The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

JVNE 18, 1853. chances of life and health. One property might contribute nothing for half a century ; another might never be out of the hands of the tax-gatherer. A just name for the tax would be to call it a pro perty rather than a succession tax ; but it was, indeed, a property tax under a peculiarly objectionable and odious form " The Chanoellor of the Exchequer could never have ventured to submit this proposal to Parliament if he were not presuming on the weakness and selfishness of human nature, inasmuch as those who now possessed the property would not have to pay this property tax, but it would de volve upon their suocessors, and therefore he had ventured t o make a proposal which he never would have brought forward if the existing holders of property were to be called upon to pay the tax. (Hear, hear, hear.) They should, however, recollect that this was avowedly a perms neut tax—that those who held the property would soon pass away—and that then other men would be exposed to this odious impost. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the corporations sole, he was gla d to hear, so far as the poorer clergy were ooncerued, that the right honourable gentleman intended to exempt them from the payment of the tax. The position of the clergy in many respects, in regard to the income they held, was a very hard one ; but he must say that he could only consider the admission made with regard to these corporations sole as in fact an admission against the whole tar. (Hear, hear.) He confessed that he saw no sufficient reason why the property of corporations sole was to be altogether exempt. ( Hear, hear.) With regard to one portion of these corporations sole.—he meant the biahops—(Hear, hear.)—they had already expressed their high approbation of the tax, and he did not see on what ground they could release them as they had no ob jection to it. (A laugh.) They were, in the eye of the law, a corporation, and, if all corporate property was to be burdened with this tax, he did not see how they could justly exempt them. (Hear, hear.) He could not cer tainly admit one of the right honourable gentleman's main arguments in favour of the exemptions of corporations sole—namely, that they were subjected to a heavy expense on succeeding to their property; for, though it was perfectly true, it was equally true with regard to all owners of real property who were subject to peculiar burdens and pay mute at that particular season. (Hear, hear.)" Adverting to the machinery of the bill, Sir J. Pa kington denounced the inquisitorialprocess by which the revenue to be derived from it must be assessed and exacted : ' The inquisitorial nature of the income tax was nothing as compared with this. Under the proposed tax, the moment a death occurred, those who were responsible were called upon to communicate to the tax-collector the fullest and must detailed description of the property, with every charge and deduction upon it, and this was to be enforced by clauses of a highly penal nature. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for these penal clauses, as no doubt he knew full well that the tax would be so odious that there would be a general feeling in the country to evade it, and if the tax was to be paid it would be necessary to enforce it by tyrannical and arbitrary enactments. There were, however, two questions to be asked on the subject— would the house be so subservient as to pass this bill ; and if so, would the country submit to it when passed? ( H ear, hear.) He believed that the House of Commons would not pass the bill ; but if it should do so, though he would be the last man to counsel his countrymen to resist the law, still he would exercise, every feeble influence which he possessed to tell the country to resist by every legitimate and lawful means en impost so vexations, by machinery so tyrannical and inquisitorial. Wear, hear.) When such were the merits of the scheme, he sought for the motives that had iuduced the Government to propose it, and found them in the necessities which surrounded a Ministry with no party of its own, and compelled to seek aid and sup port among discordant aud irreconcilable ausilitiries. They constituted a Government which had no party upon which to depend, but was compelled to consult how it could obtain the support. of some four or five different sec tions upon which it was dependent, whether this was to be obtained at one time by an apology for a Protestant speech -- (laughter and eheerel—in order to bring back Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic support, or at other times —as he was afraid in the present case—by pandering to the radical prejudices of some of its supporters. (llear,hear.) He traced this proposal of the Government to the necessity of its position—to the fact that it had determined to pro pose an unmodified income tax, and that it had no hope of obtaining the support to that plan of one of those sections upon which it depended for existence, unless that proposal were combined with another blow at rateable property. Finally, Sir J. Pakington warned the house and the Ministry that, when the nature and machinery of the measure were known throughout the country, au amount. of feeling would be ex cited with which no Government would dare to struggle. (near, hear.) He felt convinced that if passed the time was not distant when the present Government, or its sue eessora, whoever they might be, would find themselves obliged to propose the repeal of the act in obedience to the unanimous demand of an indignant nation. (Cheers.)" Mr. MEADLAM panewrised the manufacturers for consenting to a budget whch laid many burdens upon themselves, because they thought it beneficial to the community, and suggested a disparaging contrast with regard to the landowners as represented by Sir J. Pakington. Mr. FRESHEIELD drew from the speeches and acts of Pitt, Fox, and Peel, fresh arguments to support the conclusion that an income tax and a succession tax ought not to stand together. Dissecting some of the details of the bill, and estimating its inevitable THE PRESS. consequences both with regard to legality and to mo rality, he declared that "he knew of no proposition►—he knew of no interruption of their social relations—he knew of nothing that could he proposed as a matter of political considenition half so mis chievous as the measure which, was now proposed for the adoption of the Legislature." Mr. PHILLINORP: retorted upon Sir J. Pakington the accusation of having appealed to Radical preju dices in that house. So far from tending to over throw aristocratic institutions,he believedthat the bill would do exactly the contrary, because it would take away the odium which now clung to them, from the widely-spread impression that their members enjoyed immunities which the rest of their fellow-subjects did not share. Mr. Muu,iss apprehended many collateral evil,' from the working of the measure. The tax em braced all real and personal property, settled sad un settled, and interfered with all settlements, past, pre sent, and to come. Estimating the total produce of the tax at a much higher amount than that assessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he computed that its incidence upon real property would, on the average, constitute a new burden of 3,175,000/. an nually ; and maintained the accuracy of his compu• tations, as weighed against those of Mr. Gladstone, on the authority of his own extensive experience in the making and administration of wills. The machi nery of the measure he condemned on account of its inquisitorial features, and affirmed that it would frighten trustees and executors front accepting office : " He protested against these inquisitorial powers, and feared they would produce the worst results. If we were to have a tax for the purpose of getting rid of indirect tax ation, let us have it in the mode that had been proposed for the taxation of corporations, namely, siXklellee in the pound upon all wetland personal estate. Thts would pro duce more than the succession duty. for it would realise 6,000,0001. annually. Such a tax he would support, but as to the present bill, it was so unjust, and so inquisitorial, that he believed, in twenty years hence, the right honour able gentleman who proposed it would be held to be one of the most dangerous and mischievous Chancellors of the Exchequer that this country had ever seen." Mr. WILLIAMS calculated that. an estate of I($Jl. a year, worth 3,000 t. in the market, would pay but 151. succession duty, if inherited in lineal descent. He urged the house not to refuse so paltry a tax on land, while mulcting a servant or a widow ten per cent. upmt the amount of any trifling legacy which might be left th em. 4ir J. Tamiorn urged that there were poor and struggling inheritors of land as well as of legacies. Depicting the consequences which the tax would in volve upon some of these, he proceeded to remark upon its peculiar incidence. In one noble family there had been but a single succession in a period of eighty-five years ; in another the property had changed possession seven times in sixty years. Theta% might therefore vary, by mere accident, from practical ex emption to almost total confiscation. All legacy duties were front this cause unjust in princirle. With regard to the land, the measure was a positive retro gression, bringing back the feudal system under which estates were held in capite of the Crown. In 1796 a less onerous impost was proposed by a more influential minister, with the excuse of an expensive war, but was then refused by the hawk+ ; and he trusted the present proposition would share that fate. Mr. A. l'Et.t.frirr thought the present budget the best that had been proposed for many years. it WAR pm-eminently the " poor man's budget," anti the legacy duty was its cornerstone. Sir .1. Wm.su was convinced that the Government had introduced the measure under pressure from the extreme democratic party. Nor wax that pressure of recent date. For many years the Whig Ministry had felt its weight, and endeavoured to alleviate it by enneession - - In the last thirty years the income of the country luul little varied, but reduction and remission of taxation had proceeded to an enormous extent. During the first ten years of the pried, begining with I►rt'l, 111,400,1101. of taxes were remitted, against 1,000,01 WW. imposed ; in the next ten years 11,10111,1101 W were remitted, against 1,500,111101. imposed. The first of these was a period orfory, the last of Whig rule ; and, though they were alike in giving a largo balance of remission, there was this difference be. tween them, that, while the fOru►er left a good surplus, the latter left a considerable and accumulating defivit. In the last ten years, since Nit—which might be called the era of the transfer of taxation front one class to another -1:1,500,111101. of taxes had been remitted, against 6,300,000/. imposed. Mo that during the last thirty years, while forty millions of taxation had been remitted, only 111,500,0901. had been imposed. These fiorty millions were nearly all taxes which pressed upon manufewtming and commercial industry, while a large pro portion of the ten and a half millions was placed upon► the property of the country. He thought, therefore, they ought to be cautious how they carried this prineiple of the transfer of burdens further, and ask themselves why the Government now thought it necessary to impose this ad• ditional and cruel tax upon the land." Lord J. Russ Eu. assumed, as an axiom admitted on all hands, that the system of taxation demanded revision. But revision could not be done in a lump 149 —the subject must be attacked in detail. Coining, therefore, to the item of the legacy duties, and al luding to Mr. Disraeli's understood promise to impose some tax on successions, the noble lord enlarged upon the anomalies and injustices discoverable under the existing statutes, and justified the changes and ex pansions proposed by the tiovernment:— " You have, in the first place, a tax which bears very hardly upon the succession to personal property in many instance', which does not bear upon the succession to real property, which follows the very artificial distinctions of our law, discriminating between settled and non-settled pro perty, falling upon a lease for ONO years, because it is eon sidered as personal property by our law, and not upon an estate tier life, because that is regarded as real property (Hear.) One would have thought that no proposition could have been more natural, or more likely to meet the assent of those who consider a revision of taxation de sirable, than one by which their anomalies and irregularities might be in some degree amended." Examining the historical arguments founded on the conduct of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Peel, he declared that they were either not to the point, or inconclusive from the changes of circumstances. Reverting to the principle of the bill, he reiterated the assertion that it was introduced as part of a great whole, as an item in a comprehenaive budgetary scheme, of which many parts had been already adopted by the house : " The chancellor of the Exchequer, in reviewing the taxation of the country, has very wisely made this part of his financial scheme. The question really is, whether you will continue this tax upon successions, and whether, so continuing it, you will make it an equal and a just tax. No doubt this, like many of our taxes, imposes very great hardships, and it has been said that we had better get rid of it altogether. That is very easy to say, but there are at present more than two millions derived trum it ; and the right hon. baronet (Sir .1. Pakington) has not proposed to get rid of it otherwise than in his speech. lbw h. ( , hear.) He did not propose a single step in order to get rid of the existing legacy duty. and he would, therefore. Rs it seems, leave those who an' now subject to it liable to the hard ships it imposes.' Alluding to the censure passed upon the bishops for voting in favour of the tax, Lord .1. Russell affirmed "that he felt somewhat alarmed heat that motion which he remembered was brought forward a great many years 141'0, to relieve the bishops, as it wan then called, of their functions in that house, nh '.l he brought forward, having the eloquent support of the member for Droitwich-- (lamphier)--and should be carried in this house, to his (Lord John Russell's) great regret. ( Renewed laughter.) He trusted the right honourable baronet would not pursue his opposition in so strenuous and, he might say, nu vehe ment a manner, and that the proposal now before the house would be considered only as our more attempt, by a revision of apart of the taxation of the country, to make the tax more Mr and equal ; and, as the proposal had ma the general approbation of the ple of this country, I would that night meet the on of the House of Com moms. " Mr. E. Dti won or. contended that an unjust income tax weighing upon trade afibrded no plea for creating an unjust succession tax to weigh upon the land. Sir E. Deunr►+, following out the comparison, ar- gued that the succession tax, being permanent, was worse than the income tax, whose date of termination was fixed. it violated every principle of equity to re Bowe a whole nation of its burdens at the cost of a single class. Enumerating some of the many charges and imposts that weighed already upon land, that diminished its revenue and impeded its transfer, Sir E. Oaring maintained that a more unjust bill than the present had never been brought into the house. On a division the numl►ers were-- For going into committee ' For Sir J. Pakington's amendment Majority for Ooveniment The house then went into committee pro forme. THE BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKILLEY on Tuesday brought forward his annual motion on behalf of the ballot. His of arguments in favour of affording to the electors that shield and protection he now reinforced by many allusions to the incidents, disclosed before the parliamentary committees, of the late general election. Voters and candidates, he remarked, were there given up as a prey t►► a swarm of low attorneys, whom he stigmatised as the agents thr►ugh whose means the House of Lords teturned a majority of the House of Commons, and whom he depicted as gloat ing over their first spoils and repluming themselves for new and wider flights. Hut bribery, though it had increased tenfold lately, was the lightest of the evils which the ballot would cure. A bribe might even be beneficial in its consequences—workmen had been known to redeem their tools, a sick family had owed medical advice to the receipt of a timely bribe. It was intimidation that had pr►ved the worst and most indomitable hindrance to freedom and purity of election Against int' hit' they had no remedy wluttsoever. He defied the most astute member of that house to point outanything like a remedy for it. There mono remedy but the ballot; and they knew it. (('heers.) They cou!d make no law to prevent alandiordfromejecting atenant•at will when he pleased. They could make no law to prevent a customer from changing his tradesman as often as he pleased. They could make no law to stay the judgment