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

THE VICTORY AT TRAFALCO.

SIR,—I had TO TeHdE
heTI0II:•rs.
Hall
volit11::
sE:7Derrforißenodps
oTfHE
not singularicea.Juetiyasnonenlig. thil
subject,peeh,negaln,goamepceleninenthine cbo3ntutieol4lo,o.,,,uk
°fp ast::
would call public attention to it. r It is, that tilel,.°Trafallilr:
actually
have
whotenants* in 18531 and it speaks as highly in ilvr° fiisee'''. 0
and aristocratic " First Lords' " discrimination in t itero
the fortunate and enviable .iir of a..1.00P';
dpill CcieVaedilt:f.milattyl e2:l 11.:11g. e r y°111,:r10'
er the • —I nin' Sir' :10°'
service. __. Rojo
e
eals t° 11915
am.
:0:61
obedient.Eteixatnas.rnitifs
ecetw7x,ror:o fromuiv: gentlemen,
arrived
othe
t eenih have,
Ti m e s . "
.. . . ,
The adnatral aPP,..cagter' s
tidemutterillanStirß7;e7seisurgiaorranders CarslaXe an
,'""-
ee
THE PAROCHIAL CONTEST IN ST. electsF°eßS.Oil of
terday was the last day of polling.for the poorss,
vestrymen , and auditors for the parish of St. ' 0.0010
when the excitement which prevailed on the two To eSl)B'
h pealoi
days was completely thrown into the shade, u
cially in the vicinity of Vestry-halb o—ere Were
took place. The numbers at the close of the
as follows : 9,536
-2
For the Pink List .. .. ..
.......................
..,613
For the Blue List ..........................
Majority for the Pink List ............ 9t1:0 30'
The triumphant " Pinks," inin3ediately a iinto pro.
fcnoeollsusoniwoFensei: ewnht i
cohf
consistedthe
yes, themvsaeril : alubd,sept, oi zst:
cabs, and vehicles of' every description, with , b. A
o b° 3'4
ing and colours flying, and perambulate'
a late hour last night the result was
For the Blue List ........................... .„i '1....
0,19
List-- Her
Actual majority for the PM exciting poi b, .
The proceedings of one of the most...h 9/0,,
—the Pink list ............................. f2..,:g1s
contests which has ever taken place itt the r“—
AdetcliaerePd 7
Pancras thus terminated.

ser
0
in

0t.3,i
09'
alla

.00
70,

e

t-

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
CRININEY SWEEPERS' REGULATION BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of CLANCARTY trusted the house would
not be.precipitate in be
instituted to ascertain, before
the bill became law, whether it would not give rise to
Borne inconvenience and hardship.
1, Tile Earl of WICKLOW also opposed the bill, which
Le thought, if passed, would- only encumber the statute
ilui:daytramoevnedthtsh.at the bill be read a second time
RohThe Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he had brought
e bill for the Pure gof extending the pro-
ns of the act, which now only applied
to the raetropolis, to the country generally. He
Which that act now proposed,
order to prevent the evasions to
'visions gave rise, to include under its pro-
ehiJoung persons under 16 years of age, who assisted
neY sweepers, as well as apprentices. The present
was so simple that he did not anticipate any oprs.
nge,ll would be offered to it, and he had not come forti-
with papers to show its absolute necessity, but he as-
-4,l_ved their lordships that they could form no notion of the
3131"Ysical and moral evils which were now inflicted on a
nu and
and helpless class of the community in conse-
q :see of the existing state of the law.
sT.
LEONARDS supported the bill.
read —uendrnent was 'then withdrawn, and the bill was
a second time.
CLITHEROE • ELECTION CASE.
Lord .
the t„,,--'4aIThIONT drew the attention of the house to%tie;Jlll4 the house had sent no answer to the apph-
to the 4 the other house to concur in a joint address
ions her Majesty to appoint a co
t_ 4° inquire into the state of this borough. As
hied7,e 'night arise over and over again, it wase
defidt:e'lesirable that the house should adopt som
If no course which might serve as a precedent..se_
the G:e else made the motion it was the business of
f
turned ieorilillth eir,ot to see that some answer should be re-
The Ea e -noise of Commons.
noble lordri ef ABERDEEN said he was very glad the
us thou had brought this subject before the house, as
ght it w
"on as proper the house should come to a
lerd
4, upon it. Some time ago a noble and learned
tthis him what was his intention with regard to
°ad mooed and he told him in answer that although he
sialiiaived that their lordships should agree with other
of eo addresses which had been sent up from the Hoar
kotiollll4no, it was not his intention to make any su h
With regard to this address that of course
etent for any other noble lord who thot!,,ht
riloYake such motion. If he recollected. aright
be 31.081)e-aZe::
f and learneda friend gave some sort of antuna-
beeti°,,il!ola an intention, but he supposed he must have
aric 'sbakeo• At all e'vents it was competent f odr
hl
amt
tot h: ?then noble lord to make the motion, an
Nish eying been done, he concluded that it was not the
4ted il intention of any noble lord to take such a step,
eont:'4.therefore felt it incumbent on him to propose a,
matter-". their lordships to adopt with reference to t
Aotsunaing as he did, that their lordships were
Bed to a t
°use p gree in not adopting the address of the
theot, ‘jowlmons, it was necessary to consider what
trmPer and suitable course to take. The best
h,.°4(ireu take he thought, would be to move that the
at ;be thought, into consideration that day six months..
ut n'atthe course they pursued with regard to all bills
disp,ettrera the other house, and which they were. not
Pass, and the House of Commons had. disco-
ree,,,Zuat their lordships had done by searching the
raoBC° °f. their proceedings. That was considered t e
he, co
u 8 •
)4(7: because mode of roceeding towards the other
he believed in former times they did not
months postponement of the reading of a bill for six
eossens, hut they rejected it absolutely ; and it was in
tiling of its being considered a more courtehoud
141epted 11g, towards the other, house that they had
that e mode now usually' followed. He moved
luainkeB,,age .be sent to the House of Commons, ac-
-413011 -g 'nein that this house, having considered the
4ikl. of the select committee of the House of Commons
eleet!i'lted to consider a petition complaining of an unduef.
tvid:a for tlae borough of Clitheroe, and the minutes
to
,eone4r-e? taken before it, do not think it expedienrt
an
14quip,„La an address to her. Majesty praying fo
Th-,;"
motion was agreed to.
ST, °ROUGH OF MALDON.
LEONARD'S asked the Earl ofi Aberdeen
kaddress the mat las the intention of Government with
a_hl nrese for an inquiry respecting the borough of
rh:
dellee in er ABERDEEN said he had read the evi-
tll'3vPA 1,1. regard to all the other cases in which he had
address but he had not• read the evidencein.
Their ci
abler -7118: Yet, and
nest.
he - could not therefore at present an
-
Their
I°l4Bbi" iPs then adjourned at half-past seven

COMMONS—{YESTERDAY. )
40•CrSt OF commoNs--(Y_--„BATE.
Tilt 1113130-ET—RESUMED L'-'1
Committeeof Ways and
Itege
.hense %ea went into
I'lle CRAIRMAN read the
in respect of
e
th(iBl et the second resolution, " And forts
d. tinnot
n or hereditame e
weecupation of such lands,-tcoenr by a tenant
li
value
resolutionse. sand
NZ' than a dwelliilg.house occupiec
of
the annua ,
ths,„%farrn of lands), for every 2°B'
sums of 7d., 6d., and
td sr' °hue inoiety of each of the said
the omis-
IT.' ~.°l:,irtlkeNQihove-named times respectively,"
amendment,
words
f the .
MOLI Of th °ITTART moved, as an
that the late
__.,,811.
"thir e word " moiety" and the insertionufit, e
introduced
the tatt, ;," and urged in support
when he assessment of the
wle hart peel'
had thought it necessary,
the
ntal, and that
ikTuere°l4e
from x in 1842) to reduce one-half Ulf)
existed to a greaterquestion
tile e„, 8 three-platter! to
do s° , could
~:fian
gsgr-"e,,e'es Which induced him tcke person g.
smaller ~ --ot
the f.- eeW than ever before.
land
wore ineum
certainly not
ingland than in Scotland and Ireland. To
they et
that the profits upoi.!
and that they wand Irdan
.u.
~.4.
treLfererly were, in scotlantm
on a foot,' qouni-
liisee in England than
United King '
ought to be n
the fa
of the which
stated, that
.in.
thalit reaers of justice
ted,d. 3',Was a measure
ess by the
lik, , In conclusion,
dment he had
the public
business by the
Ntient. This was no party question, nor had he
4,,,catng this amendment the ii°ll' gentleman no wish whatever to in
cting °-
rty question) u
,k*o,,, e With the ces
tremZll4raent.
Thl although it was
the
the n it as suclit
house to consid He
he ni3esitionwas no'
pa his misfortune
side
induce to
to be just and fairer.eelan
Z. assig-ned of the house.e
now He hoped groundsthe.
to sit on
made
the
right hon. gentleman
tho sition he had
st
finance
to ,4,,Rlit it would be far better forrehere
spsitew his scheme. of
uity demanded, than to resi
through as a
Iked ._ • tme and eqng it
ear ,o it as justice
. 0 on carry"
such
. qualine ti .
4e418 and to determine
d
he°tYPed(Cheers.)
had listens plan.
an was
Iviimte CI:IAN-0E1,1,0R of the EXCHEQUER
as the
ent he
~,_`' great satisfaction, so far
intelligent
statement
of
1,-4:rattily concerned, to the very
di t not like the
hon. gentleman
tti% NI de. (Rear, hear.) He
Ca—,
with more
kh "11°11rahle gentleman's
that case
w he
sil,,. gentlenaan could have stated
hon. gentlemanslightest in-
, the
se but he did
'AY (Ter hear.) He assure
not the e • ....ear,
had nwot think
going on
I.Qbancellor of the Exchequer).
t him for not
s
the
the Oovernment to press forward measures affect.
'illi..1(111 I malting any charge against
night. But it wa
, measures affee
,itit4b his amendment on a former
members
is ' °f the Government to press forward
dir,nt
(the
the public interest, as it was the
hearlie the
"°°. What it was they had in justiee propose.
er, glad to be_
yofhon.
Ckleellor of the Exchequer) was v---,
legacy duty, .
illentl
succession or
arrive at the die-
ts eiha.ti refer to the
14lie e h
would soon
1 the time
"lion oped the committee
would not expend
hon.
st of that question. He w°
remarks which the
.._.x.
teatl e ecannlittee by noticing the Chancellor of the -B
ell "44 had made upon his (the .
taxes upon the
N'ller'B3
d imposing various
Chancellor
ktke.. ,
11 con. uct in .
comments he (the
be
of th°, no
the
intended. to
(Mr.
upon the taxes
plu. " LAhequer) had made
opposite
bittaaPori them by the right hon. gentleman
which fell upon
Yoero:11) io Deeember last. But the taxes
land—were
not
l'ect4"--blell who cultivated their own
to all other
o to that class of persons ;
,Ivser,,
they appliediuran
_,
i d however,
41st '3f laud. It should be borne
, was the case
i there w
them ias
was
\V-th
-.4
no
house
tax
uNnand that there
the b
last),
income was
Se i 4 Udget of December
eke
where their
would be
Inkie: tax put upon them
1tthi,,,,1,51/. alrear. It was true the yeoman,t
case ho would
ki-,'" to the succession tax, but in tna.t.,. However,.
let t 1 till co cession
with the entire common-n.l Y
for discussion in
1,t,4 t 04,- pass.
The subject would cemh hon. gentleman
that bi- rie entirely agreed with t the was no class
I°llot 18 .wss no Party question. Theredisappoint than
tlis yef ''ailua he would more regret to
1 the committee
1141444 - But, in the first place, the
of the corn
14,,N, recollect that, since the repeal. times renewed.
11140'111e lueortle tax had been several
dv become low,
tad ° it was renewed, Prices having alreai-wer. In 1851 the iviith eery prospect of their becoming ,c) s exceedingly
10-tl,l tax was again renewed, with Flee
at that
psti But, notwithstanding the low state of prices
with
'lSt i„Lthe farmers not only accepted, but accepted
gee
tle-
kltil '''extvenience, the Proposition of the right hen.) by a
clitiltil,° lueluber for Halifax (Sir C. Wood ~ who,_.,
would
Arefis' ' which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequreay, ,60t..
1,1
tltaitztly refer, pot the farmers on a more favourable bulpeoin
so
kv,,, 11, knY other class. Indeed, no class stood was
foot-
et a footing as the farmer. That, he thought, of
~,..tleepti4,,"reug reamon against renewing such a proceeding
As to the
1)001141 legislation in favour of the farmer.
laced on
the Alen that the English farmers should be 1) 14. and
taine fOOtilag. for this Purpose, with the Scotch
the
tetfereers, the only result of this would be, that
onably
Nii,,ilaltd Irish fearroers would immediately, and re:le made
i'l l' deutand that further concessions should be
same relative
lit
tiolitlr
si favour, 80 as still to Place them in the
that their
.oleps,.,,',With respect to the English farmers,
gentleman
Ivislied-'l've disadvantages re uired. The hen' ent
zse„' to tuake it an i gent against • the Governm
0,
Lt"stre, that the reductionnelf rents in England had il
.ts
cteaei4dNuate to the diminution of the Earners proßt_
Agee, ietileg by recent legislation Assuming this to be tia
i'leipi... N"!ii no
is against the Governteent planiolet
they
..Y k livel n useful against
estion to the landlords
the3,ll:eots fa a little rnore-gquickly and effectually than
In hied klion laugb)—at all events, however small the
te
.: ken of renewtnight have been in England, he begged
etiiilelltad the hon. gentleman that the reduction had been
14,
,i,e'0414 in Scotland. But legislation upon •
the income tax,
'Skit'. 11. ko3' other But
ought not to be based upon any
was __
lires4li'llids. The business of legislation hereinf"
ils othei.nPola the principle that famiig was an occupation,
Llader th4eeupationa, which must be left to find its level
-che h -7 ItAlce of VC b t
nd man.
VelrZ; -.54111° right corape i ion e ween manta
i„, diNire..,to assume that the profits of be farmer
" '',4:1841,,,,n )I°W from what they taed to be. They.mu must,
..Orilte,,,liti!*Og these points, investigate, not the prices of
1111ality, tiee 111,_ celY, but the quantities produced, the,.
141fachleei.3,
uti-oeapness of production, the application of
Bearl4rmino: .0 gl'eater economy of the various processes.
: eut.Lttift extension of drainage, and so on. (Heal,
a 4 1,,
~ ," Main thing to be kept in mind was, that
they
likde,!nr rude provision for the case of the farmer.
'4 lou Disit;eo‘,., indeed, said to him, " Go into schedule D,
for they had considered that the inquisition

into his affairs, in that case necessitated, would not be
agreeable to him, but they had given him the means of
averting an unfair asses sment. He might here remark that
the hon. gentleman heel made a serious error in his calcu-
lations of the profits of the farmer. The hon. member did
not regard the ma'ntentince of the farmer's family, the ex-
penses of his living, as any element in his calculations—
(hear)—and, for that natter, the farmers seem much dis-
posed to take the same view, and to regard the expense of
their maintenance as p irt of the expense of their farming,
and as not entering into. the question of profits, which was
a fallacy not to be ad: n. tted. Where, however, the far-
mer's profits were less tea u a moiety of his rent, it was not
proposed arbitrarily to UM orce assessment as upon a moiety;
for it would be competent in a farmer, who at the end of
the year found himself so situated, to go before commis-
sioners—not Government commissioners, but local commis-
sioners—and, if he could make out his case, to have any
excess of assessment allowed him in his payment of the
tax. The hon. gentleman objected to this, that farmers
did not keep accounts. There might, no doubt, be many
small farmers who did not keep accounts ; but he confi-
dently believed that the great bulk of those who would
come within the ope.eatiott of the measure did keep ac-
counts. Most assured ly this was the case, he might almost
say universally, with the farmers in the north of England
and in Scotland. The re was, however, one fact alone de-
monstrative that the pi eifits of the farmer were not so small
as was stated, and thie was that in the past year the whole
amount of relief front assessment claimed by the tenant
farmers of England and Scotland, upon a total assessment
of 330,0001., was betty, 'en 5,0001. and 6,000/. only ; the
whole amount of relief actually granted being 3,4191.,
(Hear, hear.) This fact, he would repeat, demonstratively
pioved that the farmers, ets a body, had no case to kow
that their profits, including, of course, the cost of the main-
tenance of their families, did not represent fully one-half
of their rent. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY maintained that by the admission of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, land was taxed more heavily
than other property, and he complained that, in addition,
its pressure upon the farmers was uncertain and unjust.
He ridiculed the erg= guts of. the Government, who, he
said, admitted every so; )(irate portion of their measure to
be unjust, but maintained that it was quite equitable as a
whole. He described the peculiar burdens which he con-
ceived to press with unit lie severity upon the farmers, and
sought for them, at any r ate, some relief from the peculiar
injustice of the tax in question.
Mr. BRIGHT deecriced Sir Fitzroy as having been
speaking on a " Suffolk in id," and told him that he was
badly advised as to his facts, With regard to the amend•
merit, he urged the gross injustice of proposing to tax the
opulent farmer, who very often kept a carriage (with more
than one horse) and followed the hounds, only upon the
same amount as the poor clerk or mechanic who earned two
pounds a-week,and this at a time when agricultural produce
was selling at so high and remunerative a rate. The time
for the cry of agricultural distress was gone by, and was no
longer available as pelitical capital. The motion was that
of a "very young member," and a more impudent one had
never been brought in to the house.
Sir F. KELLY observed, that if the hon. member would
introduce a motion top eeeempt artisans and small trades-
men, to whom he alluded, to the extent of one-sixth, he
would most cordially support him.
Mr. BANKES then eht the hon. member could not have
attended to the speech of the hon. and learned member, or
to that of the hon. member who introduced the motion, for
his arguments had had nothing to say to the fact they had
adduced. The hon. mem her for Berkshire mainly rested his
demand for the English farmer on the point of justice, and
on the comparison of his case with that of the Scotch and
the Irish farmer. Ile 13 iew many parts of his own county
in a state far below that -rhich he believed to be the case in
Scotland or Ireland. The hon. member said that farming
was the best trade going. He (Mr. Bankes) was not there
at that moment to deiay it—(hear, from the Government
benches)—but they were putting aax on the farmer for
seven years to come. "P7h a could say the present state of
prosperity would continue so long ? He feared the excep-
tions from prosperity to which he alluded would increase,
and he felt it his duty, as representing a large agricultural
constquercy, to support the proposition of the hon. mem-
ber for Berkshire.
Mr. WHALLEY took that opportunity of entering his
most solemn protest against the reimposition of the income
tax. Though he approved generally of the budget. The
income tax was not 011 the pockets but on the morality of
the middle classes : it touched the very life-blood of their
principle and honour, and although the tax had existed
according to law since the establishment of the poor law,
it had never been cern( id out in the various parishes in
assessing property for the poor on account of its mis-
chievous effects. As to The motion before the house,
be
must say, the mere fact of giving the farmers a fixed
amount, to be ascertain( by a certain standard, was an
inestimable boon, and cli.i much to place them in an ad-
vantageous position.
Mr. AGLIONBY could not refrain from expressing his
dissent from the sentime nee; uttered by the hon. member
for Manchester, though he would go into the some lobby
with him. A more exaggeerated and highly-coloured state-
ment had never been heard in this house than had been
made by the hon. member with regard to the prosperity of
the tenant farmers. He (Mr. Aglionby) had long lived in
the country, and knew eomething of the occupying tenants
in most parts of England, and he must say from what had
been said by the hon. 'member that he should have thought
the hon. member had 'limier known anything about an acre
of land in the possession of a tenant farmer. (Hear, hear.)
If such statements, whic h only referred to particular parts
of the country, were ae'anitted sub silentio he feared much
irritation would be caveied among, and just ground for
complaint would be give in to, a class of persons who had
suffered severely of late. During some years, so far from
the tenant farmers havi, ig a return for their capital, he
believed they had not be tn paid for the labour of them-
selves and their families— -that, on the contrary, there had
been a direct and consider. able loss, and that their rent had
been paid out of the capital. (Hear, hear.) That was so
in the north, and in many parts of the south of England,
and he asserted again, therefore, that, although there
might be exceptional casts, the condition of the tenant
farmers described by the lion. member for Manchester was
not the general condition cf that class. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KENDALL also tho ught he should not be doing his
duty to his constituents if lie allowed the abatement of the
hon. member for Manchester to go forth uneontradicted.
In that part of the country which he had the honour to
represent the tenant farmers were at this moment barely
ekeing out a subsistence. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that no person, whether farmer or shop-
keeper, was entitled to begin business without capital, and
it was yielding to a bad principle also to say that a farmer
could not keep accounte. The farmers ought, one and all,
to be capable/of keeping accounts, and then the same law,
applicable to the shopkeeper, ought to be applicable to
them—they ought not to be charged is. more than their
net income was shown.to be, like other traders. He thought
as the tax wax at present levied upon farmers it might fall
short on some and might press heavily upon others ; but,
as he could not agree with the hon. member who had
brought forward this question, that one-third would be by
any means an adequate proportion for the tenant-farmers
to pay, he should feel bound to oppose the motion. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS thought that the hon. member for Cocker-
mouth, after his remarks that night, ought to have voted
for protection, and he could account for his not doing so
only on the strength of party feelings. The hon. member
for Montrose, again, who professed to be a friend of the
people, would exclude every man from becoming rich who
was not born with 10?. per acre in his mouth. (Hear,
hear, and No, no.) He thought that landlords in ge-
neral would prefer for a tenant a man with industry, skill,
and energy.to a man who had capital without those quali-
fications. (Hear, hear.) The principle propounded by the
hon. member for Montrose would, if acted on, be subver-
sive of everything on which the greatness of this country
was founded. The hon. member for Montrose now ad-
mitted that the repeal of the corn law led to the confisca-
tion of the small farmers, though when that argument was
urged in the. debates whichetook place on the repeal of that
law, it was denied that any such consequence would fol-
low. (Hear.) With regard to the question before the
house, he would vote for the amendment of his hon. friend,
on the ground of principle, though- the relief which it
would give the farmer was so small, that he did not think
it would be worth his hon. friend's while to press it to a
division. (Hear, hear.) According to a calculation which
he had made, the result of the amendment would be this—
that the tenant who paid 2001. a year rent would be re-
lieved from the income tax altogether. The tenant who
paid 3001. would pay on 1001. instead of 1501., and would
save 11. 9s. 4d. per annum. The tenant who paid 4001. a
year would save 1/.* 19s. 2d., and the tenant who paid
6001. a year would save 21. Gs. He believed the farmers,
if asked on this subject, would say that they did not care
one farthing for such a small amount of relief. (Hear.)
Sir J. SHELLEY said the hon. gentleman seemed to
put himself forward as a teacher of landlords, but after the,
opinions he had given with respect to capital, he (Sir J.
Shelley) should be sorry to be in his class. The honour-
able gentleman had misunderstood what had fallen from
his honou-able friend the member for Montrose. What he
understood his hon. friend to mean was—what every land-
lord knew to be a fact—that the cause of the great distress
which existed amongst the agriculturists generally had
been that they took farms without any regard to the
amount of capital which they possessed to work them pro-
fitably. (Hear, hear.) He thought that one of the great
benefits of free trail() was that the farmers could now work
their farms with 71. or Si. an acre instead of 101. in con-
sequence of the fall' in prices generally. (Hear, hear.)
During the corn law farming was indeed a bad business ;
but at present no trade was more profitable. (Hear,
hear.) Farmers now looked a great deal more than they
used to do to the capital which was required to cultivate
a farm profitably ; and there was a strong feeling growing
up in favour of tenant right, which would tend to the be-
nefit both of the landlord and the farmer. (Hear, hear.)
The principle of assessing the farmers on half their rent
had been agreed to when farming was not so good a trade
as it was no ar, and he saw no reason for departing from it
when farming was so profitable. (Hoar, hear.)
Mr. B. STANHOPE denied that farmers were in the
prosperous condition described by the hon.
00nr.
emveenmobfetrhrfeeor
Westminster. On au average of five pears,
years, the profits of farming were less than they were perned-
bitsehre they.;
farmersnh a d;
theyva
ni oy-a
right
hl ya
(.
toto meconsider
With
anks]. ieedgae: regard
awtroo t b
itpl :oeri
yn
tassessments amendment—firpoints—first,
ohofenth
and next, whether that ought to be diminished by putting
them as it were into another schedule. He confessed he
found great difficulty in proving that the assessment on half
the rent was not a just one, and ho believed there would be
equal and even greater difficulty in proving that it was,
and for this reason, that there was a total absence of 'ac-
counts oven amongst they best farmers in the country.
(Hear, hear.) The farmers boasted right of appeal wasiTi
scarcely any practical benefit to him. A man who had
outstanding engagements liked to have all his affairs ex-
posed. Nine farmers out of ten kept no such accounts as
would enable them to go before the assessor ; and so minute
were the questions put to those who appealed that he know
one instance in which a farmer was asked how many bees
he kept in his garden, end how much honey he got from
them ? (Laughter.) He did not ask for compensation to
the farmer on account of losses ; he simply contended it
was not fair to assess him as he was assessed at present,
and, seeking for him no favour and no affection, he en-
treated the committee to place him in the same position as
the rest of the community. (Cheers.)
Mr. VANSITTART replied.
The committee then
For the ameudtnent ded—
CI
120
Against it

Majority vv
The original resolution was then agreed to.
LEGACY DUTIES.
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 behind
him (Mr. Froshfield) had given notice of an amendment
upon that part of the resolution at which the chairman
had just arrived, and he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to know
whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to

make any general statement on the subject, 'because, if so,
it might be advisable that the committee should hear him
before they proceeded to consider that amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l
entirety concur in me suggestion of the right hon. gentle-
man. I also feel the great importance of the question,
and, considering that I have only had an opportunity cf
adverting to it on ono single occasion, and that necessarily
in conjunction with a great many other highly important
subjects, it is probable that I have not been able so success-
fully as might have been desires to place the propositions
of the Government clearly and fairly before the commit-
tee. lam therefore obliged to the right hon. gentleman
for his suggestion—and, I may say, that I had proposed
rising when you sir, had read the resolution, to state the
views of the Government with respect to it. (Hear.) In
the first place, I wish to call the attention of the com-
mittee to the limitation of the proposition as it stands
before us. There is an immense number —at least
there is a considerable number of points of great im-
portance and very serious difficulty, which we shall
have to examine when we come to the details of the
question. (Hear, hear.) But most of these points lam
anxious at present, in some degree, to keep out of view ;
because, in the first place, it is hardly possible to consider
them until the committee shall have had under their eyes
the precise form in which the proposition of the Govern-
ment will be ultimately clothed ; and because, in the second
place, the general principles which are involved in that pro-
position are of themselves so exceedingly important that
theydesery e
ueather,hear.)undivided I
and
is most desirable,dexclusive
tent
then,ionof the
committee.that
we should, in the first instance, fix our undivided and closest
attention on the principles which are involved in this mea-
sure, and that our vote upon the measure in the first in-
stance should be strictly a vote on its principle, before we
come to consider the multitude of serious but still minor
and subordinate questions which wo shall have to examine
and dispose of in going through the details of the proposi-
tion. (Hear, hear.) The proposition, as it stands before
the committee, is as follows : That, towards raising the
supply granted to her Majesty, the stamp duties payable
by law upon or for, or in respect of legacies, shall be granted
and made payable upon and for every succession to the
beneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to
the receipt of any portion or additional portion of the
income or profits thereof that may take place upon, or in
consequence of, the death of any person, under whatever
title, whether existing or future, such sucession may be
derived." Now, the vote of the committee is asked upon
the present occasion for the affirmation of a general princi-
ple that some tax or other—l don't propose to pledge you
to say whether an equal or an ;unequal tax—shall be laid
upon all successions to property that take place in conse-
quence of death. That condition—the accruing of the tax
in consequence of a succession that ensues rpon death—is
the pivot of the whole measure. The importance of the
bearing of this proposal is to be considered with refer-
ence to two great classes of property which have hitherto
been either exclusively or in the main exempt fro n all
charge upon death or upon succession; firstly, real pro-
perty, whether settled or unsettled; and, secondly, settled
property, whether personal or real. The first question we
have to consider is, what are the reasons that have deter-
mined the Government, and that I hope will determine
the committee, to resort to this source for the replenish-
ment of the revenues of the country ? The right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) said a few nights ago, if I
understood him correctly, that I had founded the justifi-
cation of this measure upon its character and effect,
which I described in addressing the house on a former
occasion namely, that the laying of this tax upon
successions to property would countervail the operation of
the income tax in so far as that operation is too severe in
respect of intelligence and skill, and too lenient in respect
of property as compared with intelligence and skill. The
right hon. gentleman observed that that being the pur-
pose of the tax, it was obvious that the tax so considered
ought to terminate— or at least, in the view and mind of
the Government, ought to be intended to terminate, in the
year 1860. Now, I certainly could not with any great
confidence submit this proposition to the committee, if the
tax was intended to terminate in 1860, inasmuch as we
should not have received full legacy duties under this pro-
posal in respect of any one portion of real property in Eng-
land until 1858, and the tax would, therefore, have an ex-
tremely short duration. But, in point of fact, the right
hon. gentleman was mistaken in the construction which he
put upon my statement. I stated that this suceession-tax
equalised—if it be now unequal—the burden that the in-
come tax casts upon property as compared with intelligence
and skill. I stated and admitted that intelligence and
skill were too hardly pressed upon by the income tax as
compared with property. I stated that this measure would
rectify those inequalities; and I stated further, and be-
lieve, that this measure will rectify them to whatever de-
gree you may call it into existence, without raising any
dangerous questions, and without unsettling your financial
system, or rendering it liable to repeated and incessant,
disturbance ; but I am far from saying that the rectifica-
tion of inequalities in the income-tax is the only reason
upon which the justification of this measure is to be based.
It appears to me that there are many other reasons. In the
first place, it is plain that the measure is essential to this
main condition of the financial measures of the Government
—that, as far as in us lies, we will place a future Parlia-
ment in a condition, at a given period, to part with the
income taxif it thinks fit. This is one of the objects we have
proposed to ourselves as essential to justify the proposal to
continue the income tax for seven years —(hear)- -that while
we propose it for a term so considerable, we shall lay the
ground and prepare a train of causes which will supply
Parliament with the means of dispensing with it, if they
shall think fit, at the expiration of that term. (Loud
cheers.) That is another material reason for proposing the
tax upon successions; and .a ithout that tax upon successions
it would be impossible that we could hold out to you any
other expectation of the termination of the income tax than
that series of vague and general expectations which the coun -
try has by this time, after so many repetitions of the experi-
ment, learned to appreciate at their true value. (Laughter
and cheers.) Another purpose for which we propo-e this
tax is to provide a fund by means of which, during that in-
terval of seven years, we may carry into effect great and
extended measures for the remission of indirect taxation.
(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) This is an important and
essential purpose—(hear)--but I do not hesitate to say
that, behind and independent of all these, there is a
purpose yet more and more permanent in its character—
namely, the removal of an anomaly which is unjust in its
nature, which is galling to the public feeling—(hear, hear)
—which becomes more and more galling from year to year,
and which we believe it to be for the interest of all classes
to settle at once and permanently, being convinced that the
longer you postpone that settlement the more difficult it
will be to achieve, and the worse will be the terms upon
which it will be effected. (Hear, and cheers.) With these
views, and with the feeling that the present state of the
law cannot be held good in point of justice, I say that we
have a purpose in this proposal quite irrespective of all
those collateral ends, impel Lent as they, too, are, whichwe
hope to secure by making the proposal at this moment.
Now, Sir, the first question I wish to press upon the ear-
nest and dispassionate consideration of the committee is
this—can we maintain the present law as it is? In my
opirlon it is totally impossible. (Cheers.) I don't mean
that it is impossible to maintain it this session or the next
session. I mean that it is impossible to look upon it as a
portion of our fiscal system with any satisfaction, that the
public sentiment of the country is decidedly adverse to its
continuance in the present state, and that some day or
other—and that at no distant period—it will and must
inevitably be changed. (Hear, hear.) You cannot main-
tain it ; and why ? Not because there is a clamour
against it. (Colonel Sibthorp here made an observation
which was inaudible in the gallery.) lan sorry to scan-
dalise the gallant Colonel. (Laughter.) I should have hoped
that when I said we ought to look into the rights of
the question, and not merely to popular opinion, I should
have had some slight rememberable degree of his approval.
(Colonel Sibthorp, with great vehemence, "No, sir, never."
Loud laughter.) Well, I greatly regret that even those
principles to which I should have thought the hon. and
gallant member would. have given his assent should be so
poisoned by coming from my lips—(a laugh)—but, irre-
spective of the approval of the hon. gentleman, which it
seems I cannot have, I must state the reasons why I think
it is perfectly impossible to defend the continuance of the
present law. In the first place—and I state first the rea-
son which I conceive to be the weakest—l do not think it
possible to defend the continuance of the present law, even
as respects real property: (Hear.) I think, when we look
back to the time of Mr. Pitt---when we reflect upon the
proposal made by him nearly seventy years ago, and con-
sider all that has since passed, we must feel that even
in regard to real property, as such, its present exemption
occupies but a weak and insecure position in the view
of the sentiments and tendencies of this day. I speak
of the exemption as a total exemption. I don't say that
there are not circumstances in the condition of real pro-
perty which ought to be considered when we come to ex-
amine the question in what precise manner we should deal
with it under the measure we may be about to adopt,
What I do say is, that a total exemption of real property
from a tax upon succession, which tax is made applicable
to personal property, and that at a high and heavy rate,
is, in my view, neither an arrangement altogether justifia-
ble, nor an arrangement which is safe, wise, or expedient
with reference to the permanency of our institutions. It
is an exemption which I think is far more invidious than
it is valuable • and therefore I should wish to get rid of the
invidious and odious character which attaches to it, aad
come, if we can, to something like a fair and just measure
of the claims of real property, and to a settlement of those
claims. But if the exemption of real property is difficult
to defend, how much more difficult is it—in my view, at
least—to defend the exemption of settled personality ?
(Hear, and cheers.) Now, what in the world can be said
on behalf of an exemption of settled personalty from legacy
duty? (Hear.) lam not aware of any argument, or the
shred of an argument, that can be brought forward in de-
fence of such exemption. With respect to the exemption
of real property, it is a bond fide exemptioenx.eraSpet hetttwlemehnerts
of real property are not made for the purpose of procuring
this exemption, because real property is
settled or not ; but with respect to personal property we
know that the astuteness of lawyers and the vigilance
of personal interest are continually at work to defeat
the operation of the law—(hear, hear)—and to invent new
modes of escape from the legacy duty, and this with such
extraordinary success that, although there has been an im-
mense increase in the personal property of the country,
such increase is scarcely traceable in the tables of your
legacy duty. (Hear.) We know that arrangements are
made which may be called all but fraudulent—arrange-
I meats which are perfectly senseless, having no meaning
and no justification in themselves, and no rational purpose
to which they can be referred, except that of evading the
law. (Cheers.) Now, some persons may think that there
scarcely to bepainetrapkeeeadnst
is a countervailing consideration in the fact, that settle-
mentsnoe
think,er? thoseanswertlem
oe
of
tsass.tt settlementsai.
are made upon stamps, but I apprehend that is
M ayrebeolifcfaiusothhattahllevstaalumeptshuapot
they
nhemy many
i.nitthFnooarwenSnssun. isthaetn tyhoeuragteet,
aI
document which ascertains the existence of you'r property
at your death, and determine its course, thereby standing
stands,
—it
you take the
in lieu of a will and of letters of administration. Isg
not this privilege enough, independently of n.
evading
the legacy duty? (Hear, hear.) I therenot ls another
duty called the probate duty . Why, the probate
duty of itself, quite irrespective legacy f
from 2to 3i, or, taking extreme cases, 4
amounts to
hon. member sitting behind the Chancellora per
o of
cent. (An
the Exche-
quer here made an observation in a low tone.) Yes, in
some cases the probate duty is beyond 3 °p
then, quite privilege and benefit enough it by cent. Is it not,
per cent. upon a settlement a man should escapePaylng ss.
the pro-
bate• duty of 2,3, or 4 per cent., without being
escape a totally independent impost of 2 or 3 able to
more ? (Hear, hear.) I think it is perfectly monstrous per cent
maintain that, because of the stamp upon settlements, no
legacy duty should be paid by property which has been
settled. It seems to me a very good bargain—indeed, I
should say, if we were now dealing with the probate duty,
too good a bargain—that persons should be able by a stamp