The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

weight. And these are all things which call for that
serious investigation which he invites me to give the
subject. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the further
question, whether or not the land ought to be subject to
the payment of legacy and probate duty, it is impos-
sible, in my judgment, for the house to come to any
safe conclusion upon the subject until we have some
fixed principles laid down and adopted with reference to
the rest of our taxation. (Hear.) Before the house can
consider the question as to what is to be done with
the, probate and legacy duty, I think it should have
more fixed and definite intentions on the subject of the
income tax than have been as yet expressed. The hon.
gentleman says, Here is a system of law that operates in
favour of real property against personal property ; but
when you come to the income tax, and compare its effect
on real property and personal property, it is quite as
clear and undeniable that the income tax is unequal, in
favour of personal property and against real property.
(Hear.) It appears to me that the course which the
house may take with 'reference to the income tax must
necessarily be made the pivot for the arrangement of the
whole of our fiscal system. In considering the question,
we -must necessarily take all the circumstances into
view ; but I am sure the hon. gentleman does not make
it a matter of censure upon me, that after my accession
to office, and when the whole of our system of taxation
is open from one cause or another, I am not now pre-
pared to state to him what may be the ultimate course
of the Government. Much must depend almost
everything must depend, with regard to the fiscal policy
of the next two years, on the course taken by the house
with reference to the income tax. When the time shall
come, I will state the views of the Government. I
assure the hon. gentleman that the whole of the question
shall undergo from me the most careful examination,
and that the results which we may arrive at will be re-
sults to which we shall be led by no desire to favour this
or that class, but by the desire to du full and impartial
justice to all classes. (Cheers.) Whether the hon. gen-
tleman ought or ought not to be satisfied with this ex-
planation, I leave the question in his hands. It is from
no disrespect to him that I point out the inconvenience
of adopting this resolution, and I hope it may be con-
sistent with his views not to press it upon the house for
adoption. At all events, I have done my duty by stating
the principles on which we are prepared to deal with
this ;question, and which has led us to the conclusion
at which we have arrived upon it. (Cheers.)
Mr. HTJME thought the present was the time of all
others when the house should intimate their opinion
upon this subject, and he conceived that his hon. friend
was quite in order in bringing it before them. The right
hon. gentleman denied that this was a class question,
but when in Mr. Pitt's time a bill was brought in to
levy the probate and legacy duty upon all property, it
was proposed by the landed proprietors, after it was
read a first and second time, and went into committee,
that it should be divided into two parts, one referring to
the real and the other to the personal property. They
compelled Mr. Pitt to divide it accordingly, and the bill
referring to the personal property was passed by a small
majority, but when they came to the bill referring to the
tax on real property the division was 30 to 30. When
the bill was returned to Lord Sidmouth, who was
Speaker at the time, he considered that it should go •to
a second division, but Mr. Pitt was told that if he at-
tempted to bring it forward again he must take the con-
sequences. It was calculated that the value of real
property was 2,000,000,0001., out of which 80,000,0001.
annually was liable. It was found also that 52,000,000/.
was the total amount of personal property subject to the
tax ; and was it fair that the 80,000,0001. of real pro-
perty should escape, while the 52,000,0001. of personalty
were assessed. This was a great injustice, and he con-
sidered it was fit and proper, before the introduction of
the budget, that the question should undergo discussion,
and that the house should offer an opinion upon it.
(Hear.) He (Mr. Hume) admitted that deeds of gift
were frequently made of personal property, but notwith-
standing that, he believed if an accurate calculation were
made, it would be found that personal property contri-
buted more than real to the taxation of the country.
The right honoUrable gentleman objected to this motion
because settlements of real property may be made ;
but it was right to remember that settlements might
also be made of personal property. Then it was
said that the landed property of the country was alone
or specially subjected to the local taxation ; but if they
looked at the inhabitants of boroughs, the great majority
of whom had no other property than that of a personal
kind, they would find that they paid their full share of
the local taxes. It was quite a mistake to suppose that
landed property alone paid those local taxes. The ques-
tion was, was there anything peculiar in the settlement
of land which entitled it to exemption from the tax on
bequests ? With regard to railroads—all held to be per-
sonal property—he thought the incidence of this tax, as
it affected them, was most unjust. Again, the direct
taxation on the mass of the working and industrial
classes in this country exceeded belief. A statement was
made about three years ago by an American gentleman
as to the effect of taxation in the United States, in which
it was shown that the taxes there in 1849 and 1850,
upon import duties, amounted to U 9,000,000, and that
that sum was enhanced to $100,000,000 to the actual
consumers. With regard to the income tax, he entirely
agreed with the right honourable gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer that no tax of that kind which
they could lay on could be considered fair and equal
until they had a full inquiry by a committee of that
house as to the bearing of each individual item of our
taxation ; and he invited the Government to institute
such an inquiry forthwith. He would support the mo-
tion of his honourable friend (Mr. Williams) with the
greatest pleasure, this being a question which over and
over again in former times he (Mr. 'Hume) had endea-
voured to press on the consideration of the house and
the various Governments of the day with the view to a
remedy.
Mr. HENLEY was very much indlined to believe that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly aware—
certainly he (Mr. Henley) himself had the strongest opi-
nion on the subject—that any alteration in the direction
pointed out in the motion of the hon. member for Lam-
beth, so far from benefiting the Exchequer, would most
completely damage it. The right hon. gentleman had
very truly stated with regard to personal property, that
it had been the object to lay the tax upon the descent of
it, and upon landed or real property the object had been
to lay the tax upon the transfer. If it had been other-
wise, if the tax had been laid upon the descent of real
property, it would have been unproductive to the Ex-
chequer ; but it was because of the tax on landed pro-
perty being imposed on the transfer, and not upon the
descent, that it had been so very productive to the re-
venue. But with regard to personal property—notwith-
standing the vast amount of that species of property
which was under bona fide and colourable settlements—
he thought a great deal more money might be raised on
the succession to that property than now found its way into
the Exchequer. The hon. member for Montrose had al-
luded very strongly to the incidence of direct and indirect
taxation in America • but the hon. gentleman could not
have forgottenthat the evidence given by American gentle-
men before the income tax committee went to show that
the whole imperial revenue of the country was raised by
indirect taxation, but that the direct taxation was levied
more for local or municipal purposes. The right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to
the weight of local taxation on landed as contradistin-
guished from personal property. He (Mr. Henley) did
not wish to go into that question, because he thought

was only right to consider it with reference to imperial tax-
ation alone. The right hon. gentleman stated also that
he did not lay any great stress upon the stamps upon
conveyances of real property ; but he (Mr. Henley)
thought that a large item. On what were called deeds
and instruments, he believed it amounted to something
like 2,000,000/. a-year. Theyhad never been able to
get from the Stamp-office the exact amount of money
raised in stamp duty, but it was believed by many people
that at least one-half of it affected real property. There
was another question which ought to be taken into con-
sideration—the redeemed and unredeemed land-tax,
amounting together to 2,000,0001. That was quite as
much as the legacy duty ; and the house must bear in
mind that, with regard to the redeemed land tax, that
bad been paid in hard cash. He believed the land of
this country, in the items he had stated, paid a great
do.al more than compensated for the exemptions by which
it was stated to be favoured in not contributing to the
probate and legacy duty. Before the house came to a
conclusion on this matter, they'must look to the inci-
dence of the whole taxation of the country ; and if that
found
fairly looked into, he was convinced it would be
found that the land of the country not only paid its full
share, but a larger share than any other species of pro-
perty.

Mr. BRIGHT
said
if there was one thing more than
another in which the
country felt more than an ordinary
interest, it was the
very tax which the house was now
discussing ;and he
rose for the purpose of making
a few observations,
ohdihe thought would place this
question in a perfectly
point of view. He be-
lieved the Chancellor of the
fully admitted that the condition had that night
of this tax was a great
grievance, and required a remedi
Velma' was not the only Chancellor ' the Exehequer
e right lion. gen-
right hon. gen-
who had made such an admission.°rTef
admitted it ;
tleinan the member for BuckingliamiX
repealinbefore long,
and not only admitted it, but held out re
that if he had remained in office he would exPectation
have dealt with this tax, either by
levying it equally on all kinds of property. Vet, or by
hancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think teerresente as
something in the stamp duty which made it in sornewde-
gree a balancing tax to the one of which complaint was
now made; but the right hon. gentleman forgot that
leasehold property paid all the stamp duty which free-
hold paid. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) thought the
holders of leasehold property—and the great bulk of
the property in this metropolis was of that tenure—had
a great deal to complain of in this matter. Let the
house take the case of Belgrave and Bedford-squares,
the one the property of the Marquis of Westminster,
the other that of the Duke of Bedford. At this moment
the property ire those squares was all held on lease.
During the whole time those leases ran each person who
succeeded on the death of a lessee of the property was
liable to pay probate or legacy duty, and that from 11.
to 101. per cent, according to the degree of consangui-
nity of the person who succeeded to the deceased. But
at the end of the existing leases the whole of this pro-

._ .
-t, fail into the hands of ,
pei yi
it came into
the moment
the Marquis of Westminster
and the Duke of Bedford ; and
their possession the property would cease to pay this
-
tax at all, and the colossal wealth of which it was the
symbol was exempted from the
payment of an impost
wh
ich pressed upon the property of a poor man
in this
country, if even that property was only of the value of 201.
(Hear.) Ile (lir. Bright) knew a case in which an old
mall, who died in 1836, left some amount of property in
stock to his son, -who Centeceeding to it
at the rate of it.paid legacy duty
per. The son died, and left it to
his mother, and then the property paid. again. The mother
died and left it to another son, and then it paid once more.
That son died about a year ago, leaving it to his children,
who
were new living, and theh the legacy duty was paid