[64] It was unjustly said that Mr. Gladstone offered to abolish the Income Tax as an electoral bribe. The fact was that he was under a recorded pledge to Parliament to take off the Income Tax when the finances admitted of its repeal. That was the condition on which he had been allowed to impose it when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853. As the vast majority of the electors were not Income Tax payers, the proposal could not possibly be an effective electoral bribe.
[65] Another difficulty for the Independent Elector was that of seeing how Mr. Gladstone could abolish the Income Tax. Mr. Disraeli, who soon began to repent his haste in trying to outbid Mr. Gladstone on this point, suggested that difficulty in a speech at Newton Pagnell. He did not withdraw from his declaration that he desired to get rid of the Income Tax. But, he said, “If Mr. Gladstone asks me ‘are you prepared to repeal the Income Tax by means of imposing other taxes?’ I am bound to say it is not a policy I should recommend.” Mr. Gladstone never divulged his plan. It is, however, obvious that he could have easily got rid of the worst features of the Income Tax by readjusting the House Duty. A House Duty, Mr. Mill said, is the fairest of all direct taxes, and a man’s house-rent is—with certain exceptions—a sure guide to his means and substance. If, for example, Mr. Gladstone had put 1s. 6d. in the £ on all houses above £10 rental, or if he had graduated the duties from 4d. to 3s. in the £ on rentals of from £10 to over £300, he could have supplied the place of the Income Tax which yielded £4,875,000. The difference would have been this—that a man with £200 of income, presumably paying £25 a year for his house, would—less 9d. of existing house duty—have paid at the 1s. 6d. rate 18s. 9d. a year of “a means and substance” tax on his rent, instead of the £2 10s. he then paid in Income Tax. The relief of local rates might have been obtained by handing over the old House Tax or a portion of it to the local authorities.
[66] Mr. Clare Sewell Read was made Secretary to the Local Government Board, of which Mr. Sclater-Booth was made President. Sir M. Hicks-Beach became Irish Secretary. Sir H. Selwin Ibbetson was Under-Secretary at the Home Office. Mr. R. Bourke was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Lord Sandon was Vice-President of the Council, Lord George Hamilton was Under-Secretary for India, Sir C. Adderley President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Algernon Egerton Secretary to the Admiralty, and Lord Henry Lennox Chief Commissioner of Works.
[67] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. II., p. 258.
[68] It was supposed that Mr. Disraeli would prevent the inevitable grammatical blunder from creeping into the Queen’s Speech. But it crept in here, greatly to the delight of the pedants. They pointed out that it was wrong to speak of “the recent Act of Parliament affecting the relationship of master and servant.” The word cannot be used, they argued, instead of relation, to denote a relative position which is temporary or official.
[69] To those who had the advantage of taking no personal interest in these transactions, Mr. Gladstone’s statement reads like the apology of a Minister who was “riding for a fall.” He was admittedly pledged to the House of Commons since 1853, to abolish the Income Tax when he had a sufficient surplus. Instead of redeeming his pledge in 1874 to the House, he took it to an electorate that had no existence in 1853, and who, even if they had been competent to the task, could not have given a fair decision on such a point in the turmoil of elections which seemed purposely hurried through in a few days. Mr. Gladstone, moreover, never defended his proposal at length. Had he really desired to carry it, he would have submitted it to Parliament—for the House of Lords, whose hostility he affected to dread, could not constitutionally have meddled with it—and then if, after exhaustive discussion in the Commons it had been defeated, he could have appealed to a nation sufficiently instructed by that discussion to pronounce a rational opinion on the question. As it was, the matter hardly entered into the election controversies of 1874 at all.
[70] “We find,” said Mr. Hardy, “the stores so full and efficient that we can dispense with the payment of £100,000 on this head.” As to arms, he remarked that “in a few weeks the whole of the infantry will, I hope, have the Martini-Henry rifle. By to-morrow there will be 140,000 Martini-Henry rifles in store, and during the year there will be a further number of 40,000 provided.” After dilating on the abundance of ammunition in stock and the sufficiency of the Reserves, Mr. Hardy said of the Volunteers that the original number of them was 199,000, “far, however, from efficient men,” whereas the number in 1874, though only 153,000, consisted of thoroughly efficient men, who were “far more worth having than what formerly existed.” The fortifications, he said, were of “the most efficient character.” He even praised the Intelligence Department, the formation of which had been a favourite subject of denunciation by the Tory “Colonels.”
[71] The most curious result of this reform was the increase which took place in pauper lunacy. Sir Stafford Northcote, in fact, offered Boards of Guardians the strongest temptation to get their senile paupers quartered on the State as pauper lunatics. All that was necessary for that purpose was a certificate from a pliable medical officer.
[72] The hours against which the publicans had agitated were twelve in London, and in other places any hour between five and seven in the morning, till any hour between ten and twelve at night, as the magistrates might decide.
[73] Mr. Cross held that the extension of the hours from twelve to half-past twelve at night was not a real extension. Under the former rule the publican had “grace” given him to clear his bar. Under Mr. Cross’s Bill closing was imperative at half-past twelve. Then Mr. Cross put a stop to certain public-houses being kept open to one in the morning, which Mr. Bruce had allowed, and the fixing of the hours at ten and eleven, in very many cases, led to further restrictions.