The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-19 00:00:00

PETERBOROUGH ELECTION.

Mr. BRIGHT moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the allegations contained in the petitions of
certain electors and inhabitants of the city of Peter-
borough, which were presented upon the Ist day of July,
complaining of the interference of Earl Fitzwilliam,
a peer of the realm, at the election in December last, and
at previous elections of members to serve in Parliament
for the said city. The hon. member stated that for more
than a century the borough had been under the influence
of the Fitzwilliam family, and out of the 500 elec-
tors, no less than 220 were tenants of Lord Fitzwilliam.
He proceeded to dwell upon the practice of giving head-
money, then, after reading a letter addressed to a lady
by Lord Fitzwilliam's steward, refusing to receive her
as tenant, on the ground that the vote might so be lost
to Lord Fitzwilliam. Ho gave instances in which per-
sons had been served with notices to quit for refusing
to vote, or voting contrary to the wishes of Lord Fitz-
William. He asserted that the late petition was not
bond fide, but got up and carried on at the expense of
Lord Fitzwilliam, and concluded by moving that a select
committee be appointed for the purpose of making in-
quiries.

Mr. FITZWILLIAM, in rising to second Mr.
Bright's motion, explained the statements made by Mr.
Bright respecting the serving notices to quit upon Lord
Fitzwilliam's tens:its. he denied the allegations in the
petition, that no ci.ne in the borough could give an inde-
pendent vote without exposing himself to losses and in-
convenience of every description, and appealed in refu-
tation to the fact that not only had there been several
contested elections within the last few years, but there
was actually a member for Peterborough sitting in the
house whose political opinions were at variance with
that of Lord Fitzwilliam.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. R.
PALMER,
Mr. DIVETT did not think it would be advisable to
nominate this committee until the Peterborough elec-
tion petition had been disposed of.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not object to the
present motion, but he thought it would be inconvenient
that there should be two committees sitting at the
same time on almost the same same subject,
while at this period of the session it was hardly possible
that the inquiry could close before the prorogation.
Mr. HUME said the inquiry was of an entirely differ-
ent character to that of the election petitions, which did
not impute corruption, but want of qualification, to Mr.
Whalley.
Mr. E. DENISON complained of the late period at
which the petition was presented, which, he said, was
contrary to all Parliamentary precedents.
Mr. contrary
said the petition was intrusted to
him somt months ago, but motives of delicacy prevented
his presentmg it. He entreated the house to appoint the
committee and remove Peterborough from its present
state of suspense.
Mr. V. SMITH did not think it would be advisable
to appoint this committee while the election petition was
pending.
The motion was then agreed to.
SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. LIDDELL said that not having been present during
the discussion hitherto on this bill, he could not allow this
stage to proceed without expressing his decided opinion
that the measure was altogether inconsistent with sound
policy and justice. A more unjust or more exacting mea-
sure never had been propounded to Parliament. The coun-
try had heard of ship-money, of poundage, and of but-
lerage ; but all these measures of an oppressive and in-
quisitorial character had been repealed by the wisdom of
successive Parliaments, and it had remained for the in-
genuity of the right hon. gentleman, when it should be
the duty of persons in his position to remove every odious
impost, to impose this extortionate tax upon the people of
England. He made no motion upon the question, but he
felt that ho should not have done his duty to his constitu-
ents if ho had not, even at the last stage, expressed his
011.1).11ition to the measure.
sefona.SPOONER moved the addition of a proviso to the
the fatelause, the effect of which would be, that where
tenant far father as
Ilvas a tenant for life, and the son was either a
or a tenant in feo or in tail in remainder or
reversion of the la
to ho a lineal descendant,
property, the son should be deemed
', and should pay duty accordingly.
The SOLICITOR
the ground that it wouIZTERAL opposed the proviso, on
emptions which might the
the door to a series of ex-
Mr. MULLINGS sapportele recognised'
the proviso, and expressed
his conviction that, if not con
far distant when it must be. conceded
new' the day was not
Mr. MALINS also supported it.
cnt. would ave
die, and 10 per cent. after 10 per Son afterh son might
to be
e
paid, until the whole estate was eaten away by the Govern-

cT
I tti ruld not
ground
--- ;
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQU
roa;
assent to the amendment, if it were only
that it did not contain any distinct and tonablof
an. m
this exemption would not apply to others. to,
the the amendment would occasion confusion and difile-alty.
After a few words in support of the proviso from Sir J.
PAKINGTON,
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the proviso
Against it
Majority against it. —3B
Mr. FRESTIFIELD then successively moved two amend-

ments on the fourth clause, with reference to the general 1
powers of appointment over property, the object of which
was to make the exercise of such powers confer successions
only in cases where the appointments so made insured to
the benefit in whole or in part of the parties making them;
but after an explanation by the Solicitor-General that the
clause as it stood was in strict conformity with the prin-
ciple of the Legacy Duty Act, and that the Government
were not disposed to alter it, both amendments were ne-
gatived without a division.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the omission of the pro-
viso to the 21st clause. This clause enacted tint the inte-
rest of a successor in real property should be considered as
an annuity, the duty chargeable thereon to be paid by
eight equal half-yearly instalments; and then followed the
proviso, the omission of which was moved by the right
hon. baronet—" Provided that if the successor shall die
before all such instalments shall have become due, then
any instalments not due at his decease shall cease to be
payable, except in the case of a successor who shall have
been competent to dispose of a continuing interest in such
property,
in which case the instalments unpaid at his
death shall be a continuing charge on such interest, in ex-
oneration of his other property, and shall be payable by
thelowner for the time being of such interest." The oh-
jest of his amendment was to prevent the accumulated tax
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to levy in
the case specified, because, in his opinion, this accumulated
tax would be unjust and oppressive, and would fall chiefly
on the humbler and poorer class of landed proprietors.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
agree to the amendment. Great indulgence was shown to
the successor by allowing him nearly five years for the
payment of his tax. It appeared absurd to represent the
tax, as proposed to be levied by this clause as unjust or
oppressive. If a man had a continuing interest in pro-
perty which he died in possession of, the tax due upon it
would be a debt to the state, which ought to be paid in
the same way as any other debt.
Mr. CROSSLEY was of opinion that the landlords had
been let off very easily by the bill, and he should not be
surprised to see some of them sending the Chancellor of the
Exchequer conscious money, as was done by persons who
had been oblivious respecting the payment of the income-
tax.
Mr. MALINS remarked that the Opposition were fight-
ing tho battle of small landed proprietors, and expressed
his conviction that when the bill should come into opera
it .
tion would acquire the character of being one of the
most hateful measures over enacted.
211 r. HADFIELD opposed and Mr. VANCE supported the
amendment,
After a few words from Mr. E. DENISON and Mr. MUD,
LINOS,

The amendment was negatived.
Mr. MALINSrose to move the omission of clause 23, pro-
viding for the mode of levying the tax on timber. The public
was much indebted to landed proprietors for planting their
estates with timber, whether ornamental or profitable. It
was proposed by this clause, that if any gentleman should
cut down timber to the amount of 101. he would have to
pay 25., and so on in proportion. For the sake of this pal-
try and insignificant tax the exciseman was to be main-
tained, and watchers sent to inspect the felling of timber
on every gentleman's estate. For this insignificant sum of
a few shilliags the Chancellor of the Exchequer would open
a ledger account with every estate in the kingdom. (Hear.)
If he would only leave every proprietor to make his own
return in his own way, he would receive a much more cer-
tain return, and would, moreover, make more revenue out
of it ; for, by the present mode, the Chancellor of tho Ex-
chequer would be a decided loser. How was he to be com-
pensated for the cost of collecting theie items of 2s. or 21.,
as the case might be, upon felled timber ? He trusted that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose pertinacity in ad-
hering to every clause of this bill he greatly regretted,
would at the last moment make some concession, an with-
draw this clause, as altogether unworthy of being retained.
He then moved that the 23d clause be omitted.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, if the hon, and lalrned gen-
tleman would walk into the poor man's cottage, and see
the old oak chest and the old arm chair, and other furni-
ture which had come down to him, perhaps, from his grand-
mother, he would find that if they were of more value than
201., ho would have to pay for them 24 per cent. as probate
duty, and 14 per cent. as legacy duty, while under the pre-
sent bill not more than a per cent, would be paid by the
landed interest.

Lord J. MANNERS expressed his astonishment that the
landed interest had treated this budget so leniently, and
quoted a passage from Adam Smith, to the effect that the
monied interest in Parliament always looked more sharply
to what effected themselves than the country interest did.
Ho objected to this clause because it treated timber
or product of the soil in a manner in which no other
product of the soil was treated, and subjected it to
an unfair, odious, and inquisitorial
i system of taxa-
tion. He also objected to it because t was antagonistic
to tho principle of taxation which had hitherto prevailed
in this country. There were peculiar circumstances con-
nected with timber which might induce the Government
to exempt it from taxation altogether. In estimating the
value of property hedge-row timber was naturally included,
and if that timber were removed for the improvement of
agriculture were they to tax it ? Ought they not to allow
for the detriment which its growing had occasioned to cul-
tivation? The same observations applied to isolated field
timber. Another objection to the tax was, that it was a
tax—an excise duty—on raw material. Mr. M`Culloch
laid down in his work that it was against all principle to
lay taxes on commodities to be subsequently manufactured,
and that timber was the most important of all raw mate-
rials. At this very moment, though there was nominally
a duty on all foreign timber imported, the exceptions were
numerous. No duty was paid on timber for shipbuilding.
Was it just that all this foreign timber should be impoltecl
duty free, while corresponding articles of English growth
were heavily taxed? (Hear, hear.) If this clause were
carried, the spectacle presented would be a most extraordi-
nary one—the same Parliament which declared the impor-
tation of foreign timber at the lowest cost to be an object
of national importance, would be enacting that all English
timber should be taxed to an amount varying according to
the degree of relationship between the present and the for-
mer owner. In order to be consistent, those whorepealed
the corn and the meat duties should have proposed some
time ago that corn and meat grown in England should be
subject to an excise duty. (Hear, hear.) By retaining
this clause tho right hon. gentleman would confirm the
suspicion that landlords had formed with regard to the sin-
cerity of free traders, and would deepen the feeling that,
at the hands of the present Government at least, the
landed interest had no reason to expect justice or fair
consideration.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND was surprised that the noble lord
did not perceive the fallacy of his own argument. (Cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) The proposed tax was not
a tax on timber, but a tax on succession, and would bepaid
by the owner of staves to which the noble lord referred
no less than by the landowners. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord said he could not understand how anybody connected
with the landed interest could support their bill. He (Mr.
Drummond) held that the principle involved in that re-
mark was a fallacious one. When legislation was founded
on class interest, it could not be of the right kind. (Hear,
hear.) Ho disliked this succession tax as much as any one ;
but the question was why, when personalty was subjected
to a succession duty realty should be exempted. (Hear,
hear.) The expenses connected with the levying of the
tax, would no doubt produce a great deal of irritation,
but it was the small and not the powerful landed proprie-
tors who would suffer most. The attorneys would reap
such a large harvest from this tax, that they would have
no occasion in future for the efforts of the noble lord the
member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) since her Ma-
jesty's Government had, in the succession duty, made them
a present which far outweighed anything they could gain
from the remission of the duty on certificates. Hear.)
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it ll7
Majority —4O

Mr. CAYLEY said as a general rule timber land was
not more valuable than arable or pasture land, while single
trees and hedgerows did more harm than good. He would,
therefore move as an amendment that it should be at the
option of the successor to have timber estimated for the
purposes of the act at the same rate as arable, pasture, or
other land of similar quality immediately adjoining.
The CHANCELLOR of tho EXCHEQUER was sorry
that he could not consent to the insertion of the proposed
words, first, because it would not be applicable to park
timber, and secondly because it would create the greatest
possible difficulty in the assessment of value. All ground
of objection was removed by the fact of the successor hav-
ing the option of either paying on the annual receipts or
commuting.
The amendment was negatived without a division.

Sir J. PAKINGTON then moved an amendment, the
object of which was to prevent the bill from being retro-
spective. He could not allow this bill to be passed without
again recording his strong objection to what appeared to
him the excessive injustice of adding to the burdens of pro-
perty, which was already over-taxed. Whatever difference
of opinion there might be on other points, there could be
none with regard to the injustice of ex post facto legisla-
tion—(hear, hear)—and although they (the Opposition) had
not been able to obtain majorities in that house, it was
satisfactory to know that they had succeeded in opening
the eyes of the country to the oppressive nature of the im-
post which the Government now sought to impose on it.
It now remained for the other house and the country to
say what view they took of this measure • and he believed
that so inquisitorial and oppressive would the new tax be
found, that the country, at least, would insist on some
other species of taxation being substituted for, it. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS said the attention of the right hon. gen-
tleman had been repeatedly drawn to this clause (the
34th), the effect of which was, that a son who had joined a
father in getting encumbrances on his inheritance, and then
succeeded, would have to pay the tax as if he succeeded to
a clear inheritance. He had within his knowledge a case
in which more than a million was borrowed in that man-
ner, long before the Succession Bill was thought of—
(hear, hear)—and would it be just to make the heir pay
on the million borrowed ? He appealed to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who had not thought it necessary
to answer the arguments previously addressed to him,
whether ho thought it just that a son should be made
to pa duty on ort which he never succeeded?
They CHANCELLOR y of tothe EXCHEQUER said the
reasoni why ho had not spoken on the point referred to by
theon. and learned gentlemen of late was, that not in
one
debateeverything only,
,biutt
Winastritbeeion the limits or four debates,
of hisates,he capacityhadsaid
to conceive or to inflict on the house. (Hear, hear.) To the
hon. and learned gentleman's
Lilis clause just; he had not tqhue el setai
sotn , h e t
hesitationerh
n thoughtreply.
t* that ho thought it was just. It was not, as the hon.
ehorere
supposed, the principle of the bill
and learned gentleman
that men should pay dusl4Piorely on that to which they
whita al
iyt succeeded,in te but
ni
ethatr,
shouldanotl3 pay it
to en
succeed. that to
successions
by
(Hear, hear.) If a person anticipated
spending the fruit beforehand, the requiring
the duty was founded on general justice. glotiosluvatlltaisnintuiontapadialeyy-
sirable for the country that those who had
59,000/. a year, and had pledged 45,0001.,
in imaginary possession of the whole estate. Threetuiu
prin-
ciple required by justice was that the succession whichha
been anticipated should not be placed in a better position
than that which had been waited for until the legal and
proper time of enjoyment.
Mr. MULLINGS supported the amendment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE protested against the bill as me.
diwval legislation, and as an effort to restore feudal tenure.
If the right hon. gentleman merely wanted increased re-
-venue from real property, why not acid a sixpence M the
pound to Schedule A ?
Mr. DISRAELI did not think that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's anticipations as to the amount to be derived
from this source would be realised. The case mentioned
certainly ttahien finda i'
this ke' arn
es
ed opmperme sbs ie are ,foar Wa
n d the 11
inpagf r
r otw
s'. hailo would
remedy, as they had no power to alienate any portion of
the domain. He thought the right hon. gentleman had
better re-consider the clause, with a view to making it pro-
spective only.
_ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had always objected to
legislating with a view to particular cases ; but, as this
particular case had been mentioned, he might say that
where a father and son wished to preserve estates from
pride of ancestry, instead of selling to clear off debts, that

was not a case for peculiar consideration. Again, a man
might borrow 50,0001. on his succession, and turn it to pro-
fit, and was that to escape because it had been antici-
pated ?
Mr. WALPOLE would venture to say that unless Go-
vernment gave way on this clause they wild not only
suffer in public opinion, but would be defeated in another
place, where the clause would be judicially considered. He
had no objection to the prospective operation of the clause,
but thought that its retrospective action should be pre-
vented.
__ _ _ _

The house divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority •••••• ......... —4l
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. MALINS proposed amendments, leaving out clause
23, and exempting " titles to land" from the operation of
clause 49. He considered the power taken unnecessary,
and likely to prove oppressive and offensive even to the
small freeholders.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
already shown that the production of deeds was absolutely
necessary. _ _ _

Sir O:BURRELL supported the amendment.
The house divided—.
For the amendment llO
Against it
Majority —36
A verbal amendment was made at the instance of Mr,
CRAUFIIRD.

On the question that " the bill do now pass," another
division was insisted upon by the opposition, the numbers
on which were—

For the motion 176
Against it
Majority ---72
The bill then passed, amid considerable cheering from
the Ministerial side of the house.