The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

of ss. per cent. to escape a duty of 21., or 31., or 41. per
cent. I apprehend also that, according to the doctrine of
the law, the stamp upon the settlement is the proper
correlative of the stamp upon probates. The probate is
strictly a stamp duty to ascertain and validate a document;
the settlement is strictly a stamp duty, and has precisely-
the same effect; but besides that legitimate effect of set-
tlements they have been applied to an illegitimate pur-
pose, and all sorts of forms of settlement have been invented
and used with the object of escaping the legacy duty.
What, I ask, can be more monstrous titan the exemption
aqapf settled personalty ? When we discuss the case of realty
settled or unsettled—it is very obvious, and
I think it is very fair to call attention to the fact, that
real property is subject to many charges from which
invisible personalty, so to speak, is quite exempt ; ancis
,
therefore, that it is a justification, as far it goes,t o for
the exemption of realty. But that does not apply he
personality which is the subject of these settlements.
lauded property, free from every possible and imaginable
ble
to
charge is, by means of these legal arrangements, enabled t
pass scot free, when other property is called upon pay
heavy toll. With regard, then, to reality, in the first
instance, and much more with reference to settled person-
alty. I think it is impossible to defend the present state of
the law. But there is another case far more flagrant than
either of these—that is the case of unsettled property,
not real, but visible, immovable, and therefore subject to
the burden of rates and local taxation. Let us briefly look
at the position of property of that kind under the present
law. 'fake, for instance, leasehold property in houses.
(Hear, hear.) Contrast the condition of such property with
that of settled personalty on the one hand, and realty on
the other. There are two sets of charges which are sup-
posed—and which it is sometimes contended ought to be
,considered—as full equivalents for one another. On the
one side you have the probate and legacy duty, and on the
other the land-tax, a greater cost of stamps for transfer,
heavier taxation under schedule A of the income tax, and
exclusive burdens of local taxation. It is pleaded that on
account of this last description of charges real property
ought to be exempt from the first. Now, I do not say they
exactly countervail one another. On the one hand you
have the probate and legacy duties falling upon personalty
in general ; on the other hand you have the local charges
falling upon realty ; but here is leasehold property sub-
jected to both—subjected to the cost of stamps upon trans-
fer, to all the extra burdens of taxation for the income-
tax under schedule A, to the land-tax—(hear)—to the
full undivided burden of local taxation, and yet subjected
likewise both to the legacy and probate duties. (Hear.)
Now, how can any Parliament suppose that, when once
public attention is fairly concentrated upon such a ques-
tion as this, it is possible to maintain a state of the law so
wholly devoid of foundation and of warrant in truth or
reason. (Cheers.) This is the first proposition that I am
most anxious to impress upon the minds of the committee.
I refer with no invidious intention to the course taken on
this subject by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Disraeli). He and the Government of Lord Derby were
impressed with the belief that it was impossible to main-
tain the law as it now stands, and in consequence
they gave a general pledge which I understood to mean
that there must be some equalization of the pre-
sent system by means of a general tax upon succes-
sions. (Hear.) If, then, it be impossible to maintain
the present state of the law, will you part with that law
altogether ? Will you say, " Yes ; equality ought to he
established by exempting from the tax the property that
now pays it, and not by subjecting to the tax property
which is now exempted ?" This is a course which the
minds of many persons might incline them to take. Many
political economists are of opinion that a tax upon neces-
saries is in its nature an illegitimate description of tax.
Many persons think that, as a tax upon property, it
ought to be absolutely proscribed. I don't mean to
say that that it is my opinion, but I refer to it as
an opinion by no means destitute of great authorities
in its support. I mast confess, for my own part, that
it appears to me that taxes upon property raise a ques-
tion of vast importance, but one which, like other ques-
tions of taxation, cannot be disposed of altogether
-upon abstract grounds. I should say it it is straining
the matter too far to maintain that no tax upon property,
as distinguished from income, is a legitimate tax. The ob-
jection to taxes upon property appears to me to be drawn
from practical considerations—from the great difficulty
that attends the adjustment of such taxes, from their lia-
bility to become the subject of continual contests between
class and class, from their setting one portion of a aiety ap-
Tarently in a state of hostility and conflict with others.
hese are, I think, great objections to taxes upon property
but Ido not consider that they are so likely to attach to a
tax upon succession, ocenring (glee in a generation, as they
would if you were to attempt to lay a tax upon property
which was to recur again an,t again upon the steno property
from year to year. I won't say that 1. look to the practice
of antiquity, and especially of remote antiquity, as of very
great authority in fiscal matters, or that the extreme
antiquity of this tax upon successions is its stain recoai-
xnendatien in my eyes, but the committee must hear iu
mind that it is no innovation of modern times—that it is
rather a revival, in a modified form, of what was originally
among the main resources of the revenue of the State,
namely, a tax upon successions to property, supported
by a regular legal process of inquisition into its value.
(Hear, and cheers.) It is, therefore no mere innovation
that we are now recommending, but is it an injustice?
Of course, it is unjust if you levy an unnecessasy tax,
a tax you don't want, or a tax to support wasteful
and profligate expenditure. Such a tax is au un-
just tax, lay it on what you will ; but I am now
assuming that the purposes to which we apply the
resources of the State are in the main reasonable. If,
then, we want a given sum, is it unjust to raise
a portion of it by a tax upon successions ? I should say
mut. It seems to me that the passing or carrying of pro-
perty in perfect security over the great barrier which death
places between mail and man in the highest achievement—
the most signal proof of the power of civilised institutions.
(Hear, hear.) I think that ability to determine the future
with respect to property, and to fix its course from man to
man and from life to life—passing over one contingency
and another, and extending the private, personal will of an
individual into a distant future—limited, no doubt, and
wisely limited, by law —is au instance so signal of the.
great benefit conferred by law and by civil institutions
upon mankind, and of the immense enlargement that comas
to natural liberty through the medium of law, that I can
conceive nothing more natural than that if taxes are to be
raised at all, in the midst of these arreneements the State
should step in and tike a just portion for its neoeisitie_.
I will now look to cmisiticrations more practical then these.
I am now eadeavoming to put before the committee one
possible alternative—namely, that of equalising by aban-
donment. If you are prepared to do that you must be
prepared to give up the legacy duty anti the great bulk of
the probate duty, now producing something over
2,500,0001.; and, assuming that you retain a small stamp
on probates corresp ndi ig to the stamp on settlements, as
a mere va!itlitication cf the document, you still would have
to give up 2,500,0001. of the fixed income of the State. I
think no one who hears me will be prepared to give ap
that amount ; and assuming, then, that you are not pre-
pared to give up the principle and practice of making death
and the passing of property on death from the predecessor
to the suceessur the occasion of your stepping in to levy
what you require for allelic purposes, then we come to the
point that you cannot maintain the tax as it now stands.
What then is to be done .2 I hope the committee will arrive
at the conclusion at which the Government have es rived,
viz., that this tax ought, on principles of equity and jus-
tice, to be made a general tax freed from its present gross
and crying anomalies. I appeal in this instance to a sense
of justice. I know it is said that this proposal is conceived
in a spirit of hostility to land. (Hear, from the Opposition.)
That is (said the right hon. gentleman addressing the Oppo-
sition benches) I have no doubt your conscientious opinion.
Allow me respectfully to disclaim any such motive. (Oh !
oh !) lam as muds entitled to disclaim AS yen to impute
it. (Hear, hear.) I wish without any offence to appeal
to the sense of justice, which from actual experience and
knowledge I am convinced does, and will influence many
gentlemen, in despite of what they think their own per-
sonal interests, to vote for this tax. The ancient fable
ran, that when justice was banished from other quarters
on earth, she still for a while was to be found among agri-
culturists. (Laughter.)
" Extrema per illos
Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit."

Whether that fable were wisely conceived or not, I may
appeal, I believe, to your sense of justice, and I request
you to consider whether, before the tribunal of justice, the
proposition of the Government is one that ought to be
entertained. It appears to us, that as you cannot maintain
or justify the present state of the law, and as you cannot
abandon this source of taxation, the wise course is to make
the tax general in its application. (Hear, hear.) It ought
to be an equal charge without exception, though with
adaptation, made on all descriptions of property. A ques-
tion may occur to the minds of gentlemen, whether they
could not maintain some exemption—whether they could
not, for instance, exempt real property? Upon what
grounds would you do that ?—would it be because it pays
local taxation, the land-tax, and pays under the income-
tax more heavily than personal property? Every one 'of
these sonsiderations also applies to leasehold property ;
would you then be prepared to extend the exemption to
that species of property ? I must confess that I should
think such a course very unwise, and if you adopted it you
would find your exemptions grow so enormous that you
must raise what would be an mtoler tble rate and burden
of taxation on all descriptions of propaly left to pay the
tax. Though I cannot altogether admit that it ap-
pears fair to urge these burdens borne by land,
yet there is some exaggeration on that question.
Take the case of transfers. Very long ago it
might be true that personal property might be trans-
ferred for the most part without expense, and land
could not. But since those days great masses and classes
of personal property have grown up, which were not known
before, which, under law at this moment, are subject to
every expense of transfer like real property. Take the
railway shares, and you have at once a mass of property
amounting to 300,000,0001. (Hero some hon. member on
the Opposition benches referred to the subject of the sim-
plification of titles.) Nothing would give me greater satis-
faction than to see some measure passed through Parliament
which would effectually provide for the reduction of those
costly and cumbrous forms now in use. Before I conclude
I shall take the liberty of suggesting to the committee, and
those connected with the landed interest, that really we
quarrel about comparative trifles, and leave the greatJr
matters untouched. The question now about to be con-
tested respecting 1 per cent. to fall on one generation on
the descent of real property is an insignificant question
compared with the question referred to by the hon. gen-
tleman opposite, namely—the simplification of title, and
the relieving of land from those enormous expenses which,
from want of it, the land is now subject to. (Hear, hear.)
The fact
better that railway property at present enjoys a
moat illegitimate
title than landed property would
be a
taxation, egitimate reason to urge for exceptional
to landed thoughproperty it is an excellent reason for giving
railway property sas good a Parliamentary title as
fore, to the comgreatiieel (Ha
as
war,)
arc
rr.e)ailyl
spuuptpoisti,nathoeurre:
selves to be en
the question of the leea° the serious consideration of
duty, and in the reconstruc-
tion of the law—(hear)'
, put it without fear to the com-
mittee, that you cannot wisely,
to give real property a total exeinatfely, or justly propose
this, if
for Linz from the operation
entail
an
exemption
reason, that such
of the legacy duty for
pition for other
exemption would necessarily
very large classes of property, and would make zurrch a hole
in your measure that the rate you would be
upon other descriptions of property would be intolerable.tolay
(Hear, hear.) I assume, then, that you cannot exempt
land, landed settlements, or settlements of personaltyeo
the tax. Perhaps you might think that settled land de-
serves a separate consideration from unsettled land, but
Government have not been able to find grounds for any
such distinction, for the reasons I have adverted to.
The law of settlement is a great question, and had its
advantages and disadvantages. With respect to the
tax in the shape of stamp', that is more than compen-
sated by the probate duty,i which you
.lesacapcby t
question set
settle-
the -No the law of setf lenient I
greatt, is attended
with considerable
aparCfrknrilH matters of taxation. repeat,
r with kreat advantages, andlikewise
drawbacks. The fixing. and tying up of land constitute, no
doubt, impel:lll:opts to its free use but, on the othorlutO,
,
•

16 )%-:",
,1/ .t, .^,
,_
_/, i„,.-.-:

t"-- `se;