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

%~~

~-~

C

V • f , I r

rt, y rdr ro
r," e ; VA

r r

I" CT: T'/

,r'*- ,

ce
, I
A,
k
$ _ . • • •
• ,
• r,
*i/\,* Vl's,. •.1 t 4.°S. ';,4't -770
,„„k ,e• • - .mop • •%,
A
I '•:•> tk 4:4 011 '`e f/A •
• Z.V4 Ti • ,
• '\,/.
• -7- Diy,A7 .E • . - . 4,;(4)
' ' • - ()I T

-

/7

2_

made material deductions from the statement of the
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 him
the proportion -he now forms of the legacy duty that is
paid by real property under the provisions of the act of
1805, and he computes it as seven-sixteenths of the whole
amount. (Hear, hear.) 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
amounts to seven-sixteenths of the whole. (Hear, hear.)
Though it is true 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 ade from the statement which the hon.
gentleman has made to the house. The supposition in
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 mortgages 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 provisions 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 faellitate 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 upon the transfer of a piece
of land. That is true, but he should recollect that there
is between 70,000,0001. 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 description 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 transfinls. (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
justice 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 no-thing at all.
Asir. WILLIAMS—Houses are charged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is
the realty that pays, Houses may be real property
as well as land.

[PRICE 5D .

! hon. gentleman would do what he could to remove the
' inequality which at present existed between real and
i personal property. The legacy and probate duties now
produced about 2,300,000/., whereas, if they were ex-
tended to all kinds of property, they would produce be-
tween eight and nine millions. When Sir R. Peel intro-
duced the income tax a second time, he said that this
would enable him to make a vast reduction in the taxes
which affected the raw material of mannfaetures and the
food of the poorer classes. And the effect of the imposition
of the income tax had been that taxes to the amount
of 13 millions had been repealed or reduced. It was,
therefore, hardly possible to form an idea of the reduc-
tion of taxation which might be made if these duties
were extended to real property. The division on this
resolution would test the value of the Reform Act. The
majority of the Parliament which in 1796 imposed the
duty on personal, and rejected that on real property,
wassail to have been returned by 180 peers and great
landed proprietors. Now, since the Reform Bill, that
house was said to be composed of the representatives of
the people ; and he repeated that the division upon this
motion would enable the people to judge how far this
was the case, and how much 'they had gained by that
measure. .He trusted it would show that they had at
any rate gained a majority of that house against the
longer continuance of this manifest and palpable injus-
tice: The hon. member concluded by moving " That
in the opinion of this house, real property should be
made to pay the same probate and legacy duties as are
now payable on personal property." .
The SPEAKER said that he had at a former part of
the evening stated that his secretary had received notice
from the agents of Mr. Callaghan, the petitioner against
the return for the borough of Carlow, stating his inten-
tion to abandon that petition. He found, however. that
his secretary had made a mistake in copying the letter
of the agents, and that it had in reality reference to the
withdrawal of the petition against the return for Lime-
rick, and not to that against the return for Cork. The
house had, upon the statement which he had formerly
made, ordered the order for the reference to the petition
against the Carlow return to be discharged. As, however,
the house could take no step in a matter of this kind ex-
cept in accordance with the statute, it followed that as
there was no withdrawal of the petition against the Car-
low return, the order which they had made upon the
supposition that there was, was null and void. It was
now necessary that he should read the notice of the
agents with respect to the withdrawal of the petition
against the return for Limerick, and that the house
should then order the discharge of the former order, re-
ferring it to the general committee on election petitions.
This having been done,
The CHANCELLOR of the FINCHEQUER rose and
said—The office which I hold would naturally inspire
me with every prejudice in favour of the motion of the
hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He does
not propose, as is too often the case, to deprive the
chequer of the funds which belong to it, and for which
it has ample employment. But he proposes to enlarge
its funds, by imposing certain taxes not now universally
applicable to the different kinds of property, upon a
certain class to which they do not at present ex-
tend. Notwithstanding this, it is my duty to object to
the motion which the honourable gentleman has made.
And first of all, with all respect to him, and while
granting the evident sincerity of his intention, and
the perfect fairness of the manner in which he has
stated the case, I cannot help pointing out to the house
that there is much inconvenience and something like—l
will not say evasion—but escaping from the rules of the
house, in discussions of this nature. The effect of a re-
solution of the nature of that moved by the hon. gentle-
man, is neither more nor less than to call on the House
of Commons to depart from the work of legislation and
practical business, and to content itself with the expres-
sion of abstract opinions. Supposing the house were to
adopt the resolution of the hon. gentleman, the question
of the probate and legacy duty would stand precisely
where it did before. The hon. gentleman knows that
there are plenty of instances of resolution of this kind
being adopted by the house, commonly with the same
want of forethought ; and which, notwithstanding that
they related to measures of great importance, have.taken
no effect whatever. Now, these resolutions are not merely
of a neutral or negative character, but they do positive
evil ; because they tend to delude the country, and to
make it suppose that we are doing 'the public business,
when we are in reality doihg no such thing, but merely
expressing abstract opinions that do xibt affect that which
should be done. The proper
,place to have proposed this
resolution would have been in a committee of ways and
means. The hon, member brought itlpivara in the
month of Deceibber last, when the budget of the late
2arnment was proposed, and he was then perfectly in.
; but at present he calls on us merely g,r the ex-
pression of all abstract opinion ; and though I do not in-
tend to take advantage of that objection to escape in any
degree the discussion of the case, yet I do not enter on it
without a protest at least to this extent, and without en

Mil 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.
(Hem.) 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 these charges ;
but r 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-
nt iat 4 prreescui o
lt onf
isnt e
eaadc.
ho fi
item
e:fv ot
auxrai ntigo
nt,o
wree as
chho um d ltohoekmoa

taxation as a whole, and endeavour to establish fairness
in its operation. (Hear, hear.) The time will come for
the discussion of the income tax, and at present I am

itpraenmat
nteutreglye,inbguttel
epweisakh toef
tadheveinrt.
tneotagnelinnggleto ppeoinetn
I
come'tax at this moment in so far as it falls upon skill
and 14bour, but I am only going to look at it in so fax
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 ; but real property pays the
income tax, not according to what is received, but it
pays the income tax on repairs, it pays the income tax
ou arrears, it pays the income tax on vacant farms
and in half-a-dozen other cases where no income is re-
ceived.

ethheonß.
Mr. WILLIAMS--Then amend it.
• The CHANCELLOR
will
lEfbAe
sNoCgEraLteLfuOlßto ofth
Xeenlitl Egailn !Itr shNall
ma
be, if he will produce a good and practical plan amend
it. (Hear, hear.) The melanchol to
driven to is, that we must perfore y conclusion I. am
s
e make up our min.
in many cases to put up v? with -
i inequalities, and be satis-
fied that, on the whole, the ends of justice are attained
if those inequalities are found to balance one another.
(Hear, hear.) I think these are all most important facts
that bear upon this discussion, and without taking them
into view you cannot arrive at a fair estimate of the
question. Therefore; to look at some isolated question
—to look at the operation of the law with regard to one
description of prowithout considering the opera-
perty, . .
ti't is I will not say
opera-
tions of other systems of taxation upon i ,
a reprehensible practice, but it is a
practice that requires
considered in reference
to he corrected and qualified, and corTia
general conclu-
sion other topics, if we are to arrive ,
(Hear,
hear.)
sion that will be a safe guide in practice.
one particular duty
With respect to the mode in which e
against it. The
is fixed, I think there is a strong
present system requires amendmentangement of the scale
of duty. (Hear, hear.) Why in consequence of
the capricious and absurd err are we to stop when we
have reached one million of money, as ff there were no
a fund stopping at that
in this country except
that scale should
such thing
nothing else be done,
amount ? And if
is clear
that an immense amount of
It I
be re -adjusted.
person
should es duty which, according to the
present law, not escape,
al property "cap
the operation and especially through
deeds of gift
of the present law is most
-hear.) There has been an enor-
-sflctoiy. (Hear,
unsati ,of the personal propertythis country,
us increase in
larger. entire
moos
duty does not grow The
but the legacy .
paid legacy duty for a series of years is
amount that has . .
amo
0/ and there is very little doubt that if
about 45,000,00 ~
ofthe law,•
not alter the principle
you did n
instead 45 000 000/
personal property alone, o f , , ~ out of
which seven-sixteenths is derived from real property,
you should get something very near to double that
amount. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has ad-
verted to the case of the poor man ; he says his property
pays the full probate duty, and I agree that it does, and
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