would sound like heresy to hon. Members who held, that as soon as all taxation was direct, it would become easy and pleasant, That was a view to which he could never attach himself. Long experience showed that vigilance was necessary on the part of the revenue officers, because the bulk of men were endeavouring to escape from the payment of taxes. They must not forget the disclosures which were frequently made, as in the case of the people in Cannon Street, who some years back made returns to the income tax exactly one tenth of the amount of those which they laid before a jury when claiming compensation. He felt bound to say that definite complaints against revenue officers were exceedingly rare. All that could be done by judgment, prudence, and moderation on the part of the officers of Inland Revenue ought to be done. Those gentlemen always laboured in that sense, and would not be honest if they did not; and he believed that the spirit in which the officers of the revenue endeavoured to act was a spirit of moderation and forbearance as well as vigilance. With regard to the particular proposal of the noble Lord, he would observe, that notwithstanding that the sum of £150 was mentioned in the clause, the Committee, as the limit of the income tax was carried down to £100, were now really concerned only with the case of persons having incomes under £100 a year. He felt some difficulty in meeting statements in regard to points of detail connected with the special working of a tax, when the parties never thought fit to lay those statements before him. He heard of them for the first time on a proposal being brought forward in that House, and thus no opportunity was afforded him of discussing them with the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. He felt great difficulty in committing himself, by a conversation in that House, to any alleged facts or proceedings. At the same time, he was sure the noble Lord would feel that it was not desirable to press upon the Committee such a change as he proposed in what, from the first, had been a standing rule in the administration of the income tax, until an opportunity was afforded of fully investigating the statements on which the proposal was founded. With regard to persons claiming exemption on the ground of having less than £100 a year, he apprehended that they were probably under some misapprehension as to the kind of relief they would obtain in any case from being allowed to The appeal to special commissioners. principal point of complaint was, that they had to travel many miles to exhibit the state of their affairs to the local commissioners. He quite admitted that the travelling was a serious inconvenience to persons of small means, but that would not be avoided by the adoption of the noble Lord's clause, for it would not be possible for special commissioners to hold a meeting in every village; and they could not be carried nearer to the doors of the people than the spots where the local commissioners at present sat. The noble Lord truly said that many of those persons were very anxious that there should be secrecy as to the state of their affairs; but he wished to point out the distinction between the case of people claiming total exemption and that of persons endeavouring to ascertain in discussions with the commissioners the precise amount they were to pay. A man paying the income tax might have £100 or £100,000 a year, and it might be of the utmost importance to him that it should remain hidden from the world on which of those two sums he paid, or that the point between them at which his income stood should not be known. The case of a man who claimed exemption was totally different; and if his income was less than £100 a year, the commissioners did not inquire whether it was £90, £80, or £70. With regard to the fact of exemption there could be no secrecy. The tax gatherer, in collecting the income tax, called at the doors of A, B, and C, and not at the door of D. Consequently, it became known that D did not pay income tax, and therefore no secrecy existed as to the only fact within the cognizance of the commissioners—namely, that D had less than £100 a year. LORD ROBERT CECIL said, all he wished was to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the grievances which he believed the Bill would inflict upon certain classes of the public in the hope that they would be taken into the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. It was not the mere disclosure of his income that a man disliked, but what he disliked was to be compelled to make that disclosure before a number of persons who were sitting around him in order to secure his liability to as high an income tax as they could exact upon the evidence which was forced from him. Now, a man naturally did not like the world to know his circumstances when he was going down in the world. There were many little details in connection with his affairs which it might be important for such a man to keep from the public eye. The grievance of such a person might not, however, be so great as that of individuals whose transactions were on a much more extensive and important scale. The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of £150 a year, as the point at which exemption ceased, was no longer in existence. Now he (Lord Robert Cecil) had looked most attentively into the two Acts on the subject; and, as far as his judgment went, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman incorporated the clause of the Act in which £150 a year was made the lowest point for taxation Consequently, some confusion upon the matter would, he thought, arise. Passing from that point to a much narrower question, he wished to explain the reason why he could not lay before the right hon. Gentleman those specific cases of hardship to which he had referred in general terms. When a man was going down in the world, he naturally felt the hardship the greater, and the injustice or over-zeal of the surveyor pressed upon him with peculiar severity. That was the very time at which least of all he wished to have his circumstances published to the world; that was a time when he felt it was all-important to his interests to have his affairs kept as secret as possible. Under such circumstances, he (Lord Robert Cecil) should never think of divulging the details of his case. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not draw from the mere absence of details, or the facts not specifically mentioned, the conclusion that there were no grounds for the complaint, or that the officers were working the Act as quietly and as gently as possible. He believed that the taxpayer was perpetually trying to escape from the hands of the surveyor, and that such cases caused a reaction on the part of the surveyor, who, in the excess of his zeal to counteract such a system, allowed himself sometimes to be betrayed into acts of hardship and injustice. MR. COLLINS said, he thought his noble Friend was under some misapprehension. The Income Tax commissioners did not hold an open court. Three commissioners, or two at all events, sat in a small room with their clerk and surveyor, and those gentlemen were sworn to secrecy. As far as the commissioners were concerned, they did not take much interest in small incomes, and there was no reason why the recipients of those incomes should not state freely their complaints. The surveyors had very difficult duties to discharge, but they readily paid attention to suggestions by the commissioners. The proper check was in the hands of the commissioners, who had only to intimate with firmness their opinion when they found the surveyors acted harshly, as he had known them sometimes do in assessing profits under Schedule D. He thought, however, that, upon the whole, the tax was levied with as little trouble and as much care as money could possibly be extracted from any one. MR. DOULTON said, he was sure the class of persons who had small incomes would feel very much obliged to the noble Lord for calling attention to the subject. He was glad to hear the assurance which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was convinced that if the pain was reduced to a minimum, the object of the noble Lord would be realized. MR. SCOURFIELD asked whether any encouragement was given to those officers who collected the tax without harshness, and whether any discouragement was given to those who added unnecessarily to the irritation of the persons assessed. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that those officers who made unjust charges were placed in an unfavourable position with regard to promotion. The hon. Member for Northampton had suggested that a column should be inserted in the Schedule in order that reductions claimed in respect of mortgages might be specified. Now, he asked the House to consider what would be the consequence of calling upon those who possessed property to declare the amount of their mortgages. He thought such an arrangement would not be regarded with approval. MR. JACKSON said, that his experience as a Commissioner convinced him that instead of the surveyors too strictly discharging their duty they were too lax in that respect. He never knew an instance of a person being really charged too much, and the mistake not rectified. MR. HENLEY said, he was not sorry that his noble Friend had called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject. He could not say that he was hopeful of any of the difficulties to which he had referred being amended; but the right hon. Gentleman had promised to turn his powerful and acute intellect to the matter; and as he could split hairs better than 19-20ths of the House of Commons, Clauses 2 to 8 were agreed to. Clause 9 (Lower Rates of Duty on Stage Carriages licensed to carry not more than Eight Persons). MR. AYRTON said, he would move to leave out "one halfpenny" in line 26, and to insert "one farthing," and to add to the end of the clause the following words: "And for and in respect of every mile which any stage carriage licensed to carry more than eight passengers at one time shall be licensed to travel, the duty of one halfpenny." Since he had had a seat in that House he never knew a clearer case of justice than that which he had to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Continual attempts had been made, ever since the introduction of railways, to obtain a fair and uniform duty on passengers travelling by stage coaches and railways. The difficulty was to say in what manner these taxes should be levied consistently with equality. In 1837, when a charge of onethird of a penny was paid by railways, and a farthing by stage coach passengers, he might devise some mode, in consulta-selling of excisable Liquors to their Memtion with the officers of Inland Revenue, bers) struck out. by which some of the irritation produced by those blisters might be lessened. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded, he should give him unusual credit for it, but his own opinion was that the irritation was incidental to the tax itself. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the greatest difficulties occurred in cases of exemption; but when persons claimed exemption, they ought not to grudge a reasonable amount of trouble to secure it. He had never seen anything unfair, harsh, or capricious in the conduct of the surveyors, but it was easy for any one to send a letter by post, calling attention to any particular case, when the wrong would probably be remedied. The surveyors were sure to be hated by every one, and he thought they went out of their way to relieve the public as far as possible from a good deal of trouble in connection with this odious tax. The commissioners had to find out whether the butcher, the baker, or candlestick-maker had an income of £98 or £100 a year. A Chancery suit was nothing to it. They had to find out how much profit was made out of a sack of flour, or when a beast was killed how the profit was affected by the weather and by the state of the markets, to say nothing a Committee was appointed to consider the of that blessed item bad debts. Or, per- subject. They reported that great inehaps, these wretched commissioners had to discover how much profit a schoolmaster quality existed, the travelling by animal with nine children made out of his boys, velling by steam-motive power was lightly power being heavily burdened, while traby an inquiry into how many pounds of taxed by comparison. They recommended meat were consumed by the boys, some of the abolition of all the taxes on public whom had large appetites, some small ap conveyances at the earliest possible period. petites, and some no appetites at all, and That Report produced no result, and in how many maid servants were necessary 1839 the subject was brought under the for the boys and how many for the nine notice of the House, but the state of the children. All these questions had to be revenue did not admit of a change. Lord discussed, and he was bound from his ex-Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Excheperience to bear testimony to the ability and forbearance with which the revenue in the rate of taxation, which it behoved admitted that there was an inequality quer, officers carried on their work and assisted Parliament to consider. The late Sir Rothe commissioners in arriving at a de-bert Peel admitted that the owners of the cision. Clause withdrawn. House resumed. older description of vehicles were suffering from the introduction of railways, and that it would be unfair on the part of the Legislature to give them an unequal share Bill reported, without Amendment; to of taxation to contend against. In 1842 be read 3o To-morrow. INLAND REVENUE BILL-[BILL 97.] COMMITTEE. the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced a Bill to carry the principle that had been laid down, and the taxes on stage carriages and railways were re-adjusted. Stage carriages were charged 1d. per mile and railways 5 per cent on the gross income derived from passengers. Clause 1 (Clubs to be licensed for the That was thought to be a fair settlement of Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) ment of a great concern in London, publishing its accounts, and carrying on business as a joint stock company, the most accurate data had been procurable. From these it appeared that the omnibus com the question; but since then the equality | to 1 per cent. What was the case of the had been again disturbed by the general omnibus proprietors? Since the establishAct which compelled railway companies to send one train a day to convey passengers at 1d. per mile. In 1855 the subject was again brought before the House in connection with a transaction which occurred in the north of England, where the own-pany was in receipt of £582,000 annually, ers of stage carriages had made a private out of which it paid a tax of £52,000 a arrangement to reduce their own rate of year, being nearly 10 per cent on its gross taxation. General Wyndham in that year earnings. Those persons who had stage moved a Resolution, that, in the opinion of carriages throughout the country were the House, the law relating to stage car- still more aggrieved; but although they riages ought to be modified. The Chan- might grumble, being isolated individuals, cellor of the Exchequer of that day, Sir they had no opportunity of making known George Lewis, said, that if he had to sub- their case to the public. It was only now, mit a supplementary Budget, the question when the circumstances of the country of the mileage duty would be entitled to a enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prominent place in it; that if a favourable bring in a Budget not provoking much opportunity arose for the re-consideration discussion or opposition, that he felt it his of that class of duties, he was quite alive duty to enter into special questions of to the objections which had been urged grievance or injustice connected with against them; and the right hon. Gentle- finance, and to some extent, he might man added, that these duties ought to be therefore say, that he brought forward the remitted whenever the state of the re- subject at the invitation of the right hon. venue allowed of their removal. The Gentleman. The Resolutions affecting the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) con- railway companies seemed rather to have curred in the opinion, and the noble Lord fallen behind, as the Chancellor of the at the head of the Government, who closed Exchequer stated that he was waiting for the debate, said, that seeing that the Go- detailed statistical information. When vernment had the authority of the House those accounts were received, he would for taking the matter into consideration see that the charge on the railway compawith a view to the modification of the nies was really taken at 3 per cent, while duties, he was not disposed to oppose the the charge on stage carriages might be Motion. The consequence was, that the taken as ranging at about 10 per cent. Government fixed the duty at 1d., and He had never heard but one reason sugthere it had since remained. Before the gested for the inequality to which he Committee, which sat two years ago, of referred, and that, although specious, was which the late Sir George Lewis was unsound. It was said that railways were a member, and of which he had the honour the owners of the road, while omnibuses to be Chairman, attention was called to ran upon the public roads. But, because the mileage duties, and it was shown that the railway companies had made a complex there were altogether different rates upon machine of an iron road, and a steam the different railways. Some had a larger engine, which they said was more econoamount of cheap traffic than others; and mical than horses upon a common road, whenever passengers were carried at a that was not a matter with which Parlialess rate than 1d. per passenger per ment had anything to do. As well might mile, they claimed exemption from duty a different duty be levied upon longcloth in respect of these earnings; and that manufactured by handloom to that which exemption, although it was perfectly ille- was levied upon the produce of great and gal, was allowed by the Government, expensive machinery. The proper test of in order to keep itself in harmony with taxation was the gross earnings. The the companies. The only deduction which railways had obtained a large exemption could properly be made was in re- from duty upon the plea that they conspect of what were called Parliamentary veyed passengers cheaply, at the rate trains running once a day in each direction. of 1d. per mile. But he had a long list The result was that the duty, instead of of omnibus fares which did not exceed being 5 per cent as originally imposed, that rate; and if the omnibus proprietors was reduced to less than 3 per cent on possessed the same influence as was enthe large railways, and even, in some cases,joyed by the railway companies, they would lay in his power. There were, no doubt, many taxes which it was desirable should be remitted; and, certainly, it would be a happy state of things if, as far as locomotion was concerned, there were no taxes at all. But it was his duty, in the office he held, to measure his acts by his necessities, and he would endeavour to state those necessities to the Committee. It must not be supposed that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman was limited by the terms in which it was couched. He could not look at the duties upon locomotion with regard to one portion only. The first effect of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would be to deprive the revenue of £70,000 a year, and the Government were not prepared, under existing circumstances, to acquiesce in that proposal. But the duty upon stage carriages was only one portion of the revenue derived from locomotion, which amounted to £775,000 a year. The railways paid £387,000 a year; stage carriages paid £144,000; hackney carriages, £104,000; and post-horse licences, £138,000. With regard to the duty on hackney carriages, the case, no doubt, was peculiar. Some years ago Parliament compelled hackney carriages to reduce their fares, but omnibuses still charged what they pleased. be wholly exempt from taxation. The duty, no doubt, in its origin was a sumptuary tax paid by the richer classes, and as such was a legitimate source of revenue But the incidence of the tax had changed, for it was not the rich who rode in omnibuses, but to a great extent the working classes, who were thus conveyed from the districts where they lived to the places where they worked. The amount involved was not such as to indispose the Committee to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some rather weak appeals, that his surplus should be regarded as a sacred fund, but he had had already to re-consider his propositions upon one or two points. It was true that upon those points greater influence had been brought to bear than he could boast of; but the right hon. Gentleman, the other evening, made an appeal to the justice and firmness of the House, which had so powerful an effect that all considerations of party were abandoned, and all concurred in condemning that with which every one was satisfied before. He hoped that upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could see that there was a necessity for dealing with the grievance, and would yield to the appeal made to him. The effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the duty paid by stage car-During the Exhibition period there was a riages by one-half, and accordingly he moved to reduce the sums inserted in the clause in that proportion. Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out the words "one halfpenny," and insert the words " one farthing." great augmentation of traffic, and the consequence was the omnibus fares were raised. The hon. Member had omitted nature of the control which the omnibus to point out, that owing to the peculiar proprietors had over the traffic, the immediate consequence of an increased demand GENERAL BUCKLEY said, he had hoped, was increased fares. Therefore, if the from a conversation that he had had with House considered the case of stage carrithe right hon. Gentleman, that he would ages they must also consider the hackney agree to some remission of the tax. He carriages and the post-horse licences. The had laid before the Chancellor of the Ex- railway companies would also fairly be chequer the case of a coach which, in the entitled to raise a question for themselves county which he represented, travelled forty as they were in immediate competition miles a day, and afforded the only public with stage carriages all over the country. conveyance which the inhabitants of the The four branches of revenue were assovillages through which it passed possessed. ciated together, and it was impossible to That coach paid £52 a year in taxes; and open one for the purpose of reductionas the gain was very small, he trusted the first, because of its direct effect upon the right hon. Gentleman would not be indis- revenue; and next, because its indirect posed to make some remission in favour of effect would be to give rise to fresh dethat class of vehicles, in order that they mands in other quarters. The hon. Memmight not be obliged to stop running. ber had stated that his arguments in favour of maintaining the surplus were very feeble; and, as inroads had already been made upon that surplus, the hon. Member tranquilly inferred that further inroads might be made upon it without detriment THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, when appeals such as were made by the hon. and gallant Member were presented to his notice, he was naturally desirous of meeting them as far as |