The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-13 00:00:00

guest of a
gentleman
who was certainly
.comfortably off in
the world, but who certainly.
could
en-
joyments if he lived in Englan not indulge in such
d, and he(Adlroaevaeh.rtTfohrertie
week in a different carriage every .
was another gentleman belonging (ii:ythe south of Ireland,
who was staying in the houseatoltheears.areHteimdeidwhheot hsaayd
no fewer than eight carriages.
that people ought totakeese
they should pay no PfosriXtherm,eibgulitt hcearLicalgsaesy, tehratthaitt
was a proof that the
present
mode of taxation had led to
bad results in England.
x Everybody knew that carriages
were cheaper in Ireland than in England. Nothing could
be more clear, therefore, than that the ,attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer should be directed to this
subject. He differed, however, from the hon. member
who had brought forward this motion, and from the coach-
makers themselves, on one point. They proposed to re-
duce the duty to 31. upon every two-horse four-wheeled
carriage. Now, he would recommend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to have nothing to do with horses, which
were taxed by themselves, because that would
ne would
interfere
with the simplicity of the new arrangement.
suggest that a tax should be laid on every wheel, whatever
its size, though he did not mean to come down so low as a
wheelbarrow. (A laugh.) With the exception of carriages
used for trading purposes, he thought that a tax upon each
wheel would be perfectly fair. He trusted, therefore,
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this mat-
ter into his consideration,
a
could be revised without any loss he must know that the tax
loss to the revenue, while the
revision would not only
at convenience to' families,
be a
but would give a great stimulus to the coachmaking trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had heard
with great satisfaction the concluding observations of the
hon. member who had just sat down, though they only
confirmed the belief which had previously been formed in
his own mind, that the intention of the honourable and
gallant general who had brought forward the motion was
only to promote discussion on the subject, and not to call for
a decision of the house upon it. He must remark, however,
that one material omission had been made in the debate.
No one could doubt that one cause of the decline of this
important branch of trade, and the consequent loss of re-
venue, was the general extension of railway traffic. At
the same time he was far from thinking that this had been
the sole cause. He quite agreed, without intending by
saying so to commit the Government to any course what-
ever, that the case of this trade was a very hard one. He
admitted that the rate of duties was very high, that the
regulations relating to them were exceedingly complicated,
and that the provision for augmenting the charge as the
number of carriages increased had been found to be so
burdensome that, as he imag,ined, the principle of compo-
sition was adopted for the purpose of neutralising it. Still
more serious an evil was the multitude and extensive range
of the exemptions. The hon. and gallant general admitted
that the exemptions lay at the root of the matter. If,
therefore, the house should be prepared to deal with this
duty on carriages, they must either make a sacrifice, which
would be considerable with reference to the object in view,
namely 200,0004, or else they must pluck up courage, and
strike at the root of these exemptions. (Hear, hear, hear.)
Of course, if the house interfered at
eaflebttwheoyuld b
must
ine the
r
form of lowering the duty, and, therefore,
7 300,0001. of the public money, or get
xigitvieorupth2eoo,eoooxem o
pctrioe hns.im for notHehep thegeeding further into the
subject hon. and gallant
• general
i aw t present.eulaexus The financial statement which hp was
about to make did not loom in was very the distance, but -
near future. On Monday next he hoped that It would
cease to loom at all, and that it would become—be it good,
bad, or indifferent—a matter of fact, which he hoped to
make clear and intelligible to the house and to the coun-
try. In stating upon that occasion the course which the
Government meant to pursue, he should either be able to
hold out some proposition in the nature of relief to this
depressed branch of industry, or else he should announce
conclusive reasons why the Government would not be at
present in a condition to grant it. He had given the re-
presentations of the coachbuilders his respectful attention,
and he repeated that in his opinion their case was one of
considerable hardship, but he felt sure the hon. and gallant
general would not ask the house for a decision upon the
question at the present moment.
Mr. FRENCH gave a general denial to the accuracy of
the' hone member fOr Manchester's statements with respect
to carriages in Ireland, with respect to which he was so
badly informed as he was ou other points relating to that
country.
Sir DE L. EVANS consented to withdraw his motion,
which was withdrawn accordingly.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved, pursuant to notice, the fol-
lowing resolutions :—" That it appears, by a return ordered
by this house in the present session, that an enormous
amount of the public money is annually intercepted on its
way from the people's pocket to the Treasury, and expended
without the sanction and control of this house, and in viola-
tion of the constitutional principle, that no taxes shall be
imposed upon the people, or the proclivt thereof expended,
without the authority of their representatives in Parlia-
ment. That the said return shows the amount intercepted
and expended in the year 1851, which never reached the
Exchequer, was 6,072,1511, 9s. 9d., of which amount
5,622,2671. was deducted from the gross receipts of the
taxes by the various revenue departments, and expended
by the said departments for the payment of their officers,
and other purposes, without the supervision and control
of Parliament. That, for the security of the public
moneys, and accurate keeping of the public accounts, it is
indispensable that the whole of the public income should,
without any deduction whatever, be paid into her Majesty's
Exchequer, and that no portion of it should be issued
therefrom, on any plea or pretence, without the sanction
of Parliament, as it was recommended by the commission,
which consisted of members of this house, appointed by
the Crown in the year 1831." His object in bringing for-
ward the motion was to prevent any portion of the public
money being expended without the control of the repre-
sentatives of the people. It was the peculiar duty of the
house to control the public expenditure ; but that duty
bad been neglected by permitting a large amount of money
to be intercepted on its way from the people's pockets to
the Exchequer. From a return which had been presented,
it appeared that upwards of 6,000m01. of the public taxes
had been so intercepted. No less than 3,936,000/. had
been impounded by the officers of the revenue departments,
namely, the Customs, the Excise, the Post-office, the
Stamps, and the managers of the Crown estates. A very
largo sum had also been detained for the purpose of repay-
ments and drawbacks, and no less than 560,0./01. had been
intercepted for other payments in one year. These "other
payments" were of a most miscellaneous description. They
comprised, among other things, payments towards the judi-
cial establishments in Scotland, pensions granted in the
time of Charles the Second and William the Third, bounties
for the encouragement of British fisheries, and salaries to
process-servers. He contended that whatever came out of
the public purse ought to be paid into the Treasury, and
that votes should be taken by estimate for these general
revenue departments, in the same manner as votes were
taken for the army and navy, and for the public offices.
In 1806 the cost of collecting 8,000,0001. of taxes was
2,797,0001., or but 4:4 per cent. ; whilst the cost of collect-
ing the revenue in 1851 had risen to 7 per cent. But the
cost of every article that entered into the consumption of
the persons employed in the collection of the revenue was
not in 1851 one-third what it was in 1806. Why, then,
this enormous increase in the cost of collecting ? It could
not be accounted for in any way except on the supposition
that the revenue was now collected without any control
whatever. Certainly, there was none by the House of
Commons. Sir Robert Peel, in 1811, had appointed a com-
mission on this subject. That commission went to Liver-
pool and made a most excellent report, in which it pointed
out the gross mismanagement which existed in the whole
system of collecting the revenue. Thu discoveries made
then showed that the whole system was rotten, corrupt,
and extravagant, and be (Mr. Williams) had afterwards
frequently asked Lord Granville Somerset what change had
been made in consequence of those inquiries. In reply, he
was at length informed by Sir Robert Peel, and in a jocular
manner, that the report was banished and abolished alto-
gether. From the third report of the committee of finance,
it appeared that evil consequences had arisen from the dis-
position of the authorities to favour the retirement of
efficient clerks, and that the commissioners had been in-
foemed that not a few of the persons superannuated as
unfit for the public service had enjoyed their health long
after, and had been enabled to employ themselves in other
Cublic offices, as also in more private occupations. Let
eara read the report of the commission of 1831, appointed
by the late King the commissioners of which
onsisted of
the most influential members of the house and of the Go-
vernment. It said that the Exchequer was the great con-
servator of the revenues of the nation ; that it was armed
with the power of denying its sanction to any demand upon'
it, as well as with the right of making its demands. The
commissioners felt it to be of paramount importance for
the security of the public money, that no portion of it
should be arrested on any plea or pretence whatever, in its
way to the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to know
why so much as was expended on the public works was so
without the control and authority of the House of Com-
mons, and whether this did not give a sufficient ground for
the change of system. The late Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had stated in his speech on the budget that her
Majesty's Government would make it one department of
their duty to have all paid into the Exchequer, as from
a lecture which the right honourable gentleman had given
to the house last Friday, he believed it was the right hon.
gentleman's, as it was his, opinion that the House of Com-
mons, after imposing taxes on the people, should see that
no portion of those taxes should be expended without the
entrol and authority of that house. (Hear, hear.) After
tilting that such were the expressions of the right hon.
gentlemen, he should not longer detain the house.
Captain SCOBELL referred to the expressions of the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he also had
seen an intimation that it was the disposition of the late
Government that the large sum spoken of by the last
speaker should come under the supervision of the House of
Commons. For those expressions he was at the time, and
still continued to be, thankful to the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer. He thought that in public affairs they
should use at least the same prudence that they did in
private, and that the precautions they might take with
their stewards in ordinary life, they should take with their
officers in the business of tho State. The Ministers of the
dfiarsyt, wtehoeexypeaerrtshey might be, should, in his opinion, be the
their willingness to throw open the public
accounts, and he thanked the late Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer for paying the
way for this great revolution in
finance.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
task he had to discharge ont
very simple one, both with reehal
seresent occasion was a
Government. For himself', he to himself and to the
pressed to the house his opinion Zl(.,ialnaalnlythyeeacrhsaraggeos efor-
the collection of the revenue ought to be brought under
the control of the house. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the
Government, he had to state that they
in considering how they could bestcarwryere into newpernageatgiceal
effect this great change ; because, as the house was well
aware, an abstract opinion was of very littleon
in itself, he and his colleagues were now engaged consequence
in
ing how practical effect could best be given to that opii"nxiaonn
and they would not desist from their endeavours till they
had organised measures for bringing the whole of these
charges under the control of Parliament. (Loud cheers.)
He had, at the same time, to state to the hon. gentleman,
what he was, probably, already well aware of, that this
must be a work of time, and that a good deal remained to
be done before a sound, good, clear, and simple system on
a subject of such magnitude could be established. The
hon. gentleman knew well, that in the first place, there
was a large class of charges which he had inserted in his
resolution, which were included in the gross sums of the
revenue, that it would be impossible to bring under the
control of Parliament, because they did not properly be-
long to those sources of revenue which constituted the
public income. All drawbacks, for instance, all sums re-
ceived in error, and which were, therefore, liable to be

Wa, •
repaid, could not be said to constitute a part of the public
lucerne. The hon. gentleman would not wish to have
these sums brought into the pub'ic accounts of income for
the mere purpose of seeing their repayments charged as
expenditure. Then there was a class of charges imposed
upon the public revenue by acts of Parliament, such as
heleditarY pensions, several of which were charged upon