§ MR. MILBANKsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the letter that appeared in the "Times" addressed to Mr. W. E. Welby, M.P. on the subject of "Farm Horse Licences," and dated 29th January, 1870; and, if so, whether it is proposed by the Government to introduce a measure for exempting Farm Horses from Licence, only when employed in drawing materials for the repair of the parish roads?
§ MR. WALTERsaid, before answering the last Question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps permit him to supplement it by another of a similar character—namely, Whether any and what change has been made by the financial measures of last Session in respect to farm horses let out for hire; and also whether a farmer is liable to the payment of the 15s. duty for allowing a plough-boy to saddle a pony?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I shall commence with the last Question first, because it relates to the pony. I wish my hon. Friend had given me notice of it, for I am not prepared to go into the details of the ques- 175 tion; but with regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Milbank), and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), I have to say that, as far as am aware, the Act of last Session made I no alteration with respect to the exemptions in the case of agricultural horses. But a number of ingenious gentlemen in the country have been exercising their minds in putting all manner of cases, and inquiring what would be the conduct of the Government with respect to those cases. Now, in the case of these Acts by which taxation is imposed there is what may be called a "customary interpretation." They have not been interpreted in a strained manner or like ordinary Acts; but if a number of persons—I am not now speaking of the hon. Member for Yorkshire—insist on putting questions as to whether this thing or that comes under the law—as to whether they will have to pay before they are asked—they will find in the law a strictness which neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the head of the Inland Revenue would like to give it. I would caution all those who do not desire to pay more taxes than they can help that they would act wisely in refraining from this species of interrogation. Such questions can hardly have the effect of mitigating their taxation, while I think they might have the effect of increasing it. The head of the Revenue might be inclined to be a little forbearing even in cases which I could not stand up and say in the face of the House of Commons and the country were within the strict terms of the legal exemption. In reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, I beg to say that I have no intention of introducing such a measure as he refers to, because to do so would be to introduce an Act to increase the exemptions of persons employing agricultural horses. The words of the Act are "a horse kept for the purposes of agriculture." Putting a lenient construction on those words, a man may be said to keep a horse for the purposes of agriculture though he may sometimes employ it gratuitously for other purposes; but when the horse is let out for hire, if the question be pressed on the Government, I must say that the exemption does not apply. As I am not very strongly impressed with the expediency of exemptions, I cannot 176 say that I have any intention of bringing in a Bill to extend them.