The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1862.

The general, or at least a very common, practice on the 1
part of persons who thought themselves aggrieved was to
state their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cases
stdh as these were always made the subject of a clear inves-
tigation, and the result had Impressed on his mind the con-
viction that the difficulties and frequent inconvenience atten-
dant on the collection of the tax were, in the main, inherent
in the nature of the tax itself. The hon. baronet bad spoken
of collectors, assessors, and surveyors, as constituting a body
of persons employed in the collection of the tax; but where
there was any question of responsibility such was by no
means the case. The collectors and assessors were not ap-
pointed by her Majesty's Government, nor had her Ma-
jesty's Government any control whatever over them, except
such as the law might supply in case of misconduct. The
surveyors, on the other hand, were strictly officers of the
Crown—responsible through the Board of Inland Revenue
to the Treasury, and ultimatelyto the house itself. Although
the arrangement was not one which was satisfactory to the
Government, it would be a hazardous experiment essentially
to alter the basis of direct taxation. He had told the house
on previous occasions that the Government were ready and
disposed to take into their hands the assessment and collec-
tion of the direct taxes; but the hon. baronet must feel that
it would be very unwise in the Government to provoke a con •
flirt with any considerable body of public opinion in this
country. Application had teen made to the various Boards
of Commissioners intrusted with the duly of determining
the tax to be levied, and with the appointment of these offi-
cers, and they had been requested to state whether, in their
opinion, it was or was not desirable that the appointment of
officers and the assessment and collection of taxes should
be taken into the hands of the Government. Although a
very large number of these boards was desirous that the
transfer of duty should take place, the Governthent had not
found sufficient unanimity, or approximation to unanimity,
among those bodies to justify them in submitting a proposal,
based upon their recommendations, to the house. The hon.
baronet and the house would clearly understand that if the
duty of assessment and collection were assumed by the Go-
vernment it must extend over the whole country, or at all
events over very large areas, because if the new system were
only to be carried out in minute spots, and were to be mixed
up with the old system, great confusion must ensue, and a
large increase of charge to the public would be the unavoid-
able result. He did not hesitate to saythat a transfer of these
duties to the Government wall be most desirable, because
anybody who felt himself aggrieved by the conduct of any
officer or collector would then have a right to such redress
as the Executive Government or that house could afford.
There was another aspect of the case. Personswere at present
compulsorily required by the local commissioners to assume
the duty of collecting the tax—a duty often affording in-
sufficient remuneration, and clashing inconveniently with
private occupations. Although a good deal of unnecessary
hardship was inflicted on the taxpayer by the present state
of the law, he did not hesitate to say that still greater hard-
ship was sometimes entailed on persons who were called on
against their will to assume the duty of collecting the tax.
In reply to the question with which the hon. baronet con-
cluded, relative to the possibility of recovering costs, he
could only say that the local commissioners afforded their
gratuitous services to the country, and had not any funds
at their command applicable to the payment of costs. He
could not, therefore, undertake to say that there was
any source from which a taxpayer who was obliged to spend
time in connexion with the payment of income-tax could
be reimbursed or indemnified for the inconvenience or con-
sequent loss to which he had been exposed. Parliament
had given to the Income-tax Commissioners the power of
determining the tax to be levied without any appeal to the
Executive Government, except in those cases where parties
chose originally to come before the Executive Government.
In some cases, which, however, were exceedingly rare, when
the Commissioners appeared to have committed a palpable
error in principle, such—if the matter were one of low—as
would have justified an application for a new trial, he had
thought it might be the duty of the Executive Government
to afford relief. He had no doubt that with regard to arbi-
trary surcharges loss and inconvenience were very frequently
inflicted on individuals, but the inconvenience was inherent
in the nature of the tax. It was no very easy matter to get
at the income of a man, and in order to do so the most
stringent powers must be given to enable the public officers
in the first instance to obtain positive evidence, or else it
must be left to him to exercise due diligence and discretion,
forming his decision upon the best evidence he was able to
obtain. The latter course, with all its inconveniences, he
felt bound to say was preferable to the former, which would
be absolutely intolerable, T o arm the taxing officers with
arbitrary powers would be a hundred times more oppressive
than the present system of arbitrary surcharges, imperfect
and fallible as it occasionally proved. There could not be
a more gross misapprehension than the idea which seemed
to prevail in certain quarters that, because the levy of in-
direct taxes was grievous and oppressive, they had only to
levy direct taxes and they would get rid of all practical diffi-
culties and inequalities. On the contrary, he was afraid,
those practical difficulties would be aggravated in a tenfold
degree. (Opposition cries of Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK contended that the surcharges made
under the provisions of the act were productive of consider-
able inconvenience, end should receive the attention of
Government with a view to an amendment of the existing
law.