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

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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool-
sack at five o'clock.
The Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway ; the
Llanelly Railway and Dock (No. 2) ; the London and
North-Western (Oldham Branch); and the Limerick and
Foynes Railway Bills were read a third time and passed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from the Metropolitan Law Association, complaining of
inequalities in the Stamp Act, and praying that they
Might be revised.

ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was passed through committee.
SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.

Tho Earl of ABERDEEN—My lords, I rise to move the
second reading of the Bill to Impose Duties upon Succes-
sions. It is a bill which has occupied the attention of the
other House of Parliament for a considerable time, and,
after having undergone great discussion, after having been
Minutely examined in all its parts, and most fully and
carefully debated, it has finally been sent up to your lord-
ships by a very large majority. (Hear, hear.) My lords,
this is a measure which has been recommended to her Ma-
jesty's Government by various considerations. In the first
Place, it enables us to relieve the industry of the country
from the burdens which have hitherto materially affected
the employment of capital and labour. My lords, the
removal of those burdens will operate beneficially for tha
welfare and interests of this country. (Hear.) This measura
also enables the Government to secure, or at least to make
provision for that security, which we desire to obtain for
the means of dispensing with the income tax at the period
Which has been assigned for its continuance ; and, my lords,
It has enabled us in a certain degree to redress the ine-
quality which has been complained of in the imposition of
that tax. The noble earl opposite and his friends corn-
rain that inequality exists in the imposition of that tax,
Inasmuch as it is levied without any allowance being made
for income derived from precarious sources, or without tak-
ing into account those incomes derived from the exercise of
Intelligence and skill, and they have recommended a prin-
ciple of differentiation in the imposition of that tax. My
lords, her Majesty's Government have thought it right to
tax property equally in all respects, without looking to the
sources whence it may be derived, whether from mere
labour or from the exercise of intelligence and skill. The
greatest inducement to her Majesty's Government to adopt
the course which I now propose to your lordships has been
the wish to remedy an injustice which has long been com-
Plained of, and which, in fact, was gradually becoming in-
tolerable to the country. The sense of right and justice
11'M so oppssed to it that it could not have continued much
longer, and it was wonderful that it had existed so long.
Mr. Pitt, no doubt, made an attempt to remedy that
Which was an evil in his day as grave and crying in its
nature as it is at present. My lords, no Minister since
his time has made any attempt to do that which, although
called for by the general voice of the country, is attended
with such difficulties as to have deterred any Govern-
ment from grappling with them. I trust, however, that
the country will feel that my right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has worthily accomplished the
design, and has successfully grappled with the accompany-
ing difficulties. When I say that an injustice has long
Prevailed, it is only necessary to state a simple fact to
Prove that assertion, and, my lords, I think I cannot do it
better than in the words of a writer held in great repute
by noble lords opposite, and whose opinion they will
doubtless respect. The statement to which I ultra beg
Your lordships attention is—

" A poor man who gets a legacy of 1001. pays 10/. direct
to the Exchequer, and the executor, in addition, pays the
heavy st amp on probate of the succession ; but the great
landholder succeeds to 100,0001. a year, without paying a
shilling to the State. A creditor in Scotland, who succeeds
to a bond for 100,0001., heritably secured, pays nothing; if
it is on personal security he pays the full legacy duty of
10,0001. This glaring inequality, the remnant of the days
of feudal oppression, or the relic of a time when the land-
holders had no money, and taxes could be extracted from
moveable property only, should forthwith be abolished. Suc-
cession of all kinds, whether in land, bonds heritably
secured, or moveable funds, should be taxed at the same
rate."

MY lords, I think so too ; and such is the opinion of Sir
Archibald Alison, a writer who is held in great esteem by
noble lords opposite. The noble earl opposite appears to
have contemplated some measure to remedy the evil, for
the right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exche-
quer described the legacy duty as a system of injustice,
and shadowed out some course of proceeding by which a
remedy was to be provided: What that course of pro-
ceeding was we are not permitted to know. My lords, it
is on this principle that every species of succession should
be equally taxed that we have produced the measure which
I now submit to the consideration of your lordships.
(Hear, hear.) My lords, the measure, although now only
proposed for a second reading, has occupied more or less of
our lordships' attention on different occasions, and we
have heard strong denunciations of the injustice, oppres-
sion, and hardship of the burden which it will impose. It
is rather singular that, although we have heard these de-
nunciations, we have received no petitions against this tax,
although there are petitions against every other species of
burden which we can imagine. (Hear.) My lords, I thought
when I heard those fervid and eloquent declamations
against the tyrannical and oppressive nature of this measure
Which were so rife, that the table of the house would be
loaded with petitions against it. I now hold in my hand
the report of the House of Commons upon public petitions,
kid in that report there is a long list of petitions against
l'°erY description of tax, but not a single one against the
taiceeeesion
agh duty, which is described as so oppressive, al-
the bill has been before the House of Commons for
ulonths, and this return is made up to the 15th of
ar. Y. (Hear.) I might say the same for this house. I
.4 constant attendant here but I have heard no petition
yesterday,
this bill, and none 'have been presented except
„Jesterday, when a noble earl opposite, not now in his place,
'resented a petition from four or five, I have no doubt, re-
spectable solicitors. That, my lords, is the amount of
public disapprobation of this measure, so far as it has been
alg-eified by petitions to either House of Parliament. But,
ilai,NY lords, as I understand that the noble earl opposite
this
toes not mean to oppose the second reading of
'is bill, it is not necessary to detain your lordships by
triiilag into any examination of the provisions of the bill and
different clauses. These may be explained and discussed
at a future stage of the measure. Nevertheless, I shall
venture to lay before your lordships a general view of the
object and character of the measure. My lords, we pro-
Pose that a duty shall be imposed upon every species of
succession arising in consequence of death, or rather we
Propose to extend the present legacy duties to every suc-
cession of any description. No other mode of transfer of
Property is taken into account. It is simply a duty upon
Successions in consequence of death. At present real pro-
PertY, whether settled or unsettled, as your lordships are
"ware, pays no succession duty. Now, we propose to re-
dress this anomaly, for there really seems no reasonable
cause why settled personal property should not be dealt
With in the same manner as unsettled property. We pro-
pose to apply the same rule to all descriptions of property.
e propose to preserve the same scale of consanguinity as
heretofore in measuring the amount of duty, with one
exception. At present sons-in-law and daughters-in-law
are treated as strangers, and pay the duty of 10
Per cent. We propose to place them in the con-
dition of sons and daughters. I know there is great
difference of opinion on this subject, but, on the
as the scale of consanguinity has existed so
long, we are of opinion that it will he better to preserve
the scale which now exists, with that exception. We are
9f opinion that in applying the succession duty to land, it
!!3 desirable to do so with as much consideration, and as
lightly as can reasonably be required. We have, there-
fore, proposed to estimate all successions to land according
,o the life interest of the person succeeding. There are
various
mocks of estimating that life interest, but it will
0 estimated only upon the life interest ; and where the
Interest is even less than a life interest, if a less interest
exists, the person so succeeding will pay upon that, what-
everZ the amount of his interest may be. We propose, as
as proposed by Mr. Pitt, to make the succession duty
vaYable in eight half-yearly payments ; the first will only
culuesence at the end of the first year, so that a space of
ficli and a half years-will be afforded for the discharge of the
duty
l-- That appears to be as lenient an application of the
yZlPosition of the tax as can reasonably be expected. To
ew you the operation of the present bill, let us take the
Sze of a person who succeeds to a landed estate of the
3.fue of 10,0001. This value of 10.000/. gives a rental of
oui- a-year. We will take the average age of succession at
Years, which I believe is a fair estimate, and is borne
a,4 by what has been ascertained by takine the averaee
tetof successions of members of this house, which is found
35 years. Well, the succession of 35 years of age
ocall give 15A years' purchase, and the sum, therefore,
t: which the duty is charged is somewhat less than half
tqe,,capital value, that is, 4,6501. The person succeeding
b. the estate will be charged on that sum. The duty will
- Payable iu four years and a half, and the sum which
Ilwoulcl represent his life interest would be 461. 10s. If
ought fit to make immediate payment, he would
bee
allowed a discount of 4/. 135., and, consequently, the
Whole amount of duty payable for the estate in ques-
tion Would be 41. 17s. The produce of the tax is esti-
mated at 2.000,0001. sterling. I know it is supposed by
eeliie that the amount will be higher, and I think that
"ue noble earl opposite (Derby) himself intimated such
tu opinion. I can only say that, accordin to all the
best calculations I have had access to, that does not gap-
pear to be the case. Allowing for some uncertainty in
calculations of this kind, I think that about 2,000,0001.
krunaY be fairly estimated as the produce of the tax. I
that it has been said, both in this house and elsewhere,
t this measure has been conceived in a spirit of hos-
tility to land. My lords, I utterly deny that such is the
er.ase• We have endeavoured to do the best we could in the
financial measures adopted by us, and, having imposed
,burdens from which the land is exempt, we have thought
'1 measure required by the claims of justice and expe-
diency, I never contended that it was any advantage to
the
theland to be placed on a different footing from the rest of
country. (Hear.) It has been said that the Govern-
mentto resolved to levy a tax of 2,000,0001. on the land,
manner irrespective of the nature of the tax itself, and the
in-
stead in which it might be levied. But, my lords, in-
ed of a duty of 2,000,0001. upon the land, every calcu-
Tetri.vn that can be made shows that the utmost that can be
.ed or expected to be derived strictly from the land,
the ,0001.—notil], one-fourth part of the amount of
That is, of course, exclusive of houses held upon
.reehold and 'leasehold tenure. The main object of this
lords and the principle upon which it proceeds
1') to extend to all successions that duty which is now
"17 confined to unsettled personal property. I do not
Propose , e go further into the provisions of the bill. But
sitaninadytihnenkne.obnle a
one
erl observation on the course which I under-
opposite (Derby) proposes to take ;
and I
make
this observation with the utmost respect for
privileges of this house. I can quite understand if
your lordships receive a bill from the other House of Par-
liament imposing a tax of an oppressive and unjust nature
--I can quite understand your lordships resisting such a
measure, and refusing to entertain it. But I do not un-
derstad how, having adopted the
principle
mtioeasunre, your lordships should enter uponthe oe
of n ss
tudc
ehr a a-
n of details, the practical consequence
lordships must be very well aware
-of which your
If this measure
be so unjust and so strongly to be resisted, I admit the
right of your lordships to reject themg
so
if
eiand I do not
quarrel with the expediency of doing
n!:, such as to require it. Ent, having assentedhe
temergieerineny
01P10 of the D2Oallitot to nun' questioaa ati4tot3o-thi;

timber should be taxed in one way or another, or whether
it shall be taxed at all—l think that, considering the prac-
tical consequences of such a proceeding, if successful, these
considerations are well worthy of your lordships' attention.
I only advert to this subject with the utmost respect and
deference, but I earnestly entreat your lordships to con-
sider what may be the practical result of a course of this
kind. I can only say that I have entire confidence in that
good sense and moderation that has always been exhibited
by this house upon such occasions. I believe that the course
intended, as I understand, to be pursued and to be recom-
mended to your lordships is such as has been very rarely
practised in this house. Without further observation, I will
now move the second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said, that although he certainly
thought the noble earl had exhibited all his wonted pru-
dence in abstaining from entering upon any discussion of
the principles and provisions of this bill, and in giving to
their lordships a very meagre sketch indeed of the purport
and intent of this bill, yet he could not think the noble
earl had exercised the same prudence in repeating what he
had so often adopted on former occasions—namely, the
tone of extreme self-laudation--he meant the laudation
of the noble earl's Government—upon the unparalleled
merit and the triumphant success of their financial policy.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the noble earl, to say the
least of it, had chosen a very singular time for claiming a
financial triumph, when he was introducing to their lord-
ships, as the basis of the financial proposals of the govern-
ment, a measure which the noble earl had hesitated to
characterise, but which he (the Earl of Derby) should
take the liberty of describing to their lordships. Ho
confessed he entirely joined with the noble earl in the
high estimate which he had expressed of the consum-
mate ability displayed in the course of the present ses-
sion by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, upon whom almost the whole burden of con-
ducting the business of the other house had fallen, and
'who certainly had with great skill and dexterity induced
that House to assent to his financial proposals. (Hear.)
But when the noble earl claimed credit for the wonderful
success of the right hon. gentleman's financial operations,
he must permit him to remind him that the scheme of the
right hon. gentleman consisted of two propositions—one,
the attempted conversion of the Three per Cents., which
was admitted by the noble earl opposite, and certainly by
every one else—although, in the first instance, a triumph-
ant success had been claimed for that also,—yet it was now
admitted to be a signal and melancholy failure—(hear,
hear)—and the other portion of the financial scheme of the
Government was the budget, of which, as he had said be-
fore, this bill was the corner stone and foundation, and
without which it would be impossible to carry it into
effect. Indeed, the grounds upon which the noble earl had
defended this measure, so far as he had defended it, were
the inability of the Government otherwise to carry into
effect the remission of taxation upon the springs of in-
dustry, and the desire to compensate for the inequalities
of the income tax ; and, in the next place, to redress the
manifest injustice which the noble earl considered to exist
in the scale of taxation upon real as compared with per-
sonal property. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in carrying into effect the remission of taxation, was un-
doubtedly obliged to rely in a great measure upon the funds
which he would derive from this bill. He certainly felt
for the difficulty of the position in which the right hon.
gentleman and the Government were placed, when, shortly
before the right hon. gentleman assumed office, he laid it
down as an axiom that no Chancellor of the Exchequer was
worthy of his place who did not provide a permanent sur-
plus of 600,0001., and when, at the present moment, as
the result of the triumphant financial scheme of the Go-
vernment, the right hon. gentleman ventured to hold out
to the House of Commons a possible surplus of 100,0001.
if their lordships gave him the 2,000,0001. to be
derived from this tax. If their. ordships tried this bill by
its merits—by its justice, its policy, its practicability, and
its expediency—they would be also trying the merits of the
financial policy of the Government. And if the present
bill were, as he believed it to be, essentially unjust, oppres-
sive, and impracticable,—if it altered the whole character
of the property of this country,—if, retrospectively, it im-
posed obnoxious and heavy burdens upon all former settle-
ments,—then, whatever pecuniary advantages were to be
derived by the other classes of the community from remis-
sions purchased by adopting a system so unjust and oppres-
sive, he for one did not envy the Government that proposed
this measure, with all its injustice and oppression, and
then claimed credit for having relieved other classes from
taxation by the instrumentality of such a measure. With
regard to the diminution of the inequality of the existing
income tax, no alteration whatever had been made. He
confessed he was at a loss to understand the meaning of the
noble earl ; but he presumed his moaning was, that by im-
posing additional burdens on real property their lordships
would compensate, to a certain extent, for an undue
amount of pressure of income tax upon income arising
from realised landed and personal property. The noble earl
went on to make the assertion, and a bold one it was, that '
the introduction of this measure was imperatively de-
manded by a sense of justice, looking to the favour which
had been shown in the taxation of the country, to the
lauded interest, and to realised property in comparison with
personal property. The noble earl said that an exemption
of real property from succession duty was a grievance and
an evil so crying and oppressive, that the only wonder
was it had been tolerated so long, and that in a short
period it would have been found intolerable. The
noble earl sail that Mr. Pitt had endeavoured to
impose a succession duty, but had failed, and that from
that time to the present• no minister had been found who
had ventured to avow an intention of dealing with this
subject. At length, then, Parliament had found a worthy
successor of Mr. Pitt, a phoenix Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, in whom Mr. Pitt rose from his ashes with redoubled
lustre, and who had ventured to attempt what Mr. Pitt
had failed in effecting, and which every Minister from Mr.
Pitt's ti me to the present had shrunk from attempting.
Now, he left it to the house and to the country to judge
whether, there being such manifest advantages in the
amount thet might be derived from such a tax, if such a
measure had been founded on justice and capable of prac-
tical execution, some other Minister besides Mr. Pitt would
not have ventured to avail himself of such a resource, and
whether such an attempt as the right hon. gentleman had
made did not rather indicate rashness than any marvellous
skill in making such a new proposal to the house. But
let their lordships see how the bill would operate upon
land and upon realized property. He begged noble lords
to bear in mind that he was not talking of the distinction
now introduced as between land and other property, but
of two distinctions which must be borne in mind, both of
which this bill proposed to deal with—the first, the dis-
tinction between real and personal property, real property
including not only land but many other things ; and that
further distinction which it was, for the first time sought
to abrogate and abolish—the distinction between property
devised and property in settlement. The noble earl said,
in pointing out the distinction between real and personal
preperty, that real property was exempted from the ope-
ration of the legacy duty, while personal property was
subject to it. But there were no charges to which real
property was subject in this country from which personal
property was entirely exempted ? And, if the noble earl
was bent on equalising the burdens upon real and per-
sonal property, would he assent to subject personal pro-
perty to an equivalent, or to anything like an equi-
valent to the burdens to which real property was
subjected under the existing law, and which, he
would assure their lordships, far snore than counter-
balanced the advantage, such as it was, of being
exempted from legacy duty ? Take only the poor-rates
and the county-rates. The total amount of real property
which contributed to the poor-rates was 67,000,0001.
a-year, or thereabouts ; the charge upon that property
being about 6,000,0001., amounting to something like is.
101 in the pound per annum. (Hear, hear.) That was
the amount which was borne by real property in this
oountry, and from which personal property was altogether
exempt. (Hear, hear.) Now, he did not say that there
might not be very good reasons for exempting personal
property from those taxes in consequence of the difficulties
of collection, and, perhaps, the impracticability of localising
that personal property so as to render it liable to the im-
post. The total amount of property rated to the income-
tax was 230,000,0001. a-year, from which, if you took the
67,000,0001. which paid to the poor-rates, it left a sum of
163,000,0001. of personal property which did not contribute
one single shilling to that charge for the poor, which he
thought their lordships would admit to be a chars() which
ought justly to fall upon all property alike, but which did
practically fall upon less than one-third of the whole pro-
perty of the country, subjecting it to a tax of not less than
ls. 10d. in the pound, from which the other two-thirds of
the property of the country were exempt. (Hear, hear.)
Now, a tax of only one-half this amount upon personal
property—a tax by way of commutation for poor-rates of
only one-half the amount of that which fell now upon
real property—would produce, at 11d. in the pound, no
less than 7,500,000/. ; and so, if personal property paid
its due share of taxation—if it paid, not its due share in-
deed, but only one-half of the amount to which real pro-
perty was subjected in respect to these charges, it would
furnish us with a sum of 7,500,0001. a-year, a sum amply
sufficient, and more than sufficient, to enable us to dispense
altogether with the succession duty, to do away with the
legacy duty, to do away with the probate duty, and place
a very considerable surplus in the national Exchequer.
Now he was not proposing the imposition of such a
tax, but when they came to argue this question as
a matter of justice, and as a proper balance of taxation
between class and class, then he thought he was entitled
to show their lordships what was the operation of the
taxes to which he had alluded, and to show how that single
charge upon real property infinitely counterbalanced the
exemptions which it was declared to enjoy. (Hear.) It
was quite certain that a legacy duty or a succession duty
was only a property tax in another form. It was a pro-
perty tax, and a property tax of the most obnoxious and
objectionable character, far more objectionable than would
be an annual levy to the same amount upon property
which, as ho had shown, already stood alone in paying
ls. 10d. in the pound for the relief of the poor. (Cheers.)
It was said that personal property paid under the legacy
duty I.s. in the pound ; but if strict justice were to be in-
sisted upon, those who made not the slightest objection to
the exclusive payment by real property of ls. 10d. in the
pound might be fairly called upon to show•why they should
not have to make a similar contribution to the public
burdens ; and if they were exempted from the payment of
ls. 10d. in the pound borne by real property, why were
they to complain of the exemption of property so exclu-
sively burdened from the comparatively light charges under
the law as it at present stood? (Hear.) The noble earl
had told their lordships what he (the Earl of Derby) fully
admitted—that the legacy duty was in itself a most ob-
noxious impost. Be it so ; but what was the noble earl
going
considered
ienmtohvee teha es
ti. m
Hp oes twwahs whichgoing
nhge
l so oVbnaosxhiouegso?in
to leave all the pressure and hardship of the legacy duty as
it stood ; but the noble earl thought those upon whom it
bore might be reconciled to this obnoxious tax if they
could only see the same measures of oppression and vexa-
tion thrown upon the owners of real property. (Hear.)
Now, that was not a very amiable view of human nature.
(Hear, and laughter.) It might be very true that that was
the way in which men were sometimes disposed to act to-
wards their neighbours ; but he thought he had shown
that in this case those neighbours were already burdened
by special taxes and special enactments, and were subjected
to much greater pressure than the persons who declared
them to be peculiarly exempt from national burdens.
(Hear, hear.) He repeated that a legacy duty was a most
objectionable tax, but it was peculiarly objectionable when
applied to landed property. In the case of personalty the
legatee was enabled to devote at once a portion of the pro-
perty to the payment of the tax; he was subjected to no
inconvenience in doing so, and the remainder was clear
gain to him. But apply the tax to land which had passed
by devise, The land was not capable of being so subdivided,

and the man to whom it was left was not in the same posi-
tion as the man who received merely the price of 20 or 30
acres of land. The suceessor to landed estate could not cut
off an acre or an acre and a half and sell it for the purpose
of paying the tax, but he was compelled to incur a debt in
the first instance, which frequently became one of the most
onerous character, and which he might not have the means
of paying for some time ; and when, therefore, Govern-
ment stepped in and called upon him to raise a heavy sum
of money upon his succession, it was to such a man a great
and serious hardship. (Hear, hear.) What had their lord-
ships been hearing for the last four or five years ? What
had been continually dinned into their ears by noble lords
opposite but that, of all taxes, of all abominations, of all
impediments to improvement, of all grievances as connected
with land, the payment of a fine by a copyholder was the
most oppressive, the most grievous, the most subversive of
all possibility of improvement, and one which could not
endure the light for a single moment ; and Parliament
hail, therefore, been asked to pass compulsory enfranchise-
ment bills for the relief of the copyholder. What was the
Government going to do by the bill now before their lord-
ships ? They were going to make all the land in the country
copyhold. (Loud cheers.) That which they would not
tolerate, that which they declared was a grievous burden,
offering sei ions impediments in the way o improvement,
and which they decided was an outrage upon the feelings
of natural grief at the moment of death, when it existed
in a few cases of copyholders—that which they insisted on
getting rid of in those private cases—they were now about
to adopt with regard to all the land in the country.
(Cheers.) They were placing every fee simple in the coun-
try at the power of the Crown as copyhold estate—(hear)—
they were reviving a system which did exist in ages very
remote, but which had been found then to be so intoler-
able, so inconsistent with all the principles of the English
system of land tenure, that since the time of Charles 11.
down to the present day there had been no attempt to re-
impose that system. (Cheers.) He hail endeavoured to
show thus far, not that the Government were relieving
personal property from any vexatious impost, but that they
were subjecting landed and real property to a similar or
even to a much greater amount of vexation, and to a pro-
cess wholly repugnant to the principles for which they had
been contending for the last few years with regard to the
holding of land. (Hear.) He now came to a point which
was more important still—namely, the distinction between
devised and settled property. (Hear, hear.) Apart from
the peculiar circumstances affecting the land, he could not
draw a broad distinction between the case of land and pro-
perty devised. But what was the case with regard to land
in settlement? The whole of the bill, as far as related to
land in settlement, was a retrospective enactment of the
grossest character—(hear, hear)—imposing a tax not upon
that which a person had to inherit, but upon that which
by law, by deed, by every solemnity which could be at-
tached to it, was at this moment, and had been for per-
haps 20 years, the property of the individual whom they
were now about for the first time to tax. The bill was to
touch all the settlements of property, real and personal,
throughout the whole country, and upon which the for-
tunes and the position of every family in England depended,
for the miserable purpose of raising a sum, as the noble
earl stated, at first of 400,0001. a-year, and ultimately of
2,000,0001. of money, for the purpose of getting rid of the
soap duty and diminishing the tea duties; though both, he
admitted, were very good things in their way. The finan-
cial triumph of the present Administration was a measure
which upset every family arrangement, every deed and
every settlement throughout the length and breadth of
the land. (Hear, hear.) As far as the injustice of the case
was concerned, settled personalty stood precisely upon the
same footing as settled realty ; and the justice of the bill
was, that they were, by ex post facto legislation, upsetting
all the foundations of property settled throughout this
country. He protested against being supposed, by not
asking their lordships to divide against the second reading
of this bill, to assent in the slightest degree to the prin-
ciple of the measure. What was the second clause of the
bill ? It enacted that—

" Every past or future disposition of property, by reason
whereof auy person has or shall become beneficially entitled
to any property, or the income thereof, upon the death of
any person dying after the time appointed for the commence-
ment of this act, either immediately or after any interval,
either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by
way of substitutive limitation, and every devolution by law
of any beneficial interest in property, or the ineome thereof,
upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed
for the commencement of this act, to any other person, in
possession or expectancy, shall be deemed to have conferred,
or to confer, on the person entitled by reason of any such
disposition or devolution, a ' succession.' "

That was to say, that every person who, by any deed
passed twenty years ago, had become absolutely entitled
in reversion to the property which had been made the sub-
ject of family settlement, which might have been given as
security for money borrowed, or might have been disposed
of by law in the open market, with the full certainty that
the law gave him an indefeasible right to that propeaty—
every such person came under the operation of this law,
and the moment he entered into the possession of his own,
the Government stepped in and deprived him, not of pro-
perty which he then acquired for the first time, but of
that which was his before the death of his predecessor.
Well, then, look at the third clause, which enacted that—
" Where any persons shall, at or after the time appointed
for the commencement of this act, have any property vested
in them jointly by any title not conferring on them a suc-
cession, any beneficial interest in such property accruing to
any of them by survivorship shall be deemed to be a succes-
sion."

He would take the case of two or three elderly maiden
ladies who upon the death of their father agreed to put to-
gether such means as they had, and to reside together for
the remainder of their lives. Suppose them each to have
a life annunity, and that, combining together, they were
enabled by the joint proceeds of those annuities to obtain
a decent livelihood. Suppose those three ladies also, for
the purpose of having some common home in which to pass
the remainder of their existence, had purchased a house or
cottage, which was held in fee simple among the three
ladies, with the benefit of survivorships. That was not
at all an improbable case. What happened ? The first of
the sisters died, her annuity dropped, and the two remain-
ing sisters lost, of course, the benefit of one-third of their
former income. Their difficulties were therefore consider-
ably increased ; but they had the benefit of survivorship,
and, at the moment when they had lost the advantage of
their sister's income to maintain the joint establishment,
in stepped the Government, represented by the tax-
gatherer, who claimed from them a tax upon the benefit of
survivorship, in the right of their house and garden. The
second sister died, and the last was left, perhaps at the
age of 70 or 80, the sole representative of the family, living
iu 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 241
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. He 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 50,0001, 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
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 Lim 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 him 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,
be 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 vet when be died his executors might
be at a kiss to knov;, 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 bank-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-
(tleennttiloynpteorctehievenlottatin, andihceb
tbielegyge(plrotphoesierdlotrodslmiiie)es't aitt:
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 run 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
I 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 repealed, and of not having to pay
back the duty which be 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 the 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 some 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 true account of the property, for
the duty whereon they shall respectively be accountable, awl
of the value thereof, and of the deductions claimed by them,
together with the names of the successor and predecessor, and
their 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 persons 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 501., 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 rto
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 he 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 done 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
purpose between the commissioner and the successor, before
the first payment of duty on the succession shall have become
due."

Now he 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 he years before any profit
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 id. 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 clap-trap 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 r 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'Culloch, 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 tune 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 theft eat owners of property,
but he did not hesitate to say, e 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
permanent system under which the financial affairs of this
was measurelaid whichdown
emmi gphhta
tbi
eeatoleratedtold
the
pf orre
aa short pm hloer
as ehreiiondg, bt
hu
et
administered.n l d
not
bear Now,
tt ht
eo
akri thehe nobleo;
nay, more—that
e
from swbeinl
would
being p
sie)erbme
faenreen
itt,
earle
countryv en tilifatthwetehnr°o3btcloeo country
trir Ysl countrysucceededwo ought u
ignh
pt
as notsntgo bear ei an r it ts ;and
present h e
eriod
swhaasp satisfiede,n n very
t h
lengthened
toh
eflnue-
oe sd
w idemandth property, of a 11
exceptclasses
int be
reonureneyptere country InNevdthl
harvest from the litigation which would arise from
would derive a very richt
And now one word as to the course he would take. The
noble earl had said he could understand the course. of
not see how they could
second reaffirm- ; but that he could
•of
who
iliveteihrteco
rUcsol:nawnnhei icent
reading and to the principle
assent to the second !louse to deal with the de-
tailsthe measure, and then ask the
the object in view. Now,
ob-
jecting to the principle of the bill, and rejecting it on the
acfainst being held in the
in the first place, he protested
dto the • iple of the
assented principle
slightest degree to have a
in such' a way as to defeat
bill, and, if he abstained from taking the sense of the
reading and contented himself with
saying " not content," he would take that course, not in
'
house on the second

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 as)erson 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 rever-
sionary interest. But how were they to distinguish be-
tween the case of those who had done so from extravagance
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-
sing money, it was not done for purposes which
the house would wish to encourage by exempting them
from the tax. Another objection of the noble earl's ap-
plied equally to the income tax, as in the case of termi-
nable annuities purchased before the tax was imposed ; and
yet the noble lord was himself a party to the imposition of
the income tax on that species of property. The objection
as to the production of papers and documents was the
greatest bugbear of all. Their lordships had lately passed
a bill for the registration of all deeds, and the principle
had repeatedly received their sanction. In Scotland every
entail was accessible to any man at the registration office
for a shilling ; and at that moment, under the operation of
the probate duties, every document which noble lords
were so afraid of having seen, might be called for by the
commissioners of inland revenue. The noble earl had
referred to cases of hardship from parties being compelled
to pay the 10 per cent. duty, but this part of the bill
would operate in favour of real property. Where several
brothers succeeded one another the succession would be
reckoned as taking place not from the immediate prede-
cessor, but from the father, and they would, therefore,
only be liable to a duty of 1 per cent. In the case of a
family of brothers affected by consumption, a rapid series
of successions might take place in a few years • but they
would only pay as taking from the father, not each
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 mostufavour-
able to real property. How could they give a definition of
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 must adopt
the term " necessary outgoings," and leave it ,to the com-
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 transacted in a
"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
pictures, 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 down 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
one
pledge. Parliament to abandon the income tax at Ateirrhich
period, yet they provided a tax by means of this bill
ha=coosd
On coming into office, the present Government
pl
the income tax in a very awkward position ; and a P
-most unitust,
had been made by the noble earl, which was
rt
av-
would enable Parliament to do so if they were disposed.
to throw a large additional burden on real pro pe 7
prevented
differential duty., how could the noble lord
Government
its being carried further? When the present ciple of a
came into power they found it necessary
iris attempted to establish that dangetsoh
d for a substitute, they
income tax, and on looking. rent!
anto
extend the legacy
Pdrinveeal with the
could find none more eligible
For years there had
duty to successions to real property
Exchequer,
that re-
sisted by differen
• t Chancellors of the Exchequer. Mr. Pitt
•originally proposed to include real property in his bill
had
the result of its omission was that while
of 1805 ; and
subject to the tax, the heir escaped.
younger sons were
been annual motions
(Hear, hear.) After theintheflarvCouhinocelaltio—lhofa tax,
Ewlachide
distinct declaration f othe late
Government, through
that the legacy duties were a system of injustice, the
t Government could see no course more con-
sistentpresenh •position, and with
with t right and jus-
tice, than to extend the tax on successions to all pro-
perty. It had been correctly stated that there had not
been a single petition against it. He looked forward to, a
continuance of that system of remission of indirect taxes
which had been productive of such signal benefits to the
country. He 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 MALMESBURY said that as comparisons
were always odious, he would not compare the two budgets,
but would confine himself to the question before the 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