The Sun. — London, England, 1853-07-26 00:00:00

MEW ENT. 'rice Lay. 152 34xd Busill . cS t his dal. 15U a 31,- 3 si x d & 10° 7 x Del PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. SUCCESSION DUTY BILL. HOUSE OF LORDS.—juLy 25. I aJORITY AGAINST LORD DERBY'S AMENDMENT ON . SECO CLAUSE OF SUCCESSION DUTY BIL L. L ord Chancellor G a ll owa y Broughton Archbishop of York Granville Byron DUKES. Glasgow Blanty re kroll HarrowbY Camoya 'illicit Haddlngton Churchill 13ticelench Home Colborne __ ___ Leed s N ewcastle Norfolk v•uxbar g h e Wellirgton MAAQuIsEs. readalbane C amden Donee x l Headfort liuntley alisdowne monde Slig o Aberdeen ebb ese:brodoear o en in h Bruce EARLS, 4.ruc e Burlington C hichester Cla rendon Craven CialiNvlllla Dev on ra Ducte b iltham Xflinghana ''rkscue Ilchester Kenmare Kintore Lncan Romney Somers Scarborough Spencer St. Germans Uxbridge Wicklow Yarborough VISCOUNTS. Canning Enfield Falmoath Hardinge Massareene Sydney Torrington =NOP& Hereford Liandaff Manchester Norwich Oxford Salisbury BABONS. .Ashburton Beaumont Cremorne Cowley De Tabley Dacre Dufferin Er-kine Elphinstone Foley Gardner Hatherton Bowden Keane Einnalrd Leigh LlHord Lvttelton Manners Monson Overstone roltimore Portman Fanmure nivel s Saye and Seale Stanley of Alderley Suffield Truro Wharncliffe Wodebouse Wrottesley MINORI TY. 1, 1 1 : 1 ;11 1 raon:dUKES. Lonsdale Macclesfield Malmesbury Manvers Mayo Mornington Orford Orkney Powis Rosse Sandwich Selkirk Stradbroke Talbot Vernlam Wilton Winchtlsea Alvanley Boston :Bateman Berner tath m'Azg ins Es. , "oftshi re kzettr • tictsbarY Calthorpe Clarina Colchester Colville Crofton EA RLS. 2Ylesford 4 %11th ham _ Bathurst car digan Cla„ ar tY h a nttouth . r lerby . 0 4 ° 11 glimore uniskinen utirdwicke li: r nti ngclon Lev e e n vv°° d 4ngford De Ros Downes Dynevor Grantley Hastings rolworth Rayleigh Redesdale Sandys SoutnamptOn Sondes St. Leonards Tenterdon Walsingham Wynford VISCOUNTS. Castlemaine Gage Hereforl Strangford BARONS. Abinger 1 2 1 _vara de Walden. Lord rhain, Bishop IL n Yagham, Marquis R--+ford Duke o , uaanby, Marquis B ebery Earl ae lPerdown, Earl 11, l'itsbury, Lord ' r ewe Lord d Niesey, marquis tkrlie, Earl b eeriek, Bishop B , , Per, Earl Lean de Deeies, Lord I_Nock, Lord oat, L or d tden Viscount I.terbUry, Archbishop ir,kester Earl Vafford, Earl stol, Marquis Lo ndon, Earl o'uation Bishop Earl Ad nor, Earl p' ll , f rolk, Earl Glare, Earl ' e eklatui, Lord 10)evonshire, Duke t arta, Duke • lirleleY, Lord M ethuen Lord re ' aghtun, Lord ~r.ollatid, Lord Zama% Lord Manley, Lord Vlercont, Marquis t"aril L ord itz ha ' rdinge, Earl 4111f 3 rd, Lord PAIRS. Chesterfield, Earl Bradford, Earl Bayning, Lord St. John, Lord' Grey, Lord Faversham, Lord Eglinton, Earl Desart, Earl Combermere, Lord Cwlogan, Earl Exmouth, Viscount Tuam. Bishop Hawarden, Viscount Richmond, Duke St. Vincent, Earl Erne, Earl Ely, Marquis Jersey. Earl Canterbury, Viscount Beaufort, Duke Bandon, Earl Crawford, Earl Saßoan, Lord Rochester, Bishop Tankerville, Earl W z,terford, Marquis Sinclair, Lord Templemore, Lord Strathmore, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Digby, Earl Rinnotill, Earl Manchester, Duke Buckingham, Duke Hamilton, Duke Drogheda, Marquis Pomfret, Earl Roden, Earl Orkney, Earl Forester, Lord Grantley, Lord HOUSE OF COMMONS.-JuLY 25. ( Prom the Votes and Proceedings of the House of . _ Commons. ) - STAMP DUTIES (No. 2) BILL. Cl ause 3 (Duties on Newspapers and Supplements) :• Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill - --The Committee divided ; Ayes 92, Noes 40. MAJORITY—AYES 92. t. ilai nes, M. T. Goodman , Sir G. Palmer, Rousdell iss l e all ll. , J J :m hn es . Goold, W. = Palmerston, Viscount Graham, Sir James Peel, F. kiland, L. Greene, J. Pellatt , A B onham-Carter, J. Grenfell, C. Peto, S. Bower, G. Grevale, Colonel F. . Phillipps, J. H. Boyle, Hon. Colonel Ha ll, Sir Benjamin Phillimore, Rob. J. Brady,z J. Haste, Archibald Pigott, F. Bruce, Lord E. Herbert, Sidney Pilkington. James Bruce, H. A. Hervey, Lord A. Pouard-Urquhart, W. Butler, Charles S. Howard, W. G. Ricardo, 0. Cardwell, Hon. E. Howard, Lord E. Russell, F. C. Cayley, E. S. Johnstone, James Sadleir, John Challis, Alderman Kennedy, Tristram S..indars, G.. Cockburn. Sir Al Keogh, William Sawle, C. B. G. Cowper, W. Kingscote, R. N. F. Scobell, Captain Craufurd, E. H. J Hinnaird, A, F. Scully, F. Duffy, C. G. Locke, J. Scully, V. Dunlop, A. Lucas, F. Seymour, H. K. Xleho, Lard M'Cann, J. Seymour, Lord f,snionde, J. Maguire, J. F. Strati, lit. Hon. E. i w ,rt, William Miall, Edward Stuart, Lord Dudley ~agan, William 'Mills, T. Sullivan, M. ~ r guson, Sir Robert ' Molesworth, Sir W. Thornely, Thomas 1', 1 " 4 : 0 5 - , Henry Monck, Lord Vernon . G. E. H. 1, rster, C. 11l onsell, William Wilkinson, W. A. 1. ° ,.x. It. hi Mostyn, E. H. Wilson, James %: ,, estuu, Colonel Mnre, Col. Young, Sit J. ( 11%,, 4 '. ifharles Murrough, J. E. WZtone, William Norreya, Sir D. TELLERS. lotl t ` l4 ,, Tie, Captain O'Brien, P. Rapier, 'II, Viscount O'Connell, D. Berkeley Grenville 40 MINORITY—NOES, 40. .0., A ,l r e b,," , , C. Galway. Viscount Michell, W. all Y , Captain Gore, W. Mailings, J. R. tli a4l4 gton, Viscount Grogan, Edward Ne w p ort, Viscount 8 00 .` , Colonel Hamilton. Lord C. North, Colonel )4 0 , er, T. w. Hamilton, J. Hans I'ackenham, E. E ti t h , Sir R. Hayes, Sir E. Stanhope, James B ButtrY W Hill. Lord Arthur E. Tyler , S ir Geor g e , I. ' W. Hume, W. F. Vansittart, G. H. 6 4 1 1, ,, rr ' 8 . R. M`Calmoat Jolllffe, Slr W. G. H. Verner, Sir W. Co1 1 : 1 , 11 - Jones, Capt. Williams, T. P. Cr - -Y. Thomas Lewisham, Vise. Dook, J. Liddell, H. G. t tl ii ne42l -, G. XI acartney. G. p re !. Colonel Manners, Lord J. Newdegate, C. N. "en) C. H. Maxwell, James P. Spooner, R. TELLERS. Manse GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. ge (That the said Secret Committee shall transmit to Pe Supreme Government in India all orders of the said resident of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs o f India, as by the law is now required as to orders emanating from the said President, except that if the l aid Secret Committee shall think fit, they may tender 'heir advice and opinion on the effect of any such order " 1 1' orders, and if they deem it expedient may enter a pro test in writing as to the effect of such order and orders, and that such protests shall be duly recorded at the office of the said Secret Committee, and al so at the office of the said President, but nothing in this act shall be con 'Allied in any way to interfere with the power of the said President to issue any order or orders that he may think fit to direct shall be transmitted through the said Secret Committee) —brought up and read the first time : Z .- Motion made, and Question put, " That the said clause U.° now read a second time :" — The Co mmittee divided ; Oyes 30, Noes 72. MINORITY—AYES 30. 411 de A ls „, " 011 , Sir James Hawkins, William Peliatt, Apsley h ..,n a n, 3. Hume, J. Rich, H. ...,;b9, Edward Johnstone, James Seymer, H. D. ' I V, James Kinnaird, Arthur F. Stanley, Lord t i ggs, William Lockhart, A. E. Williams, W. 4, s kett, J. F.B. Lucas, F. Wise, A. e `e, H. A. Maguire, John F. llook, ,A 3, . Mimes, R. M. TELL ERS. l l tiptilOP ft__art, William Murrough, J. P. 'fierleh, Via. Newdegate , C. Willoughby, H. B ene, John Oakes, J. Mangles, R. D. MAJORITY—NOES, 72. At' Baines , Sir T. Forster, J. Michell, W. M T. Fox , W. J. Molesworth, Sir W. l ii. , neli, sir Richard Gladstone, William O'Brien, C. It r 4li d, Loftus H. Goderlch, Viscount 0 Connell, D. Charlese Goodman, sir George Palmerston, Viscount Cue S. Graham, Sir Jas. Peel Frederick c'i t i. t( hvell, Edward Gregson, Samuel. Pil,ott, Francis C 1 ,4 45,. Alderman Hadfield, G. Russell, Lord John 6n e t Robert Herbert, Sidney Sadleir, J. C"Lbutu, Sir A. Hervey, Lord Alfred Sawle;C. B. G. Co in ~,,... .W. Higgins, Cl. G. 0. Smith, M. Tucker W. Smith R. V 13,'Per , William Hogg, Sir James N • , D4lit, j . Ingham, R. Strutt,E. bNeolainig, Viscount Kendal L'Nicholas Thompson, Cl. b Ut kwortb,Sirj. Kirk, William Thornely, T. E1 '4 1 43, F. Langston, J. H. Vernon, Cl. 1.. -e. Lord Langton, H. Cl. Wells, W. , alj ot , J. E. Laslett, W. 'Wickham, H. W Fa ) nde. John Lee, W, Wilkinson, W. A. 011 4 , 4 , W Ni . Lowe, Robert Wilson, James en, M. M'Cann, James Wood, Sir C. 1, .4 1, l 'ision, Joseph Macgregor. James Young, Sir John Ir l i z gerald, sir J. Marjoribanks, D. TELLERS. / - 'O, Hon. H. Masterman, John Hayter, W. Cl. "ttr, Charles Mills, Thomas Berkeley, Grenville D ESTRUCTION OF A SHIP AT SEA BY FIRE. 1 4 1 vEnpo0L, Monday.—The ship Ebenezer, which tare i''ved here this morning, has brought intelligence of the ; 13t al dest r uction by fire of the ship I. Z. on the 7th ins . p lat. 42, long. 62. The I. Z. sailed from New York, this port, on the 2d inst., under the command the c aptain spencer, with 20 hands on board, including t f i l t a t i e n h , ip al , l of whom were taken off and landed here by — e Ebenezer from New York. She was an American belonging to Messrs. Zeraga, of New York, registered 756 tons, and her cargo consisted principally of rs t urpentine, flour, and cotton. ‘-;aptain Burstow, of the ship Robert Kelly, from witnessed York, which arrived here this morning, and who r eport the fire in the vessel, gave the following J uly to the underwriters' room :—"On Thursday, -111 .3 r 7, in lat. 41, long. 60, at 3 30 p.m., I observed smoke which at first I supposed to be that of a steame r ; but thinking it strange to fall in with a steamer in the above position, and observing something unusve in the appearance of the smoke, took I tlY glass and went aloft, when I at once discovered her to be a vessel on fire. Immediately took in all steering sails and made for the wreck, with a good look-out at the masthead for her boats. Upon nearing the wreck we observed her long boat about a mile to windward of her, and steered for it. We passed within 20 feet of t he, and found h er i n goo d or d er ; no o ne in her, and L'ute oars and moveable articles gone. We then bore away for the wreck, and at 5.15 p.m. passed under the I tem of the burning vessel, and found her to be the ore.) from New York to Liverpool. She was burning and aft, upper works burned off, decks fallen in. The flames were breaking through the stern, and a part of the letter g I.' was consumed at the moment of pas- S ing. At the same time a sail was observed from aloft a considerable di s t ance t o the eastw ar d (lik e ly the Ebenezer), which probably picked up her crew, as I am well satisfied they were nowhere in the vicinity of the wreck at the time of our leaving it." The fire has been stated to have been caused by spon taneous combustion. 16,1 DA Y.) actions float are woo cwt. 5 1 13 6 'lumps. E 6 -eek at ti'' A 61il. tierces, an 10 0 sumptioil Ico he saute P ,ntity offer i ti l on, not r t ylon is str,o l t the Ea o ,o o There;o' hhda., 5, 13 ', 0 8 yq same pit's' sold at 1" Ns 6d for I°'l --- - 6V" t at 39s to the , er cwt• OP 1 fair d°" d, i/ 5s ; 14s per I X% 5/ 8s ; c i o sa' 16s per lov er ' Si ss; ° lO O. 15s Pe', MY.) S.W'' anci to nd ye"' deo' ving th "ecl~ 0' -1 * Vole e cl Ar rif sari. op.re e. Or' d " ttlk nn, A" ecl —L port Off pair to rex 7., vo 3 sir. A rr ito a Arg° , o o, Qes, 1 Olt °Bl6 Con ti a —' 1": ive velL ,o f Line, vt ,,gtex ., ore, joie' s nit o at ,ck-'433 DoP led Th e vac ich Pu;has , sproci r oo gt itha , p, lesic aid 00 ea, ail per no roe THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, .IITLY 26, 185 3. SUCCESSIONS DUTY BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Lord ST. LEONARD'S (who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery), said, he was anxious that their lord ships should have a general view of the object and parti cular operation of this bill, and he should therefore take the liberty of shortly stating what he apprehended would be its operation. He had heard the noble earl at the head of the Government speak of this m easure as a popular measure ; but he could not admit that to be a justifiable assertion, although the noble earl might have said that it was not an unpopular one. The assertion that it was a popular measure was founded on the fact that no petition had been presented against it; but he believed that the reason that there had been no petition was, that the mea sure was of such a nature that it did not excite individual opposition. If it were wanted to discover the general feeling as to any tax, it was don e simply by placing the tax directly upon persons; but , as the pres ent measure fell immediately upon no one, it was no one's business to oppose it, and that was the reason why no petition bad been presented against it. Another reason aura at the present bill was one which was by no means rstood by the generality of mankind ; in fact, it required not merely an attorney, but a very good attorney, to explain its provisions, and he thought it would be very unsafe for a man when hit by the operation of this measure not to have a competent adviser at his side. He could confi dently assert from his own experience and knowledge of such matters, that when the present measure mine into operation, no man could live without having almost constantly a legal adviser at his elbow. Itr had been said that the principle of this measure had been admitted ; but the fact was, that noble lords on his side of the house had had no opportunity of opposing it, and he would now call upon their lordships to consider what the operation of this bill really would be. This was not a party question. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial side, and counter -cheering from the Opposition.) He would repeat that this was not a party question. (Loud and renewed cheering.) He spoke from his heart, and with the firmest belief that this was a measure which, if passed, would eventually be deplored by every noble lord who then heard him ; and he would remind the noble lords opposite who cheered that the bill was one which would at some period probably punish some of them, and, when it did, they would remember his warning ; but then he was convinced that they would not attribute the course which he felt bound to adopt to the influence of party feeling. (Hear, hear.) He was at a loss to know why such a measure had been introduced, for it had not been shown, and he fully believed it could not be shown , that an y necessit y existed for its introduction. (Hear, hear.) He felt very strongly, and spoke strongly on this subject ; but he hoped that nothing that might fall from him would be construed into anything like want of respect for the noble earl oppo site. (Hear, hear.) He would ask their lordships to con sider what was the pretence on which this bill was brought forward. It was said that real property should be subject to the same charges as personal property. Now, that prin ciple he was fully willing to admit was a just one, and it was generally admitted, but the noble earl near him (Earl Derby) had shown that, in point of fact, real estate was already more heavily charged than personal estate. (Hear, hear.) He would ask their lordships to consider the case of the land tax, which was paid entirely by the landed in terest, and to which no equivalent tax was levied upon the owner of personalty. The difficulties in the way of levying such a tax would be insurmountable. No man would endure inquiry being made as to how much ready money he possessed, what money was owing to him, and what were his liabilities ; and he would urge upon the noble earl at the head of the Government that some such feeling would attend the operation of the present measure. He and noble lords who sat on that side of the house did not in the least dispute the justice of placing real estate on the same footing as personal estate, but to enact that real estate inherited should be subject to the same duty as per sonalty, without reference of any kind to the extensive burdens thrown exclusively upon real estate, was not putting the two descriptions of property on the same foot ing. (Hear, hear.) The Government, however, did not stop there, for they said, "If you place the same duty upon real as upon personal property, inherited by descent or demise, why exclude settlements?" He could only say that no Minister had hitherto dared to bring forward a proposal for levying a duty upon settlements. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt, in the plentitude of his power, in the midst of a general European war, at a time when men were willing to endure almost any sacrifice in order that the honour and dignity of the country might not be im paired, never dared to ask for what the present Govern ment, without any necessity, and in time of peace, ven tured to propose. Mr. Pitt had excluded all duty on settlements in the measures of finance which he proposed, and he could not but consider that the present Govern ment were liable to be charged with temerity for adopting a different course. It was, in his opinion, by an ex post facto law to take away from. a man that which, although he had never enjoyed it, was still indubitably his property. In the case of mortgagees the operation of the bill would be most oppressive, for it would, in fact, by retrospective operation, take from them a tenth part of what they had fairly become entitled to. There were many cases in which persons had anticipated their successions to such an extent as to have almost entirely squandered them, and in such cases the Government stepped in, because a man had been a spendthrift, and ruined him altogether. A person knowing that he was to succeed to proper t y , mi g ht antici pate and spend nine-tenths of its value, and, when the remaining tenth would enable him to make a fair start in life, this new tax to be imposed would entirely swallow it up. As far as the right to spend in anticipation went, a perfect right to do so undoubtedly existed. Another strong objection which he entertained to the measure was, that property might, in certain cases, be called upon to pay the duty more than once. He himself considered this question entirely with reference to its general effect, but he would call the attention of the noble earl at the head of the Government and of the noble duke near him (the Duke of Argyll), and of all noble lords who took peculiar in terest in the affairs of Scotland, to what would be the operation of this measure in Scotland. As far as he under stood the measure, according to the Scotch law, the direct descendants of a person who inherited property f r om a stranger or distant relation, 150 years ago, might still be called upon to pay more than 1 per cent. It was his inten tion to propose certain amendments in committee on this bill. One of those amendments would be for the purpose of correcting that anomaly. He should move that when the tenant for life should have paid a higher duty than 1 per cent., that person of his family coming into it after wards should only pay 1 per cent. He should also propose that when a settlement had been made by a man upon the marriage of any of his children no person under that settle ment should, during the settlor's life, become subject to the duty. He would, to show the necessity of such a pro vision, offer an illustration to their lordships. He would take the case of a tradesman who had by hard industry amassed some property, and who upon the marriage of his daughter made a settlement for life upon the husband, with reversion to the widow at his &cease. Up the death of the husband the no ble earl stepped in U and took part of the capital of the fund from the daughter of the living man, while the man who had accumulated the pro perty saw it dwindle away under the grasp of the tax ga therer. (Cheers.) How often had not marriages depended upon the simple question whether the young couple would be able to meet their future expenses or not ? The settle ment made was often the smallest they could manage to live upon, and then upon the husband's death Government stepped in and took a succession duty from the unhappy young widow and her family. Was there any necessity for that? (Hear, hear.) He would be the last man to object to it if it were indeed necessary. (Cheers.) But necessity alone could justify it, and authorize the-Legis lature to break in upon past settlements. The bill was brought in in order to enable the Government still further to reduce indirect taxation. But he doubted the wisdom of carrying direct taxation too far ; and he regarded with great distrust all these attempts to get rid of indirect tax ation, and to substitute direct taxation in its place. He wished to point out to their lordships the operation of this bill. From the moment th e bill passed, no man could make the slightest disposition of his real or personal property without coming under the observation of the Government. Let not the owner of p ersonal p ro p erty lay the flattering unction to his soul, that he would escape the observation of the tax-gatherer. The public would have access to en to all public documents. The B ank of England was op them, as well as every other place. There could be no joint accounts kept at the Bank which would not come to the knowledge of the Government ; and there would be no settlement of property in the empire that would not be followed by the tax-gatherer. Every morning he would look through the lists of marriages. In each case he would suspect a settlement ; inquiry would be made for it ; and it would, in some way or other, be forthcoming. The tax, too, was one that would touch all classes in life. Every marriage settlement, even among the trading classes, would be placed before the world, and the whole comfort and privacy of life would be broken in upon. He believed their lordships would deeply regret it if they passed the bill in its present shape. (Hear.) He intended to propose an amendment in section 18, which was less clear than he thought it ought to be as to property bequeathed by a husband to his wife, or by the wife to the husband. By the act of 1796,'and subsequent acts, there was an express exemption of such property from duty, and he proposed to introduce a special exemption into the present bill, which he thought would be preferable to an exemption in which this case was incidentally included at the end of a clause. There also was another clause which it would be desirable to introduce into the present bill—namely, that whatever property wa s subject to th e le g ac y duties under the Legacy Duties Acts should not be subject to tins duty. A question had already been asked of the Government, whether they . would not put the duty upon the same footing between bro ther and brother and brother and sister as between father and son. The descent from brother to brother being imme diate, ought not to nay any more duty than the descent from father to son. He thought also that if a legacy were left to a brother in-law who had married the testator's sister, h o ought not to pay a greater duty than his wife, the testa tr's sister, would have paid. The clause, as it was drawn stated, where the person chargeable with duty was "mar ried to any person of nearer consanguinity than himself or herself to the testator." But in 99 cases out of 100 the b ro ther-in-law or the sister - in - law was of no consanguinity to the testator, and he should propose an amendment the to meet these cases. He belie ved that all mankind, when time came, would prefer the income-tax to this tax. (Hear, hear.) He did not speak as a person interested on this subject. He had never had a succession, nor did he ever expect a succession—(hear, hear)—but he wished to save the people of England from a bill which would lead to legal strife, which would carry discomfort into every habitation, and finally work its own condemnation in the course of time. Their lordships had been told of the necessity of diminishing the expenses of conveyances, and of the gene ral wish which existed that the expenses attending the transfer of real estate should be greatly lease Brit how had the Government met this ? They had met it by put ting, for the first time in England, by means of a fiscal re gulation, a mortgage upon every man's property through out the empire —(hear, hear)—and that mortgage was de clared to be a first charge, which would exclude everything else. Former acts of rliament made a person liable to pay responsible under a heavy pressure ; but the Govern ment were not content with that, and took an actual mortgage—for such it was—upon the property itself. (Hear, hear.) The bill said that :—" No bona fide purcha ser of property for valuable consideration under a title not appearing to confer succession shall be subject to any duty with which such property may be chargeable under the provisions of this act, by reason of any intrinsic circum stances of which he shall not have had notice at the time of such purchase." By such an enactment as this, property would be placed in more peril than it had been placed in before by any Government. You introduced the subject of notice—constructive notice, notice to a man's attorney o r agent—and all this you introduced at the peril of purchasers at a time when you were proposing to shorten their titles and render those titles secure ! At the proper time, therefore, he should propose the insertion of words in order to take out of the bill the mischief which lurked under it in this form. He would now, in conclusion, say a word to the right rev. prelate opposite. He would put it to them whether they would be parties to place this measure, with all its obnoxious regulations, upon their fellow subjects, while they themselves were excluded from its operation. (Cheers.) Their support of the bill under such circumstances might be considered an act of gratitude to the Government, but he hoped and trusted that they would not by their votes help to place upon other men's shoulders a burden which had not been imposed upon them. (Cheers.) The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that so large a por tion—indeed, almost the whole—of the observations which had been addressed to their lordships by his noble and learned friend had turned upon the details of the different clauses of the bill, that it might have been considered a justifiable course on his part simply to allow the bill to go into committee, and to answer, clause by clause, the ob servations which his noble and learned friend had made upon it. Some of those observations, however, were of a more general character than the rest, and there was throughout the whole of them such gross exaggeration— he did not at all wish to use the term offensively—such an extraordinary colouring with regard to the supposed opera tion of this bill, that he felt called on to make a few re marks before putting the motion, that their lordships do resolve themselves into committee. (Hear.) _His noble and learned friend had commenced by observing, that there was nothing to show that this measure was popular in the country. He had, however, been obliged to follow that observation by another, to the effect that unquestion ably there was nothing to show the measure was unpopu lar. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) asked their lordships if, in respect to any tax which the imagination of man could devise, they could expect more than that it should not be unpopular? (Hear.) What popularity could be gained by proposing to tax any one ? Popularity for a tax was per fectly out of the question. His noble and learned friend had followed this observation by the remark, that he was afraid the operation of the bill was not understood in the country. Now, without meaning to doubt the sincerity of his noble and learned friend, he (the Lord Chancellor) believed the real objection felt by him and the noble lords by whom he was surrounded was, that they thought the measure was understood. throughout the country. It was felt through out the country that this was an attempt to tax the ex tensive properties of the landedproprietors so as to equalise the national burdens. (Cheers.) The noble earl (the Earl of Derby) had described it the other night as a discredit able feeling on the part of those subject to the legacy duty to wish to extend the t ax also to real estate. Now, far from concurring in this sentiment, he viewed that feeling as the foundation per e justice of this bill. There was a legacy duty upon nal estate, and those who bore that tax—who, speaking generally, were confined to the poorer classes--felt that landed proprietors ought to be put into the same category as themselves. That was the principle of this bill. There were two principles, so to speak, in volved in the measure. The first was, that whereas the legacy duty had heretofore been paid only in respect to legacies of personal estate, real estate was now subjected to the same burdens. Now, a wish to effect this object might be a bad feeling in human nature, but he was sure they must all admit that such a feeling must necessarily find its way into the human heart. (Hear, hear.) That was the first principle of the bill. The second was—and it was one of a cognate nature—that whereas heretofore legacy duty had been imposed only upon persons dying in possession of their property and leaving it by their will, nobody should now be entitled to withdraw himself from the obligation of contributing in this way to the national exchequer by making a settlement, instead of leaving the property to be disposed of by his will. (Hear, hear.) These were the two principles of the bill, and, if they were recognised, there could not be any possible reason why the house should not resolve itself into committee. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that if the measure were considered as one which would be productive of the grossest injustice, that would form a reason against pro ceeding with it. But was that so ? His noble and learned friend to-night, and the noble earl a few evenings ago, had exerted all their ingenuity and ability in bringing forward extreme cases, which they contended would be productive of enormous hardships under this bill ; but he should like to hear the noble earl or his noble and learned friend point out any imaginable tax of which the same thing might not be said. (Hear, hear.) They were now proposing to tax a great and powerful class, and it was not to be wondered at if there were cases of occasional hard ship. The truth was, that when you once came to impo se a tax, justice, such as they were ordinarily disposed to con sider it, could not be attained ;it was impracticable. The object of justice was to secure people in the possession of their property ; but the moment you imposed a tax you said, in effect, " I am coming to take away a certain por tion of your property," which was an injustice, except so far as it was warranted by the exigencies of the State. All that could be said in such a case was, that the tax you imposed was in its nature a just one, and that you had adopted the best machinery which you could devise to meet the existing difficulties and to remove objections. (Hear.) His noble and learned friend had said how very unjust it was in the case where property came from a stran ger, where a tenant for life had it, and then, perhaps, his son succeeded him, and the son's children—how very unjust it was that the son should pay the stranger's duty, and the children pay the stranger's duty afterwards. Was that so very unjust? Why, that was the case with regard to the legacy duty k that was the way in which it was paid with respect to ad personal and all leasehold estate. (Hear.) It was the law now with regard to that class of property, and, moreover, real estate would not practically bear 'its full burden, and would not pay so much as personal estate, because the duty was calculated upon a different principle, infinitely more beneficial in the case of real estate. Take a case. Suppose the father died, and that, by the dreadful, iniquitous, retrospective operation of this bill, the son was charged with duty on succession to his real estate. He (the Lord Chancellor) shrank from those enormous figures with which their lordships had been terrified the other night, and with which he was quite unable to cope. (A laugh.) Sup pose, instead of talking.of 50,0001. a-year, they were to take the case of a man who succeeded to an estate of 1001. or 1,000/. a-year. Suppose the son succeeded at the age of 39 ; what was the enormous grievance to which he would be subjected? Succeeding at that age, the 1001. a year would be worth 1 5 years' purcha se, and therefore the whole sum upon which duty would be paid would be 1,5001. But take the case where the estate was worth 1,0001. a year. The sum upon which duty would have to be paid would then be 15,0001. What was the charge upon that? 1501. How was it to be paid ? By eight different instal ments, commencing at the end of one year. In other words, he would pay four yearly instalments of 371. 10s. upon a net income of 1,0001. a year—that was to say, he would pay 71. 10s. more than he paid now for income tax, and after that he paid nothing. Was that a grievance of such enor mous magnitude? The noble and learned lord had endea voured to raise a feeling about the manner in which this bill would affect poor tradesmen ; but settlements were almost unknown to persons in that condition of life. The truth was, that the introduction of settlements, just as the introduction of real estate into this bill, was felt to be but just, because it was only another mode of subjecting to this tax that species of property which, belonging generally to the rich and to the powerful, had been ordinarily with drawn from the operation of taxation by arrangements, and deeds, and management, to which the poorer classes were entirely strangers. He trusted that their lordships would, in spite of the address of his noble and learned friend, have not the least hesitation in forthwith going into committee, feeling, as he was sure they might, that it was a bill in unison with a spirit of universal justice—a bill, the propriety of which had been felt by the country at large, and which, having passed the other house of Parlia ment by large majorities, and having been received with un i versa l approbation throughout the country, he trus their lordships would not incur the dangerous responsibility of resisting. (Cheers.) The Earl of WINCHILSEA was prepared to contend that, whether they considere d this bill on the grounds of justice, of oppression, and cruelty, or as a source of litiga tion, it was one of the most obnoxious, detestable, and. odi ous measures that had ever been placed on the statute-book. It would fall on those who came after us to pay this tax, and it would place every man's title deeds at the mercy of the tax-gatherer. From the imperfect manner in which many of these deeds had been prepared, flaws would be found in them, and the small proprietors would suffer most from the litigation that would ensue. These were indeed strange times when the proud barons of England submitted to such measures ! The Government was in the hands of the Harpies, and they were going to per petuate all the wo rst featuresi of the legacy duties, and to place the landed prop rietors in the same hands for four years. He ventured to affirm that the tax would create greater excitement when once it was fairly understood through the length and breadth of the country, than any tax that had ever yet been imposed. No amendment could eve r reconcile him to the principle of so odious a measure. He deeply regretted he was not aware 'when the second rea ding took place. Had he known it, he would have divided the house, even if he had stood alone, and his name at all events should have gone down to posterity as that of one who had resisted that bill to the last. Their lordships then went into committee on the bill. Clause 1 was agreed to without any discussion. It is merely interpretatory. On clause 2, by which " every past or future disposition of property" in certain cases is construed as a succession, and the words " successor and predecessor" defined. The Earl of DERBY rose to move the amendment of which he gave notice on a previous evening. Having already, at very considerable length, stated the objections he entertained, almost as strongly as his noble friend, not only to the principle but to the details of the bill, he should hold himself inexcusable if he did more than state briefly the nature of the amendment to which he now asked their lordships' assent. But as this was the first amendment which had been proposed, he thought he might be permitted to answer a preliminary objection hinted at by the noble earl opposite, and insisted on by the noble and learned lord in the course of that afternoon, with respect tb the dangerous consequences which, he told them, might arise from their making alterations in the bill. He was perfectly aware that, according to the privilegefi of the House of Commons, in the case of an amendment being introduced in a money bill by their lordships, there was sometimes a matter of diffi culty in inducing the other house to accept that amend ment ; but, at the same time, he knew also that amend ments in money bills had been introduced in this house, and that the House of commons had an easy mode—of which they had frequently availed themselves—of recon ciling the assertion of their privileges with an assent to Aulondineuts proposed in their lordships' house. Ho re- membered one instance which he had been reminded of in the course of that day by a noble lord who entertained a very strong objection to the principle of this bill, but who was absent on account of a domestic calamity. That noble lord, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced a bill, as a measure in his budget, for the purpose of varying and altering the stamp duties. An amendment vas made in their lordships' house, materially affecting the character of that bill with regard to the budget ; it was sent down to the Commons, and the other house did not assent to it, or accept their lordships' alterations ; but, though techni cally they did not do so, they moved that the bill, as amended, should be laid aside. They then suspended the standing orders, and reintroduced a bill totident verbis, the same as the amended bill which had been sent down to them ; and, having passed it through all its stages, sent it up as a new bill to their lordships. He was ready to ad mit the House of Commons was quite right in vindicating its technical privileges as well as guarding its bond fide control over the money of the country ; but he said this, that if measures were to be introduced altering the whole financial arrangements of the empire—measures making new and unheard-of taxes on new and extraordinary prin ciples of taxation—and it was asserted that their lordships were to have no power of altering a single word, of cor recting even a mistake, or of rectifying errors into which the House of Commons might have fallen—that was in effect to say, their lordships' house was a useless por tion of the Legislature, and that, so far as financial mea sures were concerned, they had only to record the bills framed by the other House of Parliament. He hoped that, whatever course they might take with respect to bills of minor importance, they would not consent to abrogate all legislative functions so far as to say that the magic words " This is a money bill" would be enough to preclude them from exercising any consideration on a subject of so much importance. He regretted very much that when the noble earl on a former occasion attempted to persuade them to appoint a committee of inquiry into the working of the bill, they had not acceded to it, for much useful explana tion might have been given, and the bill rendered less ob jectionable in consequence during its progress through the other house. He would not enter upon the consideration of the circumstances under which that proposition was rejected. Their lordships were now called on to deal with the bill as it came from the House of Commons, with all the inconvenience of being called on to alter it where it was found objectionable. Before he went to the particu lar amendment he was about to propose, he must be per mitted to comment on the extraordinary tone and language which had been adopted by the noble and learned lord, and the strange inconsistency between his assumptions and his arguments. The noble and learned lord told them first, that no tax of the kind could ever be popular. The noble earl opposite said this particular bill had been re ceived with universal approval and acclamation. He could not see how the silence which prevailed in the country could be taken to signify any feeling of the kind. The noble and learned lord at the commencement of his obser vations said the bill was popular in the country, because it was thoroughly well understood, and was understood to be aimed at the large landed proprietors of the country alone —that it was subjecting them to a tax which they were called on by every claim of justice to pay for the purpose of putting landed on the same footing as other descriptions of property, and that being an assault on the large landed proprietors, and so understood, the bill was received with universal popularity. Now, assuming the fact to be as the noble and learned lord had stated, he must say he had too good an opinion of the sense and justice of his countrymen at large to believe that if the bill was an attack on the landed proprietors it would be a recommendation of its principle to their feelings of justice. (Hear.) But having told them that, the noble and learned lord proceeded to say he did not propose to deal with taxation on incomes of 20,0001. or 40,000. —such sums he knew nothing of, but that he would consider the measure as it affected, not those large landed properties, whic h he had just said it almost exclusively affected, but small properties from 1001. to 1,0001. a-year. Now, he thought the noble and learned lord exceedingly mistaken with respect to the tax, and when he told them that s mall pr o p erties acquired by tradesmen or persons in the middle classes were not fre quently the subject of settlements, he believed he had fallen into a serious error, and his belief was that among those middle classes and the owners of settled property the pres sure and hardship of the bill would be felt more severely than it would be among those whom the noble and learned lord wished to lean upon heavily, The annoyance, vexa tion, and pressure, indeed, might be felt with regard to both, but let their lordships recollect that, with respect to the small properties, of which very little had been said as yet, but of which much would be said hereafter, the pro portion of the legal charges, and the burdens on the tax payer, without coming into the finance of the country, would be felt much more severely than among the larger proprietors, and his conviction was that the amount of the tax would not be so oppressive as the lawyers' bills, which would exceed the amount of the whole tax among the middle classes. The noble and learned lord said there were two principles involved in the bill—first, that of placing real and personal property on the same footing ; next, placing devised and settled property on the same footing. As to placing those two descripti that oroperty on the same footing, all he could say was, that the bill imposed a new tax on a description of property which was already most heavily charged, and which had burdens no one at tempted to deny. As to the second remark, he admitted the principle was intended to place settled property, whether real or personal, on the same footing as devised property, but he could not admit that it was founded in justice, because, apart and distinct from either, the bill must have a retro spective operation when imposed on property which was held by settlement. That was a new principle in the law of England. The amendment ho was about to propose went on this principle :—Place, if yon would, settled pro perty and devised property on an equal footing—place, if you would, real and personal property on an equal footing— subject them to the same posthumous charges, but, at all events, don't make the imposition on one or other retro spective, when it was impossible for persons who settled or devised property to make any alterationin their disposition of it. (Hear.) Take the case of devised property. The present claims would come into operation—not after the passing of the act—not after notice, so that persons might make such a distribution of their property as would enable them to meet the changes introduced, so that each member of their family might be enabled to pay the tax in propor tion, but they were about to apply a new legacy duty to real property, and to all wills which had been made previ ous to the 19th of May in the present year. Consequently, if they passed the bill now, and a man know it, he could make a new will, and make such a disposition of his pro perty as he pleased, leaving so much in proportion to his younger children, and so much to the eldest son, but in the other case the Government came in, and made a new will for him. They stepped in, and, not permitting him to alter his testamentary disposition—for he was dead—they imposed a new tax which would have the effect of altering the proportion in which he left his property under the san tion of a former law. He could quote a case in confirma tion of the view he took of this point. In the year 1838 a bill was introduced to prohibit and check a plurality of church benefices, and thus to get rid of a great abuse and an evil which every one admitted, but so cautious was the Legislature of that day not to interfere with the vested rights of persons even in that which was in itself a gross abuse that provision was made in the bill to the effect that any person having had left to him thereversion of the next presentation to a living, though it was a plurality, should not be barred from the advantages of the will of his prede cessor by that act, and in the course of the last year there had been a case in which, after the lapse of 15 y ears from the passing of the act, a person had succeeded to the rever sion of a living secured to him under a will dated in 1837. But there was no gross abuse to be goi rid of in this case, a certain portion of money into the Chancellor of the Exche q uer in order to sup no great object to be gained. The sole motive for passing hpthilaynsdtbhsileolfdwtehfianscieteonhcpaynuntcaused by his own act. Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to take a other taxes quite equal in amount to the tax which they expected to raise under this bill ; and they proposed to patch up the defi ciency so caused by bringing in this bill, which, contrary to all precedent, and contrary to all justice, as he contended, they meant to apply to the will of a man who had did six months ago. But how much stronger was the case with respect to settled property. They were about to apply the bill retrospectively to all family settlements made years ago, in which there had been many subsequent transac tions—estates mortgaged, money borrowed, subsequent settlements made, and arrangements effected between dif ferent parties in the course perhaps of the last 100 or 200 yea rs, all of which would be unsettled and disturbed by the o t operation which, so far as its principle was been simply prospective, but which f obtaining an immediate revenue , concerned,rhe sa ere merely might tethelleave o bill, f they proposed to make retrospective as well. The clauses in was more and particularly 24 th.irhteo first b e f o found wereclause h ch e I th et i , s 2 p d r n 3 ci l ds e w t h, provided for the interpretation of the different terms con tained in the act , but the second clause provided tha t " every past or future d is position of property , by r eason whereof any person has or shall b ecome beneficially en titled to any prop ert y , or th e income thereof , up on the wh t i death of any person dying after the time appointed for the commencement of this act, either immediately, or after any .interval, either certainly or contingently, and either originally or by way of substitutive limitation, and every devolution by law of any beneficial interest in property, or the income thereof, upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed for the commencement of this act to any other person, tin possession or expectancy, shall be deemed to have conferred or to confer on the person en titled b 7 reason of any such disposition or devolution a ' succession.' " The third clause, went furtherfor it provided that if he, for instance, and any other person were now in their own right in joint possession of any property, and if the other possessor were to die, and he, the survivor, were by means of or in virtue of any previous existing agree ment or legal claim to obtain the benefit of survivorship in the remainder of his own property, and to come into the full enjoyment of that of which he had before had only a divided possession, then the tax-gatherer would come clown and enforce the payment of the tax on that benefit of survivorship, just as if it had been anew and absolute sue cession. With regard to the sth clause, its vexations, as applied to future legacies, would be interminable, but he would not go into them, as he was now contending against the application of the principle to bygone transactions, and to an already existing state of things. Every one of their lordships who had succeeded to property subject to any annuities or jointures whenever that property should be increased by the death of any one of the persons now re ceiving jointures or annuities, would be called on then to pay the tax, though they did not succeed to property in the s li g htest degree, but simply because a charge upon the pro perty which was theirs before had fallen in. It was a mon strous case of hardship, and one not at all necessarily de ducible from the principle of the bill itself, that any one should be taxed on the removal of a charge which had been imposed on him by a byg one instrument. (Hear, hear.) The 15th clause, too, was grossly unjust, for it said that if any person should I of his have dispose(reversionary inte restat the death in any property , whether _ of the person holding it, or afterwar ds when the reversion fell in, the alienee, who had bought it and paid the full market value for it, was to be placed in the same position as the person from whom he had bought it, and was to have an equal deduction made from his income as would have been made from that of the original holder ht of the reversion. If the person from whom he had boug the reversion happened to inherit it from his father, then he would only be plun dered of one per cent., but ,if on the contrary, the seller inherited from a distant relation, the purchaser would have to pay the tax of 10 per cent. Thus, two transactions might take place of this nature, at the time of the purchase exactly alike, but when the reversions fell in they would be materially altered,—a great injustice would be committed on both, but on one it would be trfold greater than on the other, without there havin s t • e been he slightest difference in the terms of the two purchases. He should very much like to hear any suggestion from her Majesty's Government by which they could pa lliate this tire.injust The 34th clause committed this great injustice, aile it made aw ances for all encumbrances on a prepeTty not createdb n y y. the successor, yet, to whatsiVer extent 14e might have or c umbered his reversiona r y interest himself _whether ef his own benefit or thatof h is relations, no matter for what h motive, good or bad—no allowance was to be made for such encumbrances ,and which at the encumbrances as be himself had created, time of creating them he could not foresee would lead to such consequences. He was not quite sure that he under-. stood correctly the amount of burden to be thrown upon the tenant succeeding in fee simple. By the 21st clause they wore told that the tax was to be charged according to the value of an annuity equal to the annual value of the property, and in another part that was to be charged as an annuity of 95 years. The only clause where the successor in fee simple was mentioned was the 27th, relating to cor porations. Take the case of an estate of 50,000/. a-year, and suppose it inherited from a person not immediately connected with the successor, and suppose the possessor to come into possession of it at the age of 25, it would be no slight deduction to have to pay in the first four years 85,0001., which would be the tax which, under the circumstances he had mentioned, would have to be paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And this might be repeated moreover toties quoties. He ventured to doubt the answer given by the noble and learned lord as to the rule for future successions. His own interpretation of course was worth nothing, but he had consulted persons well qualified to judge, and their opinion was, that the original liability, the original absence of relationship in the first instance, would fall upon every subsequent successor, inasmuch as each successor would be held to take, not from his immediate predecessor, but from thepersons who instituted the original settlement. Every subsequent relationship would, therefore, be traced to the person who originally formed the entail, and in proportion to the relationship which he bore to his immediate successor so would the tax be rated for all time to every person succeeding for ever after. There were many such cases as this in Scotland ; he knew of a property there which had lately been newly settled, in the first instance upon a distant relative, and, if his interpretation of the clause were right, that property in all time to come would be chargeable with the heaviest rate of duty, even if it succeeded for 20 generations in an unbroken line from father to son. If that interpretation were not correct, then of course her Majesty's Government could have no objection to insert words which would make it quite clear that such was not the intention of the bill. The first amendment which he should move would be in this clause, to leave out the words " past or," so that the clause would run—" every future disposition of property." If their lordships rejected this amendment, it would be idle to propose similar amendments in the succeeding clauses ; but, if they consented to it, it would be necessary for him to propose similar amendments with regard to the succeed ing clauses, so as to make them consistent in spirit. If he_ were successful in persuading their lordships to introduce these words, though it would not affect his opinion of the abstract impolicy and injustice of the bill, yet it would considerably mitigate those insuperable objections which he now felt to the bill in its present form, as inflicting the _grossest injustice upon innocent parties. the Earl of ABERDEEN said, he was still unable to understand the course pursued by the noble earl who had . , just sat down. The noble earl who spoke earlier (IVinchil. sea) was perfectly consistent, for he denounced the bill as iniquitous and unjust, and he would have opposed the second reading. The noble lord opposite (Lord St. Leo nards) complained, indeed, that there had been no oppor tunity of voting against the second reading of the bill, but he could not tell what opportunity noble lords de sired, for it appeared to him that there had been ample opportunity, and, if they meant to be consistent, they ought to have acted upon it. - The noble earl oppo site (the Earl of Derby) said this bill was the corner stone and foundation of the financial system of the year—that the whole financial arrangements of the year rested upon this tax. He said truly, and he assigned that as a reason for not proposing to oppose the second reading of the bill, in order that he might not so destroy the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system. He could understand that reasoning and agree in it if the alterations proposed by the noble earl were con sistent with the preservation of the edifice of which he talked, but when the noble earl's first amendment was such as totally to destroy the whole building, he would leave them to judge what sincerity and what tenderness for the preservation of this corner-stone were really to be as signed to him. The effect of the amendment, so far as he understood it, would be . that for the first year the re venue would not receive one farthing from the tax, and, as regarded settlements, it would postpone the tax for one generation-30 years, or it might be 50 years. That was what the noble earl called preserving the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system of the year ! (Hear, hear.) The noble earl affected great tenderness for the small proprietors, but he must know that settled estates were always to be found among the large proprietors of this country. He must know that settlements were very rare among the middle classes of this country. The evidence given before their lordships' committee on the burdens on land showed that clearly. (The noble earl here read an ex tract from the evidence taken before that select committee.) Therefore, in point of fact, the persons for whom the noble earl professed such tenderness were at this moment liable to the legacy duty, in consequence of the way in which— in nine cases out of ten—they disposed of their property. The noble earl who spoke early in the debate made a touch ing allusion to the " bold barons," and, judging from ap pearances, some noble lords seemed disposed to act on the principle which actuated the bold barons of old—that of feudal exemption from burdens borne by the rest of the community. (Cheers.) The object of the present measure was to extend to the bold barons" a system of taxation applicable to their fellow-subjects. It was in that sense only that the tax in question could be said to be popular. It was perfectly true, as stated by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, that although no tax could be posi tively popular, yet popularity might attach to the prin ciple of applying a tax equally to all classes. (Hear.) It was all very well to say that the tax was not understood, and that that was the reason why no petitions had been presented against it ; but there were persons well able to enlighten the people on the subject, and, if the want of that communicated knowledge had been the real cause of the abstinence from petitioning, no one need doubt that there would have been a plentiful crop of petitions by this time. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble earl who spoke early in the evening accounted for the absence of petitions against the tax by saying that the people had no confidence in Parlia ment. It was singular, however, that this want of con fidence should operate in the manner described by the noble earl as regarded the succession tax alone. There was now lying before him a return of the petitions presented to the House of Commons up to the 15th of July, from which it appeared that while whole pages were filled with petitions against almost every tax it was possible to name, not one had been presented against the succession tax. (Hear.) Under these circumstances, without going so far as to say that any tax conld be decidedly popular, was he not justified in referring to the absence of petitions as evidence that in the opinion of the people the tax on suc cessions was just ? The short answer he had to make to the noble earl who spoke last, and who professed a wish not to disturb the corner stone of the financial fabric of the Go vernment was this, that his amendment would destroy the whole structure. (Hear.) It would prevent the tax from having any profitable existence until a period so remote that it would be impossible to calculate on it. If the noble earl's amendment and other amendments of which notice had been given should be adopted, the bill would be alto gether remodelled. Now, he must beg to call their lord ships' attention to the practical effect of this mode of pro ceeding. It was not his intention to question any of their lordships' privileges,. or to control them in the exercise of their rights ; but he must be permitted to observe, that there existed no precedent in the least degree similar to the course now proposed to be taken since the assertion by the House of Commons of the exclusive right to origi nate and conduct money bills through Parliament. The other night a noble friend submitted to their lordships a proposition respecting the income tax, which he thought very injurious and ill-judged ; but, if carried, it might have been assented to by the Commons, because it would not have altered by a single farthing the produce of the tax, being limited entirely to the mode of collection The House of Commons had actually agreed, some years ago, to an al teration of a similar character in one of their bills. 'When Mr. Canning's Corn Bill came into their lordships' house it was subjected to certain alterations, which the Commons agreed to because they did not affect the produce of the tax. It was, therefore, just possible that the Commons might have agreed to the amendment of his noble friend on the Income Tax Bill—however injudicious it might have been • but the amendment now proposed was of a totally different character, for it dealt not with the mode of collection, but with the whole body of the tax. (Hear, hear.) But, further than that, it was his duty to declare that, whatever the House of Commons might do, it was utterly impossible for the Government to think of acceding to an amendment which would destroy the intention and cut off the produce of the tax. The objection on which the noble earl chiefly relied was untenable. The noble earl denounced what he conceived to be the injustice of imposing a tax which would affect existing settlements ; but their lordships must perceive that almost any tax im posed without notice must affect existing interests. In this very budget a new tax was imposed upon Scotch and Irish spirits. Very well ; the Scotch distiller might have contracted to supply a quantity of spirits at a price regu lated by the old tax, and he was bound to fulfil his en gagement, even although it should ruin him. That was a case precisely in point ; in principle it, was the same. (Hear, hear.) But then the noble earl said that the Go vernment had voluntarily created a deficiency in order that they might impose this tax to supply it. In reference to this point he must take the liberty of asking a question, —if this tax were really injurious, oppressive, and abominable, as it was represented to be, why had the noble earl consented to the remission of taxation which it was intended to supply? It was true a noble lord had proposed to defer for some time the bill repealing the soap duty. The Earl of DERBY.—So did I. The Earl of ABERDEEN.—True; but not because of the alleged injustice of the tax by which the deficiency caused by the remission of the soap duty was meant to be supplied. The argument advanced for deferring the repeal of of the soap duties was, that it was des irable not to dimi nish. ' our fiscal resources at a momen t when war m ight break out. After all, however,monstrous and a it b o m ss ina c il as the present measure was described to be, w hich would have been proposed by the late Government. w It was not his intention to state that the late Gtohveesarnmmeenats would have proposed a bill in form that before the house, but their adopptireoncisl of a tax on successions was more than ce on an oef t he principle The Earl of MALMESBURY.—Ne, no I will explain that presently. Go- The Earl of ABERDEEN did not sareypartheadt, tbhuetlahtee was had a measure act ualli m p plated the imposition of waa tax onrranted in succe sayi ssio ng ns. In that they a n co l te nse o f this kind it was cus tomary to refer to Hansard asa k 3 in a d o o f f Daustoehomribtey, andwas in r that record he found th at on the stated in another place — The Earl of DERBY rose to order. It certainly was a custom —though one more honoured in the breach than the observance —to comnient in their lordships h ouse on reports of what was . said to have taken place in the House of Commons. It might save the noble earl some trouble, and prevent hi m from committing an irre o eul.arity, if h noble earl e were simply to assure the either in a speech or eny other form, for the imposition of a tax on successions was at any time submitted to him for consideration, nor, as far as he knew, was it ever sub mitted to the consideration of any member of his Go vernment. (Hear.) The Earl of ABERDEEN thought the noble earl was not justified in calling him to order. The Earl of DERBY contended that he was warranted in calling the noble earl to order when he was about to read some newspaper report of what was supposed to have taken place during the present session in the other house of Parliament. The Earl of ABERDEEN admitted that according to the strict letter of their lordships' rules, he was out of order in doing anything so unusual as to refer to what had been said in another place. (A. laugh.) It was true a noble earl had that evening alluded in direct terms to a speech deli vered in the other house, and indeed there was hardly any noble lord, in the habit of addressing the house frequently, who had not often committed a similar offence. The noble ' earl had said that his Government never intended to im pose a tax on successions, but, with reference to that point, he must take the liberty of reading an extract from a speech supposed to have boon spoken elsewhere by the noble earl's Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3d of De cember last. The passage was as follows : "At the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties; and we think it not impossible to bring forward, on the right occasion, a duty on successions that will re concile contending interests, and terminate the system now so much complained of." (Cheers.) That passage was taken from what he had already referred to as the most authentic record of Parlia mentary proceedings ; and in another record, of a more ephemeral character, he found precisely the same passage, except that the concluding words " the system now so much complained of," were changed into " the injustice now so much complained of." This was not all. On the 16th of December, as it appeared from the same record, the right hon. gentleman was supposed to have said : " We had to consider the whole question of the stamp duties with reference to those real burdens upon land, — upon the transfer of land,—which must sooner or later be dealt with, and a question of the utmost difficulty which must also not long be neglected—the question of the legacy and probate duties. We had to consider whether it was possible to propose to Parliament a duty on succession, which, in connexion with the total reform of the burdens on the transfer of land, would be an equitable and just settlement of the question, and one which was for the welfare of all classes." (Cheers.) Now, looking to - what had passed, was he not justified in saying that the late Government was prepared —not to introduce a bill precisely similar to that now before the house—but to recognise a principle which was now denounced as one of singular atrocity? (Hear, hear.) Having to deal now only with the first amend ment, he would not enter further into the subject, but he could not help observing that the ease suggested of the possibility of the succession-tax being paid in the heaviest degree upon an estate for twenty generations, was sin gularly extravagant, like many of the cases suggested by noble lords opposite. In consequence of a change in the law, made some years ago, a father and son in Scotland could cut off the entail just as they could in England. The twenty generations would consist of queer people if they should allow the state of things suggested to continue, when they had it in their power to put an end to it. The noble earl's amendment was neither more nor less than this—it was an endeavour to do that which for reasons best known to himself he did. not attempt on the second reading—namely, to effect the destruction of the bill. As such he regarded it ; the House of Commons might deal with it as they should think fit: (Cheers.) The Earl of HARDWICKE, as a member of Lord Derby's Cabinet, declared he had never heard from any member of the Government a suggestion for the imposition of a tax on successions. He had voted for the second reading of the bill because he was disposed to as sent to a tax, but, having done so, he felt at liberty to amend the measure in committee. The allusion which the noble earl at the head of the Government had made to the " bold barons" was not very respectful to their lordships, nor calculated to insure the safety of the constitution. (Hear.) It was language which would not soon be forgotten. In spite of the noble earl's sneer, he would affirm that there existed not on the face of the earth a more liberal house of Legislature than that which their lordships composed. With reference to the clause before their lordships, he thought it peculiarly unj us t. H e wan t e d to know what justice there was in taxing settled estates and estates devised ? A settled estate was in many instances tied up by the law of succession under acts of Parliament, probably forbidding the raising of money, or the sale of a single acre. For these and other reasons he should support the amendment. Earl GRANVILLE, in reference to what had been stated by his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) as having been spoken in the House of Commons by Mr. Disraeli, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought that the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), by contradict ing that statement, could not have been present at the dis cussion ; for he (Earl Granville) could appeal to a noble lord on the opposite side of the house, whom he remem bered seeing under the gallery of the House of Commons when that speech was made, as to the fact of the passage referred to by the noble earl (Aberdeen) having been spoken, and as to its having been loudly applauded by those persons in that house who were most anxious to have a measure of the description now before their lord ships passed into a law. The declaration then made by Mr. Disraeli was, at the time, neither contradicted in their lordships' house, nor in the house of Commons. It was, in fact, generally understood that the right honourable gentleman and the Government to which he belonged considered that at some time or other such a measure ought to be proposed. He (Earl Granville), therefore, thought their lordships and the public had a righk to assume that there was some foundation for what they had heard this evening. He (Earl Granville) had indeed heard it stated that certain votes had been given, and certain opinions expressed in the House of Commons, by members of his own party, which were not in accordance with the opinions of the noble earl opposite. He (Earl Granville) thought that the noble earl the other evening acted in a most statesman like manner when he rose and implored their lordships not to go into any premature discussion on foreign affairs, at the same time expressing the strongest wish that the same course should be taken in the House of Commons, and ask ing the noble earl at the head of the Government to use his influence to prevent any such discussion taking place. He (Earl Granville) was sure that many noble lords were, as he himself was the very next morning but one, surprised to learn that the right hon. gentleman who was supposed to be the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons had pressed that house to come to an immediate discussion on that question. But he (Earl Granville) admitted that it was not fair to consider the noble earl bound to everything that might be said by his political adherents in the other House of Parliament. The noble earl who kad last spoken (the Earl of Hardwicke) had complained of his (Earl Gran ville's) noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) having twitted them, by making an appeal to them in the name of "bold barons." He (Earl Granville) could assure the noble earl that no taunt was thereby intended by his noble friend. It must be obvious to their lordships that his noble friend only used an expression which had been pre viously used by another noble earl, who had taken a strong course in denouncing the bill on its second reading. His noble friend's argument was that if their lordships ad mitted the principle of the bill by agreeing to the second reading, he could hardly conceive how they could alter those clauses on which that principle rested after the Go vernment had logically made out their proposition. With regard to the noble earl's objection to a tax upon settled property, and to what the noble earl called the retrospec tive effect of the bill, he (Earl Granville) thought it better to defer the consideration of that question until they came to the clauses particularly relating to it. The noble earl had remarked upon the peculiar conditions on which the Government had come before the house, and had stated that her Majesty's Government were disposed to introduce a new doctrine into the house by asserting the impossi bility of their lordships making the slightest alteration in a money bill that came up from the House of Commons. Now, he (Earl Granville) would say, in the first instance, that that was not a doctrine held by her Majesty's Govern ment ; and, in the next place, he would say that if it were so held by them, it would not be a new doctrine. He would read the opinion of Lord Chatham upon this point " Taxation," said Lord Chatham, " is no part of the go verning or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift of Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned ; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to close with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Com mons alone." He (Earl Granville) believed he stated the opinion of all his colleagues when ho said that they did not agree with the doc trines there laid down—that they did not agree with the doc trine of non-interference on thepart of their lordships' house, nor did they deny the right of their lordships, if they thought proper, to iterfere with or making alterations in a money bill. But what his noble friend at the head of her Majesty's Government had maintained was, that there never was an occasion in which it would be so unwise and so inexpedient for their lordships to follow any such course as the present. When the noble and learned lord (Lord St. Leonards) disclaimed any personal feeling in this matter, he (Earl Granville) entirely went with him. It was a re markable thing that not 12 persons in their lordships' house had any personal interest in the matter ; and he believed if their lordships were to look over the votes on this question to-morrow morning, they would find that every one of those persons who would be personally affected would be actually those who would support the Govern ment proposition. But this was an argument which it would be an insult to their lordships to use for one mo ment. It was not the personal feeling which their lord ships had, or even the prejudices which they might enter tain with regard to the class which the y so p re-eminently r epresented, would guide their conduct on . this of qu these tion. It had been shown that t he present position small landed proprietor under the present legacy tax was a very bad one, and that he w ould be much better cir cumstanced under a succession tax which limited the as sessment to any life interest that he might possess. It was, therefore, on the larger estates that this tax would most heavily fall ; though not equally with, but about 50 per cent. as com pared with the tax on personal property. He knew it was very idle . for a person like him to attempt to use arguments against such an opponent as the noble and learned lord who first spoke that evening (Lord St. Leonards) • but what he (Earl Granville) rested his case upon wa s, first of all, that no measure of any i m p or t ance had ever passed both houses of Parliament, without there having been some persons on the opposition side, eminent i n every way, who had conjured up imaginary grievances and difficulties, which in the result had proved to be en tirely without foundation. But he relied still more upon the fact that if there was the slightest foundation for the prophecies of the noble and learned lord, there would have been a double foundation for those prophecies 57 years ago. But noble lords, while arguing as to the manner in which this measure would affect property, entirely forgot that large estates held both in this country and in Ireland, as leasehold instead of as freehold, must have had to endure this tax. During those fifty-seven years, h oweve r, none of those grievances which had been described had arisen ; no litigation had taken place such as had been expected. He did, therefore, believe that as none of those grievances which had been so much dwelt upon had occurred during the last 57 years, the apprehension that they would hereafter occur, should this measure pass, was wholly without foundation. He therefore must beg their lordships to consider this state of things before they yielded implicitly to the advice which had been given to them. (Hear, hear.) The Duke of CLEVELAND complained that no oppor tunity had been afforded to their lordships for sufficiently considering the nature of the several provisions of this bill when it was read a second time. Had he on that occasion known its tendency and probable effects he should certainly have opposed its being read a second time. Both in the year 1842 and in 1846 ten days elapsed between the bill on the income tax being introduced into their lordships' house and being read a second time. The Earl of ABERDEEN begged to assure the noble duke that the arrangement for the second reading; of the bill was made in concert with the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). The Duke of CLEVELAND ad mitted that all persons ought to pay a like tax on property, no matter f ro m what . ,ther e and source their income might be d erived ; but there isted a strong feeling against the income tax alto carry g the Chancellor of the Excheq uer was only able to c 2 His objection it by this sop in the pan — the s uccession tax.. to the proposed tax was on the g round of the ineqeuaatliety and t e the unfairness of manner in which it would factions was not one of those who would pu forwardrar ob jections to any measure tha t the Government might pro- IMPERIAL PARLIA-MENT. HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. Lord COLVILLE presented petitions from Scotland in favour of the Public-houses (Scotland) Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Glas gow in favour of the abolition of arrestment of wages for debt. Lord DERBY presented a petition from Glasgow in favour of the Public-houses (Scotland) Bill. SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE this bill passed through committee. PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, this bill also passed through committee. pose, but in this instance he felt himself called upon support the amendment of his noble friend. The Duke of ARGYLL said, it must be admitted that an injustice and an inequality existed in the opera tion of the present legacy duties, and it was to-reatitr. the injustice of the existing law that the Government had brought forward this measure. The noble earl ri\ opposite had argued that the G - overnment ,were pro posing to levy the same burden upon real adrupon personal,' properly, but such was not the case ; the contrary, they proposed to levy burdens upon Aalty half the extent of those upon personalty, t 2 was i n re spect of landed property being rateable th y • propoted. to make that difference. It would be only fair r ifscif twhes prop.erties one were subject to rates and the otherisist.lll, levying a tax, to make deduction for the rates, butthe Government proposal went even further than that, for by it deductions were also made for outgoings necessary for the "management of landed property. These deductions were to be made in respect of such things affecting the ssde of small portions of land more than the sale of stock, .end value, but the desire not to compel the breaking up of lam; ed upon The d t u h t e y he w f as in n t o e t re t s o t b a e le le n v e i ; ed an u d po h n e t e h e e nt c e a e p d it eci .a i l . that that was a great consideration, which had not been sufficiently attended to by noble lords on the opposite side of the house, or by his noble friend on the cross-benches. He did not think that because landed property was sub ject to local tax a ti on i t was a fair interference that it should be exempted altogether upon from a tax succession, He wished to call their lordship' s a tt en ti on to another point. The noble earl opposite had argued as if the dis tinction between personalty and realty entirely corres ponded with that between property subject to local taxa tion and that which was not. Such, however, was not the case, for under the law as it at present stood there was a very large class of property which was rated as personal property, and: yet was subject to all the incidents of local taxation. He referred to leasehold property, which, under the existing law, paid legacy duty upon its capital value, and was at the same time subject to local taxation. Their lordships would perceive that, as regarded the owners of property of that description—by no means an inconsider able class—the result of this measure would be to diminish the burden under which they suffered by . the existing law, by levying a succession duty upon life interest alone, in stead of a legacy duty upon capital value ; and would ap peal to noble lords opposite whether that consideration had been sufficiently brought before their lordships' notice, or whether or not it had been slurred over. He wished to say a few words on the amendment of the noble earl ; and, first, he must express his gratification that the noble earl had resolved to take a division upon that parti cular amendment, for he was perfectly well satisfied that it could not stand the test of close investigation. He consi dered that a great deal of confusion and misapprehension had been caused by speakingof the clause at present under consideration as a retrospective clause. (Hear, hear.) It was not only not a retrospective clause, but it would only become so if the amendment of the noble earl were carried. (Hear, hear.) He would just point out what the real nature of the measure was. The intention in imposing a tax upon successions was to charge it upon those persons who came into possession of property by inheritance. It would be fair to call the present clause a retrospective clause if it levied a charge upon persons who had already succeeded to property, but the term was incorrect as ap plied to a clause which merely provided for the imposition of the tax upon those persons who for the future should inherit successions. (Hear, hear.) It was retrospective, not as regarded persons, but only as regarded the title deeds of different families, and no single tax had ever ?peen imposed which had not in some sense been a retrospective measure. (Hear, hear.) He wished to make a comparilson between the operation of the income tax and the proposed duty upon successions. He would take the case of a per son inheriting an estate of 5,0001. a-year without any en cumbrances. The noble earl opposite started at the pro posal to compel the successor to pay for four years an an nuity of about 1781. ; but he would ask their lordships to consider what would be the case if the income tax were continued ; and it was to enable the Government to dis pense with the income tax that this measure was intro duced. If the income tax were continued, the successor, instead of being subject to pay an annuity of 1781. for four years, would have to pay an annuity of 1461. for ever. (Hear, hear.) He confessed that he could not then agree with noble lords opposite that the contiuuance of the nl - tax would be preferable to the introduction of this measure. (Hear, hear.) With regard to settlements, he could not see why the present measure should not be applied to that description of property. Persons coming into property under settlements received that property subject to the income-tax, and he did not, there fore, see any injustice in making it subject to a suc cession duty. In looking at that branch of the subject, noble lords opposite had been led away by the name of the thing • but surely it was justifiable, if it were admitted that there was no injustice in making such pro perty liable to income-tax, to substitute a tax which was less onerous. There was another misapprehension which had been apparent in the speeches of noble lords, and which perhaps had been assisted by language which had been employed on his side of the house. It was not cor rect to say that this bill would fall chiefly upon the owners of real property. There was an immense amount of per sonal property which escaped taxation under cover of deeds of gift, and it was one great object of this bill to levy the tax upon that species of personalty.. With re gard to settled personalty, there was not a shadow of an argument why . it should be exempted from the existing legacy duty. He might state that in the calculations of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by very much the largest sum expected from the proposed tax was from the capital arising from industrial pursuits. The noble earl did not oppose the second reading of this bill, not in order to avoid embarrassing the Government, for that, of course, he would care little about, but in order not to affect its financial prospects ; but the amend ment now proposed by him would have that effect. He most emphatically denied the assertion of the noble and learned lord opposite, that the present measure had been gratuitously brought forward. (Hear, hear.) He had no hesitation in distinctly asserting that the measure had been rendered immediately necessary by the financial schemes of the late Government. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs had, the other evening, given a fair account of their position. They were bound iu honour to make certain proposals, and those proposals led to their being defeated ; but he would say that no one was more pleased than himself to think that when they next returned to office, as in the general course of party warfare it was probable they would, they would not be encumbered by any of those former opinions which drove them into their mistaken principles of finance. But ho would repeat that it was the rash and reckless proposals of the late Government, in reference to the income-tax, which imposed on the present Govern ment the necessity of immediately introducing thi s measure. He did not wish to say that, under any cir cumstances, it could have been long deferred, for a remedy to the present injustice could not have been delayed much longer, and then, in all probability, the duty -would have been proposed upon capital value instead of upon life interest. It was, then, the principle of the late Govern ment with regard to the differentiation of the income tax. The Earl of DERBY—I repudiate the word differentia• tion altogether. (Laughter.) The Duke of ARGYLL could not use the word " dis crimination," because that word implied justice, but, as there was no justice in the scheme of the late Govern ment with regard to the income tax, he used the word " differentiation." He believed that those proposals, if carried, would have fallen More heavily upon the owners of real property than the euccessions duties would. (Hear, hear.) It was his firm conviction that the measure now proposed by her Majesty's Ministers was not one which would press with undue heaviness on the landed in terest. (Hear, hear.) Lord ST. LEON.A_RDS wished only to offer a very few observations on what had fallen from the noble duke who had just sat down. The noble duke while showing that the property tax would not press so severely on the owners of real property as the income tax had entirely lost sight of the fact that the landed interest would be subject to both at the same time. (Hear, hear.) He wished also to point out that while it had been stated on the other side of the house that the middle classes of this country did not settle their property, the noble duke had just stated that the first object of the measure was to levy the tax upon the personal property of the industrial classes. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to make a fev! observations on what had fallen from the noble and learned lord. The noble and learned lord had said that th_n o foun dation of the system of finance proposed by b e on successions, but the particular character of h but °Y. that Govern ment was the combination of the income tax an dtth e the e v e d e e u r t i n was not only that they should not act together, for r e action of abolition ti t o h n e oneef make hear.) pr l o t vis b io ,a n to carry on been admitted that it was not expedient th sh r i oth d e ui r. tim (H ate ea l r y , direct taxation ask their further than lordships, atahanit where pr was esen i presentextended,t tmore and he would to impose direct taxation than upon those who wer e enabled to exercise the great privilege of so- ciety—that of succeeding to property ?—and what more natural than that they should be called upon to pay it at the moment when the succession was enjoyed* He had heard with extreme surprise the statement that this tax was aimed at any particular class in this countri; but in his conscience he believed that it had been aimed equally at all classes. He did not consider that the pot' tion of the owners of land would be impaired by rendering them amenable to the same law as their fellow -subjects; on the contrary, he believed that it would material' strengthen them. (Hear, hear.) It was not to exesisp tions from burdens that the great families of this countrY owed their present position. Could any one imagine that his noble friend at the head of the peerage, the Duke of Norfolk, the end of a long line of ancestors, enjoying the same importance as they did, owed his high position to his having escaped payment of the legacy duty ? It was not upon any such grounds as that that the fortune of the arias tocracy of this country had depended. It had rested upon the prosperity of the country, and its free and glorious isr stitutions. Would these great families and landed pro! prietors gain nothing by this system of finance? He would assert that their gain was infinitely greater than the value of any legacy duty which they would be called upon to pay. (Hear, hear.) Their gain would be what it was 9a object of this system of finance to maintain —namely, the increase in the prosperity, the indust r y , and the p rodu f. tion of the country. (Hear, hear.) Who that had see the experience of the last three or four years could d oubt that, so far as the landed prop r ietors were concerne d, 14 " increase in the general prosperity was not infinitely important and compensating than any amount was _ retro. which they might bear ? He was told this a trospectives spective act. But all taxation upon land svaserere nit= the stamp The income tax was retrospective ; be imposed? property were affected by a tax, wvasertnurned and affected , duties. But was he, therefore, to bertlaut,hat if landed. The Poor Law Act for Ireland. o likely to be produced by h settlements to an extent ten times aTtehrethraenswatnyefefftebt passed through their lordships' how°, Irish Poor Law amountedt is to c onfiscation, in some any one to propose that all pro) cases,when thatof marriage age settlements and annuities ; but, it did not occur t o in the power of Par' , ration of that act. porty under settlemenitt . i s v h o o t td b b e e exempt from the ope. I iament geiyinwatoenlyldtaodompatktehiisttsaxseolereteioonntinanned. the ta i ci n e c c o i nt whet her s a x- and in the meanwhile the revenue derived from ths, tax would relieve the people of burdens which affected thr, industry of the country. Ho considered the system a finance of which this bill was a part as a sound system, be cause it left the prosperity of the country at liberty to ire crease, and gave security that only one great direct duty need be preserved when the present income tax expired. Their lordships then divided. The numbers were — For the amendment—content ... Not content Majority for the Government —34 In reply to a question from the Earl of DERBY, The LORD CHANCELLOR said the amount of dote payable on real estate and on settled personal estate wou;) be exactly the same as was now paid on bequeathedpe) sonal estate, If the noble earl should discover that 20,000, 1141 1071 33 61 S Id , $.l) t v,~ .>`~ I