COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 May 1892)

§ (12.8.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to report Progress. There is a matter of great importance I 1635 desire to raise, and which I have expressed my intention to raise—namely, the question of differential rates of Income Tax on incomes derived from industry and spontaneous incomes. It is a question upon which there is keen public interest. I refrained from raising the subject on the Resolutions in the hope and expectation that the Committee stage would be taken early in the sitting, and afford a more convenient opportunity for discussion. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will now consent to a Motion to report Progress.

§ (12.9.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square
I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Motion. The question to which he refers is no doubt of importance, but I am quite sure the Committee will be prepared to listen to the hon. Member, and I have not heard there is any desire for a prolonged discussion. The question is important, and is so surrounded with complications and difficulties that we cannot hope to take any action in the direction my hon. Friend wishes in this Session. I hope he will allow us now to make progress with the Committee, and it will be generally admitted it is desirable we should do so.

§ *(12.10.) SIR JOHN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)
The subject my hon. Friend desires to raise is of very great importance, and I do not think opportunity is given for its discussion commensurate with its importance. It is of vital concern to a large portion of the taxpayers of this country, and I think there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of some distinction being made in the assessments on incomes derived from personal and individual industry and incomes arising from capital. I do trust an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion, an opportunity which does not present itself at this hour.

§ *(12.11.) MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)
There is another question arising on Clause 4—the system under which small properties are charged on the gross instead of the net rental, 1636 whereas repairs are exceedingly heavy and owners are most unfairly charged upon incomes they do not receive. This is a question it is desirable we should discuss in Committee, and I hope a convenient opportunity will be afforded or the purpose.

§ (12.12.) MR. BARTLEY
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should dispose of the first two clauses? If I am compelled to introduce the subject to-night, I am afraid I should reluctantly be compelled to detain the Committee to a late hour.

§ MR. TIMOTHY HEALY (Longford, N.)
I think it would have been more fair to Members if the hon. Gentleman had put his notice on the Paper. I do not think it is fair to detain us here, not knowing what it is the hon. Member is going to propose. It would seem the hon. Member himself does not quite understand the subject, since he has given no formal notice.

§ (12.13.) MR. BARTLEY
I regret that my notice is not on the Paper; but I may explain that I could not give notice until after the Second Reading, and I was out of the House when that stage was taken, and was not aware until it was too late to put down a notice that it was intended to take the Committee to-night. That is partly the reason why I ask that the Committee stage should be deferred.

§ *(12.14.) MR. GOSCHEN
I thought it right to put the Bill down for this evening that my hon. Friend might not lose the chance of bringing forward his Motion. I do not wish to force the Committee now if there is any general desire that we should report Progress; but I do certainly desire to make progress with the Bill. I do not know what may be the view of hon. Members, but I am perfectly prepared to give the hon. Member his opportunity now, even though we sit a little longer than usual.

§ (12.15.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
I think the compromise suggested by the hon. Member might be accepted, though I am not sure that it would be quite fair to Members not now present, among whom I think it was understood that the Committee to-night would be only a formal stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that questions are likely to 1637 arise in reference to the maintenance of the Tea Duty, and the change proposed in the duty on sparkling wines. Perhaps, all things considered, it would be the wiser course to report Progress now.

§ (12.25.) MR. TIMOTHY HEALY
I think we might agree to report Progress having disposed of Clauses 1 and 2; that I think would be a reasonable concession for the right hon. Gentleman to make.

§ *(12.25.) MR. GOSCHEN
If we pass Clauses 1 and 2 I shall be willing to report Progress, provided that it is understood we shall take the Bill on Thursday, even though we may not reach it at an early hour, after the Vote on Account is taken. If it is possible on Thursday I would suggest that we might dispose of the Vote on Account, and take this Bill about eleven o'clock, but we must take our chance of that.

§ (12.26.) DR. TANNER
I want to explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he talks of disposing of the Vote on Account at an early hour—.

THE CHAIRMAN
That has nothing to do with the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

§ DR. TANNER
Then, Sir, about these Tea Duties. Several hon. Members have expressed their strong disapprobation of keeping this Tea Duty, and I am very sorry not to see the hon. Baronet connected with the total abstinence business in his place. He has frequently raised his voice in favour of Local Option, and would, I am sure, join with the hon. Member for Leicester and others in condemning the maintenance of this duty on tea. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might raise the hopes of his Party at the next General Election by a remission or reduction of this Tea Duty. Seeing that in the next clause the duty on sparkling wines is to be raised, I think this would be a good stroke of policy for the Government.

§ (12.28.) MR. TIMOTHY HEALY
On this clause I would call attention to 1638 the passage of the Prime Minister's speech at Hastings in reference to retaliatory tariffs to contrast it with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in repealing the Customs Wine Duties of 1888. That Act of 1888 had an important bearing on the policy of retaliatory tariffs, but you are now proposing to sweep away the power of reprisal. You do this because you are unable to rely on the word of the importer. At a time when Her Majesty's Government are talking of going back to the days of retaliatory tariffs, and of compelling merchants to show their invoices and things of that kind, here they are abandoning the principles established so recently as 1888. The Act of 1888 was to some extent in favour of the poor man, while the present proposal is in favour of the rich.

§ (12.30.) DR. TANNER
I think we ought to have some answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, else it may become our duty to move an Amendment reducing the duty to one shilling from two shillings.

§ *(12.31.) MR. GOSCHEN
I do not know that the hon. and learned Member meant more than a protest. I do not understand that he asked me any question. I referred to this matter in my Budget statement when I pointed out that some slight friction arose in carrying out the arrangement by which the higher class wines paid an additional duty. I do not agree that the lighter sparkling wines are largely used by the poorer classes in the community, and certainly we have no intention to benefit the more wealthy consumers, or to introduce any general system of ad valorem duties.

§ (12.32.) DR. TANNER
I may take some satisfaction to myself, inasmuch as in 1888 I pointed out the bad policy of giving an advantage to these cheap sparkling wines, which were often of a very deleterious nature.

§ (12.33.) MR. TIMOTHY HEALY
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say, for I do not recollect his Budget speech, how much he anticipates will be the increase in the Revenue from this change?

§ (12.33.) MR. GOSCHEN
I stated that the increase would be extremely small; the turn will be just in favour of the Revenue to some £10,000.