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

ser 0 in 0t. 3 , i 0 9 ' alla .00 70, e t- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.) CRININEY SWEEPERS' REGULATION BILL. On the m o ti on for the second reading of this bill, The Earl o f CL ANCARTY trusted the house would not be.precipitate in be instituted to ascertain, before the bill bec ame law, whether it would not give rise to Borne inconvenience and hardship. 1 , T ile Earl of WICKLOW also opposed the bill, which Le thought, if passed, would - only encumber the statute il u i:d ay t r a m o e v n ed th t s h . at the bill be read a second time RohThe Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he had brought e bill for the Pure gof extending the pro ns of the act, which now only applied to the raetropolis, to the country generally. He Which that act now proposed, order to prevent the evasions to 'visio ns gave rise, to include under its pro ehiJoung persons under 16 years of age, who assisted neY sweepers, as well as apprentices. The present was so simple that he did not anticipate any oprs . n g e , ll would be offered to it, and he had not come forti with papers to show its absolute necessity, but he as -4,l_ved their lordships that they could form no notion of the 3131"Ysical and moral evils which were now inflicted on a nu and and helpless class of the community in conse q :see of the exi s ti ng state of the law. sT . LEONARDS supported the bill. read —uendrnent was 'then w ithd rawn , an d th e bill was a second time. CLITHEROE • ELECTION CASE. Lord . the t„,, -- ' 4 a I ThIONT drew the attention of th e house to %tie;J lll4 the hous e h a d sent no answer to the apph to the 4 the othe r h ouse to concur in a joint address ions her Majesty to appoint a co t_ 4 ° inquire into the state of this borough. As hied7, e 'night arise over and over again, it was e defidt:e'lesirable that the house should adopt som If no course which might serve as a precedent.. se _ the G: e else made the motion it was the business of f turned i e o rili ll th e ir, ot to see that some answer should be re- Th e Ea e -noise of Commons. n oble lord ri ef ABERDEEN said he was very glad the us th ou had brought this subject before the house, as ght it w "o n as proper the house should come to a le rd 4 , upon it. Some time ago a noble and learned t t h is h im what was his intention with regard to °ad moo e d and he told him in answer that although he sia l ii a i v ed that their lordships should agree with other of eo addresses which had been sent up from the Hoar koti o llll4 no, it was not his intention to make any su h With regard to this address that of course etent for any other noble lord who thot!,, ht riloYake such motion. If he recollected . aright be 31.081)e-aZe:: f and lea rned a friend gave some sort of antuna beeti°,,il!ola an intention, but he supposed he must have ar i c 'sbakeo• At all e ' vents it was competent f odr hl a m t tot h: ?then noble lord to make the motion, an N ish ey i n g been done, he concluded that it was not the 4ted il intention of any noble lord to take such a step, eont:'4.therefore felt it incumbent on him to propose a, matter-". their lordships to adopt with reference to t Aotsunaing as he did, that their lordships were B ed to a t °us e p gree in not adopting the address of the th e ot , ‘ jo wlmons, it was necessary to consider what t rmPer and suitable course to take. The best h,. °4( ireu take he thought, would be to move that the at ;be thought, into consideration that day six months.. ut n ' a tthe cours e they pursued with regard to all bills disp,ettrera the other house, and which they were . not Pass, and the House of Commons had . disco ree,,,Zuat their lordships had done by searching the rao B C° °f . their proceedings. That was considered t e he, co u 8 • )4(7 : b ecause mode of roceeding towards the other he believed in former times they did not m onth s postponement of the reading of a bill for six eos sen s, hut they rejected it absolutely ; and it was in tiling of its being considered a more courte h ou d 141 ept ed 11 g, towards the other, house that they had that e mode now usually' followed. He moved luaink eB ,,age .be sent to the House of Commons, ac -413011 - g 'nein that this house, having considered the 4 ikl . of the select committee of the House of Commons ele et ! i ' l ted to consider a petition complaining of an undue f. tvid: a for tlae borough of Clitheroe, and the minutes t o ,eone 4r -e ? taken before it, do not think it expedienrt an 14 quip,„La an address to her. Majesty praying fo Th - ,;" motion was agre e d to. ST, ° ROUGH OF MALDON. LE ONARD'S asked the Earl of i Aberdeen kaddress the mat las the intentio n of Government with a_hl n rese for an inquiry respecting the borough of rh: dellee in er ABERDEEN said he had read the evi tll'3vPA 1,1 . re gard to all the other cases in which he had address but he had not• read the evidencein . Thei r c i abler - 7 11 8 : Yet, and nest. he - co u ld no t therefore at present an - Their I°l4B b i" iPs then adjourned at half-past seven COMMONS—{YESTERDAY. ) 40•CrSt OF commoNs--(Y_--„BATE. Tilt 1113130 -ET —RESUMED L'-'1 Committeeof Ways and Itege .hense %ea went into I'lle CRAIRMAN read the in respect of e th (i Bl et the second resolution, " And forts d . tin n ot n or hereditam e e weecupation of such lands,-tcoenr by a tenant l i value resolutionse. sand NZ' than a dwelliilg.house occupiec of the annua , ths,„%farrn of lands), for every 2°B' sums of 7d., 6d., and td s r' °hue inoiety of each of the said the omis- IT.' ~.°l:,irtlkeNQihove-named times respectively," amendment, words f the . MOLI Of th °ITTART moved, as an that the late __.,,811. "thi r e word " moiety" and the insertionufit, e introduced the t at t, ;," and urged in support when he assessment of the wl e hart peel' had thought it necessary, the ntal, and that ikTuere°l4e from x in 18 42) to reduce one-half Ulf) existed to a greaterquestion ti le e „, 8 three -platter! to do s° , could ~:fian gsgr-"e,,e'es Which induced him tcke person g. sma l ler ~ -- ot th e f .- eeW than ever before. land wore ineum certainly not ingland than in Scotland and Ireland. To they et that the profits upoi.! and that they w and I r dan .u . ~.4 . treLfererly were, in scotlantm on a foot,' qouni liisee in England than United King ' oug ht to be n th e f a of the which sta t e d, that . in . thalit reaers of justice ted, d. 3',Was a measure ess by the lik, , In conclusion, dment he had the public business by the Ntient. This was no party question, nor had he 4 ,,,c at ng this amendment the ii°ll' gentleman no wish whatever to in cting °- rty question) u ,k*o,,, e With the ce s tremZll4raent. Thl although it was the the n it as sucli t house to consid He he ni3esitionwas no ' pa his misfortune side induce to to be just and faire r .eelan Z. assig-ned of the house. e now He hoped groundsthe . to sit on made the right hon. gentleman tho sitio n he had st finance to , 4 ,,Rlit it would be far better forr ehere spsitew his sch eme. of uity demanded, than to resi through as a Ik e d ._ • tme and eq ng it ear , o it as justice . 0 on carry" such . qualine ti . 4e418 and to determine d h e°tYPe d(Cheers.) had listens plan. an was Iviimte CI:IAN-0E1,1,0R of the EXCHEQUER as the ent he ~,_`' great satisfaction, so f ar intelligent statement of 1,-4:rattily concerned, t o the very di t not like the hon. gentleman tt i% N I de. (Rear, hear.) He Ca—, with more kh "11°11rahle gentleman's that case w he sil,,. gentlenaan could have stated hon. gentleman slightest in , the se but he did 'AY (Ter hear.) He assure not the e • ....ear, had n w ot think going on I.Qbancellor of the Exchequer) . t him f or not s the the Oovernment to press forward measures affect. ' ill i ..1(111 I malting any charge against night. But it wa , measures affee ,i tit 4 b his amendment on a former members i s ' °f the Government to press forward d ir, nt (the the public interest, as it was the hear lie the "°°. What it was they had in justiee propose. er, glad to be_ yofhon. Ckleellor of the Exchequer) was v---, legacy duty, . il lentl succession or arrive at the die ts eiha.ti refer to the 14 lie e h would soon 1 the time "lion oped the committee would not expend hon. st of that question. He w° remarks which the .. _ .x. te atl e ecannlittee by noticing the Chancellor of the -B ell "44 had made upon his (the . taxes upon the N'ller'B3 d imposing various Chancellor k tke.. , 11 con. uct in . comments he (the be of th° , no the intended. to (Mr. upon the taxes p lu. " LAhequer) had made opposite bittaaPori them by the right hon. gentleman which fell upon Yoer o : 11 ) io Deeember last. But the taxes land—were not l'ect4"--blell who cultivated their own to all other o to that class of persons ; ,Ivser,, they appliediuran _, i d however, 41 st ' 3f l aud. It should be borne , was the case i there w them ias was \V-th -.4 no house tax uNn and that there the b last), income was S e i 4 Udget of December eke where their would be Inkie: tax put upon them 1tthi,,,,1,51/. a lrear. It was true the yeoman,t case ho would ki - ,'" to the succession tax, but in tna.t.,. However,. let t 1 t ill co cession with the entire comm o n -n. l Y for discussion in 1 , t , 4 t 04,- pass. The subject would cemh h on . gentleman t hat bi - rie entirely agreed with t the was no class I°ll o t 1 8 .ws s no Part y question. Theredisappoint than tlis ye f ''ailua he would more regr et to 1 the committee 1141444 - But, in the first place, the of t h e corn 14,,N, recollect that, since the repeal. times renewed. 11140'111e lueortle tax had been several dv become low, tad ° it was renewed, Prices having alreai-wer. I n 1851 the i viith eery prospect of their becoming ,c) s exceedingly 10-tl,l tax was again renewed, with Flee at that psti But, notwithstanding the low state of prices with 'lSt i„Lthe farmers not only accepted, but accepted gee tle kltil '''extvenience, the Proposition of the right hen.) by a clitiltil,° lueluber for Halif ax (Sir C. Wood ~ who,_., would Are fis ' ' w hich he (the Chancellor of the Exchequreay, ,60t.. 1, 1 tltaitztly refer, pot the farmers on a more favourable bulpeoin so kv,,, 11 , knY other class. Indeed, no class stoo d was foot et a footing as the farmer. That, he thought, of ~,..tleepti4,,"reug reamon against renewing such a procee din g As to the 1)001141 legislation in favour of the farmer. laced on the Alen that the English farmers should be 1) 14. and taine fOOtilag. for this Purpose, with the Scotch the tetfereers, the only result of this would be, that onably Nii,,ilaltd Irish fearroers would immediately, and re:le made i 'l l' deutand that further concessions should be same relative lit tiolitlr si favour, 8 0 as still to Place them in the that their .oleps,.,,',With respect to the English farmers, gentleman Ivislied-'l've disadvantages re uired. The hen' ent zse„' to tuake it an i gent against • the Governm 0 , Lt"stre, that the reductionnelf rents in England had il . t s cteaei4dNuate to the diminution of the Earners proßt_ Agee, i e t i leg by recent legislation Assuming this to be tia i'leipi... N "! i i no is against the Governteent planiolet they ..Y k livel n useful against estion to the landlords the3,ll:eots fa a little rnore-gquickly and effectually than In hied klion laugb)—at all events, however small the t e .: ken of renewtnight have been in England, he begged etiiilelltad the hon. gentleman that the reduction had been 14, ,i,e'0414 in Scotland. But legislation upon • the income tax, 'Ski t ' . 11. ko3' other But ought not to be based upon any was __ lires4li'llids. The business of legislation hereinf" ils othei.nPola the principle that famiig was an occupation, Llader th4eeupationa, which must be left to find its level - che h -7 ItAlce of VC b t nd man. VelrZ; -.54111° right corap e i ion e ween manta i„, diNire..,to assume that the profit s of be farmer " '',4:1841,,,,n )I °W from what they taed to be. They . mu must , ..Orilte,,,liti!*Og these points, investigate, not the prices of 1111ality, ti e e 111,_ c elY, but the quantities produced, the,. 141fachleei.3, uti-oeapness of production, the application of Bearl4rmino: .0 gl'eater economy of the various processes. : eut.Lttift extension of drainage, and so on. (Heal, a 4 1,, ~ ," Main thing to be kept in mind was, that th ey likde,!nr rude provision for the case of the farmer. ' 4 lou Disit;eo‘,., indeed, said to him, " Go into schedule D, for they had considered that the inquisition into his affairs, in that case necessitated, would not be agreeable to him, but they had given him the means of averting an unfair asses sment. He might here remark that the hon. gentleman heel made a serious error in his calcu lations of the profits of the farmer. The hon. member did not regard the ma'ntentince of the farmer's family, the ex penses of his living, as any element in his calculations — (hear)—and, for that natter, the farmers seem much dis posed to take the same view, and to regard the expense of their maintenance as p irt of the expense of their farming, and as not entering into. the question of profits, which was a fallacy not to be ad: n. tted. Where, however, the far mer's profits were less tea u a moiety of his rent, it was not proposed arbitrarily to UM orce assessment as upon a moiety; for it would be competent in a farmer, who at the end of the year found himself so situated, to go before commis sioners—not Government commissioners, but local commis sioners —and, if he could make out his case, to have any excess of assessment allowed him in hi s payment of the tax. The hon. gentleman objected to this, that farmers did not keep accounts. There might, no doubt, be many small farmers who did not keep accounts ; but he confi dently believed that the great bulk of those who would come within the ope . eatiott of the measure did keep ac counts. Most assured ly this was the case, he might almost say universally, with the farmers in the north of England and in Scotland. The re was, however, one fact alone de monstrative that the pi eifits of the farmer were not so small as was stated, and thie was that in the past year the whole amount of relief front assessment claimed by the tenant farmers of England and Scotland, upon a total assessment of 330,0001., was betty, 'en 5,0001. and 6,000/. only ; the whole amount of relief actually granted being 3,4191., (Hear, hear.) This fact, he would repeat, demonstratively pioved that the farmers, ets a body, had no case to kow that their profits, including, of course, the cost of the main tenance of their families, did not represent fully one-half of their rent. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. KELLY maintained that by the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, land was taxed more heavily than other property, and he complained that, in addition, its pressure upon the farmers was uncertain and unjust. He ridiculed the erg= guts of. the Government, who, he said, admitted every so; )(irate portion of their measure to be unjust, but maintained that it was quite equitable as a whole. He described the peculiar burdens which he con ceived to press with unit lie severity upon the farmers, and sought for them, at any r ate, some relief from the peculiar injustice of the tax in question. Mr. BRIGHT deecriced Sir Fitzroy as having been speaking on a " Suffolk in id," and told him that he was badly advised as to his facts, With regard to the amend• merit, he urged the gross injustice of proposing to tax the opulent farmer, who very often kept a carriage (with more than one horse) and followed the hounds, only upon the same amount as the poor clerk or mechanic who earned two pounds a-week,and this at a time when agricultural produce was selling at so high and remunerative a rate. The time for the cry of agricultural distress was gone by, and was no longer available as pelitical capital. The motion was that of a "very young member," and a more impudent one had never been brought in to the house. Sir F. KELLY observed, that if the hon. member would introduce a motion top eeeempt artisans and small trades men, to whom he alluded, to the extent of one-sixth, he would most cordially support him. Mr. BANKES then eht the hon. member could not have attended to the speech of the hon. and learned member, or to that of the hon. member who introduced the motion, for his arguments had had nothing to say to the fact they had adduced. The hon. mem her for Berkshire mainly rested his demand for the English farmer on the point of justice, and on the comparison of his case with t hat of the Scotch and the Irish farmer. Ile 13 iew many parts of his own county in a state far below that -rhich he believed to be the case in Scotland or Ireland. The hon. member said that farming was the best trade going. He (Mr. Bankes) was not there at that moment to deiay it—(hear, from the Government benches)—but they were putting aax on the farmer for seven years to come. "P7h a could say the present state of prosperity would continue so long ? He feared the excep tions from prosperity to which he alluded would increase, and he felt it his duty, a s representing a large agricultural constquercy, to support the proposition of the hon. mem ber for Berkshire. Mr. WHALLEY took that opportunity of entering his most solemn protest against the reimposition of the income tax. Though he approved generally of the budget. The income tax was not 011 the pockets but on the morality of the middle classes : it touched the very life-blood of their principle and honour, and although the tax had existed according to law since the establishment of the poor law, it had never been cern( id out in the various parishes in assessing property for the poor on account of its mis chievous effects. As to The motion before the house, be must say, the mere fact of giving the farmers a fixed amount, to be ascertain( by a certain standard, was an inestimable boon, and cli.i much to place them in an ad vantageous position. Mr. AGLIONBY could not refrain from expressing his dissent from the sentime nee; uttered by the hon. member for Manchester, though he would go into the some lobby with him. A more exaggeerated and highly-coloured state ment had never been heard in this house than had been made by the hon. member with regard to the prosperity of the tenant farmers. He (Mr. Aglionby) had long lived in the country, and knew eomething of the occupying tenants in most parts of England, and he must say from what had been said by the hon. 'member that he should have thought the hon. member had 'limier known anything about an acre of land in the possession of a tenant farmer. (Hear, hear.) If such statements, whic h only referred to particular parts of the country, were a e 'anitted sub silentio he feared much irritation would be caveied among, and just ground for complaint would be give in to, a class of persons who had suffered severely of late. During some years, so far from the tenant farmers havi, ig a return for their capital, he believed they had not be tn paid for the labour of them selves and their families— -that, on the contrary, there had been a direct and consider. able loss, and that their rent had been paid out of the capital. (Hear, hear.) That was so in the north, and in many parts of the south of England, and he asserted again, therefore, that, although there might be exceptional casts, the condition of the tenant farmers described by the lion. member for Manchester was not the general condition cf that class. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KENDALL also tho ught he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if lie allowed the abatement of the hon. member for Manchester to go forth uneontradicted. In that part of the country which he had the honour to represent the tenant farmers were at this moment barely ekeing out a subsistence. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said that no person, whether farmer or shop keeper, was entitled to begin business without capital, and it was yielding to a bad principle also to say that a farmer could not keep accounte. The farmers ought, one and all, to be capable/of keeping accounts, and then the same law, applicable to the shopkeeper, ought to be applicable to them—they ought not to be charged is. more than their net income was shown.to be, like other traders. He thought as the tax wax at present levied upon farmers it might fall short on some and might press heavily upon others ; but, as he could not agree with the hon. member who had brought forward this question, that one-third would be by any means an adequate proportion for the tenant-farmers to pay, he should feel bound to oppose the motion. (Hear.) Mr. MALINS thought that the hon. member for Cocker mouth, after his remarks that night, ought to have voted for protection, and he could account for his not doing so only on the strength of party feelings. The hon. member for Montrose, again, who professed to be a friend of the people, would exclude every man from becoming rich who was not born with 10?. per acre in his mouth. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) He thought that landlords in ge neral would prefer for a tenant a man with industry, skill, and energy.to a man who had capital without those quali fications. (Hear, hear.) The principle propounded by the hon. member for Montrose would, if acted on, be subver sive of everything on which the greatness of this country was founded. The hon. member for Montrose now ad mitted that the repeal of the corn law led to the confisca tion of the small farmers, though when that argument was urged in the. debates whichetook place on the repeal of that law, it was denied that any such consequence would fol low. (Hear.) With regard to the question before the house, he would vote for the amendment of his hon. friend, on the g round of principle, though - t h e relief which it would give the farmer was so small, that he did not think it would be worth his hon. friend's while to press it to a division. (Hear, hear.) According to a calculation which he had made, the result of the amendment would be this — that the tenant who paid 2001. a year rent would be re lieved from the income tax altogether. The tenant who paid 3001. would pay on 1001. instead of 1501., and would save 11. 9s. 4d. per annum. The tenant who paid 4001. a year would save 1/.* 19s. 2d., and the tenant who paid 6001. a year would save 21. Gs. He believed the farmers, if asked on this subject, would say that they did not care one farthing for such a small amount of relief. (Hear.) Sir J. SHELLEY said the hon. gentleman seemed to put himself forward as a teacher of landlords, but after the, opinions he had given with respect to capital, he (Sir J. Shelley) should be sorry to be in his class. The honour able gentleman had misunderstood what had fallen from his honou-able friend the member for Montrose. What he understood his hon. friend to mean was—what every land lord knew to be a fact—that the cause of the great distress which existed amongst the agriculturists generally had been that they took farms without any regard to the amount of capital which they possessed to work them pro fitably. (Hear, hear.) He thought that one of the great benefits of free trail() was that the farmers could now work their farms with 71. or Si. an acre instead of 101. in con sequence of the fall' in prices generally. (Hear, hear.) During the corn law farming was indeed a bad business ; but at present no trade was more profitable. (Hear, hear.) Farmers now looked a great deal more than they used to do to the capital which was required to cultivate a farm profitably ; and there was a strong feeling growing up in favour of tenant right, which would tend to the be nefit both of the landlord and the farmer. (Hear, hear.) The principle of assessing the farmers on half their rent had been agreed to when farming was not so good a trade as it was no ar, and he saw no reason for departing from it when farming was so profitable. (Hoar, hear.) Mr. B. STANHOPE denied that farmers were in the prosperous condition described by the hon. 0 0 n r . e m ve e n m o b f e t r hr f ee or W es tminster. On au average of five pears, years, the profits of farming were less than they were perned bitsehre they.; farmersnh a d ; theyva n i oy-a right h l y a (. toto meconsider With anks ]. i e e d g ae : regard aw t ro o t b itp l : o e ri yn tassessments amendment—firpoints—first, o ho f ent h and next, whether that ought to be diminished by putting them as it were into another sched ule. He confessed he found great difficulty in proving that the assessment on half the rent was not a just one, and ho believed there would be equal and even greater difficulty in proving that it was, and for this rea son, that there was a total absence of 'ac counts oven among st they best farmers in the country. (Hear, hear.) The farmers boasted right of appe a l was i Ti scarcely any practical benefit to him. A man who had outstanding engagements liked to have all his affairs ex posed. Nine farmers out of ten kept no such accounts as wou ld enable them to go before the assessor ; and so minute were the questions put to those who appealed that he know one instance in which a farmer was asked how many bees he kept in his garden, end how much honey he got from them ? (Laughter.) He did not ask for compensation to the farmer on account of losses ; he simply contended it was not fair to assess him as he was assessed at present, and, seeking for him no favour and no affection, he en treated the committee to place him in the same position as the rest of the community. (Cheers.) Mr. VANSITTART replied. The committee then For the ameudtnent ded— CI 120 A ga i n st it Majority vv The original resolution was then agreed to. LEGACY DUTIES. The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read the resolution on the subject of the legacy duties, when he was inter rupted by Mr. DISRAELI, who said that an hon. member behind him (Mr. Froshfield) had given notice of an amendment upon that part of the resolution at which the chairman had just arrived, and he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make any general statement on the subject, 'because, if so, it might be advisable that the committee should hear him before they proceeded to consider that amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l entirety concur in me suggestion of the right hon. gentle man. I also feel the great importance of the question, and, considerin g that I have only had an opportunity cf adverting to it on ono single occasion, and that necessarily in conjunction with a great many other highly important subjects, it is probable that I have not been able so success fully as might have been desires to place the propositions of the Government clearly and fairly before the commit tee. lam therefore obliged to the right hon. gentleman for his suggestion—and, I may say, that I had proposed rising when you sir, had read the resolution, to state the views of the Government with respect to it. (Hear.) In the first place, I wish to call the attention of the com mittee to the limitation of the proposition as it stands before us. There is an immense number —at least there is a considerable number of points of great im portance and very serious difficulty, which we shall have to examine when we come to the details of the question. (Hear, hear.) But most of these points lam anxious at present, in some degree, to keep out of view ; because, in the first place, it is hardly possible to consider them until the committee shall have had under their eyes the precise form in which the proposition of the Govern ment will be ultimately clothed ; and because, in the second place, the general principles which are involved in that pro position are of themselves so exceedingly important that theydesery e ueather,hear.) undivided I and is most desirable,dexclusive tent then, ionof the committee.that we should, in the first instance, fix our undivided and closest attention on the principles which are involved in this mea sure, and that our vote upon the measure in the first in stance should be strictly a vote on its principle, before we come to consider the multitude of serious but still minor and subordinate questions which wo shall have to examine and dispose of in going through the details of the proposi tion. (Hear, hear.) The proposition, as it stands before the committee, is as follows : That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the stamp duties payable by law upon or for, or in respect of legacies, shall be granted and made payable upon and for every succession to the beneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to the receipt of any portion or additional portion of the income or profits thereof that may take place upon, or in consequence of, the death of any person, under whatever title, whether existing or future, such sucession may be derived." Now, the vote of the committee is asked upon the present occasion for the affirmation of a general princi ple that some tax or other—l don't propose to pledge you to say whether an equal or an ;unequal tax—shall be laid upon all successions to property that take place in conse quence of death. That condition—the accruing of the tax in consequence of a succession that ensues rpon death—is the pivot of the whole measure. The importance of the bearing of this proposal is to be considered with refer ence to two great classes of property which have hitherto been either exclusively or in the main exempt fro n all charge upon death or upon succession; firstly, real pro perty, whether settled or unsettled; and, secondly, settled property, whether personal or real. The first question we have to consider is, what are the reasons that have deter mined the Government, and that I hope will determine the committee, to resort to this source for the replenish ment of the revenues of the country ? The right hon. gen tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) said a few nights ago, if I understood him correctly, that I had founded the justifi cation of this measure upon its character and effect, which I described in addressing the house on a former occasion namely, that the laying of this tax upon successions to property would countervail the operation of the income tax in so far as that operation is too severe in respect of intelligence and skill, and too lenient in respect of property as compared with intelligence and skill. The right hon. gentleman observed that that being the pur pose of the tax, it was obvious that the tax so considered ought to terminate— or at least, in the view and mind of the Government, ought to be intended to terminate, in the year 1860. Now, I certainly could not with any great confidence submit this proposition to the committee, if the tax was intended to terminate in 1860, inasmuch as we should not have received full legacy duties under this pro posal in respect of any one portion of real property in Eng land until 1858, and the tax would, therefore, have an ex tremely short duration. But, in point of fact, the right hon. gentleman was mistaken in the construction which he put upon my statement. I stated that this suceession-tax equalised—if it be now unequal—the burden that the in come tax casts upon property as compared with intelligence and skill. I stated and admitted that intelligence and skill were too hardly pressed upon by the income tax as compared with property. I stated that this measure would rectify those inequalities; and I stated further, and be lieve, that this measure will rectify them to whatever de gree you may call it into existence, without raising any dangerous questions, and without unsettling your financial system, or rendering it liable to repeated and incessant, disturbance ; but I am far from saying that the rectifica tion of inequalities in the income-tax is the only reason upon which the justification of this measure is to be based. It appears to me that there are many other reasons. In the first place, it is plain that the measure is essential to this main condition of the financial measures of the Government —that, as far as in us lies, we will place a future Parlia ment in a condition, at a given period, to part with the income taxif it thinks fit. This is one of the objects we have proposed to ourselves as essential to justify the proposal to continue the income tax for seven years —(hear)- -that while we propose it for a term so considerable, we shall lay the ground and prepare a train of causes which will supply Parliament with the means of dispensing with it, if they shall think fit, at the expiration of that term. (Loud cheers.) That is another material reason for proposing the tax upon successions; and . a ithout that tax upon successions it would be impossible that we could hold out to you any other expectation of the termination of the income tax than that series of vague and general expectations which the coun - try has by this time, after so many repetitions of the experi ment, learned to appreciate at their true value. (Laughter and cheers.) Another purpose for which we propo-e this tax is to provide a fund by means of which, during that in terval of seven years, we may carry into effect great and extended measures for the remission of indirect taxation. (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) This is an important and essential purpose—(hear)--but I do not hesitate to say that, behind and independent of all these, there is a purpose yet more and more permanent in its character— namely, the removal of an anomaly which is unjust in its nature, which is galling to the public feeling—(hear, hear) —which becomes more and more galling from year to year, and which we believe it to be for the interest of all classes to settle at once and permanently, being convinced that the longer you postpone that settlement the more difficult it will be to achieve, and the worse will be the terms upon which it will be effected. (Hear, and cheers.) With these views, and with the feeling that the present state of the law cannot be held good in point of justice, I say that we have a purpose in this proposal quite irrespective of all those collateral ends, impel Lent as they, too, are, whichwe hope to secure by making the proposal at this moment. Now, Sir, the first question I wish to press upon the ear nest and dispassionate consideration of the committee is this—can we maintain the present law as it is? In my opirlon it is totally impossible. (Cheers.) I don't mean that it is impossible to maintain it this session or the next session. I mean that it is impossible to look upon it as a portion of our fiscal system with any satisfaction, that the public sentiment of the country is decidedly adverse to its continuance in the present state, and that some day or other—and that at no distant period—it will and must inevitably be changed. (Hear, hear.) You cannot main tain it ; and why ? Not because there is a clamour against it. (Colonel Sibthorp here made an observation which was inaudible in the gallery.) lan sorry to scan dalise the gallant Colonel. (Laughter.) I should have hoped that when I said we ought to look into the rights of the question, and not merely to popular opinion, I should have had some slight rememberable degree of his approval. (Colonel Sibthorp, with great vehemence, "No, sir, never." Loud laughter.) Well, I greatly regret that even those principles to which I should have thought the hon. and gallant member would. have given his assent should be so poisoned by coming from my lips—(a laugh)—but, irre spective of the approval of the hon. gentleman, which it seems I cannot have, I must state the reasons why I think it is perfectly impossible to defend the continuance of the present law. In the first place—and I state first the rea son which I conceive to be the weakest—l do not think it possible to defend the continuance of the present law, even as respects real property: (Hear.) I think, when we look back to the time of Mr. Pitt---when we reflect upon the proposal made by him nearly seventy years ago, and con sider all that has since passed, we must feel that even in regard to real property, as such, its present exemption occupies but a weak and insecure position in the view of the sentiments and tendencies of this day. I speak of the exemption as a total exemption. I don't say that there are not circumstances in the condition of real pro perty which ought to be considered when we come to ex amine the question in what precise manner we should deal with it under the measure we may be about to adopt, What I do say is, that a total exemption of real property from a tax upon succession, which tax is made applicable to personal property, and that at a high and heavy rate, i s , in my view, neither an arrangement altogether justifia ble, nor an arrangement which is safe, wise, or expedient with reference to the permanency of our institutions. It is an exemption which I think is far more invidious than it is valuable • and therefore I should wish to get rid of the invidious and odious character which attaches to it, aad come, if we can, to something like a fair and just measure of the claims of real property, and to a settlement of those claims. But if the exemption of real property is difficult to defend, how much more difficult is it—in my view, at least—to defend the exemption of settled personality ? (Hear, and cheers.) Now, what in the world can be said on behalf of an exemption of settled personalty from legacy duty? (Hear.) lam not aware of any argument, or the shred of an argument, that can be brought forward in de fence of such exemption. With respect to the exemption of real property, it is a bond fide exemptio e n x . era S p e t het tt w leme h n er ts of real property are not made for the p ur p ose o f procur i ng this exemption, because real property is settled or not ; but with respect to personal property we know that the astuteness of lawyers and the vigilance of personal interest are continually at work to defeat the operation of the law—(hear, hear)—and to invent new modes of escape from the legacy duty, and this with such extraordinary success that, although there has been an im mense increase in the personal property of the country, such increase is scarcely traceable in the tables of your legacy duty. (Hear.) We know that arrangements are made which may be called all but fraudulent—arrange- I meats which are perfectly senseless, having no meaning and no justification in themselves, and no rational purpose to which they can be referred, except that of evading the law. (Cheers.) Now, some persons may think that there scarcely to be paine t r a p k e e ea d nst is a countervailing consideration in the fact, that settle mentsnoe think,er? those answer tlem oe of ts a ss. t t settlement s ai. are made upon stamps, but I apprehend that is M ayrebeolifcfaiusothhattahllevstaalumeptshuapot they n he m y many i . n it th F n o o a r w en S n s s un . is th a e t n t y h o e u ra g te et , a I document which ascertains the existence of you'r property at your death, and determine its course, thereby standing stands, —it you take the in lieu of a will and of letters of administration. Is g not this privilege enough, independently of n. evading the legacy duty? (Hear, hear.) I therenot l s ano ther duty called the probate duty . Why, the probate duty of itself, quite irrespective legacy f from 2to 3i, or, taki ng extreme ca ses, 4 amounts to hon. member sitting behi n d the Chancello r a pe r o of cent. (An the Exche quer here made an observation in a low tone. ) Yes, in some cases the probate duty i s b eyond 3 °p then, quite privilege and benefit enoug h it by cent. Is it not, per cent. upon a settlement a man s hould es ca pePaylng ss. the pro bate• duty of 2,3, or 4 per cent., without being escape a totally independent impo s t o f 2 or 3 able to more ? (Hear, hear.) I think it is perfectly monst rous per cent maintain that, because of the stamp upon settlements , n o legacy duty should be paid by property whi c h has been settled. It seems to me a very good bargain—indeed, I should say, if we were now dealing with the probate duty, too good a bargain—that persons should be able by a stamp THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY!IEVENIMG, MAY 13, 1853. of ss. per cent. to - escape g duty of 21., or 31., 'or 41. per cent. I apprehend also that, according to the doctrine of the law, the stamp upon the settlement is the proper correlative of the stamp upon probates. The probate is strictly a stamp duty to ascertain and validate a document; the settlement is strictly a stamp duty., and has precisely the same effect ; but besides that legitimate effect of set tlements they have been applied to an illegitimate pur pose, and all sorts of forms of settlement have been invented and used with the object of escaping the legacy duty. What, I ask, can be more monstrous than the exemption of settled personalty? When we discuss the case of realty —whether settled or unsettled—it is very obvious, and I think it is very fair to call attention to the fact, that real property is subject to many charges from which invisible personalty, so to speak, is quite exempt ; and, therefore, that it is a justification, as far it goes, for the exemption of realty. But that does not apply to the personality which is the subject of these settlements. Funded property, free from every possible and imaginable charge is, by means of these legal arrangements, enabled to pass scot free, when other property is called upon to pay heavy toll. With regard, then, to reality, in the first instance, and much more with reference to settled person alty, I think it is impossible to defend the present state of the law. But there is another case far more flagrant than wither of these—that is the case of unsettled property, not real, but visible, immovable, and therefore subject to the burden of rates and local taxation. Lot us briefly look at the position of property of that kind under the present law. Take, for instance, leasehold property in houses. (Hear, hear.) Contrast the condition of such property with chat of settled personalty on the one hand, and realty on the other. There are two sets of charges which are sup posed—and which it is sometimes contended ought to be considered—as full equivalents for one another. On the one side you have the probate and legacy duty, and on the other the land-tax, a greater cost of stamps for transfer, heavier taxation under schedule A of the income tax, and exclusive burdens of local taxation. It is pleaded that on account of this last description of charges real property aught to be exempt from the first. Now, I do not say they exactly countervail one another. On the one hand you have the probate and legacy duties falling upon personalty in general ; on the other hand you have the local charges falling upon realty ; but here is leasehold property sub jected to both—subjected to the cost of stamps upon trans fer, to all the extra burdens of taxation for the income tax under schedule A, to the land-tax—(hear) —to the full undivided burden of local taxation, and yet subjected likewise both to the legacy and probate duties. (Hear.) Now, how can any Parliament suppose that, when once public attention is fairly concentrated up on such a ques tion as this, it is possible to maintain a state of the law so wholly devoid of foundation and of warrant in truth or reason. (Cheers.) This is the first proposition that lam most anxious to impress upon the minds of the committee. I refer with no invidious intention to the course taken on this subject by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). He and the Government of Lord Derby were impressed with the belief that it was impossible to main tain the law as it now stands and in consequence they gave a general pledge which I understood to mean that there must be some equalization of the pre sent system by means of a general tax upon succes sions. (Hear.) If, then, it be impossible to maintain the present state of the law, will you part with that law altogether ? Will you say, " Yes ; equality ought to be established by exempting from the tax the property that now pays it, and not by subjecting to the tax property which is now exempted ?" This is a course which the minds of many persons might incline them to take. Many political economists are of opinion that a tax upon neces saries is in its nature an illegitimate description of tax. Many persons think that, as a tax upon property, it ought to be absolutely proscribed. I don't mean to say that that it is my opinion, but I refer to it as an opinion by no means destitute of great authorities in its support. I mast confess, for my own part, that it appears to me that taxes upon property raise a ques tion of vast importance, but one which, like other ques tions of taxation, cannot be disposed of altogether upon abstract grounds. I should say it it is straining the matter too far to maintain that no tax upon property, as distinguished from income, is a legitimate tax. The ob jection to taxes upon property appears to me to be drawn from practical considerations—from the great difficulty that attends the adjustment of such taxes, from their lia bility to become the subject of continual contests between class and class, from their setting one portion of society ap parently in a state of hostility and conflict with others. These are, I think, groat objections to taxes upon property ; but Ido not consider that they are so likely to attach to a tax upon succession, °miring once in a generation, as they would if you were to attempt to lay a tax upon property which was to recur again and again upon the same property from year to year. I won't say that I look to the practice of antiquity, and especially of remote antiquity, as of very great authority in fiscal matters, or that the extreme antiquity of this tax upon successions is its main recom mendation in my eyes, but the committee must bear in mind that it is no innovation of modern times—that it is rather a revival, in a modified form, of what was originally among the main resources of the revenue of the State, namely, a tax upon su ccess ions to property, supp or t e d by a regular legal process of inquisition into its value. (Hear, and cheers.) It is, therefore, no mere innovation that we are now recommending, but is it an injustice ? Of course, it is unjust if you levy an unnecessary tax, a tax you don't want, or a tax to support wasteful and profligate expenditure. Such a tax is an un just tax, lay it on what you will; but I am now assuming that the purposes to which we apply the resources of the State are in the main reasonable. If, then, we want a given sum, is it unjust to raise a portion of it by a tax upon successions ? I should say not. It seems to me that the passing or carrying of pro perty in perfect security over the great barrier which death places between man and man in the highest achievement — the most signal proof of the power of civilised institutions. (Hear, hear.) I think that ability to determine the future with respect to property, and to fix its course from man to man and from life to life—passing over one contingency and another, and extending the private, personatwill of an individual into a distant future—limited, no doubt, and wisely limited, by law—is an instance so signal of the great benefit conferred by law and by civil institutions upon mankind, and of the immense enlargement that comes to natural liberty through the medium of law, that I can conceive nothing more natural than that if taxes are to be raised at all, in the midst of those arrangements the State should step in and take a just portion for its necessities. I will now look to considerations more practical than those. I am now endeavouring to put before the committee one possible alternative—namely, that of equalising by aban donment. If you are prepared to do that you must be prepared to give up the legacy duty and the great bulk of the probate duty, now producing something over 2,500,0001.; and, assuming that you retain a small stamp on probates corresponding to the stamp on settlements, as a mere validifieation of the document, you still would have to give up '2,500,0001. of the fixed income of the State. I think no one who hears me will be prepared to give up that amount ; and assuming, then, that you are not pre pared to give up the principle and practice of making death and the passing of property on death from the predecessor to the successor the occasion of your stepping in to levy what you require for public purposes, then we come to the point that you cannot maintain the tax as it now stands. What then is to be done ? I hope the committee will arrive at the conclusion at which the Government have arrived, viz., that this tax ought, on principles of equity and jus tice, to be made a general tax freed from its present gross and crying anomalies. I appeal in this instance to a sense of justice. I know it is said that this proposal is conceived in a spirit of hostility to laud. (Hear, from the Opposition.) That is (said the right hon. gentleman addressing the Oppo sition benches) I have no doubt your conscientious opinion. Allow me respectfully to disclaim any such motive. (Oh ! oh !) lam as much entitled to disclaim as you to impute it. (Hear, hear.) I wish without any offence to appeal to the sense of justice, which from actual experience and knowledge I am convinced does, and will influence many gentlemen, in despite of what they think their own per sonal interests, to vote for this tax. The ancient fable ran, that when justice was banished from other quarters on earth, she still for a while was to be found among agri culturists. (Laughter.) " Extrema per riles Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit." Whether that fable were wisely conceived or not, I may appeal, I believe, to your sense of justice, and I request you to consider whether, before the tribunal of justice, the proposition of the Government i s one th a t oug ht to be the law, an d a s entertained. It appears to us, that as y o u ca nnot maintain or justify the present state of you cannot abandon this source of taxation, th e w i se course is to make the tax general in its application. (H ear, h ear .) It ought to be an equal charge without excep ti on, though with adaptation, made on all descriptions of proper. A ques tion may occur to the minds of gentlemen, w h e ther they could not maintain some exemption—whether they could not, for instance, exempt rea l property ? Upon what grounds would you do that ?—would it be because it p a y s local taxation, the land-tax, an d pays un d er the income tax more heavily than personal property? Every one of these considerations also a ppli es t o l ease h o ld property ; would you then be prep are d t o ex t en d th e e xemption to that species of property ? I mus t con f ess that I should think such a course ve r y unw i se, an d i f you a dopted it you would find your exempti ons grow so enor mous that you must raise what would b e an i n t o l era bl e rate and burden of taxation on all descriptions of property left to pay the tax. Though I cannot altogether adroit tliat it ap pears fair to urge these burdens b o rne by land, yet there is some e xaggera ti on on that question. Take the case of t rans f ers . Very long ago it might be true that pe rsona l property m i g ht be trans ferred for the most p ar t w ith o ut expense, and land could not. But since th ose d a y s great masses and classes w hi c h were not known of personal property hav e grown up, before, which, under law at this moment, are subject to every expense of transfer like real property Take the railway shares, and you have at once a mass of property amounting to 300,000,0001. (Here some hon. member, on the Opposition ben c h es re f erre d to the subject of the sim plification of titles.) Nothing would give me g reater satis facti which would effectu a lly provide on than to see some measure p f o r the reducassed through tion of tho se Parliament costly and cumbrous forms now in use. , I shall take the lib er ty o f suggesting to the committee, and Before I conclude those connected with the landedinterest, that really we quarrel about comparative trifles, an d leave the greater matters untouched. The question n ow about to be con tested respecting 1 p er cent. to fall on one generation question on the descent of real p ro perty is an insignificant compared with the qu estion referred to by the hon. gen tleman opposite, namely—the simplification of title, and the relieving of land from those enormou s expenses which, from want of it, the land is now subjec t to. (Hear, hear.) The fact that railway property better Parliamentary title than landed property would for exceptional . at present enjoys a btaexaatiomne,stthiollueggihtimitatiesreason for giving Parliamentary title as to landed property as good a it, th ere fore, I pu t railway property has. (Hear, hear •) v supposing fore, to the committee, raeoasoenxoetlolenurgt urge as we a m . " a "consideration of our selves to be engaged in the serious fear to the reconstruc tion of the law—(hear), —l put it without . safely, o r justly propose com mittee, that you cannot wisely, e from the operation to give real property a total exemption the question of the legacy duty, din the if an exemption for other exemption would necessarily sandrt would make such a hole very large classes of prope y, rate y ou would be obliged to lay in your measure that the of 1 .6 e rty would be intolerable. of the legacy duty for this, for no other reason, that such upon other descriptions p of personalty from land, landed settlements, or settlements i ht think that settled land de serves(Hear, hear.) the tax. Perhapsyou g consideration'n from unsettled land, but a separate I assume, then: that you cannot exempt Government have the reasons I have adverted to. such distinction, for . °Teat question, and had its The law of settlempnt is a ,„ With respect to the not been able to find grounds for any tamps 'that is more than compen tax in the shape of s , ou escape by settle sated by the probate duty, whichitself y is question a great t. But the law of settlement apart men from all matters of taxation. I repeat, it is attended I with great advantages, and likewiseruse with considerable the other hand, drawbacks. The fixing and ty'ne up of land constitute, no the giving to family arrangements and to the possession'of land a certain stability, though that ought not to bo pushed too far, yet was an ancient part of our policy, and I am not prepared to say that it is one I would wish to see aban doned. It would be going, however, too far t o say not only that you should escape the probate duty, but that you should likewise escape every description of tax which the State may levy from other kinds of property on successions. (Hear, hear.) It does n o t appear to me that that distinction can bo maintained with respect to settlements in general, including land. Perhaps you might say that there ought to be some consideration for settlements in existence, but such a provision would impair the provisions of your act for snore than half a century. If the provision were demanded by justice, this considera tion ought to form no bar to its enactment ; but in my view it is not demanded by justice, and therefore there exists in the consideration I have adverted to a strong reason against the suggested provision. At the present moment we do no not ask the committee to vote upon anything except the mere principle contained in the resolution. We have adopted a form of proceeding as nearly analogous as possible to that adopted by Mr. Pitt in a corresponding case—namely, in the first instance, we submit the subject in very general terms, reserving for after consideration a number of important and collateral questions. No doubt there are many such questions. There is the question of the scale of consanguinity, which gives rise to a great difference of opinion, and which is a fair subject for difference of opinion. (Hear.) It is known probably to the majority of the committee that the scale of consanguinity, as now fixed, is immensely in favour of direct succession ; which is subject to 1 per cent. duty; while, upon the succession of strangers (and with them are ranked extremely remote degrees of consanguinity) the tax is 10 per cent. ; and there are, besides, various intermediate rates, which it is not ne cessary now for me to dwell on. This tax of 10 per cent. is a material item in the consideration of the whole question, for it falls on a limited portion of the property which passes by death. (Hear.) Yet the produce of this tax of 10 per cent. forms a considerable portion of the whole amount of the legacy duties received by the Exche quer. (Hear, hear.) It appears, by a return lately pre sented to the house, that while the rate of 1 per cent. levied in Great Britain on direct succession upon the larger amount of property yielded last year 238,0001. of legacy duty, the rate of 16 per cent. levied upon a much smaller amount of property yielded 490,0001. Since 1797, while the 1 per cent. duty levied on an enormously great mass of property yielded 8,322,000/., the 10 per cent. yielded in the same time 17,583,0001. (Hear, hear.) Two important questions arise with respect to the scale of con sanguinity. Is it equitable that a very great difference should be made between the tax on direct succession and the tax on the succession of strangers or persons of remote consanguinity ? I think the difference neither inequitable nor impolitic ? Generally speaking those who receive property by direct succession, are educated in ex pectations founded on that succession ; they are trained, and have their habits and thoughts formed in relation to the property they are to enjoy. (Hear.) Therefore, it would be a groat hardship to them to step in and take away any material part of that property which they had been taught to expect they would receive, But the successions of strangers are successions which are commonly of an un expected character, and are unconnected with any question of training or expectation. Therefore it appears reasonable that a scale founded on this principle of consanguinity might be maintained. I will point out to the committee that they must make their option between two things. They may maintain the present scale of consanguinity, but if they determine to lower materially the rate of 10 per cent., reducing it to 5 or 6 per cent., they must raise the rate of 1 per cent. ; or else lose the money now received by the Exchequer. That I think is a vital consideration. Though at this period Ido not desire to enter into a very full discussion upon the question to which I adverted more than once in the course of the re marks,—the question, whether even though you may think that there is no ground for maintaining any absolute exemp tion of any great mass of property, yet there may be good and sufficient reasons for adopting a different machinery, and practically, if not nominally, a different rate of tax with respect to certain classes of property, yet it appears to me that the present law is not only wrong in drawing too broad a distinction—that is to say, the distinction between taxation on the one side, and no taxation on the ether—but is especially wrong in the way in which it strikes that distinction. We mean, there fore, to make a change, which, though not precisely de scribed in the words of the resolution, and though the committee will not at present be asked to give an opinion on it, is so important and vital a portion of the plan of the Government that it would be wrong in me to omit notic ing it. We propose, instead of distinguishing, as the pre sent law distinguishes, in favour of settled and real pro perty against unsettled personalty, to abolish that distinc tion altogether and to draw a new distinction between property, which may be well described, not in legal phra seology, but, in language more popular and intelligible, as rateable property whether real or personal on the one side, and non-rateable property on the other. An advantage will be given to rateable property, whether real, leasehold, eopyhold, or by whatever technical description it may be known, and the full burden of the tax will fall on invisible and non-rateable property. Without referring to transfers, the considerable burden borne in other respects by rateable property ought fairly to be taken into view when fixing a legacy duty for these descriptions of property. The pro posal we shall make with respect to rateable property is this. We do not propose to establish a different rate of duty ; but we propose that the person succeeding to that kind of property should never be charged with the ditty on any interest in the property higher than his life interest. You may ask what will be the effect of this as compared with charging him on the perpetuity ? That is matter of computation, and admitting of some latitude of opinion ; but you will not be very far from the mark if you say that the effect of that distinction with the collateral distinc tions we propose to draw will be, that rateable property would have only to pay about one-half, as compared with the amount paid by property not falling within the de scription of rateable property—invisible or non-rateable property—would not be in all cases charged on the perpe tuity. A person would pay where he acquired the absolute dominion over the property, but where he succeeded to a lesser interest he would only be charged on that. It may be asked, why should rateable property be favoured in this form ? It is on account of the other charges to which it is subject, and not borne by the property to Which we propose to apply the full rate. But it is an object not only to give something as countervailing the burdens borne by real property, but to take care that you so adjust your taxes as not to all o w it to become an engine for forcing or perpetuating charges of succession. These are our reasons for freeing rateable property. But I may be asked—and this is a most important question—why we think that it ought to bear a less share of the tax. Hon. gentlemen may ask if we use this particular form for conferring that advantage—viz., the form that the person succeeding to the possession of rateable property shall not bo charged on anything more than the life interest—why we do not charge him on the property to which he has suc ceeded in the perpetuity, but at a lower rate. I wish to state that question, and to bring it fully before the notice of the committee. It is a question of very great difficulty, requiring very impartial and very careful deliberation, and in the discussion of which I trust every collateral considera tion connected with the fate of parties, of Ministers, and of Government, may on all sides be excluded, in order that the alteration of an arrangement so intimately connected with the social system of this country may not be frustrated from want of care and prudence in the adjustment. I fully admit it is by no means decided, when you have deter mined that real property is entitled to some favour of this kind, that then you ought to give this favour in the form of charging the tax on the life interest only. But I think the objection to charging on the life interest that will be made is this, that it takes away from the life interest the advantage that you propose to confer on that class of pro perty as compared with all others, because the person suc ceeding to real or to leasehold estate would, under that plan, be liable to pay as much as if he wore succeeding to personalty; and therefore it must fail, so far, is giving effect to the principles laid down. But, when we take a comprehensive survey of the mode in which the different classes of property are dealt with under the laws which touch upon points of this kind, I think we shall find that there are much greater objections to the other mode of proceeding—viz., that of charging the suc cessor to real or rateable property upon the perpetuity if he gets it. It is quite obvious, if we adopt this method of proceeding—if we charge the life renter of the estate on his life interest, and the person who comes into possession on the death on the perpetuity--that we at once establish a system of law which will work in favour of the large and against the small proprietor—(hear) ---and which will create a division and conflict of interests among different descriptions of landed proprietors, which, I think, it will be most undesir able, to say the least, to introduce. (Hear, hear.) It would be legislating in a most iavidious sense . Th ose gen tlemen who appear here are generally connected with the settled property of the country, and it would be in vidious, indeed, if we were to adopt proceedings in a matter of this kind which would advantage the large at the expense or to the disadvantage of the smaller landed proprietors. (Cheers.) I am sorry to detain the com mittee, for I know from experience that although it is re lieved by its importance, the subject is one of the dryest kind ; but I must confess, I think when you look closely into this matter that you will find that the relation be tween the life renter of realty and the absolute possessor of realty is not at all analogous to that which exists between the possessor of money in the funds and the absolute pos sessor of mere personalty. The possessors of entailed estates in this country acquire great social and great politi cal influence ; gives them a commanding station in the paths to the professions, and to Parliament, and to the various offices which lead to distinction and power. The position of an English nobleman and English gentleman is, on the whole, one of the most desirable the world can show ; but there is no distinguishing line which can be drawn between the possessors of entailed estates and the holders of small properties that can justify a distinction in the tax. Such are the main principles of the course wo propose to pursue. The other course would, indubitably, have a dangerous tendency to shake the present laws of entail and settlement in the country in a manner I should not wish to see, to jeopardise them, and to put them to the risk of being considered not in their character of a general, but in that of a class, interest. (Hear, hear.) These are, I think, the principal reasons, first of all, why we should propose to draw a distinction, not as the law now draws it, but on the more just principle of taxing the successor to rateable property on his life interest in it. Another point of importance in the consideration of this question, in connexion with its social bearing —(hear ' hear)—was the case of fully encumbered estates. (Hear, hear.) Upon the principle of charging upon the life interest in the case of a succession to an encumbered estate, the mode of proceeding would be this. In the first place, we should ascertain the age of the proprietors, and, having his age, we should have the number of years' pur chase that we ought to charge. We should then take the gross rental of the property, and from that we should have to make the deductions necessary to arrive at the net rent, because there is no reason, such as prevails in respect to the income tax, to compel us to go upon the gr oss rental in the case I have been considering. In this case the net rental and the net interests are to be charged. Having as certained the net rental we must also deduct the amount of the encumbrances, and is will, I am afraid, frequently happen that the net rental remaining will be tremely small in amount, and yet at the same time- and that is precisely the conjuncture to w hich I wish to call attention —there might be in the property a largo access ion of capi tal value. For if we ta ke an estate that will sell in the market for 50,0001., then we shall get a gross rental of from 15,0001. to 16,000 1 ., net rental of 13 000/. or 14,0001., and a 1 and if we suppose that the property is mortgaged to the am ount of 300,0001., th ese _ mortgages must absorb 12,0001. . of the net rental, and not leave more than 1,2001. or 1, 4001. a _y e ar to the proprietor, which will represent the annual value of his life interest. Now, I think if we were to charge upon the capital value, which we should do if we taxed the perpetuity, that would be a way of putting on the tax which must have the effect of displacing the pro prietor. It might be wise, lam told, for the proprietor under such circumstances to displace himself. (Hoar, hear.) There must be many such cases in the country. The Legis- lature has recommended a proceeding of this kind in Ire land, and has made provision for facilitating its progress. There may be a time--I hope it is not come, and that it may yet be very distant—when you may have to introduce a similar measure for England. What we have to consider, then, is to f rame a t ax in a way that will not have the effect of forcing the proprietor to part with his estate. Ido not believe that you could find any tax to put upon the capital value of an estate such as that I have been describing, which, if it passed into its possessor's hands in a direct lino, would not have the effect of compelling him to bring his estate into the market. The proposition we propose to make is this, that a person succeeding to such a property shall be charged on his net life interest only according to his age, and the number of years' purchase his life may be wo r th. If the proprietor o f hi s own free will chooses to bring his estate into the market, and it realises 50 0,000 i., then, instead of charging hir ec o o n m t e he a l,loo a / l .d:r 1,2001. a - year net rental, as i man, he is t o b e c h arged on the value of his sucwceessiony. Anything less than that will not be full justice `to the claims of the exchequer and claims of other classes. (Hear, hear.) In the event of the subsequent voluntary alienation of the property the claim of the ex chequer will arise, but when the successor to the property continues to hold it th e c h arge will only be on the net life interest. I hope hon. gentlemen will look upon this me thod of proceeding as a very powerful reason for adopt ing the principle of the Government proposal. (An honourable member made an inquiry as to the duration of the claim of the exchequer under this head.) The claim of the excnequer will revive in the event of alienation at any period during the holder's lifetime. At his death there must be a new succession, but, if the alienation of the property takes place at any period during his life, the claim of the Crown will revive against the actual possessor for the difference between the amount of legacy duty which he may have paid upon his life interest and the amount of legacy duty due upon the value, after allowing for the encumbrances. I believe there are other more legal, more technical considerations con nected with the tenure of land that will be affected by the course I am now proposing, and I believe I am correct in stating that the plan of the legacy duty as proposed by Mr. Pitt was of a similar description, and with the acknowledged purpose of charging the duty upon the life interest. These are the main points to which I think it necessary to call the attention of the committee at the present moment. But I think it is necessary I should say a few words with regard to the probable proceeds of the tax, because I see in various quarters anticipations of proceeds which I cannot follow or comprehend. Some are sanguine, others very ridiculous and extravagant, and unable to stand a mo ment's examination. With regard to Ireland, I have heard it stated in this committee that the amount of legacy duty which we shall derive from Ireland, will be about 300,0001. I myself believe that its amount will be 'somewhere between 60,0001. and 80,0001. (A laugh.) This, I am afraid, is calculated to take the colour, and the life, and hope out of the pictures that have been drawn, and to bring them down to very homely and mean pro portions— (hear, and a laugh)—but at the same time, as the computations I have mentioned are the best which I have been able to obtain with the aid of that experience and ability I can bring to bear upon it, I will not enter at length into the question of the computation of amount; but I think I ought to call the attention of the house, and especially of hon. gentlemen opposite, to one common source of error. One hon. gentleman said, with regard to this matter, I had stated that this legacy duty would raise a revenue of two millions. Stich an idea never passed my mind, and sach words never passed my lip ; yet it was stated that I intended to levy ten millions on the land. The right hon. gentleman opposite seems to deny having this impression. I do not doubt he avoided such a mistake, but not only in newspapers and out of doors, but in this house, it has been distinctly stated. The source of the fallacy I think is this :—The landed class in this country hold the first place in regard to influence, station, and power, and I hope they will long occupy it. (Hear, hear.) I have said they occupy the first place, and, if they do not, they hold at least a foremost place in the country. They have an immense influence, station, and power in the country, but the income of the landed class, as a class, is not at all in proportion to the influence and power which they possess. (Hear.) A great many such cases as I have already adverted to of extremely reduced incomes exist, but their position still leaves them great social power, and undoubtedly great political power. It is for that reason that there is a strong disposition to exaggerate the amount of landed income in the country. Now, the amountof landed property, when compared with the rest of the income of the country, and all the mass of income that will be sub ject to legacy duty, is comparatively trifling. lam almost afraid to say how far I anticipate that the proceeds of this tax will be from mere land. On a former occasion I ven tured to state that it appeared to me the land paid 9d. in the pound or thereabouts of income tax, while other classes paid 7d. (Hear, hear.) It was deemed that I had proved too much, and we had to pay for it in a long debate ending with a division. Perhaps a similar result will at tend the calculations I take the liberty to make on this occasion. I must say, however, lam afraid that of the 2,000,0001. but a very small proportion can be expected to proceed from the land, and that for two reasons—not only because we say the land should bear the lower rate, but because the land will always show a small produce that is subject to the tax. The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Belfast the other night, when I was absent from indisposition, made an able speech, in which he discussed this question, and by the light of his experience as a professional man gave an opinion to the effect that the amount of revenue to proceed from settled personalty under a tax of this kind would be very large indeed. That is, no doubt, what we reckon upon. We reckon upon a large revenue from land, and when I speak of land it must be remembered that there are two important kinds of property connected with land, but which are not land. There is, first, the income that is derived from mortgages ; and, secondly, incomes proceeding to persons out of settlements fixed on the land, but which are not really property in land. I do not think it is possible to draw any dis tinction in favour of personalty settled on the land, as compared with any other personalty. Such incomes are no more liable to local burdens than the money of mer chants or of bill-brokers, or any other purely undeniable personalty, or than money in the funds. That description of property, therefore, which is related to land, though not land, must take its chance with other personalty, and bear with it the full burden of the tax. So far as I can com pute, the proceeds of the tax from property of that descrip tion—the settled.,porsonaltyon land—will be about 200,000/. As to the proceeds of landed property, proper, I will not venture into details, but I must say that I do not think the proceeds of that landed property, which I distinguish from houses and other mossua„ncs, can be rationally estimated to pass 400,0001. Now, 1 have not heard anything stated that has been nearly so low as that ; but I will tell the house the mode in which I have proceeded in making this esti mate. I have stated distinctly that I have separated and struck off from this item the house property and all other messuages, and I am now speaking of what are strictly called territorial or agriculture estates. I stated the other night that there are no secret sources of information on this subject—there is nothing on this question that is not open to every gentleman in this house. (Hear, hear.) Under schedule A y ou fi n d th e gross amoun t of landed property charged with income tax. It is about 19,000,000/. a year, but there are deductions to come off that. The deduc tions, if I take them roughly at 16 per cent. will reduce it to 41,000,0001. Then I have to make the addition of Ire land. The value of the whole rateable property of Ireland is 11,200,0001. in round numbers. I have next to estimate that portion which is not landed property, but which con sists of houses and other messuages, and that I put at from 7,000,000/. to 8,000,0001. This will give me a net income from land in the three kingdoms of ' 48,000,0001. From that 48,000,000/. I have to deduct the interest on mort gages and other encumbrances, which every successor to land will be allowed to deduct before he is charged with the tax. What this may be we are all alike able to judge; we are all upon an equality in that respect, and may guess' at our pleasure; but I take the interest on mortgages, and other encumbrances on the land at 25 per cent. That leaves 36,000,0001. of annual income—that 36,000,0001. re presenting a capital value of 30 times as much. But then comes the question, how often will the succession come ? It seems to me not an irrational calculation to say, once in 30 years. (Cries of " Oh, oh.") I may be wrong. At any rate it is open to gentlemen to take another standard of calculation. I can only say, I go as near the truth as I can. (Mr. Disraeli—You make your estimate on the income tax returns, but you don't deduct th e sums un d er 1501. a year.) That is true. You will have to make an addition for that, but the addition will be very moderate. We know what these sums are, for the income tax returns give them ; and now I am afraid I have taken the incomes to which the right hon. gentleman refers. The 49,000,0001., unless I mistake, which I have taken, is the gross assess ment under schedule A, irrespective of returns. lam afraid, therefore, there is no addition to be looked for under this source. (Hear, hear.) But the question is, how often does the succession come ? I take an average of 30 years. If it is on an average of 30 years, and if landed property may be assumed to be worth 30 years' purchase, you will have 36,000,000/. of landed property on which to lay the tai. (Hear, hear.) The next step is to ask, at what rate will that land pay duties ? The legacy duty at present is levied on an average rate of 2 4-sths per cont.; but it is quite plain that it will fall on lauded property at a much lighter rate ; and for this reason,—first, because no interest higher than a life interest will be charged, which will re duce the rate of the tax one moiety ; secondly, because landed property runs more in the direct line than per sonalty, for property descending to strangers is obviously more out of the direct line than realty, and is charge able at a higher rate. If that is the case, and if the present rate of duty only averages 2 4-sths per cent., it is quite plain that the rate of duty on the landed property cannot average so much as one moiety of that sum, or 1 2-sths per cent., producing a sum of 500,000/. ; but when I make that charge, I feel convinced you must make considerably further reductions still, and that you cannot estimate the proceeds which will be rea lised from landed property at materially more than 400,0001. I have stated briefly the grounds ou which I have arrived at that conclusion, and I have done so deliberately, in order that the committee may be able to follow and thoroughly understand them. The estimates—indeed, I can hardly call them estimates—the dreams in which— Ie was going to say wiseacres, but as that term. may be offensive I will not use it—but the dreams in which l some persons have indulged have tended to propagate et effect dan gerous delusions on this subject, and have 1 of exhibiting who m w e as i a n bo t e h t e t l o igh r t ais o e f capacity, that more will be raised from land than I have ant icipated, t from stro th u e s land by this tax. (Hear, hear.) If it can be deiuonstra fabulous brtl i O s u o s n sums fm()n to nobody will lend a more willing expecta tionstion than myself. Only let us se e e a i r rli to at su a c i li v and I shall sincerely that the revenue will be larger, a t h d e em r real g an ra ti bond fide grounds on which we are toH ( Hear. hear.) o I will rejoice at so satisfactory a result. ( . have e got into o t.o s t t the question tion income-taxo f re t personalty.returns T a h n e d r ei may a gai again, w statee that as with regard to realty, so with regard to personalty, there is alarge portio n willno of t q w u i e ll st n i o o t n , C( b )l u il t e Ilinsten.V the tax at all. go into the taro to state iu fibvemwirteahilutyaand periodporso o n f al s ty of a:in:it:cal: the pro(year about 2,000,000 1 . One other point I should explain. as to the payment of the tax on successions to real proper ty, second We ol is the time at which the parties succeeding may be enxentp;tc to pay. Generally speaking, whlbesutatheeoennsutuhuccegessor is not payment to pe t there fore property. be longalso t to he residuary him onh the legatee,tetr rent - day, d l a v y n , rent day they may be expected to be paid to him. fore propose that he should not be liable to pa tax till 12 months after he has succeeded CO the (Hoar, hear.) We then propose that he shall be liable to pay the tax in eight equal half -yearly instalments, ln. the case of direct succession that arrangementwould make the tax the easilyhear payable,lyindirect successors.it would h t h b e e cas ev e ell of i 111 Othe e r as ce e n o t f . successions the duty of 10 per cent. case even on the lifte rest, would take up in four years a considerable share oft he concerned, it might be open itnoccoomnseidentSotifoanrtaso make S a ta f t u e rt i h s olicer prolongation of the time, but I doubt generally the o tat course. It would tend to bring about an accumulationof encumbrances—it would, therefore, be better toleave it to the discretion of the executive Government to provide, byextension of time, for cases of that ne cess it y. Generally' speaking, therefore, the basis of the tax, with respect both to real and rateable property, will be to charge in no case higher than on the life interest ; and in that and all other such cases to allow a period of one year to elapse before any demand is made for the tax, and then it will be levied in eight equal half yearly instalments. I hope I have now submitted an ex planation of this subject which will be satisfactory to the house. I venture to express a hope that the statement I have delivered will show thit the Government, if framing this proposition, have not been influenced by die motives imputed to them ; but that they have endeavoured to adapt the conditions of the measure to those permanent principles of equity and fair dealing, by which they desire all their proceedings to be governed, as well as the proceedings of any set of men who may, from time to time, be en trusted with the care of the interests of this great em pire. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT understood that the right hon. gentleman intended to draw a new line between rateable and non rateable property, and he wished to know on which side of the line he intended to put rail Way property ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the point referred to was one of considerable difficulty. He had not entirely made up his mind on the matter, and, perhaps, it would be better to take time to look into it further than to ,give an answer on the sudden. Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once, but, looking to the hour, be was compelled to move that the Chairman should report progress. - Mr. FRESHFIELD suggested that when the committee next sat he should be allowed to propose the amendment of which he had given notice, and that the debate might then proceed upon it. The CHANWICLLOR of the EXCHEQUER complained that, what with preliminary discussions at the commence ment of the evening, and motions for reporting progress at the end, but little time was left for considering the Go vernment propositions in committee. It would be ex tremely inconvenient to postpone a decision on this ques tion until after the recess, and, therefore, ho hoped the committee would come to a vote upon it to-morrow even ing. (Hear.) Mr. NE WDEGATE thought that the part of the right hon. gentleman's statement relative to consanguinity re quired some explanation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that what he had intended to say was, that he could not represent the znaintenance of the present scale of consan guinity as absolutely vital to the measure; but it was vital to the measure that the committee should either maintain the existing scale or reduce the rates chargeable on the suc cession of strangers ; but in the latter case they must be prepared to increase the tax on direct succession. The opinion of the Government was decidedly in favour of maintaining the scale of consanguinity. (Hear.) Mr. HUME wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman was prepared to lay upon the table a schedule explanatory of the various ways in which it was proposed to assess property ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the bill to be founded on the resolution was nearly completed, and it would explain itself. Mr. HUME said, that in that case the sooner the resolu tion was agreed to the better. Mr. MALINS observed that the succession to property was dependent on many other events than death. For in stance, a man settled property on his widow as long as she remained unmarried. In the event of her contracting a fresh marriage, would the person to whom the property would pass be called on to pay the duty ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under stood to reply in the negative. Mr. GIBSON wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce a provision for the compulsory registration of settlements? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that the Government did not intend to engraft on their finan cial scheme the principle of the Compulsory Registration of Assurances Bill. That measure must be considered and decided on its own merits. Mr. AGLIONBY wanted to know whether the Govern ment intended to devise some measure for the more equit able assessment of property for local purposes, especially for the maintenance of the poor ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not authorised, on the part of the Government, to make any declaration on the important subject referred to by the hon. member. Sir W. JOLLIFFE remarked, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad not explained the manner in which the appraisement and valuation of landed estates were to be made. These were items of heavy expense at present. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was desirous of not entering into any detailed explanation on this point until the bill should be before the house. In the mean time, he might say that the present Legacy Duty Act of necessity involved a valuation, and it was not improbable that the machinery employed in that case might be found applicable to the present. However, no question about valuation, properly so called, would arise. In the present case no capital values would come into consideration. Mr. HEATHCOTE was desirous of knowing whether an account of rental was to be given in by the heir, or how it was to be estimated ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in answer, that the person coming into possesEion would be called upon to give in a statement of the gross rental, toge ther with the deduction to be made from it, and ho would then be taxed on the net rental. The house then resumed. Mr. HUME said it was extremely desirable that it should be known whether the house would proceed with the reso lutions the first thing to-morrow. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it was quite understood that the committee would decide on the resolutions to-morrow. COPYHOLDS BILL. On the motion of Mr. AGLIONBY the house went into committee on this bill. Some amendments were added, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed. RYE WRIT. On the motion that the adjourned debate on the ques tion of . the issue of a writ for the borough of Rye be resumed, Sir C. BURRELL moved that no writ be issued till this day fortnight. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that as the question was one between the issue of the writ and the disfranchisement of the borough, he should vote for the issue of the writ, for there were many hundred electors in the borough as free from corruption as any constituency in the country. Mr. BASS, as mover of the adjournment of the debate, entered into a short statement of the corruption practised in the borough by the money influence exercised by Mr. Jeremiah Smith, in the shape of political loans to a certain class of the electors, and expressed his opinion that the writ for the borough ought not to issue. Sir J. PAKINGTON protested against so many ques tions affecting the rights of electors coming on at so late an hour in the evening. Mr. SPOONER moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. TUFNELL said, that the argument of the hon. member for Derby went to prove that the borough ought tolbe disfranchised, which was not the conclusion ho had arrived at after a careful perusal of the evidence. Lord PALMERSTON consented to the adjournment of the debate until this day (Friday), when he trusted his noble friend (Lord J. Russell) would be sufficiently re covered to attend. After a few words from Mr. FBEWRN, the debate wa a adjourned accordingly. Mr. FREWEN moved, that it was the opinion of that house that it was very desirable that the post-office at the House of Commons should be made a money-order office, for the purpose of granting money -orders on the country post-offices to the members and officers of the house. There were 6,000 letters posted every week at the members' post office, and he hoped that the Government would not oppose the moues. Mr. WILSON had received a letter from the Postmaster- General, stating that a money-order office could bo esta blished in the House of Commons without any additional cost to the public. The motion was then agreed to. Mr. LUCAS moved for a return showing the distribu tion of the sum of 18,5001., voted for the army services of the years 1852 and 1853, under the head " Divine ser vice ;" stating the religious denomination to which each clergyman belonged ; the office, title, and service in virtue of which such allowance was made ; the date of his ap pointment or of the commencement of his allowance, if an annual one ; and the names and distribution of the reli gious books paid for out of the same vote. Mr. HASTIE (Paisley) moved that the following words be added at the end of Mr. Lucas's motion :—" And that a copy of each book be laid on the table of the house." Mr. S. HERBERT had been told by the hon. gentle man some of the works were of a very objectionable nature, and he could not be held responsible for them. It must be recollected that you must either establish a system of proselytism, or leave the prisoners without any sort of religious education whatever. As to laying copies on the table, it was a very unusual course, but ho would order thorn to lx left at the War-office for any hon. member who chose to call and look over them. He hoped the amend ment. 'would not be pressed, and that the hon. member would not ask for a library to be laid on the table of the house. After some further discussion, Mr. HASTIE withdrew his motion, and the previous motion of Mr. Lucas was agreed to. INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES BILL. This bill was brought up, and read a first time. Mr. M. O'CONNELL hoped full notice would be given before the bill was read a second time. It was most im- portant there should be time given, seeing that the state of feeling in Ireland would be very intense on the subject. The remaining orders were then disposed of ; and The house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. PAIRS ON MR. VANSITTART'S AMENDMENT. FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Waddington (Suffolk) Mr. Elliot Sir Lytton Bulwer Mr. R. Currie Lord Claude Hamilton Mr. Phinn Mr. Coles Lord Jermyn Colonel North Mr. Valentine Browne Major Beresford Mr. Mestyn Mr. Heathcote Mr. Jackson Mr. Bunbury Mr. Wm. Brown Mr. Honley Mr. Higgins Mr. Alderman Thompson Mr. Drax Hon. Francis Baring Lord Henry Lennox Mr. Lawley. [..A.DvEP.TisumENT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills a Certain. Cure for Eruptions and all Diseases of the Skin. — E7..tract of a letter from Mr. J. Hind, draper, Keady, d . P:l;ed Feb. 14, 1852, to Professor Holloway :—" Sir, — My child, when three months old, was afflicted with a severe eruption all over her body. I sought every aid and the advice of surgeons and physicians, by all of whom th e case was considered h o p e l ess. I then tried your Ointment and Pills, and without exaggeration the effect was miraculous for in a short time she was restored to perfect health, and so remains. Mr. Bowden, book- seller, Gainsborough, and myself, would be happy t? satisfy any in qu i r i es as to t h e truth of this statement. ' Sold by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's Lsta blishment, 244, Strand, London. HOW TO DEFY ONE'S WIFE.—One of our American contemporaries observes that a man who can whistle may, to any extent, defy his wife. " What, under the dome of heaven, is more _vexatious to her than to hear an irreverent whistle while she is intent on vocally ee -1 timating the moral deficiencies of her husband. Not alone does it close the summary, but it vanquishes the summarian. Husbands I try it ! You'll hear a curtain lecture never more. That whistling was contemplated by a benignant Nature in the soberest of moods is apparent from the fact, that it is unequally distributed. It is a gift ; an endowment; an afterthought ; a kind of codicil added by the dame after she had made her general be quests. ;