The Express. — London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

l ine , of this leatient, end ceesidering that ha at cis!, „ of aleertin to it oat (sue eingle neer• this accr,rarily in conjunclon with a greet hi;m • r • r MOO • irapr:ant suej etie, I hest not been s e:, • see whit pease. i• requi•ite to place the prifio•i• u of . Aorattostnt deafly and t iirly before the 1 se to c menthe. I era übligc l t the right hon. gentle o: Ca. rehire, for hi. thyme:ion ; but I had intended to Wln• rje after t he r ,„ o l q tion bail been read, fur the purpose of tn, the seneral tooture of our propeoitioa. Now, in the ht r l i t i elect . , I wish call the attention of the committee le limitation of the proposition as it stands before us. tAe 1r re are a . t mm.n•eauuther—'or at least • considerable of great ini; octane,: wed very errious w ewell have to examine when we , .tit, the detail* of the questi ; but most of thole • ISMS amabus at present to keep in some degree out ;S l because, , in th e first plate, it is hardly possible to ce eeider them said the committee shall have under its eyes • preciee form in which the proposition of the government is el be ultimately . clothed ; and because, in the second g l a ce, the di octal principles involved in this propeeition are 0 thow l•e• so tereed.nsly important that they desire the g alivided and exclusive attention of the committee. It i• ▪e• desirable the: we should in the lint inst nice fix our • iivided and detest attend in upon the principles which sic i ,valsed in the measure—(hear, hear)—and that we shoalil glee a vote upon this OfeSsioll in the first instance which will strictly be a vote on the principle before oe come fu c inside r a great multitude of serious but !still minor sad sieeedanite questions, which we shall have to ei.1.113111e and dispose of cabin we gat into the I:tails o f the proposition. Now, the proportion of the government, ftl it stand• before the committee, is this: i•That, toward' raising the supply granted to her Majesty, fit death duties payable by law upon or for or in respect 01(11601 shall be granted sad made payable upon and fur nay secession to the beneficial enjoyment of any seal or r • Tw eet estate, or to the receipt of any portion or addition itsportin of the income Of profits thereof, that pay take place pon or in consequence of the death of an y person, under whatever title, whether ex. ;sirs or future, such them-aeon may be dcithed." 011 the present oceasion the vote of the committee is only eked tor a general affirmation to the propenal that some tax or ether on surcerilons shall be levied. I do not pre posethat y oil should pledge yourseiTCS Ulan equal or unequal tax. hat that se me tax or other shall he laid on all succee dew of prole toy that take elace in consequence of death. (lieu. hear.) And that condition, the accruing of taxa ' in consequence of death, is the pivot of the whole meet thre. LH course the bearing. of tine measure are to be eon sacred with reference to two great classes of property which hale exclusively el joyed an exemption atom the pees levied in other caul' on successions by denth. First, it applies to reel pro;*rty, settled or unsettled, and se geed'', to settled property, whether personal or reel. I will, with respect te these points, proceed to consider the w ee whichhave induced the government, and which I re, hope will induce t he committee, to resort to that resource for the replenishment of the revenue of the country. (lieu, near) the right hon. gentleman the member for 15114 4 std, a few nights since, that we founded cur jWitifleiflOlL of the measure, if I understood him nght. an the character I lad I•liffOtd to it on u fernier meht, nouely, that I con•i !era that in character sad them by laying this tax upon successions, we should be daice first, to do which a great desire has been expressed by the house and elsewhere, namely, countervailing the opera tion of the income tax, in so far u that fiscal operation presses too heavily on intelligence and skill, and too lightly on property, as compared with intelligence and skill. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. geatlemao observed that such being the basis of the proposed tag, it was obvious that the tag should be so regulated as to terminate in 1860. Now I certainly could not, with any great confidean. sub mit such a proposition to tke house as that the tax should terminate in le6o, because if the tax were intended to ter• memo in 1860, we should not then have received wire than two years of the full produce of the tax in respect to the real prosperity of England, as it will not be (a 3 operation until 19.1.4. (Hear, hear.) Our enjoy ment of it would, therefore, be ofvery short duration. But, in point of fret, the right boat. gentleman was mistaken in the construction he put on my statement. I did say that the succession tax would t qu ilia' the income tax, if it were unequal, es regarded intellisi ace sad skill; l did state there was a feeling abroad that intelligence and skill were un equally taxed as compared with real property, and that this measure might rectify it. and perhaps would rectify it, without calling into existence or raising up any dangerous question, sad without in any way distarbing our financial seater hear.) Bat se far from saying that the ITC titicatiolk of the income Six was the only reason upon which the proposed legacy duty was based, I gays many more, and in my opinion more cogent and conclusive, reasons. In the Bat place, I stated, and now repeat, that this measure is essential to that main condition of the financial measure of the government, that of placing, as far as in us lies, future parliaments at • given period in • condition to part with the income tax if they think fit. (. Hear, hear , and a laugh) That is our object which we propos* to ourselves as an essential condition of the levy el the income tax for seven years. We felt that we could not justify ourselves in proposing it for se long a time did we not at the some time mho such arrangements as idiould supply parliament with the means, should they think fit, of dispensing with it e 4 together at the expiration of that term. That is another material reason for proposing • tax on successions, aid without that tax on successions it is impossible to hold eat any expectation that at the termination of the present teem the income tax may expire, further that sort of vague gemm ed expectation which the country by this time, after so many repetitions of the experiment, .has learned to appre ciate at its true value. (hehl, hear.) . There is an other object to be gained by the imposition of a homey duty, and that is to provide during the interval ofsoien years, which may enable us to carry into effect theme great and extended in...mires for the remission of in direct taxation which form so important • condition of the progress and prosperity of the country. (Cheers.) But I do not hesitate to say that behind and above all these con siderations there is a purpose of • still more important cha racter—namely, the removal of an anomaly which has been and is most galling to public feeling, and which has been and is sure to become inure toiling to public feeling from year to year. It is the knowledge and conviction of the existence of that feeling that induces us to believe that it is for the interest of all clines, and more especially fur the ist hmus of those classes who will be immediately affected by the duty, to settle this question and to remove the anomaly at once sad permanently, being contend as we are that the logger you pautpane the settlement the mere difficult it will be when the inevitable time comes, end the more mo rose the terms upon which it will be possible to effect (Hear, hear.) With this feeling, and with the feeling also that the present state of the law tamed be held to be satisfactory to carry on, as regards itsjustice, we have proposed this law, independently of all the collateral ends we hope to serve by making the proposal at the present juncture. (Hear, hear.) Now, this is the first question that I wish to impress on the dispas sionate consideration of the committee. I wish to ask them this question—Do they think it possible to preserve the law in the position it holds at present? (Hear, hear.) la my epinioa, tt would be totally impossible to do so. (Loud sheen.) Ido not maintain that it would be impossible to preserve the law during this session or the next session— what I mean to say is, that it is impasibe to look upon the permanent position of the tax as a portion of our financial system with any certainty or satisfaction. (Load awn.) The public sentiment of the country is decidedly &deem to continuing the tax in its present state, so that at some day or another, aad most probably at to distant day, its continuance is detainees be opposed. (Hoer, hear.) You *manta, in my opinion, maintain this law—not because there is • clamour against it. I do not mean to scandalise the gallant colonel oppo- Ote by urging such an argument, and I hope that la the arguments I am shout to use I may in some small rememlaarable degree be so fortunate as to meet with his approval. (Colonel Bibthorp, from his seat, ejaculated, " No, never, sir," with an energy that at once astonished and amused the committee.] Well, I must only regret that principles which perhaps under other 670112/1111004 might meet with the gallant colonel's approval, should he opposed because announced by me. I must go on, however, although deprived of that approval, although I would wif liagly earn it if I could. I will now mooed to state my views as to why it is impossible to saints= the present law, or de fend Its condition. In the first plate, in stating these reasons I thick the wisest course will be to place the weakest first. I do not think it would be possible to defend the continua tion of the present law, even as respects real property. When we look beck to the period of Mr. Pitt, when we re flect on the proposal made by him seventy years ago, and consider all that has since passed both in this house and in the country, we must feel that oven as regards real pro perty, considered as such, its moult exemption occupies but • week and insecure position in the sentinnots and opinions of the people of the present age. (Hear, hoar.) I speak of that exemption as of a total exemption. Ido act say that peculiar circumstances ought not to ha cord tiered whoa we some to naming the question with refer ence to the, proper mode of dealing with it la the ransom which we are about to adopt, bat I say that the total exemption of real properly from the taxes on necessioe, while such fazes are made applicable to personal property at a high and heavy rate, is not, in my view, an arrange meat which can be looked upon as either expedient or justifiable, or as • measure which it would be wise to Mai& as a perm feature in our financial system. (Hear, hear.) It is an exemption which in my opinion is invidious in • degree which is far mote than commensurate to its value to the exempted classes themselves—(hear, hear)—and being, se I believe, far more invidious than valuable, I should wish to get rid of its in vidious and odious character, and loom= unembarrassed to the nosideratioa of the just daises of real property, with a view to • recognition and -ettlemeet of those claims. But if the exemption of real property is difficult to defend, how much more difficult is it, in my opinion, to defend the 'n et:orlon of settled personalty. (Hear, hear.) After enter ing with some minuteness into this portion of the subject, the right honourable gentleman eithddielli; If you are not prepared to give up tho principle et inehlis death sad the passing of property from predecessor to see !MOT• the occasion of stepping is to levy • portion of what you require for the public service, then—as we have already came to the conclusion that we cannot maintain the tax as it new is—we now reach the point that we cannot abandon it: and we come to the further ques tion—What shall we do with it—how shall we modify it? I assume (cautioned the right hon. gentlemen, after some further argumeat) that, with regard to settle ment in general, even as to land, you cannot main tain the principle of total exemption from the legacy duty that now prevails. The question of settled rersonalty it would he a waste of time to argue. Perhaps you may say there ought to be an exemption for settlements now in existence—that all property now settled ought not to be subjected to any duty on successions arising from the present ',teeniest. The answer to that is co:)rious I —that 'Le intention of those protti•ioaa of the low which I enable sou to settle is not 0111 you might woe the duties on such .sion. Settlements It sae been made not Of AS a means for that purpose ; hut that was not in the spirit or retention of the law, and eons. ijuently coast itutt s no rebel plea eresinst a proposal to enable the law to reecli cases of that description. (Hear, hear.) I confess, then, i; appear. to me, on the grounds I have stated, that it is imptesible to maintain, with satineetiau, with justice, or with a hope of its permanency. the system of occlusion which now exists. And, as to the last point, if you think tit to adopt a *Teta of that kind, it would vary the operation of your act fa more that, half a cer.tssry to conic. (Hear ' hear.) Ide not mean to say that if the exemption were demanded by Justice it ought not to be made on that account; but when it is precluded by justice that is a very strove g reason indeed against entertaining such a proposition. We do not ask you at this time to vote upon anything except the mere principle of the present resoottion. We kayo adopted a l form of proceeding as nearly analogous u we could to that of Mr. Pitt, in the corresponding instance, name.y, to sub mit to you the subject, in the first instance, in very general terms. which should ha te the effect of eliciting your views upon the principle, and leaving for future consideration the number ~1 important collateral questions which have to be discussed. (Hear, hear.) No doubt there are vet y imp os e tent collateral questisto. Among others there is the ques tion of the mete of consanguinity—(hear, kear)—whisk gives roe to a great difference of opinion, and is • very fair subject for difference of opinion. It is known, probably, to the majority of the committee that the scale of consan guinity, as it is now fixed, was mainly in favour of direst succession. Direct succession is subject only to a tax of one per cent.; the succession to a stranger, and with strangers are ranked extremely remote degrees of consan guinity, to a tax of 10 per cent. There are various inter mediate rates, upon which it is not necessary to dwell; the rate of 3 per cent. is a rate high enough, no doubt. This tax of 10 per cent. is a material item in the considera tion of the whole question; because, although it falls upon a comparatively limited number, yet, °wine to the Nigh rate of duty, the proceeds of that tax form a very consider- able portion of what comes to the Exchequer. (Ileac, I hear.) A return just laid on the table has shown the coin- I mittee that while the rate of one per cent., levied upon direct sueeession, and upon a mush larger amount of pro pene, yielded hat year 235,0901., the 10 percent. duty, upon • much smaller amount of property, yielded so less than 490,9001. (Rear, hear.) Since the year 1797, while the nee per cent. levied upon an enormously greater mass of property yielded but 8,3'_"2,00 d., the 10 per cent, yielded 17.483,0001. (Hear, hear.) Teo very important questions arise with regard to the scale of consanguinity. First, is it equitable that such a difference should be made, at least, that a very great difference should be made, between the tax on direct succession and the tax upon remote suc cessions and those to strangers? For my own part,' I must confess it appears to me that that Tin ciple is neither an inequitable nor an impolitic one. Speaking generally, those who enjoy property by direct succession are educated in expectancy • they are trained, and have their habits of mind and life formed with relation to the property they are to enjoy. To them, there fore, it would be a very great hardship to step in and take away any material proportion of what they have been pre pared to expect. But, on the other hand, the successions of strangers, and of persons not within reasonable degrees of ' consiutguinity, are ordinarily not of a very expectable cha racter ; they are cases in regard to which the free-will of the testator takes the widest range, sad are quite uncon nected with any question of training or education. There fore, without entering upon minor questions, it does appear to me very reasonable that a male founded upon this scale of consanguinity should be maintained. The committee may maintain the present scale, or may alter it. But if they dett rmine to lower it materially— and nobody would do it for the sake of a trifling change, ail to reduce the ten per cent. to five or six—they must raise the rate which is now one per cent., or we shall not obtain the same amount of revenue, which I fear is the most im• portant coroideration. (Hear, hear.) The lowering of the rate of 10 per cent. will infallibly entail a material raising of the rate of one per cent. At this period, I should not wish to enter upon a very full discussion of that question to which I lave adverted more that once, namely, the question whether, even t'iough you may think that there is no ground for maintaining any absolute exemption of any great class of property, there may not be good and sufficient reasons for adopting a different machinery, and practically even, if not nominally, a different rate of tax, with regard to certain class., of property, from what you lay upon ethers. It appears to me that the present law is not only • mug in drawing too broad a disticction—that is to say, a distinction between tax en one side, and no tax at all upon the other—bat that it is especially wrong in the manner in which it strikes that distinction. And we propose to make a change, which, although it is not precisely described in the words of the resolution, and though you are not therefore asked to give an opinion upon it at the present moment, is of a i much importance and so vital a provision of the plan of the government, that it would be wrong in me altogether to omit the discussion of it. We purpose, instead of distinguishing, as the pee -1 sent law distinguishes, in favour of settled and of real pro perty, against unsettled personalty—we propose, abolishing that distinction altogether, to draw a sew distinction be tween property which I will describe, not in a legal phrase, but in one which will be popularly more intelligible than any other I could select—we propose to distinguish be tween rateable properly, whether real or personal, on the one side, and non•rateable property on the other. The distinction will be obvious; if the committee adopt our view, rateable property, whether it be real, leasehold, co pyhold, or under whatever description it may fall, will be entitled to the exception, and the fell burden of the tax will fall upon invisible or non-rateable property. (Hear.) It appears to us that in that distinction there is something like a principle, that the great burden which falls upsn rateable property, whether real or not, in various forms, is a very fair matter to take into view when you are consider ' hag the amount at which you shall fix your legacy duty, se tax upon succession, for these respective descriptions of property. (Rear.) Oar proposal, therefore, with respect to rateable property is this. We do not pro pose to establish different rates of duties ; but we that the person succeeding never shall be charged with duties upon any interest in the property higher than hiel lib interest. You may ask what will be the effect of that, eampared with charging him on an interest in perpetuity. That is a matter of computation, admitting of some latitude of opinion, bat not very great. I do not think it will be very far dom the mark if we say that the effect of that dis tinction, with some collateral advantages will be, that rate able property will, on the whole pay a trifle under one-half of the legacy-duty paid by property not coming under thee description. The property not coming within the descrip Lion of rateable,—invisible, or non•rateable preperee, would not, of course, in all cases be charged upon the pane Testify. In a succession to property of that kind, a pima = upon perpetuity who has acquired the abate bs of the property ; where he has succeeded le a bow interest, he williof course be charged upon that Wear Isessest. But a much larger proportion of rateable property Ie held under limited interests than of invisible property. limey be asked why we should favour rateable property this particular form. There may be those who will say *et it ought not to be favoured at all. I have stated the gir• it is a very simple one. I think, likewise, that it eblect of policy worthy of some consideration, not may liit ra ezmething that may tend to countervail the Medi borne by rateable property, but likewise to Übe UM ise to adjust your tax in regard to property of this drieelplier that you do not allow that tax to become an en gem' of what would be a very great and serious evil, windy, the forcing of perpetual changes of possession. In seder to do that, the tax certainly ought to be kept within such bounds that it may, by effort and exertion, at any rate be paid out of the annual moires, sad that it may not force the possessor either into parting with his property, or doing that which, after the lapse of a certain time, becomes still more deplorable, leading the property with with a sucesaion of incualeriem, so as to leave to the possessor nothing but the SIM. (Hear, hear.) These are the reasons for &smiles seirelle peepwty. But if yes think this class of prepleir *odd iNNr a outlier them of this tan " why," li my be wised, "de yes . choose Ode eelm Min et posmediss," viz, that of saying that Os puma reessisliei fe the reliable prop ert y . shall not be 'barged ea mew *with* life interest ? ' It may be said " why meadow him on the 'perpetuity to which he sue- Mods, but Oh bleu rate ?" This is a question which fe -1 quires tits Mat armful and the meet imperils' 1 attention, and it is sue teem which I trust all collateral considerations of party, or airbag may be the fate of the government may be ezelteded. These are arrangements that must bow a nitwit' libel on oar social system, and which tiegediet Rumble sari forethought in their adjustment. I MOl4 it is ma seltevident proposition that when you leredslerniated that rateable property is entitled to some =ltire drosses, it is by no means self-evident that it ein the firm of a life interest. Yet I think the flielleelleietly and searchingly you examine into the matter, ra MOM eseliddewill you arrive at that result. The ob lige.*** hot I knowes that it takes away from the MIN Inert the advantage you propose to confer on the rof rag yas compared with the other. The emen lig t a real or a leasehold estate would, ender the pies proposed, be left to pay as heavy a Ma as if be emiseedeul to the perpetuity, and so it lee be said "yes fail to carry oat your Tin eftibi" But, sir, when you take a comprehensive viervey of the mode in which these various classes of pro perty are dealt with under our laws sad oar social habits, you will see that there are much graver objections to other modes of proceeding—as, for instance, that of charging a person succeeding to real rateable property in perpetuity if he get it in perpetuity, or at less than perpetuity,if be gets it for UN. If you adopt the rule of saying I will charge th e life muter on landed estates on his life interest, and the per son who succeeds to absolute possession or the perpetuity, you would establish a system of law that would work m favour of the great landed proprietors of the country and against the small proprietors, and would create disision and contrariety of interests among different descriptions of landed property,, that would be most undesirable; and you would legislate in a sense which might raise a prejudice out of doors that it was dictated by personal interest, for it would be recollected that most of those who are members of the legislature are connected with the large settled properties of the country, and it would be most invidious if they favoured the estates held by them or the families with which they are connected, at the expense of those who held small properties, and who are not represented here to the same extent. I mans when we look closely into this matter, we shall see that the rela tion between the life-renter of realty and the absolute possessor of reality is not analogous to the ion of mere personals or funded prop e rty. The lirel i e e lrs of realty have all the advantage o absolute property except the power of alienation; and looking at the general rein- Lions with succession or children—that is, the natural pro visions made (et these who come after them, mid for whets, WE EXPRESS, FRIDAY t h e y mar else provide in some other way—the advantage of en entailed t.state, with the social and political influente it confers, the eo.r.manding station it gives in regard to the profession and parliament, and the avenues it opens to the posse,sion of power—though as to the property itself it is something less than absolute possession—l do say the position of that class—comjused, as it is, of the noblemen and gentlemen of England—is one of the most desirable in the world, and that which is the most connected with worldly advantage. (Hear, hear.) And there is no such real dilr renee to be drawn after all between the great pro prietors of a life:interest and the small proprietors of the fee simple, that would justify &difference in the rate of the tax to be imposed. (Hear, hear.) Taat, I think, is the main conriderstioa which directs the mode of procedure we should propose—that of never charging any interest at a larger rate than the life interest, but when the interest is less than the life interest, then of course charging it at lees. I think any other coupe, besides being less Jost, would have a dangerous tendency, and tend to bring about a pressure on the system of entails and settle ments in this country which I for one should be sorry to see—(haer, hear)—a pressure, the motive for which would be the desire to 'quells* the tax. These, I think, are the I principal ressons—first, why we should propose to draw a distinction, not as the law now draws it, but more abso lutely in favour of rateable property ; and, secondly, it should be drawn in a form under which there "Wield never be charged more than the life Interest to the tit. (Heir.) Another case to which I would call atten tion,' as _being; imminent in its social effects is this, the case of heavily incumbered estates. On our principle of charging the life interest, in the case of a fully incumbered estate, the mode of proceeding would be thus:—ln the first place, we would ascertain the age t f the patty, then the number of 3 ears' purchase of the lot tof the state to be charged, then we would ascertain the gives rental of the property, and from that e• would make the de duction necessary to arrive et the net rental ; that twine the principle on which we should compute,and having ascertained the net rental we would deduct the encum brances. In such a case it would sometimes happen that the net rental remaining upon which the life interest would have to be computed would be very small, and to that net suns ',there might be on that property a large excess of capital value. For example, if you take • large estate that would sell for/100,0001., and which would give • piss rental of 18,0001. or 18,0001., and • net rental of 13,0001 or 14,1,001., and supposing it saddled with • mortgage of 300,0004., that would absorb about 12,0001, a year of the rental, leaving the possessor only 1,0001. or 2,0001., so that if you charged upon the capital, which you would if you axed the perpetuity, you would in effect displace the pos sessor. There is no way then in which you could meet the case so as not to give the tax the eff e and character of an engine for displacing the present possessor. It may be thought wise in many cases that the present possessor should be displaced, or that where the estate is heavily meow bend he might displace himself. The legislature has made prevision to facilitate such arrangements in Ireland, and *el time may come (I hope it will riot) when it may be neees eery to pass a similar measure for England. But it would be unwise and unjust to frame • tax which would base OM effect of forcing persons to put with their property (Hear, hear.) Aud there is no tax we could lay on the capital of such an estate as I have described that would not almost compel the possessor to bring his estate to sale. The provision we propose to make is this—that a person succeeding to property of that description would be charged fur his net life interest according to his age, and the number of years purchase his life is worth. But if he chooses to bring his estate into the market and realise his 600,0001., and instead of remaining a com paratively poor man with 1,0001. or 2,0001. • year, to be come an independent man with the interest of the 100,000/., then we should say, you must pay a tax on the succession to the capital of the whole net amount of the property ; and that would be no more than just both to the successor and the revenue, so in the event of voluntary aliena tion of property after succession, the claim of the exchequer would revive, but if it continued in the possession of the person succeeding to it the tax would be laid on his life interest only. If bon. gentlemen will look into the matter they will see that there is sense and reason in adopting this plan, and that is while, if the property remains in the possession of the party succeeding to it, the life interest only would be taxed, if 'during his life it were alienated, the claims of the crown would revive to recover the difference between the legacy duty imposed on the life interest, and the amount payable on the full value of the capital of the estate after deduct ing the incumbrances. There're other legal or technical considerations connected with the tenure of land that would direct the adoption of such • course, and I am right, I think, in 'eying that Mr. Pitt's plan of a legacy duty was similar in a general description to that which I have here suggested, and that he also proposed to impose the duty upon the life interest. These are all the main points to which I think it neeeasary to call attention—one only excepted— sad that other L the probable proceeds of the tax. Because I have seen in various quarters anticipations of these proceeds which I am utterly unable to follow or com prehend. Some of those anticipations are sanguine, while inborn are truly irrational and extraysgant, and won't bear examination. (Hear, hear.) Now, first, with regard to Ireland—it has been stated and assumed:in the course of de bate, that the additional legacy duty that would arrive from that country, under our plan, will he 300,0001. a year. I be lieve it will be from 60,0001. to 80,000/. (Hear, and a laugh.) This is all very disappointing, no doubt, and takes the co lour, the life, the beauty, and the art of the picture to a very greet extent, bringing it down to very homely propor tions, but this is the best computation we can form with the aid of all the official experience we can bring to the sub ject I won't enter minutely at this hour of the night into the question of the computation of the amount, but I may venture to tall the attention of hon. gentlemen to one main source, u I think, of their error in regard to the expected proceeds of this tax. When I stated that I ex pected 2,000,0001. of additional revenue it was supposed, though I said anything to justify the supposition, that I intended to levy it upon land. Mr. DISRAELI—No. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Tbe right hon. gentleman denies it. I do not impute the misunder standing to him, but it has been stated in the newspapers and in the house. Now the fallacy is this. The landed class in this country is known to hold the first place in in fluence, stature, and power, and I hope they will long con tinue to do so. At all events if they don't hold the first place they stand foremost, and possess immense influence, station and power. But the income of the land, as • class is by no means an proportion to that influence, station, and power. The causes to which I have alluded have materially decreased its income, while, at the same time, at maintains, directly or indirectly, great political power, and it is on the ground of that power I think that there is a disposition to exaggerate the amount of the income •of the land. But the fact Is, that the ametent of the landed property in this country, when corn: pared with all the other descriptions of property that would be subject to the legacy duty, is comparatively trifling. I am almost afraid to say how small I anticipate that the produce of this tax will be from mere land. On • former occasion I ventured to state that it afford to me that land paid 9d. in the pound to the in ane tax, while other classes of property paid 7d. That inseam:red to by one side of the house as too much, red me paid for my having expressed the opinion in a long labels sad a division. Possibly • similar result may attend the statement I now make, that it might easily be demon ' anted that out of the 2,000,0001. • very amp amount wiU use from the land. (Hear) I think it was the hon. sad learned member for Belfast (Mr. Whiteside), who, ea a former occasion, when I was unable to attend, sada a speech in which he discussed the question and by the light of his own experience and professional knowledge gave an opinion that the amount of revenue for settled property in Ireland when the tax was imposed wield be large indeed as compared with what we calcu bile upon ; and we calculate on • fair and reasonable in grease to the revenue from land; and when I speak of land, it most be remembered that there are two clasps of property connected with lead, and which are not I land Mu they are generally confounded with it— eincenses of creditors on mortgage and the Imam derived from settlements. Ido not think it pose eible,with a due regard to fairness and equality, to draw any distinction in favour of personalities settled on land as com pered with any other personalties. The income, for ex ' amps, of younger toes growing out of the charge on land, are aemon liable to local burdens than the money of mer eirmis and bill-brokers, or the funds. It appears tame that the ry connected with and related to land, but is not land, must take its chance with other pmeenalties, and bear its full burden of the tali. As nearly u I can compute the proceeds of that description of settled personalties charged upon land, it may be about 200,0001., or something more, eml of landed property proper, which I distinguish from beer and messusges, in the three kingdoms, will be not Mee then 400,0001. I have heard nothing stated in the treygf aa estimate nearly so low as this; but i will tell I the lama how I arrive at that result. I have stated that I separate and strike out from the consideration lama property and measure, and I now speak =ltthose estates which are properly territorial and tural estates. As I stated the other night, there are no semi sources of information known to the govenneest whisk are not open to all, the main source being the in ane tax returns. Under Schedule Awe have the geese unseat of landed property. I think it is 49,000,0001. • year. FlOlll that there most be a deduction made ; and if I take them rightly, the difference between the pass and the net amount would be 16 per wet, which will reduce the total to about 41,000,0001. Then I have to add Ireland. Now the valuation of the whole ratealile property in Ireland now is 11,200,0001. in round numbers. Out of that I must strike off that portion which is in house property and in other messuages, leaving 7,000,0001. or 8,000,000 1 . as the amount of landed property in Ireland. This would give me a set income from the laud in the three kingdoms of 48,000,0001. From that I have to deduct the interest payable on mort gages and settlements, which, of course, the successor would be allowed to deduct before he is charged with the tax. If we take the interest on mortgages and settlements at 25 per cent., that leaves 36,000,0001. as the annual income repre senting • capital of about 30 times as much. It is not irra tional to say that successions change once In3o years. (No.) At any rate it is open to any hon. gentleman to make a different calculation. I only wish to give the steps by which I have come tethe conclusions I have stated. Mr. DISRAELI was understood to ask whether the estimate included land under 1301. a year, and therefore exempt from the property tax ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think you would have to make a certain addition for that ; but that ad'litioa would be very moderate. I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon; I have taken properties under 1501. in the 4 ,000,0001. Unless I ant very much mistaken you will find that we have included the whole assessment under schedule A; and 1 am afraid there will be no addition from EVENING. MAX 13 d 1853. such a source. Assuming, then, that the racee.eion 04X11110 every year,, and t tat land i. 111117111 30 years' purchase, iit s obvious that yea will /Lora 36,000, 0001. worth al' landed property every yesr apon which to lay the tax. Then the meat step :a, at what rate will that tax ho levied? The leywy duty at present averages 2 4•Sths per cent.; and it is quite plain that the tax will fall upon lowled property at a such lighter rate. And for two reasons In the first place, became no interest higher than a life interest will be charged, which will reduce the tax t.. one moiety; and, secondly, because landed property runs nearer to the direct line than personalty. Well, sir, if that is the can., if the present rate of duty under the scale of consanguinity only gas 2 2.sths, it is most plain that the rate upon landed property cannot ge more than one moiety of that, or 1 2-sths. Now,l per cent. upon 36,000,0001. is 300,0001., and 1 2 sths will therefore be 500,000/. But when we remember that the succession to landed property runs nearer the direct succession, 1 feel that you must make a considerable further reduction ; and that you cannot, therefore, esti mate the proceeds which will be realised from landed pro perty at materially more than 400,0001. (Hear, hear.) '.ow, sir, I have stated briefly the grounds upon which I have arrived at the plan I have stated to the committee. That plan I have stated plainly and fairly, that the committee may examine and judge for themselves. (Cheers.) There have been other estimates—estimates I can hardly call them—dreams which some—l was going to say wiseacres, but I won't use such an offensive term—dreams in which some gentlemen have indulged. They have en deavoured to exhibit me as • person of monstrous capacity, and es one who is "'tempting to raise more than is justified by the exigencies of the state. If it eon be demonstrated that more can be raised by this tax I shall not quarrel with them. My interest is wholly on their side; only let us see that we have a real bona frig foundation on which to build our. expectations of future revenue, or else when we come to balance ear expenditure, the results will not be satisfac tory. (Cheers.) I won't go into the question of person alty. Here again we are obliged to trust mainly to the in come tax returns ; and there are still greater difficulties in coming at the amount of taxable property. There are large personalties that do not come into the tax at all ; and the estimates, therefore, becomes more conjectural than in the case of land; but still I venture to hope that from personal property we shall have receipts which, within • period of five years' time, will amouat to two millions of money. (Hear, hear.) There is one point more with regard to the payment of the tax on real and rateable property—namely, the time within which persons succeeding will be expected to pay it. Now, sir, speaking generally, where the successor to landed pro perty is not also the residuary legatee, the rents accruing on the first rent day do not belong to him ; but the rents accruing at the second rent day do. I, therefore, propose that no tax shall b• payable for 12 months after the de mise. (Hear, hear.) He will thus have a rent day, and some time after that, before he will be called upon to pay the tax ; and then I propose he shall pay it in eight equal half-yearly instalments. In the case of the direct 'nieces ' don it will be found that that arrangement will make the tax payable without material inconvenience. So it will be found in the case of the nearer indirect successions; but in the case of the 10 per cent. duty, which will be a rare case with respect to land, to pay the tax will take a considerable share of the proceeds. Now, as far as such eases are concerned, it may be perfectly open to considera tion to make a further prolongation of the time; but I should very much doubt the general policy of such a course. It would be better to give the executive a discretion—or rather to leave it to them, for I believe they already possess it—to allow further time in particular cases. The general features, then, of the plan the government propose is to charge upon no higher than • life interest, to charge on interests less than that, and to make !the tax payable in eight equal instalments. (Hear, hear.) One distinction we propose to make ; a distinction, namely, between the succession to the fee simple and the succession to a life in terest. If • person succeeding . to a life interest should die before he has paid the entire tax, that is, before be bas paid all the instalments—as he has suc seeded to nothing but a life interest, and the whole or his interest Las passed away with his life—we propose that the instalments should abate. (Hear, hear.) But if he has succeeded to the fee simple, then, although it would be equitable to give him time, it is plainly his duty to make provision for the payment of the tax. After the death of such a person, as his absolute property will still remain, the instalments unpaid will become a debt to the crown. (Hear, hear.) I hope I may now release the committee from further attention te my remarks. I have confined myself to generalities, and have avoided a great multitude of details, which will arise upon the hill, and may be dis cussed when that shall come before the house. I venture to express a hope—l do not challenge either contradiction or assent—but I do venture to express a hope that, that as in making the propositions we have been influenced by nothing but a desire to do right and justice, they will be found conducive to the great interests of this gnat conatry. (Cheers ) Several hon. members addressed questions to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer on minute points. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress. Mr. HUME inquired whether this resolution would be proceeded with to-morrow (this day) the first thing. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he thought it was understood that the committee would decide on the resolution to-morrow. The other orders of the day were then taken, and the greater part of them postponed. The Copyholds Bill passed through committee. RYE WRIT. —ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the question being put that a new writ do issue for the borough of Rye, Sir C. BURRELL moved that the farther consideration of the question be postponed for a fortnight. Lord PALMERSCON asid the nibble lord (Lord John Russell) would probably be in his place this day, and he suggested that the debate should be adjourned until this day, when, if his noble friend was not able to attend, he, or some member of the government, would be able to answer for him, The motion for the adjournment until this day, was agreed to. MONEY ORDER OFFICE. Mr. FREWEN moved that the Post-office attached to the house be made a money order office. Mr. WILSON said he bad had a' notification from the post office to-day that a money order office might be established at the office in question, without cost to the public, as the person who kept the office had offered to conduct it for a @hereof the commission. Under these circumstances he should offer no opposition to the motion. The motion was then earned. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO TILE ARMY. Mr. LUCAS moved for a " Return showing the distri bution of the sum of 18,5001., voted for the army services of the years 1852 and 1853, under the head of ' divine eer vico,; stating the religious denomination to which each clergyman belonged ; the office, title, and service in virtue of which such allowance was made ; the date of his ap pointment, or of the commencement of his allowance, if an annual one." He said he believed there was no objec tion to this motion ; but an hon. member opposite had given notice of an addition to the motion, which he under stood would be opposed. Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE moved, as an addition to the return, " and the names and distribution of the reli giose books paid for out of the same vote." Mr. 8. HERBERT hoped the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hastie) would not press his motion. Mr. SPOONER thought they ought to know what the books were, and if they were improper, that they should put a stop to the hem of them. He recommended the hon. gentleman to withdraw that part of the motion which re quired a copy of the books, and to move that there should be a list of them. Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE said his objection was to the books being diatributed, not in prisons, but in schools. Mr.' S. HERBERT remarked that they were not distri buted in school,. Mr. HASTIE said he was satisfied, and withdrew his amendment. The motion as proposed by Mr. Lucas then passed. The house then at one o'clock adjourned, THE REPRESENTATION OF PLYMOUTH. In consequence of the vacancy created by the un seating. of Mr. Charles James Mare for bribery, this bo rough is beginning to assume the bustle and activity which generally precedes and accompanies the election of a parlia mentary representative. Prior to the decision of the committee of the House of Commons being made public, Mr. Mara published an address to the electors, announcing that in consequence of the decision of the com mittee the seat was vacant, and stating that from the present 'spent of political affairs an opportunity would soon occur of his again presenting himself to the electors, and in the meantime asking them to put his friend Sir John Heron Maxwell into the seat. On Wednesday a ft ernoon Sir John Maxwell arrived here, and on the following day saw some of the electors. Sir John was a candidate on the Derby interest at Devon prt at the general election. Mr. Ermine, a liberal, who was a candidate at the last election, arrived here on Mon. day evening, and has since seen many of the electors. Mr. Brame is a merchant and the deputy chairman of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company. Mr. Ermine was to address the electors yesterday (Thursday) evening, and Sir John Maxwell to meet his committee and friends at the same time. TIM BAILORS' HOME AND ASYLUM.—Yesterday' I the annual general meeting of this institution took place in the Museum of the HIIIUM. in WeU-street, London Docks. i Admiral Wm. Bowles, C.D., M.P., presided. The house i forms a board and lodging establishment for seamen and apprentices, where they live comfortably during the time they mast unavoidably remainashere, and are protected from crimps. Forts. per day, or 14s. a week, seamen are pro vided with a sleeping cabin, four meals a day, and a fair allowance of washing included, with religious instruction and the facilities of learning navigation. From the report it appeared that the total amount of monies entrusted to the officers of the institution by seamen for security since its formation was 324,4091., of which 77,7261. was remitted to the sailors' relatives, and 9,6331. invested in the Home's Savings Bank. The object of the Destitute Sailors' Asylum was to supply shelter, food, and clothing to distressed sea men of all nations, and to keep them till they can procure employment. It had conferred help and sustenance to an immense number of helpless cuatures, but for which they must have perished in destitution and misery, Both insti tutions were represented to be in prosperous conditions. After a vote of thanks to the gallant chairman, the meeting separated. 1 ABERDEEN HAIM AY.—Traffic for the week ending April 30, 1853 :—Passengers, &c., 73b1. ; goods, &c., 8901.; total, 1.6281.; corresponding week last year, 1,5201. I.lilea open, 72. PARLIA3iZNT. I I2Y DIVISION. LAST NiC,IIT. Ors the @tenni rosolu'Fon on the Inane T.x, another amendment rivaled, to leave • ut the word "in .iety," in order t... insert the weds •• third part." iuetrni therein: (Hr. Vanittert) - Qveation Pot. "That the words ' trtird pat' be Men lanais!.—The cons. entice iLvided—Aycs, GO; Not.., 120. AYES. Meander, John Thiele% Jain.* M. Giandston, Lord Arbuthnottilim.Gen. Granby. Mstquis of Pakinntan. Sir J. Milley, Ciawrhay Greene, John Palmer, Robert Ball, Edward Hamill." G. A. Potter. Robert Dante*, Rt. lion. 0. lle• bed, Sir Thomas Roberteon, Patrick F. Barrington, Viscount Jolliffe, Fir W. U. rant, lion. Francis Bendricii, Lord Henry Jones, Thoth Sibthorp, Colonel beeitinek, G. W. P. Kelly, Sir Fitzroy Smith, W. Y. Booker, Thuossa W. Kendall, bleeds burin, Stoner J. Book, Levis W. King, James King Sooner, Richard BMX, Geo. Medd Kane, Hon W. S. Tollemache, John Chad, Smith Laren, Robert 11. Trial lope, lit lin Sir J. Cbokrooodeky,Lord II Liddell, Henry U. Vivian, John E. Woolly, The Loon, Walter Walcott, Admiral Hacks, Mohan Malin*, Richard Wodehoon, Edmond Dinreels. Ma. lion. B. Mandeville, Vimonat Wyndham, Gen. Fenian% Edward B. Menem, Lord Ji.ln Wenn, Sir Nubia W. Fellows, Edward Michell, William Yorke, Hon. E. T. Rimer, fir Edmond Moody, Charles A. TS L Line Fresidlekl, James W. Newdegate, C. N. Vansittart, Cr. IL Galway, Viscous% Gann J. 11. P. Stanhope, J. B. NOE.. Aetand, Sir T. D. Gibson Et, Ito. T. IL O'Connell, Manrlce Aglionty, Henry A. Gladstone, Rt. He , W. tr'Vlaberly, Anthony Amon, 'Hamm Go..dman. SirGeoree tiliw Ira, Benjamin Andersen, Fir James Gou.burri, Itt.lln.ll. Peel, Frederick Atherton. William Graham, Rt. 113.84 r J. ['elixir, Apaley Baines, /halloo. M.T. Greene, Thomas Phillano:e, John G. Barnes, Thomas Haddad, George Phillinsure, R. J. Bell, James Ilacie, Alexander Pill:minim, James Beekaly, C. L. 0. Ilaele, Archibald Price, W. P. BetkelL Riehaid Heard, John Isaac lUmaden, Slr J. W. Sings, William lineage, G. 11. W. Itur:el, F. C. H. Height, John Herbert, Rt. Hn. F. sadleir, James lire bertoo, Joseph Heyman, Lawrence Settle. C. B. G. Brown, Iluiophery Hughes, William B. Schotelleld, William Cardwell, Rt. Iron. E. iluase, Jorneph Scobell, tnpt. Chambers, Thomas Hutt, William Scully, Francis i harteris, lien. P. Ninon, Robert Seymour, Wm. D. Cheeth.iin, John Inglis, Ste Robert H. shale., Robert D. Cobden, lti hard heating, Robert Shelley, Sir John V. Cocks, Thomas S. Keating, Henry 8. Smith, John B. Collo, Walter Keogh, William Smith, Rt. Ha. B. V. Crook, Joseph Kershaw, James Strutt. Rt. lion. E. Crossley, Frank King, lion. r. J. L. Mitred, Henry W. Crowder, Rich. B. Langston, James H. Thovuoson, George Llorbwood, Sir U. 11. Langton, Henry U. Thoroiley, Thomas Druisilanein. Viscount Lockhart, Allan E. Vernon, U. E. H. Dube, Sir James Lon don, Frye. Villiers. Int. lin. C. P. Duncan, George Lowe, Robert Walonley. Sir J. Dunlop, Alex. al. Mackie, John Whalley, George H. Evans, William M'Gregor, John Whitbread, Samuel Evart, le 'Blom Marshall, William Wit one, Brodie WO. Fagan, William Morey, William N. Williams, Wiliam redden, M. J. llasunimin, John W anon, James Fergus, John Miall, Edward Winnington, Sir T. E. Ferguson. Jo'eph Halligan, Rob::rt Wye., Aye/had • Fitzgerald, Fir J. F. Mills. Thomas Wood, Itt.lln. Sir C. Fitzgerald, W. It. S. Molesworth, Rt. Hon. Young, Rt. lln. Sir 3. 11 - if o , ', Hon. Henry Sir W. , Forster, Charles Moilerciff, James TELLISS. Fon, Itiehari IC Moreton, Lord Mulgrave, Earl of ' Fog, William J. Murrough, Jckn P. Stapes, ht. lion. W. Gesch, Charlie O'Brien, Cornelius Zhe ervreols. TO CORKRSPONVENTB. 4ceurid Edition of "Thu Express," containing the woo evening's flatette,"ll published every Tuesday and Friday eight, is time for post. tverthet.e•te iniendad for "The Enema," Lost ion Evening paper, 701 , 4 be at the mane, SO, bouverbe•scriet, by Two o'clock on the ley of pabilustioa. NIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. T ug DAr—Morn[aY. 48. Sea— Afternoon. 3b. 13m. T .soaaew—Morniag. 3a. 32r .Afternoon. aa. 331 a. LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 13. Vinnuna difference/of opinion may have existed amongst Reformers as to the merits of Mr. GLADSTONE'S scheme of the Income Tax, there can be none wbat- ever about his proposition for the extension of tho Probate Duty. This measure is founded not only upon necessity, but upon justice. It is necessary be cause the proceeds of the duty will be required to com pensate for the loss which will be occasioned by the reforms of our fiscal system. It is just because it will remove an iniquitous and invidious distinc tion, which has obtained for nearly sixty years, be tween the successors to real and personal property. Amongst the many glaring instances of the selfish ness of landlord leg islation, none is more remarkable than the pluming of the Probate and Legacy Duties. When Pin, in 1796, introduced the subject of these duties to the House, he proposed that they should operate upon real and personal property indiscrimi nately. The landlords, however, unblushingly rejected that part of the act which related to real property, and which would, there fore, have fallen on themselves, while they unhesi tatingly gave the force of law to the proposed duties on the succession to personal property. The effect of this has been, that while the successors to inheri tances of personal property have paid since the year 1797 the sum of 47,401,2731. is the shape of duty to the revenue, the heirs of real property have paid nothing at all! A more startling example' of class legislation it would be difficult to discover. While merchants, farmers, and shopkeepers have been paying large sums, deducted from their inheritance, the possessors of estates have come into possession of their magnificent rent-rolls without contributing any thing to the revenue. If there is one tax which isles. objectionable than another it is a tax on suc cessions. The Government merely withholds froth the taxpayer a portion of property which he has never yet enjoyed. He is not called upon, as in the case of the Income Tax, to sacrifice something that was before employed in actual expenditure on himself. To the stability produced by good Government he owes it, that this pro perty can be at all transmitted peacefully to him. The State has endowed the possessor of the soil with what HALLAM has felicitously called a " fictitious immortality ." it has invested him with a power of securing to his successor the full possession of that which he amassed daring his life, and it has a right to claim from the persons to wh om it secures these benefits contributions necessary for the due and pro per exercise of its functions. It would appear im possible to produce better grounds for a tax than this. And yet for nearly sixty years, the landlords who have agreed in the justice of imposing it upon the successors to personal property have resisted its operation on themselves. It is easily intelligible how the existence of an injustice of this nature has tended to embitter the feelings with which the makers of the laws are regarded. A Legislature intent upon securing itself from the I incidence of taxation, while it is careless how hea -1 oily the incidence bears on others, will merit the contempt which its conduct necessarily engenders. Mr. GLADSTONE last night rightly , asserted that the correction of this monstrous injustice was even more Important in a political than in a financial point of 'Mir. "I do not hesitate to say," said the CHANCELLOR et the EXCHEQUER, " that behind and above all tameecsonsidemtions"[of finance) " there is a purpose of a still more important character, namely, the re movalof an anomaly which has been and is most galling to public feeling, and which has been and is sure to become more galling to public feeling from year to year." Nobody can help coinciding with him in the answer he himself gives to the question he put to the Committee. " I wish to - ask the Commit tee one question. Do they think it pos sible to preserve the law in the posi tion it holds at present ? In my (swum it would be totally impossible to do so." The "load cheers" of the House proved clearly that the perception of the anomaly was—amongst a large body of men—no less strong within the walls of Par liament than without. The objection made to the proposed imposition of the duty on the succession to real property, founded upon the assertion that this kind of property is already subject to heavier imposts than any other, is best met with a positive denial. Mr. GLADSTONE showed that leasehold property was subject to the same burdens as real property, and there would be no difficulty in showing—as was done often enough during the debates on the Corn Laws—that the complaints of the agriculturist, that they arc more heavily taxed than any other class are not founded in fact. It is urged sometimes that the imposition of duty on the succession to largo estates would be excessive; that the land would pay more than its due share to the public revenut. ' • and that so large an amount as is likely to be produced is not necessary. But it must be remembered that there are many circumstances tending to diminish the actual amount of the duties on succession to land, as compared with some estimates of its probable produce. A great majority of the estates in our country arc mortgaged very deeply. The heir to an estate of this kind o n coming into . possession often finds that two-thirds of his property is mortgaged. He will only in such cases pay the duty therefore on the unincumbered third. fhe liabilities on the remaining portion are borne by the person who holds the mortgage, and this class are already liable to the payment of the legacy tax. The exemption from ditties on ancemiop is clearly an unfair privilege which must at list be surrendered bt• the One bt . one ILL !II SAIDO&i 0113 ' nities from sacrifices required for the good of the state have vanished, and this must go with the rest. The traces of feudalism are disappearing from the face of 3ur legislation, and this is but common justice, since feudalism has no longer any mission to perform. When the landowners undertook of themselves the government and the protection of th e coun t ry t h ey justified their claim to exclusive privileges. When the holder of a knight's fee was bound to serve his Sovereign forty days annually, mounted in armour, no one contested his right to the possession of certain exemptions. The owners of land no longer stand in this position. They rank neither as the most die ' tinguished nor the most useful of the population. Their land is merely a commodity, like any other in the market, and common sense will no longer be outraged by allowing it to be endowed with the power of conferring exclusive and invidious rights upon its possessors. Mr. GLADST?Nr: S speech was a sufficient expose , of all the fallacies by which these worn•out privileges are vindicated. He has ex hausted the argument, and none ought to be more grateful to him than the landlords themselves for showing how discreditable and unfair is their posi tion, and how impossible it is for them any longer to retain it. All holders of property must be content to stand equally under the fair pressure of fiscal laws. THE OVERLAND MAIL. MARSEILLES, Tnticsiar. The Indian Mail arrived litre to-day. FItANCE. PARIS, TWVASDAT EVENING. The decree prolonging the session of the Corps Legislatif appears in the Mondeur. The wording is material. It enacts that " the session of 1833, which was to have terminated on the 13th of this month, shall not be closed until the evening of Saturday, May 28." Had the additional session been declared a supplementary one instead of the continuation of the former, it is very probable that the new jury law, and perhaps some other bills, would have been re jected, because the government might then at onoe have brought forward new bills free from the clauses upon which conflicts have arisen, but the Corps Le gislatif shrinks from the extreme measure of throwing out a bill altogether, and this is the reason why the government prolongs the present session instead of opening a new one. The Marquis d'Andelarre in the final debate on the Jury Bill, ventured to speak some home truths. The main point of conflict between the committee of the house and the Council of state was this—the committee desired that a mem ber of the council-general should form part of the board entrusted with the duty of striking the jury list. The Council of State obstinately refused to give way, and the consequence is, that juries will bo nominated entirely by government functionaries. The Marquis d'Andelarre said that the go vernment debaters had been forced to admit that their object was to wholly exclule the elective element from the composition of the jury. He warned the government that in neglecting the admonitions of a friendly voice, and pushing its principles of authority to extreme lengths, it was committing the fault which had been fatal to all its predecessors. The bill for the revival of the punishment of death for political offences was presented yesterday, and may be expected to become the law of France within a fortnight, unless, indeed, the instinct of self-pre servation should be stronger in the Corps Legislatif than it has proved to be with the Council of State. The penal code, when Lamartinc's law of Feb. 26 shall be abolished, will run thus : Art. 86. Every attempt against tbo life or person of the Emperor is punished with the pain of parricide. Every at tempt against the lifo or person of the members of the im perial family is punished with the pain of death. Every offence publicly committed against the person of the Em peror shall be punished with an imprisonment of from six months to five years, and with a fine of from 500 fr. to 10,000 fr. The guilty person may, in addition, be inter dicted from the whole or a portion of his civic, civil, or family rights during a period equal to that of the imprison ment to which he shall have been condemned. That period shall MI from the day on which the guilty party shall have undergone his punishment. Art. 87. Any attempt, the object of which *ball be, either to destroy or to change the government, or the order of succession to the throne, or to excite the citizens or in habitants to take up arms against the Imperial authority, shall be punished with death. What an anomaly is it that a government based on universal suffrage should punish with death any attempt to instigate the equally competent jurors of to-day to reverse the verdict of the jurors of yester day ? And what shall be said of this blood-thirsty law brought forward by a man who, a twice-convicted conspirator, owed his life to the clemency of a royal house that he has since beggared, and whose four years' career as President of the Republic was one continued conspiracy against the " established go vernment" which he had sworn to maintain ? When the Emperor received the members of the Corps Legislatif on Monday evening, he sat near the door of his study, while each visitor approached him in succession and conversed privately for some seconds. It is said that during this audience no less than from sixty to eighty applications for railway concessions were made, being at about the rate of a railway for every two minutes. The health of the Empress is slowly improving. It is hoped that she will soon be well enough to be removed to St. Cloud. The Eanx Bonnes in the Pyrenees have been recommended for her Majesty, and it was indeed expected that she would go there as soon as she felt strong enough. But I now hear that her journey to those springs is not expected to take place before the end of July, when she will be accompanied by the Emperor. Dr. Darrel, the official physician of the Eanz Bonnes, who has been in Paris since the Empress's illness, and has pre scribed for her in consultation with Drs. Dubois and Conneau, is about to return, and he is instructed to . prepare apartments for the reception of their Majesties. At the Bourse to-day there was but a small amount of business transacted. The Three per Cents. for the account were steadily maintained, and had im proved 10c. at the close of business. A fall of 3c. placetroop HperCeer for Cents. In cash, the ouraFndo lbs -H of in the in theand Fpeourrce-anTudths for the end of the week the -F -e alf p decline was 10c. Bank of France sha res remained Without variation. The closing prices were :—For cash: Three per Cents., 81f. 60c.; Four-and-a-Half per Cents., 104 f. For the account: Three per Cents., 81f. 83c.; Four-and-a-Half per Cents., 1041. 30c. Bank Stock, 2,730 f. There is no change to report in Mortgage Bank shares, or in those of the Societe Mobiliere--the former being still quoted at 883 E, and the latter at 940 f. In the Railway Share market a decline again oc curred in the shares of nearly all the important lines. Final quotations :—Northerns, 930 f. ; Orleans, 1,1071.; Paris and Strasbourg, 934 f. 23c. ; Paris and Lyons, 962 f. 25c.; Paris and Rouen, 1,143 f. ; Lyons to the Mediterranean, 84M. 50c.; Western of France, 793 E 50c. ; Rouen and Havre, 542 f. 30c. ; Bordeaux and Cette, 6681. BELGIUM. The ordinarily well-informed Frankfort correspon dent of the Cassel Gazette affirms that the King of Belgium has lately been in the habit of correspond ing with the Czar several times a week. TURKEY. A correspondent, dating Constantinople, April 28, writes that the difference with Greece on a question of territory is adjusted. The ambassadors of Eng land, France, and Russia, to whom it was referred, have decided that the three villages in dispute belong to Turkey. In consequence of this decision, de spatches have been sent to the ministers of the three powers at Athens, requesting them to bring the fact to the knowledge of King Otho, and induce him to recal the troops which he had sent to the frontier. Respecting the negotiations with Ruslia, mach was conjectured and little known. Prince )4eachikoti protested the amicable disposition of his arareign, and the Turkish minister reciprocated the tpintanee for the Sultan, but both parties eontinuea their ar maments. At Odessa the Russians were at work night and day, as upon the eve of hostilities. Tao French fleet was at Salamis. The English frigate Wasp arrived at Constantinople 911 tile 27th ult.