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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, .IITLY 26, 185 3.

SUCCESSIONS DUTY BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Lord ST. LEONARD'S (who was very indistinctly
heard in the gallery), said, he was anxious that their lord-
ships should have a general view of the object and parti-
cular operation of this bill, and he should therefore take
the liberty of shortly stating what he apprehended would
be its operation. He had heard the noble earl at the head
of the Government speak of this measure as a popular
measure ; but he could not admit that to be a justifiable
assertion, although the noble earl might have said that it
was not an unpopular one. The assertion that it was a
popular measure was founded on the fact that no petition
had been presented against it; but he believed that the
reason that there had been no petition was, that the mea-
sure was of such a nature that it did not excite individual
opposition. If it were wanted to discover the general
feeling as to any tax, it was done simply by placing the
tax directly upon persons; but, as the present measure
fell immediately upon no one, it was no one's business to
oppose it, and that was the reason why no petition bad
been presented against it. Another reason aura at the
present bill was one which was by no means rstood
by the generality of mankind ; in fact, it required not
merely an attorney, but a very good attorney, to explain
its provisions, and he thought it would be very unsafe for
a man when hit by the operation of this measure not to
have a competent adviser at his side. He could confi-
dently assert from his own experience and knowledge of
such matters, that when the present measure mine into
operation, no man could live without having almost
constantly a legal adviser at his elbow. Itr had been said
that the principle of this measure had been admitted ;
but the fact was, that noble lords on his side of the house
had had no opportunity of opposing it, and he would now
call upon their lordships to consider what the operation of
this bill really would be. This was not a party
question. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial side,
and counter-cheering from the Opposition.) He would
repeat that this was not a party question. (Loud
and renewed cheering.) He spoke from his heart, and
with the firmest belief that this was a measure which,
if passed, would eventually be deplored by every noble lord
who then heard him ; and he would remind the noble lords
opposite who cheered that the bill was one which would at
some period probably punish some of them, and, when it
did, they would remember his warning ; but then he was
convinced that they would not attribute the course which
he felt bound to adopt to the influence of party feeling.
(Hear, hear.) He was at a loss to know why such a measure
had been introduced, for it had not been shown, and he
fully believed it could not be shown, that any necessity
existed for its introduction. (Hear, hear.) He felt very
strongly, and spoke strongly on this subject ; but he hoped
that nothing that might fall from him would be construed
into anything like want of respect for the noble earl oppo-
site. (Hear, hear.) He would ask their lordships to con-
sider what was the pretence on which this bill was brought
forward. It was said that real property should be subject
to the same charges as personal property. Now, that prin-
ciple he was fully willing to admit was a just one, and it
was generally admitted, but the noble earl near him (Earl
Derby) had shown that, in point of fact, real estate was
already more heavily charged than personal estate. (Hear,
hear.) He would ask their lordships to consider the case
of the land tax, which was paid entirely by the landed in-
terest, and to which no equivalent tax was levied upon the
owner of personalty. The difficulties in the way of levying
such a tax would be insurmountable. No man would
endure inquiry being made as to how much ready money
he possessed, what money was owing to him, and what
were his liabilities ; and he would urge upon the noble
earl at the head of the Government that some such feeling
would attend the operation of the present measure. He
and noble lords who sat on that side of the house did not
in the least dispute the justice of placing real estate on the
same footing as personal estate, but to enact that real
estate inherited should be subject to the same duty as per-
sonalty, without reference of any kind to the extensive
burdens thrown exclusively upon real estate, was not
putting the two descriptions of property on the same foot-
ing. (Hear, hear.) The Government, however, did not
stop there, for they said, "If you place the same duty
upon real as upon personal property, inherited by descent
or demise, why exclude settlements?" He could only
say that no Minister had hitherto dared to bring forward
a proposal for levying a duty upon settlements. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. Pitt, in the plentitude of his power, in the
midst of a general European war, at a time when men
were willing to endure almost any sacrifice in order that
the honour and dignity of the country might not be im-
paired, never dared to ask for what the present Govern-
ment, without any necessity, and in time of peace, ven-
tured to propose. Mr. Pitt had excluded all duty on
settlements in the measures of finance which he proposed,
and he could not but consider that the present Govern-
ment were liable to be charged with temerity for adopting
a different course. It was, in his opinion, by an ex post
facto law to take away from. a man that which, although
he had never enjoyed it, was still indubitably his property.
In the case of mortgagees the operation of the bill would
be most oppressive, for it would, in fact, by retrospective
operation, take from them a tenth part of what they had
fairly become entitled to. There were many cases in
which persons had anticipated their successions to such an
extent as to have almost entirely squandered them, and in
such cases the Government stepped in, because a man had
been a spendthrift, and ruined him altogether. A person
knowing that he was to succeed to property, might antici-
pate and spend nine-tenths of its value, and, when the
remaining tenth would enable him to make a fair start in
life, this new tax to be imposed would entirely swallow it
up. As far as the right to spend in anticipation went, a
perfect right to do so undoubtedly existed. Another
strong objection which he entertained to the measure was,
that property might, in certain cases, be called upon to pay
the duty more than once. He himself considered this
question entirely with reference to its general effect, but
he would call the attention of the noble earl at the head of
the Government and of the noble duke near him (the Duke
of Argyll), and of all noble lords who took peculiar in-
terest in the affairs of Scotland, to what would be the
operation of this measure in Scotland. As far as he under-
stood the measure, according to the Scotch law, the direct
descendants of a person who inherited property from a
stranger or distant relation, 150 years ago, might still be
called upon to pay more than 1 per cent. It was his inten-
tion to propose certain amendments in committee on this
bill. One of those amendments would be for the purpose
of correcting that anomaly. He should move that when
the tenant for life should have paid a higher duty than
1 per cent., that person of his family coming into it after-
wards should only pay 1 per cent. He should also propose
that when a settlement had been made by a man upon the
marriage of any of his children no person under that settle-
ment should, during the settlor's life, become subject to
the duty. He would, to show the necessity of such a pro-
vision, offer an illustration to their lordships. He would
take the case of a tradesman who had by hard industry
amassed some property, and who upon the marriage of his
daughter made a settlement for life upon the husband,
with reversion to the widow at his &cease. Up
the
death of the husband the noble earl stepped in U
and took
part of the capital of the fund from the daughter of the
living man, while the man who had accumulated the pro-
perty saw it dwindle away under the grasp of the tax ga-
therer. (Cheers.) How often had not marriages depended
upon the simple question whether the young couple would
be able to meet their future expenses or not ? The settle-
ment made was often the smallest they could manage to
live upon, and then upon the husband's death Government
stepped in and took a succession duty from the unhappy
young widow and her family. Was there any necessity
for that? (Hear, hear.) He would be the last man to
object to it if it were indeed necessary. (Cheers.) But
necessity alone could justify it, and authorize the-Legis-
lature to break in upon past settlements. The bill was
brought in in order to enable the Government still further
to reduce indirect taxation. But he doubted the wisdom
of carrying direct taxation too far ; and he regarded with
great distrust all these attempts to get rid of indirect tax-
ation, and to substitute direct taxation in its place. He
wished to point out to their lordships the operation of this
bill. From the moment the bill passed, no man could make
the slightest disposition of his real or personal property
without coming under the observation of the Government.
Let not the owner of personal property lay the flattering
unction to his soul, that he would escape the observation
of the tax-gatherer. The public would have access to
en to
all
public documents. The Bank of England was op
them, as well as every other place. There could be no
joint accounts kept at the Bank which would not come to
the knowledge of the Government ; and there would be no
settlement of property in the empire that would not be
followed by the tax-gatherer. Every morning he would
look through the lists of marriages. In each case he would
suspect a settlement ; inquiry would be made for it ; and
it would, in some way or other, be forthcoming. The tax,
too, was one that would touch all classes in life. Every
marriage settlement, even among the trading classes,
would be placed before the world, and the whole comfort
and privacy of life would be broken in upon. He believed
their lordships would deeply regret it if they passed the
bill in its present shape. (Hear.) He intended to propose
an amendment in section 18, which was less clear than he
thought it ought to be as to property bequeathed by a
husband to his wife, or by the wife to the husband. By
the act of 1796,'and subsequent acts, there was an express
exemption of such property from duty, and he proposed to
introduce a special exemption into the present bill, which
he thought would be preferable to an exemption in which
this case was incidentally included at the end of a clause.
There also was another clause which it would be desirable
to introduce into the present bill—namely, that whatever
property was subject to the legacy duties under the Legacy
Duties Acts should not be subject to tins duty. A question
had already been asked of the Government, whether they.
would not put the duty upon the same footing between bro-
ther and brother and brother and sister as between father
and son. The descent from brother to brother being imme-
diate, ought not to nay any more duty than the descent from
father to son. He thought also that if a legacy were left
to a brother in-law who had married the testator's sister,
ho ought not to pay a greater duty than his wife, the testa-
tr's sister, would have paid. The clause, as it was drawn
stated, where the person chargeable with duty was "mar-
ried to any person of nearer consanguinity than himself
or herself to the testator." But in 99 cases out of 100 the
brother-in-law or the sister-in-law was of no consanguinity
to the testator, and he should propose an amendment
the to
meet these cases. He believed that all mankind, when
time came, would prefer the income-tax to this tax. (Hear,
hear.) He did not speak as a person interested on this
subject. He had never had a succession, nor did he ever
expect a succession—(hear, hear)—but he wished to save
the people of England from a bill which would lead to legal
strife, which would carry discomfort into every habitation,
and finally work its own condemnation in the course of
time. Their lordships had been told of the necessity of
diminishing the expenses of conveyances, and of the gene-
ral wish which existed that the expenses attending the
transfer of real estate should be greatly lease Brit how

had the Government met this ? They had met it by put-
ting, for the first time in England, by means 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 rliament 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.
prelate 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
be 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 the 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 landedproprietors so 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
per e justice of this bill. There was a
legacy duty upon nal 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 be 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 k that was the way in which it was paid with
respect to ad 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 1,000/. 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 1,5001.
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. 10s. 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 trus
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 featuresi 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 he 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 tb the dangerous consequences which, he
told them, might arise from their making alterations
in the bill. He was perfectly aware that, according
to the privilegefi 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 other 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
Aulondineuts proposed in their lordships' house. Ho re-

membered one instance which he had been reminded of in
the course of that day by a noble lord who entertained a
very strong objection to the principle of this bill, but who
was absent on account of a domestic calamity. That noble
lord, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced a
bill, as a measure in his budget, for the purpose of varying
and altering the stamp duties. An amendment vas made
in their lordships' house, materially affecting the character
of that bill with regard to the budget ; it was sent down
to the Commons, and the other house did not assent to it,
or accept their lordships' alterations ; but, though techni-
cally they did not do so, they moved that the bill, as
amended, should be laid aside. They then suspended the
standing orders, and reintroduced a bill totident verbis, the
same as the amended bill which had been sent down to
them ; and, having passed it through all its stages, sent it
up as a new bill to their lordships. He was ready to ad-
mit the House of Commons was quite right in vindicating
its technical privileges as well as guarding its bond fide
control over the money of the country ; but he said this,
that if measures were to be introduced altering the whole
financial arrangements of the empire—measures making
new and unheard-of taxes on new and extraordinary prin-
ciples of taxation—and it was asserted that their lordships
were to have no power of altering a single word, of cor-
recting even a mistake, or of rectifying errors into which
the House of Commons might have fallen—that was
in effect to say, their lordships' house was a useless por-
tion of the Legislature, and that, so far as financial mea-
sures were concerned, they had only to record the bills
framed by the other House of Parliament. He hoped that,
whatever course they might take with respect to bills of
minor importance, they would not consent to abrogate all
legislative functions so far as to say that the magic words
" This is a money bill" would be enough to preclude them
from exercising any consideration on a subject of so much
importance. He regretted very much that when the noble
earl on a former occasion attempted to persuade them to
appoint a committee of inquiry into the working of the
bill, they had not acceded to it, for much useful explana-
tion might have been given, and the bill rendered less ob-
jectionable in consequence during its progress through the
other house. He would not enter upon the consideration
of the circumstances under which that proposition was
rejected. Their lordships were now called on to deal with
the bill as it came from the House of Commons, with all
the inconvenience of being called on to alter it where it
was found objectionable. Before he went to the particu-
lar amendment he was about to propose, he must be per-
mitted to comment on the extraordinary tone and language
which had been adopted by the noble and learned lord,
and the strange inconsistency between his assumptions
and his arguments. The noble and learned lord told them
first, that no tax of the kind could ever be popular. The
noble earl opposite said this particular bill had been re-
ceived with universal approval and acclamation. He could
not see how the silence which prevailed in the country
could be taken to signify any feeling of the kind. The
noble and learned lord at the commencement of his obser-
vations said the bill was popular in the country, because it
was thoroughly well understood, and was understood to be
aimed at the large landed proprietors of the country alone
—that it was subjecting them to a tax which they were
called on by every claim of justice to pay for the purpose
of putting landed on the same footing as other descriptions
of property, and that being an assault on the large landed
proprietors, and so understood, the bill was received with
universal popularity. Now, assuming the fact to be as the
noble and learned lord had stated, he must say he had too
good an opinion of the sense and justice of his countrymen
at large to believe that if the bill was an attack on the
landed proprietors it would be a recommendation of its
principle to their feelings of justice. (Hear.) But having
told them that, the noble and learned lord proceeded to
say he did not propose to deal with taxation on incomes
of 20,0001. or 40,000.—such sums he knew nothing of, but
that he would consider the measure as it affected, not those
large landed properties, which he had just said it almost
exclusively affected, but small properties from 1001. to
1,0001. a-year. Now, he thought the noble and learned
lord exceedingly mistaken with respect to the tax, and
when he told them that small properties acquired by
tradesmen or persons in the middle classes were not fre-
quently the subject of settlements, he believed he had fallen
into a serious error, and his belief was that among those
middle classes and the owners of settled property the pres-
sure and hardship of the bill would be felt more severely
than it would be among those whom the noble and learned
lord wished to lean upon heavily, The annoyance, vexa-
tion, and pressure, indeed, might be felt with regard to
both, but let their lordships recollect that, with respect to
the small properties, of which very little had been said as
yet, but of which much would be said hereafter, the pro-
portion of the legal charges, and the burdens on the tax-
payer, without coming into the finance of the country,
would be felt much more severely than among the larger
proprietors, and his conviction was that the amount of the
tax would not be so oppressive as the lawyers' bills, which
would exceed the amount of the whole tax among the
middle classes. The noble and learned lord said there were
two principles involved in the bill—first, that of placing
real and personal property on the same footing ; next,
placing devised and settled property on the same footing.
As to placing those two descripti that
oroperty on the
same footing, all he could say was, that the bill imposed a
new tax on a description of property which was already
most heavily charged, and which had burdens no one at-
tempted to deny. As to the second remark, he admitted the
principle was intended to place settled property, whether
real or personal, on the same footing as devised property, but
he could not admit that it was founded in justice, because,
apart and distinct from either, the bill must have a retro-
spective operation when imposed on property which was
held by settlement. That was a new principle in the law
of England. The amendment ho was about to propose
went on this principle :—Place, if yon would, settled pro-
perty 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 imposition on one or other retro-
spective, when it was impossible for persons who settled or
devised property to make any alterationin their disposition
of it. (Hear.) Take the case of devised property. The
present claims 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, and to all wills which had been made previ-
ous to the 19th of May in the present year. Consequently,
if they passed the bill now, and a man know it, he could
make a new will, and make such a disposition of his pro-
perty as he pleased, leaving so much in proportion to his
younger children, 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 san-
tion of a former law. He could quote a case in confirma-
tion of the view he took of this point. In the year 1838 a
bill was introduced to prohibit and check a plurality of
church benefices, and thus to get rid of a great abuse and
an evil which every one admitted, but so cautious was the
Legislature of that day not to interfere with the vested
rights of persons even in that which was in itself a gross
abuse that provision was made in the bill to the effect that
any person having had left to him thereversion of the next
presentation to a living, though it was a plurality, should
not be barred from the advantages of the will of his prede-
cessor by that act, and in the course of the last year there
had been a case in which, after the lapse of 15 years from
the passing of the act, a person had succeeded to the rever-
sion of a living secured to him under a will dated in 1837.
But there was no gross abuse to be goi rid of in this case,
a certain portion of money into the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to sup-
no great object to be gained. The sole motive for passing
hpthilaynsdtbhsileolfdwtehfianscieteonhcpaynuntcaused by his own act. Her Majesty's
Government had thought fit to take a other taxes quite
equal in amount to the tax which they expected to raise
under this bill ; and they proposed to patch up the defi-
ciency so caused by bringing in this bill, which, contrary to
all precedent, and contrary to all justice, as he contended,
they meant to apply to the will of a man who had did six
months ago. But how much stronger was the case with
respect to settled property. They were about to apply the
bill retrospectively to all family settlements made years
ago, in which there had been many subsequent transac-
tions—estates mortgaged, money borrowed, subsequent
settlements made, and arrangements effected between dif-
ferent parties in the course perhaps of the last 100 or 200
years, all of which would be unsettled and disturbed by
theo toperation which, so far as its principle was
been simply prospective, but which
f
obtaining an immediate revenue,
concerned,rhe sa ere merely
might
tethelleave
o bill,f
they proposed to make retrospective as well. The clauses
in was more
and particularly
24 th.irhteo
first b e f o found
wereclause
hche
Itheti,s
2pdr n3ci ldse w t
h,
provided for the interpretation of the different terms con-
tained in the act, but the second clause provided that
" every past or future disposition of property, by reason
whereof any person has or shall become beneficially en-
titled to any property, or the income thereof, upon the
whti
death of any person dying after the time appointed for the
commencement of this act, either immediately, or after
any
.interval, either certainly or contingently, and either
originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and every
devolution by law of any beneficial interest in property, or
the income thereof, upon the death of any person dying after
the time appointed for the commencement of this act to
any other person, tin possession or expectancy, shall be
deemed to have conferred or to confer on the person en-
titled b 7 reason of any such disposition or devolution a
' succession.' " The third clause, went furtherfor it provided
that if he, for instance, and any other person were now in
their own right in joint possession of any property, and if
the other possessor were to die, and he, the survivor, were
by means of or in virtue of any previous existing agree-
ment or legal claim to obtain the benefit of survivorship
in the remainder of his own property, and to come into
the full enjoyment of that of which he had before had only
a divided possession, then the tax-gatherer would come
clown and enforce the payment of the tax on that benefit of
survivorship, just as if it had been anew and absolute sue-
cession. With regard to the sth clause, its vexations, as
applied to future legacies, would be interminable, but he
would not go into them, as he was now contending against
the application of the principle to bygone transactions,
and to an already existing state of things. Every one of
their lordships who had succeeded to property subject to
any annuities or jointures whenever that property should
be increased by the death of any one of the persons now re-
ceiving jointures or annuities, would be called on then to pay
the tax, though they did not succeed to property in the
slightest degree, but simply because a charge upon the pro-
perty which was theirs before had fallen in. It was a mon-
strous case of hardship, and one not at all necessarily de-
ducible from the principle of the bill itself, that any one
should be taxed on the removal of a charge which had been
imposed on him by a bygone instrument. (Hear, hear.)
The 15th clause, too, was grossly unjust, for it said that if
any person should I of his
have dispose(reversionary inte-
restat the death
in any property, whether _ of the person
holding it, or afterwards when the reversion fell in, the
alienee, who had bought
it and paid the full market value
for it, was to be placed in the same position as the person
from whom he had bought it, and was to have an equal
deduction made from his income as would have been made
from that of the original holder
ht of the reversion. If the
person from whom he had boug the reversion happened
to inherit it from his father, then he would only be plun-
dered of one per cent., but ,if on the contrary, the seller
inherited from a distant relation, the purchaser would have
to pay the tax of 10 per cent. Thus, two transactions
might take place of this nature, at the time of the purchase
exactly alike, but when the reversions fell in they would be
materially altered,—a great injustice would be committed
on both, but on one it would be trfold greater than on the
other, without there havins t
• e been he slightest difference in
the terms of the two purchases. He should very much like
to hear any suggestion from her Majesty's Government by
which they could palliate this
tire.injust The 34th clause
committed this great injustice, aile it made aw-
ances for all encumbrances on a prepeTty not createdbny
y.
the successor, yet, to whatsiVer extent 14e might have
or
cumbered his reversionary interest himself _whether ef
his own benefit or thatof his relations, no matter for what
h
motive, good or bad—no allowance was to be made for such
encumbrances ,and which at the
encumbrances as be himself had created,

time of creating them he could not foresee would lead to
such consequences. He was not quite sure that he under-.
stood correctly the amount of burden to be thrown upon
the tenant succeeding in fee simple. By the 21st clause
they wore told that the tax was to be charged according to
the value of an annuity equal to the annual value of the
property, and in another part that was to be charged as an
annuity of 95 years. The only clause where the successor
in fee simple was mentioned was the 27th, relating to cor-
porations. Take the case of an estate of 50,000/. a-year,
and suppose it inherited from a person not immediately
connected with the successor, and suppose the possessor
to come into possession of it at the age of 25, it would
be no slight deduction to have to pay in the first four
years 85,0001., which would be the tax which, under the
circumstances he had mentioned, would have to be paid
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And this might be
repeated moreover toties quoties. He ventured to doubt
the answer given by the noble and learned lord as to the
rule for future successions. His own interpretation of
course was worth nothing, but he had consulted persons
well qualified to judge, and their opinion was, that the
original liability, the original absence of relationship in the
first instance, would fall upon every subsequent successor,
inasmuch as each successor would be held to take, not from his
immediate predecessor, but from thepersons who instituted
the original settlement. Every subsequent relationship
would, therefore, be traced to the person who originally
formed the entail, and in proportion to the relationship
which he bore to his immediate successor so would the
tax be rated for all time to every person succeeding for ever
after. There were many such cases as this in Scotland ;
he knew of a property there which had lately been newly
settled, in the first instance upon a distant relative, and,
if his interpretation of the clause were right, that property
in all time to come would be chargeable with the heaviest
rate of duty, even if it succeeded for 20 generations in an
unbroken line from father to son. If that interpretation
were not correct, then of course her Majesty's Government
could have no objection to insert words which would make
it quite clear that such was not the intention of the bill.
The first amendment which he should move would be in
this clause, to leave out the words " past or," so that the
clause would run—" every future disposition of property."
If their lordships rejected this amendment, it would be idle
to propose similar amendments in the succeeding clauses ;
but, if they consented to it, it would be necessary for him
to propose similar amendments with regard to the succeed-
ing clauses, so as to make them consistent in spirit. If he_
were successful in persuading their lordships to introduce
these words, though it would not affect his opinion of the
abstract impolicy and injustice of the bill, yet it would
considerably mitigate those insuperable objections which
he now felt to the bill in its present form, as inflicting the
_grossest injustice upon innocent parties.
the Earl of ABERDEEN said, he was still unable to
understand the course pursued by the noble earl who had.,
just sat down. The noble earl who spoke earlier (IVinchil.
sea) was perfectly consistent, for he denounced the bill as
iniquitous and unjust, and he would have opposed the
second reading. The noble lord opposite (Lord St. Leo-
nards) complained, indeed, that there had been no oppor-
tunity of voting against the second reading of the bill,
but he could not tell what opportunity noble lords de-
sired, for it appeared to him that there had been ample
opportunity, and, if they meant to be consistent, they
ought to have acted upon it. - The noble earl oppo-
site (the Earl of Derby) said this bill was the corner-
stone and foundation of the financial system of the
year—that the whole financial arrangements of the year
rested upon this tax. He said truly, and he assigned
that as a reason for not proposing to oppose the second
reading of the bill, in order that he might not so
destroy the corner-stone and foundation of the financial
system. He could understand that reasoning and agree in
it if the alterations proposed by the noble earl were con-
sistent with the preservation of the edifice of which he
talked, but when the noble earl's first amendment was
such as totally to destroy the whole building, he would
leave them to judge what sincerity and what tenderness for
the preservation of this corner-stone were really to be as-
signed to him. The effect of the amendment, so far as
he understood it, would be.that for the first year the re-
venue would not receive one farthing from the tax, and,
as regarded settlements, it would postpone the tax for one
generation-30 years, or it might be 50 years. That was
what the noble earl called preserving the corner-stone and
foundation of the financial system of the year ! (Hear,
hear.) The noble earl affected great tenderness for the
small proprietors, but he must know that settled estates
were always to be found among the large proprietors of this
country. He must know that settlements were very rare
among the middle classes of this country. The evidence
given before their lordships' committee on the burdens on
land showed that clearly. (The noble earl here read an ex-
tract from the evidence taken before that select committee.)
Therefore, in point of fact, the persons for whom the noble
earl professed such tenderness were at this moment liable
to the legacy duty, in consequence of the way in which—
in nine cases out of ten—they disposed of their property.
The noble earl who spoke early in the debate made a touch-
ing allusion to the " bold barons," and, judging from ap-
pearances, some noble lords seemed disposed to act on the
principle which actuated the bold barons of old—that of
feudal exemption from burdens borne by the rest of the
community. (Cheers.) The object of the present measure
was to extend to the bold barons" a system of taxation
applicable to their fellow-subjects. It was in that sense
only that the tax in question could be said to be popular.
It was perfectly true, as stated by the noble and learned
lord on the woolsack, that although no tax could be posi-
tively popular, yet popularity might attach to the prin-
ciple of applying a tax equally to all classes. (Hear.)
It was all very well to say that the tax was not understood,
and that that was the reason why no petitions had been
presented against it ; but there were persons well able to
enlighten the people on the subject, and, if the want of that
communicated knowledge had been the real cause of the
abstinence from petitioning, no one need doubt that there
would have been a plentiful crop of petitions by this time.
(Cheers and laughter.) The noble earl who spoke early in the
evening accounted for the absence of petitions against the
tax by saying that the people had no confidence in Parlia-
ment. It was singular, however, that this want of con-
fidence should operate in the manner described by the
noble earl as regarded the succession tax alone. There was
now lying before him a return of the petitions presented
to the House of Commons up to the 15th of July, from
which it appeared that while whole pages were filled with
petitions against almost every tax it was possible to name,
not one had been presented against the succession tax.
(Hear.) Under these circumstances, without going so far as
to say that any tax conld be decidedly popular, was he
not justified in referring to the absence of petitions as
evidence that in the opinion of the people the tax on suc-
cessions was just ? The short answer he had to make to the
noble earl who spoke last, and who professed a wish not to
disturb the corner stone of the financial fabric of the Go-
vernment was this, that his amendment would destroy the
whole structure. (Hear.) It would prevent the tax from
having any profitable existence until a period so remote
that it would be impossible to calculate on it. If the noble
earl's amendment and other amendments of which notice
had been given should be adopted, the bill would be alto-
gether remodelled. Now, he must beg to call their lord-
ships' attention to the practical effect of this mode of pro-
ceeding. It was not his intention to question any of their
lordships' privileges,. or to control them in the exercise of
their rights ; but he must be permitted to observe, that
there existed no precedent in the least degree similar
to the course now proposed to be taken since the assertion
by the House of Commons of the exclusive right to origi-
nate and conduct money bills through Parliament. The
other night a noble friend submitted to their lordships a
proposition respecting the income tax, which he thought
very injurious and ill-judged ; but, if carried, it might
have been assented to by the Commons, because it would not
have altered by a single farthing the produce of the tax,
being limited entirely to the mode of collection The House
of Commons had actually agreed, some years ago, to an al-
teration of a similar character in one of their bills. 'When
Mr. Canning's Corn Bill came into their lordships' house
it was subjected to certain alterations, which the Commons
agreed to because they did not affect the produce of the
tax. It was, therefore, just possible that the Commons
might have agreed to the amendment of his noble friend
on the Income Tax Bill—however injudicious it might
have been • but the amendment now proposed was of a
totally different character, for it dealt not with the mode
of collection, but with the whole body of the tax. (Hear,
hear.) But, further than that, it was his duty to declare
that, whatever the House of Commons might do, it was
utterly impossible for the Government to think of acceding
to an amendment which would destroy the intention and
cut off the produce of the tax. The objection on which
the noble earl chiefly relied was untenable. The noble
earl denounced what he conceived to be the injustice of
imposing a tax which would affect existing settlements ;
but their lordships must perceive that almost any tax im-
posed without notice must affect existing interests. In
this very budget a new tax was imposed upon Scotch and
Irish spirits. Very well ; the Scotch distiller might have
contracted to supply a quantity of spirits at a price regu-
lated by the old tax, and he was bound to fulfil his en-
gagement, even although it should ruin him. That was a
case precisely in point ; in principle it, was the same.
(Hear, hear.) But then the noble earl said that the Go-
vernment had voluntarily created a deficiency in order
that they might impose this tax to supply it. In reference
to this point he must take the liberty of asking a question,
—if this tax were really injurious, oppressive, and
abominable, as it was represented to be, why had the
noble earl consented to the remission of taxation which it
was intended to supply? It was true a noble lord had
proposed to defer for some time the bill repealing the soap
duty.
The Earl of DERBY.—So did I.
The Earl of ABERDEEN.—True; but not because of
the alleged injustice of the tax by which the deficiency
caused by the remission of the soap duty was meant to be
supplied. The argument advanced for deferring the repeal
of of the soap duties was, that it was desirable not to dimi-
nish.
' our fiscal resources at a moment when war might
break out. After all, however,monstrous and ait bomssinacil
as the present measure was described to be,
which would have been proposed by the late Government.
w
It was not his intention to state that the late Gtohveesarnmmeenats
would have proposed a bill in form
that before the house, but their adopptireoncisl
of a tax on successions was more than ce on an
oef the principle
The Earl of MALMESBURY.—Ne, no I will explain
that presently.
Go-
The Earl of ABERDEEN did not sareypartheadt, tbhuetlahtee
was
had a measure actuallimp
plated the imposition
of
waa
tax onrranted in
succe sayi
ssiongns. In that they a
n
col te
nse of this kind it was cus-
tomary to refer to Hansard asa k3inadooff
Daustoehomribtey, andwas in
r
that record he found that on the
stated in another place—
The Earl of DERBY rose to order. It certainly was a
custom—though one more honoured in the breach than
the observance—to comnient in their lordships house on
reports of what was
.said to have taken place in the House
of Commons. It might save the noble earl some trouble,
and prevent him from committing an irreoeul.arity, if h
noble earl e
were simply to assure the
either in a speech or eny other form, for the imposition of
a tax on successions was at any time submitted to him for
consideration, nor, as far as he knew, was it ever sub-
mitted to the consideration of any member of his Go-
vernment. (Hear.)
The Earl of ABERDEEN thought the noble earl was
not justified in calling him to order.
The Earl of DERBY contended that he was warranted
in calling the noble earl to order when he was about to
read some newspaper report of what was supposed to have
taken place during the present session in the other house
of Parliament.
The Earl of ABERDEEN admitted that according to the
strict letter of their lordships' rules, he was out of order in
doing anything so unusual as to refer to what had been said
in another place. (A. laugh.) It was true a noble earl had
that evening alluded in direct terms to a speech deli-
vered in the other house, and indeed there was hardly any
noble lord, in the habit of addressing the house frequently,

who had not often committed a similar offence. The noble '
earl had said that his Government never intended to im-
pose a tax on successions, but, with reference to that point,
he must take the liberty of reading an extract from a
speech supposed to have boon spoken elsewhere by the
noble earl's Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3d of De-
cember last. The passage was as follows :
"At the same time we have not neglected carefully to
examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate
duties; and we think it not impossible to bring forward,
on the right occasion, a duty on successions that will re-
concile contending interests, and terminate the system now
so much complained of."
(Cheers.) That passage was taken from what he had
already referred to as the most authentic record of Parlia-
mentary proceedings ; and in another record, of a more
ephemeral character, he found precisely the same passage,
except that the concluding words " the system now so
much complained of," were changed into " the injustice now
so much complained of." This was not all. On the 16th
of December, as it appeared from the same record, the
right hon. gentleman was supposed to have said :
" We had to consider the whole question of the stamp
duties with reference to those real burdens upon land,—
upon the transfer of land,—which must sooner or later be
dealt with, and a question of the utmost difficulty which
must also not long be neglected—the question of the legacy
and probate duties. We had to consider whether it was
possible to propose to Parliament a duty on succession,
which, in connexion with the total reform of the burdens
on the transfer of land, would be an equitable and just
settlement of the question, and one which was for the
welfare of all classes."
(Cheers.) Now, looking to -what had passed, was he not
justified in saying that the late Government was prepared
—not to introduce a bill precisely similar to that now
before the house—but to recognise a principle which
was now denounced as one of singular atrocity? (Hear,
hear.) Having to deal now only with the first amend-
ment, he would not enter further into the subject, but he
could not help observing that the ease suggested of the
possibility of the succession-tax being paid in the heaviest
degree upon an estate for twenty generations, was sin-
gularly extravagant, like many of the cases suggested by
noble lords opposite. In consequence of a change in the
law, made some years ago, a father and son in Scotland
could cut off the entail just as they could in England.
The twenty generations would consist of queer people if
they should allow the state of things suggested to continue,
when they had it in their power to put an end to it. The
noble earl's amendment was neither more nor less than
this—it was an endeavour to do that which for reasons
best known to himself he 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.)
The Earl of HARDWICKE, as a member of Lord
Derby's Cabinet, declared he had never heard from any
member of the Government a suggestion for the imposition
of a tax on successions. He had voted for the second
reading of the bill because he was disposed to as-
sent to a tax, but, having done so, he felt at liberty
to amend the measure in committee. The allusion
which the noble earl at the head of the Government had
made to the " bold barons" was not very respectful to
their lordships, nor calculated to insure the safety of the
constitution. (Hear.) It was language which would not
soon be forgotten. In spite of the noble earl's sneer, he
would affirm that there existed not on the face of the earth
a more liberal house of Legislature than that which their
lordships composed. With reference to the clause before
their lordships, he thought it peculiarly unjust. He wanted
to know what justice there was in taxing settled estates
and estates devised ? A settled estate was in many instances
tied up by the law of succession under acts of Parliament,
probably forbidding the raising of money, or the sale of a
single acre. For these and other reasons he should support
the amendment.

Earl GRANVILLE, in reference to what had been
stated by his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) as
having been spoken in the House of Commons by Mr.
Disraeli, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought that
the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), by contradict-
ing that statement, could not have been present at the dis-
cussion ; for he (Earl Granville) could appeal to a noble
lord on the opposite side of the house, whom he remem-
bered seeing under the gallery of the House of Commons
when that speech was made, as to the fact of the passage
referred to by the noble earl (Aberdeen) having been
spoken, and as to its having been loudly applauded by
those persons in that house who were most anxious to
have a measure of the description now before their lord-
ships passed into a law. The declaration then made by
Mr. Disraeli was, at the time, neither contradicted in
their lordships' house, nor in the house of Commons.
It was, in fact, generally understood that the right
honourable gentleman and the Government to which
he belonged considered that at some time or other
such a measure ought to be proposed. He (Earl Granville),

therefore, thought their lordships and the public had a righk
to assume that there was some foundation for what they had
heard this evening. He (Earl Granville) had indeed heard it
stated that certain votes had been given, and certain opinions
expressed in the House of Commons, by members of his own
party, which were not in accordance with the opinions of
the noble earl opposite. He (Earl Granville) thought that
the noble earl the other evening acted in a most statesman-
like manner when he rose and implored their lordships not
to go into any premature discussion on foreign affairs, at
the same time expressing the strongest wish that the same
course should be taken in the House of Commons, and ask-
ing the noble earl at the head of the Government to use his
influence to prevent any such discussion taking place. He
(Earl Granville) was sure that many noble lords were, as he
himself was the very next morning but one, surprised to
learn that the right hon. gentleman who was supposed to be
the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons had
pressed that house to come to an immediate discussion on
that question. But he (Earl Granville) admitted that it
was not fair to consider the noble earl bound to everything
that might be said by his political adherents in the other
House of Parliament. The noble earl who kad last spoken
(the Earl of Hardwicke) had complained of his (Earl Gran-
ville's) noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) having twitted
them, by making an appeal to them in the name of "bold
barons." He (Earl Granville) could assure the noble
earl that no taunt was thereby intended by his noble
friend. It must be obvious to their lordships that his
noble friend only used an expression which had been pre-
viously used by another noble earl, who had taken a strong
course in denouncing the bill on its second reading. His
noble friend's argument was that if their lordships ad-
mitted the principle of the bill by agreeing to the second
reading, he could hardly conceive how they could alter
those clauses on which that principle rested after the Go-
vernment had logically made out their proposition. With
regard to the noble earl's objection to a tax upon settled
property, and to what the noble earl called the retrospec-
tive effect of the bill, he (Earl Granville) thought it better
to defer the consideration of that question until they came
to the clauses particularly relating to it. The noble earl
had remarked upon the peculiar conditions on which the
Government had come before the house, and had stated
that her Majesty's Government were disposed to introduce
a new doctrine into the house by asserting the impossi-
bility of their lordships making the slightest alteration in a
money bill that came up from the House of Commons.
Now, he (Earl Granville) would say, in the first instance,
that that was not a doctrine held by her Majesty's Govern-
ment ; and, in the next place, he would say that if it were
so held by them, it would not be a new doctrine. He
would read the opinion of Lord Chatham upon this point
" Taxation," said Lord Chatham, " is no part of the go-
verning or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary
gift of Commons alone. In legislation the three estates
of the realm are alike concerned ; but the concurrence of
the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to close
with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Com-
mons alone."
He (Earl Granville) believed he stated the opinion of all his
colleagues when ho said that they did not agree with the doc-
trines there laid down—that they did not agree with the doc-
trine of non-interference on thepart of their lordships' house,
nor did they deny the right of their lordships, if they
thought proper, to iterfere with or making alterations in a
money bill. But what his noble friend at the head of her
Majesty's Government had maintained was, that there
never was an occasion in which it would be so unwise and so
inexpedient for their lordships to follow any such course as
the present. When the noble and learned lord (Lord St.
Leonards) disclaimed any personal feeling in this matter,
he (Earl Granville) entirely went with him. It was a re-
markable thing that not 12 persons in their lordships'
house had any personal interest in the matter ; and he
believed if their lordships were to look over the votes on
this question to-morrow morning, they would find that
every one of those persons who would be personally affected
would be actually those who would support the Govern-
ment proposition. But this was an argument which it
would be an insult to their lordships to use for one mo-
ment. It was not the personal feeling which their lord-
ships had, or even the prejudices which they might enter-
tain with regard to the class which they so pre-eminently
represented, would guide their conduct on. this
of qu
these-
tion. It had been shown that the present position
small landed proprietor under the present legacy tax was
a very bad one, and that he would be much better cir-
cumstanced under a succession tax which limited the as-
sessment to any life interest that he might possess. It
was, therefore, on the larger estates that this tax would
most heavily fall ; though not equally with, but about 50
per cent. as compared with the tax on personal property.
He knew it was very idle. for a person like him to attempt
to use arguments against such an opponent as the noble
and learned lord who first spoke that evening (Lord St.
Leonards) • but what he (Earl Granville) rested his case
upon was, first of all, that no measure of any importance
had ever passed both houses of Parliament, without there
having been some persons on the opposition side, eminent
in every way, who had conjured up imaginary grievances
and difficulties, which in the result had proved to be en-
tirely without foundation. But he relied still more upon
the fact that if there was the slightest foundation for the
prophecies of the noble and learned lord, there would have
been a double foundation for those prophecies 57 years
ago. But noble lords, while arguing as to the manner in
which this measure would affect property, entirely
forgot that large estates held both in this country
and in Ireland, as leasehold instead of as freehold,
must have had to endure this tax. During those
fifty-seven years, however, none of those grievances
which had been described had arisen ; no litigation had
taken place such as had been expected. He did, therefore,
believe that as none of those grievances which had been so
much dwelt upon had occurred during the last 57 years,
the apprehension that they would hereafter occur, should
this measure pass, was wholly without foundation. He
therefore must beg their lordships to consider this state of
things before they yielded implicitly to the advice which
had been given to them. (Hear, hear.)
The Duke of CLEVELAND complained that no oppor-
tunity had been afforded to their lordships for sufficiently
considering the nature of the several provisions of this bill
when it was read a second time. Had he on that occasion
known its tendency and probable effects he should certainly
have opposed its being read a second time. Both in the
year 1842 and in 1846 ten days elapsed between the bill on
the income tax being introduced into their lordships' house
and being read a second time.
The Earl of ABERDEEN begged to assure the noble
duke that the arrangement for the second reading; of the
bill was made in concert with the noble earl opposite (the
Earl of Derby).
The Duke of CLEVELAND admitted that all persons
ought to pay a like tax on property, no matter from what.
,there and
source their income might be derived ; but there
isted a strong feeling against the income tax alto
carry
g
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only able to c 2
His objection
it by this sop in the pan—the succession tax..
to the proposed tax was on the ground of the ineqeuaatliety and
t e
the unfairness of manner in which it would factions
was not one of those who would pu forwardrar ob-
jections to any measure that the Government might pro-