The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

'TIE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAVI EVENING, MAY 13, 185 3,

NIENT,

That was the course they pursued with regard to all hills
sent up from the other house, and which they were not
disposed to pass, and the House of Commons had disco-
vered what their lordships had done by searching the
records of their proceedings. That was considered the
most corteous mode of proceeding towards the other
house, because he believed in former times they did not
move the postponement of the reading of a bill for six
months, but they rejected it absolutely; and it was in
consequence of its being considered a more courteous
proceeding towards the other house that they had
adopted the mode now usually followed. He moved
that a message be sent to the House of Commons, ac-
quainting them that this house, having considered the
report of the select committee of the House of Commons
appointed to consider a petition complaining of an undue
election for the borough of Clitheroe, and the minutes of
evidence taken before it, do not think it expedient to
concur in an address to her Majesty praying for an
inquiry.
The motion was agreed to.
BOROUGH OF MLDON.
Lord ST. LEONARD'S asked the Earl of Aberdeen
what was the intention of Government with regard to
the address for an inquiry respecting the borough of
Maldon.

fore the diiision on the Derby Budget, he met the hon.
member for Wells on the steps of the Reform Club, and
that hon. gentleman asked him how he was going
to vote. (A laugh.) His reply was that he had
never given a Tory vote since he had been in Parlia-
ment, and he was not going to begin now--(a, laugh)-- but, at the same time, he added that the Irish party
would be very much influenced in the course they would
take by the intentions of the new Government with re-
gard to the income tax, and the hon. gentleman
referred him to the speech of the right honourable
gentleman the member for Halifax, in which the right
hon. gentleman stated that Ireland was in by far too
exhausted a state to bear an income tax, and the im-
pression which this reference produced was that the
Whig party were not favourable to the extension of the
income tax to Ireland. Accordingly, when he went to the
meeting of Irish members he stated as much, and also
that he had it upon the authority of the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Wells, that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Halifax was of the same
opinion still. (Hear.)
Mr. HAYTER could not charge his memory with
what had passed, but no doubt what was now stated
was perfectly correct in the main. It was hardly likely,
however, that he could disclose what were the then
opinions of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Halifax, and in so far as that part of the statement was
concerned he could not assent to it. (Hear.)
Sir C. WOOD had made no statement to his hon.
friend that lie was aware of, but still he had no hesita-
tion in declaring that he had made the speech which had
been referred to. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS was glad this explanation had been
made, and he hoped it would be a warning to hon. mem-
bers in future not to make statements of alleged
facts affecting personal character unless they were
thoroughly convinced of their accuracy. (Hear.) Now,
he remembered distinctly that the hon. and gallant
member for Westmeath stated, on Friday night, that
before the division in December last, an accredited agent
from the Whig and Peel parties waited upon the Irish
members, and stated that if the Irish members would
assist in turning out the Derby Government there would
be no income tax imposed upon Ireland. It now turned
out that this was not so, and the only authority upon
which the agency was supposed to arise was a loose con-
versation in the lobby of the House of Commons or
upon the steps of the Reform Club. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member for Westmeath should have been more
cautious in the statement he had made. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGAN supposed the hon. and learned gentle-
man meant to convey that he (Mr. Magan) had stated
that which was not true. Now he did not say the party
who made the statement to the Irish members was
"the accredited agent," but was considered as an accre-
dited agent of the Whig and Peel party. He had a
right to consider a:member in any light he pleased—(a
laugh)—and he certainly did look upon the gentleman
who conveyed the statement to the Irish members as an
accredited agent, as he now looked upon the honour-
able and learned member as an accredited agent of
Lord Derby. (A laugh.) The whole speech of the hon.
and learned gentleman was both malicious and untrue.
(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER said the hon. member must be aware
that such language was out of order. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MAGAN had no objection to withdraw the
words if they were unparliamentary. (Cheers.)
Mr. BOWER was present at the Irish meeting, and
he had certainly no recollection of the statement hav-
ing been made upon authority.
Mr. LUCAS, on the other hand, who was also pre-
sent at the meeting, declared that the gentleman who
made the statement professed to make it upon
the authority of a leading member of the Whig
party. The gentleman who made the statement
was the hon. member for Tralee, and what tended
to confirm it was the speech of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Halifax delivered a few days afterwards,
in which the right honourable gentleman warned
the Irish party to be on their guard, and not allow the
thin end of the income tax wedge to be got into Ireland.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. O'CONNELL denied that he had professed
to make the statement on authority. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCULLY was also under the impression that the
statement was not made on authority, and to prove this
he need only state that the meeting came to a resolution
to support the Tories in office. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir R. INGLIS hoped that the good sense and feel-
ing of the house, considering the mass of public business
before it, would agree that sufficient space had been
allowed to hon. gentlemen to set themselves right in the
judgment of each other and of the house, and that they
might at last be permitted to resume the business for
which they were sent there. (Hear.) He would cau-
tiously abstain from any one word that could give of-
fence to either side, but respectfully submitted to them
all that there had been enough—perhaps more than
enough—(hear)—of these discussions. He had thought,
when the Speaker called upon the Sergeant-at Arms to
introduce the messenger from the other house, that it
would have put an end to all unnecessary discussion.
(Hear.)
The subject then dropped.
THE BUDGET-RESUMED DEBATE.
The house then went into Committee of Ways and
Means.
The CHAIRMAN read the resolutions.
On the second resolution, " And for and in respect of
the occupation of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments
(other than a dwelling-house occupied by a tenant distinct
from a farm of lands), for every 20s. of the annual value
thereof, one moiety of each of the said sums of 7d., (Id., and
5d., for the above-named times respectively,'
Mr. VANSITTART moved, as an amendment, the omis-
sion of the word " moiety" and the insertion of the words
" third part ;" and urged in support of it, that the late Sir
Robert Peel had thought it necessary, when he introduced
the income tax in 1842, to reduce the assessment of the
farmers from three-quar :.ers to one-half the rental, and that
the causes which induced him to do so existed to a greater
degree now than ever before. No person could question
the fact, that the profits upon land were much smaller than
they formerly were, and that they were certainly not
greater in England than in Scotland and Ireland. To
place the farmers of the United Kingdom on a footing of
equality was a measure of justice which ought to be con-
ceded. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman stated, that in
proposing this amendment he had no R:sh whatever to in-
terfere with the conducting of the public business by the
Government. This was no pai ty question, nor had he
treated it as such, although it was his misfortune to sit on
the Opposition side of the house. He hoped the grounds
he had assigned would induce the house to consider the
proposition he had now made to be just and fair. He
thought it would be far better for the right hon. gentleman
to allow his scheme of finance to have such qualifications
applied to it as justice and equity demanded, than to resist
all appeals and to determine on carving it through as a
stereotyped plan. (Cheers.)

The Earl of ABERDEEN said he had read the evi-
dence in regard to all the other cases in which he had
moved for address, but he had not read the evidence in
this case yet, and he could not therefore at present an-
swer the question.
Their lordships then adjourned at half-past seven
o'clock.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had listened
with great satisfacti ma, so far as the hon. gentleman was
personally concerned, to the very intelligent statement he
had made. (Hear, hear.) Ho did not like the whole of
the honourable gentleman's case, but he did not think
any gentleman could have stated that case with more
ability. (Hear, hear.) He assured the hon. gentleman he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not the slightest in-
tention of making any charge against him for not going on
with h;s amendment on a former night. But it was the
duty of the Government to press forward measures affect-
ing the public interest, as it was the duty of hon. members
to see what it was they had in justice to propose. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) was very glad to hear the
hon. gentleman refer to the succession or legacy duty, be-
cause he hoped the committee would soon arrive at the dis-
cussion of that question. He world not expend the time
of the committee by noticing the remarks which the hon.
gentleman had made upon his (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's) conduct in imposing various taxes upon the
farmers, notwithstanding the comments he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) had made upon the taxes intended to be
put upon them by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Disraeli) in December last. But the taxes which fell upon
yeomen—men who cultivated their own land—were not
peculiar to that class of persons ; they applied to all other
owners of land. It should be borne in mind, however,
that there was no house tax upon them (as was the case
with the budget of December last), and that there was
no income tax put upon them where their income was
under 1001. a-year. It was true the yeoman would be
subject to the succession tax, but in that case he would
pay it in common with the entire community. However,
let that pass. The subject would come for discussion in
its turn. He entirely agreed with the hon. gentleman
that this was no party question. There was no class
whose claims he would more regret to disappoint than
the farmers'. But, in the first place, the committee
must recollect that, since the repeal of the corn
laws, the income tax had been several times renewed.
In 1848 it was renewed, prices having already become low,
and with every prospect of their becoming lower. In 1851
the mcome tax was again renewed, with prices exceedingly
low. But, notwithstanding the low state of prices at that
period, the farmers not only accepted. but accepted with
out inconvenience, the proposition of the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), who, by a
clause to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
presently refer, put the farmers on a more favourable foot-
ing than any other class. Indeed, no class stood upon so
favourable a footing as the farmer. That, he thought, was
a very strong reason against renewing such a proceeding of
exceptional legislation in favour of the farmer. As to the
proposition that the English farmers should be placed on
the same footing, for this purpose, with the Scotch and
Irish farmers, the only result of this would be, that the
Scotch and Irish farmers would immediately, and reasonably
enough, demand that further concessions should be made
in their favour, so as still to place them in the same relative
position, with respect to the English farmers, that their
comparative disadvantages required. The hon. gentleman
wished to snake it an argument against the Government
measure, that the reduction of rents in England had not
been adequate to the diminution of the farners' profits
occasioned by recent legislation. Assuming this to be the
case, it was no argument against the Government plan, but
simply a lively and useful suggestion to the landlords to let
their rents fall a little more quickly and effectually than
they had fallen—(a laugh)—at all events, however small the
reduction of rents might have been in England, he begged
to remind the hon. gentleman that the reduction had been
still less in Scotland. But legislation upon the income tax,
or upon any other subject, ought not to be based upon any
such grounds. The business of legislation herein vas to
proceed upon the principle that farming was an occupation,
as other occupations, which must be left to find its level
under the influence of competition between man and man.
They bad no right to assume that the profits of the farmer
were different now from what• they used to be. They must,
in considering these points, investigate, not the prices of
commodities merely, but the quantities produced, the
quality, the cheapness of production, the application of
machinery, the greater economy of the various processes
of farming, the extension of drainage, and so on. (Hear,
hear.) But the main thing to be kept in mind was, that
they had already made provision for the case of the farmer.
They had not, indeed, said to him, " Go into schedule D,
if you please," for they had considered that the inquisition

1 into his affairs, in that case necessitated, would not be make any general statement on the subject, because, if so,
agreeable to him, but they had given him the means of it might be advisable that the committee should hear him
averting an unfair assessment. Ho might here remark that before they proceeded to consider that amendment.
the hon. gentleman had made a serious error in his calcn- i
The CHANCELLOR he EXCHEQUER said—l
lations of the profits of the farmer. The hon. member did ,
not regard the maintenance of the farmer's family, the ex- • entirely concur a tne suggests. _ _f the right hon, gentle-
penses of his living, as any element in his calculations— ! man. I also feel the great importance of the question,
(hear)—and, for that matter, the farmers seem much dis- i and, considering that I have only had an opportunity of
posed to take the same view, and to regard the expense of I
; adverting to it on one single occasion, and that necessarily
their maintenance as part of the expense of their farming,
and as not entering into the question of profits, which was
in ,
conjunction with a great many other highly important
a fallacy not to be admitted. Where, however, the far- subjects, it is probable that I have not been able so success
mer's profits were less than a moiety of his rent, it was not fully as might have been desired to place the propositions
proposed arbitrarily to enforce assessment as upon a moiety; of the Government clearly and fairly before the commit-
for it wovld be competent in a farmer who at the end of
tee. lam therefore obliged to the right hon. gentleman
the year found himself so situated, to' go before commis- sioners—not Government commissioners but local commis-
for his suggestion—and, I may say, that I had proposed
sinners—and, if he could make out his to have any rising when you sir, had read the resolution, to state the
excess of assessment allowed him in his pea:moat of the
tax. The hon. gentleman objected to this, that farmers views of the Government with respect to it. (Hear.) In
did not keep accounts. There mi ht no doubt be many the first place, I wish to call the attention of the tom-
small farmers who did not keep accounts but' he confi- mitten to the limitation of the proposition as it stands
dently believed that the great bulk of those who would before us. There is an immense number —at least
counts. Most assuredly this was the case, he might almost p and very come within the operation of the measure did keep ac- there is a considerable number of points of,
great ins-
say universally, with the farmers in the north
aEnglandortanee serious difficulty, which we shall
and in Scotland. There was, however, one fact alone de
rnonstra.tive that the profits of the farmer were not so small. have to examine when we come to the details of the
question. (Hear, hear.) But most of these points lam
-
amount of relief from assessment claimed by the tenant
as was stated, and this was that in the past year the whole anxious at present, in some degree, to keep out of view ;
ofafri3n3eo7ooofoiE.,ngwlaana dbaentad,eoSenotsl7oooll.l,i.upaound a6,too_
ot3ail. aosnselyss;ntehnet themb ec au because, yhapdoesible to consider
ostler their eyes
untilin thet'e
whole amount of relief
actually granted being 3,419/. committee shall
sihtailis hhaarvsell
the precise form in which the proposition of the Govern-
(Hear, hear.) This fact, he would repeat, demonstratively went will be ultimately clothed ; and because, in the second
proved that the farmers, as a body, had no case to show place, the general principles which are involved in that pro-
that their profits, including, of course, the cost of the main- Position are of themselves so exceedingly important that
tenance of their families,'
did not represent fully one-half they deserve the undivided and exclusive attention of the
of their rent. (Hear, hear.)
committee. (Hear, hear.) It is most desirable, that
Sir F. KELLY maintained that by the admission of the we should, in the first instance, fix our undivided and closest
Chancellor of the Exchequer, land was taxed snore heavily attention on the principles which are involved in this mea-
than other property, and he complained that, in addition, sure, and that our vote upon the measure in the first in-
its pressure upon the farmers was uncertain and unjust. stance should be strictly a vote on its principle, before we
He ridiculed the arguments of the Government, who, he come to consider the multitude of serious but still minor
said, admitted every separate portion of their measure to and subordinate questions which we shall have to examine
be unjust, but maintained that it was quite equitable as a and dispose of in going through the details of the proposi-
whole. He described the peculiar burdens which he con- tion. (Hear, hear.) The proposition, as it stands before
ceived to press with undue severity upon the farmers, and the committee, is as follows : " That, towards raising the
sought for them, at any rate, some relief from the peculiar supply granted to her Majesty, the stamp duties payable
injustice of the tax in question. by law upon or for, or in respect of legacies, shall be granted
I made
Mr. BRIGHT described Sir Fitzroy as having been ' payable upon and for every succession to the
speaking on a " Suffolk brief," and told him that he was the beneficialsecs pt tenj7ment of any real or personal estate, or to
badly advised as to his facts. With regard to the amend- :
snco il'proofitrtilopooritiotihiator additional portion of the"
meet, he urged the gross injustice of proposing to tax the consequence off the thereof
of maytakelaee upon, or in
opulent farmer, who very often kept a carriage (with more title, whether ixsting or future,a personau snueneady whatever
than one horse) and followed the hounds, only upon the derived." Now, the vote of the ommittee is a°sukel.l2ay
same amount as the poor clerk or mechanic who earned two pie hat
occasion for the affirmatio fgeneral upon
-'
n o a prinm-
pounds a-week,;and this at a time when agricultural produce that Some tax or other—I don't propose to ledge on
was selling at so high and remunerative a rate. The time
to say whether an equal or an unequal tax—shallp be laidy
for the cry of agricultural distress was gone by, and was no
upon all successions to property that take place in conse-
longer available as political capital. The motion was that quence of death. That condition—the accruing of the tax
of a "very young member," and a more impudent one had in consequence of a succession that ensues upon death—is
never been brought into the house,
the pivot of the whole measure. The importance of the
Sir F. KELLY observed, that if the hon. member would
bearing of this proposal is to be considered with refer-
introduce a motion to exempt artisans and small trades- ence to two great classes of property which have hitherto
men, to whom he alluded, to the extent of one-sixth, he been either exclusively or in the main exempt from all
would most cordially support him.
charge upon death or upon succession; firstly, pro-
Mr. BANKES thought the hon. member could not have perty, whether settled or unsettled; and, secondly, real
settled
attended to the speech of the hon. and learned member, or property, whether personal or real. The first question we
to that of the hon. member who introduced the motion, for have to consider is, what are the reasons that have deter-
his arguments had had nothing to say to the fact they had mined' the Government, and that I hope will determine
adduced. The hon. member for Berkshire mainly rested his the committee, to resort to this source for the replenish-
demand for the English farmer on the point of justice, and meet of the revenues of the country ? The right hon. gen-
on the comparison of his case with that of the Scotch and tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) said a few nights ago, if I
the Irish farmer. He knew many parts of his own county understood him correctly, that I had founded the justifi-
in a state far below that which he believed to be the case in cation of this measure upon its character and effect,
Scotland or Ireland. The hon. member said that farming which I described in addressing the house on a former
was the best trade going. He (Mr. Bankes) was not there occasion namely, that the laying of this tax upon
at that moment to deny it—(hear, from the Government successions to property would countervail the operation of
benches)—but they were putting a tax on the farmer for the income tax in so far as that operation is too severe in
seven years to come. Who could say the present state of respect of intelligence and skill, and too lenient in respect
prosperity would continue so long ? He feared the excep- of property as compared with intelligence and skill. The
tions from prosperity to which he alluded would increase, right hon. gentleman observed that that being the pur-
and he felt it his duty, as representing a large agricultural pose of the tax, it was obvious that the tax so considered
constituency, to support the proposition of the hon. mem- ought to terminate— or at least, in. the view and mind of
her for Berkshire.
the Government, ought to be intended to terminate, in the
Mr. WHALLEY took that opportunity of entering his year 1860. Now, I certainly could not with any great
most solemn protest against the reimposition of the income confidence submit this proposition to the committee, if the
tax. Though he approved generally of the budget. The tax was intended to terminate in 1860, inasmuch as we
income tax was not on the pockets but on the morality of should not have received full legacy duties under this pro-
the middle classes :it touched the very life-blood of their posal in respect of any one portion of real property in Eng-
principle and honour, and although the tax had existed land until 1858, and the tax would, therefore, have an ex-
according to law since the establishment of the poor law, tremely short duration. But, in point of fact, the
right
it had never been carried out in the various parishes in hon. gentleman was mistaken in the construction which he
assessing property for the poor on account of its mis- put upon my statement. I stated that this suceession-tax
chievous effects. As to the motion before the house, he equalised—if it be now unequal--the burden that the in-
must say, the mere fact of giving the farmers a fixed come tax casts upon property as compared with intelligence
amount, to be ascei seined by a certain standard, was an and skill. I stated and admitted that intelligence and
inestimable boon, and did much to place them in an ad- skill were too hardly pressed upon by the income tax as
vantageous position.
compared with property. I stated that this measure would
Mr. AGLIONBY could not refrain from expressing his rectify those inequalities; and I stated further, and be-
dissent from the sentiments uttered by the hon. member lie
ve' that this measure will rectify them to whatever do-
for Manchester, though he would go into the some lobby urea you may call it into existence, without raising
financial
with him. A more exaggerated and highly-coloured state- dangerous questions, and without unsettlingyour.finan atl
went had never been heard in this house than had been system, or renderinga itfalriElle to
inrepeatedthat andhe incessant
made by the hon. member with regard to the prosperity of
.disturbance; but
inequalities i. 'lithe • reel: 1 saying
gis the only reason
the tenant farmers. He (Mr. Aglionby) had long lived in tion of
.n . in ono
upon which the justrfication of this measure is to be based.
the country, and knew something of the occupying tenants
it ears to me that there are many other reasons. In the
in most parts of England, and he must say from what had
first place, it is plain that the measure is essential to this
been said by the hon. member that he should have thought
the hon. member had never known anything about an acre
main condition of the financial measures of the Government
—that, as far as in us lies, we will place a future Parlia-
of land in the possession of a tenant farmer. (Hear, hear.)
meat in a condition, at a given period, to part with the
If such statements, which only referred to particular parts
income tax if it thinks fit. This is one of the objects
jects we have
of the country, were admitted sub silentio he feared much
proposed to ourselves as essential to justify the proposal to
irritation would be caused among, and just ground for
complaint would be given to, a class of persons who had continue the income tax for seven years—(hear)--that while
suffered severely of late. During some years, so far from
we propose it for a term so considerable, we shall lay the
and prepare a train of causes which will supply
the tenant farmers having a return for their capital, he ground
believed they had not been paid for the labour of them-
Parliament with the means of diaper sing with it, if they
s
selves and their families—that, on the contrary, there had hall think fit, at the expiration of that term. (Loud
cheers.) That is another material reason for proposing the
been a direct and considerable loss, and that their rent had
been paid out of the capital. (Hear, hear.) That was so tax upon successions; and without that tax upon successions
i
in the north, and in many parts of the south of England, it would be impossible that we could hold eut to you any
other expectationof the t ', t*of the income tax than
might
and he asserted again, therefore, that, although there
that series of vague and general expectations whichthe coma -
might be exceptional cases, the condition of the tenant
try has by this time, after so many repetitions of the
experi-
farmers described by the hon. member for Manchester was
ment, learned to appreciate at their true value. (Laughter
not the general condition of that class. (Hear, hear.)
and cheers.) Another purpose for which we propose this
Mr. KENDALL also thought he shibuld not be doing his tax is to provide a fund by means of which, during that in-
duty to his constituents if he allowed the statement of the terval of seven years, we may carry into effect great and
hon. member for Manchester to go forth uncontradieted. extended measures for the remission of indirect taxation.
In that part of the country which he had the honour to (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) This is an important and
represent the tenant farmers were at this moment barely essential purpose—(hear)--but Ido not hesitate to say
ekeing out a subsistence. (Hear, hear.)
that, behind and independent of all these, there is a
Mr. HUME said that no person, whether farmer or shop- pus-pose yet more and more permanent in its character—
keeper, wag entitled to begin business without capital, and namely, the removal of an anomaly which is unjust in its
it was yielding to a bad principle also to say that a farmer nature, which is galling to the public feeling—(hear, hear)
could not keep accounts. The farmers ought, ono and all, —which becomes more and snore galling from year to year,
to be capable_of keeping accounts, and then the same law, and which we believe it to be for the interest of all classes
applicable to the shopkeeper, ought to be applicable to to settle at once and permanently, being convinced that the
these—they ought not to be charged ls. snore than their longer you postpone that settlement the more difficult it
net income was shown to be, like other traders. He thought will be to achieve, and the worse will be the terms upon
as the tax was at present levied upon farmers it might fall which it will be effected. (Hear, and cheers.) With these
short on some and might press hem ny upon others ; but, views and with the feeling that the present state of the
as he could not agree with the hon. member who had law cannot be held good in point of justice, I say that we
brought forward this question, that one-third would be by have a purpose in this proposal quite irrespective of all
any means an adequate proportion for the tenant-farmers those collateral ends, important as they, too, are, which we
to pay, he should feel bound to oppose the motion. (Hear.) hope to secure by snaking the proposal at' this moment.
Mr. MALINS thought that the hon. member for Cocker. Now, Sir, the first question I wish to press upon the ear-
mouth, after his remarks that night, ought to have voted nest and dispassionate consideration of the committee is
for protection, and he could account for his not doing so this—can we maintain the present law as it is? In my
only on the strength of party feelings. The hon. member opinion it is totally impossible. (Cheers.) I don't mean
for Montrose, again, who professed to be a friend of the that it is impossible to maintain it this session or the next
people, would exclude every man from becoming rich who session. I mean that it is impossible to look upon it as a
was not born with 10/. per acre in his mouth. (Hear, portion of our fiscal system with any satisfaction, that the
hear, and No, no.) He thought that landlords in ge- public sentiment of the country is decidedly adverse to its
neral would prefer for a tenant a man with industry, sic' 11, continuance in the present state, and that some day or
and energy to a man who had capital without those quali- other—and that at no distant period—it will and must
fications. (Hear, hear.) The principle propounded by the inevitably be changed. (Hear, hear.) You cannot main-
hon. member for Montrose would, '3f acted on, be subver- tain it ; and why ? Not because there is a clamour
sive of everything on which the greatness of this country against it. (Colonel Sibthorp here made an observation
was founded. The hon. member for Montrose now ad- which was inaudible in the gallery.) lan sorry to scan-
mitted that the repeal of the corn law led to the confisca- dalise the gallant colonel. (Laughter.) I should have hoped
tion of the small farmers, though when that argument was that when I said we ought to look into, the rights of
urged in the debates which took place on the repeal of that the question, and not merely to popular opinion, I should
law, it was denied that any such consequence would fol- have had some slight rememberable degree of his approval.
low. (Hear.) With regard to the question before the (Colonel Sibthorp, with great vehemence, "No, sir, never."
house, he would vote for the amendment of his hon. friend, Loud laughter.) Well, I greatly regret that even those
on the ground of principle, though the relief which it principles to which I should have thought the hon. and
would give the farmer was so small, that he did not think gallant member would have given his assent should be so
it would be worth his hon. friend's while to press it to a poisoned by coming from any lips—(a laugh)—but, irre-
division. (Hear, hear.) According to a calculation which result spective of the aroval of the hon. entleman, which it
he had made, the of the amendment would be this— seems I cannot havpp e, I must state the reasons why I think
that the tenant who paid 2001. a year rent would be re- it is perfectly impossible to defend the continuance of the
lieved from the income tax altogether. The tenant who present law. In the first place—and I state first the rea-
paid 3001. would pay on 1001. instead. of 1501., and would son which I conceive to be the weakest--I do not think it
save 11. 9s. 4d. per annum. The tenant who paid 4001. a possible to defend the continuance of the present law, even
year would save it. as. 2d., and the tenant who paid as respects real property. (Hear.) I.think, when we look
6001. a year would save 21. 6s. He believed the farmers, back to the time of Mr. Pitt—when we reflect upon the
if asked on this subject, would say that they did not care proposal made by him nearly seventy years ag and -
one farthing for such a small amount of relief. (Hear.) eider all that has since passed, we must feel that even
Sir J. SHELLEY said the hon. gentleman seemed to in regard to real property, as such, its present exemption
put himself forward as a teacher of landlords, but after the occupies but a weak and insecure position in the view
opinions he had given with respect to capital, he (Sir J. of the sentiments and tendencies of this day. I speak
Shelley) should be sorry to be in his class. The honour- of the exemption as a total exemption. I don't say that
able gentleman had misunderstood what had fallen from there are not circumstances in. the condition ofreal pro-
his honourable friend the member for Montrose. What he PertY which ought to be considered when we come to ex
-
understood
should deal
understood his hon. friend to mean was—what every land- amine the question in what precise manner we
to
adopt. herd knew to be a fact—that the cause of the great distress with it under the measure w
exemption emmapyti o en
of real property
which existed amongst the agriculturists generally had What Ido say is, thoaestsa
totalion, whixch tax is made applicable
been that they took farms without any regard to the from a. taxi uiLonesruye
t , and that at a high and heavy rate,
amount of capital which they possessed to work them pro-I?
to
neigynaviL- property,
an arrangement altogether juatifia-
&ably. (Hear, hear.) He thought that one of the great is,
_
ble, nor an arrangement' which is safe, wise, or expedient
benefits of free trade was that the farmers could now work
reference to the permanency of our institutions. It
their farms with 71. or Si. an acre instead of 10/. in con-
with
is an exemption which I think is far more invidious than
sequence of the fall in prices generally. (Hear, hear.)
During the corn law farming was indeed a bad business
it is valuable ;and therefore I should wish to get rid of the
but at present no trade was more profitable. (Heer
invidious and odious character which attaches to it, and
hear.) Farmers now looked a great deal more than they , ;
come, if we can, to something like a fair and just measure
of the claims of real property, and to a settlement of those
used to do to the capital which was required to cultivate
claims. But if the exemption of real property is difficul a farm profitably ; and there was a strong feeling growing
to defend, how much more difficult is it—in my view, atpersonality? up in favour of tenant right, which would tend to the be-
be icl
least—to defend the exemption of settled s
nefit both of the landlord and the farmer. (Hear, hear.)
(Hear, and cheers.) Now, what in the world can
from 'legacy
The principle of assessing the farmers on half their rent
on behalf of an exemption of settled personaltyargument,
or the
had been agreed to when farming was not so good a trade
duty? (Hear.) lam not aware of any
ghtforward in de-
m it
as it was now, and he saw no reason for departing from
shred of an argument, that can be
u to the exemption
when farming was so profitable. (Hear, hear.) .
fence of such exemption. • With respect
exemption. Settlements
Mr. B. STANHOPE denied that farmers were in the
of real property, it is a bend fide
prosperous condition described by the hon. member for
ofthree of real
property are
not ma. e orthe
1 f purpose of procuring
because real property is exempt whether
even
this exemption,
Westminster. On au average offivesayears, or
with respect to personal property we
than they were pre- settled or not ; but
years, the profits of farmingt were le
amendment of his hon. friend know that the astuteness of lawyers and the vigilance
viously. With regard to heam e
whether they had personal interest are continually at work to defeat
they had to consider two points—first,ssm ent on the farmers ; oftheoperation of the law—(hear, hear)—and to invent new
any right to make an arbitary
ought toast: diminished by putting des of escape from the legacy duty, and this with such
and next, whether that d
He
confessed he modes
rdinary success that, although there has been an •
them as it were into another ache vle.
half exteao
increase .
found great difficulty in proving that the assessment onthe alproperty of the, ilia.
manse in person
and he believed there would be such increase is scarcely traceable in the tables of y
the rent was not a just one,
in proving that it was, legacy duty. (Hear.) We know that arran - our
equal and even greater difficulty
a total absence of ac-
„ade which may be called all but fraud 1 gements are
u ent—a
and for this reason, that there was
in
the country.
rranges
amongst the best farmers meetsl which are perfectly senseless, h • , win
g r o meaning
counts even
of appeal was of
1 justification in t
) The farmer's boasted right
who Lad am no hemselves, and no rational
(Hear, hear.
benefit to him. A man
to which they can be referred, purpose
scarcely any practical
dto have all his affairs ex to
(Ch ) N except that of evading the
outstanding engagements like
ten kept no such accounts as aw- . _ (Cheers.) . Now, some persons may think that there
posed. Nine farmers out of
the assessor ; and so minute is a countervailing consideration in the fact, that settle-
would enable them to go before
who appealed that he knew meets are made upon stamps, but I apprehend that •
is
were the questions put to
tholLerwas asked how many bees no answer at all. My belid is that the stamps one instance in which afa
I how much_ honey he got from of these settlements are of such smallmps upon many
he kept in his garden,laom
I did not ask for compensation to scarcely to be faked into account, value that they are
them ? (Laughter.)
he simply contended it settlement stamp as it no Ppo
Su se you take the
account of losses;
the farmer on
think, w stands,--it is at the rate, I
assess him as he was assessed at present, of ss, per cent. For cent., then, was not fair to
per cen ~ you get a
and,seeking for him no favour and no affection, he en- document which ascerta• ss.
ins the of your property
committee to place him in the same position as at your death, and stains
its existence
treated the .
course, thereby sanding
of the community. (Cheers.) in lieu of a will and determine
the rest
of letters of administration. Is
Mr. VANSITTART replied. not this privilege enough, independently of evading
The committee then divided—
the legacy
duty? (Hear, hear.) Is there not another
For the amendment
Against it
hon. member sitting behind the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer here made an observation in a low tone.) Yes, in
some cases the probate duty is beyond 3 per cent. Is it not,
then, quite privilege and benefit enough that by paying Sc.
per cent, upon a settlement a man should escape the pro-
bate duty of 2,3, or 4 per cent., without being able to
escape a totally independent impost of 2 or 3 perrocoesn.t-
more ? (Hear, hear.) I think it is perfectly monst
note
maintain that, because of the stamp upon settlements,
has been
legacy duty should be paid by whichpronerty„a.n_
I indeed, I
settled. It seems to mo a very gorhorlr
the irobate duty,
should say, if we were now dealignsgow.cti
be able by a stamp
too good a bargain—that person.. ,b ul

Majority ................................. 60
The original resolution was then agreed to.
LEGACY DITTIES,
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read the resolution
on the subject of the legacy duties, when he was inter-
rupted by
Mr. DISRAELI, who said that an hon. member b
him (Mr. Freshfield) had given notice of
an amendment
c the chairman
upon that part of the resolution
at Which had, just arrived, and he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to know
whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to