The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-23 00:00:00

ozen
dozen
3d to

frail

3id;
)414
Jug,
004
eco,

ive,t
act•

(THIS EVENING.)

GOODWOOD STAKES.
3to 1 agst Hobby Horse (take 4to 1).
sto 1 agst Joe Miller (6 to 1 taken).
10 to 1 agst Vindex (taken).
500 to 40 agst Haricot (taken).
20 to 1 agst Father Thames (taken).

ST. LEGER,
11 to 1 agst Cineas (taken).

DERBY.
30 to 1 agst Autocrat (taken).
20 to 1 agst Prince Arthur (taken).
20 to 1 agst Ortolano (taken).

STATE OF TRADE.

ti,,y .Li

SUN OFFICE, Six o'clock.

THE QUEEN'S HEALTH.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
OSBORNE, SATURDAY, JULY 23,
9 A. M.
The Queen has passed through the measles
•n the most favourable manner, and her Majesty
liovi covaleseent.
11.0 further bulletins will be issued.
JAMES CLARK, M.D.
HENRY HOLLAND, M.D.

TATTERSALL'S.

GOODWOOD CIIP.
sto 1 agst Rataplan (taken).
pt Bto 1 agst Rattle (taken). I
Ne‘tdington is scratched for the Goodwood Stakes and

Yrcnn the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
the 1::4 CHESTER, July 21—The fact that the passage of
the
.111th has been followed by renewed negotiations on
te4rt of the great powers, considerably diminishes that
toTh [tension of war which has formed so serious a check
tliaiVegular couse of business. The consequence is,
list the tone of' our market is improved ; on the one
oth "Yers are extending their operations, and on
hei,et! Sellers are manifesting at least an increased fi the
rm
regard to prices. On the whole, a further up-
i' tendency is observable. Warps and pin-cops, both
d the lower and medium counts, may be quoted fully
thi;Per lb. dearer than they were a week ago. The con-
-4:41 merchants are venturing to do rather more in
erab.; and, for various foreign markets, there is an in-
tebe of operations in different kinds of goods. The
leeaaln in China, and the state of trade in India would
preclude purchases for those quarters ; and
elia L 8 pretty nearly the case, yet some of the mer-
th 11t8
ey are quietly taking more twist and cloth than
ie were- The home demand, in every department,
Ro„,,
; and the dealers, like the foreign merchants,
Tlie`llgrnenting their purchases in the present week.
La,l trade
continue to be free purchasers of cotton,
epos taken 57,000 bales in the week ; and the tend-
gained rather to harden in price. Yarns have rattier
pr, upon cotton ; but goods do not get on in the same
is trtion as yarns, and the position of manufacturers
into they
efore becoming worse. To buy yarn and make it
ja cloth is generally a profitless trade—in domestics it
the rse than profitless. It is said that, at Stockport,
kir;:tea.re indications that the turn-out is about to ter-
tot TINGRAm., July 21.—The lace trade is duller, but
linbsually so for the time of year, and the demand
b" White silk laces is somewhat less than it has been,
wtlt there is considerable inquiry for black silk laces of a
o
"Le description, which will take off a large quantity, as
doubtless these goods will be required until the end of
alltu
'n' isn. There is still on hand considerable orders both
dia,"iery and lace goods that do not require imm!-
‘e attendance, but sufficient to keep each trade low in
ti'elt tor some time. There is a little falling off in the
„,etlland for silk hosiery, both in gloves and hose. The
rriee
yarns is fully. maintained. —Nottingham. Journal.
LEICESTER, July 2L Though the demand for
Worsted goods is dull, as is usual at this season, all
workmen are well emploped at the advanced rate of
"ages, and there is more than usual being in shipping
Orders for the colonial markets. The cotton.ch a
r every
demand
Still keeps good, especially for greys, which
scarce, and the supply of cotton quite insufficient. The
worsted yarn market is firm at the reduced prices. In
pools there is not much doing, and the same reluctance
noticed to sell at present prices by the growers ; spin-
bore only buy to supply present wants. The preseut
uncertainty of Eastern politics has had the effect of
."'ering prices at the colonial wool sales, which have
ha.l
Ised from a halfpenny to one penny per lb. less than
e former sold-at.—Leicester Journal.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

4017
gt OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
eit 64
ttb CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool-
o'clock.
1 ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
was passed through committee.

SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
The
seco all of ABERDEEN—My lords, I rise to move the
siotim reading of the Bill to Impose Duties upon Succes-
etlie;;Ttit is a bill which has occupied the attention of the
sfte;:"lse of Parliament for a considerable time, and,
min Ong undergone great discussion, after having been
earci„,7l. examined in all its parts, and most fully and
"13' debated, it has finally been sent up to your lord-
%cal by a very large majority. (Hear, hear.) My lords,
etty's a Measure which has been recommended to her Ma-
pl4' 8 Government by various considerations. In the first
ees it enables us to relieve the industry of the country
tishectn the burdens which have hitherto materially affected
te„- erdPloyment of capital and labour. My lords, the
y 0 al of those burdens will operate beneficially for the
aLloare and interests of this country. (Hear.) This measure
pro enables the Government to secure, or at least to make
,
the,4 slon for that security, which we desire to obtain for
Whichens of dispensing with the income tax at the period
has been assigned for its continuance ; and, my lords,.
1ib„.3;8 enabled us in a certain degree to redress the me-
t ;43' Which has been complained of in the imposition of
ill; tax. The noble earl opposite and his friends com-
in 41 that inequality exists in the imposition of that tax,
fo"lai ach as it is levied without any allowance being made
income derived from precarious sources, or without tak-
i4 ~40 account those incomes derived from the exercise of
c• eulgence and skill, and they have recommended a prin-
-14
lo °f
differentiation in the imposition of that tax. My
taxr 8' her Majesty's Government have thought it right to
so Property equally in all respects, without looking to the
14-o'4 Whence it may be derived, whether from mere
gte.lL: er from the exercise of intelligence and skill. The
Vie" %t inducement to her Majesty's Government to adopt
tho ,e:ill,rse which I now propose to your lordships has been
Pla•t;,,ts' t') remedy an injustice which has long been com-
toll ;I,', °f; and which, in fact, was gradually becoming in-
Nrae],t(e to the country. The sense of right and justice
longer °PP`lsed to it that it could not have continued much
I°ls-ep-alid it was wonderful that it had existed so long.
'Which t' no doubt, made an attempt to remedy. that.
I:_stnro"as an evil in his day as grave and crying in its
as it is at present. My lords, no Minister since
calleo-7 hss made any attempt to do that which, although
with ia-01h3' the general voice of the country, is attended
dentrsi.,,eg difficulties as to have deterred any Govern-
the ;111L grappling with them. I trust,. however, that
cell e°lll7 Neill feel that my right hon. friend the Chan-
'lt °`
the Exchequer has worthily accomplished the
41,17,:,,511d has successfully grappled with the accompany-
Pr- ;Teillties hen I say that an injustice has long
evvlt'e(is it . is only necessary to state a simple fact to
,4:3tieert.kat assertion, and, my lords, I think I cannot do
tit
Is than in the words of a writer held in great repute
htloble lords opposite, and whose opinion they wieD.
l'°e'"tiels respect. The statement to which I must beg
toot attention is—
toctl,4 Poor man who gets a legacy of 1001. pays 101. direcet
11% Exchequer, 4xchequer, and the executor, in addition, pays ,
4411 st m'iP on probate of the succession ; but the great
chilli olde, succeeds to 100,0001. a year, without paying
to a to the State. A creditor in Scotland, who succeeds
_
it nd for 100,000/., heritable secured, pays nothing;
io,oBonr Personal security he pays the full legacy duty of
f .r:,,* This glaring inequality, the remnant of the days
440'41 oppression, or the relic of a time when the land-
nio.,;-9.1.8 had no money, and taxes could be extracted from
,easit ble property only, should forthwith be abolished. Sue-
of all kinds, whether in land, bonds heritably
rate,', or moveable funds, should be taxed at the same
AY IrolPtda, I think so too • and such is the opinion of Sir
lbald Alison, a writer who is held in great esteem by
11_v0 °Ma opposite. The noble earl opposite appears to
til'ell.contemplated some measure to remedy the evil, for
queret b... gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exche-
a" etts.eribed the legacy duty as a system of injustice,
&lowed out some course of proceeding by which a
0e,",711Y was to be provided. What that course of pr?-
la ,-19 g .was we are not permitted to know. My lords, it
on this principle that every species of succession should
Ipmoe!paeors,ea;eyfaortr.a)xaed that we have produced the measure which
submitmytolortdhse,
thcoenmsideaesruratie7 of your lordships.
although now only
too____
_0 _ second reading, has occupied more or less of
L 1: lordships' attention on different occasions, and we
147:11, lat:ai, strong denunciations of the injustice, oppres-
bunciationeardship of the burden which it will impose. It
ether n
singular that, although we have heard these de-
, we have received no petitions against this tax,
altho h
burden w lig there are petitions against every other species of
(Hear.)id an My lords, I thought
naturel heard those
oqi- on
ofdeclamations
measure
I_l4s.enst the tyrannical anroppreasivee
iwoaski h were so rife, that the table of the house would be
the
dred with petitions against it. I now hold in my hand
red of the House of Commons upon public petitions,
atd in that report there is a long list of petitions] against
suetyri description of tax, but not a single one against the
cession duty, which is described as so
though the bill has been before the House of Commove for
al-
tee,
months, and this return is Made up to the 15th of
'elY• (Hear.) I might say the same for this house. I
4"14 a constant attendant, here, but I have heard no Petition

against this bill, and none have been presented except
yesterday, when a noble earl opposite, not now in his place,
presented a petition from four or five, I have no doubt, re-
spectable solicitors. That, my lords, is the amount of
public disapprobation of this measure, so far as it has been
sig-eified by petitions to either House of Parliament. But,
my lords, as I understand that the noble earl opposite
(Derby) does not mean to oppose the second reading of
this bill, it is not necessary to detain your lordships by
going into any examination of the provisions of the bill and
its different clauses. These may be explained and discussed
at a future stage of the measure. Nevertheless, I shall
venture to lay before your lordships a general view of the
object and character of the measure. My lords, we pro-
pose that a duty shall be imposed upon every species of
succession arising in consequence of death, or rather we
propose to extend the present legacy duties to every suc-
cession of any description. No other mode of transfer of
property is taken into account. It is simply a duty upon
successions in consequence of death. At present real pro-
perty, whether settled or unsettled, as your lordships are
aware, pays no succession duty. Now, we propose to re-
dress this anomaly, for there really seems no reasonable
cause why settled personal property should not be dealt
with in the same manner as unsettled property. We pro-
pose to apply the same role to all descriptions of property.
We propose to preserve the same scale of consanguinity as
heretofore in measuring the amount of duty, with one
exception. At present sons-in-law and daughters-in-law
are treated as strangers, and pay the duty of 10
per cent. We propose to place them in the con-
dition of sons and daughters. I know there is great
difference of opinion on this subject, but, on the
whsle, as the scale of consanguinity has existed so
long, we are of opinion that it will be better to preserve
the scale which now exists, with that exception. We are
of opinion that in applying the succession duty to land, it
is desirable to do so with as much consideration, and as
lightly as can reasonably be required. We have, there-
fore, proposed to estimate all successions to land according
to the life interest of the person succeeding. There are
various modes of estimating that life interest, but it will
be estimated only upon the life interest ; and where the
interest is even less than a life interest, if a less interest
exists, the person so succeeding will pay upon that, what-
ever the amount of his interest may be. We propose, as
was proposed by Mr. Pitt, to make the succession duty
payable in eight half-yearly payments ; the first will only
commence at the end of the first year, so that s space of
four and a half years-will be afforded for the discharge of the
duty. That appears to be as lenient an application of the
imposition of the tax as can reasonably be expected. To
show you the operation of the present bill, let us take the
case of a person who succeeds to a landed estate of the
value of 10,000/. This value of 10,0001. gives a rental of
3001. a-year. We will take the average age of succession at
35 years, which I believe is a. fair estimate, and is borne
out by whet has been ascertained by taking the average
age of successions of members of this house, which is found
to be 35 years. Well, the succession of 35 years of age
would give 151 years' purchase, and the sum, therefore,
on which the duty is charged is somewhat less than half
the capital value,—that is, 4,6501. The person succeeding
to the estate will be charged on that sum. The duty will
be payable in four years and a half, and the sum which
would represent his life interest would be 461. 10s. If
he thought fit to make immediate payment, he would
be allowed a discount of 4/. 135., and, consequently, the
whole amount of duty payable for the estate in ques-
tion would ho 41. 17s. The produce of the tax is esti-
mated at 2,000,0001. sterling. I know it is supposed by
some that the amount will be higher, and I think that
the noble earl opposite (Derby) himself intimated such
an opinion. I can only say that-, according to all the
best calculations I have had access to, that does not ap-
pear to be the case. Allowing for some uncertainty in
calculations of this kind, I think that about 2,000,0001.
may be fairly estimated as the produce of the tax. I
know it has been said, both in this house and elsewhere,
that this measure has been conceived in a spirit of hos-
tility to land. My lords, I utterly deny that such is the
case. We have endeavoured to do the best we could in the
financial measures adopted by us, and, having imposed
burdens from which the land is exempt, we have thought
this measure required by the claims of justice and expe-
diency. I never contended that • it was any advantage to
the land to be placed on a different footing from the rest of
the country. (Hear.) It has been said that the Gvern-
ment resolved to levy a tax of 2,000,0001. on the land,
totally irrespective of the nature of the tax itself, and the
manner in which it might be levied. But, my lords, in-
stead of a duty of 2,000,0001. upon the land, every calcu-
lation that can be made shows that the utmost that can be
derived, or expected to be derived strictly from the land,
is only 400,000/. —not one-fourth part of the amount of
the tax. That is, of course, exclusive of houses held upon
freehold and leasehold tenure. The main object of this
bill, my lords, and the principle upon which it proceeds
is, to extend to all successions that duty which is now
only confined to unsettled personal property. I do not
propose to go further into the provisions of the bill. But,
I may make one observation on the course which I under-
stand the noble earl opposite (Derby) proposes to take ;
and I make this observation with the utmost respect for
the privileges of this house. I can quite understand if
your lordships receive a bill from the other House of Par-
liament imposir, a tax of an oppressive and unjust nature
—I can quite understand your lordships resisting such a
measure, and refusing to entertain it. But I do not un-
derstand how, having adopted the principle of such a
measure, your lordships should enter upon the considera-
tion of details, the practical consequence of which your
lordships must be very well aware of. If this measure
be so unjust and so strongly to be resisted, I admit the
right of your lordships to reject the measure, and I do not
quarrel with the expediency of doing so if the emergency,
be such as to require it. But, having assented to the prin-
ciple of the measure, then to raise questions as to whether
timber should be taxed in one way or another, or whether
it shall be taxed at all—l think that, considering the prac-
tical consequences of such a proceeding, if successful, these
considerations are well worthy of your lordships' attention.
I only advert to this subject with the utmost respect and
deference, but I earnestly entreat your lordships to con-
sider what may be the practical result of a course of this
kind. I can only say that I have entire confidence in that
good sense and moderation that has always been exhibited
by this house upon such occasions. I believe that the course
intended, as I understand, to be pursued and to be recom-
mended to your lordships is such as has been very rarely
practised in this house. Without further observation, I will
now move the second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said, that although he certainly
thought the noble earl had exhibited all his wonted pru-
dence in abstaining from entering upon any discussion of
the principles and provisions of this bill, and in giving to
their lordships a very meagre sketch indeed of the purport
and intent of this bill, yet he could not think the noble
earl had exercised the same prudence in repeating what he
had so often adopted on former occasions—namely, the
tone of extreme self-laudation—he meant the laudation
of the noble earl's Government—upon the unparalleled
merit and the triumphant success of their financial policy.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the noble earl, to say the
least of it, had chosen a very singular time for claiming a
financial triumph, when he was introducing to their lord-
ships, as the basis of the financial proposals of the govern-
ment, a measure which the noble earl had hesitated to
characterise, but which he (the Earl of Derby) should
take the liberty of describing to their lordships. He
confessed he entirely joined with the noble earl in the
high estimate which he had expressed of the consum-
mate ability displayed in the course of the present ses-
sion by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, upon whom almost the whole burden of con-
ducting the business of the other house had fallen, and
who certainly had with great skill and dexterity induced
that House to assent to his financial proposals. (Hear.)
But when the noble earl claimed credit for the wonderful
success of the right hon. gentleman's financial operations,
he must permit him to remind him that the scheme of the
right hon. gentleman consisted of two propositions—one,
the attempted conversion of the Three per Cents., which
was admitted by the noble earl opposite, and certainly by
every one else—although, in the first instance, a triumph-
ant success had been claimed for that also,—yet it was now
admitted to be a signal and melancholy failure—(hear,
hear)—and the other portion of the financial scheme of the
Government was the budget, of which, as he had said be-
fore, this bill was the corner stone and foundation, and
without which it would be impossible to carry it into
effect. Indeed, the grounds upon which the noble earl had
defended this measure, so far as he had defended it, were
the inability of the Government otherwise to carry into
effect the remission of taxation upon the springs of in-
dustry, and the desire to compensate for the inequalities
of the income tax ; and, in the next place, to redress the
manifest injustice which the noble earl considered to exist
in the scale of taxation upon real as compared with per-
sonal property. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in carrying into effect the remission of taxation, was nu-
doubtedly obliged to rely in a great measure upon the funds
which he would derive from this bill. He certainly felt
for the difficulty of the position in which the right lion.
gentleman and the Government were placed, when, shortly
before the right hon. gentleman assumed office, he laid it
down as an axiom that no Chancellor of the Exchequer was
worthy of his place who did not provide a permanent sur-
plus of 600,0001., and when, at the present moment, as
the result of the triumphant financial scheme of the Go-
vernment, the right hon. gentleman ventured to hold out
to the House of Commons a possible surplus of 100,0001.
if their lordships gave him the 2,000,0001. to be
derived from this tax. Ef theirl ordships tried this bill by
its merits—by its justice, its policy, its practicabi ity, and
its expediency—they would be also trying the merits of the
financial policy of the Government. And if the present
bill were, as he believed it to be, essentially unjust, oppres-
sive, and impracticable,—if it altered the whole character
of the property of this country,—if, retrospectively, it im-
posed obnoxious and heavy burdenon all former settle-
ments,—then, whatever pecuniary asantages were to be
derived by the other classes of the community from remis-
sions purchased by adopting a system so unjust and oppres-
sive, he for one did not envy the Government that proposed
this measure, with all its injustice and oppression, and
then claimed credit for having relieved other classes from
taxation by the instrumentality of such a measure. With
regard to the diminution of the inequality of the existing
income tax, no alteratihn whatever had been made. He
confessed he was at a loss to understand the meaning of the
noble earl ; but he presumed his moaning was, that b him
posing additional burdens on real preoxpteerntty, tfhoeri r
al
no r duoops
would compensate, to a certain
e
from realised landed and personal prop
amount of pressure of income tax upeornty.inThcome
neobalreiseianrgl
onee
ri
at
twi
vaesl
y, that
de.
twheen ti
no
fur
ot od
umo
taiko en t
ohfe a st
hsiesr t
measure
o n ,an d awbaosl d
mended by a sense of justice, looking to the favour which
bad been shown in the taxation of the country, to the
landed interest, and to realised property in comparison with
personal property. The noble earl said that an exempti
and
on
of real property from succession duty was a grievance
an evil so crying and oppressive, that the only wonder
was it had been tolerated so long, and that in a short
period it would have been found intolerable. The
noble earl said 'that Mr. Pitt had endeavoured to
impose a succession duty, but had failed, and that from
that time to the present no minister had been found who
kid ventured to avow an intention of dealing with this
subject. At length, then, Parliament had found a worthy
successor of Mr. Pitt. a phcenix Chancellor of the Exche-
.quer, in whom Mr. Pitt rose from his ashes with redoubled
lustre, and who had ventured to attempt what Mr. Pitt
had failel in effecting, and which every Minister from Mr.
Pitt's time to the present had shrunk from attempting.
Now, he left it to the house and tto the country to judge
whether, there being such manifest advantages in the
amount tla t might be derived from such a tax, if such a
measure had been founded on justice and capable of prac-

tical execution, some other Minister besides Mr. Pitt would
not have ventured to avail himself of such a resource, and
whether such an attempt as the right hon. gentleman had
made did not rather indicate rashness than any marvellous
skill in making such a new proposal to the house. But
let their lordships see how the bill would operate upon
land and upon realized property. He begged noble lords
to bear in mind that ho was not talking of the distinction
now introduced as between land and other property, but
of two distinctions which must be borne in mind, both of
which this bill proposed to deal with—the first, the dis-
tinction between real and personal property, real property
including not only land but many other things ; and that
further distinction which it was, for the first time sought
to abrogate and abolish—the distinction between property
devised and property in settlement. The noble earl said,
in pointing out the distinction between real and personal
property, that real property was exempted from the ope-
ration of the legacy duty, while personal property was
subject to it. But there were no charges to which real
property was subject in this country from which personal
property was entirely exempted ? And, if the noble earl
was bent on equalising the burdens upon real and per-
sonal property, would he assent to subject personal pro-
perty to an equivalent, or to anything like an equi-
valent to the burdens to which real property was
subjected under the existing law, and which, he
would assure their lordships, far more than counter-
balanced the advantage, such as it was, of being
exempted from legacy duty ? Take only the poor-rates
and the county-rates. The total amount of real property
which contributed to the poor-rates was 67,000,000/.
a-year, or thereabouts ; the charge upon that property
being about 6,000,0001., amounting to something like ls.
101. in the pound per annum. (sear, hear.) That was
the amount which was borne by real property in this
country, and from which personal property was altogether
exempt. (Haar, hear.) Now, he did not say that there
might not be very good reasons for exempting personal
property from those taxes in consequence of the difficulties
of collection, and, perhaps, the i mpracticability of localising
that personal property so as to render it liable to the im-
post. The total amount of property rated to the income-
tax was 230,000,0001. a-year, from which, if you took the
67,000,0001. which paid to the poor-rates, it left a sum of
163,000,0001. of personal property which did not contribute
one single shilling to that charge for the poor, which he
thought their lordships would admit to be a charge which
ought justly to fall upon all property alike, but wich did
practically fall upon less than one-third of the whole pro-
perty of the country, subjecting it to a tax of not less than
ls. 101. in the pound, from which the other two-thirds of
the property of the country were exempt. (Hear, hear.)
Now, a tax of only one-half this amount upon personal
property—a tax by way of commutation for poor-rates of
only one-half the amount of that which fell now upon
real property—would produce, at 11d. in the pound, no
less than 7,500,000/. ; and so, if personal property paid
its due share of taxation—if it paid, not its due share in-
deed, but only one-half of the amount to which real pro-
perty was subjected in respect to these charges, it would
furnish us with a sum of 7,500,0001. a-year, a sum amply
sufficient, and more than sufficient, to enable us to dispense
altogether with the succession duty, to do away with the
legacy duty, to do away with the probate duty, and place
a very considerable surplus in the national Exchequer.
Now he was not proposing the imposition of such a
tax, but when they came to argue this question as
a matter of justice, and as a proper balance of taxation
between class and class, then he thought he was entitled
to show their lordships what was the operation of the
taxes to which he had alluded, and to show how that single
charge upon real property infinitely counterbalanced the
exemptions which it was declared to enjoy. (Hear.) It
was quite certain that a legacy duty or a succession duty-
was only a property tax in another form. It was a pro-
perty tax, and a property tax of the most obnoxious and
objectionable character, far more objectionable than would
be an annual levy to the same amount upon property
which, as he had shown, already stood alone in paying
ls. 10d. in the pound for the relief of the poor. (Cheers.)
It was said that personal property paid under the legacy
duty ls. in the pound ; but if strict justice were to be in-
sisted upon, those who made not the slightest objection to
the exclusive payment by real property of is. 10d. in the
pound might be fairly called upon to show•why they should
not have to make a similar contribution to the public
burdens ; and if they were exempted from the payment of
ls. 10d.. in the pound borne by real property, why were
they to complain of the exemption of property so exclu-
sively burdened from the comparatively light charges under
the law as it at present stood? (Hear.) The noble earl
had told their lordships what he (the Earl of Derby) fully
admitted—that the legacy duty was in itself a most ob-
noxious impost. Be it so ' • but what was the noble earl
going to do Was he going to remove the impost which he
considered so obnoxious? Not in the least. He was going
to leave all the pressure and hardship of the legacy duty as
it stood • but the noble earl thought those upon whom it
bore might be reconciled to this obnoxious tax if they
could only see the same measures of oppression and vexa-
tion thrown upon the owners of real property. (Hear.)
Now, that was not a very amiable view of human nature.
(Hear, and laughter.) It might be very true that that was
the way in which men were sometimes disposed to act to-
wards their neighbours ; but he thought he had shown
that in this case those neighbours were already burdened
by special taxes and special enactments, and were subjected
to much greater pressure than the persons who declared
them to be peculiarly exempt from national burdens.
(Hear, hear.) He repeated that a legacy duty was a most
objectionable tax, but it was peculiarly objectionable when
applied to landed property. In the case of personalty the
legatee was enabled to devote at once a portion of the pro-
perty to the payment of the tax; he was subjected to no
inconvenience in doing so, and the remainder was clear
gain to him. But apply the tax to land which had passed
by devise. The land was not capable of being so subdivided,
and the man to whom it was left was not iu the same posi-
tion as the man who received merely the price of 20 or 30
acres of land. The suczessor to landed estate could not cut
off an acre or an acre and a half and sell it for the purpose
of paying the tax, but he was compelled to incur a debt in
the first instance, which frequently became one of the most
onerous character, and which he might not have the means
of paying for some time ; and when, therefore, Govern-
ment stepped in and called upon him to raise a heavy sum
of money upon his succession, it was to such a man a great
and serious hardship. (Hear, What had their lord-
ships been hearing for the last four or five years ? What
had been continually dinned into their ears by noble lords
opposite but that, of all taxes, of all abominations, of all
impediments to improvement, of all grievances as connected
with land, the payment of a fine by a copyholder was the
most oppressive, the most grievous, the most subversive of
all possibility of improvement, and one which could not
endure the light for a, single moment • and Parliament
had, therefore, been asked to pass compulsory enfranchise-
ment bills for the relief of the copyholder. . What was the
Government going to do by the bill now before their lord-
ships ? They were going to make all the land in the country
copyhold. (Loud cheers.) That which they would not
tolerate, that which they declared was a grievous burden,
offering serious impediments in the way of improvement,
and which they decided was an outrage upon the feelings
of natural grief at the moment of death, when it existed
in a few cases of copyholders—that which they insisted on
getting rid of in those private cases—they were now about
to adopt with regard to all the land in the country.
(Cheers.) They were placing every fee simple in the coun-
try at the power of the Crown as copyhold estate—(hear)—
they were reviving a system which did exist in ages very
remote, but which had been found then to be so intoler-
able, so inconsistent with all the principles of the English
system of land tenure, that since the time of Charles 11.
down to the present day there had been no attempt to re-
impose that system. (Cheers.) He had endeavoured to
show thus far, not that the Government were relieving
personal property from any vexatious impost, but that they
were subjecting landed and real property to a similar or
even to a much greater amount of vexation, and to a pro-
cess wholly repugnant to the principles for which they had
been contending for the last few years with regard to the
holding of land. (Hear.) He now came to a point which
was more important still—namely, the distinction between
devised and settled property. (Heari-hear.) Apart from
the peculiar circumstances affecting the land, he could not
draw a broad distinction between the case of land and pro-
perty devised. But what was the case with regard to land
in settlement? The whole of the bill, as far as related to
land in settlement, was a retrospective enactment of the
grossest character—(hear, hear)—imposing a tax not upon
that which a person had to inherit, but upon that which
by law, by deed, by every solemnity which could be at-
tached to it, was at this moment, and had been for per-
haps 20 years, the property of the individual whom they
were now about for the first time to tax. The bill was to
touch all the settlements of property, real and personal,
throughout the whole country, and upon which the for-
tunes and the position of every family in England depended,
for the miserable purpose of raising a sum, as the noble
earl stated, at first of 400,0001. a-year, and ultimately of
2,000,0001. of money, for the purpose of getting rid of the
soap duty and diminishing the tea duties; though both, ho
admitted, were very good things iu their way. The finan-
cial triumph of the present Administration was a measure
which upset every family arrangement, every deed and
every settlement throughout the length and breadth of
the land. (Hear, hear.) As far as the injustice of tile case
was concerned, settled personalty stood precisely upon the
same footing as settled realty ; and the justice of the bill
was, that they were, by ex post facto legislation, upsetting
all the foundations of property settled throughout this
country. He protested against being supposed, by not
asking their lordships to divide against the second reading
of this bill, to assent in the slightest degree to the prin-
ciple of the measure. What was the second clause of the
bill ? It enacted that—

" Every past or future disposition of property, by reason
whereof any person has or shall become beneficially entitled
to any property, or the income thereof, upon the death of
any person dyinc, after the time appointed for the commence-
ment of this act,b 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 ineome thereof,
upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed
for the commencement of this act, to any other person, in
possession or expectancy, shall be deemed to have conferred,
or to confer, on the person entitled by reason of any such
disposition or devolution, a succession.' "

That was to say, that every person who, by any deed
passed twenty years ago, had become absolutely entitled
in reversion to the property which had been made the sub-
ject of family settlement, which might have been given as
security for money borrowed, or might have been disposed
of by law in the open market, with the full certainty that
the law gave him an indefeasible right to that propeaty—
every such person came under the operation of this law,
and the moment he entered into the possession of his own,
the Government stepped in and deprived him, not of pro-
perty which he then acquired for the first time, but of
that which was his before the death of his predecessor.
Well, then, look at the third clause, which enacted that—
" Where any persons shall, at or after the time appointed
for the commencement of this act, have any property vested
in them jointly by any title not conferring on them a suc-
cession, any beneficial interest in such property accruing to
any of them by survivorship shall be deemed to be a succes-
sion."

He would take the case of two or three elderly maiden
ladies who upon the death of their father agreed to put to-
gether such means as they had, and to reside together for
the remainder of their lives. Suppose them each to have
a life annunity, and that, combining together, they were
enabled by the joint proceeds of those annuities to obtain
a decent livelihood. Suppose those three ladies also, for
the purpose of having some common home in which to pass
the remainder of their existence, had purchased a house or
cottage, which was held in fee simple among the three
ladies, with the benefit of survivorships. That was not
at all an improbable case. What happened ? The first of
the sisters died, her annuity dropped, and the two remain-
ing sisters lost, of course, the benefit of one-third of their
former income. Their difficulties were therefore consider-
ably increased ; but they had the benefit of survivorship,
and, at the moment when they had lost the advantage of
their sister's income to maintain the joint establishment,
in stepped the Government, represented by the tax-
gatherer, who claimed from them a tax upon the benefit of
survivorship, in the right of their house and garden. The
second sister died, and the last was left, perhaps at the