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

moment he heard this proposal. He looked upon it as a
bait for the support of the income tax ; and in a former
debate Mr. Bright had openly and distinctly declared that
if it had not been for this part of the budget, the Govern-
ment would never have got his support to the income tax.
(Cheers.) Ho 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 publicfeedhanrge
would be excited with which no Government would
to struggle, and the day was not distant when the presebent,
o
Government or their successors, whoever they might_
this
duty, find themselves obliged to propose the repeal 1-
duty, in obedience to the unanimous demand of an indig-
nant nation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HEADLAM regretted that the right hon. gentle-
man had thought it necessary to raise so many objections
to the bill; but the course he had taken (lid not to go re-
move those objections but to prevent any
furthera proceed-
ing with the bill. He was the more surprised this, be-
cause the right hon. baronet had been a membert
of a Go-
vernment who themselves had contemplated the proposing
such a tax, and this not more than six months ago. He
did not charge this as mere inconsistency, but after the
right hon. baronet had concurred in such a measure, it was
toe 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 contra-
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. Ho used the term " we' with reference to that
Cabinet, and surely he 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
landed 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
those of small property, and tradesmen in towns. 'irhat
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
measure, 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 the
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 1001. a year, and said that it
would be a great 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.
The 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. (Hear.) Was it reasonable
or desirable then, he would ask, in the landed interest to
exhibit so much opposition to so moderate a measure ?
That interest above all others should be the last to object
to the proposition now before the house. (Hear.) The
professional, commercial, and manufacturing classes had
acted wisely and generously in not manifesting any decided
opposition to the imposition of 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 a fruitless opposition to the measure. This
measure was an essential and integral portion of the finan-
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 years. (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 case, he thought it would be
moat unfortunate to revive angry passions by seeking to
perpetuate unjust 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 succes-
sion tax ; but if the hon. and learned gentleman read the
language of his right hon. 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 ou
to say, " At the same time we have not neghcted carefully
to examine the question of the stamp duty, and of the
legacy and probate duty, and therefore we propose —."
Did his right hon. friend say that? No ; but he proceeded
to say, "And is it not impossible 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 'who 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 to lot the farm. Ho knew that cases
P ke this occurred, and if it occurred in the case of a sale and
p irchase, it might also happen in the case of a succession, ,
iAnd would it not be a serious matter to burden a man in
rech a position with the succession tax at such a moment.
He (Mr. Freshfield) did not contend for the exemption of
laud from the succession tax in the abstract, but what he
contended for was that the land should be put on the mine
footing with personal property before they could be dealt
with in the same way. For instance, if a man invested
5,0001. in stock, he could do so without any or at little
expense; but if he 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 burdens which affected real and personal pro-
perty. (Hear, hear.) When Mr. Pitt proposed his succes-
sion tax, he especially exempted bona 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 characterise,..
as an "execrable" one. (Hear.) This mischievous wan
obnexions proposition was then laid in its grave, and was
never revived till 1842, when Mr. Elphinston move°, for a
committee of the whole house to consider the subjects. On
that occasion, the noble lord (Russell) and the C;hartellor of
the- Exchequer divided against the motion ; go that ho
(Mr. Freshfleld) had some hope, though a faint one, that
he should see them in the same lobby witl.
A himself on the
present occasion. On that occasion Si'. Robert Peel said
that a time might come when :he hs'alister would possess
I
so much of the confidence of the
sl.-ens() of Commons that
he would be able to propos", a tax on successions, but of
this he 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 18 per cent.
income tax on crepe.* for seven years, and he 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 enould be allowed to form such a clause. A man
was by that clause obliged to deliver an account, and if it
was false he 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. Ho 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
g which would prove so destructive of social relations or
effect half the mischief that the bill, if passed, would
effect. (Hear.)
FHILLIMORE 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 occasion he
would be prepared to propose a tax on successions himself.
(Hear.) 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 attacking 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 parsed the bill the people would never
submit to it. Stronger language could scarcely have pro-
ceeded from the tiouth of the most revolutionary dema-
gogue. (Hear. "hear.) The great fallacy which pervaded
the speech Or 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 assertion. The Chancellor of the
.Exchequer was fully justified in speaking of the monstrous
inequality of the present state of the law when a lease-
hold for twenty years paid the legacy duty, and property
held for an indefinite period was exempt.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said hedrew 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-
Tmon species of possession, was not subject to legacy duty.
he right. hon. gentleman had quoted very high authori-
relate including Mr. Fox. It was well known that with
defectives
:0
as,
economy Mr. Fox's views were most
Atr. I,ltp as, on the other hand, those of his great rival,
1015%1,1: rr,ea,ml:oi Pnl)llad
rlanticipated much that had met with
soul
A reference to Mr. Fox on such a sub-
oclipse. With r°rBl4
of an allusion by Mr. Canning to per-
ration that this the SUR when it was under an
luegeaara to the right hon. gentleman's decla-
ration
of the countrylre was a blow aimed at the aristo-
idea whatever that le begged to say that if he had any
tion,
from
no 0 the measure deserved such a descrip-
uo would it receive a. snore strenuous oppo-
sition than from himself.
believed, however, with
the noble lord the me }e f (Lord Goderich) that
it would take away from therarlil
cracy of the country, whentoeilotiLn7fifretoriti:
iebrienttiiet,he,ofartih9etoir-
flourish as the best security
mac-me, s act to see
country, the odium which no
tnYit addressig al4nfrrrat
rally spread belief that they were enjo
mdeneseirdhilillhis bill was founded
whmierh.
mth4resiNgst of thesairidcohune
hadty
mittee whOrthtQvsoftftions on
were under considqation but he was not sorry that
he hiA.I2O opporttinity ofoising until after the house had
lard the unanswerable speech of the right
hon. baronet
member for-Droitwich.
lie was not one of those who
contencledlor the exemption of
the cation as
landed property as landed
preperty. ,He viewed r one of legacy duty
Mily ; and had the'proposit on been confinerltohothwe iu
would
sttion of a legacy duty on landed pro
haVe been the first
‘tti' support it. When, however, he
consiacted the nu tax on allfgre of the proposed tax—a
y
real andssim-sonegiroperty, settled and unsettled—and the
ma.ehinery with which it was to be levied, he could not
but feel alai'med at such a proposition. Ho need not
explain.to the bean what was reg and what Wu Ponca