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 heo 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