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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

MOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY, JULY 25.
Tu. Loup CUANCILLUIt took his seat at 6 o'clock.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.—
PEI CY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL,
These bills severally went through committee, and were
reported to the house.
SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
_

- - - -------.
On the question that the house go into committee oa this
bill,
Lord St. LEONARD'S said he was desirous of shortly
stating what he apprehended were the objections to the
bill. The noble earl at the head of the government had
spoken of its being • popular measure. Tbere was, how-
ever, but little to justify the assertion. Ile might have
said that it was not unpopular, because there had been no
petitions against it; and the reason why there hail not been
was because it was of • nature which did not draw down
immediate opposition, and for that very reason it ought to
be discussed. It was, moreover, a bill which the gene-
rah', of mankind could not understand; for it would
always require • clever attorney. When the bill mot 'lto
full operaisen, no man could live under its administration
without a Itkial adviser constantly at his elbow. (A laugh.)
lie calls d on both sides of the house to oppose the bill, for
it was not a party question. (Ironical cheen thou the raj.
'tigerish benches.) Ile repeated that this was not a party
question. (Renewed cheers and much laughter.) The
time would come when the bill would pinch every man in
the house, and tl.ey would then remember what he told
them, that it was not a party measure. What was the
necessity for this b. 11? The government had sought
the necessity. (Loud cheers from the opposition.) It
did not raise They had created the necessity in order
to provide fur it by this very coercive measure. The de-
fenders of the bill said, let us have equality of taxation.
That was very just ; but, tint of all, they must look at the
burdens on lend. The noble earl behind him (Derby) had
pet that quietens strongly; but let tnem look at the land
tax alone. It was charged originally, not only on land, but
really money and debts. It was now, however, paid only
by the land ; and why was it not charged on personal
estate? Only because of the difficulty of levying it.
It was his in elation to move several amendments. He
should propose that where • tenant for life had paid a
bights duty than one per cent., persons of his family
on coming in after him should pay only the same
amount. Ile should also propose that where • settlement
hail been made by • man in his lifetime on the marriage of
any of his children, the death of any person interested
under the settlement in his (the settler's) lifetime, should
not be subject to duty. In the Act of 1796, audio all subse-
quent acts, there was an express exception in favour of pro-
perty pawing from the husband to the wife, or from the wile to
the husband. Ile should propose to introduce such an ex-
ception into the present bill. He should also propose that
whatever was subject to duty under the Legacy Act should
not be subject to it under this bill ; and, me he did not see
why property should not descend from brother to sister in
the Mai MIAMI' that it descended from brother to
brother, he should introduce an amendment to meet that
ease. He implored their lordships to listen to his amend-
ments, with the view of putting what appesred likely to
be a permanent measure ou the toast objectionable footing.
The noble and learned lord, in conclusion, addressed him-
self to the bench of Matteis, and hoped that they would
not be parties to filing this bill, with all its obnoxious de-
tails, on their fellow-citisens. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that so large a portion,
indeed almost the whole of has noble and learned friend's
speech, had tuined span the details sad different clauses of
tho bill, that he would be justified in simply moving that
the house resolve itself into committee on the bill, when
the objections of hie noble and learned friend could be
answered clause by clause. Bat some of his noble and
learned friend's observations being of a mere general cha-
racter, there was throughout the whole of his speech such
7:exaggeration—(hear, hear)—he spoke it not Ain-
-Iy—there was such an extravagant colouring as to the
supposed operation of the measure, that he did not feel jus-
Hardin moving that the house resolve itself into eommittee
without making a few observations in reply to his noble and
learned friend. His noble and learned friend said that
there was nothing to show that the measure was popular
in the country, and he followed that observation by ad-
mitting that there was nothing en the other hand to show
that it was unpopular. Now, with regard to taxation, be
would leek, if it was possible for the imagination of any man
to devise • tax which would be popular ? (Hear, hear.)
All that could be expected was that the tax was not um
popular, for to ozone popularity for • tax was out of the
question. (Hear, hear.) His noble and ;earned friend
said that the operation of the measure was not understood
la the country. He (the Lord Chancellor) believed the real
objection was that they thought it was understood in tie
country—that it was an attempt to extend to the property
of the landlords a burden which was borne by other kinds
of property. (Hear, hear.) The owners of personal
perty paid a legacy duty, and they felt that in
property psid a legacy duty, and they felt that in
justice all the landed proprietors should be put
he same category with themselves. There were two
principles, so to say, in the bill—the first was, that where-
se personalty and land brought into the same class as per-
sonalty was now subject to legacy duty, they were going to
subject real property—nomininies—to the same kind of
duty. It might be • bad feeling of human nature, but it
was found in the human heart, that those who were subject
to the tax on personal estate should wish to see the same
principle extended to others. The second principle of the
ill was of a cognate nature. It was this, that whereas
there was now a duty imposed on property left by will
there was nothing to militia property left by settlement to
exemption from contributing to the burdens of the state.
(Hear, hear.) These were the two ptinciples of the bill ;
sad unless it could be shown that they could not be carried
Into effect without a manifest' violation of justice and pro-
priety, there was no reason why they should not pre-
ttied with the bill in committee. (Hear, hear.) He
'aped their lordships would not hesitate to do so,
feeling, as he did, that the measure was one in unison with
the spirit of general and universal justice—that it was a
bill, the propriety of which was felt by the country at
brae ; and having passed the other house by large majori-
ties, he trusted their lordships would not incur the danger
of resisting • measure which had been received with such
universal approbation. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WINCHILIOLA said that be regretted he
did riot know the bill was to be read • second time on Fri-
day last, as he should have felt it to be his duty to divide
the house, even if he stood alone, against the principle of
the bill, which was unjust in its nature, and affirded
grounds for litigation and oppreserion. (Hear, hear.) It
was the most obnoxious, cruel, detestable and odious act
that could be placed on the statute book.
The house then went into committee.

Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,
The Earl of DERBY said that he roes for the purpose of
proposing the first of the amendments of which he bad
riven notice; and having already addressed their lordships
OD the principles and main details of the bill to which he
objected almost as strongly as his noble friend, it would be
unpardonable in him it be were now to detain their lord-
ships at any great length. But, before moving his amend- ,
sent, he must be permitted to answer what bad been '
hinted at by the noble earl opposite on Friday night, and by
Ms noble and learned lord to-night, as to the den-
serous consequences which might arise from making
lay alterations, or amending in the slightest degree,
the provisions of the bill. He was fully aware that ac-
cording to the privileges of the Howse of Commons,
It was very difficult for their lordships to introduce amend-
ments into a money bill which had been agreed to by that
house. But their lordships did sometimes amend such
bills, aad he had been informed of one instance of this kind
when the House of Commons did not accept the amend-
ment which bad been made by the House of Lords,
but threw out the bill altogether, and then intro-
duced and passed • new bill, founded on the same principles
se the amendments which had been introduced by their
lordships. If their lordships did not possess such a power
of amendment, then as far as the finances and taxes were
eoncerned they would be an institution for merely record-
lag the decrees of the other house of parliament. (Hear.)
Be respected the privileges of the other home, and would
sot interfere with them by amending bills of trifling im-
portance ; but he would never consent to say, that however
Iniquitous the provisions of a bill, the magic words " This
to a money bill," were to preclude their lordships from
bestowing any cemideration upon it. (Hear, hear.)
The first amendment he proposed to move was in the
second clams, line two, to strike out the words " past
er" so that it would run—" every future disposition
of property ;" thus making it apply to every person
dying after the peering of the set. If this proposition
were rejected he should think it idle to propose si-
milar alterations in the subsequent clauses, except on
the 31th relating to reversioners. If the amendment
were assented to' it would be net-weary to introduce cor-
responding words in other clauses, so as to make the whole
bill prospective instead of retrospective. These alterations
would considerably mitigate the insuperable objections
which he felt to it.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said he was still unable to un-
derstand the course pursued by the noble lord. Lord Win-
shams had spoken with perfect consistency; he had called
Hie bill iniquitous, odious, and detestable, and had given it
So mine character as Lord Derby had done on the previous
stage. He complained that he bad no opportunity of voting
tirgainst the 'creed rending ; but ample opportunity had
been given ; and if noble hada opposite meant to be eon- I
&tint, they ought to have acted upon it. What was the
Moon given by Lord Derby for not doing so? He truly
acid that this bill was the cornerstone and foundation of
the flaiusciel scheme, that all the financial arrangements for
the year depended upon this tar ; an 1 that as ho did not
wish to destroy that fosudation he would not oppose the
mead reading of this bill. That might have been admitted
had his amendment. boon consistent with the preservation
Of
that edifice. Bat when his first emends's!, was such
eie totally to destroy the whole of the bill, with what since-
rity c mid he profess tenderness and a desire to preserve
ib fosiadati.in (Hear, hear.) The practical effect et the
amendment would be this, that in the first year the
would not receive a single farthing from this tax ; and with
regard to all settled property, it wool 1 be postponedto
another g ties—from 30 to 50 years; and this the noble
lied Called P the corner-stone of the financial m-
eo or the year. ear. hear.) Whatever regard he
might affect for the smaller proprietors, he must boom per.
hotly well that ha plan of fact settled estates wore always'
those of the eoseibnabla, the large proprietors of the coon-
My. (No.) The flies dames rarely made such settle-
ments es those whleh panted over an elder son. The evi.
deuce of the monllmearlomead persons examined before their
lordship,' COMIMMINI OM the bard-ris on land showed that
nibs oat elm at the wills of persons in the middle ranks
of life won e• bade as to suit the exigencies of
and were each ae to come ander the legacy duty.
Ia point of fact the persons for whom the noble earl sa-
pient* so mach rimpathy were at this very moment