The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

ROYAL COMMIB.BION.‘

Mr. PULMAX. Yeoman Usher of the Bleck Rod, sum-
moned the house to the Rouse of Peers to hear the royal
eersaussion read.

INDIA.

Mr. DISRAELI wished to know *►ether her Majesty's
government could state as what day they intended to in-
troduce their measure with regard to the administration of
the affairs of India. (Hear, hear.)
Viscount PALMERSTON said he was sure the right
hon. gentleman must feel that, until the government were
able to see their way mere clearly with regard to the finan-
cial measures then under discussion, it would be impossible
for them to fin any particular day for introducing a measure
on so large ant wide a subject as that of India. (Hoar.)
Mr. HUME thought the government ought to make
known their intentions as soon as possible. (lieu, hear.)
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS,
AND GOVERNMENT DOCKYARD ELECTIONS.
Mr. TUFNELL gave notice that on the 14th of May he
would move for leave ,o bring in a bill to abolish the pro-
perty qualification now required by members of parliament.
(Cheers.) The hon. member also gave notice that when
the noble lord the member for the city of London moved
for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the voters in
government dockyards, he should move as an amendment,
that the votes of all such person should be taken by bal-
lot. (Hear, hear.)
THE FARMERS AND THE ASSESSED TAXES.

Sir F. KELLY wished to know whether in the re-con-
struction of the armed taxes, it was the intention of the
government to interfere with the exemptions hitherto en-
joyed by farmers and a great number other persons in
relation to the tax upon horses, upon gips. and upon carts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was

not the intention of the government to interfere in any way
with the exemption in respect of hones employed in hus-
bandry. With respect to heroes not employed in hus-
bandry, he would rather his hon. and learned friend would
look at the b 11, which would shortly be introduced. As to
bigv, it was undoubtedly one of the principal objects of the
ill to place them under a moderate tax.

SALE OF COFFEE ANI) CHICORY.
Lord C. HAMILTON said, geeing the hon. member for
Weetbury in his placir,he wished to ask him whether it were
true that the new regulation with respect to the sale of
coffee sad chicory had been evaded, and if so whether it
was the intention of the government to make any alteration.
Mr. WILSON said this:was a question to which he
wished to give, for the information of the house and the
public, a very explicit reply, because it was one which
involved the interest of a very large clue of dealers in this
country. The noble lord referred, he supposed, to • fraud
which had been committed on a very large scale by so
intermioglisa the words " mixture of chicory and coffee,"
that though the letter of the law was complied with, its
spirit was entirely broken. He bad communicated on the
subject with the Chairman of the Hoarder Inland Revenue,
and they had adopted another plan, which he thought would
be effectual fur its purpose. They had issued a cir-
cular requirin; that every package should have on one side
of it the words, " This Is sold as a mixture of chicory and
coffee;" and also that no other words should be printed on
any part of the paper except the name and address of the
vendor of the article. There was, too, a similar regulation
with regard to the canisters in which the mixture was kept.
rscomE TAX.

The resolutions on the income tax were brought up and
agreed to, and leave given to Lord J. Ronan, the Chan.
miler of the Exchequer, and Lord Palmerston, to bring in
the bill.

WAYS AND MiLAN&—THE LEGACY DUTY.
The order of the day for the adjourned debate wee then

Sr J. PAKTNOTON said that he was anxious to take
the earliest oppeetunity of expressing his Aim on this
most important subject. He sonsidegal the present pro-
posal of Ike Chunqiu of this per to be outs of the
mast important that tar a long period had bun submitted
to the legislature or the country, but at the same time it
was one epee which be could not bring himself to look
with anything like approbation. Like the right hon. gen-
tlernso, he world as the meant occasion aniline himself
to the discussion of the prple, salt was against the prin-
ciple that his objections were mainly directed. The right
hoc. gentleman liad stated several distinct grounds for op-
posing the tax, of which the fintwas that it would have the
effect of rectifyieg the inequalities of the income tax. He
could not look upon that ground ea one sufficient to justify
the right bon. gentleman, because thinking that the tax
as proposed bore hardly on rateable property, he Gould
not recognise the right of laying es additional taxation
for the purpose of rectifying any presumed inequality. The
neat reason assigned was that the imposition of the
duty would *sable parliament if so sanded to partlitisricZ
the income to in 1860. Now, be mast confess his Was-
dulity as to the possibility of getting rid of the tax then,
under any possible contingency. The sect reason was that
by means et the Iwwy duty, the right hon. gentleman
would be able further to reduce the butlers of iadireet
tuation, Now, he would appeal to the committee whether
these two last reasons were not inconsistent with each. other.
_ _

(Hear, bear.) If the right hon. gentleman contemplated
further abatements in indirect laxative, what hope was
there ;of parting with the ,inoome tax in 1860? (Hear,
hear.) He cams noir to the fourth, and by far the most
important reason. Thi right lion. gestleiran stated that he
imposed this burthen in order to remove the galling anoma-
lies of the present law. (Hear, hear.) He would eades-
your fairly to do battle with the right hon. gentleman on
that ground, as he considered that it was on that
ground the gentles must mirk be decided. The right
bon. gentleman having catalogers' those alleged anomalies
asked the house triumphantly did they think it porn& to
goon much longer with the mama system. He (fir J.
Pakington) said why not? The system bah lasted seventy
years, and the exact plan at prepht in operation for My or
sixty years. The right has. gentle mem bad esid to
Mr. Pitt, but he would nomad thevight ben. sph that
Mr. Pitt had distishay_dissiehmei that newel. Is 1796
daring the debate ma Mr. Pitt 's pies, the New argument
was used, but that statesman disced it, mealy tending
to paharroms the quention. He only mentioned this to show
that Mr. Pitt in* set ialleenoW by the aeoesaly of the
ease. The nal .pestles sow at issue was this—was the
peptised as &jut and fair one, and one to which the
country ought WU called upon to submit ? ( ' Hear, hear"
Ifrom the country men.) He should endeavour to
l show that the earomalies did not exist and
1 that although the duty was at preseat only
ctisy
I levied on p rsuual property, the barthens on real property
formed a full equivalent He believed that the burthens
on real property were double those on personalty, and that,
ifthere was any namely, it was in reality the other way.
His objection to the proposed harshen might be summed
iupin a few words. It was that the tax was deficient is
I that impertiality which should always be the first object
I looked to by a drums minister. After stating his reasons
for arriving at this conclusion, the right hon. gentleman
said that he resisted the present proposal, believing it to be
unjust in principle, and with regard to the whole budget be
considered it moat injurious to the great interests of the
country. (Hear.)
Mr. .FRESIIFIELD rose to move an amendment, with
the view of exempting marriage and other settlements on
!estates from the legacy duty on succession. The principle
of a legacy duty was a tax on the property of the dead, sad
; sot on the incomes of those who were living. Tbe right
' hoo. gentleman had urged as one reason for impeding the
legacy tax on real property that the stamp duty on trans-
fers and dcels relating to land was inadequate ; but, if so,
the proper course was not to put on a new—and as he con-
ceived as unjust tax, but to increase the stamp ditty.
His practical objection to the preposition of his right bon.
friend was, that it imposed a tax merely on successions, ire-
ate ail of on ini:Pritalce in the legal seater. Bellthll .ettle-
smolt+, PI/V.IIMMn purchased and co.noected with .a death,
though not of the persons posseoneg the lily interests,
. would be liable to the In. It would be a great siaoclia,