§ MR. CHARLES FORSTERrose for the purpose of asking Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to propose any measure respecting the Collection of Taxes similar to that which was introduced in the Session of 1864? He had received strong representations from his constituents as to the hardships inflicted upon them by the existing system. The assessors and collectors were no longer appointed by the vestries, but by the local tax office, and it was not thought right that the vestries should incur responsibility without having power in respect of collection. It was also stated that more collectors were appointed than were required by law or than were necessary, the only result being that the tax-payers had to pay an increased charge. He need not remind the House of the extreme inconvenience entailed upon tax-payers by their being obliged to attend the committees of the Local Commissioners. In one case brought under his notice a gentleman carrying on business in Walsall received a summons on a Sunday to attend the Commissioners seven miles off at ten o'clock next morning, so that he had no time to make arrangements to provide for his necessary business. He knew of another case where a person had been fined for non-attendance at a meeting of one of these committees, he being confined to his bed at the time by severe illness. Although he stated the reason for his non-attendance, he was fined £20, in consequence of some vague rumour that he had been seen at the time at another place. He (Mr. Charles Forster) had himself brought the case under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue, who, he was bound to say, had immediately remitted the fine, but not until the person aggrieved had been put to considerable inconvenience. In every country except England the Government undertook the duty of collecting their 767 own taxes. In 1864 the present First Lord of the Treasury brought forward a measure to enable the Board of Inland Revenue to relieve the tax-payers from the burden of collecting their own taxes. The scheme of the Bill was a most simple one, and met with general approval until the third reading, when by some unaccountable means it was rejected by a majority of 4. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would signalize his accession to Office by introducing a Bill upon the subject calculated to relieve the tax-payers from the burden they had now to bear. It was just such a subject as a Government, having strong support in Parliament, should address itself to, and the country had a right to expect something at their hands.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI quite agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster), as to the great anomaly that is involved in the manner of collecting these taxes. It is perfectly true, as he has stated, that the tax-collector is made to serve compulsorily, and is appointed without his consent being obtained. The consequence is that this duty—a most important one—is often placed in very strange hands. I recollect the present First Lord of the Treasury stating to the House that within his own knowledge the office of tax-collector had been filled by a general officer, a retired merchant, a captain of a ship, the head of a grammar school, and a lady. That, I am sure, is not the way in which these taxes ought to be collected. Again, if any defalcations occur, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens, the parish is made liable for their amount, which seems to be a very great hardship. I will not go into detail upon the subject at this hour, but I will just read to the House a short paragraph from Page 29 of the Report which has just been published by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—
In connection with this subject—that is, the addition which may be made to the revenue by a closer and more careful assessment and collection of existing duties—we cannot refrain from repeating an often expressed conviction, that the assessed taxes, if entirely taken out of the hands of parochial officers and intrusted to the sole management of this Department, may be made to yield a much larger quota to the income of the country than at present. And we believe that since we first began to ventilate the subject, a great change has taken place in public opinion respecting the antiquated, cumbrous, and inefficient system absurdly named 'self-taxation,' and 768 that there will be no difficulty now in superseding it by a better arrangement.Then there is this note—The following conversation, which really occurred between a member of this Department and a parochial assessor, is worth preserving as an illustration:—'A.—I see that Mr. B. is not in assessment for either a horse or a carriage, though you know that he keeps both.' Assessor (who is the principal butcher of the village)—'Well, Sir, you must not be hard on a poor man like me. Mr. B. is my best customer, and if I were to charge him, after so many years that he has gone on without paying any tax, he would give all his custom to X. at once.'On these grounds, and on many others, which it would take too long to state at the present moment, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Walsall that some alteration should be made in the present system of collecting these taxes. But then he has himself stated what is the main feeling in my mind—namely, that an attempt which was made four or five years ago by much stronger hands than mine was most disastrously defeated.—[Mr. FORSTER: Only by 4 votes.] Yes, but 4 is as good as 40. It also seems that in this Session we are to concentrate our polemical powers chiefly upon one single subject. At the same time I do not say that, even under these circumstances, I shall not make an attempt—I do not pledge myself to do it, but I hope to do so—to attack the whole or a part of this question during the present Session, if I see the least opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member must not, however, be angry with me if this and many other subjects worthy of our attention should, from the pressure of business, have to stand over until another year.