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

THE SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.

On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to move the amendment of
which he had given notice, that the bill be committed that
day six months. He regarded not only this tax, but still
more the 'machinery by which ft was proposed to enforce it,
with the greatest poesible disapprobation, and he thought
that it they passed this bill they would abandon their first
duty to thosewho seat them there. In mating to the house
the Mews he entertained on the subject, he was bound to
bear in mind that he should not do so for the first time, and
that he had already, at considerable length, explained his
views when the right hon. gentleman proposed his resolu-
tions. The speech, of the right honourable gentleman
In tistredaciag the resolutions • was marked in
a considerable degree as delivered In • ten* of authority.
The right hon. gentlemen touched undoubtedly on the
great objections felt is various quarters to this tax, but be
flanced et them very lightly, and he abstained altogether
rom entering into any explanation of the details on which
the objections to which this particular description of tax
rusted. la the speech which he (Sir J. Pakington) then
male, he shallespd the government to meet him fairly
with figures, and to join issue with him la the objections
that be entertained ; and he stated then, and repeated
sew, that anything like party opposition tea proposal of
this kind must be unsuccessful, and mast fail,
stale. it rested on the strong agar ground of
reseal and of justice. He was very likely to fall,
into errors of detail, as he bad not seem to official
documents. He might have been incorrect in particular
items, but he felt strong in the opinion that as regarded
the general substance of the figures which be had stated
they were unimplagned in argument and in justice.
He was net follswed by any member of the government,
and he felt this a disadvantage in aditzeeshig the house
again. Bat though no answer was then made to the argn-
meats he used, there were two important respects in which ,
he stood in • different position Brom that which he
occupied when last he addressed the house on this
subject. There had been a most 'important discus-
Won en this subject is another place dace that period.
Since that period the bill had been placed in their funds,
and it entirely justified the opinions he had previously
formed of the measure, and"particniarly of the machinery
by which the tax was proposed to be collected. (Hear,
hear.) He would, however, first advert to the discussion
" in another place," to which he had already referred. The
opinion of that assembly was tasted by a division ; and the
government was saved from virtual condemnation by a very
narrow majority —by the votes, in fact, of that portion of
the assembly whom he might describe as "corporations
sole" (the bishops), and who expressed their entire appro-
bation of an impost that would fell neither upon their
order nor upon themselves. (Loud cheers.) But what the
country would regard much more than the result of a close
division was the signal triumph of argument and reasoning
which, in his opinion, was entirely on the side of the oppo-
nents of the measure. (Hear, hear.) On the one side, they
had in a remarkable degree legal learning, close reasoning,
and great eloquence, whereas that reasoning, and that elo-
quence was only met on the other, by brief statements of
time nor only argsnient which he had ever heard advanced
in favour of the imperil of the government—namely,
the alleged anomaly of the present legacy duties. (Hear.)
That had been the argument, too, of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman told them likewise
that he proposed the tax Is *substitute for an income tax.
Well, his (Sir J Pakington%) answer was ready. Locking
at the nature of the tax on sueeessiems, and the proposed
mode of levying it, the income tax was by far the lesser evil
of the two. (Hear, hear.) Again, the right hon. gentle-
man told the house that the tax was to relieve them from a
great burden of iudiree• taxation ; but he (the right hon.
baronet) disputed altogether the wi.dorn of attempting to
get off a portion of their indirect taxation—however desi-
rable that might be—by imposing a new tax that was ep.n
to such grave, serious, and, ho humbly thought, in-
supsrable objections. (Hear, hear.) But could thy vin-
dicate the proposed tax on the ground which had b. en so
often taken, of the anomaly that at present exiled' In
hi. opinion they could not. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman hid dwelt resnoly npon that, which was indeed
the strongest part of Li. e 1..., the difference beteeen settled
and unsettled personalty ; but he (Sir J. Pakington)
was prepared to resist the proposal of the go-
vernment sn,,st distinctly upon th it very ground.
The right hon. gentleman said that the present legacy duty

t was so extremely unfoirthationtethiaprinvet• be Ni
ivmust hi/ pteparnt te repealrt aloorria oilii :^lv t
h : bareite ), with quite ready to maker that aliened ,
eindra say that It would be blotter to titpeal thB legacy dbty
at once than tolevy the tea peoposed Ilit be imposed under
411 e provisions of this ball. (Hear, hadttY ' Tb• argoment
ettbe rightehen. gentleman might be. thus stated:—'Thee
legacy duty is so unfair in its operation and so unequal in
its pressure, that I, as a minister, cannot leave it as it is,
and therefore I will make it worse " (Rear, hear.) If
the,. must impose the tax upon settled personalty, they
ought not in fairness and justice to make it prospective;
otherwise they would be passing an cx yost facto 14w.
But what was the Chancellor of the Exchequer'. answer to
that ? Why, he treated this, a question of principle, en-
tirely as one of expediency. He said he could not
consent to such a proposal, because the tax would
not accrue for fifty years—in other words, hie answer
was that he could not afford to be just. (Chews.)
But the real question was not one of anomaly as
between settled and unsettled property, but as between
personalty, and, to see the right hon. gentleman's own
phrase, rateable property; for let him here remind the
house that this was not a question solely affecting land. No
doubt the bill would art upon the landed intermits In an
oppressive manner; but there were other interests to whom
it would apply quite as much. There was, however, •
party in the country and in that house who were ready to
adopt any course in order to aim a blow at the aristocratic
institutions of thie country, and at the property by which
those institutions were supported. (Hear, hear.) He was
sorry to see say government, under the necessities of their
position, lending themselves to further the objects of that
party ; but the cry which hail been raised in favour of the
proposal adopted by the right hon. gentleman was as delu-
sive as it was unwise and unjust. The ownerof every small
house, the manufacturer who possessed a factory, and the
merchant who was the proprietor of a warehouse, were all
as deeply concerned in the bill as the landed interests ; for
they all held rateable property, and would all be
liable to the tax. (Hear, hear.) This was • tax
upon the younger children of families, and upon
unmarried daughters at the moment of their domestic afflic-
tion. When they were deprived of the comforts of the
parental home, and were thrown upon their own pittance,
the tax-gatherer would come upon their capital, and deduct
no inconsiderable portion. In a word, he need only refer
them to the striking expression of one to whose authority
the noble lord opposite ought to be the first to bow. The
late Earl Grey, when a member of that house, and wheel in
1805 Mr. Pitt proposed to extend the legacy duties to de-
scendants in the direct line, said, with equal truth and
force, that he could " only designate the measure as a tax
upon misfortune." (Cheers.) He had said, and this was
the argument of the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. W.
Williams), that the chief ground apon which the bill was
supported was the alleged anosslr of taxing personalty
while rateable property was exempt ; but was it a less
anomaly that personal property should be excused from
other taxes to which rateable property was alone called
I upon to contribute ? (Loud cheers.) Did they not recol-
leen that in times gone by—times that he hoped would never
come again—in the days when the battle of the corn laws was
fought,the agriculturists repeatedly raised the question of their
peculiar burdens; and what was the answer they received ?
Why, that they had not to pay the legacy duty, and that
that was an equivalent. (Hear, hear.) The landed interests
were the victims of not ens or two, but several anomalies,
that completely conntervailed the alleged anomaly of their
exemption front legacy duty. They bad to pay poor rates,and
for stamps stem eoaveyances, with many other similar
charges, which personal property escaped. He knew it had
been said that they ought not to say anything about rates,
because they had bought their estates subject to them; but
he shot/ether refused to concur in such an argument.
They might just as well say, if by any ill fortune this bill
should pus, that they had no nght to complain, because
they had bought their property liable to succession duty,
er any other duty they might think proper to impose.
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad can-
didly admitted in his speech upon the budget, that the land
was liable to "peculiar and exceptional burdens." Now
what was the amount of those burdens ? The right bon.
gentleman had stated the annual value of the rateable pro-
petty of this country at 80,000,000 i.; and he tiiid also his
authority for estimating the burdens upon the land at
14,n00,0001. or 15,000,0001. • year. He ventured, however,
to add to the right hon. gentleman's figures charges for
fire insurances,: stamps, and other items, which rateable
property did pay, and which would raise the annual
taxation upon rateable property to 17,500,0001. or there-
abouts, which was about 22 per cent. And now what was
the amoust of the income derived from personal property ?
He shrunk from naming the sum ; but the total amount of
! taxation (exclusive of the income tax, which he had alto-
gether omitted as being equal in both cases)—the total taxes
raised upon all the vast amount of personal property was at
the most only three or four millions. (Hear, hear.) How,
then, could the government be justified in imposing this
additional taxation on the ground of an alleged anomaly ?
(Cheers.) Another reason why he opposed the bill was the
excessive inequality of the tax. (Hear, hear.) This argu-
ment had been urged in 1796, and was equa.ly true
now. They had at last the schedules before
them, and he mutt say that he did not wonder that
the right hon. gentleman should have kept them bask as
long as he could; for they plainly showed how onerous
and insupportable this tax would be. (Hear, hear.) Take
two men of 21 years of age—one of them might be in the
bloom of early manhood with a loan life before him ; and
another might be consumptive with not two years to live ;
yet by the schedules they were treated as precisely the
same. (Loud cheers.) Take again two men of thirty-five
—one might be sinking under heart disease and the other in
the prime of life, yet the same thing occurred. In short
the same glaring inequality pervaded the whole plan. One
property might not pay the tax once in half • century,
while another might be constantly becoming liable to it.
He knew that if this tax were pained it must be fortified
by tyrannical and arbitrary enactments to enforce its pay-
ment. (Hoar, hear.) He was wise in his proposal ; but
there were two questions remaining behind of so little mo-
ment—would parliament pass the bill—and if parliament
were so subservient, would the country submit to it ? He
hoped and believed they would not. He would be the last
to counsel his countrymen to resist the law ; bat without
hesitation he would exercise whatever influence he possessed
in urging the country to resist, by every legitimate and
Lawful mesas, an impost so vexatious, and machinery so
tyrannical and inquisitorial. (Hear, hear.) The example
of Mr. Pitt failed them ; the circumstances were different,
and did not justify them in calling on parliament for so
objectionable a tax. He feared there was a motive less
creditable for the proposal of this tax, arising from the ex-
traordinary manner in which this government was omen-
tuted--...tt had.no-party-es.mhislaCe-depeadead must eon
ciliate bow it could the support of some four or Ave dif-
ferent sections of is opponents. At one time this was to be
done by an apology for • protestant speech, by which the
Boman catholic members of the government were woo
back. (Hear, hear) At another time—and he feared this
was a case of the kind—by pandering to the radical section
of the house. (Heer, bear.) Such had bees his im-
pression from the moment he heard this proposal. He
looked upon it as a bait for the support of the Isamu tax ;
and in a former debate Hr. Bright bad openly and dis-
tiartly &dared that if it had not Mee for this
I part of the Budget, the government would never
have 'get hie ongpert to the imam* tax. (Cheers.) He ob-
jected alike to the motives by which the tax had been pro-
. posed and teas tin itself. Let parliament pass it if they
would be wabsorelset smaugh, bat his .firm conviction was
that they Mil WM/ me mime epos any permanent income
from this mum" fir whom the country found the &attire of
the burden, and of the machinery by which it was to be
raised, a public feeling would be excited with which no
government would dare to struggle, and the day was not
distant when the present government or their neeessors,
whoever they might be, would lad themselves obliged to
propose the repeal of this duty, in obedience to the easel-
' mous demand of an indignant nation. (Beer, bear.)
Mr. HEADLAM regretted that the right boa. patlemaa
had thought it tombs so many ehiselleme to the'
bill; but the course he takes did not go to remove
those objeraions, but to prevent any farther proceeding with
the bill. He was the more surprised at this, bemuse the
right boo. baronet had bees • member of a government who
themselves had contemplated the proposing each a tax, and
this not more than six months age.- (Mai, hear.) He did
not charge this se mere ineessisteacy, bat after the right
hon. baronet had concurred is such a measure, it was too
much to say that the government now permed it with a
view to buy radical support. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAR INGTON rose, and said he could give the
moat unqualified sentradiethre to this statement. . .
Mr. HEADLAM said he did sot know what the contro-
-1 diction applied to ; all he asserted was that the then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer made this statement with reference
to the government of which the right hon. baronet was a
member. He used the term "we" with refersoce to that
cabinet, and surely that must have included all the members.
!Hs regretted the course that bad been taken, not from any
effect it would hive on the hill, bats& tending to place the
landed gentry in a wrong position.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said that the hon. and learned gen-
, dentin seemed desirous to stop opposition to this measure,
on the ground that his right hon. friend the member for
1 Bucks had committed himself to the principle of a succee•
sion tax ; but if the hon. and learned gentleman road the
language of his right hon. friend, he would find that it did
not warrant the inference—scarcely in part, and certainly
Inot in substance—which he drew from them. After stating
the nature of his proposition his right hon, friend went on
to say—" At the same time we have not neglected carefully
to examine the question of the stamp duty, and of the
legacy and probate duty, and therefore we propose--."
Did his right hon. friend say that? No ; but he proceeded
to say—" And it is not impossible but we may be able, en
the proper occasion, to bring forward a measure for impost.
leg a duty on successions that will reconcile conflict-
tea interests and terminate the injustice Ito much coin-
I plained of." lie (Mr. Freshfield) did not contend for
l the exemption of land from the succession tax
lin the atotract, hot what he contended for was
that the land should be put on the same footing with per-
sonal property before tt.y could be dealt with in the same
I way. Ile knew of no measure which would prove so destruc-
tive of social rEloti.ins or Effect half the mischief that the
bill, if passed, would Effect. (Hear.)
Mr. PHILLIMORE thought that the strong language
1 which had been used in reference to this proposition by
lion. gentlemen opposite ought to be somewhat qualified,
I 'seeing that the right hon. gentleman the late Chance for of
1 the Exchequer bad declared that on the proper occasion ho
w .std be prepared to propose a tax on successions himself.
(hear, hear.) He confessed he listened with astonishment
to the right hon. gentleman when he said that her Majesty's
government "pandered to radical pressure" in proposing
this measure, for of all the radical and revolutionary
speeches he ever heard the most so was that of the right
hon. gentleman who began his address by attacking the
bench of bishops for the vote which they conscientiously
gave on this subject, and he ended it by saying he hoped