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

INCOME TAX.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
C.IIEQUER, the report on the income tax resolutions
vas ordered to be received, and the report having been
b rought up by Mr. Bouvnnlß, the resolutions were read
nd agreed to, and leave given to bring in a bill founded
u pon them.

LEGACY DUTIES.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The house having resolved itself into committee of ways
rand means, Mr. Bouverie in the chair, the following reso-
li ttion was read at the table :—" That, towards raising the
ipply granted to her Majesty, the stamp duties payable
I,:y law upon or for or in respect of legacies, shall be granted
az ad made payable upon and for every succession to the
t‘eneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to
tE to receipt of any portion or additional portion of the in-
cc ,me or profits thereof, that may take place upon or in
cc ,nsequence of the death of any person, under whatever
ti tle, whether existing or future, such succession may be
ch 'rived."

The adjourned debate was resumed by
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, who said he was desirous of
to king the earliest opportunity he could of expressing the
views he entertained upon this question. He considered
tt le proposal now before the committee to be, not only the
f.rincipal feature of the Ministerial budget, but one of the
ost important financial propositions that had for a long
s ories of years been submitted to the country. He re-
g rotted that further than that he could not go with the
( Niancellor of the Exchequer. He entertained the strongest
d isapprobation of the proposal which the right honourable
g entleman had submitted to the committee; and as he had
n of hitherto intruded upon the committee with regard to
ti he financial propositions of the Government, he hoped he
n tight now venture to request their attention while he, as
c encisely and as clearly as he could, stated his reasons for
o bjecting to the legacy duty resolutions. He confessed he
.s.s somewhat disappointed that the right honourable gen-
tl stman, in his able speech last night, did not offer any ex-
pl tanation whatever in regard to the machinery and the
in teens by which he proposed to raise the contemplated
legacy duty. (Hear.) Perhaps the right hon. gentleman
iopted a judicious line of conduct in limiting himself to
Me principle of his proposal, and inviting the committee
to. confine themselves to the discussion of that principle.
Use would strictly comply with the suggestion of the right
ho nourable gentleman, and would confine himself to a
eta Ltement of the objections which ho entertained to the
inciple of the proposed tax. The right honourable
go: atleman, in his speech last night, stated several distinct
gneunds upon which he was desirous of imposing that
taa upon the country, and the first he mentioned was—
that he would impose it to rectify the inequalities of the
in4tome tax. New with the view he took of the financial
eel tome of the right honourable gentleman, he could not
fox • a moment recognise that as a ground upon which the
' Ch ancellor of the Exchequer was justified in proposing
thi s tax. He was one of those who thought that the in-
col ne tax, as proposed, bore hardly and unfairly upon rate-
abi le property, and, therefore, he could not for a single in-
stant acknowledge the right of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chi 3quer to impose any additional burdens upon rateable
property, by way of correcting certain inequalities,
which he said he conceived to exist. The next reason
wit ich the right honourable gentleman stated was that he
the ;ught the imposition of this succession duty would be
oms means of enabling him to part with the income tax in
L8(;0. Now, he was one of those who professed himself
incredulous in regard to the termination of the income tax.
in :1.860. But what was the next reason which the Chan-
cell or of the Exchequer stated in. favour of his succession
tax ? Why, that it would enable him to go on with the
ren iission of indirect taxation. (Hear, hear.) Now, he
apllealed to the committee whether or not these two rea-
son s were consistent with the oth-:lr—whether, if this duty
wet ; imposed as a moans of enabling the right honourable
Igen tleman to repeal indirect taxation, that did not at once
answer and confute the idea that it was imposed with the
view' of enabling the right hono arable gentleman to dis-
pense with the income tax in 1E60? (Hear, hear.) But
he now came to the fourth reason stated by the right hon.
gentlenran, and, iu his mind, by far the most important,
namely, that he.sought to impose this burden in order to
remove w:liat he called the glaring anomaly of the present
law. (Ch eers.) Wren, he would endeavour fairly to
grapple with that argument, which he considered to be the
ground upon which the whole question must be decided.
The right honourable gentlemana id that it would be nu-
,: it ysteni
•ble to
peas].
go on as we were ; thatthep
Aught last for ono or two years, but that icouldetsh not pro-
ceedhy with the legacy duty upon its present:ease Why
not for 70
not ? The present system had a t allatelovhen
had existed for
years, the exact system now
between 50 and 60 years, anduti :PerOrfore he could not see
that there was on that score an g. particular reason for a
change. But the right hon. gentleman had appealed to
the authority of Mr. Pitt. He could not have made a
more unfortunate reference, for Mr. Pitt disclaimed his
aromment. In the debates which took place on Mr. Pitt's
plan in 1796, the very argument ins used which they now
found stated by the Chancellor C the Exchequer, namely,
that because you impose a legacy duty upon personal pro-
perty, justice requires that you should impose it also upon
„real property. The answer of Di r. Pitt that WIPb that he