Mr. Alderman Newnham begged gen. tlemen to consider how oppressively the act might in some cases operate. By a succession of deaths in a family, the same property might be taxed five or six times in one year. If the bill passed, however, some people might think this the best country in the world to live in, it cer tainly would be the worst to die in.

NOES {Mr. Solicitor General
Hobart - } 64

The Bill was then passed.

Debate in the Commons on the Bill for

tates.] April 21. Mr. Pitt presented a Bill for granting a Duty on Succession to Real Estates. The Bill was read a first time. On the following day it was read a second time, and committed.

Mr. Fox rose also to object to the whole principle of it. It was a new principle, which, if followed up, would be extremely dangerous. He had heard it stated, that this tax would not be just, unless a tax was levied upon landed property also. He would therefore move to have the present debate adjourned till it was found practicable to bring in a bill to levy a similar tax upon landed property, because, although the principle of the two bills was the same, he understood the provisions were different, and therefore, although it had been found practicable to raise a tax upon the descent of personal property, to raise a tax on landed property, might be found impracticable. He would therefore move," That the debate be adjourned till this day fortnight."

Mr. Pitt agreed, that the principle on which the two bills were founded was much the same, and that if this passed, it would be very desirable that the principle should be extended to real property. He, however, by no means admitted, that the House being satisfied of the propriety of imposing a duty upon personal property, should give up a productive tax, because the principle could not be extended to real property. The bill for the tax upon real property would soon be introduced, and, he hoped it would appear that its provisions were practicable; but if, upon fair investigation, it should seem impossible to extend this principle to real property, he saw no reason why the principle should be given up in this case, in which it was perfectly practicable.

May 5. On the motion, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a committee to consider further of the said Bill,"

Mr. Rashleigh said, that this tax was liable to the same objections which he had urged against the personal succession tax bill. It paid no regard to the different values of the lives of persons on whom succession devolved. He was decidedly against it, and would therefore move to leave out the word "immediately," and insert the words "upon this day three months" instead thereof.

Mr. Fox opposed the bill upon two grounds; first, the novelty of the prin ciple, as a tax upon capital; and secondly, the iniquity of the application. It was a system which, if acted upon in the extent to which the principle might be carried (and he admitted the present instance to be only a slight degree) would enable the state to seize upon the whole property of the country. Of all the shapes in which despotism had ever existed, that, in his opinion, was the highest, which rendered the sovereign heir to the whole capital of the country. This he admitted the present bill did to a very li mited degree; but if the principle was once adopted, the progress was easy, and it was impossible to calculate how far it might be extended. From brothers and relations in a collateral line, it might in time reach to children, and from four or five per cent. the tax might be increased to ten or twelve. This was his principal objection to the bill. He had another, however, grounded upon the particular hardship which would in certain cases attend its operations. In cases of mar

The Attorney General said, that the bill was, indeed, a tax upon the produce of land, but could not be called a land tax. The discovery of the state of a man's affairs was not of the dangerous tendency insisted upon.

Mr. Jekyll said, that the bill would operate as a tax upon land. The discovery that would take place would evidently be attended with every circumstance of publicity.

riage settlement, children were most frequently the objects for whom provision was made; but sometimes collateral relations had an interest in the settlement. A case of that kind had come under his own experience. In case of the death of his nephew, lord Holland, he was to succeed to the estates of his elder brother, by an article in the marriage settlements. As it happened, he had not given any consideration for the contingent benefit of this settlement. He might, however, have paid his brother some consideration for it, and in this case, were the tax to attach upon this property, the contract would be violated, because he would not receive the value of it in the same circumstances in which it stood when he concluded the bargain.

Mr. Pitt said, that the principle of the bill had been already recognized in the personal succession tax, and also in the duty formerly existing upon legacies. It had been urged, that it would swallow up the whole landed capital of the country. It had no such tendency. It had been stated also that the tax might be paid several times over. This could not be done by the same persons; nor was it likely that it could be done by the same estate, when the chances of direct succession were fairly calculated.

In no

case, however, was it a tax upon the capital; nor would it ever diminish the real value of the estate, because the tax was of such a nature, that it could easily be paid by the occupier in the course of the four first years after his succession to it. As to its affecting contracts formerly made, it could have no such tendency: and in the case particularly mentioned, the tax would not attach at all.

Mr. Grey insisted that the bill proposed a partial and bad mode of levying a land tax. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was not a tax upon the landed capital, but upon the landed income. Why, then, did he not lay it directly upon those in existence, and not upon posterity? It was to all intents and purposes, a tax upon landed capital, and could not, in most instances, be paid by annual instalments. A tax upon the capital of of any country could not fail to hurt its prosperity, and the discovery of the state of property to which the levying of the tax would necessarily lead, would prove a source of vexation, and might become an instrument of influence to a minister over the landed gentlemen.

Sir. W. Pulteney thought the bill highly exceptionable. It was a direct tax upon capital, and might be increased, whenever it was thought convenient. He thought this a worse measure, that it was to be paid in the four first years. It was levying in this time what might be put upon ten or twelve years, and, lest a man should die, making the most of him immediately. It was the advantage of the taxes in this country that they were optional, and therefore sat more lightly. Here, however, the hardship would be more felt, because it was a tax that the person subject to it was positively obliged to pay.

Mr. Bastard said, that if there were no other way than by adopting this bill to avert a national bankruptcy, he might vote for it; but not otherwise. If this bill should pass, the management of the land tax must be put into other hands; for surely those who had its present management would give it up. Was any one prepared to say he would put an arbitrary fine upon a man? And yet this must be the case under the bill; for how was a person accurately to estimate the value of the interest which each person had in an estate which was the object of taxation? This would create ill blood all over the country.

Lord Sheffield said, that a more partial tax could not be imagined. It had been said that the funds should not be touched; but in preference to this tax, he would recommend a stamp on the transfer of stock.

Mr. Alderman Newnham reprobated the bill, which, with the tax on collateral successions, he had no doubt would be found so odious, that some future administration would be obliged to repeal them.

Mr. J. H. Browne contended, that the bill could not come under the denomination of an act to enforce an additional land tax.

The question being put, That the word "immediately" stand part of the question, the House divided:

Tellers.

Mr. Solicitor General

YEAS

{

Mr. Douglas

}

NOES

{Mr.

Mr. Rashleigh Mr. Jekyll

}

64

24

mittee.

May 9. On the motion, That the Report of the said Bill be now taken into farther consideration, Mr. Crewe moved, to leave out the word "now," and to add the words " upon this day three months."

Lord George Cavendish said, that the tax was liable to two principal objections: the insecurity which it would give to landed property, and the production of deeds, which, from the power vested in the commissioners it would render necessary. It would tend to equalise all property, and would operate as a confiscation of all the great landed estates in the country, for the use of the government.

Mr. Pitt said, that the degree in which the bill would affect landed property, was so small, that it could not have the effect of equalizing it in the way stated. It was a tax that never could diminish the capital in any material degree. It never could be paid with reluctance; because the persons by whom it would be paid, would stand in such a degree of relationship, that they would feel little or no hardship in paying the tax out of that property which they did not expect to enjoy. It had been said, that this tax would compel a production of title deeds, and a consequent exposition of tenures, and the incumbrances that estates might be subject to. The fact was, that the bill, in no instance, went to compel the disclosure of any such circumstances.

The Solicitor General said, that the principle of the measure had been long before the House. It was, in fact, a tax on income, to be paid by instalments during the first four years of possession.

Mr. Fox said, that all the objections to this measure remained in full force. It was, in fact, what he had stated it, a tax upon capital; for it was levied in propor-, tion to that capital. If it was really a tax upon income, why not fairly lay it upon income? It was said, that it was to be paid by instalments during the first four years; but if the same was paid by the man who enjoyed four, and the man who enjoyed forty years, it could not be said

would have denied its bad effect; but when freedom of disposal even at death was impaired by annexing burthens to the transmission, the bad consequences would, in a certain degree, be felt. In all cases where the payment of the tax depended upon the terms of succession, production of deeds was inevitable. It was not the extent of the sum to be levied, but the precedent that was dangerous: it might be extended to direct succession; and he saw no difference in the principle. Upon the whole, there was no principle of taxation more destructive than that which tended to destroy the power of exchange and transmission, and thereby lessen the desire of acquisition. And, as this bill encroached upon this principle, he hoped the House would consider seriously the consequences that might follow from so unprecedented a system of taxation.

Mr. Windham said, that the main objection to this tax was, that it was a tax upon capital; but it was not so clear as was represented that all taxes upon capital were bad; on the contrary, it was the opinion of many writers of great eminence that a tax upon capital was the best mode of taxation, provided it could be laid on equally. Now, this tax operated in the fairest manner, and at the time when there was the least objection to pay it, viz. at the moment when a person came to the possession of the estate. Gentlemen contended, that it was impolitic to burthen the transfer of property in a commercial country like this: it certainly was to be avoided as much as possible; but property must be taxed, and the question was, whether this was not as unobjectionable a mode as any that could be devised? Another objection to this tax was, that in a course of years, it would swallow up the whole capital; it certainly would. Every tax must, in a great number of years, have that effect.

General Smith thought the bill a paltry expedient for raising a trifling sum, which could have been much better supplied by other means.

Sir W. Pulteney objected to the bill, as containing a principle, which, if adopted, would establish a fatal precedent. The

that could be proposed, and he hoped that it would meet the approbation of a great majority of the House.

Mr. Sheridan said, that the present was the most execrable measure of finance that had ever come before parliament. He had no scruple to say, that the bill was utterly impracticable, and if time were allowed, any gentleman who examined it with a keen eye would see that it abounded with the grossest errors and inconsistencies. He was against any tax that shifted the burthen to posterity; for he thought that those who submitted to measures which necessarily produced taxation, should themselves feel the burthen, as it might operate to prevent them from supporting the present irrational system of warfare.

first bill went entirely to tax the capital; as landed property was valued at 28 years purchase, and the present bill was only substituted on account of the objectionable nature of the former; but although it was more mild, it did not vary in its principle. It had been contended, that it was not a tax upon capital, but upon income; he nevertheless asserted, that it was a tax upon capital, levied in a most insidious mode. It attached at first only upon collateral, but in a short time it might be extended to lineal heirs, and from a small tax to a greater amount, till it swallowed up the whole capital of the kingdom. He had also a weighty objection to the bill, on constitutional grounds. The taxes in this country, generally speaking, fell equally upon all; but in this instance, a tax was imposed upon a particular class of individuals. To this partial mode of taxation, the loss of America was to be attributed. The apology set up was, that the sum was small; but did not stamps, which at first only yielded a trifle, at this time produce an annual revenue of a million sterling? The best time to check innovations, was when they were first proposed; if once allowed fairly to commence, there was no calculating to what lengths they might be carried.

Mr. Bastard attacked the bill upon the ground of its being partial and oppressive, and tending to excite disputes between landlord and tenant, in one word, to embroil the peace of the community. By the provisions of the bill, the commissioner of the tax was authorized to interfere between the landlord and the tenant, and to settle the differences which might subsist between them, according to his caprice. Why, if the bill were only a tax on income, were not pensions and places in reversion made equally liable

with land?

Sir Adam Fergusson objected to the tax altogether, as one that would be particularly unpopular in Scotland, where a strong partiality for family estates prevailed, a partiality which it was wise to encourage, but which the bill tended to diminish. The Attorney General asserted, that the bill was a tax, not upon capital, but upon income, which was to be paid by the heir in the course of the first four years after his succession; so that it did not effect the value of the inheritance: it was mere ly a tax upon his life estate. He contended that the tax was as eligible as any

The question being put, "That the word "now" stand part of the question," the House divided:

YEAS

NOES

Mr. Attorney General Mr. Matthew MontaguMr. Crewe

} 81

Lord George Cavendish } 52

May 12. The question being put, "That the said bill be now read a third time,"

Mr. Francis said: Mr. Speaker; I should indeed be sorry that this pernicious bill should finish its progress through the House, without my having had an oppor tunity of expressing my opinion of it more explicitly and distinctly than by a silent vote. I do not mean to enter into any observations on the particular provisions of the bill. The objections to it in detail, on the score of injustice, hardship, and impracticability, I believe, are endless; I hope they are insurmountable. Let the bill pass as it is, with all its vices and all its absurdities. The more it is loaded with them the better; for that, I fear, is the only chance we have of ever seeing it repealed. My objections are on principle, and fundamental. They are the result of the most careful attention and consideration, which I am capable of giving to any subject. I do not believe that it is possible for any human ability to answer them fairly. I look upon the bill not merely as an act of taxation, but as a political measure, immoderately increasing the influence of the crown, and full of danger in its obvious consequences to the constitution and freedom of the country.

It appears in a form which never was assumed, and acts on principles which never were avowed in this House before. The essential qualities of the bill are these; first, that it does not operate immediately, nor with all its force, but applies to cases and situations which do not instantly exist, and which, therefore, individuals may hope are remote from themselves, and may never reach them. Of course, it annihilates that just and rational check, which the constitution relies on, in favour of the subject, namely, that the representative will not impose exorbitant taxes, without clear necessity, on his constituents, as long as he shares immediately and alike with those who are to pay. By far the greater part of the members of this House are already in possession of all that they expected. But the most dreadful of all considerations is, that the tax is to operate, not now, but hereafter. What guard, then, have we left against the most profligate extravagance and waste of the public fortune, if no part of the burden, whatever it may be, is to be borne by ourselves? Suppose, for a moment, that by any possibility the expenses of an actual war could be provided by taxes, of which the burthen should not be felt till twenty years hence, how few would care or consider what that expense would amount to. Too many of us I fear would say, "The case will not happen in our time." But not only the entailed expence would be disregarded, but the war itself, and all its pernicious consequences, would be thought of with unconcern, as long as the money by which it was supported was not taken directly out of our pockets: so that all the checks derived from self-interest against profusion on one side, and profligate measures on the other, would be utterly removed. But, secondly, this tax, whenever it does act, will not operate collectively, and at once, on the whole community, but individually and successively upon one man after another. Here another guard against unjust taxes is taken away. When all men feel together, they will probably resist together; but when every individual may possibly hope that the burthen may never fall upon himself or remotely affect his posterity, he shrinks, of course, from united opposition, and looks to nothing but personal exemption, or personal compensation. At last, however, the effects of this tax appear to have made a more general impression. Some

persons (I say it without the smallest satisfaction, though I have lamented their absence) have at last come forward to oppose it. This tax touches property in great masses, and must be resisted. Sir, it happened to me lately, to recommend it to some of our great, enlightened ministers to look into history for instruction. I said, it would enable them to judge, from the former policy and practice of the House of Savoy, what the conduct of the court of Turin might probably be in the present conjuncture. They heard me, as usual, with indifference and scorn. The event has now taken place, even beyond my apprehension. Why do I allude to this circumstance at present ? To engage, if it be possible, the great landed proprietors of this country to look seriously at their own situation before it be too late. History, in effect, is prophecy, and in a general view and judgment of human conduct, even better than particular intelligence. I wish these great proprietors of masses of land to look into the history of Spain and France, and see what happened there to persons of their own level, and once as rich as themselves. The grandees of Spain thought themselves secure in their titles, and rank, and for tune, and refused to make common cause with the people, when the laws and liberty of their country were attacked and destroyed by Charles 5th and Philip 2nd. You know the consequence. The most insignificant and degraded order of nobility in Europe, are the grandees of Spain. In France, the same event happened: the great lords were drawn from their estates and their castles, to attend on the mo narch. By degrees they became slaves at Versailles, and for the most part had nothing to subsist on but the bounty of the court, "les graces de la cour"-they, whose estates were left to them, if they happened to give offence to a minister or to a mistress, when there was no room in the Bastille, were sent back to their estatesthey were "exilés dans leurs terres ;" and banishment in fact it was, because their houses were in ruins, and their lands in desolation. Let our great proprietors look to these examples: the ruin which they suffer to be brought on the other orders of the community will not stop there; their turn assuredly will come: at present, I know, they are happy and secure; they think they are in no danger, that they have nothing to apprehend for themselves, and that all that they are