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

basis of the tax; with respect both to real and rateable
property, will be to charge in no case higher than on the
life interest ; and in that and all other such cases to allow
a period of one year to elapse before any demand is made
for the tax, and then it will be levied in eight equal half-
yearly instalments. I hope I have now submitted an ex-
planation of this subject which will be satisfactory to the
house. I venture to express a hope that the statement I
have delivered will show that the Government, in framing
this proposition, have not been influenced by the motives
imputed to them ; but that they have endeavoured to adapt
the conditions of the measure to those permanent principles
of equity and fair dealing, by which they desire all their
proceedings to be governed, as well as the proceedings
of any set of men who may, from time to time, be en-
trusted with the care of the interests of this great em-
pire. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT understood that the right hon. gentleman
intended to draw a new line between rateable and non-
rateable property, and he wished to know on which side of
the line he intended to put railway property ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the point referred to was one of considerable difficulty. He
had not entirely made up his mind on the matter, and,
perhaps, it would be better to take time to look into it
further than to give an answer on the sudden.
Sir J. PASINGTON wished to follow the Chancellor
of the Exchequer at once, but, looking to the hour, he
was compelled to move that the Chairman should report
progress.
Mr. FRESHFIELD suggested that when the committee
next sat he should be allowed to propose the amendment of
which he had given notice, and that the debate might then
proceed upon it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complained
that, what with preliminary discussions at the commence-
ment of the evening, and motions for reporting progress at
the end, but little time was left for considering the Go-
vernment propositions in committee. It would be ex-
tremely inconvenient to postpone a decision on this ques-
tion until after the recess, and, therefore, he hoped the
committee would come to a vote upon it to-morrow even-
ing. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that the part of the right
hon. gentleman's statement relative to consanguinity re-
quired some explanation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that what he had intended to say was, that he could not
represent the maintenance of the present scale of consan-
guinity as absolutely vital to the measure • but it was vital
to the measure that the committee should either maintain
the existing scale or reduce the rates chargeable on the suc-
cession of strangers ; but in the latter case they must be
prepared to increase the tax on direct succession. The
opinion of the Government was decidedly in favour of
maintaining the scale of consanguinity. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the right hon.
gentleman was prepared to lay upon the table a schedule
explanatory of the various ways in which it was proposed
to assess property ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
bill to be founded on the resolution was nearly completed,
and it would explain itself.
Mr. HUME said, that in that case the sooner the resolu-
tion was agreed to the better.

Mr. MAIINS observed that the succession to property
was dependent on many other events than death. For in-
stance, a man settled property on his widow as long as she
remained unmarried. In the event of her contracting a
fresh marriage, would the person to whom the property
would pass be called on to pay the duty ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to reply in the negative.
Mr. GIBSON wished to know whether the Chancellor
of the Exchequer intended to introduce a provision for the
compulsory registration of settlements?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that

the Government did not intend to engraft on their finan-
cial scheme the principle of the Compulsory Registration
of Assurances Bill. That measure must be considered and
decided on its own merits.
AGLIONBY wanted to know whether the Govern-

went intended to devise some measure for the more equit-
able assessment of property for local purposes, especially
for the maintenance of the poor ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
authorised, on the part of the, Government, to make any
declaration on the important subject referred to by the
hon. member.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE remarked, that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer bad not explained the manner in which
the appraisement and valuation of landed estates were to
be made. These were items of heavy expense at present.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was desirous
of not entering into any detailed explanation on this point
until the bill should be before the house. In the mean
time, he might say that the present Legacy Duty Act of
necessity involved a valuation, and it was not improbable
that the machinery employed in that case might be found
applicable to the present. However, no question about
valuation, properly so called, would arise. In the present
case no capital values would come into consideration.
HEATHCOTE was desirous of knowing whether an
account of rental was to be given in by the heir, or how it
was to be estimated ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in
answer, that the person coining into possession would be
called upon to give in a statement of the gross rental, toge-
ther with the deduction to be made from it, and he wouldt.
then be.taxed on'the net rental.
The house then resumed.

Mr. HUME said it was extremel.desirable that it should
b known whether the house would proceed with the reso-
lutions the first thing to-morrow. •
The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER thought it
was quite understood that the committee would decide on
the resolutions to-morrow.