yi 7^ "MILEAGE DUTIES." CASE OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE PROPRIETORS. 18G4. HE3pn Communications on the suhject of these Duties are respect/ally requested to le addressed to the Parliamentary Àyent of the Coach Proprietors, J. E. Eiiadfield, Esq., Temporary Office, 50, Strand, Jjondon. Víj'"?) Á*a//H vv* ^yc^wz/'or/t f//fd fdmdlms doj/t/ís d (^hm/trd/jonymdf/'u Wf i/yy/rds ^ TAXAr/C/V ,7û'TtJ^on ilte7l 7JV mJieynywydii/iySlii^e O/rrfi^e/y^y/zwdirs, '-\V /ddd ..dy (7 Jlfn7jvicvlyi7œ,s- ^fcol/yref/,/ T/77'so //¿nlmre m(77//' artfl llt/xsefhrwlt^r/tAf'ls a/r. /tasse/l/ (Art 771/711.^ Houle.'! fcoZor*€iâ'/ --. K.UAl-rS^ \t7ia/H iWoRTHCft«'''? tCftMETERti •■tr**áhérry\'' V aXr. V l^^TiON V,c.' LraJ)oi illttill. /WCi ion 'Sfaai/urd A-i'/./. „., OOH iVATt^ fo/tiittt/ftni JitirroH' .>a/ry fît, liÙjiU'UK '(um OH' leyton\ STA. , ylitour/t innonhurx' JIou. J .^.rrJl ?f7u-Jur (rreen iol stfto (.rccn Vl, Xotver KiJitU*' 3* Baman ùithxjii^: CEMfTE,^Y .c^fTÍY-, tí Í i 1] öafeL^Zfi^V^ ■Cnnal Corn 77! Ott Vorr/iuí.étyc/ fil iff pjjUJj Ém Uly^' 'i7bmiít.>t^ It'oíiít -3.V, \ttnicf.ß/7^/7¿í^Jjt' Cmnhi mfJÙM 5*rCH4r •ocforx rAeii>-'*Pj, ivÜ'A' t 7oui;í/Míir\míi/Á •UIAAAM'AÍ l^\ttinfn*tf'' yiotuihúi Oarli^/^ mu (7tur AïiU (trOi v Fd* mWjÄ' Deímiai-tr' xl(f hept t-v rd C o ni Jn O JVL. Ê \ .•■ JL.eteM^ '00.>X' tju—i*}fr'-:V/í/; (d q ft h a m j?« íÉ ■^-óCrVUZ-i WoMjlrhiCU. .y» . //í tn o n ~77u.Mi7unt . / Dulvfui (Àtuum /r^P¿/»«s I i ÍVt» ' T>»-ptl«r Caneirrí ,1lfítI7t.St íi>r. • swoK'i^'W nr^-s}?Í5x\«ii --; Cipti 1 s é^ay''': d • iV li/77-:wHâr, 'WTlt Fl ù 'niÀUuior Vti ¡I ¿ 'UFm /rcyiet7i\% •yiU/iynon i-. JinnH^i^ k,i 'éi\r^- il -¿V//I Hay.9 7Ue Kfh, s JANilh V9YLÜ,4!>V Wtb) bIHAmX MILEAGE DUTIES." OB SERVATIONS. The papers here respectfully presented for the perusal of the Members of the House of Commons, are— 1. The Petition op Metropolitan Stage Car¬ riage ( Omnibus ) Proprietors to the House op Commons, exhibiting the peculiar case of the London Trade. 2. The Memorials op the Town and Country Trade to the Chancellor op the Ex¬ chequer. 3. The Report op the Debate in the House op Commons on Mr. Ayrton's Motion on the 11th May, 1863. 4. Statistics and Authorities on the Sub.iect. The first two papers show the grievances and complaints of all parties to be—excessive taxation, by the operation of the system of Mileage Duties. Memorials on the same subject, from London and many other places, were presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1862-3, and the right honourable gentleman was pleased to receive a deputation from the Trade on the 9th of April, 1863. The application to the Chancellor was to alter the tax generally, and to give to all parties relief. The Chancellor, however, promised a relief to small carriages, in licences and in mileage ; hence Mr. Ayrton's Motion. a 2 4 The debate on that Motion being so fully set out in these papers (pp. 15-28) from " Hansard's," it would be super¬ fluous to go into the question here fully again. The points of the case, however, may be shortly stated thus :— 1. Railways, on their total receipts, pay under £2 per cent, in taxation. 2. Steam-boats pay no tax at all. .3. Stage Carriages, Omnibuses, and Coaches, carrying more than eight persons, pay from £9 to £12 per cent., being taxed by an Annual Licence of £3 3s., and a daily Mileage Duty of One Penny per mile ; while the smaller, or eight-passenger vehicles are taxed as low as 10s. on the Licence, and a Halfpenny Mileage. In the course of the debate last year, some remarks were made on the case of Railways providing their permanent way, upon which a few words may be said in behalf of the Stage Carriage Trade, with all respect and deference to the high and powerful authority from whom those remarks proceeded. The question of the road, or who make it, or keep it in repair, it is respectfully submitted, has nothing to do with the case. These Mileage Duties are not applied to the road, but go to the Government Exchequer. But, if it be a fact that Railways in London, for instance, are taxed 30s. or £2 per cent., and Omnibuses £9 to £12 per cent., because the former provide the permanent way out of their own capital, while the public (not the Government) provide for the latter, how as to the river Steam-boats, upon which no tax is levied whatever ? Mr. McCulloch, in his " Treatise on Taxation," makes the following remarks on the Locomotive Taxes (including the Stage Carriage Duties) : " It seems very diíBoult to vindicate the policy of tliese duties. Unlike the revenue derived fi oin tolls, no part of their produce is appropriated to tiie construction and repair of the roads ; and notwithstanding it is admitted on all hands that whatever facilitates intercoiu'se between 5 different parts of the country is of the greatest advantage, these duties make it the more expensive, and consequently more limited, than it otherwise would he. Taxes so opposed to the plainest principles and most desirable results should be got rid of as soon as practicablei' The late Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel gave this opinion, in reference to the same matter (1839) as follows : " What the Legislatin-e should say upon the subject should he this :— ' We give you your chance without any inequality of taxation. It is impossible for us to interfere with the progress of scientific improvement, but you shall have no unequal portion of taxes to contend against.'" Again, how where there are turnpike tolls ? The point as to the " permanent way," &c., it must he conceded, would fall to the ground in this case, and surely if it does fail where there are roads maintained by trustees, it must fail where, even though no tolls, the road is made by parishes, districts, or any body, not the Government. The object, it should be observed, is not to tax Steam-boats or increase the Railway tax, but to place the Omnibus on an equality of taxation with its competitors ; and the siic- cessive reductions in the tax (in 1842 and 1855) show that the object has been to reduce the Coach duties to a fair and equal amount. The figures at p. 31, prove that while the income from these duties has been almost stationary, the income from the Railway tax has gone on increasing from year to year. The figures of excessive taxation as regards London Omnibuses will astonish many : About £80 per year is paid by every London Omnibus to the Government. The London General Omnibus Company's petition states a most startling fact : That in the half-year from June to December 1863, the £5 per cent, dividend to their share¬ holders amounted to £15,000, but that the Government went in and laid hands on, by means of the Mileage Duties, £25,000 in the same half-year, for the travelling of the carriages on London streets. In the Session of Parliament 1861, a Select Committee of the House of Commons, on "Metropolitan Taxation," made a Report, in which they refer to the matter as follows :— " It ap])ears hy the existing law, if any conveyauc.T is run upon rails instead of a common road, the Duty is levied not upon the number of miles run, hut hy a per-oontago upon the gross receipts; and there 6 being now a considerable Kailway TrafiSc witbin the îiletropolis, which with the extension of the Metropolitan Railways will largely increase, the Railways will be brought into direct competition with the Omnibuses. It has been estimated by one of the witnesses, that the amount charged for the benefit of the Public Exchequer upon Omnibuses under the juesent system, is about double the sum that would he payable if they were assessed upon the same basis as Railways. Your Committee would therefore direct the attention of Parliament to this question." This Committee understated the tax. It wiU be seen by the statistics in petition (p. 32), that, if compared with the total receipts, the London Omnibuses are taxed about five times more than London Railways. The map attached, and which accompanied the Memorial of the Town Trade, exhibits the competition in London. A glance at it must, it is felt, enlist the support of all in favour of an application to modify the existing system of Taxation on Stage Carriages. MILEAGE DUTIES. Petition for Abolition or Reduction, from Proprietors of Metropolitan Stage Car¬ riages (Omnibuses), slieweth ; That the existing Laws relating to the Taxation of the Passenger Traffic of the Metropolis operate with great in¬ justice to the Proprietors of London Omnibuses, and ought, as your Petitioners submit, to be altered, so as to place all modes of transit on an equal and fair footing as regards taxation. That Railway Companies are taxed on certain receipts ; Hackney Carriages by annual and daily licences; Omnibuses also by annual licences, and then again on the travelling or mileage each way of the Carriage; and Steam-boats are not taxed at all. That Railways, Omnibuses, and Steam-boats carry pas¬ sengers at separate fares. That in the case of Railways in the Metropolis, the Railway Carriages and the Omnibuses run in direct and 7 immediate competition for the Metropolitan Passenger Traf¬ fic ; some to and from the same termini (as in the case of the North London and other lines) ; some side by side (as in the case of the London, Chatham and Dover, and other lines) ; and others (as in the case of the IMetropolitan Line), one under the highway, and the other on the surface of the same road. That the Taxation on Receipts of the Railways extends only to certain receipts, Parliamentary and Goods Trains being free ; and thus the nominal per-centage tax or duty of £5 per cent, becomes a tax, on the total receipts, to the Government of not £5 per cent., but very considerably under; as is evidenced by Parliamentary Return 398 (1862), which shows the North London Railway to have received (total receipts) in 1861, £180,090, and paid in duty to the Government the sum of £2321 only ; and by Parliamentary Return 492 (1863), which shows the same railway received in 1863 (total receipts), £190,960, and to have paid, in duty to the Government, the sum of £2647 only ; while, on the other hand, the Duties levied by the Goveniment on the London Omnibuses in the same year, in the shape of Licences, and Mileage or Travelling Duties, amoiuit to five times as much per-centage on total receipts. That the Taxation on the Omnibus Trade of the Metro¬ polis is also much greater in proportion than the Taxes levied on all the Railways of the country, as also appears from the above-stated Parliamentary Returns, 398 (1862) and 492 (1863), which show that the total receipts from all sources of traffic, on all the Railways in England and Wales, and Duty paid in 1861 and 1862, were as follows: Miles. Total Receipts. Government Duty. In 1861 . . . 7820 . . . 23,991,206 . . . 335,544 In 1862 . . . 8176 . . . 24,489,604 . . . 347,740 That London Omnibuses pay to the State, in addition to an Annual Licence each Yehiclo of £3 3s., a Travelling or jMilcage Duty of One Penny per mile each way, the same mileage being levied irrespective of receipts, irrespective of the numbers actually conveyed, and irrespective of profit or loss; and the Annual Licences and such Mileage Duty have been shown to amount to a tax on the total receipts of Omnibus Proprietors of from £9 to £12 per cent. 8 That as regards Steam-boats there are no taxes on travelling whatever, though in London the competition with Road Conveyances is immediate and direct on the Thames from Kew to Woolwich and Blackwall. And as between Westminster and Charing Cross to London Bridge there are Steam-boats constantly passing and repassing with pas¬ sengers, and which, though they pay no duty nor tax to Government, compete for the passenger traffic with Omni¬ buses passing through the Strand and Fleet Street paying Annual Licences and Daily Travelling or Mileage Duties, That in the last session of Parliament, the subject of the Travelling Duties on Omnibuses came, to a certain extent, under consideration, and an Act was passed (26 and 27 Vict., c. 33) which gives great advantages to Omnibuses used in rural districts and at provincial railway stations, but which advantages cannot be participated in by Omnibuses travel¬ ling in London and large towns, inasmuch as the advantages of such Act can only be conferred on vehicles carrying eight passengers. That the Travelling or Mileage Duty in respect of such small vehicles was by such Act reduced to One Halfpenny per mile, and the Annual Licence from £3 3s. to 10s. ; so that a two-fold advantage was given to such vehicles, namely, a reduction of five-sixths on the Annual Licence, and one- half on the Travelling Duty. That the demand of the passengers in the Metropolis, and also in many large towns, is for large roomy carriages, and it is a fact that Town Omnibuses carry the masses of the population, and are exposed to continual, varied, and increasing competition ; whereas in rural places and at provincial railway stations there is little or none of such competition ; hence the fare which a traveller pays for travelling three miles by a large carriage in a town is no more than he is char-ged for half a mile or three-quarters at a country place or station ; and to tax the travelling of the large carriage, which gives so much public and regular advantage, 100 per cent, more than the small vehicle, is, it is submitted, not consistent with equity and justice, or with the public interest. That your Petitioners also submit that the 26th & 27th Vict., c. 33, places the Omnibus Trade in this inconsistent, anomalous, and unjust position, that is to say : That a person 9 taking out a Licence at 10s. per year, under its provisions, and paying One Halfpenny per mile for carrying eight per¬ sons, might use the same on a vehicle drawn by four or more horses, principally carrying merchandise and goods, which vehicle could run on the same road or street, and at the same rate of speed, as a Stage Carriage or Omnibus, drawn by two or three horses, paying £3 3s. per annum for a Licence, and One Penny per mile for its travelling, and in competition therewith ; and the total earnings or receipts of the large semi-goods and semi-passenger vehicle, from its miscellaneous carrying, might be considerably more than that of the Omnibus devoted to passengers alone. That further, as au illustration of the oppressive cha¬ racter of the One Penny Mileage Duties, as imposing an excessive amount of taxation on the London Omnibuses, your Petitioners, the London General Omnibus Company (Limited), beg to state that the half-year's dividend, at £6 per cent., declared to their shareholders for the half-year from June to December, 1863, amounted to £15,000, while the Government Licences and Mileage Duties paid in the same half-year for the travelling of the Company's carriages in that period were — Licence Duty, £893 14«. 6c?. ; Mileage, 6,004,782 miles, at \d., £25,019 18s. 6í?. ; total, £25,913 13s. That your Petitioners submit, that if the Public Revenue derived from the taxation on public carriages cannot be parted with so as to free all conveyances, whether by road or by rail, from contributions to the purposes of the State, that at all events something should be done to relieve the London Omnibuses from the present unequal and oppressively high per-centage of £9 to £12 per cent, on receipts, and that therefore the Act 26 & 27 Vict., c. 33, as regards the amount of Mileage, should not be merely con¬ fined to eight-passenger vehicles, but be altered so as to extend to all omnibuses, irrespective of the number of passengers. That no injustice would be inflicted on the owners of eight-passenger vehicles by such uniform reduction of Mile¬ age to One Halfpenny for all vehicles ; while, on the other hand, an act of justice would be done to the Proprietors of Omnibuses in London and large towns, who, though exposed to so much competition, have had no reduction in taxation 10 for nearly ten years. And your Petitioners suggest that if the Annual Licences still remained at 10s. for the eight-])as- senger vehicle, and AS 3s. (more than six times the amount) for all vehicles carrying unrestrictedly, such financial pre¬ ference on the Annual Licence in favour of small vehicles should he the only one allowed to exist. Your Petitioners therefore humhly pray that you will be pleased to alter the existing tax¬ ation as regards the INIileage Duties on Stage Carriages and Omnibuses ; and that if you decide that the Mileage Duties cannot be altogether abolished and replaced hy a more equitable and less oppressive system of tax¬ ation, you will at least reduce those Duties to One Halfpenny per mile, and fix the same at that amount in respect of every description of conveyance carrying passengers at separate fares. And yoüu Petitioners avile ever Pray, &c. MEMORIAL. The Memorials submitted to the Chancellor have been from Proprietors in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glas¬ gow, Stirling, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle-on-Tyne, County of Dorset, County of Hants, County of Wilts, Nottingham, Cambridge, Lincolnshire, Durham, Sunderland, Darlington, Stockton, Dewsbury, York, Cornwall, Chelten¬ ham, Gloucester, Coventry, Cardiff, Hereford, Aberystwith, Preston, &c. &c. &c. The Memorial to the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer from Stage Carriage Proprietors, Sheaveth : General case. That your Memorialists beg again to bring under your Town and notice the oppressive taxation on the Owners of Stage Count)J. Coaches and Omnibuses. 11 That grievance, as previously submitted to you, was this : That the owners of these passenger conveyances by the road, in addition to the Annual Licence per carriage of £3 3s., were taxed by the One Penny Mileage Duties in the most favorable cases to the extent of £9 per cent., in many other cases £12, and in some even £15 per cent, on their total receipts. That they had to pay the One Penny Mileage Duties each way, whether the carriage was full or empty, and irrespective of the number of passengers the vehicle actually conveyed, irrespective of the number of horses by which it was drawn, and altogether without reference to the profit or loss sustained by the business of such carrying. That the Mileage Dûtes were of an excep¬ tional character — no I'oad conveyances whatever, except Coaches and Omnibuses, being taxed by that system. That all other modes of conversance, whether by steam or horse¬ power, were taxed in a much lighter manner, and some were even not taxed at all. That Railways paid for their revenue derived from first and second class passengers, £5 per cent, on receipts only, and for goods and parliamentary and other passengers, nothing whatever. That Steam-boats paid nothing whatever for any class or number ; and that Carriers' Waggons and Omnibirs Vans paid no Travelling or Mileage Duty. That grievance has not been redressed, but on the con¬ trary, the recent alteration (by Act 26 & 27 Vict., c. 33), not merely of the Annual Duty, but of the Mileage Duty, in favour of so-called Eight-passenger Coaches and Omnibuses, has now added to the injustice which the Stage Carriage Proprietors before complained of. That it is a well-known fact, that large Omnibuses, though constructed and licensed for a large number of ])assengers, do not on the average carry anything like their full number or complement each journey, although the Pro¬ prietors are obliged, for the sake of the public convenience, to provide for the larger number which occasionally require conveyance, especially in the case of passengers from trains arriving at railway stations. Your Memorialists submit that the late alteration will not meet the constantly increasing cases of evasion of the Mileage Duties by Waggons and Vans, by such vehicles travelling over the rate of four miles per hour. These 12 vehicles have of late undergone a change in construction from the old waggon or van with broad wheels ; nearly all are constructed for passengers, and with seats, and many like town Omnibuses*, and are as well horsed ; they are advertised as Passenger Conveyances ; they are rapidly taking the place of Coaches and Omnibuses ; they compete on the same highway with Coaches and Omnibuses, and often on the same journey ; they travel at the rate of Coaches and Omnibuses, whenever out of the boundaries of towns or beyond the radius in which inspection or detection is contemplated ; and the facilities which have enabled them so to evade the Mileage Duties will be equally available for them to carry more than eight passengers, if they take out licences to carry that limited number. Your Memorialists beg also to point out, that the new Act, as to the eight-passenger vehicle, will also lead to great and increasing public inconvenience, inasmuch as under its provisions small closed Clarence Cabs and Flies capable of carrying only four persons inside, are licensed as Omnibuses to carry at separate fares. And your Memorialists believe that the objections to the use of such confined vehicles by four persons, strangers to each other, need not be enlarged upon by them. Your Memorialists also submit that the tendency of the public demand is for large and commodious carriages, and that that demand points to the expediency of removing or reducing a tax like the present Penny Mileage Duties, Avhich acts as an inducement to the Omnibus Proprietor to trade in direct opposition to that demand, in order to avoid the heavy and oppressive per-centage on receipts which the =:= A visit to any of the large towns, particularly those in tlie South- West and West of England, on market days, will prove that the number of these conveyances is very great. In a city on the South-Western line, on one market day, about thirty were counted with seats for passen¬ gers—some covered over in a primitive style; others, part Van and part Omnibus ; and a few like Omnibuses. Even if these people took ont one of the eight-passenger licences, they have accommodation for a larger number of passengers, and doubtless would carry a larger number with the same facility as they now evade the law as to the rate of speed. Mr. Aybton's proposition, last year, was to fi.v a farthing a mile each way, or one halfpenny one way, on small vehicles, and one halfpenny each way, or one penny one way, per mile on larger vehicles Such a tax would stop evasion of the Mileage Duty more than all the Excise prosecutions. 13 large vehicles are subject to on the journeys when the pas¬ sengers are few. Your Memorialists further submit that the abolition of the Mileage Duties altogether would be a desirable public benefit; but if Mileage or Travelling Duties for Coaches and Omnibuses alone are to be maintained, that no legis¬ lation, and no financial arrangement for the taxation on the principle of Mileage Duties, or on the travelling of one carriage at one rate of mileage and another carriage at another and much higher rate of mileage, even though one carriage be constructed for five passengers and the other for fifty passengers, ought to exist ; but that if any distinc¬ tion in taxation be made, it should be made in the amount of the Annual Licence. That, as illustrative of the oppressive character of the Special case. _ _ T-. ... . . As to London One renny Mileage Duties, in imposing an excessive amount of Taxation on the London Omnibuses, the undersigned Memorialists, the London General Omnibus Company fLimited), beg to state that the half-year's dividend at £5 per cent., declared to the shareholders for the half-year from June to December 1863, amounted to £15,000, while the Government Licences and Mileage Duties paid in the same half-year for the travelling of carriages in that period, was £25,913. Your Memorialists respectfully submit further for consideration the circumstances of the continually increasing competition with lines of Railways in the Metropolis, as well as with River Steam-boats. Nearly one-half of the London Omnibuses carry the public at what are termed cheap fares, or parliamentai'y class fares, that is, at the rate of one penny per mile. That in the Sesssion of Parliament 1861, a Select Com¬ mittee of the House of Commons, on " Metropolitan Tax¬ ation," made a Report, in which they refer to the matter as follows :— " It appears tliat by tlie existing law, if any conveyance is vim upon rails instead of a common road, the duty is levied, not upon the number of miles run, hut by a per-centage upon the gross receipts; and there being now a considerable Railway Traffic within the Iifctropolis, which, with the extension of the Metropolitan Railways, will largely increase, the Railways will be brought into direct competition with the Omnibuses. It has heen estimated by one of the witnesses that the amount charged for the benefit of the Public Exchequer upon Omnibuses under the 14 present system, is about double tbe sum tbat would be payable if they were assessed upon the same basis as Railways. Your Committee would therefore, direct the attention of Parliament to this question." That they also submit for consideration these circum¬ stances (which appear by Parliamentary Paper 398 —1862), namely, that the total receipts on a Metropolitan Railway— the North London—were in 1861, £180,090, and the duty paid was £2,321 only, not £5 per cent, but under £2 per cent. ; while London Omnibuses in competition with such line have, by the Mileage Duties imposed upon them, to pay a taxation five times as much. That since the said Report, the Metropolitan Railway and the Charing Cross Railway have been opened, and other lines will also be shortly opened. And, as illustrative of how complete the competition of Railways with Omnibuses within the Metropolis has become, your Memorialists crave reference to the map annexed, exhibiting such lines, and the untaxed competition by Steam-boats on the River Thames. Your Memorialists therefore humbly Pray: That you will be pleased to alter the existing taxation as regards the Mileage Duties on Stage Carriages and Omnibuses ; and that if you decide that the Mileage Duties cannot be altogether abolished, and replaced by a more equitable and less oppressive system of tax¬ ation, you will at least reduce those duties to One Halfpenny per mile, and fix the same at that amount in respect of every description of conveyance carrying passengers at separate fares. 15 DEBATE On Mr. Ayrton's Amendment to Clause in the Inland Revenue Bill. [Bill 97].* committee. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 9 (Lower rates of Duty on Stage Carriages licensed to carry not more than Eight Persons). Mr. Ayrton said he would move to leave out " one half¬ penny," in line 26, and to insert " one farthing," and to add to the end of the clause the following words :— " And for and in respect of every mile wbicli any stage carriage " licensed to carry more than eight passengers at one time shall be " licensed to travel, the duty of one halfpenny." Since he had had a seat in that House he never knew a clearer case of justice than that which he had to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and to the notice of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Continual attempts had been made, ever since the intro¬ duction of railways, to obtain a fair and uniform duty on passengers travelling by stage coaches and railways. The difficulty was to say in what manner these taxes should be levied consistently with equality. In 1837, when a charge of one-third of a penny was paid by railways, and a farthing by stage coach passengers, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. They reported that great inequality existed, the travelling by animal power being heavily bur¬ dened, while travelling by steam-motive power was lightly taxed by comparison. They recommended the abolition of all the taxes on public conveyances at the earliest possible period. That Report produced no result, and in 1839 the subject was brought under the notice of the House, but the state of the revenue did not admit of a change. Lord Mont- eagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that * From " Hansard's Parliamentary Debates." 16 tliere was an inequality in the rate of taxation, which it behoved Parliament to consider. The late Sir Robert Peel admitted that the owners of the older description of vehicles were suffering from the introduction of railways, and that it would be unfair on the part of the Legislature to give them an unequal share of taxation to contend against. In 1842 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced a Bill to carry the principle that had been laid down, and the taxes on stage carriages and railways were re-adjusted. Stage carriages were charged three-halfpence per mile, and railways 5 per cent, on the gross income derived from passengers. That was thought to be a fair settlement of the question ; but since then the equality had been again dis¬ turbed by the general Act, which compelled railway com¬ panies to send one train a-day to convey passengers at one penny per mile. In 1855 the subject was again brought before the House in connection with a transaction which occurred in the north of England, where the owners of stage carriages had made a private arrangement to reduce their own rate of taxation. General Wyndham in that year moved a resolution, that in the opinion of the House, the law relating to stage carriages ought to be modified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day. Sir George Lewis, said, that if he had to submit a supplementary Budget, the question of the Mileage Duty would be entitled to a promi¬ nent place in it ; that if a favourable opportunity arose for the re-consideration of that class of duties, he was quite alive to the objections which had been urged against them ; and the right hon. gentleman added that these duties ought to be remitted whenever the state of the revenue allowed of their removal. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) concurred in the opinion, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who closed the debate, said that, seeing that the Government had the authority of the House for taking the matter into consideration, with a view to the modification of the duties, he was not disposed to oppose the motion. The consequence was, that the Government fixed the duty at one penny, and there it had since remained. Before the Committee, which sat two years ago, of which the late Sir George Lewis was a member, and of which he had the honour to be chairman, attention was called to the Mileage Duties, and it was shown that there were altogether 17 different rates upon the different railways. Some had a larger amount of cheap traffic than others ; and whenever passengers were carried at a less rate than one penny per passenger per mile, they claimed exemption from duty in respect of these earnings ; and that exemption, although it was perfectly illegal, was allowed by the Government, in order to keep itself in harmony with the companies. The only deduction which could properly be made was in respect of what were called parliamentary trains running once a-day in each direction. The result was that the duty, instead of being 5 per cent., as originally imposed, was reduced to less than 31 per cent, on the large railways, and even, in some cases, to 1 per cent. What was the case of the omnibus pro¬ prietors ? Since the establishment of a great concern in London, publishing its accounts, and carrying on business as a joint stock company, the most accurate data had been procurable. From these it appeared that the omnibus com¬ pany was in receipt of ¿6582,000 annually, out of which it paid a tax of £52,000 a year, being nearly 10 per cent, on its gross earnings. Those persons who had stage carriages throughout the country were still more aggrieved ; but although they might grumble, being isolated individuals, they had no opportunity of making known their case to the public. It was only now, when the circumstances of the country enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Budget not provoking much discussion or opposition, that he felt it his duty to enter into special questions of grievance or injustice connected with finance, and to some extent, he might therefore say, that he brought forward the subject at the invitation of the right hon. gentleman. The resolutions affecting the railway companies seemed rather to have fallen behind, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was waiting for detailed statistical information. When those accounts were received, he would see that the charge on the railway companies was really taken at 3 per cent., while the charge on stage carriages might be taken as ranging at about 10 per cent. He had never heard but one reason suggested for the inequality to which he referred, and that, although specious, was unsound. It was said that railways were the owners of the road, while omnibuses ran upon the public roads. But, because the railway companies had made a copiplex machine of an iron road and a steam- B 18 engine, which they said was more economical than horses upon a common road, that was not a matter with which Parliament had anything to do. As well might a different duty be levied upon longcloth manufactured by hand-loom to that which was levied upon the produce of great and expensive machinery. The proper test of taxation was the gross earnings. The railways had obtained a large exemp¬ tion from duty upon the plea that they conveyed passengers cheaply, at the rate of one penny per mile. But he had a long list of omnibus fares which did not exceed that rate ; and if the omnibus proprietors possessed the same influence as was enjoyed by the railway companies, they would be wholly exempt from taxation. The duty, no doubt, in its origin, was a sumptuary tax paid by the richer classes, and as such was a legitimate source of revenue. But the incidence of the tax had changed, for it was not the rich who rode in omnibuses, but to a great extent the working classes, who Avere thus conveyed from the districts where they lived to the places Avhere they worked. The amount involved was not such as to indispose the Committee to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some rather weak appeals, that his surplus should be regarded as a sacred fund, but he had had already to re-consider his propositions upon one or two points. It was true that upon those points greater influence had been brought to bear than he could boast of ; but the right hon. gentleman, the otlier evening, made an appeal to the justice and firmness of the House, which had so powerful an effect that all con¬ siderations of party were abandoned, and all concurred in condemning that with which every one was satisfied before. He hoped that upon that occasion the right hon. gentleman could see that there was a necessity for dealing with the grievance, and would yield to the appeal made to him. The effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the duty paid by stage carriages by one-half, and accordingly he moved to reduce the sums inserted in the clause in that proportion. Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out the words ''one halfpenny," and insert the words "one farthing." General Buckley said he had hoped, from a conversation that he had had Avith the right hon. gentleman, that he Avould agree to some remission of the tax. He had laid 19 before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case of a coach which, in the county which he represented, traA-elled forty miles a day, and afforded the only public conveyance which the inhabitants of the villages through which it passed pos¬ sessed. That coach paid £52 a-year in taxes ; and as the gain was very small, he trusted the right hon. gentleman would not be indisposed to make some remission in favor of that class of vehicles, in order that they might not be obliged to stop running. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, when ap¬ peals such as were made by the hon. and gallant Member were presented to his notice, he was naturally desirous of meeting them as far as lay in his power. There were, no doubt, many taxes which it was desirable should be remitted; and, certainly, it would be a happy state of things if, as far as locomotion is concerned, there were no taxes at all. But it was his duty, in the office he held, to measure his acts by his necessities, and he would endeavour to state those neces¬ sities to the Committee. It must not be supposed that the question raised by the hon. gentleman was limited by the terms in which it was couched. He could not look at the duties upon locomotion with regard to one portion only. The first effect of the Motion of the hon. gentleman, if carried, would be to deprive the revenue of £70,000 a year, and the Government were not prepared, under existing cir¬ cumstances, to acquiesce in that proposal. But the duty upon stage carriages was only one portion of the revenue derived from locomotion, which amounted to £775,000 a year. The railways paid £387,000 a year ; stage carriages paid £144,000; hackney carriages, £104,000; and post- horse licences, £138,000. With regard to the duty on hackney carriages, the case, no doubt was peculiar. Some years ago. Parliament compelled hackney carriages to reduce their fares, but omnibuses still charged what they pleased. During the Exhibition period there was a great augmentation of traffic, and the consequence was the omnibus fares were raised. The hon. Member had omitted to point out, that owing to the peculiar nature of the control which the omnibus proprietors had over the traffic, the immediate consequence of an increased demand was increased fares. Therefore, if the House considered the case of stage car¬ riages, they must also consider the hackney carriages and B 2 20 the post-liorse licences*. The railway companies would also fairly be entitled to raise a question for themselves, as they were in immediate competition with stage carriages all over the countiy. The four branches of revenue were associated together, and it was impossible to open one for the purpose of reduction—first, because of its direct effect upon the revenue ; and next, because its indirect effect would he to give rise to fresh demands in other quarters. The hon. Member had stated that his arguments in favour of main¬ taining the surplus were very feeble ; and, as inroads had already been made upon that surplus, the hon. Mem¬ ber tranquilly inferred that further inroads might be made upon it without detriment to any one. The sur¬ plus which he had proposed to maintain was about £530,000, and he had stated, on the part of his col¬ leagues, their intention steadily to resist all invasion what¬ ever of that surplus. But he did not presume to place revenue arising from proposals which he intended to make, and which had never received the approval of Parliament, on the same footing with revenue arising from established o o sources. The surplus stood at about £400,000; and he trusted that the Committee would not think, with the hon. Member, that his arguments for its maintenance were weak. He did not speak of the revenue from locomotion as a re¬ venue which ought at all times, and under all circumstances, to be retained. But he thought that the intention of the country was not to fritter away public revenue at the present moment by minute remissions in favour of this or that class, but rather to husband its resources with a view to the attainment of objects in which the whole public had ¡an interest. These taxes upon locomotion were taxes with regard to which every reasonable and enlightened man would say that the more they could be reduced the better. But how stood the case ? The statement of the hon. Member on the subject, though able, was not quite fair and impartial. He said that stage carriages were subject to a payment of 10 per cent., while railways only paid about 3 per cent. ; and * Hackney Carriages.—The numher of these are on the increase. The Duty in 1855 came to ¿£75,281, and the Chancellor admits it was ¿£104,000 last year. The great increase of vehicles and of duty, as compared with that of the Omnibus Trade, it is submitted, answers this suggestion. As to Post-horses, the Mileage has been removed from them, and Omnibus Proprietors would be too glad to have a similar liberal assessment. 21 he added that it was not a legitimate argument to justify the distinction hy any reference to the peculiar circumstance that railways found their own roads and stage carriages ran on roads provided for them. By an ingenious artifice the lion. Member mixed up together bodies of stage carriages, which were very differently circumstanced indeed. Tlie country stage carriages, for which the lion, and gallant Member near him (General Buckley) had pleaded, helped to make their own roads, since they paid turnpike tolls. But the country carriages were by no means the chief clients of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). His London clients, in their published statements, objected to tlie partial reduction proposed to be given in the Bill in the case of smaller carriages. They declared, that if the reduction were carried out, many large vehicles paying £3 3s. a year and a penny a mile, would be replaced by smaller ones, paying a licence duty of 10s. yearly and a halfpenny per mile. Well, it was rather hard that in the exceptionally fiivourable condition which the London omnibus proprietors enjoyed, having their roads made for them, they should object to the relief pro¬ posed to be given, upon no exceptional or arbitrary principles, to smaller carriages, which did help to make their roads. It was commonly said that misfortune tended to soften the heart and make us compassionate towards brethren in af¬ fliction ; but the clients of the lion. Member seemed in this respect to be rather in the rear of the average of mankind*. He would, however, grapple with the real argument of the hon. gentleman by saying, that the comparison between the per-ccntage upon railwa3's and that upon stage carriages in London, must obviously be unjust, because the tax upon stage carriages fell upon rolling stock alone, while that on railways fell on rolling stock and on roads. Tlie lion. Mem¬ ber contended that the road was no part of the instrument by which the passenger was carried. It seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) an astonishing doctrine, for they did not travel in the air. To justify the comparison of the hon. Member, a proportion of tax ought to be imposed in respect of the roads traversed by stage carriages, for * This is a misconception. Mr. Ayrton's ^totioii was to give tlie small carriage a mileage of one farthing ; the large, a mileage of one halfpenny. The Bill of the Government gave a halfpenny to the small carriage, and to the large nothing. Mr. Ayrton's proposition, therefore, wont beyond the proposition of the Govcinmont. 22 pi'obably three-fourths of the expenses of railway companies had been incurred in laying down their permanent way, and only one-fourth in providing the rolling stock*. The hon. gentleman also said, that the remission of duty made to railway companies was illegal, and he complained that rail¬ way companies, being influential and powerful bodies, obtained a degree of favour which their competitors did not. The hon. hlember was wrong in that statement; for if he referred to the Act of 1844, he would find that these exemptions were made in favour of the low-priced trains, and were not limited to a single train a day—the Parliamentary train. He wislied to call the attention of the Committee to what had been done at various times in regard to these duties. Down to 1839 the rate of duty on carriages conveying above fifteen persons was threepence a mile. Since that time the size of stage carriages had been greatly increased, while the amount of the tax upon them had been greatly reduced. From 1839 to 1842 the duty was twopence halfpenny per mile. From 1842 to 1855 it was three halfpence. In the latter year. Parliament considered the incidence of the tax upon railways and stage carriages respectively, and remitted one-third of the tax upon omnibuses. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets argued, that as railway trains travel¬ led at less than a penny a mile, omnibuses ought to go free ; but when a train travelled at a penny a mile, it did so from station to station, and a passenger, by counting the number of miles he wanted to go, was able to tell the amount of his fare. That was not the case with an omnibus, because, tliougli for the whole journey the rate might be under a penny a mile, the vehicle did not travel from station to station at that rate. For instance, a passenger entering an omnibus at Charing Cross, and travelling only as far as Regent Street, certainly would not be carried for the rate of a penny a mile. Mr. Ateton: Neither would he be carried for such a distance in any railway train at the rate of a penny a mile, because there is an Act which provides that railways need not take anything under a four-mile fare. =;= The Steam-boat Companies, large and small, from the Great Penin¬ sular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to the Penny Steam-boat Companies on the Thames, are untaxed, and these do not make or maintain their permanent way.—(&e p. 4.) 23 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was showing that the principle of distances was a test in the case of railway fares, whereas the distance the passenger was carried was not a test in the case of omnibuses, and that therefore the cases were different. The hon. gentleman had spoken of the low earnings of the London General Omnibus Company ; but he ought to have entered into some expla¬ nation, with the yiew of showing how far the low profits of that company were to be accounted for by the expenses which it had gone to in driving competitors off the line, because it was a matter of notoriety that the drivers and conductors of independent proprietors made frequent com¬ plaints against the managers and drivers of the London General Omnibus Company for driving them off the road. He observed that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets shook his head at that statement, which showed that the hon. gentleman did not read the police reports in the news¬ papers. However it was, competitors to the London General Omnibus Company disappeared after a short time. That was a matter of which the House of Commons could take no notice, but it was one which ought to engage the hon. gentleman's attention when he made an appeal for the company on the ground of their low earnings. The point, however, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished specially to call the attention of the Committee was the general position of the finances of the country. If the Committee thought it right to go on with¬ out a surplus—if the Committee thought the claim now made was the only claim on the surplus which existed—let them support the hon. gentleman. But as there were abundance of other claimants, with good cases, calling for reduction, and as the claim now put forward directly menaced a very considerable sum, and indirectly menaced a considerably larger sum, the matter deserved their serious attention, inasmuch as it involved the maintenance of that moderate revenue which was necessary for the public service. Still, the Government had looked into the case of tlie proprietors of omnibuses, and had endeavoured to relieve them, as far as it was possible to do so without detriment to the revenue of the country. No doubt the greatest pressure in respect of the charges on those vehicles was felt in the case of lines where there was but small traffic, such as those from small railway stations, and where the omnibuses were also taxed 24 for the road they travelled on. The Government had endeavoured to meet that case by a considerable remission of taxation. At present, a licence of three guineas and a mileage of a penny per mile were charged under all cir¬ cumstances, no matter what the size of the vehicle or how small the traffic. Besides, the licence must be paid for the whole year, though the traffic might be only for a portion of the year. In the first place, the Government had drawn the distinction between small carriages—carriages carrying not more than eight psssengers—and large ones ; and it was to be remembered that omnibuses used in the North and in London carried from twenty to forty passengers. They reduced the licence on small carriages from £3 3s. to 10s.; and they were further justified in doing that because they believed that the present high rate of licence duty in respect of these small vehicles had the effect of checking enterprise. Then they reduced the mileage from one penny to one halfpenny per mile in the case of that class of vehicles to which he was referring; and the 10s. licence might be divided into fractions, according to the portion of the year for which it was paid. He did not think that these reductions would result in any loss to the revenue. He calculated that an increased traffic would recoupe the revenue on the reductions. In respect of large carriages they had endeavoured to do justice also. Tor the future it would not be necessary for that class of carriage to pay the whole £3 3s. before obtaining a licence. The licence year would expire on the 31st of October instead of the 30th of September, and licences might always be had at any period of the year for the period of the licence year then unexpired. In some parts of the country the season closed at the end of September, and the Bill therefore pro¬ vides that licences might be taken out for any of the four quarters of the year. He had said that he expected an increase of traffic from the remission in the case of the taxes on small omnibuses in rural districts ; but he hoped no hon. Member would argue from that admission that an increase might also be expected if similar remissions were made to the London General Omnibus Company. In the former case the pres¬ sure of expenses confined the traffic ; but in London the omnibus traffic was a large and increasing one*. Tor these • The Chancellor must here speak of the increase in the previous year, during the International Exhibition, which is an exceptional case. 25 reasons he conld not consent, by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, to weaken those financial arrangements which he thought the House had allowed to be reasonable—looking to the actual and possible wants of the country—to the necessity of maintaining the solidity of our finances, and to the general condition of the world, which could not be separated from financial considerations. Lord Fermot said, that long as he had been in the House, he never remembered a Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a tax without a struggle, nor had he ever heard a Chan¬ cellor of the Exchequer admit that the relief proposed by any private Member was exactly the relief which ought to be given. A great deal of the speech of the right hon. gentleman had been devoted to the praise of what the right boil, gentleman proposed to do for carriages in the rural districts ; but the proposal of the hon. and learned gentle¬ man would not only relieve the rural carriages a great deal more, but would relieve those in towns altogether. If the right hon. Member justified his taxes on town omnibuses in excess of railways, because they had not to find their own own roads, surely he ought to hand over the excess for the benefit of those who did supply the roads. But the truth was the right hon. gentleman had made up his mind to stick by his Budget—as far as he could. He did not wish to say a word in favour of additional taxation on railways, but omnibus proprietors could scarcely help complaining of the manner in which they were treated in comparison with railways. In London they were exposed to competition with railways. The opening of the Metropolitan Railway, for instance, had reduced the earnings of four omnibuses starting from the neighbourhood of the terminus, from £2,960 in 1862, to £786 in 1863. The loss must fall, after all, on the public, for the omnibuses, if they were unfairly burdened, would be worse horsed and worse managed al¬ together. He hoped that the right hon. gentleman would accede to the proposal of his hon. and learned friend. Mr. Bentinck said, he was glad to find that the right hon. gentleman had shown some little consideration for the rural districts, as opposed to the metropolitan, and he re¬ garded it as rather a remarkable concession. He did not wish to take any part in the combat between the right hon. gentleman and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, 26 but he was very much struck with a remark which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman to the effect that, in his opinion, taxes on locomotion ought to be low. Now, if there was any one point to which taxation might be directed, with¬ out prejudice to anybody, and with benefit to the community at large, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was on locomotion. Locomotion was one of two things. It was either a matter of luxury, or a matter of business. It was agreed on all hands that luxuries of all kinds ought to be taxed. If a tax on locomotion for purposes of business, without detriment to that business, could be levied, it was desirable that it should be done with the least possible inconvenience. It might be said that excursion trains ought not to be taxed. Now, he believed they were the source of nine-tenths of the accidents which occurred, and he doubted whether they really tended to promote the health of those who profited by them. He did not think that going 120 miles at a cheap rate was the best way of disposing of a man's time ; and believed that it might be spent in a much better way. He did not think that there could be any better tax, generally speaking, than that on railway travelling. Mr. CoNiNGiiAM said, he entirely differed from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, for he regarded cheap locomotion as one of the greatest boons that could be con- ferred upon the public. He had always been in favour of low fares and speedy communication between all parts of the empire ; and he therefore trusted that the opinion ex¬ pressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed, at no distant day, the liberation of locomotion from all taxation. With respect to any rise of fares in the metro¬ polis, that might be traced to the high licensing duties, and he was of opinion, that if there was an entire free trade in omnibuses, high fares would be avoided. Mr. Ayrton said, his proposition applied to the stage coaches in the country as well as to the omnibuses in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have it that the tax in question was a tax upon coaches and the rolling stock of railways ; but in that he was opposed to all financiers, who regarded it in this light, that it was a tax upon passen¬ gers—a point which had been omitted by all the right hon. gentleman's predecessors in office, and by the late Sir Robert Peel. It had nothing whatever to do with the tax, whether 27 passengers were carried by one mode of conveyance or by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell the Committee that the omnibus proprietors, besides that tax, paid £18,000 a year for the roads ; and if they paid less tolls, it was because the inhabitants generally preferred to pay a house tax for that purpose. But the right hon. gentleuian thought himself entitled to levy a heavier tax on the omnibus proprietors on that account. It was a fact, that the omnibus proprietors were not able to make a fair profit by their business at present ; and surely, when the railway below the road was exempted from taxation, it was not just that the omnibus running above should be heavily taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an imperfect denial to his statement that those railway exemptions were illegal. But the law required that the exemptions should take effect only when the railway company ran a train at a penny a mile, allowed a certain weight of luggage to be carried free, and the train stopped at every station. But excursion trains, as they were carried on, were not exempt by law; and he would say more, the Government were aware that they were not exempt ; and more than that, the exemption was given in order to make matters work smoothly between the railway companies and the Board of Trade. The consequence was the railway companies were not pay¬ ing their full share of taxation, while the burden was borne by other parties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed thrown out an indefinite hope that the tax Avould be done away Avith. But why were they to be amused Avith those sensation propositions ? The Chancellor of the Ex¬ chequer stated, that if he yielded in that case, he would be obliged to remit £700,000; but his (Mr. Ayrton's) demand Avas limited to £70,000, Avhich would be recouped by the increase in the number of omnibuses. If the House took oil' a duty Avhich Avas so excessive as nearly to sink the traffic, it Avould be sure to give a new impulse to it by the remission. That Avas a Avell established fact, and one Avhich had been often dAvelt on by tbe Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. But now the right hon. gentleman said, if the tax were taken off, nothing would be recouped. The right hon. gentleman made this distinction, that the train carried its passengers from station to station, while the door of the omnibus was always open and one might get out of it when he pleased. 28 But what difference did that make. The omnibus conveyed passengers at a penny a mile, and the railway company professed to do the same ; hut while the railway company charged for part of a mile as for the whole, the omnibus charged for part of the distance in the same way. In short, it was a case of the simplest justice ; but the right hon. gentleman was frightened about his surplus. The Chapcellor of the Exchequer looked upon his surplus just as a mother, after several miscarriages, looked upon her production. It was the most extraordinary creature, the most lovable creature in the world ; everything would injure it, it was to be cherished as the most admirable thing in nature. He hoped the right lion, gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the matter into his consideration, or, if not, that the Committee would give such practical sug¬ gestions, with a view to the i-emoval of those inequalities, as would induce him to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not follow the hon. gentleman again into the general question, but would merely point one error into which he had fallen in the repetition of his vague assertions. The hon. gentleman had asserted that the exemption granted by the Government to certain railway trains was illegal. The hon. gentleman had read the 6th section of the Act, but had stopped there. If he had read the 8th section, he would find that a dis¬ cretionary power was given to the Executive to dispense with any of the conditions required with regard to the conveyance of passengers by any such cheap trains as afore¬ said. [Mr. Ayrton : Yes, Parliamentary trains.] The words were, " by any such cheap trains." Question put, " that the words ' one halfpenny' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes 81 ; Noes 35 : Majority 46. Clause agreed to. 29 MILEAGE DUTIES. {Authorities referred to by Mr. A y e t o n, M.P.) A Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1837, when the subject of Taxation on Locomotion was considered, in their Report referred to the matter as follows :— 1.—" A great inequality exists between the rates of taxation imposed on the different modes of internal communication—all land travelling, WHERE THE MOTIVE POWER IS ANIMAL, BEING HEAVILY TAXED—while land travelling, where steam is the motive power, is comparatively lightly burdened ; and the conveyance of passengers hy steam, in rivers, or arms of the sea, is free from every species of taxation." 2.—" Your Committee earnestly recommend the abolition of all taxes on public conveyances, and on carriages generally, at the earliest period consistent with a due regard to the financial arrangements of the country." 3.—" It appears to your Committee that though the diminution of revenue in consequence of the adoption of such a course might at first appear considerable, it would, in a great measure, be compensated by the increased consumption of taxable commodities, while the inequality now so justly complained of would be removed, and a great accession afforded to the prosperity and comfort of the population." The late Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel gave this opinion, in reference to the same matter (1839), as follows :— " What the Legislature should say upon the subject should be this— ' We give you your chance without any inequality of taxation. It is impossible for us to interfere with the progress of scientific improvement, but you shall have no unequal portion of ta.xes to contend against.'" In the Session of Parliament (1861) a Select Committee of the House of Commons, on " Metropolitan Taxation," made a Report, in which they refer to the same matter.— {See p. 5.) When the question was before the House of Commons in 1855, Mr. Disraeli, M.P., made the following obser¬ vations :— "The Right Hon. Gentleman tells us the tax was settled in 1842. We know it IS only within the last ten years that the railway communi¬ cations of the country have been brovyht into complete play, and produced that intense competition with the sufferiny industry, the depressed condition of which is now under our consideration. Even the Chancellor of the 30 Exchequer himself must admit that the principles upon wliich railways so successfully carried on are taxed, and the principles of taxation upon tlie old mode of communication, are quite opposed to each other, and are essentially unjust. The tax on successful industry is calculated on its profits, while the tax on depressed industry is recdly calculated on its capital. Can the House vindicate such a principle ? " In 1842 it was intended to Tax both powers £5 per cent. But in 1863 the operation of the law is to take about 30s. out of every £100 received by Railways, and from £10 to £20 out of every £100 received by Coaches. In 1855 the Government (committing the fiscal error of retaining the Tax in a modified form, instead of adopting another system) reduced the Tax from l^d. to Id. per mile, but the last nine years of Railway increase has made the case of the Stage Carriage Trade in 1864, as regards the disproportionate and unequal taxation, even loorse than in 1855, and the "Finance Accounts" will evidence this; for if the amount that would represent the half-penny be added to the receipt of the Duty for 1862, the result would be a less duty than paid in 1854, while, if the same calculation was made with the Railway Tax, it would be about doubled. —(See Paper on Statistics, on other side.) 31 APPENDIX. [From Paper submitted to the Chancellob, Zth March, 1863.) Comparative view of the sums received for Mileage Duty, and from the Railway Passenger Tax (Great Britain), showing the depressed state of the Mileage Duty, though reduced to one penny per mile, in comparison with the gradual increased Railway Duty, though reduced (by exemptions) from £5 to about £3 per cent. Mileage Duty. £ s. d. 1840 190,874 ö 10.^ 1850 188,784 12 5 1851 195,579 16 8 . 1852 217.052 2 gä } 1853 218,142 7 llf 18.54 202,074 7 8 ^'1855 173,507 19 3i 1856 133,010 6 8J 1857 114,787 16 8 1858 118,500 12 lOJ 1859 124,993 14 llj 1860 127,662 7 SJ 1801 127,883 6 3^ 1862 125,421 19 9 Railway per Centage. £ s. d. . 232,209 13 0 . 235,475 9 H (251,214 10 oi 1287,331 11 . 280,143 14 H . 303,385 14 5 . 309,194 10 1 . 323,790 14 5 . 334,003 17 01 . 348,010 16 9 . 339,508 16 3Î . 359,212 0 43. . 306,280 0 G . 372,177 13 21 From 1850 to 1860 there was an increase in the number of Carriages kept by Common Carriers (shown by Return obtained by hlr. Gore Langton, M.P.^ ;— Carriages. Duty. 1850 3,110 ¿-5,257 I860 6,206 il0,474 —and in the same Return it appears that to protect tlie Mileage Duty there were the following prosecutions insti¬ tuted against Common Carriers, Van Proprietors, and others, for travelling over the rate of four miles per hour :— 1859 63 Prosecutions. 1800 70 1801 65 • The Mileage Duty reduced from three half-ponee to one penny. 32 RAILWAY STATISTICS (1861), Showing the Taxation on Railways is not at the maximum rate of £5 per cent, as fixed by the Stage Carriage and Railway Act, 1842, and also that in the Metropolis the direct competing Lines, with other Lines, do not pay so much as £5 per cent.—[Compiled from Return (398) 1862.]* IU.IL\YA.Y8. Passenger Receipts. Total Eeceipts. Duty Paid. North London 1 ( London & Blackwall .... ore in J London, Tilbury, &c,... j connection. [ London and South-Western Easlcrn Counties Great Northern Great Western London, Brighton and South Coast... South Eastern London and North-Western TlOl.OSO 72,938 44,975 753,233 654,324 ' 575,024 1,090,131 685,036 744,039 1,826,108 Tl 80,090 84,200 54,258 1,137,245 1,394,114 1,465,917 2,149,096 894,504 1,103,713 4,7.54,985 Ta,321 2,744 893 28,099 24,325 20,095 40,485 29,552 26,896 64,009 All the Railways in England & Wales | 9,946,478 24,021,928 385,544 * The figures for 1802, as shown by Return 492 (1863), are stated in Petition, p. 7. LONDON: rrinted by W. J. OoLBOrEH, Princes Street, Leicester Sentare, W.