REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 25 June 1897)

§ *MR. WEIR
said he had refrained from mentioning a matter in connection with this Vote last night, in the hope of receiving a communication from the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, to whom he had written.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,) Preston
Is it not a question about a dog license to which the hon. Member wishes to refer?

§ *MR. WEIR
Yes.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member will not be in order in raising that question on this Vote.

§ *MR. WEIR
Now, Sir, I have my opportunity. [Laughter.] The case to which he wished to call attention was that of a small crofter, who wrote to say that for the last six or seven years he had kept a collie clog, and latterly the authorities had refused to exempt him from the tax. Last year he was pro- 628 secuted for not taking out a license, and was fined in all I8s. He made a similar application for exemption this year, and the officials of the Department had not even the courtesy to send him a postcard in acknowledgment. Apparently the officers of the Inland Revenue had been too zealous in some of these poor parts of the country. The man whose case he was referring to had been fined £1 and costs by a justice of the peace court. He understood that the Inland Revenue had Morrison's case under consideration, and h e only wished that the Department had attended to the business at an earlier stage. He wanted to know what was going to be done. Were people who were legally entitled to exemption going to be prosecuted time after time?

§ MR. HANBURY
did not think that the hon. Member had made out a very good case. The hon. Member had tried to prove that the officers of the Inland Revenue had exceeded their duty in prosecuting this man, but the fact that he was convicted by the magistrate was pretty good evidence that they had only performed their duty. The man complained that he was not granted exemption in respect of his dog. Well, what were the cases in which exemption was allowed. A shepherd who kept one or two dogs for the purpose of carrying on his occupation, was entitled to exemption. That exemption this man could not claim because he had not a single sheep of his own, but only a cow, a heifer or a calf. Then a farmer could claim exemption in respect of one or two dogs attending cattle or sheep upon his own farm. But the evidence in this case was that Morrison's dog was of great service to another man in keeping stray sheep off his farm. The dog was, therefore, used on another man's farm, and was not attending the owner's cattle or sheep, and so exemption could not be properly claimed.