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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr.
Robert Owen in favour of opening the Crystal Palace on
Sunday as a rival to the gin palace.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented petitions from
Hull and Bristol praying for the prohibition of the sale
of intoxicating liquors on Sunday.
THE TURKISH QUESTION.

The Earl of MALMESBURY rose, pursuant to
notice, to put a question to the Government respecting
the negotiations now pending between Russia and the
Porte. He regretted to say that, whatever might be
the issue of events, the appearance of events did not
justify the promise and assurance which the Foreign
Secretary had given their lordships on a former occasion.
On that occasion it was stated that the whole object
of Prince Menschikoff's embassy was simply the settle-
ment of the question of the Holy Places, and the
public anxiety was, in consequence, very much alle-
viated ; but i since the speech of the noble earl,
Prince Menschikoff had come forward with an entirely
different demand, and what was now required was
that the Porte should sign a treaty with Russia,
guaranteeing to the Greek subjects of the Porte
the continuance of all the rights and privileges which
had been at any time granted to them by the Sultan. It
was evident that if such a treaty were signed, the Em-
peror of Russia would become the arbiter between the
Porte and its subjects. He wished to ask whether the
instructions given to Lord Stratford were identical with
those given to the French Ambassador at Constantinople,
and whether the ambassadors of this country and France
were acting together in supporting and encouraging the
Porte at the present emergency.
The Earl of CLARENDON said that at the present
moment he was sure both the noble lords opposite and
the house, would not insist on pressing him for infor-
mation which it would be inconvenient for the public
service at this moment to give. (Hear, hear.) The
latest official information from Lord Stratford was
of the date of the 9th instant, and brought. intelli-
gence 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
_inconveniences, 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 HARD WICKE 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 ;' and
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.)
THE SUCCESSION DUTIES.

The Earl of MALMESBURY then rose, in pursuance of
notice to move for a select committee to inquire into the
probable effect of extending to the case of successions to
real property, and property under settlement, the stamp
duties now payable in respect of legacies. He said, in
making this motion, he could state with the utmost sin-
cerity and frankness that he did so without the slightest
portion of party or political spirit ; and he promised their
lordships that so far as he was concerned no atom of that
element should be introduced into the question. He must
commence by observing that he thought that house was the
most fitting place for a preparatory inquiry on this im-
portant subject, because it was composed of persons who
were not personally interested in the matter, and who
could not therefore be actuated by selfish feelings. When
the last Government retired, in consequence of their finan-
cial policy being disproved of by the House of Commons,
it was to be expected that their successors would take up
the subject of finance, especially as the public had for seve-
ral years taken more interest in that branch of public ques-
tions than in any other. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury)
did not expect that Mr. Gladstone would have dealt with
the subject of a succession tax upon real and settled pro-
perty, inasmuch as he thought the difficulties of that
subject were not exaggerated when painted in such vivid
colours by almost every statesman who had lived during
the last half century. But the right hon. gentleman had
boldly met the difficulties face to face, and in a bill which
was now printed he proposed that a succession tax
on real property should become Dart of the, law of the
land. He would at once admit the abstract justice of
such a tax. The question was first one of necessity, and
secondly one of possibility, and it was for the Legisla-
ture to decide on both points. It appeared to him
that the question of succession to realty, considered
per se, was one on which both the country and
the Houses of Parliament was profoundly igno-
rant; at least they were ignorant on that subject as
compared with many others which had of late years occu-
pied public attention. The question had not been brought
before the houses of Parliament since the year 1796, a
lapse of time including two generations, and, without
wishing to cast the slightest imputation on those who had
taken part in the debates in another place, he must say
that he thought much comparative ignorance had been
exhibited. It appeared to him that under such circum-
stances no time should be lost in securing in some manner
the utmost information that could be obtained as to the
probable working of the proposition of Mr. Gladstone, It
was a very great advantage in investigations of this kind
that their lordships could examine witnesses before the
committee on oath ; and it was for this reason that he
asked their lordships to grant a committee, before which
they might examine the first solicitors and conveyancers
in the country—men of great experience in such matters—
who would give such information as might be useful both
to that and to the other House of Parliament. Though
he was not prepared to offer any opposition to the mea-
sure without inquiry, yet he must say that there were ex-
tant opinions which should at least warn their lordships
against rashly supporting it. The last time that the ques-
tion was brought-before Parliament was the 21st of April,
1796, when Mr. Pitt proposed that a succession tax should
be imposed on real property. Now, let their lordships
mark what events were taking place at that period. Buo-
naparte was at that moment crossing the Alps into Italy ;
Nelson had not gained those great victories which were to
sweep the French nation into the sea; an invasion seemed
not unlikely to take place. Under such circumstances it
was impossible not to feel that almost any tax was justi-
fied by the emergency. When Mr. Pitt brought forward
his proposition, he was opposed by whom ? By Mr. She-
ridan, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Fox. It had been asserted in
the other house that Mr. Pitt was beaten by the country
party; but that was not the fact. The first person
who opposed the motion was Mr. Alderman New-
man who made a joke upon the occasion, by say-
ing that, if it were carried, though England might be
the best country to live in, it would be the worst
to die in. (Laughter.) Mr. Sheridan said it was the most
execrable measure of finance that had ever come before
Parliament. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) considered it a
war tax, and thought that nothing but the most urgent
necessity could justify it; and it was, in fact,
on such a
necessity that Mr. Pitt rested his defence. His first im-
pression on hearing of a succession tax was that it would
entirely change the nature of a real estate. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships did not hold now, as they formerly did,
directly under the erown. In former days the crown could
send a commission (indeed this was the condition of tenure)
to value the rental and take a succession tax from the
estate ; but many of their lordships, and many small free-
holders, had inherited their estates with an absolute right
to sell, to give a way, or to mortgage ; and the entire nature
of their property would be changed if a succession tax had
to be paid before the heir came into possession. In that
case an estate in fee would be nothing more than an estate
renewable on the payment of a fine. It was but justice to
the right hon. gentleman to say that he had not overlooked
the difficulties of the question, and that he had already met
some of them. There was one point on which the right
hon. gentleman was entirely mistaken. He stated that he
considered the term of a generation to be 30 years. That
he was wrong in that assumption was evident from the
fact that at the assurance offices the average of the lives
assured was taken at about 7 years, and their lordships
knew from the records of their own families that it was
quite a mistake to calculate on a generation of 30 years.
of,t
ah
nta hdt egreatthatprincipalaf
rnauewa as
andrwg eurmeme
cnuo ten u n
ish o
moref
ttth r ht
ed te
nrhs
theoi
vn
e.
gp(Herenestaelrrenmt.)asynsOwtenaame
machinery was required. On that point he (the Earl of
Malmesbury) had examined several solicitors, and they all
told him that there was great exaggeration on the subject
of frauds. It was not likely, they said, that many
two
men would seek to evade the succession tax by a
deed of gift during theiroewnoniliyvehsa.d Obfadfivesosruiceih-
tors whom he consulted, one
cases; and in that instance the oases occurred irtth ireper!,
of a thirty-four years' practice. With their lordships'
mission, he would point out some of the most evident
diffi-
culties of carrying out the Government scheme. If the bill
passed, what would be the position of properties heavily
mortgaged—mortgaged to the extent of three-fourths of the
rental? (Hear, hear.) The heir of such an estate would
be placed between two fires—the mortgagee on the one side
and the Government on the other. At first it was proposed
that the assessment should be restricted to four years.
It was true that a year of grace had been added ; but, as
had been well observed by a nobleman on the cross
benches, if the period were five years, why should it not
be ten, and if ten why should it not be twenty or thirty ?
The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being to get
as much as possible during the life of the owner, the best
thing for the right hon. gentleman would be for every
owner to die after he had held the property for four years.
(Laughter.) There was one point which had struck him
very forcibly. He saw no special provision in the bill for
the case of an officer falling in action. He could men-
tion instances in which two or three brothers had each
fallen on the field of battle within a short period, each,
too, leaving children almost wholly dependent on them
for support. Such cases were, during the last war, espe-
cially frequent in the highlands of Scotland ; and, in such
cases, when an officer who died in the service of his
country left a croft, producing perhaps 100/. a-year, would
it be just or decent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
put his hands in the pockets of the orphan ? (Hear, hear.)
What had staggered him, and he believed the public
also, most, was the attack made on settlements. In the
eye of the law such property amounted to a purchase.
Many men who had been married for thirty years or more
had not yet obtained the property of the wife settled at the
time of the marriage. -Upon such persons the operation of
this tea would bit retrospective and retroactive; the law