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

----.--* ENTALS. _, 2 b al g 79. sO s~~~ %O f 7i 40 %4'5 A Y.) vere ve" t err little _i Id each leval o : 4 ," house g';: o fit vles, de, Bushel; Od ; or ti ar icl* ;11 ; 0 1111- 0 0 ;1 ; cofrf r or ishel ; ° "• 1 10 d nee 1 0 0 zen ; 1A gooseuv,. Oh' lOd Pe• 011 gaols sf iree t 6s; o p P i beans, r to 3s 4 5, 1 mo ct: indle ; 731: : 80s to ';it per o t )d per : I 0 , Aery, 'l O O . l • half ° do, 4 c l - 3; ts,e 4t :l 1 per Od ; P io r, sens, oo ol per " o r Is per 5,1 0 mint, # 4 . 1 ach ; cnt -v nd dit o ' o o.l per Oa • 300.10, 40, 6C I ; na )011E4 %-A „ /0 V i la/ 1)1 Bu ie ex° fre° • losi• Cod ; to ers, flood o; d per fl io Conl— ; re, 425 ( 10%. pet i per g a sj s ict LA , ings F , il cer • 151 0 Gt • 7 rieb , but, 11 S1 ,1 0 ,Stun 721b,.1; d to 11b •aff skr ie a PC1.1.- as, a lt . - br e to 20 24 c",,,,er, cl , per I°6 c lot per I°3. • ClOO j' i 0 D...• per . THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1853. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool sack at five o'clock. The Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway ; the Llanelly Railway and Dock (No. 2) ; the London and North-Western (Oldham Branch); and the Limerick and Foynes Railway Bills were read a third time and passed. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from the Metropolitan Law Association, complaining of inequalities in the Stamp Act, and praying that they Might be revised. ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was passed through committee. SUCCESSION DUTY BILL. Tho Earl of ABERDEEN—My lords, I rise to move the second reading of the Bill to Impose Duties upon Succes sions. It is a bill which has occupied the attention of the other House of Parliament for a considerable time, and, after having undergone great discussion, after having been Minutely examined in all its parts, and most fully and carefully debated, it has finally been sent up to your lord ships by a very large majority. (Hear, hear.) My lords, this is a measure which has been recommended to her Ma jesty's Government by various considerations. In the first Place, it enables us to relieve the industry of the country from the burdens which have hitherto materially affected the employment of capital and labour. My lords, the removal of those burdens will operate beneficially for tha welfare and interests of this country. (Hear.) This measura also enables the Government to secure, or at least to make provision for that security, which we desire to obtain for the means of dispensing with the income tax at the period Which has been assigned for its continuance ; and, my lords, It has enabled us in a certain degree to redress the ine quality which has been complained of in the imposition of that tax. The noble earl opposite and his friends corn rain that inequality exists in the imposition of that tax, Inasmuch as it is levied without any allowance being made for income derived from precarious sources, or without tak ing into account those incomes derived from the exercise of Intelligence and skill, and they have recommended a prin ciple of differentiation in the imposition of that tax. My lords, her Majesty's Government have thought it right to tax property equally in all respects, without looking to the sources whence it may be derived, whether from mere labou r or from the exercise of intelligence and skill. The greatest inducement to her Majesty's Government to adopt the course which I now propose to your lordships has been the wish to remedy an injustice which has long been com- Plained of, and which, in fact, was gradually becoming in tolerable to the country. The sense of right and justice 11 'M so oppssed to it that it could not have continued much longer, and it was wonderful that it had existed so long. Mr. Pitt, no doubt, made an attempt to remedy that Which was an evil in his day as grave and crying in its nature as it is at present. My lords, no Minister since his time has made any attempt to do that which, although called for by the general voice of the country, is attended with such difficulties as to have deterred any Govern ment from grappling with them. I trust, however, that the country will feel that my right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer has worthily accomplished the design, and has successfully grappled with the accompany ing difficulties. When I say that an injustice has long Prevailed, it is only necessary to state a simple fact to Prove that assertion, and, my lords, I think I cannot do it better than in the words of a writer held in great repute by noble lords opposite, and whose opinion they will doubtless respect. The statement to which I ultra beg Your lordships attention is— " A poor man who gets a legacy of 1001. pays 10/. direct to the Exchequer, and the executor, in addition, pays the heavy st amp on probate of the succession ; but the great landholder succeeds to 100,0001. a year, without paying a shilling to the State. A creditor in Scotland, who succeeds to a bond for 100,0001., heritably secured, pays nothing; if it is on personal security he pays the full legacy duty of 1 0,0001. Thi s g l ar in g in equa lity, th e remnan t o f th e d ays of feudal oppression, or the relic of a time when the land holders had no money, and taxes could be extracted from moveable property only, should forthwith be abolished. Suc cession of all kinds, whether in land, bonds heritably secured, or moveable funds, should be taxed at the same rate." MY lords, I think so too ; and such is the opinion of Sir Archibald Alison, a writer who is held in great esteem by noble lords opposite. The noble earl opposite appears to have contemplated some measure to remedy the evil, for the right hon. gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exche quer described the legacy duty as a system of injustice, and shadowed out some course of proceeding by which a remedy was to be provided: What that course of pro ceeding was we are not permitted to know. My lords, it is on this principle that every species of succession should be equally taxed that we have produced the measure which I now submit to the consideration of your lordships. (Hear, hear.) My lords, the measure, although now only proposed for a second reading, has occupied more or less of our lordships' attention on different occasions, and we have heard strong denunciations of the injustice, oppres sion, and hardship of the burden which it will impose. It is rather singular that, although we have heard these de nunciations, we have received no petitions against this tax, although there are petitions against every other species of burden which we can imagine. (Hear.) My lords, I thought when I heard those fervid and eloquent declamations against the tyrannical and oppressive nature of this measure Which were so rife, that the table of the house would be loaded with petitions against it. I now hold in my hand the report of the House of Commons upon public petitions, kid in that report there is a long list of petitions against l ' °e rY description of tax, but not a single one against the taiceeeesion agh duty, which is described as so oppressive, al the bill has been before the House of Commons for ulonths, and this return is made up to the 15th of a r . Y. (Hear.) I might say the same for this house. I . 4 constant attendant here but I have heard no petition y e sterday, this bill, and none ' have been presented except „J e sterday, w h en a no bl e e ar l o pp os ite, not now in his place, ' re sented a petition from four or five, I have no doubt, re spectable solicitors. That, my lords, is the amount of public disapprobation of this measure, so far as it has been al g - eified by petitions to either House of Parliament. But, ilai,NY lords, as I understand that the noble earl opposite t his toes not mean to oppose the second reading of 'is bill, it is not necessary to detain your lordships by triiilag into any examination of the provisions of the bill and different clauses. These may be explained and discussed at a future stage of the measure. Nevertheless, I shall v enture to lay before your lordships a general view of the object and character of the measure. My lords, we pro- Pose that a duty shall be imposed upon every species of succession arising in consequence of death, or rather we Propose to extend the present legacy duties to every suc cession of any description. No other mode of transfer of Property is taken into account. It is simply a duty upon Successions in consequence of death. At present real pro- P e rtY, whether settled or unsettled, as your lordships are "ware, pays no succession duty. Now, we propose to re dress this anomaly, for there really seems no reasonable ca use why settled personal property should not be dealt With in the same manner as unsettled property. We pro pose to apply the same rule to all descriptions of property. e propose to preserve the same scale of consanguinity as heretofore in measuring the amount of duty, with one exception. At present sons-in-law and daughters-in-law are treated as strangers, and pay the duty of 10 Per cent. We propose to place them in the con dition of sons and daughters. I know there is great difference of opinion on this subject, but, on the as the scale of consanguinity has existed so lo ng, we are of opinion that it will he better to preserve t he scale which now exists, with that exception. We are 9f opinion that in applying the succession duty to land, it !!3 desirable to do so with as much consideration, and as l ightly as can reasonably be required. We have, there fore, proposed to estimate all successions to land according , o the life interest of the person succeeding. There are v arious mocks of estimating that life interest, but it will 0 estimated only upon the life interest ; and where the Interest is even less than a life interest, if a less interest exists, the person so succeeding will pay upon that, what everZ the amount of his interest may be. We propose, as as propos e d by Mr. Pitt, to make the succession duty v a Yable in eight half-yearly payments ; the first will only culuesence at the end of the first year, so that a space of ficli and a half years - will be afforded for the discharge of the dut y l - - That appears to be as lenient an application of the yZ l Position of the tax as can reasonably be expected. To e w you the operation of the present bill, let us take the Sze of a person who succeeds to a landed estate of the 3.fue of 10,0001. This value of 10.000/. gives a rental of ou i - a-year. We will take the average age of succession at Years, which I believe is a fair estimate, and is borne a , 4 by what has been ascertained by takine the averaee te t of successions of members of this house, which is found 35 years. Well, the succession of 35 years of age ocall give 15A years' purchase, and the sum, therefore, t: which the duty is charged is somewhat less than half t q e ,,capital value, that is, 4,650 1 . The person succeeding b. the estate will be charged on that sum. The duty will - Payable iu four years and a half, and the sum which Ilwoulcl represent his life interest would b e 461. 10 s. If ought fit to make immediate p a y ment, he would be e allowed a discount of 4/. 135., and, consequently, the Whole amount of duty payable for the estat e in ques tion Would be 41. 17s. The produce of the tax is esti mated at 2.000,0001. sterling. I know it is supposed by ee liie that the amount will be higher, and I think that "ue nobl e earl opposite (Derby) himself intimated such tu opinion. I c an only s a y that, accordin to all the best calcul a ti ons I h ave h a d access to, that does not gap pear to be the case. Allowing for some uncertainty in calcul a ti ons of this kind, I think that about 2,000,0001. k r u n aY be fairly estimated as the produce of the tax. I that it has been said, both in this house and elsewhere, t this measure has been conceived in a spirit of hos tility to land. My lords, I utterly deny that such is the e r. a se• We h ave en d eavoure d t o d o th e b es t we cou ld in the fi nancial m easures a d opte d b y us, an d , h av i ng i mpose d ,burdens from w hi c h th e l an d i s exemp t, we h ave th o ught '1 measure required by the claims of justice and expe diency, I nev er con t en d e d th a t it was any advantage to the the land to b e pl ace d on a diff eren t f oo ti ng f rom th e res t o f country. (Hear.) It has been said that the Govern mentto resolved to levy a tax of 2,000,0001. on the land, manner irrespective of the nature of the tax itself, and the in stead in which it might be levied. But, my lords, in ed of a duty of 2,000,0001. upon the land, every calcu- T e t r i .v n that can be made shows that the utmost that can be . ed or expected to be derived strictly from the land, the ,0001.—n ot il], one-fourth part of the amount of That is, of course, exclusive of houses held upon .reehold and ' leasehold tenure. The main object of this lords and the principle upon which it proceeds 1 ') to extend to all successions that duty which is now " 1 7 confined to unsettled personal property. I do not Propose , e go further i n t o th e prov i s i ons of the bill . B u t sitaninadytihnenkne.obnle a one erl observation on th e course w hi c h I under opposite (Derby) proposes t o t a ke ; a nd I make this observati on w i t h the utmost respect for privileges of this house. I can quite understand if your lordships receive a bill from the other House of Par liament imposing a tax of an oppressive and unjust nature -- I can quite understand your lordships resisting such a measure, and refusing to entertain it. But I do not un derstad how, having a d op t e d the principle mtioeasunre, your lordships s h ou ld enter uponthe o e o f n s s t u d c e h r a a n of details, the practical consequence lord s hi ps must be very well aware - of w hi c h your If this measur e be s o un j ust and so strongly to be resisted, I admit the right of your lordships to reject themg so if e i and I do n o t quarrel with the expediency of doing n!: , such as to requi re it . E nt, having assentedhe temergieerineny 01 P10 of the D2Oallitot to nun' questioaa ati4tot3o-thi; timber should be taxed in one way or another, or whether it shall be taxed at all—l think that, considering the prac tical consequences of such a proceeding, if successful, these considerations are well worthy of your lordships' attention. I only advert to this subject with the utmost respect and deference, but I earnestly entreat your lordships to con sider what may be the practical result of a course of this kind. I can only say that I have entire confidence in that good sense and moderation that has always been exhibited by this house upon such occasions. I believe that the course intended, as I understand, to be pursued and to be recom mended to your lordships is such as has been very rarely practised in this house. Without further observation, I will now move the second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of DERBY said, that although he certainly thought the noble earl had exhibited all his wonted pru dence in abstaining from entering upon any discussion of the principles and provisions of this bill, and in giving to their lordships a very meagre sketch indeed of the purport and intent of this bill, yet he could not think the noble earl had exercised the same prudence in repeating what he had so often adopted on former occasions—namely, the tone of extreme self-laudation--he meant the laudation of the noble earl's Government—upon the unparalleled merit and the triumphant success of their financial policy. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the noble earl, to say the least of it, had chosen a very singular time for claiming a financial triumph, when he was introducing to their lord ships, as the basis of the financial proposals of the govern ment, a measure which the noble earl had hesitated to characterise, but which he (the Earl of Derby) should take the liberty of describing to their lordships. Ho confessed he entirely joined with the noble earl in the high estimate which he had expressed of the consum mate ability displayed in the course of the present ses sion by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon whom almost the whole burden of con ducting the business of the other house had fallen, and 'who certainly had with great skill and dexterity induced that House to assent to his financial proposals. (Hear.) But when the noble earl claimed credit for the wonderful success of the right hon. gentleman's financial operations, he must permit him to remind him that the scheme of the right hon. gentleman consisted of two propositions —one, the attempted conversion of the Three per Cents., which was admitted by the noble earl opposite, and certainly by every one else—although, in the first instance, a triumph ant success had been claimed for that also,—yet it was now admitted to be a signal and melancholy failure—(hear, hear) —and the other portion of the financial scheme of the Government was the budget, of which, as he had said be fore, this bill was the corner stone and foundation, and without which it would be impossible to carry it into effect. Indeed, the grounds upon which the noble earl had defended this measure, so far as he had defended it, were the inability of the Government otherwise to carry into effect the remission of taxation upon the springs of in dustry, and the desire to compensate for the inequalities of the income tax ; and, in the next place, to redress the manifest injustice which the noble earl considered to exist in the scale of taxation upon real as compared with per sonal property. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in carrying into effect the remission of taxation, was un doubtedly obliged to rely in a great measure upon the funds which he would derive from this bill. He certainly felt for the difficulty of the position in which the right hon. gentleman and the Government were placed, when, shortly before the right hon. gentleman assumed office, he laid it down as an axiom that no Chancellor of the Exchequer was worthy of his place who did not provide a permanent sur plus of 600,0001., and when, at the present moment, as the result of the triumphant financial scheme of the Go vernment, the right hon. gentleman ventured to hold out to the House of Commons a possible surplus of 100,0001. if their lordships gave him the 2,000,0001. to be derived from this tax. If their. ordships tried this bill by its merits—by its justice, its policy, its practicability, and its expediency—they would be also trying the merits of the financial policy of the Government. And if the present bill were, as he believed it to be, essentially unjust, oppres sive, and impracticable,—if it altered the whole character of the property of this country,—if, retrospectively, it im posed obnoxious and heavy burdens upon all former settle ments,—then, whatever pecuniary advantages were to be derived by the other classes of the community from remis sions purchased by adopting a system so unjust and oppres sive, he for one did not envy the Government that proposed this measure, with all its injustice and oppression, and then claimed credit for having relieved other classes from taxation by the instrumentality of such a measure. With regard to the diminution of the inequality of the existing income tax, no alteration whatever had been made. He confessed he was at a loss to understand the meaning of the noble earl ; but he presumed his moaning was, that by im posing additional burdens on real property their lordships would compensate, to a certain extent, for an undue amount of pressure of income tax upon income arising from realised landed and personal property. The noble earl went on to make the assertion, and a bold one it was, that ' the introduction of this measure was imperatively de manded by a sense of justice, looking to the favour which had been shown in the taxation of the country, to the lauded interest, and to realised property in comparison with personal property. The noble earl said that an exemption of real property from succession duty was a grievance and an evil so crying and oppressive, that the only wonder was it had been tolerated so long, and that in a short period it would have been found intolerable. The noble earl sail that Mr. Pitt had endeavoured to impose a succession duty, but had failed, and that from that time to the present • no minister had been found who had ventured to avow an intention of dealing with this subject. At length, then, Parliament had found a worthy successor of Mr. Pitt, a phoenix Chancellor of the Exche quer, in whom Mr. Pitt rose from his ashes with redoubled lustre, and who had ventured to attempt what Mr. Pitt had failed in effecting, and which every Minister from Mr. Pitt's ti me to the present had shrunk from attempting. Now, he left it to the house and to the country to judge whether, there being such manifest advantages in the amount thet might be derived from such a tax, if such a measure had been founded on justice and capable of prac tical execution, some other Minister besides Mr. Pitt would not have ventured to avail himself of such a resource, and whether such an attempt as the right hon. gentleman had made did not rather indicate rashness than any marvellous skill in making such a new proposal to the house. But let their lordships see how the bill would operate upon land and upon realized property. He begged noble lords to bear in mind that he was not talking of the distinction now introduced as between land and other property, but of two distinctions which must be borne in mind, both of which this bill proposed to deal with—the first, the dis tinction between real and personal property, real property including not only land but many other things ; and that further distinction which it was, for the first time sought to abrogate and abolish—the distinction between property devised and property in settlement. The noble earl said, in pointing out the distinction between real and personal preperty, that real property was exempted from the ope ration of the legacy duty, while personal property was subject to it. But there were no charges to which real property was subject in this country from which personal property was entirely exempted ? And, if the noble earl was bent on equalising the burdens upon real and per sonal property, would he assent to subject personal pro perty to an equivalent, or to anything like an equi valent to the burdens to which real property was subjected under the existing law, and which, he would assure their lordships, far snore than counter balanced the advantage, such as it was, of being exempted from legacy duty ? Take only the poor-rates and the county-rates. The total amount of real property which contributed to the poor-rates was 67,000,0001. a-year, or thereabouts ; the charge upon that property being about 6,000,0001., amounting to something like is. 101 in the pound per annum. (Hear, hear.) That was the amount which was borne by real property in this oountry, and from which personal property was altogether exempt. (Hear, hear.) Now, he did not say that there might not be very good reasons for exempting personal property from those taxes in consequence of the difficulties of collection, and, perhaps, the impracticability of localising that personal property so as to render it liable to the im post. The total amount of property rated to the income tax was 230,000,0001. a-year, from which, if you took the 67,000,0001. which paid to the poor-rates, it left a sum of 163,000,0001. of personal property which did not contribute one single shilling to that charge for the poor, which he thought their lordships would admit to be a chars() which ought justly to fall upon all property alike, but which did practically fall upon less than one-third of the whole pro perty of the country, subjecting it to a tax of not less than ls. 10d. in the pound, from which the other two-thirds of the property of the country were exempt. (Hear, hear.) Now, a tax of only one-half this amount upon personal property—a tax by way of commutation for poor-rates of only one-half the amount of that which fell now upon real property—would produce, at 11d. in the pound, no less than 7,500,000/. ; and so, if personal property paid its due share of taxation—if it paid, not its due share in deed, but only one-half of the amount to which real pro perty was subjected in respect to these charges, it would furnish us with a sum of 7,500,0001. a-year, a sum amply sufficient, and more than sufficient, to enable us to dispense altogether with the succession duty, to do away with the legacy duty, to do away with the probate duty, and place a very considerable surplus in the national Exchequer. Now he was not proposing the imposition of such a tax, but when they came to argue this question as a matter of justice, and as a proper balance of taxation between class and class, then he thought he was entitled to show their lordships what was the operation of the taxes to which he had alluded, and to show how that single charge upon real property infinitely counterbalanced the exemptions which it was declared to enjoy. (Hear.) It was quite certain that a legacy duty or a succession duty was only a property tax in another form. It was a pro perty tax, and a property tax of the most obnoxious and objectionable character, far more objectionable than would be an annual levy to the same amount upon property w hich, as ho had shown, already stood a l one i n pay i ng ls. 10d. in the pound for the relief of the poor. (Cheers.) It was said that personal property paid under the legacy duty I.s. in the pound ; but if strict justice were to be in sisted upon, those who made not the slightest objection to the exclusive payment by real property of ls. 10d. in the pound might be fairly called upon to show•why they should not have to make a similar contribution to the public burdens ; and if they were exempted from the payment of ls. 10d. in the pound borne by real property, why were they to complain of the exemption of property so exclu sively burdened from the com p arativel y li g ht cha rges under the law as it at present stood? (Hear.) The noble earl had told their lordships what he (the Earl of Derby) fully admitted—that the legacy duty was in itself a most ob noxious impost. Be it so ; but what was the noble earl going considered i e n m t o h v e e t e h a e s t i . m H p o e s t w w a h s whichgoing n h g e l so o V bn a o s x h iou eg s o ? in to leave all the pressure and hardship of the le g ac y dut y as it stood ; but the noble earl thought tho se u p on whom it bore might be reconciled to this obnoxious tax if they could only see the same measures of oppression and vexa tion thrown upon the owners of real property. (Hear.) Now, that was not a very amiable view of human nature. (Hear, and laughter.) It might be very true that that was the way in which men were sometimes disposed to act to wards their neighbours ; but he thought he had shown that in this case those neighbours were already burdened by special taxes and special enactments, and were subjected to much greater pressure than the persons who declared them to be peculiarly exempt from national burdens. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that a legacy duty was a most objectionable tax, but it was peculiarly objectionable when applied to landed property. In the case of personalty the legatee was enabled to devote at once a portion of the pro perty to the payment of the tax; he was subjected to no inconvenience in doing so, and the remainder was clear gain to him. But apply the tax to land which had passed by devise, The land was not capable of being so subdivided, and the man to whom it was left was not in the same posi tion as the man who received merely the price of 20 or 30 acres of land. The suceessor to landed estate could not cut off an acre or an acre and a half and sell it for the purpose of paying the tax, but he was compelled to incur a debt in the first instance, which frequently became one of the most onerous character, and which he might not have the means of paying for some time ; and when, therefore, Govern ment stepped in and called upon him to raise a heavy sum of money upon his succession, it was to such a man a great and serious hardship. (Hear, hear.) What had their lord ships been hearing for the last four or five years ? What had been continually dinned into their ears by noble lords opposite but that, of all taxes, of all abominations, of all impediments to improvement, of all grievances as connected with land, the payment of a fine by a copyholder was the most oppressive, the most grievous, the most subversive of all possibility of improvement, and one which could not endure the light for a single moment ; and Parliament hail, therefore, been asked to pass compulsory enfranchise ment bills for the relief of the copyholder. What was the Government going to do by the bill now before their lord ships ? They were going to make all the land in the country copyhold. (Loud cheers.) That which they would not tolerate, that which they declared was a grievous burden, offering sei ions impediments in the way o improvement, and which they decided was an outrage upon the feelings of natural grief at the moment of death, when it existed in a few cases of copyholders—that which they insisted on getting rid of in those private cases—they were now about to adopt with regard to all the land in the country. (Cheers.) They were placing every fee simple in the coun try at the power of the Crown as copyhold estate—(hear) — they were reviving a system which did exist in ages very remote, but which had been found then to be so intoler able, so inconsistent with all the principles of the English system of land tenure, that since the time of Charles 11. down to the present day there had been no attempt to re impose that system. (Cheers.) He hail endeavoured to show thus far, not that the Government were relieving personal property from any vexatious impost, but that they were subjecting landed and real property to a similar or even to a much greater amount of vexation, and to a pro cess wholly repugnant to the principles for which they had been contending for the last few years with regard to the holding of land. (Hear.) He now came to a point which was more important still—namely, the distinction between devised and settled property. (Hear, hear.) Apart from the peculiar circumstances affecting the land, he could not draw a broad distinction between the case of land and pro perty devised. But what was the case with regard to land in settlement? The whole of the bill, as far as related to land in settlement, was a retrospective enactment of the grossest character—(hear, hear)—imposing a tax not upon that which a person had to inherit, but upon that which by law, by deed, by every solemnity which could be at tached to it, was at this moment, and had been for per haps 20 years, the property of the individual whom they were now about for the first time to tax. The bill was to touch all the settlements of property, real and personal, throughout the whole country, and upon which the for tunes and the position of every family in England depended, for the miserable purpose of raising a sum, as the noble earl stated, at first of 400,0001. a-year, and ultimately of 2,000,0001. of money, for the purpose of getting rid of the soap duty and diminishing the tea duties; though both, he admitted, were very good things in their way. The finan cial triumph of the present Administration was a measure which upset every family arrangement, every deed and every settlement throughout the length and breadth of the land. (Hear, hear.) As far as the injustice of the case was concerned, settled personalty stood precisely upon the same footing as settled realty ; and the justice of the bill was, that they were, by ex post facto legislation, upsetting all the foundations of property settled throughout this country. He protested against being supposed, by not asking their lordships to divide against the second reading of this bill, to assent in the slightest degree to the prin ciple of the measure. What was the second clause of the bill ? It enacted that— " Every past or future disposition of property, by reason whereof auy person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property, or the income thereof, upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed for the commence ment of this act, either immediately or after any interval, either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and every devolution by law of any beneficial interest in property, or the ineome thereof, upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed for the commencement of this act, to any other person, in possession or expectancy, shall be deemed to have conferred, or to confer, on the person entitled by reason of any such disposition or devolution, a ' succession.' " That was to say, that every person who, by any deed passed twenty years ago, had become absolutely entitled in reversion to the property which had been made the sub ject of family settlement, which might have been given as security for money borrowed, or might have been disposed of by law in the open market, with the full certainty that the law gave him an indefeasible right to that propeaty— every such person came under the operation of this law, and the moment he entered into the possession of his own, the Government stepped in and deprived him, not of pro perty which he then acquired for the first time, but of that which was his before the death of his predecessor. Well, then, look at the third clause, which enacted that— " Where any persons shall, at or after the time appointed for the commencement of this act, have any property vested in them jointly by any title not conferring on them a suc cession, any beneficial interest in such property accruing to any of them by survivorship shall be deemed to be a succes sion." He would take the case of two or three elderly maiden ladies who upon the death of their father agreed to put to gether such means as they had, and to reside together for the remainder of their lives. Suppose them each to have a life annunity, and that, combining together, they were enabled by the joint proceeds of those annuities to obtain a decent livelihood. Suppose those three ladies also, for the purpose of having some common home in which to pass the remainder of their existence, had purchased a house or cottage, which was held in fee simple among the three ladies, with the benefit of survivorships. That was not at all an improbable case. What happened ? The first of the sisters died, her annuity dropped, and the two remain ing sisters lost, of course, the benefit of one-third of their former income. Their difficulties were therefore consider ably increased ; but they had the benefit of survivorship, and, at the moment when they had lost the advantage of their sister's income to maintain the joint establishment, in stepped the Government, represented by the tax gatherer, who claimed from them a tax upon the benefit of survivorship, in the right of their house and garden. The second sister died, and the last was left, perhaps at the age of 70 or 80, the sole representative of the family, living iu the house which her sisters inhabited for many years. Again occurred the benefit of survivorship, and when she had only her own single annuity to depend upon, in came the tax-gatherer again, and, inasmuch as this cot tage and garden were in fee simple, this wretched crea ture, now 70 or 80 years of age, was taxed at the highest amount under the law. If he rightly understood the operation of the bill, she would be taxed at the rate of 241 years' purchase of her cottage and garden, and, if that were so, the poor creature would have nothing to do but to part with her house and premises, which were endeared to her by old associations, and in which she had hoped to die, in order to satisfy the claims of the tax-gatherer under an act of Parliament which she never dreamt of, or could dream of, at the moment she purchased the property. He had in this taken a case upon a very small scale. He would now take one upon a different scale. Turn to the 34th clause of this enactment. That clause provided—he hardly thought that those of their lordships who had not read the bill would believe that such could be its provisions—it provided that, " In estimating the value of a succession, no allow ance shall be made in respect of any incumbrance thereon created or incurred by the successor, not made in execution of a prior special power of appointment." Now, take the case—he would not mention any names, but their lordships would all know that there were cases similar to that he was about to mention—of a once princely fortune of 50,0001, a year, the owner in possession being a tenant for life, and being deeply and inextricably embarrassed. Take the case of a son, the successor to that property, who, coming for ward to the relief of his father, sacrificed all his prospects for life, and consented that the estate should be mortgaged for 40,0001. or more a year out of the 50,0001. Suppose that that son condemned himself with his eyes open to the reduction of his fortune, so that there was left Lim barely sufficient to keep up the estate, and when he had cut down his income by that act of filial duty from 50,0001. to 7,0001. a year, the law stepped in and said that the incumbrance upon the reversion was contracted with his own consent, and that upon 50,0001., and not upon 7,0001., should he pay the tax the instant he entered upon the succession thus reduced by his own generous act. (Hear, hear.) Was not this a monstrous case ? Mind, no notice had been given to the son in such a case. (Hear.) On the contrary, believ ing that he might rest upon the security of the law, and upon the inviolability of property, he would have made unparalleled exertions, the result of which was that your taxation, your iniquitous taxation, as he must call it, re duced the son to be almost a beggar in consequence of the generous assistance extended by him to his father ! Was there any justice or equity in this, and was it tolerable that such a law should pass ? But then they were told, " Oh, but he should not have sold his reversion." Now, be thought they had better have told him that before he did it. (Hear, hear.) Well, but suppose that, with the natural reluctance of a man to part with his ancestral possessions, he had not sold the reversion of his property. In that case the individual would no doubt escape the in justice to which he alluded, but you made him an instru ment of fraud upon other persons. By the 15th clause, if the reversion of the property were sold, the person in whom the property was vested, upon the death of the life tenant, found himself placed in the position in which the successor would have been, and you taxed him as if he had come into possession in his own right by the death of the predecessor. There was a gross injustice in this. The suc cessor, it was true, escaped, but escaped by fraud; and under this ex post facto legislation the person in whom the property was vested, by alienation or otherwise, found himself liable to a heavy charge which he had not dreamt of, although he had given a full and fair price at the out set for the value of his reversion. (Hear, hear.) Again, suppose a man raised money upon a reversion or the secu rity of a reversion. The money bei n g s p en t, the lender would come for his security, and would find that that security had diminished by the operation of this law, so that what had been in the first instance perfectly sufficient to cover the amount he had lent might be made insuffi cient, and, consequently, he was deprived of what he had a fair right to expect. Was there any justice or equity in such a course of proceeding? He would not weary the house by multiplying cases to show the retrospective operation of the bill, but he was convinced it would in flict hardship on all classes of the community. There was one point in which settled personalty did materially differ from settled realty, and that was in the infinite number of frauds to which, in regard to personalty, you would be subjected. He did not see how it could be possible with settled personalty to get at the person who succeeded to it. There would be no means of tracing it. A man might have been living for all his life at the apparent rate of 1,0001. a-year, and vet when be died his executors might be at a kiss to knov; , where the greater part of his income had been derived from. There might be property of which the executors knew nothing, or of which his family knew nothing ; he might have had a life interest in railways, in canals, or in banks, but his will would show nothing of it, and his bank-book would show nothing of it. The conse quence would be, that there would be, with regard to set tled personalty, constant and perpetual frauds and evasions which would r en d er th e co ll ec ti on o f th e t ax a m a tter of considerabl e difficulty. The framers of the bill had evi (tleennttiloynpteorctehievenlottatin, and i h c e b t b i e le g y ge( p l ro t p h o e s i e r d lo t r o dsl m iii e ) e s' t a it t : The noble earl opposite might say that this tax would en able them in time to do away with the income tax, and might boast of the fact that no p e titi ons h a d been pre sented against it ; but he was satisfied that if the bill lasted so long as 7 years, the machinery of it would be found so odious that there would be a very general petition as be tween the two taxes, praying them to continue the income tax and remove this succession tax. By the 42d clause the duty was made a first charge upon the property, and cer tainly it appeared as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be very hard run for ready money, for the bill pro posed to give him power to raise _money in a mode' which had always hitherto been discouraged as much as .possi ble in private life, and which was always accounted I discreditable—by post-obit. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer was authorised by this bill, on the part of the public, to raise money by post-obits, and to anticipate the money to be paid upon reversions, and to allow the persons so paying in advance an allowance cal culated upon the rate of interest for the time being on the sum so anticipated. He could not help thinking that this clause indicated no great confidence on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the duration of the tax ; it seemed as if he meant to get all he could, and take the chance of the law being repealed, and of not having to pay back the duty which be might have received in advance if such were the case. He would beg to call the attention of such of their lordships as were now acting as trustees to the persons enumerated in the bill as being liable for the payment of the duty. Every guardian, committee, tutor, curator, or husband was made liable for the payment of the duty on any succession, but to the extent only of funds dis posed of by them. The bill went on in the 45th clause to provide that— " Persons made accountable for the payment of duty in respect of any succession, or some of them, shall, in the case of personal property, at the time of the first payment, deli very, retainer, satisfaction, or other discharge of the same or any part thereof to or for the successor or any person in his right, and in the case of real property, when any duty in re spect thereof shall first become payable, give notice to the commissioners or to their officers of their liability to such duty, and shall at the same time deliver to the commissioners or to their officers a full and true account of the property, for the duty whereon they shall respectively be accountable, awl of the value thereof, and of the deductions claimed by them, together with the names of the successor and predecessor, and their relation to each other, and all such other particulars as shall be necessary or proper for enabling the commissioners fully and correctly to ascertain the duties due." That was pretty well. The executors were made the instru ments for giving information to the Government taxing officers ; but, if the commissioners were dissatisfied with the information so given, they were authorised to cause another account to be taken by persons appointed by themselves, with power to examine into a ll suc h papers an d documents as might be necessary to make a new assessment, and, if the trustee did not appeal against that decision, he was to be saddled not only with the additional amount of duty, but also with the expenses of the inquiry and exa mination instituted by the commissioners at their discre tion. His only alternative was to appeal, which appeal, in cases where the amount was above 501., was to lie to the Court of Exchequer, which had power to distribute the expenses as it might think fit. If the executors failed to give such to the commissioners, or if the persons liable rto pay the duty failed to pay it, a penalty was imposed of 10 per cent. for every month during which such neglect should continue. No doubt such machinery as this—grievous and inquisitorial as it was—was necessary to the collection of the duty, but he contended that it very seriously de teriorated from the expediency and the good policy of the imposition of such a tax. (Hear.) The noble earl had told them that the tax was to be levied upon an estimate of the value of an annuity for the life of the person succeed ing, but would the noble earl tell them upon what rate that estimate was to be made? It was natural to suppose that when a son succeeded to the state of his father he would be charged with the duty according to the nearest rate of consanguinity. Not a bit of it ;if the property to which he succeeded had descended from a remote ancestor, and if his father had only a life interest in it, he would have to pay the duty as if he himself had received it from a remote degree of consanguinity. (Hear.) He knew several such cases. Take the case of a natural daughter, who had taken the property of the father, and who had herself a heir male. Inasmuch as she had no legal claim upon any parent or any relation when she died, and her son came into her property, he would have all his feelings wounded and embittered, in addition to the pecuniary in jury done to him by the tax, by being told—perhaps then for the first time learning that circumstance—that his mother was the daughter of nobody, and that he would consequently have to pay the tax at the same rate as if he had received his estate from a perfect stranger. He would ask their lordships next to look at the process by which it was proposed to arrive at the value of any estate. The 49th clause provided that— " Every person who, under the provisions of this act, may deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in any succession shall, if required by the commissioners, pro duce before them such books and documents in the custody or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such account or estimate, as may be capable of affording any ne oessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such pro perty and the duty payable thereon. By this clause, therefore, their lordships were called upon not only to lay bare the state of their rental and their em barrassments, but also the whole amount of their mort gages and family settlements, and make them acquainted with all the circumstances of their family affairs, and even, he believed, if they thought it necessary , the commissioners might call for the title deeds. Certainly, so far, as he saw, there was nothing in the clause to prevent them. Further more, having ascertained the annual value of the estate, the commissioners might determine the allowance to be made for outgoings for agricultural or other purposes. In other words, it was to be settled henceforth at their sove reign will and pleasure what amount was fit and sufficient to be laid out on any estate for all purposes of improve ment or otherwise. Then, again, he would beg their at tention to the provision with regard to mines. The 26th clause provided— " The yearly value of any manor, opened mine, or other real property of a fluctuating yearly income, shall either be calculated upon the average profits or income derived there from, after deducting all necessary outgoings, during such a number of preceding years as shall be agreed upon for this purpose between the commissioner and the successor, before the first payment of duty on the succession shall have become due." Now he defied any man living to tell the value of a mine not in working. There might be mines worth perhaps a million of money, though it might he years before any profit could be got out of them, and yet, if at the commencement a mine was valued at a million, from that time to the period of his decease the successor would have to pay on that valuation at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. (Hear, hear.) One more case, and he would have done with the injustices and hardships of the bill. Take the case of tim ber. Every time that any one of their lordships—from the time of succeeding to the time of his death—cut any 101. worth of timber, he would have forthwith to announce the fact to the tax-gatherer—to show him the accounts of his woodcutters, and the charges for carting, and so on—to go through all this process for the purpose of telling the tax gatherer that the sum of 4s. had become due to her Ma jesty. Certainly the penalty for non-compliance with those regulations was not very heavy, and he had no doubt that many of their lordships would prefer violating the act to going through all this process. The penalty was 10 per cent., so that they might violate the law systemmatically and perseveringly at the rate of id. per month. (Hear, and a laugh.) This tax upon the casual cutting of timber was a gross injustice, as well as a permanent vexation. If either of the noble earls acquainted with Cumberland had been present they would have been able to tell their lord ships of the disastrous effects of the storms of 1849, by which timber was blown down which they would probably have given many thousand pounds to preserve. If such were to happen again, and if they presumed to make the least use of those fallings, instead of leaving them to rot on the ground, they would have to go to the tax-gatherer and acquaint him of what they had done, to tell him that they had suffered a damage which they would probably have given much to avoid, and, consequently, that it was their duty to pay a very considerable sum to her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) He confessed it was with some regret that he had heard the noble earl, in introducing this bill make use of the clap-trap argument that it was unfair that the rich man of 10,0001. a year should be exempted, while the poor man should pay wha only came into the r ossession of 1001. That, he thought was not a sound argument, nor one which ought to be put forward in that house. He could tell noble lords that they were much mis taken if they thought it was upon the rich that the burden of this tax would fall. (Hear.) It was upon that numer ous class of men who were just able to keep themselves above water that the tax, with all its vexations, its an noyances, and its expenses, in the shape of perpetual liti gation, would chiefly fall. (Hear, hear.) He had been much surprised to hear, the other day, on the authority of Mr. M'Culloch, that th e average amount of rentals from landed property in this country was not above 1701. He would leave it, then, to their lordships to consider—taking into account the many large landed properties of the coun try—what an enormous number of rentals there must be of from 501. to 1001., or even below that. All these holders would be subject to the annoyances and vexations of this bill. Such persons as these must necessarily be thrown into the hands of the lawyers, and there could be no doubt that the lawyers must reap an abundant harvest from the proposed new system. He had now endeavoured to show their lordships, first, that on the ground of justice there was no reason to impose an additional and most obnoxious tax on the owners of real or settled pro perty. He had endeavoured to show that with respect to property, and settled property more especially, there would be an amount of fraud and evasion created by the bill, which would either deprive them of a greater por tion of the pecuniary result of this measure, or would cover the country from one end to the other with an inter minable net of litigation ; that, with respect to settled property they were for the first time introducing an a brogation of the distinction w hi c h had always been drawn between it and devised property, and, that in doing so, they were subjecting, by a retrospective ope ration, all owners of such property to an amount of grievous oppression and injustice not to be compen sated by any amount of pecuniary advantage to the re venue. He had shown that the owner of property must be subjected, not once for all, as in the case of the legacy duty, but from the commencement of his possession to the close of his life, to a constant succession of inquisitorial proceedings—to an exposure of his family settlements, of the secret disposition of his property, and of all his secret embarrassments, and that from tune to time he never would be free from the most odious of all positions—that of a public accountant for a debt which never could be dis charged. (Hear, hear.) He had shown them that the bill would not press exclusively, or even principally, on the large landowners, or on the wealthier classes—unjust as he thought that would be ; but that it would press more heavily and seriously on the humbler classes , who were at present ignorant of its operat ion. Th ey had not, indeed, as the noble earl remarked, loaded the table with petitions against this measure, which they had been led to believe was for the purpose of taxing theft eat owners of p ro p er ty, but he did not hesitate to say, e years would not pass before their lordships would have no reason to complain of any want of petitions and appeals to them to amend this bill. Now, this was the crowning triumph of the Govern ment of the noble earl opposite. This measure, which was the basis whereon the fame of his administration in finance must rest—and which was the main principle of that bud get which had placed Mr. Gladstone on a pinnacle of emi nence far higher than that on which Mr. Pitt's character, as a finance Minister, res ted—was not a bill to meet any present exigency of the State, or introduced as a temporary permanent system under which the financia l affairs of this was meas urelaid whic hdown e m m i g p h h t a t b i eeatoleratedtold the p f o r r e a a short p m hloer as e h r e i i o n d g , b t h u e t a dministered. n l d not bear Now, tt h t e o a k r i the he noble o; nay, more—that e from swbeinl would being p s i e )er b m e f a e n r e e n i t t , earle countryv en tilifatthwetehnr°o3btcloeo country t r i r Y s l countrysucceededwo ought u i g n h p t as not sn t g o bear e i a n r i t t s ;and present h e eriod s w h a a s p satisfied e,n n very t h lengthened t o h eflnue oe s d w idemandth property, of a 11 exceptclasses int be r e o n u r e n e y p t e r e country I n N e v d t h l harvest from the litigation which would arise from would derive a very rich t And now one word as to the course he would take. The noble earl had said he could understand the course . of not see how they could second reaffirm- ; but that he could •of who ilive t ei h rt e co rUcsol:nawnnhei icent reading and to the principle assent to the second !louse to deal with the de tailsthe measure, and then ask the the object in view. Now, ob jecting to the principle of the bill, and rejecting it on the acfainst being held in the in the first place, he protested dto the • iple of the assented principle slightest degree to have a in such ' a way as to defeat bill, and, if he abstained from taking the sense of the reading and contented himself with saying " not content," he would t ake that course, not in ' house on the second the absence of a strong sense of the evils and unparalleled injustice of the bill, but from a desire not unnecessarily to embarrass the financial affairs of her Majesty's Govern ment. But at the same time he must say that, if they were to carry their submission so far, and if they were humbly to bow the head to every injustice that the House of Commons pleased to inflict ; if they were to tell them they were exceedingly thankful for inflicting this grievous injury because it was no worse, and if they allowed the rights of the people to be infringed and serious injustice done to the community at large, because the privileges of their lordships' house prohibited their seeking to limit the injustice, better, he said, would it be for their lord ships to abandon their functions altogether and not to have any taxation bills at all sent up for their consideration. (Hear, hear.) He trusted their lordships would not, not withstanding the advice which had been given to them, pass that bill as it stood ; and though he would not ask them to reject the bill at this stage, he certainly would not abstain from !submitting, on Monday next, such amend ments as would tend to mitigate, as he thought, the grosser injustices, and the first would arise on the second clause, with respect to which he would propose the omission of the words " part or," so as to make the bill prospective in its operation, and remove from it all settlements which had been made when there was not the slightest prospect that the Parliament would interfere with them. He did not say he would not propose other amendments also • not that he would do so with any desire that a bill founded on the principle of the bill before them should not pass for the present, but that he would ask their lordships' judgment whether they were satisfied to adopt such a measure only as a means of meeting present di ffi culties, or as a perma nent measure on whi ch the finance of this country was to rest. (Cheers.) The Duke of ARGYLL felt at all times that he laboured under disadvantage in arising after the noble earl (Derby), but he felt especially at the present time when he rose to address their lordships upon a question of finance. Never theless, he hoped to satisfy the house that the noble earl had not fairly represented the object and spirit of the bill. The first part of the speech of the noble earl was taken up with ironically describing the eulogium which had been passed upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the introduction of the budget. He believed that that speech would be one of those few speeches which would be referred to in future times for the guidance of that and the other house of Parliament, as an exposition of great principles of finance. If that speech had been fol lowed by less active steps than the noble earl expected, his (Lord Derby's) friends were to blame, for though they had sided continually with those who were willing to remove taxes, they had also voted with those who were not willing to allow other taxes to be imposed. He (the Duke of Ar gyll) could not suppose that the noble earl really thought that personality should be rated to local charges; such a course was almost impossible, and even if it could be carried out, it would be disadvantageous to the landed interest. The noble earl had dwelt on the injustice of extending the tax to settled property. He thought the distinction was altogether fanciful and artificial. A legal settlement could be viewed in no other light than as a long will ; and in the abstract there was no distinction between as)erson possessed of property by a will for a short term and one for a long one. (Hear.) He could not agree that the principle of the legacy duty was a bad one. Individuals were specially called upon to contribute to the necessities of the state when they received benefit by the force and authority of law ; and if there was any instance where this was re markably the case, it was when a person became possessed of property by virtue of the will of a predecessor. So far as the distinction between will and deed was concerned, the obligation was increased rather than diminished in the latter case. A settlement carried on property very oft en against the likings and dislikings of many intermediate proprietors ; and a person coming into possession of pro perty under such circumstances, which could only be main tained in a highly artificial state of society, was bound to contribute to the necessities of the state. It was said the measure would operate hardly on persons coming into possession of property who had burdened their rever sionary interest. But how were they to distinguish be tween the case of those who had done so from extravagance and those who had done so from a laudable motive ? He believed that in the majority of cases where heirs had recourse to post obits and other means of rai sing money, it was not done for purposes which the house would wish to encourage by exempting them from the tax. Another objection of the noble earl's ap plied equally to the income tax, as in the case of termi nable annuities purchased before the tax was imposed ; and yet the noble lord was himself a party to the imposition of the income tax on that species of property. The objection as to the production of papers and documents was the greatest bugbear of all. Their lordships had lately passed a bill for the registration of all deeds, and the principle had repeatedly received their sanction. In Scotland every entail was accessible to any man at the registration office for a shilling ; and at that moment, under the operation of the probate duties, every document which noble lords were so afraid of having seen, might be called for by the commissioners of inland revenue. The noble earl had referred to cases of hardship from parties being compelled to pay the 10 per cent. duty, but this part of the bill would operate in favour of real property. Where several brothers succeeded one another the succession would be reckoned as taking place not from the immediate prede cessor, but from the father, and they would, therefore, only be liable to a duty of 1 per cent. In the case of a family of brothers affected by consumption, a rapid series of successions might take place in a few years • but they would only pay as taking from the father, no t each other. The operation of the clause was in favour of settled real property, not against it. The words " allowance for all necessary outlays" had been introduced as mostufavour able to real property. How could they give a definition of the outgoings necessary for real property? Take the case of an estate where a sea-embankment existed, and required to be kept in constant repair. It would be impossible to define in the act all conceivable cases. They must adopt the term " necessary outgoings," and leave it ,to the com missioners to put a -proper construction upon it. Seeing what the practice had been in reference to the legacy duty, there was no doubt the business would be transacted in a "way the most lenient to the successor. Were the bill for imposing the legacy duty now proposed for the first time, the whole house would be in a blaze about it. Under that act any man's house might be entered, and a value put upon every thing in it. But the valuation was always most moderate ; pictures, for instance, were not valued as pictures, but as furniture; and the smallest possible value was put upon everything. In the clause relating to timber, he was convinced that no alteration could be made with justice The noble earl had referred to a great fall of tim ber, and to the duty being payable on what was sold ; but it was impossible to lay down a different rule. There was no earthly principle on which that kind of property should be exempted altogether. The duty was put on as mo derately as possible, and full power was given the proprietor to commute. More they could not ask ; less would not be consistent with that justice which ought to prevail in all fiscal legislation. The noble earl said the bill would tell most seriously against small proprietors. Unfor tunately, under the operation of the legacy duty, a very large part of the property of the country, not held in set tlement, was brought under that duty. It was stated in evidence by Mr. Baxter, before their lordships' committee on the burdens on real property, that a great part of the county of York was held on customary and copyhold tenures ; and, by the construction of the Legacy Duty Act, they were bound to pay the duty in every case where the testator had devised land to be equally divided amongst his children. Thus, though not properly subject to the duty, a great portion of the county of York paid that duty. Was it fair to this class of proprietors, subject in so many instances to this impost, that the great landed proprietors of the country should be entirely exempt from paying anything upon successions to the necessities of the state ? The noble earl had referred to this bill as being, in fact, the whole of the budget. The Earl of DERBY - What I did say was this—that, but for the funds derived from this act, the Government would not be able to make the remissions which they pro posed. The Duke of ARGYLL was quite willing to compare the budget of the present Government with that of their pre decessors, for he was certain the present would not suffer. In the space of four months there had been two great financial statementsf both proposing large remissions, and imposing new taxes. A great reduction of the tea duties was proposed by both, as was an extension of the area of the income tax, though in a different form. Beyond these points of resemblance, the remissions of the late Govern ment were confined almost entirely to two articles—malt and hops, amounting to about 2,650,0001. If any new tax whatever was proposed, the country was entitled to know the necessity of it. The remissions were wholly in favour of the budget of the present Government. The two articles of malt and hops, were entirely connected with one great article of consumption, and on no article was there a less , call for a remission of taxation. The taxes on • all the great articles of consumption —corn, tea, coffee, and other things—had been either remitted or reduced ; and, as far as the interest of the consumer was concerned, this was the very last tax they ought to remit. The pro posal was made not so much in the interest of the con sumer as of the producer ; but the relief to the landed interest would have been very trifling indeed, and it would have entailed upon them the continuance of the income tax, and the doubling of that grievous burden, the house duty. The new tax proposed by the present Govern ment, being an extension of the legacy duty, did not stand exactly in the same position; It was • rendered necessary, not so much to make remissions of direct taxes as to enable Parliament to deal with and finally to dispense with the income tax. The noble earl had treated this proposal with considerable scorn, but he had made no proposal at all that would have that effect. Though it was of course impossible_ to say what might happen in 1860—the noble earl himse lf might be in office then—(a laugh)—though they could one pledge. Parliament to abandon the income tax at Ateir rhich period, yet they provided a tax by means of th is bill ha=coosd On coming into o ffi ce, the present Government pl the income tax in a very awkward position ; and a P -most uni t ust, had been made by the noble earl, which w as rt av would enable Parliament to do so if they were disposed. to throw a large additional burden on real pro pe 7 prevented differential duty., how could the noble lord Government its being carried further? When the p r esent ciple of a came into power they found it neces sar y iris attempted to establish that dange t s oh d fo r a substitute, they income tax, and on looking . rent! anto extend the legacy P d rinve eal with the could find none more eligible For years there had duty to successions to real prope rty Exchequer, that re sisted by differen • t Chancellors of the Exchequer. Mr. Pitt •originally proposed to include real property in his bill had the result of its omission was that while of 1805 ; and subject to the tax, the heir escaped. younger sons were been annual motions (Hear, hear.) After the intheflarvCouhinocelaltio—lhofa tax , E w l a ch id e distinct declaration f othe late Government, through that the legacy duties were a system of injustice, the t Government could see no course more con sistentpresenh •position, and with with t right and jus tice, than to extend the tax on successions to all pro perty. It had been correctly stated that there had not been a single petition against it. He looked forward to , a continuance of that system of remission of indirect taxes which had been productive of such signal benefits to the country. He was not one who regarded the income tax as a war tax entirely. It had never produced such benefits as during the period since 1842. By passing the bill now before the house they would, however, have an opportu nity of getting rid of that tax in 1860. (Hear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY said that as comparisons were always odious, he would not compare the two budgets, but would confine himself to the question before the house. Since he formerly addressed their lordships on this subject he found the bill had been completely altered in the Com mons, and the first twelve clauses were wholly and en tirely changed. Perhaps it would have been well had a committee of their lordships been sitting for the last five or six weeks to inquire into the incidence .of such a tax, and how it might be rendered least unjust. Frequent reference was made to our advancing intelligence, but sister-in-law as a sister. There would be no alteration as to he entirely denied that anything like perfection had been husband and wife ; they paid no duty on succession now. reached in our financial legislati on . Th e l aw was a b ou t The Earl of HARROWBY was opposed to the bill. If identical with one brought in at th e ti me o f t h e N orman the balance was fairly struck at the present moment, any man who gave a fair and candid opinion would admit that Conquest. Persons were then employed by the Crown to the land contributed more than its fair proportion to the ascertain the value of all lands, and tax them accordingly ; burdens of the country. One of the effects of the bill would the principle of this measure was precisely the same. The be to make a man a slave to his lawyer, and involve him in eatr expen than the tax itself. All te diculties the old law had been abolished in 1664 ; an d now, after a lapse gr e on the land would presshmore severely on of two centuries, it was proposed to re-en ac t one founded smallwr inflict ros e proprietors than large ones ; and he really did think, on the same wide principles—a proposal whi c h h e must looking at the evils which must arise from the measure, characterise as absurd, cowardly, and unjust. The whole that it had been most hastily undertaken. It was a tax principle of a tax upon successions was as absurd and cow - against which no great classes could remonstrate, and it ardly as it certainly was unfair and unjust ; and his first was hos much e th safer t o t t ss x classes eid that no cold know whetherremonstrate feeling was one of astonishment that such a proposition as i support could no any of the amendments to be proposed, but he that of the Government should have proceeded from the disapproved of the principle of the measure. present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not accord The Earl o f DERBY said that in answer to the appe a l Lim m ic t h l had been made to him, it would be impossible for to Mr. Gladstone much financial experience indeed, hich he the right honourable gentleman himself would not lay might move m aL o on oo thLtable the s specific P f h through c bff e'dmenls w • committee. claim to it—but he did concede to him, as everybody must The bill had only be l e ro n gi d e elive red that morning, and they do, that high moral character which he had always main- ihid had very little time to consider more than the main principle. H e cou ld not, therefore, say that he would tamed, both by his example and precept. If his books I lay on the tabl e amendments which iiglit be found neces e true expression of the right hon. gentleman's sary, or not, in. the discu ss i on o f th e c l auses ; b u t h e m i g ht m w in re d, a and contained a true description of his feelings , the one great object he must have in view must be the ad - state that ole amendment w hi c h h e s h ou ld move wou ld b e vanceinent and the maintenance of a high moral standard ` on the second i clause, an d the effect of it would be to make in all matters influenced by public opinion. But he had .).1 the application of the b i ll saving to t h e i nterests of all ex nevertheless founded all his finan c i a l p o licy upon specula isting settlements. H e s h ou ld a l so move a clause for limit ; tions on some of the worst pa ss i ons o f h uman nature. His in; the operation of the bill t o 5 years. ' measures speculated upon the selfish ness o f h uma n nature. she bill was then read a second ' He proposed schemes that w o uld no t i mme di a t e ly injure The Land Revenues Bill was read time a third time andmsed. those who sat in Parliament, but the effects of w hich would P Th- Colonial Church Regulation Bill was rep or t e d, w ith fall upon persons not in a positi on t o d e f en d th emse l ves . I n his plan for the conversion of stock h e b egan by attempting amen dments, and ordered to be read a thi r d ti me on 3fon to frighten people who had money in the funds into the da7 fneir lordships adjourned at 20 minutes to 10 o'clock. idea that the conversion of the Three per Cents. was almost a matter of certainty, whereas the most distinguished prac tical financial authorities living would have told him that such an event was nearly impossible. But the right hon. gentleman's object was to work on the bad passions of our nature, and upon an egotistical desire to sacrifice others for our own benefit. A succession duty was not likely to touch their lordships themselves ; for most of them, as well as the members of the other house, h a d probably inherited as much as they expected to get ; and it was a most immoral thing to saddle posterity with demands they ought to pay them selves. He had said this was a tax cowardly in its principle. Its authors in 1796, like the right hon. gentleman, thought they should only have to face one man at a time. Each successor paid the tax and then disappeared; so that they could never get up any public feeling to bear upon the minister of the day. His (Lord Malmesbury's) notion of a good tax was that it should, year by year, bring an in creasing amount to the Exchequer. They might certainly say that the amount derived from this impost would in crease, as the prosperity and property of the country in creased ; but he thought that the effect would turn out to be quite the contrary ; for it would depreciate the value of property, and prevent the accumulation of wealth. But just look at the moral consequences that would ensue. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer's only care was to get as much money, and as quietly as possible. To be sure his bill would make all men patriots ; for every man would die for his country, and his successor would " bleed" for its good. (Laughter.) Of course, if a man disinherited his son, a n d l e ft hi s pro perty to his servant, he would be so much the more a patriot, because then the country would get ten per cent. instead of one. The bill would hardly square, it was true, with recent legislation for promoting the public health • because it was obvious that those periodical mortalities, the recurrence of which the appointment of the Board of Health had been designed to check, would be a sort of harvest for the right honourable gentle man. From these sickly seasons the right honourable gen tleman would have derived much additional profit, and by that means would be enabled to present many more brilliant budgets. (Laughter.) But only think what would be the effect of the measure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's social position. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer was never a very popular character—(laughter) — but inasmuch as a great deal of the taxation had hitherto been indirect, and as even the direct taxation was not at all to be compared for injustice and oppression to this—the right hon. gentleman, for the time being, had been pretty well received in society. (Laughter.) But what would his position be now ? He would be a sort of vulture soar ing over society and inviting for the harvest of death. (Laughter.) He would be the heir of every man's pro perty ; and every man would hold his property under the Crown who had formerly held it independently. (Hear.) Under such such a state of things, he could hardly conceive the right hon. gentleman approaching even his colleagues, and asking, even in the most conventional manner, after his health. (Great laughter.) He (Lord Malmesbury) was perhaps wrong in jesting upon a subject of such importance. The proposal to base the calculation of a man's life interest upon a set of tables was manifestly ab surd. It might indeed be fair if everybody were placed in exactly the same circumstances—if everybody died at 70—if every one married at 25, and had a son exactly nine months after his wedding. (A laugh.) The chances of life of a man 50 years of age might be much greater than those of one at 21, but the latter would, nevertheless, have to pay much more. They did not do so at the insurance offices. If a noble lord wished to insure his life a doctor would be called in to see him ; his pulse would be felt, a stethescope would be applied to his chest, and inquiries would be made as to his former mode of life. If there was any blot he must pay for it ; and if his life was a bad one it would be refused altogether. (Hear, hear.) Again, they were going to apply the same rule to the whole com munity ; but would it be fair to use the same scale in the case of one of their lordships' eldest sons and a military officer succeeding at the same age to property in the time of war? Or to apply the same rule to one of their lord ships' sons, and to those persons who followed trades and professions that were notoriously unhealthy? (Hear.) Nothing could be more obviously unjust and unfair than to take a mere arithmetical calculation of the value of lives. (Cheers.) The bill had been proposed as a compensation —the phrase had been used in another place—for the in come tax, which they were told was to be abolished at the end of seven years. Of the two, however, he considered the tax on successions by far the most unbearable ; and he protested that, although he did not expect to in herit anything beyond what he had already received, lie would rather pay income tax to the end of his life than agree to the imposition of this unjust tax upon his sue 3S sors. (Cheers.) The income tax was, at all events, a charge upon property they had enjoyed ; but the succes sion tax was a charge upon property which they had hardly received and might probably never get. (Hear.) It was, indeed, argued that the bill was necessary to remove the injustice of charging legacy duty upon personal and excus ing real property ; but it was injustice. A more states man-like act would have been to have removed the tax altogether. (Hear.) He believed that the present Govern. ment could have done so, although it was not in the power of that to which he had himself belonged, for the events that had taken place previous to their accession to office, bound them to diminish taxation in a certain direction. It was a point of honour with them to do so—they at tempted it, and they failed. They felt bound to diminish the malt tax, in order to relieve a large portion of the community, who had been unfairly treated, and of course they could not afford to repeal half the malt tax and to abolish the probate duties. When Mr. Disraeli alluded to the subject in the other house and admitted that it was an unjust tax, he did not mean to say that it was unjust be cause real property was not taxed like personal property. (Hear.) What he really did mean to say was that the tax was in its very nature inherently unjust, and that he had considered it—as he (Lord Malmesbury) knew that he had seriously done—with the view to see whether it could be abolished or whether it could not. Not the least absurd and unjust part of the bill was the graduated scale of con sanguinity duties. Of course, a minister's chief idea would be, what would make the tax easiest to pass, and what would diminish the number of its opponents. Hence the graduations. Otherwise it was impossible to see why the succession from a father to a son should be charged one per cent., and that from brother to brother three per cent., especially as, generally speaking, a brother succeed ing to a brother would enjoy the property a much shorter time than a son succeeding to his father. The case of na tural children was also peculiarly hard. It was true that the bar which the heralds placed on a man's shield did not place one in his advancement, and that many men who had attained to the highest eminence hal been in that un fortunate position. Still it was a most unworthy thing on the part of the Legislature to add an additional mark, to point out the victims of the faults and crimes of their parents. (Hear, hear.) The real secrets of the graduated scale was to buy off the opposition of the largest class of inheritors. The number of persons who paid ten per cent. was of course very much less than those who paid the smaller percentages ' • and yet the amount received was more than all the rest. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the President of the Council had told them that they must ac cept the bill in order to maintain the popularity of the aristocracy ; but there was a large class of property to be exempt. Me was glad of that ; but surely if there was anything in the noble lord's argument the church ought to be brought within the operations of the bill. (Hear.) The noble earl concluded by giving notice that he should move amendments exempting title deeds from production, and timber from taxation. Take the case of a person inheriting timber from a tenth cousin and paying ten per cent. It must be borne in mind that this timber already paid an income tax of 3 per cent., making in all a tax of 13 p er per cent. Now the highest duty on Baltic timber was only 9 per cent., while Canada timber paid only a nominal duty of a shilling, and staves were entirely free. The effect, then of the bill w ould be to im pose a tax upon the home grown article greater than the highest foreign duty, and in some cases five times as much. Even as a financial operation the proposal was not creditable. (Hear, hear.) Th e bill was one of pains and pen a lti es ; and it was one that would keep open the ledger with the Government till the grave closed over the person in possession. (Hear.) Earl GRANVILLE said the noble earl had t a k en th e noble duke to task for h av i ng indulged in a disquisitionupon different budgets : and then he went off in a comparison of the rival budgets of Mr. Gladstone lavished Disraeli. The strongest possibl e ep i t h ets had been and on the bill ; but he did not expect to hear the terms Osurd and cowardly applied to it. A s t o the objec tionwhich had been taken to the tables, of course it was impossible to avoid cases of hardship ; but it should be remarked that, in cases of per sonal prope r t y, th e tax was charged upon the whole value. The prop osa l o f the Government, therefore, was a mitiga tion of th e l aw. S o with respect to the' consanguinity tables, the ques ti on was rather to proportion theamoun t of the ta x t o th e d egree of expectancy ; and if they lowered the 10 per cent., they must increase the lower percentages. With regard to natural children, their po sition had been fixed by the law, and could not be altered in an incidental manner by a bill like this. If the present bill were rejected, it would take away from the Government the power of giving the great relief to the people at large which the budget proposed to give. As to the objection that there would be a difficulty in getting a remission of duty where it might be properly claimed, he contended it was only imaginary ; and there need be no unnecessary exposure, for those parts of the deeds which did not refer to the particular question might be sealed up from the observation of the commissioners. Then with regard to timber, if they admitted the principle that pro perty must pay a tax on succession, would any one contend that timber was not property ? It was clearly property ; and on no principle of justice could they exempt it from the tax they levied on all other sorts of property. He hoped the noble earl would lay on the table the amendments which he intended to propose, as he was sure he did not wish to take the Government, or the house, by surprise. Lord ST. LEONARDS did not wish to continue the dis cussion, because lie should have several amen dments to move in committee. He wished, however, to know whe ther he was right in supposing the noble earl o pp osite to have said that brothers-in-law and sisters - in - law weretobe exonerated ? He also wished to know whether there was to be any alteration as to husband and wife The LORD CHANCELLOR said his noble friend did not put it quite so high as he might have done. He stated that by the present bill a so n-in-law or daughter-in-l aw would stand in the same position as a son or a daughter. His noble friend might have put it higher ; a brother-in law would stand in the same position as a brother, and a HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Pemberton Leigh's Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. The Galway Harbour Bill was considered, and ordered to be read a third time. Ward Jackson's Estate Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS. _ Lord SEYMOUR brou g ht up the report upon Dock yard Appointments, which was ordered to be printed. LETTER CARRIERS. Lord R. GROSVENOR presented a petition from the Metropolitan letter carriers, praying the house to take their condition into consideration, with a view to increasing their salaries. TENANT COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill, coin mencing with clause 9. Clause 9 was agreed to. On clause 10, which provides that an evicted tenant shall have power to recover compensation from the land lord for improvements which he has registered, Colonel GREVILLE moved an amendment, to insert the word " wilful," to provide that the eviction should be for wilful neglect. After considerable discussion, the committee divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment ... 67 Against it B5 Majority —lB The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 11, 12, and 13. On clause 14, Mr. GROGAN proposed an amendment to limit the time of compensation to ten years. The committee then divided— For the amendment 42 Against it B7 Majority 45 Lord C. HAMILTON moved the insertion of words to limit the sum of compensation to four years of the annual rent of the building. The house then divided, when there appeared-- For the amendment Against it 77 Majority —2s Sir J. WALSH should feel it his duty to divide the committee upon the clause, because it was objectionable in principle, and could not be improved by any modifi cation. He considered the effect of it would be to in crease litigation between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and to neutralise all the good which might be produced by the bill. Mr. CONOLLY believed that the bill had been drawn up in order to set class against class in Ireland. Who, he asked, would purchase property in that country if it was subject to such restrictions ? Mr. DRUMMOND said the very reason the bill was introduced was that the tenant and landlord in Ireland were at variance. He considered this clause was the very essence of the bill. It was as good as could be drawn up to meet an unfortunate state of things, and he should give it his support. After some further discussion the committee divided on the clause, when there appeared— For the clause...... Against it 44 Majority --59 The clause was then agreed to. The remaining clauses and schedules were then agreed to after a desultory conversation, in the course of which Mr. Napier was complimented for the ability and energy he had displayed in regard to the bill, both in the select committee and in the committee of the whole house. Mr. V. SCULLY moved the insertion of the follow ing clause after clause 16 :—" Any judgment or decree obtained under this act, in respect of compensation for improvements executed by any tenant who has been evicted from, or put out of, possession of his holding, shall be the first charge thereon ; and, in default of pay ment within the time limited by the court in that be half, shall entitle the tenant to go forthwith into actual possession, or into receipt of the rents and profits of such holding as mortgagee thereof, and to continue in possession or receipt until fully paid off; with interest and costs." The committee divided, and the clause was rejected by a majority of 91— the numbers being 25 and 116. The house then resumed, and the bill was ordered to be reported on Monday. CAVAN ELECTION. The SPEAKER intimated that be had been informed that it was not intended to proceed with the petition against the return for the borough of Cavan. PILOTAGE BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. Mr. CARDWELL explained that the Government had made arrangements, founded on the calculations of an actuary, to give every person dependent upon the fund of the Cinque Port pilots, the same benefit that be would have had if the fund had not been abolished. The Government proposed to transfer the trust to the Trinity House, to be administered by them in the same way as heretofore, subject to the control of the Board of Trade. He considered this was a just and equitable settlement of a complicated question. Mr. JAS. MACGREGOR objected to the proposal of the Government, on the ground that it would have the effect of diminishing the amount which these pilots were now entitled to on superannuation, from 501. to about 301. a-year. They were a most meritorious body of men, and he considered they were well entitled to the indulgence of the committee. Mr. HENLEY was of opinion that so meritorious a body should be dealt with liberally. Clauses 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, and 7 were agreed to. It being four o'clock, the house adjourned. The house resumed at six o'clock. mANcEKGIRNONOSNOLJZed the IERS Secretary-at-WarINANTIG.Mr. whether Antiguathat orders r h e a c d r ü b i t e e f n o s t s h u e e d vir b by t t h l e n d m i a i i re ta g iy i m ai tu e t l ll. t ao s sr a ict m oierr o s n ei g cn s t t the negro population of the island, in place of enlisting African blacks as heretofore ; and, in case th e s ystem of recruiting from island negroes was necessary for the good of the service, whether permission could be grant ed to enlisted men at the proper season to assist the hands on the various estates in taking in the crops? Mr. S. HERBERT replied, that orders such as the hon. member spoke of had not been issued, but that the change which they were supposed to have effected had taken place from other causes. It was accounted for by the fact that there were not the same number of African blacks as here tofore, coupled with the circumstance that there had sprung up a willingneu to enlist on the part of the popula tion of the West India Islands. As regarded the second question, orders had been issued that furloughs should be granted to the men at harvest time, and so there would be as little abstraction of native labour as possible. INCOME TAX ON IRISH DIVIDENDS. In reply to Mr. BLAND, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not cognisant of any legal difference between the case of the stockowner in England and Ireland. He had not had any opportunity of ascertaining what deductions had been made by the governor and directors of the Bank of Ireland, but had not the smallest doubt that they had been in structed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to de duct income tax for the half year. That was in strict con formity both with the practice and the law ; and if it were not, the house at this very time would have been passing an income tax for six years and a half instead of for seven; for whether they did or did not levy it in to June, 1853, they could not in June, 1860. FAIRS IN IRELAND. Mr. BUTT asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what proceedings had been taken by the commissionertefin quiry into fairs and markets in Ireland, appointed pointed the e u warrant of the 29th of September, 1852; wh en had yet made any report ; and whether their rerrt made, together with the evidence taken by then,i, 'wordd be communicated to the house ; and whether i t w as in tended to introduce any measure on the subject in tne pre sent session? Sir J. YOUNG said the report would be printed in a few days. DISMISSAL OF JUDGES OF THE SUDDER reply to lifx r . T OTWAY, g sa hae id hq t au h ae a su t toi h ot e nth had oeni Sir C. WOOD, on a previous oceasionouujegtehhlietnedngroowautinssdwaytatntat, this subject, simply having made hreiamdsetlhfeapcyaupaeninter He might the causes of dismissal in both cases, he h&tl coma to the conclusion that it would not, tend to raise the character of the Sudder Court, if he re stored these two jud te g l e e s th(al t er o pgee t ns h dw e l b li e ue n hp c o l h i n . e hh A aisd s regarded the suspens ion of Mr. Luard, i possible as yet to s ay t, "ins impossible r m ead ad i e ne a s g s si a n n s d t a w h i ll a i t ty m t u o st su b b e s t d an n t e i parsons in high office at Bombay. COURSE' 3F PUBLIC BUSINESS. Mr. DISRAELI said it would be desirable to know what the noble lord intended to be the course of public business ? Lord 3. RUSSELL had intended to explain this on moving the adjournment of the house till Monday. The Government had not allowed bills to be brought in, an he hoped hon. members would not press measures of their own requiring so much consideration as to render it un likely that they would be passed this session. There WA • one bill—the Education Bill—with reference to which no had been asked a question more than once; he bad no to state that he was exceedingly anxious Ito Pen Prices 'day. Busloo s t his dai. 1511 d 152 34xd 56i 14114 281 741 33 ( )4xcl. 35 4 ric