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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.

Lord COLVILLE presented petitions from Scotland
in favour of the Public-houses (Scotland) Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Glas-
gow in favour of the abolition of arrestment of wages
for debt.

Lord DERBY presented a petition from Glasgow in
favour of the Public-houses (Scotland) Bill.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE this
bill passed through committee.
PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
this bill also passed through committee.

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
he 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 was, that the
present bill was one which was by no means understood
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 came into
operation, no man could live without having almost
constantly a legal adviser at his elbow. It 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 refereuce of any kind to the extensive
burdens thrown exclusively upon real estate, was not
putting tho 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. A s 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 decease. Upon the
death of the husband the noble earl stepped in 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 aget 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 all
public documents. The Bank of England was open to
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 Le ac
Duties Acts should not be subject to this duty. A question
had already been asked of the Government, whether they
would not put the duty upon the same footing betweeer ano et
thhbetween
ge it mf m -
htfather
-
ytestethbr
diate, ought not to pay ally at hn edr
saonnd. b
Tr oht
eh
de re
se andee brotherfrom
more
tn
hddeurs
ti
to a brother in-law who had married t s sister,
father to son. He thoug also that ifhea legacytestet were,left
etoter'tsedstswtehr,erweotuhled
pehareveeepaeihde. " mar-
he ought not to pay a greater duty than his wife, tewstna:
rgTheeheleclwauitshe, as it
was
drawn,
les el feyt oper thes person of
s teaf t neareror.'' B
rioredhet
brother-in-law or the sister-in-law was of no consanguinity
:toninsanwgueiansieteyetuhtanef blooms:hi!
to the testator, and he should propose an amendment
the
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 (Mato 4(41 be greatly loomed, But how