The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-14 00:00:00

awarded them are sufficient ; we do not enforce the
treble or the double duties, and therefore have not
the fund.

Mr. HORSMAN—Do you find that in Scotland corn-
plaints are made that the system is a more vexatious
one than in England ?—No I think not.
You have not had complaints of that kind ?—No,
I think not.

CHAIRhoNfaI
have
eN —b
salaries.r
oCuag nh ytoa ires
Poundagett
ua tren ttwoo tt
phh
ae
rnoCi
ceohmsihamlo
showing
eegs s
ttohhr
ees
expense incurred in collecting the property-tax?—l
caaanmnducnolltlectors, poundage to clerks to Commissioners,
travelling and other incidental expenses of the vari-
ous officers, tradesmens' bills, postage and carriage,
rent of chambers, copies of poor's-rates and com-
mission allowed to remitters, making a total of
129,7991.
For what year is that ?—TLat is for the year ended
the sth of April, 1849.
Has nearly the same charge existed ?—About the
same ; it is about 21.55. 9d. per cent.
Have you an account showing the amount of
travelling expenses paid to the two Special Commis-
sioners in altering appeals on special assessments in
the year ended sth April, 1849 ?—I have; the amount
is 6741.175.

Is that included in the former sum ?—lt is.
Mr. SOTHERON—CouId you easily give us a return
of the expense of collection for the first year after the
property-tax was imposed, as well as for the last
year ?—Yes, I will endeavour to do so.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--Are you aware
that Sir Robert Peel stated in the imposition of the
income-tax that he calculated the incomes of under

1501. a year as one-fourth of the whole?—lt appears
so by the debates.
Are you at all aware on what grounds such a cal-
culation could be based ?—I am not.

Have you any reason for supposing that it is near I
the truth ?—lt is very difficult to say.
Lord 11. VANE—You have no data upon which to
form any calculation ?—No.
Mr. J. WiLsoN—Would not the claims for exemp-
tion in the first year, for example, furnish some data ?
No, I think not, because so many persons are not
assessed, particularly under Schedule (D). Then,
again, under Schedule (C) we have not returned the
tax upon one-fourth of the dividends. The tax upon
one-fourth of the amount of the dividends has not
been claimed as a repayment. The tax was only sup-
posed Ito last for three years, and of my own know-
ledge hundreds of persons never troubled about
claiming small sums on dividends for which they
were trustees, but when the tax became apparently
perpetual they then preferred their claims.
Mr. T. BARING—WouId not the returns up to
1815 of the amount paid for income-tax from 501. to
1501. be some clue to the calculation ?—N o ; that
can only
undert s
to Scheduleohednle s (( DA).
and) The(c
undercom e wasthe
not
Act of 1806 ; and no exemption was granted in the
returned
Act of 1806 in respect of the property.
Mr. J. "WiLsoN—There were different rates of
pulryn e
charges ; there was a scale of the various rates from
501. up to 1501. ?—A diminution.
A diminished scale of rates; would not the number
of persons paying, or claiming under those diminished
rates, afford you assistance in the matter ?—lf we
had any access to those accounts, but all those ac-
counts are destroyed; every paper connected with
the old Property-tax Act is destroyed; we have not
even the forms to resort to in starting.
Can you tell us whether it is the practice for the
original form to be left annually at the houses of
those who have been exempted in previous years ?—I
cannot answer that question.
You mentioned that in a great number of cases
where, in the opinion of the C ommissioners, the in-
comes of the parties were notoriously under 1501.,
they did not trouble them with the second form to be
filled up, but you do not know whether they relin-
quish the practice of leaving the first form in such
cases ?—I do not; the surveyors can answer that
question.
CHAIRMAN—Have you any means of ascertaining
the number of individuals who have claimed exemp-
tion in any one year, and who have been afterwards
brought into charge ?—Through the surveyors we
have.

CHANCELLOR of the: EXCHEQUER—Can you state
the number of persons who, in the year 1848-49,
claimed exemption on the ground of having an income
under 1501. a year, but who were afterwards brought
into charge, it having been proved that they had in-
comes exceeding that amount ?—By a return recently
received from the surveyors, it appears that 9,687
persons did claim total exemption, and stated their
incomes to be less than than 1501. a year, but after-
wards were brought into assessment and made to pay
the duty.
CHAIRMAN—They were brought in by the sur-
veyor ?—By the surveyor and the additional Com-
missioner.
Mr. HENLEY—Does that relate to income generally,
or income under one particular schedule ?—Trades
and professions only.
That is Schedule D ?—lt is.
Col. ROMILLY—Have you considered the practica-
bility of any machinery for collecting the present tax,
which would be less vexatious to the tax-payer, and
equally productive ?—No, I have never considered the
subject.
Have you ever considered what the effect of a sys-
tem would be, which, proceeding upon the principle
of the Act of 1799, should call upon all persons to
make a return of their incomes from whatever sources
derived, without furnishing a detail, as that Act re-
quired, of the sources, in the first instance, but
should afterwards only apply the machinery of sur-
charging and appeals, and requiring the production
of those details, and proof of those details, and
the administration of oaths, when suspicion should
arise, that that first return was not an accurate return ?
—I have never considered the subject, but from the cir-
cumstance of the Government having found it neces-
sary to alter that in so short a period after Mr. Pitt
had brought in his Bill of 1799, I take it for granted
that it was impracticable to carry out that system.
Was it not the case in that Act that a detail was
required, in the first instance, of all the sources from
which the income was derived, and also the deduc-
tions ?—lt was ; but all those returns are now re-
quired from different individuals; the rent of land is
required from the occupier.
I am supposing a system which should not take the
tax from the first sources of income, but which, as
that Act did, should require persons to make a return
of their income from all sources, and not to furnish
any detail of the sources from which it arose in the
first instance, but only to furnish that detail through
the subsequent machinery for obtaining proof of that
detail, on suspicion arising that the first was not an
accurate return ?—I think it would be much more
inquisitorial, more vexatious., and more difficult than
the present system, undoubtedly.
You understand that the first return would not
require any detail, but simply an account without
any detail of the source ?—Yes ; we will suppose the
case of a country gentleman returning all his rents
and all the mortgages that he has got.
I am supposing, on the contrary, that he should
return one gross sum ?—As rent.
Without giving the source
..of it at all ?—That
would be quite impossible.
You think it would be quite impossible do ; I
think you would lose the whole of the tax.
You think that you could not apply the ma-
chinery afterwards which you now apply, where you
thought that the return was not sufficient ?—Cer-
tainly not.
On what is that opinion founded; on the desire
that everybody would have to return less than his
income ?—At present everything being charged at
its first source we are quite sure of the tax upon every
penny; we get every penny upon the dividend, and
levery penny upon a man's salary ; all that we do not
know is the profits of a man's trade, but in all the
other schedules it is collected to a penny without any
disclosure whatever.
You assume that the party would not make an
equal return P—l do not think it possible_that we
could get a return.
You might, if you considered that a person did not,
make a sufficient return, require proof, as you no. w
are obliged to do in the case of Schedule (D),
the p ,roduction of documents to substantiate fairly
the sources from which his income is derived . We
might require him to give the detail of all the tenants,
and go to the tenants and get the rents.
You are supposing the case of landed property
alone ?—Landed property with other property. Take
the case of the funds mixed up with other property,
such as interest money, we must require a detailed
statement of each species of income.
Do you think you would not
, get a return which
would not, in some cases at least, require you to call
for detail do.
CHANCELLOR of the ExcuEuEß—Would not the
result of that system be the same necessity of inqui-
sition into all the circumstances of individuals in all
the schedules as that which now
(D) alone ?—lt would. prevails in Schedule
Colonel ROMlLLY—Because you assume that per-
sons would not make a sufficient return, and that you
would surcharge them, and require them to give the
detail?—Because we should have no means, no data
upon which to go.
CIiAIicELLQA [of tho gicu&oza—Did you not