So that the Mover "is rendered liable to the arithmetical test." Then with regard to Friday "It will be a security for private Members, whenever Committee of Supply is fixed, that those who are interested in carrying on the business of the Government will be in their places, and there will be less chance of private Members being defeated by the scantiness and thinness of the House." That this was the predominant feeling in the House is manifest from the fact, that a noble Lord behind him (Lord Hotham) had thought it necessary to raise a warning voice, on the same occasion, against the too sanguine expectations and too easy confidence of the House, and said "It was alleged, that Supply being at the top of the list, Government would keep a House; but no one could persuade him, that in the face of two or three hostile Motions, or even of one inconve- On taking up the Notice List for Friday fore 1860 the Government had but two Order days, Monday and Friday, and on Friday there was the Motion for Adjourn ment. So that independent Members had Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, together with the right to bring forward subjects in which they took an interest on the Friday's adjournment. Two years ago the Government had taken Thursdays from prithe Motion for Adjournment to a Motion for vate Members; in 1862 they had changed going into Supply; and now in 1863 they not making a House. There were plenty got rid of private Members altogether by of Members outside at four o'clock on Friday; but, of course, a gentle pressure was put upon them to keep them out of the House. He could not help comparing this act with the system which was being carried out by the Ministers in the Prussian Parliament; while he himself was only imitating Professor Sybel, who, in that Parliament, had just carried a Resolution to compel the attendance of Members. In fact, there was a Resolution on the Journals of the House respecting the attendance of Members, which applied, of course, with double force to Members of the Government January 25, 1709. "Resolved, That such Members as absent themselves without leave be reputed deserters to their trust and neglectors of the duty they owe to the House and the country." The noble Lord concluded by moving that the House do now adjourn. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH seconded the Motion. He trusted that the Government would not attempt to evade their responsibility for what had occurred by any subterfuge. It was no accident. There were thirty-seven Members, including the Speaker, at four o'clock; and if the official organ of the Government, the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), had been present, with his two satellites, they would have made a House. There was therefore evidently an intention on the part of the Government to evade some of the Motions on the paper, and he hoped they would point out which was the peccant one. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), when he proposed the change, dwelt very eloquently on the importance of giving the greatest possible opportunities to the House for expressing its opinions on every subject which might be brought forward; and the late Sir George Lewis distinctly stated that Government would put Supply down as the first Order, which 1 2 M 2 It is would give private Members an opportunity; the preponderance of the arguments which of making Motions and speeches. This we should have brought forward. was not an accident, for not only was the House not made by the Government, but a House was actually prevented from being made, for there were Members sufficient in the lobby to have made one. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.' MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he thought it very desirable that there should be an understanding for the future what was the position of the Government with respect to Friday evenings. At four o'clock last Friday there was not a single Member of the Government in his place; and the Gentlemen who went by the name of "whips" were busy outside preventing Members from coming in. ("No, no!"] So at least he was assured by hon. Gentlemen who were in the lobby at the time. He had told his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), who had a Motion on the paper, that he was astonished at his trusting to the Government to make a House for him. He himself, when his Motion on the affairs of Greece was coming on, had so little confidence in the Government, that he wrote to his friends, asking them to come down and make a House; and on that occasion, though he had once postponed his Motion to suit the convenience of the noble Lord, the whips actually tried to prevent Members from coming in to make a House. It was desirable to know whether the Government did not consider themselves bound, if not to keep, at least to make a House on Fridays, and he would therefore ask the noble Lord what his view on the subject was? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It would be affectation in any Member of the Government, in referring to the House not being made, to say that he was as grieved and distressed as you, Sir, were represented to be; but I can sincerely say that I am sorry that the House was not made on Friday. The noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) has alluded to several Motions down for that night, which he assumed that the Government were afraid or disinclined to meet; but I can assure him we very much regret that the Ilouse was not enlightened by those conclusive speeches which we should have addressed to the House on the other side. The questions then to be discussed would, I am confident, have been settled by said there was a promise made that on Fridays a House should be made and kept by the Government. There was an understanding that the Government would do what was usual for that purpose, and I accidental that a House was not made on can assure the House that it was purely Friday. There was no prevention on the part of the Government. It was stated by the noble Lord opposite that there were thirtyseven Members in the House and fifty outside. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: I did not mention any number.] Well, a great many, then, were outside. But I must say that there is a fellowship of duty in making up the number necessary to constitute a House. No doubt the Government ought to contribute their quota. And here, in passing, I beg the House to keep in mind the admission made by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that we are entitled on Friday to the remainder of the night after the miscellaneous discussions are over; because the other night, when we wished to go into Supply at nine o'clock on a Friday night, we were told that it was too late, and that Friday night was a private Members' night. [An Hon. MEMBER: eleven.] I claim the admission now made, and I hope we shall not have this objection repeated on another occasion. I repeat that there was no prevention last Friday, for there were Members enough in the lobby to have made a House. There is a fellowship of duty in this matter. Those hon. Gentlemen who have Motions to make, and their friends who wish to support them and to make speeches, ought to come down. Hon. Gentlemen ought to do like the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) — get their friends to come down to make a House and keep it. Let me remind the House, that though we have been sitting now three months, this was the first occasion on which the House has failed to be made. There has been only one occasion, too, on which the House has been broken up on the arithmetical question of numbers. The House has only been counted out once, and that was at past one o'clock in the morning, when the hon. Member for the King's County being It was half past what is unusual with him-more desirous of going to bed than to carry on business here, took notice that there were not forty Members present. I can only assure the House that we regret that any private which they occupied under the old system, that they gave up that advantage. They gave up the advantage from the general sentiment that it was for the furtherance Member should have been put to inconvenience by the failure to make a House. It was really no preconcerted scheme, and not due to any action on the part of my hon. Friends to prevent the twenty or thirty-for the more regular and satisfactory Members in the lobby from entering the House. I can, however, assure the House that the Government will endeavour to prevent the recurrence of such an event in future. MR. DISRAELI: Sir, as I was a Member of the Committee on Public Business, and as I took a large share of the responsibility attached to those who recommended the change in question, I think it my duty to say that I for one deeply regret what occurred last Friday. This is not a question of a mere count-out-that is often regretted when it occurs-I am of opinion that a count-out ought to be regretted at all times. But this case is a violation of what I consider, and what I believe the House considers, to be a very solemn compact as to the management of the business of the House. Certainly my impression is, that both privately in Committee and afterwards publicly in debate there was an undertaking on the part of the Government that the House should be made on the Friday night. For myself, like the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord R. Montagu), I was opposed to the change being made, and I saw no objection to the system by which the business on the Friday was then conducted. It was, I thought, a safety valve that had acted very well. But the opinion of those to whom the consideration of the business of the House on Friday was referred being in favour of the change then proposed, which made the proceedings more regular, more methodical, and perhaps more logical-when their Report was made I bowed to it as well as the noble Lord opposite. But certainly it was then understood that the privileges of what are termed independent Members should not be trenched upon or placed in danger. It must be recollected, in the first place, that under the old system a House was secured on the Friday, and that was an advantage of which every Member was perfectly aware- an advantage which was prominently put forward in the discussion at the time by those who were opposed to the change, the argument being that they were asked to forego a positive advantage. It was therefore from no neglect on the part of the House, nor from hon. Members being unaware of the advantageous position conduct-of our business, and in deference to the strong recommendation of Her Majesty's Government. I understand from the noble Lord now that the clear undertaking on the part of the Government to make a House on the Friday evening is fully recognised, and I trust, therefore, that such a thing will not occur again. But, with regard to the circumstances of last Friday, the complaint is not, as the noble Lord stated, that there were thirty-seven Members in the House, and that hon. Members who were going to bring forward Motions ought to have influenced their Friends in a sufficient number to make a House. The thirty-seven Members who happened to be in the House on last Friday were, I believe, what are called independent Members. The complaint is that the Government were not in the House, but that they were in the lobby. Although I am very willing to put the interpretation on the whole affair which the noble Viscount has given it, nevertheless I think that the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire has acted with great propriety in bringing forward the question. It is a question which concerns individually every Member of this House; and had it been allowed to pass unnoticed, it perhaps would have been drawn into a precedent, and might produce ultimately very serious consequences in reference to the invaluable privileges of Members. MR. BENTINCK said, that having taken the sense of the House upon the change when it was proposed two years ago, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word upon the subject. His noble Friend (Lord R. Montagu) complained of Her Majesty's Government. Now, it was not his (Mr. Bentinck's) province to defend Her Majesty's Government; but he did not think that blame attached to them on this occasion, but rather to the House of Commons itself. When the discussion upon this question took place two years ago, he ventured to call attention to the effect of conducting business upon the plan proposed -a plan which had been urged, not only by the Government, but by the Gentlemen who usually occupied the front benches on each side of the House. He cautioned the House at that time as to what would be the result of the change in the mode of con- | stated in that House that no change in the ducting the business of the House on Fri- assessment was intended by him. It was days; and he ventured to think that the circumstances to which his noble Friend referred showed that his (Mr. Bentinck's) warning had been well founded. He thought the House had only itself to blame when it relinquished its old privileges, and those privileges were now nearly extinct. He would ask the House to re-consider this question, and to decide whether the time had not arrived when they ought to revert to the old rules under which the business of the House was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had told them that he disapproved of the change; but if his (Mr. Bentinck's) memory served him right, the right hon. Gentleman supported it when it was debated in that House, and voted for it he was therefore at a loss to know in what manner the right hon. Gentleman had disapproved of it. If the House would take the trouble to turn to the list of the division, they would find that the proposed alterations were supported by every Member on the two front benches. He ven tured to suggest that the House ought to take the question into their own hands, and not allow their privileges to be curtailed in the way they had been. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. proposed that the assessment should be made by the Surveyors of Taxes under the Board of Inland Revenue, He (Sir James Fergusson) thought that the local assessments had worked well, and he saw no reason why they should be placed in the hands of the Government officials. When the income tax was re-imposed by the late Sir Robert Peel in 1842, that right hon. Baronet laid great stress upon the fact that the tax was to be administered by local authorities, and not by Government officials; and he (Sir James Fergusson) must say that the local Commissioners had administered the income tax in a manner which relieved it from its offensive character as regarded the public on the one hand, and saved the Government from being robbed under it on the other. A Return, which had been laid before the House with respect to the Kettering, Northampton, and Peterborough districts, showed distinctly the difference which existed in the working of the tax in the case of local Commissioners and in that of the Surveyors. Out of the number of charges made by the local assessors, there had been only seven appeals; while out of 148 appeals in the case of the Government Surveyors, their assessment had been sustained in only four instances. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Committee CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. would not sanction the system of centraliza [BILL 91.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 agreed to. tion which had been set on foot, and would support him in moving that the following words be added to Clause 2, "or the fortyfourth section of the said Act, directing that no assessors shall be appointed for Clause 2 (Provisions of former Acts to Duties under Schedules (A) and (B)." apply to this Act). SIR JAMES FERGUSSON rose to call the attention of the Committee to the appointment of Assessors of the Income Tax under Schedules (A) (B) and (D). In the Income Tax Act of last year several changes were made, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not expecting any large increase of revenue under those Schedules, proposed to take the assessment of the year previous as sufficient for the current year. It was pointed out that by that arrangement the revenue would lose, and the representations that were made induced the right hon. Gentleman to make new assessments, by which £467,000 was added to the revenue Now, for the present year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to have a new assessment under Schedule (D), notwithstanding that be had repeatedly THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was at a loss to know the object of the hon. Baronet, or whether he spoke on behalf of the public or on behalf of the assessors. The paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred related to new assessments under Schedule (A), and had nothing to do with the matter in question. It involved a case of shameful and scandalous neglect on the part of the assessors. When new assessments were spoken of under the Act, they referred to Schedule (A.) New assessments under Schedule (B) were a totally different matter, entailing very little trouble. That being so, he proposed last year, and Parliament agreed, that as there was no new assessment, the assessors should not be paid for making the new assessment. But it was stated at the same time that the very limited amount SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he should continue to consider his position a good one, unless the right hon. Gentleman could give a good reason why no new assessment should take place this year under Schedules (A) and (D). of labour that would arise under Schedule dule (D) being a secondary matter, the (B) might be discharged by the officers of hon. Baronet proposed that the assessors Inland Revenue, who might call in the should be paid as if there were a new aslocal authorities to their aid, and pay them sessment; and to that proposal he (the for what they did. That was exactly what Chancellor of the Exchequer) decidedly obhad been done. The hon. Baronet did not jected; but the best way to bring the deny that, as regarded the principal busi- matter before the House was to move for ness, there was no new assessment last a Return of what had been paid, and what year; but, as regarded this altogether se- would have been paid if the hon. Baronet's condary business of assessment, which went plan had been adopted. on from year to year, the assessors were, in certain cases, employed and paid for it. The hon. Baronet made a proposal to the House, under the plea of objecting to centralization, that the Government should give them the full payment, just as if they had performed a great mass of business, which they had not done. He did not think the Committee would accede to any such proposition as that. The pledge he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given the House as regarded centralization in respect to the income tax was, that if any proposal should be made by the Government as regarded the mode of assessment or collection, it should not be done without due notice and general assent. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood his position. What he stated was, that last year the right hon. Gentleman proposed to have no new assessment under Schedule (D); but on its being represented that great loss would accrue to the revenue from there being no new assessment, he did have such an assessment made; but having in the Act taken powers not to employ local assessors, as usual, to make such assessments, Government officers and surveyors under the Income Tax Act were employed, and they, not having sufficient local knowledge, were obliged to employ local assessors, who received certain payments ac cording to a scale fixed by the Board of Inland Revenue; but this did not amount to the value of the poundage they would have received had they been employed in the first instance. He (Sir J. Fergusson) now proposed, not that the local assessors should be paid for work they did not perform, but that they should be intrusted with the work they had done well in times past-namely, the assessment under all the schedules of the income tax, and that they should receive their usual poundage of 1d. in the pound. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that was exactly the point; but there being no new assessment under the principal schedule, and that under Sche THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was quite a mistake to suppose that there had been a new assessment annually under Schedule (A). The practice had been to make a new assessment only at intervals-perhaps every third year. A new assessment under Schedule (A) was a very serious matter, giving rise to a great deal of trouble and expense. That was the reason why there would be no new assessment under Schedule (A). MR. HUNT said, that reference had been made to a Return for which he had moved, which showed that taxpayers in his part of the country had a great grievance to complain of, which arose from the system of appointing assessors. He believed it would be much better for the Government surveyor to make his assessment in the first instance; and the right hon. Gentleman had said that he should have been glad to propose that to the House, but that there was a strong feeling in the country against it. A great many of the griev ances of the taxpayers arose from the slovenliness of the local assessors, who made faulty returns, which compelled the Government surveyors to surcharge, and thus put the taxpayers to the trouble of appealing. If the Government surveyor made the assessments in the first instance, the taxpayers would have sufficient security in having an independent local commission to appeal to and in his opinion the assessment would be so much more correct that four-fifths of the appeals that were now made would be avoided. MR. HENLEY said, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not a friend to the annual assessment of Schedules (A) and (B), on account of the inconvenience the process occasioned. When a holding, however small, was assessed under Schedule (A), the person assessed |