HL Deb 23 June 1898 vol 59 cc1170-2

Order for Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)

My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time I wish to enter a humble protest against a continuation of that oppressive mode of taxation which was adopted in the year 1894 by the late Government. I refer to the imposition of the death duties, and I, for one, wish to express my regret that Her Majesty's Government have not felt able or disposed to deal with those duties. I regret it all the more, because in the Bill which is now before the House they have provided for a reduction, to a considerable amount, of the duties on tobacco. It appears to me that this further remission of indirect taxation will render the Government less able in the future to deal with the death duties. In the year 1894, when this proposal was first made, there was no one who expressed a stronger opinion, or delivered more cogent arguments against the imposition of the death duties than the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, who I regret is not in his place to-day. Well, my Lords, are we to presume that the noble Duke has changed his opinion? I do not think so. I suppose we must conclude that he considers the exigencies of the public service so great that he cannot see his way to share in a Measure for the remission or the mitigation of taxes which he in 1894 said would be oppressive and unjust. Have the circumstances changed? Has the experience of the last four years altered the opinion which the noble Duke then held? On the contrary, we all know that these duties are found to be very oppressive. As to the income tax, that is imposed on such a scale as should only obtain in time of war or imminent danger. I cannot suppose that that is the state of affairs now. At all events, I trust that, in passing this Measure through your Lordships' House, it will not be considered that we regard the present high scale of duties as normal, or as a scale which should be permanent. I remember the noble Duke [the Duke of Rutland] saying of Budgets, "They come to-day, and they go to-morrow." I have no doubt the noble Duke, with his long experience in the other House of Parliament, meant that the provisions of the Budget might be changed from time to time, and that we were not to regard these duties as a permanent portion of the taxation of the country. I think it would be satisfactory to learn from Her Majesty's Government that they do not regard the present high rate in that view. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer on this occasion, but I did not think it would be well to allow this Bill to pass without a few observations, and without entering my protest, as regards the future, against the continuance, at their present scale, of duties which are regarded by the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council and by others as oppressive and unjust.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My Lords, I will only say a word in reference to my noble Friend's speech. My noble Friend has, in general language, laid down a doctrine which I think cannot be safely adopted by either House of Parliament, and it is that if on the adoption of a Measure of great and far-reaching importance one party take a very strong view of the evil tendencies of that Measure and resist it, they are, therefore, bound, whenever the vicissitudes of politics place them in power, to use all their efforts to repeal the Measure. That view, if adopted, would reduce the legislation of Parliament very much to the condition of Penelope's web. What is known as "the pendulum" has seemed to establish itself as the law of English politics. I do not wish to express any complaint, but it carries with it the necessity that to a certain extent, and within reasonable limits, each party should accept the work of its predecessor and try, as far as it can do consistently with the public interest, to work it out to a satisfactory conclusion, and I do not think that in doing so we can be exposed to the imputation, of inconsistency or of having changed our opinions. With respect to the ques- tion of whether the death duties ought to have been imposed, my opinion very much agrees with that expressed by the Duke of Devonshire at the time, and it has not changed since; but I do not deduce from that statement the same conclusion as my noble Friend. The demand on the Public Treasury is enormous. The state of the world requires armaments of an unparalleled description, and the bill of costs may also be described as unexampled. While those are the facts of the case it is impossible that we can part with a richly yielding source of revenue, even though we may entertain doubts as to whether the Measure by which it is raised is one which we should consider the most just.

* THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

My Lords, the remarks of the noble Marquess are valid, so far as they go. There is no doubt this is a time of peculiar pressure upon the National Exchequer, but I entirely concur with my noble Friend on my right (the Earl of Feversham) that the duties as at present levied and forced, if I may say so, out of the pockets of the survivors of those who have departed this life are unjust in themselves, and are extorted with an amount of severity which I for one strongly deprecate. I frankly admit it is not possible for us in this House to do much or anything to diminish the burden of these duties, but I think my noble Friend has done well to raise his voice in protest against this system of taxation, the origin of which, unless I am greatly mistaken, is to be found in the finance of M. Robespierre in the year 1792. That is not a system of finance which is likely to make itself agreeable to the people of England—that is to say, to that portion of the people of England who come under its incidence—and I for one should heartily rejoice if on a future occasion Her Majesty's Government are able to say that they see their way to greatly diminish the injustice and the severity of these duties.

Bill read a second time, Committee negatived, then Standing Order XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Bill read a third time and passed.