The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-14 00:00:00

(bleabitatfeorairth.oßsruigpheterthaodfotpehnle ;otalynddieenlaarefdorzaetr
moment he heard this proposal. He looked upon it as a
yinacendindie tax
nx
if it had not been for this part of the budget, the Govern-
nient would never have got his support to the income tax.
(Cheers.) lie objected alike to the motives by which the
tax had been proposed and to the tax itself. Let Parlia-
ment pass it if they would be subservient enough, but his
firm conviction was that they had better not reckon upon
any permanent income from this source, for when the
country found the nature of the burden, and of the ma-
chinery by which it was to be raised, a public feeling
would be excited with which no Government would dare
to struggle, and the day was not distant when the present
Government or their successors, whoever they might be,
would find themselves obliged to propose the repeal of this
duty, in obedience to the unanimous demand of an indig-
nant nation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HEADLAM ,regretted that the right on gentle-
man hi 4 thought it necessary to raise so many objections
to the bill ; but the course he had taken did not go to re-
move those objections but to prevent any further proceed-
ing with the bill. He was the more surprised at that, be-
cause the right hon. baronet had been a member of a Go-
vernment who themselves had contemplated the proposi g
i such a tax, and this not more than six months ago. e
del not charge this as mere inconsistency, bet after t e
right hon. baronet had concurred in such a measure, it s
too much to say that the Government now proposed it with
a view to buy radical support. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose, and said he could give the
most unqualified contradiction to this statement.
Mr. HEADLAM said he did not know what the centre-
. diction applied to ; all he asserted was that the then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer made this statement with reference
to the Government of which the right hon. baronet was a
member. He used the term " we" with reference to that
Cabinet, and surely be must have included all the members.
He regretted the course that had been taken, not from any
effect it would have on the bill, but as tending to place the
lended gentry'in a wrong position. The right hon. gentle-
man had been most singularly unfortunate in
representing
that the bill did not mainly affect large proprietors, but
apse of small property, and tradesmen in towns. What
was the fact ? Tradesmen in towns were generally lease-
holders, and they would benefit by this bill.. There had
been no remonstrance against the bill out of doors-scarcely
a petition against it—certainly no large public meetings in
opposition to it. The press were generally silent on the
meesure, though it was rarely slow in detecting a grievance.
At present personal property was subject to two distinct
duties —the probate and legacy duties. The former
amounted to no inconsiderable sum—nearly two per cent.
upon the whole capital ; but from this real property was
exempt, and would remain so. The present legacy duties
averaged three per cent. upon the property. -In the case
of personal property, the legacy duty was paid on thci
whole amount. but in the case of succession to real pro-
perty, the individual was not taxed on the whole interest.,
but only on the life interest. The greatest value of a life
interest occurred in the case of a child who was four
years old, at which. period the life interest was worth
near 20 years' purchase of the absolute value of an estate,
the value of the estate being calculated at 30 years' pur-
chase. In no case, therefore, would the successor to a
real estate pay two-thirds of what was paid in
the case of personal property. But the case of such
of such succession was an extreme one. In the case
of a person 39 years of age succeeding to the estate, the
value of his life interest was about 13 years' purchase—
that was to say, instead of such a person having to pay on
the whole value of the estate, he would have to pay the
only half its value. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman
put the case of a man with 100/. a year, and said that it
would be a groat hardship to make him pay 451. on that.
But what was the case of the individual who was left 1001.
a year in the funds? In that case the party was charged
not merely with the succession duty, but he had first of all
to pay 2 per cent. probate duty, and then he was charged
on the whole capital which produced that 1001. a year.
Tbo result was that, instead of having to pay 451., he would
have to pay 1651. (Hear.) With regard to leaseholds,
under which species of tenure a considerable portion of
the landed property of this country was held, the measure
was very favourable, as by it they would be put in the same
position as rateable property. (Hoar.) Was it reasonable
or desirable then, he would ask, in the landed interest' to
exhibit so much opposition to eo moderate a measure!
That interest above all others should be the last to object
to the proposition now before the house. (Hear.) ho
professional, commercial, and manufacturing classes had
acted wisely and generously in not manifesting any decided
apposition to the imposition Qf the income tax'
' which ope-
rated with great hardship upon them and he thought the
landed interest would do well to exhibit something of the
same disposition, instead of maintaining what he was sure
would prove afi uitless opposition to the measure. This
me esure was an essential and integral portion of the Snan-
cial proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With-
out it the right hon. gentleman would not be able to carry
out the remissions of duty which he proposed, nor would
there be much hope of seeing any change in the income tax
at the end of seven yeara. (Hear.) There was no disposi-
tion amongst the town constituencies to encroach on the
just rights of property; on, the contrary, there was every
disposition to encourage kindly feelings with the landed
interest, and this being the caee4 he thought it would be
most unfortunate to revive angry paesions by seeking to
perpetuate uriust and unfair exemptions. (Hear.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD said that the hon. and learned gen-
tleman seemed desirous to stop opposition to this measure,
on the ground that his right hon. friend the member for
Bucks had committed himself to the principle of a sueces-
sion tax ; but if the, hon, and learned gentleman read the
language of his right hen. friend, he would find that it did
not warrant the inference—scarcely in part, and certainly
not in substance—which he drew from them. After stating
the nature of his proposition his right hon. friend went on
to say, " At the same time we have not neglected carefully
to examine the question of the stamp duty, 'and Of the
legacy and probate d... 1.4, and therefore we propose -,----."
Did his right hon. friend say that? No ; but he proeeeded
to say, " And is it not inmssible but we may be able, on
the proper occasion, to bring forward a measure for impos-
ing a duty on successions that will reconcile conflicting in-
terests and terminate the injustice so much complained of.'
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial bench.) It was said
that this was a rich man's question; but,he would put the
case of a tradesman echo purchased 1001. a year, or some
small property on which he might expend several years'
rental, in order to put the homestead in a position which
would enable him .f i let the - farm. He knewethat.easei
like this occurred,, and if it occurred in the case of a sale and
purchase, it might also happen in the case of a succession,
and would it rot be a serious matter to burden a man in
such a position with the'succeasion tax at such a moment.
He (Mr. Freshfield) did not contend for the exemption or
land from the succession tax in the abstract, but what he
a nitended for was that the land should be put on the same
tooting with personal property before they could be dealt
with in the same way. For' instance, if a man invested
5,000/. in stock, he could do so without any or at little
expense; but if ho purchased an estate worth the same
sum, he would have to pay 681. for a stamp at the very
outset. There was therefore a distinction in the circum-
stances and burdees ;each affected real and personal pro-
perty. (Hear, Bear.) , When Mr. Pitt proposed his succes-
sion tax, ho especially exempted bone fide matters of con-
tract from its operation ; but in the present bill there was
no exemption in favour of such contracts. On that occasion
Mr. Fox opposed the measure, which he charactmised
as an " execrable" ono. (Hear.) This mischievous and
obnoxious proposition was then laid in its grave, and was
never revived till 1842, when Mr. Elphinson moved for a
committee of thewhole house to consider the subject. On
that occasion the noble lord (Russell) and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer divided rgainse the motion ; so that he
(Mr. Freshfield) had some hope, though a faint one, that
he should see them in the same lobby with himself on tho
present occasion. On that occasion Sir Robert Peel said
that a time might come when the minister would possess
so much of the confidence of the House of Commons that
he would be able to propose a tax on successions, but of
this ho was confident, that no minister could not in justice
do that without revising the whole system of taxation.
(Hear.) That was all he (Mr. Freshfield) now contended
for. They were imposing between 17 and IS per cent.
income tax on property for seven years, and ho contended
that this was not the time for imposing a succession tax
also on property. The 53d clause was so monstrous and
offensive in a moral point of view that he was surprised
any man should be allowed to form such a clause. A man
was by that, clause obliged to deliver an account, and if it
was false ho was to be declared guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury. Such a clause must have passed under the sup-
position that it would be amended in committee, but he
maintained that it was so offensive that it should never
have been printed at all. He thought it was a great injus-
tice, too, that a man who insured his own life was free
from the tax; whereas if a creditor insured the life of his
debtor he was made liable to it. He knew of no measure
which would prove so destructive of social relations or
effect half the mischief that the bill, if passed, would
effect. (Hear.)
Mr. PHILLIMORE thought that the strong language
which had been used in reference to this proposition by
hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be somewhat qualified,
seeing that the right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer had declared that on the proper occasionhe
would bo prepared to propose a tax on successions himself.
(Hoar.) He confessed he listened with astonishment
to the right hon. gentleman when he said that her Majes-
ty's Government " pandered to radical pressure" in propos-
ing this measure, for of all the radical and revolutionary
speeches he ever heard the most so was that of the right
hon. gentleman who began his address by attaching the
bench of bishops for the vote which they conscientiously
gave on this subject, and he ended it by saying he hoped
that if Parliament passed the bill the people would never
submit to it. Stronger language could scarcely have pro-
ceeded from the month of the most revolutionary dema-
gogue. (Hear, hear.) Tho great fallacy which pervaded
the speech of the right hon. baronet was, that personal
property paid no poor-rate. Having some leasehold pro-
perty which was assessed to the relief of the poor, he was
surprised to hear such an resertion. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer was fully justified in speaking of the monstrous
inequality of the present state of the law when a lease -
bold 'or twenty years paid the legacy duty, and property
held for en indefinite period was exempt.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he drew a distinction between
rateable and personal property.
Mr. PHILLIMORE could not understand the right hon.
baronet's distinction. He could not have meant to say
that a leasehold held for 999 years, which was a very com-
mon species of possession, was not subject to legacy duty.
The right hon. gentleman had quoted very high authori-
ties, including Mr. Fox. It was well known that with
regard to political economy Mr. Fox's views were most
defective, as, on the caber hand, those of his great rival,
Mr. Pitt, had anticipated much that had since met with
general ape oval. A reference to Mr. Fox on such a sub-
ject reminded him of an allusion by Mr. Canning to per-
sons who could worship the sun when it was under an
oe'ipse. With regard to the right hon. gentleman's decla-
ration that this measure was a blow aimed at the aristo-
cracy of the country, he begged to say that if he had y
idea whatever that the measure deserved an-
such a descrip-
tion, from no one would it receive a more strenuous oppo-
sition than from himself. He believed. I
the noble lord the member for Hull, however, v. ith
(Lord Gotlerich) that
i it would take away from the landed
gentry and the aristo-
cracy of the country, whom he for -
, one, wished to see
flourish as the best security for
the revel liberties of their
country, the odium which now clung to them from a gene-
rally spread belief that they •
were enjoying an immunity
which the rest of their countrymen did not share.
Mr. MULLINGS said he had desired to address the com-
mittee when the resolutions on which this bill was founded
were under consideration ; but he was not sorsa that
he had no opportunity of rising until after the house had
heard the unanswerable speech of the right hon. baronet
the member for Droitwich. He was not one of those who
contended for the exemption of landed property as landed
property. He viewed the question as one of legacy duty
only ; and had the proposition been confined to the im-
position of a legacy duty oil landed property he would
have been the first to support it. %Vh
en, however, he
considered the nature of the proposed tax—a tax on all
real and persanal.property, settled and unsettled—and the
machinery with which it was to be levied, he could not
but feel alarmed at such a proposition. He need not
explain to the house what was real and what was personal