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

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 were 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 50,0001. 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 the persons 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 (Winchil-
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 he 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 bad 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 Ito 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 L
The Earl of ABERDEEN.—True; but not because of
the alleged injustice of the tax by which the deficiencyo
caused by the remission of the soap duty was meaty
be
supplied. The argument advanced for deferring the repeal
of the soap duties was, that it was desirable not to
i*ht
dimi-
nish our fiscal resources at a moment when wa
break out. After all, however, monstrous and ai bot
yr' nr
aimsn a
one
as the present measure was described to b e
,
which would have been proposed by the late Government.Government
It was not his intention to state that the late
would have proposed a bill in form precisely
the sa. me. asp
s
that before the house, but their adoptioneoafnoounpoorindc.i
of a tax on successions was more than onoc
! I will explain
The Earl of MALMESBITRY.—N°P n
that presently.
The Earl of ABERDEEN did not say that the late Go-
vernment had a measure actually prepared, Out he was
warranted in saying that they contemplatedthe impositiont
of a tax on successions. In a case of this kind i was cus-
tomary to refer to Hansard as a kind of authority, and in
that record he found that on the 3d of December it was
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 comment 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 irregularity, if lie
were simply to assure the noble earl that no proposal,
either in a speech or any 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 ho 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,