The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

perty, and, of course, if upon all real property,in a ,very
great degree, if not mainly,. upea-the land. Now, there
seems, as far. as I could collect the opinion of the commit-
tee as the 'debate has proceeded; some little misapprehen-
sion on the subject. An hon. friend of mine, the member
for Wakefield, who has given in his adhesion to the project,
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he did so be-
cause the right hon. gentleman was going to fulfil that
which Mr. Pitt failed in doing ; and another hon. member
opposite eulogised the right hon. gentleman on the same
score, and said that Mr. Pitt had only failed
accomplishing that which the right hon. gentleman now
proposed, and which he hoped he would succeed in accom-
' plishing. (Hear.) Now, there is a very great error in
this. Mr. Pitt never-proposed any tax upon settled pro-
perty of any kind. (Cheers
and a laugh.) . I have read the
• act which Mr. Pitt brought in, and if the gentleman who
'laughs means to express any incredulity on' the subject, I
will refer him to that act. Mr. Pitt introduced two
one of which is the origin of our present legacy duties with
reference to personalty, and the other was a bill which
would have extended the same system of legacy duty
.) hto
s
landed property, which was not settled. (Hear It
been alleged that it was the selfishness of the landlords then
in Parliament which threw out that bill. It was nothing
of the kind. Nine tenths of the landlords in Parliament
t
were possessors, as gentlemen in this house are at present
possessors, of settled estates, and the proposition of Mr.
'Pitt never touched them. (Hear.) It was thrownouton
different grounds, and it was, mainly thrown out _ from the
influence of Mr. Fox. (Cheers.) It was Mr._ Fox whose
opposition threw out that bill, and it was he who opposed
it on grounds to which I may hereafter advert—grounds
which were considered sound and scientific, without doubt.
The bill was thrown out by the selfishness of the land-
lords, and the only persons whose interests were affected
by it were the small proprietors of England, who were not
members of Parliament, and whose estates were not settled.
(Hear, hear.) This is a subject of very grave importance.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the President of
the Board of Control said, the other night, that .the late
Government were going to propose a tax on successions.
Now I am sure either the memory of the righthea, gentle-
man must have been imperfect, or he must have- spoken
from inadvertence when he said this. It was the duty of
the late Government, when they revised the taxation of
the country, not to omit so important a subject as the duty
on successions or the legacy duty ; and certainly it was our
opinion that it was most imprudent to delay dealing with
that question, and that it was a subject which, for a per-
manent settlement, ought, without unnecessary loss of time
to be brought before the house. What I did say on the
subject, within the recollection of right hon. friends near
me—and certainly I could have intended to say nothing
more—was, that we did not think it' impossible to make a
proposal upon that subject which would terminate for ever
the controversy in a manner which would be recognised as
perfectly satisfactory by all parties. (Hear.) And that was
not a vague phrase ; that proposition was a matured pro-
pOsition ; and probably in the course of this discussion—
though I will not trouble the house with it now—l may be
a ble to submit it to the consideration of the house. But,
Sir, in considering the question of a tax upon successions,
it is absolutely necessary not to disguise from ourselves
that it is a very important subject, and that there are
many points to be considered before we come to a vote
upon it. (Hear.) We must ask ourselves, in the first
place, is it a just tax? (Cheers.) Is it abstractedly a just
tax ? (Hear.) Is it a politic, a just tax, a tax that can be
vindicated on principle ? (Hear.) We must ask ourselves
in the second place whether, if it be a tax, sound in prin-
ciple, it is a tax adapted to the country in which it is pro-
posed to be introduced ? Thirdly, we must ask ourselves
what are the data which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has before him upon which he founds this estimate of its
produce—(cheers)—and, above all, what is the machinery
by which he means that tax to be raised ? (Hear.). These
are three important points which would well deserve con-
sideration. For my own part, Sir—although I think that
if the arrangement of Mr. Pitt had passed it would have
been unwise (unless the state of our finances justified us in
doing so) to disturb that arrangement--(hear)—formy own
part, I believe that all taxes on successions, whatever
shape they may take, are unsound in principle. (Hear.)
They are taxes on capital. (Loud cries of "Hear..") They
are unsound in principle as regards persenal property, but
they are more unsound in princiPle as regards landed pro-
perty, because they lead to partition, which, in my opi-
nion, is a very great evil. (Hear, hear.) But I am npt
going to enter into that important subject now. All I say
is that you cannot deny that, by proposing this tax on
successions with reference to landed property, you are
proposing a new tax upon the land. (Cheers.) I have
shown you that in dealing with your direct taxation you
have commenced a system, , and you have laid down a
principle, which must immensely aggregate the iens':
taxation upon the British producer. (Hear, heal{) I:
have shown you, in the second place, that while you are
about to pursue that unjust and injurious policy—a
policy the propriety of which no man can vindicate
—while you are abrogating the pressure of indirect
taxation upon the British producer, you are inflicting upon
the cultivator of the soil a direct tax in the shapeof an in-
come tax, and upon the possessor of the soil a direct tax
in the shape of a tax upon successions. Now, Sir, I say
that the whole scope of the budget of the right hon. gentle-
man is conceived in a spirit of injustice to the land.
(Cheers.) I will not touch upon the past. I will not ask
you• was it politic, was it wise, or was it generous to attack
the land, both indirectly and directly, after such an im-
mense revolution had taken plade in those laws which re-
gulated the importation of foreign produce. (Loud cries
of " Hear.") I will make no appeal ad misericordiant.
What you have done, you have done. We have given Our
assent to it. I will not refer to the past, and upon that
ground I refrain from appealing to you. But I will re-
mind you that the Minister who has conceived this budget
—who has conceived it, as I maintain I have proved, in a
spirit of injustice to the land—(hear, hear)—who is agg,re- I
sating the burden of indirect taxation to the land, and.who
is proposing new diredt taxes on the cultivator and the,
proprietor of the soil, is the very Minister—the first Mi-
nister—who has come forward, and in his place in Parlia-
ment talked of the vast load of local taxation which real
property endures. The vast load of local taxation which
real property endures ! Well, then, this is an age of com-
pensation—what is to be our compensation for that?
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I remember when I, made an
appeal to the sense of justice of the House of Commons on
that head, I was met by two kinds, of opponents. One
school denied point blank that there were any burden
upon real property which were peculiar to it, or which it
was not bound to bear. But there was another class of
opponents who took a different ground. They said—" It
is very tree that there is an undue burden of taxation upon
real property, and upon land asthe most important portion
of real property, but yott forget you have not to pay the
legacy duty." (Hear.) Why, Sir, I have shown over and
over again that the legacy duty as a compensation was no
compensation for the weight, the great weight of local
taxation which your Minister has mentioned. (Cheers.)
But let me remind you now that we are not only to have
this great weight of local taxation acknowledged by the
Government, but it is not to be remedied by the Govern-
ment—nay, more, it is not only not to be remedied by the
Government, but it is to be accompanied by the very tax
an exemption from which they used to say was our com-
pensation for those burdens. (Loud cheers.) Sir, we have
fived to see very strange times. I remember when Sir R.
Peel proposed his first income tax, and I remember the
noble lord the leader of the house, sitting on these (the.
Opposition) benches( rising, and, with the traditionary
spirit of Mr. Fox, denouncing the impost as Mr. Fox de-
nounced the legacy duties, because the noble lord, as well
as Mr. Fox, had some feeling for the land of the country,
and for the burdens which it had so long borne. (Cheers.)
I remember how the noble lord admonished Sir R. Peel.
The noble lord could not deny there was a deficienOy in
the Exchequer; but he had just left office, and knewpretty
well the state of his treasury.. The noble lord said there
were other means of supplying the deficiency—anything
but this odious, this unjust, this inequitable, this inquisi-
torial income tax. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The epi-
thets are the noble lord's, and not my own. Do anything
but this, the noble lord said • if you have a deficiency, why
don't you supply it by applying the legacy duty to land ?
Well, sir, he has applied the legacy duty to land, but he
has given us the income tax too. (Cheers and laughter.)
That is the fate of England'. And now what is the fate of
Ireland ? Sir Robert Peel did not propose an income-tax
for Ireland, though he proposed one for England. Sir
Robert Peel thought that there were constitutional and
local grounds which should forbid him, even if he wished
it, to apply the income tax to Ireland ; but he said, "I
must have some substitute, and that substitute shall be a
duty on spirits. The Irish shall have a duty on spirits
instead of the income tax, just as the English were to have,
if the policy of the noble lord had prevailed, a legacy duty
instead of an income tax ; but now England had got the
legacy duty as well as the income tax, and Ireland is to
have the spirit duty and the income tax too. (Cheers.)
Strange fate that both countries from the Ministry of "all
the talents"—(cheers and laughter)—should receive such
accumulated blessings ! (Cheers repeated.) But, sir, it is
not myiintention—and it would be taxing the patience of
the house, as we shall have so many opportunities of enter-
ing upon the consideration of this great subject—to g 6
into all the details of the budget, or even into all its main
features. lam confining myself to show to you that the
budget is conceived in a spirit of hostility to the land—
(hear)—tand I have endeavoured to substantiate that by
arguments and facts which it is open for all to consider,
and if possible to confute, and without the slightest allu-
sion to any of those views or considerations which in for-
mer debates may have influenced us on the subject, I have
dwelt upon them with the nth:l6st confidence—the same
respect 'to hon. gentlemen opposite as to those on this side
of the house—all I ask is, that' you will deal with those
great interests as you deal with all interests, great or small,
in the spirit of justice, and that if you cannot accomplish
all that justice requires, you will at least show you are
deeding, as regards them, with a desire to do so ; and that
you will not persist in legislating in a spirit which will
sour the temper and irritate the feelings of a large portion
of the most valuable subjects of the realm. (Cheers.) There
is now another point to which lam obliged to refer. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has a project for the licences
of trades, which I dare say many of his supporters have
heard something about. (A' laugh.) Well, sir, I have
received between 300 and 400 letters on the subject, and,
at first, many of them being really full of useful sugges-
tions, it .was my intention to have'sent 'them to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. But when-I`found that the right
hon. gentleman, with a devotion to public affairs for which
I had not given him credit, wee in the habit of answering
all his letters himself—(langhter)--I thought that he might
have possibly misinterpreted what was really an act of
would courteousness—(a laugh)—and that perhaps he
oo
ff
licences theseertaistterh.Bermdaiysembarrassed by them. The general tone
be described in this way :—The system
ittnitely worse than your house tax. I should
csaaytiolidofee. lie hot the majority described it as a quadrupli-
sooner— if they u.nasen tax' and they all say they would much
than the system of et have something—have the house tax
ises for it was but an aggravated
house tax, and if developed,
the first
shed never step be
to o „nbtmain ,as it must be developed should
wiltahey have got that which they
wi
right hon. gentleman had t from which they thought the
-
them. Well, there has beenurned me out of office to save
great discontent, in the courfecaetnela.mmour, there has been
less I misunderstood him, therein.
oefe bite:
right aud,huoun.-
gentleman on the subject is alreadnelOsb
(Hear, hear.)
Finance would
I should have supposed a Minister of atr.
policy the esea-
have taken such a step as proposing not
am not now giving any opinion as to the
sure, which is unquestionably one of the most
in the province of the Chancellor of the ExcheiemeeP°Ttaeilt
could not have brought forward a proposition of sse-hr'ew":
tuns without well Weighing its character and consequences,n-
Such a plan is not to be taken up hastily ; nor, one woul
think, is it a plan to be lightly relinquished. It is a very
1
grave subject. It touches the retail trade—the most ten-
der, the most irritable,
the most ,lively, and the most sen-
sitive to anything like an attack on their
rfinances, iof any
no tion of.the community. The system of licences involves
some** of the worst consequences of direct taxation. Some,
indeed, have proposed it to us as a favourable substitute
however, to have
licences the income tax. It appears, W@ were
licences and income tax too, accoiding to the original pro-
ject of the rig
ht hon. gentleman, But there is great mur-
mur of discontent. And at the very first murmur we hear
Chancellor of the Exchequer lag e and mutter out APnie•