§ MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has "been called to the circumstance that sixty-one Farmers, who were carting materials gratuitously for the rebuilding of the Trefeglwys Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Chapel, have been forced by the Excise Office to take out Licences for their Horses, amounting in all to £30 10s., and that the Building Fund of the Chapel has had to recoup to them that amount; and, whether Farmers are liable for Horse Duty when gratuitously carting materials for building and repairing churches, chapels, and schools; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps for altering the Law in this respect?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy answer, Sir, to the first Question of my hon. Friend must be in the affirmative. My attention has been called to it by my hon. Friend himself. But my answer is, that, in my judgment, the Excise officers were in error if they made such a charge. I think we must put a reasonable construction upon this Act. The Act says that the exemption is—"for horses kept solely for use in agriculture." It does not say solely used in agriculture. Therefore, the criterion is not the use that is made of the horse exactly, but the purpose for which it is kept; and the use is valuable as determining whether the duty ought to be charged or not only as it throws light upon what purpose the horse is kept for. The principle I have always insisted upon, and which I hope the Inland Revenue will take notice of and act on as far as they can, is, that the distinction we ought to make is, whether the use of the horse other than for agricultural purposes be a gratuitous use or otherwise. If a farmer makes money by it; if he lets out his horse to hire for any purpose, carting stones to a chapel, or for mending a road, I think he forfeits his exemption. But if he does the work gratuitously I think the horse may still 1274 be said in all fairness to be kept for the purpose of agriculture, and he does not forfeit his exemption. We must make some rule. It is manifest that we cannot enforce a forfeiture of exemption merely because a man drives his wife and children to church upon a rainy Sunday; and, if so, the principle seems to me to be that gratuitous action cannot be said to influence the purpose for which the horse is kept. The moment the driver makes money by the use of his horse in any other way than in agriculture, then he forfeits his exemption.
MR. M. T. BASSsaid, that in the North of Scotland great discontent had existed for some time in consequence of the mode in which this tax had been exacted for horses which had been used for carrying families to church. It was regarded as a tax upon church-going. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state whether that would longer be insisted on.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe question is not whether it is church-going, but whether the service is gratuitous. A horse employed in carrying the owner's family to church comes, of course, within the exemption.