HC Deb 03 May 1888 vol 325 cc1253-85

(Mr. Courtney, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)

CONSIDERATION,

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. SLAGG (Burnley)

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:— That, on and after the passing of this Act, or at such other date subsequent thereto as Her Majesty may fix, by an order made with the advice of Her Privy Council, the Excise Duty now payable on plate of silver and gold made or wrought in Great Britain, or in Ireland, shall cease and determine; and that the Duty of Customs now payable under the Customs Tariff Acts on imports of plate of silver gilt or ungilt, and on plate of gold, shall also, on the same date, cease to be charged, and all drawbacks now payable on plate of silver or gold on being exported from Great Britain or Ireland shall cease to be paid, said, in doing so he was happy to inform the House that it would not be necessary to trespass upon the attention of hon. Members at any considerable length. It seemed to him that he had very few persons to convince in regard to the important question he was about to bring forward. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was almost the only individual it was necessary to address specially, other hon. Members having already been converted to his proposition, and the right hon. Gentleman himself having, in fact, been his principal guide and tutor in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the fact that a few years ago he had deliberately condemned the imposition of a duty upon plate, and upon that occasion it was understood that upon the very first opportunity the Government would consider the duty upon gold and silver plate in connection with the subject of hall-marking. It would be out of Order for him to propose formally the amendment of that system, by which the duty on gold and silver plate was now levied. He should, therefore, be obliged to confine his remarks to the necessity of abolishing the duty at the earliest possible moment in the general interest of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, had imposed several new duties, some of which wore more or less oppressive to the trade of the country. He (Mr. Slagg) confessed that it would be very acceptable to him and to others connected with the industries of the country to see some relief given to trade, and he knew no better way in which it could be done than by abolishing those duties on gold and silver plate, which were now antiquated and absolutely barbarous. Personally, he was amazed that the present system of taxing an important and growing industry of the country had remained so long. The amount raised from the duty was really so trivial that he should have thought on the very first opportunity the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken means to get rid of the system. The system itself was some centuries old, and it appeared to be supported only by a small clique of persons who were connected with the trade in London and elsewhere, and who were not the most enterprizing persons of their class. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not hesitated to attack other classes. Why did he hesitate to attack this monstrous and inadequate monopoly? He believed that the reason for this backwardness on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be found in the restraint placed upon him by the action of the Goldsmiths' Company in London. Possibly, in anticipation of action to be taken in that House, that worthy, august, and ancient Corporation had made haste to incorporate among the Company a number of right hon. Gentlemen who had seats on the Front Bench, in order, he presumed, to dine down any proclivities they might have in the direction of interfering with these duties. He thought nothing more was needed to point out the undesirableness of continuing these duties than to show what their effect was. The trade in silver plate was decreasing seriously, both in quantity and in quality. In 1857, duty was paid on 1,930,000 ounces; in 1868, upon 780,000 ounces; in 1877, on 786,000 ounces; and in 1886 on only 690,000 ounces; or 1,000,000 ounces less than in 1825, notwithstanding the increase of population which had taken place in the interim. Those figures spoke for themselves, and proved the important fact that not only was the industry oppressed by the present system of taxation derived from hall-marking, but that it was in such a languishing state that before long it would inevitably expire. But, further, there was another fatal defect in these duties; they crushed out any enlargement of the trade in the direction of artistic development, as any hon. Member could see for himself, if he would look into a silversmith's shop. In the meantime, what were foreign countries doing? While our trade was languishing, that of America was improving by leaps and bounds. There was no such system there of hall-marks and duty, and the result was a large development of the trade. While we were harking back to the days of Queen Anne and George III. for our artistic designs, other countries were striking out new designs altogether, and were producing articles which beat ours and secured the customers who we formerly supplied. At present we were resting quietly under this competition which we had ourselves raised, and we were allowing a country like America not only to take away the whole of our trade, but to absorb the whole of our workmen and take them over to their factories. There were two large firms in America which alone made more artistic silver plate than the whole of our firms put together. On these grounds he made a strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay some consideration to the question. The right hon. Gentleman—and with justice perhaps—pleaded that it was now too late in the day to make such alterations in his Bill as would meet these grievances; but the right hon. Gentleman must be convinced of the importance of the subject, and he hoped he would at least give them an assurance that he would take an early opportunity of dealing with it, and, if possible, of setting it right. He thought that if the House could only be made aware of the loss of employment and the destitution of artistic application caused by the operation of these taxes, there would be a general demand for their removal. There was only one further part of the question upon which he would trouble the House with a very few words—namely, the effect of these duties in India. In India the silversmith's art was a very ancient one, and many of the inhabitants of that country were specially skilled in producing silver articles of great beauty and design. While, however, we professed in this country to be making every possible effort to foster the Native art of India, we were really doing all we could to stifle it and crush it out, by meeting it with a virtual prohibition at our Custom Houses, owing to the fact that it could not pass our hall-marking process, seeing that the silver rupee was a little below the standard of our own silver. Thus we absolutely denied to our own Dependencies the advantages which might be derived from a trade of this sort with the Mother Country. He thought that hon. Members who took an interest in the welfare of India would support his proposal. It was utterly impossible that they could extend trade as it ought to be extended until the imports to which he was objecting were done away with. He had no hesitation in expressing his full condemnation of the present system of hall-marking. But that was not the point which he desired to raise on that occasion. What ho wished was to give to those who were in favour of abolishing the duty the opportunity of voting with him if they possibly could. There could be no doubt that hall-marking was a very great burden and tax upon the art of the country. He had made appeals to various Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the answer which he had invariably received was—" Oh. yes; we agree that it is a barbarous and antiquated state of things; but we are held and bound fast by the difficulty of dealing with the question of drawbacks." He was surprised, after the steps which had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, that he should flinch from facing the question. He (Mr. Slagg), as a Free Trader, would have no hesitation whatever in removing the duty without considering the question of drawback at all. It had been done in other cases, and he did not see why they should stand shivering on the brink. To meet the difficulty, however, he would propose to compromise these drawbacks. He knew that the suggestion he was about to make could not be acted upon now; but he threw it out for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, to give, as had been given in former instances, one year's drawback on the whole stock of silver plate. The amount of gold plate was so small that he thought it might be left out of the question, being simply confined to wed- ding rings. Taking the average for the last three years, he estimated one year's duty at £50,000, and this sum he would apply to the extinction of all plate duties. He ventured to think that the sum of £50,000 would liberally cover all demands of the trade. In the last few years about £150,000 had been paid in the shape of drawbacks, and two-thirds of that sum had gone in consumption, so that there was only one-third remaining upon new and unused silver plate. That sum would, therefore, be sufficient to pay all demands; and, although it was not a large sum, he believed it would satisfy the great bulk of the trade. The proposition would only be opposed by dealers in old plate, if only upon the ground of giving artistic employment to the working men of our large towns, and of removing an injustice to our fellow-subjects in India. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give some favourable reply to his proposal. He believed that hon. Members opposite, in voting for the Clause, would give satisfaction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the right hon. Gentleman himself desired to have some expression of opinion upon the justice of the case. He, therefore, hoped that hon. Members would support the clause he proposed, which would confer a lasting benefit upon the commerce of the country.

Clause (Silver and gold plate,)—(Mr. Slagg,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he was unable to go the full length of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg). Although the sum involved was not a large one, he was very unwilling to withdraw the duty entirely, because the fact should not be overlooked that it was a tax upon luxury. He also doubted whether the removal of the customs upon imported plate would benefit the British trader; whereas such removal would give rise to a very severe competition from India. The real grievance was that the present regulations in regard to hall-marking had the effect of practically excluding Indian goods from the English Market. He agreed with the hon. Member that Indian artificers were highly skilled, and it was one of the industries with regard to which it might be said that India was in advance of this country. It seemed to him that there were two questions to be considered: in the first place, the duty; and, in the next, the question of hall-marking. He thought the regulations as to hall-marking ought to be altered, so as to give India fair play.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said, the only Question before the House was the question of duty, and it would be out of Order to enter into the question of hall-marking.

SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was simply about to suggest that a duty should be imposed, without any reference to the material upon which it was put. If a man chose to pay the duty he could do so.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member was going into a subject which was outside the scope of the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought it would be possible to discuss the matter without any reference to hall-marking at all. In his opinion, it was desirable that the duty should be retained, and that there should be a stamp of some kind, such as that which was placed upon patent medicines, and other articles that were subject to Imperial duty, That was the only suggestion he intended to make.

MR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said, that he should have been quite prepared to support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg), if his clause had ended with the first part relating to the remission of the Excise Duty on gold and silver plate wrought within the United Kingdom; but he could not support the second part of the Motion, which proposed to abolish the duty on imported foreign plate. He did not see how the languishing home trade would be benefited by the Market being flooded with more base foreign goods. It was an important admission for the hon. Member for Burnley, who was well known to be an active Free Trader, to make—namely, that the foreign trade was growing by leaps and bounds, whereas our trade was declining.

MR. SLAGG

I only referred to the trade in silver plate.

MR. HOWARD VINCENT

said, that after the ruling of the Deputy Speaker he presumed it would be out of Order to follow the hon. Member into the question of hall-marking; but he could not resist the opportunity of saying that, in the opinion of a large number of artificers connected with the silver plate trade in Sheffield, that the present system of compulsory array was a great protection to them, and a guarantee of the good work of many honest but unknown small masters and artizans.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said, the remarks of the hon. Member were not in Order.

MR. HOWARD VINCENT

said, he would not pursue the matter further. He only hoped the hon. Member for Burnley would adopt the suggestion he had offered.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, that although he sympathized with many of the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg), he could not entirely agree with him as to the causes which had led to the diminished consumption and use of plate in this country. There was a time when good plate was made in this country, before George IV. melted down his plate and had it reconstructed into extremely bad plate by Rundell and Bridge. From that time the trade had fallen off. The modern habit of not putting plate on the dinner table had led to a large diminution of the trade. He was old enough to remember when it was the fashion to cover the table with plate. It was now the fashion to cover it with flowers instead. He did not think the imposition of the duty had had much effect in reducing the trade. There was no dispute as to matters of taste; but he could not agree with the opinion which had been expressed that American plate was very superior to ours. With regard to Indian plate, some people admired it more than he did; but there was no doubt that Indian artificers showed great capacity. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to dealing with Indian plate in some manner, so as to give it fairer play in the Market here, he should have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. The tax, however, was a tax upon luxury, and it was not, therefore, one of the first taxes that pressed for removal, such as might be the case if it were a tax upon necessaries.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg) upon the question of the discontinuance of hall-marking; but he did agree with him as to the desirability of removing the duty upon silver plate. Among other disadvantages, it was open to the objection that it was an almost insurmountable obstacle to the adoption of a system of bimetallism. If the tax were abolished, he believed that numbers of persons would engage in the manufacture of silver articles who were now prevented by the duty from doing so; and this would operate to restore silver to its true relative value and its primary function. The use of silver as money was a secondary one; the primary use of silver was in the manufacture of articles of luxury. In sacred history we read that the offerings of the Princes of Israel for the building of the Temple were not given as so many shekels of money, but in silver plate, chargers or dishes of silver, and gold spoons, valued in no other way than according to weight. That proved satisfactorily that in ancient times the primary use of gold and silver was in the manufacture of articles of luxury. The secondary use was for coinage which subsequently became the chief function of both the precious metals. The question of bi-metallism was being very much agitated at the present moment, he believed that this duty had acted very much as an obstacle to that system, because it prevented the application of silver to its primary use in art and commerce, and so lessened its value relatively to other things.

MR. WIGGIN (Staffordshire, Handsworth)

said, that he knew the plate manufacturers of Birmingham and Sheffield intimately, and he was satisfied that as a body they did not want any alteration in the matter. He had not received a single application on the subject from the manufacturers of Birmingham. It was quite certain that the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had not paid a recent visit to Birmingham, or he would have seen that the articles he described did not altogether belong to the taste of the past. If the right hon. Gentleman would only pay a visit there, he would see that the trade was able to produce artistic articles of great beauty, and in the very best taste.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, he thought that the question lay in a nutshell. He did not know whether what he had to say would satisfy the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg); but he might state that if he could he should be glad to do so. Hon. Members were by no means unanimous as to whether the tax ought to continue or not, and it was curious to find how differently the same tax might be regarded even by two Members sitting on the same side, the one looking on it as a tax on industry, and the other wishing to maintain it as a tax on luxury. He confessed that his own sympathies were rather in the direction of the remission of that duty if it could be done. The hon. Member for Burnley had referred to the views of those whom he had called the monopolists; but the hon. Member would do him the justice to admit that there were some classes whom he had been obliged to touch by his Budget who were far more formidable than that particular industry, and no opposition coming from a small though opulent class would in the slightest degree affect the decision of the Government in such a matter. The hon. Member for Burnley had, he thought, to a certain extent exaggerated the effect of that tax, and he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the opinion that it was not the tax which had prevented an increase in the consumption of that class of manufacture. He could not dispose of the question of the drawback in the same light and airy manner as the hon. Member for Burnley. At the same time, he did not wish to state the question of the drawback too strongly; he desired to be very careful, as he might have to deal with it on other occasions, and therefore he would not enter into controversy with the hon. Member on the subject. It was not a question of opposition only—the opposition of the silversmiths in that House would be almost absolutely nil; but there was the question of equity as to dealing fairly with the class affected. They were in this position as regarded drawback—that while in respect to most articles—for example, tobacco and some others—the bulk of them was kept in bond, and a comparatively small stock of them was not in bond; whereas in the case of silver there was practically no manufactured silver in bond. The case of drawback in regard to silver would stand on a different footing, because the duty was paid in a different manner. The question of drawback had seriously embarrassed successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in dealing with that matter. The matter was one of a complicated character, requiring time and close examination for its satisfactory solution, with due regard to the interests of the public on the one hand, and to what was equitable towards the manufacturer on the other. If the hon. Member would withdraw his proposal, he would promise him that he would continue to give the subject his best attention. He could make no pledge as to the time when the matter should be dealt with, as it must depend on the condition of their finances and other circumstances; but his sympathies lay in the direction that he had indicated, and he was especially desirous of remedying the Indian grievance which had been pointed out.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the course adopted by his Predecessors on this question, he wished to add that it was perfectly true that they had endeavoured to deal with this question. In 1880 his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian proposed the gradual reduction and ultimate abolition of the tax on silver and gold plate, and it had also been his duty to make a proposal under which the duty would have been abolished. But he was obliged to point out that when the Liberal Government proposed the abolition of the duty according to these two plans, they were met by very considerable political opposition, which was strong enough to make it impossible in 1880 and 1883 to carry through the proposed abolition. Now, he could promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Gentlemen on that side of the House would not throw in their lot with a small discontented body of silversmiths, and use their political power to defeat a measure for the abolition of the duty. He was very glad to hear what bad fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he made no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would be able next year to apply a small portion of any surplus he might have to get rid of the tax altogether. On those terms, he would ask the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Slagg) not to press his proposal to a Division.

MR. SLAGG

said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) very heartily for the manner in which he had met his Amendment, which he would now ask leave to withdraw.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

said, that on a former occasion the principle of the Amendment in his name was put forward by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Bryn Roberts), who gave reasons in support of it; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it was a matter which excited so little interest that it required no answer. He (Mr. Warmington) believed that a study of the Division Lists of last week would show that the subject was one of wide interest. There were many small tradesmen and others who, although good men of business, were not able to put two sentences together, and who, when they appeared before men very well versed in these matters, were at a very great disadvantage in attempting to make good their case against the assessment. Small tradesmen desired that they might have an opportunity of being represented before the Commissioners by some skilled persons who would be able to put forward their claims for the revision of the assessments made upon them. In other classes of the community there were also many persons suffering from unjust assessment for Income Tax, because they found it better to submit to the injustice than to go to the trouble of appearing personally before the Commissioners. That was so, particularly with those who had the concerns and interests of people committed to their charge, and whose time was so valuable that it was impossible for them to sacrifice it by personally representing their case to the Commissioners. On these grounds he ventured to propose the Amendment in his name upon the Paper, which he thought was founded upon reason and good sense.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, after Clause 22, to insert the following Clause:—"Any person appealing against an assessment of Income Tax shall be entitled to appear by solicitor."—(Mr. Warmington.)

Clause (Persons appealing may appear by solicitor,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that many hon. Members, at the first blush, might think it desirable that solicitors should be allowed to appear before the Commissioners; but he would point out that the clause would give a totally different character to the proceedings which now took place. Dealing with these matters in a common-sense way was certainly equal to the advantage of having legal persons present. Of course, if a solicitor appeared on one side, it might be necessary to have a solicitor on the other side also; and the consequence might be that, instead of cases being rapidly disposed of by the exercise of common-sense on the part of impartial persons, there would be a long debate on each side. He felt certain that it was in the interests of persons who had to appeal that the process should be kept as simple and as commonplace as it could be. If people could not calculate upon the time at which their cases would be heard, it would be a great hardship. The Amendment would destroy the certainty which now existed. Experience had shown that upon the whole the present tribunal had given satisfaction, and it was not a tribunal before which it was desirable to introduce long legal arguments.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

said, he ventured respectfully to differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was quite indifferent whether it was a solicitor or any qualified agent who might be entitled to appear; but he could not believe that because such persons came before the Commissioners to state the case of a person who considered himself unduly assessed there would be any waste of time. It was generally found that the more perfectly a man knew his case, the more rapidly he was able to put it forward; on the other hand, it was, generally speaking, the person who was not a practised man, and could not put his facts together, that wasted time in stating his case. He many years ago had a client, a manufacturer, a very able mechanic, a genius at inventions, but bad at accounts. This gentleman was assessed for Income Tax at thrice the propor amount. He appealed, but could not present his case clearly, and gained nothing by his appeal. Next year he consulted him (Mr. Gedge), and he was somewhat irregularly allowed to go with him before the Commissioners. In a few minutes he put the matter clearly before them, and a reduction of two-thirds of the Income Tax followed. He thought that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite would facilitate matters rather than delay the proceedings. The Income Tax was a very unpopular tax. ["No, no!"] An hon. Gentleman said "No;" but if he were acquainted, as he (Mr. Gedge) himself was, with persons whose incomes were about £600 or £700 a-year, he would find that among that class the Income Tax was very unpopular indeed, and that it was particularly so with the class who came under Schedule D. He believed that if, instead of the present system, they could let the appeal be heard by the County Court Judge in camerâ, and allow the appellant to be represented by a qualified man of business, who understood accounts, and could put the matter clearly before the Commissioners, it would be of advantage. The Commissioners, of course, would not allow the representative to go into any legal arguments. The question would not be one of law, but simply of figures, and he believed that the proposal would lead to a great saving of time, and to much greater content on the part of the taxpayer, who would no longer feel that he had been treated unjustly.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, it would be a disadvantage if the representations to the Commissioners were turned into a legal argument; but he should be glad to know whether the grievances really existed which the hon. Member (Mr. Gedge) complained of? He believed that, under the present system, the Commissioners did not insist on personal attendance. As far as his experience went, a person could send anybody he liked to represent him; and, from his own observations, certainly it was not necessary for indi- viduals to appear in the case of the valuation of houses for Income Tax. The owner might send any person he thought fit, and if that took place under one Schedule, he did not see why it should not also be allowed under another Schedule.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 214: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 89.)

MR. CRAIG (Newcastle-upon Tyne)

said, he ventured to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see fit to agree to the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper. Over and over again, in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he had declared that it was not his wish to strike at the lower classes of wine introduced into this country, for which they were so much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that it was his wish that only high class and costly wines, especially champagne and expensive clarets, which were the luxury of the rich and seldom the luxury of the poor, should be subject to the increased duty. One of the disadvantages under which the House suffered in this discussion was that they had not been supplied by the Government with statistics showing the quantities of bottled wine from various countries which would be affected by this proposal. But in the course of the debate of last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) had given some statistics which he thought furnished a clue to the quantity of French wines which would be affected by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it became law. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the British Consul at Bordeaux had reported that the quantity of wine exported from that port to the United Kingdom in bottle was 700,000 gallons. That was a very moderate estimate, although, if they took into account other French wines which were not sparkling, he thought that something like 300,000 gallons more would not be an erroneous estimate. The quantity of French wine in bottles other than champagne then affected would be not less than 1,000,000 gallons. That showed why it was that the French people might be said to be up in arms against a measure which so seriously affected their commerce; but the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs went further. He referred to some figures that were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and he admitted that the quantity of wino bottled and exported from France was twice as large of champagne as of all other kinds. He said that there were 90,000 hectolitres of champagne as against 45,000 hectolitres of other kinds of wine, which showed that no less a quantity than 2,000,000 gallons of champagne were exported annually from France to this country. The tax proposed by the Bill was 2s. 6d. a-gallon, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the tax would produce only £125,000 when taken on all classes of bottled wines brought to England, whether from France or other countries. The House would see, therefore, that the produce of the tax had been largely underestimated, and that on champagne alone the right hon. Gentleman might get twice as much as from all other kinds of winos taken together. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had failed to perceive that, with regard to France, they were creating a sort of international animosity which might result in retaliatory measures. Retaliatory measures had been spoken of in France, and M. Goblet had had the greatest difficulty in prevailing on the Chamber not to propose retaliatory measures, the object of which would be to deprive us of the benefit of the Act of 1882, which extended to England the "Favoured Nation Clause." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to tax costly wines only, no harm would be done; but there would certainly be reprisals, if the wines which were drunk on middle-class tables were interfered with. But France was not alone concerned in this matter. There was a trade springing up between Portugal and this country, and which, strange to say, the Portuguese Government had taken measures to promote in this country by means of their Consul. He knew of one case where the Consul had endeavoured to make people acquainted with the fact that there were wines in Portugal as good as claret and Burgundy, and more than that, they had succeeded in supplying this wine in bottles at 16s. a-dozen, yet in this Bill they had a proposal to put on that wine a duty of 7s. per dozen bottles. Take the case of Spain also. Owing to the measure carried out with respect to the alcoholic scale of duties in 1886, trade was being brought back to this country. Then, again, there was Germany with her light Rhine wines, hock and Moselle, and there was Italy also trying to introduce its wines into this country; and the same might be said of Greece. As might be imagined, England could not inflict a tax of this sort upon the industries of those countries without being met at every port with vexatious imposts upon our ships by way of retaliation for this tax. This question was of particular importance from the point of view of those interested in shipping, because there were constantly little imposts inflicted upon that class of property abroad which ate away all profit that might otherwise accrue from the voyage, and really left nothing for the owners. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would limit this excessive surtax to expensive classes of wine, he would lose nothing of the amount which the charge had been estimated to produce, and, while that alteration would not injure our trade, it would preserve to us the advantages we had enjoyed in our friendly relations with France and other countries. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 1, after the word "bottles," to insert the words "and of a greater value at the port of entry than thirty shillings per dozen bottles,"—(Mr. Craig.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper embodying the same principle as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Craig)—the difference between the two Amendments being, that his hon. Friend's Amendment seemed to have been suggested by way of compromise. He (Sir George Campbell) could not vote against a proposal of the Government to place a special tax on luxuries; but, at the same time, it seemed to him an enormity that Scotch whisky, worth perhaps 10s., should be charged 20s. a-dozen duty, while the rich man's champagne, worth perhaps 100s., was only charged 2s. a-dozen. It was contrary to all principle to enact that the rich man's articles of consumption should be charged less duty than the poor man's, and he would like altogether to reverse that principle. But although he very much doubted the expediency of the form in which the special tax had been laid upon champagne, yet, as he had said, he was totally unable to vote against the proposal of the Government. He thought they ought to spread their net wider to tax luxuries. As regards wine the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) ought to have put his proposal into a more discriminating shape; he should not tax all wines equally, but make a distinction between the high class wines and the comparatively poor wines. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had stated, a few days ago, in reply to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Provand), that it was better to keep out of the country champagne which, was sold at 20s. a dozen; but he (Sir George Campbell) thought that there was a fallacy in the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that the result would be to encourage British champagnes. It was well known that at Hamburg they could supply the finest brand at 12s. a-dozen; and he thought that the British people were wanting in science if, with a Protective Duty of 7s., they could not produce an excellent bottled wine of the character of champagne. It seemed to him, therefore, that the result of taxing these cheap wines would be not to keep out low wines, but to promote the manufacture of wine in this country. He agreed that if they carried too far the taxation of wine from France it would be at the risk of irritating the French people, with whom, above all, it was most desirable to keep on good terms. He hoped the Government would be able to see their way to make some compromise in this matter, and he thought that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was a reasonable compromise to propose. He knew that it was the practice of the British Custom House Authorities to assert that it was impossible to discriminate with regard to the value of tea or wine and other things; they said they could not discriminate whether an article was fine or inferior, and that, therefore, all classes must be taxed alike. But that was not true of other countries, in all of which something in the nature of ad valorem duties were to be found. He remembered in Calcutta there were ad valorem duties, and he could affirm that he had not found the insuperable difficulties which the British Custom House officials spoke of. Therefore, he could see no insuperable difficulty in the way of carrying out the principle here. In dealing with the Wine Duties, the English Government had first offended Spain, and now they were trying to impose a duty on bottled wine from France, and wore very likely to offend that country also. He doubted whether the argument about Commercial Treaties was a sufficient reason for entering into this course of treating foreign countries; and he thought it neither right nor fair that alcohol in foreign wines should be taxed much more lightly than the alcohol in home produce. He thought his hon. Friend's Amendment was framed in fair terms, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would favourably consider it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that the House was aware that it was the wish and the intention of the Government to levy this tax only upon the more expensive wines. He had shown on former occasions that the tax would not be paid by the cheap wines, because they could and would be imported in casks and not in bottles. The wines of Spain and Portugal would certainly come in casks. The House generally, he understood, did not object so much to the taxing of the higher classes of wines, but to the taxing of the cheaper wines. A largo portion of these cheaper wines could be imported in casks, but there was some portion of them that could not. Her Majesty's Government would like to find means to relieve these wines, but the difficulty was as to the method of doing so. They should also be glad if by such means they removed any feelings of irritation that had been aroused abroad, for though they had pointed out that they could not adapt their fiscal system in every point to foreign susceptibilities, yet it would be very satisfactory if these were not aroused. The hon. Member, by his Amendment, proposed that wines under a certain value should be exempt from this tax. But here was the difficulty. How was the value of the wine to be tested at the port of entry—by its intrinsic value or the hopes of the seller? How could the wine be tested, except by drinking or tasting it? How could they ascertain whether it was worth 30s. a-dozen or not? He should be quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member if any method could be discovered whereby it was possible that the value of 30s. per dozen could be arrived at without giving rise to fraud, friction, and irritation of every kind. The principle of the Amendment he accepted, but the difficulty was in its application. So far the Custom House Authorities had not been able to devise any satisfactory means of ascertaining the value of any particular class of wines, sugar, tobacco, and tea, and other products, the value of which varied in an extraordinary manner. It had been attempted to tax tea on the ad valorem principle by tasting it, but the experiment led to every kind of difficulty, and proved to be a great impediment to trade. The ad valorem theory was excellent in principle but most difficult to carry out in practice. There had been tea-tasters and there might be wine-tasters, but that was not a satisfactory system. It was suggested that the article should be taken by the Customs Authorities at the value declared. But this involved the wines being subsequently sold by auction and sacrificed. These were the difficulties that had to be faced; but he was quite prepared to promise that he would continue to consider this question with the Custom House Authorities, and that if practical means were found of determining the value of wines, he would be willing to accept the limit of exemption suggested by the hon. Member. It would not, he thought, be advisable to put into the Bill a clause in regard to which they could not at present see how it could be worked. But if the House were disposed to accept the Amendment, he would suggest that it should be modified to the following form:— Provided that, from a day to be fixed by an Order in Council, this section shall not apply to wines imported in bottles after that day if of a value, as determined by regulations made by the Commissioners of Customs, not exceeding 30s. per dozen bottles. The objection, however, was that it would give very considerable power to the Treasury and to the Customs; and, though he made the suggestion, still he thought the more preferable course would be to pass the Bill as it stood, upon the pledge—which he was willing to give the House—that he would pursue the consideration of the subject in concert with the Custom House Authorities, with a view of ultimately bringing in a Bill which would show the manner in which the value might be arrived at, and enable the House to judge better as to whether the exemption was based upon proper principles.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the House could not but feel satisfied with the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the Amendment. He (Sir William Harcourt) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be an undesirable precedent to pass a Bill containing a clause giving the Treasury a sort of roving commission in the shape of the discretionary power such as had been suggested. He should, however, much prefer to rely on the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a separate Bill dealing with the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman undertook that, in the course of the present Session, he would introduce some legislation which, under the authority of Parliament, would carry out the principle of relieving the lower-class wines, that would be most satisfactory. But he must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that though he and his Friends were satisfied with the attitude taken by the Government in that particular instance, they objected to the tax as a whole; not on account of its character, but because of the effect it would have upon our commercial relations with France. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon that point, although it was a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and the objection made to the tax was not merely that it was imposed on the cheaper wines, but that the tax was calculated to affect our commercial relations with France. The House had been given to understand that Her Majesty's Government had been in communication with the Government of France on the subject, and he thought that they had a right to ask that, before the Bill went finally out of I their hands, hon. Members should be informed how the Chancellor of the Exchequer exactly stood in reference to the French Government in regard to the question. He hoped that some arrangement had been arrived at between the two countries, which would remove the grave apprehensions which there was some reason to think had been entertained; for, certainly, it seemed exceedingly ill-advised to risk serious consequences to a trade of £20,000,000 for the sake of so small a sum as this tax could produce.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) must be aware that if the proposed plan were adopted, a large portion of the French grievance would be removed, because that grievance had been largely founded on the amount of wine that would be taxed. He should have thought it would have facilitated an amicable discussion with France, if the House would wait to see the effect of the proposal now made with regard to the cheaper wines. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the bulk of our trade with France. Her Majesty's Government also had a very great principle at stake, and that was whether, in regard to their fiscal policy, they were not perfectly justified in maintaining their rights. The French Government, he thought, would not contest that for a moment. He deprecated the continuance of the debate at that moment with regard to the relations between France and England as to these questions, and did not think it would produce so amicable a settlement as they could desire. At the same time, he felt that he had no right to deprecate it in strong terms, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it should take place, as he fully admitted their right to bring such an important matter before the House if they wished to do so.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, he recognized the fact that Her Majesty's Government were with regard to this matter placed in a very difficult position, even more difficult than was shown by the words of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman considered it best that the clause should remain, as at present he thought the House might be satisfied if he would give an assurance that after obtaining further information the Government would bring in a Bill, not at the end of the Session, but at an early date, to secure that low wines should pay a reduced duty. He felt that full confidence would be had in the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman; but the matter was not one which would bear much longer delay, and he trusted that no time would be lost in framing a Bill under which wines of a lower class would pay a lower rate of duty. No one, it was true, liked to go back to the system of ad valorem duties, after their distinct repudiation by this country; but matters could not be left in their present state. It was unfortunate that the proposal as to wine in bottle should have been made; but, it having been made, and approved by this House, he thought it best to accept the view now taken by his right hon. Friend.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he wished, with the indulgence of the House, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, if there was to be another Bill brought in dealing with these cheap wines and the method of raising duties upon them, that Bill should not include the whole of the wine question, so that there might be time for the right hon. Gentleman not only to consult with the Custom House Authorities, but also with the French Government? He thought that would facilitate matters considerably, and he did not see that the course presented any insuperable difficulty.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said he quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a disposition to get out of a difficulty which he thought had been gratuitously created. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that this House should have absolute liberty to control its own fiscal arrangements. There was no doubt that we could preserve our fiscal liberty. So could the French Government; and nothing was truer than that if we took this course, the liberty which the French Government possessed would very soon be exercised. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He could not make an appeal to Gentlemen who did not regard the benefit of Free Trade as between the two countries. He believed he should be supported by everyone in the House when he said there was no policy which had benefited this country and the world at large more than the existing commercial arrangements between this and other countries. It was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might satisfy the French Government that he intended to act in good faith under the assurance given to the House that evening, and that he would endeavour to free the cheaper wines coming into this country from the enormous surtax proposed. But this was not the whole difficulty; they might assure the French Government of this, but could they assure the French people that their wines were not to be charged at this excessive rate? He would be sorry if the House should assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as he at first submitted it. It seemed to him that the amount was so small that it was not worth while for £125,000 to run the enormous risk of a disturbance of the trade relations between England and France as well as other countries. The cheap wines of those countries would be largely on the increase in future years, and it was of the first importance that no difficulty should be thrown in their way. He ventured to enforce upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the enormous necessity of the course suggested by his right hon. Friend—namely, to withdraw from the present proposal with regard to the wine tax. In making this appeal, he would ask what was the inference drawn from the proposal of the Government? It was that for the paltry sum of £125,000 it was proposed again to disturb almost in perpetuity our commercial relations with every country; and those Governments which wished to extend Free Trade with us would have additional trouble thrown upon their hands to restrain those who wished to act upon contrary principles. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet measured the difficulties which underlay these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman said he would be doing a service to the bottling trade of the country.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not say that. It was not his intention to do so. He said it would not injure the proposal— that it would, perhaps, have that effect. The instance he gave was simply by way of illustration.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House was the restriction of the duty on wine.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a fuller and truer estimate of the injurious effects inseparable from his proposals as they now stood; and he suggested that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was far sounder—namely, to suspend the matter until the further proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were laid before the House.

MR. GOSCHEN

asked, whether he understood that the right hon. Gentleman Sir William Harcourt had suggested that there should be a withdrawal of the whole duties?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT [who was met with loud Ministerial cries of "Order!"]

said, he had been asked a question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he desired to reply to it. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] He appealed to Mr. Deputy Speaker whether he could not reply to the question?

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said, this was extremely irregular, and asked the Mover of the Amendment whether he persisted in it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT [across the Table to the Chancellor of the Exchequer]

I regret that I cannot answer your question.

MR. CRAIG

said, after the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would now move the omission of the clause, which, he understood, would enable the House to discuss the whole question of the Wine Duties. He did not wish to speak again on the matter at any length; but he did wish, on his own part, to enter his protest against the plan of the Government as it now stood. He had to complain that the House at present had received no information as to the situation in which the Government stood with reference to the French negotiations; but, of course, if the Under Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs said it was not convenient to make a statement at the present moment, he should not press for it. All they desired was that no difficulty should arise between this country and France in regard to the subject. They had no desire to hinder or embarrass Her Majesty's Government; but they saw a great danger which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fully recognized. They, on that (the Opposition) side of the House, did not deny that each country had the right to settle its own fiscal system or that the right hon. Gentleman had the right to impose the tax, but the question was as to the prudence of such a proposal as I was made by Her Majesty's Government. The French Government and people might be perfectly unreasonable; but they often had to deal with unreasonable people; and if they were prudent they would not offer unnecessary provocation, especially when large interests were at stake. A more retaliatory speech than that which was made by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night ho had never hoard. They must protest to the last, and leave on record their objections to this unnecessary raising of the duty on bottled wines, the amount to be obtained from which would have been raised with less difficulty had it taken the form of an increased duty on cigars. They must, however, leave the whole responsibility of the difficulty that would be created between this country and France to Her Majesty's Government. [Ironical Ministerial Cheers.] Yes; he was aware that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who now were cheering would cheer as much, or even more, at a declaration of war, because their doctrine was that of retaliation. [Cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear!"] Those hon. Gentlemen differed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer because that was not his doctrine, and it was because he (Sir William Harcourt) knew what was the policy of the Supporters of the Government that he recorded his protest against it. He gave credit fully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not proposing the new duty on any such ground; but, at the same time, in view of the fact that it might lead to a considerable amount of misunderstanding and angry feeling in France, they regarded it as likely to lead to very prejudicial consequences. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 3.—(Sir William Harcourt.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not think ho could add much to what he had already stated. But he must protest in the strongest manner against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he and his hon. Friends were going to divide against this clause because it was a provocation to France. He disclaimed in the strongest possible manner the suggestion that it was a provocation.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not say there was intentional provocation—[Cheers]—intentional, no doubt, in the sense of those hon. Gentleman who cheered, but not intentional provocation in the sense of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said it would have the effect of provocation.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman in stirring up a cheer had really gone a little too far. Surely, it was injudicious that a Gentleman in his position should tell the people of France that they on that side of the House cheered the words "provocation to France." The right hon. Gentleman really must have said that in joke. He hoped it would be so taken elsewhere. To say that even a declaration of war would be cheered by hon. Gentlemen on that side might be good as a rhetorical retort, but he was sure that no one would seriously wish to irritate the feeling of Members in any quarter of the House. He only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman by his words had not done as much to disturb public feeling in France as he believed. the Government had done by the proposal of this tax. He was always ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman, if possible, but he was anxious to bring the discussion to a termination, because in a matter of this kind it was so desirable that difficulties should not be increased by indiscreet utterances in that House. The Government would go to a Division on this question, because simply on fiscal grounds they considered it expedient to place a higher duty upon the dearer classes of wines, but without the slightest intention of, impairing the commercial relations of this country and France.

MR. ILLING WORTH

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he had somewhat misapprehended the meaning of a statement made on the introduction of the Budget. He happened to have in his hand, however, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, of the 26th of March, who, in reference to he bottling trade, used these words— I take note, in making this estimate, of the probable, nay certain, diminution of the amount of wine which may at present be imported in bottle, and which will in future be imported in casks. It is possible that the bottling trade in England may receive a certain impetus, but I cannot conceive that that is an objection to the plan."—(3 Hansard [324] 313.) The right hon. Gentleman might have meant nothing by that observation, but if he meant nothing he wanted to know why it was introduced.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not say it was the intention to give an impetus to the bottling trade.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he had I not said anything about intention. He wanted to know whether there was any moaning to be attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the proposal which had been made would in the long run prove to be eminently a trade proposal. The right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult, indeed, by words used in that House to overthrow the feeling caused by his way of setting up this increased Wine Duty. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in a measure to deal further with the question if he could find a satisfactory and workable plan, but he had led hen. Members to hope very little from his statement, because he prefaced it by saying that it was almost impossible to determine a fair ad valorem duty, so that there was little reason to anticipate an early mitigation of the tax now proposed. It was impossible that this question could remain over to the end of the Session, because then a great part of the mischief would have been done. It was not probable that the French Minister could restrain the Protectionist Party in France unless there was immediate action taken, in consequence of the difficulty which the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman had already raised, and he, therefore, hoped he would relieve the country at once from a danger which it would otherwise take years to overcome.

MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)

said, he was sorry that the Government had thought fit to interfere with a trade which had been going on now for 28 years, and which amounted to between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 per annum, for the sake of gaining what was admittedly a small sum. It was not a trade with which we could afford to trifle, and there was considerable danger lest retaliatory measures should be adopted by France by the application of the "general tariff" to English goods. Grave apprehensions existed in the cotton manufacturing districts as to the probable results of the application of this tax. The fear of the "general tariff" being applied to cotton goods for France and Algiers had prevented a great deal of business taking place. With this tariff hanging over them, merchants were afraid to make contracts many months ahead. His constituents in Manchester felt the greatest anxiety. There was every fear that retaliatory measures would be adopted by the French nation, and that the trade which had grown so splendidly would decrease materially. For his own part it seemed to him that it was perfectly unnecessary to make this proposal. If the income tax had been reduced by ½d. instead of 1d., it would have satisfied those who wished to see the taxes reduced, and there would have been no necessity for seeking new taxation of a very exasperating character.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 115: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 90.)

Clause 4 (Alteration of duties upon carriages).

MR. OHANNING (Northampton, E.)

, said, the object of his Amendment was to continuo the Carriage Tax as affecting small four-wheeled carriages under 4 cwt. on the same footing as it had stood for the last 16 or 18 years. He could hardly think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have fully considered the result of his proposals. In his Budget speech he said he wished to remove grievances, but he was creating a grievance. While the alteration of the duties relieved the heavier single-horse carriages of one guinea, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase by 40 per cent, or from 15s. to 21s. per annum, the tax on that large class of lighter carriages. These small carriages—the vast majority of them—were used by people of small means in country districts. They were very largely in the hands of poor parsons—and all parsons were poor enough now—Dissenting ministers, small farmers, tradesmen, and ladies of limited means. He thought the remission of half the duty on the heavier carriages was just, and would have a good effect on the carriage building trade. But he wished to ask why should people of small means who had pony traps and small four-wheeled dogcarts, which now paid a tax of 15s., be called upon to contribute an extra 6s. in order that the remission of a guinea should be given to wealthier people who kept a large brougham or victoria, or a single-horse carriage over 4 cwt? He must say, he wondered at the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who was treating this as a laughing matter.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, that he did not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that. He denied that he had done anything to justify such an imputation.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, after the word "only," to insert the word "and shall weigh four hundred-weight."—(Mr. Channing.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, it was ridiculous for the hon. Member (Mr. Channing) to assert that the sole object of the simple proposal of the Government was to tax the poor man in order to reduce the taxation on the rich. It was preposterous to treat that matter as if it were at all a question between the rich and the poor, and he strongly deprecated that view being introduced in those discussions on every possible occasion. He greatly doubted whether people's carriages were small in proportion to their means, and it certainly had never entered the mind of the Government to attempt to make up for a loss of revenue on one portion of their proposals by raising the taxation of four-wheeled carriages that did not weigh 4 cwt.; and he could assure the House that that proposal was made, after the matter had been thoroughly discussed with all the various classes interested in it, solely with a view to simplification and to the relief of the owners of carriages themselves. It was also proposed with a view to get rid of the limited weight, which operated very prejudicially as regarded the construction of carriages.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, that many of the small pony carriages now paying only 15s. belonged to a class of people who very often kept no other conveyance, and to whom they were a great convenience. Those people were to have an additional tax of 6s., equal to no less than an additional 40 per cent, inflicted on them, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to raise the tax beyond the present rate of 15s. He regarded the Carriage Tax altogether as a mistake; but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he would venture to remind, posed during the Edinburgh contest as an opponent of the tax, would at least yield so far as not to impose the extra 6s. in that particular case, which would cause a good deal of feeling, but would accept the present Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, he considered that the effect of this increased tax would be to increase the number of two-wheeled traps, and therefore to increase the amount of danger to the women and children who used them. He would support the Amendment, which he held to be a very reasonable one.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 144: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 91.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Repeal of duties upon hawkers' licences).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.),

in moving an Amendment to the effect that the duty should be repealed altogether, said, he would point out that its imposition was a hardship upon a poor class of traders, seeing that they had to pay the Cart Tax in addition. He hoped that the Government would carry out their original intention of abolishing the duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word. "shall," to the words "annual licence," inclusive, and insert the words "cease to be payable."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. QUILTER (Suffolk, S.)

said, he hoped the House would not endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman. There ought to have been no reduction in the charge for the licences of hawkers, who were generally regarded as nuisances, injuring crops, breaking hedges for fuel, and acting in some cases as purveyors of stolen goods. Certainly, they were not a class to be exempted from taxation as against small traders in towns, who could be called to account if they sold inferior goods, while hawkers could. sell them with impunity. The facilities of improved communication between towns had almost rendered hawkers unnecessary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, he had received communications from several parts of the House as to the inexpediency, and, to a certain extent, the injustice, of repealing the whole duty; but he thought that hawkers were entitled to some remission. He did not consider that the arguments were very strong one way or the other, and therefore he was prepared to stand by his second determination, which was to reduce the duty from £4 to £2.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his first proposal. It might be that hawkers in Suffolk were worse than elsewhere; but, on the whole, he believed they did not deserve the aspersions cast upon them. On the contrary, he knew they were of the greatest service to the poor in many parts of the country, and brought to them many articles of first necessity at moderate rates, as, for example, petroleum for lighting purposes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 14 (Duty on contract notes).

Amendment proposed, In page 7, after sub-section (2), insert—" (3.) The amount of duty upon a contract note stamped in conformity with this section may be added to the charge for brokerage or agency."—(Sir Robert Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL LAURIE (Bath),

in supporting the Amendment, said, that without it business would not be remunerative to the brokers.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, that, in this matter, the first thoughts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were best. As the Bill was originally drawn, the duty would be paid by the broker's client, and that was plain and intelligible. He suggested that words should be inserted accordingly.

MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)

said, he must urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment.

MR. BARING (London)

said, he should personally have preferred the original words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he had been told that if the clause were passed in that form, a broker, in neglecting to charge his client, either by accident or agreement, with the price of the stamp, might be committing an offence.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words suggested by his right hon. Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Provisions as to the stamping of instruments).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICEURD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight),

in moving to leave out, in Sub-section (d)," every person by whom the instrument has been or shall be signed or executed," in order to insert "as in that behalf specified in the 1st Schedule hereto," said, the object had been originally to secure that some persons should pay the Stamp Duty. The clause had given rise to some discussion, and the Government had communicated with gentlemen well acquainted with business affairs, with the result that this modification was now suggested.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "every person by whom the instrument has been or shall be signed or executed," in order to insert the words "as in that behalf specified in the 1st Schedule hereto."—(Mr, Attorney General:)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

said, he thought the Amendment was ridiculous, until the Committee knew what words were to be inserted in the Schedule. This was really recasting one of the most important sections of the measure without Notice, and springing a new set of provisions on the Legal Profession and the public without warning. He protested against such a practice.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square),

in explanation, said, that most legal Members in the House were aware that he had been in Communication with authorities on the subject. The question had been thoroughly gone into with the view of satisfying the Legal Profession, and he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not had the same opportunity as other Members. The proposition had been thrashed out, and had obtained the assent of what might be called the representative bodies in the Profession.

Question, put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Further Amendments made.

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.