 4d., whilst that on whisky was only l0s. 2d. Rum was a plain spirit as well as whisky, and brandy, also, for the matter of that—although he was more concerned about articles of British production—was placed at a great disadvantage.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that brandy was no more a rectified spirit than rum. Gin was the chief competitor with rum, and gin was a rectified spirit. As to whisky, though it did not undergo such an expense in comparing it with rum, yet there was a considerable indirect expense. It was plain that if there was any force in the argument for reducing the duty on rum, it ought to be reduced on brandy and other spirits.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he knew many people who were very much interested in the West Indies. In Jamaica, a vast quantity of estates had been thrown out of cultivation lately; and as to Demerara, there were many merchants and traders there who were only just able to carry on business. They had been carrying on their busi- 1136 ness and cultivating their estates almost at a dead loss; and he felt convinced that if this Bill passed in its present form they would be rendered still more incompetent to compete with the foreigner. All he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) and his friends could do was to express their regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not help them in this matter.
§ MR. THORNHILLsaid, that in the course of the debate ho had heard the traders of the West Indies spoken of as foreigners. He did not consider them such, but looked on them as he looked upon all the Members of that House, as British subjects. It was very hard on these traders that they should be treated in the manner proposed by the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) seemed to have some strange antipathy to the West Indies, for he was always doing what he could to injure them. The noble Lord had gone out there some time ago, and, although he (Mr. Thornhill) could not say what happened there, since he had come back he had always done what he could to disparage and to hurt the place. If things went on as they were now for very long he was afraid that the West Indies would go to the wall altogether.
§ MR. THORNHILLYes, Sir, I withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Mode of testing in case of obscuration).
CAPTAIN AYLMER,in rising to move the omission of the words "or otherwise," said, the clause hung very much on the one they had just been discussing, the question arising as to the increase there would be on the Rum Duty owing to the new method of measuring the quantity of spirit. A very heavy sum was involved. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said £180,000 a-year; but he (Captain Aylmer) was inclined to think that the change would produce nearer £300,000 or £400,000. The difference between Sykes's hydrometer and measuring the spirit by distillation was certainly 1½ per cent, and that would raise the estimate by a very large sum. He honestly believed that 1137 the right hon. Gentleman, instead of getting £180,000, would secure £400,000. He did not grudge the Government this amount; but he found that there was very considerable dissatisfaction felt with the wording of the clause. Spirits used to be tested by Sykes's hydrometer. That method was to be replaced by distillation; but where that did not suit the officers of Customs, resort might be hail to other means. He did not think that the trade of the country should be left to such an uncertain state of things. The method of testing should be either by Sykes's hydrometer or by distillation; but there should be no "or otherwise" in the clause, to leave it open to the discretion of the Customs officers to experimentalize if they felt inclined. The words "or otherwise" were extremely vague, and were very much objected to by importers of spirits into this country.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, so far as the meaning of the clause was concerned, the words in question were not of the slightest importance. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment, because the effect of it, if passed, would be that if any new and improved method of testing spirits were discovered they would be unable to avail themselves of it. The object in view was merely to make an accurate examination or test. As to the sanguine estimate of the hon. and gallant Member of the result of the new method of testing spirit, he must decline to accept it. He would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that when estimates came from private Members which turned out to be extravagant nothing more was heard of them; but such was not the case when a Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged in extravagant speculation. The spirit which would be affected by the new method of testing was brandy more titan rum. There had been a great deal of concealed strength introduced in brandy owing to our defective method of testing, going as high as 13 and 14 per cent, instead of the modest 4 per cent allowed. Instead of this being, in the main, a tax upon Colonial produce, he believed it would be a tax upon the article brandy.
MR. GORSTdid not think the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had been answered. His argument was that the importer should have the article he imported tested by law, and that it 1138 should not be left to the discretion of any official as to the kind of test which should be applied. The Government wished to substitute distillation for Sykes's hydrometer; but the clause would leave it open. No doubt, in most cases, officers of the Customs acted in a fair and honest manner; still, it would not be satisfactory to importers to be left in the hands of these officers, knowing that at any moment a new kind of test might be tried.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not understand the reason advanced for the Amendment. The clause gave the Government officials every power to ascertain the amount of spirit to be taxed, and, surely, nothing should be done to weaken that power.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman estimated the gain to the Revenue at much less than he did; still he believed that the figure he had quoted would turn out to be right. Great annoyance had been occasioned in several quarters in this matter. Last week there were two or three questions put as to the measurement of malt, and it was said that the Customs measurement had been exceeded by 10 per cent by the railway carriers, and then that the brewers, who had bought it, had exceeded the railway carriers' measurement. All these different measurements must be a source of great trouble to those who had to trade in these articles. Let there be one law. If the Government, at some future time, discovered a better means of measurement, let them then suggest it—let them wait, if necessary, until next year. To show how inconvenient the proposed scheme might be, he would point out that one Excise officer might say—"I prefer to try my own experiment," and another, even in the same place, might say—"I do not believe in your experiment; I will try my own." Many people, from different parts of the country, had complained that the Bill, as it stood, might bring them to loggerheads with the Government officials.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had been long connected with the trade and commerce of this country, therefore he thought he had a right to speak on such a question as this. He considered it was the duty of the Government, in regard to the Customs, to lay down a plain law to guide merchants; and, therefore, he 1139 thought that "or otherwise" ought to be expunged from the clause. If those words were retained they would not know where they were. The matter was really worth attention, and, in considering it, they must not altogether lose sight of the position of the Customs officials, who were the moving springs. He did not find fault with any plain rule laid down; but he certainly would not care about leaving the decision of his business affairs to the discretion of Government officials. He did not object to Sykes's hydrometer, which was a good old fixed rule, and he did not object to the test by distillation; but do not let them have these words "or otherwise" retained. The striking out of these words would not do the Chancellor of the Exchequer any harm, whilst it would please many hon. Members very much.
MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that although, in the testing of spirits, distillation was of great value, it was supported by other methods. Weighing was one; but there were also other methods which would render it very inconvenient to omit the words. The hon. Member behind him (Sir Andrew Lusk) did not seem to understand the position of affairs. This test was not intended to be a guide to merchants at all, but to the Revenue Department. However, to satisfy hon. Members, he would consent to the modification of the clause by the insertion of words to the effect that the Customs officers might use "other methods which were approved of by the Treasury." That would give Parliament a responsible authority, to whom it could look in case of supposed improper proceeding.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONthought that the importers of spirits would suffer great injustice and inconvenience by the abolition of the long-established method of testing spirits. The importers were used to the hydrometer, and could employ it in testing spirits themselves; therefore he thought it should be retained in use. There had been some startling revelations with regard to malt lately; and it had been shown that the officers of the Excise, in the zealous 1140 discharge of their duty, and, perhaps, with the desire to get into favour in high places, had overcharged wherever they could. There would be no check against overcharge if the clause remained as it was, because the importer of spirits would have the means in his hands to do it. The importer could not take samples and chemically distil them, as the Government official could. The importer could use the old-fashioned hydrometer, but not the new method of testing; therefore he charged the right hon. Gentleman with attempting the "obscuration" of the matter, according to the marginal note to the clause. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Premier for, in speaking on Sections 8 and 9, using the words "substitution of distillation in place of the hydrometer." This was honest language; but it was not the language of the clause, which was—
In any case where, by reason of the presence of colouring, sweetening, or other matter, the accurate strength of any spirit cannot be immediately ascertained by Sykes's hydrometer, or in any case where an officer of the Customs may deem it necessary, a sample of spirit may, under the direction of the Commissioners of Customs, be examined by distillation or otherwise, and the strength so ascertained shall be deemed to be the true hydrometic strength of the spirit.That seamed to imply that distillation would only be used in some cases—where it was necessary. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his frank employment of the word "substitution," which showed what his real intention was. It was this—to give the officer power to take away the use of the only means the importer had of checking the accuracy of the official test.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Time and place of landing goods inwards).
§ MR. WIGGINsaid, he was informed by persons connected with shipping that the Custom House officers left duty on the wharves at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This resulted in a considerable loss, and shippers complained that 4 o'clock in the afternoon, especially in the summer months, was much too early to cease work. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider it possible to extend the hours of attendance of Customs officers.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Persons may be searched if officers have reason to suspect smuggled goods are concealed upon them. Rescuing goods. Rescuing persons. Assaulting or obstructing officers. Attempting the foregoing offences. Penalty).
§ MR. ANDERSONfound there was no such clause in last year's Bill, and he wished to know whether it was proposed to extend the powers of Customs officers to search people when they came ashore from vessels? He had supposed they possessed the power of search already, and if so this clause was quite unnecessary. If not, they were to be given fresh power, and he confessed he had some suspicion about it. At any rate, the matter required to be guarded in case the suspected person happened to be a female. It would be rather awkward to give complete power of personal search in case of a female.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this clause was inserted to make the law perfectly clear.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, there ought to be some guarding clause in case of females. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but it might be a serious thing for some of themselves some day, when they might happen to be travelling with lady friends. It was a well understood thing in old days that ladies were the greatest smugglers; laces and such things to them were quite irresistible in the way of smuggling. He did not suppose they would be much tempted by cigars and ardent spirits; but it was known that females who did smuggle had, for the purpose, represented themselves to be in an interesting condition. He did not suppose the Committee would have any sympathy with a female who did that, or was caught in the act; but it might happen that ladies who really were in an interesting condition might, on an erroneous supposition, be subjected to the very grossest insult. He would, therefore, suggest that a few words be added to the clause to make that impossible—for instance, such words as—"But if the suspected person is a female, such search shall be in private and by a female searcher."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend had examined into the matter. If he would turn to the Consolidation Acts he would find full provisions for the prevention of abuse.
§ MR. WIGGINnoticed that the penalty to be inflicted was not to exceed £100. Would a person bringing over a few cigars be liable to such a penalty?
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, as the clause was drawn it seemed obligatory to impose in each case a penalty of £100. Might he ask whether the clause had been drawn with any regard to the Summary Jurisdiction Act? He hoped that Act, which dealt with all the questions of penalties, had been taken into account.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the clause might be allowed to pass unaltered. He did not expect the powers of search given to Customs officers would be abused; and he was informed by those who knew something of the attempts at fraud that the clause would meet all the difficulties of the case.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the penalty was the same as that in the present Customs Act. The penalty was fixed at one amount; but there were general provisions for its reduction.
§ MR. WARTONobserved, that the rule for reduction was that in no case should it be more than one-fourth.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, having served on the Committee on the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, he knew that that was a point raised and much discussed. What he wanted to know was whether the penalty of £100 would be subject to the same powers of reduction as the penalties inflicted under other Customs and Inland Revenue Acts?
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, everyone who had had any dealings with the Revenue officers knew they were most domineering in their actions. They were always inclined to say, if the magistrate would not grant the penalty they asked—
"Then we will ask for a case; we have our authority from Somerset House."
An hon. MEMBER said, if his recollection served him aright, there was a great difference of opinion in the Committee on the Summary Jurisdiction Bill. The Customs authorities contended that where the statute said the penalty should be £100 or £200 the magistrates should not have the power of lessening it. There was a great 1143 fight, and the Committee agreed unanimously against the Customs. When they came down to the House of Commons the Government was in a rather awkward position; but the result was that the Customs eventually gave way. The magistrates, therefore, were to have the power in all cases under the old Customs Acts not to impose the full penalty; they might impose a less penalty than £100 if they wished. It was the deliberate decision of the House of Commons; and, that being so, it was only right it should be maintained in an Act passed immediately afterwards. If there was any new departure upon the point, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, explain it.
§ MR. WARTONasked if the Attorney General would say whether the old rule relating to reductions was still in force—namely, that there should be no reduction below one-fourth.
SIR P. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if they passed the clause as it now stood, it would override the Summary Jurisdiction Act. If the question could be considered on Report, the present difficulty would be removed.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCIIELL)promised to look into the matter and see how it stood.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Certain sections of this Act incorporated in 39 & 40 Vic., c. 36).
MR. GLADSTONEmoved to add at end of page 7, line 2—
And section nine of this Act shall apply to the Isle of Man, so far as relates to all spirits charged with duty by reference to hydrometer strength.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the Isle of Man was mentioned in the earlier clauses of the Bill; and, no doubt, the consent of the authorities of the Island had been obtained. But the jurisdiction of the isle of Man was so peculiar that the Committee ought to have some assurance that the authorities there had consented to the insertion of these words.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Isle of Man had consented to the insertion of the proposed words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
1144§ As to Excise.
§ Clause 15 (Brewer's licence. Annual value of house exceeding ten pounds and not exceeding fifteen pounds).
§ MR. HICKSproposed, in page 7, line 8, to leave out the words "exceeding fifteen pounds," and insert the words "occupying a house charged to the inhabited house duty." His Amendment was almost identical with that on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer), and he would not have ventured to stand before him if he had not had the hon. Member's consent to do so. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the second Budget last year he made use of these words—"If the person who takes out a licence resides in a house under £20, he shall hear no more of the Malt or Beer Tax." But when the Bill came before the House, instead of the word "house" they found the words "house, premises, and land." The effect of that alteration or difference between the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bill was that a man who lived in a £19 house escaped, while a man in the country who occupied 10 or 12 acres of land had to pay the duty. That was so manifestly unjust that the right hon. Gentleman altered the clause, reducing the amount from the original promise of £20 to the lower figure of £10. He now proposed, however, seeing the injustice he then committed, to alter the figure to £15. Now, he (Mr. Hicks) submitted to the Committee that there were only two fixed sums at which houses were known in this country. There was the £6 house, the occupier of which was relieved from the payment of rates himself, but who paid them through the owner; and from that till they got to the £20 house, which was assessed to the Inhabited House Duty, they knew no difference in the value of houses. In his opinion, it was very much better they should continue the figure which was understood and known rather than take a figure—£15 or any other figure—which would have to be inquired into in every case. The difference between £15 and £20, in most country parishes, would affect a very small number of houses; but the one case was thoroughly well known, and 1145 the other was not. He begged to move his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 8, to leave out the words "exceeding fifteen pounds," and insert the words "occupying a house charged to the inhabited house duty."—(Mr. Hicks.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'exceeding' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. STORERhad to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It was identical with his own, and also with that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). He need not urge any considerations in support of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's words in introducing his Budget last year were so much to the point, and were so well supported, that he would see the justice of conceding the point. The extension which the right hon. Gentleman proposed from £10 to £15 did not remove the burden from a great number of the large farmers. These men were entitled to consideration, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had created great dissatisfaction, especially in those parts of the country where it was considered no distinction should be made between men following the same occupation. There was no class legislation in England; and no men, besides farmers, occupying houses far removed from public-houses, would avail themselves of the privilege suggested. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the remission proposed, for he must know that the position of the farmer, in respect to the public brewer, was certainly not at all to the advantage of the farmer. It was only a small boon they asked; but it was one which would give great satisfaction, and one which could be given without any great injury to the Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that the private brewing of the country only amounted to 1 per cent of the whole; and he (Mr. Storer) hoped their friends, the brewers, would not object to the Amendment. It would not injure them, but it would do away with a great feeling of annoyance, because it would prevent the necessity of any valuation at all. There would be the House Duty at once, and no one who paid it would be subject to the tax. The proposal now made would include every farmer; it would give gene- 1146 ral satisfaction, and, therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take it into his serious consideration.
§ MR. DUCKHAMthought it would be far better to have a graduated scale of licences to the farmers of the country, according to their rental, say a 6s. licence when the rent did not exceed £50 per annum, and a further 6s. for every additional £50.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendment. He had very little to add to what had been said; but, as it was the right hon. Gentleman who last year had proposed to exempt houses under 10 years, he was a little surprised at the proposed limitation. The working of the Act would be such that it would apply principally to farm-houses; and very few tradesmen, wheelwrights, blacksmiths, and small householders would take advantage of the exemption. So far as his experience went, the Act would be confined almost entirely to the occupiers of land and to people in the rural districts. He wished to know how the annual value of £15 was to be arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to be ascertained by such means as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue thought fit. A case had arisen in Shropshire the other day in which a farmer, who had neglected to fill up his paper, was summoned before the magistrates in reference to an annual value of £10. Three Excisemen were called as witnesses for the Inland Revenue, and their evidence was accepted as to the value of the house, instead of the evidence of some practical land-valuer or auctioneer in the neighbourhood being taken. The House knew what the £6 house was, and what the Inhabited House Duty was; but they did not know what the £10 or £15 house was; and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to accede to this Amendment, or to lay down a little more clearly than he had done in the Bill the means by which this £15 value was to be ascertained, instead of leaving it to the Excise officers to assess the value of houses in a country of which they had not the slightest knowledge in the most arbitrary manner, and without reference to the Commissioners, and in opposition to the evidence of land agents. Unless the annual value was more clearly defined he believed the Bill would do great injustice.
§ MR. HENEAGEpointed out that now the offices and gardens and courts were added to the house, so that while, practically, the tax was raised from 6s. to 9s., the value of the house was raised, and what was a £10 house last year would be a £12 house in the current year. He could not help thinking that, if there was to be a change, it should be that of a £20 house. Everybody knew what a £20 house was, and he thought that such a change would greatly facilitate the collection of taxes and save expense. He strongly supported the Amendment.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that, speaking with some knowledge of the assessment machinery in rural places, there was no mode of estimating a house value between £6, the Small Tenements Act limit, and £20, the House Duty, because the land was always valued with the house; and he therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take the £20 limit. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman might say he must look to the loss to the Revenue. He did not think there need be any perceptible loss to the Revenue, and he would be willing to see a higher Licence Duty. He quite acknowledged the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made of the £15 house; but he thought that would give a great deal of trouble to the Excise officers in getting at the value, and cause considerable friction and inconvenience.
§ MR. WATNEYsaid, he regarded this as only a question of the amount to be obtained from the private brewers, and he thought it should properly arise on sub-section 2 when they came to the word "exemption." He would suggest that the Government should leave out of the clause the words, "Not exceeding £20." He supposed that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not propose to increase the duty on private brewers from 9s. to 12s.; but, if they did, he could quite understand their objecting to what he was proposing. If they did not, then he thought it would simplify matters if they rated all occupiers of houses above £10 at 9s., and then they could take the question of exemptions afterwards on sub-section 2 of Clause 16.
§ MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he would remind the Committee that this clause worked unsatisfactorily last year. The 1148 argument was that the house must be valued without the farm, and then it would not be worth above £10; but he knew of a case in which a house had cost over £1,000 to build, which was let at a few hundreds, and which the tenant wished him to say was not above £10 annual value. He had, however, pointed out that the house could not be taken in that way, but must be treated as a dock would be treated, which would be of little value without a ship in it. There wore some tenant farmers paying £400 rent in Montgomeryshire who escaped the tax by putting their houses under £10. That was very unfair, and he should like to see fair play, so that if one escaped another should escape—some sliding scale under which everyone would pay in proportion to rent. It seemed to him that the man who could stretch his conscience most got off best.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETthought that the proposal was worthy of attention, but that it hardly came under this clause. It should come under Clause 16, by which annual value and the way in which it was arrived at was dealt with. But, with regard to this clause, he desired to point out the disadvantages which would be involved by this Amendment. There had, no doubt, been difficulties in ascertaining the value of houses; but this proposal would increase the difficulties, and if the houses of £10 and £15 were singled out, that would place the Excise officers in a position of practical antagonism towards the people. The £20 house was known, and did not require any valuation. As the law stood, a house of £10, apart from offices, yards, or gardens, was subject to valuation from £10 or £15; but this clause proposed to make a change, by which there would be a valuation for these appurtenances; and so a house hitherto valued at £10, and liable to 6s. duty, would be liable, to an increased duty of 3s. with the yards and gardens belonging to it. The result would be to increase taxation on that particular class of house, and because yards and gardens were introduced now for the first time, the £10 house of last year would be a £11 house, and, instead of paying 6s., would pay an additional 3s. There might be such an intention, but he did not know that it was generally understood that that would be the operation of the Bill; but that would be its effect. He admitted that the limit of 1149 £15 was a concession in the other direction; but he wished the Government to consent to go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman had made one step in advance; but he wished him to go from £15 to £20. In that way great difficulty and trouble would be got rid of, and he did not think the loss to the Revenue would be serious. He did not know that there was any intention to increase the Revenue by inflicting charges on private brewers; but the words "value of the house" would have that effect in many cases. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might rightly be asked to consent to the Amendment.
MR. GLADSTONEI regret that I cannot consent to the terms of the Amendment. What is it that is asked? It is well known that the number of farmhouses which are charged with the House Tax is very insignificant; and it is asked that while all the rest of the community shall be taxed, all farmers, except those who are charged with the Inhabited House Duty, shall be free from any duty at all. I really must say that that is a demand which I think is unjust in itself, and most grossly unjust to all brewers engaged in trade, and paying duty for every gallon of beer they produce. What we have done is this—the purpose in view was to effect a great leap of relief for the agriculturists in the country. ["No, no!"] If it was not so, all the Representatives of farmers for the last two generations have been engaged in assuring us that it was. The purpose in view was to effect a great act of liberation, as has always been held by the Gentlemen who represent the agricultural interest; and, secondly, to set free a great trade. But we had to deal with this great difficulty about private brewers, and it was only the fact of private brewers being reduced to narrow limits that enabled us to cope with that difficulty. So we arranged that at a very low rate of Licence Duty persons inhabiting small houses, whether farmers or not, should be allowed to brew without being called to account for their materials; the certainty being that those persons would make use of but simple materials, so that neither the loss to the Revenue, nor the interference with the general trade would be serious. But it became necessary to re-consider the definition of farm-houses, because they could not be got at unless 1150 we included with them the appendages described as offices, courts, and yards. That would have been a restriction of the liberty and privilege given by the Act of last year; but we have prevented that. We have done more than prevent it. We have made an extension, because the raising of the rent from £10 to £15 is a greater relief to the farming householder than is any disadvantage he may sustain by reckoning offices and courts into the valuation of the house. But a still stronger reason was the state of arrangements in some towns where there are a large number of artizans in certain places, who are engaged in private brewing; and to meet their views and to somewhat improve the position of the farmer we introduced this change, and raised the amount from £10 to £15, with a slight alteration in the amount of the Licence Duty. Whether these changes will be good, or whether I may be obliged to abandon them, I cannot say; but I think they are good changes. I am not speaking of the mode of ascertaining the annual value—upon that I shall be prepared to make a concession. I am speaking now simply of the change to £15, which is an extension of the privilege given to the private brewer; but really to ask us to go to £20, and limit that to the Inhabited House Duty, especially when it is accompanied by a demand on behalf of the labourers, is to establish an exemption which is the most unjustifiable in its extent and character that I have ever known to be suggested. Pray recollect that this duty is levied on what may be called a necessary of life. It is levied on the whole community; and to ask that one great class, who, I think, will enjoy great benefit from the alteration of the Malt Tax to a Beer Duty, shall have a legislative title to manufacture and consume beer for themselves, their families, and their workpeople, without paying any tax, is a proposal to which I am bound to say we cannot, under any circumstances, accede.
§ MR. STORERregretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to giving what was asked. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that he proposed this last year; and what was now asked was nothing more than what he originally proposed. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had been got at by the Excise officers.
§ MR. STORERThe words were—
With the taking out of the licence we propose that if a person resides in a house under £20"—
§ MR. STORER,continuing, said, if things continued in their present state the Revenue would derive very little advantage, because there would be no farmers and no arable land, and no beer would be required. Year after year the land was going into grass, and beer was not required. Another consideration he would urge was, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was a very horrible thing that other people should have to pay for a Beer Licence at public-houses, while the farmer should be exempted. In no other country in the world was the farmer taxed for what he brewed. In Germany and in America the beer was not taxed until it came to sale; the private brewers were perfectly free; and in strict justice they ought not to be taxed here. It was no wonder that the land was given up, and such reports as now came from every county in England had never been heard. before. The land was going absolutely out of cultivation, and could not be let at any price; and, under all the circumstances, he thought the farmers were entitled to more consideration from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. MAC IVERbegged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He did so for this reason—the Prime Minister, a short time ago, made some charges in regard to the Representatives of the agricultural districts, which had no foundation whatever, and at that hour of the morning—1 o'clock—it was impossible to discuss such charges in the manner in which they deserved. The charge he referred to was that hon. Members on that side of the House had not been sincere in advocating the repeal of the Malt Tax. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the Representatives of the agricultural districts, who sat on that side of the House, had asked Her Majesty's Government to introduce into this country foreign brewing materials free of duty? It could only bring new competition to bear upon the farmers, and for a very 1152 long period they had been weighted quite heavily enough. He must say that from the first day on which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, there was a circumstance which had struck him as very suspicious, and it was the extremely good terms upon which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be with the Representatives of the brewing interest in all parts of the House. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was of opinion that the great brewers were the only persons whose interests had been seriously considered in the Government proposals, and, no doubt, they were ready and willing enough to agree to them. They were ready enough to support any form of taxation which might suit Her Majesty's Government, if Her Majesty's Government in return would allow them to continue to make even larger gains than they had hitherto been in the habit of realizing. It was absurd to say that the agricultural interest had been studied at all. On the contrary, it had suffered materially from the way in which the Government had dealt with the question. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman has not a shadow of foundation for what ho has said in regard to my having made charges against the Representatives of the agricultural interest in this House. I made no charge whatever against the agricultural interest; but what I said was that hon. Members who represent it in this House always expressed a desire to get rid of the Malt Tax. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, I hope that hon. Members will kindly agree to go on with the Bill. It is of very great importance that we should make some progress with it.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONwould appeal to the hon. Member for Birkenhead not to persist in his Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. HENEAGEalso expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would withdraw the Motion. He was satisfied that what the hon. Member was doing now was not for the advantage of the British agriculturists.
§ Question put, and negatived.
1153§ Original Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 34: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 208.)
§ MR. STORERmoved, in page 7, after line 9, to insert—
Or by a brewer who shall be the occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding four pounds, the duty of … ls. 0d."The object of the Amendment was to endeavour to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister some compensation upon the brewing of small quantities. Under the present arrangements, the brewers of small quantities got no benefit whatever. It was the practice on many farms to allow many of the labourers small quantities of malt during harvest time—perhaps a couple of bushels—which they converted into beer. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, however, to charge these small brewers l½d. a-gallon more than the regular brewers would pay. It was most unfair that the man who only brewed a very small quantity should be placed in that position, even if he brewed four or five bushels. That was not an uncommon quantity in this country; but, nevertheless, it was proposed that he should pay just as much as a Duke or a Marquess who undertook private brewing. In reality, it was a tax upon the farmer himself, who, in most cases, would have to pay it himself, in which case it would amount to a heavy burden upon him. He believed that the labourers had quite as much feeling upon these subjects as other people, and the point which concerned them most was that this could only be regarded as an additional duty upon a necessary of life. At harvest time they expected to get a little more beer. He was free to confess that they frequently consumed a great deal too much; but he saw no reason why they should be placed in an exceptional position, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to do something in their behalf. His proposal was to reduce the duty upon small houses, principally inhabited by the labourer, to 1s. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to make the concession in another way, by imposing the duty on brewers of small quantities—say, up to four bushels.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, after line 9, insert "or by a brewer who shall be the occupier of a horse of an annual value not exceeding four pounds, the duty of … 1s. 0d."—(Mr. Storer.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEAn alteration of this kind is an alteration which I could not undertake to accept, and I am, therefore, bound to say that I cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. No doubt, the brewing affected would be confined to very limited quantities; but I do not think we should undertake to keep alive any practice of the kind on so small a scale. If, as the hon. Gentleman states, it is only a question of brewing a few gallons of beer for the labourers during harvest time, there can really be very little hardship in the proposal contained in the clause, and in requiring such small occupiers to go to the brewer for the few gallons of beer they may happen to want. The merely occasional act of brewing a few gallons of beer we cannot take into account by establishing a different system of licence for such cases.
§ MR. H. DAVEYwas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to making a concession in the direction of the Amendment. The receipts from licences issued to cottage labourers must be exceedingly small; and if cottages under £5 in annual value were relieved from payment of duty altogether, he did not think there would be much loss to the Revenue. The way in which the imposition of the duty would operate was this. There were a number of farmers who gave their labourers malt at certain seasons of the year, which the cottagers brewed in their own cottages. It was not worth their while to pay 6s. a-year to brew this small quantity of beer, and the consequence was that they would have to refuse the malt the farmers were willing to give them. The malt now given was regarded by the labourer as an addition to his perquisites; but if he had to pay the licence for brewing, it would not be worth his while to brew, and the result would be that he would lose the malt and get nothing in exchange.
§ MR. HICKSremarked, that, if he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly, the right hon. Gentle- 1155 man said that if the persons in whose behalf the Amendment was proposed only brewed a small quantity of beer, it would be no grievance to them to say that they should not continue to brew their own beer, but that they must go to the brewer for the few gallons they wanted. Now, he (Mr. Hicks) would suggest that it would be a very great grievance to deprive the labourers of the privilege of brewing their own beer, and compel them to go to the brewer. He understood that the Bill of last year was to benefit the agricultural interests by allowing the mixing of other materials with barley in the manufacture of beer. But the labourers, who had been used to good beer, would not regard such compounds as beer at all, and would regard it as a great grievance if they were compelled to have recourse to beer brewed in that way. He hoped the Committee would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer).
MR. GLADSTONEI cannot believe that the case which has been so benevolently represented to me by my hon. Friend behind (Mr. Davey) is really likely to occur, and that the farmer who proposes to give in kind a certain boon to his labourers will, because the law interferes with the application of the boon, not only withdraw the boon, but provide no substitute for it. I must say that the Amendment really favours the truck system, and that it is far better the labourer should be paid in money. I certainly cannot see that it would be right to say that the Legislature ought to go out of its way in raising the taxes of the country to make arrangements to encourage the farmers in paying their labourers by the truck system.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONhoped that his hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) would not press the Amendment. Probably, in the course of a short time, the whole question of the re-adjustment of these duties would, as a matter of convenience, have to be considered. If he was in Order, he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take an early opportunity of explaining what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the concessions he alluded to.
§ MR. STORERsaid, the arrangement between the farmer and the labourer for having beer was entirely different in its 1156 character to the truck system referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a time when all the labourers in the country lodged in the farm-houses, and received then not only their drink but their meat, and the term "truck" had never been applied to that practice. Notwithstanding all that had been said of relieving the farming interest in the present state of depression, the farmer's interest had boon injured in every way. His labour bill had been doubled by the operation of the Education Act; and at that moment there were men on the farms doing the work that used to be done by boys. Such matters might appear very trifling to hon. Members opposite; but they were such as aggravated the depression which existed in the agricultural interest, and made it impossible for farmers to work their farms at a profit. The question raised by the Amendment which he should press was one of more importance than the right hon. Gentleman was aware of; and unless he was inclined to meet the case in some way, it would not be advisable for him to extend the county franchise.
§ MR. BIDDELLthought that cottage brewing would be admitted by everyone who looked into the matter carefully to be a great help to temperance. He therefore suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider the propriety of reducing the licence in the case of houses which came under the Small Tenements Rating Act from 6s. to 3s., and from this change he believed there would result no loss of Revenue.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Provisions with regard to brewers other than brewers for sale).
MR. GLADSTONEI think we need not ask for so rigid a rule as is laid down here, with regard to fixing the annual value of houses. I am content to take it that the arrangement shall be as proposed by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer)—namely, that there shall be an appeal to Quarter Sessions, whose decision shall be final.
§ MR. WATNEYsaid, before that point was reached he begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the exemption in sub-section 2. The discussion had been of a rather irregular kind. He pressed upon the right hon. 1157 Gentleman the unfairness of the exemption proposed in the case of private brewing. It had been stated that the brewers were benefited by the substitution of the Beer Duty for the Malt Duty; but he need only say upon that point, that under the new arrangement the brewers were paying 3s. per quarter more than they did formerly. For his own part, he should be very glad to go back to the old state of things, and he was quite unable to see how his agricultural friends could say that the brewers had been benefited. With regard to the exemptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said last year that it was necessary to exempt certain classes, and he then fixed the limit at £10 rental. But by the clause as it stood it was now proposed that everyone who lived in a house of £15, or, in other words, paid 5s. 9d. a-week rent, should not be called upon to pay Beer Duty. That, he thought, was a very bad rule for the Committee to lay down. He was aware that great pressure would be put upon the Government to extend the exemption as originally fixed; but this, he contended, was owing to the fact that the Government were wrong at the beginning in laying down any exemption at all. There was no fairness in the proposal which allowed an artizan paying 5s. 9d. a-week rent to brew beer without paying duty; and it moreover raised a very dangerous precedent which was not to be found in connection with any other kind of taxation. He had never heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was in favour of the reduction of the Tea Duty, contend that persons living in houses under £10 should be exempt. Who were the largest consumers of beer in this country? They were not gentlemen, but mechanics and others, who paid 4s. or 5s. a-week rent; and the position taken up by the Government was that they were to pay no duty on the beer they drank. Therefore, although the proposal had gone so far, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to put a stop to this dangerous mode of dealing with taxation. The Act of last year allowed any farmer living in houses of £10 rental and under to pay part of his wages in beer; and it was now proposed to bring in those under £15 who brewed for domestic use. But it was difficult to see how the arrangement could be carried 1158 out. Was the Excise officer to be continually running about houses within the limit to see whether the occupier was brewing for his own use only? Again, how could the Excise officer see that no beer was given away? It was utterly impossible that he could do so. On the other hand, a farmer might be willing to give a pint of beer to a poor man, but would be unable to do so, because he had not paid duty, owing to the exemption. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to fix the exemption at £10, as it now stood, which included cottage brewing, and so remove further pressure upon himself. Although he spoke as a brewer, he pointed out that the question of exemption did not affect the London brewers; but, regarding the proposal as wrong in principle, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from "the," in line 19, to "use," in line 23, inclusive.—(Mr. Watney.)
MR. GLADSTONEI think the hon. Member will see that I cannot, with any propriety, agree to strike out this sub-section. The hon. Member must, I think, have become aware of that during the discussion which has taken place in the last two hours.
§ MR. WATNEYagreed that his contribution to the discussion came very late; nevertheless, he felt it his duty to make a strong protest against the proposed extension of the exemption from duty. Having done so, he was not unwilling to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STORERpointed out that under the Act of 1880 it was provided, in the case of houses below £10, that a person brewing other than for sale should only brew beer for his own domestic use, or for the consumption of his own farm labourers. If that provision was not now extended concurrently with the present extension of exemption, the effect would be that a man living in a house of an annual value between £10 and £15 could only brew for his own use, and not for his labourers; while the man who occupied a house under £10 value would be able to brew for his labourers. It was, he thought, unjust 1159 that what was given to one class should be denied to the other. With regard to the arguments of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), he considered it very extraordinary that the hon. Member should come down to the House and ask for the maintenance of the brewers' monopoly after the farmers' monopoly had been done away with. It was to the interest of the public that there should be a little wholesome private brewing, for he had known occasions when the farm labourers objected to have brewers' beer—they would not have it at any price. The Amendment advocated by the hon. Member would tempt labourers into the public-house; and it was certainly not in the interest of the cause of temperance that they should go there. He had heard it in evidence, that on one occasion a man who had not had more than two pints of beer came out from a public-house quite drunk. No one ever heard of a man being drunk on home-brewed beer, because it was much more wholesome than the other. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to his proposal to allow those who lived in houses of between the annual value of £10 and £15 to brew for the labourers engaged on their own farms.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is really very doubtful whether we ought to allow the man at £10 to brew without payment of duty; and it is quite impossible to extend the clause of the Act of last year, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer).
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether the term "domestic use" would include labourers living in the farm-house?
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he could not accept the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for the Amendment standing in his name.
MR. GLADSTONEThey are not mine. They are the words of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire, which I am quite willing to move, if he likes to leave it in my hands.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the clause should remain as it stood, and to add certain other words.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he could not agree to that. The clause introduced an entirely new principle in the mode of taxation. As the law stood at present, those who were supposed to be liable to pay Inhabited House Duty had their cases heard by the Commissioners of Taxes in the district in which they lived. They went before the Commissioners at the instance of the Surveyor of Taxes, who appeared on the part of the Crown, the person said to be liable appearing in his own defence, and the Commissioners acting as Judges. By the present clause it was proposed to take that jurisdiction away from the local authorities, and hand it over to the Revenue Commissioners at Somerset House. But it was suggested that the person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should have an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. But had the Committee any idea of the cost of an appeal at Quarter Sessions? Why, in the case of a person occupying a £10 house, it would, in proportion to his means, amount to a very serious tax. He could not understand why the Committee should be called upon to pass words that would effect an alteration in the way in which taxes were levied in this country. If it was the intention to alter the existing law, let it be done in a plain and open manner, and not by the introduction of words which left people in ignorance of the real change effected. He maintained that the value of the house should be ascertained by the Commissioners of Taxes for the district or division in which the brewer resided.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 35, to leave out all words after "by" to the end of Clause, and insert "Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for the district or division in which the brewer resides."—(Mr. Hicks.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the Commissioners of Income Tax were the very persons to deal with this question, as they had to deal with houses now assessed for the House Tax. It would cost the parties nothing to appeal to them; whereas if they went to Quarter Sessions, there would be a great expense.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be quite contrary to the views of the Government that there should be any dis- 1161 advantage in point of cost of appeal. He would take care there should be no ground for the objection just stated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), so far as expense was concerned.
§ COLONEL MAKINSsaid, it was very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say there would be no expense; but he did not think he could prevent it.
§ MR. HICKSNo, Sir; I have not withdrawn my Amendment, and do not intend to do so. I hold the appeal should be to the Local Commissioners, as at present.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would substitute the words "Commissioners of Land and Income Tax" for "Court of Quarter Sessions," as desired by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks).
§ MR. HICKSthought the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of the position in which the matter stood at that moment. For a great many years he (Mr. Hicks) had been a Commissioner of Taxes in his own district, and during that period he had, from time to time, been called upon to decide whether houses were or were not liable for Inhabited House Duty. All he asked was that the annual value should be ascertained by the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 37, to leave out the words "and their decision shall be final," in order to insert "But an appeal shall be from their valuation to the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for the district or division in which the brewer resides, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ COLONEL MAKINSasked if the right hon. Gentleman would insert in a subsequent clause of the Bill a definition of the term "annual value?" A great deal of importance attached to this point. In other Acts of Parliament a clear definition was given to the effect that annual value was the rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay, taking one year with another—and so forth, in the usual form. His object was to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the annual value referred to in the clause was subject to the ordinary interpretation, and, if not, whether 1162 a clause would be brought up for the purpose of defining the term.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
§ Clause 19 (Goods liable to a duty of customs or excise may be warehoused in a customs or excise warehouse).
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to add, at the end, the words—
And the provisions of section one hundred and fifteen of 'The Spirits Act, 1860,' for remission of duty on spirits accidentally destroyed shall be held not only to the taking them out of store and putting them on board ship, but to any accident happening during the conveyance of such spirits from the store to the ship.The object of the Amendment was to remove a great grievance, for, at present, though the duty was remitted when the spirits were destroyed in loading at the store, or in putting into the ship, it was not remitted if the goods had been removed even half-a-dozen yards from the store. Several cases of this kind had been brought under his notice recently by his own constituents. However, as the Treasury thought getting rid of the grievance might lay open the door to fraud, and as lie was unwilling to occupy the time of the Committee at this hour of the morning (2 a.m.), he would not press the Amendment.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was informed by several hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House that the Prime Minister had agreed that Progress should be reported after Clause 16.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ PART II.—TAXES.
§ Clause 20 (Grant of duties of income tax).
§ MR. GREGORYdirected the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deduction of Income Tax on the Indian Four per Cents, which appeared to be at the rate of 6½d. in the pound for the past year.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, he had called attention last year to the case of owners occupying their own land who paid In- 1163 come Tax under two Schedules. They paid under Schedule A as owners, and also under Schedule B as occupiers. The grievance to which he had drawn attention had become very much aggravated since last year, when he had pointed out that there were many thousand acres of land in the country lying unoccupied and thrown upon the owners' hands. The amount of unoccupied laud, unfortunately, had largely increased since last year. He had had a Return got out for the year 1880, and he found that there were 20,000 acres in the county of Bedford unoccupied; and although the owners received relief under Schedule B by the Act of last Session, which extended to owners occupying their own lands the power of appeal previously conceded to occupiers, there was no power on the part of the Government to give it under Schedule A. He should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this matter into consideration, and to see if he could not give the owners the same relief under Schedule A that his Predecessor in Office had given under Schedule B. He did not suppose it would ho possible, or, at any rate, convenient, to import any words into the Act to bring about the alteration; but the case for the relief being given was so clear that he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the matter in hand. It was perfectly well known that there were hundreds—probably there were thousands—of owners who paid last year Income Tax in respect of land which was unoccupied. There were many clergymen whose glebes were unlet, and although they obtained relief as occupiers, there were no means of obtaining relief as owners. Another hardship in connection with this case was the assessment on which the Income Tax was levied. Legally, it was not the case; but, practically, it was made upon the Poor Rate assessment, which was a relative basis. It was a basis fixed with regard to the relative value of property in each parish or Union. On that basis the assessment in one case might be 100 per cent over the true value, whilst it might not be unjust to the occupiers as between themselves. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter, also, into consideration. With regard to the taxation of unoccupied land, he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1164 that this was the only case in which a person was called upon to pay a tax upon an income which was really no income at all.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONmoved to report Progress. This was a very large question, and, no doubt, many hon. Members wished to speak upon it. There was a great deal of distress existing in the country, and the law as it stood at present was felt to be a great grievance—to pay Income Tax under Schedule A upon income that had never been received. Therefore he trusted that, in dealing with the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make them a plain statement. The question was a most difficult one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon its being considered now.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Baldwyn Leighton.)
MR. GLADSTONEI am very sorry the hon. Member has thought it desirable to make the Motion. There are few Members here to whom the effort of sitting through this Committee is greater than it is to myself; but there is a very solemn obligation resting on me, and that is to do nothing which can in any way interfere with the progress of the great measure which is now before the House—the Irish Land Bill. I hope hon. Members will consent to sacrifice their convenience a little further. This question is one which it would be impossible to settle in a cross-Table conversation here. There has been no Notice given with regard to it, and it is clearly a matter of great complexity and difficulty. [Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON: The question of Schedule A?] Yes. The question of Schedule B was comparatively simple, and that has been settled; and with regard to Schedule A, I am perfectly ready to consider any statement which may be made to me with regard to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac). I do not say it is not perfectly fair—looking at the present state of things in the country—to bring the matter forward; but I am sure it would be impossible, without a great deal of consideration, to make such an examination of the question as it deserves and requires. When we consider that we are to adopt prin- 1165 ciples, not only applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the present time, but applicable to all circumstances and to all time; and when we consider that there is a large quantity of land in the country held for the purpose of sport and not for the purpose of trade, we at once see how difficult the question is. It will require great consideration to do justice to it, and I am sure it would not be possible for us at present to settle it on a new basis.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped his hon. Friend would stick to his Amendment, and not be intimidated by the clamour around him. This was an important Bill, and when, at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock, a Motion was made to report Progress, the Prime Minister and the Government coolly proposed to the Committee to go through the Bill, because they had another legislative measure which must come on on a particular day at their command. ["Oh, oh!" "and" Divide!"] Hon. Members might go on with these interruptions as long as they liked; but he would point out to them that they were only wasting time. There never was such a demand made upon the House before—that because the Government had a legislative measure of greater or less importance to pass, therefore the House of Commons was to be kept sitting until 3 or 4 in the morning in order to pass another Bill, and no proposal to report Progress was to be considered. Never before had a Prime Minister endeavoured to pass off such conduct on an Opposition. For the sake of principle—[Laughter.]—hon. Members seemed to think there was no principle involved in dealing with the finances of the country at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning; but what would have been said of the Conservative Government if it had attempted to do this? For the sake of principle, and as a protest against the voting of money in Money Bills at a quarter past 2 in the morning, he hoped the Motion would be pressed.
§ MR. WARTONfelt it to be his duty to support the Motion for reporting Progress. He felt the appeal—the almost personal appeal—of the Premier, who said that, though it was extremely inconvenient for him to sit up, he would sit up to any time if necessary. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not necessary for him 1166 to sit up. They were to have a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and were promised an exciting day in the discussion of the Irish arrests, in which the constituents of many hon. Members took a great deal of interest. The Prime Minister had given the opportunity for the discussion; but they did not know whether the matter could be disposed of in the five hours which would be available at the Morning Sitting, and whether they might not be asked to sit up all night to-morrow, as they were doing now. Of course, he did not know whether they would sit up all night to-morrow; but he was looking on this as a matter of principle, and, consequently, contemplated that which possibly might occur. If the Government chose to bring in a large number of Bills, more than they could conveniently carry, they must take the consequence. If they were to pass the great Land Law of Ireland, somehow modified to suit the feelings of Members in different parts of the House, well and good; but the Government should give up some of their Bills. The sooner they gave up the Bribery Bill, the Ballot Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill—the sooner they gave up the "three B's" in favour of the "three F's"—the better. It was too much to expect of hon. Members that they would put themselves to inconvenience to pass a whole host of measures which were not required by the country. Hon. Members opposite had objected very much to what they called the "Imperialism" of the late Government; but there was a worse word, which could be aptly used in connection with the present Government, and that was "imperiousness."
§ MR. DODDSsaid, there were a considerable number of Amendments yet to be disposed of, but all of them had reference to those parts of the Bill relating to Probate and Legacy Duty, and he was sure it would not take longer to dispose of them than the time it would occupy the Chairman in reading them. The Amendments were mere formal matters, and he saw no reason why the Bill should not be gone through in another 10 minutes. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but he said. "Yes." He challenged contradiction when he said that there was not one Amendment which, unless it were for the purpose of wasting the time of the Committee, would take more than five 1167 minutes to dispose of. He hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, the answer of the Primo Minister entirely corroborated what he had said, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the question of the payment of Income Tax under Schedule A was so important that it could hardly be discussed across the Table of the House.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that.
MR. GLADSTONEMy hon. Friend has entirely misunderstood me. This is a proposal to introduce an entirely new method of dealing with the Income Tax; and the question is, whether the owners of land shall be excused for paying the tax in regard to that part of their property which is unoccupied, and for which they do not realize anything. This is a large and difficult question, which will have to be carefully considered. There is no proposal before me; and what I say is, that I cannot undertake to discuss the question, under the circumstances, at the present moment. The matter may be opened up on some future occasion, and we may have to ask the House to deal with it. With regard to the statement of the noble Lord as to my supposed declaration with reference to reporting Progress, what I really said was that, so far as I was aware, there was no question after Clause 16 that was a contested question.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, the Prime Minister had misunderstood the remarks which had fallen from him. He had made a definite proposal, and it was one which need not delay the passage of the Bill for one minute. He had requested the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not deal with Schedule A as his Predecessor had dealt with Schedule B. He hoped the Government would consider the matter, and, if possible, do something without delay; but if, at the beginning of next Session, he found that nothing had been done, he would himself make some proposal on the subject.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he was responsible for some of the Amendments to subsequent clauses of the measure; but he could not flatter himself that they would all be agreed to. If he thought 1168 they would, he should be easy in his mind; but he was afraid that some of them might lead to discussion. He did not wish to delay the Bill for a moment, and he therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion. He, for one, was willing to go on with the Bill.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think it a great crime on the part of the Committee to move to report Progress. The Government had wasted three months of this Session with the Coercion Bill, and if the Prime Minister now found it necessary for him to keep up during a large portion of the night to pass this Bill, he must remember that he had only himself and the Chief Secretary to blame; and when he appealed to the House he must remember that there was a section it was quite in vain to appeal to. It was quite in vain to appeal to men of his (Mr. Healy's) way of thinking, anyhow; and, so long as they could not get a civil answer from any Member of the Government, it would continue to be in vain. So long, moreover, as their countrymen continued to be arrested it would be in vain. These arrests would never be forgotten in Ireland—never.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEbelieved a great many hon. Members wished to express their opinion of the clause of the Bill at which they had arrived. The clause dealing with Schedule A was a most important one, especially to people in the country. He had every sympathy for the state of health of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he was sure most hon. Members would agree with him in thinking that he ought to be in bed. He (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) fully, also, sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in the sense of duty which induced him to ask them to continue the discussion of the Bill to-night; but, at the same time, he must point out that the argument on which the request for continued sitting was based had no effect whatever on that (the Opposition) side of the House. They did not see the force of these measures before the House.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwould make an appeal to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman saw the position in which the Committee was now placed—he saw that it was absolutely impossible to go on with the Bill. The question was, was it wise to 1169 persevere? The right hon. Gentleman did not come down to the House very often during the time the late Government were in power; but if he had he would have seen what little support the Government got from the Opposition. It was now nearly half - past 2 in the morning, and, considering that they had to come down again at 2 in the afternoon, it was unreasonable to ask them to proceed with the Bill. His only anxiety was to promote the Business of the country, and he certainly did not think that the way to promote Business was to remain there wrangling at half-past 2 in the morning.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, there was another point made by the Prime Minister beyond those which had been mentioned by previous speakers, which appeared to him a very weak one. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Committee to do nothing to interfere with the great Irish Land Bill. But the great Irish Land Bill now before the House was not a good measure. It was very complicated—no doubt, a good measure for the lawyers; but for the people of Ireland—
MR. MARJORIBANKSI rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in mentioning the provisions of that Bill?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not in Order in mentioning the provisions of the Irish Land Bill.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had said all he had to say on that subject. The hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Healy) had mentioned another matter to which he (Mr. Biggar) wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the Prime Minister. The hon. Member had referred to the conduct of the Chief Secretary towards the Irish Members; and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman were to get a caution from the Prime Minister with regard to his general behaviour and his duty, the House would be able to get along more smoothly, and Irish Members would be more inclined to assist the Government. At present they were in this position. It was nearly 3 o'clock in the morning; they had to hear the opening speech of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) with regard to the Irish arrests, and they had to come down to the House at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to continue the discussion. All 1170 this was rendered necessary—as the Irish Members alleged—through the misconduct of the Chief Secretary. All these difficulties had arisen through the action of the Government; and an appeal of this kind, therefore, certainly came with a bad grace from the Treasury Bench. The question before the Committee in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was one of considerable difficulty, and he failed to see on what grounds the Government could ask them to go into the discussion at this hour. The thing could not be done. He had had some little experience in the last Parliament of matters of this sort, and he had never seen any good to anyone come out of an attempt on the part of the Government to force on Business at such an hour, against the will of a large section of the House.
MR. GLADSTONEagreed to Progress being reported, finding a section of the House—though, he believed, a very small section—determined to impede the progress of the Committee. He tendered his most sincere thanks to hon. Gentlemen who had offered to sacrifice their own convenience on this occasion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.