HC Deb 11 March 1857 vol 144 cc2194-6

On the Order of the Day for the consideration of this Bill being read,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would take that opportunity of giving an explanation as to what passed on the preceding evening with respect to the supposed inadvertent omission of the word "property" in the income tax Bill. He stated at the time his opinion that the Bill as drawn was sufficient, but he did not object to the introduction of the word, and, accordingly, the Bill was recommitted, and the word "property" introduced. He had since referred to the Chairman of Inland Revenue, Mr. Pressly, and the solicitor of that department, and they assured him that the Bill was drawn with perfect correctness; that the income tax was not charged on property, but on rents derivable from property; that in the language of the law rents were called "profits," and, therefore, that the words "profits and gains" as in the Act of 1853 were amply sufficient. He thought it right to give the explanation in order to satisfy the House that there had been no want of care in the drawing of the Bill. The word "property" was, however, quite innocuous, and it did not in any way alter the sense, therefore there was no objection to it, and the Bill would stand as amended. There was another point which he wished to explain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) made some remarks last night with reference to the succession duty, stating there was difficulty in collecting it in consequence of the want of adequate strength in the department. He was aware at the time that measures had been taken to remedy the evil of which the right hon. Gentleman complained, but he did not like to give an answer without reference to documents, lest his explanation should be imperfect. He could now state exactly what had taken place. A short time ago Mr. Pressly, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, complained of want of strength in the legacy branch of his office, and he told that gentleman he would receive authority to increase the staff on application to the Treasury if such an increase were shown. to be necessary. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the 28th of February made a Report, setting forth the circumstances of the case, and recommending certain additions. They said— Having conferred with the Controller of Legacy Duties on the whole subject, we have satisfied ourselves that, for the combined objects referred to in this Report it will be necessary to increase the Succession and Legacy Duty Department, and this increase is not more than the circumstances fully justify. They recommended the addition of one examiner, with a salary of £320, rising by £10 a year to £370; three assistant examiners, with salaries of £250 a year, rising to £300; one clerk, with a salary of £150 a year, rising to £200; and four clerks with salaries of £90 a year, rising to £140. The Report was received on the 2nd of March, and on the 4th of March the Treasury authorized the additions to be made. Most of the appointments had already been sanctioned, and Mr. Pressly informed him that two rooms had been prepared at the Inland Revenue Office for the accommodation of those additional examiners and clerks. He believed he might also add that any application made by the department for additional strength in the Legacy Duty branch had always been attended to by the Treasury. He trusted that statement would satisfy the House there had been no remissness on the part of the Government in giving the department what was necessary for the collection of the succession duty. He might also add that there were certain questions now pending before the Courts on which the collection of that duty to a certain extent depended, and until those questions received judicial decision the collection of the duty must, to a certain extent, be impeded.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he did not think the introduction of the word "property" was of such insignificance as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. Supposing, for instance, a man to derive £150 a year from the "short annuities," surely that was neither "profit nor gain," though it might be "property." Many kinds of property were not included under the title "profits or gains."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Those were the words in the original Act, and no inconvenience has been found to result.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it was rather dangerous to be introducing new terms. It was difficult to say what was "innocuous" until the question was raised. He thought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be better to confine the wording of the Bill to the phraseology of the existing law.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he might observe that the term "innocuous" was not his, it was what was used by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue Department.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.