The diately, it was not only not nutritious, but even positively unwholesome. hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission of these restrictions from the clause. place, on the stocks of dealers in the hands of the refiners; and, secondly, upon the stocks of those large dealers in Bristol, and other parts, which came to them direct from the refiners, and had not passed into general trade, then, subAmendment proposed, in page 3, line ject to the opinions of those hon. Mem-11, to leave out from the word "animals" bers who were more immediately conto the end of the Clause.-(Colonel Brise.) nected with the trade, he should be prepared to assent to the Government proposals. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion? MR. CRAWFORD: That depends, Sir, on the answer which the Government may give. MR. CARDWELL: It is very important that there should be no misunderstanding as to the words which we My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has intimated his willingness to go further than this clause would do, if the word "dealers" were left out, and to take an intermediate course, applying the same principle which has been conceded to all cases of dealers that really fall within the equity of the refiner and manufacturer. With that view my right hon. Friend will not, without the consent of my hon. Friend (Mr. Crawford) behind me, desire to close the Committee to-night, in order that there may be an opportunity of considering the precise terms which it is desirable to use. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 6 (Farmers may steep and germinate grain to be consumed by animals). COLONEL BRISE said, that the terms of the Bill imposed needless restriction upon a farmer wishing to sprout his barley, binding him down to notices and conditions with which, from the circumstances of the holding, it was often difficult, if not almost impossible, to comply. He trusted that the time would soon arrive when every farmer might use his malt kilns freely and without restriction. The fact was, that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer now did was to legalize that which had long been done on the sly; for, unless malt was used imme MR. J. G. TALBOT said, he had placed a similar, but less comprehensive, Amendment on the Paper, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would, at least, concede the smaller boon if he would not accept the Amendment now proposed. Unless this were done, the farmers of Kent and Sussex would be debarred of the privilege which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to give them; and, as the right hon. Gentleman had, in his speech on introducing the Budget, acknowledged that this was a grievance, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would make the concession in a gracious and generous manner, and unaccompanied by these restrictions. This concession would be the more acceptable, as the privilege of using what was popularly known as "Gladstone's mixture" had proved of little or no service to farmers. MR. C. S.READ observed that unless these restrictions were removed this socalled boon would be almost intolerable to the farmer, who, if he steeped any grain without giving due notice to the Excise, would be liable to the trifling. penalty of £100 for his remissness. He contended that there ought to be no difficulty in conferring the boon unfettered by restrictions, which would seriously interfere with the advantages which would otherwise accrue to agriculture, and deprive farmers of some they now possessed. MR. WELBY said, the clause would work unequally in his part of the country (Lincolnshire), and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might grant some further concession without any serious risk to the Revenue. MR. STANSFELD said, the remarks of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read) were founded on a misapprehension. The hon. Member seemed to think the effect of the 1st sub-section of the clause would be that on every steeping of grain on a farm, however small the quantity steeped, and however often the steeping occurred, the MR. G. B. GREGORY said, he thought the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read) was quite justified in his remarks. By the terms of the clause, before steeping any grain, the farmer was required to give notice to the Excise of the places where he meant to steep it. [Mr. STANSFELD: He need not repeat that notice he had to give it once only.] As the words stood, they seemed to bear the construction which the hon. Member for South Norfolk put upon them; and it was not expedient to allow any doubt or ambiguity to attach to them. farmer would have to give notice of it | malt tax, and that, after all, they would to the Excise. He himself interpreted not impose so much hardship or inconthe clause in no such way. Reading it venience as appeared to have been supin connection with the context, and with posed. its whole object, he took it to mean that with reference to the steeping and germinating of grain as allowed by that clause, grain should be steeped and germinated in a given place; and that, before the place was appropriated to that purpose, it should be indicated to the Excise. There was no doubt that, as the clause was worded, it would not work with perfect equality, and that there might, in certain cases, be some trouble and some hardship attending it; but the real practical question was thisThey started with the fact that they were determined to maintain the malt MR. C. S. READ said, the Secretary tax, and they were asked to concede a to the Treasury had misapprehended his certain privilege to the farmer, as far as observations. The clause declared that the concession could be made consistently it should be lawful for the farmer to with the safety of the Revenue. Well, steep grain; but it required him, before those restrictions and regulations were doing so, to deliver a notice to the officer framed with that view; and in the opi- of Excise. Nothing should ever induce nion of the Commissioners of Inland him to germinate grain under those reRevenue, who were responsible for their strictions; but he wanted to know wheworking, it would be impossible to dis-ther he was to be allowed to steep grain pense with those restrictions in the man- as he had been accustomed to do, like ner now suggested. The main regula-most other farmers, without being bound tion or restriction referred to the build- to give such a notice or making himself ing or place where the grain was to be liable to a penalty of £100. steeped and germinated; and the clause provided that "Every such building or place shall be situate on the farm upon which the grain is to be consumed, and at a distance of a quarter of a mile at least from any malt-house or from any kiln upon which malt or grain could be dried; or, if not so situated, shall be otherwise situate to the satisfac. tion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If, therefore, the place were on the farm and at a distance of a quarter of a mile from any kiln, no special licence would be required from the Excise; but many cases might occur in which, where the place was not on the farm, or, being on the farm, was at a less distance than a quarter of a mile from a malt-house or kiln, it would be impossible to make the concession contained in the clause without those safeguards. Yet, it was within the discretion of the Commissioners, if it could be done with safety to the Revenue, to allow a place to be used for the steeping and germinating of grain, even although it might not come strictly within those conditions. The Committee might, therefore, feel that those restrictions were not merely arbitrary, that they were necessary for the protection of the Mr. Stansfeld THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the intention of the Government was that notice should be given once for all of the place to be used for would do if they struck out the words steeping purposes, and he thought it "before steeping any grain." COLONEL BARTTELOT said, he hoped the boon proposed to be given to the farmers would not be so hampered that they would be unable to make any use of it. The Government ought not to proceed on the assumption that the farmers were such downright rogues that they would endeavour in every possible way to defraud the Revenue. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was sorry that he could not accede to the request made to him. He disclaimed any particular distrust of the farmers of England; but all our Revenue law was drawn in a spirit of the most profound distrust of mankind generally. The restriction imposed by this clause was almost the sole one of any importance, and it amounted only_to what was necessary to inform the Excise. The policy of the matter was quite The Committee divided:- -Ayes 47; Noes 31 Majority 16. MR. STANSFELD said, he had to move, in line 13, to leave out "before steeping any grain,' " with the view of meeting the objections of hon. Members opposite. Amendment agreed to. MR. C. S. READ said, that it was monstrous that a farmer should be precluded from steeping grain, unless it were in a place of which notice had been given to the Excise, and he wished to take the sense of the Committee upon the expediency of omitting the words "steeped or" in sub-Section 4. MR. STANSFELD said, he could not consent to the proposal of the hon. Member, which would permit a process dangerously like the making of malt to be gone through. He could not see the object to be attained in crushing or grinding the corn after it was steeped. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would consult with the officers connected with the Inland Revenue, and, if possible, would suggest something on the Report to meet the views expressed by hon. Members. If he failed to comply with their request it would still be competent for them to raise the question on the Report. Clause agreed to. Clauses 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 16 (Duty on Railway Traffic Receipts). Clause 11. MR. SCLATER - BOOTH said, he thought some explanation was due from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the cause of his now proposing to omit the provisions relating to taxes on railway traffic. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that a deputation, representing £29,000,000 of the £39,000,000 of income of railways in the United Kingdom, had informed him they would much prefer being without the boon he had proposed to confer on them; and as he, representing the taxpayer, had no objection to keep the proceeds of the present tax, he thought it better to let matters stand as they were. He was their case to him; but, as the matter surprised when the deputation explained was somewhat complicated, he would not go into it fully unless the Committee particularly wished it. VISCOUNT BURY said, he would not attempt to divide the Committee; but he must protest against the summary dismissal of six clauses from the Bill, with scarcely a word of explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a member of a deputation which had laid before him very weighty reasons for adhering to his original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had, with a frankness and geniality which distinguished him, confessed that he knew nothing whatever of the matter. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had made no such confession. VISCOUNT BURY said, he did not insist upon that point; but the right hon. Gentleman must either have known all about the matter before he decided, and have come to an erroneous conclusion, or else he must have decided in ignorance of the facts. The tax on railway traffic was imposed in lieu of the revenue formerly obtained from post-horses, and now that the tax on the few remaining post-horses was abolished the tax on railway traffic should also be done away with. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he must take exception to the Chancellor of the Exchequer having used the word "boon." His proposal could not have been a boon to the railway proprietors, and he must have known it. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, I did not. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, in that case the Cabinet must have come to a decision without being cognizant of the facts. When the right hon. Gentleman said the railway companies did not wish to have this "boon " he used an improper word. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was quite willing to explain the matter. The Government proposed 1 per cent on the general traffic of the railways instead of, as at present, a tax upon passengers carried in trains other than those certified by the Board of Trade. The remission caused by that MR. GILPIN said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had displayed a very extensive knowledge of this subject to the deputations which had waited upon him. He regretted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given to the Committee a sufficient explanation of the very inconsistent course which the Government had now determined to adopt. As a rule, taxation on locomotion was a very undesirable thing, and because certain large railways objected to a parti change would have amounted to £100,000, I clined to accept what was supposed to be and the proposal was made on the pre- a boon, and preferred to wait till next sumption that the railways would be year, when they hoped the Chancellor of considerable gainers by the change. the Exchequer would be able to do them That was the opinion of the Railway justice. department of the Board of Trade. But it appeared that many of the lines were not friendly to the proposal for this reason-The Legislature had fixed a maximum for fares, and had charged 5 per cent upon passengers in uncertified trains, so that one would suppose the taking away of that 5 per cent would have benefited the railways; but in a great many, and these the largest railways, that was not the case, because two years after the Legislature had fixed the maximum the companies came to Parliament and ob-cular relaxation of such taxation it did tained private Acts to allow them to charge the 5 per cent in addition to the maximum fixed by the general Act, so that the tax was actually shifted by the companies on to the shoulders of the public long ago. The intention of the Legislature had been defeated, and the tax was borne by the general public. The railways, therefore, so far from being benefited by the proposed change would be losers to the extent of 1 per cent. He had thought it useless now to persevere with the clauses, for the good he had meant to do for the railway companies they had done for themselves already. The circumstance showed how defective the whole system of Private Bill legislation was. VISCOUNT BURY said, the right hon. Gentleman had lumped together two interests which were perfectly distinct. It was no doubt true that some railways disapproved the original proposal; but, on the other hand, others, and especially those in the South of England, were strongly in favour of it. MR. GRAVES said, he wished to state the reason which lay at the bottom of the objection on the part of the railway interest to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. They objected, in the first place, to a tax being imposed on the raw material-on the mineral traffic of the country; and, in the second place, they did not wish to be subjected to a new tax which, however fair it might seem at present, might be extended on some future occasion as an easy means of raising Revenue. He happened to know that these motives influenced the action of the London and North-Western Company. The railway companies de The Chancellor of the Exchequer not follow that the railway interest was opposed to all reduction. The proposal for the reduction of the duty might have been put into such a shape as to exclude the disadvantageous element of increasing the tax on the produce of the country and lessening it upon passengers. The right hon. Gentleman need not have said to the railway companies, as he practically did-"You will not take what I give you, and therefore you shall not have anything at all." MR. W. FOWLER said, he was very glad this quarrel had occurred between the northern and southern railways, believing that it would result in the full consideration of the subject another year. In his opinion this was an unjust and unrighteous tax altogether, and he hoped that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to remit it is toto. Clause negatived. Clauses 12 to 16, inclusive, negatived. MR. NEWDEGATE said, it seemed to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were proceeding in a manner by which the local administration of income tax was gradually being withdrawn and absorbed. Under these clauses the companies' assessment in regard to the administration of the income tax would be withdrawn from the local Commissioners. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would remark that that would not be the effect of the clause now under consideration. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he was obliged to deal with several clauses together under the peculiar form of the Bill. In older times, what was called systematic tacking or clubbing into one Bill several provisions relating to almost every one of the principal sources of Revenue, was not submitted to by the House of Commons; they would not allow the Revenue to be dealt with in that way. But the present Bill dealt with the Customs, with Excise, with Stamps, and with the income tax; and he was, therefore, bound to speak of the provisions relating to property and income tax as a whole. By these clauses the administration of property and income tax was gradually being withdrawn from the local Commissioners and placed under the special Commissioners, or central authority. It had been held that in all matters of direct taxation the people of the country ought locally to tax themselves. One reason was that there would be no appeal. At present the appeal was from the local Commissioners to the central authority; but if the business was transferred at once to the special Commissioners, the appeal would be lost. THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, pointed out that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were specifically directed to Clause 21. MR. NEWDEGATE said, the fault rested, as he had said before, with the form of the Bill; but he would postpone his observations until they reached the 21st clause. Clause agreed to. Clause 20 agreed to. Clause 21 (Special commissioners to assess public companies). THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that several hon. Members had represented to him that they had not had sufficient time to consider this and the following clause. He therefore proposed to withdraw them for the present, and bring them up again on the Report. MR. NEWDEGATE thanked the right hon. Gentleman for removing for the time the difficulty which he (Mr. Newdegate) felt, and he could only hope that these objectionable clauses would be not only temporarily but entirely withdrawn. MR. M'LAGAN said, he wished to express his obligations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for withdrawing the clauses for the present. It was only within the last few days that many persons in Scotland, who were most interested in the question, had had their attention called to it. MR. CRAWFORD said, he had been requested by gentlemen connected with various companies in the City to state their objections to these clauses; but would reserve any statement on the subject until they were re-introduced in another form. MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to withdraw these clauses altogether. It would be well to do so, to prevent a recurrence of the catastrophe which had occurred that evening. SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE said, he thought that the existing arrangements had worked very smoothly, and that there was no occasion to disturb them. MR. GRAVES said, that many representations had been made to him against these clauses, not only from the public, but the collectors themselves. The change would cause a loss of income to the collectors for work already done. This was really the remunerating part of the work, and the clauses would decrease the income of the Liverpool collectors by £100 a year, or about a third. If the clauses were brought up on the Report, the date should be altered to the 1st of April next year. It was worthy of consideration whether the whole subject of the compensation and superannuation of the collectors should not be dealt with in connection with these clauses next year. MR. ANDERSON said, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not bring up these clauses again on the Report. If he would say so now, it would save hon. Members a great deal of trouble. Clauses 21 and 22 withdrawn. Clause 23 (Persons returning lists of others in their employ to state amount of salary, &c.). MR. HERMON said, he regarded this clause as very unjust. Employers could be called upon at present to give lists of the names of persons employed in their service; but this clause, for the first time, proposed to compel them also to return a list of their salaries. The Chancellor |