The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

Irerent way bh aifferont kinds of gaper tea
.car, hear. These opinions and argumr
plicable to one particular time more that
were directed broadly against the principl
this kind, and were therefore as cogent n
at the moment when they wore first deli
hon. gentleman had sought to make out la,
after all would really be a very small inapri
and he had calculated it at about 400,0001.
not the way in which such a question oug/
The right hon. gentleman had informed t:
there existed no means of ascertaining
amount would be, but an impression ce)
out of doors that the amount would be vu
than had been stated by the Chancellor o?
The arguments which he (Sir J.Pakingto)
just as applicable to a small as to a large .
unjust to impose the tax on rateable property, aiey
right to impose it whether the amount was small or large.
He would not at present say anything on the question con-
nected with the machinery by which this tax was to be
levied. lie apprehend that the difficulties which the right
hon. gentleman would have to encounter would be, if not
insuperable, at all events most serious. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman had told the committee .that ho did
not mean to trust to compulsory legislation as a means of
raising the tax, and if not, he (Sir J. Pakington) did not see
how the right hon. gentleman could get over the difficulties
which lay before him. The hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
H. Drummond) had said that this was an eldest son's ques-
tion. He (Sir J. Pakington) granted it • but was it not also a
younger son's question, and a daughter's question ? (Hear,
hear.) He could conceive cases of a most .painf descria -
tion, in which children having to submit to the sorrow arising
from the loss of a parent, afterbeing reared in the luxury of
their parents home, would find themselves obliged t) put up
with the pittance which had been settled upon thorn, and
would have to pay out of that pittance a heavy tax to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) He would appeal
once more to the high authority of Adam Smith, who, in
speaking of the laws of Holland upon this subject, spoke
in the following terms of that law which did not allow suc-
cession duty to be paid in the case of direct descent of pro-
perty from parents to children :—" The death of a father
to such of his children who live in the house with him is
seldom attended with an increase, but frequently with a
diminution of revenue arising from the loss of some office
or life estate in which the father has had an interest. That
tax would be cruel and oppressive which aggravated their
loss by taking from them any part of his succession." It
was that cruelty and that oppression which the right hon.
gentleman sought to inflict by this bill. When it was said
that this was an eldest son's question it was meant, no
doubt, that the measure would be applicable chiefly to large
estates and to rich inheritances. But who were the holders
of landed property in England? Was England parcelled
out into large estates ? No ' • he believed that the greater
part of the laud was held by small owners, although no
means existed of telling the exact proportions. Mr. Farr
had stated before the income tax committee that in the vast
population of Great Britain there were only 236,000 per-
sons who had incomes of more than 2001. a-year. He (Sir
J. pakingaaa) might assume that if that statement were
true as regarded incomes, it would be equally true with
regard to estates in land. He could not imagine a tax that
would operate more severely than this tax. A large num-
ber of estates were not free from encumbrances, and it had
become a common maxim that a man never was so poor a s
when, he succeeded to his estates. Such a person would
now find that a part of his narrow income was to be taken
from him, in order to
:Swell the income of the country and
to maintain this odious impost. They heard a great deal
of this being a popular budget in the country ; but ho (Sir
J. Pakington) was sanguine enough to hope that the own-
ers of rateable property would bo alive to the serious bear-
ing of this tax upon their interests, and that they would
resist it with unanimity. He believed that this proposal
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be received
with the deepest indignation when it became known
that this heavy impost was to be added to an unfair in-
come tax, and when it should also be discovered that in
the same budget there was a proposal to give one gigantic
organ of public opinion • -he meant the Times news-
paper—a direct pecuniary boon of at least 25,0001. a-year.
(Hear.) Ho was anxious to disclaim any intention of attri-
buting to the right hon. gentleman or to the Government
anything like a sinister motive in this part of the budget.
Ho (Sir J. Pakington) believed that the right hon. gentle-
man considered that the advertisement duty could not be
satisfactorily adjusted without this arrangement ; but he
thought the right hon. gentleman. had been unwise in ex-
posing himself to the suspicion which would inevitably
attach to such a proposal throughout the country. (Hear,
hear.) For, depend upon it, the people would not stop to
make nice calculations as to motives when they heard that
this newspaper was to receive a boon which, as he was in-
formed by gentlemen connected with the press, would
amount to at least 30,0001. a year, but which, in order to
be on the safe side, ho had taken at 25,0001. (Hear, hear.)
The feelings of the country would certainly be aggravated
by a comparison between the burdens imposed upon it and
the boon which it was proposed to give to this organ of
public opinion. Ho would not any longer detain the com-
mittee. He and his friends wore disinterested in their re-
sistance to this proposal. The question was too largo to
be decided upon selfish grounds. If their resistance could
not be vindicated on grounds of justice and reason, it
could not be vindicated at all. But he resisted this part
of the right hon. gentleman's measure, because he believed
it to be iujurious to the most important interests of the
country ; and whatever might be the general feeling with
regard to other portions of the budget, he hoped that there
would be the most decided opposition to the duty on suc-
cessions. (Hear.)
Mr. FB,ESHFIELD moved as an amendment in line 4 of
the resolution after " real" to.leave out the words " or per-
sonal," and to insert after the word " estate," in " like man-
ner as personal estate is now liable so far as the same can
be made applicable, preserving, however, the law of primo-
geniture," and to leave out all the remaining words of the
resolution. The hon. gentleman said that the effect of his
amendment would not be in any way to touch the legacy
duty. He did not seek to exempt real estate from the ope-
ration of the legacy duty, but he claimed that those burdens
which fell particularly on real estate should be taken into
consideration, with the view of their being adjusted. It was
essential to the notion of a legacy duty that it should be
levied on personal property left, by an individual. But the
duty which was now proposed was. not a legacy duty, nor
.an application of the legacy duty to real estate ; it was an
entirely new impost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said that this was an ancient impost upon land, and
that on that account we ought to be satisfied with it now.
But that fact, so fax from being a recommendation, only
showed that a burden which had been imposed on property
ii ancient times had boon found to bo so barbarous that it
could not outlive the march of civilisation. His practical
objection to this tax was, that it would press most severely
in cases where a gentleman settled a jointure of say
100 0001. Consols upou his intended daughter-in-law, the
dividends upon which would amount to 3,000/. a-year, be-
cause the lady, on the death of her husband, would have
to pay a succession duty upon that 3,0001. a-year, although
not a shilling of it had belonged to her husband, and it
was no part of the administration of his estate, but was
property coming from an individual who, as the law now
stands, was not even a relation. He contended that the
impost in such instances as that could not be properly called
a succession tax. Again, the tax would operate oppres-
sively in cases where elder sons, who happened not to have
been on good terms with their fathers, were obliged to bor-
row money from the capitalists, secured upon the inherit-
ance whilst yet it was only prospective, because when they
succeeded to the estate they would have to pay the tax
upon their repayments. The hon. member concluded by
moving his amendment.
Mr. DRUMMOND said it had been remarked that walls
had ears, and therefore he would not object to address the
house, although there was scarcely a house to address—a
circumstance which certainly was not symptomatic of very
great alarm being entertained by the country on the subject
of this tax. (A laugh.) [The number of members present when
the hon. gentleman rose was extremely small.] It was said
of Dean Swift, that, finding himself and his clerk the only
worshippers in his church, he began, "Dearly beloved Roger,
the Scripture moveth you and I in sundry places." (Laugh-
ter.) So he (Mr. Drummond) thought he might say, "This
question moveth you and I, Mr. Chairman." With respect
to the alleged hardship which this tax would inflict upon
the daughters in great families, it would inflict such hard-
ship no doubt ; but that must arise ex necessitate rei, be-
cause in the case of these settlements, living 3.9 the daugh-
ters had been accustomed to do in large establishments, a
subsequent change of position could not be felt to be other-
wise than painful. But the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) said that the great
bulk of the land of this country was not held in such largo
masses as was supposed, but an immense portion of it was
owned by the yeomanry, and broken up in smaller quan-
tities. That was very true ; but then land of the latter
description was very rarely under settlement—that class of
persons never did encumber their estates in the way the
large landed proprietors do, and therefore this objection.
did not apply to their case. The hon. gentleman who spoke
last did not deny that this was a tax which came down
from former times, but ho said that it was a relic of bar-
barism, and hail become unsuited for our modern civilisa-
tion. He did not think the hon. member was quite cor-
rect as to the historical fact. In former times the Crown
was in the habit of rewarding military service by grants of
land, but if mercenaries were employed they were requited
with money; and thus the practice was gradually introduced
of giving soldiers pecuniary payment. His (Mr. Drum-
mend's) objection to this amendment was this. It did not
object to a legacy duty; and when ho was asked by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to affirm the abstract proposi-
tionshouldsoy
However,pay a
Adoptingt ax on eu
thatce 0
principle,ho w
washtelitaot
all
refuse property
he was afraid, from every view that he had been able to take
todo
of the subject, that when they came to the details of the
measure there would be found such great difficulty or enor-
mous hardship as would render it almost impossible to carry
it out. Therefore, he would be sorry to waste the time of
the house in discussing this abstract proposition. Many
persons thought the subdivision of the land wsareat
advantage, and he granted that it was so. The
was also another advantage; but it was only valuable in
'
simplifica-
tion of titles, which had been alluded to the other evening,
order to make land more ulrelt
le
more important matter than some persons did. He looked
upon it as the only sure basis of
cable, that was, to raise
its marketable price. Now, regarded the land as a much
a monarchy. And it was
not because the landowner simply was a landowner that
ho possessed the social influence and political power to
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred. The
landowner would have no such influence if ho were a mere
'parvenu; it was because of the long line of great names
Connected with the property that he exercised his social
importance and influence in his neighbourhood. And if
the large estates were to he parcelled out and divided into
small holdings, all that social and political influence would
vanish. For the same reason that hereditary monarchy was
betterlong b
tehe
an n en a
oe dt
haenr d; continuede itnw toh ev
iseawms e
superior to any other form of monarchy, so land that h
werefalla i y/3 I had
more important than was usually imagined. Some advocated
direct taxation in order to get
_rid. of indirect taxation.
Now, he confessed that he thought they had got rid of in-
wished to do away withindir tt ;
direct taxation too much ahead and the persons who
ec taxaxatittiditeilon:gtiiivs: teat
their hope was to render direct
the country would never bear it, and that on that account
they would be obliged to get rid of their military and naval
establishments. But these people were very much mis-
taken. The first day that house refused to vote the supplies.
it was not the soldiers and the sailors who would be turn( d
adrift that would suffer soonest, it was the funds that
would go first, and the mills next ; and they might depend
uponit tlaat the men who had got a sword or a bayonet would
be the very last who would go without a dinner that day.
(Laughter,) He recommended them, therefore, to have a
care how they superseded much more of their indirect taxa-
tion, for they might rely on it it would recoil on the heads
of its advocates, and that they would find to their cost that
they had taken a very short-sighted view of the matter.
(Hear.) He would end as ho began, regretting that they
should be discussing this point now. The details of tho
bill would be most important, and would require so much
consideration, that he thought it would be much ?
r
to
the
affirm the principle of the resolution at once, and let
measure be brought in. (Hear, hear.)
aadlgstated that the
gol4loll2Pill tlaQ moßabor for DroitwichMr. W. WILLIAMS said that the _ ht honourable

cal /M. V/ 111'l.p9itiore -
nents were not ap-
an to anothei butt,
ple of a prt.;;f::, *NV'
now as • ',4`-',`..---
ivered. . , 11, itk, ei
a3t ni!.. :I, _: wirt:4 . . i
iocist u* ...,,, 4',..
the .\ . r', 4--. r • ' ,;••• ~
A
...,........„.„ 4, 'A
eta,.';, pr-, - .x.,.„ -.
ertainl , ) '-'-'', 74iU. • ' .4104
'cry much ti' - ...
, •-,
of the Excheq .
3n) bad urged Wer: I 4
amount. if it was
pertr, they had no