The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-28 00:00:00

SU N,

1,014 DON,

the chief gainers by the grievat ce, which transferred a
portion—a considerable portion of the burdens from
their own shoulders to those of the hard-working
professional men, or steady, plodding tradesmen.
Schedule D. will remain a gigantic monument of
their injustice and impolicy—a beacon-light warning
the electors against placing any confidence in those
who have so grossly abused their power. Its very
existence will affix the bra ad of political dishonesty
to all those who, either by direct support or absence
unaccounted for, enable Six. CHARLES WOOD to per-
petuate, or even to prolong., the iniquitous system
We do not, as we have already stated, object to
direct taxation. On the cc tntrary, we believe a pro.
perty-tax, if fairly and jut liciously levied, to be the
most eligible impost for all. 'classes of the community.
In place, therefore, of objecting to three per cent.,
we would willingly increas e it to ten, or, if necessary,
twenty per cent. on rea 1 or personal property ;
and that without exempt ions of any kind, which
only act as incentives to fr. awl. Every man should
contribute in proportion to his possessions, whether
large or small, to the fund collected for the protection
and security of all property. The taxation of one
portion of the community while another is exone-
rated cannot be justified, no r can you fairly charge a
higher per centage on one than on another, merely
because the former is ric her than the latter. The
theory is undoubtedly plausible that the man
of wealth should pay more highly than the poor man,
that the millionnaire shoul d give more liberally than
the owner of a few hundred s ; but it will not bear the
test of strict reason and argument, and, if fairly con-
sidered, it must be regarded as an approach to Com-
munism. Everything, too, that makes exceptions,
or places one class in a mor e favourable position than
another, operates, as we have ready stated, as a
direct encouragement :to fraud and decep-
tion. It has, therefore, a demoralizing effect.
Persons will strain a little to get themselves
on the right side of the line„ and they speedily become
inured to falsehood, and carry out their frauds on a
more extended scale, and with more tranquil con-
sciences than at first. This evil is one of no ordinary
magnitude, that should be Averted at any price ; and
the only possible way of .e ttaining that object is to
tax all property equally ire proportion to its actual
value, without exception e r exemption of any kind
or on any pretence whatsocrver. It must also be borne
in mind that a tax is productive according to
the broadness of its foundation, and that
if we wish to rev al the various indi-
rect imposts that press st) severely on the work-
ing classes—if we desire tc, carry out the principles
of free trade to the full eio`ent, and to really abolish
the restrictions on our comnierce, all must submit to
be taxed according to their weans, and that we ven-
ture to assert they will willingly assent to, if their
labour be only left free, and their industry uncharged
and unimpeded.
All the serious objections to the tax:will on exami-
nation be found to apply chiefly, if not solely, to the
assessments under Schedule D. It is said, and justly
said, to be inquisitorial, compelling a man to expose
his accounts to the prying gaze of interested officials.
But there is no exposure in the case of the owner of
real property, or of securities for money, or shares
in public companies. The tax-gatherer does not
come to the landlord or the mortgagee, to the pro-
prietor of bank stock or railway shares, or to the
fundholder, but to the tenant or the mortgagor, the
bank or the railway company, and it is deducted
when paying over the rent, interest, or
dividend to which the party may be entitled.
Here there is no opportunity, and consequently no
temptation for fraud. A different person altogether
pays, end the_ party is subjected to no scrutiny or in-
quiry respecting his means; and even if he were,
exposure could not injure him so long as it did not
relate to the profits of his trade or profession.
It is also a great advantage to those parties paying
under Schedules A. and C that they are not called
on for payment. All they know of the tax is at the
moment they are actually receiving money. There
will be a drawback, but no direct demand—
no threat of legal proceedings if in default. The landlord
on the rent-day finds that '2l. 14s. 4d. is deducted
from every one hundred pounds, but he is well antis
tied to receive 971. ls. Bd. The mortgagee finds his
interest diminished in like manner, and the fundholder
or shareholder is in a similar position. But the un-
fortunate merchant, trader, or professional man—all,
in fact, assessed under Schedule D, must submit to
the most searching scrutiny, and satisfy the imperti-
nent curiosity of their tormentors. They must answer
every question on cross-examination, and may
frequently find themselves charged on a much
higher income than they have actually earned—
perhaps, increase the loss sustained by bad debts by
paying the tax on supposed profits that they have
never realized.

We might easily bring forward additional illustra-
tions of the actual working of the present system, but
sufficient has been said to show that a property-tax
is perhaps the best, while an income-tax is one of th•
worst modes of collecting the revenue. It may be
said that with these views we should assent to the
second reading of the Bill, and endeavour to modify
it in Committee, and in ordinary cases such might be
the best course, but we confess we would not afford
any facility to Sir CHARLES WOOD, unless he first
gave an assurance that he would assent to an equit-
able adjustment of the charge, so as to make it press
more equally and fairly on those who may come
within its provisions.

Scarcely a week elapses that cases do not arise of
serious injuries to innocent parties, and of the inten-
tions of testators being defeated, through the over-
stringent provisions of the " Wills Act." The policy
of the law always has ,been, and still is, that " deeds
should be construed strictly and wills liberally."
There was an obvious reason for the distinction. The
former were supposed to be prepared cautiously and
with the utmost deliberation. The executing parties
would take care, before they affixed their respective
hands and seals, that its provisions should be
considered clause by clause by their legal
advisers, and that the effect of the whole might be in
accordance with the terms agreed on. But greater
indulgence should be shown to testamentary dispo-
sitions. These documents are frequently neglected
until the last moment, when the rapid approach of
death leaves no time for consideration, or for securing
profe.,sional assistance. The mere verbiage, the con-
struction of the sentences, cannot in such cases be
too closely scrutinized. The intention of the testator is
the point to be ascertained, and the decision is, so far as
practicable, to be in accordance with that intention.
And that beneficial rule still most properly prevails in
our legal and equitable tribunals.
_

Before 1837 there was, however, another distinc-
tion between real estate and personal property, which
was found to be impolitic and to work badly. Real
estate could not be disposed of by will unless the
document were duly attested by three witnesses,
while personal property to any amount might pass
without any attestation, or even, in some cases,
without any writing whatsoever. This latter
difference came down from the olden time, when
personal property was of small amount, and broad
acres were regarded as the only real wealth. It was
long considered that this evil should be removed, and
every species of property placed on the same footing.
The %Vills Act was accordingly passed in 1837, by
which it was very properly enacted that every will or
codicil should be attested by at least two witnesses,
and that no disposition of real or personal property
should take effect without such a guarantee for its
authenticity.
If the matter had rested there, it would have met
the unanimous approbation of the people, as a salu-
tary protection against fraud, but, unfortunately, the
legislators of the day were not contented with pro.
viding against the evil complained of, and which
required amendment ; but they went much further,
and introduced a series of formalities all essential to
the validity of the will, although not affording any
additional security for its authenticity. Thus
ithis was
willin necessary that the testator should sign
the
eroom,
his presence and the presence of each other
should sign
theirornames as witnesses. If by any
accidenttl? r
o o hnl
the dying
doc wupresence of two witnesses,
manmniel
oestiegnbneve
celahmi
happened
name before
i.lnan the
a n.
sso
two had arrived,
o
nott o be i
better
much waste paper, although he should have acknow-
ledged it in their presence. If, after his signature
was affixed, they removed it into the next room for
greater convenience, it in like manner
became good
who in