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

pose, but in this instance he felt himself called upon to
support the amendment of his noble friend.
The Duke of ARGYLL said, it must be admitted
that an injustice and an inequality existed in the opera-
tion of the present legacy duties, and it was to rectify
the injustice of the existing law that the Government
had brought forward this measure. The noble earl
opposite had argued that the Government were pro-
posing to levy the same burden upon real as upon personal
property, but such was not the case ; on the contrary,
they proposed to levy burdens upon realty to only
half the extent of those upon personalty, and it was in re-
spect of landed property being rateable that they proposed
to make that difference. It would be only fair, if of two
properties one were subject to rates and the other not, in
levying a tax, to make deduction for the rates, but the
Government proposal went even further than that, for by
it deductions were also made for outgoings necessary for
the management of landed property. These deductions
were to be made in respect of such things affecting the sale
of small portions of land more than the sale of stock, and
from the desire not to compel the breaking up of landed
property. The duty was not to be levied upon the capital
tvhaelutet,ht was a
buta upon the life interest alone • and he contended
great consideration, which had not been
esHufeffithdciiedenhntoelyteetaeht, e
tiennkrdbteyhdaht becausetoie by noble lords on the opposite side
noble
ft
ant ond
property the cro s s -wb eans chcs
sub-
ject to local taxation it was a fair intererence that it
should be exemlted altogether from a tax upon succession.
He wished to call their lordship's attention to another
point. The noble earl opposite had argued as if the dis-
tinction between personalty and realty entirely corres-
ponded with that between property subject to local taxa-
tion and that which was not. Such, however, was not the
case, for under the law as it at present stood there was a
very large class of property which was rated as personal
property, and yet was subject to all the incidents of local
taxation. He referred to leasehold property, which, under
the existing law, paid legacy duty upon its capital value,
and was at the same time subject to local taxation. Their
lordships would perceive that, as regarded the owners of
property of that description—by no means an inconsider-
able class—the result of this measure would be to diminish
the burden under which they suffered by. the existing law,
by levying a succession duty upon life interest alone, in. •
stead of a legacy duty upon capital value ; and would ap-
peal to noble lords opposite whether that consideration
had been sufficiently brought before their lordships'
notice, or whether or not it had been slurred over. He
wished to say a few words on the amendment of the noble
earl ; and, first, he must express his gratification that the
noble earl had resolved to take a division upon that parti-
cular amendment, for he was perfectly well satisfied that it
could not stand thetest of close investigation. He consi-
dered that a great deal of confusion and misapprehension
had been caused by speakingof the clause at present under
consideration as a retrospective clause. (Hear, hear.) It
was not only not a retrospective clause, but it would only
become so if the amendment of the noble earl were carried.
(Hear, hear.) He would just point out what the real
nature of the measure was. The intention in imposing a
tax upon successions was to charge it upon those persons
who came into possession of property by inheritance. It
would be fair to call the present clause a retrospective
clause if it levied a charge upon persons who had already
succeeded to property, but the term was incorrect as ap-
plied to a clause which merely provided for the imposition
of the tax upon those persons who for the future should
inherit successions. (Hear, hear.) It was retrospective,
not as regarded persons, but only as regarded the title
deeds of different families, and no single tax had ever been
imposed which had not in some sense been a retrospective
measure. (Hear, hear.) He wished to make a comparison
between the operation of the income tax and the proposed
duty upon successions. He would take the case of a per-
son inheriting an estate of 5,0001. a-year without any en-
cumbrances. The noble earl opposite started at the pro-
posal to compel the successor to pay for four years an an-
nuity of about 178/. ; but he would ask their lordships to
consider what would be the case if the income tax were
continued ; and it was to enable the Government to dis-
pense with the income tax that this measure was intro-
duced. If the income tax were continued, the successor,
instead of being subject to pay an annuity of 1781. for four
years, would have to pay an annuity of 1461. for ever.
(Hear, hear.) He confessed that he could not then agree
with noble lords opposite that the contiuuance of the in-
come tax would be preferable to the introduction of this
measure. (Hear, hear.) With regard to settlements, he
could not see why the present measure should not be
applied to that description of property. Persons coming
into property under settlements received that property
subject to the income-tax, and he did not, there-
fore, see any injustice in making it subject to a suc-
cession duty. In looking at that branch of the subject,
noble lords opposite had been led away by the name
of the thing ' • but surely it was justifiable, if it were
admitted that there was no injustice in making such pro•
perty liable to income-tax, to substitute a tax which wan
less onerous. There was another misapprehension which
had been apparent in the speeches of noble lords, and
which perhaps had been assisted by language which had
been employed on his side of the house. It was not cor-
rect to say that this bill would fall chiefly upon the owners
of real property. There was an immense amount of per-
sonal property which escaped taxation under cover of
deeds of gift, and it was one great object of this bill to
levy the tax upon that species of personalty. With re-
gard to settled personalty, there was not a shadow of an
argument why it should be exempted from the existing
legacy duty. He might state that in the calculations of
his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by
very much the largest sum expected from the proposed
tax was from the capital arising from industrial pursuits.
The noble earl did not oppose the second reading of this
bill, not in order to avoid embarrassing the Government,
for that, of course, he would care little about, but in
order not to affect its financial prospects ; but the amend-
ment now proposed by him would have that effect. He
most emphatically denied the assertion of the noble and
learned lord opposite, that the present measure had
been gratuitously brought forward. (Hear, hear.) He
had no hesitation in distinctly asserting that the measure
had been rendered immediately necessary by the financial
schemes of the late Government. (Hear, hear.) The
noble earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs had, the
other evening, given a fair account of their position. They
were bound in honour to make certain proposals, and
those proposals led to their being defeated ; but he would
say that no one was more pleased than himself to think
that when they next returned to office, as in the general
course of party warfare it was probable they would, they
would not be encumbered by any of those former opinions
' which drove them into their mistaken principles of
finance. But he would repeat that it was the rash and
reckless proposals of the late Government, in reference
to the income-tax, which imposed on the present Govern-
ment the necessity of immediately introducing this
measure. He did not wish to say that, under any cir-
cumstances, it could have been long deferred, fora remedy
to the present injustice could not have been delayed much
longer, and then, in all probability, the duty would
have been proposed upon capital value instead of upon life
interest. It was, then, the principle of the late Govern-
ment with regard to the differentiation of the income tax.,
The Earl of DERBY—I repudiate the word differentia-
tion altogether. (Laughter.)
The Duke of ARGYLL could not use the word "dis-
crimination," because that word implied justice, but, as
there was no justice in the scheme of the late Govern-
ment with regard to the income tax, he used the word
"differentiation." He believed that those proposals, if
carried, would have fallen more heavily upon the owners
of real property than the successions duties would. (Hear,
hear.) It was his firm conviction that the measure now
proposed by her Majesty's Ministers was not one which
would press with undue heaviness on the landed in-
terest. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS wished only to offer a very few
observations on what had fallen from the noblituke who
had just sat down. The noble duke while showing that
the property tax would not press so severely on the owners
of real property as the income tax had entirely lost sight
of the fact that the landed interest would be subject to
both at the same time. (Hear, hear.) He wished also to
point out that while it had been stated on the other side
of the house that the middle classes of this country did
not settle their property, the noble duke had just stated
that the first object of the measure was to levy the tax
upon the personal property of the industrial classes.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished
observations on what had fallen from the
lord. The noble and learned lord had said that the form-
meeadkeleaernfeewd
nobtele
and the duty
Govern-
ment was the combination of the income taxe_thesystem
foun-
dation of the system of finance proposed by the
on successions, but the particular character f
provision
for action of the one should ultimately make
was not only that they should not act together, but that
for the abolition of the other. (Hear, hear.) It had
been admitted that it was not expedient to carry on
direct taxation further than it at present extended,
and he would ask their lordships, where was it more
natural to impose direct taxation than upon those who
were enabled to exercise the great privilege of so-
ciety—that of succeeding to property?—and what more
natural than that they should be called upon to
pay it at the moment when the succession was enjoyed.
He had heard with extreme surprise the statement that
this tax was aimed at any particular class in this country;
but in his conscience he believed that it had been aimed
equally at all classes. He did not consider that the posi-
tion of the owners of land would be impaired by rendering
them amenable to the same law as their fellow-subjects ;
on the contrary, he believed that it would materially
strengthen them. (Hear, hear.) It was not to exemp-
tions from burdens that the great families of this country
owed their present position. Could any one imagine that
his noble friend at the head of the peerage, the Duke of
Norfolk, the end of a long line of ancestors, enjoying the
same importance as they did, owed his high position to his
having escaped payment of the legacy duty ? It was not
upon any such grounds as that that the fortune of the aris-
tocracy of this country had depended. It had rested upon
the prosperity of the country, and its free and glorious in-
stitutions. Would these great families and landed pro-
prietors gain nothing by this system of finance? He would
assert that their gain was infinitely greater than the value
of any legacy duty which they would be called upon to
pay. (Hear, hear.) Their gain would be what it was the
object of this system of finance to maintain—namely, th
increase in the prosperity, the industry, and the Pl:oda:eon'
tion of the country. (Hear, hear.) Who that 1104
could doubt
the experience of the last three or four y
that, so far as the landed proprietors were-ea ersouc.e.
increase in the general prosperity was not infinitely more
important and compensating than any amount
s taxation
r e t_ 1?
as retrospective.
spective act. But all taxation upon landowwere
the stamp
which they might bear ? He was told th was a retro.
The income tax was retrospective ;es
b told that if landed
duties. But was he, therefore,
d overturned and affected
The Poor Law Act for Ireland property were affected by a tax, itt°was not to be imposed?
times greater than any effect
settlements to an extent te
-to confiscation, in some
cases, Poor Law amounted
likely to be produced by
Irish tax. The result of the
settlements and annuities; but,
lordships house,
when that act passed
of marriage through their
o"
it did not occur to any one to propose that all pro-
perty under
settlement should be exempt from the Pe
t,the power of Par-
liament ultimately to make its selection and to decide
ration of that act. It would b
whether they would adopt this tax or continue the income
tax ; and in the meanwhile the revenue derived from the
tax would relieve the people of burdens which affected the
industry of the country. He considered the system of
finance of which this bill was a part as a sound system, be•
cause it left the prosperity of the country-at liberty to in-
crease, and gave security that only one great direct duty
need be preserved when the present income tax expired.
Their lordships then divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment—content -68
Not content 4..0 lO2
Majority for the Government —34
In reply to a question from the Earl of DEBBY,
The -LORD CHANCELLOR said the amount of duty`
payable on real estate and on settled personal estate would
be exactly the same as was now paid on bequeathed, r:
oonal estate. If the noble earl should discover that 20aVVV%