The Press. — London, England, 1853-07-30 00:00:00

292 Irottebings in Varliamtat. SUCCESSION DUTIES BIM The motion for the committal of this bill in the House of Lords, on Monday, was opposed by Lord Sr. LEONABL'I4, who contended that the tax thus to be imposed upon real property was neither ne cessary, popular, or just, and barely intelligible. Should it ever come into operation no man would be safe for a moment unless he kept a legal adviser at his elbow. The financial necessity alleged for creating it was self-made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made, too, apparently, for the very sake of obtaining this coercive measure. Sepa rating the question from all party influences, he con ceded the justice of treating real property and per sonalty on the same footing ; but. argued, both upon abstract principles of equity and from the precedents set by former Administrations, from Pitt downwards, that the new burden now proposed would be unfair and iniquitous towards the land. The noble lord proceeded to remark upon various legal points and practical details comprised in the bill, respecting which he indicated many improvements, and enlarged especially upon the injurious and mortifying publi city that would necessarily be wcasioned by its ac tion regarding settlements, mortgages, and other arrangements of a private and family character : " From the moment that the measure passed no man in the country would Lie able to make the slightest disposition of either real or personal property without becoming imme diaitly an object of observation to the 6overnment. It was supposed that personal estate would escape. Let not the owners of that kind of property lay any such flattering unction to their souls. If they did they would rind them selves greatly mistaken. The Government pad power to examine all public documents; the Bank was open to them, every kind of public office was accessible to them, and there could be no joint account which would not be subject to the scrutiny of the tax-gatherer. Every morn ing sonic officer at the tax-office would be employed in looking through the marriages, and the living and the dead would alike form the subjects of investigation. Every inentiffiranee that had ever been created, of what ever nature, would at once Its open to the tax-gatherer, and no allowances would he made for peculiar circum stances. The tax would touch all classes, and the com fort and privacy of families would be at an end. ( Chem.)" He warned the house not to mistake the bill. Once let it pass and every man's property would be pro spectively subject to a mortgage, in favour of the Go vernment, constituting a first charge over all other incumbranees, and, by the constructive notice clause, imperilling the security of purchasers. The Lotto CuAxcetton remarked that, as all taxes were grievances, the highest amount of popularity that could be expected for any consisted in its not being extensively unpopular. Adverting to the speech just delivered, he noticed that it referred chiefly to matters of detail, fit for consideration in committee, but not warranting an opposition to the committal of the bill. Both of the two principles in cluded in the measure had been accepted by the house. These were, that realty should henceforth pay an equivalent amount of legacy duty to that which had for so long time past been levied from personalty; and that the duties to be paid on sue• cession should be so arranged that no property could be withdrawn from its incidence by making it des cend by settlement instead of through a will. Al most all the objections to the measure were founded upon hypothetical cases involving only rare and ex ceptional instances of accidental hardship. The bur den that would be caused by the regular and normal operation of the law had been much exaggerated; and he embarked upon a se ies of calculations tend ing to show how light and gentle would be its Tires. sure upon those on whom, save, perhaps, in one case out of a thousand, it might be expected to fall. Concluding with an earnest appeal to the house to pass a measure which tne Commons had sanc tioned by such large majorities, the Lord Chancellor significantly alluded to the " dangerous responsibi lity" they must incur by resisting it. The Earl of WINCHILSEA denounced the bill as one of the most obnoxious, detestable, and odious measures which had ever been placed upon the statute book. If he had been present when the second reading was moved he would have divided against it, even though he stood alone. Their lordships then went into committee on the bill. On clause '2, which provides that " every past or future disposition of property " should be considered a " succession" under the taxable meaning of that word, The Earl of Pram• ►refaced the amendment of which he had given notice with some remarks touch ing the respective rights of the two houses in the case of money bills. It was a recognised practice in the Com!!Ions not to allow any money bill to be amended by the Upper House. This, however, did not justify the Peers in abstaining from effecting any change which appeared to them expedient; and precedents had occurred in which the Commons, though they rejected the amended bill, had tau- THE PRESS. pended their standing orders and introduced a new one, following word for word the improved draught sent down to them from above. Unless, indeed, such a power was possessed, and sometimes acted upon, the House of Lords would become mere registrars for the money bills of the Commons. Proceeding to the bill itself, the noble earl refused to believe that Englishmen could desire a measure merely upon the ground that it attacked large properties. His ob jections to it were prompted chiefly by a care for the owners of small estates, and of parties interested in bygone arrangements. To enact a law having retro spective action on property was unprecedeßted in the annals of English jurisprudence. It would result in this, that the Legislature would practically make a uew will for testators long deceased " Place, if you wonld, settled property and devised property on an equal footing—place, if you would, real and personal property on an equal footing—subject them to the same posthumous charges, but, at all events, don't make the impoaition on one or other retrospective, when it was impossible for persons who settled or devised property to make any alterations in their disposition of it. (Hear, hear.) Take the case of devised property. The present clause would come into operation—not after the passing of the act—not after notice, so that persons might make such a distribution of their property as would enable them to meet the changes introduced, so that each member of their family might be enabled to pay the tax in propor tion, but they were about to apply a new legacy duty to real property—( Hear, hear )—and to all wills which had been made previous to the 19th of May in the present year. Conseyiently, if they passed the bill now, and a Dian knew it, he could make a new will, and make such a disposition of his progeny as he pleased; leaving so much in proportion to his younger childrt'n, and so much to the eldest son, but in the other case the Government came in, and made a new will for him. They stepped in, and, not permitting him to alter his testamentary disposition,—for he was dead,—they imposed a new tax, which would have the effect of altering the proportion in which he left his property under the aanctiou of a former law. (Hear.)" Even in cases of great and notorious abuses the Legislature had heretofore been careful to avoid interfering with vested rights. But here was a case of no abuse, no proved necessity. The sole motive for passing the act was to put a certain amount of money into tho hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to supply a deficiency caused by his own act. Thinking, therefore, that the retrospective character of the bill was peculiarly obnoxious, he wished to remove it. For this purpose changes were requisite in various clauses, the 2nd, 3rd, sth, 15th, and 27th. After glancing briefly at the alterations that were required in the subsequent clauses in order to make the amendment he suggested efiectual, the Earl of Derby moved in the one then before the house to erase the words "past or," making the clause operative only upon " every future disposition of property." The Earl of ABERDEFS could not comprehend the course pursued by Lord Derby. That noble lord had declined to oppose the second reading of the bill, because he would not destroy the cornerstone of the year's budget; and yet he now proposed an amendment which effectually overturned the whole structure. The consequences of the suggested amendment, which made the operation of the mea sure wholly prospective, the Premier traced to this result, that a whole generation, say twenty-five or thirty years, must pass before the Treasury could ob taro any noticeable benefit from it. Dilating upon this theme, and contending that the precedents cited by Lord Derby did not bear upon the present case, because the amendments then effected by the Peers involved only minor details. modes of collection, dm, of the several taxes, and did not, as now, cripple their fiscal efficiency, and alluding to Lord Derby's care for small proprietors, he urged that the amendment affected settlements, anti those were generally, if not invariably, made upon extensive properties. But the whole opposition to the bill be conceived to be waged in the interest of the old " feudal" landowners : " The noble earl (Winchilsea) made a touching allu sion to the ' bold barons.' and, judging from appearances. Rome noble lords seemed disposed to act on the principle which actuated the bold barons of old—that of feudal ex emption from burdens borne by the rest of the commu nity. (Cheers.) The object of the present measure was to extend to the bold barons ' a system of taxation ap plieable to their fellow-subjects. It was in that sense only that the tax in question could be said to be popular." The Earl of Aberdeen proceeded to insinuate that the late tiovernment when in power had undertaken to levy a succession duty on real properties. This allegation was promptly denied by the Earl of Malmesbury, and led to some references, which Lord Aberdeen persisted in making. notwithstanding a vehement call to "order" by the house, to certain speeches said to have been delivered " elsewhere " in December last. He thus concluded:— " The noble earl's amendment was neither more nor reasons hest known to himself he o did not attempt on the second reading—namely , to effect the destruction of the bill. As such he regarded it; the House of Commons might deal with it as they should think fit. (Cheers.)" SATURDAY,' The Earl of Hxanwtcxx, after declaring, as a mem ber of the late Government, that he was never cogni• sant of any intention to propose a succession tax, characterised the present measure, especially in re gard to the clause before them and its retrospective operation, as peculiarly unjust. Earl GRANVILLE did not question the right of the Upper House to deal with or alter a money bill. Alteration, however, in such a case was equivalent to rejection ; and he argued that it would be unwise and impolitic to cause the present measure to be re- jetted. The Duke of CLEVELAND believed the tax to be unequal and unfair, and supported an amendment which would alleviate its iniquity. The Duke of AItGYLL contended that all the asser tions of unfairness in regard to the operation of the bill upon real property were unfounded. Its inequa lity turned, in fact, the other way : " It had been stated over and over again that the mei'• sure proposed to lay the same burden on realty as on per sonalty; but that was a grievous mistake, for the tax on realty would not be much more than one half. They would deduct all local taxation sud all costs of repair, and the tax would be levied on life interest alone. The dis tinction between personalty and realty had been referred to, and the latter spoken of as subject to local rates; but under the existing law there was a large quantity of per sonal property liable to all the incidences of taxation — namely. leasehold property, which, in the eye of the law, was personal property, and paid under the existing law the full amount of legacy duty. The present bill would afford great relief in those eases, for, instead of levying the tax on capital value, it would be levied on life interest alone. (Hear, hear.)" He denied that the clause in question was retrospec tive, or that it would become so if the amendment were not carried. It charged nobody now in posses sion, and was retrospective only as regarded title deeds. Nor was it correct to say that the bill was designed mainly to afiect real property. The great source of income looked to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the accumulation of industrial and commercial profits, but the legacy duty could not in justice be extended to settled personalty without also including realty. The necessity for this tax he traced to the course pursued by the late Government re garding the income tax. That impost it was now obligatory upon them to abolish hereafter, and therefore they had been obliged to provide a sub stitute. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE contended for the ab stract justice of the tax. The succession to property was the highest privilege enjoyed by members of a civilised society, and it was most just that they should contribute to the necessary costs of civilisation and of social order at the precise moment when they en tered upon such enjoyment. The owners of property would, be believed, lose nothing by submitting to the same burdens as already weighed upon their fellow subjects. Their possessions would rest upon a firmer basis; as a class they would be relieved from the stigma of having secured unfair advantages ; and as individuals they would profit more by the general prosperity than they could lose by paying their full share to the general taxation of the country. The committee divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against it —34 Majority The clause was agreed to. The clauses up to 33 inclusive were agreed to with very little discussion. On clause 34, which related to encumbrances, The Earl of DERBY asked the Government to in. troduce words limiting the action of the clause to encumbrances executed after the passing of the act. The Duke of NEWCASTLE considered that the pro posed alteration would be contrary to the spirit of the measure. The clause was agreed to. On clause 49, enacting the production and inspec tion of deeds, The Earl of MALMESBUIIY objected to the clause, and dwelt upon the dangers which had arisen from the incautious production of deeds. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that, in pursuing too far the doctrines of law, there was danger of losing sight of those of common sense. The danger spoken of had arisen from persons being found to hold pro perty which did not belong to them. This clause being also agreed to, as well as the subsequent clauses, The Earl of DERBY announced that he should not attempt to limit the time for the operation of the bill, but he was convinced that it would not be per manent. On Thursday the bill, after some further discus sion, was read a third time and passed. INDIA BILL. -- - The House of Commons proceeded with the con sideration of this bill in committee on Monday and Tuesday. when the hon. members succeeded, at last, in disposing of its various clauses. Among the various amendments suggested in the course of discussion, Sir R. WILLOUGHBY moved the