The Press.
London, England, 1857-01-31 00:00:00

THE INCOME TAX.

TN the last article of the number of the Quar-
terly Review just published, the whole question
of the Income Tax is most logically and
eloquently stated. That question, as summed
up by the reviewer, may be thus briefly ex-
pressed :—ls the Income Tax to finally and
completely expire in 1800, according to the
bargain made in 1853, and according to the
provisions of the Act then passed, or is the
promise made to the country to be broken ?
The public voice, so far as can be judged
from the meetings which have taken place
all over the country, has decided not only
against the present excessive rate of the
Income Tax, but against its inequality. It
will not be suffered to exist in its present
form. It must be altogether removed, or it
must be remodelled.
We have no desire to conceal the fact that
there is a party in tha country—though we
believe it to be insigr ifieant—which prefers, in
theory at least, the principle of direct to
indirect taxation. But this party is most
decidedly opposed to an equal assessment of
all classes of income, and holds that the main
burden of taxation shall fall on realised
property.
If the Income Tax is to be remodelled
according to any scheme which has been put
forward, or according to any scheme which
can be imagined, it must lose that character
of equal and universal assessment which so
peculiarly fits it to be a great resource in
periods of national exigency. In proportion
as the Income Tax is constituted a portion of
our ordinary revenue,and squared and adapted
to notions of abstract equity, it must be less
available than it is in times of war or other
periods of financial pressure. We see that a
revenue of sixteen millions may be raised
from this source when required ; and this
large revenue, if held as a reserve, must
greatly strengthen our political and financial
condition, and enable Ls to contemplate
with equanimity any possible contingencies
to which, as a nation, we may be exposed.
Between the total extinction of the Income
Tax and its readjustment according to theo-
retical ideas of the different values of income
from different sources, we think the country
ought not to hesitate. However the tax might
be altered, it would still be inquisitorial, it
would still be demoralising, it would still be
vexatious, and it would still be unequal. The
principle of assessing different kinds of income
at different rates would not be free from
danger. If it be decided that an income of 5001.
a ) ear from trade or professional exertion
ought not to be assessed at the same rate as
an income of 5001. a year from property,
because the possessor of the former is compa-
ratively a poorer man, may not the same rel.-
soiling lead to a proportionably higher assess-
ment of higher classes of income?
One financial fact stated in the Quarterly
Review must not be overlooked. If the Income
Tax, in compliance with the Act of 1853, is
reduced to fivepence iu the pound from the
sth of April next, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQCER would still have one half-year's pro-
duce at least of the sixteenpenny rate to receive,
which would yield him eight millions for the
service of the next half year, instead of the re-
duced rate of two millions and a half. This extra
sum of four and a half millions would allow

JANUARY 31, 1857.

ample funds for the redemption► of the two
millions of Exchequer 13( lids falling due this
year, if such redemption should be thought
desirable.
There can be little doubt that the immediate
reduction of the Income Tax from ltld. to 5d.,
together with the abolition of the war duties
on tea, sugar, and coffee, would p_•oduce a
most beneficial effect on the industry of the
empire, and stimulate other sources of revenue
A tax on income or property in any shape be-
comes sooner or later a tax on labour, and
diminishes or dries up the springs which set
industry in motion ; and for this reason the
abolition of the tax must indirectly benefit
the class who are not primarily subjected
to it.

LAW REFORM.-THE ECCLESIASTICAL
COURTS.

THE anomalies and abuses attendant upon
the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts are
already sufficiently well known. The old,
expensive, and complicated mode of proce-
dure still prevails in these tribunals, while
the courts, both of common law and equity,
have within these few years undergone a
variety of improvements, to the manifest ad-
vantage of the public. The following extract
from a letter, lately addressed by Sir FITZROY
KELLY to Lord BROUGHAM, shows the mode in
which business is conducted at Doctors' Com-
mons, and of the urgent necessity that exists
for altering a state of things so disgraceful to
the administration of justice :
Instead of the most simple and concise statement of
the will to be propounded on the one side, and of the
objection to the grant of probate on the other, the cause
proceeds upon an endless succession of verbose and com-
plicated libels, articles, personal answers, and allegations,
until what may be called the record is completed. Then,
as to the evidence—instead of a personal cir•a core exami•
nation of parties and witnesses in open court as soon as
the issues of facts are ascertained, the whole evidence is
made to consist of written depositions and answers to
interrogatories. The examination in chief being often
taken on one side before the case upon the other side is
known; the cross interrogatories exhibited on the other
side in utter ignorance of the evidence in chief; and the
witnesses on both sides giving their erideuce in private, tin•
seen and unheard by the uppoide parties, who have to deal
with, and perhaps to contradict, their testir_►ony, and by
the judges who have to pronounce judgment upon it
when the cause is to be decided. The results of this
vicious system are beyond calculation. The late case of
Pyce Sombre affords an opt illustration of the magnitude
cf these evils. It was a simple and ordinary case of a
will set up by the executors and legatees, and opposed on
the ground of unsoundness of mind in the testator by the
widow and the next of kin. The suit was made to last
for live years ; the pleadings and evidence were all in
writing, and tilled two of the largest size folio volumes
contd. • ig together 1,>0) pages. and the expense of print-
ing which atone was over 2,0001. The costs altogether
were upwards 36,0001. This may seem an extreme
case, but it differs only from the most ordinary cases in
the amount of the property at stake. If the estate of the
deceased had been no more than 1,0001., the pleadings,
the evidence, and the costs, must have been the same,
unless, as would probably have occurred, the immensity
of the expenses had driven the parties to a compromise.

We need not enumerate the many abortive
attempts that have from time to time been
made with the view of remedying those
gigantic evils, nor need we dwell upon the
causes of their failure. Suffice it to say, that
in the course of last year three distinct plans
for the remodelling, of the Ecclesiastical Courts
were brought before the public. The first, by
the present Attorney-General, proposed that
all proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts
should in future be regulated by the rules of
the Courts of Chancery, and that a new tri-
bunal should be established for the purpose.
Mr. COLLIER. on the other hand, would have
solved all difficulties by throwing the whole of
the business into the courts of common law at
Westminster. Lastly, Sir Firzßoy KELLY
proposed that a new court should be created,
which should have exclusive jurisdiction in
testamentary causes, and that in connection
with, and subordinate to, this tribunal, district
courts, superintended by registrars, should be
established throughout the kingdom for the
transaction of local business. He further pro-
posed, that all suits and disputes of every
kind that might arise should be referred to
the metropolitan court, which in its procedure
should be bound by the simple and intelligible

THE PRESS.

rules of the common law. Thus all the parties
concerned would he subjected to the whole-
some test of examination in open court, instead
of giving their evidence in private, as is now
the case. A question, for example, such as
that which arose in DvcE SOMBRE'S case,
would be referred at once to the decision of a
jury, thus saving a world of expense to the
parties, and of scandal in th." administration
of our laws.

The first of these three schemes was re-
jected because it proposed, in effect, to
throw the testamentary business of Doctors'
Commons into the Courts of Chancery, and
we need hardly be surprised that this proposal
found no favour in the eyes of the public
The second was rejected simply because it
was impracticable; but we understand that the
main features of the third plan have been
approved by the Government, and that a mea-
sure will be very shortly submitted to Parlia-
ment in which these will be embodied. It is
said, however, that several important altera-
tions of the original scheme are in contempla-
tion, and to these we shall now shortly refer.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, it is stated, while
conceding the principle that the new Testa-
mentary Court should be regulated in its pro-
cedure by the rules of the common law, is still
of opinion that it should be presided over by
an Equity Judge. Should this prove the case,
and an act be passed accordingly. we feel per
suaded that the project will fail in its most
essential point. It is of the first importance
that in any plan for the reform of the Eccle-
siastical Courts the rules of pleading and
evidence should be wholly abolished, and
those of the common law substituted in their
stead. But how can we expect this to be
effectually done unless we have a judge in the
new court who is thoroughly conversant with
the principles and the practice of the common
law? It is true that the power is now given
to the judges of the Equity Courts to examine '
witnesses viva voce in certain cases, but every-
body knows that practically it is never done.
The consequence would probably be that
wherever questions of disputed facts arose in
the Testamentary Court, they would be re-
ferred, as they now are from 'Chancery, to a
common-law judge and jury.
What, then, would be the duties of the new li
judge? That is a question which we believe
Lord CRANWORTH will find it somewhat difficult
to answer. According to the plan of Sir
FITZROY KELLY—and upon this point the
Attorney-General agreed with him—the pro•
posed new court was to be invested with com-
plete jurisdiction in all questions of law as
well as of fact in regard to matters testa-
mentary. It was to decide all disputes as to
the construction of wills and devises, as well
as to administer every species of estate. But
it appears that Lord CRANWORTH does not
intend that it shall have jurisdiction in ques-
tions of construction, but that these shall be

determined as they are at present. The objec-
tions to the creation of a court of such limited
powers are manifest. Being precluded in
effect from deciding any questions, either of
fact or of law, it would have no judicial du-
ties, properly so called, to perform at all. It
would only have a certain amount of routine
business to get through, while testamentary
disputes of every description were settled
elsewhere. The judge in point of station and
emolument would rank, we believe, with his
brethren at Westminster, but his office would
be a sinecure; and if Lord CRANWORTH sup-
poses that the public would be satisfied in the
present day with a court of this description,
he will find hiliself most grievously mistaken.
This scheme. in fact, would complicate, in-
stead of simplifying, the present mode of proce-
dure. That system, although liable to nume-
tons abuses, has at all events the advantage of
being thoroughly understood by a large and
intelligent class of practitioners to whom the
public now look for assistance and advice in
all testamentary matters. But who would
venture to offer advice to a client in the event
of the Loan CHANCELLOR'S scheme being CAC-
tied into effect? It would be the duty of the
advocate, in that case, to inform the perplexed
suitor in questions of any difficulty that he
would require to resort to three different
tri-
bunals. For the disposal of all matters of
routine he must go to the new Ecclesiastical

99

Court; for the decision of questions of fact ho
must go to a court of common law ; and for
the decision of points of law he must go, we
presume, to a court of equity. Whether this
would be any improvement upon the present
system is a question so doubtful that we shall
not attempt to answer it.
What, then, is the true remedy required ?
It is clearly the establishment of a single
court, invested with the most ample jurisdic-
tion in all testamentary matters, and bound in
its procedure to follow the well-known maxims
of the common law. In this court all disputed
questions, both of fact and of law, ought to be
disposed of without the interveation of any
other tribunal. It is only by this means that
we can hope to see an end of the abuses of which
the public have so long complained. We
trust, therefore, that the simple and compre-
hensive plan originally proposed by Sir F.
KELLY will yet be carried into effect. We are
convinced it is the only one that will satisfy
the country.
An appeal would, of course, lie from the
new court to the House of Lords, as the tribu-
nal of ultimate resort: and we cannot refer to

the latter without expressing our surprise and
regret that no effectual means have yet been
taken to restore it to that high place in public
estimation %Oriel' until a recent period it tn.-
questionably held. Various abortive schemes
were attempted last session with the view of
improving the court of last resort, which has
unfortunately lost repute from causes which
we need not now enumerate. But, with the
exception of the elevation of Lord WENSLEY..
DALE to the peerage, nothing has been done.
We by no means underrate the abilities and
learning of that eminent person, but it is no
disparagement to him to say that a still fur-
ther infusion of legal talent and experience is
required to restore the judicial reputation of
the House of Peers. The Government have
been much to blame for their neglect in this
important matter, and we have yet to learn
whether they have matured any measures of
improvement more practicable than the failures
of last session.