The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-17 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1853.

Elsewhere in our impression of this evening
will be found a carefully-compiled summary of the
elaborate Report on Manning the Navy recently
issued by the Committee of Inquiry. Upon the
excellence of this Report we have already in these
columns at some length, and with some earnest-
ness, commented. We are gratified, however,
that we can. no w afford our readers an opportunity
of connir,g its principal paragraphs themselves.
We are satisfied in having at last found this de-
sirable opportunity. For the subject is one of
such rrimarkable and national importance that it
deserves the consideration of every patriotic elector
throughout the various classes making up the
bull.: of the population. • Hitherto it has been
toe, much the custom to subordinate the
interests of the maritime to those of the military
professicm. More care has been lavished upon
fire Ar_my at all times, both by the Legislature
r.nd by the Government, than was ever accorded
to the Navy even when the Throne of Great Bri-
tain was occupied by Royal Sea-Captains like the
Second JAMES and the Fourth WILLIAM. It is
ample time that this preference should be aban-
doned—supposing now that we do not find it
reasonable to have it reversed. It is time, at
least, that the Royal Navy of England should be
tended. with the solicitude originating in prudence,
if nob with that which springs from gratitude.
Gratitude for all those miraculous feats of arms
wluch adorn our history should long since have led
',ln the instance of the maritime service to its careful
and elaborate reorganisation. Prudence is at last
impelling the present Ministry in the direction
whither gratitude vainly strove to allure preced-
ing Governments. Something in the way of a
change for the better must now be ultimately at-
tempted by our rulers, meaning thereby both our
Legislators and our Administrators—the truth
being at length officially and glaringly pro-
claimed through this rema bl
a e Report of the
Committee of Inquiry. Henceforth it will be
impossible to blink the fact of evils, of the is ex t-
ems of which we ourselves have d„,„....•
-.Lu many
past years complained. The question nowg loudl
agitated, and thrust conspicuously upon theY
attention of Parliament, cannot, from this time
forth be again, as it has been so often before,
uietly cushioned.
Nothing of any importance has in this com-
prehensive and elaborate Report been, we believe,
omitted. All the evil consequences of the old-
established system have been clearly explained by
the Committee, andcategorically enumerated.
The Report of the Committee constitutes, in fact,
It Is not
a formidable catalogue of grievances. ),

however, that the ill effects of the bygone system
are alone expounded. The Committee have by
no means restricted their exertions to the dis-
covery of points requiring remedy. They
have in addition to this employed every
means within their power, as far at
least as we can yet appreciate the value
of their proceedings,' to discover the most effec-
tual means by which those same points can be
remedied, and the best manner, indeed, by which
those same remedies can be administered.

That the chief of the monster grievances com-
plained of in the Report, the one principally affect-
ing the manning of her MAJESTY'S fleets, has been
of long standing in the service, is plainly enough
avowed to be the unanimous convictions of the
Committee. " The system itself," says the Re-
port, meaning that of entering seamen for short
periods of servitude and then discharging them,
" seems to be coeval with the first formation of
a Royal Navy." The more reason, therefore,
why care should be taken to render its eradication
complete and thorough. A grievance so old, and
consequently so widely diversified, must, if touched
at all, be torn up, root and branch. Such, hap-
pily, appears to have been the conclusion arrived
at upon the subject by the Committee during the
course of their prolonged deliberations. Occa-
sionally they may have blundered in their sugges-
tions, but not once throughout the Report, as far
as we have yet been able to examine it, not once
throughout the Report have they dealt with the
matter in hand delicately, or tenderly, or, in
other words, with any apparent disrelish
for innovation. What is also deserving of
commendation in the Report is, the circum-
stance that it evinces a regard for morality, as
well as a regard for ability, in every part relating
to the interests of maitime education. Thus
(Sec. 19), while speaking of the judicious system
of schooling and training boys now in operation at
Portsmouth, and elsewhere—a system -which the
Committee suggests should be yet more largely
developed—the Report observes, " As these boys
should not unnecessarily be exposed at their
very early age to the influence of bad example,
we think their education might be more be-
neficially and uninterruptedly pursued if they
were removed altogether from the flag-ships,"
and thereupon follows a suggestion by which it is
proposed that the evil should be obviated. So on
throughout the Report—as may be premised from
the summary published elsewhere in to-day's im-
pression—the Committee addresses itself to the
question under inquiry with a caution and solici-
tude eminently worthy of its great national im-
portance.

It is not merely in the refusal to interfere with
the Probate Duties, and in the continued ex-
emption of real and settled estates from the opera-
tion of that onerous and vexatious impost, that
Mr. GLADSTONE departs from the principle which
he so boldly and comprehensively enunciated in
the early part of his explanatory statement. The
tenour and effect of his argument was, that "there
must be an equalisation of the present system by
means of a general tax upon successions." It was
not merely the additional power which a source of
revenue so productive would confer on the Financial
Minister that constituted the chief argument in
its favour. That power would—according to the
Right Honourable Gentleman—be applied to very
important although rather conflicting objects.
Through its operation we may hope to witness the
final extinction of the Income Tax in 1860. And
by its means a fund is to be provided through
which, during that interval of seven years, great
and extended measures for the remission of in-
direct taxation are to be carried into exe-
cution ! Without waiting to inquire how
all these purposes are to be accomplished,
even by an additional revenue of 2,000,0001. per
annum, we may recognise the vast consequence
which Mr. GLADSTONE ascribed to an equitable
settlement of the question when he observed, "But
I do not hesitate to say that behind, and inde-
pendent of all these, there is a purpose yet more
and more permanent in its character—namely,
the removal of an anomaly which is unjust in its
nature, which is galling to the public feeling,
which becomes more and more galling from year
to year, and which we believe it to be for the
interest of all classes to settle at once and per-
manently, being convinced that the longer that
settlement is postponed the more difficult it will
be to achieve, and the worse will be the terms
upon which it can be effected." The abolition of
the Income Tax ! "great and extended measures
for the remission of indirect taxation " were as
nothing in comparison to the performance of
great act of national justice—to the alleviation
of the deep and burning sense of injury by which
those who had so long been defrauded must neces-
sarily be actuated, and the removal of the
anomaly, so unjust in its nature, and so galling to
the public feeling.
To show the extent of the grievance, he
declared that " he was not aware of any argument,
or shred of an argument, that could be brought
forward in defence of the exemption of settled per-
sonaltyfrom Legacy Duty"—and he justly censured
" the all but fraudulent arrangements, which are
perfectly senseless, having no meaning and no jus-
tification in themselves, and no rational purpose
to which they can be referred, except that of
evading the law." He also showed the injustice
of permitting realty, whether settled or u ttsettled,
to escape without contribution, instancing the
case of leasehold property, which was sttbjected
both to the Probate and Legacy Duties, acid to all
the local charges on land, to the cost of st.s .mps on
transfers, to all the burden of extra taxation under

schedule A, and to the land tax ! This glaring
grievance imperatively demanded redress--this
social evil required an adequate remedy. But,
alas ! the performance falls very far short of the
promise held forth the difference between
profession and practice becomes but too pain-
fully apparent when the principle is to. be ap-
plied. So far as one-half the duties on suc-
cessions as at present levied, and that by far
the most vexatious portion, there is to be
no change ; real estates and settled personalty are
still to enjoy the exemption which the, Right
Hon. Gentleman truly described as " S,) mon-
' strous." The "all-but fraudulent arrangements"
—the " arrangements perfectly senseless, having
no meaning or justification in themselves, and no
rational purpose to which they can be referred,
save that of evading the law "—are still to be
efficacious to the extent of a moiety of the de-
mand, or at least the parties engaged in such un-
justifiable transactions are still to be permitted on
payment of an almost nominal duty of ss. per
1001. to avoid the charge of 2,3, or, in extreme
cases, 4 per cent. that would otherwise be im-
posed.
But this, bad as it is, by no means shows the
extent of favouritism exhibited by the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He draws a new distinction between
rateable and non-rateable property, by means
whereof, while the full burden of the tax will fall
on invisible and non-rateable property, little more
than a moiety thereof will be imposed on rateable
property. This result will be attained, " not by
making a difference in the rate of duty," but by
providing that " the person succeeding to that
kind of property 'should never be charged with
the duty on any interest in the property higher
than his life interest," and he himself estimates
the effect of that distinction would be that
"rateable property would only have to pay about

one-half as compared with the amount paid by
property not falling within that description."
We find, then, that the charge "on succession"

to real property will only be one-fourth of that to

which unsettled personalty is subjected, and one-
third of that to which unsettled leasehold property
will still be liable.

There is also another boon to landowners.
Where a person inherits real estate, subject to in-
cumbrances, he is not to be charged on
the value thereof after deducting the burdens.
No, he is only- to be charged on his life interest
in the balance of his income. In the illustration
which the Rig lit Honourable Gentleman gave of
this partial exemption, he supposed an estate
worth 500,000/., ar td mortgaged for 300,0001.
—the balance of tb e capitalised value would be
200,0001., but the balance of income would be
but 1,1001. or 1,2( )01. a year, the life interest

of which would only be taxed, or, in other words,
some 18,0001. or 20,0001., the full amount being
only payable in the event of his subsequently
alienating the property. This would practically
reduce the amount payable in such case from
ono-fourth to one-twentieth of that to which un-
settled personalty is liable.
Again, the Legacy Duty, or unsettled person-
alty, must be paid as at present before the amount
is transferred to the legatee or next of kin. But
the inheritor or devisee of real property is allowed
five years for the gradual liquidation of the de-
mand. Payments are to be accepted by eight
half-yearly instalments, the first of which
cannot be demanded until a year has expired,
at which time the whole of the duty on unsettled
personalty must be liquidated. Here, then, is
another and a very important benefit to the owners
of real estate, which operates as a further reduc-
tion of the charge to be levied on them. Our
readers may now judge for themselves how far
the anticipations excited by the arguments of the
Right Hon. Gentleman will be realised. What is
the extent of the equalisation of the burdens, on
the necessity whereof he so energetically insists ?
We are certainly labouring under a very grievous
misapprehension if that can be considered a fair
carrying out of the important principle so strongly
laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman. We
shall conclude with the words which he quoted
last week with so much effect, trusting that we
may learn a salutary lesson therefrom :—" There
is nothing in life, especially in public life, more
important than to have a principle to guide you.
Whatever the perplexity, a principle simplifies
everything. However extraordinary the Gordian
knot, a principle would almoit cut it !"