(A laugh.)

this tax. And let their Lordships observe, that this tax was not necessary in order to provide for a deficit. ("Hear, hear!") The Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to make a deficiency in order to provide for it by means of this tax. ("Hear, hear!") He expressed his strong conviction that it was one of the most improper measures ever passed. It was a measure of positive confiscation, He instanced the injustice of its operation as regards existing settlements both of real and personal estate. No such tax, he said, had ever been imposed on this country, That was the point, and let its advocates defend it as one which ought to be imposed at this moment without any existing necessity. He then proceeded to the question of how the tax was to be raised, and its machinery. He declared its odiousness necessarily arose from the mode of collecting it. Whenever death occurred, the tax-gatherer would come in, and every man's settlement would be inspected by a public officer in a public office. Every incumbrance upon every man's property would be ascertained, and the rights of property and privacy would be alike invaded. He concluded by observing that he thought the Government right in imposing a moderate propertytax upon Irelaud, but did not think she was in a condition to bear the succession-tax also.

The Lord Chancellor felt it incumbent upon him to reply to Lord St. Leonards, who, with all the weight of his high authority, had denounced the measure impolitic, and grossly unjust; with reference to the proposed Committee, he maintained their Lordships needed no further infor

mation on the subject. This was proved by the fact, that every Peer who had spoken in the debate had manifestly mastered the subject, and was already furnishsd with all the knowledge requisite for dealing with it. He then proceeded to show that the measure was not only just, but practical. An absolute equality in taxation was not to be achieved, and in this sense not merely the Incometax, but no tax whatever on articles of consumption or otherwise could be said to be just. The point was to approach as near to perfect justice as was practical, which point, as to a property-tax, were to be accomplished by imposing the tax as equally as pos- " sible upon all descriptions of property, real or personal. To exempt property coming by settlement-settlements being arrangements limited to the richer classes, would, as a matter of natural course, appear to the general public an unjust exemption of the richer classes to the detriment of the poorer.

Earl Fitzwilliam expressed his surprise that he had heard no arguments from the ministers to show that the same amount of revenue could not be collected regularly and equally upon property which was attempted to be collected suddenly by fits and starts, and by a system which operated upon persons just at that period when it was, perhaps, most difficult for them to find the means of complying with the requirements of the tax-gatherer. He deprecated any conflict with the other House of Parliament, and therefore he thought the Earl of Malmesbury had selected well both the time and mode of making this motion, and that their Lordships

and the other House of Parliament, and the country at large, were deeply indebted to the noble Earl for having proposed that an inquiry should be instituted.

The Duke of Argyll thought he was justified in saying that the objection entertained by the great majority of noble Lords opposite to this measure was that it affected unjustly the landed interest; but he held it was utterly impossible for that House to judge fairly of the effect of this measure, as regarded the landed interest, until the whole of it, in connection with all the other financial measures which formed the Budget was before their Lordships. He wished to put before the House that the proposal of the present Government in reference to the legacy duties was the key-stone of the whole of their financial policy, and would enable the country to get rid of the income-tax; and he maintained that the incidence of the legacy duty on land would be lighter than that of the differential Income-tax proposed by the late Government, if considered as a permanent tax; in addition to which, he repeated, a change in the legacy duties had been distinctly intimated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On a division, the numbers were, for the motion, 126; against it,

138.

Upon the 22nd of July the Bill itself came before the House, when the Earl of Aberdeen moved the second reading; briefly expounding the principle of the measure, describing it as a remedy for an injustice which had been gradually becoming intolerable, and with which no Minister since Mr. Pitt had attempted to grapple, except Mr. Gladstone, who had worthily

accomplished his task. He also pointed out that not one petition in the House of Commons, and only one in the House of Lords, had been presented against the measure. He urged the House to consider the practical consequences that would follow a successful mutilation of the Bill.

The Earl of Derby made a hostile speech. He began with a passage of irony at the expense of Mr. Gladstone's conversion Bill, styling him "a phoenix of the Exchequer, in whom Mr. Pitt rose from his ashes with redoubled lustre." He criticised the details of the scheme. He declared that the country would not long endure this Bill, but would unanimously demand its repeal. Repeatedly he protested that by not dividing the House at the present stage ho gave no assent to the principle of the Bill. The House of Lords had better abandon its functions, if it bowed to every injustice it pleased the House of Commons to inflict; and some of the grosser injustices he should try to mitigate in Committee.

The Duke of Argyll defended Mr. Gladstone, and refuted the criticisms of Lord Derby.

The Earl of Malmesbury attacked the Bill with much bitterness. He described it as absurd and cowardly, a revival of the old tax in capite brought in by the Normans; grossly unjust and unfair.

Earl Granville supported the Bill, and remarked that Lord Malmesbury had surpassed Lord Derby in epithets; he had introduced a new style!

Lord St. Leonards and the Earl of Harrowby spoke in opposition; and the Earl of Derby said he should move amendments to make

the Bill prospective, and to limit its operation to five years. The Bill was then read a second time without a division.

On the 25th of July the House went into Committee upon the Bill, when Lord St. Leonards made a hostile speech. The reason why no petitions had been presented against the Bill was that it excited no individual opposition, it was no man's business to oppose it. Besides, the generality of mankind could not understand it. The Bill would require a very good attorney to explain its provisions and, if it should pass, no man could live without an attorney at his elbow. From his heart, and with the firmest belief, he declared that every Peer then present would deplore the Bill when it should become law. He did not know why it had been introduced. Had there been any necessity for it he would have been the last man to object, but where was the necessity? He then put some cases of great hard ship which might arise under the operation of the Bill. For instance, there were many cases in which persons had anticipated their successions to such an extent as to have almost entirely squandered them; and in such cases the Government stepped in, because a man had been a spendthrift, and ruined him altogether. A person, knowing that he was to succeed to property, might anticipate and spend nine-tenths of its value; and, when the remaining tenth would enable him to make a fair start in life, this new tax to be imposed would entirely swallow it up. As far as the right to spend in anticipation went, a perfect right to do so undoubtedly existed. Another case he mentioned was that

of a tradesman, who, on the marriage of his daughter, made a settlement on her husband, with reversion to his widow in case of his death. Upon the death of the husband, the noble Earl steps in and takes a succession duty from the unhappy young widowa part of the capital of the fund from the daughter of the living man; while the man who has accumulated the property sees it dwindle away under the grasp of the taxgatherer."

He appealed to the Bishops, and asked them whether they would be parties to place this measure, with all its obnoxious regulations, upon their fellow-subjects, while they themselves are excluded from its operation. "Their support of the Bill under such circumstances may be considered an act of gratitude to the Government; but I hope and trust that they will not, by their votes, help to place upon other men's shoulders a burden which has not been imposed upon them."

The Lord Chancellor said that there was so much gross exaggeration with regard to the supposed operation of the Bill, that he felt called upon to make a few remarks before the House went into Committee.

It was said that there was nothing to show that the tax was popular; and also that there was nothing to show that it was unpopular. What more could be said of any tax? Popularity for a tax was out of the question; the most that could be expected was that it should not be unpopular. He believed the real objection felt by Lord St. Leonards and others was, that they thought the measure was understood throughout the country. "It is felt that this

is an attempt to tax the extensive properties of landed proprietors so as to equalise the national burdens." It might not be creditable, but it was natural, that those persons subject to the legacy duties should wish to extend the tax also to real estate. As to enormous hardship, made out by taking extreme cases, that could be said of every tax. Justice in a tax was impracticable; and all that could be done was to devise the best machinery to meet existing diffi culties and remove objections. Lord Cranworth put cases to show that the payment of the duty would not be onerous either on large or small successions; as it would be spread over eight half-yearly instalments, which, on an estate worth 1000l. a year, would amount to 150, or 371. 10s. per annum for four years. The Bill was in unison with the spirit of universal justice; it had been universally approved by the country, and passed by large majorities else where; and he trusted their Lordships would not incur the dangerous responsibility of resisting it.

The Earl of Winchilsea pronounced the Bill "one of the most obnoxious, detestable, and odious measures that ever had been placed on the statute book." These were indeed strange times, when the proud barons of England submitted to such measures. The Government was in the hands of harpies, and they were going to perpetuate all the worst features of the legacy duty, and place the landed interest in the same hands for four years. Had he known when the second reading came on he should have divided against it, even if he had stood alone; and

his name, at all events, should have gone down to posterity as one who resisted the Bill to the last.

The House having gone into Committee on clause 2, by which "past or future disposition of property," in certain cases, is construed as a succession, and the words "successor and predecessor" are defined, the Earl of Derby moved his threatened amendment to omit the words which make the Bill retrospective. He first vindicated the right of the House of Lords to alter a money Bill; and he instanced a case in point, where a money Bill had been amended by the House of Lords and sent down to the other House, then thrown out, reintroduced with the same text as the amended Bill, and then agreed to; and he pointed out an inconsistency of Lord Cranworth, in saying that the Bill was not popular, yet that it was universally approved, and that it was understood to be an assault upon the large landed proprietors. Now he had too much respect for the sense of justice of his countrymen to believe that an attack upon the landed interest would recommend a tax to them. The Bill would tell upon the middle class, not upon the class that Government wished to lean heavily on. He argued that the Bill did not place real and personal property on the same footing; for real property was already heavily burdened; and, putting "cases" of hardship, he endeavoured to show how monstrous, vexatious, and unjust the operation of the Bill would be; affecting all family settlements made years ago, in which there had been many subsequent transactions-estates mortgaged, money

borrowed, and subsequent settlements made. His amendment would not correct the abstract impolicy and injustice of the Bill, but it would considerably mitigate those insuperable objections he felt to the Bill in its present form, as inflicting the grossest injustice upon innocent parties.

The Earl of Aberdeen was still unable to understand the course of Lord Derby; who had truly said that the Bill was the cornerstone and foundation of the financial system of the year, and assigned his desire not to destroy that system as a reason for not opposing the second reading, but who now came down with an amendment which would destroy the whole edifice-with what sincerity and tenderness for the preservation of the corner-stone, Lord Aberdeen would leave the House to judge.

If the amendment were carried, not one farthing of the tax as regarded settlements, would be paid within one generation. "That is what the noble Earl calls preserving the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system of the year!" He had also affected great tenderness for small proprietors: but settled estates are rare among the middle classes, who are at this moment liable to the legacy duty. The noble Earl (Winchilsea) who spoke early in the debate made a touching allusion to the "bold Barons;" and, judging from eppearances, some noble Lords seemed disposed to act on the principle which actuated the bold Barons of old-that of feudal exemption from burdens borne by the rest of the community. The object of the present measure was to extend to the "bold Barons

a system of taxation applicable to their fellow-subjects. Ii was in that sense only that the tax in question could be said to be popular.

Lord Aberdeen showed that no precedent existed for the course then proposed to be taken. Previous amendments effected in bills sent up from the other House had been agreed to, because they did not touch the produce of the tax; but the amendment was of a totally different character; and would destroy the intention, and cut off the produce of the tax. But, whatever the House of Commons might do, it was utterly impossible for the Government to think of acceding to the amend ment.

66

He was proceeding to describe how the late Government had adopted the principle of a tax on successions, when the Earl of Malmesbury cried, "No, no!" Lord Aberdeen, in support of his assertion, then quoted from the speech of Mr. Disraeli, as reported in Hansard, but Lord Derby called him to order, adding, I can save the noble Earl some trouble in referring to reports of what is said to have taken place in the other House of Parliament, by simply assuring him, upon my own knowledge, that no proposition nor scheme for imposing any succession-duty was at any time submitted to my consideration, or to the consideration, as far as I know, of any single member of the Cabinet of which I was the head."

Lord Aberdeen retorted, that Lord Derby himself had not been strictly in order, and he proceeded to read from speeches delivered by Mr. Disraeli on the 3rd and