The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-08 00:00:00

property of the same value upon which there was no in-
cumbrances. He wished to sell it, not because he was
distressed, but because he wished, perhaps, to buy pro-
perty in another county. What did he do? He put up
the property for sale, but only that he might ascertain,
by competition, the value of the property. In this case
the revenue did not get a penny of the tax, whilst the
individual had all the advantage of an extensive estab-
lishment to ascertain the value of the property. Now
was that fair ?—(Hear, bear.) Then could anything be
more advantageous to agriculture—to agriculture, above
all things, and to a commercial country—than to have a
free circulation of property. He could not conceive any-
thing more advantageous than an unrestrained power of
transferring property, without the interference of the
excise, and the enabling of every person to get the
highest sum for his property which it would realise.—
(Hear, hear.) As far as it operated on the person who
was obliged to sell his property for distress, it was most
unjust. He believed they would receive great social
benefits from a free circulation of property. Seeing that
the Noble Lord had nothing to say in favour of the tax,
he hoped the Committee would join with the Govern-
ment in remitting this tax, though he was bound to add,
as to the remissioh of it, the surplus Lft would be
less than was desirable.—(Cries " Hear, hear.")
Mr. F. BARING would wish to know whether the
Right Hon. Baronet would say that this tax would
attach is case of a distress.
Sir PEEL said that all he meant to say was that
the tax operated most unjustly in the case of poor
persons, who were obliged to sell their property, as com-
pared with those who made use of their establishment
merely to ascertain the value of their property.—(Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said he thought the Government
might take off the duty on fire insurance, which was a
most injudicious duty, with more advantage than the
auction duty. He was opposed to the proposition of the
Government, and he did not altogether like the proposi-
tion ; but, of the two, he would rather prefer voting for
the proposition of his Hon. Friend than for that of the

Government.
Mr. COBDEN said that it was not his intention to say
one word upon this subject till he had heard the speech
of the Right Hon. Baronet. What did the Right Hon.
Baronet say ? " Do not," said he, " vote with the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire against the proposition of the
Government, for if you leave the auction duty as it is,
and have an additional surplus of 300,0001., the Noble
Lord the Member for London will then vote for a reduc-
tion of the duty on butter and cheese, and that is your
interest," for that was the word of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. Why, had he (Mr. Cobden) ever said anything
so bad ? Did he ever say," You are interested in butter
and cheese ?"—(Hear, bear, and laughter.) He bad
said, indeed, in Covent-garden, that they set up a shop of
their own, and would not allow an opposition shop on the
same side of the street ; but he never said they were
cheesemongers, or asked them to vote in a particular way
because they were so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
did not understand how, especially on the principle of the
Hen. Member for Dumfries, the House could give its
support to a protection to butter and cheese.
air T. ACKLAND conceived that the Hon. Gentle-
man who had just sat down quite misapprehended the
question, but if they were to consult the real interests
of several classes, instead of one, they would find that
the intelligence, and truth—and the interest of truth—
were all on the side of the proposition of the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). He conceived that the re-
mission of duty which the Right Hon. Baronet had pro-
posed was altogether in favour of the landed interest—
their prominent, their peculiar. that especial interest, to
which he, as the owner of an estate, belonged. If they
consulted the exports and imports, they would find that
this remission of duty altogether told in their favour ;
and he thought that the landed interest would be blindly
sensible to their own advantage, if they refused to ac-
cede to the proposition which the Right Hon. Baronet
had made them.—(Hear, hear.) As it struck him,. the
great inducement held out by the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down was, that the imposition upon the
sale of the minor articles of produce was remitted at
the expense of the greater articles. Now, it was
a great reason with him, that one of the
chief motives which should induce the landed
interest was, that they would by this means be enabled
to dispose of their property to the best advantage. The
Hon. Member had said, that in the selling of an estate
worth 100,0001., the proprietor would save at least
3,0001. in auction duty. Now he conceived that this
was an advantage which ought to be properly estimated
by the landed interest. The Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire bad, in his opinion, misconceived the question; and
that in voting against the proposition of the Right lion.
Baronet, he was clearly going against the interests of
the class he professed to serve. There was no class, in
his estimation; who were more likely to be benefited than
the landed interest. He believed that the remission of
these duties would not lead to any fraudulent evasion of
the duty to Government, but that, on the contrary, it
would tend very largely to increase those revenues which
the remission of those duties seemed apparently to de-
stroy. He trusted, therefore, that the community would
recollect that this was a remission by which the public
were to be largely benefited. He therefore begged the
attention of the House to the particular points which the
Right Hon. Baronet especially wished to lay before
them, and he trusted they would proceed, as they no
way militated against the interest with which he, as a
landlord, was intimately connected.—(Hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he certainly conceived
that the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down was
wrong in his position, and that the impression which
the Right Hon. Baronet intended to convey was just
such as the Hon. Member for Stockport had represented.
It was not a mere question of butter and cheese—
(Hear, hear)—there was something more than that. He
was not prepared to pass an eulogium upon her Ma-
jesty's Government, but he did conceive that the remis-
sion of those duties was a boon for which the country
might well be thankful. He should, on that account,
vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire for imposing duties on butter and cheese.—(Loud
cries of " Divide, divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer 167
Against it 3O
Majority for Ministers —l37
Mr. HUMEi said that be had no desire to interfere
with the proceedings of so respectable a body of men as
the auctioneers of England, but he could not conceive
why there should be a variety of character in the nature
of the goods which were to be disposed of, and he thought
that if they imposed a penalty unequally, they would be
doing a manifest injustice to a number of those who had
hitherto paid a lower rate. If an individual were pos
sessed of an estate, and chose to throw the property of
the estate away, he might use the means of selling. it by
auction ; but still there was a manifest injustice in the
obligations which imposed a variety of duties upon pro-
perty of a private character and he would suggest that
there should be one uniform duty after the rate of 7/..105.
for the licences.
Mr. HAWES said that he thought due consideration
had not been used, and that the small and far more nu-
merous class of auctioneers—those who were residents
in the country, and whose interests had been entirely
overlooked, ought to be brought into consideration. At
present they were ranged among the first class auc-
tioneers, who being entitled to sell wines, spirits, and
estates, were obliged to take a licence which cost them 30/.
The Commissioners of Excise recommended that if
there were a general auction licence it ought to be 101.
annually. More licences would be taken out at 10/.
than 151., and the revenue be consequently more bene-
fited. The Government would commit a great injus-
tice on a large body of men, compelling the small auc-
tioneers to pay the same dory as large ones, which would
give the latter a monopoly in this description of busi-
ness. Upon these grounds he seconded the proposition.
Sir R. PEEL said that the required amount of duty
would have at least one salutary effect—that of placing
the business in the hands of respectable auctioneers.
The lion. Member had alluded to the recommendation
of the Commissioners of Excise, but that was made when
they only proposed a modification of the duty, whereas
the Government were now about to remove the auction
duty altogether. They were about to give a great
s:imulus to this business, and he thought after all that
the proposal of the Government was the most equitable.
The Government sought but a very trifling compensa-
tion for the great amount of revenue sacrificed.
Mr. HUME inquired the amount of auction duty re-
ceived during the last year, and the number of auc-
tioneers who paid duty ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
number of auctioneers was 3,900, and the amount of
duty (as we understood it) 70,520/. Hon. Members
who had spoken in this debate seemed to forget the
cumbrous and complicated machinery of the late mea-
sure. Auctioneers were obliged to pay a specific licence
for the different articles they sold, each varying in
amount, and on a different scale. For all this the plain,
simple, and uniform licence tax of the Government was
proposed.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not know why auctioneers
should be advantaged more than any other class of
tradesmen.
Mr. WARBURTON thought it would be but right to
state the number of the auctioneers who had taken out
the licence, and the aggregate amount paid into the re-
venue. He had looked at the report furnished by the
Commissioners, and he found that the greater part of
witnesses were Edinburgh auctioneers. This sum of
151. might seem a moderate duty to them or to other
metropolitan auctioneers, but the House must bear in
mind that the tendency of the duty would be to drive
the trade of the country into the larger Owns. He
thought the licence should be rated at 10/.
Mr. BELLEW supported the proposition of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Hume.)
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER,
Lord DUNCAN read a letter from one of his consti-
tuents, which stated that he should be obliged to give up
business if this high rate of duty were imposed. The
town of Bath contained some fifty auctioneers who had
been duly licensed, but of that number only four had
paid the higher duty. He thought Government should
accede to the return requested by the Hon. Member for
Kendal, failing which he (Lord Duncan) should certainly
vote with the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Lord WORSLEY was of opinion that this high rate
of ditty would be found so oppressive that auctioneers
could only exist in the great towns, and those in the
country, who required to sell by auction, would be
obliged to bring one, at a great expense, from the county
town. He thought this would be adding to, instead of
taking from, the tax.—(Hear, hear, from Col. Sibthorp.)
Mr. TURNER thought the Government measure
would be warmly supported, and instead of injuring the
Chancellortrade
hethoourghthteitEwocuhlde ellyervate the character
.of the
auc-
tioneers were now relixevaef
tradesmen.
Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Gentleman the
had said that the auc-
that res
as heavy security was from a at responsi y,
Who imposed
revenue. Lie thought the la duty
ponsipbirietsiet requiredh from them.
y w o required that se-
curity? Why the Government for the protection of its
a most
exorbitant