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

deevoneto give a rapid view of the history of taxation.
(Oh, biji aid laughter.) The hon. gdareman then read a
Bw...es of 010/414tiorif3,. #hiell showed in the. result that in
the lait 31 years 40 miTlioris of taiation it;.j been remitted,
and only 10,500,0001. imposed, I,ing s balancell favour
of roillssion of 29 or 30 millions. Seeing this, he thoZht
that there ought to be some pause in remission of taxation,
in order to see whether the prosperity that prevailed would
not work out such a change as would allow of further re-
missions, and al. a whether the productiveness of some
arecles of taxation which remained would not prevent the
necessity of laying this cruel burden on the landed. interest.
He did not think that any effectual opposition to this bill
cattld be carried on, but he left the case of the landed in-
terest in this particular to the sense of justice of the Eng-
lish people.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), speaking with great
vehemence, tritxl to lead the louse away from .the consi-
deration of what was a simple matter of finance, and had
,
favoured them with a display of a somewhat passionate
character, Ile was glad, therefore, to find that the ten-
dency of the very calm observations avhich had been de-
livered by the hon. baronet who had just resumed his seat
had been to disarm the house, and, to bring it down to a
somewhat sober state, in order fairly-to consider the ques-
tion before it. (A laugh.) It appeared to him that there
was very little cause for all the warmth which the right
hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich had evinced—
(hear, hear)-.—for he thoUght that the queition Which they
had to deterinine o n in committee was neither a very diffi-
cult nor a very complex one. During a considerable' time
the house had heard a great deal in favour of , the revision
of taxation, a view which he believed originally proceeded
from a party on the Ministerial side of the house, and
which was shared in by hon. gentlemen opposite. And
when the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire was Chancellor of the Exchequer he adopted
this s'cheme of a revision of taxation as the one most likely
to settle the question which had been so Long the subject of
controversy between the great parties in that house. It
certainly had always appeared to him that the" revision of
taxation was not a matter which could be done all at once,
but that it must naturally extend over many years, and
that the question now under consideration must necessarily
be included in any such revision. The right hon. gentle-
Man opposite (Mr. Disraeli), it was quite true, made a most
laudable effort in that direction, and though he did not
consider the selection of his measures a very judicious one,
nevertheless there could be no doubt his attempt was one
for which he deserved every credit. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman, however, had told the house that among
the other subjects which he had to notice there was one
which had fallen under the consideration of the Govern-
ment to whic'i he belonged, and that was the question of,
the probate and legacy duties; and though, indeed, he was
not as yet prepared with an actual measure, the necessity
for one had not failed to present itself. (Hear.) Well,
the question remained in that state, and when his right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on going
through the various branches of our financial system, came
to the legacy and probate duties, nothing could be more
reasonable than that he should be struck with the injustice
and irregularity of this tax. ,Here was, a tax which bore
very hardly in really instances upon the succession to per-
sonal property, and which did not apply to real property at
all. And then there followed those very artificial and very
singular distinctions in our laws Of property, which de-
clared, 'according to certain provisions, that some descrip-
tions of property should be deemed settled, and others un-
settled. Again, the consideration was presented that pro-
perty held on lease of 999 years—not personal property—
estates subject to a particular contingency—were considered
real property, and thereby escaped taxation altogether.
Nothing, therefore, was more natural—ro proposition
more in accordance with v.xious views ,Which had been
promulgated in that house as to the necessity for a revi-
sion of taxation, than one by which all' those anomalies
all these irregularities should, 3n some degree, be corrected,
and ho believed that his right hon. friend was likely to be
confirmed in his intention by looking at the financial his-
tory of the country. For he could not fail to have been
struck with finding that when Mr. Pitt proposed a tax' of
this nature, he at first contemplated a tax upon real and
personal property; he afterwards; however, divided the
tax into two bills, and brought both under the considera-
tionof the House of Commons, and it was only after a di-
vision of 54 upon each side, that he abandoned his inten-
tion of imposing the tax upon real property. Therefore,
nothing could be more clear than that it was Mr. Pitt's
view that the two taxes should go together, if not, per.
haps, in the same bill, at least that their enforcement
should be simultaneous. And let' him pause to consider
what were the causes of Mr. Pitt's defeat. Mr. Fox ob-
jected in the very strongest manner to the imposition of
the tax upon personalties; he was defeated, however, in
his attempt by a very large majority. The principle, how-
ever, of his opposition applied to both taxes, and rested
upon his unwillingness to grant any increase of taxation
for the'purpose of carrying on the war. Mr. Pitt was in-
tent upon the means 0.. carrying on the war ; while Mr.
Fox, opposed to the war, was equally inte-it upon depriv-
ing the Minister of the means of its prosecution. But the
latter right hon. gentleman, who had entirely failed in his
opposition to the tax upon personal property, was successful
in joining the opposition to the tax upon real property ;
and let him (Lord J, Russell) just ask what was the origin
of that success ? It would be found in the fact that at
that time Mr. Pitt had failed at an earlier period of his life
in carrying 'that reform in Parl'ament of which he had
been the advocate, and he had no doubt that if he had
carried his measure 'of reform—if the commercial and
manufacturing interests of the country had been duly re-
presented in this house in the year 1795, that the two taxes
would have been imposed together. (Cheers from the Mi-
nisterial benches.) But at a late period the right hon.
gentleman referred to a discussion which took place in 1842,
and represented him (Lord J. Russell) as if he had on that
occasion opposed the extension of the legacy duty to real
property. If, however, the right hon. gentleman would
refer to what actually passed on that occasion he would
find that his objections were of a totally different nature.
On that occasion his objec ion went rather to the non-in-
terference with. the existing arrangements, as, if any inter-
ference at all took place, settled property must be made
subject to the tax. Well; now, however, his right honour-
able friend made the extension of the tax a feature of his
financial scheme. But he had made another objection,
which was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made
his arrangements regarding the finances of the year ; and
as he had not proposed a succession tax in his ways and
means, that he' (Lord J. Russell) was not going to propose
an additional duty. That, hOwever, was not the case at the
present moment, for the Chancellor of the Exchecrtier had
included the proposed extension in his scheme. Well, then,
the question was whether they would continue this tax
upon succession, and so continuing it make it a just and an
equal tax. The right hon, baronet the member for Droit-
wich was certainly struck with the injustice of the princi-
ple of the tax— (Cheers from the Opposition benches)—and
he had gone on to say that it was contrary to the teachings
of political economy. He could not bear to see a tax im-
posed upon successions at a time when there were very
great difficulties to be encountered by any new tax. The
right hon. gentleman, however, so long as the tax applied
merely to personal property, had overlooked all that viola-
tion of principle and the doctrines of political economy.
(Ministerial cheers.) Indeed, it was but the other day that
he (Lord J. Russell) happened to be speaking to a person
who had been appointed executor under a. will, and the
party informed him that he had to pay the tax three times
over within the space of two years, the property in ques-
tion having been left to a person in but a very humble
situation—a market gardener. Well, there could be no
doubt that was a very great hardship ; but, said the right
hon. baronet,. get rid of the tax altogether. Now, let it be
remembered, there were' 2,000,000 G. derived from a tax,
and the right hon. gentleman has not proposed.• to get rid of
it otherwise than by his speech—(hear, hear, and laughter
from the Ministerial benches)—for he had never proposed
a single measure by which the hardship of the tax might
bo disposed of. And hero with regard to that clause of the
bill affectine timber, which had excited the strongest anger
of the right hon. gentleman, and which he designated as
amounting to plunder, if Fe had adverted to the act of
1795 he would have found, that while plate, which was
bequeathed without a right of dispoLal, was not subjected
to the tax ; plate, on the contrary, which might be disposed
of, was liable to the tax upon successions. And that was
the principle which was adopted in the case of timber.
But the right hon. gentleman, who was so indulgent in the
case of plate, became suddenly indignant when there ' was
mention of timber, because that immediately affected the
land, and when any question of that kind was started there
was at once a chance of revolution. (Hear, and laughter
from the Ministerial benches.) It did, therefore, seem to
him, that if they meant to make the tax at all equal and
consistent, they ought at least to he guided by a principle,
and he believed that the house generally would admit, as
the county- had agreed already, that if they were to have
a succession tax at all, it ought to apply to all kinds of
property, and that the House of Commons ought not to ex-
ercise its powers in a merely capricious manner. However,
gentlemen were so much transported upon the subject that
the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) thought it ex-
tremely fatal to have a tax of the kind, and he said that
our institutions were all put in jeopardy by such a propo-
sal. Now he (Lord J. Russell) believed that the only matter
in question which brought our institutions into jeopardy,
was the language used by the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Droitwich, and that used by the hon. baronet the
member for Lincolnshire (Sir J. Trollope), in connection
with the other house of Parliament. (Hear, and laughter,)
For not only had theSe hon. baronets complained,, in terms
by no means ambiguous, of the course adopted by the other
house, but they actually divided it into two pares
ties, and whilst theyare tolerably well satisfied with the con-
duct of the temporal peers, they have a serious ground for
complaint against the spiritual peers. He confessed that
whilst the motion which had been made to separate the
functions of ecclesiastics from the duties of the house of
Parliament had rather alarmed him, yet if henceforward
such a motion were to receive the eloquent support of the
members for Droitwich and Lincoln, he must, and ho
should, regard its repetition with very great dismay. (Consi-
derable laughter.) Such then being the case, he trusted
the right hon. gentleman would not pursue his opposition
in so strenuous—he might almost say in so vehement— a
manner ; but that he would regard the measure of the
Government as an attempt to make the imposition of
the tax more fair and equal. And thus, as the proposal
had met generally with the approbation of the people, so
the principle would receive the sanction of the House of
Commons, and they would not be further detained from
entering upon its details in committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. DUNCOMBE said the tax now proposed in-
volved the necessity of either borrowing money to pay it,
or else necessitated the sale of the land. (Hear, hear.)
But he could not understand how a Government, calling
itself " Liberal Conservative," could conceive a measure,
and propose it to Parliament, which would be so liberal in
its effect and so conservative in its nature as to compel the
confiscation of the landed propel ty of the country, and he,
therefore, should decidedly oppose it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir E. DERING was prepared to contend that in the
revision of taxation referred to by the noble lord the mem-
ber for London it was the bounden duty of her Majesty's
Government to place all the various interests of the coun-
try on a footing of the most perfect equality. (Hear.)
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 268
FOr the amendment
185

Majority
83
The house then went into committee on the bill' pro
forma, and the Chairman having reported progress, ob-
tained leave to sit again on Thursday next.

THE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, this bill was real a second time, with' the under-
standing that any discussion with respect to its provisions
should be taken in the committee.
The Savings Banks Annuit3r, Bill was also read a second
time.

NEW WRIT FOR CHATHAM.
OR the xnotioiz of Mr. t, MIDI; a new writ was