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

years. Was this justice? Was it not rather strikingly I
unjust and unequal? (Hear, hear.) Now he proposed to
remedy this injustice and inequality in a very simple
mann,•r, namely, icy olact ng that the 1,0001. duty should
be le:- ed, not by :us ,ant ~f 2,91. for five years, but
by an annual payment o. a year as loug as the indi-
vidual should live ; that was to say, he would levy the
duty in proportion to the duration of the enjoyment of the
estate by the individual. He was aware that 1,0001.,
raised by 501. a year for a man's life, was not quite equiva-
lent to 1,0001. raised in five years at 2001. a year, and that
it might he necessary, on that account, to make a small
addition to the amount of the tax. According to his pro-
posal. then, if the person lived but two years, he would
only pay 1001. ; but if he lived 80 years, he would have to
pay 501. a year for that period. He would not propose
any alteration in the clause till he heard what answer the
Government gave.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
not certain whether the honourable and learned gentleman
meant to apply his remarks to all descriptions of property
or to real property only. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said that he confined his suggestion to
that which was the subject of the clause, but he would
have no objection to apply the same principle to personal
property if the circumstances wore strictly analogous.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not think the hon. and learned gentleman had well con-
sidered the nature or the consequences of his own sugges-
tion. The hon. and learned gentleman said it was urgent
that the change he proposed should be made on the ground
of injustice, but if it was urgent in the case of real pro-
perty, it was more urgent in the case of personal property.
(Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman drew a very
piteous case of two children of four years of ago coming
into the enjoyment of 1,0001. a year, but he ought to recol-
lect that in the case of personal property the tax—an I
therefore the injustice—was equal. The hon. and learned
gentleman proposed to substitute an annual payment for
that proposed in the bill, as a means of remedying the in-
justice and inequality which he said existed ; but how
would that apply in the case of a person coming into pos-
session of unsettled property, where the party had to pay
ten per cent. legacy duty and 2 per cent. probate duty?
(Hear, hear.) The effect of such a change would be to
break up the legacy and probate duties. (Hear.) He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw no political or social evil
or injustice in the present mode of raising the tax. Did
the hon. and learned gentleman suppose, when ho talked
of a child of four years old coming into the enjoyment of a
property, that the demands upon that child were as heavy
as when ho was 30 or 40 years old ? The hon. and learned
gentleman did not think so. What then became of the
inequality? The care of the hon. and learned gentleman
seemed to be for that class of persons whom the late Syd-
ney Smith described as " the little legislators who were
receiving the plums and cake after dinner." (Hear, and
laughter.) The principle of a succession tax was, that it
was a tax on the transference of property from one gene-
ration to another ' • but the hon. and learned gentleman
proposed, in respect to real property, to change the succes-
sion tax into an annual tax. But if they did that they
must extend the same principle to personal property, and
when that was done they would have that property tax
which the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir J. Faking-
ton), quoting Adam Smith, so much objected to. How
would this annual tax work ? The range of inequality
under the tax would be from 1 to 20, irrespective of the
shortness of life. Did the hon. and learned gentleman
think that an annual tax so graduated would rest on a safe
basis ? (Hear.) Did the hon. gentleman consider whether
the person whose tax was measured by 20 or the person
whose tax was measured by 1 would be the greatest suf-
ferer? The tax, if levied in the form proposed by the hon.
and learned gentleman, might afford some mitigation in
the case of the succession of the stranger, but it would
lead to a multiplication of the tax in the case of the
direct successor. (Hear, hear.) He slid not know if this
was present to the mind of the hon. and learned gentle-
men when he made this proposal, but he would recom-
mend the hon. and learned gentleman to consider it in the
interest of the gentlemen by whom he was surrounded.
(Hear, hear.) Then how would the -hon. and learned
gentleman deal with the mass of property engaged in trade
and commerce ? Would he have an inquisition every year
into the amount of every man's capital? (Cheers.) That
was the proposition, and he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) maintained that no inequality in the mere amount
of the tax would be half so grievous an oppression to the
trading and commercial classes as the inquisition proposed
by the hon. and learned gentleman, in order to ascertain
the amount of capital on which the commutation for the
tax was to be paid. (Hear, hear.) But he did not think
the house was prepared to agree to the principle of a pro-
perty at all. It was true that a succession tax was
analogous to a property tax ; but there was this difference
—that whereas a property tax was levied once a year, a
succession tax was levied only once in a generation. (Hear,
hear.) Without entering into details, his fundamental
objection to the proposition of the learned gentleman was,
that it would establish a property tax necessitating from
year to year that inquisition which was felt to be so
grievous once in a generation, and attended with all the
dangers which every property tax necessarily involved.
He need not say, therefore, that he could not assent to the
proposal. (Hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said it was only because no one could
tell the precise number of years that any one would livo,
that the right hon. gentleman was obliged to resort to
averages ; and he proposed his amendment as a substitute
for the system of averages, which, being unequal, must be
unjust. He would frame his amendment in a substantive
form with the view of submitting it for the consideration
of the committee.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the hon. and learned gentle-
man had admitted one very important principle, namely,
that personal ought to be placed on the same footing as real
property. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Williams) decidedly
objected to the clause, though for a very different reason-
from that of the hon. and learned gentleman. The right
hon. gentlemen had brought on himself this factious oppo-
sition to the proposed tax, by giving landowners a conces-
sion of 50 por cent. Had he placed real property on pre-
cisely the same footing as personal, such opposition could
not have been offered. The amount of duty in the case of
the first degree of consanguinity was only one-half per cent.
and that would be the cause of nine-tenths of the real pro-
perty which would come under the operation of the act.
A distinction of half per cent. between the two kinds of
property appeared to him most unjust. He ought not,
perhaps, to make any complaint against the Chancellor of
the Exchequer; he knew the right hon. gentleman's diffi-
culties, and was sensible that he had exhibited a degree of
courage to be found in few public men. (Hear, hear.)
Still he hoped he would reconsider the clause with a view
to amendment. It should be recollected that personal pro-
perty would pay probate duty, 3 per cent. for all property
under 30,0001., and 14 per cent. above 30,0001. That
description of property must pay the probate duty before
the owner could touch it ; and then it had to pay the
legacy duty within 21 days after possession ; while real
proporty was allowed four years and a half. He trusted
the right hon. gentleman would at all events fix the pay-
ment of the duty on real property at the end of twelve
months ; and if the landowners were dissatisfied with such
an arrangement, let him allow them 171 per cent.
After a few words from Mr. H. DRUMMOND,

Sir J. PAKINGTON complained of exaggeration on the
part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comparison
which he had drawn between the payment on personalty
and on realty, putting the first at 1 per cent., the case be-
ing that of the first degree of consanguinity, and setting
against that the payment of 20 per cent. by a stranger.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in
every syllable that he had uttered he was strictly and
rigidly accurate. He had said that the payment by per-
sonalty, under the bill, as he computed it, would be double
the payment by realty. He then said that the extremes of
payment under the bill would be represented by 20 and
by 1, the 1 applying to the case of direct succession by
land, and the 20 to the succession of a stranger to per-
sonalty. He ought to have added that there was a charge
for probate duty, which would increase the inequality
above 20 to 1.

Mr. MALINS hoped the hon. member for Lambeth
would be convinced that he at least wau not "factious,"
when he heard him declare that he was totally unable to
concur in the proposition of the hon. and learned member
for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly)—(hear, hear)—whose argument
had been fairly met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There were many hon. gentlemen around him, who, he be-
lived, took the same view ; and he hoped his hon. and
learned friend would not press the matter to a division.
Mr. PHILLIPS thought the hon. member for Lambeth
—who, he believed, was a countryman of his—should have
borne iu mind, that in Wales rents were generally six
months in arrear.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said his were not.
After a few words from Mr. A. PELLATT,
Mr. AGLIONBY said he did not perceive any ground
for the hon. member for Lambeth's answer of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The concessions appeared to him
to be all in favour of personalty. (Hear, hear.) The
measure ought to have been accompanied with one for
facilitating and cheapening the transfer of land. The Re-
kistration of Assurances Bill would certainly be no relief
to the landed interests. He confessed that he did not like
the present bill, though like many others whose feelings
were similar, he had supported it. (Laughter.) The law-
yers would no doubt be benefited by it, but he was not
sure that it would benefit any other class.
After some further discussion on the same point, and
upon some other verbal and unimportant amendments, in
the course of .ese discussions Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS giving 1
notice thaV. .0 bringing unof_the report he would melte" '
an amend-ment, the object of which was to preclude the
adoption' of the principle whereby the tax might be paid
upon certain properties by instalments, the clause was
agreed to.
Upon clause 21,
A discussion arose on a suggestion of Mr. DRUMMOND,
that the definition of "ornamental timber" of a mansion-
house in clause 20 was too vague.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said that unless some clearer defini-
tion was given he must move an amendment for that pur-
pose.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
proposed that the timber which should be excepted was to
be valued with the mansion to which it was attached ; and
he proposed to add to the clause the words " for the pur-
.poses of this act."
Mr. HENLEY inquired what was the moaning of the
words " necessary outgoings ?" They were not very de-
finite.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—These words were well
understood, and had a definite meaning in all courts of law
and equity. The timber to be excepted was that which
answered the description of ornamental timber, and was
connected with a mansion-house, was not severed in owner-
ship from the mansion-house, and was not in the same suc-
cession ; the valuation only applied to such timber as the
tensainrt
J. for_A life. might lawfully ctit.
a manner,lt NNLER said that they were not to legislate in
and accept definitions that were only intelligible
to courts of law. The hon. and learned gentleman argued
as if land on which ornamental timber grew, and mansion-
housescase. uweerrsibrel.
utahned separately, which was never the
by ornamental
did not know what was really
wmaseauetxeinmtphteedclfaruomse
tbaxatiia:nmental timber, and whether it
understand the bill, and to
Iseboorer,?,iiiatt. itHweaswsioshferadmeleedaralys to
oughtm to be an accurate
prevent future litigation.
definition of what " ornamental timber"
wanted to know what the words "ber wag.
Again'
he
capable of yielding, income" meant. P-Zert.Y Yielding, or
it to be left t
tax-gatherers to decide what estates or part, of o
es'
were capable of yielding ? He objected to any t„ on is
ber at all ; they were taking off the duty on foreign
tim-
ber, and why should home timber be taxed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER deprecated
e
the mode of discussion which was going
.on, and th •
ing up of, two or three clauses together. It, an desirable
to dispose of the first moiety o propertyse, which related
not yieldin.• pro.
to the " necessary outgoing.b."e taxed. With regard the
fits would, of course, not outgoings," Govern-
words " allowance for all necessary
ment had adopted three expressions fdorcitdhede puthirtstehoefmparet:
venting litigation and alarm. They e
ter should remain, as far as possibleia on
bthetbgrtounusdagoef
t ong a
established usage and practice, and
-might not be perfectly certain and uniform in all cases and
in all parts of the country, it was, upon the whole,.. better
to trust to it Slap to attempt to frame definition.