The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-26 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 26, 1853,

liable to the legacy duty, but the feeling which dictated the
opposition to this bill was the same which wasted the
" bold barons" of former years, who sought and obtained an
exemption from some of the pecuniary burdens borne by
their fellow men. Now that was precisely the objection
that was made to the bill ;it brought the bold barons"
under a law that was applicable to the whole community,
and though that was an objection to the bill with some, it
was an argument in its favour with others. it was
perfectly true, as bad been remarked by his
noble and learned friend on the woolsack, that
no tax could be popular in itself, but the justice
of a tax might render it popular in its prin-
ciple, and in that sense this measure might be said to be
popular. It made the law equal in its operation, and the
people were therefore satisfied with it. It was all very well
to say the tax was not understood cut of doors, and that
was the reason there had been no petitions against it; but if
it had been possible to obtain petitions against it,
there were not wanting persons to make it under-
stood. (Hear, hear.) If it had been found practicable to
get up suck petitions, people would have been
enlightened upon the subject ; but, said the noble and
learned lord opposite, this was not the place where such pe-
titions would he found, it was to the other house that they
would have been sent. The noble earl had denouncid
this tax in strong language, as being not only unjust, but
uncalled for. The noble lord, in point of feet, said it was
only proposed to fill up a deficiency which had been im
properly created in the Exchequer, but let him ask ;the
noble earl this question ; if this tax was so abominable, so
oppressive, and so injurious in every respect, bow
came he to agree to the riMi.lloll of those
taxes which called this measure into existence T (Hear,
hear.) But the noble earl's objection to this form
of taxation must be somewhat new ; for, if he was not mis-
taken, the principle of a succession tax was more than once
announced by the late gov.-rnmeat. No, nu.") Noble
lords opposite cried " No," but on a reference to Hansard
his found, that on the 3rd of December last the following
statement was made in the House of Commons by a mem-
ber of the noble earl's government.
The Earl of DERBY rose to order. It was a rule—more
!towered in the breach than the observance, it was true—
not to refer to matters which might have taken place in the
other house of parliament ; but he could save the noble
earl the trouble of reading the report, by simply answering
him that of his own knowledge no proposition for a suc-
cession tax was ever entertained or contemplated by the
late government. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ABEILDEEN said the noble earl rose to speak
to order, but instead of doing so be had msde a statement
which was entirely at variance with an announcement which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the House of
Commons.. _ . _ .

The Earl of DERBY insisted that be had risen to order,
and had distinctly 'plan to order, for he submitted that
the noble earl would be out of order in reading what he
supposed the noble earl was about to do—a newspaper re-
port of something which had transpired during the present
sissies in *he other house of parliament. (Hear.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he would endeavour to
keep in order, but he must be permitted to read what was
reported to have been sail by sianebody in another plaice.
This person was represented to have made use of these
expressions We have carefully examined the question
of the stamp and legacy duty, and we think it not impos
Bible that en t►e right occasion, and at the proper time, it
will be necessary to proposes duty on successions. (Cheers.)
Again, In the 16th of December, he found this was sup-
posed to have been said iu another place We have con-
sidered also the question of the stamp duties, so (arks they
affect the transfer of land, and we must, sooner or later,
have to meet the question of the legacy and
probate duty, when we may have to consider the
expediency of proposing to parliament a duty on succes-
sions." (Cheers.) lie gathered therefore from these psa•
sages that some of the noble earl's late colleagues were pre-
pared to consider this question, mid the proposal therefore
which the government now made could hardly be looked
upon as of that monstrous character which the noble earl
represented it to be. (Hear, hear.) However, if the house
chose to adopt his amendment, be should leave it for the
Holm of Commons to deal with the matter as they thought
proper. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of HARDWICKB explained that he did not
oppose the second reading of the bill, because he was not
averse to the principle of taxing successions ; but it did not
follow that, because he abstained from opposing the second
reading, that he was to be precluded from resisting any of
its details in committee.

Earl GRAN VILLE said it had been denied that there
was any intention on the part of the late government to
propose anything in the shape of a succession tax, but be
was under the gallery at the time when the late Chancellor
of the Exchequer made the statement to which his noble
friend referred, and it certainly seemed strange to him as it
must be to other noble lords who heard it, to find the
hon. gentleman who cheered the statement so lustily,
now opposing this measure. It was also strange that
the matter was never explained either in that house or at
the Mansion-house (a laugh), where an opportunity was
now &Boded for sued explanatioas, if the late cabinet re
pudiated the statement of their Chancellor of the Exche-
quer ; hut the fact was, there seemed to be the same dif-
ference of opiniun now between the beads of the late go-
vernment.

The Duke of CLEVELAND supported the amendment.
He objected to the unfairness and inequality of the tax.
I He should give • conscientious vote upon this question, as
be did upon all others, and without any reference to party
considerations. (The noble duke, who spoke across the
table, with his back to the reporters, was inaudible through
the greater part of his speech).
The Duke of ARGYLL said the noble duke afforded an-
other instaree of the many misconceptions which were
entertained with regard to this measure, for he had adduced
an instance of • legacy being left to a servant charged on
reel estate having to pay the full amount of legacy duty.
That could not bu the effect of this bill, but of the existing
law, and no doubt • servant so taxed would feel himself
unjustly treated when he saw the heir-at-law in-
herit the estate itself without paying any tax
at all. (Hear, bear.) It was to remedy such
injustice that the government had brought forward the
present bill. It had been stated over and over again
that the measure proposed to lay the seine burden on realty
as on personalty ; 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 and all costs of repair, anti
the tax would be levied on life interest alone. In
conclusion, he denied the correctness of the assertion
of the noble end keened lord, that the measure had
been gratuitously brought forward by the govern-
ment, for he contended that the immediate necessity for
it had arisen from the financial policy of the late go-
vernment. When they returned to power, as in the ordi-
nary vicissitudes of party warfare they would, he congra-
tulated them that they would be unincumbered by any of
those opinions which drove them into such mis-
taken principles. The present bill could not long
have bees delayed. The injustice of taxing per-
sonal property whilst realty did not bear an equal
burden was manifest; and, there was a growing feeling in
the conatry in favour of inch a tax which probably, at no
distant period, would have had to be imposed in • less
acceptable form: instead of a tax upon life interest, it
might then have been on capital value. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS merely wished to say, with
reference to the observation of the noble duke that the
succession duty would be preferable to the income tax,
that the proposition was to impose them both.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE denied that such was
the proposition of the government. The character of the
financial system of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was,
that as the one tax gradually proceeded to be realised, the
other (the income tax) should gradually be lessened, and at
last estinguishei. And that very extinction of the income
tax which the noble and learned lord represented was
to be continued could only be extinguished by their
lordships adopting this succession tax. (Hear, hear.)
He would not trouble their lordships with any fur-
ther observations. He would simply remark, in con-
clusion, that if the amendment were rejected it would
be in the power of parliament ultimately to make.
its election between the succession tax and the income tax ;
and that, while he believed the system of finance involved
in the bill to be • sound ;one, he also thought that only
one great direct duty need be permanently maintained.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared:
For the amendment—Contents
Non contents

Majority for the government
In reply to a question from the Earl of DIUDY,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the amount of duty
payable on real estate and on settled personal estate would
be exactly the same as was now paid on bequeathed personal
estate. If the noble earl should discover that 20,000/. bad
been settled on himself, with a reversion to his son, and
afterwards to his son's son, the noble earl would pay 6001.
for his life interest, his son would do the same, and his son's
son would pay 2,0001., or 10 per cent. upon the capitalised
income. _ _

Clauses 2 to 8 inelusies were agreed to almost without
disausion.

On clause J.
The Earl of Dense, following Earl Powts, who was
scarcely audible. wished to be informed whut was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's government with regard to corpora-
tions sole.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said corporations sole
were almost ell ecclesiastical, and were not strictly
subjects for a succession tax. Instead of being paid
• salary, they were paid ly a real estate, which de-
volved upon one after another. The hierarchy of the
church and rectors and vicars were successors of such a na-
tam that it was considered impossible to bring them under
the operation of the bill.
Clauses 9, 10, and 11 were then agreed to.
After a few observations from the Earl of CLANCARTY,
clauses 12 to 21 inclusive were also agreed to.
On clause 22, which related to outgoings,
The Earl of MALMESBURY wished to know what
was intended by the term " neeemary outgoings."
The Duke of ARGYLL said it was impossible to specify
in an act et parliament the necessary outgoings on an es-
tate. It had been thought best, on the whole, to lean such
matters in the ordinary course. No doubt the usual
deductions would be allowed under the bill,
After • short conversation the clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to 26 were agreed to.
On clause 26, wisich relates to the duty on the value of
mines,
The Earl of DERBY said the clause was an impossible
one, because it was simply out of any man's power to
ascertain the value cf a mine.

Earl GRAN ~'ILLE oheerv.d that the value or the
mine was to be ascertained according to the ordinary mods
of letting.
After a few words from Lord Tacao and the Earl of
DERBY,
the chum was agreed to, as were clause up to 34.