HC Deb 05 May 1893 vol 12 cc253-5

Order for Third Reading read.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I undertook that, on the Third Reading, I would recommit this Bill with reference to Clause 5 in order to meet some objections which have been taken to it. On consulting the authorities, I find that there is some objection to inserting a new clause now, and I shall, therefore, confine myself at present to omitting Clause 5. I move that the Bill be re-committed with reference to Clause 5.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 5."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 be omitted."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. BRODIE HOARE (Hampstead)

thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courteous way in which he had met his objection respecting Clause 5, and expressed his regret that the Forms of the House would not permit the right hon. Gentleman to move the new clause now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. BARTLEY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider during the coming year whether he could not do away with Schedule B altogether, and throw the whole of the Schedule into Schedule D? This would tend very largely to simplify the Income Tax, and would be a step in the direction of the re-arrangement which everyone desired.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I think that is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration.

COLONEL BRIDGEMAX (Bolton)

said, it was rather disturbing to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there had been no equalisation of the Death Duties, because hon. Members had understood from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888 that an equalisation had been carried out by him under the Budget of that year.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, that, speaking as an agriculturist, he should very much object to the abolition of Schedule B, because, although it might be all very well in these bad times that agriculturists should make their returns under Schedule D, he thought that in the good times, which he hoped would come back again eventually, it was very advantageous to the farmer to make his return under Schedule B.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into a question respecting the assessment of the Land Tax? Some communications had passed between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself with reference to certain parishes on the east coast of England that had had their area reduced by nearly one-half owing to the washing away of parts of them by the sea. The Land Tax was still charged on the old area. The Dissolution came before the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could settle the matter, and he trusted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to set it right. As usual, it was said that there was a technical difficulty in the way of altering the assessment. Of course, that was all stuff, and there was nothing of the kind.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will promise the hon. and gallant Member, now that I have got rid of the Budget, to look into the correspondence.

*SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he desired to express, on behalf of a large class of his constituents, their great regret and disappointment that the deficit had been made good by a summary increase of the Income Tax, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thus trenched in time of peace upon that which should he looked upon as a reserve for time of war. During the period of office of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer two reductions of the Income Tax had taken place, and the payers of the tax naturally made a very unfavourable comparison in that respect between the present Budget and those of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, that throe years ago evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee respecting the fact that the Income Tax was not collected on premiums upon houses. The evidence showed that such premiums were simply rent paid down instead of deferred, and that such premiums ought to be subject to Income Tax just as much as annual rent was. The system of demanding premiums for the letting of houses was said to prevail extensively in London, and it was, therefore, very clear that a large number of metropolitan landlords were not subject to Income Tax which they ought really to pay. That seemed to him to be a matter worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.