The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

line, of this leatient, end ceesidering that ha at cis!,
„ of aleertin to it oat (sue eingle neer•
this accr,rarily in conjunclon with a greet
hi;m • r • r MOO • irapr:ant suej etie, I hest not been
se:, • see whit pease. i• requi•ite to place the prifio•i•
u of. Aorattostnt deafly and t iirly before the 1 se
to c menthe. I era übligc l t the right hon. gentle-
o:
Ca. rehire, for hi. thyme:ion ; but I had intended to
Wln•
rje after the r,„olqtion bail been read, fur the purpose of
tn, the seneral tooture of our propeoitioa. Now, in the
htrliti elect., I wish call the attention of the committee le
limitation of the proposition as it stands before us.
tAe
1r re are a.tmm.n•eauuther—'or at least • considerable
of great ini; octane,: wed very errious
w
ewell have to examine when we ,
.tit, the detail* of the questi ; but most of thole
• ISMS amabus at present to keep in some degree out
;S
l because,, in the first plate, it is hardly possible to
ceeeider them said the committee shall have under its eyes
• preciee form in which the proposition of the government
isel be ultimately . clothed ; and because, in the second
glace, the di octal principles involved in this propeeition are
0 thowl•e• so tereed.nsly important that they desire the
galivided and exclusive attention of the committee. It i•
▪e• desirable the: we should in the lint inst nice fix our
• iivided and detest attend in upon the principles which
sic i,valsed in the measure—(hear, hear)—and that we
shoalil glee a vote upon this OfeSsioll in the first instance
which will strictly be a vote on the principle before oe come
fu c
inside r a great multitude of serious but !still minor
sad sieeedanite questions, which we shall have
to ei.1.113111e and dispose of cabin we gat into the
I:tails of the proposition. Now, the proportion of the
government, ftl it stand• before the committee, is this:
i•That, toward' raising the supply granted to her Majesty,
fit death duties payable by law upon or for or in respect
01(11601 shall be granted sad made payable upon and fur
nay secession to the beneficial enjoyment of any seal or
r• Tweet estate, or to the receipt of any portion or
addition itsportin of the income Of profits thereof, that
pay take place pon or in consequence of the death
of any person, under whatever title, whether ex.
;sirs or future, such them-aeon may be dcithed."
011 the present oceasion the vote of the committee is only
eked tor a general affirmation to the propenal that some
tax or ether on surcerilons shall be levied. I do not pre-
posethat y oil should pledge yourseiTCS Ulan equal or unequal
tax.
hat that se me tax or other shall he laid on all succee-
dew of prole toy that take elace in consequence of death.
(lieu. hear.) And that condition, the accruing of taxa-
' in consequence of death, is the pivot of the whole meet-
thre. LH course the bearing. of tine measure are to be eon-
sacred with reference to two great classes of property
which hale exclusively el joyed an exemption atom the
pees levied in other caul' on successions by denth. First,
it applies to reel pro;*rty, settled or unsettled, and se-
geed'', to settled property, whether personal or reel. I
will, with respect te these points, proceed to consider the
wee whichhave induced the government, andwhich I
re,
hope will induce the committee, to resort to that resource
for the replenishment of the revenue of the country. (lieu,
near) the right hon. gentleman the member for
151144 std, a few nights since, that we founded
cur jWitifleiflOlL of the measure, if I understood
him nght. an the character I lad I•liffOtd to it on u fernier
meht, nouely, that I con•i !era that in character sad
them by laying this tax upon successions, we should be
daice first, to do which a great desire has been expressed by
the house and elsewhere, namely, countervailing the opera-
tion of the income tax, in so far u that fiscal operation
presses too heavily on intelligence and skill, and too lightly
on property, as compared with intelligence and skill.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. geatlemao observed that
such being the basis of the proposed tag, it was obvious
that the tag should be so regulated as to terminate in 1860.
Now I certainly could not, with any great confidean. sub-
mit such a proposition to tke house as that the tax should
terminate in le6o, because if the tax were intended to ter•
memo in 1860, we should not then have received wire
than two years of the full produce of the tax in
respect to the real prosperity of England, as it will not be
(a 3 operation until 19.1.4. (Hear, hear.) Our enjoy-
ment of it would, therefore, be ofvery short duration. But,
in point of fret, the right boat. gentleman was mistaken in
the construction he put on my statement. I did say that
the succession tax would t qu ilia' the income tax, if it were
unequal, es regarded intellisi ace sad skill; l did state there
was a feeling abroad that intelligence and skill were un-
equally taxed as compared with real property, and that
this measure might rectify it. and perhaps would rectify it,
without calling into existence or raising up any dangerous
question, sad without in any way distarbing our financial
seater hear.) Bat se far from saying that the ITC-
titicatiolk of the income Six was the only reason upon
which the proposed legacy duty was based, I gays
many more, and in my opinion more cogent and
conclusive, reasons. In the Bat place, I stated, and now
repeat, that this measure is essential to that main condition
of the financial measure of the government, that of placing,
as far as in us lies, future parliaments at • given period in
• condition to part with the income tax if they think fit.
(. Hear, hear, and a laugh) That is our object which we
propos* to ourselves as an essential condition of the levy el
the income tax for seven years. We felt that we
could not justify ourselves in proposing it for se
long a time did we not at the some time mho
such arrangements as idiould supply parliament with
the means, should they think fit, of dispensing with it e 4
together at the expiration of that term. That is another
material reason for proposing • tax on successions, aid
without that tax on successions it is impossible to hold eat
any expectation that at the termination of the present teem
the income tax may expire, further that sort of vague gemm-
ed expectation which the country by this time, after so
many repetitions of the experiment, .has learned to appre-
ciate at its true value. (hehl, hear.) . There is an-
other object to be gained by the imposition of a
homey duty, and that is to provide during the interval
ofsoien years, which may enable us to carry into effect
theme great and extended in...mires for the remission of in-
direct taxation which form so important • condition of the
progress and prosperity of the country. (Cheers.) But I
do not hesitate to say that behind and above all these con-
siderations there is a purpose of • still more important cha-
racter—namely, the removal of an anomaly which has been
and is most galling to public feeling, and which has been
and is sure to become inure toiling to public feeling from
year to year. It is the knowledge and conviction of the
existence of that feeling that induces us to believe that it is
for the interest of all clines, and more especially fur the ist-
hmus of those classes who will be immediately affected by
the duty, to settle this question and to remove the anomaly
at once sad permanently, being contend as we are that
the logger you pautpane the settlement the mere difficult it
will be when the inevitable time comes, end the more mo-
rose the terms upon which it will be possible to effect
(Hear, hear.) With this feeling, and with the
feeling also that the present state of the law
tamed be held to be satisfactory to carry on, as
regards itsjustice, we have proposed this law, independently
of all the collateral ends we hope to serve by making the
proposal at the present juncture. (Hear, hear.) Now, this
is the first question that I wish to impress on the dispas-
sionate consideration of the committee. I wish to ask them
this question—Do they think it possible to preserve the law
in the position it holds at present? (Hear, hear.) la my
epinioa, tt would be totally impossible to do so. (Loud
sheen.) Ido not maintain that it would be impossible to
preserve the law during this session or the next session—
what I mean to say is, that it is impasibe to
look upon the permanent position of the tax as a portion of
our financial system with any certainty or satisfaction.
(Load awn.) The public sentiment of the country is
decidedly &deem to continuing the tax in its present state,
so that at some day or another, aad most probably at to
distant day, its continuance is detainees be opposed. (Hoer,
hear.) You *manta, in my opinion, maintain this law—not
because there is • clamour against it. I do
not mean to scandalise the gallant colonel oppo-
Ote by urging such an argument, and I hope that
la the arguments I am shout to use I may in some
small rememlaarable degree be so fortunate as to meet with
his approval. (Colonel Bibthorp, from his seat, ejaculated,
" No, never, sir," with an energy that at once astonished
and amused the committee.] Well, I must only regret that
principles which perhaps under other 670112/1111004 might
meet with the gallant colonel's approval, should he opposed
because announced by me. I must go on, however,
although deprived of that approval, although I would wif-
liagly earn it if I could. I will now mooed to state my views
as to why it is impossible to saints= the present law, or de-
fend Its condition. In the first plate, in stating these reasons
I thick the wisest course will be to place the weakest first.
I do not think it would be possible to defend the continua-
tion of the present law, even as respects real property.
When we look beck to the period of Mr. Pitt, when we re-
flect on the proposal made by him seventy years ago, and
consider all that has since passed both in this house and in
the country, we must feel that oven as regards real pro-
perty, considered as such, its moult exemption occupies
but • week and insecure position in the sentinnots and
opinions of the people of the present age. (Hear, hoar.)
I speak of that exemption as of a total exemption. Ido
act say that peculiar circumstances ought not to ha cord-
tiered whoa we some to naming the question with refer-
ence to the, proper mode of dealing with it la the ransom
which we are about to adopt, bat I say that the total
exemption of real properly from the taxes on necessioe,
while such fazes are made applicable to personal property
at a high and heavy rate, is not, in my view, an arrange-
meat which can be looked upon as either expedient or
justifiable, or as • measure which it would be
wise to Mai& as a perm feature in our
financial system. (Hear, hear.) It is an exemption which
in my opinion is invidious in • degree which is far mote
than commensurate to its value to the exempted classes
themselves—(hear, hear)—and being, se I believe, far more
invidious than valuable, I should wish to get rid of its in-
vidious and odious character, and loom= unembarrassed to
the nosideratioa of the just daises of real property, with
a view to • recognition and -ettlemeet of those claims. But
if the exemption of real property is difficult to defend, how
much more difficult is it, in my opinion, to defend the 'n-
et:orlon of settled personalty. (Hear, hear.) After enter-
ing with some minuteness into this portion of the
subject, the right honourable gentleman eithddielli;
If you are not prepared to give up tho principle et inehlis
death sad the passing of property from predecessor to see-
!MOT• the occasion of stepping is to levy • portion of what
you require for the public service, then—as we have already
came to the conclusion that we cannot maintain the
tax as it new is—we now reach the point that
we cannot abandon it: and we come to the further ques-
tion—What shall we do with it—how shall we modify it?
I assume (cautioned the right hon. gentlemen, after
some further argumeat) that, with regard to settle-
ment in general, even as to land, you cannot main-
tain the principle of total exemption from the legacy
duty that now prevails. The question of settled
rersonalty it would he a waste of time to argue.
Perhaps you may say there ought to be an exemption for
settlements now in existence—that all property now settled
ought not to be subjected to any duty on successions arising

from the present ',teeniest. The answer to that is co:)rious
I —that 'Le intention of those protti•ioaa of the low which
I enable sou to settle is not 0111 you might woe the duties
on such .sion. Settlements It sae been made not Of AS a

means for that purpose ; hut that was not in the spirit or
retention of the law, and eons. ijuently coast itutt s no rebel
plea eresinst a proposal to enable the law to reecli cases of
that description. (Hear, hear.) I confess, then, i; appear.
to me, on the grounds I have stated, that it is imptesible to
maintain, with satineetiau, with justice, or with a hope of
its permanency. the system of occlusion which now exists.
And, as to the last point, if you think tit to adopt a *Teta
of that kind, it would vary the operation of your act fa
more that, half a cer.tssry to conic. (Hear' hear.) Ide
not mean to say that if the exemption were demanded by
Justice it ought not to be made on that account; but when
it is precluded by justice that is a very strove g reason
indeed against entertaining such a proposition. We do not
ask you at this time to vote upon anything except the mere
principle of the present resoottion. We kayo adopted al
form of proceeding as nearly analogous u we could to that
of Mr. Pitt, in the corresponding instance, name.y, to sub-
mit to you the subject, in the first instance, in very general
terms. which should hate the effect of eliciting your views
upon the principle, and leaving for future consideration the
number ~1 important collateral questions which have to be
discussed. (Hear, hear.) No doubt there are vet y impose-
tent collateral questisto. Among others there is the ques-
tion of the mete of consanguinity—(hear, kear)—whisk
gives roe to a great difference of opinion, and is • very fair
subject for difference of opinion. It is known, probably,
to the majority of the committee that the scale of consan-
guinity, as it is now fixed, was mainly in favour of direst
succession. Direct succession is subject only to a tax of
one per cent.; the succession to a stranger, and with
strangers are ranked extremely remote degrees of consan-
guinity, to a tax of 10 per cent. There are various inter-
mediate rates, upon which it is not necessary to dwell;
the rate of 3 per cent. is a rate high enough, no doubt.
This tax of 10 per cent. is a material item in the considera-
tion of the whole question; because, although it falls upon
a comparatively limited number, yet, °wine to the Nigh
rate of duty, the proceeds of that tax form a very consider-
able portion of what comes to the Exchequer. (Ileac, I
hear.) A return just laid on the table has shown the coin- I
mittee that while the rate of one per cent., levied upon
direct sueeession, and upon a mush larger amount of pro-
pene, yielded hat year 235,0901., the 10 percent. duty, upon
• much smaller amount of property, yielded so less than
490,9001. (Rear, hear.) Since the year 1797, while the
nee per cent. levied upon an enormously greater mass of
property yielded but 8,3'_"2,00 d., the 10 per cent, yielded
17.483,0001. (Hear, hear.) Teo very important questions
arise with regard to the scale of consanguinity. First, is it
equitable that such a difference should be made, at least,
that a very great difference should be made, between the
tax on direct succession and the tax upon remote suc-
cessions and those to strangers? For my own part,'
I must confess it appears to me that that Tin-
ciple is neither an inequitable nor an impolitic
one. Speaking generally, those who enjoy property by
direct succession are educated in expectancy • they are
trained, and have their habits of mind and life formed with
relation to the property they are to enjoy. To them, there-
fore, it would be a very great hardship to step in and take
away any material proportion of what they have been pre-
pared to expect. But, on the other hand, the successions of
strangers, and of persons not within reasonable degrees of '
consiutguinity, are ordinarily not of a very expectable cha-
racter ; they are cases in regard to which the free-will of
the testator takes the widest range, sad are quite uncon-
nected with any question of training or education. There-
fore, without entering upon minor questions, it does appear
to me very reasonable that a male founded upon this scale
of consanguinity should be maintained. The committee
may maintain the present scale, or may alter it. But if
they dett rmine to lower it materially— and nobody would
do it for the sake of a trifling change, ail to reduce the
ten per cent. to five or six—they must raise the rate which
is now one per cent., or we shall not obtain the same
amount of revenue, which I fear is the most im•
portant coroideration. (Hear, hear.) The lowering of the
rate of 10 per cent. will infallibly entail a material raising
of the rate of one per cent. At this period, I should not
wish to enter upon a very full discussion of that question
to which I lave adverted more that once, namely, the
question whether, even t'iough you may think that there is
no ground for maintaining any absolute exemption of any
great class of property, there may not be good and sufficient
reasons for adopting a different machinery, and practically
even, if not nominally, a different rate of tax, with regard
to certain class., of property, from what you lay upon
ethers. It appears to me that the present law is not only
• mug in drawing too broad a disticction—that is to say, a
distinction between tax en one side, and no tax at all upon
the other—bat that it is especially wrong in the manner in
which it strikes that distinction. And we propose to make a
change, which, although it is not precisely described in the
words of the resolution, and though you are not therefore
asked to give an opinion upon it at the present moment,
is of a i much importance and so vital a provision
of the plan of the government, that it would be
wrong in me altogether to omit the discussion
of it. We purpose, instead of distinguishing, as the pee-
-1 sent law distinguishes, in favour of settled and of real pro-
perty, against unsettled personalty—we propose, abolishing
that distinction altogether, to draw a sew distinction be-
tween property which I will describe, not in a legal
phrase, but in one which will be popularly more intelligible
than any other I could select—we propose to distinguish be-
tween rateable properly, whether real or personal, on the
one side, and non•rateable property on the other. The
distinction will be obvious; if the committee adopt our
view, rateable property, whether it be real, leasehold, co-
pyhold, or under whatever description it may fall, will be
entitled to the exception, and the fell burden of the tax
will fall upon invisible or non-rateable property. (Hear.)
It appears to us that in that distinction there is something
like a principle, that the great burden which falls upsn
rateable property, whether real or not, in various forms, is
a very fair matter to take into view when you are consider-
' hag the amount at which you shall fix your legacy duty, se
tax upon succession, for these respective descriptions
of property. (Rear.) Oar proposal, therefore, with
respect to rateable property is this. We do not pro-
pose to establish different rates of duties ; but we
that the person succeeding never shall be charged with
duties upon any interest in the property higher than hiel
lib interest. You may ask what will be the effect of that,
eampared with charging him on an interest in perpetuity.
That is a matter of computation, admitting of some latitude
of opinion, bat not very great. I do not think it will be
very far dom the mark if we say that the effect of that dis-
tinction, with some collateral advantages will be, that rate-
able property will, on the whole pay a trifle under one-half
of the legacy-duty paid by property not coming under thee
description. The property not coming within the descrip
Lion of rateable,—invisible, or non•rateable preperee,
would not, of course, in all cases be charged upon the pane
Testify. In a succession to property of that kind, a pima
=
upon perpetuity who has acquired the abate bs
of the property ; where he has succeeded le a
bow interest, he williof course be charged upon that Wear
Isessest. But a much larger proportion of rateable property
Ie held under limited interests than of invisible property.
limey be asked why we should favour rateable property
this particular form. There may be those who will say
*et it ought not to be favoured at all. I have stated the
gir• it is a very simple one. I think, likewise, that it
eblect of policy worthy of some consideration, not
may liitraezmething that may tend to countervail the
Medi borne by rateable property, but likewise to
Übe UM ise to adjust your tax in regard to property of this
drieelplier that you do not allow that tax to become an en-
gem' of what would be a very great and serious evil,
windy, the forcing of perpetual changes of possession. In
seder to do that, the tax certainly ought to be kept within
such bounds that it may, by effort and exertion, at any rate
be paid out of the annual moires, sad that it may not force
the possessor either into parting with his property, or doing
that which, after the lapse of a certain time, becomes
still more deplorable, leading the property with
with a sucesaion of incualeriem, so as to leave
to the possessor nothing but the SIM. (Hear, hear.)
These are the reasons for &smiles seirelle peepwty. But
if yes think this class of prepleir *odd iNNr a outlier
them of this tan " why," li my be wised, "de yes. choose
Ode eelm Min et posmediss," viz, that of saying that
Os puma reessisliei fe the reliable property. shall not be
'barged ea mew *with* life interest ? ' It may be said
" why meadow him on the 'perpetuity to which he sue-
Mods, but Oh bleu rate ?" This is a question which fe-
-1 quires tits Mat armful and the meet imperils' 1 attention,
and it is sue teem which I trust all collateral considerations
of party, or airbag may be the fate of the government
may be ezelteded. These are arrangements that must
bow a nitwit' libel on oar social system, and which
tiegediet Rumble sari forethought in their adjustment.
I MOl4 it is ma seltevident proposition that when you
leredslerniated that rateable property is entitled to some
=ltire drosses, it is by no means self-evident that it
ein the firm of a life interest. Yet I think the
flielleelleietly and searchingly you examine into the matter,
ra MOM eseliddewill you arrive at that result. The ob-
lige.*** hot I knowes that it takes away from the
MIN Inert the advantage you propose to confer on the
rof rag yas compared with the other. The
emenlig t a real or a leasehold estate would,
ender the pies proposed, be left to pay as heavy a
Ma as if be emiseedeul to the perpetuity, and so it
lee be said "yes fail to carry oat your Tin-
eftibi" But, sir, when you take a comprehensive
viervey of the mode in which these various classes of pro-
perty are dealt with under our laws sad oar social habits,
you will see that there are much graver objections to other
modes of proceeding—as, for instance, that of charging a
person succeeding to real rateable property in perpetuity if
he get it in perpetuity, or at less than perpetuity,if be gets
it for UN. If you adopt the rule of saying I will charge the
life muter on landed estates on his life interest, and the per-
son who succeeds to absolute possession or the perpetuity,
you would establish a system of law that would work
m favour of the great landed proprietors of the
country and against the small proprietors, and
would create disision and contrariety of interests among
different descriptions of landed property,, that would be
most undesirable; and you would legislate in a sense which
might raise a prejudice out of doors that it was dictated by
personal interest, for it would be recollected that most of
those who are members of the legislature are connected
with the large settled properties of the country, and it
would be most invidious if they favoured the estates held
by them or the families with which they are connected, at
the expense of those who held small properties, and who are
not represented here to the same extent. I mans when
we look closely into this matter, we shall see that the rela-
tion between the life-renter of realty and the absolute
possessor of reality is not analogous to the ion of
mere personals or funded property. The lirelieelrs of
realty have all the advantage o absolute property except
the power of alienation; and looking at the general rein-
Lions with succession or children—that is, the natural pro-
visions made (et these who come after them, mid for whets,

WE EXPRESS, FRIDAY

they mar else provide in some other way—the advantage
of en entailed t.state, with the social and political influente
it confers, the eo.r.manding station it gives in regard to the
profession and parliament, and the avenues it opens to the
posse,sion of power—though as to the property itself it
is something less than absolute possession—l do say the
position of that class—comjused, as it is, of the noblemen
and gentlemen of England—is one of the most desirable in
the world, and that which is the most connected with
worldly advantage. (Hear, hear.) And there is no such
real dilr renee to be drawn after all between the great pro-
prietors of a life:interest and the small proprietors of the
fee simple, that would justify &difference in the rate of the
tax to be imposed. (Hear, hear.) Taat, I think,
is the main conriderstioa which directs the mode

of procedure we should propose—that of never charging
any interest at a larger rate than the life interest, but when
the interest is less than the life interest, then of course
charging it at lees. I think any other coupe, besides being
less Jost, would have a dangerous tendency, and tend to
bring about a pressure on the system of entails and settle-
ments in this country which I for one should be sorry to
see—(haer, hear)—a pressure, the motive for which would
be the desire to 'quells* the tax. These, I think, are the
I principal ressons—first, why we should propose to draw a
distinction, not as the law now draws it, but more abso-
lutely in favour of rateable property ; and, secondly,
it should be drawn in a form under which there

"Wield never be charged more than the life Interest to the
tit. (Heir.) Another case to which I would call atten-
tion,' as _being; imminent in its social effects is this, the
case of heavily incumbered estates. On our principle of
charging the life interest, in the case of a fully incumbered
estate, the mode of proceeding would be thus:—ln the first
place, we would ascertain the age t f the patty, then the
number of 3 ears' purchase of the lot tof the state
to be charged, then we would ascertain the gives rental
of the property, and from that e• would make the de-
duction necessary to arrive et the net rental ; that
twine the principle on which we should compute,and having
ascertained the net rental we would deduct the encum-
brances. In such a case it would sometimes happen that
the net rental remaining upon which the life interest would
have to be computed would be very small, and to that net
suns ',there might be on that property a large excess of
capital value. For example, if you take • large estate that
would sell for/100,0001., and which would give • piss rental
of 18,0001. or 18,0001., and • net rental of 13,0001 or
14,1,001., and supposing it saddled with • mortgage of
300,0004., that would absorb about 12,0001, a year of the
rental, leaving the possessor only 1,0001. or 2,0001., so that
if you charged upon the capital, which you would if you
axed the perpetuity, you would in effect displace the pos-
sessor. There is no way then in which you could meet the
case so as not to give the tax the eff e and character of an
engine for displacing the present possessor. It may be
thought wise in many cases that the present possessor should
be displaced, or that where the estate is heavily meow
bend he might displace himself. The legislature has made
prevision to facilitate such arrangements in Ireland, and *el
time may come (I hope it will riot) when it may be neees-
eery to pass a similar measure for England. But it would
be unwise and unjust to frame • tax which would base
OM effect of forcing persons to put with their property
(Hear, hear.) Aud there is no tax we could lay on the
capital of such an estate as I have described that would not
almost compel the possessor to bring his estate to sale.
The provision we propose to make is this—that a person
succeeding to property of that description would be charged
fur his net life interest according to his age, and the
number of years purchase his life is worth. But
if he chooses to bring his estate into the market
and realise his 600,0001., and instead of remaining a com-
paratively poor man with 1,0001. or 2,0001. • year, to be-
come an independent man with the interest of the 100,000/.,
then we should say, you must pay a tax on the succession to
the capital of the whole net amount of the property ; and
that would be no more than just both to the successor and
the revenue, so in the event of voluntary aliena-
tion of property after succession, the claim of
the exchequer would revive, but if it continued
in the possession of the person succeeding to it
the tax would be laid on his life interest only. If bon.
gentlemen will look into the matter they will see that there
is sense and reason in adopting this plan, and that is
while, if the property remains in the possession of the party
succeeding to it, the life interest only would be taxed, if
'during his life it were alienated, the claims of the crown
would revive to recover the difference between the legacy
duty imposed on the life interest, and the amount payable on
the full value of the capital of the estate after deduct-
ing the incumbrances. There're other legal or technical
considerations connected with the tenure of land that
would direct the adoption of such • course, and I am right,
I think, in 'eying that Mr. Pitt's plan of a legacy duty was
similar in a general description to that which I have here
suggested, and that he also proposed to impose the duty
upon the life interest. These are all the main points to which
I think it neeeasary to call attention—one only excepted—
sad that other L the probable proceeds of the tax.
Because I have seen in various quarters anticipations of
these proceeds which I am utterly unable to follow or com-
prehend. Some of those anticipations are sanguine, while
inborn are truly irrational and extraysgant, and won't bear
examination. (Hear, hear.) Now, first, with regard to
Ireland—it has been stated and assumed:in the course of de-
bate, that the additional legacy duty that would arrive from
that country, under our plan, will he 300,0001. a year. I be-
lieve it will be from 60,0001. to 80,000/. (Hear, and a laugh.)
This is all very disappointing, no doubt, and takes the co-
lour, the life, the beauty, and the art of the picture to a
very greet extent, bringing it down to very homely propor-
tions, but this is the best computation we can form with
the aid of all the official experience we can bring to the sub-
ject I won't enter minutely at this hour of the night into
the question of the computation of the amount, but I may
venture to tall the attention of hon. gentlemen to one main
source, u I think, of their error in regard to the
expected proceeds of this tax. When I stated that I ex-
pected 2,000,0001. of additional revenue it was supposed,
though I said anything to justify the supposition,
that I intended to levy it upon land.
Mr. DISRAELI—No.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Tbe right
hon. gentleman denies it. I do not impute the misunder-
standing to him, but it has been stated in the newspapers
and in the house. Now the fallacy is this. The landed
class in this country is known to hold the first place in in-
fluence, stature, and power, and I hope they will long con-
tinue to do so. At all events if they don't hold the first
place they stand foremost, and possess immense influence,
station and power. But the income of the land, as • class
is by no means an proportion to that influence, station, and
power. The causes to which I have alluded have materially
decreased its income, while, at the same time, at
maintains, directly or indirectly, great political
power, and it is on the ground of that power
I think that there is a disposition to exaggerate the amount
of the income •of the land. But the fact Is, that the
ametent of the landed property in this country, when corn:
pared with all the other descriptions of property that
would be subject to the legacy duty, is comparatively
trifling. I am almost afraid to say how small I anticipate
that the produce of this tax will be from mere land.
On • former occasion I ventured to state that it
afford to me that land paid 9d. in the pound to the in-
ane tax, while other classes of property paid 7d. That
inseam:red to by one side of the house as too much,
red me paid for my having expressed the opinion in a long
labels sad a division. Possibly • similar result may attend
the statement I now make, that it might easily be demon-
' anted that out of the 2,000,0001. • very amp amount wiU
use from the land. (Hear) I think it was the hon.
sad learned member for Belfast (Mr. Whiteside), who,
ea a former occasion, when I was unable to attend,
sada a speech in which he discussed the question
and by the light of his own experience and professional
knowledge gave an opinion that the amount of revenue
for settled property in Ireland when the tax was imposed
wield be large indeed as compared with what we calcu-
bile upon ; and we calculate on • fair and reasonable
in-
grease to the revenue from land; and when I speak of
land, it most be remembered that there are two clasps of
property connected with lead, and which are not I
land
Mu they are generally confounded with it— eincenses of creditors on mortgage and
the Imam derived from settlements. Ido not think it pose
eible,with a due regard to fairness and equality, to draw any
distinction in favour of personalities settled on land as com-
pered with any other personalties. The income, for ex-
' amps, of younger toes growing out of the charge on land,
are aemon liable to local burdens than the money of mer-
eirmis and bill-brokers, or the funds. It appears tame that
the ry connected with and related to land, but
is not land, must take its chance with other
pmeenalties, and bear its full burden of the
tali. As nearly u I can compute the proceeds
of that description of settled personalties charged
upon land, it may be about 200,0001., or something more,
eml of landed property proper, which I distinguish from
beer and messusges, in the three kingdoms, will be not
Mee then 400,0001. I have heard nothing stated in the
treygf aa estimate nearly so low as this; but i will tell I
the lama how I arrive at that result. I have stated that
I separate and strike out from the consideration
lama property and measure, and I now speak
=ltthose estates which are properly territorial and
tural estates. As I stated the other night, there are
no semi sources of information known to the govenneest
whisk are not open to all, the main source being the in-
ane tax returns. Under Schedule Awe have the geese
unseat of landed property. I think it is 49,000,0001. •
year. FlOlll that there most be a deduction made ; and if
I take them rightly, the difference between the
pass and the net amount would be 16 per
wet, which will reduce the total to about
41,000,0001. Then I have to add Ireland. Now the
valuation of the whole ratealile property in Ireland now
is 11,200,0001. in round numbers. Out of that I must strike
off that portion which is in house property and in other
messuages, leaving 7,000,0001. or 8,000,0001. as the amount
of landed property in Ireland. This would give me a set
income from the laud in the three kingdoms of 48,000,0001.
From that I have to deduct the interest payable on mort-
gages and settlements, which, of course, the successor would
be allowed to deduct before he is charged with the tax. If
we take the interest on mortgages and settlements at 25 per
cent., that leaves 36,000,0001. as the annual income repre-
senting • capital of about 30 times as much. It is not irra-
tional to say that successions change once In3o years. (No.)
At any rate it is open to any hon. gentleman to make a
different calculation. I only wish to give the steps by
which I have come tethe conclusions I have stated.
Mr. DISRAELI was understood to ask whether the
estimate included land under 1301. a year, and therefore
exempt from the property tax ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think
you would have to make a certain addition for that ; but
that ad'litioa would be very moderate. I beg the right hon.
gentleman's pardon; I have taken properties under 1501.
in the 4 ,000,0001. Unless I ant very much mistaken you
will find that we have included the whole assessment under
schedule A; and 1 am afraid there will be no addition from

EVENING. MAX 13d 1853.

such a source. Assuming, then, that the racee.eion 04X11110
every year,, and t tat land i. 111117111 30 years' purchase,
iit s obvious that yea will /Lora 36,000,0001. worth al' landed

property every yesr apon which to lay the tax. Then the
meat step :a, at what rate will that tax ho levied?
The leywy duty at present averages 2 4•Sths per cent.; and
it is quite plain that the tax will fall upon lowled property
at a such lighter rate. And for two reasons In the first

place, became no interest higher than a life interest will
be charged, which will reduce the tax t.. one moiety; and,
secondly, because landed property runs nearer to the direct
line than personalty. Well, sir, if that is the can., if the
present rate of duty under the scale of consanguinity only
gas 2 2.sths, it is most plain that the rate upon landed
property cannot ge more than one moiety of that, or
1 2-sths. Now,l per cent. upon 36,000,0001. is 300,0001., and
1 2 sths will therefore be 500,000/. But when we remember
that the succession to landed property runs nearer the
direct succession, 1 feel that you must make a considerable
further reduction ; and that you cannot, therefore, esti-
mate the proceeds which will be realised from landed pro-
perty at materially more than 400,0001. (Hear, hear.) '.ow,
sir, I have stated briefly the grounds upon which I have
arrived at the plan I have stated to the committee. That
plan I have stated plainly and fairly, that the committee
may examine and judge for themselves. (Cheers.) There
have been other estimates—estimates I can hardly
call them—dreams which some—l was going to say
wiseacres, but I won't use such an offensive term—dreams

in which some gentlemen have indulged. They have en-
deavoured to exhibit me as • person of monstrous capacity,
and es one who is "'tempting to raise more than is justified
by the exigencies of the state. If it eon be demonstrated
that more can be raised by this tax I shall not quarrel with
them. My interest is wholly on their side; only let us see
that we have a real bona frig foundation on which to build
our. expectations of future revenue, or else when we come
to balance ear expenditure, the results will not be satisfac-
tory. (Cheers.) I won't go into the question of person-
alty. Here again we are obliged to trust mainly to the in-
come tax returns ; and there are still greater difficulties in
coming at the amount of taxable property. There are large
personalties that do not come into the tax at all ; and the
estimates, therefore, becomes more conjectural than in the
case of land; but still I venture to hope that
from personal property we shall have receipts
which, within • period of five years' time, will
amouat to two millions of money. (Hear, hear.)
There is one point more with regard to the payment of the
tax on real and rateable property—namely, the time within
which persons succeeding will be expected to pay it. Now,
sir, speaking generally, where the successor to landed pro-
perty is not also the residuary legatee, the rents accruing
on the first rent day do not belong to him ; but the rents
accruing at the second rent day do. I, therefore, propose
that no tax shall b• payable for 12 months after the de-
mise. (Hear, hear.) He will thus have a rent day, and
some time after that, before he will be called upon to pay
the tax ; and then I propose he shall pay it in eight equal
half-yearly instalments. In the case of the direct 'nieces-
' don it will be found that that arrangement will make the
tax payable without material inconvenience. So it will be
found in the case of the nearer indirect successions;
but in the case of the 10 per cent. duty, which will be a
rare case with respect to land, to pay the tax will take a
considerable share of the proceeds. Now, as far as such
eases are concerned, it may be perfectly open to considera-
tion to make a further prolongation of the time; but I
should very much doubt the general policy of such a course.
It would be better to give the executive a discretion—or
rather to leave it to them, for I believe they already possess
it—to allow further time in particular cases. The general
features, then, of the plan the government propose is to
charge upon no higher than • life interest, to charge on
interests less than that, and to make !the tax payable in
eight equal instalments. (Hear, hear.) One distinction
we propose to make ; a distinction, namely, between the
succession to the fee simple and the succession to a life in-
terest. If • person succeeding. to a life interest should die
before he has paid the entire tax, that is, before
be bas paid all the instalments—as he has suc-
seeded to nothing but a life interest, and the whole or
his interest Las passed away with his life—we propose that
the instalments should abate. (Hear, hear.) But if he has
succeeded to the fee simple, then, although it would be
equitable to give him time, it is plainly his duty to make
provision for the payment of the tax. After the death of
such a person, as his absolute property will still remain, the
instalments unpaid will become a debt to the crown.
(Hear, hear.) I hope I may now release the committee
from further attention te my remarks. I have confined
myself to generalities, and have avoided a great multitude
of details, which will arise upon the hill, and may be dis
cussed when that shall come before the house. I venture
to express a hope—l do not challenge either contradiction
or assent—but I do venture to express a hope that, that as
in making the propositions we have been influenced by
nothing but a desire to do right and justice, they will be
found conducive to the great interests of this gnat conatry.
(Cheers )
Several hon. members addressed questions to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on minute points.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
Mr. HUME inquired whether this resolution would
be proceeded with to-morrow (this day) the first thing.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought it was understood that the committee would decide
on the resolution to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were then taken, and the
greater part of them postponed.
The Copyholds Bill passed through committee.
RYE WRIT. —ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the question being put that a new writ do issue for
the borough of Rye,
Sir C. BURRELL moved that the farther consideration
of the question be postponed for a fortnight.
Lord PALMERSCON asid the nibble lord (Lord John
Russell) would probably be in his place this day, and he
suggested that the debate should be adjourned until this
day, when, if his noble friend was not able to attend, he, or
some member of the government, would be able to answer
for him,
The motion for the adjournment until this day, was
agreed to.
MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
Mr. FREWEN moved that the Post-office attached to
the house be made a money order office.
Mr. WILSON said he bad had a' notification from the post
office to-day that a money order office might be established
at the office in question, without cost to the public, as the
person who kept the office had offered to conduct it for a
@hereof the commission. Under these circumstances he
should offer no opposition to the motion.
The motion was then earned.
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO TILE ARMY.
Mr. LUCAS moved for a " Return showing the distri-
bution of the sum of 18,5001., voted for the army services
of the years 1852 and 1853, under the head of ' divine eer-
vico,; stating the religious denomination to which each
clergyman belonged ; the office, title, and service in virtue
of which such allowance was made ; the date of his ap-
pointment, or of the commencement of his allowance, if
an annual one." He said he believed there was no objec-
tion to this motion ; but an hon. member opposite had
given notice of an addition to the motion, which he under-
stood would be opposed.
Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE moved, as an addition to
the return, " and the names and distribution of the reli-
giose books paid for out of the same vote."
Mr. 8. HERBERT hoped the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Hastie) would not press his motion.
Mr. SPOONER thought they ought to know what the
books were, and if they were improper, that they should
put a stop to the hem of them. He recommended the hon.
gentleman to withdraw that part of the motion which re-
quired a copy of the books, and to move that there should
be a list of them.
Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE said his objection was to
the books being diatributed, not in prisons, but in schools.
Mr.' S. HERBERT remarked that they were not distri-
buted in school,.
Mr. HASTIE said he was satisfied, and withdrew his
amendment.
The motion as proposed by Mr. Lucas then passed.
The house then at one o'clock adjourned,