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

moving an address to the CrownZVssue a Commission'
for further inquiry. The House of Commons could not
arr out the act by themselves. They had had to con-
cur wi the Lords, and they knew what passed in
another place last night. Therefore, they ought to
adopt the suggestion of the honourable and learned
member for Suffolk, and be extremely careful, when
acting on an election committee, to make their resolu-
tion so completely in accordance with the act that both
houses might agree as a matter of course. (Hear.)
Mr. J. GLADSTONE thought it would be a great
injustice to Canterbury and other constituencies if com-
missions were issued with respect to them, and not with
respect to Clitheroe. As to only one case being re-
ported, much larger lists were given in ; and it was
well known petitioners never would prove more than
sufficient to answer their own object.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought they ought not to
endeavour to strain the law beyond what the law pre-
scribed. Had the bill which he introduced last ye it
came back from the Lords in the same state in whica it
went up, this case cf Clitheroe would ha% e been c 1( arty
included in it. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the motion for
an address would have passed the house, and inquiry by
a commission would have taken place. But the House
of Lords expressly exciuded the case of treating from
the bill, and such being the case it was impossible to act
as if the words were included. (Hear, Ivan) He stated,
at the time he advised the house to concur in the amend-

~'

ment of the Lord.--, that if gross cases of treating oc-
curred, they might proceed, as in the Sudbury and St.
Albans cases, to carry a bill through the Parliament ;
and that was a course which was open for ally member
of the house to take in this instance. The honourable
member for Manchester stated that he warned him
(Lord J. Russell) of the effect of leaving out the words,
and adopting the other amendment; which were made.
He (the noble lord) was unfavourable to those amend-
ments. The question was, whether he should allow the
bill to drop, and have no bill on the subject. He thought
it preferable to obtain such an act as they now had,
and the case of Canterbury and other cases had shown
that they were able by that bill to institute investiga-
tions into bribery, which otherwise they would not have
been in a position to do. He thought, after the experi-
ence they had had, it was tolerably evident the house
ought to have power to proceed with an address to the
hCeraorwtnhaint cthaseersigohf
ttrheoanti.ngge.ntle(mHaenarth.)e
mHeraebNevrafsogrlamdidto.
hurst had paid considerable attention to, and meant to
introduce a bill on the subject. Whether the act of
last year and the act of 1842 would be included, the right
hon. gentleman did not say, but he was very glad to hear
that he had given the matter his attention, and in intro-
ducing a bill the right hon. gentleman might rely on re-
ceiving the best attention of the Government. He did
not think it always incumbent on the Government to in-
troduce bills of this kind. Individually, he had fre-
quently introduced such bills—some were successful and
others had been altered—but these were questions upon
which he thought the house ought to endeavour as far
as possible to act without distinction of parties. (Hear.
He thought they would make more way if bills of the)
kind were carried by large majorities, composed of the
different parties into which the house was divided. No
doubt, much might still be done in the way of detecting
bribery. He thought further legislation would be very
beneficial ; at the same time he did not regret that he
did not take the advice of the hon. member for Manches.
ter, and allow the bill of last year to drop. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI quite agreed with the noble lord that
they ought not to strain the law, and he quite agreed,
after what had occurred in another place with reference
to the bill of the noble lord, that it would not be wise in
them to sanction any commission being issued to inquire
into cases of treating, however extensive they might be.
Notwithstanding the evidence as to treating in this case
of Clitheroe, that was not the basis of the recommenda-
tion for a commission. He must remind the house that
the evidence and report to inquire were not at all con-
fined merely to the matter of treating. There was con-
siderable evidence, if he recollected right, pro Ting that cor-
rupt practices—consisting of direct bribery or offers to
bribe—did prevail at the Clitheroe election. It was
quite true that in the report of the committee only one
case of bribery, though that case was a very flagrant
one, was alleged. But they all knew, and the reason
had been already referred to, why the inquiry into ques-
tions of bribery ceased before eleotion committees. No
doubt, it was perfectly open to the house to appoint a
commission to inquire into the subject of treating, but he
thought before they decided on that question they ought
to ask themselves whether or not the evidence before the
committee on the Clitheroe election petition proved that
corrupt practices of direct bribery extensively prevailed.
He did not know what was the number of instances of
bribery given in to the committee, but he apprehended it
was by no means inconsiderable. [An Hon. Member—
Only one.] He believed a list was furnished of more
than twenty. (Hear.) He knew the evidence disclosed
four or five instances in which bribes were offered, and
one man stood eutlbecause they would notgive him 1501.
—he refused less than 1501. He confessed it was a di-
fficult case to decide, but if he must decide he must de-
cide in favour of issuing the commission. (Hear hear
and cries of " divide.") , ,
The house divided, and the numbers were—
Ayes l4l
Noes.. 5B

Majority for issuing the commission 83
THE DUTIES ON CARRIAGES.
Sir DE LACY EVANS, in moving for leave to bring in
a bill to alter the scales of duties on carriages, said he had
to bespeak the consideration of the right hon. the Chance
for of the Exchequer on behalf of a very meritorious and
deserving class of artisans, whose employment was injuri-
ously affected by the present duties on carriages. The pre-
sent duties were ranged under 26 different heads, varying
from 1/. ss. to El. Is. He proposed by this bill to reduce
the number of classes to three, levying a duty of 3/. upon
four-wheel carriages, drawn by two or four horses ; a duty
_ _ _

duty of 1/. on two-wheel carriages (Prawn by o
And this arrangement, as he should show, would no tt: '''- ova
volve any diminution of revenue. He estimated the reve-
fi
nue from the 21. duty at 95,0001., from the 2/. duty at
133,0001., and from the 1/. duty at 193,0001., supposing, as
he proposed, that all exemptions under the second and
third classes were abolished, with the exception of carriers'
carts. He was prepared to show, by returns from 49 dif-
ferent towns and places in the country, that the proportion
between taxed and untaxed carriages was 47 to 502, or just
10 per cent. ; but iu order not to exaggerate, the estimate
was based on the supposition that only 4 per cent. would
be added by abolishing the exemptions: The three items
together gave 427,0101., and the present tax yielded
420,0001., thus, as he had said, yielding an increased reve-
nue. If there was one tax in the whole fiscal code which
called for modification, it was this particular tax. He pro-
posed to lighten the tax to those who at present paid it,
and to make those who evaded it pay some contribution to
the revenue. The returns showed that the amount derived
from this tax was annually decreasing, whilst the amount
of exemptions was as regularly increasing. He would take
the last three years' revenue. In 1849 the number of four-
wheel pair horse carriages was 25,447; and in 1852, 23,778;
proving that 1,669 carriages, chiefly gentlemen's carriages,
had been given up within the last three years. In 1819,
the number of four-wheel and one-horse carriages, and
those let to hire, was 41,621 ; and in 1852, 38,833; so that
there was a reduction in that class of 2,788. In 1849, the
number of one-horse two-wheel carriages was 28,774; and
in 1852, 24,791; showing also a diminution of 3,983.
During these three years the exemptions from this kind of
taxation had increased to the amount of some thousands of
pounds. Now, when it was recollected that population had
increased within the same period, and that the wealth of
the country had certainly not diminished, he thought the
concurrence of those two circumstances would show that the
tax must be objectionable in its incidence. Within the last
ten years fifty firms of coach-builders had either become
bankrupt or had been obliged to give up business. There
was another ground for the revision of this tax, which he
thought still stronger than any which he had previously
mentioned, and that was the frauds and evasions which
were practised under the cover of the provisions which re-
lated to exemptions. They had all heard of the dog-cart
and of the taxed cart, or rather of the untaxed cart. He
hoped that no honourable member of that house kept
vehicles of that description, but ho understoad that many
noble lords, and even some right reverend prelates, did.
(A laugh.) It never could have been intended that vehi-
cles like these should be exempte 1 merely because the
owner's name was painted very legibly behind, and be-
cause the coachmaker said he only charged 211. for building
them. When ho last introduced this subject to the house
he pointed out no less than twelve advertisements
_in. a
paper of that day, which were utterly in defiance
lbeteline
principles upon which this species of taxation
imposed. He would not weary the house by referring to
fresh instances of evasion, but it was only necessary to take
up a newspaper to see repeated illustrations of the kind.
The right of composition also was abused, for the class
which alone availed themselves of this privilege did not
oven belong to the middle class of gentry, but were the
decidedly opulent class. They compounded for twot or
who could state
a
three carriages for a term of years, and thrreniagdeusrianagthheye
remainder of the term they used as many e
pleased. He had no doubt that any, oneemanner
the facts of the case in the powerful which the
subject deserved would carry the whole house with him ;
tthateetmhethheamd
ben worthyrequoef
requested
serious
attention.
but he had contented himself with noticing the principal
salient points, and he hoped that the Chancellor of
ers of Liverpool to support the motion, and he
the Exchequern Rwosuaildd
caotatemenhr.tnilToanuk.
did so with great cordiality. From a return which had
been procured from those coachmakers who made both
ikilrnopdosrtofiovnehiocfleuns intatxheadt
to
town, ,x
eidt we
aa
ias
gc ee r ts
mTaendu
ft
ahcattu
rt he
de
there was five to one, and no doubt existed that if a proper
return could be furnished by those who built untaxed
carriages only, it would be found that the proportion was
as ten to one.
Mr. BRIGHT observed that the question of the duty on
carriages was in some sense a pleasant one to discuss with
Chancellors of the Exchequer, because the advocates of a
revision could show that the income derived from the tax
was steadily, though not very rapidly diminishing, while
they could prove thot the revenue from this source might
be increa,s-d. The coachmakers were an unfortunate race,
because being scattered about the country, they could
exercise no political influence, and they had consequently
for some years past suffered from the Exchequer garotte,
which was gradually strangling an industry which was as
valuable for its extent as any other industry. It was gene-
rally supposed that luxuries might be taxed as much as
the effect of the tax was felt infinitely more by Viose the legislature thought proper, but that was a mistake, and
i
per-
sons who did not keep carriages than those who did. He
had been informed that there were fifty towns in Great
Britain, where the trade of coachmaking was formerly car-
ried on, but where it was now unknown. He was told by
a coachbuilder in Manchester that there was not more than
one builder in that city who returned more than 10,0001.
in his trade. Now, considering that Manchester was a
place of undoubted wealth, and that it was the centre of a
population of one million of people that fact alone wassufficient to show the depressing effect' of this tax. Coach-
makers were also subject to a peculiar grievance, in being
obliged to pay 61. for any carriage which they
let
cipl
fiscal infliction. He begged for a momeudt
es of
That, he contended, was contrary to all thec
call the atten-
tion of the house to the case of Ireland with respect to
carrlai, • ovs. When he was last in that country he was Vag

/ ~