HC Deb 07 July 1853 vol 128 cc1376-408

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 46 (Legal proceeding to be taken if returns are not made).

MR. HENLEY

said, he objected to the clause as too stringent.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must explain that it was meant that the powers given in Clause 45, should take effect through the provisions of Clause 46, and those provisions were conceived in a spirit favourable to the taxpayers.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the clause prevented, and did not cause, vexation. It was less severe than the usual process by the Attorney General for recovering in the Court of Exchequer in all Crown cases.

MR. HENLEY

would suggest that a writ of summons to show cause should precede the issue of the writ.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he did not object to that.

MR. G. BUTT

said, the last part of the clause was more stringent than the first, and he begged to suggest giving the Court power to extend the time for returning the account in cases requiring it.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would also accept this suggestion, and proposed words in accordance with it, which were agreed to.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 47.

Clause 48 (Power of Commissioners to compel production of Books and Documents, and to inspect Public Books without payment of any fee).

MR. WALPOLE

would suggest the necessity Of a definition of the "accountable parties" to whom this provision applied.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had no objection to insert an Amendment to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 41, to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the words 'may make,' in page 16, line 4, in order to insert the words 'every person who, under the provisions of the Act, may deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in any succession shall, if required by the Commissioners, produce before them or their officers such Books and Documents in the custody or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such account or estimate, as may be capable of affording any necessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such property and the Duty payable thereon, and the Commissioners,' instead thereof.

MR. MULLINGS

said, he would propose as an Amendment, to insert the words "except title deeds and muniments, and evidences of title." He conceived that his Amendment ought to be adopted, for otherwise any person would run the risk of losing his estate by the disclosure of some defective title. The clause, as it stood, created a most inquisitorial and improper power, entirely opposed to the spirit of our law, for a court of law would not, as between contending parties, compel the production of title deeds, unless a clear case of interest in them was shown on the part of the person requiring their production. Moreover, he believed it to be unnecessary to call for the title deeds for the purposes of this Bill, for they would not disclose the desired particulars of the property, and he attached but little value to the provision that "all such information shall be deemed confidential."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that it was absolutely necessary that the Commissioners should have the power proposed to be given them in the clause, in order to ascertain the amount of tax to be levied, and to be sure of the proper parties on whom to levy it. The words of the Amendment were very wide, and he was advised that under them the Commissioners would not even be aide to call for and inspect the rentals of estates. To the argument that a court of law would not compel the production of title deeds unless the party requiring them showed a distinct interest in them, he replied, that the very ground on which it was proposed to give the Commissioners power to inspect title deeds was, that the Bill created on their part an interest in the property; and one object of the clause was to enable the Commissioners to obtain the particulars of the several interests in land in order to levy the proper duty. The hon. Gentleman appeared to attach no value to the provision as to the confidential character of the information required; but he believed that public officers would feel bound by that obligation; and with respect to confidential investigations made under the Income Tax Act by the Special Commissioners, he might observe, that not a single statement had reached him to the effect that that confidence had ever been betrayed.

SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND

said, he thought the proposal made by the Government one of a dangerous character, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. Under the clause, as it stood, any person would be compelled to disclose his title deeds, and might be dragged, in consequence, into that greatest of all evils, a Chancery suit, and ruined, perhaps, before he got out again. He recollected that one of the principal arguments against an Act for the registration of deeds was, that it would have the effect of publishing to the world people's title deeds, and that the result would be, that every attorney who desired a job would have the opportunity of picking holes in the title of any gentleman to his estate, and of dragging him into a court of law; and now the Government, in order to obtain a miserable amount of revenue, were going to endanger the possession of every man's landed property in the country; if it did not endanger the possession of it, it would at least drag it into the Court of Chancery, where he might be ruined by some twenty years' litigation. Unless, therefore, he heard stronger arguments than those urged by the right hon. Gentleman, he should feel it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mullings).

MR. G. BUTT

said, he would prefer that the Amendment of his hon. Friend should he confined to title deeds and muniments, leaving out evidences of title. They, at least, were not wanted, and, therefore, ought not to he produced.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment had made no answer to what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated to be the main ground and reason of access being required to such documents as these—namely, the diversity of interests in property. It was proposed now, as he understood, to exclude from inspection all settlements; but the hon. Gentleman who had spoken had not shown how it would be possible for the Government to deal with the interests of persons under settlements unless those settlements were produced. If they got rid of the consanguinity scale, and levied a uniform rate on all successions, then the question would be very much simplified; hut he had not been able to discover any means, if such a scale were adopted, of dispensing with access to these documents. If the objection were the supposed arbitrary interference of the inspecting officer, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to a power of appeal being given to a superior authority, such as a Judge at chambers, without whose order no person should be compelled to produce his deeds. But the question now raised was, whether the parties were to have an absolute right to withhold their titles.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, the right hon. Gentleman, under the term "documents," meant two things totally distinct—namely, title deeds, which ought not to be produced, and settlements, the production of which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman was necessary. There was no reason why they should not make it perfectly clear by having two distinct clauses. It would not do to tell hon. Members there was no danger in producing title deeds. The Report of their own Commission said, that for 150 years they had been trying to carry out a system of registration; but it had been effectually opposed by the uniform opinion of every solicitor in the kingdom that there would be danger to property if title deeds were exposed.

MR. MALINS

said, he could not conceive a more dangerous power than that proposed to be given by this clause. It was another illustration of the extreme power which the Government wished to assume over the property of every man in the kingdom. Hitherto it had been the right of every man to have the power of locking up his own title deeds, but now the Government proposed to deprive him of that power, and to allow any man to say to another, "Let me see the title deeds under which you claim, and your settlements." The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) was in error in supposing that settlements were not title deeds, for in many cases a settlement was often the only muniment of title. To get at the value of a man's property it would be quite sufficient to make him produce his rental. It might turn out, on the inspection of a title, that the party was not entitled; and how could any one say that some officer might not commit a breach of confidence, and cause the greatest inconvenience? If the tax could not be collected without the possession of such a power, it might be conceded, but no necessity for such a power had been shown. There could be no difficulty in as-certaining the degree of relationship or the nature of the property. It might be said, "You are bound in the case of other property to produce a will;" but a will was a registered document. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now proposing, for the first time, to make an inroad on that sacred principle of English law, that a man's title ought not to be investigated by those having an adverse right. Without a shadow of justification, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to declare that a man's title deed was no longer his own property, and that a revenue officer would be entitled to inspect it. In the case of the income tax, from which so vast an amount of revenue was obtained, no such power was required, and yet for this tax, from which the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he expected only 460,000l, such a power was proposed to be given without any necessity for it.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the income tax was inapplicable to the present case. In the case of the income tax there was a uniform rate levied. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish a uniform rate to be levied in the present case? If so, the land, instead of paying 1 per cent, would have to pay 3 or 4 per cent, and great difficulties would arise. Again, did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish the tax to be levied on the gross income, irre- spective of repairs? [Mr. MALINS: On the rental.] The hon. and learned Gentleman bad assumed that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was claiming an uncontrolled power over these documents, when he had stated directly the contrary. He had said that he should not object to the power of calling for these documents being controlled by a superior authority, as a Judge at chambers, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had after that twice said that Government claimed an uncontrolled inspection of the documents by a revenue officer. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also said that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had calculated upon getting only 460,000l. from this tax. He never said any such thing; he said distinctly the contrary. What he said was, that at first he did not expect to get more from land itself, but that ultimately it would be much more from the tax on moneys payable out of land. After considering this subject, the Government believed that access to these documents was in some way necessary; and certainly the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had not in what he had said helped them out of the difficulty. He wanted to know how it was possible, without documents, to deal with a case of diversity of interest created under a settlement, and at different rates of tax on those different interests. The only real answer that could be given to the proposition was this—charge a man in full, and leave him to show in what respect he ought to be exonerated. He considered it would be impossible to ascertain the charge on the property without an inspection.

MR. CAIRNS

said, the object in view was not to check the account of the property, or find out the tax to be paid, but whether some one else ought to pay it. By the clause the production of the documents had reference only to "such" account as the party handed in. It would not, therefore, enable them to compel the production of the title in the only case wherein the right hon. Gentleman said it would be necessary.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mullings) was calculated to mislead the Committee, and would produce a result more oppressive, more onerous, and more mischievous than if the clause were allowed to remain as it was. The way in which the production of a deed would be required from a party delivering an account, would be this The account would be delivered, in all probability, with certain deductions. One deduction might be in respect of a jointure, and another in respect of a portion. Now, unless a power should be given to call for deeds to ascertain these matters, there would be an appeal to a Court of Justice to verify the account. The title deeds, in the sense alluded to, could never be inquired into. All that would be required was the document creating the interest. The production of the deeds showing the title and evidencing the manner in which the property was transmitted, would never be required. It would be necessary to ascertain, not only the relation of the successor, but his interest, and that interest would be apparent on the production of one deed alone. The law stood thus: that whosoever had an interest in the estate bad also an interest in the title deeds. The purchaser of part of an estate had a right to examine the deeds. Now, if the Government and the public had a charge on the estate in respect of duty, they would have a direct interest in the title-deeds of that estate; and if they resisted that modified and guarded examination of documents provided by the Bill, they would subject themselves to a more onerous and rigorous and oppressive examination in a Court of Justice. He thought it desirable that the production of deeds and settlements should be guarded by the interposition of some judicial discretion, and had no objection to annex a proviso to this effect:— Provided always, that no title deeds, muniments, or evidence of title of real estate, shall be required to be produced, unless, on application by the Commissioners to a Judge of the Court of Exchequer in England, Scotland, or Ireland, sitting in chambers, such Judge shall think proper to make an order for the production thereof, or of such parts thereof as shall be necessary; and the same shall in that case be inspected by such person, in such manner and under such restrictions, as such Judge shall think fit to direct. That proviso would go a great way to meet the objection which had been raised, and he could not consent to give any greater limitation to the necessity and the right of inspection.

MR. BARROW

said, the Government would have ample security as to the different rates to be charged, because the property could never be disposed of without the production of a receipt for the full payment of the duty in respect of the person charged.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "documents," to insert the words "except title deeds and muniments, and evidences of the title."

Question put, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 78: Majority 6.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he regretted the result of the division which had just taken place. He had himself inspected a great number of title deeds and settlements, but he never consulted one in which there was not some mistake or omission. If title deeds were to be arbitrarily inspected by Government offices in the way proposed, the old saying, that the best thing that could happen to a man would be, to have his title deeds burnt, would come true indeed. He was quite sure that the clause if passed in its present shape, would involve the land in an immense amount of litigation, without adding one shilling more to the revenue. He would move an Amendment, limiting the clause to documents of the nature of leases, plans, court, and rent rolls.

MR. BUCK

seconded the Amendment. He said, he considered the clause as one of the most unjust and iniquitous which it had ever been his lot to read. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to pass his Bill by majorities of five and six; but he might depend upon it, that the question would excite such an agitation in the country—create such a chaos of discontent—as would perhaps, shake the foundations of the monarchy, and destroy the established institutions of the land.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "documents," to insert the words, "only as are of the nature of leases, plans, court, and rent rolls."

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, he had listen-ed with great satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The fact was this, it was a combination of the Manchester school and Her Majesty's Government for undermining the land. But he begged to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those who now professed to be his friends, were in reality his enemies, and would be the first to turn round and undermine him.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he was not surprised at the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, for their object avowedly was to undermine the landed interests; but it was worthy of remark, that the only Gentleman connected with the land who had spoken from the Ministerial benches had denounced the clause, and had voted against it.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had in that House denounced the income tax as a most inquisitorial measure, and yet he was now urging forward one which was far more inquisitorial. It was very well for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come down to that House with a majority at his back, and force these measures. He (Viscount Gal-way hoped that when this Bill was brought forward in another place, the consideration of the small majorities by which it had passed that House, would lead to a doubt as to whether this measure ought to be inflicted upon this country. He had received a letter from a Whig constituent, who said that this extending the legacy duty to land was the most unfair thing ever done.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that the clause required nothing to be done beyond what was already authorised under the present Legacy Duty Act. The Commissioners for collecting the legacy duty were empowered to call for all papers and documents they pleased; and although it was true that the legacy duty did not affect land, he saw no reason why that description of property should be placed on a different footing from other kinds, This tax had been called a robbery; but he thought that terra was more applicable to the present legacy duty. It was monstrous for noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite to impose a tax upon legacies given to the meanest of their labourers and domestic servants of twenty times the amount which they imposed on themselves. He was delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in this and in other respects adhered to the integrity of his proposition; and he should support the clause as it stood.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he should vote for the Amendment, the whole of the arguments on the other side amounting to this—that because personal property suffered an injustice, therefore real property should do so likewise. If real property were to be taxed, let it be taken under Schedule A, instead of endangering all title to property, as these proceedings inevitably would do. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would lead to so much litigation as utterly to annul all the saving in the public expenditure which had been effected by the recent law reforms. If the State stood in need of money, he for one should be found ready to vote that money by the imposition of a direct property tax. What he complained of was, not the amount of the proposed tax, but the inquisitorial nature of the measure by which it was to be imposed, and the effect which it would be likely to have in undermining the titles of the owners of real property to their estates.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the Government ought to take into their consideration that under the operation of the clause before the Committee no parties whose deeds of settlement were in the hands of mortgagees would be in the slightest degree affected by its enactments. Such being the case, it was scarcely fair to compel those parties whose deeds happened to be in their own hands to submit to the production. This, he thought, was worthy of the consideration of the Government, and should induce them to reconsider the question as to the evidence of title. It was a great annoyance to the owners of real property to be compelled to produce their deeds, and he asked if the means of collecting the revenue provided under the other clauses of the Bill were not already ample? He would entreat the Government to reconsider the question. He could see no reason why the provision should be insisted upon; but he was convinced that the plan, if carried out, would occasion an immense amount of ill feeling, for there were many persons who, from some motive or another, Which it was unnecessary to analyse, had the strongest possible objection to produce their title deeds.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not admit that the production of deeds, as proposed under this clause, would inflict very serious hardship upon the owners of real property. They were to be produced only upon the authority of a Judge, and subject to the application of a Commissioner) who would be bound by the most solemn obligations to preserve the strictest secrecy with respect to them. The production of these documents, under such circumstances, could by no means, therefore, be considered as analogous to their production in the case of a dispute as to the right to an estate between conflicting parties. With respect to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the clause would have no effect so far as deeds placed in the hands of a mortgagee were concerned, he (the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer) would observe that the fact that the Bill might prove inadequate to meet all cases whatsoever, could constitute no valid objection to its enactment. In the case of title deeds it might be perfectly true that the operation of the Bill would not extend to their production if placed in the hands of mortgagees; but it must be remembered that the necessity for access to the title deeds would be comparatively very rare. That to which there would be a necessity of access was to settlements actually in force, and he did not believe that they were ordinarily in the hands of mortgagees. Mortgagees might have authenticated copies of them, but it was the duty of the trustee to have possession of them. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, that was his notion of the subject; and, at all events, the Government looked to the trustee, who was the person responsible for the settlement. The Government had freely and willingly made this concession—that there should be no question at all about the production of these documents without need proved in each case. He would impress upon the Committee, in conclusion, the force of the argument that the documents in question could only be produced upon application to a Judge, and when that Judge had ordered their production as necessary.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, if the Bill could be well or practically carried into effect without the power now demanded, he could only say that this was additional reason why they should still continue to resist the further progress of the measure. The powers proposed to be taken by this clause had never yet been conceded to any Government except in criminal cases, and to apply them in this instance would be most unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the deeds were not to be produced unless a Judge should make an order to that effect; but was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the expense parties would be put to in resisting such an order? They would have to employ an attorney, and retain counsel. There must be a common law counsel who must be assisted by a conveyancer; and a vast amount of machinery must be set in motion when they wished to resist the curiosity of the Commissioners to inspect the title deeds, and the end would be that they would have to embark in a course of litigation which no man ought to be subject to. Nor, even after all this expense and trouble had been gone to, could the order of the Judge be successfully resisted, because no Judge would refuse to make an order when the Commissioners stated that the production of the documents was necessary for the ends of public justice. The proviso, therefore, about the order of the Judge was useless, while it was perfectly idle to talk about obligations of secrecy when the contents of the deeds would be disclosed to the attorney's clerk engaged in each case. If there was no other ground, that would be sufficient to reject the clause, and he hoped the Committee would do so accordingly.

The EARL of MARCH

said, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the objection which had been raised to the production of deeds in the possession of mortgagees.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought he had already answered the question. As a general rule, they did not propose to touch such deeds, being able to obtain, as he believed, every information that was required without any reference to them whatever.

MR. HILDYARD

said, he rose to deny the allegations that had been made on the other side, that he and his friends were consulting the interests of the great landowners. He believed in his conscience that the people who would be most oppressed by this Bill would be the small landowners, and on this point be would appeal to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, and ask him what the operation of this Bill would be among the small landowners in the county with which he was connected? The great landowners always employed men of the first respectability, in whose hands title deeds would be safe; but the small landowners went to what were generally called the hedge lawyers of the district, and it was his firm opinion that there were many such persons in whose hands title deeds would not be safe. He could tell those hon. Gentlemen who professed to represent the interests of the great masses of the people, that so far as he had watched their movements it appeared to him that there was no class of men who were greater enemies to the mass of the population than they were.

MR. GROGAN

said, he must complain of the extension of the clause to Ireland. For nearly one hundred and fifty years there had been a species of registration of deeds in that country, and those documents were enrolled in a public office. There could, therefore, be no necessity whatever for extending that provision to Ireland.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

said, that if all the desired information was to be found registered in Ireland, the Judge would, of course, never call for the production of the title deeds.

MR. GROGAN

said, that before the Judge could give his decision, the owner of the property might be put to considerable expense.

MR. DUNLOP

said, that in Scotland all property was registered, but he did not entertain the same apprehension as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grogan), for he felt quite convinced, that when full information could thus be procured, no Judge would make an order for the production of titles and documents. It seemed strange to him that the landed interest of England should consider their stability jeopardised by access to their title deeds being given to an appointed functionary. In Scotland every man's title deeds were registered, and were accessible to any human being, and yet he did not believe the stability of the landed interest in that country to be in at all a more dangerous position than in this. It had been stated that a great number of the title deeds to property in this country were in the hands of mortgagees, and he could not understand how it was that persons did hot object to placing their title deeds in the hands of a mortgagee, and yet felt repugnance to exhibit them, to an officer under the sanction of a Judge. So far from the measure being injurious to the landed interest, he believed that their stability would be increased by it.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he could assure the hon. Member who had just sat down, that he entertained a deep conviction that the measure was attended with danger to the landed interest. It was of the greatest importance, in his opinion, not to insist on the production of all the documents, for he knew, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty knew it as well as any man, that if a settlement were made upon property, a slight error or omission in the deed might be the cause of a person losing part or the whole of that property; and he hoped that the Committee would assent to his proposition.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

said, that the provision would impose new difficulties on trustees, and would be calculated to prevent gentlemen altogether from accepting the duties of that office.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 97: Majority 11.

MR. WALFOLE

said, he now rose to object to that part of the clause which allowed the officers to take extracts and copies of the title deeds. Suppose a commissioner were to do so, and to have them in his possession when he died, they would then become the property of his executors or administrators. He considered that the power given by the present clause was a power which ought not to be bestowed upon any body of men, except under the severest and most stringent penalties. He should propose to amend the clause, by striking out the words "and they make such extracts therefrom and copies thereof as they shall think necessary for the purposes of this Act."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I do not think there is any absolute necessity for these words, and I have no objection to their being struck out.

MR. KER SEYMER

said, he must complain that penalties were imposed on gentlemen if they did not comply with the demands of the inspectors, but that there was no penalty upon the inspectors if they violated the secrecy that was enjoined on them with regard to the documents they inspected. He would propose that a penalty of 100l. should be inserted in the clause, in the case of any such disclosure by the commissioners or their officers.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not differ from the hon. Gentleman on the principle of his Amendment. He doubted, indeed, if the penalty were high enough; but he demurred to a principle of so much novelty being introduced into their mode of dealing with public servants. They now acted upon the principle that for any misconduct public servants were liable to dismission. They now held their offices during pleasure. He feared that if they were to enact penalties for malversation, or even for negligence, it might act in a way very different from what they anticipated. There was his own office, for instance—he might commit misdeeds to which no sufficient penalty could be attached, and for which a penalty would not be the proper punishment. He should wish further time for examination before he agreed to the Amendment; but he agreed in the principle of the hon. Member.

MR. HENLEY

said, there was a power given with regard to the Commissioners who assessed the income tax, under which any person who objected to a statement of his circumstances before the local functionaries, might go to certain officers of high standing at Somerset House, who were sworn to secrecy, in order to make that statement. He thought it would be a great security to the public, and that it would have a tendency to get rid of some of the ill feeling which this clause, in his opinion, was calculated to engender, if a similar power was given under this Bill to that he had mentioned, and if persons were allowed, if they thought fit, to produce a deed and document only to some authorised persons at Somerset House instead of the local commissioners.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had no hesitation in saying that it was not desirable for local officers to have compulsory powers of inspecting title deeds, and that, where parties wished it, he would have no objection to allow them to produce their deeds before the Commissioners at Somerset House. There might be some difficulty in the mode of doing so; but he agreed in the principle, and he would take the subject into his consideration.

Question— That the words 'every person who, under the provisions of the Act, may deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in any succession shall, if required by the Commissioners, produce before them or their officers such Books and Documents in the custody or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such account or estimate, as may he capable of affording any necessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such property and the Duty payable thereon, and the Commissioners,' be there inserted.

Put, and agreed to.

On the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a disposition to modify the harsher portions of the clause, it seemed to him that even in its amended form it would give such tyrannical and inquisitorial powers that the Committee ought not to assent to its enactment. The clause was tyrannical and inquisitorial in the extreme; and if the tax could only be levied by giving such inquisitorial powers, it was an argument against the tax itself. The powers given by this clause were inconsistent with our institutions, and inconsistent with our national habits and our national character, and so inquisitorial and objectionable in their-character that they formed an argument against a Bill which could only be carried out by such means. With these strong feelings on the subject, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee against this clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 94: Majority 7.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49.

MR. W. LOCKHART

said, he would beg to suggest that power of appeal should be granted to the local commissioners, or to the Judges of the County Court.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was the object of the Government to provide the best and cheapest mode of appeal possible. With respect to the local commissioners, however, he much doubted whether that mode of appeal would be satisfactory; and, besides that, the local commissioners met very seldom. He did not wish to join the operation of this Act with that of the income tax, and therefore would not give the appeal to the commissioners for the collection of that tax. Indeed, it would be better to give the appeal to the Judges of the County Court, to which he would not object if the hon. Member wished it, though he thought it would increase the expense of the proceedings.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he observed with great satisfaction the spirit in which the suggestion was met, and would propose that the Judge of the County Court should be allowed to send up the case to the Court of Exchequer in cases of difficulty. The objection to the appeal being made to that Court in the first instance was the expense.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would assent, on the part of the Government, to this suggestion. His impression, however, was, that the expense of appealing to the Judge of a County Court would, in many cases, be greater than that of making application to a Judge of the Court of Exchequer sitting in chambers.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would recommend that the appeal to the Judge of the County Court should be made an absolute appeal, as, if a double appeal were allowed, all the business would be brought into one of the principal courts in the metropolis.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 50 and 51.

Clause 52 struck out.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 struck out.

Clause 55 (Commencement of Act)

MR. DRUMMOND

said, that he had at a previous stage of the Bill inquired whether the tax was to be of universal application, and whether it was to be charged on succession to the estates of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to give an answer when they got to the end of the Bill; and as they had now arrived at the last clause, perhaps he would explain whether it was to apply to those properties or not?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman was not quite right in supposing the Committee had come to the conclusion of the Bill. There were other hon. Members who had Amendments yet to propose.

MR. MULLINGS

said, he wished to move to omit the two last lines, in order to insert the words "that the Bill come into operation on the day of the passing thereof."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not consent to the Amendment. The question was one of finance, and it was the usual principle in laying on new taxes to make the tax come into operation from the day of the passing of the Resolution in Committee. In some cases, as in that of the income tax, they had gone further, and made the tax apply retrospectively, beyond the period of the passing of the Resolution. The Amendment would deprive him of two or three months of the proceeds of the tax, which he could not consent to.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he thought they ought to follow the precedent of former taxes, and would therefore urge his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was also anxious that precedent should be followed, but he had some notion that the usual course was not to charge the tax in all cases from a date previous to that of the passing of the Bill.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had not stated that that was the rule in all cases; on the contrary, he believed in the case of the Customs duties a different rule had been adopted; and in the case of the income tax, as he had said, the tax was made to apply from the 5th of April, whereas the Resolution had not passed until May.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

snid, he thought this Act should not continue beyond the period fixed for the expiration of the income tax, and he would therefore move that the Act should continue in force for five years only.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that if he was right as to his view of the operation of this tax, it would be found so annoying and vexations that the complaints against it would be loud and universal. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find in the course of five or six years that this tax would cause so much vexation and unpleasantness that the people would not bear it. They were passing this Bill nominally on the plea of putting landed property upon the same footing as personal property with reference to the duty on bequests or successions. They had passed the Bill as to real property, and as long as they maintained the present law as to the tax upon legacies, so long would he uphold the Government in placing a duty on land inherited by succession or demise. But while they subjected real property to one duty and personal property to another, they were doing that which was altogether ft distinct thing—for they were taxing not the property of people dying, and which passed from them to others by death, but they were taxing property whether personalty or realty, which was settled and disposed of by persons in their lifetime, with the intention that the settlement which was thus subjected to this tax should go free to those who succeeded them. The two classes of cases were essentially different—but he would not go over that ground again. They had had examples of the extraordinary difficulty the Government would have in trying to enforce the tax. The clause they had just passed was a proof of that. If they applied the tax for a long period of years, all the small owners of property, whether real or personal, would be put to great inconvenience in having to pay the tax by a series of half-yearly payments extending over five years, or they would be put to great expense in employing professional persons to carry it out. It would be necessary to examine into books, documents, and accounts, and overhaul ancient and modern title deeds, wills, and other muniments, to ascertain how, and where, and when the tax applied. To do this for a long series of years in respect to real and personal property, would involve an immense inconvenience to all parties. He did not wish to raise a controversy upon the present occasion; but, looking at the difficulty that must ensue, and seeing but very little of opinion in favour of the tax, not only in the country and amongst the numerous persons he had conversed with upon the subject, but even in the House of Commons—and feeling as he did, from what he had heard, that there were many Members who had voted for clause after clause in the Committee because they did not desire to deprive the Government of a large source of revenue upon which they had calculated—but believing also, as he did, that those hon. Members would not support the Bill in the abstract—and that with regard to many of the clauses they did not think them just or reasonable—he thought it no more than right that they should now consider whether they were to impose this tax as part of a permanent system of taxation, or whether they should not take an opportunity of reconsidering it at some future time, when they should have had some experience of its operation. There was nothing unreasonable in such a proposition; on the contrary, it was but following out a course they had followed in a similar case. When they imposed the income tax, they did not in the first instance put it on permanently, but they limited its duration to three years, avowedly that they might have the opportunity of reconsidering it when they had had some experience of its working. He thought, therefore, that it would be only reasonable to put on this tax in the same way as a temporary measure, and to limit its duration for five years. They ought not to forget that when the tax was first attempted to be imposed by Mr. Pitt, it was brought forward, as in the present instance, time after time, and that the majorities, great in the first instance, dwindled down gradually, until at last they became so small that Mr. Pitt was obliged to give up the Bill. In this case, also, the Government had commenced with a large majority in favour of the Bill, which had dwindled down that evening to exceedingly small ones. This convinced him that people's minds were beginning to be opened, and that it was not a tax which they thought it was just to impose, if really their object was to tax real property in the same way as personal property. Under the circumstances, he would put it to the Government whether it would be wise now to impose the tax for a longer period than live years, that they might see if, as they asserted, the tax could be levied without annoyance and vexation. For himself he was so convinced of the contrary, that if his noble Friend (Lord Galway) pressed his Amendment he would support him.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, this was not a question upon which it was necessary to trouble the Committee with any details. He could only say, in answer to his right hon. Friend, that he thought, if the Committee were disposed to impose a tax of this nature for five years only, it would indeed be a very serious question whether the Committee ought to impose a tax at all. The question at issue really was, whether the principle of this Bill was to be defeated under the colour of a Motion for limiting its duration. Although he did not share in the apprehensions entertained by his right hon. Friend with regard to this Bill, he was ready to admit that every fiscal measure novel in its nature involved certain difficulties in the first instance. Still he thought it would not be worth while to confront the difficulties attendant upon this measure for the sake of its financial advantages, if it were only to last five years, and more particularly when it was recollected that five years must elapse before the tax would come into full force. In the first year it would realise absolutely nothing, and in the second year it would produce really-very little, and it would take full five years before any single estate would actually have paid the whole amount of the duty. Again, look at what would be the effect of the noble Lord's (Viscount Galway's) Amendment in' another respect. Those who paid the succession tax during the next five years, would, under the measure of the Government, receive, as it were, an entire acquittance for one generation; but the noble Lord proposed that after they had paid the tax it should be repealed, and then they should enjoy the luxury of paying, along with the rest of the community, whatever other tax should be imposed as a substitute for the succession duty. Again, the same rule that the noble Lord proposed with respect to the succession duty, must equally apply to the legacy duty; in fact, this tax and the legacy duty were inseparably wedded to each other, and must stand or fall together. If the Committee wished the legacy duty to be limited to five years, let it deliberately say so; but, at all events, he hoped the Committee would not agree to exceptional legislation in the present instance.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had, with himself, considered five years a sufficient term for the continuance of the succession duty; but he (Viscount Galway) had, on further consideration, suggested seven years. He would now move the addition of the following words to the clause—"And shall continue in force till the 19th day of May, 1860, and no longer."

Amendment proposed, in p. 17, 1. 22, to add at the end of the clause the words "and shall continue in force until the nineteenth day of May 1860, and no longer."

MR. DISRAELI

said, he had wished to make the suggestion which his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) had anticipated, namely, that they should adopt the period of seven years for the continuance of this Bill. And he had intended to do so upon the statement which was made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first introduced this proposition to their notice. The Committee would recollect that at that time the income and property tax was not renewed. He (Mr. Disraeli) had felt it his duty, on the part of the late Government, to propose to the House that it should consider the propriety of making some difference in. the rates of assessment for the several schedules of that measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree in principle with that proposal; or, rather, he acknowledged, virtually at least, that some difference should be established in the rates of assessment, and said that he was about to propose a measure for extending a succession duty to all settled property, and that that measure would be a compensation to those classes subject to the income and property tax, in whoso favour he would not recognise the propriety of making the difference which the late Government wished to establish. Well, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the income and property tax should be continued for the term of seven years, and he not only proposed that, but he promised that if his views were carried into effect, the income tax would terminate at the end of that period. Now, if this measure was brought forward specially as a compensation to those classes who upon one theory were assessed too highly to the income and property tax, it seemed to follow that the compensation ought to cease when the special burden ceased to be inflicted; and therefore, upon that view, of the case, it appeared to him that the term for which they ought to consent to this tax being levied should be exactly coextensive with the proposed duration of the income tax, namely, seven years. With regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that if they limited the duration of this Bill, there would be arrears payable, and the hardship that would ensue from that circumstance, he might remind him that under the Property and Income Tax Act, if it should terminate to-morrow, there would be arrears of taxation; therefore, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman appeared merely to be a technical one. It had been urged that the existing legacy duty and this Bill were bound up together; it might be so in principle, but it was not so in form. This was a separate Bill, and could only be decided upon its particular merits, as they were expressed in the Bill before them. If the principle of this Bill was so just, they might rest assured that, at the end of seven years, in this age of progress, they would not have so far deteriorated that the force of truth and justice would not be as efficient and efficacious as it was now. He must protest against the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a Bill which was distinctly and palpably before the Committee could only be considered with relation to an Act which really had no legislative connexion with it. He (Mr. Disraeli) looked upon this Bill as a proposition originally brought forward by the Ministry by way of compensation for another measure which was submitted to Parliament at the same time, but which would cease at the end of seven years; and it seemed to him (Mr. Disraeli) both rational and politic that they should limit the duration of this tax for the same period.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, he would not even vote for the commencement of the tax, for in his opinion it was a most detestable tax. He condemned it both in principle and practice, and would, if it were possible, throw it out altogether.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 195: Majority 70.

Clause agreed to; as was also the 56th clause (containing the title of the Bill) and the schedules.

Clauses 16 and 22, which bad been postponed, were put, and negatived.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had now to propose the addition of a clause with respect to leases for lives. The clause was so drawn that in leases for lives they should include leases for years determinable on lives; but there being some doubt about it, he proposed to insert the words, "or leases for years determinable on lives." The clause, which was in the following words, was then brought up:— Provided, that no person entitled at the time appointed for the commencement of this Act to the immediate reversion in any real property, expectant upon the determination of any lease for life, shall be chargeable with duty in respect of such determination in the event of the same occurring in his lifetime.

MR. HENLEY

said, that under this Bill, if a farm were let for 300.l and afterwards happened to be let for 320l. or 350l. a year, an additional succession duty should be paid. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remove the evil of which he complained.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he was now discussing another part of the Bill. They could not do what he proposed without cutting across what they had already enacted.

MR. CAYLEY

begged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the principle of the clause, and the precise object of it.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was found that the Bill, as it was drawn, applied the retroactive principle of liability to taxation on any succession ensuing upon death, with so much strictness that the present holder of landed estates that had leases on lives, when those lives determined by the death of the parties, would be liable to pay succession duty. They debated the subject, and the feeling of the Committee was pretty clearly indicated on both sides, that they should not consider the parties as liable to legacy duty. The intention of this clause was to give full effect to that view of the Committee.

Clause agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

then moved the insertion of the following clause with respect to life policies and post obit bonds:— No policy of insurance on the life of any person shall alone create the relation of predecessor' and successor between the insurers and the assured, or between the assurers and any assignees of the assured for money or money's worth, and no bond or contract made by any person bonâ fide for valuable consideration in money, for the payment of money after the death of any other person, shall alone create the relation of predecessor and successor between the person making such bond or contract, and the person to or with whom the same shall be made; but any disposition or devolution of the moneys payable under such policy, bond, or contract, if otherwise within the provisions of this Act, shail be deemed to confer a succession. This clause had been very much considered by persons out of doors who were interested in this subject, and he believed that it was generally acceptable to them.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, that the provision, so far as it related to policies of insurance, appeared to him to be satisfactory, and was an improvement of the clause on which he had observed on the second reading of the Bill, and, in fact, removed the objection then made, namely, that while it exempted the insurances made by persons upon their own lives, it left insurances made by persons upon the lives of others within the category of successions, and, as such, liable to the new tax. But in the second branch of the clause, as now proposed, which dealt with the case of post obit bonds or contracts, only one class of post obit security was provided for. It must be well known that payments engaged to be made on a death were of two descriptions: one class consisted of sums to be paid by a debtor, or by a person contracting to secure the debt of a near connexion upon his own death; the other class was of engagements by the obligor to pay upon the death, not of himself, but of another person. The clause exempted the latter class from the succession tax, and, so far, it would satisfy capitalists whose case he (Mr. Freshfield) had advocated upon a former stage of the measure, because the persons with whom they contracted were generally persons who had interests dependent, as to time, upon the death of some then intermediate possessor; but the clause did injustice to those parties who had been content to wait for payment until the death of the party giving the bond, and only on that event; and yet such cases, though not so common as the other class, were yet well known, and when they did occur, were of a meritorious description. Money was advanced to a friend in perfect reliance upon his having the means of repayment, and for which a post obit bond was taken, and although it would secure to the obligee no other preference than would be acquired under a bond in the ordinary form, yet it would he a more generous proceeding toward the obligor, because it post- poned the period of payment beyond his life, nor would any statute of limitations affect the debt. Again, creditors having received portions of their debts might have sufficient confidence in their debtor to believe that in the life of their debtor they had a reasonable expectation that the remainder would be reduced; or that, partly for that purpose, and partly for his family, he would keep on foot policies of insurance to the extent of his means; and with such expectations the creditors might be satisfied not to molest the debtor during his life, but take his bond or other contract, in the name of some trustee, for the benefit of the creditors generally; and, as the clause stood, any payment under such a contract would confer a succession. It would be no reason in support of the clause, that such a contract might enable a man to cover all the property of which he would die possessed, because the same suggestion would apply to any bond; and it was to be recollected that to protect an assignment of a policy or a post obit bond on the death of another person, it was required that there should be a bonâ fide valuable consideration in money or money's worth. He should, therefore, propose that money secured by post obit bond or contract, be put upon the same footing as money receivable under a policy of insurance, and be exempt from the succession tax; and with this view he moved as an Amendment the omission of the word "other," which would leave the provision applicable to the decease of "any person."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not accede to the Amendment, as it was evident that its adoption would lead to unbounded evasion. In that case every man's will would take the form of post obit bonds to those to whom he wished to leave his property.

MR. FRESHFIELD

explained that his Amendment only referred to bonds given for a valuable consideration.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was quite aware that that was the intention of the hon. Gentlemen; but in the practical working of the measure it would be found quite impossible to prevent bonds, not for in reality valuable considerations, gaining exemption if the Amendment were agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

then proposed the insertion of the following clause with reference to the duty chargeable on timber in place of the one (Clause 22) originally in the Bill. A point raised on a former occasion might be open to consideration—namely, whether a very small sum might not be inserted in the clause, below which it should not be necessary to have any account; but the main question was the principle of the clause:— Where timber trees or wood shall be comprised in any succession, the successor shall be chargeable with Duty upon his interest in the net monies which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber trees or wood, and shall account for and pay the same yearly: Provided, that if the successor shall be desirous of commuting the Duty, and shall deliver to the Commissioners an estimate of the net monies obtainable by him from the sale of such timber trees and wood as may, in a prudent course of management of the property, be felled by such successor during his life, the Commissioners, if satisfied with such estimate, shall accept the same and assess the Duty accordingly.

Brought up, and read 1°.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that he quite admitted that the amended clause considerably modified the one originally proposed; but it was nevertheless liable to so many objections, that if the Committee agreed with him they would have no difficulty in deciding that it should be negatived. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to charge this duty on the "net moneys which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber trees or wood." Now, he apprehended that in all cases of trusts or executorships, this would raise a perpetual running account, which would probably never be closed during the life of any trustee or executor. The duty received under this provision would be exceedingly small, while the annoyance and vexation to all engaged in the management of landed property would be exceedingly great. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, if that was not acceptable, a proviso by which persons might commute for the moneys by estimating "the net moneys obtainable by him from the sale of such timber trees and wood as may in a prudent course of management of the property be felled by such successor during his lifetime." Now, these words, "prudent course of management," would receive a very different interpretation from different gentlemen. A tree was considered ripe for felling at very different times in different parts of the country. In his (Sir J. Trollope's) county an oak tree was not considered ripe for felling in less than about six generations, or 200 years; and then there were many trees of considerably greater age which were still in full vigour. Then he found that, the proviso concluded, "the Commission., ers, if satisfied with such estimate, shall accept the same, and assess the duty accordingly." Now, as he knew no way by which such an estimate could be obtained, except by a valuation, he must say this looked very like an attempt to reintroduce the principle of "valuation" which had been so strongly objected to in the original clause, as being vexatious, expensive, and productive of litigation. He wished to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to arrive at the money received from time to time from the sale of timber. Did he intend to take the account of the seller or of the buyer? He (Sir J. Trollope) knew of no machinery by which it would be possible to collect this tax. No doubt gentlemen of large property would deliver an honest and fair account of the sums they received from this source; but timber sales were not an ordinary source of a gentleman's revenue; perhaps he did not have more than three such sales in the course of his life; and this proposition was one to tax capital not of a reproductive nature, because when a tree was once cut down there was an end of it. He thought it would be preferable to this, that receipts from timber should be assessed to the income tax in the same manner as those from underwood were at present. He believed, however, that this clause would result in so much vexation and annoyance, while the sum received under it would be so small, that he should move that it be expunged from the Bill.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, that suspecting as be did anything which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he suspected any modification he might make in this Bill was a gross robbery on his part. He read in the newspaper the other day that there was a surplus. Humbug and nonsense! He knew what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's froth was, and that it had no substance whatever. This was another attempt to rob the people, in order to fill the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exchequer, and make the public believe that he was a good financier, and was working for the prosperity of the country. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was to pay the succession duty upon copyhold property? He was not speaking for himself, for he was happy to say his property was freehold. But a copyholder could not cut down timber without giving one-third to the lord, besides a fine, and he wanted to know whether duty would he charged on the whole or upon two-thirds?

MR. BUCK

said, he knew the cases of individuals who, when boys, came into the possession of property. The timber was cut down by their trustees to redeem the land tax, but ever since it had not been touched. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed indirectly to tax the sixty or seventy years' growth, whereas if the land had been in cultivation the duty would have been assessed only on the annual return. Timber stood in so different a position from all other property, that he hoped the clause would not he pressed.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, that however willing he was to tax timber, he did not think his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Trollope) had shown any cause why, since all other property was to be subject to the tax, timber should be excluded. But he wished to ask some explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He still thought the wording of the clause was not quite distinct. In the first alternative it was said "that the successor shall be chargeable with duty upon his interests on the net moneys which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber, trees, or wood." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to include merely the periodical sales of timber, or did he mean that if any gentleman cut down hedgerow timber, for instance, for the purpose of relieving his farm, he should be chargeable for such cutting, or that he should keep an account for such small items, and submit them to the taxgatherer? Again, the clause spoke only of "sales of timber, trees, or wood." He (Mr. V. Smith) supposed it was intended to exempt timber used for the purposes of the estate; but, if so, he thought this should be specified in the Bill. I In the second alternative, it was said that the Commissioners, if satisfied with the estimate delivered to them, "shall accept the same, and assess the duty accordingly." But what were they to do if they were not satisfied? The question of valuation was a most material point. If the taxgatherer were to be called in to value timber, it would be most obnoxious, and extremely difficult. Besides, it was the custom in his part of the country only to value timber under six inches through, and in some parts under twelve inches through. Then he wished to know what would be done with ornamental timber? It was clear that, if not sold, it would not come under the first part of the clause; but would it come under the second portion of the clause in commuting the duty—would ornamental as well as other timber be valued?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, with reference to the first question put to him, he thought he had answered it by anticipation, namely, the question whether every transaction, however small, would be made the subject of return. As the clause stood, sale, and sale only, would be the test; and he stated he had no objection to a small minimum of exemption, but it must be small to prevent evasion. With respect to timber used in the repair of the property, he did not think it possible to specify his meaning more distinctly than by saying the owner should be liable to pay in respect of moneys received from the sales of such timber. He did not know any words which would more rigidly exclude from charge timber used in repairs, and of course it should not be included in any valuation under the second part of the clause. With respect to the question, what would be done if the Commissioners were not satisfied with such estimate, the answer was they would go to issue with the party upon such estimate precisely as under any other provision of the Bill, and the question so put at issue would be disposed of by the same machinery as was provided for all points of difference. As regarded ornamental timber, speaking generally, it might be described as timber not usually cut, and if not usually cut, it would plainly not be liable to the duty. Under the first alternative it would not be liable, because the duty was levied on the moneys received from sales; and under the second alternative it would not be liable, because the estimate would be confined to net moneys obtainable from the sale of such timber, trees, and wood, as might be cut within the lifetime of the person, with a due regard to the interests of the estate. If it were not proper to fell the timber with a due regard to the interests of the estate, it ought not to be included in the estimate. It often happened timber was ornamental as well as marketable, and every year trees might be cut out of the value of 10l. or 15l. each. Although ornamental, it could not possibly on any principle of justice or equality be excluded from the tax. He would not enter into the general discussion, as they had been through that on a former night. They had mitigated the clause, and now the only objection seemed to be that the duty would not be worth collecting. He was not sanguine as to the proceeds; but there was something in the principle of the clause, and upon that he rested the proposition, which he was quite content to leave to the judgment of the Committee.

MR. CHRISTOPHER

said, the policy of the Government, for years past, had been to reduce the duties on foreign timber, and here was a virtual excise duty imposed on home-grown timber. The right hon. Gentleman did not expect to get much from the tax. Was it, then, worth while to perpetrate such injustice, accompanied by an inquisitorial process so oppressive and so offensive. There would be the most vexatious contests with the excise officers as to the rate of duty—1 per cent, 5 per cent, or 10 per cent. The system of valuation was most objectionable, inquisitorial, and impracticable. He knew an instance in which the valuation of timber amounted to 5,000l. Was it advisable in a free-trade Administration to introduce an excise duty to such an extent upon dubious valuations?

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great improvement in the clause, and had obviated many of the difficulties which had been raised, because the landowners would now have the power of choice, and be able to proceed voluntarily. He did not think this tax ought to be stigmatised as an excise duty, He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow a reasonable minimum to prevent parties coming into collision with the tax collector. Supposing they wished to have a market open for their timber, they might express to the Commissioners their desire to commute, and if the Commissioners should not be satisfied, they might withdraw their offer and remain as before. There would, however, be a strong inducement to meet any offer of that kind on fair terms, because if the offer was withdrawn, they might lose their tax.

MR. HENLEY

said, if he rightly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had made no satisfactory answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), whether timber cut down for repairs would be charged under this Bill. In his opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly knew how these things were managed. If a holding required repair to the extent of 200l. or 300l, and there was timber on the estate, the owner would cut it down for that purpose. The clause now under consideration would not meet that state of things at all. But now as to the principle of taxing timber at all. Ever since the imposition of the poor-rate in this country, now more than 300 years old, it had always been held out as a great object, that the growth of timber should be encouraged, and not only was land appropriated to the growth of timber exempted from the poor-rate, but the growth of underwood was exempted for a certain number of years after it was first planted. If the clause should pass a second reading, he should then have to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a word now introduced which was not in his original proposition. That word was "wood." Every one knew that wood and timber were two separate things. The former was well understood, and known to the law; but unless such a difficulty were carefully guarded against, there would be a confusion between wood and underwood.

MR. KER SEYMOUR

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that because other snccessions were taxed, timber ought to be taxed also. Now he could mention a case in point. It had often been said that it was right to rate stock in trade, but the difficulty of doing so was so great that it had been exempted. Although the clause had been greatly improved, still the difficulties would be so great that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make this small concession to the country gentlemen. By so doing he would in some measure meet the inequality of the income tax with regard to repairs, of which they so greatly complained.

MR. BOOKER

said, he should oppose the clause. It was founded upon a disregard of the cost at which timber was reared, and the circumstances under which it was raised to maturity, or the purposes for which it was applied. Timber was used either as fuel for the poor, or as the staple material for our "wooden walls." It was the ancient policy of the Empire to encourage the growth of timber for the building of our Navy; and it was Colling-wood's legacy to his country—an earnest advice to increase the growth of timber. [Cries of" Divide!"] Did the Committee deem it no longer of importance to encourage the growth of the British oak? The oak only gained a quarter of an inch in growth in a year; so that it would take 100 years to grow an oak of twenty-five feet girth- Reckoning twenty years to a generation, the tree would be taxed five times in the course of a century. There ought to be a bounty on the growth of such timber instead of a tax. [The hon. Gentleman read an opinion to this effect from a proprietor of timber, who ended by declaring that he should denude his estate of timber, and spend the proceeds himself. The correspondent signed himself "W. S. Wood."] He (Mr. Booker) deprecated any feeling of hostility towards the Government in his opposition, and only sought to do his duty to his constituents. He should give his unqualified assent to the Amendment.

SIR EDWARD DERING

wished to know whether the bark was to be included with the felled timber? It was sold separately in some places.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he must assert that in every respect timber stood upon a different footing from every other description of property. Some trees, for instance, grew as much in thirty years as others grew in 120. Each tree cost the possessor an annual rent for its sustenance, by occupying a certain portion of ground. He was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should impose such a tax. If he wished to make a hateful tax, he could not adopt a more sure method. It would be looked upon as a black mail paid to the party in that House which supported the right hon. Gentleman's most objection able Budget; and he should feel ashamed of himself if he were in any way accessory to its infliction.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 179: Majority 16.

Clause agreed to.

MR. HENLEY

would suggest that coppice and underwood should be excepted specifically, as otherwise the tax would press very heavily on plantations.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would not object to insert in the clause the words "or where timbers, trees, or wood, not being coppice or underwood."

MR. HENLEY

said, he would agree to the introduction of the words, on the understanding that he should be at liberty to consider the point again on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. MILES

said, he wished to propose a proviso that no timber should be valued which was of less than thirty years' growth. Previous to that age, timber bore no profit whatever.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCTHEQUER

said, he could not accede to such a proviso. There were parts of the country in which a profitable trade was driven in timber of much younger growth than that.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

said, if the right hon. Gentleman referred to Scotland, he could only say that when he cut timber, of less than thirty years' growth it did not pay its own expenses.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member did not live within fifteen miles of Glasgow.

MR. DUNLOP

said, his experience was different from that of the hon. Gentleman: opposite. The part of the country where, he lived was not at all favourable for the sale of timber; and yet, for some plantations, containing timber of from twenty to thirty-five years' growth, a party who was at the whole expense of cutting, supplied him (Mr. Dunlop) with timber to the amount of 150l. a year.

Proviso negatived.

House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.