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

CHURCH RATES.

In reply to Lord A. CHURCHILL,
Sir G. GREY said that it was not intended by Govern-
ment to introduce any bill for the abolitiou of church rates.

THE INCOME TAX.

In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGIIBY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entirely
agreed with the hon. baronet as to the importance of the
question which he had brought under the notice of the
house, but thought that it was too complicated a subject to
be advantagecusly disposed of by a merely incidental dis-
cussion. At the same time he would not decline to answer
the questions which had been put to him by his hon. friend.
The hon baronet desired to know how far abuse or griev-
ance prevailed in connexion with the collection of the in-
,,me-tax; who was responsible for the collection of that
tax; and to whom the taxpayer was to appeal in any case in
which he had suffered hardship. His own belief was that
abuse was rare, and that grievance, as far as it prevailed,
was incidental to the nature of the tax very much more than
to the conduct of those who were concerned in levying it.

The general, or at least a very common, practice on the
part of persons who thought themselves aggrieved was to
state their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cases
snci. as these Wok) aliedyg Made the etibjectcf aolear lutes-
Ligation, and the result had impressed en his Mind the con-
viction that the difficulties and frequent inconvenience atten-
dant on the collection of the lax were, in the main, inherent
in the neture of the tax itself, The hon. baronet had spoken
of colleetofe, assessors; and stirfeYotel ae constituting a body
of persons ethploYed in the collection of the tax ; kit where
there *at ally question of responsibility such was by no
means the ease. the bellectots and aseeestirs +tete not ap-
pointed by her Majesty's Government, not 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 odief hd.np, *bee etrittly officers of the
Crown—responsible through the Board of tnlafid Iteeenue
to the Treasury, and ultimatelyto the house itself. Altholigh
the arrangement was not one which was satisfactory to the
Clutetntecnt, it would be a hasardous experiment essentially
to alter the basis of direct ialatibit. He hail told the house
on previous occasions that the Government were teddy 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•
flict with any considerable body of public opinion in this
country. Application had teen made to the various Boatels
of Commissioners intrusted with the dui y 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 tee hands of the Government. Although a
very large number of these boards was desirous that the
transfer of duty should take place, the Governwent 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 we'll 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 aspectof 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, ho 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-
ducted, relative to the possibility of recovering costs, he
could only say that the local commissioners afforded their
gratuitous services to the country, and bad 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 lbw—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 cei taro quartets 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, and should receive the attention of
Government with aview to an amendment of the existing
law.