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

71

[PRICE D.

hon. gentleman would do what he could to remove the
I inequality which at present existed between real and
personal property. The legacy and probate duties now
produced about 2,300,0001., 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 manufactures 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of 13 millions had been repealed or reduced.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,
was said 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 1
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 fgpnerly
made, ordered the order for the reference to the petition
against the Carlow return to be discharged. As, however,
the house could take no stdp 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 EXCHEQUER 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 ex-
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 inconvenjence 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 doing no such thing, but merely
expressing abstract opinions that do not affect that which

should be done. The proper lace to have proposed this
resolution would have been in a committee of ways and
means. The hon. member brought it forward in the
month of December last, when the budget of the late
Government was proposed, and he was then perfectly in
order ; but at present he calls on us merely for the ex-
pression of an 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-
deavouring to point out to the house the practical incon-
venience that attends this method of procedure. lam
convinced that the motives of the hon, gentleman in bring-
ing forward this motion are perfectly fair and just. We
are not disposed, either on this or on the other side of
the house, to contend for exclusive privileges in taxation
of one kind or the other. Such a privilege needs only to
be named to meet with universal reprobation. The neces-
sary defects of human legislation in these matters render it

impossible to attain in practice perfect equality in taxa-
tion, but it is now universally admitted that that is the
object to which your legislation should be directed. But
then I must represent—and I think that I may ask the
assent of the hon. member to this proposition— that that
perfect equality must of necessity be the result, not of
one of your taxes only, but of your entire system of taxa-
tion. It is impossible to lay on any one tax which shall
operate with entire equality. You must consider each

part of your system of taxation with reference to every
other vital and essential part of it, and must strive to
attain a great general result which will fulfil the great
ends of justice by laying the burdens of the public taxation
equally on men's shoulders according to their strength ;
and that is the principle I shall endeavour to apply to
the consideration of this and of every other similar sub-

loot. I must say in the first insiance that Ido not

think the statement of the hon. gentleman is as accurate
as a general fact when he represents the question—the
important and difficult question before the house—as

-
being a class question or a question of class interests.
He spoke at one time of the exemption that " the great "
had secured for themselves as against " the small." Now,
it appears to me that that is a distinction eminently in
contradiction to the actual state of the case. If he means

to speak of the great owners of real property as against
the small -

Mr. WILLIAMS : No, no, the owners of real as
against personal property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : The
'present state of the law as amongst the different holders
of real property is unfavourable to the great and emi-
nently favourable to the small owners ; because it is
generally proved that the land of the country is under
settlement, and in the process of putting it under settle-
ment it has undergone considerable changes, and that
portion of the land which is not under settlement, and
which is a small proportion of the whole, is, with the
exceptions usually to be found, the land which is held
by small proprietors. (Hear, hear.) The honourable
gentleman will say that this is a question between the
landed class and the owners of personal property ; but
that would be very far from being an accurate represen-
tation, for this is indubitable, that, whether the exemp-

tions now enjoyed be just or unjust, politic or impolitic,
they are exemptions that it is in the power of every man
holding personal property to secure to himself just as
much as it is in the power of the owner of real property
to do so. _ (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to prove that

by any elaborate argument, but merely by a statement
that lies upon the surface of the case, namely this, that,
considering the mode in which land is usually dealt with
and the mode in which the great bulk of the land escapes

the payment of legacy duty as under settlements, it is as
much in the power of an owner .f personal property to
put his property under settlement as it is in the power
of the landowner. (Hear, hear.) And personal pm-

. . . .
perty in this country does go very extensively under I
settlement. I have been making inquiries to see the 1
extent to which funded property is placed under settle-
ment,
and it is impossible to attain anything like per-
fect
accuracy in the calculation, but I will venture to
say that a considerable portion of the entire funded
property is under settlement at this moment. (Hear,
hear.) The difference between the settlement of
landed and personal property is this—the settlement
of landed property is always made with perfect bond
fides—it is made in reference to family arrangements—
it is commonly made in the early part of the life Of the
actual possessor of the property, with reference to the
contingency of his death, which is not likely to take
place for many years. (Hear, hear.) Many settlements
of personal property correspond essentially with this
settlement of landed property ; but there are settlements
of personal property, such as by deeds of gift, that do
not correspond with this settlement of landed property
at all. (Hear, hear.) Deeds of gift are executed by
parties in trust to reserve the proceeds and capital of the
property to the absolute and unrestricted disposal of the
person who constitutes the trust, and with power of
re-
voking the trust whenever he pleases, with no obligation
to publish the trust, so that it is in
tary
the
apowereet 0
to fpaapneyr
man, by writing certain things down on a
which he keeps in his drawer, and makes
body, to execute one of those volun known
it
b
no-
deed of gift by which he carries his beyond the rule of the l c personal property
egay
or probate duty.
complaint.
Mr. WILLIAMS—That is
The CHANCELLOR of the rt of
my
not describe this practice to_ but most
important Efoßr -a-,-I do
important purpose, namely,
inninent for the purpose of showing
that this great,
momentous, and very difficult ques-
tion is not a class qguiveasti in the way it is supposed,
because it does not
vantages over personalas the landed property those ad
assigned to itproperty which are too commonly
conferring in the present state of the
law. (Hear, hear.) The bad state of the law JoFicTi'
the absurd state
will be
law I am willing each in due time not
and be remedied—but thet°lacw has
that most odious aggravated feature aboutlass of landed
it, namely,
that those lawsl are laws passed by the c
proprietors for the purpose of securing t°
lasses
the
e-
elusive hear.) Having
Privileges, which the commercial c a.s
holders of money do not enjoy. (licar'