§ MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the want of uniformity with which the Inhabited House Duty is levied; if he is aware that the public museums and art galleries of the Metropolis are not charged, while public museums and art galleries in some provincial cities are charged, and that private business premises on which profits are made have been exempted, while some provincial public premises on which no profit is made are not exempt; and, if, before he introduces his next Inland Revenue Bill, he will have the matter inquired into, so that a uniform system may be adopted?
MR. GLADSTONEI think my hon. Friend is, to some extent, right in the assumption made in this Question, that there is not perfect uniformity in the exaction of the Inhabited House Duty with reference to buildings used for educational purposes and to public buildings. It has been represented to me that this is owing very much to the want of a clear and broad line in the law of exemption. The truth is, that there is no exemption by law, and that the exemption has been gradually introduced by the Executive authorities. The rule in actual operation is, that Treasury dispensation is granted for "public buildings and those used for educational purposes"—a phrase which has 1377 been literally interpreted—and only such, parts of those buildings are charged as are occupied by caretakers. I cannot, I am afraid, give any absolute pledge with respect to the coming Budget, and the financial arrangements for next year; but I must agree with my hon. Friend, that uniformity is desirable.