The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-04 00:00:00

of the whole system. The general rate of the auction
duty was Is. in the pound. Then there was another rate
of 7d. in the pound, and this lower rate the lion. '
L'lfember alleged was all in favour of the rich, and that
under this lower duty were introduced all those things
which affected the state of the luxury of the rich ; and
►hat under the higher duty were alone comprised those
things that ministered to the necessary comfort of the
poor. Now did this stand in fact? Under the high duty
was included, in the first instance, furniture—in that
respect both classes were equal. Then fixtures, with re-
spect to which the same observation might be made—then
came pictures.—( Hear, hear.) Who, he should like to
know, were most interested in this article, the rich or the
poor? Then books.---(Hear)—then carriages and
horses—(Hear, bear)—or other goods and chattels ; then
came shares in public companies and reversions in the
funds, none of which could fairly be said to affect exclu-
sively the lower classes. But the Hon. Gentleman sail
that plate and jewels were under the lower duty, and that
this was done in favour of the gentry. Now with re-
spect to this matter it was evident either that the Hon.
MenTher did not understand the subject, or that he did
not state the whole of it. If he did know the whole,

why did he not state it? If he did notknow it, he ought
not to have brought the subject forward till he was
master of its details.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Did not
the Hon. Gentleman know that plate had paid a pre-
vious stamp duty, in consequence of which this lower
auction duty was afterwards imposed ? Gold plate was
rated at 17s. an ounce, stamping duty.—(Hear, hear.)
He put one against the other, therefore, and boldly asserted
that the Hon. Member's statement was not borne out by

the fact.—(Hear.) Vin like manner, silver plate paid a
stamping duty of Is. 6(1. an ounce—which, considering
all other things, was an enormously heavy duty. Then,
again, with regard to jewels, they paid a duty at the
customs, of 20 per cent. on set jewels, and of 10 per
cent. upon jewels that were not set, with an exemption
for diamonds, which he did not clearly understand.

However, it was manifest with regard to jewels, that, as
they were indestructible, if they were transferred twenty
times, and paid on each transfer 5 per cent., they would,
at the end of the time, have paid their whole ♦alue to
the Government. From these subjects he came to that
of timber and wool. Now, as the wool was the pro-
perty of the farmer, to him must fall all the advant ige
which arose from the abatement made in the tax, when
the wool was disposed of in a particular manner.—
(Hear, hear.) He thanked the House for the attention

with which they had heard him. His object Win not to
go through all the detaik, but to give a strong denial

to the statement of the Hon. Member, that it had been
the policy of this House, and of the nobility and
gentry, to oppress the people, and to favour themselves
in all their financial regulations.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
That was the only thin.e that could have induced him to
trespass so long on their time. The Hon. Member had
endeavoured, by an innendo at the end of his speech, to
compare the system of taxation in this country with that
of France before the revolution, and had spoken of griev-
ances which, unredressed, had led in that country to re-
volution. But if there were two things which more than
any other could be contrasted with each other, they were
the opposite principles of taxation adopted in this country
and in France before the revolution.—(Hear, bear.)
Were the people of England to be deluded into the notion
that there was any personal exemption from taxation
here ?--(Hear, hear.) He trusted that they were not so
easily misled as to believe it. But in France it had been
so ; witness the carvces and the gabelle, and the other
taxes to which the French people were subjected, and
from which the French nobility and the clergy were ex-
empted.—(Hear, hear.) If there were any exemptions
from taxation i❑ this country they were in favour of the
poor, while in France, before the revolution, they were i❑
every instance in favour of the rich. This he would ven-
ture to say that the liberties of Englishmen had never been
more boldly asserted, or more vigorously maintained, than
by the hereditary nobility; and those who would deprive
them of that just tribute, neither dealt fairly by the in-
dividuals, nor justly by the institutions of the country.
Mr. HUME thought that the difference between the
chal;enger and the acceptor of the challenge upon this
subject was principally in words, and that they approxi-
mated more nearly than perhaps either of them supposed—.
in language, indeed, there was a wide discordance. As
to the eulogy just pronounced on the Peerage, if it were
cheered within their walls, it would not be cheered out of
them. He (Mr. Hume) agreed with what had been ad-
vanced by the Hon. Member for Oldham, and what the
Right lion. Member for Cambridge bad advanced suffi-
ciently bore out his antagonist in his assertions. The
meaning of the Hon. Member for Oldham was this—that
in the legislation of this country a disposition had been '
shown to load the poor, and to relieve the rich ; and that
case had been completely established. In fact, it bad been
admitted by the Right Hon. Secretary to the Treasury,
when he stated that there were actually bills in progress,
the object of which was to remedy the evil. In many
respects the fallacies of the Right Hon. Gentleman were
so gross that they could not have imposed even on him-
self. The inequality of taxation was obvious when it was
merely known that a man with 300/. in personal property
paid a heavy duty, while the man with 3001. in land paid
nothing towards the exigencies of the State. Leasehold
property was also heavily burdened, and whe❑ the Right
lion. Gentleman talked so triumphantly of the exemption
of bequests under 201., he ought to have recollected, and
stated that the reason for the exemption was, that the
whole sum would otherwise be absorbed by the cursed
course through which it had to pass. It remained, and
was for some time likely to remain a stain upon the landed
proprietors and nobility of the country, that they had
heavily taxed personal property, while they left their own
untouched. It was a fret which ought never to be for-
gotten, that on one occasion, when Mr. Pitt brought in
two Bills, one to tax personal property, and the other to
tax landed property, the first was passed, and the last re-
jec•ted. It was imposssible to call the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman an answer to that of the Hon. Member
for Oldham, since the arguments had nut been fairly met,
but treated with a degree of ribaldry and levity unworthy
of a subject in which the people were so deeply interested.
On the window tax, the Hon. Gentleman had only endea•
voured to delude the House without giving it a particle of
correct information. Then as to the duty on property
bequeathed, in proportion as the amount was large the
duty was small, so that the rich paid little or nothing,—
On 1,0001. the probate duty was 3 per cent.
5,0001 per sent.
50,0001 3os. per cent.
While 100,0001. and all sums above it paid nothing, so
that the more a man was able to pay, the less he was re-
quired to pay. The same observation would apply to
letters of administraiion.
1,000/. paid 45/. or 4} per cent.
5,0001. 1501. or 3 per cent.
50,000/. 1,1'254 or lit per cent.
_ _

And the other tables equally supported the position of the
Hon. Member for Oldham. True it was that the large
sums did not occur so often, but that made no difference in
the justice of the case. He (Mr. Hume) maintained that
all the exemptions of the nobility in France did not
amount annually to half so much as the exemptions of the
Nobility in England, taking into account the monopoly i❑
corn and the legacy duty.—(Hear.) The inequality could
not be disputed, and it was the duty of Parliament to
remedy the evil, instead of continuing it. Just ground for
complaint existed; and as he was satisfied that the sub-
stance of the motion of the Hon. Member for Oldham
was borne out by the facts, he should vote for it.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD contended that the Right Hon.
Secretary to the Treasury bad given so complete an an-
swer to the Hon. Member for Oldham, that even he must
be satisfied that he had no ground left for his motion.
Nevertheless, the Hon. Member for Middlesex had not
scrupled to re-assert the charge in a stronger—if not in a
coarser--manner. He (Mr. Attwood) regretted that the
discussion had been so long delayed ; e'ght weeks bad
elapsed since the accusation was first made ; it had
since spread far and wide, and had excited among the
people a deadly feeling of distrust of the House, and of
hatred of the Nubility. There was no doubt that the
mind of the Hon. Member for Oldham was biassed upon
this subject, and he hail certainly shown himself as igno-
rant as the very lowest of those whom he pretended to
instruct. On the subject of hills of exchange, and the
comparative amount of duty paid by the rich and by the
poor, he was entirely mistaken, and showed either a want
of candour or a deficiency of reason. Had the duty on
bills of exchange been fixed upon a different scale, the
effect would have been to injure instead of increasing
the revenue, without benefitting the poor, since
none but small bills would have been drawn. He (Mr.
Attwood) contended that land did not carry with it the
caeans Of paying the high duty which was obtained from
personal property. ro trust to the transfers of landed
property would be a most inconvenient as well as uncertai❑
way of supplying the Exchequer, and it ought not to he
forgotten that land was subjected to a great variety of
burdens from which personal property was exempt. In
conclusion, however, he felt bound to say, that though
differing so widely from the Hon. Member far Oldham,
the Noble Lord opposite had by no means given him a
satisfactory answer.
Lord ALTHORP said that, after the speech of his
Right Hon. Friend near him, it would be superfluous in
him to trouble the House at any length. He (Lord
Altborp) had been accused of not having, on a former
occasion, given a sufficient answer to the lion. Member