MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 21 July 1871)

§ MR. GORDON
rose— To call attention to the construction put by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on the 18th and 19th sections (sub-sections 6 and 8) of 32 and 33 Vic. c. 14, requiring that a Licence be taken out and Duty paid by the owner of any cart and horse used for the conveyance of goods or burdens in the course of trade or husbandry, provided such cart and horse, though otherwise exempt, are used in carrying the owner and his family to church, and to the hardship resulting from such construction to persons residing in large parishes; and to move for Correspondence or Minutes relating to this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that before the passing of the Act referred to, there was exemption from taxation in Scotland as regarded the horses and carts used for conveying the owners and their families to any place of divine worship on Sunday. That exemption was in virtue of the 16 & 17 Vict. But with regard to the Act in question, there was no such exemption. He considered it rather absurd that a man could lend the use of his horse and his cart to his neighbour without being taxed; while, as in this case, when using them for his own purposes he was not allowed the exemption, 135 which, considering the purpose for which they were used, should be held to entitle the owners from paying any taxes to the Revenue. It was well known that in Scotland persons often went to distances of 10 or 20 miles to church on Sundays, and he considered that it was a great hardship that in their case a tax should be imposed which, he submitted, was intended to apply only in cases where those horses and carts were used for business purposes. There was a Bill in reference to the Inland Revenue going through the House, and he thought that it afforded an opportunity for the introduction of a specific clause exempting parties using their horses and carts for going to their respective places of worship on Sunday from the imposition of this tax.

§ SIR MASSEY LOPES
pointed out that that was not a grievance peculiar to Scotland, for he himself had mentioned a similar case which came within his knowledge.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he was glad that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow had brought forward the question. He took this opportunity of stating that he considered that the people of Scotland had many grounds of complaint against the Government. They had had no Education Bill that Session, and he considered that they were unjustly taxed. It was well known to hon. Gentlemen who visited Scotland that frequently persons went 20 miles in the Highlands to a place of worship, and it was most unfair to impose a tax of this kind upon them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accede to the proposal now made, he was 136 sure that the people of Scotland would feel very much aggrieved at the denial of so very moderate a demand.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to treat all people alike, and all should pay their fair share of the burdens of taxation. He had never thought that it was necessary to provide the people of Scotland with the necessary means of going to church, and he was surprised to find that so small a tax should be supposed to stand in the way.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the question was, what the law was, and not what it ought to be, for he had no power to alter the law, his duty being to enforce it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought the law was wrong, he had suggested the proper course to pursue—namely, to introduce a clause in Committee in a Bill that was now before the House. The law was that a licence duty should be chargeable on all carriages except such vehicles as were used solely for agriculture or the conveyance of goods in the course of trade; and if a man used his cart to take his family to church, he clearly did not come within the exemption. With respect to the gratuitous use of a carriage, that must be by a person other than the owner, for a man who used his own carriage did not make a gratuitous use of it. When a person used a carriage employed in husbandry for the purpose of conveying himself or his family either to church or to a dance, it was quite clear he ought to pay the tax. In his opinion it was wise to construe these exemptions strictly. There were no Papers which could throw any light on the subject, and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he agreed that exemptions should be construed strictly; but he had heard the Government officers over and over again make the admission that it was the practice of the Inland Revenue to exempt a man who used his horse and cart only for the purpose of going to church.