SUCCESSION AND LEGACY DUTIES—THE ARMY IN THE CRIMEA. (Hansard, 19 December 1854)

§ MR. BERESFORD

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve the property and effects of Officers, non-commissioned Officers, and Privates killed in the Crimea, or who have died or may die during the present campaign from wounds, disease, or fatigue, from the payment of the Succession and Legacy Duties." In making this proposition to the House he was actuated by no party spirit, and would confine himself to the justice and policy of the proposal he had to make. The Legislature had been pleased to enact that when any man, by the visitation of Providence or the lapse of time, should die, a tax should be paid by his heir on his accession to his 500 property. But the case which he (Mr. Beresford) begged to urge upon the consideration of the House was of a totally different character. It was an exceptional case, and as such he asked with respect to it the adoption of an exceptional rule. It was not by the visitation of Providence, or by the lapse of time, or in the ordinary course of nature, that casualties occurred in war. The state or the Executive sent these officers and soldiers abroad, and placed them in danger, whereby their lives were lost; was it, then, right that the successors to their property should be liable to duty in the same way as if the death had taken place in the ordinary course of nature? The soldier went forth at the command of the State, and lost his life in the discharge of his duty to the country, and he thought the infliction of this tax in such a case was a very serious grievance, and involved a large amount of injustice. The country and the Legislature could not exhibit too strongly their desire to raise the military profession, and to show in what estimation it was held by the country at large. The whole scope of discipline in the army of late years had been to raise the military profession and elevate the character of the soldier. They had endeavoured to add to his comforts and respectability, to improve his education, to alter the punishments, and to maintain his character. They held out, by extra pay and other incentives, motives for good conduct; and what had been the effect of that admirable policy? They had raised the character of the British army, and they were now proud to acknowledge that they possess a force of superior quality and character. He thought they must all acknowledge that the conduct of the present army in the Crimea afforded a proof of what he stated. In the brightest and palmiest days of chivalry, never had there been a band of heroes leagued together who were more worthy of praise than the army in the Crimea;—it was conspicuous for its valour and endurance, and, above all, for its good conduct. All those advantages had been extended to the living, and now let them show what they would do with regard to the dead. They should let the world know and the country understand that after his death the services of the soldier were still appreciated, and that their appreciation of them would be shown by an act of generosity to his successors. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen did not reflect 501 that officers in the army purchased their commissions. Nearly every officer, especially the higher ranks, had purchased their commission. A battle ensued— Concurritur, horæ Memento cita mors venit. And what became of the price of those commissions? It was lost upon the bloody heights of Alma, or buried on the field of Inkerman. Such losses were exceptional in their character, and asked for exceptional consideration. He was not sure, indeed, that it would not be just that Parliament should pass an Act to return to the unfortunate widows and orphans some part of the large sums that had been paid for those commissions. It had been said that they were not a military nation; and he had endeavoured on all occasions to rebut the calumny, and the events of the past year showed that he was right in so doing; the events of the year 1854 showed that they were a military people; and why should not Parliament legislate for them as a military people, and grant this boon to their brave soldiers. But supposing that they preferred to be called a nation of shopkeepers; let them look at the matter in a mercantile point of view, and they would see the impropriety of sending men into imminent danger, and then raising a revenue from their indiscriminate slaughter. It should be recollected that officers in the army are not in a position to make money as others did, and that they could not avail themselves of many of the means of providing for those they left behind, that were open to other classes of the community. For instance, officers going on military service could not insure their lives like men in any other profession. The old insurance offices would not take an insurance de novo on these occasions, and if an insurance had been made in these offices, they demanded the largest premium for continuing them. That made their case an exceptional one at once. He did not consider that was an appropriate moment to review the conduct of the Government in carrying on the war; but there was One remark which he had a right to make, and it was this—that they had been tardy in the sending forth of reinforcements to the Crimea after the army had landed there. had those reinforcements been sent in September or October, which were sent late in November, no man can say that so many valuable lives would have been lost 502 at the battle of Inkerman. Therefore the Government should not resist the motion, but, on the contrary, extend the greater kindness and generosity to the friends of those that fell at Alma and Inkerman, for the army in the Crimea had supplied the place and fought the battles of a much larger force, and did the duty of a larger army. It might be said, these duties would not be paid by the soldiers, but by those who succeeded to their property; and the assertion was answered by the fact, that nearly all the successions ran to the widows and children, or brothers and sisters, of those who had fallen. And, he would add, that if they had no compassion for the relatives of those who fell, they ought, at least, to relieve the fond anxieties of those brave men who were exposing themselves to battle and to death. In a general point of view, they could not do better than make the concession which he now asked for. It was possible that in some cases two or three brothers might fall one after the other. Some families were much given to the military profession, as witness the gallant family of the Napiers—and any gentleman could call up instances for himself. Take the case of Sir W. Young, who fell at Alma, and was succeeded by his brother, Sir G. Young, who died a few weeks afterwards. There was also Major Wynne, who had been left a legacy a few weeks before he was killed, and whose successor would be called on to pay double duty. He hoped it would not be said that the boon he asked was one which would not extend to the privates, for he believed there was not a private who would not feel the kindness as much as his officer—such was the respect and affection entertained by the men towards their superiors, and such the esprit de corps by which the British army was characterised. He believed that if anything on earth could make that army braver than it was, it would be the knowledge that they might trust to the generosity and kindness of the English people. He looked, therefore, to the honour and generosity of that House to grant this boon to the British soldier.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down commenced his speech by saying that this was not the occasion for discussing the conduct of the Government, and that he would not carry into the motion he was about to make any factious 503 or party motives. I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman full and entire credit for the sincerity of that declaration; and if I advert to it at all, it is only to excuse myself for not taking notice of a subsequent part of his remarks, that I thought was hardly consistent with it, in which he assailed the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to sending reinforcements to the army. We have had and shall have much better occasions for discussing the question than on the point which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As to the motion before us, we are not now discussing a question as to whether rewards are to be granted to the army of the Crimea, or what ought to be the amount of those rewards or the nature of them. In my opinion, the time is not yet come when that question can fairly be taken into consideration by this House. But we are now discussing the question whether at the present moment, on the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we shall confer a particular description of reward on the army in the Crimea, and also that that description of reward shall be limited to the present campaign. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had well considered the terms of his motion, he would perceive that it is liable, from the mode in which it is framed, to more objections than could be easily enumerated. But I own it is better to grapple with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this principle—a principle which, if I mistake not, will command the general assent of the House—that it is the office, not of a private Member of Parliament, but of the Crown, to consider and devise the modes and degrees of rewarding the army. It is the office and the function of the Crown to make proposals to this House on the subject—it is the office of this House, if it should think fit, to accept, reject, or modify those proposals, or to quicken them by an address to the Crown if the occasion should arise when the House thinks that the Crown has failed in its duty. But I put it to the House with confidence, and to the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself—for he must feel with me that this is a subject on which it would be exceedingly painful to us that anything like a difference of opinion should arise—that they cannot but feel with me that I am justified in saying that this is a duty of the Crown, and that they should give the Crown time and opportunity for the performance of that duty.

504 With respect to the particular motion itself, I will point out in a very few words—acting upon the same principle of brevity which the hon. and gallant Gentleman judiciously observed—that it would create inequality, and, without disrespect, I must say that the measure would be so unequal as to be absurd. As to the way in which this motion, if adopted, would operate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "do not object to my motion because it draws a distinction between officer and man." I wish I could accede to that request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I confess I should consider it to be a most serious objection to the motion if there were none other. He might as well almost frame a motion for rewarding officers and excluding the men, as to submit to the House the motion he has made—not that that is his intention, but that would be the practical effect of it. There is probably not one officer in ten who would not come within the scope of the legacy duty; but there is not one private in twenty or fifty who would come within the scope of or derive the smallest benefit from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal. That inequality is a very great objection, indeed, to it. I will not go into such questions as considering what are the claims of those who have lost their lives in the service of the country, not in the Crimea, but in other places—in Sierra Leone, the West Indies, from the yellow fever, in the war with the Kafirs, and in New Zealand, where no glory was to be had, but where wounds and death are as grievous a calamity as in the Crimea. But observe the extraordinary manner in which this measure would operate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we should have regard to the representatives of those officers, and proposes to confer a great boon, as he says, on their representatives. Let us see who are the representatives for whom we ought to have regard. The first persons who are to be considered as the representatives of the officers who have perished in battle are their widows. Is not that so? The hon. and gallant Gentleman does for them absolutely nothing, for as the law now stands they pay no legacy or succession duty. Next to the widow, the first object of regard ought manifestly to be the children; and what is their case? It certainly is not true that they pay no legacy or succession duty, but they pay only one per cent, and, consequently, the remission of this impost would be a very 505 small and miserable boon indeed in their case. I will next take the case of an officer who had neither wife nor child, but whose property would go to his second cousin. In that case the succession would be liable to a very heavy mulct—he must pay ten per cent. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, proposed to distribute relief and reward in a manner and from a source which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) deemed inappropriate and inexpedient. To those persons who had the first claim—to the widow, he gave nothing, to the children only one per cent, whilst to the second cousin or the stranger, who had absolutely no personal claim, he gave 10 per cent. I have, I hope, said enough, both with respect to the principle and details to induce the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion. The Government were actuated by the common and, indeed, universal feeling on this subject, and will feel it their duty to keep the subject in mind, and to advise the Crown respecting it. If they failed in this duty, I trust the hon. Gentleman will stand up in his place and expose their neglect.