The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

ell the muniments of his family from his strong-box, and
expose them to public view. (Hear.) There was the
danger of some attorney getting possession of the secrets
contained in the documents thus compelled to be brought
forward, and dragging the parties into the Court of Chan-
cery. (Hear, hear.) And he was not fifteen years in that
court without knowing what a serious matter it was.
Mr. G. BUTT suggested that tho production of the
documents should be confined to title deeds and muni-
ments to title deeds.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER observed
that there was no other way of ascertaining what was the
real liability of different parties except by an inspection
of the documents. If the objection was only as to giving
such large powers to the executive government, he would
not object to the interposition of a judge in chamber, or
or some other judicial interposition. He understood that
the hon. and learned member opposite objected to the pro-
duction of settlements. But it was equally necessary to
inspect those documents.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND agreed that there should be a
power to compel the production of settlements. But he
strongly objected to the production of the title deed;
which would be fraught with extreme danger.
Mr. MALINS said that this clause was an instance of
the power which the government was assuming over the
property of every man in th 3 country. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the production of settlements, it often
happened that tho title was contained in the last settle-
ment. There might be danger in the production of the
title ieecls, and it was not at all necessary; for it was
easily ascertained whether the successor was the son or
nephew, or any other relation of the deceased. The right
hon. gentleman was, for the first time, declaring that a
man had no right to the possession of his own title deeds,
and that any excise officer might compel him to give them
up. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to forgot what
he had just said, that he would not object, if it was
thought the clause gave too much power to the executive,
to the intervention of a judicial tribunal. (Hear, hear.)
Neither had he given any answer to the objection which
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) urged—namely,
how were they to deal with the diversity of interests,
and the different rates of tax under that diversity
of interests. If hon. gentlemen opposite would consent
to a direct succession tax of 3 or 4 per cent., a great deal of
the difficulty would be got rid of. But how were they to
deal with this case without an inspection of documents?
He would suppose a person succeeding to 2,0001. a-year, the
capital value of which he would estimate at 60,000/. This
person would pay 3001. duty. But supposing that there
was a liability on the property of 10,0001. for a natural
child, the interest of the revenue in that 10,0001. was
1,0001.' or more than three times the amount of the duty
on the direct succession. (Hear, hear.) How were they
to ascertain this fact, except by the production of the do-
cuments? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAIRNS said that by the clause the production of
the documents had reference only to " such" account as
the party handed in. It would not, therefore, enable them
to compel the production of the title in the only case
wherein the right hon. gentleman said it would be
necessary. __ _

The gOLICITOR-GENERAL said there had been a
great deal of ad captandwa language used in reference to
this subject, which was calculated to mislead the com-
mittee. The omission of the clause would produce a much
more onerous and mischievous result than if it was allowed
to remain as it was, for if it was struck out the commis-
siners would have the power to refuse any reduction for
jointures or portions. Unless the documents were pro-
duced the commissioners would never be able to allow any
deduction. The law had always stood thus : whoever had
a lawful interest in land had an interest in the title deeds ;
whoever had a charge upon the land had a right to look
to the title ; if, then, Government were given a charge by
the bill before the committee upon lands, the officer
of Government ought to have the right of looking to
the deeds. (Laughter, and derisive cheers.) As, how-
ever, he had anticipated some discussion upon this ques-
tion, he was prepared with a proposition which he hoped
would meet the views of all parties. The proposal was,
that the following amendment should be added to the
clause :—"Provided always that no title deeds, muni-
ments, or evidences of title of real estate shall be
required to be produced unless on application by the
commissioners to a judge of the Court of Exchequer in
England, Scotland, or Ireland, sitting in chambers, such
judge shall think proper to make an order for the produc-
tion thereof, or of such parts thereof as shall be necessary,
and the same shall in that case be examined by such per-
son, in such manner, and under such restrictions as such
judge shall think fit to direct." He made that proposal,
in order to meet, if possible, the views of all sides of the
house. (Cries of dissent from the opposition.)
After a few words from Mr. BARROW, inaudible in the
cries for a division, the house divided upon Mr. Mullings's
amendment. The numbers were :
For the amendment
Against it..

72
78

Majority
On our re-admission, we found
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moving as an amendment, that the
words "documents of the nature of leases, plans, court
and rent rolls" stand part of the clause. He took that
opportunity again to urge the government to reconsider
this question of the production of deeds.
Mr. BUCK denounced this as a most tyrannical mea-
sure. His deeds had never been in anybody's hands but
his own, and he firmly hoped they never would be.
(Laughter.) This question was not yet understood through-
out the country ; it was a great blow to the landed interest.
(Opposition cheering.) By and by the large class of small
occupiers would understand its effect, and then the whole
country would be plunged into discontent. (Laughter.)
Col. SIBTHORP was very glad to have heard what fell
from the lips of his hon. friend below him (Mr. Buck).
This matter was being pushed through by the combination
of her Majesty's ministers and Manchester. (Hear, and
laughter.) He warned right hon. gentlemen on the
Treasury bench that their allies from Manchester would be
the first persons in that house to undermine them.
Colonel DUNNE hoped that some hon. gentleman on
the ministerial side of the house, who was possessed of
landed property, would get up and explain his reasons
for voting for this measure.

Lord GALWAY reminded the right hon. gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had in that
house denounced the income tax as a most inquisitorial
measure, and yet he was now urging forward one which
was far more inquisitorial. It was very well for him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come down to the com-
mittee with a majority at his back, and force these mea-
sures. He (Lord Galway) hoped that when this bill *as
brought forward in another place the consideration of the
small majorities by which it had passed that house would
lead to a doubt as to whether this measure ought to be in-
flicted upon this country. He had received a letter from
a Whig constituent, who said that this extending the legacy
duty to land was the most unfair thing ever done. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said that this bill authorised nothing
more to be done than was already done under the Income
Tax Act. (Oh !) Tradesmen and manufacturers were
obliged to produce their books when called upon under
that act. Why should the landed proprietor be allowed to
go free. (Oh ! and laughter from the Opposition.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought this bill would cause so
much litigation as entirely to counterbalance all that had
been done in the way of law reform.
Mr. HENLEY said that if the committee would look to
the 54th clause, it would see that those making false re-
turns would be held guilty of perjury. Surely that was a
sufficiently tight hold. No man could deny that the lia-
bility to be called upon to produce title deeds was a most
unpleasant one ; it ought not therefore to be imposed
unless absolutely necessary. He trusted the Government
would reconsider this matter.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
agree to the proposal which had been made, nor could he
admit that there would be any danger in the production of
deeds, since the production would not take place until it
had been ordered by a judge who would be bound by so-
lemn obligations to secrecy. It was said the clause would
be found insufficient, because in many cases the documents
were in the possession of mortgagees; but admitting its
insufficiency, that could not be treated as a valid argument
against the clause. The necessity, however, for having
access to the title deeds would be of rare occurrence. The
access that would be required would be to the settlements,
and they, at all events, were not likely to be in the
hands of mortgagees. The proper custody of settlements
rested with the trustees, and they would be bound to give
the Government the information which the bill autho-
rised, without having recourse to the deeds themselves.
The necessity for producing the documents would only arise
in extreme cases ; and, inasmuch as even when the produc-
tion could not take place without the order of a judge, he
could see no reason why the clause should not be agreed to
as it stood.

Sir F. KELLY said if the bill could not be well or prac-
tically carried into effect without the power now demanded,
he could only say that this was an additional reason why
they should still continue to resist the further progress of
the measure. The powers proposed to be taken by this
clause had never yet been conceded to any Government
except in criminal cases, and to apply them in this instance
would be most unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
told them that the deeds were not to be produced unless a
judge should make an order to that effect ; but was the
right hon. gentleman aware of the expense parties would
be put to in resisting such an order; They would have to
employ attorneys, counsel, and conveyancers when they
wished to resist the curiosity of the commissioners to in-
spect the title deeds, and the end would be, that they
would have to embark in a course of litigation which no
man ought to be subject to. Now even after all this ex-
pense and trouble had been gone to, could the order of the
judge be successfully resisted, because no judge would re-
fuse to make an order when the commissioners stated that
the production of the documents was necessary for the ends
of puVic justice. The proviso, therefore, about the order
of the]udge was useless, while it was perfectly idle to talk
about obligations of secrecy when the contents of the deeds
would be disclosed to the attorney's clerk engaged in each
case. If there was no other ground, that would be suffi'
cient to reject the clause, and he hoped the committee
would do so accordingly.
Lord MARCH said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not anwered the objection which had been raised to the
production of deeds in the possession of mortgagees.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER paid in all
such cases he apprehended the Government would be able
to obtain all the necessary information without calling fo
the production of the deeds.
Mr. HILDYARD believed that in resisting this bill he
was not merely consulting the interests of the large landed
proprietors, but the interest of all the small landowners of
the country, who were so anxious that the contents of their
title deeds should not be known, that they often kept them
concealed from the members of their own family. He must
therefore tell those gentlemen opposite, who professed to
represent the interest of the great mass of the community,
that as far as he had been able to watch their movements,
he believed there was no class of men in the house who
were greater enemies to the well-disposed portion of the
people than themselves, whom he looked upon as no better
than pseudoatriote. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. GROGAN said, as this bill was to extend to Ire-
land, he should be glad to knowpertieswhat
for laying Irish prohat necessity there was
under the penalties of the
clause, seeing that the majority their title deeds were
already registered, and their contents to inspection.
The CHANCELLO the
course, in that case the Runjge to EXCHEQUER make no said, of
no order for the
production of the deeds.
Mr. GROGAN said, yes, but before that neg
deci-
sion could be obtained, the proprietor would be put
uttlYtoe
con-
siderable expense.
Mr. DUNLOP said in Scotland all title deeds wer
gistered • and to him, as well as most Scotehmen ite wraes-
somewhA strange to find the landed proprietors' of Eng.
land objecting to the production of their deeds, on tle
ground that it would be dangerous to their interest. There
was as much stability in the landed interest of Scotland as
that of England, and for the life of him he could not see
what danger could result from the adoption of this clause,
especially as its powers could not be enforced without the
authority of a judge. The titles by which the land was
held in Scotland were fully known to the public; no in-