The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-21 00:00:00

would be unsafe to attempt to enumerate the outgoings,
for by mentioning some they would run the risk of exclud-
ing others which were perfectly legitimate, and ought to
be allowed. The security afforded in the present legacy
act was, he believed, sufficient, for during the whole time
that act had been in existence the appeal provided against
valuations made under it had never been resorted to ; but
in order to afford still greater security, the words " and all
outgoing" had been introduced.
Mr. HENLEY complained that no allowance would be
made for drainage and improvements unless effected under
the Drainage Act, to carry out which the landlord might
have been compelled to borrow the money, and so leave it
a charge upon the estate. He moved an amendment to
include all expenditure for repairs, drainage, insurance,
agency, &c.
Tee SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that the estate
would be valued as it stood when it came into the hands
of the successor, and the duty charged accordingly.
Mr. HENLEY contended that allowance ought
to
be
made for all outgoings incurred to keep up the, value.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
objection included too much and too little. As to agency,
the law imagined that every man managed his own pro-
perty; and as to drainage, any interest payable on account
of money borrowed for drainage would be allowed, but it
would not be reasonable to deduct the capital.
Mr. V. SMITH thought the " necessary outgoings"
should be defined in the act, and that they should not be
left hereafter to go to a court of law for the definition. He
concurred in the amendment of the right hon. member for
Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) except in regard to agency, which
he thought should not be allowed.
Mr. HENLEY was willing to strike out the word
agency.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER warned the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Henley) that if he supposed he was doing
anything to support the landed interest he was taking a
very wrong course. There was no more fruitful source of
litigation than using specific language where general ex-
pressions would serve the purpose.
Sir T. ACLAND supported the amendment.
Mr. G. BUTT by no means agreed with the opinion of
the Solicitor-General, that the terms "necessary outgo-
ings" were sufficiently explanatory. If it were possible to
prevent the litigation which they saw at a distance it
would be very desirable.
Mr. AGLIONBY entertained strong doubts as to the
latter part of the clause. With regard to the words under
discussion it was proposed to add after the words "neces-
sary outgoings," the words " such as insurance, drainage,
and repairs ;" he could not conceive any words more cal-
culated to cause litigation. If these words were introduced
a landlord might lay out 5,0001. for drainage, taking from
the tenant an additional rent to repay him, the right hon.
gentleman would permit him to deduct the 5,0001. so laid
out. Such an amendment would be against the principle
of the bill.
Mr. MALINS concurred with the Solicitor-General that
the words " necessary outgoings" had, to a considerable
extent, received the construction of courts of law and
equity, and there would be •very little difficulty in deter-
mining what could be deducted under those words. He
recommended the right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxfordshire not to press the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY said he introduced the words for the
purpose of raising a discussion. As it seemed to be the
general opinion that the words ought not to be inserted,
he should withdraw the amendment.
Mr. HILDYARD asked what was to be done to ascer-
tain the annual value ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in the
20th clause they laid down the distinct principle on which
this tax was to be laid. The amount of every successor
was to be considered as an annuity based on the annual
value. Then they provided that the party should himself
render the amount, and they guided him as to what deduc-
tions he should make. He was not aware of any way in
which it was possible to be more distinct in arriving at the
value of land.
Mr. HILDYARD said he still was not satisfied. He
did not yet know what was to determine the value of the
land. It was admitted, in answer to his right hon. friend,
that tithes and rates were to be taken into account. He
thought the clause was in a very unsatisfactory state.
Sir J. TROLLOPE then moved the omission of all the
words after " necessary outgoings"—for the purpose of
testing the opinion of the committee on the subject of in-
cluding timber in the taxation under the bill. The inge-
nuity of the Jewish law went to the extent of taxing mint
and cummin, but they never dreamed of taxing the cedars
of Lebanon. (Laughter.) The apostolical fathers of our
church took even the tenth ear of wheat, but they never
thought of tithing growing timber—nor had the latter ever
been rated to the relief of the poor. (Hear, hear.) Besides,
it would be exceedingly difficult to define what was tax-
able timber, or to say what was for ornament and what
for shelter. There were places where the cutting down of
trees would render the land utterly valueless. If, for in-
stance, the timber were removed from places on the coast
of Norfolk, the soil would be absolutely blown away.
There were moreover insuperable legal difficulties in assess-
ing the tax, and such was the injustice of the whole pro-
position, that he begged to move the amendment he had
mentioned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was glad
that the right hon. gentleman had proposed this motion,
because it fairly raised a question that ought to be before
the house. He agreed with the hon. gentleman that there
might be a good deal of difficulty if the tax were levied
with rigour ; and he would also admit that there would
probably be a great deal of injustice ; bat he ventured to
predict that that injustice would be committed against
the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) Many estates were already
subject to legacy duty, and were valued for that purpose,
and of these estates the timber formed as valuable a por-
tion as any other part. The omission of timber from the
bill would be not greatly affect the measure ; for its in-
clusion was a question rather of principle than anything
else. For his own part he thought they ought not to
strike it from the bill, but rather seek to obviate any evils
that might be apprehended by the introduction of words
for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) However uncertain the
value of timber might have been in former times it had
now become a completely merchantable commodity.
Sir J. TROLLOPE—Its value has lately very much
fallen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII, that
circumstance alone proved that it was a merchantable
commodity. (Hear, hear.) There were many places where
the timber was as good a part of an estate as any other por-
tion of it; and he really did not see any sufficient reasons
for exempting it from duty, though it was no doubt one of
those things the assessment of which ought not to be con-
ducted in a vexatious manner.
Sir T. ACLAND admitted the abstract propriety of
taxing timber, but supported the amendment on the
ground of the immense difficulty of assessing that kind of
property without doing injustice and wrong to the owners
or trustees of landed estates. It would probably be far
better to make the tax accrue—not when the new pro-
prietor came into possession, but when the wood was
actually sold. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY complained of the vagueness of the
clause, and supported the suggestion of tho hon. baronet.
Many men would as soon cut off their fingers as destroy
their parks, which were not only an ornament to their
property, but to the whole country. (Hear, hear.) He
was in favour of taxing coppice and saleable underwood ;
but with regard to timber generally, he was inclined to
adopt the amendment. The mode of valuation was a great
difficulty ' • but the principal objection was the impossi-
bility of distinguishing what timber was to be regarded
as a shelter and ornament to the house, and what was
not.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question had been so broadly raised, that he at first
thought it best to take the sense of the committee upon
it. But, upon consultation with the Solicitor-General, he
thought that it might be some improvement to the clause
if, after the words "computed value of such timber,"
they inserted the words " as is fit and proper to be cut."
His own view was, that the tax on timber ought to be
made so as to work easily, and, above all, not to involve
the necessity of resorting to these expensive valuations.
Mr. C. BRUCE said that Dr. Johnson had made it a
matter of reproach to Scotland that it had little or no tim-
ber. The people of Scotland bad since endeavoured to
wipe out that reproach, and now they were to be taxed in
proportion to the efforts they had made. (Hear, hear.)
This was a most unstatesmanlike policy. Tho only mode
of cutting this Gordian knot would be to expunge the
words from the clause.
Mr. H. HERBERT said he came from a part of the
country where there was a great difference of opinion as to
when timber was fit to cut. In some parts they thought
an ash tree fit to cut when it was thick enough to form a
spade handle. (Laughter.) Ireland was still liable to the
reproach which had been cast upon Scotland : and he
hoped nothing would be done to throw impediments in the
way of proprietors who wished to promote the growth of
timber on their estates.
Lord SEYMOUR objected to the addition to the clause
proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ho was
also opposed to the amendment.
Mr. DRUMMOND thought the difficulties of the sub-
ject were such that they could not be removed by any form
of words in the clause. He did not know what was meant
by trees being fit for cutting. He had timber in his pos-
session which had not increased an inch in thickness in 30
years. There would be the greatest difficulty in giving an
estimate of the value of timber. If the tax were made
payable on the timber sold, that would be intelligible.
Why were not hops and hop-poles to be included in the
valuation as well as timber? In many cases, if the
timber were taken away, the land would be perfectly
useless.
Sir R. PRICE said that timber had been hitherto
exempt from poor rates and tithes, and he saw no justice in
subjecting it to this tax. His estate, though not large,
was remarkably well timbered. They had all along been
impressed with the importance of encouraging tho growth
of timber, and now a direct tax was to be placed upon
it. He hoped tho Chancellor of the Exchequer would look
carefully into the subject, and see if he could not modify
this proposal. Though he did not altogether like this
succession tax—(laughter) —he had made up his mind to
vote for it—thinking that it was not sight that the landed
gentry should continue to exempt themselves from this
tax. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. TROLLOPE expressed his readiness to add words
which would carry out his amendment, but hoped that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the feeling that had
been expressed on both sides of the house, would consent
to modify the clause,
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said he found the question one of
great difficulty. It NI as impossible for him to support the
amendment ; but he had great difficulty in voting for the
clause as it stood. An exemption was made in favour of
timber for the ornament or shelter of a mansion house ;
but the timber in any part of the estate was equally neces-
sary for the shelter of the crops and the stock. Ho would
'lnaggest the addition to the clause of the words " but stand-
inF. coppices." Trees in the middle of fields were gene-
rally
subject yleft for the shelter of the stock, and they were not a
of taxation. Withdesire to "back up"
all his
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(great laughter)—ho
hoped he w
lookO
The CHANCELLR. (H, reconsider this question, and take souse
little time to 100
oftheearEXheCardEQUEß said the
question on which they
or
now
going to vote was not as
to the particularword
form of the tax upon timber. He
believed it was too late to
had
commencedomdPirtlpre the clause. (No, no.)
They
had an amendment moved
upon the clause. What theya•Cver going to vote upon
was the question whether the weorndow timber as
ono of the subjects of the tax, shoulsditellsuhdeiningd not stand
,t'ahcatt,
was
the
eccession duty
part of the bill,—whether, in
committee, and the other remainedclrostcnfi
should bo levied upon timber.
be-
fore the
con-
sidered. The committee would. vote as they thought
the question whether timber ought to be subjected to
on
the duty or not, but the Government thought that they
could hardly vindicate the impartiality or the justice of
Timber was in many
their plan if they shrunk from making the proposition now
merchantable commodity'.
before the committee. from
parts of the country
it was so as much as any a regoitherYarticle of sale. And where
eft/. (0 , , a . .
it was a merchantable commodityh it wnasdaHseiagrn ohfeawreslth,
] and luxury, and grand •
of yoeety but
other kinds prtr
Lord H. VANE admitted there was. some justice in pro-
posing a tax on timber as on ae.geutie an
whilst he admitted that he hoped the right
',44 I
-1/1
t.*+i a s

SS"