The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-23 00:00:00

THE SITN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1853.

age of 70 or SO, the sole representative of the family, living
in the house which her sisters inhabited for many years.
Again occurred the benefit of survivorship, and when
she had only her own single annuity to depend upon, in
came the tax-gatherer again, and, inasmuch as this cot-
tage and garden were in fee simple, this wretched crea-
ture, now 70 or 80 years of age, was taxed at the highest
amount under the law.. If he rightly understood the
operation of the bill, she would be taxed at the rate of 24i
years' purchase of her cottage and garden, and, if that were
so, the poor creature would have nothing. to do but to part.'
with her house and premises, which were endeared to her.
by old associations, and in which she had hoped to die, in
order to satisfy the claims of the tax-gatherer under/ an act
of Parliament which she never dreamt of, or could dream
of, at the moment she purchased the property. He had in
this taken a case upon a very small scale. Ho would now
take one upon a different scale. Turn to the 34th clause of
this enactment. That clause provided—he hardly thought
that those of their lordships who had not read the bill
would believe that such could be its provisions—it provided
that, " In estimating the value of a succession, no allow-
ance shall be made in respect of any incumbrance thereon
created or incurred by the successor, not made in execution
of a prior special power of appointment." Now, take the
case—he would not mention any names, but their lordships
would all know that there were cases similar to that he was
about to mention—of a once princely fortune of 50,000/, a
year, the owner in possession being a tenant for life, and
being deeply and inextricably embarrassed. Take the case
of a son, the successor to that property, who, coming for-
ward to the relief of his father, sacrificed all his prospects
for life, and consented that the estate should be mortgaged
0
for 40,0001. or more a year out of the 50,0001. Suppose
that that son condemned himself with his eyes open to the
reduction of his fortune, so that there was left him barely
sufficient to keep up the estate, and when he had cut down
his income by that act of filial duty from 50,0001. to 7,0001.
a year, the law stepped in and said that the incumbrance
upon the reversion was contracted with his own consent,
and that upon 50,0001., and not upon 7,0001., should he
pay the tax the instant he entered upon the succession thus
reduced by his own generous act. (Hear, hear.) Was not
this a monstrous case ? Mind, no notice had been given
to the son in such a case. (Hear.) On the contrary, believ-
ing that he might rest upon the security of the law, and
upon the inviolability of property, he would have made
unparalleled exertions, the result of which was that your
taxation, your iniquitous taxation, as he must call it, re-
duced the son to be almost a beggar in consequence of the
generous assistance extended by to his father ! Was
there any justice or equity in this, and was it tolerable
that such a law should pass ? But then they were told,
" Oh, but he should not have sold. his reversion." Now,
he thought they had better have told him that before he
did it. (Hear, hear.) Well, but suppose that, with the
natural reluctance of a man to part with his ancestral
possessions, he had not sold the reversion of his property.
In that case the individual would no doubt escape the in-
justice to which he alluded, but you made him an instru-
ment of fraud upon other persons. By the 15th clause,
if the reversion of the property were sold, the person in
whom the property was vested, upon the death of the life-
tenant, found himself placed in the position in which the
successor would have been, and you taxed him as if he had
come into possession in his own right by the death of the
predecessor. There was a gross injustice in this. The suc-
cessor, it was true, escaped, but escaped by fraud; and
under this ex post facto legislation the person in whom the
property was vested, by alienation or otherwise, found
himself liable to a heavy charge which he had not dreamt
of, although he had given a full and fair price at the out-
set for the value of his reversion. (Hear, hear.) Again,
suppose a man raised money upon a reversion or the secu-
rity of a reversion. The money being spent, the lender
would come for his security, and would find that that
security had diminished by the operation of this law, so
that what had been in the first instance perfectly sufficient
to cover the amount he had lent might be made insuffi-
cient, and, consequently, he was deprived of what he had
a fair right to expect. Was there any justice or equity
in such a course of proceeding ? He would not weary the
house by multiplying cases to show the retrospective
operation of the bill, but he was convinced it would in-
flict hardship on all classes of the community. There was
one point in which settled personalty did materially differ
from settled realty, and that was in the infinite number of
frauds to which, in regard to personalty, you would be
subjected. He did not see how it could be possible with
settled personalty to get at the person who succeeded to it.
There would be no means of tracing it. A man might
have been living for all his • life at the apparent rate of
1,0001. a-year, and yet when he died his executors might
be at a loss to know where the greater part of his income
had been derived from. There might be property of which
the executors knew nothing, or of which his family knew
nothing ; he might have had a life interest in railways, in
canals, or in banks, but his will would show nothing of it,
and his hank-book would show nothing of it. The conse-
quence would be, that there would be, with regard to set-
tled personalty, constant and perpetual frauds and evasions
which would render the collection of the tax a matter of
considerable difficulty. The framers of the bill had evi-
dently perceived that, and he begged their lordships' at-
tention to the mode in which they proposed to meet it.
The noble earl opposite might say that this tax would en-
able them in time to do away with the income tax, and
might boast of the fact that no petitions had been pre-
sented against it ; but he was satisfied that if the bill lasted
so long as 7 years, the machinery of it would be found so
odious that there would be a very general petition as be-
tween the two taxes, praying them to continue the income
tax and remove this succession tax. By the 42d clause the
duty was made a first charge upon the property, and cer-
tainly it appeared as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
must be very hard tun for ready money, for the bill pro-
posed to give him power to raise money in a mode which
had always hitherto been discouraged as much as possi-
ble in private life, and which was always accounted
discreditable—by post-obit. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was authorised by this bill, on the part of the
public, to raise money by post-obits, and to anticipate
the money
,to be paid upon reversions, and to allow
the persons so paying in advance an allowance cal-
culated upon the rate of interest for the time being on the
sum so anticipated. He could not help thinking that this
clause indicated no great confidence on the part of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the duration of the tax ;
it seemed as if he meant to get all he could, and take the
chance of the law being repealad, and of not having to pay
back the duty which he might have received in advance if
such were the case. He would beg to call the attention of
such of their lordships as were now acting as trustees to
the persons enumerated in the bill as being liable for the
payment of the duty. Every guardian, committee, tutor,
curator, or husband was made liable for the payment of the
duty on any succession, but to ;,he extent only of funds dis-
posed of by them. The bill went on in the 45th clause to
provide that—

" Persons made accountable for the payment of duty in
respect of any succession, or sone of them, shall, in the case
of personal property, at the time of the first payment, deli-
very, retainer, satisfaction, or other discharge of the same or
any part thereof to or for the successor or any person in his
right, and in the case of real property, when any duty in re-
spect thereof shall first become payable, give notice to the
commissioners or to their officers of their liability to such
duty, and shall at the same time deliver to the commissioners
or to their officers a full and truce account of the property, for
the duty whereon they shall respectively be accountable, and
of the value thereof, and of the deductions claimed by them,
together with the names of the successor and predecessor, and
thir relation to each other, and all such other particulars as
shall be necessary or proper for enabling the commissioners
fully and correctly to ascertain the duties due."
That was pretty well. The executors were made the instru-
ments for giving information to the Government taxing
officers ' • but, if the commissioners were dissatisfied with the
information so given, they were authorised to cause another
account to be taken by pers,ons appointed by themselves,
with power to examine into all such papers and documents
as might be necessary to make a new assessment, and, if the
trustee did not appeal against that decision, he was to be
saddled not only with the additional amount of duty,
but also with the expenses of the inquiry and exa-
mination instituted by the commissioners at their discre-
tion. His only alternative was to appeal, which appeal,
in cases where the amount was above 50/., was to lie to
the Court of Exchequer, which had power to distribute the
expenses as it might think fit. If the executors failed to
give such to the commissioners, or if the persons liable 'to
pay the duty failed to pay it, a penalty was imposed of 10
per cent. for every month during which such neglect should
continue. No doubt • such machinery as this—grievous
and inquisitorial as it was—was necessary to the collection
of the duty, but he contended that it very seriously de-
teriorated from the expediency and the good policy of the
imposition of such a tax. (Hear.) The noble earl had told
them that the tax was to be levied upon an estimate of
the value of an annuity for the life of the person succeed-
ing, but would the noble earl tell them upon what rate
that estimate was to be made? It was natural to suppose
that when a son succeeded to the state of his father he
would be charged with the duty according to the nearest
rate of consanguinity. Not a bit of it ;if the property to
which he succeeded had descended from a remote ancestor,
and if his father had only a life interest in it, he would
have to pay the duty as if ho himself had received it from
a remote degree of consanguinity. (Hear.) He knew
several such cases. Take the case of a natural daughter,
who had taken the property of the father, and who had
herself a heir male. Inasmuch as she had no legal claim
upon any parent or any relation when she died, and her
son came into her property, he would have all his feelings
wounded and embittered, in addition to the pecuniary in-
jury clone to him by the tax, by being told—perhaps then
for the first time learning that circumstance—that his
mother was the daughter of nobody, and that he would
consequently have to pay the tax at the same rate as if he
had received his estate from a perfect stranger. He would
ask their lordships next to look at the process by which
it was proposed to arrive at the value of any estate. The
49th clause provided that—

" Every person who, under the provisions of this act, may
deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in
any succession shall, if required by the commissioners, pro-
duce before them such books and documents in the custody
or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such
account or estimate, as may be capable of affording any ne-
oessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such pro-
perty and the duty payable thereon."

By this clause, therefore, their lordships were called upon
not only to lay bare the state of their rental and their em-
barrassments, but also the whole amount of their mort-
gages and family settlements, and make them acquainted
with all the circumstances of their family affairs, and even,
he believed, if they thought it necessary, the commissioners
might call for the title deeds. Certainly, so far, as he saw,
there was nothing in the clause to prevent them. Further-
more, having ascertained the annual value of the estate,
the commissioners might determine the allowance to be
made for outgoings for agricultural or other purposes. In
other words, it was to be settled henceforth at their sove-
reign will and pleasure what amount was fit and sufficient
to be laid out on any estate for all purposes of improve-
ment or otherwise. Then, again, he would beg their at-
tention to the provision with regard to mines. The 26th
clause provided—

" The yearly value of any manor, opened mine, or other
real property of a fluctuating yearly income, shall either be
calculated upon the average profits or income derived there-
from, after deducting all necessary outgoings, during such
a number of preceding years as shall be agreed upon for this
purpoge between the commissioner and the successor, before
the first payment of duty on the succession shall have become
due.'

Now ho defied any man living to tell the value of a mine
not in working. There might be mines worth perhaps a
million of money, though it might be years before a,nyprofit
could be got out of them, and yet, if at the commencement
a mine was valued at a million, from that time to the
period of his decease the successor would have to pay on
that valuation at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. (Hear,
hear.) One more case, and he would have done with the
injustices and hardships of the bill. Take the case of tim-
ber. Every time that any one of their lordships —from the
time of succeeding to the time of his death—cut any 101.
worth of timber, he would have forthwith to announce the
fact`to the tax-gatherer—to show him the accounts of his
woodcutters, and the charges for carting, and so on—to go
through all this process for the purpose of telling the tax-

gatherer that the sum of 4s. had become due to her Ma-
jesty. Certainly the penalty for non-compliance with those
regulations was not very heavy, and he had no doubt that
many of their lordships would prefer, violating the act to
going through all this process. The penalty was 10 per
cent., so that they might violate the law systemmatically
and perseveringly at the rate of 3d. per_ month. (Hear,
and a laugh.) This tax upon the casual cutting of timber
was a gross injustice, as well as a permanent vexation. If
either of the noble earls acquainted with Cumberland had
been present they would have been able to tell their lord-
ships of the disastrous -effects of the storms of 1849, by
which timber was blown down which they would probably
have given many thousand pounds to preserve. If such
were to happen again, and if they presumed to make the
least use of those fallings, instead of leaving them to rot
on the ground, they would have to go to the tax-gatherer
and acquaint him of what they had done, to tell him that
they had suffered a damage which they would probably
have given much to avoid, and, consequently, that it was
their duty to pay a very considerable sum to her Majesty.
(Hear, hear.) He confessed it was with some regret that
he had heard the noble earl, in introducing this bill make
use of the claptrap argument that it was unfair that
the rich man of 10,0001. a year should be exempted,
while the poor man should pay wha only came into
the F ossession of 1001. That, he thought was not a sound
argument. nor one which ought to be put forward in that
house. He could tell noble lords that they were much mis-
taken if they thought it was upon the rich that the burden
of this tax would fall. (Hear.) It was upon that numer-
ous class of men who were just able to keep themselves
above water that the tax, with all its vexations, its an-
noyances, and its expenses, in the shape of perpetual liti-
gation, would chiefly fall. (Hear, hear.) He had been
much surprised to hear, the other day, on the authority
of Mr. M'Cnlloch, that the average amount of rentals from
landed property in this country was not above 1701. He
would leave it, then, to their lordships to consider—taking
into account the many large landed properties of the coun-
try—what an enormous number of rentals there must be of
from 501. to 1001., or even below that. All these holders
would be subject to the annoyances and vexations of this
bill. Such persons as these must necessarily be thrown
into the hands of the lawyers, and there could be no doubt
that the lawyers must reap an abundant harvest from the
proposed new system. He had now endeavoured to show
their lordships, first, that on the ground of justice
there was no reason to impose an additional and most
obnoxious tax on the owners of real or settled pro-
perty. He had endeavoured to show that with respect
to property, and settled property more especially, there
would be an amount of fraud and evasion created by the
bill, which would either deprive them of a greater por-
tion of the pecuniary result of this measure, or would
cover the country from one end to the other with an inter-
minable net of litigation; that, with respect to settled
property they were for the first time introducing an
abrogation of the distinction which had always been
drawn between it and devised property, and, that in
doing so, they were subjecting, by a retrospective ope-
ration, all owners of such property to an amount of
grievous oppression and injustice not to be compen-
sated by any amount of pecuniary advantage to the re-
venue. He had shown that the owner of property must
be subjected, not once for all, as in the case of the legacy
duty, but from the commencement of his possession to the
close of his life, to a constant succession of inquisitorial
proceedings—to an exposure of his family settlements, of
the secret disposition of his property, and of all his secret
embarrassments, and that from time to time he never
would be free from the most odious of all positions—that
of a public accountant for a debt which never could be dis-
charged. (Hear, hear.) He had shown them that the bill
would not press exclusively, or even principally, on the
large landowners, or on the wealthier classes—unjust as he
thought that would be ; but that it would press more
heavily and seriously on the humbler classes, who were at
present ignorant of its operation. They had not, indeed,
as the noble earl remarked, loaded the table with petitions
against this measure, which they had been led to believe
was for the purpose of taxing the great owners of property,
but he did not hesitate to say, five years would not pass
before their lordships would have no reason to complain of
any want of petitions and appeals to them to amend this
bill. Now, this was the crowning triumph of the Govern-
ment of the noble earl opposite. This measure, which was
the basis whereon the fame of his administration in finance
must rest—and which was the main principle of that bud-
get which had placed Mr. Gladstone on a pinnacle of emi-
nence far higher than that on which Mr. Pitt's character,
as a finance Minister, rested—was not a bill to meet any
present exigency of the State, or introduced as a temporary
measure which might be tolerated for a short period, but
was laid down emphatically in the preamble as being the
permanent system under which the financial affairs of this
country were to be administered. Now, he told the noble
earl that this country would not bear it—(hear, hear) ;
nay, more—that this country ought not to bear it ; and he
was satisfied that, so far from this bill being permanent,
even if the noble earl succeeded in passing it in its present
shape, no very lengthened period would elapse before it
would be repealed by the unanimous demand of all classes
in this country who were connected with property, except
the attorneys and solicitors, who would derive a very rich
harvest from the litigation which would arise from it.
And now one word as to the course he would take. The
noble earl had said he could understand the course of ob-
jecting to the principle of the bill, and rejecting it on the
second reading ; but that he could not see how they could
assent to the second reading and to the principle of
the measure, and then ask the house to deal with the de-
tails in suclia way as to defeat the object in view. Now,
in the first place, he protested against being held in the
slightest degree to have assented to the principle of the
bill, and, if he abstained from taking the sense of the
house on the second reading and contented himself with
saying " not content," he would take that course, not in
the absence of a strong sense of the evils and unparalleled
injustice of the bill, but from a desire not unnecessarily to
embarrass the financial affairs of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. But at the same time he must say that, if they
were to carry their submission so far, and if they were
humbly to bow the head to every injustice that the House
of Commons pleased to inflict ; if they were to tell them
they were exceedingly thankful for inflicting this grievous
injury because it was no worse, and if they allowed the
rights of the people to be infringed and serious injustice
done to the community at large, because the privileges
of their lordships' house prohibited their seeking to limit
the injustice, better, he said, would it be for their lord-
ships to abandon their functions altogether and not to have
any taxation bills at all sent up for their consideration.
(Hear, hear.) He trusted their lordships would not, not-
withstanding the advice which had been given to them,
pass that bill as it stood; and though he would not ask
them to reject the bill at this stage, he certainly would not
abstain from (submitting, on Monday next, such amend-
ments as would tend to mitigate, as he thought, the grosser
injustices, and the first would arise on the second clause,
with respect to which he would propose the omission of the
words "part or," so as to make the bill prospective in its
operation, and remove from it all settlements which had
been made when there was not the slightest prospect that
the Parliament would interfere with them. He did not
say he would not propose other amendments also • not that
he would do so with any desire that a bill founded on the
principle of the bill before them should not pass for the
present, but that he would ask their lordships' judgment
whether they were satisfied to adopt such a measure only
as a means of meeting present difficulties, or as a perma-
nent measure on which the finance of this country was to
rest. (Cheers.)
The Duke of ARGYLL felt at all times that he laboured
under disadvantage in arising after the noble earl (Derby),
but he felt especially at the present time when he rose to
address their lordships upon a question of finance. Never-
theless, he hoped to satisfy the house that the noble earl
had not fairly represented the object and spirit of the bill.
The first part of the speech of the noble earl was taken up
with ironically describing the eulogium which had been
passed upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
upon the introduction of the budget. He believed that
that speech would be one of those few speeches which
would be referred to in future times for the guidance of
that and the other house of Parliament, as an exposition of
great principles of finance. If that speech had been fol-
lowed by less active steps than the noble earl expected, his
(Lord Derby's) friends were to blame, for though they had
sided continually with those who were willing to remove
taxes, they had also voted with those who were not willing
to allow other taxes to be imposed. He (the Duke of Ar-
gyll) could not suppose that the noble earl really thought
that personality should be rated to local charges; such a
course was almost impossible, and even if it could be carried
out, it would be disadvantageous to the landed interest.
The noble earl had dwelt on the injustice of extending the
tax to settled property. He thought the distinction was
altogether fanciful and artificial. A. legal settlement could
be viewed in no other light than as a long will ; and in the
abstract there was no distinction between aperson possessed
of property by a will for a short term and one for a long
one. (Hear.) He could not agree that the principle of the
legacy duty was a bad one. Individuals were specially
called upon to contribute to the necessities of the state
when they received benefit by the 'force and authority of
law ; and if there was any instance where this was re-
markably the case, it was when a person became possessed
of property by virtue of the will of a predecessor. So far
as the distinction between will and deed was concerned, the
obligation was increased rather than diminished in the
latter case. A settlement carried on Property very often
against the likings and dislikings of many intermediate
proprietors ; and a person coming into possession of pro-
perty under such circumstances, which could only be main-
tained in a highly artificial state of society, was bound
to contribute to the necessities of the state. It was said
the measure would operate hardly on persons coming
into possession of property who had burdened their
interest.rever-
tiwneneanrYtheca
scase
o f t
hBo
suet
whhooww hade rdeo
done
eh es yo
fromtodistinguishextravagance
and those who had done so from a laudable motive ?
He believed that in the majority of cases where heirs
had recourse to post obits and other means of rai-
singich money, it was not done for purposes. which
the
rhoem htohues etaxw.ouAldnwoti
• the case of tenni-
plied equally. to the income tax, as in
was imposed ;and
liable annuities purchased before the tax
Another to
objection e neul encourage
tbliye
The objection
the income tax on that species of property.
documents was the
pnaorbtleofeathrle had
•hatl lately passed
greatest bugbear of all. Their lordships
the •
and principle
a bill for the registration of all deeds,enxoebuliep tienagatsh
ae
17.
aysettothtehneopbrloedlume•dtiownasohfimpaseplferas pedairdtyto the imposition of
In Scotland every
immediate prede-
cessor,
hail repeatedly received their sanction.
etuttlh; )
(eel,
which
irri
les torna .petebi erent office
lords
a rapid series
called for by the
were so afraid of having seen, might
not each
tebnetaiplrwebanstaecc,detsistiibelee, teovaenryy
for a shilling • and at that m'onmanenate,t
Where several
be
cessor, but from the father, and they would, therefore,
only be liable
to a duty of 1 per cent. In the case of st,
referredbrothers t souccaceeesdoefd hardship
lel inPotfhroemr tphaertsiteisccebsesiinogn Would
reckoned
kipl adny commissionerseo
dtp the 10
operate
0a taking
elnfr
g favour i cnpel naa duty,edofn oreta
from
r revenue.obp urn ot
pet Therthisety .
document
of successions might take place in a few years . but they
f
her,
nron of
would
oonly
r optithye ra•sp, affectedtaking
fromb by consumption,tb the
fat
other. The operation of the clause was in favour of settled
real property, not against it. The words " allowance for
all necessary outlays " had been introduced as most`fa or
able to real property. How could they give a den
ityour-
the outgoings necessary for real property ? Take the case
of an estate where a sea-embankment existed, and required
to be kept in constant repair. It would be impossible to
define in the act all conceivable cases. They
the term "necessary outgoings," and leave it Ton
geaci opt
n
missioners to put a proper construction upon it.
Seeing
what the practice had been in reference to the legacy duty,
there was no doubt the business would be transactedina
way the most lenient to the successor. Were the bill for
imposing the legacy duty now proposed for the first time,
the whole house would be in a blaze about it. Under that
act any man's house might be entered, and a value put
• upon every thing in it. But the valuation was always

most moderate; pictures, for instance, were not valued as
pictured, but as furniture; and the smallest possible value
was put upon everything. In the clause-relating to timber,
he was convinced that no alteration could be made with.
justice The noble earl had referred to a great fall of tim-
ber, and to the duty being payable on what was sold ; but
it was impossible to lay (lawn a different rule. There was
no earthly principle on which that kind of property should
be exempted altogether. The duty was put on as mo-
derately as possible, and full power was given the proprietor
to commute. More they could not ask ; less would not
be consistent with that justice which ought to prevail
in all fiscal legislation. The noble earl said the bill would
tell most seriously against small proprietors. Unfor-
tunately, under the operation of the legacy duty, a very
large part of the property of the country, not held in set-
tlement, was brought under that duty. It was stated in
evidence by Mr. Baxter, before their lordships' committee
on the burdens on real property, that a great part of the
county of York was held on customary and copyhold
tenures ; and, by the construction of the Legacy Duty Act,
they were bound to pay the duty in every case where the
testator had devised land to be equally divided amongst
his children. - Thus, though not properly subject to the
duty, a great portion of the county of York paid that
duty. Was it fair to this class of proprietors, subject in
so many instances to this impost, that the great landed
proprietors of the country should be entirely exempt from
paying anything upon successions to the necessities of the
state ? The noble earl had referred to this bill as being, in
fact, the whole of the budget.
The Earl of DERBY-- What I did say was this—that,
but for the funds derived from this act, the Government
would not be able to make the remissions which they pro-
posed.

The Duke of ARGYLL was quite willing to compare the
budget of the present Government with that of their pre-
decessors, for he was certain the present would not suffer.
In the space of four months there had been two great
financial statementsf both proposing large remissions, and
imposing new taxes. A great reduction of the tea duties
was proposed by both, as was an extension of the area of
the income tax, though in a different form. Beyond these
points of resemblance, the remissions of the late Govern-
ment were confined almost entirely to two articles—malt
and hops, amounting to about 2,650,0001. If any new tax
whatever was proposed, the country was entitled to know
the necessity of it. The remissions were wholly in favour
of the budget of the present Government. The two articles
of malt and hops, were entirely connected with one great
article of consumption, and on no article was there a less
call for a remission of taxation. The taxes on all the
great articles of consumption—corn, tea, coffee, and other
things—had been either remitted or reduced ; and, as
far as the interest of the consumer was concerned, this
was the very last tax they ought to remit. The pro-
posal was made not so Much in the interest of the con-
sumer as of the producer ; but the relief to the landed
interest would have been very trifling indeed, and it
would have entailed upon them the continuance of the
income tax, and the doubling of that grievous burden, the
house duty. The new tax proposed by the present Govern-
ment, being an extension of the legacy duty, did not stand
exactly in the same position.- It was rendered necessary,
not so much to make remissions of direct taxes as to enable
Parliament to deal with and finally to dispense with the
income tax. The noble earl had treated this proposal with
considerable scorn, but he had made no proposal at all that
would have that effect. Though it was of course impossible
to say what might happen in 1860—the noble earl himself
might be in office then—(a laugh)—though they could not
pledge Parliament to abandon the income tax at any one
period, yet they provided a tax by means of this bill which
would enable Parliament to do so if they were disposed.
On coming into office, the present Government had found
the income tax in a very awkward position ; and a proposal
had been made by the noble earl, which was most unjust,
to throw a large additional burden on real property. Hav-
ing attempted to establish that dangerous principle of a
differential duty, how could the noble lord have prevented
its being carried further ? When the present Government
came into power they found it necessary to deal with the
income tax, and on looking round for a substitute, they
could find none more eligible than to extend the legacy
duty to successions to real property. For years there had
been annual motions in favour of such a tax, weakly re-
sisted by different Chancellors of the Exchequer. Mr. Pitt
had originally proposed to include real property in his bill
of 1805 ; and the result of its omission was that while
younger sons were subject to the tax, the heir escaped.
(Hear, hear.) After the distinct declaration of the into
Government, through their Chancellor of the Exchequer,
that the legacy duties were a system of injustice, the
present Government could see no course more con-
sistent with their position, and with sight and jus-
tice, than to extend the tax on successions to all pro-
perty. It had been correctly stated that there hacl not
been a single petition against it. He looked forward to a
continuance of tint system of remission of indirect taxes
which had been productive of such signal benefits to the
country. Ho was not one who regarded the income tax as
a war tax entirely. It had never produced such benefits
as during the period since 1842. By passing the bill now
before the house they would, however, have an opportu-
nity of getting rid of that tax in 1860. (Hear.)

- -
The Earl of MALMESDITRY said that as comparisons
were always odious, he would not compare the two budgets,
but would confine himself to the question before time house.
Since he formerly addressed their lordships on this subject
he found the bill had been completely altered in the Com-
mons!, and the first twelve clauses were wholly and en-
tirely changed. Perhaps it would have been well had a
committee of their lordships been sitting for the last five
or six weeks to inquire into the incidence of such a tax,
and how it might be rendered least unjust. Frequent
reference was made to our advancing intelligence, but
he entirely denied that anything like perfection had been
reached in our financial legislation. The law was about
identical with one brought in at the time of the Norman
Conquest. Persons were then employed by the Crown to
ascertain the value of all lands, and tax them accordingly ;
the principle of this measure was precisely the same. The
old law had been abolished in 1664; and now, after a lapse
of two centuries, it was proposed to re-enact one founded
on the same wide principles—a proposal which he must
characterise as absurd, cowardly, and unjust. The whole
principle of a tax upon successions was as absurd and cow-
ardly as it certainly was unfair and unjust ; and his first
feeling was one of astonishment that such a proposition as
that of the Government should have proceeded from the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not accord
to Mr. Gladstone much financial experience —indeed,
the right honourable gentleman himself would not lay
claim to it—but he did concede to him, as everybody must
do, that high moral character which he had always main-
tained, both by his example and precept. If his books
were a true expression of the right hon. gentleman's
mind, and contained a true description of his feelings,
the one great object ho must have in view must be the ad-
vancement and the maintenance of a high moral standard
in all matters influenced by public opinion. But he had
nevertheless founded all his financial policy upon specula-
tions on some of the worst passions of human nature. His
measures speculated upon the selfishness of human nature.
He proposed schemes that would not immediately injure
those who sat in Parliament, but the effects of which would
fall upon persons not in a position to defend themselves. In
his plan for the conversion of stock he began by attempting
to frighten people who had money in the funds into the
idea that the conversion of the Three per Cents. was almost
a matter of certainty, whereas the most distinguished prac-
tical financial authorities living would have told him that
such an event was nearly impossible. But the right hon.
gentleman's object was to work on the bad passions of our
nature, and upon an egotistical desire to sacrifice others for
our own benefit. A succession duty was not likely to touch
their lordships themselves ; for most of them, as well as the
members of the other house, had probably inherited as much
as they expected to get ; and it was a most immoral thing
to saddle posterity with demands they ought to pay them-
selves. He had said this was a tax cowardly in its principle.
Its authors in 1796, like the right hon. gentleman, thought
they should only have to face one man at a time. Each
successor paid the tax and then disappeared; so that they
could never get up any public feeling to bear upon the
minister of the day. His (Lord Malmesbury's) notion of a
good tax was that it should, year by year, bring an in-
creasing amount to the Exchequer. They might certainly
say that the amount derived from this impost would in-
crease, as the prosperity and property of the country in-
creased ; but he thought that the effect would turn out to
be quite the contrary ; for it would depreciate the value
of property, and prevent the accumulation of wealth.
But just look at the moral consequences that would
ensue. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
only care was to get as much money, and as quietly
as possible. To be sure his bill would make all men
patriots ; for every man would die for his country,
and his successor would " bleed" for its good. (Laughter.)
Of course, if a man disinherited his son, and left- his pro-
perty to his servant. he would be so much the more a
patriot, because then the country would get ten per cont.
instead of ono. The bill would hardly square, it was
true, with recent legislation for promoting the public
I health ; because it was obvious that those periodical
mortalities, the recurrence of which the appointment 4,f
the Board of Health had been designed to check, would
be a sort of harvest for the right honourable gentle-
man. From these sickly seasons the right honourable gen-
tleman would have derived much additional profit, and
by that means would be enabled to present many more
brilliant budgets. (Laughter.) But only think what I
would be the effect of the measure upon the Chancellor of
position. The Chancellor of the Ex-
the Exchequer's social
chequer was never a very popular character—(laughter)—
but inasmuch as a great deal of the taxation had hitherto
been indirect, and as even the direct taxation was not at all
to be compared for injustice and oppression to this—the
right hove m d in s
n. gentleaci n
ety., for
pretty
(Laughter.) time being, had been
would
his But what receio
his position be now ? He would be a sort of vulture suss-
in, over society and inviting for theharvest of
death.
(Laughter.) He wo
ould be the heir of esury man's pro-
perty ; and every man -would hold his property under the
Crown who had formerly held it independently. (Hear.)
Under such such a state of things, he could hardly conceive
the right hon. gentleman approaching oven his colleagues
and asking,
even in the most conventional manner after
his health. (Groat laughter.) He (Lord
Maltnes'burv)
was perhaps wrong in jesting upon a subject of such
importance. The proposal to base the calculation of a
man's life interest upon a set of tables was manifestly
aL-
surd. It might indeed be fair if everybody were placed
lin exactly the same circumstances—if everybody died at
70—if every one married at 25, and had a son exactly nine
months atter his wedding. (A laugh.) The chances of
life of a man 50 years of age might be much greater than
those of one at 21, but tine latter would, nevertheless, have
to pay much more. They did not do so at the insurance
offices. If a noble lord wished to insure his life a doctor
would be called in to see him ; his pulse would be felt, a
stethescope would be applied to his chest; and inquiries
would be made as to his former mode of life. If there
was any blot he must pay for it ; and if his life was a bad
one it would be refused altogether. (Hear, hear.) Again,
they were going to apply the same rule to the whole com-
munity ; but would it be fair to use the same scale in the
case of one of their lordships' eldest sons and a military
officer succeeding at the same age to property in the time
of war? Or to apply the same rule to one of their lord-
ships' sons, and to those persons who followed trades and
professions that were notoriously unhealthy? (Hear.)
Nothing could be more obviously unjust and unfair than to
take a mere arithmetical calculation of the value of lives.
(Cheers.) The bill had been proposed as a compensation
—the phrase had been used in another place—for the in-
come tax, which they were told was to be abolished at the
end of seven years. Of the two, however, lie considered
the tax on successions by far the most unbearable ; ant]
he protested that, although he did not expect to in-
herit anything beyond what he had already receive,],
he would rather pay income tax to the end of his life than
agree to the imposition of this unjust tax upon his suess-
sass. (Cheers.) The income tax was, at all events, a
charge upon property they had enjoyed ; but the succes-
sion tax was a charge upon property which they had hardly

.d.,

...-0,--41....
'.:--s-As.**:-- ---
received and might probably never get. (Hear.) TI,„; .""\--,4,.. ;`,,'
I
indeed, 'argued. that the bill was necessary to remayjs e' .:';-' •• i
injusi ice of eharginfflceecy duty mean personal ands -7,
,'' • '',' f—,
ing real property ; but it was injustice. A morn ',' '-:_ --_ ' ' !
man-like act would have been to have removed file' : - ''!'' '• ‘ ' ,-*
altogether. (Hear.) He believed that the present (ilikertae,T,l.2,--' ,:\:;,
menteeidd have done so although it was nut in the cke2;--'-Lees
of that to which he had himsett belonged, for the evental.. .\.: )
that had taken place previous to their accession to office, `
bound them to diminish taxation in a certain direction.
It was a point of honour with them to do so—they at-
tempted it, and they failed. They felt bound to diminish
the malt tax, is order to relieve a large portion of the
community, who had been unfairly treated, and of course
they could' not afford to repeal half the malt tax and to
abolish the probate duties. When Mr. Disraeli alluded to
the subject in the other house and admitted that it was an
unjust tax, he did not moan to say that it was unjust be-
cause real. property was not taxed like personal property.
(Hear.) What he really did mean to say was that the tax
was in its very nature inherently unjust, and that he had
considered it—as he (Lord Malmesbury) knew that he had
seriously done—with the view to see whether it could be
abolished or whether it could not. Not the least absurd
and unjust part of the bill was the graduated scale of con-
sanguinity duties. Of course, a minister's chief idea would
be, what would make the tax easiest to pass, and what
would diminish the number of its opponents. Hence the
graduations. Otherwise it was impossible to see why the
succession from a father to a son should be charged one per
cent., and that from brother to brother three per cent.,
especially as, generally speaking, a brother succeed-
' ing to a brother would enjoy the property a much shorter
time than a son succeeding to his father. The case of na-
tural children was also peculiarly hard. It was true that
the bar which the heralds placed on a man's shield did
not place one in his advancement, and that many men who
had attained to the highest eminence hal been in that un-
fortunate position. Still it was a most unworthy thing on
the part of the Legislature to add an additional mark, to
point out the victims of the faults and crimes of their
parents. (Hear, hear.) The real secrets of the graduated
scale was to buy off the opposition of the largest class of
inheritors. The number of persons who paid ten per cent.
was of course very much less than those who paid the
smaller percentages ' • and yet the amount received was
more than all the rest. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the
President of the Council had told them that they must ac-
cept the bill in order to maintain the popularity of the
aristocracy ; but there was a large class of property to be
exempt; lie was glad of that ; but surely if there was
anything in the noble lord's argument the church ought to
be brought within the operations of the bill. (Hear.) The
noble earl concluded by giving notice that he should move
amendments exempting title deeds from production, and
timber from taxation. Take the case of a person inheriting
timber from a tenth cousin and paying ten per cent. It
must be borne in mind that this timber already paid an
income tax of 3 iser cent., making in all a tax of 13 per
per cent. Now the highest duty on Baltic timber was only
9 per cent., while Canada timber paid only a nominal duty
of a shilling, and staves were entirely free. The effect,
then of the bill would be to impose a tax upon the home-
grown article greater than the highest foreign duty, and
in some cases five times as much. Even as a financial
operation the proposal was not creditable. (Hear, hear.)
The bill was one of pains and penalties ; and it was one
that would keep open the ledger with the Government till
the grave closed over the person in possession. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble earl had taken the
noble duke to task for having indulged in a disquisitionupon
different budgets : and then he went off in a comparison of
the rival budgets of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. The
strongest possible epithets had been lavished on the bill ;
but he did not expect to hear the terms absurd and cowardly
applied to it. As to the objection which had been taken to
the tables, of course it was impossible to avoid cases of
hardship ; but it should be remarked that, in cases of per-
sonal property, the tax was charged upon the whole value.
The proposal of the Government., therefore, was a mitiga-
tion of the law. So with respect to the consanguinity
tables, the question was rather to proportion the amount
' of the tax to the degree of expectancy ; and if they
lowered the 10 per cent., they must increase the lower
percentages. With regard to natural children, their po-
sition had been fixed by the law, and could not be
altered in an incidental manner by a bill like this. If the
present bill were rejected, it would take away from the
Government the power of giving the great relief to the
people at large which the budget proposed to give. As to
the objection that there would be a difficulty in geti ing a
remission of duty where it might be properly claimed, he
contended it was only imaginary ; and there need be no
unnecessary exposure, for those parts of the deeds which
did not refer to the particular question might be sealed up
from the observation of the commissioners. Then with
regard to timber, ii they admitted the principle that pro-
perty must pay a tax on succession, would any one contend
that timber was not property ? It was clearly property ;
and on no principle ofjustice could they exempt it from the •
tax they levied on all other sorts of property. He hoped
the noble earl would lay on the table the amendments
which he intended to propose, as he was sure he did not
wish to take the Government, or the house, by surprise. -
Lord ST. LEONARDS did not wish to continue the dis-
cussion, because lie should have several amendments to
move in committee. He wished, however, to know whe-
ther he was right in supposing the noble oarl opposite to
have said that brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law were to be
exonerated ? He also wished to know whether there was
to be any alteration as to husband and wife?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his noble friend did
not put it quite so high as he might have done. He stated
that by the present bill a son-in-law or daughter-in-law
would stand in the same position as a son or a daughter.
His noble friend might have put it higher ; a brother-in-
law would stand in the same position as a brother, and a
sister-in-law as a sister. There would be no alteration as to
husband and wife ; they paid no duty on succession now.
The Earl of HARROWBY was opposed to the bill. If
the balance was fairly struck at the present moment, any
man who gave a fair and candid opinion would admit that
the land, contributed more than its fair proportion to the
burdens of the country. One of the effects of the bill would
be to make a man a slave to his lawyer, and involve him in
greater expense than the tax itself. All the difficulties they
were inflicting on the land would press more severely on
small proprietors than large ones ; and he really did think,
looking at the evils which must arise from the measure,
that it been most hastily undertaken. It was a tax
against which no great classes could remonstrate, and it
was much safer to tax classes that could remonstrate than
those that could not. He did not know whether he should •
support any of the amendments to be proposed, but he
disapproved of the principle of the measure.
The Earl of DERBY said that in answer to the appeal
which had been made to him, it would be impossible for
him to lay on the table the specific amendments which he
might move on the progress of the bill through committee.
The bill had only been delivered that morning, and they
had had very little time to consider more than the main
principle. He could not, therefore, say that he would
lay on the table amendments which might be found neces-
sary, or not, in the discussion of the clauses ; but he might
state that one amendment which ho should move would be
on the second clause, and the effect of it would be to make
the application of the bill saving to the interests of all ex-
isting settlements. He should also move a clause for limit-
ing the operation of the bill to 5 years.
The bill was then read a second time.
The Land. Revenues Bill. was read a third time and
passed.

The Colonial Church Regulation Bill was reported, with
amendments, and ordered to be read a third time on Mon-

day.
Their lordships adjourned at 20 minutes to 10 o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
_

Pemberton Leigh's Estate Bill was read a third time
and passed. _

Tlie Galway Harbour Bill was considered, and ordered
to be read a third time.

.
Ward Jackson's Estate Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS.
Lord SEYMOUR brought up the report upon Dock-
yard Appointments, which was ordered to be printed.