§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday. He said that, Committee of Supply not being yet appointed, it was necessary he should do so in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of bringing certain subjects under the notice of the House.
§ Moved, That the House at rising do adjourn till Monday next.
§ MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention, in the present Session, to re-introduce the measure which he proposed in the Session of 1864, relating to the collection of taxes? There was considerable grievance, both to taxpayers and collectors, under the present system, and gentlemen were often nominated to the office of tax collectors when such a nomination was not in accordance with their social position. In 1864, a measure had been brought forward with the view of providing a remedy, and though the measure was not successful, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his readiness to apply a remedy on an early occasion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy hon. Friend who has put the Question to me is already aware that I take the same view of the merits of the case as he does himself. In my opinion the present system of assessing and collecting the Queen's taxes is a most defective one. To the local jurisdiction relating to the adjudication of the taxes my observation does not apply. This, I think, is not only not inconvenient, but most advantageous and essential as an auxiliary to our system of taxation; but as to the assessment and collection, I have always held it would be most desirable that those functions should be taken directly into the hands of the Queen's Government. The present method is hard upon the taxpayers, and in a large majority of cases upon the persons who discharge the functions of the collection, it being in general a laborious office, of a vexatious character, with small remuneration; the discharge of its duties, which is compulsory by law, amounting in many cases to a serious grievance to those on whom it is imposed. My hon. Friend has likewise alluded to the present state of the law in regard to the liability of parishes to re-assessment where the taxes are collected under the responsibility of officers not ap- 309 pointed by Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible to relieve them from that liability so long as the officers are appointed by the local authorities. At the same time, that is a strong additional reason for the alteration of the law. But I was careful, on the part of the Government, to state to the House that the alteration of a law of this kind, in order to be satisfactory, must be effected with very general concurrence. I hoped that the Bill which was introduced in 1864 would have met with very general concurrence, inasmuch as it passed through the early stages without the appearance of any serious opposition. A difficulty, however, arose with regard to metropolitan collections. There was at that time a great reluctance on the part of the metropolitan districts to be included in the provisions of the Bill, and we who were responsible for it found out that there were many reasons which rendered the Bill greatly desirable, if not urgently necessary throughout the country which did not apply to the metropolis. In Committee, therefore, we propose to exempt the metropolis from the operation of the Bill. If we had not done that we should have had great opposition in the metropolis, but then the omission we had made raised up other opponents, who said they would oppose the Bill if the metropolis were not included. The force of their arguments I failed to perceive, though I was very sensible of the force of their votes. Others at a later stage objected on broader grounds, saying that it was a measure of centralization, that it would unduly augment the power of the Government, and that they were opposed to it on that account. The result was that the Bill was rejected by a majority of four votes, though it would hardly have been more satisfactory had it passed by a majority equally narrow. Now, what I really wish is that Gentlemen would, if they can find time, examine this subject; because, though not in the least degree likely to become one of political or party importance, it is one which greatly affects a number of local communities as well as individuals. I think there will be a general desire to change the present system. With regard to the intentions of the Government, all I can say is that indications of such a state of feeling would lead the Government to introduce a measure founded on the same principle as the last, and that it would be a matter of satisfaction to them if, at an early period, such an indication should be made.