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

. .
‘,i'-
.
.
.
*;, (_,-2...-
yt
;i(tes.b;liti:,
41
LIIIIIIIIIIII.N.- - . •
(.
i it:4MO))
‘-'34. ---,'9"- 'B.- -4.4 rte' ,',14411
. .0.-ur .4,
.....k,
~, ) ,
—.eats Were no,
..::.:. r.
• • . -,..
.
• , . ..,.,,. ,f rk -
3\'..4 c,,, 44. ; ' ~., -I . -v.
r *4; , 4
, .),• .- f
t% .-_. '''.
-.,, ' ~.. I.' ' „ ,L, \-`. •-,1"1 f 4,414 -.
4. ' ' --1 r... ; \lt Is' /...0'.4- '' --
_ ....oe more to another
' ' \ '
I this kind_;..ano.doNrvocardltyl,a_g,,a,i_nst the prineinlp ,-sr _
--
r.
%,., " -•- ': SC -4...A\ l-.. ' '4-S!'-i' --+0 '"l' 4.4') --5, - Alfre 411
:111)----)- lin I -., .'
.., ,
(', , *.I
-
' tr, ' ''
ZP‘ ' ; .4.21. Y, AktizeillOOP,..l 1::t5. -4
:i'l :/ .154;,01-4 \.'trAASI "g-. ***in . '
0400411: --
. 4'44W ''' _ . fai.--, •
+
,„7!... .

[PRICE SD.

would not allow the one question to be embraced by the
other ; that, having imposed a legacy duty upon personal
property, if there was found to be any objection to impo-
sing it upon real property, he would not press it ; that a
distinction might fairly be drawn between the two, and
that if it was decided not to impose the tax upon realty he
would still allow the duty upon personalty to remain. It
was plain, therefore, that Mr. Pitt, at all events, was not
influenced by the arguments now put forth by the right
hon. gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.) But he
now came
to the real question, fairly raised by the right honourable-
gentleman, upon which the whole case must be decided,
namely, was this a just and fair tax, and one to which the
country ought to submit ? Now, he should endeavour to
show that the glaring anomaly of which they had heard so
much did not exist; that although the legacy duty was
now raised from personal property, and not from real pro-
perty, there wore full equivalents on the other side ; that
they could nut with justice impose further burdens upon
rateable property ; and that if there was an anomaly in
the law at all, that anomaly told the other way, and pre-
vented the imposition of a succession tax alum real pro-
perty. His objections to the budget might be summed up
in very few words, though they were weighty and fin-
portaat. His objection to the budget was that it was
deficient in that impartiality and that equal justice to the
various great interests of the country to which every
finance minister was bound to adhere. The right hon.
gentleman himself would admit that a graver objection
could not be taken to his proposals. He did not impute
to the right hon, gentleman any intention to throw him-
self open to that objection, but he thought his budget was
fairly open to it. In the first place, lie considered the
budget to be partial and unjust in its operation upon Ire-
land. Into that question ho should not at present enter.
What was more germane to the question now before the
committee was, that he thought the budget was partial
and unjust in its bearing upon the landed interests and the
rateable property of this country. He based that opinion
upon the manner in which the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to continue the in-
come tax, and also upon the manner in which he proposed
to impose tills daity It scions. (Hear,
confessed it was with ."1-flifrifie that he hoard thelonour-
able baronet the member for Devonshire rise up the
other night and speak of the "noble and comprehensive"
plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yet in the
same breath vow his opinion that the mode of levying
the income tax was unfair and unjust to the lane,
that the proposed mode of levying this succession duty
was unjust and required correction, and that, geaerally
speaking, the budget bore hardly upon the great interests
connected with the land. He would ask the hon. baronet
how a financial plan could claim the credit of being " noble
and comprehensive," or how it could claim kom English
gentlemen the character of being just and worthy of admi-
ration, if it was open to those objection which the hon.
baronet had himself urged against the propositions of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that they were
partial and unjust in their operation ! (Hear, hear.) With
regard to the income tax, he did not understand by what
right the Chancellor of the Exchequer could seek to pro-
long it upon rateable property, which, upon his own show-
ing, paid at the rate of 9d. in the pound, while upon other
descriptions of property he imposed only 7d. in the pound.
The statement of the right hon. gentleman was, that we
must either have a graduated tax or an equal tax ; but we
had now neither the one nor the other. The honourable
gentleman professed to give us an equal tax, but upon his
own showing he actually gave us a tax which presed un-
fairly upon real roperty. Now, he was one of that perse-
cuted class, the country gentlemen. (A laugh) The right
honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
might smile ; but, he repeated, the country gentlemen had
reason to complain of the treatment they had recently re-
ceived. While he said that, however, he was one of those
who counselled the landed interest not to ask any unfair
exemptions, but to accept their share, whatever it might
be, of the burdensi of the country. On the other hand, ho
would counsel the landed interest not quietly to be made
the victims of a fashion or a cry, and never to yield to,
but, on the contrary, to resist to the uttermost, any plan
which sought to impose upon them a burden which they
ought not to bear. The question for the committee to
consider was, whether or not the plan now proposed did
so. In discussing that question he intended to take the
right honourable gentleman's own figures, which referred,
not to land exclusively, but to what he felicitously called
rateable property. He would call the attention of the com-
mittee, in the first place, to what the burdens upon rateable
property really were. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
himself stated the annual value of the rateable property
of this country at 80,000,0001. Now the landed
property bore, as it was, a share of the legacy duty. Last
year the legacy and probate duties produced 2,515,0001.,
and Mr. Trevor calculated that the legacy duty alone
amounted to 1,380,0001., and that the share raised from
real property was about 5-12ths of the whole, or, in round
numbers, 500,000. Then came the stamps on deeds. The
right honourable gentleman had stated that there were at
present no means of ascertaining with exactness what pro-
portion of the stamp duty on deeds was paid by real
property ; but the total amount paid last year was
1,409.0001., and he thought the right honourable gentle-
man would. admit that he did not over-estimate the popor-
tion which ought to be charged upon real property when
he put it down at 1,000,0001., or about two-thirds of the
whole. The right honourable gentleman the member for
the University of Cambridge, in a speech which he made
upon this subject in 1842, estimated the proportion paid
by real property at 1,200,0001., but a considerable altera-
tion had taken place since that time in the stamp duties,
and the charge upon real property could not be fairly stated
at more than 1,000,0301. Again, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had admitted that the extra income tax paid
by real property, keeping out of view the charge of 7d. in
the pound which applied to all descriptions of property,
and calculating only the additional charge of 2d. in the
pound which the right honourable gentleman had clearly,
proved was paid by real property, amounted to 460,000/.
He next came to an item which ho thought the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would admit must fairly be charged
among the direct payments by real property—he meant
fire insurances. The total amount received last year was
1,220,000/. ; but as he was aware he might be told that a
portion of the payments for fire insurances was made for
furniture and valuable articles within houses and buildings,
he proposed to deduct the odd 220,0001. on that account,
and to take the charge for fire insurances upon rateable
property at 1,000,0001. Then came those acknowledged
burdens upon rateable property which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had himself stated amounted to between
14,000,0001, and 15,000,0001. He believed that in that
statement the right hon. gentleman included the land tax.
He would take the total amount at 14,500,0001, and the re-
sult of what he had stated was that the 80,000,0001. of rate-
able property annually paid direct burdens to the amount
of 17,460,0001., or, as near as he could put it, 22 per cent.
(Hew.) He now asked, where was the glaring anomaly of
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke last night.
(Hear, hear, hear.) Where was the injustice as regarded
personal property, which, according to the argument of
the right hon. gentleman, not only justified him, but
almost compelled him to proceed to impose this heavy and
grievous additional burden upon rateable property? How
stood the other side of the account ? What were the direct
burdens upon the great mass of personal property in this
country ? He knew of none excepting the balance of the
legacy duty, over and above the 500,0001. which ho had
charged to land. That would give 2,000,0001. to be paid
by personal property, which, added to the balance of one-
third of the stamp duty on deeds, amounting to between
500,0001. and 600,0001., and to the charges paid on bills of
exchange, amounting to about 500,0001., gave about
3,000,0001., if he was right in his calculations, as the sum
now paid in direct payments by personal property, as com-
pared. to 17,500,0001. paid by rateable property. (Hear,
hear.) Well then, his argument was—and he hoped the
house and the country would deem it to be a fair argument
that this was not a state of things which justified the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in coming down and seeking
to impose not only this heavy burden, but a burden so
vexatious and so odious in its character, that nothing but
a stern necessity, nothing but a strong and unanswerable
case of requirement by justice, could, in his mind, justify
or excuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer in seeking to
impose it upon the country. (Hear, hear.) One of his
main objections to this tax was its inquisitorial character.
They could not, in fact, devise a tax more objectionably
inquisitorial in its nature. They wore not yet informed
of the mode in which the tax was to be levied ; but he was
afraid it could not be collected without calling upon the
parties to expose every portion of their affairs, and all the
mortgages and encumbrances to which their estates might
be liable. What were the authorities ? The right hon.
gentleman had referred to Mr. Pitt ; but ho had already
shown that Mr. Pitt was, if anything, on the other side of
the question. But what was the fate of Mr. Pitt's bill ?
Why, the House of Commons and the country would not
have it—they rejected it ; and Mr. Pitt, in the plenitude
of his power, was obliged to abandon his proposal.
Mr. HUME—It was the country gentlemen who defeated
the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—If the fact was so, he could
only say that he hoped the country gentlemen would do
the same. (Hear, hear.) But it was not the Tory party
who threw out the bill. He regretted that the noble lord
the leader of the house was not in his place, for he was
going to name authorities who, although the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who found
himself in new company, might not regard them with any
very peculiar respect, would, he was sure, have great
weight with the noble lord the member for the city of
London. He begged to remind the house that Mr. Pitt's
Succession Bill on land was defeated by Fox and Grey, the
great Whig leaders, on the ground that it was a tax upon
capital, inquisitorial in its nature, and unequal iu itsope-
ration. (Hear, hear.) Wore those the only charges against
to
the tax ? Did not Adam Smith urge, as an objection
it, its necessary inequality ? (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentleman had, indeed, made some effort tonocon.
remove
t
that inequality ; but he (SirJ.
Pakington) colil
V'th re ard
to
him on the success of his attempt. g.
to the general principle of the tax, Adam Smith said .
" All taxes on the transference of property of every. kind,
so far as they diminish the capital value of that property,
tend to diminish the funds destined for the mainl tonnr
of productive value. They aro all, more or loss, unthrifty
taxes, that increase the revenue of the Sovereign at the
expense of the capital of the people." (Hear.) Such was
the light in which that high authority regarded the prin-
ciple of this tax. But ho (Sir J. Pakington) would urge
upon the attention of the committee other high authori-
ties. In 1842, an hon. member of that hou.c- (Mr. Elphin-
stone) raised the question of the legacy duty upon land.
At that time it was not in the least regarded as a party
question, and the principal speakers in opposition to the
motion were the right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), Sir It, Peel, awl
the noble lord the number for the city of London. The
noble lord the member for the city of Linden then re the proposal for the imposition of the tax upon real
property, on the ground that Parliament had recently con-
sented to the imposition of the income tax
pressed an opinion that, under those eireAtr‘dlit'ainhee.e,exit-
would be unjust to place an additional impost of succession
on real property. The right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Cambridge also opposed the maim:,
upon the ground of the weight of the stamp duties to
which real property was subject—(hear, hear)—and his ar-
gument was one of unanswerable
thatr?wer. Sir R. Peel,
the same occasion, remarked
n`dheoe emoulpldicaotonll. say that
on
the subject was a most extensivedal
that no just conclusion could be drawn respecting it with-
out looking to the
Awholeiiiy modification
the stamp duties and the &Web
on conveyances. odification of the probate and
legacy duties, or the extension
could not takeof them to other property,
place without a change in other burdens

Mr. FRBSHViELD 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, howeve?, 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
livied 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, anti
that on that account we ought to bo satisfied with it now.
But that fact, so far from being a recommendation, only
showed that a burden which had bean imposed on propert y
in ancient times had been found to be 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 upon 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 older 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 snia 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 net 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 as 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 large
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 had become unsuited for our modern civilisa-
tion. Ho 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 gratinallyintminceit
of giving soldiers pecuniary payment. His (Mr. Drum-
mond's) objection to this amendment was this. It did not
object to a legacy duty ; and when he was asked by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to affirm the abstract proposi-
tion that all property should pay a tax on successions, how
was he to refuse to do so? However, adopting that principle,
be was afraid, from every view that he had been able to takeie
of the subject, that when they came to the de"ftimeasure there would be found such great difficultyl or
it out. Therefore, he would be sorry
enor-
mous hardship as would render it altstot itrat;tsesitbheetteilcllaerrnyf
the house in discussing this abstract
tbctperoliaionstiltwioans. a Many
thought the subdivision
advantage, great
and
had been alluded to the other evening,
granted that
it was so. The simplifica-
tionofttles, whichho
was also another advantage; but it was only valuable in
order to make land more purchascable, that was, to raise
its marketable price. Now, he regarded the land as a much
more important matter than some persons did. He looked
upon it as the only sure basis of a monarchy. And it was
not because the landowner simply was a landowner that
he 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 greati names
connectedwiatnhdthienfipurnonicteertiyn
htili:tnehigehbnexuerchiset hisAsnodciaifl
importance
the large estates wore to be parcelled out
arndddihded into
small holdings, all that social and political influence would
vanish. For the same reason that hereditary monarchy was
superior to any other form of oarchy, $
o land that had
long been entailed and continued in the came family was
better than any other ; and these two views
more important than was usually were much
imagined. Some advocated
direct taxation in order to get get rid of indirect taxation.
N wishedow ltaxationitne confessedaway
1 vo that
he
li
° °thought they had got rid of in-
directalready ; and the persons uho
I.ll4tltilltlirect taxation did not disguise that
the country
their hope was to 1
they would beobliged would never
direct taxation so oppressive 01.4
never bear it, and that on that account
to get rid of their military and naval
establishments. But these people were very ranch 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
upon it that the men who had got a sword or a bayonet would
be the very last who would go without a dinner that day.
(Laughter.) Ho recommended them, therefore, to have a
care how theysuperseded much more of their indirect taxa-
tion, for they might rely on it it would recoil on tho heads
of its advocates, and that they would find to their cost that
they had taken a very short-sighted view of the matter.ti
(Hear.) He would end as he began, regretting thi,ato_ they
should be discussing this point now. The details
Ifnutbc,l
bill would be most itnportant,and
let
theto
would requrre better 1
consideration, that he thought it wouldat boeneme,nacinld
affirm the principle of the resolution
measure be brought in. (Hear, )
ititi
cbth
be
ardi gshttatelidontobuartatlbilee
Mr. W. WILLIAMS saLdroti
. gentleman the member for

that bore in a different way on different kinds of Nom/ p. '
(Hear, hear.) These opinions and arguments were not 14,
plicable to one particular time more than to another; but
were directed broadly against the principle of a proposal of
this kind, and were therefore as cogent now as they were'
at the moment when they were first delivered. The right
hon. gentleman had sought to make out last night that this.
after all would really be a very small impost upon the laud,
and lie had calculated it at about 400,000/. But this was.
not the way in which such a question ought to be argued.
The right hon. gentleman had informed the committee that
there existed no means of ascertaining exactly what the
amount would be, but an impression certainly prevailed,
out of doors that the amount would be very much greater
than had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The arguments which he (Sir J. Pakington) had urged were
just as applicable to a small as to a large amount. If it was
unjust to impose the tax on rateable property, they. had no
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. He 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 he did
not mean to trust to compulsory legislation as a means o
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 sou's question, and (laughter's question'.' (Hear,
hear.) He could conceive c t,c sof a most paiufal descrip-
tion, in which children having to submit to the sorrow arising ,
from the loss of a parent, after beiug reared in the luxury of
their parents home, would find themselves obliged t.) put up
with the pittance which had been settled upon them, idle
would have to pay out of that pittance a heavy tax to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) He would appeal
once snore to the high authority of Adam Smith, wha, in
speaking of the laws of Holland upan 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
s ta te
diminution of revenue arising from the loss of some office
or life e
whicht the father
h which has :
s anag
g interest.ae, theirT ha
tat would be
inc
r and oppressive
loss by taking from them any part of his succession." It
was that cruelty and that oppression which the right 'hen.
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 tho measure would be applicable chiefly to large
estates and to rich inheritances. But who were the holders
of landed pr. WAY in En: lanel,l Was En Ipnd
~.9114,41 ' •. •
,teltr;: I •
' • • small oveiarelV': Zugli' no - • menus 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. Pakington) might assume that if that statement were
true as regarded incomes, it would be equally true with
regard to states in laud. 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 es
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 he (Sir
J. Pakington) was sanguine enough to hope that the own-
era of rateable property would be 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 bo 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.
(Rear.) He 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.
He (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 30,000/. a year, but which, in order to
be on the safe side, ho had taken at 25,000/. (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. He would not any longer detain the com-
mittee. He and his friends were disinterested in their re-
sistance to this proposal. The question was too large 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 injurious 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.)