The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EitiMfO, JUNE 14, 1853.

that tr;learlieuent passed the bill the people would
never' submit to it. (Hear, hear.) &unser lan-
guage could scarcely have proceeded Iron( the month
of the meat revolutionary demagogue. (Hear, hear.)
The geeat "fallaej• Which pervaded the speech of the right
hon. baronet wale, that personal property paid no peer-rate.
Mr. MtiLLINGS believed that the measure would prove
Moat burdensome; and that, however popular It might be
at present, ultimately, when its effect became known, the
people would say that they had " the bill, the whole bill,
and nothing but the bill "---(laughter)—and that before 20
years had elapsed the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone)
would be considered one of the most dangerous and mis-
chievous Chancellors of the Exchequer that the country had
aver seen. (Laughter.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he should not have troubled
the house had it not been for some misrepresentations of what
he had stated on former occasions by the rigbt hon.
baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington). On the last oc-
casion when he introduced the subject of the legacy
duty, he pointed out the great inequality and injustice
exhibited in the levying of the tax on personal property.
On that occasion he had referred to a return which demon-
strated that the large properties enjoyed the most extraor-
dinary exemptions; aad he mainly approved of the measure
because it would, for the future, tee ;an efficient cheek upon
a faulty system. As regarded the extension to the land,
that was a bagatelle ; but it was a great measure so far as it
would compel something like justice in dealing with real
property. The bon. gentlemen then proceeded with great
minuteness to comment upon and to dispute the calculations
of the hon. baronet. He appealed to the landlords, therefore,
for their own sake, not to follow the indiscreet lead of the
hon. baronet. At any rate he would venture to tell the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
in proposing this measure he had shown more public vistue
end public courage than any statesman of the century.
(Hear, hear,)
air J. TROLLOPE represented a large mess of small
proprietors, and he regretted that the hon. gentleman
ho had just sat down had talked of the landed
interest entirely as if it was an interest made up
of large properties. He denied the correctness of
the hon. gentleman's calculations as to what land
paid to the gross taxation of the country: he believed,
on the contrary, that the land paid more then its share.
Mr. A. PELLATT was there to express the opinions of
his constitueata; and his constituents were •decidedly in
favour of this Succession Bill; and he should eocordingly vote
against this amendment.
----- - - - • -

Sir J. WALSH said there had beta an union of
parties to throw out Lord Derby's government, and it ap-
peared to him the government had brought forward this
proposition in order to secure the support of the derrocratic
party. He opposed this measure on principle. He thought
property had been hardly desk with in adjusting taxation,
and that the whole tendency of legislation of late yeses
bad been to throw taxation on the property of the country,
and to relieve other classes, which, to a certain
extent, was proper and wise, but there was a limit to every-
thing. The great cry now was to relieve industry, to set com-
merce free, and relieve the labouring classes from tax-
ation. All great theories in their way, but the business of
government was to reconcile conflicting interests and claims.
He did not consider that the circumstances of the country
required them to all on the landowners to make this great
and cruel sacrifice. When the legacy and probate duty
were imposed they were in the midst of a great war, but
now they were at peace, the revenue was flourishing, the
people prosperous, and there was no reason why
they should call on the landowners to make such
a sacrifice. He would endeavour to give a rapid view
of the history of taxation. (.. Oh, oh," and laughter.)
The bon. gentleman then read a series of calculations,
which showed in the result that in the last 31 year, 40 mil-
lions of taxation had been remitted, and only 10,600,0001.
imposed, being a balance in favour of remission of 29 or 30
millions. Seeing this, he thought that there ought to be
some pause in remission of taxation, in order to see whether
the prosperity that prevailed would not work out such a
change as would allow of further remissions, and also whe-
ther the productiveness of some articles of taxation which
remained, would not prevent the necessity of laying this
cruel burden en the landed interest. He did not think that
any effectual opposition to this bill could be carried on, but
he left the case of the landed interest in this particular to
the sense ofjustice of the English people.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hoc. gentleman who began
this debate spoke with great vehemence on the subject of
this bill, and appeared to be inclined, by means of an
effective and talented speech, to Teed the house away from
the consideration of the matter, and to hedges the house to
adopt something of the passion which he himself displayed.
I am glad, therefore, that the speech of the hon. gentleman
who has just eat down has somewhat calmed the house, and
brought it into that state of equanimity in which we can
fairly consider the question before us. (" Hear, hear,"
and a laugh.) It appears to me that there is little
cause for the warmth which the right hosourahle
gentleman the member for Droitwich showed with
respect to this t bill. I think that of itself—(l em
not speaking of the clauses and provisions of the bill,
but the question is, whether we shall go into committee on
the bill)—I say, that in its nature the matter is not dif-
ficult or complicated. For a considerable time, the house
has heard expressions in favour of a revision of taxation. '
Such expressions have come from this aide of the house,
and they have been echoed by gentlemen opposite ; and
when the right hos. gentleman the member for Bucking-
bullshit. was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he adopted the '
scheme of a revision of taxation u the one most likely to
settle a questioa which has been long in coutzoversy be.
tween us. It has always appeared to me that a revision of
taxation could not be effected at once. It has been for
many years under consideration by us, and others
might have also had it under consideration. The right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks made a laudable effort to
elect this revision of taxation. We did not consider his mea-
careudicious, but the attempt was one for which he de-
serve great credit. But among other things the right
hon, gentleman said that one of the subjects of considera-
tion by his government was that of the legacy duties. He
did nut say what plan ho proposed, but that the sub-
ject was one which his government had not failed to con-
sider, and that it was not impossible but that he might
bring forward a plan for a tax on successions. (Hear,
hear.) The question remained in this state, when my
right kon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer in going through part of our financial sys-
tem cams to the legacy duties, and nothing was
more natural than that he should be struck with the in-
justiee and irregularity of the tax. We have in it a tax
which bean hardly on personal property but from which
real property is exempt, and which beyond this follows the
artificial and singular distinctions of oar law, by considering
some settled property as realty and some as only personalty,
and holding that a lease of 999 years is a personal estate,
and an estate for life with a particular contingency is realty,
and so regulating the tax. Nothing was more likely to
meet with the assent of those who desired a revision of tax-
ation than a plan by which these anomalies and irregu-
larities were corrected. I think My right hon. friend
mut have been confirmed in his intentions luoking at the
financial history of the tax, for when Mr. Pitt proposed a
tax of nature he in the first instance proposed to im-
pose it on real as well as personal property. He divided it
!into two bills, and it was only when on a division of the
house the numbers were equal, 54 having voted on oath
side, that he abandoned the tax on real property. Nothing
is more clear than that in Mr. Pitt's view the two taxes
should be imposed and although he introduced them in
separate bills he believed that the principle was the same,
and that the tax on the one property should be imputed also
on the other. Let us consider the moms of Mr. Pitt's defeat.
Mr. Fox objected to the tax on personal property, in the
' first instance, in the strongest manner, and it was only
when beaten by a large majority that he discontinued his
opposition to it. His objection was that a large tax should
not be levied for the purpose of carrying on a war, which
1 Yr. Pitt we. intuit on carrying on, and Xi. Fox was
equally intent on depriving him of the means of carrying it
on. Mr. Fox failed In his opposttion to the tax on personal
! property, but he was equally strong is his opposition to
that on real ;property. sad he succeeded. The cause of
that success was this Mr. Pitt failed, at an earlier period
of hie life, in carrying that reform in parliament
which he advocated, and I have no doubt that if be had
serried that reform and the commercial and manufacturing
Wiriest' had been duly represented in the house in 1795, he
would have carried both taxes when he clearly showed the
inequality which prevailed by the pessinf of one. The
right bon. pietism**, the member for Droturich, referred
to a discussion on this eubject in 1842, and aeeseding to the
reports which he 'pastime hon. members have madit it would
seem to appear that I was one of the opponents of a legacy
duty on real property. But on referring to what passed
then I find my objections were of a different
nature to those which have been stated. I
said I objected to the proposition because it did
not extend to settled property, and if you
interfered with real property, that species of property ought
to be made subject to the tax. My right hon. friend makes
that extenaioa a part of his scheme, and I cannot make that
objection to it. I made another objection then, namely,
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his finan-
cial arrangements for the year, and ss there was no tax on
successions included in his ways and means, I was not so
enamoured of taxation as to consent to any addition to it.
That is not now the case, for the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer has made that tax a part of his plan, and I
think he was acting wisely in so making it. (Hear,
bear.) Now the question really is, whether we shall
continue the tax on successions; and, if so, whether we will
make it equal and just. The right hon. gentleman the
member fur Droitwich seems to be suddenly struck with
the injustice of the principle of the tax—(" hear," and
cheers)—and he declares it to be contrary to toe principles
of political economy, and he cannot bear that a tax on suc-
cessions should be imposed at a time when it is found diffi-
cult to encounter any new taxation. But the right hon.
gentleman wrs not struck with the injustice, so long as the
tax was imposed only on personal property; while that was
the only property taxed, all the injustice and all
the violation of principle passed unnoticed. (" Hear,
hear," and cheers.) But the other day, I was speak •
rag to a person on the subject of this tax, and he told me that
he as the executor of a market gardener, who had left some
chattel property to a relation, had paid the tax three
times in two years. No doubt this, like many other taxes,
imposes isms hardship, and therefore the right hon. gen-
tleman says get rid of the tax altogether. It is very easy
to say get rid of it, but two millions are derived from it,
and the right hon. gentleman has not proposed to get rid
of it otherwise than by his speech—(hear, hear)—he says
get rid of this bill, hut he does not propose to get
rid of the tax as regards those who are now subject
to it. (Hear, hear.) Even as regards that clause about
which the right hon. gentleman was so excited that, in a
tempest of declamation, he denounced it as pluuder—
(hear, hear)—it the right hon. gentleman would look to the
act of 1792, ho would see that it was provided that, if plate
was left to a person who was prevented disposing of it, no
tax was levied on it; but, if It was left with the power of

disposing' of it, then the tax was payable. hat it exactly
the.prineiple adopted by my right hon. !Arvid the Chaos-
tenor of the Exchequer with 'regard to timber, and nearly
the same words are used as in the bill of 171.12 with re gard
to elate. Bat the right hon. gentleman who felt no lad it;-
nation on the cut feet of the tax as applied to plate is sud•
denly most indignant when the same principle is applied
to timber, merely because it is attached to land.
Well, therefore, it does seem to me, that if you mean to
melee this tax at all consistent and equal you ought to
adopt the princit I. of this bill. It is quite another 'natter
whether, in ;considering the bill in committee, you shall
think the clauses such as are quite adapted to carry into
effect that object; but I think the house and the country
will generally agree, that if you have a legacy duty or •
succeseion tax at all, it should be applied to all kinds of
property ; whereas, now it is not a tax affecting personalty
and not land, but one affecting personal property in some
instances and not in others, and affecting land in some in-
stanree and not in others ; and exercising a power altoge-
ther capricious and unequal with regard to property. But,
however, hon. gentlemen have been much transported
upon this question. The hon. baronet who has just sat
down predicted very fatal effects if a tax of this nature were
carried ; fur he thought that our institutions would be put
in jeopardy if such a prepaid were agreed to. I must con-
fess it seemed to me that the only jeopardy in which mar
institutions were put has been by the language used by
the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich (Sir J.
Paklagton) and another right hon. gentleman the member for
Lincolnshire (Mr. Christopher) on the subject of the other
house of parliament. (Cheers.) Not only have they com-
plained of the decision of that house in not at all ambi-
guous terms, but they divided them into two parts; and
while they were tolerably satisfied with the conduct of the
temporal peers, they condemned that of the spiritual peers,
in a manner that somewhat alarmed me, lest a motion
which we heard of some years ago for relieving the bishops,
as it was called, of their functions in the House of Lords—
(laughter)—should again be brought forward, and by the
elequent support of the right hon. baronet the member for
Droitwich, should be carried in this house. (Laughter.)
Such, however, being the case, I trust that the right hon.
gentleman will not pursue his opposition in so strenuous,
and, I may say, so vehement • manner, but that this will
be considered as one more attempt to revise a part of our
taxes, and to make them more fair and equal ; and that as
the proposal has met with the general approbation of this
country, so to-night its principle will reeds, the sanction of
this house, and that you will not have to be ashamed any
longer of the present state of the legacy duties. (Cheers.)
Mr. W. E. DUNCOhIBE bespoke the indulgence of the
house for his " maiden speech." He thought that before
such a bill should have been brought io two questions ought
to have suggested themselves to the government—firsr, was
it just; and, secondly, was it necessary? The former
question seemed to him to admit of but one answer, and
that in the negative. The landed property already paid
not only more than its fair share of the general taxation of
the country, buts vast amount of local imposts from which
personal property was wholly exempt. (Hear, hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated upon a former oc-
casion that he must either extend the legacy duty to real
property or abolish it altogether; and he proceeded to argue
against the latter course on the ground that he could not
afford to sacrifice the two millions and a half of revenue
which it produced. Now it appeared to him (Mr. Dun-
eombe) that there was not that paramount necessity far
maintaining the tax. His right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli)
had proposed to abolish no less a sum in the half malt duty,
and he thought, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was not compelled to have retained the tax on suc-
°miens, much less to have extended it to landed property.
He (the hon. member) besought the house to render equal
justice to all, otherwise they would soon find that their
Amsted free trade was • fallacy, and their financial system
• delusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former
occasion in reference to an observation which had fallen from
the hon. bare. (Sir J. Pakington) emphatically declared
that they bad had enough of glass legislation ; but the re-
cords of parliament could not show an instance of a mea-
sure more calculated to prolong the war of classes than the
right hon. gentleman's own proposal. (Hear, hear.) A
more extraor Mary scheme than this never proceeded from a
government calling itself liberal-conservative ; for so liberal
and so conservative was it that in many instances it would
lead to the borrowing of money to pay the tax, and to the
confiscation of property which had been in the possession of
families for centuries past. (Cheers.) Many bon. gentle-
men had objected to the budget of Mr. Disraeli, on the
ground that it turned a surplus into • deficit, end then im-
posed new taxes to make it good. Surely then all those
hon. members would vote against a proposal in which the
deficit was to be covered, not by a house tax of 800,0001.,
but by an extended legacy duty of 2,000,0004 a year.
Bir E. DERING did not wish to claim for the landed
interests any privileges which were not possessed by other
classes. Oa the contrary, he thought it was the duty not
only of the government, bat of the house, to place all the
interests of the country on a footing of the most perfect
equality. (Cheers.) He did not hesitate, however, to say
that the bill was entirely wanting in equity and justice.
(Cheers.) He entirely coacuered with the right hon.
gentleman in thinking that some tax should be laid on
successions; but the right hon. gentleman bad failed to
show that there was any connexion between the
abstract principle and his measure. (Hear, hear.)
The landed interest had
fair share of burdens. If a succession tax were needed,
let it be fairly imposed, and accompanied by those mea-
sures of relief which were so much needed. The right
hon. gentleman would then have the support of the landed
interest, and would add strength to his government. (Hear,
hear.)
The house then divided—
For the motion 268
For Sir J. Pakington's amendment

Majority
The house then went into committee pro forma, and
several amendments were inserted.