The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

jury resulted to the proprietors from that knowledge ; on
the contrary, he believed it was to their benefit ; and he
could see no reason in this instance why that which was
good for Scotland should not be equally good for England.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE withdrew his former amendment,
and proposed to substitute for it a motion for inserting in
the clause the words " only as are of."
Sir C. BURRELL gave it as his opinion that if trustees I
were to be subjected to the responsibilities of thin clause
there would be great difficulty in getting gentlemen to act
in that capacity.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment B6
Against it 97-11
Mr. WALP3LE said they had given the commissioners
power to call for the production of deeds, but in the next
lines of the clause it was proposed to give them authority
to take extracts from the documents. Now, such a power
as that ought not to be conferred upon any man or body of
men, except under the severest and most stringent penal-
ties, and unless those precautions were taken he should i
object to this part of the clause n tote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think this provision was absolutely necessary, and there-
fore, with the permission of the committee, be would strike
the words out.
The words wereconsequently negatived.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the words which required the
production of public books and documents.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was quite
ready to strike out that provision too.
Sir J. TROLLOPE—And of course the penalties for en-
forcing it ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—CertainIy.
The words granting the objectionable power and pro-
viding for the penalties, were accordingly ordered to be
struck out.

Mr. K. SEYMER suggested that there should be a pen-
alty of 1,000/. for disclosure by an officer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think a penalty of that amount would be too severe for the
offence, but doubted the policy of inflicting that kind of
punishment on public officers. Though the principle in-
volved in the proposition was novel, he had no objecticn to
consider the expediency of adopting it.
Mr. HENLEY would suggest to the right hon.gentleman
the propriety of adopting the course pursued with regard to
the income tax. In that case parties who especially desired
to prevent disclosure had the option of going before special
sworn commissioners at Somerset-house, and to the minds
of such persons the arrangement afforded great relief. The
word " officers " would of course include persons of the
lowest grade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no de-
sire that local officers should in any case have a compulsory
power of inspecting deeds; he would much rather have that
power confined to persons at Somerset-house. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proposed an addi-
tion to the clause, by which the exercise of the power was
placed under the control of a judge in chambers.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said, after the right hon. gentle-
man's assent to the proposal with regard to special com-
missioners, there was, he thought, no necessity for such a
proviso.

- Mr. FRESHFIELD was of opinion that it would be an
aggravation of the evil.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if that
were the feeling of the hon. gentlemen opposite, he had no
desire to press the amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, although the objectionable
parts of the clause had been modified, it was still a very
serious question whether Parliament ought to pass a clause
containing such provisions. (Hear.) The clause appeared
to him tyrannical and inquisitorial beyond any that he re•
membered to have heard submitted to the house. The
powers given by it were inconsistent with our national in-
stitutions, habits, and character, and a bill which could
not be carried out except by such means ought not to be
passed at all. (Hear, hear.) He felt it his duty to divide
against the whole clause.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause lOl
Against it O4

Majority in favour of the clause 7
The clause was accordingly passed.
In clause 49, " giving power to accountable party to
appeal,"
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed an
amendment, for the purpose of enlarging the power of the
judge.

Mr. LOCKHART, who spoke in a low tone of voice,
was understood to propose that the appeal should be given
to the judge of the County Court.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the bill already gave sufficient facilities for appeal,
but if gentlemen opposite wished it, he had no objection
to give an appeal to the County Court. He believed that
the appeals would be of very rare occurrence.
Sir F. KELLY was obliged to the right hon. gentleman
for his concession, as ho considered that the County Court
would be the most proper court of appeal.
An amendment providing the appeal suggested was in-
serted, and the clause as amended was agreed to.
Clause 50 was agreed to, with one or two verbal amend-
ments.
Clause 51 was agreed to.
Clause 52 was struck out.
Clause 53 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
Clause 54 was struck out.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that he had at a pre-
vious stage of the bill inquired whether the tax was to be
of universal application, and whether it was to be charged
on succession to the estates of the Duchies of Lancaster
and Cornwall. The right hon. gentleman had promised to
give an answer when they got to the end of the bill, and
as they had now arrived at the last clause, perhaps he
would explain whether it was to apply to those properties
or not ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
had not yet arrived at the end of the bill.
On clause 55, which provides that the bill shall come
into operation on the 19th of May, 1853,
Mr. MULLINGS moved to omit the two last lines, in
order to insert the words " that the bill come into opera-
tion on the day of the passing thereof."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
consent to the amendment. The question was one of
finance, and it was the usual principle in laying on new
taxes to make the tax come into operation from the
day of the passing of the resolution in committee. In some
cases, as in that of the income tax, they had gone further,
and made the tax apply retrospectively, beyond the period
of the passing of the resolution. The amendment would
deprive him of two months of the proceeds of the tax,
which he could not consent to.

Mr. DISRAELI thought they ought to follow the prece-
dent of former taxes, and urged his hon. friend not to
press theamendment.

- Mr. LABOUCHERE was also anxious that precedent
should be followed, but he had some notion that the usual
course was not to charge the tax in all cases from a date
previous to that of the passing of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not
said that that was the rule in all cases ; on the contrary,
he believed in the case of the customs duties a different
rule had been adopted, and in the case of the income tax,
as he had said, the tax was made to apply from the sth of
April, whereas the resolution had not passed until May.
Viscount GALWAY thought this act should not con-
tinue beyond the period fixed for the expiration of the in-
come tax, and he would therefore move that the act should
continue in force until the year 1860. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE—If he was right as to his view of the
operation of this tax, it would be found so annoying and
vexatious that the complaints against it would be loud and
universal. (Cheers from the Opposition.) They were
passing this bill nominally on the plea of putting landed
property upon the same footing as personal property with
reference to the duty on bequests or successions. They
had passed the bill as to real property, and as long as they
maintained the present law as to the tax upon legacies so
long would he uphold the Government in placing a duty on
land inherited by succession or demise. (Hear, hear.)
But while they subjected real property to one duty and
personal property to another, they were doing that which
was altogether a distinct thing—(hear, hear)---for they
were taxing not the property of people dying and which
passed from them to others by death, but they were taxing
property whether personalty or realty, which was settled
and disposed of by persons in their lifetime with the inten-
tion Cult the settlement which was thus subjected to this
tax should go free to those who succeeded them. The two
classes of cases were essentially different—(hear)—but he
would not go over that ground again. They had had ex-
amples of the extraordinary difficulty the Government
would have in trying to enforce the tax. (Hear, hear.)
The clause they had just passed which empowered the
commissioners to examine people's books, deeds, and docu-
ments, and not deeds and documents only, but all the title
deeds, settlements, and mortgage deeds was a proof of
that. If they applied the tax for a long period of
years all the small owners of property, whether real or
personal, would be put to great inconvenience in having
to pay the tax by a series of half-yearly payments extend-
ing over five years, or they would be put to great expense
in employing professional persons to carry it out. He did
not wish to raise a controversy upon the present occasion,
but, looking at the difficulty that must ensue, and seeing
but very little of opinion in favour of the tax, not only in
the country and amongst the numerous persons he had con-
versed with upon the subject, but even in the House of
Commons—(cheers from the Opposition)—and feeling as be
did from what-he had heard that there were many mem-
bers who had voted for clause after clause in the committee,
because they did not desire to deprive the Government of
a large source of revenue upon which they had calculated
—but, believing, also, as he did, that those hon. members
would not support the bill in the abstract—(hoar)—and
that with regard to many of the clauses they did not think
them just or reasonable—(opposition cheers)—he thought
it no more than right that they should now consider whe-
ther they were to impose this tax as part of a permanent
system of taxation, or whether they should not take an
opportunity of reconsidering it at some future time, when
they should have had some experience of its operation.
(Hear.) There was nothing unreasonable in such a propo-
sition • on the contrary, it was but following out a course
they had followed in a similar case. When they imposed
the income tax, they did not in the first instance put it on
permanently, but they limited its duration to three years,
avowedly that they might have the opportunity of recon-
sidering it when they had had some experience of its work-
ing. He thought it would be only reasonable to put on
this tax in the same way as a temporary measure, and to
limits its duration for 5 years. (Hear, hear.) They ought
not to forget that when the tax was first attempted to be
imposed by Mr. Pitt it was brought forward as in the pre-
sent instance, time after time, and that the majorities,
great in the first instance, dwindled down gradually, until
at last they became so small that Mr. Pitt was obliged to
give up the bill. (Hear.) In this case, also, the Govern-
ment had commenced with a large majority in favour of
the bill, which had dwindled down that evening to ex-
ceedingly small ones. (Cheers from the Opposition.) This
convinced him. that people's minds were beginning to be
opened, and that it was not a tax which they thought it
was just to impose, if really their object was to tax real
property in the same way as personal property. Under the
circumstances, he would put it to the Government whe-
ther it would be wise now to impose the tax for a longer
period than 5 years, that they might see if, as they as-
serted, the tax could be levied without annoyance and
vexation. For himself ho was so convinced of the con-
trary, that if his noble friend (Lord Galway) pressed his
amendment he would support him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
this was not a question upon which it was necessary for
Htheaetr theHe
choildtoonwlyeasiyay ittoteehiws Zittshon. details.frie
nd,
committee were disposed only to impose a tax of this
the
nheancosrer
nature for five years, it would become a serious question
whether they ought to impose it at all. (Hear, hear.) If
that were so the question at issue was whether the princi-
ple of the bill should be affirmed. Let them trace the
effect of limiting the duration of the bill—whatever might
be the effect of this view of the bill—however little he
might share in the apprehension of the difficulties that
would arise under it, and he admitted that in every fiscal
system: that was novel there was difficulty in the first in-
stance—there would be no use in attempting to overcome
those difficulties for a period of five years, and the more so