The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENLSTG, JULY 8, 1853,

611 the muniments of his family from his strong-box, and
expose them to public view. (Hear.) There was the
danger of some attorney getting possession of the secrets
contained in the documents thus compelled to be brought
forward, and dragging the parties into the Court of Chan-
cery. (Hear, hear.) And he was not fifteen years in that
court without knowing what a serious matter it was.
Mr. G. BUTT suggested that the production of the
documents should be confined to title deeds and muni-
ments to title deeds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that there was no other way of ascertaining what was the
real liability of different parties except by an inspection
of the documents. If the objection was only as to giving
such large powers to the executive government, he would
not object to the interposition of a judge in chamber, or
or some other judicial interposition. He understood that
the hon. and learned member opposite objected to the pro-
duction of settlements. But it was equally necessary to
inspect those documents.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND agreed that there should be a
power to compel the production of settlements. But he
strongly objected to the production of the title deeds,
which would be fraught with extreme danger.
Mr. MALINS said that this clause was an instance of
the power which the government was assuming over the
Withof every man in the country. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the production of settlements, it often
happened that the title was contained in the last settle-
ment. There might be danger in the production of the
'title deeds, and it was not at all necessary; for it was
easily ascertained whether the successor was the son or
nephew, or any other relation of the deceased. The right
hon. gentleman was, for the first time, declaring that a
man had no right to the possession of his own title deeds,
and that any excise officer might compel him to give them
up.. (Hear.) .

_ .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQIJER observed
that the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to forget what
he had just said, that he would not object, if it was
thought the clause gave too much power to the executive,
to the intervention of a judicial tribunal. (hear, hear.)
Neither had he given 4n answer to the objection which
he fill • Chancellor of y the Exchequer) urged—namely,
how were they to deal with the diversity of interests,
and the different rates of tax under that diversity
of interests. If hon. gentlemen opposite would consent
to a direct succession tax of 3 or 4 per cent., a great deal of
the difficulty would be got rid of. But how were they to
deal with this case without an inspection of documents ?
He would suppose a person succeeding to 2,0001. a-year, the
capital value of which he would estimate at 60,0001. This
person would pay 300/. duty. But supposing that there
was a liability on the property of 10,0001. for a natural
child, the interest of the revenue in that 10,0001. was
1,0001., or more than three times the amount of the duty
on the direct succession. (Hear, hear..) How were they
to ascertain this fact, except by the production of the do-
cuments? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAIRNS said that by the clause the production of
the documents had reference only to " such" account as
the party handed in. It would not, therefore, enable them
to compel the production of the title in the only case
wherein the right hon. gentleman said it would be
necessary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there had been a
great deal of ad captandum, language used in reference to
this subject, which was calculated to mislead the com-
mittee. The omission of the clause would, roduce a much
more onerous and mischievous result than if it was allowed
to remain as it was, for if it was struck out the commis-
siners would have the power to refuse any reduction for
jointures or portions. Unless the documents were pro-
duced the commissioners would never be able to allow any
deduction. The law had always stood thus : whoever had
a lawful interest in land had an interest in the title deeds ;
whoever had a charge upon the land had a right to look
to the title ; if, then, Government were given a charge by
the bill before the committee upon lands, the officer
of Government ought to have the right of looking to
the deeds. (Laughter, and derisive cheers.) As, how-
ever, he had anticipated some discussion upon this ques-
tion, he was prepared with a proposition which he hoped
would meet the views of all parties. The proposal was,
that the following amendment should be added to the
clause :—"Provided always that no title deeds, muni-
ments, or evidences of title of real estate shall be
required to be produced unless on application by the
sommissioners to a judge of the Court of Exchequer in
England, Scotland, or Ireland, sitting in chambers, such
judge shall think proper to make an order for the produc-
tion thereof, or of such parts thereof as shall be necessary,
and the same shall in that case be examined by such per-
son, in such manner, and under such restrictions as such
judge shall think fit to direct." He made that proposal,
in order to meet, if possible, the views of all sides of the
house.- (Cries of dissent from the opposition.)
After a few words from Mr. BARROW, inaudible in the
cries for a division, the house divided upon Mr. Mu.llings's
amendment. The numbers were :
For the amendment
Against it...

72
78

Majority
On our re-admission, we found
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moving as an amendment, that the
words " documents of the nature of leases, plans, court
and rent rolls " stand part of the clause. He took that
opportunity again to urge the government to reconsider
this question of the production of deeds.
Mr. BUCK denounced this as a most tyrannical mea-
sure. His deeds had never been in anybody's hands but
his own, and he firmly hoped they never would be.
(Laughter.) This question was not yet understood through-
out the country ; it was a great blow dithe landed interest.
(Opposition cheering.) By and by the large class of small
occupiers would understand its effect, and then the whole
country would be plunged into discontent. (Laughter.)
Col. SIBTHORP was very glad to have heard what fell
from the lips of his hon. friend below him (Mr. Buck).
This matter was being pushed through by the combination
of her Majesty's ministers and Manchester. (Hear, and
laughter.) He warned right hon. gentlemen on the
Treasury bench that their allies from Manchester would be
the first persons in that house to undermine them.
Colonel DUNNE hoped that some hon. gentleman on
the ministerial side of the house, who was possessed of
landed property, would get up and explain his reasons
for voting for this measure.
Lord GALWAY reminded the right hon. gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had in that
house denounced the income tax as a most inquisitorial
measure, and yet he was now urging forward one which
was far more inquisitorial. It was very well for him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come down to the com-
mittee with a majority at his back, and force these mea-
sures. He (Lord Galway) hoped that when this bill was
brought forward in another place the consideration of the
small majorities by which it had passed that house would
lead to a doubt as to whether this measure ought to be in-
flicted upon this country. He had received a letter from
a Whig constituent, who said that this extending the legacy
duty to land was the most unfair thing ever done. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said that this bill authorised nothing
more to be done than was already done under the Income
Tax Act. (Oh !) Tradesmen and manufacturers were
obliged to produce their books when called upon under
that act. Why should the landed proprietor be allowed to
go free. (Oh ! and laughter from the Opposition.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought this bill would cause so
much litigation as entirely to counterbalance all that had
been done in the way of law reform.
Mr. HENLEY said that if the committee would look to
the 54th clause, it would see that those making false re-
turns would be held guilty of perjury. Surely that was a
sufficiently tight hold. No man could deny that the lia-
bility to be called upon to produce title deeds was a most
unpleasant one ' • it ought not therefore to be imposed
unless absolutely necessary. He trusted the Government
would reconsider this matter.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
agree to the proposal which had been made, nor could he
admit that there would be any danger in the production of
deeds, since the production would not take place until it
had been ordered by a judge who would be bound by so-
lemn obligations to secrecy. It was said the clause would
be found insufficient, because in many cases the documents
were in the possession of mortgagees; but admitting its
insufficiency, that could not be treated as a valid argument
against the clause. The necessity, however, for having
access to the title deeds would be of rare occurrence. The
access that would be required would be to the settlements,
and they, at all events, were not likely to be in the
hands of mortgagees. The proper custody of settlements
rested with the trustees, and they would be bound to give
the Government the information which the bill autho-
rised, without having recourse to the deeds themselves.
The necessity for producing the documents would only arise
in extreme cases ; and, inasmuch as even when the produc-
tion could not take place without the order of a judge, he
could see no reason why the clause should not be agreed to
as it stood.

Sir F. KELLY said if the bill could not be well or prac-
tically carried into effect without the power now demanded,
he could only say that this was an additional reason why
they should still continue to resist the farther progress of
the measure. The powers proposed to be taken by this
clause had never yet been conceded to any Government
except in criminal cases, and to apply them in this instance
would be most unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
told them that the deeds were not to be produced unless a
judge should make an order to that effect; but was the
right hon. gentleman aware of the expense parties would
be put to in resisting such an order ; They would have to
employ attorneys, counsel, and conveyancers when they
wished to resist the curiosity of the commissioners to in-
spect the title deeds, and the end would be, that they
would have to embark in a course of litigation which no
man ought to be subject to. Now even after all this ex-
pense and trouble had been gone to, could the order of the
judge be successfully resisted, because no judge would re-
fuse to make an order when the commissioners stated that
the production d the documents was necessary for the ends
of public justic& The proviso, therefore, about the order
of the judge was useless, while it was perfectly idle to talk
about obligations of secrecy when the contents of the deeds
would be disclosed to the attorney's clerk engaged in each
case. If there was no other ground, that would be suffr
cient to reject the clause, and he hoped the committee
would do so accordingly.
Lord MARCH said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not anwered the objection which had been raised to the
production of deeds in the possession of mortgagees.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in all
such cases he apprehended the Government would be able
to obtain all the necessary information without calling for
the production of the deeds.
Mr. HILDYARD believed that in resisting this bill he
was not merely consulting the interests of the large landed
proprietors, but the interest of all the small landowners of
the country, who were so anxious that the contents of their
title deeds should not be known, that they often kept them
concealed from the members of their own family. He must
therefore tell those gentlemen opposite, who professed to
represent the interest of the
great massofthe community,
that as far as he had been able to watch their movements,
he believed there was no class of men in the house who
were greater enemies to the well-disposed portion of the
people than themselves, whom he looked upon as no better
than pseudo patriots. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. GROGAN said, as this bill was to extend to Ire-
land, he should be glad to know what necessity there was
for laying
clause, Irish properties under the penalties of the
seeing that the majority of their title deeds were
already registered, and their contents open to inspection.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, of
course, in that case the judge would make no order for the
production of the deeds.
Mr. GROGAN said, yes, but before that negative deci-
sion could be obtained, the proprietor would be put to con-
siderable expense.
Mr. DUNLOP said in Scotland all title deeds were re-
gistered ; and to him, as well as most Scotchmen, it was
somewhat strange to find the landed proprietors of Eng-
land objecting to the production of their deeds, on the
ground that it would be dangerous to their interest. There
was as much stability In the landed interest of Scotland as
that of England, and for the life of him he could not see
what danger could result from the adoption of this clause,
especially as its powers could not be enforced without the
authority of a gudge. The titles by which the land was
held in Scotian were fully known to the Public; no in,

jury resulted to the proprietors from that knowledge ; on
the contrary, he believed it was to their benefit; and he
could see no reason in this instance why that which was
good for Scotland should not be equally good for England.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE withdrew his former amendment,
and proposed to substitute for it a motion for inserting in
the clause the words " only as are of."
Sir C. BURRELL gave it as his opinion that if trustees
were to be subjected to the responsibilities of this clause
there would be great difficulty in getting gentlemen to act
in that capacity.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment B6
Against it 97-11
Mr. WALPOLE said they had given the commissioners
power to call for the production of deeds, but in the next
lines of the clause it was proposed to give them authority
to take extracts from the documents. Now, such a power
as that ought not to be conferred upon any man or body of
men, except under the severest and most stringent penal-
ties, and unless those precautions were taken he should
object to this part of the clause in toto.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think this provision was absolutely necessary, and there-
fore, with the permission of the committee, he would strike
the words out.
The words were consequently negatived.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the words which required the
production of public books and documents.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was quite
ready to strike out that provision too.
Sir J. TROLLOPE—And of course the penalties for en-
forcing it ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—CertainIy.
The words granting the objectionable power and pro-
viding for the penalties, were accordingly ordered to be
struck out.

Mr. K. SEYMER suggested that there should be a pen-
alty of 1,000/. for disclosure by an officer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think a penalty of that amount would be too severe for the
offence, but doubted the policy of inflicting that kind of
punishment on public officers. Though the principle in-
volved in the proposition was novel, he had no objection to
consider the expediency of adopting it.
Mr. HENLEY would suggest to the right hon.gentleman
the propriety of adopting the course pursued with regard to
the income tax. In that case parties who especially desired
to prevent disclosure had the option of going before special
sworn commissioners at Somerset-house, and to the minds
of such persons the arrangement afforded great relief. The
word " officers " would of course include persons of the
lowest grade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no de-
sire that local officers should in any case have a compulsory
power of inspecting deeds; he would much rather have that
power confined to persons at Somerset-house. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proposed an addi-
tion to the clause, by which the exercise of the power was
placed under the control of a judge in chambers.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said, after the right hon. gentle-
man's assent to the proposal with regard to special com-
missioners, there was, he thought, no necessity for such a
proviso.

- Mr. FRESHFIELD was of opinion that it would be an
aggravation of the evil.

—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if that
were the feeling of the hon. gentlemen opposite, he had no
desire to press the amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.

Sir J. PAKINGT(S/4said;althougb. the objectionable
parts of the clause had been modified, it was still a very
serious question whether Parliament ought to pass a clause
containing such provisions. (Hear.) The clause appeared
to him tyrannical and inquisitorial beyond any that he re
membered to have heard submitted to the house. The
powers given by it were inconsistent with our national in-
stitutions, habits, and character, and a bill which could
not be carried out except by such means ought not to be
passed at all. (Hear, hear.) He felt it his duty to divide
against the whole clause.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
' For the clause
Against it 94

Majority in favour of the clause 7
The clause was accordingly passed.
In clause 49, " giving power to accountable party to
appeal,"
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed an
amendment, for the purpose of enlarging the power of the
judge.
Mr. LOCKHART, who spoke in a low tone of voice,
was understood to propose that the appeal should be given
to the judge of the County Court.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the bill already gave sufficient facilities for appeal,
but if gentlemen opposite wished it, he had no objection
to give an appeal to the County Court. He believed that
the appeals would be of very rare occurrence.
Sir F. KELLY was obliged to the right hon. gentleman
for his concession, as he considered that the County Court
would be the most proper court of appeal.
An amendment providing the appeal suggested was in-
serted, and the clause as amended was agreed to.
Clause 50 was agreed to, with one or two verbal amend -
ments.
Clause 51 was agreed to.
Clause 52 was struck out.
Clause 53 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
Clause 54 was struck out.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that he had at a pre-
vious stage of the bill inquired whether the tax was to be
of universal application, and whether it was to be charged
on succession to the estates of the Duchies of Lancaster
and Cornwall. The right hon. gentleman had promised to
give an answer when they got to the end of the bill, and
as they had now arrived at the last clause, perhaps he
would explain whether it was to apply to those properties
or not?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
had not yet arrived at the end of the bill.

On claiise 55, which provides that the bill shall come
into operation on the 19th of May, 1853,
Mr. MULLINGS moved to omit the two last lines, in
order to insert the words " that the bill come into. opera-
tion on the day of the passing thereof."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not

consent to the amendment. The questlon was one of
finance, and it was the usual principle in laying on new
taxes to make the tax come into operation from the
day of the passing of the resolution in committee. In some
cases, as in that of the income tax they had gone further,
and made the tax apply retrospectively, beyond the period
of the passing of the resolution. The amendment would
deprive him of two months of the proceeds of the tax,
which he could not consent to.
Mr. DISRA.ELI thought they ought to follow the prece-
dent of former taxes, and urged his hon. friend not to
press the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was also anxious that precedent
should be followed, but he had some notion that the usual
course was not to charge the tax in all cases from a date
previous to that of the passing of the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not
said that that was the rule in all cases ; on the contrary,
he believed in the case of the customs duties a differgrat
rule had been adopted, and in the case of the income tax,
as he had said, the tax was made to apply from the sth of
April, whereas the resolution had not passed until May.
Viscount GALWAY thought this act should not con-
tinue beyond the period fixed for the expiration of the in-
come tax, and he would therefore move that the act should
continue in force until the year 1860. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE—If he was right as to his view of the
operation of this tax, it would be found so annoying and
vexatious that the complaints against it would be loud and
universaL (Cheers from the Opposition.) They were
passing this bill nominally on the plea of putting landed
property upon the same footing as personal property with
reference to the duty on bequests or successions. They
bad passed the bill as to real property, and as long as they
maintained the present law as to the tax upon legacies so
long would he uphold the Government in placing a duty on
land inherited by succession or demise. (Hear, hear.)
But while they subjected real property to one duty and
personal property to another, they were doing that which
was altogether a distinct thing—(hear, hear)--for they
were taxing not the property of people dying and which
passed from them to others by death, but they were taxing
property whether personalty or realty, which was settled
and disposed of by persons in their lifetime with the inten-

tion that the settlement which was thus subjected to this
tax should go free to those who succeeded them. The two
classes of cases were essentially different—(hear)—but he
would not go over that ground again. They had had ex-
amples of the extraordinary difficulty the Government
would have in trying to enforce the tax. (Hear, hear.)
The clause they had just passed which empowered the
commissioners to examine people's books, deeds, and docu-
ments, and not deeds and documents only, but all the title
deeds, settlements, and mortgage deeds was a proof of
that. If they applied the tax for a long period of
years all the small owners of property, whether real or
personal, would be put to great inconvenience in having
to pay the tax by a series of half-yearly payments extend-
ing over five years, or they would be put to great expense
in employing professional persons to carry it out. He did
not wish to raise a controversy upon the present occasion,
but, looking at the difficulty that must ensue, and seeing
but very little of opinion in favour of the tax, not only in
the country and amongst the numerous persons he had con-
versed with upon the subject, but even in the House of
Commons—(cheers from the Opposition)—and feeling as he
did from what he had heard that there were many mem-
bers who had voted for clause after clause in the committee,
because they did not desire to deprive the Government of
a large source of revenue upon which they had calculated
—but, believing, also, as he did, that those hon. members
would not support the bill in the abstract—(hear)—and
that with regard to many of the clauses they did not think
them just or reasonable—(opposition cheers)—he thought
it no more than right that they should now consider whe-
ther they were to impose this tax as part of a permanent
system of taxation, or whether they should not take an
opportunity of reconsidering it at some future time, when
they should have had some experience of its operation.
(Hear.) There was nothing unreasonable in such a propo-
sition ; on the contrary, it was but following out a course
they had followed in a similar case. When they imposed
the-income tax, they did not in the first instance put it on
permanently, but they limited its duration to three years,
avowedly that they might have the opportunity of recon-
sidering it when they had had some experience of its work-
ing. Ho thought it would be only reasonable to put on
this tax in the same way as a temporary measure, and to
limits its duration for 5 years. (Hear, hear.) They ought
not to forget that when the tax was first attempted to be
imposed by Mr. Pitt it was brought forward as in the pre-
sent instance, time after time, and that the majorities,
great in the first instance, dwindled down gradually, until
at last they became so small that Mr. Pitt was obliged to
give up the bill. (Hear.) In this case, also, the Govern-
ment had commenced with a large majority in favour of
the bill, which had dwindled down that evening to ex-
ceedingly small ones. (Cheers from the Opposition.) This
convinced him that people's minds were beginning to be
opened, and that it was not a tax which they thought it
was just to impose, if really their object was to tax real
property in the same way as personal property. Under the
circumstances, ho would put it to the Government whe-
ther it would be wise now to impose the tax for a longer
period than 5 years, that they might see if, as they as-
serted, the tax could be levied without annoyance and
vexation. For himself he was so convinced of the con-
trary, that if his noble friend (Lord Galway) pressed his I
amendment he would support him.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered
this was not a question upon which it was necessary for
him to weary the committee with its eetails. (Hear.) He
could only say in answer to his right hon. friend, that if the
committee were disposed only to impose a tax of this
nature for five years, it would become a serious question
whether they ought to impose it at all. (Hear, hear.) If
that were so the question at issue was whether the princi-
ple of the bill should be affirmed. Let them trace the
effect of limiting the duration of the bill—whatever might
be the effect of this view of the bill—however little he
might share in the apprehension of the difficulties that
would arise under it, and he admitted that in every fiscal
system that was novel there was difficulty in the first in-
stance—there would be no use in attempting to overcome
those difficulties for a period of five years, and the more 00

in this case, as the five years would have expired before
the bill came into full force. In the first. year little or
revenuenothing
dewouldrivedbefroebnitainit
wedeuifrdombethbeuttaxth,emvetreheetsetrciflone,datnhde
five years must elapse before the tax would come into fulleffect. And what would be the position then of those who
had paid the five years of the instalments ? With what
justice could they say that they would levy this succession
tax on those unfortunate persons who came to their estates
within five years ? They would say, "We were promised
that others should come in and bear their share, but after
we have paid for five years, it appears that now they are
only to have the luxury of paying some other tax in com-
mon with others of the community." (Hear, hear.) He
must say he thought his right hon. friend had now made a
proposal that would not hold water. His right hon.
friend admitted that was done with this tax should be
done with the legacy duty ; they were wedded together
and must stand or fall together. If they were disposed
to say that this legacy duty should exist for five years
only let them do so, but do not let them pass an
enactment confessedly for the purpose of putting all pro-
perty on the same footing, which would leave the legacy
duty permanent, while this succession tax was limited to
five years. (Hear.)
Viscount GALWAY observed that what he proposed
was to limit the tax to 1860, the year when the income
tax would, according to the Government, expire ; and
the amendment he wished to submit was, that the opera-
tion of this act continue till the 19th of May, 1860, and no
longer.
Mr. DISRAELI had intended to rise, but his noble friend
anticipated him, to propose that instead of the term
of five years, as suggested by his right hon. friend, they
should adopt the term of seven years ; and he did so on the
faith of a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, when he first introduced the proposition to the notice
of the house. At the period when the income and property
tax was last renewed he felt it his duty, on the part of the
late Government, to propose to the house to consider the
propriety of making some difference in the rates of assess-
ment under the different schedules of the measure ; but
the right hon. gentleman did not agree in principle with
that proposition. The right hon. gentleman acknowledged
that some difference ought to be established in order to
equalise the burden, but he said, " I am about to propose
a measure to extend a succession duty on all settled pro-
perty, and that will be, in some measure, a compensation
to those classes who are now liable under the income and
property tax, in whose favour I cannot recognise the dif-
ference you wish to establish." Now, the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed that the income and property tax should
be continued for seven years ; and not only that, but, if
his view was carried into effect and be realised, that the
income and property tax should then cease and determine.
But if this measure were really brought forward as a com-
pensation, it ought to cease and determine when the bur-
den for which it was the compensation no longer existed.
It appeared to him, therefore, that the period for the con-
tinuance of this tax ought to be the same as that for the
continuance of the property and income tax—viz., seven
years. With regard to the argument of the right hon. gen-
tleman, that if they limited the duration of the act arrears
would be payable, and that would be a great hardship, he
would remind him that if the property tax terminated to-
morrow, arrears would be payable in that case also. With
regard to the legacy duties and this act being bound toge-
ther, they might be identical in principle but not in form.
This was a separate act, and was only to be so considered.
If the principle of the bill was so just that they could not
consent to retain the old legacy duties without extending
the principle of the tax to real and settled property, they
might rest assured that at the end of seven years, in this
age of progress, they would not have so far deteriorated as
not to feel the force of truth and justice in relation to
that principle. He protested against the principle laid
w
down by the right hon. gentleman that this bill, which
distinctly and palpably before them, could only be
considered with reference to an act with which it had no
legislative connexion. He could not look at this bill but
as a proposition brought forward as a compensation for a
tax that was to come to an end in seven years, and he
thought that it was politic and just to limit this tax to the
same period.
Colonel SIBTHORP declared he would not vote either
for the commencement or the end of such a detestable act.
He condemned it in principle, and he said throw it out,
and throw out the Government with it.
The committee divided :
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —7O
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
The clause was agreed to, as was clause 56 and the
schedules.
Clauses 16 and 22 were struck out.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
the following clause: -Provided that no person entitled, at
the time appointed for the commencement of this act, to
the immediate reversion in any real property, expectant
upon the determination of any lease for life, shall be charge-
able with duty in respect of such determination, in the
event of the same occurring in his life time.
Some discussion took place, in which Mr. Henley, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Cayley took part.
The clause was then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER next
brought up the following clause Section 16. No policy
of insurance on the life of any person shall alone create the
relation of predecessor and successor, between the insurer

and assured; and no bond orcontractmade by any person

_
bona fide for valuable consideration in money or moneys
worth, forithe payment of money after the death of any
other person, shall alone create the relation of predecessor
and successor between the person making out such bond or
contract, and the person to or with whom the same shall
be made ; but any disposition or devolution of the moneys
payable under such policy, bond, or contract, if otherwise
within the provisions of this act, shall be deemed to confer
a succession."
Mr. FRESHFIELD moved that the word "other" be
struck out before " person," so as to make the clause apply
to the obligor himself.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted the
proposal, on the ground that it would lead to numberless
evasions. It would cause wills to take the form of post
obits.

The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was then agreed to, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in answer to Sir F. Kelly, agreeing that the bill
as altered should be printed before it reached its final
stage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought

up the following clause :—" Section 22. Where timber
trees or wood shall be comprised in any succession, the
successor shall be chargeable with duty upon his interest
in the net moneys which shall from time to time be received
from any sales of such timber trees or wood, and shall ac-
count for and pay the same yearly ; provided, that if the
successor shall be desirous of commuting the duty, and
shall deliver to the commissioners an estimate of the net
monies obtainable by him from the sale of such timber
trees and wood, as may, in a prudent course of manage-
ment of the propel ;:y, be felled by such successor during his
life, the commissioners, if satisfied with such estimate,
shall accept the same and assess the duty accordingly."
Sir J. TROLLOPE hoped the right hon. gentleman
would expunge the clause altogether; for it would add but
an infinitesimal sum to the revenue, and it would lead to
an immense amount of vexation and annoyance. (Cheers.)
Colonel SIBTHORP suspected any modification pro-
ceeding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
looked on the bill as altogether a gross robbery. (Cheers.)
The revenue returns recently published were all humbug
and nonsense, the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
being to deceive the public and to increase his reputation
as a financier. How did the light hon. gentleman intend
to deal with the copyholder, who could not cut down a tree
without paying one-third of its value to the lord of the
manor, besides a heavy fine? World he (the copyholder)
be charged on the gross sum ? If he were it would be a
gross robbery. (Laughter.)

Mr. BIJCk opposed the 'clause. It was taxing a com-
modity for which the owners had not received any benefit.
Mr. V. SMITH said however difficult it might be to tax
timber he did not see why, when they taxed every thing
else, they should not tax timber. At the same time he
wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain his
modified proposition. If they cut down hedge-row timber
were they to keep an account of that, and to hand it over
to the tax-gatherer ? Then he thought that timber cut
down for the purpose of the estate ought not to be taxed.
Then he wished to know what was to be done with regard
to ornamental timber. According to the clause as it at
present stood, ornamental timber would be valued with
the other. They ought to present a fair alternative to the
owner.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with
reference to the first question he thought he had answered
it by anticipation, namely, whether every transaction,
however small, was to be subject to taxation. He said
that was a matter of no great moment, and there was no
great objection to the introduction of a low minimum.
Vith regard to the question of tjtaber employed in the
repairs of the property, his i:ght hon. friend said they
ought to specify a minimum • he did not think it possible
to specify a minimum more j'stinct than by saying that a
party should be liable in respect of the moneys that he re-
ceived in respect of timber. Of course, if a deduction was
made for repairs the timber ought not to be charged as a
part of the repairs. He must again remind the committee
that the difference apprehended in estimates of that
description was not found in practice. They had never
yet had an appeal, and that was the best answer he could
give. 'With regard to ornament..l timber, he would
venture to put it that ti2e cause stood perfectly
well. They might describe oraame ital timber as
timber that was not mum"), to be cat. Then he appre-
hended they would not be liab'e to pay anything in
respect of the first alterrative. That which the party Wks
liable to make a return of was in respect of sales. He would
not enter into the general discussion, as they went through
the whole of it on a former night. His right hon. friend
went into it most fairly, and said they had reduced the
scale so that the proceeds would not be much. Into that
he would not enter.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER must enter into the practical
working of `the clause. The policy of Government for the
last ten years had been to reduce the duty on foreign tim-
ber, and now they were layinc, practically an excise duty
upon it. The penalties which were laid by this act would
be exceedingly oppressive, to say the least of it. When-
ever a gentleman had a fall of timber an Excise officer
would come upon the estate and inquire whether it should
be 1 per cent. or 10 per cent. He objected to the clause
altogether.
Sir T. D. ACLAND experienced great pleasure at the
course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
thought that the clause, as it now stood, entirely got rid
of objections. It appeared to him, however, that if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to avoid evasion, he
ought to name a minimum in the clause.
Mr. HENLEY said it did not appear clear whether,
when timber was cut down for repairs, it would be exempt
from duty. He (Mr. Henley) was, however, averse to
taxing timber. at all ; it had always been the policy of the
country to encourage the growth of timber. The word
" wood" was now introduced into the clause for the first
time. This word would almost inevitably lead to confu-
sion, and it would be a matter of doubt whether, under
that term' underwood would not come in.
Mr. K. SEYMER thought the difficulty of taxing tim-
ber would be so great that this clause ought not to be
pressed. This would only be following the same principle
as was followed in the case of stock in trade.

Mr. BOOKER complained that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not appear to have taken into consideration
the care and attention which was required to bring timber
to a state of perfection. Timber, too, was of an excep-
tional nature. Its growth ought to be supported for the
sake of the " wooden walls of Old England." (Oh, oh.)
The hon. gentleman then proceeced to read a letter from a
friend deprecating the proposed measure as disadvan-
tageous to the British oak. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and
laughter.) During the reading of the letter there were
repeated cries of " Name, name," and when the hon.
member read the signature of
" W. S. Wood," great
amusement was created. The hon. gentleman assured the
house that it was no assumed name, and gave the writer's
as
few words
White
fHouse,remsnireaEr
.HDezreagfdG.,"
addressmter a
rd
Sir W. JOLLIFEE contended that timber stood on a

different footing from other species of property. He pro-
ceeded to illustrate his position in a long speech, which
was almost entirely drowned in vociferous cries of
" Divide."
The committee then divided—
For the clause 195
Against 179-16
In reply to an objection from Mr. HENLEY respecting
the valuation of underwood,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he would alter
the clause so that it would read timber, trees, or wood not
being coppice or underwood.
Colonel SIBTHORP asked the hon. and learned gentle-
man to go a step further, and impose a tax on sawdust.
(Laughter.)
Mr. MTLES said the wording of the clause would lead
to constant disputes between the successor and the tax
gatherer as to the valuation.
Mr. P. MILES was apprehensive that parties would be
called upon to pay the tax upon the net proceeds of the
wood, when it might happen the. expense of cutting had
swallowed up all the proceeds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in that
case the party would neither pay the tax nor would be
called upon to render an account of the sale. He would
be required to render an account of his profits when there
were any, and upon these profits the tax would have to be
paid.
After some further discussion,

Mr. MILES thought that 'nothing under 30 years'
growth should be estimated in tho valuation, and proposed
to add a proviso to that effect'.

- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
impossible for him to accede to those words. In Scotland
he had seen valuable timber not 30 years old.
Mr. C. BRUCE said, in his experience, wood which he
had cut under 30 years of age had not more than paid the
expenses.
Mr. DUNLOP mentioned a case in which 1501. a year
was derived from timber under 25 years old.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause agreed to.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the house
resumed, and the chairman reported progress.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS REPEAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time, with the understanding
that it was to be committed pro forma, and reprinted.

NEWSPAPER STAMP BILL.
The second reading of this bill was fixed for this day.
PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,
Sir J. YOUNG, in answer to a question from Mr. Ma-
guire, explained that the bill would abolish ministers' money
as it at present stood, but that he did not expect that the
whole amount of tax would be remitted. He denied that
any pledge had been given for the total abolition of the
tax. The bill would mainly exempt houses to be built,
would establish a commission to revise the rating, and
would give housekeepers, who were liable to rating, power
of redemption on very favourable terms.
Messrs. Maguire, Sullivan, and Grogan severally ex-
pressed their disapprobation of the principle of the bill as
stated by the right hon. gentleman.
Resolutions passed, leave given to bring in the bill.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SALE, 'cc., OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. WHITESIDE moved the second reading of this
bill.

Sir J. YOUNG approved of the principle of the bill, but
hoped it would not be pressed this session beyond its pre-
sent stage.
Mr. WHITESIDE could hardly understand any objec-
tion to this bill, and intimated that he should press it for-
ward.

After a few words from Mr. KEOGH and Colonel DUNNE
the bill way read a second time.
The Brecon Collegiate Church Bill passed through com-
mittee.

PARISH CONSTABLES BILL.
The order for the committee on this bill was read and
discharged.

CUSTOMS ACT.
The report of the committee was brought up, and agreed
to.

CUSTOMS ACTS (ISLE OF MAN).
The house having resolved itself into committee on the
resolutions for imposing customs duties on the Isle of
Man,
Sir J. WALMSLEY objected that this bill was an in-
fringement of the privileges of the Isle of Man, and with
the rigbts of property, and he hoped that unless the Go-
vernment could show that they had the consent of the
House of Keys and the people of the island, that the house
would not sanction the imposition of increased duties.
He reek' documents showing that the proposition had not
been sibmitted, as promised, to the authorities of the
island, mad he complained that provision was not made by
the Goiernment to give to the House of Keys control over
the taxes it was proposed to raise. This was an attempt
to bring the island, with the customs of the Isle of Man,
within the general customs laws of the kingdom for the
first time, and as this was opposed to the privileges and
rights .f the people of the Isle of Man, he should, if the
resolutions were pressed at that late hour, divide against
them.

---
Ms. 3. WILSON said that the proposed bill was neces-
sary- to remove impediments to the trade of the island, and
to prevent smuggling. He had communicated with the
Lieutenant-Governor, and informed him of the proposed
changes, and he had called the House of Keys together,
who had made certain suggestions in the bill which would
be founded on these resolutions, and would be considered.
Sir J. WALMSLEY moved that the house do adjourn.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he could not do that while the
house was in committee.

---- •
Sir J. WALMSLEY would throw every obstacle in the
way of the resolutions, and moved that the chairman re-
port progress.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, and the chairman halving reported progress, the
house resumed. _ _ _

The Stamp Duties 13111, as amended, was considered.
The Land Revenues Bill passed through committee.
The Spitalfields and Shoreditch Improvement Bill was
read a third time and passed„
____