SUCCESSION DUTY BILL. (Hansard, 16 June 1853)

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
moved that the House should re- 307 Solve itself into Committee on the above Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, before Mr. Speaker left the chair, he wished to make an appeal to the Government. He desired to put aside everything in the shape of accusation that the Bill was the result of a compact made with any portion of the supporters of the Government, few or many, as a means of securing to the very unpopular project of the income tax, support it would not have otherwise received, as the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had stated; and he would endeavour to persuade himself, against his own convictions, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Government believed the burdens of taxation were not fairly borne by rateable property; that it was necessary, in their opinion, to equalise the proportions of taxation borne by different portions of the community; that the land was not sufficiently taxed; and that it was necessary, on the grounds of justice, that additional taxation should be imposed on it. But he entreated them to pause before they proceeded further, as it was quite clear to him that if landed property were to be subjected to all the provisions of the Bill, it would be most disastrous to it. He had listened with pain to the arguments which had been Urged by Government in reply to the able statements of that side of the House the other night. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, said that certain spiritual persons in another place had approved of the Bill, and perhaps they might not object to the mediaeval predilections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for benefit of clergy; but he could not join in their approbation. After ah extensive experience with rateable property from an early age on his own account, and as trustee and guardian for others, all he could say was, the result of his experience led him to believe that, bad as the legacy duty was—pressing as it did generally with great severity, and being a cruel and most ungenerous mode of levying taxation—its pressure would be much exaggerated if legal aid was necessary to make proper arrangements on the part of executors. If they passed that elaborate Bill, with all those extraordinary provisions, they would inflict on rateable property a degree of expense, inconvenience, and tyranny, which had never existed under any tax in this country. He would suggest, therefore, that the Government should postpone the Committee, and 308 reconsider the Bill, with the view of adopting other means of raising the amount of taxation required, without the tyranny attendant upon the details of this measure. The plan which he should throw out for their adoption was not, he admitted, original; but it appeared to him the best that could be substituted for the Bill. He was ready to bow down his back to the burden, but he entreated the House not to inflict it in the manner proposed. The proposition he would make was not at all unreasonable, nor made in any inimical spirit. The more he looked at the tax, the more it seemed to him to have the operation of a postponed land tax and a postponed property tax. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed to deal with property Vested in corporations aggregate in one way; and he now wished the right hon. Gentleman to deal with all rateable property in the country in the same manner. He proposed they should be taxed by a permanent property tax of 3d. in the pound during the term of the income tax, and of 6d. after the income tax had ceased in 1860. He was ready, and so he believed were others on that side of the House, to accept that composition for the proposed tax on successions; and he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to give it to them. He entreated him, for the sake of themselves—for the sake of the House—which must be detained to an extraordinary length by the consideration of these complicated clauses—and, above all, for the credit of the Legislature—that they might not have the odium and disgrace of inflicting on their posterity a tax which they had never borne themselves, and which certainly the great majority of them never could endure—to accept that proposition. It could be proved that this plan would be full compensation for the revenue to be derived from the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and the tax could be collected by the taxgatherer without all the complications and difficulty of collecting under the proposed Bill. It was perfectly incalculable what tyranny the tax would give rise to; nor could any one say what the amount of the revenue raised from it would be. He appealed, then, to the Government to postpone going into Committee for that night, and to take twenty-four hours to consider the matter, and see whether they could not tell the House that the proposition which had been found just as to one species of property could be applied to another with justice.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was very sorry that, in compliance with his absolute duty, he must entirely decline to discuss the principle and general bearing of the operation of the Bill; and this upon grounds of a very simple character. On Monday night the regular Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill was made; it was debated at considerable length, and the debate came to its natural termination. No Member proposed its adjournment, and Mr. Speaker left the chair. The House was then in Committee. The natural course for him to have taken then would have been to have moved that the Chairman report progress; and then Mr. Speaker would at once have left the chair to-day; but there were certain Amendments, very slight in comparison with the importance of the Bill, which the Government intended to move. It appeared to him, therefore, that it would be for the convenience of Members to have the Bill in their hands, in its exact state as it came from the Committee. He, therefore, rose in his place and said, if that was the view of the House, and they were prepared to go into Committee on Thursday, just as if progress had been reported on Monday night, he would move that it be committed pro forma, simply for the adoption of the Amendments. When he had thus spoken, there followed the silence which meant consent. He stated distinctly, if that were not the understanding, he would move that the Chairman report progress; but, as he had said, silence meant consent, he put his Amendments in the hands of the Chairman, and he had never before known a case in which there had been a slighter intimation of an intention to take advantage of the formal right which accrued to every Member to raise another genera) debate. He thought the hon. Baronet must not have heard what took place on Monday.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he had entered into no understanding upon the subject.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was not in his power to prevent any hon. Gentleman from availing himself of any constructions he might put upon his formal rights as a Member of that House; but it would be a clear breach of duty on his part if he were to become a party to departing from the understanding of Monday, which was laid down, not for the convenience of the Government, but for that of hon. Members.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
was under-stood to declare that he had been ignorant what course the Government meant to pursue, and that on the question that the preamble be postponed, he should have made the same appeal that he had done that evening.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he had no wish to take an unfair advantage of any understanding between the House and the Government, but, at the same time, he thought it might, without detriment to their own position, or their avowed objects, assent to the substantive proposal made by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Jolliffe). He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would follow the example of Mr. Pitt, and commute this proposed succession tax into a property tax of general application. If it was thought right that real property should hear more taxation than it was at present subject to, he asked that it should be levied in a manner the least onerous. An efficient tax upon real property was included under the income tax, and was in course of re-enactment with the advantages that assessors and collectors had gained experience and information, while the people had become habituated to it; and it had been proved that many of the gross abuses, and much of the inequality of the income tax, did disgrace the property tax under Schedule A. At present there was a tax at 9d. in the pound on rateable property, and he was willing to make it Is. until the present income and property tax should cease; and then he would reduce it by 3d., or make it 6d. in the pound, as the necessities of the State should dictate. After this proposition no one could say that the country party was shrinking from contributing their just share of taxation; but he would repeat, that if it were required to impose additional burdens upon real property, it was only consistent with justice that they should be levied in the manner the least onerous. In his opinion the operation of the proposed tax would be that it would compel many persons to mortgage or to sell their property. If the former, a man would be compelled to pay more than was right; two taxes, that for the stamp in addition to the succession tax itself; and if a man, to meet this tax, had to sell part of property to which he had succeeded, he would also have to pay more than his share of taxation, for lie likewise must pay the stamp tax in addition to the succession tax, while the rest of his property would be deteriorated. For these reasons he was 311 convinced that the tax proposed was calculated unnecessarily to injure those who succeeded to real property, and unjustly thereby to mulct particular persons, those especially who were in distress, for the benefit of the Exchequer; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the precedent afforded by Mr. Pitt, who, when the tax upon successions, which he proposed as a war tax, was virtually thrown out, substituted an increased land tax, which was, in fact, a tax on all real property. It would be sounder policy, and more for the public interest, if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were to adopt the precedent of that great statesman.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he had on Monday night appealed to the Government not to go into Committee that night, and had given notice of certain Amendments which it was his intention to move, and he should move them as soon as he had the opportunity. He would himself prefer a tax upon real property of 6d. in the pound, and believed that it would be a much fairer tax, and would produce a larger revenue.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained of the delay which had taken place in the progress of this Bill, but there was no one to thank for it but the right hon. Gentleman himself. The course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued was not only unusual, but it was the most extraordinary one he had ever known; for he had allowed a long debate on the principle of his Bill without condescending to take any notice of any single one of the objections which had been urged against the measure, and several of those objections he would challenge the Government to answer; and, without wishing to advert to those which had fallen from himself, he must say that he had never heard a speech which more required an answer than the one delivered by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) on a previous occasion; and he should have thought that those who had charge of the Bill would have considered it necessary to defend it from the objections which had been urged against it; and indeed, in his opinion, it was the duty of the Minister who proposed the Bill to reply to those objections.

§ MR. BUCK
said, he considered that, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-gate), the country party could not be ac- 312 cused of selfishness in resisting this measure. The objection which he entertained to the measure was on account of its inquisitorial nature, and he deprecated the extension of any new burden to the landed interest before the differences caused by recent legislation had been entirely healed. He believed that, when the Bill came into operation, its inquisitorial character would render it so distasteful to the country, that no Government would be able to carry it out.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know whether a foreigner, residing in this country, and succeeding to property abroad according to the law of that country, would be liable to the tax?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL,
in reply, said, that if the property were administered in England, he would be liable, but not otherwise.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to put this case: Supposing an Englishman possessed property in America, and was domiciled in America, and left it to his son, who was living in England, was it intended that that son should pay the succession duty?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the rule of law was, that a man's personal property was administered according to the law of the country in which he was domiciled. But if a man by his will gave a successive interest in his property to a person living in another country, then the property would be administered according to the law of the country in which the right vested, and would, of course, be subject to any tax existing in that country applicable to such property.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he did not ask about property which would vest in this country, but about property that was possessed in America.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he must repeat, that if a person died abroad, and his property was administered abroad, that property would not be subject to duty; but if the property of such person was brought to this country and then administered here, it would become subject to duty.

§ MR. DRUMMOND
said, he understood 313 that this succession tax was intended to be a part of a system for equalising taxation; so that no portion of landed property whatever was to be exempted from its operation. Now, the words of the first clause in defining "real property" were, "freehold, copyhold, customary leasehold, and other hereditaments, and heritable property." There was something after all excepted, namely,"honours"—a description of property which he saw no reason whatever for excluding from the operation of this Bill.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to know if leasehold property was to be taken out of the category of personal, and placed in that of real property; and, if so, would it pay the same amount of duty, and would it he exempted from probate duty?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the first clause comprehended both leaseholds for lives and leaseholds for years. Leaseholds for lives would henceforth be exempted from the operation of the legacy duty, but not from that of the probate duty.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he did not understand why money payable upon mortgages in Scotland was to be treated in a more favourable manner than money payable upon mortgages in England. This, however, would be the effect of the exemption from the duty of money secured by heritable bond in Scotland.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
said, he wished to point out that there was a peculiar class of property, called "customary freehold," which might, by mistake, have been overlooked in the framing of the Bill.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he wished to revert to the words in the clause which treated mortgages on heritable bonds in Scotland as real property, while mortgages in England were treated as personal property; he should move that the words which made that distinction be omitted from the Bill.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, that bonds on heritable property had always been considered in Scotland as real property. They not only descended exclusively to the heir, but they gave the party holding them a right in the land as much as the owner of the soil. If the Committee should now determine to consider these bonds as personal property, they would overturn the whole course of legal decisions in Scotland.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he would be bound by the hon. Gentleman's answer to this question, Did not the money secured 314 on heritable property form part of the lender's personal estate?

§ MR. DUNLOP
Certainly not.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, under those circumstances he would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he had no objection whatever to this tax, but he did object that they should have an Act of Parliament so incomplete in so many respects. This clause enacted that, "every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof any person had or should become entitled to any property upon the death of any person dying after the commencement of the Act," should be deemed to confer a "succession," and the term "successor" should denote the person so entitled. Now, mark how this would operate. Let them suppose that, ten years ago, a settlement of 20,000l. was made upon a daughter, to take effect after the death of the settler. The stamp duty on the deed would have been heavy; but, as the law now stood, the daughter would not be liable to legacy duty on the death of the father. By this Act, however, she would be liable' to pay duty on that 20,000l. on the death of her father; and, supposing her only to have a life interest in the 20,000l., and the property then went to her children, they would also be liable to the duty. Suppose, again, a man wished to settle 10,000l. upon his son, payable at his (the father's) death; but, in order to do so, he granted to another person an annuity of 400l. a year for his (the father's) life, on condition that that person paid the 10,000l. Well, as soon as the father died, by this law a. legacy duty would immediately attach to the 10,000l., thereby considerably diminishing its value. He would put a third case: suppose a person purchased the reversion of 20,000l. ten years ago. By the present law, on that reversioner coming into possession, no duty would be payable; but by the Bill now under consideration he would have to hand over 2,000l., he having, at the same time, made his purchase on the faith of the existing law. That would be the effect and the consequence of passing this retrospective Act. He objected to its retrospective operation because he considered the principle to be extremely vicious, and one which they had no right to establish. He therefore begged to move that the words "past or" should be struck 315 out. By doing so the retrospective operation of the Bill would be prevented.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the hon. Gentleman had stated the case with great fairness, and had raised a broad principle involved in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said they had no right, consistently with equitable considerations, to pass a retrospective piece of legislation. He would not quarrel with the term, as they all knew what was meant by it. The hon. Gentleman said that all settlements and other kinds of property now existing, all cases where a title to future property had been created, should be exempted from the operation of this Bill. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) adverted to this subject on a former night, but in doing so he totally misstated what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had declared as to the views of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that the only reason the Government had for not exempting existing settlements was, that they could not afford it. Now, the right hon. Baronet must have an exceedingly short memory; because he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated deliberately and distinctly other reasons irrespective of the pecuniary difficulty. He denied the title of these settlements to be exempted from the operation of this principle. It was true that the application of the principle to the case in hand would be an exceedingly inconvenient one; for it would exempt many properties from the operation of the Bill for more than two generations. But he did not admit the soundness of the principle itself. With respect to the instances which the hon. Member (Mr. Mullings) had cited, he would put out of view the case of the policy of insurances, because the Government was about to propose a measure with regard to insurances, which he apprehended would go far to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman himself. With regard to the case of reversionary interest, he would not enter into the amount of duty to be paid, because that was not the ground of the hon. Gentleman's opposition. The question raised was, whether it was fair in principle. The hon. Gentleman said that the party, on the faith of the existing law, made a purchase of a reversion, and that the tax now proposed might make the whole difference between that transaction being a profitable and an unprofitable one. Now, what he 316 (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said was, that that was the principle on which they proceeded in all measures of taxation. He did not hesitate to state that all the analogies of taxation were in favour of the course which the Government were now adopting. He would give the case of the Income Tax Act. What was its operation on a man who purchased the reversion of a long annuity, or a Government annuity for a shorter term? The Income Tax Act stepped in between him and his purchase, and levied upon the whole sum, perhaps turning a profitable into an unprofitable transaction. He could quote much stronger cases from the Income Tax Act than that; but he had quoted one quite strong enough for his purpose, and he thought the hon. Gentleman even would admit that it was a precedent. But it ought not to be supposed that that was a fair sample of the operation of this clause. It was an extreme case, and illustrated the severest possible operation of a Bill of this nature. What they ought to direct attention to was, the case of ordinary settlement, without the intervention of a purchase at all; and with respect to that he denied that there was the slightest prima facie title for exemption. The law never intended to confer exemption from a tax on succession upon settlements. The law intended only to confer the right of anticipating and fixing the succession of property for family purposes. He granted that it was perfectly true a vast mass of settlements had been made for the purpose of evading the tax on succession to personal property. In the case of real property there had been no occasion, but in the case of personal property the law had been taken advantage of to evade the legacy duty. Had that created any right in those who availed themselves of a law for a very different purpose to escape the Legacy Act? Certainly not. Then, if it were not the intention of the law to permit settlements to escape from legacy or succession duty, did they derive a special title because they paid certain duty on stamps? He said as distinctly there was no title on that ground, and for this plain reason: that, if they looked to the nature of the stamp on settlements, it was perfectly evident that it was the means by which the validity of the document was established, and was therefore to be compared, not to the legacy duty, but, to the duty levied on letters of administration or probate of wills. When he said that the stamp duty on settlements was a counter- 317 part of the probate, and not of the legacy or succession duty, did he bear hard upon settlements?—was the stamp duty much heavier in amount than the probate duty? The rates of duty payable on the settlement of land were much less, and bore no comparison to the amount of probate duty. If they went back to a former period, it would pass the ingenuity of any man to strike the average of the duty on settlement, it varied so capriciously; but at present it was 5s. per cent, whilst the rate of probate duty was from 1½ to 3 per cent. from six to twelve times the amount of duty on settlement. They must come, then, to the conclusion that this stamp on settlements was in its nature analogous to the probate duty, and that it was extremely favourable in its operation on real property. He must, upon these grounds decline to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member. It would cut deeply into the nature of the Bill. It would effectually cripple its operation for many years to come. But, even if it were not fatal to the Bill as a financial measure, there were many considerations upon which he should advise the Committee to reject it.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had very much overstated the number of settlements made to evade the probate duty. His experience had led him to know that the number of voluntary settlements made to evade the duty were very few indeed, and in the course of a not inconsiderable practice, he believed he had not been called upon to draw a deed of the kind more than once in a year. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, also, that these settlements were a fraud upon the law; but the Court of Chancery had decided that they were perfectly legal. The public were, therefore, entitled to act upon the law. The payment of 10 per cent legacy duty had driven many persons to make voluntary settlements. The Bill of the Government would operate upon those settlements, and the man who, perhaps, had saved 7,000l. or 8,000l for his family, might find that this provision was cut down to the extent of 600l. or 700l. by an Act which the law had already declared should not be done. He looked upon this as a peculiar hardship, and thought an Amendment should be introduced to protect property in cases of this sort.

§ MR. MULLINGS
said, that he certainly should divide the Committee on the Amendment he had proposed, as he considered 318 the clause, as now framed, most unjust and injurious.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he must complain that, while such landlords as the Duke of Bedford and the Marquess of Westminster, who granted leases for ninety-nine years, would be exempted from the succession tax on the expiration of those leases, persons who granted leases for three lives, which was a common practice in the west of England, would have to pay the tax on the fnlling-in of cach life. He thought the Bill should be so framed as to do equal justice in all cases.

§ MR. H. HERBERT
wished to know how the Bill would affect cases where leases were given, concurrently for lives and for years, that being a most common form of tenure in Ireland?

§ MR. MICHELL
said, he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, but the details of it were such as ought not, and, he believed, never could pass. He denied the right of that House to allow large landlords in towns, like the Marquess of Westminster and the Duke of Bedford, to escape the tax, while smaller landlords in the country districts, who adopted the mode of giving leases for lives, would have to pay it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give a satisfactory answer upon this point, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee on the clause.

§ MR. KENDALL
said, his property was entirely leased for three lives, and it would be an enormous tax upon him if he had to pay on the falling in of each life, while the Marquess of Westminster, in the way he granted leases, went free. He appealed to the honesty and fair dealing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remedy so marked an injustice.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he was very glad to be able to remove the ap- prehensions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The clause would apply only where the reversioner became beneficially interested. He would take a case which generally happened. Supposing a man granted a tenement on a lease for three lives. If one life dropped, the reversioner did not become beneficially entitled, because two lives were remaining; and if he followed the custom of the country, he would renew the lease, and put in another life. [Cries of "No, no!"] Then, if he choosed to wait until 319 all the lives dropped, he would, undoubtedly, have a new succession by the reason of the death, and on that succession he would have to pay duty, because the principle of the Bill was to attach duty on all successions which took effect by virtue of death. To that the Bill was limited. It was utterly impossible to carry such a principle to leases for years. In the case of a lease for years, the landlord was considered by law to be in possession, while in that of a lease for lives the leaseholder was suffered to have a beneficial interest in the property.

§ MR. BOOKER
said, that a great part of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster was let on leases of lives. If it should so happen that the reversioner took a fine on the death, that was a beneficial interest, he presumed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had taken care of the interests of the Crown.

§ VISCOUNT MONCK
said, it appeared from the explanation of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that they were really about to be taxed by a fiction of the law. If he understood his explanation, it was this—that a landlord, by a legal fiction, was considered in possession when his tenant held by a term of years, but that when he held at a rackrent, or for a term of lives, which was precisely the same as far as the landlord was concerned, he was not considered in legal possession, but that he came into such possession on the death of the last life, and that he would then be subject to the succession tax. That did not appear to him to be a fair application of the principle of the Bill. If the Committee went to a division, he should certainly vote against the clause.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he wished to remove the impression on the mind of the hon. Member. If a lease was for a rackrent, then the determination of that lease would not confer any property, because the clause touched on nothing but on property acquired by reason of death; and if a man was already, during a lease for a life or lives, in possession of a rackrent yielded by the property, the determination of the lease would not give him any additional property.

§ MR. MALINS
said, if a gentleman granted a lease, the tenant was said to be in possession during the lease, and the reversion to be in the landlord, but the possession came to the landlord at the termination of the lease. Now, the principle of the clause was, that if he deprived himself of his land for three lives, when he 320 again came into possession of it he paid this tax, but that if he deprived himself of it for years, he paid no tax when he came into possession.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
Where the disposition had been made by the landlord himself of the property which he again came into possession of, he did not pay this tax.

§ MR. MALINS
That did not apply to a lease by his ancestor.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
A man granted a lease and it terminated in his own life, then, in the language of the Bill, he was his own predecessor; but if a lease granted by his father for lives terminated in his own life, then he paid the tax.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it had been truly said, that the details of the Bill would prove worse than the principle. It was truly termed robbery. That language, though strong, was not at all too strong to describe it. He thought it most unjust to make those pay the tax who succeeded to property upon the determination of lives, while such persons as the Duke of Bedford and the Marquess of Westminster would pay nothing upon their immense estates, granted on lease for ninety-nine years. That was not, he thought, making what was sauce for the goose sauce for the gander also.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he must deprecate the use of such strong language. The use of such terms as robbery was highly improper as applied to Acts of Parliament. It was impossible, perhaps, to carry out the measure with perfect equality; but the reproaches levied against the Bill might more fairly be applied to the law as it stood. The object of the Government was to maintain the immediate and effectual application of this measure in its principle—the principle of taxing successions upon death to all property. That point had already been questioned and affirmed by the Committee by a considerable majority. It was, however, open to the Government to consider, and they were willing to consider, questions compatible with the fair operation of this principle. He did not deny that there were great difficulties in adjusting the details of a Bill like this, and he was perfectly willing to consider the point which had been suggested. The Government wished to preserve the framework of the Bill, and did not wish to commit themselves under pressure to any concession, until they had had an opportunity 321 of fully examining and testing, by the opinions of the Committee upon other clauses of the Bill, the consequences to which that concession would lead. He would remind the Committee that there was at present no actual proposition before them. If the case which had been raised was to be provided for by exemption it ought to be done, not upon this clause, but by a separate provision, and it would be much better not to make any proposal upon this. Leave the general principle here, and then provide for the particular case by a separate enactment. The Government had no foregone conclusion, which would lead them to reject an Amendment of this kind. They only asked for an opportunity of considering as they went along.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was ready to take into consideration the point he had raised, and would therefore suggest the postponement of the clause with that view.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, this clause was the foundation of the whole Bill. If it passed now, no prejudice would ensue to the proposal of the hon, and learned Gentleman; and the modifications he suggested might be provided for by subsequent alterations.

§ MR. HENLEY
thought, it would be sufficient to provide for the difficulty that had been raised hereafter.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHEE
said, he wished for some explanation as to the effect of this clause on corporations, and individuals in the nature of corporations sole. He understood the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night to say that it was the intention of Government to look on such individuals as persons having duties to perform, rather than as persons enjoying a beneficial interest in property, without having any trust annexed to it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what provision there was in this Bill to meet the case of corporations sole? He did not find anything of the kind at present in the Bill, and therefore wished to ask if he proposed to extend any such provision to the case of persons who were not legally corporations sole, because not connected with the Established Church—he meant clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church or the various dissenting denominations? He understood that dissenting clergymen, who hod the benefit of endowments, would be liable to the tax; whereas a clergyman of the Established Church on 322 succession to his benefice would be exempt. He wanted also to know if persons not legally corporations sole were to be ex-empted in like manner? In regard to corporations aggregate, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that they were to be taxed by an annual tax on their income, as the most equitable method of proceeding. Now, in his part of the country there was not a single corporation of this kind excepting the College of Maynooth, so that, under this Bill, every other institution, whether for education or charitable purposes, not being connected with the religion by law established, would receive none of the benefits intended to be conferred upon corporations. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he proposed to meet these two cases of quasi corporations sole and quasi corporations aggregate?

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought, if the hon, and learned Gentleman had heard the answer he gave on this subject on Friday night, he would hardly have found it necessary to put the questions now addressed to him. Government intended to deal with quasi corporations sole and quasi corporations aggregate as nearly as possible upon the same principle that was to be applied to corporations sole and corporations aggregate, without introducing any distinction, so far as it was in their power to avoid it. But they did not intend to do that in the present Bill, which was to determine the form of taxation on landed succession, thinking it much better to deal with the subject by a separate measure. Though corporations were mentioned in this Bill, yet that was only as regarded their first access to the possession of property which had devolved upon them in consequence of the death of some individual.

§ MR. SPOONER
wished to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intended to deal with the case of property vested in trustees to wind up businesses, and at the expiration of a given term the result to be divided among the heirs? The business might turn out unprofitable, and he would like to know when and how the succession tax would be levied? He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think, that under this Bill there would be a great difficulty in obtaining trustees to act? He had been informed by a professional friend, who was a trustee, that if this Bill passed he should be obliged to resign his trust.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the hon. Member would find the answer to his question in the 19th clause. The case would, of course, be regulated by the general rules applicable to property held in perpetuity or fee simple, the succession commencing on the death of the testator.

§ MR. MICHELL
wished to know if a person purchased freehold property held on a lease for lives what percentage he would be bound to pay for the succession?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the case was expressly provided for by a subsequent clause of the Bill. The party purchasing would pay the duty which would have been paid by the grantor, supposing there had been no alienees.

§ MR. BARROW
complained that, under this clause, if a man bought an estate subject to an annuity of 100l. a year, he would be subject to pay for the increased value of that annuity to the amount of 10 per cent.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that was not the intention of the clause. In the case supposed by the hon. Member, the purchaser would only pay duty according to the previous relations of the estate.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, that persons who granted life annuities, charged upon their estates, would have to pay the succession tax upon the falling in of those annuities. He therefore wished to know whether public assurance companies would also be charged with the tax on the falling in of any annuities they had granted; because, if they were not, they would thus enjoy an unfair advantage as compared with individuals.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would suggest that the discussion of this point should be postponed until they came to the 16th clause, which referred more particularly to the subject of assurances.

§ MR. CAIRNS
said, he considered that the clause should be postponed till the different questions which arose out of it had been fully considered. If the clause were not now postponed, he would divide the Committee on it.

The CHAIRMAN
said, that a verbal amendment having been introduced, it would be irregular to postpone the clause.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he would suggest that if the clause could not be postponed it should be rejected by the Committee, and then the right hon. Gentleman might bring up an amended clause on the Report.

§ MR. HENLEY
moved that the Chairman report progress.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
urged the importance, in the present state of public business, of the Committee going on with the Bill that night, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he would yield to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, and allow the Committee to proceed with the discussion of one clause or so more. The object of Clause 6, as he understood it, was to prevent persons from reserving to themselves a certain interest in an estate which they made over to another; so that in point of fact they made a kind of fraudulent grant in order to evade the tax. But, according to this clause, if, as was frequently the case, a clergyman should grant a lease for his own life, the grantee would seem to be liable to the succession duty on the death of the grantor. This, surely, could not be intended.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the matter should be taken into consideration, and if the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman apprehended should be found to exist, it should be provided for.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he thought that portions of the clause were of a very tyrannical nature.

§ VISCOUNT GALWAY
moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. He considered that the Bill, as a whole, was downright robbery, and he was perfectly satisfied that it would never have been brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but for certain Gentlemen on his right hand. It might be very well for the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to please those parties at the expense of the landed interest, but as a small landed proprietor, living up to his income, he begged to protest against it. 325 [Laughter.] He supposed hon. Gentlemen on the other side never stood up for their own interest in that House, or supported measures to increase their own property. At all events, he confessed he could see no harm in country gentlemen standing up for their own property. He knew it must be a great satisfaction to gentlemen of the Manchester school, and the representatives of metropolitan boroughs, to see that another wedge had been inserted, and another attack made upon the landed interest. He repeated that he considered the measure to be one of downright robbery as regarded landed property: not only were landed proprietors called upon to pay income tax to a greater extent than other classes, hut they were now to be burdened by "a conscientious Chancellor of the Exchequer" with a legacy duty in addition. The right hon. Gentleman might be a very innocent Chancellor of the Exchequer—as innocent a one as ever sat in that House—but he begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had known an equally conscientious Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Althorp, who was a neighbour of his own —and what did he do? He proposed to impose a tax on the transfer of money in the funds—and who prevented his carrying it? The moneyed interest of the country.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he hoped that the noble Lord would press his Motion. He (Colonel Sibthorp) entertained a similar opinion with the noble Lord of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was trying to smuggle through clause after clause, and was supported in the attempt by the Manchester school, of whom he (Colonel Sibthorp) had no very high opinion. He had lately returned from discharging an important duty, and had found a very obedient corps of militiamen, and he should be glad to assist now in drilling the Chancellor of the Exchequer into a somewhat better sense of his duty to the country.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that if there was a disposition on the part of hon. Members opposite to press the Motion that the Chairman do now report progress, the Government would not oppose it. He hoped that the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member, having taken an opportunity of speaking out their sentiments, felt much relieved by doing so, and that they would allow the discussion on the particular clause before the Committee to proceed to-morrow without interruption.