of the Exchequer could not conceive the inconvenience which would be occasioned by this clause to the employers of labour. For them to hand over to the collectors a list of the persons they employed, with the salaries they received, would almost amount to sending it to The Times newspaper. The salary of every person in the establishment would be as well known as if it had been mentioned to each person by his employer, and the greatest heartburning would be caused. It would be found that one person was receiving a few pounds more than another, and great dissatisfaction would result. It would be more reasonable to compel the employers of labour to pay the income tax for their employés, and that was what the clause evidently aimed at. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] It was alike unfair to employer and employed, and he hoped the Committee would not consent to it. The clerks and others employed in establishments possessed as much good feeling and were likely to make as fair a return as the class of tradesmen. It was thought right that these persons should be intrusted with the elective franchise, and it was not fair to them to publish their incomes to the gaze of their fellow-employés when it might be the desire of their employers to keep it secret.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he did not regard the clause as a matter of the first consequence; but the arguments of the hon. Gentleman were not sufficiently cogent to induce him to give it up. It was necessary that the income tax should be levied on those in the receipt of £100 a year, and he did not suppose that the House wished those who were liable to it to escape. Was it, then, unreasonable to expect that employers should give a list of persons with their salaries, so as to save the Departments the trouble of making inquiries into the amount? Why should the expense of collecting the Revenue be increased to save employers from forming a duty so simple and so easy This was not a case in which money was collected to be sent out of the country to some foreign potentate. It was, on the contrary, everybody's business to facilitate the action of the Government, and to make the collection of the Revenue simple and easy, so that the public Department concerned might be spared time which, as in other cases, was money. He

Mr. Hermon

per

?

hoped that the Committee would sanction the clause.

MR. ORR EWING said, he regarded the clause as unnecessary and unjust.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE said, he thought it undesirable to adopt this inquisitorial process in order to save the Department trouble. The clause, too, presumed that a man's income depended entirely upon what he received from an employer, when he might have other means of making up his income besides the salary he received, as in cases where a man was employed in one establishment while his wife or family kept a small shop elsewhere. The wisest course, he thought, would be to withdraw the clause altogether.

The

But

MR. CANDLISH said, he did not think the clause unreasonable. desire was to get at the truth. then the clause imposed upon employers such duties as they could not discharge. He would not be in a position to state the exact income of every man in his employ, as they sometimes worked in groups. He would therefore propose, as an Amendment, to insert in line 17 the words "so far as from the ordinary books of the employers such returns can be given."

MR. MORLEY said, he thought the most that could be required of employers was to give a return of the amounts received by those in their employ who had salaries above the amount on which income tax was paid. The ultimate object of the Government seemed to be to make employers collectors of income tax. The clause had created a great deal of strong feeling, and it could not be passed without great difficulty.

MR. MUNTZ said, he thought it would be utterly impossible, in large concerns, for masters to state what was the exact amount of their workmen's earnings. One man often made an agreement, whereby he got a number of men to work under him and paid them himself.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the clause. It was most disagreeable for employers to be turned into something like informers.

MR. MELLOR said, he would like to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of a family earning upon the aggregate £100 a year from the same employer, they would be

returned as only one person, or whether the head of the household, who earned perhaps only £25, would alone be returned?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that in deference to the feelings which had been expressed, he would not press the clause.

Clause struck out.

Clause 24 agreed to.

MR. G. B. GREGORY said, he rose to propose a clause with respect to the liability of horses or mules kept solely for the purposes of husbandry to duty.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman's object might be attained if he would be content with the assurance that in cases, for instance, where a farmer employed his horses in gravelling a road, and received no hire for doing so, the concession for which he asked should be made. That proposal could be carried into effect more advantageously through a regulation of the Board of Inland Revenue than by means of a clause in the Bill.

MR. G. B. GREGORY said, he was afraid the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would hardly meet the case. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue had always held the instance with which his clause dealt to come within the category of exemptions. His object was that where a surveyor of highways employed a farmer's horse for the purpose of carrying materials to the road, that horse should not thereby be liable to duty, whether the farmer received hire for the horse or constructive payment in being excused from liability to the rate. There was a practical grievance, which could be redressed without the loss of any revenue worth considering. He begged, therefore, to move the following clause :

(Horses kept for husbandry.)

"Whereas doubts have arisen with respect to the liability of horses or mules kept solely for the purpose of husbandry to Duty, Be it Enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act no person shall be required to take out a licence under the Act of the thirty-second and thirtythird years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fourteen, for any horse or mule kept by him solely for the purpose of husbandry, on account of such horse or mule being occasionally used or employed in drawing materials for the repair of roads and highways, and whether for

hire or otherwise."

MR. DYCE NICOL, in seconding the Motion, said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's refusal to allow any exemption on horses so employed, was considered a great hardship in those parts of Scotland with which he was connected, particularly as turnpikes were there being entirely abolished or rapidly reduced, and the cost of the maintenance of the roads fell exclusively on the proprietors and tenant-farmers, while the public thus derived a great benefit. As the increase to the Revenue of the country by the altered mode of levying the tax proposed by the Chancellor of Exchequer must be quite trifling, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make this concession, which he thought the Scottish agriculturists had a right to expect at his hands.

New Clause (Horses kept for husbandry,) (Mr. George Gregory,) brought up, and read the first time.

MR. WELBY said, that the repair of roads in these country parishes was an absolute necessity. Farmers would be glad to be relieved from the job, and ought not to be subjected to the tax for performing this necessary public duty.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had already made this concession-that if horses kept for use in agriculture were gratuitously used for purposes not agricultural, they should be exempt from duty. He was also willing that the same exemption should apply where a farmer employed his horses in drawing materials for the roads, receiving no pay, but only such benefit as followed from a reduction of rate. Here, however, he must stop. Some principle must guide the Committee. If a farmer were paid for the use of his horse in carting materials for roads, how could his case be distinguished from that of the farmer who made money by the hire of his horse for other purposes? Was it fair that, when so many other persons were taxed for keeping horses, these exemptions should be continually extended? He did not wish to make any new law or to expand the old law; but when a man was paid for horse hire

for

any purposes he should pay duty. MR. DISRAELI said, he wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the practical effect of not acceding to the clause. The roads could not be maintained without

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

SUPPLY.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NORTH LANCASHIRE STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY-OBSERVATIONS.

MR. HERMON said, he wished to call attention to the correspondence between the agents of the North Lancashire Steam Navigation Company, the War Office, and the Admiralty, relative to the despatch of the 80th Regiment from Fleetwood to Dublin towards the close of last year. It appeared that about the end of August it became known that the 80th Regiment would be sent to Ireland on service, and the agents of the North Lancashire Steam Navigation Company wrote to the Horse Guards offering to convey the troops to Belfast or Waterford. The reply received stated that arrangements for the conveyance of troops were made by the Admiralty; but a note had been made of the application, which should be borne in mind if steamers were required for the service. There appeared to be some want of harmony between the two Departments, otherwise the Horse Guards would have simply handed over the letter to the Admiralty, whereas the Steam Navigation Company were obliged to write another letter to the Admiralty, placing any one of their three steamers engaged in the passenger trade between Fleetwood and Belfast at the disposal of the Government. The Admiralty then inquired at what rate the company would be willing to convey the 80th Regiment from Fleetwood to Belfast. A tender was made at the rate of 8s. 6d. per man, provided the number of troops was not less than 500. The Admiralty, however, stated that no requisition had been made at present for the removal of troops to or from Fleetwood; but the offer would be The Chancellor of the Exchequer

per man; but by way of Holyhead, at the increased rate of 12s. 7d. per man, for their conveyance by water, while the personal comfort of the officers and men had been to a great extent disregarded in the arrangement. What the expense was to send them to Holyhead he did not exactly know, but he believed it to be considerable. Hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of these facts, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why those troops were sent viâ Holyhead, at considerable increase of cost and discomfort, in preference to availing of the tender of the North Lancashire Steam Navigation Company for their direct conveyance from port to port?

MR. CARDWELL said, he hoped he should be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, in the tone of whose statement there was nothing to complain of. The 80th Regiment was divided into two wings, one being at Fleetwood, the other at Liverpool. In December they had been called on rather suddenly to reinforce the troops south of Dublin; the natural thing, therefore, in the judgment of the Quartermaster General, was to send over the second wing of the 80th Regiment to Dublin, not to Belfast, to which port the vessels of the Fleetwood Company traded; and having a standing contract with the London and North Western Company for the conveyance of troops, they had availed themselves of that contract. He understood from the inquiries he had made that the Fleetwood Company had mentioned to the Admiralty their willingness to change the port, but only in