HC Deb 28 February 1867 vol 185 cc1196-202

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (From and after 5th April, 1867, in England, and 24th May, 1867, in Scotland, Assessed Taxes on Dogs to cease.)

MR. READ

said, he should feel obliged if the Secretary to the Treasury would give the House some of his reasons for reducing the duty on dogs. The greyhound was a useful animal, no doubt, but he saw no reason why the duty payable for a greyhound should be reduced 75 per cent, nor why the tax upon poodles and pug dogs should be reduced from 12s. to 5s., The real difficulty experienced in collecting the dog tax in rural districts was the number of exemptions. Then, again, the proposed transfer to the Excise of the collection of the tax could not be in consequence of a desire to lessen the expense, for he believed that no taxes were collected at so cheap a rate as the assessed taxes, as the cost of collection amounted only to 3d. in the pound. Unless the police were employed he did not see how the Exciseman could collect this tax. In his opinion, if all exemptions from the payment of the tax were abolished, and the present machinery was kept up for the purposes of collection, the existing duty might be kept up on sporting and fancy dogs. A large increase in the revenue, and a cure for the dog nuisance, would be the result.

MR. MARSH

hoped that the collection of all the assessed taxes would be transferred to the Excise; but he doubted whether 5s. was a sum sufficiently large to secure the collection. He trusted that his hon. Friend had considered whether under the reduced duty he would get as much money as he did at present, for if he calculated upon twelve dogs being kept in future where five were kept now, that would be a great nuisance. One could hardly have an idea as to the nuisance dogs were where there was no dog tax. In Australia he had several times endorsed petitions from the inhabitants praying that a tax might be imposed; and every one would admit that the nuisance must be very great indeed when people, in order to get rid of it, asked that they might be taxed. Then in Ireland it was universally admitted that dogs were a nuisance. The curs which abounded in that country bit children, flew at horses, killed sheep, and did all kinds of mischief. Indeed, most of the evil deeds laid to the account of the innocent fox were in reality the work of these curs.

MR. HUNT

said, the Government proposed to do away with all exemptions, and to make no distinction between different kinds of dogs. His hon. Friend thought that sporting dogs should be rated higher than sheep dogs; but then the question arose, "What is a sporting dog?" Supposing a man was found walking upon another person's land accompanied by his dog, he would say, "Oh! this is a pet dog or a lap dog;" although if an inquiry were made about the dog when he was lying quietly before the fire in his master's house, the reply might be, "That is a most valuable sporting dog." Again, it would be difficult to say exactly what was a greyhound. There were sporting dogs which some people would term lurchers, though their masters, when they took them to a coursing match, would describe them as greyhounds. Thus dogs would be described differently, according to the circumstances in which their owners were placed when the character of their dogs was called in question. The Government, therefore, thought it would be better that no exemptions should be allowed, and that no distinction should be made between different classes of dogs. At present the duty was 12s., and when the tax was high there would, of course, be considerable evasions, which, to a great extent, were sanctioned by public opinion. When, however, the tax was reduced to 5s., he hoped public opinion would be in favour of the tax collector. As regards the transfer of the jurisdiction from the assessed tax collector to the Excise, the House was aware that under the present system a return was made one year, but the person making it did not become answerable until the year following. So that if a question were raised about the age of a dog, a difficulty was experienced, as in many instances the most clever man could hardly tell in the succeeding year whether the animal was under six months old a twelvemonth before. It was believed that the tax would be collected upon a great number of dogs which were now exempt, or which evaded the duty, and that the revenue would not suffer from the reduction. The Government found that a Bill had been prepared by their predecessors transferring the duty from the assessed taxes to the Excise, and fixing the amount at 6s.; but they thought this rather too high, and believed that, considering the abolition of exemptions, it might be reduced to 5s.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

inquired whether an addition to the Excise staff would be required by this collection of the duty being imposed on them?

MR. HUNT

said, no addition would be required. Notices would be published in every parish stating where licenses were to be procured, and the police would be required to give information of what dogs were kept.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Assessed Tax on Dogs kept within the year ending 5th April, 1867, in England, and 24th May, 1867, in Scotland, reduced to Seven Shillings.)

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

reminded the hon. Gentleman of the Asylum recently established in the metropolis for Destitute Dogs, and asked whether it was intended to levy the tax upon that institution, in which he was told there were about 3,000 dogs?

MR. AYRTON

inquired whether the hon. Gentleman had considered the case of the dealers in dogs? It appeared to him that there ought to be an express provision to meet that case.

MR. HUNT

said, the question as to charitable institutions had been raised some years ago, and a strong opinion was expressed that they should be exempted from taxation. But he was not aware that the feeling extended to the case of the canine charitable institution, He took it that if any persons became owners of dogs within the meaning of the Act, even for charitable purposes, they would be required to pay the tax. The dog-dealers would, of course, have to pay under this Bill; but as dog-dealers were at present liable for the largest number of dogs they kept in the year, he thought that they would be rather benefited in the reduction of the duty by this measure than otherwise.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Duties of Excise to be paid on Dogs) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Duties and Licenses to be under the Management of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.)

MR. CANDLISH

asked what were the powers under the Excise laws of modifying or reducing penalties? The penalty for evading the tax—£5—was too much—he would move that it be reduced to £2.

MR. HUNT

said, under the General Excise Act all the Excise penalties might be reduced to one-fourth the amount stated. The penalty of £5, therefore, might be reduced to 25s. at the discretion of the magistrates before whom the case was heard. It frequently happened that the magistrates thought in some cases that even one-fourth was too much. Under such circumstances, it was usual for the bench to make a representation to the authorities at Somerset House for a further reduction of the penalty, and thou the application might be granted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Licences to be in such form as the Commissioners shall direct), and Clause 6 (Register of Licences to be kept) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Commissioners to cause Notices to be affixed on Church Doors) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Penalties for keeping a Dog without a Licence.)

MR. CANDLISH

thought the penalty of £5 much to high, and moved that £2 should be inserted in the clause instead. He also considered the wording of the clause somewhat obscure, and would move after the word "pounds" the insertion of the words "for every dog so kept."

MR. MARSH

did not think the penalty too high, particularly when it was recollected that there was £50 penalty for not putting a penny stamp to a receipt for money over £2.

MR. HUNT

was of opinion that if the penalty were lowered parties would be tempted to run the risk of evading the tax. The prosecutions would be left in the hands of the Excise.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

had every reason to believe that the difficulty in the way of the collector was to obtain the tax from the poor man.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Penalty [of £5] for not producing the Licence when demanded by the Excise Officer.)

MR. HUNT moved the addition of the words "or Police Constable" after "Officer of Excise."

MR. AYRTON

said, there ought to be a provision that the Excise or the police should have the power of killing dogs for which no owner could be found. Under the Act, if a humane person fed a stray dog that was dying of starvation, he would be treated as the owner, and be liable to the duty or the penalty. The result would be that dogs would die of starvation after doing all sorts of mischief.

MR. HUNT

said, it was to be hoped that persons would be indisposed to take a strange dog home and feed it, when it was known they made themselves liable to the duty. The Government in this Bill only treated the fiscal question. The subject of killing dogs for which no owner could be found might be dealt with hereafter.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he approved of the Bill, not only as to its general object, but as to nearly all its details. It had been the intention of the late Government to introduce a Bill with almost identical clauses. That Bill contained a provision which this Bill did not, under which it was possible for the officers of Excise and the police to take up dogs which were not properly licensed, and either to sell or kill them under proper restrictions. When a licence was taken out it would bear a particular Excise number, and it was provided that when a dog was away from its master, unless it had a collar bearing that Excise number, it should be liable to be seized. The officers of revenue thought such a proposal reasonable, and anticipated no difficulty in working it. His hon. Friend, legislating for the subject in the cooler months of the year, had left out this provision from the Bill; but last Session during the dog-days a pressure had been brought to bear upon the late Government from all sides of the House to make some provision to meet the case of ownerless dogs. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would introduce into the Bill some clause of this nature, for if he did not he would be sure to hear something of it when the dog-days came round.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that many persons kept dogs who were not able to pay the tax, and he wished to know what was to be done with those dogs. It would be necessary to enforce the law in some way.

MR. HUNT

said, it was quite true that in the Bill prepared by the late Government every dog, except a sporting dog, was required to bear a ticket, which should be a voucher that its master had paid the license duty. He did not approve of this sporting exemption, and the very fact of there being such an exemption showed that the system could not work.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the provision of the Bill was not an exemption; but dogs out with their masters, or being one of a pack of hounds, were not to be required to carry a ticket.

MR. HUNT

said, that when he came into office he had to look into this question as a practical man, and to say whether the owner of a dog that had lost his ticket ought to be liable to have the dog destroyed. A boy in the street might wrench it off, or two dogs might fight together, for "'tis their nature to," and one might get the other's ticket in his mouth and run off with it. The ticket, too, would involve the necessity for a collar, and that would be an additional burden for the poor man, who would have to pay for the collar as well as the duty. He could not therefore bring himself to defend the ticket system. He had had to consider the question whether, if a dog during the year were transferred from one person to another, one license should be paid between them. He thought it advisable that every person should pay the license if he kept a dog for only a portion of the year. It was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider the question of police regulations respecting dogs, and he hoped to submit to the House in the course of the Session some proposal on the subject.

MR. CHILDERS

explained that the proposal of the late Government simply was that dogs found about the streets, without owners or without collars, should be liable to be taken to the police-station and kept there for a certain number of hours.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Act not to apply to Bogs under Age of Six Months.)

MR. READ

proposed that three months should be inserted instead of six.

MR. HUNT

supported the clause as it stood. Many persons were in the habit of breeding dogs, cither to make presents of them or for sale, and as it was not thought that they should be made to pay duty for them, the limit of six months had been proposed.

MR. MARSH

said, that puppies began to be dogs at three months old, and people then made presents of them to their friends.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.