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

who had not often committed a similar offence. The noble
earl had said that his Government never intended Co im-
pose a tax on successions, but, with reference to that point,
he must take the liberty of reading an extract £rom a
speech supposed to have boen 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 case 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 right
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 iu the other
House of Parliament. The noble earl who had 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 the 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 he 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 interfere 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 anypersonal 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, that would guide their conduct on this q ues
tion. It had been shown that the present position of the
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
but lord who first spke that evening (Lord St.
Leonardo) ; what he (Earl Granville) rested his e
upon was, first of all, that no measure of any importance
bad 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).
arsons
The Duke of CLEVELAND admitted that all p at-
ought to pay a like tax on property, no matter from
h
ever source their income might be derived ; b ee ex-
isted a strong feeling against the income taxl altogether, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on y able to carry
it by this sop in the pan—the succession tax. His objection
to the proposedit would operate. Heposed tax was on the groundof the inequality and
the unfairness of manner in which
was not one of those who would put forward factions ob-
jections to any measure that the Government might pro-