MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.
The complaints of the agricultural class of the community still continued. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell proposed the appointment of a select committee, in order to inquire into the distress complained of. His lordship said, that whenever any great branch of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of parliament to give a favourable consideration to the complaints of those engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to devise a remedy: the proposition arose more from this feeling than from any hope that the distress of the agriculturists would be removed by legislative interference. The low price of wheat was stated to be the main cause of it: the price of wheat was certainly low, but there had not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The committee would, therefore, have to consider not only the price of wheat, but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce. They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already produced, and likely to be produced, by the new system of poor-laws. This committee was appointed, and a similar committee was appointed on the 18th of February by the house of lords. These committees, however, ended in doing nothing. On the 21st of July the chairman of the committee stated to the house of commons that they had resolved merely to report the evidence, without giving any opinion. A draft of a report had been drawn up by the chairman; but so much of it was objected to by those who advocated the agricultural interest, that no report was made.
In the meantime the Marquis of Chandos had brought forward the distresses of the agriculturists. On the 27th of April he moved a resolution, “That in the application of any surplus revenue towards the relief of the burdens of the country, either by the remission of taxation or otherwise, due regard should be had to the necessity of a portion thereof being applied to the relief of the agricultural interests.” Lord John Russell objected to the motion, both on its merits and because he thought it premature to entertain such a question, before the agricultural committee, then sitting, had made its report. On a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and eight against one hundred and seventy-two.
THE BUDGET, ETC.
WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837
By an act of the 4th and 5th of William IV. an additional duty of fifty per cent, had been imposed on spirit licenses. On the 10th of March Mr. Divett moved that the house should resolve itself into committee, for the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing this impost. The chancellor of the exchequer resisted this motion, opposing it principally on account of the circumstances under which it was brought forward.
Various proposals had been made at different times for the reduction or purification of the pension list. This list had been, in truth, as much a matter of political principle and of party feeling as of mere finance. In the preceding session government had consented that it should be printed; and on April 19th, Mr. Whittle Harvey moved this resolution on the subject:—“That a select committee be appointed to revise each pension specified in the return ordered to be printed on the 28th of June, 1836, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon to the house.” After stating that there were 1303 persons on the pension list, who received amongst them about £150,000 a year, Mr. Harvey went into a history of the restrictions which had been laid on the granting of pensions out of the civil list, from the original bill of Mr. Burke, down to the accession of his present majesty. The motion was opposed by Lord John Russell, on the ground that it contained a proposition against which parliament had already decided, and as being inconsistent with the practice which had been uniformly folio wed. Mr. Harvey’s views were enforced by Mr. Hume; but the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-eight against one hundred and forty-six.
The chancellor of the exchequer opened his budget on the 6th of May. He first explained that the receipts of the last year had exceeded the estimate by the sum of £338,000; while, on the other hand, the expenditure had somewhat exceeded the estimates. The income of last year, he said, had been £46,381,000, and he calculated that it would amount during the present year to £46,980,000. The total expenditure would be £45,205,807 leaving a surplus of £1,774,193. But out of this surplus payment would fall to be made, on account of the West Indian compensation during the year, to the amount of £1,118,633, leaving, as the utmost disposable surplus with which parliament had to deal, a sum of £662,000. Had it not been for the sums payable to the West-India planters, there would have been a surplus of £2,000,000. In applying what surplus there was, he continued, to the reduction of taxation, he preferred selecting those taxes the repeal of which extinguished a source of fraud to those which merely afford relief. The duties he proposed to reduce were those on paper, plain and stained, on newspapers, and on farming buildings; and he proposed to give up those on taxed carts, and the additional fifty per cent, on spirit licenses. The amount of all the taxes which he proposed to remit would be £351,000 this year, though when the proposed reductions came into full operation it would amount to £568,000. At the same time, when the increased consumption of paper was taken into account, the money collected from the penny stamp, and the increase of duty from advertisements, he thought he might say that government would not lose £530,000 a year. The reduction of the stamp on newspapers was from fourpence to one penny, and this was deemed by many as being a sacrifice to the demands of a political party, and not a concession to principles of political economy or fiscal regulations. There were many other articles, it was contended, a reduction of the duties on which would contribute much more to the comfort of the community, and especially of those classes to which it was proposed to give cheap newspapers and cheap spirits. Sir C. Knightley moved, that instead of diminishing the duty on newspapers, the duty on soap should be reduced. This he represented as a duty which pressed not only severely on the lower classes, but unequally in comparison with the more wealthy—the soap of the poor man being taxed at seventy-five per cent., and that of the rich man only at thirty per cent. This motion was seconded by Mr. C. Barclay, who showed that the revenue would not sustain a greater loss from the reduction of this tax than would arise from the diminution in newspaper stamp duties. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, preferred a reduction of the stamp duties to those on soap; and on a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and eight.
As the law stood, there was no distinction between newspapers in regard of duty on account of their size, all differences of this nature having been removed in 1828. By the new bill, however, this distinction was restored, an additional duty being imposed on every newspaper containing more than a certain number of square inches of surface. Government was accused of having so selected the particular number of inches, as to impose the additional duty on some of the most influential journals opposed to them, while it did not apply to their supporters. This imputation was repelled by the chancellor of the exchequer; but it was still maintained that such must have been its effect. It was finally proposed and acceded to by the chancellor of the exchequer, that 1530 square inches, of which the paper might consist without any additional duty, should be limited to the printed part of the sheet, excluding the margin, which would meet the size of every paper in the metropolis. If the sheet exceeded 1530 square inches, but did not exceed 2295, an additional duty of one halfpenny was to be paid; and if it exceeded the latter quantity, an additional duty of one penny. Supplements were likewise to pay a penny additional. Mr. Grote subsequently moved that every newspaper should be stamped with a die peculiar to itself—an enactment which was introduced into the bill. The bill enacted that two proprietors of a newspaper should be registered along with the printer and publisher. The Radicals contended that every proprietor should be registered at the stamp-office, and on the third reading a clause to this effect was carried, the chancellor of the exchequer himself agreeing to it, he conceiving that it might establish a salutary system of restraint. When the bill went up to the lords this was the only clause which encountered opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst moved that it should be omitted, on the ground that the regulations contained in it were arbitrary, inquisitorial, unjust, and unnecessary. It was defended by the lord-chancellor and Lord Melbourne; but the motion was carried by a majority of sixty-one against forty. The bill was returned to the commons without any other alteration; but on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer it was laid aside, on the principle that the privileges of the members of the house of commons did not permit them to entertain an amended money-bill. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, immediately brought in a bill which was an exact copy of the one laid aside, except that the provisions in dispute were omitted, and this bill passed both houses without delay.