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

ast
THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING', JULY 26, 1853.

had the Government met this? • They had met it by' put-
tin e., for the first time in England, by moans of a fiscal re-
gulation, a mortgage upon every man's property through-
out the empire—(hear, hear)—and that mortgage was de-
clared to be a first charge, which would exclude everything
else. Former acts of Parliament made a person liable to
pay responsible under a heavy pressure ; but the Govern-
ment were not content with that, and took an actual
mortgage for such it was —upon the property itself.
(Hear, hear.) The bill said that :—" No bona fide purcha-
ser of property for valuable consideration under a title not
appearing to confer succession shall be subject to any duty
with which such property may be chargeable under the
provisions of this act, by reason of any intrinsic circum-
stances of which he shall not have had notice at the time
of such purchase." By such an enactment as this, property
would be placed in more peril than it had been placed in
before by any Government. You introduced the subject
of notice—constructive notice, notice to a man's attorney
or agent—and all this you introduced at the peril of
purchasers at a time when you were proposing to
shorten their titles and render those titles secure !
At the proper time, therefore, he should propose the
insertion of words in order to take out of the bill
the mischief which lurked under it in this form. He
would now, in conclusion, say a word to the right rev.
prolate opposite. He would put it to them whether
they would be parties to place this measure, with all its
obnoxious regulations, upon their fellow subjects, while
they themselves were excluded from its operation. (Cheers.)
Their support of the bill under such circumstances might
bo considered an act of gratitude to the Government, but
he hoped and trusted that they would not by their votes
help to place upon other men's shoulders a burden which
had not been imposed upon them. (Cheers.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that so large a por-
tion—indeed, almost the whole—of the observations which
had been addressed to their lordships by his noble and
learned friend had turned upon the details of the different
clauses of the bill, that it might have been considered a
justifiable course on his part simply to allow the bill to go
into committee, and to answer, clause by clause, the ob-
servations which his noble and learned friend had made
upon it. Some of those observations, however, were of a
more general character than the rest, and there was
throughout the whole of them such gross exaggeration—
he did not at all wish to use the term offensively—such an
extraordinary colouring with regard to the supposed opera-
tion of this bill, that he felt called on to make a few re-
marks before putting the motion, that their lordships do
resolve themselves into committee. (Hear.) His noble
and learned friend had commenced by observing, that
there was nothing to show that this measure was popular
in the country. He had, however, been obliged to follow
that observation by another, to the effect that unquestion-
ably there was nothing to show tho measure was unpopu-
lar. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) asked their lordships
if, in respect to any tax which the imagination of man could
devise, they could expect more than that it should not be
unpopular? (Hear.) What popularity could be gained by
proposing to tax any one ? Popularity for a tax was per-
fectly out of the question. His noble and learned friend had
followed this observation by the remark, that he was afraid
the operation of the bill was not understood in the country.
Now, without meaning to doubt the sincerity of his noble
and learned friend, he (the Lord Chancellor) believed the
real objection felt by him and the noble lords by whom he
was surrounded was, that they thought the measure was
understood throughout the country. It was felt through-
out the country that this was an attempt to tax the ex-
tensive properties of the landed proprietorsso as to equalise
the national burdens. (Cheers.) The noble earl (the Earl
of Derby) had described it the other night as a discredit-
able feeling on the part of those subject to the legacy duty
to wish to extend the tax also to real estate. Now, far
from concurring in this sentiment, he viewed that feeling
as the foundation of the justice of this bill. There was a
legacy duty upon personal estate, and those who bore that
tax—who, speaking generally, were confined to the poorer
classes--felt that landed proprietors ought to be put into
the same category as themselves. That was the principle
of this bill. There were two principles, so to speak, in-
volved in the measure. The first was, that whereas the
legacy duty had heretofore been paid only in respect to
legacies of personal estate, real estate was now subjected
to the same burdens. Now, a wish to effect this object
might be a bad feeling in human nature, but he was sure
they must all admit that such a feeling must necessarily
find its way into the human heart. (Hear, hear.) That
was the first principle of the bill. The second was—and it
was one of a cognate nature—that whereas heretofore
legacy duty had been imposed only upon persons dying in
possession of their property and leaving it by their will,
nobody should now be entitled to withdraw himself from
the obligation of contributing in this way to the national
exchequer by making a settlement, instead of leaving the
property to be disposed of by his will. (Hear, hear.)
These were the two principles of the bill, and, if they
were recognised, there could not bo any possible reason
why the house should not resolve itself into committee.
(Hear, hear.) He admitted that if the measure were
considered as one which would be productive of the
grossest injustice, that would form a reason against pro-
ceeding with it. But was that so ? His noble and learned
friend to-night, and the noble earl a few evenings ago,
had exerted all their ingenuity and ability in bringing
forward extreme cases, which they contended would be
productive of enormous hardships under this bill ; but he
should like to hear the noble earl or his noble and learned
friend point out any imaginable tax of which the same
thing might not be said. (Hear, hear.) They were now
proposing to tax a great and powerful class, and it was not
to be wondered at if there were cases of occasional hard-
ship. The truth was, that when you once came to impose
a tax, justice, such as they were ordinarily disposed to con-
sider it, could not be attained ;it was impracticable. The
object of justice was to secure people in the possession of
their property ; but the moment you imposed a tax you
said, in effect, " I am coming to take away a certain por-
tion of your property," which was an injustice, except so
far as it was warranted by the exigencies of the State. All
that could be said in such a case was, that the tax you
imposed was in its nature a just one, and that you had
adopted the best machinery which you could devise to
meet the existing difficulties and to remove objections.
(Hear.) His noble and learned friend had said how very
unjust it was in the case where property came from a stran-
ger, where a tenant for life had it, and then, perhaps, his
son succeeded him, and the son's children—how very unjust
it was that the son should pay the stranger's duty, and the
children pay the stranger's duty afterwards. Was that so
very unjust ? Why, that was the case with regard to the
legacy duty ; that was the way in which it was paid with
respect to all personal and all leasehold estate. (Hear.)
It was the law now with regard to that class of property,
and, moreover, real estate would not practically bear its
full burden, and would not pay so much as personal estate,
because the duty was calculated upon a different principle,
infinitely' more beneficial in the case of real estate. Take
a case. Suppose the father died, and that, by the dreadful,
iniquitous, retrospective operation of this bill, the son was
charged with duty on succession to his real estate. He (the
Lord Chancellor) shrank from those enormous figures with
which their lordships had been terrified the other night,
and with which he was quite unable to cope. (A laugh.) Sup-
pose, instead of talking of 50,0001. a-year, they were to take
the case of a man who succeeded to an estate of 1001.
or 1,0001. a-year. Suppose the son succeeded at the
age of 39 ; what was the enormous grievance to which he
would be subjected? Succeeding at that age, the 1001. a
year would be worth 15 years' purchase, and therefore the
whole sum upon which duty would be paid would be 1,500/.
But take the case where the estate was worth 1,0001. a
year. The sum upon which duty would have to be paid
would then be 15,0001. What was the charge upon that?
1501. How was it to be paid ? By eight different instal-
ments, commencing at the end of one year. In other words,
he would pay four yearly instalments of 371. 10s. upon a
net income of 1,0001. a year—that was to say, he would pay
71.105. more than he paid now for income tax, and after
that he paid nothing. Was that a grievance of such enor-
mous magnitude ? The noble and learned lord had endea-
voured to raise a feeling about the manner in which this
bill would affect poor tradesmen ; but settlements were
almost unknown to persons in that condition of life. The
truth was, that the introduction of settlements, just as the
introduction of real estate into this bill, was felt to be but
just, because it was only another mode of subjecting to
this tax that species of property which, belonging generally
to the rich and to the powerful, had been ordinarily with-
drawn from the operation of taxation by arrangements,
and deeds, and management, to which the poorer classes
were entirely strangers. He trusted that their lordships
would, in spite of the address of his noble and learned
friend, have not the least hesitation in forthwith going into
committee, feeling, as he was sure they might, that it was
a bill in unison with a spirit of universal justice—a bill,
the propriety of which had been felt by the country at
large, and which, having passed the other house of Parlia-
ment by large majorities, and having been received with
universal approbation throughout the country, he trusted
their lordships would not incur the dangerous responsibility
of resisting. (Cheers.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA was prepared to contend
that, whether they considered this bill on the grounds of
justice, of oppression, and cruelty, or as a source of litiga-
tion, it was one of the most obnoxious, detestable, and odi-
ous measures that had ever been placed on the statute-book.
It would fall on those who came after us to pay this tax,
and it would place every man's title deeds at the mercy
of the tax-gatherer. From the imperfect manner in which
many of these deeds had been prepared, flaws would be
found in them, and the small proprietors would suffer
most from the litigation that would ensue. These were
indeed strange times when the proud barons of England
submitted to such measures ! The Government was in
the hands of the Harpies, and they were going to per-
petuate all the worst features of the legacy duties, and to
place the landed proprietors in the same hands for four
years. He ventured to affirm that the tax would create
greater excitement when once it was fairly understood
through the length and breadth of the country, than any
tax that had ever yet been imposed. No amendment could
ever reconcile him to the principle of so odious a measure.
He deeply regretted he was not aware when the second
reading took place. Had he known it, he would have
divided the house, even if he had stood alone, and his
name at all events should have gone down to posterity as
that of one who had resisted that bill to the last.
Their lordships then went into committee on the bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to without any discussion. It is
merely interpretatory.
On clause 2, by which " every past or future disposition
of property" in certain cases is construed as a succession,
and the words " successor and predecessor" defined.
The Earl of DERBY rose to move the amendment of
which ho gave notice on a previous evening. Having
already, at very considerable length, stated the objections
he entertained, almost as strongly as his noble friend, not
only to the principle but to the details of the bill, he
should hold himself inexcusable if he did more than state
briefly the nature of the amendment to which he now
asked their lordships' assent. But as this was the first
amendment which had been proposed, he thought he
might be permitted to answer a preliminary objection
hinted at by the noble earl opposite, and insisted on by
the noble and learned lord in the course of that afternoon,
with respect to the dangerous consequences which, he
told them, might arise from their making alterations
in the bill. He was perfectly aware that, according
to the privileges of the House of Commons, in the
case of an amendment being introduced in a money bill
by their lordships, there was sometimes a matter of diffi-
culty in inducing the otner house to accept that amend-
ment ; but, at the same time, he knew also that amend-
ments in money bills had been introduced in this house,
and that the House of Commons had an easy mode—of
which they had frequently availed themselves—of recon-
ciling the assertion of their privileges with an assent to
amendments proposed in their lordships' house. He re-