to any one. The surplus which he had exceptionally favourable condition which proposed to maintain was about £530,000, the London omnibus proprietors enjoyed, and he had stated on the part of his Col- having their roads made for them, they leagues their intention steadily to resist should object to the relief proposed to be all invasion whatever of that surplus. But given, upon no exceptional or arbitrary he did not presume to place revenue aris- principles, to smaller carriages, which did ing from proposals which he intended to help to make their roads. It was commake, and which had never received the monly said that misfortune tended to approval of Parliament, on the same foot- soften the heart and make us compassioning with revenue arising from established ate towards brethren in affliction; but the sources. The surplus stood at about clients of the hon. Member seemed in this re£400,000; and he trusted that the Com- spect to be rather in the rear of the average mittee would not think, with the hon. of mankind. He would, however, grapple Member, that his arguments for its main- with the real argument of the hon. Gentletenance were weak. He did not speak of man by saying, that the comparison bethe revenue from locomotion as a revenue tween the percentage upon railways and which ought at all times, and under all that upon stage carriages in London, must circumstances, to be retained. But he obviously be unjust, because the tax upon thought that the intention of the country stage carriages fell upon rolling stock alone, was not to fritter away public revenue at while that on railways fell on rolling stock the present moment by minute remissions and on roads. The hon. Member contended in favour of this or that class, but rather that the road was no part of the instrument to husband its resources with a view to the by which the passenger was carried. It attainment of objects in which the whole seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Expublic had an interest. These taxes upon chequer) an astonishing doctrine, for they locomotion were taxes with regard to did not travel in the air. To justify the which every reasonable and enlightened comparison of the hon. Member, a proporman would say that the more they could tion of tax ought to be imposed in respect be reduced the better. But how stood the of the roads traversed by stage carriages, case? The statement of the hon Member for probably three-fourths of the expenses on the subject, though able, was not quite of railway companies had been incurred. fair and impartial. He said that stage car in laying down their permanent way, and riages were subject to a payment of 10 per only one-fourth in providing the rolling cent, while railways only paid about 3 stock. The hon. Gentleman also said, that per cent; and he added that it was not the remission of duty made to railway a legitimate argument to justify the dis- companies was illegal, and he complained tinction by any reference to the pe- that railway companies, being influential culiar circumstance that railways found and powerful bodies, obtained a degree of their own roads and stage carriages ran favour which their competitors did not. on roads provided for them. By an The hon. Member was wrong in that stateingenious artifice, the hon. Member ment; for if he referred to the Act of 1844, mixed up together bodies of stage car- he would find that these exemptions were riages, which were very differently cir- made in favour of the low-priced trains, and cumstanced indeed. The country stage were not limited to a single train a daycarriages, for which the hon. and gallant the Parliamentary train. Member near him (General Buckley) had pleaded, helped to make their own roads, since they paid turnpike tolls. But the country carriages were by no means the chief clients of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). His London clients, in their published statements, objected to the partial reduction proposed to be given in the Bill in the case of smaller carriages. They declared, that if the reduction were carried out, many large vehicles paying £3 3s. a year and a penny a mile, would be replaced by smaller ones, paying a licence duty of 108. yearly and a halfpenny per mile. Well, it was rather hard that in the He wished to call the attention of the Committee to what had been done at various times in regard to these duties. Down to 1839 the rate of duty on carriages conveying above fifteen persons was 3d. a mile. Since that time the size of stage carriages had been greatly increased, while the amount of the tax upon them had been greatly reduced. From 1839 to 1842 the duty was 23d. per mile. From 1842 to 1855 it was 1d. In the latter year, Parliament considered the incidence of the tax upon railways and stage carriages respectively, and remitted one-third of the tax upon omnibuses. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets argued, | Committee thought it right to go on that as railway trains travelled at less than without a surplus-if the Committee a penny a mile, omnibuses ought to go free; but when a train travelled at a penny a mile, it did so from station to station, and a passenger, by counting the number of miles he wanted to go, was able to tell the amount of his fare. That was not the case with an omnibus, because, though for the whole journey the rate might be under a penny per mile, the vehicle did not travel from station to station at that rate. For instance, a passenger entering an omnibus at Charing Cross and travelling only as far as Regent Street certainly would not be carried for the rate of a penny a mile. thought the claim now made was the only claim on the surplus which existed-let them support the hon. Gentleman. But as there were abundance of other claimants, with good cases, calling for reduction, and as the claim now put forward directly menaced a very considerable sum, and indirectly menaced a considerably larger sum, the matter deserved their serious attention, inasmuch as it involved the maintenance of that moderate revenue which was necessary for the public service. Still, the Government had looked into the case of the proprietors of omnibuses, and had endeavoured to relieve them as far it was possible to do so without detriment to the revenue of the country. No doubt the greatest pressure in respect of the charges MR. AYRTON: Neither would he be carried for such a distance in any railway train at the rate of a penny a mile, because there is an Act which provides that railways need not take anything under a four-on those vehicles was felt in the case of mile fare. In the lines where there was but small traffic, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- such as those from small railway stations, QUER said, he was showing that the prin- and where the omnibuses were also taxed ciple of distances was a test in the case of for the road they travelled on. The Gorailway fares, whereas the distance the vernment had endeavoured to meet that passenger was carried was not a test in the case by a considerable remission of taxacase of omnibuses, and that therefore the tion. At present, a licence of three guineas cases were different. The hon. Gentleman and a mileage of 1d. per mile were charged had spoken of the low earnings of the Lon-under all circumstances, no matter what don General Omnibus Company; but he the size of the vehicle or how small the ought to have entered into some expla- traffic. Besides, the licence must be paid nation with the view of showing how for the whole year, though the traffic might far the low profits of that company were be only for a portion of the year. to be accounted for by the expenses which first place the Government had drawn the it had gone to in driving competitors off distinction between small carriages-carthe line, because it was a matter of no-riages carrying not more than eight pas toriety that the drivers and conductors of independent proprietors made frequent complaints against the managers and drivers of the London General Omnibus Company for driving them off the road. He observed that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets shook his head at that statement, which showed that the hon. Gentleman did not read the police reports in the newspapers. However it was, competitors to the London General Omnibus Company disappeared after a short time. That was a matter of which the House of Commons could take no notice, but it was one which ought to engage the hon. Gentleman's attention when he made an appeal for the company on the ground of their low earnings. The point, however, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished specially to call the attention of the Committee was the general position of the finances of the country. If the sengers-and large ones; and it was to be remembered that omnibuses used in the North and in London carried from twenty to forty passengers. They reduced the licence on small carriages from three guineas to 108.; and they were further justified in doing that because they believed that the present high rate of licence duty in respect of these small vehicles had the effect of checking enterprise. Then they reduced the mileage from 1d. to d. per mile in the case of that class of vehicles to which he was referring; and the 10s. licence might be divided into fractions, according to the portion of the year for which it was paid. He did not think that these reductions would result in any loss to the revenue. He calculated that an increased traffic would recoupe the revenue on the reductions. In respect of large carriages they had endeavoured to do justice also. For the future it would not be necessary for that class of carriage to pay the whole three guineas before obtaining a licence. I with railways. In London they were exThe licence year would expire on the 31st posed to competition with railways. The of October instead of the 30th of September, opening of the Metropolitan Railway, for and licences might always be had at any instance, had reduced the earnings of four period of the year for the period of the omnibuses starting from the neighbourhood licence year then unexpired. In some of the terminus from £2,960 in 1862 to parts of the country the season closed at £786 in 1863. The loss must fall, after the end of September, and the Bill there- all, on the public, for the omnibuses, if fore provided that licences might be taken they were unfairly burdened, would be out for any of the four quarters of the worse horsed and worse managed altoyear. He had said that he expected an gether. He hoped that the right hon. increase of traffic from the remission in Gentleman would accede to the proposal the case of the taxes on small omnibuses of his hon. and learned Friend. in rural districts; but he hoped no hon. Member would argue from that admission that an increase might also be expected if similar remissions were made to the London General Omnibus Company. In the former case the pressure of expenses confined the traffic; but in London the omnibus traffic was a large and increasing one. For these reasons he could not consent, by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to weaken those financial arrangements which he thought the House had allowed to be reasonable-looking to the actual and possible wants of the country-to the necessity of maintaining the solidity of our finances, and to the general condition of the world, which could not be separated from financial considerations. LORD FERMOY said, that long as he had been in the House, he never remembered a Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a tax without a struggle, nor had he ever heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the relief proposed by any private Member was exactly the relief which ought to be given. A great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been devoted to the praise of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do for carriages in the rural districts; but the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only relieve the rural carriages a great deal more, but would relieve those in towns altogether. If the right hon. Member justified his taxes on town omnibuses in excess of railways, because they had not to find their own roads, surely he ought to hand over the excess for the benefit of those who did supply the roads. But the truth was the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to stick by his Budget -as far as he could. He did not wish to say a word in favour of additional taxation on railways, but omnibus proprietors could scarcely help complaining of the manner in which they were treated in comparison MR. BENTINCK said, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some little consideration for the rural districts, as opposed to the metropolitan, and he regarded it as a rather remarkable concession. He did not wish to take any part in the combat between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but he was very much struck with a remark that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that, in his opinion, taxes on locomotion ought to be low. Now, if there was any one point to which taxation might be directed, without prejudice to anybody, and with benefit to the community at large, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was on locomotion. Locomotion was one of two things. It was either a matter of luxury, or a matter of business. It was agreed on all hands that luxuries of all kinds ought to be taxed. If a tax on locomotion for purposes of business, without detriment to that business, could be levied, it was desirable that it should be done with the least possible inconvenience. It might be said that excursion trains ought not to be taxed. Now, he believed they were the source of nine-tenths of the accidents which occurred, and he doubted whether they really tended to promote the health of those who profited by them. He did not think that going 120 miles at a cheap rate, was the best way of disposing of a man's time; and believed that it might be spent in a much better way. He did not think that there could be any better tax generally speaking than that on railway travelling. MR. CONINGHAM said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he regarded cheap locomotion as one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon the public. He had always been in favour of low fares and speedy communication between all parts of the Empire; and he therefore trusted that the opinion expressed by the be done away with. But why were they Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed to be amused with those sensation propoat no distant day the liberation of locomotion from all taxation. With respect to any rise of fares in the metropolis, that might be traced to the high licensing duties, and he was of opinion, that if there was an entire free trade in omnibuses, high fares would be avoided. sitions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that if he yielded in that case, he would be obliged to remit £700,000; but his (Mr. Ayrton's) demand was limited to £70,000, which would be recouped by the increase in the number of omnibuses. If the House took off a duty which was so excessive as nearly to sink the traffic, it would be sure to give a new impulse to it by the remission. That was a well established fact, and one which had been often dwelt on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. But now the right hon. Gentleman said, if the tax were taken off, nothing would be recouped. The right hon. Gentleman made this distinction, that the train carried its passengers from station to station, while the door of the omnibus was always open and one might get out of it when he pleased. But what difference did that make. The omnibus conveyed passengers at a penny a mile, and the railway company professed to do the same; but while the railway company charged for part of a mile as for the whole, the omnibus charged for part of the distance in the same way. In short, it was a case of the simplest justice; but the right hon. Gentleman was frightened about his surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon his surplus just as a mother after several miscarriages looked upon her production. It was the most extraordinary creature, the most lovable creature in the world; everything would injure it, it was to be cherished as the most admirable thing in nature. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the matter into his consideration, or, if not, that the Committee would give such practical suggestions, with a view to the removal of those inequalities, as would induce him to do so. MR. AYRTON said, his proposition applied to the stage coaches in the country as well as to the omnibuses in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have it that the tax in question was a tax upon coaches and the rolling stock of railways; but in that he was opposed to all financiers, who regarded it in this light, that it was a tax upon passengers-a point which had been admitted by all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and by the late Sir Robert Peel. It had nothing whatever to do with the tax whether passengers were carried by one mode of conveyance or by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell the Committee that the omnibus proprietors besides that tax paid £18,000 a year for the roads; and if they paid less tolls, it was because the inhabitants generally preferred to pay a house tax for that purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman thought himself entitled to levy a heavier tax on the omnibus proprietors on that account. It was a fact, that the omnibus proprietors were not able to make a fair profit by their business at present; and surely, when the railway below the road was exempted from taxation, it was not just that the omnibus running above should be heavily taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an imperfect denial to his statement that those railway exemptions were illegal. But the law required that the exemptions should take effect only when the railway company ran a train at a penny a mile, allowed a certain weight of luggage to be carried THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEfree, and the train stopped at every station. QUER said, he would not follow the hon. But excursion trains, as they were carried Gentleman again into the general question, on, were not exempt by law; and he but would merely point one error into would say more, the Government were which he had fallen in the repetition of aware that they were not exempt; and his vague assertions. The hon. Gentleman more than that, the exemption was given had asserted that the exemption granted in order to make matters work smoothly by the Government to certain railway between the railway companies and the trains was illegal. The hon. Gentleman Board of Trade. The consequence was the had read the 6th section of the Act, but railway companies were not paying their had stopped there. If he had read the 8th full share of taxation, while the burden section, he would find that a discretionwas borne by other parties. The Chan-ary power was given to the Executive to cellor of the Exchequer had indeed thrown dispense with any of the conditions reout an indefinite hope that the tax would quired with regard to the conveyance of passengers by any such cheap trains as Question put, "That the words 'one Clause agreed to. Ayes 81; and learned Gentleman took away that privilege from the publicans without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it became unlawful to sell licence. The object of Clause 22 was to liquors during fairs and races without a restore to publicans the privilege they before enjoyed with respect to fairs and races. MR. AYRTON said, the effort had been Clauses 10 to 20, inclusive, were like to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wise agreed to. Clause 21 (In certain cases excisable liquors may be sold under a Publican's occasional licence after sunset). MR. AYRTON said, he wished to ask an explanation of the changes which were contained in the clause. consider moral questions in connection with Excise licences. He had heard that a good deal of debauchery had been repressed by the change to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Now, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Act relating to public-houses in Scotland the matter had been carefully considered in reference to the question of occasional licences; and he trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to enlarge those licences, as he was now doing, he would also alter the law by which they were to be issued. MR. HUNT observed, that the conditions under which occasional licences could be obtained were rather oppressive to the publican, it being sometimes very difficult to procure the consent of two justices residing in the same district as the person seeking for the licence, as was required. He would suggest that it would be sufficient if a licence were signed by one magistrate living within seven miles of the place for which the licence was required. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that when the occasional licences to publicans for a certain temporary purpose were passed, a good deal of jealousy had been expressed; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was one of the principal organs of that jealousy, and the consequence was, that the clause had been made a good deal too restrictive. Very possibly he might have to propose some further relaxation before the measure got through Parliament. The clause removed restrictions on the sale of liquors after sunset and before sunrise, but only on the occasions specified-for instance, on the occasion of any public dinner or ball-and it enacted that under an occasional licence liquors might be sold during THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEsuch hours before or after sunrise or sunset QUER said, he concurred with the hon. as should be allowed and specified in that Gentleman who had last spoken in thinking behalf in the consents to be given by the that an unnecessary amount of restraint justices of the peace for the granting of was imposed on those publicans who, as a such occasional licence. It had been men- condition of obtaining a licence to supply tioned to him that in some other cases the certain articles on a particular occasion, restriction to sunset was rather too severe. were compelled to travel over the country For example, a cricket match was carried to find two justices both acting in their on within a few minutes of sunset, and it district of petty sessions. He would therewould be hard to require absolutely the fore be disposed to accede to such an Amendcessation of the sale of liquors at the mo- ment as had been suggested if the hon. ment the sun set. In such a case he pro- Member moved it, or he would propose it posed that a little discretion and some himself on bringing up the Report. He small margin should be given. With regard had not received any complaints of the to Clause 22, it was intended to remedy abuse of occasional licences. A letter had an error into which he had been led been published complaining of a great from over-confidence in the judgment amount of drunkenness on some public ocand too great a readiness to acquiesce casion in the West of England; but, on in the proposition of the hon. and learned careful investigation, it appeared that the Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton). Before the Act gathering, which was a large one, had been 25 & 26 Vict. passed, publicans were conducted in an unusually satisfactory permitted, without an Excise licence, to manner, and that the cases of drunkenness sell liquors at fairs and races. The hon. were remarkably few. VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] 3 E |