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

sasses. -
of 55., per cent. to escape a duty of 21., or Si., 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 ascertaiisand..validate &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 than the exemption
of settled personalty? When we dis Cuss the ease of realty
—whether settled or unsettled—it is very obvious, and
I think it is very fair to call attention to the fact,thatc_
real property is subject to many charges fromt whiaja,
invisible personalty, so to speak, is quite ex.etm ;
therefore, that it is a justification, as far t
to the
goes,_p. for
the exemption of realty. But that does not airmen.
personality which is the subject of these !,‘F!, tle ts
able
Funded property, free from every possible ants,e;
abled to
charge is, by means of these legal arrangem
pass scot free, when other property is calledin
to pa
the firsty
heavy toll. With regard, then, to reality,
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 fl g t than
either of these—that is the case of unsettled property,
not real, but visible, immovable, and therefore sibject to
the burden of rates and local taxation. Let us briefly look
at the position of property of that kind under the present
law. Take, 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 ofle 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 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 lam
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 be
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 must confess, for my own part, that
it appears to me that tax es 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 main lain 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 society ap-
parently in a state of hostility and conflict with others.
These are, I think great objections to taxes upon property ;
but Ido not consider that they are so likely to attach to a
tax neon succession, occuring once in a generation, as they
would if you were to attempt to lay a tax upon property
which was to recur again and again upon the same property
from year to year. I won't say that I 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 main VCOM-
mentiation in my eyes, but the committee must bear in
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 tlut 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 al injustice ?
Of course, it is unjust if you levy an unnecessary tax,
a tax you don't want, or a tax to support ova-teful
and profligate expenditure. Such a fax is en un-
just it on what you will ; but I am now
assuming that the purpos<T, to which we apply the
resources of the State aro in the main re,psonable. If,
then, ire want a given sum, is it nuiu,t to raise
a puraon of it by a tax upon successions: I should say
n It se ;vltoi to too that the passing or carrying of pro-
per,: in pc.•leo. y,scuzity over the gre-tt banger which death
Once between man and man in the hilihost achievement—
the most signal uroof of the power of civilised institutions.
(Roar, hear.) 1 think that ability to determine the future,
re,pe^t to property, and to tix its course from man to
man and from life to lee—passing over one contingency
and auotlr.r, ard (rztonding the private, personal will of au
intlividu:,l into a .I%stant future—limited, no doubt, and
wisely 'ff law—is an instance so signal of the
great benefit concerted by law and by civil institutions
upon mankind, and of the immense enlargement that comes
to natural libarty 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 arrangements the State
should step in and take a just portion for its neeevitie3.
I will now look to considerations more practical than these.
I am now endeavouring 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 and the great bulk of
the pre bate duty, now producing something over
2,500,0001.; and, assuming that you retain a small stamp
on probates corresponding to the stamp on settlements, as
a mere validification of the document, you still would have
to give up 2,500,0001. of the fixed income of the State. I
think no one who bears me will be prepared to give up
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 successor the occasion of your stepping in to levy
what you require for public purposes, then we come to the
point that you cannot maintain the tax as it now stands.
What then is to be done ? I hope the committee will arrive
at the conclusion at which the Government have arrived,
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 hen. 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 much entitled to disclaim as you 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 V 72.11 banished from other quarters
on earth, she still for a wkdie was to be found among agri-
culturists. (Laughter.)
" Extrema per illos
Justitia excedons terns vestigia Mt."

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 taa ation, 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 the .t ?—would it be because it pays
local taxation, the land-t ax, and pays under the income-
tax more heavily than personal property? Every one of
these considerations also applies to leasehold property;
would you then be prepa red to extend the exemption to
that species of property ? I must confess that I should
think such a coarse very -thnwise, and if you adopted it you
would find your exemptd ons grow so enormous that you
must raise what would I,a an intolerable rate and burden
of taxation on all descriptions of property left to pay the
tax. Though I cannot altogether admit that it ap-
pears fair to urge tb ese burdens borne by land,
yet there is some ex aggeration on that question.
Take the case of tr; I.l3sfers. Very long ago it
might be true that personal property might be trans-
fared for the most part without expense, and land
could not. But since thc.se days great masses and classes
of personal property have g town 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 h eve at once a mass of property
amounting to 300,000,0004 (Here some hon. member on
the Opposition benches ref erred to the subject of the sim-
plieration of titles.) Notl ling would give me greater satis-
faction than to see some ref )asure passed. through Parliament.
which would effectually pi •ovide for the reduction of those
costly and cumbrous forms: now in use. Before I conclude
I shall take the liberty of s uggesting to the committee, and
those connected with the landed interest, that really wo
quarrel about comparativ' e trifles, and leave the greater
matters untouched. The question now about to be con-
tested respecting 1 per cent. to fall on one generation on
the descent of real propriety is an insignificant question
compared with the questilon referred to by the hon. gen-
tleman opposite, namely--the simplification of title, and
relieving the rel • • of land from those enormous expenses which,
from want of it the land is now subject to. (Hear,. hear.)
The fact tha.t,
better ParliamerTilway 1 woperty at present enjoys a
be a most illegitimate titlo than landed property would
taxation, though rlit9,4c.: rnason to urge for exceptional
to landed property as s a a excellent reason for giving
railway property has. ,U(1 a Parliamentary title as
a:ar, hear.) I put it, there-
fore, to the committee,are really supposing our-
selvesgagel in t(l7lueetyserieus consideration of
to b© en
the question of the legace
put
without
d in the reconstruc-
tion of the law—(hear),--I
y,
safely,
fear to the com-
mittee, that you cannot v Ise], or justly propose
to give real property a total exemption m the (ation
of the legacy duty for this, if for no othe;:creason, that such
for other
exemption would necessarily entail an exemption
very large classes of property, and would m!),lclaosnu
in your meaeire that the rut:, yon would be obli:ed Zohlaolye
upon other descriptions of property would be intolerable.
(Hear, hear.) I assume, then, that you cannot exempt
land, landed settlements, or settlements of personalty from
the tax. Perhaps you might think that settled land de-
serves a separate considera Lion from unsettled land, but
Government have not beam 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 atil disadvantages. With respect to the
tax in the she of stamps, that is more than compen-
sated by the probate duty, which you escape by settle-
ment. But the law of settlement itself is a great question
apart from all matters of taxation. I repeat, it is attended
with great advantages, and likewise with considerable
drawbacks. The fixing anti tying uof land constitute, no
doubt, impediments to its free use ; but, on the other hand,