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

LS. --.... B Jives 151 A d 114 5C4 141 bonus -~ :/ x noir xcl, la -.---I ~.•` ozen dozen 3d to frai l 3id; )41 4 Jug, 004 eco, ive,t act• (THIS EVENING.) GOODWOOD STAKES. 3to 1 agst Hobby Horse (take 4to 1). sto 1 agst Joe Miller (6 to 1 taken). 10 to 1 agst Vindex (taken). 500 to 40 agst Haricot (taken). 20 to 1 agst Father Thames (taken). ST. LEGER, 11 to 1 agst Cineas (taken). DERBY. 30 to 1 agst Autocrat (taken). 20 to 1 agst Prince Arthur (taken). 20 to 1 agst Ortolano (taken). STATE OF TRADE. ti, , y .Li SUN OFFICE, Six o'clock. THE QUEEN'S HEALTH. (BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.) OSBORNE, SATURDAY, JULY 23, 9 A. M. The Queen has passed through the measles •n the most favourable manner, and her Majesty liovi covaleseent. 11.0 further bulletins will be issued. JAMES CLARK, M.D. HENRY HOLLAND, M.D. TATTERSALL'S. GOODWOOD CIIP. sto 1 agst Rataplan (taken). p t B to 1 agst Rattle (taken). I N e ‘tdington is scratched for the Goodwood Stakes and Yrcnn the Manchester Guardian of this day.) th e 1: : 4 C HESTER, July 21—The fact that the passage of th e . 111 th has been followed by renewed negotiations on te 4 rt of the great powers, considerably diminishes that t o T h [t ension of war which has formed so serious a check tliaiVegular couse of business. The consequence is , li st the tone of' our market is improved ; on the one oth "Yers are extending their operations, and on he i , et ! Sellers are man if es ti n g at least an increased fi the rm regard to prices. On the whole, a further up i' tendency i s o bs e rvable. Warps and pin-cops, both d the lower and medium counts, may be quoted fully th i ;Per lb. dearer than they were a week ago. The con -4:41 merchants are venturing to do rather more in era b .; and, for various foreign markets, there is an in tebe of operations in different kinds of goods. The leea a ln in China, and the state of trade in India would preclude purchases for those quarters ; and eli a L 8 pretty near ly the case, yet some of the mer th 11 t 8 ey are quietly taking more twist and cloth than ie w ere- The home demand, in every department, Ro„,, ; and the dealers, like the foreign merchants, Tli e ` ll grnenting their purchases in the present week. L a, l tr a d e continue to be free purchasers of cotton, ep o s taken 57,000 bales in the week ; and the tend gained rather to harden in price. Yarns have rattier p r , upon cotton ; but goods do not get on in the same is t r tion as yarns, and the position of manufacturers into they efor e becoming worse. To buy yarn and make it j a cloth i s generally a profitless trade—in domestics it the r se than profitless. It is said that, at Stockport, ki r ;: te a . re indications that the turn-out is about to ter tot TINGRAm., July 21.—The lace trade is duller, but lin bsually so for the time of year, and the demand b" White silk laces is somewhat less than it has been, w tlt th ere i s considerable inquiry for black silk laces of a o "Le descripti on , w hi c h w ill t a k e o ff a l arge quan tity, as dou btless these goods will be required until the end of alltu ' n' is n. There is still on hand considerable orders both di a ,"iery and lace goods that do not require imm!- ‘e attendance, but sufficient to keep each trade low in t i'elt tor some time. There is a little falling off in the „, e tlland for silk hosiery, both in gloves and hose. The rrie e yarns is fully. maintained. —Nottingham. Journal. LEICESTER, July 2L Though the demand for W orsted g oods is dull, as is usual at this season, all workmen are well emploped at the advanced rate of "ages, and there is more than usual being in shipping O rders for the colonial markets. The cotton.ch a r every demand S till keeps good, especially for greys, which scarce, and the supply of cotton quite insufficient. The worsted yarn market is firm at the reduced prices. In pools there is not much doing, and the same reluctance noticed to sell at present prices by the growers ; spin bore only buy to supply present wants. The preseut u ncertainty of Eastern politics has had the effect of . "'ering prices at the colonial wool sales, which have ha.l Ised from a halfpenny to one penny per lb. less than e former sold-at.—Leicester Journal. I MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 4017 gt OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) eit 6 4 t tb CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool o'clock. 1 ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. was passed through committee. SUCCESSION DUTY BILL. The seco a ll of ABERDEEN—My lords, I rise to move the sio ti m re ading of the Bill to Impose Duties upon Succes etlie;;Ttit is a bill which has occupied the attention of the sft e ;:"lse of Parliament for a considerable time, and, min Ong undergone great discussion, after having been ear c i„,7 l. examined in all its parts, and most fully and " 1 3' debated, it has finally been sent up to your lord %cal by a very large majority. (Hear, hear.) My lords, etty ' s a Mea sure w hi c h h as b een recommen ded to her Ma pl4' 8 Government by various considerations. In the first ees it enables us to relieve the industry of t h e coun t r y t is h e c tn t he burdens w hi c h have hitherto materially affected t e „ - erdPloyment of capital and labour. My lords, the y 0 al of those burdens will operate beneficially for the aL lo are and interests of this country. (Hear.) This measure pro e nables the Government to secure, or at least to make , th e ,4 s lon for th a t s ecurity, which we desire to obtain for Whichens of dispensing with the income tax at the period has been assigned for its continuance ; and, my lords,. 1 ib„ . 3 ; 8 enabled us in a certain degree to redress the me t ; 43 ' Which has been complained of in the imposition of il l; t ax. The noble earl opposite and his friends com in 41 that inequality exists in the imposition of that tax, fo "la i ach as it is levied without any allowance being made i nc ome derived from precarious sources, or without tak i4 ~4 0 account those incomes derived from the exercise of c • eulgence and skill, and they have recommended a prin -14 lo °f differentiation in the imposition of that tax. My ta x r 8 ' h er Majesty's Government have thought it right to s o Pro perty equally in all respects, without looking to the 14 - o ' 4 Whence it may be derived, whether from mere gte.lL: er from the exercise of intelligence and skill. The Vie" %t i nducement to her Majesty's Government to adopt tho , e : i ll , r se which I now propose to your lordships has been Pla• t ;,, t s ' t' ) remedy an injustice which has long been com toll ; I ,', °f; and which, in fact, was gradually becoming in- Nra e ] , t ( e to the country. The sense of right and justice longer ° PP`lsed to it that it could not have continued much I° ls -e p -a lid it was wonderful that it had existed so long. 'Which t' no doubt, made an attempt to remedy . that . I :_stnr o " as an evil in his day as grave and crying in its a s it i s at present. My lords, no Minister since call e o - 7 hss made any attempt to do that which, although w ith ia -0 1h3' the general voice of the country, is attended d entr s i .,, eg difficulties as to have deterred any Govern the ; 111 L grappling with them. I trust,. however, that cell e° l ll 7 Neill feel that my right hon. friend the Chan 'lt °` t he Exchequer has worthily accomplished the 4 1 , 1 7,:,,511d has successfully grappled with the accompany- Pr - ;Teillties hen I say that an injustice has long ev v lt ' e( is it . is only necessary to state a simple fact to , 4 : 3 ti e e r t .k at assertion, and, my lords, I think I cannot do t it Is than in th e words of a writer held in great repute htloble lords opposite , and whose opinion they wi eD. l' ° e'" ti els respect. The statement to which I must beg toot attention is— toctl,4 Poor man w h o ge t s a legacy of 1001. pays 101. direcet 1 1% Exch equer , 4xche quer, an d t h e execu t or , i n a ddition, pays , 4 41 1 st m'iP on probate of the succession ; but the great chilli old e , succeeds to 100,0001. a year, without paying to a to th e St a t e. A cre di tor i n S co tl an d, w ho succeeds _ it nd for 100,000/., heritable secured, pays nothing; io,o B on r Personal security he pays the full legacy duty of f .r:,,* This glaring inequality, the remnant of the days 440' 41 oppression, or the relic of a time when the land nio.,;-9.1.8 had no money, and taxes could be extracted from , easi t ble property only, should forthwith be abolished. Sue of all kinds, whether in land, bonds heritably rat e ,' , or moveable funds, should be taxed at the same AY I rol Ptda, I thi n k so too • an d suc h i s th e op i n i on o f Si r lbald Alison, a writer who is held in great esteem by 1 1 _ v0 °Ma opposite. Th e no bl e ea rl opposite appears to til'ell.contemplated some measure to remedy the evil, for quere t b... gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exche a" e tt s . erib e d the legacy duty as a system of injustice, &lowed out some course of proceeding by which a 0e ,",7 11 Y was to be provided. What that course of pr?- la ,- 1 9 g . was we are not permitted to know. My lords, it on this principle that every species of succession should Ipmoe!paeors,ea;eyfaortr.a)xaed that we have produced the measure which submitmytolortdhse, th co e n m sid ea e s r ur ati e 7 of your lordships. although now only to o ____ _ 0 _ second reading, has occupied more or less of L 1: lordships' attention on different occasions, and we 14 7: 11, la t :ai , strong denunciations of the injustice, oppres bunciationeardship of the burden which it will impose. It ether n singular that, although we have heard these de , we have received no petitions against this tax, alth o h burden w lig there are petitions against every other species of (Hear.)id an My lords, I thought naturel heard those oqi - on ofdeclamations measure I _l4s. e nst the tyrannical anroppreasive e i w oa ski h were so rife, that the table of the house would be the dred with petitions against it. I now hold in my hand red of the House of Commons upon public petitions, atd in th at report there is a long list of petitions] against su etyr i descripti on o f t ax , b u t not a s i ngle one against the cession duty, which is described as so th ough the bill has been before the House of Commov e for al tee, months, and this return is Made up to the 15th of 'elY• (Hear.) I might say the same for this house. I 4 " 14 a constant attendant, here, but I have heard no Petition against this bill, and none have been presented except yesterday, when a noble earl opposite, not now in his place, presented 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 sig-eified by petitions to either House of Parliament. But, my lords, as I understand that the noble earl opposite (Derby) does not mean to oppose the second reading of this bill, it is not necessary to detain your lordships by going into any examination of the provisions of the bill and its different clauses. These may be explained and discussed at a future stage of the measure. Nevertheless, I shall venture 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 perty, whether settled or unsettled, as your lordships are aware, pays no succession duty. Now, we propose to re dress this anomaly, for there really seems no reasonable cause why settled personal property should not be dealt with in the same manner as unsettled property. We pro pose to apply the same role to all descriptions of property. We 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 whsle, as the scale of consanguinity has existed so long, we are of opinion that it will be better to preserve the scale which now exists, with that exception. We are of opinion that in applying the succession duty to land, it is desirable to do so with as much consideration, and as lightly as can reasonably be required. We have, there fore, proposed to estimate all successions to land according to the life interest of the person succeeding. There are various modes of estimating that life interest, but it will be 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 ever the amount of his interest may be. We propose, as was proposed by Mr. Pitt, to make the succession duty payable in eight half-yearly payments ; the first will only commence at the end of the first year, so that s space of four and a half years - will be afforded for the discharge of the duty. That appears to be as lenient an application of the imposition of the tax as can reasonably be expected. To show you the operation of the present bill, let us take the case of a person who succeeds to a landed estate of the value of 10,000/. This value of 10,0001. gives a rental of 3001. a-year. We will take the average age of succession at 35 years, which I believe is a. fair estimate, and is borne out by whet has been ascertained by takin g the average age of successions of membe rs of this house, which is found to be 35 years. Well, the succession of 35 years of age would give 151 years' purchase, and the sum, therefore, on which the duty is charged is somewhat less than half the capital value,—that is, 4,6501. The person succeeding to the estate will be charged on that sum. The duty will be payable in four years and a half, and the sum which would represent his life interest would be 461. 10s. If he thought fit to make immediate payment, he would be allowed a discount of 4/. 135., and, consequently, the whole amount of duty payable for the estate in ques tion would ho 41. 17s. The produce of the tax is esti mated at 2,000,0001. sterling. I know it is supposed by some that the amount will be higher, and I think that the noble earl opposite (Derby) himself intimated such an opinion. I can only say that-, according to all the best calculations I have had access to, that does not ap pear to be the case. Allowing for some uncertainty in calculations of this kind, I think that about 2,000,0001. may be fairly estimated as the produce of the tax. I know it has been said, both in this house and elsewhere, that this measure has been conceived in a spirit of hos tility to land. My lords, I utterly deny that such is the case. We have endeavoured to do the best we could in the financial measures adopted by us, and, having imposed burdens from which the land is exempt, we have thought this measure required by the claims of justice and expe diency. I never contended that • it was any advantage to the land to be placed on a different footing from the rest of the country. (Hear.) It has been said that the Gvern ment resolved to levy a tax of 2,000,0001. on the land, totally irrespective of the nature of the tax itself, and the manner in which it might be levied. But, my lords, in stead of a duty of 2,000,0001. upon the land, every calcu lation that can be made shows that the utmost that can be derived, or expected to be derived strictly from the land, is only 400,000/. —not one-fourth part of the amount of the tax. That is, of course, exclusive of houses held upon freehold and leasehold tenure. The main object of this bill, my lords, and the principle upon which it proceeds is, to extend to all successions that duty which is now only confined to unsettled personal property. I do not propose to go further into the provisions of the bill. But, I may make one observation on the course which I under stand the noble earl opposite (Derby) proposes to take ; and I make this observation with the utmost respect for the privileges of this house. I can quite understand if your lordships receive a bill from the other House of Par liament imposir , a tax of an oppressive and unjust na ture —I can quite understand your lordships resisting such a measure, and refusing to entertain it. But I do not un derstand how, having adopted the principle of such a measure, your lordships should enter upon the considera tion of details, the practical consequence of which your lordships must be very well aware of. If this measure be so unjust and so strongly to be resisted, I admit the right of your lordships to reject the measure, and I do not quarrel with the expediency of doing so if the emergency , be such as to require it. But, having assented to the prin ciple of the measure, then to raise questions as to whether 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. He 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 nu 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 lion. 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. Ef theirl ordships tried this bill by its merits—by its justice, its policy, its practicabi ity, 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 burdenon all former settle ments, —then, whatever pecuniary asantages 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 alteratihn 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 b him posing additional burden s on real pr e o x p t e e r n t t y , t f h o e r i r a l n o r d uoo ps would compensate, to a certain e from realised landed and pe rsonal prop amount of pressure of income tax up e o r n ty. in Th com e n e ob a l r e is e i a n r g l one e r i a t t w i v a e s l y , that de. t w h e e n t i n o f u r o t o d u m o t a i k o e n t o h f e a s t h s i e s r t measure o n ,an d a w b a o s l d mended by a sense of justice, looking to the favour which bad been shown in the taxation of the country, to the landed interest, and to realised property in comparison with personal property. The noble earl said that an exempti and on of real property from successi on dut y was a grievance 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 said '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 kid ventured to avow an intention of dealing with this subject. At length, then, Parliament had found a worthy successor of Mr. Pitt. a phcenix 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 failel in effecting, and which every Minister from Mr. Pitt's time to the present had shrunk from attempting. Now, he left it to the house and tto the country to judge whether, there being such manifest advantages in the amount tla t 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 ho 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 thin g s ; 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 property, 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 more 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 67,000,000/. a-year, or thereabouts ; the charge upon that property being about 6,000,0001., amounting to something like ls. 101. in the pound per annum. (sear, hear.) That was the amount which was borne by real property in this country, and from which personal property was altogether exempt. (Haar, 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 i mpracticability 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 charge which ought justly to fall upon all property alike, but wich 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. 101. 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 which, as he had shown, already stood alone in paying ls. 10d. in the pound for the relief of the poor. (Cheers.) It was said that personal property paid under the legacy duty ls. 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 is. 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 comparatively light charges 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 to do Was he going to remove the impost which he considered so obnoxious? Not in the least. He was going to leave all the pressure and hardship of the legacy duty as it stood • but the noble earl thought those upon 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 iu the same posi tion as the man who received merely the price of 20 or 30 acres of land. The suczessor 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, 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 had, 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 serious impediments in the way of 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 had 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. (Heari-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, ho admitted, were very good things iu 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 tile case was concerned, settled personalty stood precisely upon the same footing as settled realty ; and the j ustice 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 any person has or shall become beneficially entitled to any property, or the income thereof, upon the death of any person dyinc , after the time appointed for the commence ment of this act, b 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 f rom them a ta x 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 THE SITN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1853. age of 70 or SO, the sole representative of the family, living in 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 24i 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. Ho 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 50,000/, 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 0 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 him 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 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, he 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 being spent, 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 yet when he died his executors might be at a loss to know 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 hank-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 render the collection of the tax a matter of considerable difficulty. The framers of the bill had evi dently perceived that, and he begged their lordships' at tention to the mode in which they proposed to meet it. 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 petitions had 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 g eneral 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 tun 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 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 repealad, and of not having to pay back the duty which he 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 ;,he 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 sone 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 truce account of the property, for the duty whereon they shall respectively be accountable, and of the value thereof, and of the deductions claimed by them, together with the names of the success or an d predecessor, and thir 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 commis s i oners were dissatisfied with the information so given, they were authorised to cause another account to be taken by pers,ons appointed by themselves, with power to examine into all such papers and 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 amou n t was a b ove 50/., 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 'to 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 ho 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 clone 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 purpoge between the commissioner and the successor, before the first payment of duty on the succession shall have become due.' Now ho 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 be years before a,nyprofit 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 3d. 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 claptrap 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 F 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'Cnlloch, that the 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 abrogation of the distinction which 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 time 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 operation. They 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 the great owners of property, but he did not hesitate to say, five 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, rested—was not a bill to meet any present exigency of the State, or introduced as a temporary measure which might be tolerated for a short period, but was laid down emphatically in the preamble as being the permanent system under which the financial affairs of this country were to be administered. Now, he told the noble earl that this country would not bear it—(hear, hear) ; nay, more—that this country ought not to bear it ; and he was satisfied that, so far from this bill being permanent, even if the noble earl succeeded in passing it in its present shape, no very lengthened peri o d would elapse before it would be repealed by the unanimous demand of all classes in this country who were connected with property, except the attorneys and solicitors, who would derive a very rich harvest from the litigation which would arise from it. And now one word as to the course he would take. The noble earl had said he could understand the course of ob jecting to the principle of the bill, and rejecting it on the second reading ; but that he could not see how they could assent to the second reading and to the principle of the measure, and then ask the house to deal with th e de tails in suclia way as to defeat the object in view. Now, in the first place, he protested against being held in the slightest degree to have assented to the principle of the bill, and, if he abstained from taking the sense of the house on the second reading and contented himself with saying " not content," he would take that course, not in 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 difficulties, or as a perma nent measure on which 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 aperson 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 often 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 interest.rever tiwneneanrYtheca scase o f t h B o s u e t whhooww had e rdeo done e h e s yo fromtodistinguishextravagance 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 singich money, it was not done for purposes . which the r h o e m h t o h u e s e tax w . ou A ld n w ot i • the case of tenni plied equally . to the income tax, as in was imposed ;and liable annuities purchased before the tax Another to objection e neul encourage t b li y e The objection the income tax on that species of property. documents was the p n a o r b t le of ea th rl e had •hatl lately passed greatest bugbear of all. Their lordships the • and principle a bill for the registration of all deeds,e n x o e b u l i e p ti e n a g a t s h a e 1 7 . a y s et to th t e h n e o p b r l o e d l u m e •d tio w n as o h f im pa se p lf er a s p ed a i r d tyto the imposition of In Scotland every immediate prede cessor, hail repeatedly received their sanction. etu t tl h ; ) (eel, which ir r i le s t o r n a . pe t eb i e re n t office lords a rapid series called for by th e were so afraid of having seen, might not each t e b n e tai p l r w eb a n s t a e cc ,d e t s i s t i i b e l e e , t e o v a e n ry y for a shilling • and at that m ' o n m an en a t e , t Where several be cessor, but from the father, and they would, therefore, only be liable to a duty of 1 per cent. In the case of st , referredbrothers t souccaceeesdoefd hardship l e l i n P ot f h ro e m r t p h a e rt s i t e i s cce b s e s i i n o g n Would reckoned ki p l adny commissionerseo d t p the 10 operate 0a taking e ln f r g favour i c n p e l n a a duty, e d ofn oreta from r revenue.obp u rn o t pet The r this ety . document of successions might take place in a few y ears . but they f her, nron of would o only r o p t it h y e r a •s p, affect ed taking fromb by consumption,tb the fat 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 most`fa or able to real property. How could they give a den ityour 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 the term "necessary outgoings," and leave it To n g e aci opt n missioners to put a proper con s t ruct i on upon it. Seeing what the practice had been in refer ence to the legacy duty, there was no d ou bt the busine ss would be transactedina 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 pictured, but as furniture; and the small es t p oss ibl e va l ue 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 (lawn a differe n t ru l e. 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 himself might be in office then—(a laugh)—though they could not pledge Parliament to abandon the income tax at any one period, yet they provided a tax by means of this bill which would enable Parliament to do so if they were disposed. On coming into office, the present Government had found the income tax in a very awkward position ; and a proposal had been made by the noble earl, which was most unjust, to throw a large additional burden on real property. Hav ing attempted to establish that dangerous principle of a differential duty, how could the noble lord have prevented its being carried further ? When the present Government came into power they found it necessary to deal with the income tax, and on looking round for a substitute, they could find none more eligible than to extend the legacy duty to successions t o rea l proper t y. F or years there had been annual motions in favour of such a tax, weakly re sisted by different Chancellors of the Exchequer. Mr. Pitt had originally proposed to include real property in his bill of 1805 ; and the result of its omission was that while younger sons were subject to the tax, the heir escaped. (Hear, hear.) After the distinct declaration of the into Government, through their Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the legacy duties were a system of injustice, the present Government could see no course more con sistent with their position, and with sight and jus tice, than to extend the tax on successions to all pro perty. It had been correctly stated that there hacl not been a single petition against it. He looked forward to a continuance of tint system of remission of indirect taxes which had been productive of such signal benefits to the country. Ho 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 MALMESDITRY said that as comparisons were always odious, he would not compare the two budgets, but would confine himself to the question before time 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 he entirely denied that anything like perfection had been reached in our financial legislation. The law was about identical with one brought in at the time of the Norman Conquest. Persons were then employed by the Crown to ascertain the value of all lands, and tax them accordingly ; the principle of this measure was precisely the same. The old law had been abolished in 1664; and now, after a lapse of two centuries, it was proposed to re-enact one founded on the same wide principles—a proposal which he must characterise as absurd, cowardly, and unjust. The whole principle of a tax upon successions was as absurd and cow ardly as it certainly was unfair and unjust ; and his first feeling was one of astonishment that such a proposition as that of the Government should have proceeded from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not accord to Mr. Gladstone much financial experience —indeed, the right honourable gentleman himself would not lay claim to it—but he did concede to him, as everybody must do, that high moral character which he had always main tained, both by his example and precept. If his books were a true expression of the right hon. gentleman's mind, and contained a true description of his feelings, the one great object ho must have in view must be the ad vancement and the maintenance of a high moral standard in all matters influenced by public opinion. But he had nevertheless founded all his financial policy upon specula tions on some of the worst passions of human nature. His measures speculated upon the selfishness of human nature. He proposed schemes that would not immediately injure those who sat in Parliament, but the effects of which would fall upon persons not in a position to defend themselves. In his plan for the conversion of stock he began by attempting to frighten people who had money in the funds into the 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, had 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 th e coun t r y 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, and left- his pro perty to his servant. he would be so much the more a patriot, because then the country would get ten per cont. instead of ono. The bill would hardly square, it was true, with recent legislation for promoting the public I health ; because it was obvious that those periodical mortalities, the recurrence of which the appointment 4 , f 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 I would be the effect of the measure upon the Chancellor of position. The Chancellor of the Ex the Exchequer's social 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 t o be compared for injustice and oppression to this—the right ho ve m d in s n. gentleaci n ety., for pretty (Laughter.) tim e b e i ng, had been would his B u t what receio his position be now ? He would be a sort of vult ure suss in, over society and i nv i t i ng for theharvest of death. (Laughter.) He w o ould be th e heir of esury 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 oven hi s collea gue s and asking, even in the most conventional manner after his health. (G roat laughter.) He (Lord Maltnes'burv) 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 aL surd. It might indeed be fair if everybody were placed lin exactly the same circumstances—if everybody died at 70—if every one married at 25, and had a son exactly nine months atter his wedding. (A laugh.) The chances of life of a man 50 years of a g e might be mu c h grea t er th an those of o ne a t 21, but tine latter would, ne ver th e l ess , h ave 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, lie c onsidered the tax on successions by far the most unbearable ; ant ] he protested that, although he did not expect to in herit anything beyond what he had already receive,], he would rather pay income tax to the end of his life than agree to the imposition of this unjust tax upon his suess sass. (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 .d., ...- 0 ,-- 41 .... '.: -- s-As.**: - - --- received and might probably never get. (Hear.) TI,„; . ""\-- , 4,.. ;`,,' I indeed, 'argued. that the bill was necessary to remayjs e ' .:';-' •• i injusi ice of eharginfflceecy duty mean personal ands -7, ,'' • '',' f — , ing real property ; but it was injustice. A morn ',' '-:_ --_ ' ' ! man-like act would have been to have removed file' : - ''!'' '• ‘ ' ,-* altogether. (Hear.) He believed that the present (ilikertae,T,l.2, -- ' ,:\:;, menteeidd have done so although it was nut in the cke2; - -'-Lees of that to which he had himsett belonged, for the evental.. .\.: ) 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, is 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 moan to say that it was unjust be cause real. property w as no t t axe d lik e persona l proper t y. (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; lie 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 iser cent., making in all a tax of 13 per per cent. Now the high es t 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 would be to impose a tax upon the home grown article greater than the highest foreign duty, a nd in some cases five times as much. Even as a financial operation the proposal was not creditable. (Hear, hear.) The bill was one of pains and penalties ; 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 taken the noble duke to task for having indulged in a disquisitionupon different budgets : and then he went off in a comparison of the rival budgets of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. The strongest possible epithets had been lavished on the bill ; but he did not expect to hear the terms absurd and cowardly applied to it. As to the objection which 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 property, the tax was charged upon the whole value. The proposal of the Government., therefore, was a mitiga tion of the law. So with respect to the consanguinity tables, the question was rather to proportion the amount ' of the tax to the degree 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 geti ing 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, ii 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 ofjustice 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 amendments to move in committee. He wished, however, to know whe ther he was right in supposing the noble oarl opposite to have said that brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law were to be 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 son-in-law or daughter-in-law 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 sister-in-law as a sister. There would be no alteration as to husband and wife ; they paid no duty on succession now. The Earl of HARROWBY was opposed to the bill. If the balance was fairly struck at the present moment, any man who gave a fair and candid opinion would admit that the land, contributed more than its fair proportion to the burdens of the country. One of the effects of the bill would be to make a man a slave to his lawyer, and involve him in greater expense than the tax its e lf. All the difficulties they were inflicting on the land would press more severely on small proprietors than large ones ; and he really did think, looking at the evils which must arise from the measure, that it been most hastily undertaken. It was a tax against which no great classes could remonstrate, and it was much safer to tax classes that could remonstrate than those that could not. He did not know whether he should • support any of the amendments to be proposed, but he disapproved of the principle of the measure. The Earl of DERBY said that in answer to the appeal which had been made to him, it would be impossible for him to lay on the table the specific amendments which he might move on the progress of the bill through committee. The bill had only been delivered that morning, and they had had very little time to consider more than the main principle. He could not, therefore, say that he would lay on the table amendments which might be found neces sary, or not, in the discussion of the clauses ; but he might state that one amendment which ho should move would be on the second clause, and the effect of it would be to make the application of the bill saving to the interests of all ex isting settlements. He should also move a clause for limit ing the operation of the bill to 5 years. The bill was then read a second time. The Land. Revenues Bill. was read a third time and passed. The Colonial Church Regulation Bill was reported, with amendments, and ordered to be read a third time on Mon- day. Their lordships adjourned at 20 minutes to 10 o'clock. ROUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.) PRIVATE BUSINESS. _ Pemberton Leigh's Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. _ Tlie 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 brought up the report upon Dock yard Appointments, which was ordered to be printed. CAVAN ELECTION. The SPEAKER intimated that he had been informed that it was not intended to proceed with the petition against the return for the borough of Cavan. NEGRO SOLDIERS IN ANTIGUA. it Mr.w asa K c l o A iT e ect i t N lia N t ° o N rde a rs ske h d ad th b e e S e e n c rss t i a ie r d y-a b t y -Wr the m wh itta h v er i authorities n i g n s t A t u h t e i t a g r t o o p r o e p c r u u l a i t for o t h f e t h l e V i e s s l a t nldnAlina placer e gi- of enlisting African blacks as heretofore ; and, in case the system 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 effeeted had taken place from other causes. It was accounted for I.y 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 willingness 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. BLA.ND, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not coguisant of any legal difference between the case of the stuekowner 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 (. 7 0nunissioners of inl a nd 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 au income tax for six years and a half instead of for seven; for whether they did or did not levy it in to June, 1833, they could not in ,Inne, FAIRS IN IRELAND. Mr. BUTT asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what proceedings had been taken by the commissioners of in quiry into fairs and markets in Ireland, appointed by the warrant of the 29th of September, 1852 ; whether y had yet made any report ; and wh e ther their report, when together with the evidence taken by them, would he communicated to the house ; and whether it wa s in tended to introduce any measure on the subject in the pre sent session? Sir J. YOUNG said the report would be printed in a few days. DI SMISSA.L'OF TETE JUDGES OF KIDD ER A DAWLUT. in Sir C. WOOD, reply t c, Mr. OTWAY, said that he h a d g io n e e g d r o n a n n s d w t e h n. a n t 1 a e h el a u d es n t n t h u a on a previous occasion tle t c h l this subject, simply o_ t t read the papers. Ifs might now say that, having made himself acquainted with the causes of dismissal in both cases, he had come to the conclusion that it would not tend to raise the character of the Sudder Court, if be re .seibAles a r s eg y a e r t d to ed the esy stored these two judges to it , t ., ll .a e s b i e m ne p h o depended upon his readiness anti 'arges which he had• t ability must S t in s be done . 3ftdaoirti. substantiate made against persons in high office at Bombay. COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS. Mr. DISRAELI said it would be desirable to know what the noble lord intended to be the course of public business ? Lord J. RUSSELL bad intended to explain this on moving the adjournment of the house till Monday. The CI - overnintNat had not allowed bills to be brought in, and he hoped hon. members would not press measures of their own requiring so much consideration as to render it un likely th a t th e y wou ld b e passe d thi s sess i on. There was one bill—the Education Bill—with reference to which he had been asked a question more than once; he had now to state that ho was exceedingly anxious to pass the c~