The Express.
London, England, 1850-03-23 00:00:00

Tvb e

knee Junes. of taxation which is now befog at-
tempted seder the pretence of redneiog it, arid in
modes not abided to by the Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer in his speeches to the House of Commons.
2. I will sow pass to leases. Certain duties are
by the present law imposed upon every "lease or
tack of soy land., hereditameets, or heritable subjects
granted in considered°n of a sum of motley by way
of fine, premium, or gramme* and either with or
without rent ; and also upon any " lease or tack, deo.,
at a yearly rent, without any sum of money by way
of fine, premium, or grassum paid for the same.' It
is now proposed tt at duties should attach upon every
"lease or tack, or agreement for a tease or tack, or
for the letting or setting of any lands, tenements,
hereditament., or heritable subjrcts, for any con-
sideration by way of fine, premium, or grossest
paid or amen for the same," either with or
without rest; and also upon any "lease or
tack, or agresteset, &a, at a yesrly rent without any
consideration by way of fine, iftc., paid or given fir
the same." Now the first point of notice open these
words is the authoritative sables:ion of an agreement
for a lease to a lease stamp. It is often a debateable
question when a tenant holds under as meet,
whether suck agreement is to be eooddsed ma pain-
ing such intense es to require a lease stamp, but this
agtiou trig Isssoritor be settled, and every epee-
meet, as well those upon which the paqies may in-
tend to have leases, as such as may contemplate a let-
dug for the shortest period, must at ones be impressed
with a duty from which they were before exempt. It
is true that if the lease stamp be paid upon the agree-
ment, and a lease be subsequently granted, a stamp
of 11. is to be impressed upon the lease up.n
the production of the agreement, and so in
effect the stamp upon the last named
instrument will be reduced to that amount,
but perhaps you will allow me to submit the question
in a practieal and constantly occurring shape to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the hope that some
member may ask for a reply. A large proprietor
(say the true...no( the estatesidthe See of London at
Paddington) enter into an agreement to grant a
lease or leases of a vacant tract of land for 99
years, at rents of 201. the first yesr, 50/. the second
yeer, 1001. the third, 5001. the fourth, 7501. the fifth,
and the tenant agrees within the five years to erect
and complete fifty first-ekes houses on the lend the
trustees being bound to grant to the tenant or his
nominee, at an apportioned rent, a lease of such house
or houses as he may require as soon se they are fully
completed and covered in. Now, sir, these agreements
to a greeter and to ales@ extent are matters of everyday
occurrence. They are subject to the agreement
stamp, but as soon as housesare completed the builder
takes up, se it is called, to himself or his nominee a
knee of such house or houses, and which lease is im-
pressed with the proper lease stamp. Years oten
elanse before an agreement is folly performed, for the
building trade is one especially subject to external in-
fluences. With no very large experience, lam myself
acquainted with cases in which the building agree-
ment has remained in force ten and thirteen years.
Now, under the proposed alterations, the new lease
stamp would at once attach upon tie agreement,
and would be caLulated with reference to the
maximum rent, although such rent would not
be payable for years—and as when each lea..
was granted under it a denoting stamp, that
is a stamp showing that the ad valorem
stamp had been paid upon the agreement, would
necessarily be impressed upon the lease to entitle it
to a 11. itampind to save it from payment of ao ad
reform duty a second time, the title of the lessee will
through the whole term be encumbered with the
necessity of proving the due fulfilment of the building
agreement—a thing generally impossible, and an evil
which every lawyer will regard as the ply avoided
by payment of the duty a second time. if the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had desired to impede build-
ing operations and had sought to levy an increased
tax upon new leases, he could not have devised a
better plan. But this is not enough—a duty is now
imposed not upon the rental only but also " for any
consideration by way of fine or premium paid or
given for the same." The pretest words are "in con-
sideration of a sum of money paid for the same." The
law is now clear, bat it is evidently to be alts red, and
if a man agrees to let his land in consideration of a
certain ground-rent and cf 100,0001. to be expended
in building; who can say that such agreement is not
entered into for the consideration of such expenditure
given by way of premium as well as of the yearly
ground-rent ? The question cannot be satisfactorily
answered in favour of the builder by referring to the
proposed duties on conveyances, for there duty is
made payable where the consideration or any part
shall be " any security whatseever whether payable
in money or otherwise," and what judge could de-
cide that the covenant of a builder to expend on the
land of another man in certain buildings, 100,0001.,
was not a security

There is still one clause so closely connected with
the above that I must etude to it before concluding
this letter. It is shortly as follows, " where any
person having contracted for, but not having obtained
a lease, shall contract to :sell such property, or any
part, or his right therein to any other person, and a
lease shall be granted to such other person, the con-
sideration given or agreed to be given, to the person
immediately selling to such lessee shall be set forth
in such lease, and such lease shall be charged u well
with the ad valorem duty on such consideration as
with the duty on the consideration or rent paid or re-
served to the lessor." Builders will appreciate this
enactment. At present a builder having taken a
piece of ground as before described erects a house and
if during its erection some one likes it, egrets for such
mamas may repay the cost of erection and give him some
profit to nominatesuch party as lessee. Nu consideration
passing between the lessor and the lessee, an ad
valorem duty does not now attach ; but it will not be le
here, fter. The present plan may appear to be an eva-
sions:but it is not, as the builder, having built the how,
simply puts in his stead the party for whom he has
halt it to be the lessee as awn as the erection is
capable of being property; while by the alteration
building operations will be checked, for the builder
will know that he cannot obtain back the money laid
out upon his houses except by the deduction of a tax
upon their value. In the previously aesnmed case of
a builder undertaking 100,0001. unties one agreement,
the clause last quoted would inflict upon the builder
by its operation alone the payment of stamp duty to
the amount of 1,0001. beyond what he would be now
liable to.

Should you thick these remarks sufficiently valuable
for insertion in your columns, I will notice in another
letter the other beads of the resolutions upon which I
have been remarking. I am, &e.,
March 22, 1850. A SOLICI TOIL

MANCHESTER, RECTORS' DIVISION BILL—The
principal witness ermined by the select committee upon
this bill yesterday, la support of the preamble, woe the
Right Bee. the Lord Bishop of the diocese. His lordship
expeessed a positive opinion that the dean and chapter had a
cure of souls all over the parish, and not, u they said, only
over the collegiate body. He founded this opinion upon the
teams of the shatter granted them by Charles 1., which wu
the one ups which the dean and chapter most relied is
support of their view of tics ease. The right rev. prelate
entered into • lengthy and critical analysis of the Latin
text. He also expressed his balsf that great benefit would
result from the division of the rectory. Mr. Robt. Gardiner,
an extensive manufacturer, entertained a similar opinion,
and asserted that it the funds of the chapter were properly
massaged and administered, they would produce 38,0001. a
yew. Thia closed the evidence for the promoters, and the
committee adjourned till Monday.
MALANCHOLT AOCIDENT.—A Isnot table occur-
mot took plans la the family of Mr. Walter Paul, of High-
port, near Tethary, oa Wednesday crests. Paul
pro • ball, previous to his see, Captain Paul hiss
to isia hie nowt. At about due Oda& Ma mind
hos tb• b•11-see. ; having an attack at lb disharsz, she
to her ova room. It is supposed that sits
=Li rigeMsasien Irma MS Nis IS NIS Mbar, the
HOW ado it lima bar book and hag dirk eon-
reed a glib! Wel r*Pl44. . yunnig..'eiZr
d..
testae% ipmespol mom ch• ionsansula
rink dm boy *cowlsg basin of Immo over Ininelkami
her asiumesairviasi the ettendaau ; but batty that Mini
odd @RUED **limn she arms so severely hurat as le intv•
bet hint it apse ot her raeavery, and us Ilealig big tint
Mist In live: Willi biandotd.

LONDON, SAT

REPRIEVAL OF ANN

We have just had G&W ielsamelleltit
prim], darting pleasing, et Anse IdeesieNrial
sided of having poisoned her Moine&

,

tfAIiUFACTURING
FIRE AT MANCHESTEit

Tb. warobosoe
hews. that of 11.iers.

Vf,4 'fiad Westboad*