HC Deb 30 May 1905 vol 147 cc232-3
MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of fines and the total amount produced thereby which have been inflicted on owners of dogs by collectors of the Inland Revenue during the last three years; and whether, in view of the fact that such proceedings conflict with the principle of the Magna Charta that no freeman shall be disseised of his freehold except by the law of the land, and seeing that they are not clearly sanctioned by Section 35 (1) of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, he can undertake that they shall be discontinued.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

In reply to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the records kept by the Inland Revenue do not present the statistics desired in a collected form, and I am therefore unable to give the exact figures, but I believe that the following are approximately correct:—Number of cases, 46,000; amount received, £8,800. As regards the second part of the Question, I am quite unable to follow the reference to Magna Charta, or to see the bearing of that document on the facts complained of. It is always open to an offender to appear before a magistrate if he prefers it, but the greater number prefer to avail themselves of the alternative offered by the Inland Revenue. I see no reason for depriving them of this choice.

MR. LOUGH

But does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say he approves of 46,000 fines being inflicted without any control at law?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

In these cases it very often happens that the offence is not a wilful one but is due to negligence or carelessness. In these cases the Inland Revenue offer the offender the option of paying a small fine instead of being taken before a police magistrate, at whose hands they would be liable to a much higher penalty. If the offender chooses to accept the milder alternative I see no reason to interfere.

MR. LOUGH

But is it legal?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, perfectly legal, and even compatible with the rights of the British freeman under Magna Charta.