HL Deb 17 June 1861 vol 163 cc1166-9

Against the Passing of the Customs' and Inland Revenue Bill.

"Dissentient—

"1st. Because, whilst it is the manifest duty of Parliament to relieve the people from all unnecessary burdens, yet reductions of taxation are justifiable only when consistent with the efficiency of the public service, with the maintenance of public credit, when effected is strict accordance with constitutional principles, and with the independence and freedom of action of both branches of the Legislature.

"2nd. Because these indispensable conditions do not appear to have been sufficiently regarded or carefully adhered to, in the Bill now before the House.

"3rd. Because neither our late experience, nor any statements made in debate, nor any evidence produced in support of this Bill, afford sufficient proof that a surplus exists such as to justify Parliament in sacrificing £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, of which £1,330,000 is produced by the Excise on paper—a duty steadily progressive during many successive years—thereby proving convincingly that neither the amount of the tax, nor yet the law under which it is collected, have arrested production, and whilst prohibitions or the imposition by Foreign States of export duties on the raw material, check a natural fall of price, and the relief which might, otherwise, be given to the consumer.

"4th. Because it is the more unsafe to rely on the existence of an available surplus in the present year, justifying the abandonment of £2,463,000 of net annual revenue, when it is remembered that on the 10th of February, 1860, a surplus then estimated at £454,000 was, on the 15th of July, converted into a deficiency of £1,286,000; and that the excess of expenditure over income has, on the 31st of March, 1861, risen to the alarming amount of £2,558,384—a deficiency which would have been still greater had not (1st) the future receipts of revenue been anticipated by calling up duties on property, malt and hops to the amount of £3,148,000 (2nd) the Revenue been augmented by drafts on the Exchequer balance to the amount of £1,300,000; (3rd) by applying to the public service unexpected repayments of debt from a Foreign Power; and also (4th) by the consequence of the decision of this House in rejecting in 1860 the proposed repeal of the Paper Duties a decision made in the exercise of the undoubted rights and privileges of the House of Lords, and (lastly) the postponement of the payment of a debt of £1,000,000 due on Exchequer bonds.

"5th. Because it appears in a high degree improbable that, during the present year (with a future surplus which the most sanguine have not estimated as exceeding £408,000, or an expenditure of £69,875,000) our financial resources can be restored to that credit which befits our dignity or provides adequately for our national interests, in the present state of the continents of North America and of Europe. We may be driven again to draw on our Exchequer balances, again to postpone the payment of our lawful debts when due, or to pay them with borrowed money; the property and War Taxes may again be continued or augmented, and yet after resorting to these somewhat questionable expedients, services still unprovided for may require increased burdens; the commutation of the Stade Duties, the increased interest on Exchequer bills, which have too long remained at a discount, further sums required for the interest of the loan for our national defences, will all demand the attention of Parliament, and require to be placed upon a more secure foundation than the promised remittances from China, or the still more uncertain anticipations of the state of the weather during the next harvest.

"6th. Because, though it is proposed by the present Bill to repeal £1,133,000 per annum, property tax, and £1,330,000 duties on paper, thus establishing a somewhat plausible equality in the apportionment of relief between direct and indirect taxation, yet this will be found, on reflection, to be an equality, rather apparent than real; the first of these taxes being temporary, the latter permanent, and it hence appearing but too evident that any future national wants will be supplied by an increase and prolongation of the property tax, well described as fraught with political dangers leading to a conclusion that the income tax, though an admirable instrument for national purposes upon a great and national emergency, is a dangerous instrument in time of peace.'—[Hansard's Debates, 3rd February, 1859.]

"7th. Because, in addition to the preceding objections to the Bill before us, as arising from the present state of our finance and the inadequacy of the promised surplus of £408,000, objections equally serious, though of a different character, may be urged against the form which the measure assumes, and the mode in which it has been prepared.

"8th. Because the freedom and independence with which the two Houses of Parliament are enabled to perform their respective duties are essential to the dignity of each, and have invariably been appealed to by the highest legal and Parliamentary authorities, as indispensable to the harmonious working of our Constitution.

"9th. Because, though the rules of Parliament which preclude the annexation of distinct and contrasted subjects, as tacks to Bills of aid and supply, have been asserted and enforced by this House, yet it cannot be denied that precedents may be shown in which various financial measures have occasionally been united in one Bill, without the raising of any objection in this House. This will be found exceptional in some cases, as in the consolidation and re-enactment of existing laws, where no change is practically made in the amount of revenue raised; exceptional in others where the enactments embrace many thousand separate cases which could not, without great public inconvenience, be dealt with in distinct Bills. Some of these instances appear to be founded upon the questionable argument of convenience only; some to be highly dangerous in principle; and in all it behoves this House to watch with the utmost vigilance all such measures, and to guard strictly and firmly against a violation of the principle laid down in their Standing Order, 27th April, 1699, reasserted on various subsequent occasions, and now forming an important part of the law and custom of Parliament, and declaring—'That the annexing of any clause or clauses to a Bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said Bill of aid and supply, is unparliamentary, and tends to the destruction of the Government.'

"10th. Because the same principle asserted in the Standing Orders of the Lords has received the most unqualified assent of high authorities in the Commons. In 1787 [Hansard's Parliamentary History, p. 508], in relation to the proposal of blending two distinct subjects in one Bill, Mr. Fox stated—'This would not only be a bad precedent for the Commons, but would as absolutely preclude the Lords from free debate, as if the Commons had followed the example of Cromwell, and silenced a necessary and Constitutional branch of the Legislature.' On a subsequent occasion the same high authority spoke 'of the difficulty in which the House of Lords would be placed by the blending of the two objects in one Bill,' adding that—'Instead of affording the Lords reason to complain of the Commons for narrowing their grounds both of debate and of voting, the House ought studiously to avoid giving cause for such complaint.'—[Parliamentary History, 1787.]

"11th. Because it cannot be urged that although a Bill of aid and supply and a Bill for a repeal of a tax both relate to finance, they are, therefore, to be considered as identical in their Parliamentary character, and fitting to be discussed in a combined rather than in a separate form. Practically these Bills are opposite and antagonistic. The one grants, the other takes away; the one adopts and recites the following preamble, which invariably distinguishes Bills of aid and supply from all other legislative proceedings—'We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom, towards making good the supply we have cheerfully granted, do humbly beseech you that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons, and by the authority of the same,' &c., &c.

"A Bill for the repeal of duties, on the contrary, neither has, nor logically or reasonably can have, such a preamble. It would evidently be absurd to recite as a grant that which is a diminution of taxation. The Assent of the Crown is also given to a Bill of aid and supply in the ancient form of 'La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult.' To a Bill for the repeal of taxation the Royal Assent is given in the simpler but differing words of' La Reine le veult.'

"12th. Because the usual course taken by successive Ministers and Houses of Parliament has been to deal with the repeals of Taxes in separate Bills, and to send up the Bill for repealing taxation as a distinct measure. Of these precedents the following examples may be referred to:—

"13th. Because a practice of combining in one Legislative measure various and discordant subjects, more especially when the Bill is one of Aid and Supply, cannot but produce some risk that such Bills may be dealt with as a whole, and possibly rejected in consequence of some partial objection; a result which, though strictly in conformity with the indisputable privileges of this House, may occasionally lead to public inconvenience, and to the danger of an interruption of that good understanding which it is of such importance to preserve unimpaired between the co-ordinate branches of the Legislature.

"Monteagle of Brandon Harrington
Mayo
Rutland Grinstead
Normanby Wynford
Carnarvon Lucan."
Clancarty

House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.