The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

/

/~~~-

e)L--e.--g

~,,-
made material deductions from the statemenf—of-lhe
honourable gentleman, I shall now make a few remarks
on his sanguine expectations with respect to the enor-
mous-amount of landed property that may be brought
under the operation of the law by the change which he
proposes should take place. (Hear, hear.) I did not
precisely catch the actual figures he stated, but I thought
his calculation was that several millions were to proceed
from this proposed taxation of landed property. But
the honourable gentleman has made a most serious omis-
sion, because it is not true that nothing whatever is paid
by landed property to the legacy and probate duty.
(Hear, hear.) Annuities and all sums of money charged
upon land pay legacy duty ; all lands directed to be sold
for the purpose of dividing the proceeds pay legacy duty;
and an eminent solicitor, Mr. Baxter, gave in evidence
before a committee of the House of Lords, that out of
ten wills disposing of unsettled landed property, nine
directed the estates to be sold and the proceeds to be
divided. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS—That was in a particular district
in Yorkshire. (Cries of order, order.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
going through the deductions one by one. And this
gentleman gave it as his opinion that this quantity of
land was liable to be sold, and to pay the legacy duty.
(Hear, hear.) I have had an opportunity of seeing Mr.
Trevor, an intelligent witness who gave evidence before
the committee of the House of Lords, and I asked hina
the proportion he now forms of the legacy duty that is
paid by real property under the provisions of the act ci
1805, and he computes it as seven-sixteenths of the whole
amount. (Hear, heai.) Your machinery does not
enable you to state with perfect precision the real amount
paid by real property, but a good judge tells us that it
automats to seven-sixteenths of the whole. (Hear, hear.)
Though it is tree that a great deal of real property
escapes the legacy duty, yet this is also unquestionably
true, that if you had the power to levy your legacy duty
uniformly and equally over the whole property of the
country, and if you succeeded in levying that legacy
duty over the whole of that property, I doubt very
much if you would get so good a proportion as seven.
sixteenths out of the land. (Hear, hear.) I think you
might get more than nine-sixteenths out of personal
property, and less than seven-sixteenths out of landed!
property. (Hear, hear.) But another important deduc-
tion is to be made from the statement which the hon.
gentleman has made to the house. The supposition is
that the great bulk of landed property escapes altogether
the operation of this duty, but those who discuss the
question appear to forget the subsisting mots/doges upon
the land. (Hear, hear, hear.) Now, what proportion
of the land of the country is under mortgage ! I believe
I should be estimating moderately if I said the land of
the country was charged with mortgages to the extent
of a fourth part of its value. (Hear, hear.) It may be
more, but I assume it is one-fourth, so that the bene-
ficial interest to that extent pays probate and legacy
duty. (Hear, hear.) Now the hon. gentleman could
not intend to say that if this new system which he pro-
poses were established the parties should pay the tax
twice over. (Hear, hear.) Suppose there is an owner
of landed property which is valued at 22,0001., and the
income from which is 7001. a year • suppose also there
is a mortgage for 7,0001. charged on that land on
account of which the owner pays 4001. yearly ; surely
the hon. gentleman does not intend to say that the
owner of that land is to pay the probate and legacy
duty on the 7001. a year, and on the 4001. a year too.
(Hear, hear.) To come, therefore, to a true judgment
in the case, you must deduct from the whole mass of the

landed property of this country the portion of it that
pays .probate and legacy duty in the shape of interest
upon mortgages. (Hear, hear.) Thus far I have only
spoken of the deductions that ought to be made from the
statement of the hon. gentleman ; further I will go on to
say, that it is one of those subjects that cannot be
viewed as an isolated question—we must take into view
many other circumstances and previsions with respect to
the landed property of the country. The hon. gentle-
man spoke of the stamp on conveyances. No doubt
was the policy of the Legislature comparatively to
burden the transfer of land, and to facilitate the
descent of land—on the other hand, to burden the
descent of personal property, and to make the transfer of
personal property easy. The statement has been often
made, and the hon. gentleman impugns it by stating
that the same stamp duty is levied upon the transfer of
railway shares that is levied upcn the transfer of a piece
of land. That is true, but he should recollect that there

is between 70,000,006/. and 80,000,0001. of property—
no small portion of personal property, namely, the funded
property of this country—that pays nothing at all
upon transfer, and when settled to a considerable
degree pays nothing on descent. (Hear, hear.)
Although you may choose by your system of stamp
duties to fix the same rates for landed and personal pro-
perty, it will happen that your personal property will go
scot-free as to transfer where the landed property must
pay the stamp on transfer. (Hear.) The reason is that
the great bulk of personal property is capable of passing
by delivery, and being so capable it requires no legal
transfer ; it has no legal transfer, and the stamp duty is
not paid. It is quite true it is paid upon railway shares,
and on some limited descriptions of personal property ;
but as to the vast proportion of the transfers of real
property they are subject to no tax whatever but the re-
ceipt stamps ; and I believe it is but too true that that
that trifling amount is in many instances not paid at all.
(Hear.) The sum of 10s. is enough to cover the transfer
of a million of money, and the fact is that the great bulk
pays nothing or next to nothing upon transfers. (Hear.)
That the tax upon conveyances is a compensation for
legacy and probate duty is not entirely to be put out of
view, and when you are adjusting a system of taxation
for real property and personality, you must not forget
the facility of transfers which personality so entirely en-
joys, and that, although you may enact that an equal
rate is to be paid upon it, yet, in practical operation,
the great bulk of it escapes from the payment of the tax.
You cannot put that out of view in considering what
justioe demands in dealing with the taxation on real pro-
perty. (Hear, hear.) lam the last person to claim any
favour for real property—but it should not be subject to
unequal taxation ; and the amount should be estimated
not by any one duty, but by the operation of your gene-
ral fiscal system, and it is utterly impossible to exclude
from the view of that general fiscal system of local taxa-
tion. You cannot forget that in England alone
10,000,0001. a-year is levied off real property, about
which personality knows nothing at all.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Houses are charged.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is
the realty that pays, Houses may be real property
as well as land.
Mr, WlLLlAMS—Railways.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--I al-
ways looked upon the case of railways, in respect to the
rates they pay, as one worthy of consideration ; and I
agree with thehon. gentleman entirely, that railways and
the unfortunate owners of tithes are very unfairly treated.
(Hear.) In the consideration of your fiscal system
you cannot put out of view the fact that in England
something like 10,000,0001., and in the whole United
Kingdom 12,000,0001. or 13,000,0001., are levied off
real property for the purposes of local taxation, about
which personal property knows nothing whatever.
(Hear, hear.) That is not the principle of your law ;
according to the principle of your law, personal property
is just as much subject to those local charges as real
property. (Hear, hear.) I do not, however, wish to
see personal property subject to those charges. It would
lead to confusion, tyranny, and a multitude of evils, if
you attempted to subject personalty to those charges ;
but I do not doubt that if plans of reform are driven to
an extreme extent you may bring that personal property
within the scope of local taxation. (Hear, hear.) In-
stead of endeavouring to reach mathematical precision
in each item of taxation, we should look on the result of
taxation as a whole, and endeavour to establish fairness
in its operation. (Near, hear.) The time will come for
the discussion of the income tax, and at present I am
not going to open it prematurely, but I wish to advert
to a single point. I am not going to speak of the in-
come tax at this moment in so far as it falls upon skill
and labour, but I am only going to look at it in so far
as it falls upon property, and upon property, too, which
is the subject likewise of legacy and probate duty.
(Hear, hear.) Confining my view to that subject, I say
boldly you cannot defend the present incidence of the
income tax upon real property. (Hear, hear.) The in-
terest arising from money in the funds and the interest
payable on mortgages pay the income tax according to
the income actually received
repairs,nccases
so;
em bs ue t
taxt
where
preala yopsnnr
oot phvieeanr teci a
nyon
inept
oeamyf
aisesr
att. the
x
income tax, not according to what is received, but it
i
a nop
na pays the
arrears,
n h
al income
ai.td o tax o
pays
ze o tthhnee r
ceived.

Mr. WILLIAMS—Then amend it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No
man will be so grateful to the hon. gentleman as I shall
be, if he will produce a good and practical pan to amend
it. (Hear, hear.) The melancholy conclusion I am
driven to is, that we must perforce
rake up our minds
in many cases to put up with inequalities, a ities, and be satis-
fiifetdhothaeatlnoenciuthaLweshoaler,etfhoeunedndstoo justice are attained
balance one another.
(Hear,hreaurp.o)n thinkthis
Ihiaon, thesediaeussiand without taking them
are all most important facts
hatbea
view you cannot arrive
into
k at
tt
aaomfaeirisoelsattimedatgeueosftitehne
question. Therefore, to
—to look at the operation of the law with regard to one
descriopftiootnh
other
rf
systems of
y, 'without considering the opera-
tionsa
reprehensible practice, but it is dice that requires
to be corrected and qualified, and acoPnr:idered in reference
taxation upon it is, 1 will not say
sion that will be a safe guide in practice. (IleaT,rh!aury.)
With respect to the mode in which one particular driti,
if we are to arrive at a general conclu-
is fixed, I think there is a strong againstcas.en /
consequence of
present system requires amendment
in
of the scale
the capricious and absurd arrangement
of duty. (Hear, hear.) WhY are as if there were no
have reached one million of money, eaY,_
fund stopping at that
such thing in this country p
an immense amount of
we to stop when we
rding to the
amount ? And if nothing
be re adjusted. I
es duty which,
ace°
11 through
personal property
ulreajt escape, and esp ia_ y
ect
law is most
eeaer done, that scale should
present law, Should not
deeds of gift the oP
It is clear that
the
(Hear, • of this country,
unsatisfactory.
the personal property
present
) mous increase in
duty does not grow larger.
hear ) There has beenn aeneenntoher-
; amount that has paidosol , and there is very little doubt that if
but the legacy legacy duty fora series of years is
~hout 45,000,
f ?ter .the principle of the law, looking to
did no.
fr4,50,Z004)210/I.3,roopuetrtyof,
you
which seven
aid 'isiireeari,criec°lf
_get something very near to double that
hear.) The hon. gentleman has ad-
personallrop:eixrttyoeanitohsne
vaeried to the case of the poor man ; he says his property
pays the full probate duty, and I agree that it does, and
you should
(Hear,
that it is a great hardship. The wealthy man, who has
legal assistance, is enabled to avail himself of the means
of escaping the burdens of the law, but the man who
leaves 301. or 401. has no such means. The scale is so
constructed that it falls upon him with a disproportionate