The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-11 00:00:00

of individual property was liable to the succession tax.
Then they came to a large class of miscellaneous corpora-
tions, charitable or eleemosynary, academical and ecclesi-
astical corporations aggregate. These would all be dealt
with in the same manner, that was to say, under the rule
he had already described. They would be subject to the
tax of 3d. in the pound on theif realised revenues for seven
years, and of 6d. in the pound thereafter. He thought he
had now named, although briefly, all the important classes
of corporations aggregate, with the exception of one, which
was not very important in a fiscal point of view, but which
interested the feelings of so many persons, that perhaps he
had better refer to them. He referred to the case of
an
-
eons corporations strictly so called, namely, religions a b
benevolent societies which were supported in the main Y
regard
annual subscriptions or donations. With
these
it was not proposed that they should be subject to the tax. y
at all, except in reference to such portions of their Jepyro might
property
as as they might have derived from bequests or a
have been in possession of anterior to the commencement
of the present century, because he thought that
he was nothing
could be more antagonistic to sound policy, and
sure nothing could be more repugnantl to the feelin,gs of the
house and the country, than to ayon the
reallydonaios
repre-
sentedand contributions of living
the principle of charityi tins whichs
full and freeac-
tion, anything in the nature of a tax. It seemed
to him just to draw a distinction between that which was
given by men as an act of self-denial out of their own
means, which they would otherwise enjoy, and that of
which they were permanently the givers by law which was
not in fact a gift at all, but was so much taken from their
heirs. He had now done with corporations aggregate, but
a most important question, and one of considerablvliffi-
culty arose in consequence of a principle of our law by
which persons under the denomination of corporations sole
held property. These corporations sole he believed con-
sisted generally, for though there were exceptions, they
were of an insignificant character, of the clergy of the
country, bishops, and the incumbents of parishes. The
question arose, ought the property possessed by these cor-
porations sole to be regarded as corporation property, and
on that account made liable to the tax, or it ought to be
regarded as a provision made for the discharge of certain
official duties. These two views of the corporate character
and of the official character, met at this particular point,
and the whole question turned on this, would they hold
that they were corporations according to law and say, be-
cause they were corporations they were subject to the tax,
or would they, on the other hand, say the revenues were
merely payments for official duties, and that, therefore, a
clergyman on accession to his rectory should no more be
charged with the tax than a judge on his entrance into
Westminster Hall was charged The view of the Govern-
ment was that the property of ecclesiastical officers,
though they were in law corporations sole, ought to be
regarded as a provision for the discharge of certain
duties, and that, therefore, the acquisitions of these
offices ought not to be taxed as a succession. But
there was another and a good reason, and one he was
afraid rather in the nature of a grievance, for arriving
at this conclusion, and that was the present provision
of the law, which entailed a heavy expense on the ac-
quisition of these offices. Whether on that ground or
on the other ground, he had very little doubt the house
would be of opinion that this large portion of ecclesiastical
property, which was vested in clergymen as corporations
sole, ought not to be regarded as corporation property,
and ought not to be subject to a tax on successions any
more than they would tax the succession to the office of
Lord Chancellor, or of any of the judges. There was only
one other point he had to name. There were certain other
classes of men, who, although not corporations in the
view of the law, yet they should view as corporations for
the purposes of this act, natnely, bodies of trustees, under
whatever name, who were actual holders and adminis-
trators of property for the use of individuals through
whose hands property was continually transmitted without
any charge on death. The bill would be so framed that
bodies cf that kind would be regarded as being virtually
corporations, and property in their hands would be treated
as if it were the property of corparations. He did not
know that ho need detain the committee any further. It
would be obviously more convenient that the details should
be reserved ; but, as respected the principle, it was mate-
rial that the house should know what was the plan of the
government as regarded corporations, and therefore he had
thought it right to offer this explanation.
Sir F. KELLY asked whether the bill with regard to
corporations would form part of the bill before the house,
or would be treated in a separate bill, whether the corpo-
rations to be liable to the tax included municipal corpora-
tions, and whether the measure would affect the properly
of the corporation of the city of London?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
bill would not make any distinction between the corpora-
tion of the city of London and other municipal corporations.
He thought he had stated that municipal corporations
would be brought under the action of this plan in the
same manner as under the income tax—that was, they
would be liable to pay the tax on their realised property,
but not on the revenue which they derived from the rates.
With regard to the other question, the view of the govern-
ment was, that it would be decidedly more convenient
that they should deal with this subject in a separate bill,
because the whole of the present bill was founded on the
idea of succession as the consequence of death. He hoped
to be in a condition to lay the bill on the table of the
house in a few days.
Mr. MALINS suggested that it would have been a
more simple plan to have made the property tax 51 per
cent. instead of 3.
Sir J. WALSH wished it to be distinctly understood
that in acquiescing in the arrangement which had been
come to, it was on the distinct understanding that they
assented to the second reading of the bill, as it were pro
forma ; that they were not to be understood in any way
as assenting to the bill, but that they would come to the
discussion on Monday as completely free as if they had
come to it this evening.
Mr. HUME asked whether it was intended that the
property of the country should be registered, in order
that Government might know when a change took place
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
was no doubt an important question, and one that ought
to be well discussed in the debates on this bill ; but when
a question was put to him on a former night, whether it
was intended that the Registration of Assurances Bill
should be pressed, in order that it might become the basis
of this measure, he answered in the negative, and he had
now to repeat that Government did not think it necessary
that there should be any registration of property for the
purposes of this bill. Their belief was that the tax might
be collected without any general registration of property ;
and, therefore, whatever course parties might think fit to
take with reference to the registration of assurances, it
would not be proposed in the bill before the house.
Mr. WA LPOLE said in the bill before the house there
was blank left for the sum below which parties were to be
exempt from paying the succession tax. He asked
whether a similar provision would be made in reference to
the property of the smaller charities.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must con-
fess that the point of exemption, the minimum point at
which the tax was to be laid, had not occupied his atten-
tion. It was a matter of detail, and he was not surd that
in the case of corporations any exemption would be right.
He would rather take time to answer.
Mr. HEADL AM asked whether any charge was to be
imposed on the property of the ecclesiastical commission.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought they fell under the description of the revenues of
corporations sole. These revenues were distributed by the
commissioners in aid of official provisions, and would not
be liable to the tax.
Mr. HUME asked whether in cases where the dissenters
had established funds for the payment of their ministers in
part, they would come under the same provisions, because
it would appear that these funds were for the payment of
services exactly in the same manner as the revenues of the
Church of England were.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that wherever there was an endowment for the purposes of
any religious community other than the Established
Church, which was assimilated by a legal provision to the
case of the corporation sole, the same benefit precisely
would be extended to that endowment, quite irrespective
of the question what was the religious denomination to
which it was attached. With regard to funds held by
trustees, he was afraid there would be difficulty in work-
ing it out, but they should attempt to come as nearly as
they could to the establishment of the principle he had
described, namely, that where the provision was bona fide
for the discharge of certain official duties, there they would
be exempt.
Mr. HUME said in some cases fund were provided for
the purposes of education, the payment of schoolmasters
and others.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no general provision for exempting funds for the
purpose of education ; he would explain why another
time.

EXCISE DUTIES OF SPIRITS BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill.

On clause 1,
Captain JONES moved the rejection of so much of the
clause as iipposes an addition of Bd. per gallon to the duty
now payable on spirits taken Out of warehouse for consump-
tion in Ireland. He said that two gallons of spirits were
made out of a bushel oats, which at the present price
would cost ls. 10d., and they proposed to put on the spirits
a tax of ss. 4d., which he th ought would inevitably cause
a great increase in illicit distillation. On former occasions
when they had imposed highe T duties on spirits in Ireland
there had not been a corresponding increase in revenue,
but when the duty had bee n lowered, the quantity on
which duty had been paid had considerably increased. In
1834 the duty was reduced from 3s. 6d. to 2s. 4d. a gallon,
and the consumption rose from 9 to 10, and 12 millions of
gallons in succeeding years. The increase of duty had in-
variably been followed by a corresponding increase of
crime. In 1830 the duty was; raised to 2s. 10d. per gallon,
but they had no exact statistics of crime in that year. In
1834, however, when the duty was augmented to 3s. 4d.,
there were no fewer than 5,44 l 4 persons accused of offences
against the revenue laws, and there were 648 in prison. In
1834 the duty was diminished to 2s. 4d., and the number
of persons charged fell at on ce from 8,192 to 4,904, and
the number of persons in gaol from 1,296 to 842. The
duty remained at 2s. 4d. for a. considerable period, and the
number of persons chargodi gradually fell until in 1842
there were only 881, and 171 in gaol. (Hear, hear.) In
that year Sir R. Peel increns ed the duties once more, and
the number of persons charge d instantly rose to 1,895, and
the persons in gaol to 911. The number charged had risen
as high as 3,400 ; and even last year the number was
2,904, and the number in gaol 557. From the statistics of
the years of low duty, he had a right to assume that the
consumption of spirits in Ireland was as much as 11 million
tow o"nßj'i year. But the quantity brought to charge was
fairly conclude
8 millions odd gallons, and therefore he might
Y conclude that the remainder was the product of
illicit distillation.
'was quite legilr. (Hear, hear.) He would admit that it
te to raise as large a revenue from spirits
aasecruP°Bed.ibtl:'tbhetelltLAl fact was that the greatest sums had
force. -up t, 1831 exchequer while the low duties were in
spts consumed in IreererNgo annual receipts from all the
1838 no less than 4„ 4,5731• .‘v" about 1,400,000/. ; but in
made spirits alone. cti0;,5731. was raised from the home-
nont of Sir R. Peel in 1842 ;
only going to repeat the ex%eirar-) The Government were
and the same results vroiild foll
that illicit dis-
tillation increased to such an .3aetlte'n.a,lT. ntleilZt 'Sir It. Peel was
II
114sthe end of a year.
obliged to abandon the extreacittrynl:
The Chancellor of the Exeh
arrangements were such that illicit distilia:tatothe police
scale would be impossible ; but Sir Robert eneellisaa ---'l3
same thing, and yet the result ho had mentioned hiaCt the
On those grounds he (the gallant member) boa„1°1-
lowed. ged
to propose his amendment.
1
Mr. J. TtI`GREGOIZ, on
_the other hand, should have
oven if it had
supported the proposition,of Government,
per "anon in Scotland, and
been to increase the duty 2s.
d not be for the advantage of
ss. in Ireland. It surely could
the public niorais that spints should be had at so low a
I increase would lead to
price, either in Ireland or any other country ; and ho
ridiculed the idea that the proposer
any serious increase in illicit
distillation.
Mr. H. J. BAILLIE thought the hon • gentleman who
had just sat down could hardly have paid attention to the
statistics of the case, or he would have known that the im-
position
of a duty of only 6d. per gallon in 1826 had Jed