HC Deb 31 July 1891 vol 356 cc1027-35

14. £709,806, to complete the sum for Customs.

15. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,584,024, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department.

*(2.20.) MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

I desire to address a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the action of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. A month or two ago I pointed out that the Income Tax Commissioners were, under the apparent sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, refusing to return Income Tax to grammar schools and other charities, which they assert do not come within the exemption allowed by the Act. The House of Lords, in the suit "Commissioners of Income Tax v. Pemsel," has, within the last few days, decided that the Commissioners are quite wrong in their interpretation; and that charitable purposes in the Income Tax Acts include, as they have hitherto always been taken to include, all purposes coming within the purview of the 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 4. I shall be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do. Will he undertake that the Income Tax Commissioners shall not carry this misplaced ingenuity to some other Department, and that they shall at once refund the money which they have illegally kept for the last two years or more?

MR. GOSCHEN

was understood to say that, following the recent decision of the House of Lords as to the liability of charities to Income Tax, a refund had already been made, and would probably be succeeded by other repayments.

(2.30.) MR. CALDWELL (nearly the whole of whose observations were rendered inaudible by cries of "Divide!" and interruption)

It is no answer to me to say "We will consider the House of Lords' decision." We know very well that the Commissioners have formed an opinion of their own on the matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] The House of Lords has given a decision, which is that funds which are really for charitable purposes should be taxed. These Trades House Incorporations in Glasgow have certain funds. [Loud and continued cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] I think it most unreasonable. [Cries of "Divide!"] I move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question' proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

(2.45.) MR. GOSCHEN

I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has been allowed a very long time to state his case, and has repeated himself three or four times. I think he has said enough to do justice to his case, and I hope he will withdraw the Motion. I think everyone here understands his complaint—he has said ample to convey his views both to my mind and that of the Committee. He must allow for a little impatience if he repeats his argument two or three times over. He has said his say, and I hope he will withdraw his Motion.

COLONEL NOLAN

I hope the hon. Member will repeat his complaint, because there has been so much noise in the House that though I am anxious to understand it I have been unable to do so. I think that the whole British nation should be made aware of the manner in which the business of the country is being done.

*MR. MORTON

I am anxious that we should make progress, but the noise which has been made throughout the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division has prevented us from hearing his complaint. This is not the way to conduct the business of the House. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite is so disgraceful that I am bound to support the Motion for Progress in the interest of law and order

(2.51) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS

The Committee might have had this Vote some time ago if hon. Members opposite had listened to the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division. I cannot but express indignation when I find that hon. Members opposite refuse to hear a Member on this side of the House and compel him to move to report Progress.

MR. GOSCHEN

I hope the hon. Member has almost concluded his speech. If he will do so now no doubt the Committee will bear with him, but I think it will be acknowledged that cause has been given for some little impatience.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. It seems to me there is some difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to say what he thinks the hon. Gentleman means. [Laughter.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman may have a definition of the matter which my hon. Friend does not intend, and it might assist matters if he would state what it is.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

(2.54.) MR. CALDWELL

I will now, with the leave of the Committee, shortly and clearly state the point. These Trades House Corporations in Glasgow are 14 in number. The funds of the Corporations are used for the purpose of giving pensions to decayed brethren connected with the Corporations. The funds exist now purely for these charitable objects. It has always been the practice of the Inland Revenue not to charge any Income Tax or Government duty in respect of the funds of these Corporations. Within the last year or two the Government have started a 5 per cent. duty, which is far more than the Income Tax, and have levied that duty upon the funds of these Corporations, and the result is that those pensioners who have been enjoying, say £20 a year, have had £1 deducted. This shows the thorough unreasonableness of the position taken up by the Income Tax Commissioners. It is most unjust to charge these pensioners any Income Tax at all. When you are dealing with a trade or a Co-operative Society you do not charge on the aggregate of profits unless the whole income comes to £150; but here you deal with men whose incomes are not more than £20, and you exact from them not 6d. in the £1, which is the amount you get from wealthy taxpayers whose incomes are over, say £400, but you deduct £1 from their £20. The Government got a decision in England in their favour, but though they have legality on their side the inequity of the matter has been pointed out to them. It is no answer for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me what the legal interpretation of the Act of Parliament is. We ask him and the Income Tax Commissioners to have regard to the spirit of the decision of the House of Lords and to exempt these pensions from Income Tax. With the facts before him, and knowing what the decision of the House of Lords is, he is able to give a decision on the question. I am surprised that he should not have closed the discussion half an hour ago by agreeing that the decision of the House of Lords in the case of England shall apply in the case of Scotland. He knows that in the end that must take place. [Cries of "Divide!"] To give him an opportunity of offering a reply I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not necessary to move that in order to obtain a reply. The hon. Member has stated his case, and now it can be answered.

(3.0.) MR. GOSCHEN

I do not see that I have any further reply to make. Instead of speaking three minutes, as he promised, the hon. Member has spoken for 35 minutes. I should not be doing my duty if I were to allow myself to be guided merely by the length of the speech of an hon. Member. I cannot allow myself to be coerced into giving a wider answer than I have given already, namely, that the Treasury will loyally carry out the decision of the Court. The result of my having said that in the first place was that the hon. Member thought it right to detain us for another half-hour. I can say no more.

MR. CALDWELL

It does not seem to me that it is more than half-an-hour since I began. The delay has been owing to the fact that I was not allowed to finish my speech.

Vote agreed to.

16. £5,354,932 (including a Supplementary sum of £131,250), to complete the sum for the Post Office.

(3.5.) MR. KNOX

There are a large number of matters on this Vote that I wished to call attention to in connection with my constituency, and I will reserve all of them but one to the Report stage if I get a satisfactory answer upon that. I called attention to the matter the other day, but instead of getting a civil answer from the Postmaster General, he said something about my being interested in the appointment of someone, or applying for the appointment of someone to the office of Postmaster at Cavan. As a matter of fact, I have never applied, and I never intend to apply, to him, or anyone else in the British Government, for any post for anyone. Although the right hon. Gentleman refused to give me an answer, I have received information from other people on this matter. Letters have been written to me stating that the office of Postmaster has been bestowed upon a person, not out of regard for qualification or fitness. This post office is an important one, in the centre of a large rural district, and the number of people under the Postmaster is considerable. There were 35 applicants for the post. Some of them had been for 20 years in the postal service. Many of them had had 15 years' experience of post office work, and others had had 10 years' experience. Nevertheless, the person appointed had had only three years' experience. The person appointed, however, had an advantage that the others had not. It happened that her father was a henchman of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and though it is strictly forbidden that anyone in the post office should apply for a situation through a Member of Parliament or any other influential person, I am given to understand that the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh was given in the matter of the appointment of the person selected. The District Surveyor of the district, and the Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin, did not recommend this particular person for the appointment. I do not ask that the appointment which has been made shall be cancelled. It would be unfair to do that now, though I am bound to say that a general feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction has been caused throughout the district by the appointment made. I do not ask that the appointment be cancelled; but what I do ask is: that in future appointments of this kind in Ireland, the recommendations of the Post Office officials and the District Surveyor or Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin shall be considered, and those only, and that the recommendations of the local gentry shall not be taken into account. There is an important vacancy at this moment at Strabane, and I would express a hope that it will be filled, like all other Civil Service appointments, in accordance with the recommendations of officials who know the qualifications of the candidates, and not in accordance with family or other interest.

(3.11.) THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES, Cambridge University)

I do not wish to detain the Committee by answering the questions addressed to me at any length; in fact, I think I have already answered them. I cannot prevent Members of this House—on both sides of this House—and other persons from writing to me and recommending candidates when appointments have to be made, not only in Ireland, but in England as well; but the Committee may rest satisfied that I never allow myself to be influenced by these recommendations. With regard to the lady who was appointed to the Cavan office I may say, in the first place, that I was not aware that her father was what the hon. Member calls a henchman of the hon. Member for North Armagh. I was aware, however, that he had been an excellent and extremely meritorious servant of the Post Office, and that he had filled the position of postmaster in Cavan for many years to the satisfaction both of his neighbours and the Post Office Authorities. The office is only a small one, carrying a salary of £130 a year, and the young lady who has been appointed has been for years in her father's office—though she may only have been in the Postal Service itself for a short period. I have every reason to believe that she is thoroughly competent to perform the duties of the post which has been conferred upon her. In regard to the vacancy at Strabane, I may point out that although I did receive a letter recommending a certain individual for the appointment, I did not allow myself to be influenced by that recommendation, but appointed a gentleman from the Post Office in Dublin, in whose case I had received no letter of recommendation. I think this will be sufficient to show that in making these appointments I allow myself to be guided only by the qualifications of the individual selected.

(3.15.) MR. KNOX

The right hon. Gentleman has given a perfectly satisfactory answer as to the post office at Strabane, but at the same time I am bound to say that I have received such a large number of letters from members of the Post Office Service, as well as outsiders in different parts of Ireland, that I think if other appointments like that at Cavan had been made the dissatisfaction would have been general. I am glad to find that though the hon. Member for North Armagh succeeded in getting his nominee appointed at Cavan, his policy has not succeeded in the case of Strabane.

Vote agreed to.

17. £528,055, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.

*(3.17.) MR. MORTON

I notice here an item of £4,000 in connection with packets to Newfoundland. I am informed by some people in Newfoundland that the Allan Line who received this £4,000 charge higher fares than they do to places more distant. I want to know whether, as we give this subsidy, we have not some sort of control over the passenger fares charged.

MR. RAIKES

We have no control whatever over the matter of passengers, but only over the mails.

MR. KNOX

I should like to ask how it is that steamers from Belfast to Fleetwood carry mails, whilst steamers from Liverpool to Belfast do not. The Belfast and Liverpool boats are owned by an Irish Company, whilst the Belfast and Fleetwood boats belong to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company.

MR. CALDWELL

I desire to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that the mail steamers which ply between Strome Ferry and Stornoway sometimes go out of their way to call at Portree, which causes a considerable delay to the mails and puts the inhabitants of the district to very great inconvenience.

(3.20.) MR. RAIKES

I will inquire as to the Liverpool and Belfast line of steamers, but I must say I do not think it at all probable that another subsidy will be granted to a mail route between England and Belfast, looking at the extremely favourable arrangement we have been able to make with the Fleetwood boats. As to the Strome Ferry steamers. I would point out that in that particular contract it was arranged that on two or three occasions during the year—one of them being the period at which the Militia are called up and have to be conveyed from one place to another—deviations should be made from the main route. I should be sorry if this led to inconvenience, but I would point out that a large subsidy has been allowed in this case, so that larger and more commodious boats may be employed in the Service, and from these circumstances I think the public derive more advantage than is counteracted by the inconvenience to which the hon. Member has referred. The subsidy will come to an end with the year, and when it comes to be renewed we shall then have an opportunity of ascertaining whether better terms can be obtained from other companies.

Vote agreed to.

18. £1,716,080 (including a Sup plementary sum of £43,750), to complete the sum for the Post Office Tele graphs.