The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-28 00:00:00

of the date of the 9th instant, and brought intell

Bence of the settlement of the question of the Holy
Places. The Government had no further information
from Constantinople beyond that which was open to the
public at large, and useful as the electric telegraph was,

had its in-conveniencew, and the rumours Which

transmitted were not always to be relied on. He
could assure the house that the views of her Majesty's
Government had not changed respecting the necessity
of upholding the Turkish empire. The views of the
French and English Governments were identical on this

subject, and there was not the slightest doubt that the
French and English ambassadors were acting in concert
together at Constantinople for the support of the Turkish
Government.

The Earl of lIARDWICKE thought that sufficiently
strong measures had not been taken for the support and
encouragement of the Porte. If a demonstration of force
had been made by the English and French Governments
in concert, we should never have heard of the imperious
and insulting tone which had been assumed towards the
Turkish Government.

Lord BEAUMONT, though he joined in the regret
of the noble earl opposite, thought there would be no
difficulty in the final peaceable settlement of the question.
He was glad to hear the speeches of the two noble lords
opposte, because they showed that if Russia should pro-
ceed, his noble friend would be firmly backed in an ac-
tive policy by both sides of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM suggested the propriety, or at
any rate the great convenience, of here closing this dis-
cussion, which was premature at all events— (hear,
hear)—inasmuch as they were in absolute ignorance of
nine parts out of ten of the whole facts of the case ;land
which might be mischievous, inasmuch as there were
now pending negotiations on the subject which were as
important as they were difficult, and as delicate as they
were important. Considering the evident inutility and
the possible mischief of such a discussion, he thought
they should let it drop. (Hear, hear.)

1

a division. But he would tell the noble earl why they
had not been opposed in the House of Commons. They
had not been opposed, because the opposition in that house
did not wish to throw impediments in the way of
public business, and to delay that stage of the measure
till after the holidays. They therefore consented to waive
their opposition, and the resolutions passed without dis-
cussion. And because they did so, the noble earl thought
it decent to raise a triumphant argument from that cir-
cumstance. Another reason why they waived opposition
was that it was a very common thing to take tho discus-
sion or to raise opposition to a formal stage of a measure,
but to wait till the bill had been introduced and its prin-
ciples and details fully explained. But he doubted if the
House of Commons would have abstained from opposing the
measure if they could have foreseen the use—not to use a
stronger word—which had been made of that forbearance.
But since • Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech
great changes had been made in the bill. (Hear, hear.)
And if his noble friend asked for an inquiry at once, he
would probably be told, "you don't know what the mea-
sure is ; its principle may be changed"—no, not its prin-
ciple, for the present Government never changed its prin-
ciples—(laughter)—but, at all events, its details may be
changed, and we mast be allowed to mature and consider
the form in which it is ultimately to be submitted to Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) Within what time did the noble
earl think it would be right to make a motion for inquiry
after the bill had been to framed. He had the bill in
his hands it was true, but he saw it for the
first time last night, it having been ordered to be printed
only on the 23d of May, and that was the first intimation
which he had of the machinery at all events by which the
measure was to be carried into effect. The bill had 55
clauses, and it contained so many legal details that the
members of the legal profession would, he had no doubt,
make a considerable profit out of the measure, so that they
would be to some extent remunerated for the losses which
recent legislation on other subjects had caused them.
(Hear, hear.) The noble earl said that he should see with
great regret the rejection of the measure by their lordships
on the second reading ; he said it was perfectly competent
for their lordships to reject the measure on the second
reading, but he said that they could not propose any
amendment on it in committee. He (Lord Derby) begged
leave to differ from the noble earl on that point. It was
perfectly competent for their lordships to make amend-
ments in committee, though, according to the principle
which guided the House of Commons, the bill would then
not be accepted by them, and the consequence would be
that the bill would be sacrificed unless the House of Com-
mons consented to make such alterations as would meet at
all events the reasonable objections urged by their lord-
ships. (Hear.) It was therefore the more necessary that
their lordships should grant an inquiry now, in order that
when the bill was in committee there might be less chance
of making such amendments as would interfere with the
privileges of the House of Commons. (Hear.) They could
not justly be charged with being precipitate, or sitting in
judgment upon they knew not what. If they had post-
poned their inquiry into the merits of this case to a later
period, they should have been told that they were dealing
with it too late, that they could not make amendments
without interfering with the privileges of the house, or
seriously interfering with the financial propositions of the
Government. As to the immense success attained by
the financial projects of the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, he must be permitted to doubt whether they had
been received with that degree of favour which the Go-
vernment anticipated. He had heard it whispered that,
after dealing as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
done, with very many millions of stock, the substantial
saving from the conversion would be only some 400,0001.,
and that his financial resolutions were regarded in the city
as only so much waste paper. The right hon. gentleman
was, no doubt, a man of great abilities ; it might not be
his fault that his scheme had not met with greater success.
He (Lord Derby) did not condemn it ' • but he doubted
whether it was an exemplification of that immense and
overwhelming success which led the noble earl (Aberdeen)
to say that such a Chancellor of the Exchequer had never
yet been seen, that such success had never been attained
by any financial measure, and that he and his colleagues
were the only parties to conduct the Government.
(Hear, and laughter.) In order to take off the income
tax in 1860—which he hoped their lordships would live to
see—(laughter)—it was said that it was essential to impose
this tax on successions ; but were they quite sure that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculations as to the
amount of income to be derived from this tax to be correct ?
He calculated that property changed hands by succession
once in 30 years upon an average. Of this they might judge
by the recurrence of the tax on personal property ; and the
calculation was that about one-sixteenth of all the personal
property in the country was brought to tax every year in
consequence of the legacy duty. If that were so, the pro-
bable duration of each succession to personal property was
an average of 16 years, not of 30. (Hear, hear.) He wart at
a loss to know what there was in landed property that
should render the succession more slow than to personal
property, or how a person inheriting both kinds of property
could at his decease give a succession to the one in a period
of 16 years, and to the other in 30 years. In that case
in his capacity as an owner of real property, he must
outlive himself by 14 years as an owner of personal pro-
perty. (Laughter.) At all events, it was a prima facie
reason to doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not exaggerated by nearly one half the period of
the recurrence of successions, and consequently under-rated
by about one-half the amount of annual income that
would accrue to him under that tax. As to the duration
of life, let him look at the members of that house. He
had known cases in the last few years where to a very
large landed property there were three successions, and it
was a question of 48 hours whether there would not be a
fourth succession, within a period of less than two years.
A noble friend of his, now one of the youngest members of
the house, succeeded to a property to which there had been
three successions in two years, and there would have been
a fourth but for a son dying 48 hours before his father.
Had he survived his father, there would have been four
successions in two years, and four inflictions of the tax-
gatherers' demand on that property. The noble earl near
him (MalinesbuiT) reminded him of another case in his own
person; he was the fourth successor to the property he h eld
in the course of three years. Looking at the necessary ex-
pense of such successions, and the amount of this tax on a
large property, he would ask what those four successors
would have had to live upon during the first six months if
this bill had been in operation ? The Noble earl opposite
had made no attempt to answer his noble friend on this or
any other point. There was the case of persons coming
into possession astenants for life, of heir-looms,which were
often of immense value. Suppose any of their lordships to
be in possession, as an hereditary jewel, of the Koh-i-noor
—whatever its value it might be, one or two millions ster-
ling, he would have to pay the tax on the value of that
jewel, measured by the probable duration of his life; and
on his death his successor would have to pay again on it—
though neither one nor the other could realise a single
shilling out of it, still they must pay. There was no pri-
vate property in England or in the world that could stand
two or three successive taxes on two or three successive in-
heritances of the Koh-i-noor. Take a more ordinary case—
pictures, books, or plate. He did not complain of the tax
upon succession, to that a man could realise, and formed a
portion of his property ; but he complained that under
the operation of this act he was taxed for that which he
could not avoid receiving, which he had no means of part-
ing with, no means of raising a value from, even for the
purpose of defraying the tax itself. (Hear, hear.) If
100,0001. was loft to a man, he was taxed 3,0001-, and en-
joyed the 97,000/. • but if he were taxed upon 100,0001.
worth of pictures, the pictures might hang upon his walls,
and he could not sell them, though it might be a great
hardship and grievance to part with pictures that had been
long in his family, and to which more than ordinary value
was attached. But if they brought him in nothing, and
were a constant source of expense, it was a gives injustice
to put properties of that description on the same footing,
and subject them to the same tax as 100,000/. in the funds,
or 100,0001. worth of property which might be realised
and converted into money at any moment. (Hear, hear.)
Take the case of a tontine, to which there were 100 sub-
scribers, and the last survivor was to take the property.
Of course, as each life dropped in, each survivor would
acquire a new beneficial interest, and would be taxed
upon that additional interest, though none but the ulti-
mate survivor would ever derive any real benefit. (Hear,
hoar.) Then there was the case of annuities. It was a
gross injustice to levy a fresh tax on the owner of the
property charged with annuities as each of them fell in.
The owner of a landed property subject to certain an-
nuities must, as each of them fell in, present himself
before the taxing officer to declare the contingent benefit
he derived from that source • then he was taxed on the
value of that annuity measured' by the probable duration
of his life ; and this was to be repeated upon
every single
annuity. Could there he a system calculated to produce
more perpetual harass and annoyance than this system
of taxation upon what the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was pleased to call successions to beneficial interests ?
(Hear, hear.) He had been curious to see how property
under trust would be dealt with by the bill. There were
numberless cases in which there were secret family trusts,
for the purpose of providing for relations or descend-
ants, with regard to which no human being not in the
family itself was cognisant of the trust or of the trustees.
Many of their lordships might know this from having been
in the position of trustees. In such cases the trustees
were unknown ; they were not discoverable by the will,
nor by any other means • they could only be of at by a
registration of deeds of settlement, which would involve an
immense amount of inquisitorial interference with the
title deeds of property, and might lead their lordships and
owners of landed property into the most serious difficulties
g
and embarrassments. It was only by this means that they
were discoverable, or by that more violent measure pro-
posed in the bill—making it obligatoryon the trustee to
declare that which he had no means of doing, the amount
of property for which he was acting as trustee. (Hear,
hear.) It was not beside the question to look into these
details ; and he contended that nothing but the most out-
rageous tyranny and intolerable inquisition into private
property. (Hear, hear.)
the bill, but
He did not ask their lordships to reject to call
affairs would ever enable them to approximate to a right
estimate of this description of
for the advice and assistance of able men—the most ex-
periencedvol ed •
v in the bill--
with the legal and financial details in.
t.
to know what would be the result of itso_popils ion upon
solicitors—men conversant. withhat
wbiaissintoesbes and
with
country.
the great and small landed propertiesw
They ought to know from these men
was to bperty, whether the character of property
se
of
gettingaltoge-
ther an
that means, if Par-
liamentresult with regard to settlement and succession to pro-
additional 400,0001. of revenue, and by
income tax, the Government themselves having
working of this
o n c alreadys
laid the ground for its continuance by
country
ytaxes. (Hear.) 11:3
should think fit, six years hbencdeezglearittinng rid of the
neces-
sity of taking off further indirectaet _
of the
wbialln—tehdo
• it could be carried into effect with
—with what machinery
The result of the inquiry
them eimt
wouldt oinquire
affec itnttbon thegrn
great
interests .
the least vexation and difficulty.
might show that the oppression would be so intolerable, the
result so injurious in a political and social sense, and the
advantages in a financial point of view so inconsiderable,
that some other tax ought to be
imposed in preference to
this tax upon successions,—even
if it fell upon landed and
real property,—not based upon the uncertain duration of
human life, but upon a fair and legitimate calculation of
ought
and real property in equity,
that which all landed
burdens upon property of all other
kinds, to contribute t
by comparison with tioie the
great exigencies of the national
revenue. That was
an
inquiry within their lordships'
competency; nay,more,
if they shrank from such an
in-
quiry, they would not do their duty to their country. If
they were tamely to sit down and say, that because the
House of Commons had sanctioned a measure which might
or might not produce gross injustice—a measure which
the very root and foundation of those classes
might cut at
of society of whic eir oi • 1
h th • 1 dshi is were component and
efore shut their eyes
important parts—they would ther
an bow their
heads, and pass the bill without observation,
d
remark, or inquiry,
they would abdicate the high position
which
they ought to hold, and which he trusted they would
hold. Whilst they looked with deference and respect to
the opinions and proposed legislation of the House of Com-
mons,
he trusted that upon every occasion they should
exorcise their own independent judgment, and not fear to
say whether upon the whole the adoption or rejection of
his bill would be the greater evil—at all events, that they

114

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 28, 1853.

would not fear to say that before they legislated they would
at least inquire. (Hear, hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble earl at the head of
the Government had been unjustly accused of calling on
the house to perform an act of passive obedience, and to
vote a measure, not yet introduced, without a full and
fair discussion. What the noble earl said was actuated
solely by the inteition of taking the part most respectful
to the house itself, and most conducive to the future utility
of committees of inquiry on all subjects of public interest.
The noble earl who proposed this committee could not ex-
pect that the Government would consent to delay the bill
that was to come up from the other house, a bill forming,
not the whole, but only a part of that financial scheme
which the noble earl had pronounced to be most successful
in the other house, and in the whole country. When the
noble earl (Derby) attempted to controvert the success of
that budget, he could only refer to the fact, that that part
of it which had been denounced by his friends in the other
house as wanton extravagance, had not been accepted in
the City so greedily as might have been anticipated. There
was some inconsistency in going clause by clause through
a bill which had not yet passed a single stage in the other
house ; and the noble earl (Derby) was guilty of a greater
inconsistency, by declaring that he hail no antipathy
against the measure, and only wished for a committee to
inquire into its justice and practicability, and then going
into detail to show that his opinion was entirely against
it. (Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury had said that the
question had not been brought before Parliament for the
last half century, whereas it had been constantly agitated
and discussed in the House of Commons.
'The Earl of MALMESBURY explained. What he had
said was, that the question was never brought forward as a
formal proposition since 1796 ; and a succession tax on
real property had only been advocated because there was
one on personalty.
Earl GRANVILLE said that made no great difference.
In all probability if any proposition had been made by
Government it would now have been law ; but the propo-
sition had been almost annually made by independent
members of the house, and full discussions had ensued
thereon. The proposition had been met by the same ob-
jections, but not the very best arguments, by different
Chancellors of the Exchequer. As to the unfairness of
taking thirty years as the average interval of successions,
he would remind -the house that, some time ago, the
average value of life in this country was thirty-three
years ; and no doubt that value had since improved,
particularly among the higher classes. (Hear.) The noble
earl had put the case of a minor succeeding to the estate
mortgaged to a certain amount, and said that he
might not have the means of paying the tax on the succes-
sion. But the course proposed in the bill was to reduc-
the gross to the net income, and to levy the tax on that
amount ; so that no difficulty would arise in the case sup-
posed. The noble earl had alluded to the hardship of
paying a sum of money on succession to the Koh.i-noor,
but there was a clause in the bill which exempted such
heirlooms from any tax whatever. (Hear, hear.) The
question of timber had been referred to. All ornamental
timber, such as shrubberies, would be exempted from pay-
ing the tax. With regard to the sale and valuation of
timber, the party succeeding would have this option. He
might either pay the tax upon the average income of a
certain number of years, or, if he did not choose to take
that alternative, he might have the whole of the timber
valued, and then calculate the tax upon the probable dura-
tion of his life at 3 per cent. The same principle would be
adopted with regard to mines, and if there was no value in
a mine, no tax would be imposed upon it. As to widows,
the case rather broke down. The noble earl said that the
son or heir to the person who left the widow would have
to pay the tax upon succeeding to the jointure when it
came to him from the widow. But it should be remem-
bered that in valuing the estate, the widows' charge would
be taken off the valuation, and when it ultimately de-
scended to the heir, he had only to pay the tax upon that
which he had not received at an earlier period. (Hear.)
The same principle would apply where an annuity was set- '
tled on a steward. When it fell in, and the owner of the
estate derived an accession of property to that amount, he
would pay pro tanto upon that—not 10 per cent.—but ac-
cording to the degree of consanguinity to the original pro- 1
prietor. As to trustees, the machinery of the bill was
exactly the same as had existed for more than fifty
years with respect to leaseholds, as well as mere money
or personal property. During that time there had
been exactly the same machinery, and the same liability ;
yet the trustees had executed (trusts, and, as he was
informed, not a single question had arisen in law as
to the value of the properties so dealt with. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to successions in a short number of
years, there would actually be a saving by the proposition
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In tontines nobody
would pay till they actually received the money and be-
came beneficial successors ; and upon that succession the
tai would be paid. Small landed proprietors would be
taxed in proportion to their interest in the estate ; and to
those the bill would be a positive advantage. He hoped
that their lordships would not, after the request of the
noble earl at the head of the Government, insist upon
having a committee on this question. He did not believe
it would weaken the Government the least in carrying out
the bill, though it might have an unfortunate effect on
public opinion as regarded that house. He entirely agreed
with the noble earl opposite in scouting the idea that their
lordships could be moved by any petty personal motives ;
but there was no doubt that their prejudices—for every-
body had their prejudices—were bound up with the landed
interest. He believed that their lordships' house stood
higher in the estimation of the public than it had done
almost at any previous time ; and this was owing to the
general feeling that their interests were the same as those
of all other classes, whatever their station and influence in
the country. He should regret to see their lordships
adopting any mode of obstructing a measure which was
generally approved by the country. If they were to take
this course, it could have no practical results beyond
throwing discredit upon the inquiries of the committees.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said he had never before heard a
minister of the crown speak in so minatory a tone as the
noble earl, who was not only perfectly satisfied with the
work of his own colleagues, but threw out something like a
denunciation of any one who attempted to impede the pass-
ing of a measure which he almost said should pass. His
tone was certainly not one which seemed fitted to a de-
liberative assembly. The noble earl took great credit for
what he called tho popularity of the measure, and of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed it; but that it
had been eminently unsuccessful in one respect no one would
deny. What had become of the Exchequer bond ? Had
they become what everybody was desirous of possessing ?
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had made a proposition with regard to the funds of the
Court of Chancery, but he hoped the right hon. gentleman
would not be tempted to force upon the suitors of the court
these bonds which nobody else would accept. As for the
threat which the right hon. gentleman had thrown out
about paying off the Three per Cents. unless these bonds
were taken in exchange, how was it to be done ? Where
was the money to come from ? Well, then, if the holders
of the Three per Cents. would remain quiet, they need
fear nothing, they were just as safe now as they were at
any time before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made
his threat, and ho hoped they would remain contented
with their situation. To come now to the subject immedi-
ately under consideration—he could see no objection what-
ever to the appointment of the committee. He did not in-
tend to discuss a bill which was not yet before the house ;
but the noble earl at the head of the Government had told
them that the measure ought to be passed—that there would
be no wavering about it, and that their lordships must pass
it speedily. How, then, could this motion have come too
soon ? If it had been delayed until the bill came up, it
would have been met by an objection the other way ; but
be that as it might, was there ever a measure tendered
to Parliament which deserved more serious consideration
than this ? The plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
embraced that of Sir Robert Peel in 1842, and the plan
which Mr. Pitt proposed in 1796; but the Chancellor of the
Exchequer seemed to have selected the worst features of
each, and the question which their lordships would soon
have to determine was whether a tax upon successions
should be passed now for the first time. In 1796, when
Mr. Pitt proposed the tax, there were seven di visions in
the House of Commons upon it ; and upon every single
division, the number in favour of the Ministry decreased,
until, at last, on the third reading, the numbers being
equal, the bill was only carried by the casting vote of the
Speaker. On the following day Mr. Pitt abandoned
the measure, and the land tax, made perpetual, was sub-
stituted in its stead. (Hear, hear.) A third of that
tax had been redeemed, and now the Chancellor
of the Exchequer proposed to give a sort of bribe for the
redemption of the remaining two-thirds. But to come
back to Mr. Pitt's plan for a tax upon successions, as he
wanted to call the particular attention of their lordships to
the difference between Mr. Pitt's measure and the one now
before the House of Commons. Mr. Pitt's plan was mode-
rate compared with this one. Mr. Pitt only taxed real
estates, when they came by descent, by devise, or by vo-
luntary settlement. It did not touch lineal descent what-
ever, and therein lay the difference between Mr. Pitt's plan
and the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Pitt
began his tax with collaterals, while the highest amount of
tax imposed on the succession was six per cent. Besides
that, Mr. Pitt exempted all property from the tax which
was acquired by a wife from a husband, and all property
acquired by the husband from the wife, but this bill of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer struck at the root of every
settlement. It included the settlement of the highest con-
sideration known to the law, viz., a marriage settlement,
and yet this was to be done in the time of profound peace,
and in the face of the fact that Mr. Pitt would not attempt
it at a period when he had the excuse of an expensive war
to support him. But besides that, when Mr. Pitt proposed
his tax on succession there was no land tax, but now both
were to be perpetrated. Just observe what this bill would
do. Every noble lord living under a settlement would be
liable to the tax upon the death of some party or other,
and the Government, wishing to catch at deaths which had
already taken place, proposed that the bill should date
back to the 19th of May. It was not only objectionable
on that account, but it was objectionable on the ground
that it taxed capital, which was opposed to all principles
of sound policy. It was, in fact, a tax upon capital, and
not upon income. Now, such a tax could only be justi-
fiable ern ithe case of an emergency, and when no other
could be obtained; but here there was uo necessity for it
whatever except that which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer created himself. In some instances the tax would
positively amount to confiscation, for the tax would swallow
the whole proceeds of the estate for the first two or three
years after the succession, and the party succeeding to it
would be left to no other resource for his subsistence by
the Jew money lender—(a laugh)—although he might have
been living comfortably out of the estate before the death
of his parent or brother, as the ease might be. (Hear,
hear.) As regarded therefore money estates, which were
already chargeable to existing settlements, it would be
postive confiscation ; and since the law would be not only
an ex parte facto law, but one which would press at the
very moment when it could be the least endured, he hoped
their lordships would pause before they sanctioned it,
more especially as such a tax had never been proposed in
this country before. (Hear, hear.) There was besides a
great difference between the law that affected personal es-
tates and the law now proposed. At present the law stopped
in to claim its dues in cases of intestacy and bequests, but
in these cases the party succeeding to the personalty had
never possessed it before, and he therefore did not feel so
much the 101. that was deducted from every hundred ; bui-,
in the case of this bill the matter was entirely difibrent,
because under many settlements, although the actual suc-
cession had yet to take place, the money might yet be said
to be in hand. Then why should the party so in posses-
sion be required to pay this tax at a moment when perhaps
he was weeping for the loss of his dearest relative. (Hear,
hear.) Only consider the absurdity of their legislation.
One day they were asked to enfranchise copyholds so that
they should be relieved from paying fines upon the
contingency of death, and now they are required to
sanction a tax which would he felt far snore severely at
the very critical moment which it was desired to avoid
in the other case. (Hear, hear.) Pass this tax as it stood,
and it would be tantamount to effecting a mortgage upon '
every man's property, for a mortgage was nothing but a
charge upon an estate, and this tax was precisely the same.
(Hear, bear.) How was the tax to be raised, and by what
machinery was it to be collected ? A more odious tax
could never have been devised. The tax-gather would
never be out of their lordships' houses, He would collie

been supported by several speakers was that of the abstract
injustice of extending the succession tax to real property.
(Hear, hear.) He held that it was utterly impossible for
the house to judge fairly of the effect of the measure as
regarded the lauded interest unless they considered it in
connexion with all those financiat measures which formed
part of the budget. He must ask their lordships to recol-
lect that after the late Government had acceded to office
they threw overboard their favourite scheme of the trans-
ference of the local rates to the consolidated fund ' • and
that, instead of getting rid of the income tax, they actually
proposed to renew it in an aggravated form as regarded the
land. (Hear.) When the present Government came into
power, they found it necessary to review the whole financial
positioi of the country. It was requisite to determine, not
only whether the income tax should be permanent or not,
but whether some pledge should be given to Parliament as
to the relinquishment of the income tax if it should be in
the power of the Government at some future time. Let not
noble lords opposite flatter themselves that if they had car-
ried their scheme they could have evaded the question of the
legacy duty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
Proposing an alterat. en o: the income tax, which acted
differentially as regarded land, and atter abandoning Lis
proposition with regard to local rates, wound up his state-
ment by saying that the existing legacy duties constituted
a mass of injustice which could not long remain unre-
formed. (Hear, hear.) After proposing a differential in-
come tax as against land—
The Earl of DERBY—The proposition was not that
there should be a differential duty as against land; but
diffTehreenDtivakledouftyAalstGagYaLiusLt;eaWleilitphreunp,etrhtyer,eofwwahis
that a difference should be made between permanent and
precarious incomes.
formed a great part. If any change
. The proposal of the present Go-
vernment had taken place in the
dile
t ilattfinancialhediffer
eve
ane
differential
at
.btrtleoeoraeurin:eitayn changet:shoHtemeohctne ihieaapindxlbattsennhhea
odateesi
subjects was
o
e
hwehseitlaetarionch
in saying
saPtyheipnierg
—usitt was that arom4
which all the other propositionselhile
legacy
e odnu nowtoiens,t
that
it
tow would evidently
against land would have exceedP°tedh
added.
edredelembered
wasdmiutayh,tatnhdeuithavebeen
itmhaTtsihtiisonlegoafcylegda:tyy
Their lordships then divided for the motion, when there
appeared—
Contents—Present
Proxies
Non-Contents—Present
Proxies 66-139

after a death, and examine the settlements. Every
man's settlement would be ransacked by a public officer in
a public office. The officer must eall, on the death of any
member of a family, to know the nature of the settlement.
The inquisitorial nature of the income tax was nothing to
that of the tax now proposed, The banker had his book
to show when bills became due ; the tax gatherer here
would have his book to see when successions became due.
Then-all the property must be valued at a very great cost.
(Hear, hear.) One of the most enormous establishments
must be set up to carry on all these operations, with re-
ference to all the property in the kingdom. What would
become of the sanctity of private life under such a bill ?
Time had perfected the mode by which a man could now
enjoy property under settlement, but all that would be put
an end to by the proposed measure. Look also at the
number of offices which must be created, and the great
patronage it would give to the Government. Again, was
Ireland in a position in which they ought to impose such a
tax on her? Under the Encumbered Estates Act, numbers
of estates had been sold, which the possessors and their an-
cestors had enjoyed before them. This bill would create a
new mode of dealing with property in Ireland—and the
proprietors, in many instances, would be obliged to sell
their estates in consequence of this succession tax. The
committee now asked for what they had a right to have ;
and by the time the bill arrived in their lordship's house,
it would have afforded them information which would
satisfy the country and themselves as to the course they
ought to adopt with reference to it. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his noble and
learned friend having, with the authority which attached to
his name, denounced the measure as impolitice, and preg-
nant with the grossest injustice, he felt it incumbent on him
to explain why he thought that charge to be utterly ground-
less, and to rest on no foundation whatever. He would
first make a passing observation as to the motion : profess-
ing but little experience in their lordships' house, and
agreeing that it was open to them to enter into the consid or-
ation of any measures, whether they originated in the
House of Commons or not, and that they were not bound
blindly to register any measure that came from the other
branch of the legislature, yet he did think the course now
proposed to be pursued was as nearly without precedent as
possible—namely, to appoint a committee of their lordships'
house to inquire into the expediency of a tax now under
discussion in tho other house of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
There was another objection to the mode in which the
motion was framel. The noble earl proposed to refer it to a
select committee to inquire into its probable consequences.
What was to be done by the committee ? The noble earl
slurred that over by saying that they might have the
benefit of examining conveyancers. But what could they
tell them ? Everybody knew that settlements were made
of real and personal estate, and that wills were made, and
whether the measure was just or politic no conveyancer

Majority against the motion l3
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at a quarter to eleven.

could say more than any other man. All the noble lords
who had spoken had, as it were, their briefs before them.
They were possessed of all the information that West-
minster-hall could supply on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
For what purpose, then, was the inquiry to take place?
It was said that the report might influence the other
house. He thought that, however, was a wild imagina-
tion ; but if that were so, the noble earl would have gained
his object by the discussion that night, because it was per-
fectly certain that no further information could be obtained

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.
DURHAM ELECTION.
On the question that the members chosen to serve on
the Durham Election Committee be called to the table
to be sworn,
Mr. T. EGERTON moved that the committee
be discharged and the petition referred again
to the General Committee of Elections, on the
ground that one of the members selected to serve
on the Durham committee, viz., the hon. member
for Dundee, was now sitting on a committee on certain
private bills.

than that which was already known. He would
to state why he thought the measure was just and prac-
ticable. The noble and learned lord who spoke last night,
and those who preceded him, objected to it—first, because
it included land in the legacy tax ; and next because it
' embraced not only successions coming on deaths derived
from wills or intestates, but also successions coming from
settlements. It was important to separate those two con-
siderations. (Hear, hear.) And first he would ask,
was there any injustice, any inexpediency, in subjecting
land to the legacy duty, in the same way as personal
property? Was it unjust when they were imposing a
tax on one species of property to impose it on all ?
(Hear, hear.) Why should it not be taxed ? Prima facie,
when they were imposing that which was a property. tax,
whatever name they might give it, whether it was land,
tithes, money in the funds, stock in trade, or whatever it
might be, justice presumed that they should tax it all as
equally as might be. (Hear, hear.) But let them get rid
of a legal difficulty which attached to all subjects of that
kind. It was said to be unjust. Now, if it was meant that
cases might be suggested in which there would be an in-
equality of burden, he would concede it. Would they,
however, tell him to which of their taxes that would not
apply? Was it in the nature of things to have absolute
justice as connected with any positive tax ? Nobody could
pretend that the income tax was absolutely just. Every
subject of taxation was liable to the same difficulty. They
could only aim at arriving at the nearest approach to jus-
tice, and surely that would be to impose a property tax as
equally as they could on property of all descriptions ; and
the injustice would be the other way. (Hear, hear.) Refer-
ence had been made to Mr. Pitt's measure in 1796. Now,
he did not feel the necessity of falling back on authority ;
but it was nevertheless true that Mr. Pitt proposed to levy
his legacy duty on reality as well as personalty, but he
was obliged to yield to the opposition which was raised
against it. And it was said that he substituted the land
tax of 1798, making that tax perpetual. Why, the land
tax was imposed by William 111., and was renewed every
year. Everybody knew it was coming, and Mr. Pitt's
sole object in making it perpetual was to give the option
of redeeming it. It was a poor argument to fall back
upon the land tax. It was called a land tax, and was a
sort of local tax, each district being bound to raise a
certain sum of money ; and the consequence was, that in-
stead of its being now an equal tax, the inequalities were
so absurd that in some parishes it was 2d. in the pound,
whilst in others it was 2s. So that to refer to the land
tax as anything that ought to be followed seemed very
absurd. But his noble and learned friend said that Mr.
Pitt did not propose to tax children, True, he did not
propose it in 1796, but he did at a later period, and it was
clear what his views were on the subject if he could have
carried them. But was that all? Feeling the injus-
tice of what he had been driven to in 1796, he endeavoured
to get out of it in 1805, not, it was—true, by putting a
legacy duty on land, but, going as near to it as he could,
he imposed a legacy tax upon all money that was charged
upon land, and upon .all estates that were devised to be
sold, and he made them pay the same as if they were per-
sonal property. But then it was asked what was to be
done in reference to a party succeeding to an estate heavily
mortgaged ? And it was said, " You never could impose
Lhe tax." Why this novel tax had been for a long time in
existence upon a largo portion of the property of the coun-
ty—the leasehold property was all subject to the tax.
(Hear, hear.) All the property renewable—property held
under deans and chapters ; and it applied to nearly all the
house property in London—(hear, hear)—as well as to a
considerable number of properties that were originally
mortgages for a long term of years, and had become abso-
lute. To such property the injustice, if it were so, ap-
plied; and it was an injustice to tax his leasehold house,
whilst his neighbour's freehold house escaped the duty.
(Hear, hear.) There was another injustice : the present
legacy duty was imposed on the absolute value of the pro-
perty in leaseholds, but the present bill would set that
right, the calculation being made upon the annual value.
Having disposed of the first part of the subject, he thought
it was equally clear that there would be no injustice in
extending the legacy tax to what was called succession—
that was, making parties pay the tax not only on property
which came to them by the will of a party, but by settle-
ment. Why should it not be so ? His noble and learned
friend and himself, as lawyers, looked at the matter very
differently from the way in which the country regarded it.
The tax upon personal property, whilst real property was
exempt, was felt to be an injustice '-vit was benefitting the
richer classes by exempting them from a tax which fell on
the poorer classes--(hear)—and that was the feeling which
prevailed most extensively in the country. (Hear, hear.)
There was no distinction in principle whether property
was given by will or settlement. It was a property
tax at the time the party succeeded to the inheritance ;
whether it was by arrangement made by his parents in his
lifetime or by will, he saw no reason in principle why the
tax should not be levied. (Hear, hear.) But it was com-
plained of that the bill would put this tax on personal
estates succeeded to by settlement. That was true, and
he thought it to be perfectly just. They should overlook
the distinction as to how the succession arose, whether it
came by one mode or another. The noble earl (Derby) re-
marked on the hardship of putting the tax on heir-looms ;
but perhaps he was not aware of the law on that subject.
There was no duty on heir-looms unless they came to a per-
son who was the absolute possessor and could turn them
into money. He thought he had shown that it was not
unjust to impose a legacy duty on land ; and it must be
evident that its exemption from the tax could not be jus-
tified. There was another point to which he would for a
moment refer. The noble earl who made the motion had
referred to the hardship of persons succeeding one after
another—as, for instance, it might happen that two or
more brothers might succeed one after another, and the
Nowlegacy duty might be payable several times. there
was a clause in the bill which provided that where parties
became entitled to property by succession instead of a le-
gacy, then before the duty was paid four years should
elapse, so that if the possessor died within that time the
tax would be paid by his successor.
Earl FITZWILLIAM admitted that it was right that
land should no longer remain exempt from taxation to
which personalty was liable, and that taxation should
equally be applied to settled property. Some questions,
however, had been put in the course of the debate to which

The SPEAKER suggested that the motion should be
made in the terms prescribed by the petition, viz., that
the hon. member for Dundee be alone discharged, and
then, as a matter of course, the 'committee would be re-
ferred back to the general committee of elections.
Mr. T. EGERTON said he had no objection to
amend the motion accordingly.
Sir J. TROLLOPE had no wish to oppose the motion,
but he must protest against it being treated as a pre-
cedent.

Mr. ELLICE announced that other motions of this
nature would hare to be made hereafter.
After a short conversation,
Mr. DUNCAN said that the motion had been made
out of no personal regard for himself, but solely for the
sake of promoting the business of another committee
upon which he had been sitting for some considerable
time. He was quite ready to abide by the decision of
the house, but he wished it to be distinctly understood
that he had no desire whatever to shirk his duties.
The motion was then agreed to.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
The members selected to serve on the Clare, Liver-
pool, Sligo, and Peterborough Election Committees were
called to the table and sworn. The committees to meet
for the first time to-morrow.
BURY ST. EDMUNDS.

On the members selected to serve on this committee
being called over,

Mr. STRIITT-moved that the attendance of the hon.
member for Tewkesbury on the committee be dispensed
with on the ground that the hon. member was already
serving on a committee where his attendance could not
be dispensed with.

The motion was agreed to.
BLACKBURN ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the house that he bad re-
ceived a letter in this case, stating that it was not in-
tended to go on with the petition.
PRIVATE BILLS.

The following private bills were read a third time and
passed ;—Caledonian Railway (Connecting Branch with
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, &c.) ; North and
South Western Junction Railway (Hammersmith) ;
Sunderland Dock ; Victoria (London) Docks ; South
Eastern Railway (Reading Extension,-&c.)
PETITIONS.
Mr. G. PALMER presented a petition from the
borough of Preston, against the bill for the registration
of assurances.

Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from Maid-
stone, praying for the total repeal of the hop duty.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham,
praying that the elective franchise might be extended to
the London University.
Mr. BROWN presented a petition from 32 prisoners
confined in the Preston gaol, praying the house to take
steps to prevent the demoralising effects of unlicensed
beer-houses.

he bad heard no answer. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) had asked
before whether any writer on political economy could be
quoted in favour of a tax—(.A. noble lord : Mr. John.
Mill)—which operated, not gently and gradually, but sud-
denly and violently, He was sorry to differ from so emi-
nent an authority as Mr. Mill, but there must be some-
thing more than Mr. Mill's authority to justify the impo-
sition of this tax. Before consenting to such an impost,
their lordships should consider that they were asked to tax
persons who were not represented—that they were asked
to tax, not themselves, but their successors, and successors
generally. He confessed he was not a little surprised to
hear his noble friend at the head of the Government say
that they had no business to interfere with this matter ;
that, whatever the House of Commons had agreed to, their
lordships were bound to sanction. (Hear, hear.) Ho was
sure it was not wise that the house should enter into any.

conflict with the other house of Parliament, and he begged
also to say that it was not wise for the other house of ar-
liament to enter into a conflict with that house. (Hear.)

It wss most desirable that the proceedings of the two
houses should harmonise with one another. The noble

earl who introduced this motion had made a good selection
of time, considering how lately the measure had been in-
troduced. They had been told of alleviations of the tax.
Every one of those alleviations was a condemnation of the .
tax itself; none would be needed in the case of a property
tax. As regarded valuations, who would guarantee that
the valuations in different parts of England would be con-
ducted on the same principle ? In whatever point of view
this tax might be regarded, it would, he believed, be fraught
' with inconvenience ; and he thought the other house of
Parliament equally with that was indebted to the noble
earl for having proposed this inquiry. He had very great
doubts whether the tax could be levied ; but he trusted,
nevertheless, that every member of their lordships' house '
would go into the inquiry with a determination to listen
fairly to the witnesses on both sides. (Hear, hear.) His
noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) seemed to
think that it was not necessary to make any inquiry • but
he (Earl Fitzwilliam) would ask their lordships whether,
before seeing the bill that morning, they had -
anydistinct
idea of its provisions? He should vote for the inquiry,
the ground that it would assist, not merely their lordships,on
but even the Government, in coming to a sound conclusion
with regaid to the merits or demerits of the propu6 iti
The Duke of ARGYLE said the noble earl who had
*".
for the committee
sat down would vote, it appeared,
totally different grounds from those which had been put
forward by a great number of noble lordse opposite ;
tinctly assenting to the principle of -th;r(i)upe
.arts; raen
(iin zo
sfeatr,
that ho was wilng to.extend to real
tied personalty an additional tax. The noble mover said
he did not introduce the question as a part; one ; but it
was impossible to deny that the motion with
those those principles which were held by llsasloefodsniloeriposi
reference to the incidence of taxationnoon rweahjea;i3 otrebdeeton
person property.
The loudest cheer heard in the course of the debate was elicited by the remark
that the measure was prompted by a spirit of hostility to-
wards the land ; and the ground on which the motion had

Mr. WHALLEY presented a petition from Peter-
borough, praying the house to legalise marriage with a
deceased wife's sister.

Mr. SPOONERpresented a petition from the attor-
neys and solicitors of Birmingham, against the Regis.
tration of Assurances Bill.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from a place in
the north against the opening of the Crystal Palace on
Sundays.
Mr. M. MILNES presented a petition from a book-
seller, praying that foreign books might be admitted
duty free.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a similar petition from
Manchester.
Mr. DUFFY presented a petition from New Ross,
praying that the income tax might not be extended to
Ireland.

DOCKYARD PROMOTIONS.
Mr. KEATING gave notice that, when the evidence
taken before the Dockyard Committee on the subject
of dockyard promotions had been fully considered by
honourable members, he should call the attention of the
house to it, and submit a motion upon it. The case of
Lieutenant Ingledue was referred to the same com-
mittee, and as it had not yet been reported upon, he
was not able to state the precise terms of his mo-
tion, but this he could state, that he should frame
it not in reference to the conduct of particular indi-
viduals, but make it general as regarded the proceedings
of the late Board of Admiralty in relation to the
matters referred to the committee.
EDUCATION BILL.
Mr. E. HINDLEY gave notice that on Monday he
should ask the noble lord at the head of the
Government whether he thought it would be possible,
considering the advanced period of the session, to get
through his educational scheme.

ISLE OF MAN.
Mr. EWART wished to know when the bill for alter-
ing- the Customs Duties of the Isle of Man was likely t o
be sent out to the island ?

Mr. WILSON thought it would be ready in the
early part of next week.