§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he fully supported the views of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Mac Iver). He had been expecting both this and last Session that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have gone further than he had yet done, and that he would have made a bold and liberal effort to wipe off those miserable and petty duties which pressed so heavily on the working classes throughout the United Kingdom—namely, the duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, and similar articles. The total sum yielded by those imposts was only £4,500,000 a-year. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) understood it cost nearly £500,000 to collect them, and the remaining £4,000,000 might be replaced by an additional 2d. on that popular tax—theIncome Tax; and when he said popular tax, it was proved in 1874 that the tax was popular with the electors of the country, because when the present Prime Minister offered, in that year, to abolish the Income Tax if returned to Office, the reply of the electors was to send him back in a minority, and put those in Office who would continue the tax. An Income Tax, properly adjusted, was one of the fairest of taxes, because the pauper and the working man escaped it altogether; but he thought the impost might be made lighter on precarious than on 479 permanent incomes, and he hoped that the day was not fur off when some Government would be courageous enough to place it on a fairer basis. There was a description of property which ought to be one of the first subjects of taxation, but which was now, in his opinion, most unfairly exempted. He meant ground rents of houses, which accumulated, not by any exertion or outlay of capital on the part of the owner, but by the industry and thrift of the working classes, who built houses which were, perhaps, 50 years afterwards confiscated by a succeeding owner of the ground rents. It was calculated the ground rents of this country amounted to about £20,000,000 a-year. A tax of 10 per cent on that sum would produce £2,000,000 of Revenue, or about half the amount required to take off the potty taxes now pressing on the working-classes to which he had referred. Indirect taxation was very unequal in its incidence on the poor and the rich. For example, common. London gin, of which 19–20ths were, unfortunately, consumed by the poor and working classes, was worth only from 20s. to 24s. per dozen, duty paid; and on that duty was 15s. per dozen; while champagne, that was worth from £3 to £5 per dozen, was only charged 2s. duty per dozen. Again, Madeira, old-crusted port, and sherry paid only 5s. duty per dozen; whereas whisky, which was worth 30s. per dozen, paid 18s. duty per dozen. The poor man's tobacco was also taxed far more heavily than the rich man's finest cigars. He reckoned that the working man paid 10 per cent of his income in taxation, while the man with £10,000 a-year did not pay 5 per cont. The tendency of all the laws of England showed that they were made by the rich simply to tax the poor; and so long as that state of things existed it was a disgrace to England. He could see no reason why Clubs should not be taxed, as they were made use of by the rich for the purpose of luxury, or in some instances as a means of evading the law. They sold ad libitum duty-paid articles without a licence; while the unfortunate trader was compelled to pay a licence tax for everything that he sold. The result was, that they had considerably increased; and he therefore asked why should not Clubs be taxed? As an instance of the abuse of Clubs, he would mention the case of one in Dundee—the 480 Artizans' Club—which did not consist of more than 100 members, whore it was proved in Court that, on Sunday, the 13th of April, there were sold in the Club-house no fewer than 290 glasses of whiskey, 1,200 bottles of porter, and 18 gallons of draught beer. He should have thought it impossible that, in a Club of 100 members, so much liquor could be consumed in one day. He did not bring this instance forward as a point against Scotchmen; but he mentioned it simply to show how Clubs, which had not to take out licences, and which were petted by the Government, abused their privileges. ["No, no!"] At any rate, it was clear that a tax upon such institutions would help considerably to swell the balance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the great reduction of expense which would be brought about by the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue into one, and so reducing the expense of collection.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a rather curious class of his constituents who desired to be taxed; and he thought it would be the first instance that evening in which they had men themselves coming boldly forward and pleading to be taxed. It appeared that, according to the Scottish law, dwelling-houses might be let on verbal leases, and that such verbal leases were binding. It was desirable to have some record of these agreements, and it was the usual custom of the landlord or house-factor to write and ask whether the tenant meant to continue in occupation. That communication and the reply of the tenant in the affirmative, were held as proof of the verbal agreement. It had, however, been held that these written memoranda of verbal agreements were equivalent to leases, and consequently subject to a tax of 10s. per cent. The tax was the same for yearly letting as for a lease of 30 years; and the consequence was that this heavy tax discouraged the keeping of written memoranda of agreements of house-letting. The house-factors of Scotland, therefore, came down to the House in his (Dr. Cameron's) person, and begged the Chancellor of the Exche- 481 quer to impose a small tax upon these written agreements. They suggested that he should sanction a 1d missive stamp as legalizing an agreement for the letting of a house under £10 a-year rent, and they pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make money by the transaction. In Glasgow, at the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman did not receive £15 of duty, because 95 per cent of the agreements were simply verbal, and consequently paid no tax whatever. They stated that if a 1d. missive stamp was imposed it would be universally used, and would yield £132, or a clear gain in Glasgow alone of £117. The amount was not much; but, in those days of small surpluses, it might be of some advantage. The house-factors of Edinburgh endorsed the view of the Glasgow house-factors, and they put forward the statement, for example, that of 4,274 houses let at rents under £10, there were only 20 cases where stamps were employed. Had 1d. stamps been employed, instead of the £2 now accruing to the Revenue, the amount would be £17. The same story was told throughout Scotland, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to oblige them by imposing this tax.