said, he begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the petition of the civil servants of the Crown (presented on the 3rd December, 1852) had been yet under the notice of the Government, and whether any and what stops had been taken to inquire into the allegations and the prayer thereof?

said, he was obliged to the noble Lord for giving him this opportunity of answering the question, because he thought it appeared from the anxiety on the subject that the answer which he had given to a former question on the same subject could not have been fully apprehended. What he had intended then to say, and what he very gladly restated now, was, that the subject of the petition of the civil servants of the Crown had been and was under the consideration of the Government. He hoped he would not be understood, by so saying, to be giving any pledge as to what the result of that consideration might be. It was necessarily a somewhat slow process. When the petition was presented, it did not contain the fundamental computation of debtor and creditor account on which the prayer was founded; and a very considerable time elapsed before that computation came into his hands. It had now, however, been put into a train for examination, and, when the facts should be understood, the matter would be fully considered by the Government, as it was a matter of considerable importance, bearing essentially upon the interests of the public service.

said, he was anxious to know what course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to pursue with respect to this Bill?

said, that the Resolution relating to the Excise duties had been passed by the House in the usual manner, for the purpose of enabling the duties to be charged, and also for the purpose of preventing any confusion that might take place with reference to the transaction upon the part of the producer and of the consumer. It was understood, however, that the final judgment of the House in regard to those duties would remain entirely unaffected by that Resolution. The next question which arose was, whether that judgment should be given upon the second reading of the Bill, or when the House went into Committee upon it? The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Captain Jones) had stated his intention of taking the sense of the House upon that part of the measure which had reference to Ireland, but had omitted to mention at what stage of the proceedings he would do so. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty would be, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman should decide upon taking the sense of the House upon going into Committee upon the Bill, to move that the second reading should take place that evening. If, however, the hon. Member should prefer entering upon the discussion when the Bill was being read a second time, of course the second reading must be postponed, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would make such arrangements as would secure a full opportunity for its being canvassed. He was of opinion, nevertheless, tha6 it would greatly facilitate the progress of public business if hon. Members would allow the Bill to be read a second time. Its provisions could afterwards be fully discussed upon the occasion of going into Committee upon it. He wished, however, to pursue that course with respect to the measure which would best suit the convenience of the House. He should take that opportunity of giving a notice relating to another subject which was before the House, namely, the Resolutions respecting the assessed taxes. It appeared to him that it would be for the convenience of the House, as well as greatly for the convenience of parties out of doors, if there was a general disposition in the House to pass those Resolutions pro formâ,—he meant in the same way as had been done with regard to the spirit duties, without any one being considered committed to the plan, so that he might be allowed at once to introduce the Bill and take the discussion afterwards. The reason why he made this suggestion to the House was this—that the whole question in this case turned on the amount and nature of the exemptions which the House might be disposed to introduce. If the House was disposed to introduce a very great number of exemptions, then it might become questionable whether the measure ought to be proceeded with. The measure proceeded on the principle of reducing, simplifying, abolishing, and restricting exemptions; but it would be impossible, and quite contrary to rule, to proceed to specify the exemptions in the Resolutions themselves; and therefore the House would not be in a position to discuss the subject fairly and fully on the Resolutions. On that ground he suggested, as the most advisable course to pursue, that he should be allowed, without committing any one, to have those Resolutions passed and reported, and a Bill introduced on the subject. This would enable him to give a long notice before proceeding to discuss the Bill at all, and all parties would be aware of the intentions of the Government as they stood, and would have ample time to make any requests they might have to make. This was the course which he should pursue, if no hon. Member objected to it, but of course he should not press it unless it was generally considered for the convenience of the House.

said, it appeared to him that the course proposed was a reasonable one, but the House would expect that the right hon. Gentleman should redeem his promise, and secure a proper time in order to consider the provisions of the Bill; and that they should not be put in the same position as they were put in with respect to the financial Resolutions, which were never discussed on those stages in which it was generally understood the principles of measures should be discussed.

said, he should take care that ample time was given.

said, he thought the discussion with respect to this Bill had assumed such a form, that it would be impossible for him to take the sense of the House upon it upon the second reading, and that he would do so when the Bill went into Committee.

said, he should consult the convenience of the House, therefore, as far as possible in the matter.

said, he should propose the second reading of the Bill after the Resolutions upon the subject of the legacy duties should have been disposed of.

said, he wished to know when the promised Bill with regard to newspaper stamp duties would be laid on the table of the House. The reason that he put the question was, that several prosecutions for an infringement of the law were now going on, and it was important to know what the Government intended to do in the matter.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was better informed than he could possibly be with respect to the prosecutions in connexion with newspapers which were now baing carried on. With respect to the general question, he should observe that the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of what had fallen from him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a few clays before with respect to the Bill in question. He had then stated that a Bill upon the subject of newspapers had been prepared, and was about to be submitted to the House; but that there were some provisions in that Bill which bore upon other subjects, namely, the questions of the repeal and the modification of advertisement duties, and that, therefore, it would be for the public convenience that the introduction of the Bill should be post- poned, in order that there might be full time for collecting information with regard to the subject of advertisement duties. That statement, made upon a previous evening, had, so far as he could understand, met with the approbation of the House; and he should still, therefore, ask for a postponement of the measure until he should be prepared to announce the course which the Government would be prepared to take in the case of advertisement duties.

begged to say that a prosecution was at present pending, and would come on to-morrow before the Court of Exchequer, against Mr. Collett, on the subject of newspaper stamps. That prosecution, he might add, had been commenced at the express instance of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ricardo) himself, who, having stated that Mr. Collett was anxious to have the question settled, and would discontinue his newspaper until the question was settled, he (the Attorney General) thought it but just towards Mr. Collett to institute the prosecution.

said, that although the prosecution in question had been undertaken at his suggestion, yet he was under the impression that a Bill would have been laid upon the table of the House in compliance with the promise made upon the 6th December. His desire was that the prosecution should have been transferred from Bow Street to the Court of Exchequer, which was, he believed, the proper tribunal.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the fact that, while English newspapers paid one penny, Irish newspapers paid only three farthings for their stamps?

said, he would inquire into the matter,

Sir, I perhaps ought to apologise for again bringing before the House a subject which has been so frequently alluded to; but as it is one in which I am personally concerned, I hope I shall be excused for so doing. I wish to be allowed to repeat what I said in this House on Monday evening, and to point out to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) that what he attributed to me was incorrect. The hon. Gentleman asked me if what I had stated on Friday night had been accurately understood by him, and he also requested me to be so good as to repeat to the House the statement I made; and he followed up that request by several other requests, with which I have no power to comply. With reference to the first part of the question, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that what I said was not correctly understood by him, nor anything like correctly understood. What I said was, that certain Members of Parliament who attended a certain meeting asserted that if the party that was expected to come into office should succeed in accomplishing their object, no income tax should be imposed on Ireland. I never in any way alluded to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hayter). He was not there; and I think it was rather a mischievous interpretation to put upon what I did say, and an interpretation which has annoyed me very much. There is no objection to my naming the Members who were present at the time, because they have all had sufficient notice. I have managed to squeeze a notice on the paper, which the hon. Gentleman refused to do. As long as he thought he should make a party question of this subject, and it suited his purpose, he was willing to urge the matter; but the moment he found it would not answer the purpose he had in view he dropped the question, as if he had picked up a red-hot potato. I may be allowed to say that I made a mistake in alluding to three Members, I was rather uncertain at the time as to one hon. Gentleman, but I have asked one of them, and I find that the course of conduct he pursued was different from that which on Monday I thought he had pursued. ["Name! name!"] I will not name that hon. Gentleman, because it is unnecessary now to bring his name into the discussion. I think it right to say that it is not the hon. Member for Mallow (Sir Denham Norreys). His name never entered into my head at all. The hon. Members to whom I alluded as having conveyed the information to me were the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), and the hon. Member for Tralee (Mr. Maurice O'Connell).

I am sure, after the statement which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Captain Magan), the House will think it right that I should say something, either to contradict the statement which he has made, or to confirm it. I have to say, then, that I have no contradiction to offer to the statement of my hon. Friend, except this much—that I think he gave the House to understand that there had been some secret negotiation on the subject; whereas there was no secret negotiation whatever. Everything that did happen was open and aboveboard. There was nothing to conceal, nor any attempt made to conceal anything. If the House will allow me, I will state exactly, so far as I am aware, what was done. There was a meeting of the Irish Members held to consider what course it would be advisable to take in respect to the Budget which was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli). At that meeting a good deal of dissatisfaction was expressed at the proposed partial extension of the income tax to Ireland; but it was said by some Members present that, in the event of the Government of Lord Derby being turned out upon the Budget, what reason had we to suppose that an income tax, limited in extent, or probable in its entirety, might not be imposed upon Ireland by the Government which succeeded them? The debate was going on when I left the room upstairs, and, on coming down, in the course of the evening I met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter). I stated to him what objections were being urged; and I rather think I asked him whether there was any foundation for supposing that a change of policy was likely to be adopted by the leading Whigs; and whether or not it was likely that, should they again come in to power, they would introduce the income tax into Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman told me, if my memory serves me rightly, that he had spoken to some—and I think he mentioned the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) as one of them—and he believed that it was not the intention of the leading Whigs, if they again returned to power, to depart from the policy which they formerly pursued. After this the meeting adjourned. I went up to the next meeting, and at that meeting the chairman, the hon. Member for Tralee (Mr. M. O'Connell) stated, as well as I remember—and I have spoken to two Gentlemen who were present, and they tell me that my recollection is correct—that he had authority to state that if the Whigs returned to power, it was not their intention to impose the income tax upon Ireland. I am not aware that I made any similar statement to the meeting; but I will not shrink from saying that, if my hon. Friend has not stated it, I should have done so. I may be asked why I have not accused the present Government of a breach of faith in extending the income tax to Ireland after that statement. The reason is, that from the formation of the present Government, before, indeed, it was actually formed, reasoning from what I had known of the noble Lord at the head of it, I considered that it was out of my power to recognise it as a Whig Government; and I did not think it would be honourable in me to consider them as Whigs in one case, and to refuse to treat them as Whigs in another. It was under these circumstances—and under these only—that I did not make that charge. I may add, that I have never thought of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells whether the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was of a similar opinion with respect to the income tax as the leading Whigs of whom he had spoken. It never entered my head to do so. I have had no communication, directly or indirectly, with that right hon. Gentleman since the occasion to which I have referred. I trust I have not misrepresented him. If I have, I assure him that it has arisen solely from having misunderstood him. I desire to say, also, that if I have misled any hon. Gentleman by my statements, I have done so unintentionally. I gave them what I believed then, and believe now, to be an accurate statement of what took place. Under these circumstances I presume it is unnecessary for me to apologise for the course I took. I think it a fair and legitimate course to ask of any person likely to come into power with a new Government, what are the intentions of that Government, so far as they entertain any.

Sir, as my name has so frequently been alluded to in the course of this debate, I think it right to offer a few observations to the House in corroboration of what has just fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French). There were no secret negotiations whatever between myself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter). I met that right hon. Gentleman casually, and he asked me how I was likely to vote upon the Budget? My answer was, that I never gave a Tory vote since I had entered Parliament, and that I never would give one. The right hon. Gentleman then asked me what I thought the feelings of the other Irish Members were upon the subject? I replied that it was my opinion that if the Irish Members could have anything like an assurance that the party which was expected to come into power in the event of the overthrow of Lord Derby's Administration would not impose an income tax upon Ireland, such an assurance would have great influence in determining the course which they would take. This conversation took place upon the steps of the Reform Club just as I was preparing to come down to the House. The right hon. Gentleman called my attention to the Budget of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, and to his speech in the year 1851, in which the right hon. Baronet had stated that he did not mean to extend the income tax to Ireland. I mentioned what had taken place during this conversation at the meeting of the Irish Members, not as an announcement which I was authorised upon the part of the present Government to communicate, but merely as a statement of what had fallen in conversation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells. There was a meeting of Irish Members held afterwards, at which it was asked whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) would repeat his statement in the House? I mentioned that to the right hon. Member for Wells, and the right hon. Baronet did again state it in the House. That is the entire matter as it occurred. But I must say that my vote was not influenced by what transpired; and my reason for voting as I did was this—that I thought the interests of Ireland would be safer in any hands than in those of the late Government.

Sir, I trust, now that this matter has been more fully explained, that I may be permitted to say a few words as to the share I had in the conversation which took place between the hon. Members for Roscommon and Tralee and myself. I dare say that the statement of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) is perfectly true in substance, but I have no recollection of it. I do not at all dispute the facts. I have no doubt that he had a communication with me in the hurried manner in which many such communications are made, and with the recollection of which I confess I cannot charge my memory. I think, however, it is quite impossible that I could have said that I was permitted to state, or that I had any authority or ground for stating, the opinions of any of those who may be called the Whig party, further than has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee. I have a distinct recollection of what took place between the hon. Member for Tralee and myself. He alluded to the financial statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he certainly asked me whether I thought it probable that the Government likely to suceeed, composed of that party of which I am a humble member, would be likely to impose an income tax on Ireland. I referred him to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) in 1851, when the right hon. Baronet distinctly stated that he thought Ireland was in too exhausted a condition to bear the imposition of the income tax. I stated, moreover, my belief that my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) still retained the opinion which he expressed in 1851, and that I had no doubt he would say in the House what he had said out of the House. I said I believed that if my right hon. Friend were called upon to do so, he would have no hesitation in stating that Ireland was in too exhausted a state—considering the encumbrances then pressing upon her—to bear the income tax. I never stated, however, to the hon. Member for Tralee that I had any authority from the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood), or from any other persons, to express their opinions. I think I had a right—as I conceive every man has a right—to state what I knew to be the political opinions of those with whom I had the honour of acting. Between the statements of the hon. Member for Roscommon and of the hon. Member for Tralee, there is no material difference, except that the hon. Member for Roscommon says, as far as his recollection goes—and no doubt he states what he believes to be perfectly true—that I said I was expressing the opinion of the leading-Whigs, or of the Whig party. I can only say, that if I did make such a statement, I was incorrect in doing so; I have no recollection of it, and it is inconsistent with what I said to the hon. Member for Tralee.

Sir, I am glad that this matter has been fairly brought before the House, and that we are no longer dealing with insinuations. I feel grateful to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) for having called attention to the subject the other night, and to the hon. Member for Westmeath (Captain Magan) for having brought it so clearly under the notice of the House this evening. With regard to my share in the matter, what I said was said in this House, and it is recorded against me in Hansard, I have not the least doubt. As I do not say one thing in the House, and another out of it, I must have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter)—though I do not recollect having done so, or to anybody else—exactly what I had said in the House—namely, that in the then circumstances of Ireland, with the charges pressing upon her at that time, I was against extending the income tax to that country. I said I thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) to extend the income tax partially to Ireland, could not be maintained. I stated that the charges imposed by what was called the labour-rate in Ireland pressed so heavily upon the western districts of that country that they were not in a condition to bear the income tax in addition to those charges; and I am sure that if any one will take the trouble to refer to the record of what I then said, he will see that no other construction can be put upon my statement. That was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now. I say now, as I said a fortnight ago, that if it had been proposed to impose the income tax upon Ireland in addition to those charges, I would not have been a party to such a measure. I think, however, when the western districts of Ireland are benefited, as they will be, by the remission of the consolidated annuities—and I showed the other night that many of those districts will gain relief far beyond the charge imposed upon them by the income tax—that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a measure which will be very advantageous to that country. I see no inconsistency, therefore, in now voting for the imposition of the income tax generally upon Ireland.

I think what has passed ought to be a caution to some Members of this House as to the manner in which they make statements purporting to be matters of fact. Correctness and accuracy are still more incumbent upon them when they state matters of fact with the declara- tion that such matters came within their own knowledge; but most of all is correctness and strict adherence to the exact truth required when they state "matters of fact" which affect personal character. The hon. Member for Westmeath distinctly stated that certain Irish Members were waited on by the accredited agent of the Whigs and Peelites, who made this proposal to them, that if the Irish Members joined in turning out the Derby Government, the Whigs in return would undertake that the income tax should not be extended to Ireland. When I heard that statement, my belief was that it arose out of a misapprehension; for though I am politically opposed to the Gentlemen who sit opposite, I trust no political differences will ever induce me to think less highly of their personal honour; and, therefore, when, a few nights ago, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London denied that he had done a certain thing, that denial was conclusive in my mind. I believed him implicitly, and there was an end of it. But the charge having been made by the hon. Member for Westmeath, in such distinct terms, I thought the House was called upon to have the matter satisfactorily explained. It now turns out that the hon. Member for Westmeath did make an erroneous statement—

I did not—I deny it. ["Order, order!"]

It now appears that the "accredited agent," whom I ventured the other night to say we know as well as if his name had been mentioned—for the House could not have understood the words to refer to any one else—was not a party to any compact whatever; but that, so far as he was concerned, the whole thing from beginning to end, was one of those numerous conferences to which the right hon. Gentleman was a party—and I suppose no one is a party to a greater number of conferences than my right hon. Friend—it was one of those loose conversations in the lobby—one of those loose conversations in the lobby, the library, or on the steps—in which I suppose every Member of the House from time to time, takes a part. I admit that I do. Although politically opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, I have known him for twenty years; he is a member of the same profession as myself, and I must say it always affords me pleasure to converse with him. But when an hon. Member, on the strength of one of those "loose conversations," gets up and makes a statement like this, and brings a charge against the Government, which, if true, would involve a degree of perfidy entirely unworthy of the Government of this great nation, that hon. Gentleman, according to my views of sight and wrong in these matters, owes an apology to the House for having made such an erroneous statement. For I proceed upon this principle, that the characters of public men are the property of the nation, and that anything which is calculated to lower public faith in public men—in the men who govern this country—is also calculated to lower the character of the nation itself. Therefore, I may be permitted to repeat what I set out by stating, that the discussion which has occurred ought to be a lesson to all hon. Members, before they make statements of facts involving personal character, to be careful to ascertain that those facts are correct.

Sir, I must be allowed a word in explanation. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has thought proper to state, in plain English, that I have not told the truth. He has fastened upon an expression which I made use of—"an accredited agent." Now, Sir, I considered the hon. Members who communicated with the Irish representatives—and I maintain I have a right to consider any hon. Member in whatever light I may think proper—I considered those hon. Gentlemen who were favouring a change of Government, as acting in the capacity of. accredited agents, and I believe I was fairly entitled to regard them in that light, from the circumstance of their being generally favourable, one to the Whig party and the other to the Peelites, and from the fact also of their being strongly in favour of a change of Administration. But I did not state that they were accredited agents.—I merely stated that they were considered as such; and I contend that I had a right to consider them as such, in the same manner as I have now a right to consider the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House as the accredited agent of Lord Derby. Sir, I certainly dispute the statement which that hon. Gentleman has made with respect to what fell from me on the present occasion. I suppose, Sir, I must speak to him strictly in a Parliamentary sense, but, nevertheless, I will say that his statement was both malicious and untrue.

The hon. Gentleman has made use of words which cannot be permitted in this House, and I therefore call him to retract them.

Sir, I have no objection to withdraw the epithets, but the sense remains.

Sir, I am anxious to say a few words upon this subject, especially because I was present at all the meetings held by the Irish Members in the early part of the Session; and, because, as I have voted very frequently against Her Majesty's present Government, I cannot be supposed to have any bias in their favour. Now, Sir, I can only say that at not one of those meetings did I hear any communication, either by an accredited agent or by any other person, as to the intentions of the Gentlemen who now occupy the Treasury benches with respect to the extension of the income tax to Ireland. No doubt, as we have been told, conversations were held on the subject, in some of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells stated his impression of what he believed would be done in the event of Her Majesty's Opposition becoming Her Majesty's Ministers; but, Sir, I am quite sure that nothing more took place than that, I may say, that I knew nothing of this matter till two or three days ago, when it was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Westmeath; but as a circumstance which corroborates my impression of what took place, I may mention that at the meeting of Irish Members held immediately before the debate which resulted in the expulsion from power of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire and his Friends, there was a feeling among some of us that some communication ought to take place between those right hon. Gentlemen who now constitute Her Majesty's Government and ourselves, before we should resolve to give a vote which would in all probability produce a change in the Administration. There was also an opinion among us—an opinion entertained by myself and others—that such a course was not desirable upon the whole; but if communications had already taken place, through means of an accredited agent, or any other authorised person, as to the intentions of the Whig party with respect to the imposition of an income tax upon Ireland, I think the discussion to which I have referred would not have taken place among us; and I submit that the mere fact of a difference of opinion among us must show that no communication by an accredited agent bad taken place between the Whig party and the representatives of Ireland in this House.

Sir, I do not wish to prolong the discussion; but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk has thrown some doubt upon the fact of a communication having been made to the Irish Members, I will take the liberty of stating the main facts, which I recollect as distinctly as any facts that have come under my observation. There had been such a discussion as the hon. Member speaks of at a previous meeting of the Irish Members; but at the adjourned meeting the hon. Member for Tralee, who occupied the chair, told us that he had a communication to make by authority from a leading Member of the Whig party. I do not know that "authority" was the exact word he used, but the effect of his communication was, that he was authorised to state to us, that if by our votes Lord Derby's Government was ejected from office, the Whig Government that succeeded to Lord Derby would not put an income tax upon Ireland. I have not been a party to bring this subject in any way, either directly or indirectly, before the House. I have nothing whatever to do with the question which has been raised, except in so far as a doubt has been expressed as to a matter of fact; but I thought it my duty to state to the House what was my own clear and distinct recollection of the circumstances in dispute. I am perfectly certain of this, that a statement was made to us, which I have no doubt was intended with a view to the course we might take on the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. There can be no question it was made to us to influence our votes. Now, Sir, when a Gentleman has to make up his mind as to a particular course, and when a number of considerations of various kinds equally influence him, it is impossible for him to say which has most influence in determining his conduct; yet, Sir, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that the communication referred to—authorised as we were entitled to consider it, and as we did consider it—followed up by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, who warned us not to be gulled—I am repeating the very words in the re- port of the right hon. Baronet's speech which I read a few days ago in Hansard—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and who told us that Irishmen were less alive to the interests of their country than he considered them to be, if they should be gulled by any proposition to introduce the small end of the wedge of the income tax into Irish finance; I say there is not the smallest doubt that that authorised communication, which it seems now, in some sense or other, did actually proceed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells—that that authorised communication, which unquestionably had its origin with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which was followed up by the strong, vehement, and pointed remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, almost entreating us not to allow ourselves to be deluded, did really, positively, and as a matter of fact, to some extent influence my mind and the minds of others. That it did clearly, and in some small degree—I am not making more of it than it really deserves—influence the course we took, I pledge my honour as a gentleman. I have the most distinct recollection that, to some small but distinctly rememberable degree, the authorised assertion of the hon. Member for Tralee did influence my mind towards the course which I subsequently took; and I have no doubt that it produced the same effect upon the minds of others.

Sir, with reference to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath, I have only to say, that I do not for one moment deny that there had been conversations as to what the Whig party would do, or would probably do, in the event of their coming again into power; but I still assert, that I, for one, did not understand that any statement was made to the Irish Members by an accredited agent, or other authorised person, and that, in short, I did not understand that anything occurred beyond the conversations I have mentioned.

Sir, the hon. Member for Meath has asserted, in seeming contradiction of what I stated to the House, that an authorised communication was made by me to the Irish representatives. Sir, I never made such a statement. My recollection is perfectly distinct upon the question, and I repeat, I never stated that I was authorised to make the communication which I did make. I could not have stated anything of the kind. What I really did say was, that I had the fact communicated upon the authority—I mean that it had been mentioned to me in the course of a casual conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. But I did not state that either he or any other person had authorised me to make such a statement.

Sir, I merely wish to say one word; and certainly I should not have ventured to do so, or to trespass for a single moment upon the attention of the House, if there had not been some difference of opinion as to what took place at a meeting of the Irish Members. Having been present upon that occasion, and the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Heath as to what occurred having been called in question, I hope I may be permitted to state what my recollection is of what took place. As far as I understood the hon. Member for Tralee, who occupied the chair on the occasion in question, he distinctly said that he had authority—he did not say from whom—to make this statement, that if the effect of our votes would be to throw out Lord Derby's Government, and to reinstate the Whig party in power, the income tax would not be extended to Ireland. I have the most distinct recollection of those words having been used.

I am sure every hon. Member must feel with me the extreme inconvenience of having such lobby conversations made the subject of serious discussion in this House. I have a very clear recollection of all that passed at the meeting of Irish Members, to which so much reference has been made; and having taken rather a prominent part at that meeting, I shall at once clear up all mystery about it, by putting the House in possession of what actually did occur. That meeting was held on Friday, the 10th of last December; the day after the Irish Tenant Right Bill of Mr. Sharman Crawford had, along with other Irish Land Bills, been referred, with the consent of Lord Derby's Government, to a Select Committee. We, the Irish Liberal Members, had assembled, not secretly but in an open and straightforward manner, after the example of the Scotch representatives, and as it was our clear right and duty to do, in order to consider together the course that we ought conjointly to pursue for the benefit of our country. It was stated at that meeting by the hon. Member for Meath, that we had obtained from the Government of Lord Derby what we had never obtained from a Whig Government, namely, that Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That statement was evidently made with the view of inducing us to give our support to Lord Derby's Government, and this was the first open manifestation of an intention on the part of Irish Liberal Members to keep that Government in office. Many of us had already made up our minds to do our utmost to put out that Government; but there were others who spoke of giving it what they called "a fair trial." At the very moment we were deliberating at that meeting, Lord Derby was occupied in the House of Lords in making his celebrated declaration, that no matter what might be the report of the Select Committee, he should have nothing whatever to do with Sharman Crawford's Tenant Right Bill, but would repudiate it altogether. But we were not at the time aware of that declaration. Then it was suggested on the other hand, in order to influence us the other way, and induce us to vote against the Budget proposed by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), that he had introduced the small end of the wedge in his proposition to extend the income tax to Ireland. Some Gentlemen said, "What will the Whigs do if they come in?" Others said—"Let us go on a deputation to ascertain what they will do?" Then it was added by an hon. Member—"Oh, with regard to their intentions, we have it from a very active Member of the Whig party, that if they come into office, they will not impose an income tax on Ireland." I had not in any way interfered, or said one syllable, up to that moment. I immediately rose and said that the Irish Liberal Members represented a great portion of the nation, and that I, for one, would never consent to our placing ourselves in the ignominious position of going on a deputation to any Gentlemen not in office, for the mere purpose of ascertaining their personal intentions towards our country. I said further, that we were an important body, and that if those Gentlemen wanted us, and had anything good to offer us, in order to obtain our support, they knew very well where to find us; but that if they had nothing to offer, there was no use in our running after them. I added that there was nothing in what had recently occurred to encourage us to go on deputations to Gentlemen, whether in or out of office; for that a few days previously some Irish Members had taken it on themselves to go on a deputation to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), for the purpose of ascertaining his intentions in regard to Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill; but that right hon. Gentleman had refused even to receive them. And further, that on the previous day the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had ineffectually sought an interview on the same subject with the Irish Attorney General for the late Government (Mr. Napier). Indeed, that hon. and learned Gentleman told us at our meeting, when expressing his perfect concurrence with my observations, that when he had asked the Attorney General of the late Government to come out of the House in order to talk over the subject, that right hon. and learned functionary, to use an expressive though not very classical phrase, had actually "snubbed" him on the occasion. That was precisely what occurred at our meeting in reference to this matter. It appeared to me that the sentiments which I had enunciated in regard to our not being influenced by any lobby conversations, and as to not lowering our position by voluntering to go on deputations, were assented to and adopted by the meeting. I am sure the hon. Member for Meath is correct in his present assertion, that his vote was influenced to some very slight and infinitesimal extent by the statement made to us as to the intentions of the Whig party, in respect to not enforcing an income tax on Ireland. I confess, however, that at that meeting it appeared to me, and others present, that the hon. Gentleman and some few who acted with him, were using every exertion in their power to induce us to come to a determination to retain the Tories in office. That was our very distinct impression from all that took place—[Mr. LUCAS gave marks of dissent]—although it was not, perhaps, the real intention of the hon. Gentleman, and, of course, if he now denies it, he must be the better judge of what may have been passing in his own mind, but I could only form an opinion from his acts and statements. I must now conclude, as I commenced, by protesting against the inconvenience of making these lobby arrangements or conversations the subject of serious debate in this House. I have never been a party to any such proceedings. To illustrate the inconvenience of attaching any weight to matters of that nature, I shall mention a circumstance which took place within the last few days, when some Irish Members were still in the balance as to the way they should vote on the very difficult question proposed for our consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the extension of the income tax to Ireland, coupled with a remission of the consolidated annuities. It was stated publicly in an adjoining apartment—the dining room of this House—by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien), that his individual vote upon the question would be influenced by a conversation he had held with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. II. Moore), who assured him that if the Tories were to come back into office, we should have a total remission of the consolidated annuities, without the imposition of any income tax; and, further, that the spirit duty question should be settled in the manner originally proposed by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, without the imposition of any additional duty upon Irish spirits. Now, I want to know whether, if the hon. Gentlemen opposite were restored to office, they would for one instant hold themselves bound to carry out the promises conveyed in that lobby. conversation? Of course, it had no influence whatever upon my mind; but the hon. Member for the King' County stated publicly to many of us, that it would induce him to give his vote against the present Budget, and his vote was afterwards given accordingly. That hon. Member at the time mentioned that he would state the whole matter to this House, and I believe that (luring the discussion on the Budget he rose more than once for the purpose. I informed him that if he did not find an opportunity to state the circumstances himself, it was probable I should do so. I mention them now in order to illustrate the absurdity of being influenced by such unauthorised statements made in the lobby of this House by Gentlemen not in office. For my own part, I have no hesitation in repeating what I declared at the meeting of the Irish Members, that the course which I took at that period to aid in putting the Tory Government out of office, was not in the remotest degree influenced by any conversations which may have been held between Irish Members and persons supposed to represent the Whig party. Neither have any lobby conversations influenced my vote upon the present Budget. I regret exceedingly that an income tax is to be imposed upon Ireland, and hope it may be introduced in the most modified form possible.

Sir, whether the practice of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down corresponds with his professions—whether or not he has introduced the authority of lobby conversations—whether this discussion has been raised on sufficient grounds—whether it is calculated to elevate this House in the public estimation—whether representative institutions though out Europe may not be prejudiced by the manner in which this first of all representative assemblies has latterly permitted its proceedings to be interrupted, it is not for me to determine. But I do hope that the good sense and good feeling of the House, looking to the mass of public business that is, before us, will consider that sufficient space has been allowed to hon. Gentlemen to sot themselves right in the judgments of each other out of the House, and that we may at last be permitted to resume the business for which we were sent here. I do not allude to any particular Members—I cautiously abstain from saying any one word that can give offence to hon. Gentlemen on either side; but I do respectfully submit to them that we have had enough, and perhaps more than enough, of this discussion: and when you, Sir, called the Serjeant at Arms to introduce the Messenger from the House of Lords, I must say that I had hoped that proceeding would have interrupted the conversation, and would have induced hon. Gentlemen to think that its continuation was unnecessary.

said, he begged to move as an Amendment, the omission of the word "moiety," and the insertion of the words "third part;" and he would urge in support of it, that the late Sir Robert Peel had thought it necessary, when he introduced the income tax in 1842, to reduce the assessment of the farmers from three-quarters to one-half the rental, and that the causes which induced him to do so existed to a greater degree now than ever before. No person could question the fact, that the profits upon land were much smaller than they formerly were, and at present they were certainly not greater in England than in Scotland and Ireland, where he understood that an arrangement of this nature was to be adopted. To place the farmers of the United Kingdom on a footing of equality was all he asked, and was a measure of justice which ought to be conceded, for no one could assert that the farmers in England were better off than their brethren in Scotland or Ireland; or that the fall in rents had been at all equal to the fall in prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion urged as an objection to his Amendment, that in the present state of the law the farmers had the option of being assessed on their profits under Schedule D; but, in nine cases out of ten, it was utterly impossible for the farmer to make his appeal on that schedule. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman upon this point; let him make inquiries of whom he pleased—the surveyors, or any persons living in the rural districts. It was, therefore, a most cruel mockery to tell the farmer, when he complained of the pressure of Schedule B upon him, that he might make his appeal under Schedule D. The farmer seldom kept any accounts. Many persons might ask what business had a man to enter upon farming who did not keep accounts sufficiently accurate to show that he had no profits. But what was the case of the farmer? Every tradesman they knew kept accurate accounts, and why? Because unless he did so, he could not prove his debts. But farming was a ready-money business; the farmer sold on one market day, and received his money on the next. He paid wages on the Saturday night, and all his bills the very moment he got his money; therefore he had no necessity to keep accounts, or a clerk, like persons of any other class. But even tradesmen, when they became amateur farmers, were not quite so competent to keep accounts as farmers as they were as tradesmen. He would even venture to say that even Mr. Mechi himself would find it difficult to prove what, if any, was the amount of his profits. How much more difficult then, must it be for one who had been brought up at the plough's tail to do so? Parliament ought not to take advantage of this unhappy position of the farmers, which was no fault of their own, but was the result of the profession to which they belonged. The most successful instance in his (Mr. Vansittart's) own neighbourhood of a man making large profits, and leaving behind him a considerable sum of money by farming, was that of a man who rose from nothing, and who never kept any accounts, for the very good reason that he could neither read nor write. But, instead of quoting instances, he would rather put this question upon its notoriety. He thought if the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would consult those about him, and use the means he had it in his power to do, he would come to the same conclusion with himself (Mr. Vansittart), and admit that the argument as to the power of the farmer to assess himself under Schedule D was no ground for resisting the Amendment he now proposed. Having placed his case thus far in what he hoped to be a very favourable position, he thought he might now call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the speech which was delivered by him on the debate upon the Budget of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in December last. He (Mr. Vansittart) heard that speech with great satisfaction, because he considered, whatever might be the fate of the measure then under discussion, or whoever might be the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, at any rate, those who were concerned in rural affairs would meet with justice from the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as from the hands of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such was his conviction on hearing that speech; but he was sorry to say such was not his conviction now. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion reproached the late Chancellor of the Exchequer with having betrayed his friends by not doing enough for them; he drew a most striking picture of the position of a yeoman occupying his own farm of 70l or 80l. a year, who was to be called upon to pay an income tax on an income above 50l; a house tax, and other things; and certainly any yeoman farmer who at a market dinner or elsewhere, should have read or heard of that speech, would have felt thoroughly convinced that that right hon. Gentleman would at any rate not have imposed this new tax upon him. Let them take the case of a yeoman at 80l. It was true he might not be assessed to the full amount, but he would be debarred the right of appeal under Schedule D; therefore, he would have to pay the income tax both as owner and as occupier. He would have to pay for the cart in which he drove himself to market, or his wife to church. In addition to that he would have to pay the succession tax, which possibly might compel him to mortgage his estate which it might have been the pride of his family to enjoy as long as the family of any Gentleman in that House had enjoyed their family estate. He thought, therefore, this was a case on which he might fairly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a favourable consideration. But if the right hon. Gentleman should oppose his Amendment, he then feared he should fail, because he know there were many hon. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House, as well as on the Ministerial benches, who considered that it was their duty, though professedly the friends of the farmers, to recognise the responsible situation of the servants of the Crown, and their right to look for consideration from that House. But he thought he might appeal to the language used on a former occasion upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) appealed to all who voted for the Budget of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who agreed to the income tax as that right hon. Gentleman proposed it, to support the present Budget. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) pressed that view of the case; and he (Mr. Vansittart) thought he was entitled to press that view of the case also, and to call upon all those who supported the late Government to support his present Amendment; for it was well known that his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to put upon the English farmer one-third of the tax upon the annual value of the farm occupied by him. In proposing this Amendment, he had no wish whatever to interfere with the conducting of the public business by the Government. This was no party question, nor had he treated it as such, although it was his misfortune perhaps to sit on the Opposition side of the House. He hoped the grounds he had assigned would induce the House to con- sider the proposition he now made to be just and fair. He thought it would be far better for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow his scheme of finance to have such qualifications applied to it as justice and equity demanded, than to resist all appeals, and to determine on carrying it through as a stereotyped plan.

said, he had listened with great satisfaction, so far as he was personally concerned, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and although he could not assent to his proposal, he admitted that no one could have presented his case in a more favourable and intelligent manner. He begged to assure the hon. Member that he had not the slightest intention of making any charge against him for not having gone on with his Motion on a former night. It was the duty of Members of the Government to press forward public business as far as they could; but it was no doubt also the duty of others to bring forward what they considered they might in justice propose. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the succession or legacy duty, because he hoped the Committee would soon arrive at the discussion of that question. He would not expend the time of the Committee by noticing the remarks which the hon. Gentleman had made upon his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) conduct in imposing various taxes upon the farmers, notwithstanding the comments he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made upon the taxes intended to be put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in December last. But the taxes which fell upon yeomen—men who cultivated their own land—were not peculiar to that class of persons; they applied to all other owners of land. It should be borne in mind, however, that there was no house tax put upon them (as was the case with the Budget of December last), and that there was no income tax put upon them where their income was under 100l. a year. It was true the yeoman would be subject to the succession tax, but in that case he would pay it in common with the entire community. However, let that pass. The subject would come on for discussion in its turn. He would pass on to state the reasons why, while agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that this was no party question, and that no persons had a stronger claim for consideration than the farmers, he thought that the hon. Member had not succeeded in making out a case on their behalf. In the first place,' the Committee must recollect that since the repeal of the corn laws the income tax had been several times renewed. In 1848, prices had already become low, with every prospect of their becoming lower. In 1851, the tax was again renewed, when prices were exceedingly low; but notwithstanding the state of prices at that period, the House of Commons, and he believed the farmers too, accepted, and accepted thankfully, the settlement of the question proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), who, by a clause introduced into the law, put the farmer, with regard to the income tax, in a position more favourable than any other portion of the community. There was no class of the community which now stood on so favourable a footing with respect to the income tax as the farmer. That, he thought, was a strong reason against proceeding at present to any exceptional legislation in his favour. The hon. Member had demanded that he should be placed in the same position as the Scotch and Irish farmer; but if that were done he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would venture to say that that concession would be at once made a standing ground for a further appeal to alter the law in favour of the Scotch and Irish farmer. As for the Scotch farmer, his case was irresistible, and was founded partly on acknowledged facts, and partly on reasonable belief. It was founded, in the place, upon the fact that the public burdens in Scotland, which were mostly borne by the tenants in England, were borne principally by the landlord, and constituted a portion of the rent. But the rent, with reference to which the English farmer was assessed, did not include those burdens, and consequently, if they were to put English farmers on a footing with Scotch farmers, some vigilant Scotch representative would of course get up and urge an irresistible claim for a new concession to the farmers of his own country. The case of the Scotch farmer also rested on the belief that he had a smaller share of the profits from the land than the English farmer had. The hon. Member had stated that the fall of rents in England had not cor- responded with the fall of prices. If that were so, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was a lively and useful suggestion to be addressed to the landlords; but if it were true that rents had not fallen enough in England, and if that were a reason why they ought to amend the position of the English farmer, he wanted to know how did matters stand in Scotland? Had rents fallen more in that country? Why, it was notorious that if the fall of rents had been small in England, it had been still less in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had entered, naturally enough, into a discussion of the general condition of the farmer; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) deprecated any change in the provisions of the income tax founded on that ground, and for the same reason that he should deprecate founding any other "legislation based on such grounds. It was the business of the Legislature to proceed on the principle that farming was an occupation which must be allowed to find its level under the influence of competition between man and man. If that were the principle upon which they had to proceed, they had no right to say that the profits of the farmer were smaller than they had been before; and if they looked into the price of commodities at all, they were bound also to examine into the effects produced in the process of farming by the introduction of machinery, and drainage, and many other improvements. But, after all, the main consideration on this subject was one which he had already adverted to, namely, that they had already provided for this case: they had already fixed on a standard for the farmer, which was believed, on the whole, to be equitable; and Parliament had since then taken a material step to improve the footing of the farmer, by allowing him to take his choice whether he would be rated as a farmer, on a fixed proportion of his rent, or as a trader, according to his profits. They had not, indeed, said to him—"Go into Schedule D, if you please," for they had considered that the inquisition into his affairs, in that case necessitated, would not be agreeable to him, but they had given him the means of averting an unfair assessment. He might here remark, that the hon. Gentleman had made a serious error in his calculations of the profits of the farmer. The hon. Member did not regard the maintenance of the farmer's family, the expenses of his living, as any element in his calculations, and, for that matter, the farmers seemed much disposed to take the same view, and to regard the expense of their maintenance as part of the expense of their farming, and as not entering into the question of profits, which was a fallacy not to be admitted. Where, however, the farmer's profits were less than a moiety of his rent, it was not proposed arbitrarily to enforce assessment as upon a moiety; for it would be competent in a farmer who at the end of the year found himself so situated, to go before commissioners—not Government Commissioners, but local commissioners—and, if he could make out his case, to have any excess of assessment allowed him in his payment of the tax. The hon. Gentleman objected to this, that farmers did not keep accounts. There might, no doubt, be many small farmers who did not keep accounts; but he confidently believed that the great bulk of those who would come within the operation of the measure did keep accounts. Most assuredly this was the case, he might almost say, universally with the farmers in the north of England and in Scotland. There was, however, one fact, alone demonstrative that the profits of the farmer were not so small as stated, and this was that in the past year the whole amount of relief from assessment claimed by the tenant-farmers of England and Scotland—upon a total assessment of 330,000l.—was between 5,000l. and 6,000l. only; the whole amount of relief actually granted being 3,419l. This fact, he would repeat, demonstratively proved that the farmers, as a body, had no case to show that their profits, including, of course, the cost of the maintenance of their families, did not represent fully one-half of their rent.

said, he rose to join the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart) in making a last earnest appeal on behalf of the farmers of England, than whom no class of the whole community was more justly entitled to the sympathy of that House, for they were placed in a most disadvantageous position by the present arrangement. When Gentlemen on that side of the House objected one by one to schedule after schedule of this measure on the ground of its injustice, the only argument used in answer to these objections was, that the same objections would equally apply to every schedule. When it was objected to Schedule A that while it pro- fessed to impose an income tax of 7d. in the pound on land, it in fact imposed a tax of 9d. in the pound; to Schedule B that the income tax on farmers was assessed at too high a criterion; to Schedule C and Schedule D because they treated incomes from trades and professions and those derived from the funds, which were limited in their interest, unjustly, and to Schedule E because precarious salaries were placed on the same footing as permanent incomes derived from land; and when it was shown that they were all unequal and unjust, they were met by the singular argument that taking them altogether they acted fairly, that five wrong things made one right one, and that injustice to each class was justice to all. It must be evident to any hon. Gentleman who knew the condition of the British farmer, that taking half the rent was much too high; and, although it might be said that the farmers had the option of transferring themselves from Schedule B to Schedule D, it was only handing them over from one injustice to another, and he might say that it was difficult to tell under which of these schedules they would suffer the greatest amount of injustice, What was the criterion for the assessment of the farmer which was defended by the Government? It was assumed to be fair in the taxation of the farmer to take half his rent as the criterion on which to charge him with income tax. In former times, during the war and when prices were high, three-quarters of the farmer's rent was taken as the criterion on which he was to pay his income tax. In 1842 Sir Robert Peel reduced the criterion to one-half of his rent; and that was during the existence of the corn laws, and when the cultivators of land enjoyed protection. But the Government, which proposed in 1853 to impose the income tax for seven years, proceeded on the same criterion of assessment as that of 1842, when the circumstances of the farmer were rendered so different by the withdrawal of protection. That question of protection was now for ever set at rest; but still he wished to draw attention to the change in the condition of the farmers since 1846. Some misapprehension appeared to exist with regard to his (Sir F. Kelly's) feelings on that subject. It was supposed that he had denounced the financial measures of Sir Robert Peel, and the commercial reforms he effected between 1842 and 1846. He would, however, venture to say with confidence, that never in or out of that House had he used one word with regard to those measures but that of approbation. He had supported those measures, and believed they had conferred great benefits on the community, and that the Minister who had proposed them was entitled to the eternal gratitude of the country. But he could not, and would not, say the same thing of the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. It was true he had supported that measure, yielding as he did his own doubts to the high and commanding authority of the Minister under whom he served as an officer of the Crown; but he could say with sincerity that he had ever since incessantly lamented the votes he had then given. Although he did not deny that the repeal of the corn laws was the crowning measure of previous financial and commercial reforms, yet he maintained that by passing it without any countervailing measure in favour of the cultivators of the land, great injustice and injury had been done to them. He should not have alluded to this subject, but for its direct bearing on this part of the question which was now under consideration. Would any hon. Gentleman deny that if half the rent paid by the farmers as the criterion of assessment which was fixed in 1842, when the corn laws existed, and corn was at 63s.; now that the corn laws were repealed, and corn was at 40s., could any one say that half the rent paid was a fair criterion, or that more than one-third would now be considered as fair? If he was inclined to quote speeches, or taunt hon. Members, he could cite the language of every Member of the present Government as late as 1843 and 1844 expressive of their opinion, that the burdens on land justified the protection of the corn laws. That was the language of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London in 1844, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then a Member of Sir Robert Peel's Government, in opposition to the annual Motion of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers)—all of them agreeing in the doctrine which was laid down by the ablest political economists, that it was neither contrary to principle or sound policy to afford protection to that particular class who were interested in the cultivation of the soil, so long as they were borne down by those unequal burdens. He (Sir P. Kelly) would ask—was there any one single burden to which the occupiers of land were then liable, to which they were not liable now? If that was so, the farmers were entitled to some protection on account of the burdens they had to bear. They had a right to ask, that if you would not reconsider the burdens to which they were subject, as the income tax was about to be prolonged for seven years, at least that you would consider whether the principle on which they were assessed was just or not? Let him for a moment call attention to the local burdens which pressed severely on farmers. Besides being liable to all taxes on articles of consumption, assessed taxes, and all other taxes, it was to be found that in 1844 the county rates were 1,237,118l.; the highway rates, 1,169,891l.; the church rates, 481,662l.; making a total of 2,888,671l. All that large sum pressed specially and exclusively on the class of persons whose interests he was now advocating. Besides this, there was the land tax, nearly all of which was borne by the farmers, amounting to 1,447,792l., which would make a total of 4,336,463l.—while the county rates had risen from 1,237,118l. in 1844, to 1,355,644l. The case of the farmers, which he wished to put before the House, was, first, that by the loss of protection by the repeal of the corn laws, or, not to use an invidious term, he should rather say by the loss of the means of carrying on more profitably their occupations, they were placed at a disadvantage of thirty or forty per cent now as compared with their position in 1842, when the criterion of assessment was fixed at half their rent. There were other considerations also which ought not to be lost sight of. He knew of a case in his own county in. which, last year, a farmer whose profits were about 300l. or 400l. a year, lost by a blight a sum of 1,000l. or 1,200l., and no allowance was made for that loss. It would be said that the same argument applied to tradesmen who might lose by bad debts in particular years; but it was no reason because one class suffered from injustice that it should not be corrected with regard to another. He protested as much against Schedule D as against Schedule B. It was said that an alternative was given to the farmer, and that if he pleased he might be assessed under Schedule D. It appeared to him that the boon was not worth acceptance, and was in most cases not capable of being accepted. The hon. Member for Berkshire had given the true solution of the matter: the farmers did not keep their accounts in such a manner as to enable them to avail themselves of the alternative. It appeared to him that the case of the farmer stood upon the plain and indisputable principles of justice and fair play. Their incomes were now assessed at one-half the amount of the rent, and that was obviously, even from the admission of hon. Members opposite, an overrated and enormous estimate. Let them only contrast for a moment the difference between the condition of the farmer before and after the framing of the corn laws; and if they did that, they must admit that they are at present suffering under a grievous and almost intolerable injustice. They had to encounter bad and good seasons—they applied all their capital and skill to the soil, and at the end of the year they find their capital diminishing, year after year, being unable, with all their industry and all their efforts, fairly and comfortably to support their families as they had been accustomed to do; and they thought they were justly entitled to appeal to Parliament, and to ask it in its justice to give them this small measure of relief. If that was not guaranteed, he should take every opportunity permitted by the forms of the House to urge again and again their claims on the justice of Parliament for relief, and for some mitigation of the evils under which they suffered. He should hereafter move that an exemption should be made under this schedule by means of a graduated scale of the tax on all incomes under 200l. a year, and all under 400l. a year, not only with regard to this, but other classes who were unequally dealt with in Schedules B. and D.

said, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had been speaking from what he should call "a Suffolk brief." He had been badly advised, for the facts were not precisely as he had represented them to the Committee. Now, first of all, with regard to the string of local taxes which he said' the farmer had to pay, it must be within his recollection that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), when he sat upon the Treasury bench, disposed of all those taxes in one of his able speeches in a very summary manner, and satisfied the House that all the arguments on which he had formerly based his Motions for the redress of the grievances of this class were utterly fallacious; and, in fact, that this category of peculiar burdens was to be included among the obsolete matters henceforth not to be referred to again in that House. But, even supposing that this had not been so, certainly the hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to take advantage of the credulity of the Committee by asserting—because he must have known by the returns on the table that more than one-half of the local taxes to which he had alluded was paid by property that was not land, and that was in no way whatever connected with the agricultural interest—he must have known, also, that the proportion that was paid by land had been greatly reduced since 1842, and that, in point of fact, from year to year the amount of this local taxation borne by the agricultural interest was steadily diminishing, while the proportion borne by property other than agricultural was constantly increasing. The hon. and learned Gentleman's acuteness must have shown him that fact—

said that, if he was wrong, he should be happy to be corrected; but the figures he had given showed the proportion charged upon land.

That might be, but if other property was equally charged for these taxes, where was the special case for demanding relief for the land? Therefore that argument entirely failed. But what was the proposition of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart)? Why, in a simple form it appeared to be this, that farmers who paid 300l. a year rent, and paid on 150l. to the income tax, should hereafter pay only on 100l.; and that whilst the income tax was about to be made to descend to incomes of 100l. derived from trades and professions, and made to include the artisan who earned his 2l. a week, all farmers paying a rent of between 200l. and 300l. a year should be altogether exempt from the tax. That, he thought, was the most extraordinary proposition that he had ever heard, even from the other side of the House. What was the position of a farmer with a rent of 300l. a year? He supposed he would rent 250 acres, at 24s. an acre. Now, would the hon. Gentleman have the conscience to ask a mechanic who earned 2l. a week to pay the income tax, and exempt a tenant-farmer who rented 250 acres of land? On such a farm he ought at least to have a capital of 1,600l.; and would hon. Gentlemen opposite attempt to persuade the Committee that capital employed in agriculture yielded no returns whatever? He thought the farmer would at least have a return of 5 per cent, which, on 1,600l., would be 80l. a year; then there would be the return for his own labour, and the profit that he would make above the actual interest on his capital. Look at the style in which farmers renting from 250 to 500 acres of land lived. They had good homes—many of them kept their carriages, not always with one horse, and some of them, having a weakness for hunters, were accustomed to follow the hounds. He was acquainted with some tenants on farms of this nature, and he knew the comfort, the abundance, the what was called "gentility" in which they lived to be far beyond that of persons engaged in trade, who paid a great deal more of income tax. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vansittart) put the case of such a farmer on the same footing with a clerk at 100l. a year, or a mechanic of a superior class earning 2l. per week. It was an insult to the ability and the good sense of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) to suppose that he had persuaded himself this was a just proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn one of those pictures of the farmer which they were accustomed to some years ago, but which, he thought, had been obliterated for ever. They really ought to put a stop to such speeches. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as if the farmers were not in a condition to pay their taxes now, as it used to be said of them a few years ago. In his opinion, the case was now entirely reversed. Formerly a farmer was supposed to have no capital; but now he had, or at least he ought to have, a large capital, and he had no doubt that his returns were on an average much greater now than in any former years, with the exception perhaps of the prices during the war. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) said that Schedule D was no advantage to the farmers, and that very few of them had recourse to it. He (Mr. Bright) admitted that it was no relief to them, for the fact was that the maximum rate at which they were charged was far below the average rate of their profits, and they would be silly indeed if they had accepted the offer, and subjected themselves to the same inquisitorial process as persons in trade were subjected to. He knew that if a system could be devised—though he was afraid it could not—by which persons in trade could be charged upon a steady, settled, maximum rate, and be freed from all the harassing inquiries which so often took place before the commissioners, they would gladly and unanimously accept of it. Still, he thought that when the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) agreed to this change, he was guilty of an unfair proceeding towards the revenue. But with respect to farming, he was of opinion that there was no trade in the country at the present moment which yielded more satisfactory returns than it. He met a gentleman in the lobby that evening, an eminent carpet dealer from Westmoreland. He asked him the condition of the wool trade; and he said that the prices were extravagantly high, and that the farmers were selling fleeces now at nearly double the prices which they obtained only a short time ago. In fact, the farming trade was more prosperous now than it had ever before been known in the memory of man, and he could not, therefore, understand why they now kept up the old cry of distress. The political capital which they used to make out of it, was now entirely gone, never more to return; and he thought it would be much better if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were mostly great landed proprietors, were now to disabuse the minds of their constituents, and show them that they could now have no hope of a remission of taxation except on such terms as equally affected the whole country. He was certain that everybody who read the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman to-morrow would feel that he had now taken in hand the worst case which it ever was his fortune to defend, either before a Committee of that House, or before a jury of his country. As for the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart), he was a young-Member of that House, and he was probably better acquainted with the conversation of the farmers in the country than with the tone and temper of the House; or he thought the hon. Member would never have brought forward this Motion, which was, in his opinion, the most imprudent one he had ever heard propounded to the House of Commons.

said, if the hon. Member would make a Motion exempting mechanics, artisans, and small tradesmen from the income tax to the extent of one-sixth of their income, he would give him his cordial support.

said, if the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had attended to the speech either of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir P. Kelly), or of the hon. Member for Berk- shire (Mr. Vansittart), he was sure he would have at least attempted to answer them, which at present he had not done. Their arguments rested upon this, that there was no reason why the English farmer should be called upon to pay more than the farmers in Scotland and Ireland. He (Mr. Bankes) listened with the utmost attention to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he could not perceive on what ground he continued a higher rate on the English than he did on the Scotch and Irish farmer. He knew cases of great distress in his own county, which he was sure could not be equalled either in Ireland or in Scotland, and it seemed hard that the farmer should be called upon to pay simply because he was an Englishman. But to all this the hon. Member for Manchester had not paid the slightest attention. He said that in his opinion farming was now the best trade going. Well, he was not there to deny that; but it was to be remembered that they were going to vote this charge upon the tenant-farmers for seven years to come; and how did the hon. Member know that that prosperity would continue all through the seven years? Of course, then, it became the duty of those who represented their interests to look carefully to the manner in which the tax was reimposed. The present appeared only a fair and just proposition. The farmers had been deprived of protection and promised a compensation, no trace of which had they at present perceived. Their claim, therefore, was one founded on simple justice, and it was impossible to refuse it them with any regard to what was fair and equitable.

said, he took that opportunity of entering his most solemn protest against the reimposition of the income tax, though he approved generally of the Budget. The income tax was not on the pockets but on the morality of the middle classes; it touched the very life-blood of their principle and honour, and though the tax had existed according to law since the establishment of the poor-law, it had never been carried out in the various parishes in assessing property for the poor, on account of its mischievous effects. He must say, the mere fact of giving the farmers a fixed amount, to be ascertained by a certain standard, was an inestimable boon, and did much to place them in an advantageous position. He should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire.

said, though he in- tended to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vansittart), he would not go into any details on the question, but he felt bound to protest against the exaggerated and highly-coloured statement of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) about the condition of the tenant-farmers. [Mr. BRIGHT: It is admitted on the other side.] He did not care who admitted it. He would not place his judgment under any man's belt, not even under that of the hon. Member for Manchester. He had long lived in the country, and he knew the north of England well. Had he not known that the hon. Member for Manchester had travelled through a great part of England, he should have thought he had never known anything of an acre of land in his life; the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) probably knew as little. He (Mr. Aglionby) did not represent a county constituency, but he thought that was not necessary to make a man know something of land; and he thought, if such statements as that of the hon. Member for Manchester were allowed to pass sub silen-tio, they would give just ground of complaint to a very large and important class of the people of this country. He (Mr. Aglionby) still thought the repeal of the corn laws was a wise and beneficent measure. He hoped the farming interest would be yet more prosperous, but he maintained that, so far from the farmer having hitherto had a fair return for his labour, he believed he had not even received any advance either for his labour or his capital. He knew that in the north of England that had been very generally so, and that both the rent and the maintenance of the family had been paid out of the capital. The hon. Member for Manchester had talked of farmers keeping their hunters; he (Mr. Aglionby) knew of no farmers living in that style, save the exceptions to the general class. The hon. Member for Manchester talked of the capital the farmer had—[Mr. BRIGHT: Ought to have.] "Ought to have." Unfortunately, people have not always what they ought to have, nor do what they ought to do; but there was one great drawback the farmer in the north of England had to contend with—there was no valuation. Would any Gentleman connected with the land, and who knew the common class of tenants, tell him that there was more than one in forty or fifty who could go before the commissioners with any chance of getting an exemption—not because the commissioners were unwilling to do justice, but because the farmer had not the means of convincing him, as he kept no books.

said, he was sure the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) could never have travelled through the district which he had the honour to represent (Cornwall), or he would not have made the statement he had done. It was true the price of wool had risen of late, but the farmer had been obliged to sell his fleeces before the rise took place. It was true, also, mutton had risen; but they had been constrained years ago to reduce the amount of stock on their farms. It was not the fact that they were in a state of prosperity: all that could be said for them was, that they were now in a state of existence. And now another difficulty had come upon the farmers, for the price of labour had risen by one-third what it was a few years ago. He thought it due to the farmers to make these observations; but at the same time he must say he regretted the present Motion was brought forward, though, if it were pressed to a division, he would vote for it.

said, that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), or the hon. Member who had just sat down, in thinking that any man was entitled to begin farming or any other business without capital. He believed that the statement of the Members for Manchester and Cockermouth were quite reconcilable, and that while, according to the former hon. Gentleman, farmers who had adequate capital were now doing well, those, on the contrary, who had not were suffering. He thought that the assessment of the farmers to the income tax proceeded upon an unsound principle; that they ought to be assessed upon their exact profits—neither more nor less—and not upon any assumed proportion of their rent, which must necessarily be too much in some cases, and too little in others. It had, however, been always contended that it was in vain to expect from farmers a satisfactory account of their profits, because they did not keep sufficient accounts, and that therefore it was, upon the whole, better to fix a certain sum. He believed that this was yielding to a bad principle—no one should be tolerated in business who did not keep accounts. It was the only way in which a trader, which a farmer was, could be made to keep right. He had no doubt that the sufferings of farmers who had not capital had during the last three years been very great, nay, that in the cases of small farmers their losses almost amounted to confiscation. But the fact was that they had undertaken more than they could do, and had suffered the consequences which would attend such a course, whether in farming or any other branch of business, He believed that a capital of 10l. per acre was requisite to carry on farming operations to the best advantage. With the change that had taken place, and was still taking place, farmers would be compelled to keep accounts, and when they did so they should, as regarded their assessment to the income tax, he placed in the same position as other traders. In the mean time the present system might be allowed to continue as a compromise. In that case, however, he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Vansittart), as he thought that an assessment of one-third of the rent would be quite insufficient.

said, there was one point which the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had made clear to his mind, and, as he thought, clear also to the mind of the House, and that was that the hon. Member was a Protectionist, and that as a Protectionist he ought to have voted with hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. It was another of the proofs they received how frequently men's better judgment and experience were influenced by party considerations; for the hon. Member depicted in glowing colours the great distress which the agricultural interest had suffered for many years past, and was still suffering, and yet he would take the present and every other opportunity of voting against that interest. And then came the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) with one of those disquisitions which he gave the House so frequently on political economy, and laid down the principle that no man ought to hold a farm who could not put down 10l. for every acre of land he hired. The hon. Gentleman was a friend of the people, and yet he would exclude from the opportunity of making his way in the world every man whose father had not made it for him beforehand. That might be political economy, but it was subversive of every principle upon which the greatness of this country was founded. Every man who had perseverance and ability might begin with small means and make them large; but the hon. Gentle- man denied that. [Cries of "No, no!"] How many men in this country, agriculturists, merchants, and manufacturers, had begun the world without a farthing, and yet, by their perseverance, industry, talents, and character, had made great means. If he were a landowner, he would say, let him have skilful, industrious, honest, and straightforward men, and he would put them in possession of his land, and they would gradually make capital; and never would be hear it said that a man should not begin without capital without protesting against it as a principle subversive of the best interests of the country. But the hon. Member for Montrose had admitted what Gentlemen on that side of the House had always contended—that the repeal of the corn laws had led to the confiscation of the small landowners. He was one of the much despised class—the Protectionists—and would admit that that question was now settled; but that had been entirely in consequence of a combination of circumstances which could not have been foreseen—the discovery of gold in Australia being one of the most important. The House would recollect that in 1847 the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) then at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote a letter to the Bank of England authorising them to issue notes in excess of the law beyond the limits allowed by Sir Robert Peel's Bank Charter; but now they had a different state of things, and instead of there being only 900,000l. of notes unemployed in the Bank, there were 9,000,000l The financial difficulties of that time had ceased, and the agriculturists had struggled through their difficulties; but, without desiring to keep up that worn-out subject, representing as he did an agricultural borough and district, he had taken great pains to ascertain whether the representations of agricultural distress were real or fancied, and he had perfectly satisfied his own mind that the representations made to the Government presided over by the noble Lord, when' Her Majesty was advised to address Parliament, and point out that great distress existed in the agricultural interest, were not in the imagination of the noble Lord, but were real. With respect to the particular measure proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkhire (Mr. Vansittart), he agreed with the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Kendall), and did not attach much importance to it, on account of the smallness of the relief it afforded; hut, as a matter of principle, he thought it was just, and he should therefore vote for it. To a farmer paying 300l. a year, it would not give greater relief than 1l. 9s. 4d. a year; to one paying 400l, 1l. 19s. 2d.; and to one paying 600l., 2l. 6s. 2d. He believed, therefore, that if the question were put to the farmers, they would say they did not care one farthing about it, and would not ask the Legislature to make the alteration proposed; but he believed it to be just in principle, and therefore, if his hon. Friend pressed his Motion to a division, he should vote with him.

said, from what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins), he seemed to be the schoolmaster of the agriculturists and landowners, to teach them their business; but he could only say, after hearing his opinion about capital employed in farming, he should be very sorry to be his client. What he had understood his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to say was, that which every landowner knew very well—that the great distress among the agriculturists had arisen from persons taking farms without considering what amount of capital they had to cultivate them with. Formerly 10l. an acre was supposed to be the requisite amount; but now, from the benefits of free trade, not more than 7l. or 8l. was required. That, too, was a circumstance which went in favour of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the landowners; for as farming was brought within the reach of smaller capital, the competition for farms increased in the market. But as to farming itself, notwithstanding the doleful accounts which had been given of it, he did not know any more profitable business than it at this moment, and he understood the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) to have said as much. With the exception of wheat, there was not one article which was not paying the farmer better than it had ever done. The price of wool was most satisfactory; although, if he understood the hon. Member for East Cornwall, he said that the farmers of his neighbourhood had no wool, no stock, and no capital; all they had was poverty and distress.

said, he must explain that he had said they were so hardly pressed for the last two years, that the moment they had any wool they sold it, being unable to wait until they could get a high price for it; they were obliged to sell stock to meet their rents.

It did appear; then, that the landowners got their rents!. It was rather a quiet proceeding on the part of the landowners to ask them to put their hand into the public purse in order to make these rents last a little longer. He believed that in all these cases there was growing up a feeling among the tenant-farmers, which would tend ultimately to the benefit of all. They were looking to the question of what capital was required before they took a farm, instead of that absurd competition which took place at one time for farms, when a man who was doing tolerably well with a farm of 300 or 400 or 500 acres was anxious to rise in the scale of farmers, and, without looking to the capital required to carry on his business, went and borrowed a certain amount of capital to enable him to take a larger farm. But there was another thing they were looking too, and that was, tenant-right; and if landowners would let their farms at an honest profit, they need not be afraid about finding men with capital enough to carry on their business. As to the Motion before the House, he thought that, having agreed to the income tax when agriculture was not so prosperous as it was at present, hon. Gentleman opposite had brought it forward at the wrong moment, and he should therefore vote against it.

said, after what had fallen from the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee, about' the profitable returns of farming, he had no hesitation in saying that, in Lincolnshire, where farming was quite as high as in the county where the hon. Member farmed, taking the last three or four years, the farmer had not only been making no profit, but actually had been living upon capital. As to the boasted advantages of free trade, he was prepared to admit that there had been a change; but if he considered in what way that change operated on those who held those farms at the time, he would find that they had reaped but a very doubtful advantage. If hon. Gentlemen imagined that farming was conducted during the last few years at a cheaper rate, he must explain to them that it only arose from the fact that implements and machinery were much cheaper than what they previously had been. At the same time, however, it should be remem- bered that that was an advantage which operated entirely in favour of incoming tenants. Now, he wished to put it to the Committee that night, ought they to make the arbitrary assessment of the farmer at one-half of his rent; or whether the injustice of that arbitrary assessment was in any way diminished by placing the tenant-farmer in another schedule, and giving him the power of appeal? The fact was, the whole difficulty of the question lay here, that there was a total absence of accounts in the farming districts. He would, however, in order to illustrate the fairness of the proposal now before the Committee, give them the result of his inquiries among the farmers. And, first, he would take the case of a large farm, say of 600 acres—allowing the rent to be 30s. per acre—which would make up a sum of 900l. a year. On the other hand, the farmer's capital, at 8l. per acre, would be represented by a sum of 4,800l.; on which, allowing 6 per cent, would make the interest amount to a sum of 288l. a year. But if you assess that man to the income tax, you assess him at half his rent; and therefore you assess him at 450l. a year instead of at 288l a year. Again, to take the case of a smaller farmer, one holding 400 acres of land, his rent he would take but at 25s. per acre, for it was generally found that the larger the farm the greater the rent per acre. Well, the capital of this man he could only assume to be 7l. per acre, which would represent a sum of 2,800l. And, again, taking the rate of interest to be 6 per cent, his profits should be assessed at but 168l., whereas, under the proposal of the Government, his profits would be assessed at 250l. a year. If, as had been said, the farmers put the expense of their living down as part of the expense of their farm, he was sure that their returns could not be estimated at more than five, or even four per cent; at the same time, he admitted it was impossible to calculate what was the cost of a farmer's living with the same strictness that was possible in the case of a person living in Manchester. A great deal had been said about the boon which was conferred upon the farming classes by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) in 1851, by giving them a right of appeal. On the other hand, much had been said about the farmers being totally exempted from the vexatious and inquisitorial process which made their affairs known to the world. Now, he thought there was much inconsistency about these two positions, for if by assessing the farmer's profits at half his rent, an appeal was rendered necessary, he would have to make a complete disclosure of all his affairs before the assessor, and before the country at large. And if the man happened to have any outstanding engagements, it would be anything but convenient to make such a statement, or to publish to his landlord he was not doing well by his farm. And, again, the Committee must be aware that the difficulty and expense attendant on making the appeals were such as almost to deter farmers from making them at all. It was only the other day that a farmer had told him that, in order to make his appeal, he had to travel two or three times over twenty miles, and that when at last his case came to be heard, the assessor, amongst other things, asked how many quarts of milk and glasses of ale he drank; whereupon he turned round and told the assessor he might as well ask him how many bees he had in his garden, in order to ascertain what quantity of honey he made in the year. He did not wish to make an appeal to the Committee ad mise-ricordiam, he wanted them merely to examine whether the facts of the case warranted their assessing the farmers at half their rent; at any rate, he wished them to place the farmer in the same position as the rest of the community, by assuming his income on an average of years.

said, that an hon. Member behind him (Mr. Freshfield) had given notice of an Amendment upon that part of the Resolution at which the Chairman had just arrived; and he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make any general statement on the subject, because, if so, it might be advisable that the Committee should hear him before they proceeded to consider that Amendment.

I entirely concur in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. Considering the great importance of this question—considering that I have only had an oppor- tunity of adverting to it on one single occasion, and then necessarily in conjunction with a great number of other very important subjects, I have not been able to say what was perhaps requisite to place the proposition of Her Majesty's Government clearly and fairly before the House or the Committee. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and I purposed to have risen when the Resolution had been read, to state generally the nature of our proposition. I wish, then, in the first place, to call the attention of the Committee to the limitation of the proposition as it stands before us. There are a great number—at least there are a considerable number—of points of great importance and very serious difficulty which we have to examine when we come to the details of the question; but most of those points I am anxious at present to leave in some degree out of view; because, in the first place, it is hardly possible to consider them until the Committee shall have under its view the precise form in which the proposition of Her Majesty's Government will be ultimately clothed; and because, in the second place, the general principles involved in the proposition are in themselves so exceedingly important as to deserve the exclusive and undivided attention of the Committee. It is most necessary that we should, in the first instance, fix our undivided and closest attention on the principle of the measure, and give a vote on the measure, in the first instance, which will strictly be a vote on the principle, before we come to consider the great multitude of minor and subordinate questions which we shall have to examine and dispose of as we go through the details. The proposition of Her Majesty's Government, as it stands before the Committee, is—"That towards raising the supply granted to Her Majesty, the stamp duties payable by law upon or for or in respect of legacies, shall be granted and made payable upon and for every succession to the beneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to the receipt of any portion or additional portion of the income or profits thereof that may take place upon or in consequence of the death of any person, under whatever title, whether existing or future, such succession may be derived." Now, Sir, the vote of the Committee is asked on the present occasion to the affirmation of the general proposition that some tax or other—(I do not now say an equal or unequal tax—that is to say, I do not ask you to pledge yourselves by vote to an equal or unequal tax)—but that some tax or other should be fixed or laid on all successions to property that take place in consequence of death. And that condition—the accruing of a tax in consequence of a succession that ensues upon a death—is the pivot of the whole measure. Of course, the importance of the bearings of this measure is to be considered with reference to two great classes of property, which have hitherto been exclusively, or, in the main, exempt from all charge upon death or upon succession; firstly, real property, whether settled or unsettled; and, secondly, settled property, whether personal or real. The first thing we have to consider is, what' are the reasons that determine Her Majesty's Government, and which they hope will determine the Committee, to resort to this source for the replenishment of the revenues of the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Buckinghamshire, said, a few nights ago, that we found a justification for this measure upon—if I understood him correctly—a certain character and effect which I bad assigned to it when addressing the House on a former night, namely, this character and effect, that the laying of this tax upon successions to property will do that which a great desire has been expressed, in this House and elsewhere, to effect—that is to say, it will countervail the operation of the income tax so far as that operation is too severe in its bearing upon intelligence and skill, and too lenient in its bearing upon property as compared with intelligence and skill. And the right hon. Gentleman further observed, that that being the purpose of the tax, it was obvious that the tax So considered, ought to terminate—or, at least, in the view and mind of the Government, ought to be intended to terminate—in the year 1860. Now, I certainly could not, with any great confidence, submit this proposition to the Committee, if the tax were intended to terminate in 1860, inasmuch as we shall not receive full legacy duty under the proposal in respect of any one portion of real property in England until the year 1858; and, therefore, if it were to terminate in 1860, it would be a very short duration for the tax, and would make it a tax for one very small fraction of the community alone; but, in point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the construction which he put upon my words. I did state that the bur- den which the income tax casts upon property is unequal, as compared with the burden which it puts upon intelligence and skill. I did not contest the opinion commonly entertained, that intelligence and skill were too hardly pressed upon, as compared with property—I pointed out that this measure would rectify that inequality—and I stated further, that I believed that this measure will rectify it, to whatever extent you may call it into existence, without raising any dangerous questions or unsettling your fiscal system, or causing it to be liable to repeated and successive disturbance; but I am far from saying that the rectification of the inequality in the income tax was the only reason on which the justification for this measure was to be based; on the contrary, it appears to me that there are many other such reasons. In the first place, it appears to me plain that the measure is essential for the improvement of the condition of the fiscal system of the country, in so far as in it he the means which will place a future Parliament in the position, at a given period, to part with the income tax if they shall think fit. That is a principal object that we propose to ourselves to effect, and by it we justify the proposal for continuing the income tax for seven years; while we propose it for a term so considerable, we shall have prepared the ground and shall have prepared that train of causes that will supply Parliament with the means of dispensing with the income tax, if they think fit, at the expiration of that time. Here, then, is another material reason for imposing that tax upon successions, and without that tax upon successions it would be impossible that we could hold out any other expectation of the termination of the income tax than that sort of vague expectation which the country from experience has learned to appreciate at its true value. Another reason for which we propose this tax is to provide a fund by means of which, during that interval of seven years, we may carry into effect great and extended measures for the remission of indirect taxation. This is an important and essential purpose of the measure; but I do not hesitate to say, that, beyond and independent of all this, there is a purpose yet more prominent, namely, the removal of an anomaly which is unjust in its nature—which is galling to the public feeling—which becomes more and more galling from year to year—which we believe it to be for the interest of all classes to settle at once and permanently, being convinced that the longer you postpone that settlement the more difficult it will be to achieve when the time shall come, and the worse must then be the terms on which it can be effected. With this feeling, and with the feeling that the present state of the law cannot be made good in point of justice, I say we have a purpose in this proposal quite irrespective of all the collateral ends, important as they are, which we hope to secure by making the proposal at the present moment. Now, Sir, the first question I wish to press upon the dispassionate consideration of the Committee is, can we maintain the present law as it is? In my opinion it is totally impossible. I do not mean to say it is impossible to maintain it for this Session or for the next; I mean this—that it is impossible to look upon that portion of our fiscal system with any satisfaction—that the public sentiment of the country is decidedly adverse to its continuance in its present state—and that at some day, which I will venture to say is not a distant day, it must and will inevitably be changed. You cannot maintain it, and why? Not because there is a clamour against it—[Colonel SIBTHORP: Oh!] I am sorry to scandalise the hon. and gallant Colonel, but I should hope that when we look to the rights of the question, and not to the mere popular opinion concerning it, we shall have some small degree of his approval. [Colonel SIBTHORP: NO, Sir; never!] Well, then, Sir, I greatly regret that those principles, which in themselves ought to command his cordial assent, should be so poisoned in his estimation by the mere fact of their finding utterance from my mouth. Irrespective of the approval of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I shall state the reason why, in my view, it is perfectly impossible to defend the continuance of the present law. In the first place—and I state first the reason which I consider to be the weakest—I shall state the reason why I do not think it is possible to defend the continuance of the present law, even as respects real property. I think, when we look back to the period of Mr. Pitt—when we reflect upon the proposal that was made by him nearly sixty years ago, and consider all that has since passed—we must feel, that, even as regards real property, its present exemption occupies but a weak and insecure position, according to the views, sentiments, and tendencies of the present day. I now speak of the exemption as a total exemption. I do not say there are not circumstances in the condition of real property that ought to be considered when you examine the question in what precise manner you shall deal with it under a measure you may be about to adopt; but to say that there shall be a total exemption of real property from a tax which is made applicable to personal property, and that at a high and heavy rate is, in my view, neither an arrangement altogether justifiable, nor an arrangement that is safe, wise, or expedient with reference to the permanence of our institutions. It is, in my opinion, an exemption that is far more invidious than it is valuable, and, being far more invidious than it is valuable, I wish to get rid of that invidious and odious character that attaches to it—and to come, if we can, to a just and fair arrangement as regards the claims of real property in respect to this impost, and to a settlement of its claims on a fair and equitable principle. But if the exemption of real property is difficult to defend, how much more difficult is it to defend—in my view at least—the exemption of settled personal property. What in the wide world can be said in favour of exempting settled personal property from legacy duty? I am not aware of an argument, or of a shred of argument, that can be brought forward in defence of that exemption. With respect to the exemption of real property, it is at any rate a bonâ fide exemption. Settlements of real property are not made, and do not extend themselves, for the purpose of procuring those exemptions, for real property is exempt, whether it is settled or not. It is not so much affected by the state of the law, and there are not as regards it the some inducements to escape the law as exist with respect to personal property; but with respect to personal property we know that the astuteness of lawyers and the vigilant care for personal interests continually are at work to defeat and escape the operation of the law—to invent new modes of escaping the legacy duty—and this with such extraordinary success that although there has been an immense increase in the personal property of the country, such increase is scarcely traceable in the tables of your legacy duty: and we know this that arrangements are made for that end which may be called all but fraudulent—arrangements which are perfectly senseless, having no meaning and no justification in themselves, and no rational purpose to which they can be referred, except that of evading the law. Now, Sir, some may think that there is a countervailing consideration in the fact that settlements are made on stamps; but I apprehend that that is really no answer at all. In the first place, it is no answer, because the stamps on many of these settlements are so small in amount, that they are scarcely to be taken into account. That is one consideration; but there is another. Suppose I take the settlement stamp as it now stands, at 5s. per cent. For that sum you get a document that ascertains the existence of your property after your death, and determines its course, thereby standing in lieu of a will, or letters of administration. And is not that privilege enough, independently of avoiding the legacy duty? And is there not another duty, called the probate duty? Why, Sir, the probate duty itself, quite irrespective of the legacy duty, amounts to 2, 3, 3½, or, taking extreme cases, 4 per cent. There is that percentage on probate duty alone, and the same property which exclusively pays probate duty is likewise exclusively liable to pay legacy duty. Is it not then enough that in virtue of a 5s. per cent stamp upon a settlement, a man should escape probate duty, without going on to maintain, what is perfectly monstrous, that in consequence of the stamp on settlements no legacy duty should be paid by property which has been settled? I think that they have a very good bargain, even after making a liberal allowance for the circumstance that this settlement stamp is paid during life, and therefore by anticipation—who are able, by a stamp of 5s., per cent, to escape a stamp of 2l., 3l., or 4l. per cent. I apprehend also that according to the doctrine of the law, the stamp upon the settlement is the proper correlative of the stamp upon probates. The probate is strictly a stamp duty to ascertain and validate a document; the settlement duty is also strictly a stamp duty, and has precisely the same effect:—but besides that legitimate effect of settlements they have been applied to an illegitimate purpose, and all sorts of forms of settlements have been invented and used with the object of escaping the legacy fluty. Besides, what can be more monstrous than this exemption in another point of view? When we discuss the case of realty, whether settled or not, it is very obvious and very fair to call attention to the fact, that real property is subject to many charges from which invisible personalty—so to speak—is quite exempt; and therefore that is a justification, as far as it goes, of the exemption of realty. But that does not apply to the personalty which is the subject of these settlements. Funded property, free from every possible and imaginable charge, is by means of these legal arrangements, enabled to pass scot-free, when other property is called upon to pay a heavy toll. I think, then, as regards realty in the first place, as regards settled personalty much more, that it is impossible to defend the present state of the law. But there is another case far more flagrant than either of these—that is, the case of unsettled property, not real, but visible, immoveable, and therefore subject to the burden of rates and local taxation. Let the Committee look at the position of that kind of property under the present law—leasehold property in houses for instance. What is its condition? Let me contrast it with settled personalty on the one hand, and with realty on the other. There are two sets of charges, said to be full equivalents for one another: on the one side, probate and legacy duties; on the other, the land tax, greater cost of transfers, heavier taxation under Schedule A of the income tax, heavier burdens, nay, exclusive burdens, of local taxation. It is pleaded on account of this latter description of charge, that real property ought to be exempt from the former. Well, then, the case stands thus—I do not say that they exactly countervail each other—on the one hand, there is the probate and there is the legacy duty falling on personalty; and, on the other hand, there are local charges falling on realty; but here is leasehold property subject to both. Here is leasehold property subject to the cost of stamps on transfer, subject to all the extra burdens of taxation under Schedule A, subject to the land tax, subject to the full and undivided burden of local taxation, and yet subject likewise to both the legacy duty and the probate duties. How is it possible for any Parliament to suppose that when once public attention is fairly concentrated on this question, and once discovers this to be the true state of the case, any Government can maintain any longer a state of the law so entirely without foundation or warrant in truth and reason? That is the first proposition I wish to impress upon the mind of the Committee. I refer with no invidious intention to the course taken on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). He and the Government of Lord Derby were impressed with the belief that it was impossible to maintain the law as it stands; and in consequence they too gave a general pledge, which I understood to mean that there must be some equalisation of the present system by means of a general tax upon successions; Well, Sir, it being impossible to maintain the present state of the law, will you part with it altogether? Will you say, "Yes, equality ought to be established, but it ought to be established by exempting from the tax property which now pays it, and not by subjecting to the tax property which is now exempted?" That is one course, which it is perfectly conceivable many might be inclined to take. Many political economists are of opinion that a tax on successions is by its very nature an illegitimate tax; many think that, as a tax upon property, it ought to be absolutely proscribed. I do not mean to say that that is my opinion; but I refer to it as an opinion by no means destitute of much greater authorities for its support. I must confess that it appears to me that taxation of property raises a question of vast importance, but one which, like most other questions of taxation, cannot be disposed of altogether on abstract grounds. I should say it was straining the matter too far to say that there should, under no circumstances, be such a thing as a property tax—I speak now of a property tax as distinct from income tax. The real objections to such a tax are in my view-drawn from practical considerations; from the great difficulty that attends the adjustment of such a tax; from the liability its infliction causes to renewed and continual contest between class and class; from its tendency to become a party question, and to occasion irritation among particular sections of the community. These, I repeat, are the great objections that attach to taxes on property; but these, I may remind you, are not so likely to attach to a tax on successions, occurring but once in a generation, as to a tax on property, which would come round again and again, with the objections to it, and the irritation gathered under it, recurring every year Then, again, though I confess I do not look to the practice of antiquity, and of remote antiquity, as of very great authority in fiscal matters—though I do not deem the extreme antiquity of this tax on successions its main recommendation—yet I may beg the Committee to remember that this is no innovation of modern times—that it is rather a revival, in a modified form, of what was originally one of the main sources of the revenue necessary to the State—namely, a tax upon every succession to pro- perty, supported by a regular legal process of inquisition into its value. It is not, then, an innovation; but is it an injustice? When I speak of injustice, of course I understand that it is unjust to levy any unnecessary taxes; a tax you do not want, or a tax to support wasteful or profligate expenditure. Such a tax is an unjust tax, whatever be its amount, and lay it on what you will. I am assuming now that this is necessary, and that you will admit the purposes to which we apply the resources of the State, to be, in the main, reasonable. If, then, you want a given sum, is it unjust to raise it by a tax on successions? It seems to me that they who raise such a question as this do not sufficiently consider, that the carrying property in perfect security over the great barrier which death places between man and man, is perhaps the very highest achievement, the most signal proof of the power, of civilised institutions. I think that the ability to determine the future with regard to property, and to fix upon its course after you are in the grave—from man to man, and from life to life—passing it over from one contingency to another, and extending the private personal will of an individual into far distant years—limited, no doubt, and wisely limited, by law—is an instance so capital of the great benefit conferred by laws and civil institutions upon mankind, and of the immense enlargement that comes to natural liberty through the medium of law, that I can conceive nothing more rational than that, if taxes are to be raised at all, in the midst of these arrangements the State shall be at liberty to step in, and take from him who is thenceforward to enjoy the whole in security, that portion which may be bonâ fide necessary for the public purposes. But I will now look to considerations more immediately practical than these. Let us consider the other course—the admitted necessity of equalisation, and the possibility of equalising by abandonment. If you determine upon that, you must be prepared, at the same time, to give up the whole legacy duty, and to give up the great bulk of the probate duty, now producing over 2,500,000l.; and assuming that you retain a small stamp duty on probates corresponding to the Stamp on settlements, as a mere validation of the document, still you would have to give up a sum of between two and two-and-a-half millions of the permanent revenue of the State; and such a surrender, I am quite convinced, you would find contrary to the general sense of the country. I feel certain that you are not prepared for that course; and if not, if you are not prepared to give up the principle and practice of making death, and the passing of property from predecessor to successor, the occasion of stopping and levying what you require for public purposes; then, I say, having reached that point in the argument, and being afraid of an abandonment of this principle and practice, you will come naturally to the further point, that you cannot maintain the tax as it now stands. What, then, is the thing to be done? On that question, too, I hope that the Committee will arrive at the conclusion of the Government, namely, that this tax ought, upon the principles of equity and justice, to be made a general tax, and that an effort should be made to cure its present gross and crying anomalies. Now, I appeal to the sense of justice on the part of Gentlemen opposite. I am very sorry if the necessities of the State and of our mode of government make it almost inevitable that any fiscal proposition should be more or less liable to be deemed a party proposition. I have heard it stated that this proposition has its origin in hostility to the land. I have no doubt that that is your conscientious opinion. Allow me respectfully to disclaim any such motive—for I suppose I have the same right to disclaim that you have to impute. I wish only to appeal to your sense of justice, and I trust I shall not appeal to it in vain. The ancient fable was, that when justice was banished from other quarters of the earth she still lingered for a while among the agriculturists—

——"extrema per illos Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit."

Whether that fable was wisely conceived or not, I may appeal, I believe, to your real love of justice, and I request you to consider whether, as before the tribunal of justice, the proposition of the Government is not one that ought to be entertained. It appears to us that as you cannot maintain or justify the present state of the law, and as you cannot abandon such a source of taxation as this, the wise course to take on general grounds, and entirely irrespective of any temporary proposals, is to make the tax general in its application. It ought to be made an equal charge, but with due reference to the various incidents of the various species of property that come under its operation. A question may occur to the minds of Gentle- men whether we could not maintain some exemption—whether we could not, for instance, exempt real property? But how would you justify it? By saying that realty should be exempt because it pays local taxation—because it pays the land tax, because it pays under the income tax more heavily than personalty? Now every one of those considerations applies also to leasehold property. Would you be prepared to exempt that? If you did, you would begin to find your exemptions so enormous that they would raise to an intolerable amount the burdens of taxation on all descriptions of property left to pay the tax. Though I cannot altogether deny that it is fair to urge the burdens borne by land, yet there is some exaggeration on that question. Take the case of transfers. Very long ago it might be true that personal property could be transferred for the most part without expense, and land could not; but since those days a great mass of personal property of a species then unknown has grown up, and become subject to expense in transfer almost or altogether similar to that upon land. Take the railway shares, and you have at once a mass of property amounting to 300,000,00l., subject to precisely the same tax or transfers as land. [An Hon. MEMBER called attention to the simplification of titles, and the expense attendant upon legal conveyances of land.] Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to see some measure pass through Parliament with the object of removing the evils to which the hon. Gentleman calls attention, and indeed I should, before I had concluded my statement, have taken the liberty of suggesting to the Committee, and especially to hon. Members connected with the land, that whilst we hear so much about comparative trifles, they leave these greater questions untouched. The succession tax, which is felt but once in a generation, would be insignificant compared with the question referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, the simplification of titles, and the relieving of land from those enormous expenses which, from want of it, the land is now subject to. But though titles are not simplified, they are not kept as they now stand for any interest or purpose of the State; this, therefore, is wholly a separate matter, and constitutes no reason that landed property should be exempt. The fact that railway property enjoys at the present time a better Parliamentary title than landed property, would be a most illegitimate reason for subjecting it to taxation. It is a most excellent reason for giving the land a similar title, I admit; but meanwhile you must not punish the railway proprietors for having a good state of the law, and compensate the landowners for having a bad, for that would be to take away their inducement to bring about a good state. I put it, then, to the Committee, supposing it seriously engaged in the consideration of the legacy duty, and in the reconstruction of the law—I put it fearlessly, that they cannot wisely, safely, or justly, propose to give to real property a total exemption from the operation of the legacy duty, for this, if for no other reason—that that exemption would necessarily entail with it the exemption of other very large classes of property, and would make so great a hiatus in the measure that the rate you would be obliged to lay on the rest would be intolerable. I assume, then, that you cannot exempt land, landed settlements, or settlements of personalty, from the tax. Perhaps you may think that settled land deserves a separate consideration from unsettled land; but Government have not been able to find grounds for any such distinction, for the reasons I have adverted to. The law of settlement opens a great question; settlement has its advantages and disadvantages. With respect to the tax in the shape of stamps, that is more than compensated by the probate duty, which you escape by settlement. But the law of settlement itself is a great question apart from all matters of taxation. I repeat, it is attended with great advantages, and likewise with considerable drawbacks. The fixing and tying up of land constitute, no doubt, impediments to its free use; but, on the other hand, the giving to family arrangements and to the possession of land a certain stability, though that idea ought not to be pushed too far, yet was an ancient part of our policy, and I am not prepared to say that it is one I would wish to see abandoned. It would be going, however, too far to say, not only that that settled property should escape the probate duty, but that it should likewise escape every description of tax which the State may levy from other kinds of property on successions. I therefore assume that with regard to settlements in general, and even as to settled land, you cannot maintain the principle of total exemption from legacy duty which now exists. The question of settled personalty, it would be a waste of time to argue anew. But perhaps you may say there ought to be consideration for settlements now in existence; that all property now settled ought not to be subjected to any duty on successions accruing under existing settlements. The answer to that appears to me to be obvious, and it is this—that the intention of the provision of the law which enables a man to settle is not to escape succession duty. Settlements have been made use of as the means of escaping the succession; but that was not in the spirit or intention of the law, and efforts have been made to enable the law to reach cases of that description. It appears, then, to me, on the grounds which I have briefly stated, that it is impossible to maintain with satisfaction, with justice, or with hope of permanence, the system of exemption that now exists; and I may likewise say incidentally with regard to the point which I last touched upon—namely, the exempting of settlements now in existence, that if you should think fit to adopt a provision of that kind, you would retard the operation of the Act perhaps for more than half a century. If the provision were demanded by justice, this consideration ought to form no bar to its enactment; but in my view it is not demanded by justice, and therefore there exists in the consideration I have adverted to a strong reason against the suggested provision. Now, Sir, as I have said, we do not propose at this moment to ask you to vote upon anything except the mere principle contained in the present Resolution. We have adopted, I believe, a form of proceeding as nearly analogous as we could to that adopted by Mr. Pitt in corresponding circumstances—namely, that of submitting the subject to you in the first instance in very general terms, which might have the effect of directing your views upon the principle, and reserving for your future consideration a number of important collateral questions which you will eventually have to dispose of. No doubt there are many of these important collateral questions. It must not be concealed that amongst other questions there is the question of the scale of consanguinity, which gives rise to a great difference of opinion, and which is a subject for grave consideration. It is known probably to the majority of the Committee that the scale of consanguinity as it is now fixed runs immensely in favour of direct succession—that direct succession is subject to a tax of only 1 per cent—that succession to a stranger (and with succession to a stranger are ranked many remote degrees of consanguinity) pays 10 per cent. There are several intermediate rates, on which it is unnecessary for me to dwell. The latter rate is highly productive. Although that tax falls upon a comparatively limited portion of property that passes by death, yet, owing to the high rate of the duty, the proceeds of that rate form a considerable proportion of the whole amount of the legacy duties which comes into the Exchequer. The returns which have just been laid on the table will serve to show the Committee that while the 1 per cent levied on direct succession, which touches far larger masses of property, yielded last year 238,000l. of legacy duty to the Exchequer, the 10 per cent levied on a much smaller mass produced no less than 490,000l.; and since the year 1797, whilst the 1 per cent levied upon the enormously greater mass of property has produced 8,322,000l., the 10 per cent levied on the other class has produced 17,583,000l. Now, Sir, two very important questions arise with respect to the scale of consanguinity, which I will at this time do no more than hint at. The first is, that it is in our opinion equitable that a considerable difference should be made between the tax upon direct succession and that on the succession of strangers, or of persons of remote consanguinity. It appears to me that this principle is neither unjust nor impolitic. Speaking generally, those who enjoy direct succession are educated in expectations founded on that succession, are trained up, and have their habits and mode of life formed with relation to the property they look forward to enjoying. Upon them, therefore, it would be a great hardship, were the State to step in and take away any material portion of that property which they have been taught to expect. On the other hand, succession of strangers, and of persons not within traceable degress of consanguinity, are successions very commonly of an accidental character, and are unconnected with any training or expectation. These are successions, too, in relation to which caprice takes a large range. It does appear, therefore, very reasonable that a scale founded on degrees of consanguinity should be maintained. And I wish also to point out to the Committee that they must make up their mind in this matter between two things. They may maintain the present scale of consanguinity, or they may alter it. But, if they determine materially to lower the rate of 10 per cent, and so materially to reduce the amount paid into the Exchequer from property subject to that rate, they must also very considerably raise the rate of 1 per cent, or we shall not get our money. At this period I do not wish to enter upon a very full discussion of the question to which I have adverted more than once in the course of these remarks—namely, the question whether, even though you may think there is no ground for maintaining any absolute exemption of any great class of property, yet there may be good and sufficient reasons for adopting a very different machinery, and practically, if not nominally, a different rate of tax with regard to certain classes of property from what you lay on others. It appears to me that the present law is not only wrong in drawing too broad a distinction—that is to say, the distinction between a tax on one side, and no tax at all on the other—but it is especially wrong in the manner in which it strikes that distinction. And we propose therefore to make a change which, although not precisely described In the words of the Resolution, and which, although you are not asked to give an opinion on it at this moment, is of so much importance—is, I will at once say, of such vital importance to the plan of the Government—that it would be wrong if I were altogether to omit to notice it. We propose, instead of distinguishing, as the present law distinguishes, in favour of all settled property and all real property against unsettled personalty—we propose to abolish that distinction altogether—and to draw a new distinction between property which I will describe not in legal phrase, but in a way that will be more popular and generally intelligible—we propose to distinguish between what may be roughly called rateable property, whether real or personal, on the one side, and non-rateable property on the other. The advantage we propose to give will be given to rateable property, whether it be real, whether it be leasehold, or whether it be copyhold, or under whatever description it may fall—and the full burden of the tax will fall on invisible and non-rateable property. It appears to us that in that distinction there is something like a principle. This is a very fair matter to take into view when you are considering the measure and amount at which you shall fix your legacy duty or tax upon succession for these respective descriptions of property. The proposal, therefore, which we shall make with regard to rateable property is this— that the person succeeding to it shall never be charged with the duty upon any higher interest in the property than a life interest. We do not propose to establish different rates of duty. Now, you may perhaps ask me what will be the effect of this plan compared with that of charging on the perpetuity. That is a matter of computation, and may admit some latitude of opinion; but I shall not be very far from the mark if I say the effect of this distinction, with the collateral provision with which we draw it, will be, that rateable property will, when held in fee upon the whole, pay one-half, or a trifle under one-half, to the legacy duty of that which will be paid by property not falling within that description. Property not falling within the description of rateable property—that is to say—invisible or non-rateable property—will not in all cases be charged on the perpetuity. A person succeeding to the absolute dominion over the property will pay on the perpetuity; whilst a person succeeding to a lower interest will be charged on that lower interest. The question may be asked, not only, why favour rateable property, but also, why favour rateable property in this particular form? As to the first, it is on account of the other charges to which it is subject, and not borne by the property to which we propose to apply the full rate. And, further, I think it is a policy worthy of some consideration, not only to give something that may tend to countervail the special burdens borne by real property, but likewise to take care that you so adjust the payment of the tax in regard to property of that description, that you do not allow it to become an engine of great and serious evil, by forcing changes in the possession of the land. In order to prevent a consequence of this kind, your tax ought to be kept within such bounds that it may by proper efforts and exertions be paid out of the annual income, without forcing the possessor either into parting with the property, or into doing that which after the lapse of a certain time would become still more deplorable—loading it with successive incumbrances, which would leave the nominal master no real interest in the property. Now, these are our reasons for favouring rateable property. But it may be asked, why, if you think it ought to bear a less share of the tax—and this is a most important question—why do you choose this particular form for conferring that advantage, namely, the form of saying that a person suc- ceeding to the possession of rateable property, shall never be charged on anything higher than a life interest? It may be said, why not charge him on the perpetuity if he succeeds to it, but at a lower rate? I wish to state that question clearly, and to bring it fully before the Committee, because I consider it one of very great difficulty, requiring in my view a very impartial and careful consideration; and it is one from the discussion of which I trust every collateral Consideration connected with the fate of parties, of Ministers, and of Government, may on all sides be excluded, because those arrangements which we have now to make are arrangements materially bearing on the social system of this country, and which will therefore require the greatest care and forethought in their adjustment. Now, I admit it is not a self-evident proposition that when you have determined that rateable property is entitled to some comparative favour under a plan of this kind; therefore, you ought to give it in the particular form of a charge for a life-interest only. The objection to it is this, that it takes away from the life tenant the advantage that you propose to confer upon that class of property as compared with the other, because the life tenant succeeding to a leasehold or real estate would, under the plan proposed, be liable to pay as heavy a percentage for his inheritance as if he were succeeding in perpetuity. Therefore it fails so far in giving effect to the principle laid down. But when we take a comprehensive survey of the way in which different classes of property are dealt with under the laws which relate to points of this kind, I think it will be seen that there are much greater objections to the other mode of proceeding—namely, that of charging the successor to real or rateable property upon the perpetuity when he gets it. For, firstly, it is quite obvious that if you adopt the rule of charging the liferenter of an estate on his life interest, and the person who comes into absolute possession on his death on the perpetuity, you would establish a system of law that would work in favour of the great landed proprietors, and against the smaller holders of land; you would create a division and contrariety of interests amongst different descriptions of landed proprietors, which it would be most undesirable, to say the least, to introduce. You would be legislating in a most invidious sense. Those Gentlemen who sit here are generally Connected with the settled property of the country, and it would be invidious, indeed, were they to adopt a proceeding which would favour the landed estates held by them at the expense of the smaller landed proprietors. But I must confess that, when we look closely into the matter, I think we shall see that the relation between the life-renter of realty, and the absolute possessor of realty, is not at all analogous to the relation between the liferenter in the funds, and the absolute possessor of funded property or other mere personalty. Among us, the life possessors of realty have every advantage from the property except the power of alienation, and, looking to the general rule, their successors are their children. Entail makes the natural provision for those who come after them, and for whom, but for this provision, they must provide by some other means. The advantage of the possession of an entailed estate in this country, with the social and political influence it confers, is very great; the position of a landed gentleman or Peer of England is a noble position; there is nothing like it in the whole world; the commanding station of those who are so situated opens to them the avenues that lead to distinction and to power. It is a position which although in a narrow pecuniary view it may be inferior to that of absolute possession, is one attended with great social advantages; and there is no real distinction to be drawn between the great landed proprietors possessed of entailed estates, speaking generally, and the yeoman, which would justify a distinction in the imposition of this tax. Such, I think, is the principle of the course we propose to pursue; that is to say, our rule will be never to charge any interest higher than a life interest, but in the case of an estate of less than a life interest, to charge upon that lesser interest. I think that any other course would undoubtedly, besides being less just in itself, have a dangerous tendency to bring about a pressure upon the present law of entail and settlement such as I should not wish to see—a pressure, the result of which would probably be a tendency to abolish that system in consequence of its being associated with invidious privilege. Were you to give too much advantage to settlement and entail as compared with other property, I am afraid that the whole law of entail and settlement might be put in some jeopardy, and be subject to the risk of being considered, not on its merits, but with regard to the narrow interests of class which would thus be brought into the field. These are the principal reasons—first, why we should propose to draw a distinction, not as the law now draws it, but upon a more just principle in favour of what I call, though but roughly and colloquially, rateable property; and, secondly, why it should be drawn in the form of a provision under which you would never charge any interest higher than a life interest. But there is another case to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the Committee, because it is very important in its social bearings; and the Committee will see that by this mode of proceeding we are able to meet the case, which we could not do by any other—I allude to the case of heavily encumbered estates. Now oh our principle of charging upon the life interest in the case of heavily encumbered estates, the mode of proceeding would be this: In the first place, you would ascertain the age of the party succeeding; and, having his age, you have the number of years' purchase of his interest which you are to charge. You would then take the gross rental of the property. From the gross rental you would make the deductions necessary to arrive at the net rental—because there is no reason, such as prevails with respect to the income tax, to compel us to go upon the gross rental in a case of this nature; It is much better, and it is the principle of the present law, that the net rental and the net interest should be taken as the basis of taxation. Having ascertained the net rental, you will then deduct the incumbrances. In such a case it would sometimes happen, I fear, that the net rental remaining on which the life interest would have to be computed, would be of an extremely small amount, and yet at the same time—and it is the conjunction of these two things to which I wish to call your particular attention—there might be in the property a very large amount of dormant capital value. For example—if we take a large estate worth some 500,000l., with a gross rental of 16,000l. or 18,000l. a year, and a net rental of 13,000l. or 14,000l.; and if we suppose the estate to be saddled with mortgages to the extent of 300,000l., the mortgages would absorb some 12,000l. of the rental, and leave but 1,000l. or 2,000l. a year to the possessor, which will represent the annual value of the life interest; while, at the same time, there would be an excess of capital value over and above the mortgages, reaching to 200,000l. Now, I think if you charge upon the capital value, there is no way in which you could meet that case so as not to give the tax the effect and character of an engine for displacing the present possessor. I may be told that it would be best in many of these instances—that it would be a wise act—for the possessors, under such circumstances, to displace themselves. I have no doubt there are many such cases. The Legislature has recognised that principle in Ireland, and made provision for facilitating its operation. There may be a time—I hope that it is not come, nay, that it may yet be very distant—when you must be prepared to adopt in England, something more or less like the plan which you have adopted with regard to Ireland. But I think it would be an invidious, an offensive, an unwise, and an unjust measure not to facilitate the parting with property by persons disposed to part with it, but to lay on a tax in such a way as would have the effect of forcing them to part with it; and there is no tax, however moderate it might be, if it were fixed on the capital value of such an estate as I hare described—when you consider how attenuated the income would be—there is no tax which would not have the effect of compelling the possessor to bring his estate into the market. The provision we propose to make is this—that the person succeeding to such a property shall be charged with the net life interest, according to his age and the number of years' purchase his life may be worth; but if that gentleman chooses at any time to bring his estate into the market, and to realise the 500,000l. instead of the life interest, the balance, after discharging the encumbrances of 300,000l. will represent the data upon which he will have to pay the tax upon his succession. That is obviously the fairest way of proceeding, and I doubt whether anything less would do full justice to the Exchequer and to the relative claims of other classes. In the event of a subsequent and voluntary alienation of property, the claim of the Exchequer will revive; but in the event of the successor continuing to hold the property, the charge will only be on the net life interest. I think every Gentleman who looks into that matter will find powerful reasons in support of that provision. [An Hon. MEMBER: Will the claim of the Crown revive during his whole life?] It will. The claim of the Exchequer will revive in the event of alienation at any period during the holder's lifetime. At his death there must be a new succession; but if the alienation of the property takes place at any period during his life, the claim of the Crown will revive against the actual possessor for the difference between the amount of legacy duty which he may have paid upon his original life interest, and the amount of legacy duty due upon his life interest in the realised value, after allowing for the incumbrances. I believe there are other more purely legal and technical considerations connected with the tenure of landed property, which would likewise dictate such a course as has been proposed with regard to the general mode of charge on real property; and I think I am right, though I have not made reference lately to the point, in saying that the plan of Mr. Pitt in the legacy duty which he proposed was of a similar description, and that he likewise in cases of real estate proposed to charge the duty upon life interest. Those, Sir, are the main points to which I think it necessary to call the attention of the Committee at the present moment. But I think it necessary I should say a few words upon one other subject, and that one other is the probable produce of the tax; because I have seen in various quarters anticipations of the produce of the tax which I am utterly unable to follow or comprehend. Some of them are sanguine only, others are utterly irrational and extravagant, and will not bear one minute's examination upon reference to the documents by which they purport to be supported. With regard to Ireland I have heard it stated and even assumed in debate, that the additional legacy duty which we shall derive from Ireland will be 300,000l. a year. My belief is that the additional legacy duty which we shall derive from Ireland will be somewhere between 60,000l. and 80,000l. a year. This is very disappointing no doubt. It takes the colour, the life, and the beauty out of the pictures that have been drawn, and brings them down to a very humble and mean aspect and proportions indeed; but at the same time that is the best computation I have been able to obtain, aided by all the experience and ability we can bring to the consideration of the subject. I will not enter at this late hour minutely on this computation of amount; but I will venture to hope I may, not offensively, call the attention of the House, and especially of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the many sources of fallacy which exist with respect to the legacy duty. I had stated I expected an addition of two millions to the public resources: and upon this, although such an idea never entered my mind, and never passed my lips, it was immediately stated that it was intended to levy two millions a year on the land. [Mr. DISRAELI; No!] The right hon. Gentleman seems to deny having such an impression, and I do not impute it to him that he so misunderstood me; however, not only in newspapers out of doors, but by Members in this House, it has been distinctly asseverated in reckoning the probable proceeds of the tax from land. One source of fallacy I think is this: the landed class in this country hold the first place in regard to influence, station, and power; and I hope they will long keep it. I have said they hold the first place—but if not the first place, certainly a foremost place. They have immense influence, station, and power, in this country; but the income of the landed class, as a class, is not in proportion to their influence and power. There are a great many cases similar to that I have adverted to, of extremely reduced incomes, the possession of which still leaves to the person owning them great influence and power—social power and station, and direct or indirect political power. I think for that reason there is a strong disposition to exaggerate the amount of landed income in the country. Now the fact is, the amount of landed income, or landed property, when compared with the rest of the income of all the other masses of property that will be subject to legacy or succession duty, is comparatively trifling. I am almost afraid to say how small I anticipate will be the proceeds of this tax from mere land. On a former occasion I ventured to state that it appeared to me that land paid 9d. in the pound, or thereabouts, to the income tax, while other classes paid 7d. in the pound. It was deemed I proved too much, and we had to pay the penalty in a long debate, and a great division. Perhaps a similar result will attend an elaborate examination of the present question. The proposition that out of the two millions I expect to gain, the proportion proceeding from the land will be but small, rests upon two considerations; not only because we say the land, together with other rateable property, ought to bear the charge at a lower rate, but likewise because landed income really forms but a moderate proportion of the incomes subject to the tax. I think it was the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) who, on a former night, when I was unfortunately prevented by indisposition from attending the House, in an able speech, discussed this question, and by the light of his own experience as a professional man gave an opinion to the effect that the amount I should receive from settled personalty under a tax of this kind, when made liable, would be very large indeed. That, no doubt, is the reason why I reckon upon a very large income from personalty, and I also look for a fair and moderate increase of the revenue from land. And when I speak of land, of course it must be remembered there are two important classes of property connected with land, but which are not land—first, the income accruing to creditors of landed proprietors upon mortgages; and, next, the income proceeding out of settlements upon land. I do not think it possible, with fairness, to draw any distinction between personalty settled upon land as compared with any other personalty. The incomes, for example, of younger sons, growing out of charges fixed on land, are not more liable to local burdens than the money of merchants or of bill brokers, or of any other purely undeniable personalty, or than money in the funds. It appears to me that that description of property, which is connected with and related to land, although not land, must take its chance with other personalty, and bear the full burden of the tax. As well as I can compute, I should suppose that the produce of the tax from property of that description—of settled personalty and charges on the land—will probably be 200,000l., or something more. As to the produce of landed property proper, I will not at this moment venture into details, since there will be a future opportunity of discussing them; but I may state my opinion, that the amount of the tax which landed property, as distinguished from houses and other messuages in the three kingdoms, will pay, cannot rationally and safely he estimated at more than about 400,000l. a year. I have not heard anything stated nearly so love as that; but I will tell the Committee the mode in which I have proceeded in making my estimate. I have stated to you distinctly, mind, that I have separated and struck off from this item the consideration of house property and other messuages, and I am now taking only estates properly territorial and agricultural. I stated the other night, in answer to a question, that we had no secret sources of information on the subject, and the chief basis of calculation is equally open to any Gentleman in this House—I mean the figures of the income-tax returns. Under Schedule A, we find the gross amount of landed property charged with the income tax, and I think it is 49,000,000l. a year. There are the deductions to come off that amount. The deductions, I think, if we take them roughly, because we have no means of estimating precisely the difference between gross and net, we may put at 16 per cent. That reduces the 49,000,000l. to 41,000,000l. I must then make the addition of Ireland. The valuation of all—not only landed, but the whole rateable—property in Ireland, amounts to 11,200,000l. in round numbers; but of that I must strike off that portion which is not landed property—house property and other messuages. I suppose probably it will leave from 7,000,000l. to 8,000,000l. landed property; and that, together, gives a net income from land in the three kingdoms of about 48,000,000l. From that 48,000,000l. I have then got to deduct the interest of mortgages and other incumbrances, which of course every successor is allowed to deduct before he is charged with the tax. What this may be we are ail alike able to judge—we are all on an equality in this respect—we may all guess and conjecture at pleasure; but if you take the interest of mortgages, and other incumbrances, of settlements and all other charges on land, at 25 per cent, it leaves 36,000,000l. net annual landed income. Now, that 36,000,000l. of annual income represents a capital value of about thirty times as much. But then how often do successions come? It seems not irrational to say once in thirty years. ["Oh, oh!"] At any rate it is open to Gentlemen to take any standard of calculation they please. I wish to show distinctly, only avoiding minute details, the steps by which I come to the ultimate calculation.

You make your estimate on the income-tax returns; but you have not taken the returns on the assessments under 150l

If so, then that will be a certain addition, and that addition can be very easily ascertained, because the income tax gives it to us. But I think, on reflection, that I have included it in the 49,000,000l Unless I am very much mistaken the 49,000,000l is the gross assessment under Schedule A, irrespective of any distinction between properties under, and properties over, 150l I am afraid there is no addition to be made on that account; but I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the same for having suggested it. Well, then, if we have 36,000,000l of income, the next question is, how often do successions occur? I think we may take an average at thirty years; but by reference we may ascertain that point, We have, then, successions every thirty years, landed property worth thirty years' purchase, and 36,000,000l of landed property on which to lay the tax. The next element of the calculation is, at what rate will that landed property pay the duty? The legacy duty at present, on an average, is levied at a rate of 2 4–5 per sent. It is quite plain the call on landed property must be at a more easy and lighter rate, for two reasons—first of all, because we tax no interest higher than a life interest, which reduces the tax by one moiety; and, secondly, to a certain extent, because landed property runs more in a direct line than personalty. If property is left to strangers, it is more generally out of personalty, whilst realty in general descends to children or near relatives. If that is the case, and if under the present scale of consanguinity the present duty only averages 2 4–5ths per cent, it is quite plain that landed property will not average more than one moiety, or 1 2–5ths per cent. One per cent gives on thirty-six millions 336,000l., and 12–5ths per cent would be something under 500,000l. But when I make allowance for the greater frequency of direct succession to landed property than to personalty, I am sure I must make a considerable further reduction; and I cannot estimate the proceeds which will be realised from landed property, properly so called, at materially more, than 400,000l., or considerably less than half a million. I have now stated briefly the grounds on which I have arrived at that conclusion. I have endeavoured to state them plainly, and you can sift, examine, and judge of them yourselves. The estimates—estimates I can hardly call them—the dreams, I was going to say, of certain wiseacres—but I will not use so offensive a term—the dreams in which some persons have indulged, have tended to propagate dangerous delusions on this subject, and have exhibited me in the light of a Minister of monstrous rapacity, who would attempt to raise from the land sums of money far beyond what is necessary for the exigencies of the State. If it can be demonstrated that a great deal more money will come from the land than I have anticipated, nobody will lend a more willing ear to such a demonstration than myself. Only let us see what are the real and bonâ fide grounds on which we are to base our expectations that the revenue will be larger, and I shall sincerely rejoice at so satisfactory a result. I will not go into the question of personalty. There, again, we have to trust to the income-tax returns; and I may state that as with regard to realty, so with regard to personalty, there is a large portion of income that does not come under the tax at all. I will not now go into the question; but I venture to hope the produce from personalty—with house property and messuages—will be such as to raise the gross additional amount of revenue which I expect from this measure within the period of five years—I take this opportunity of correcting my carelessness in stating four years on a former occasion—to two millions per annum. I will now explain the mode of payment of the tax on real and rateable property, and the time within which parties succeeding will be expected to pay. Speaking generally, where the successor to landed property is not also the residuary legatee, the first rent that accrues does not belong to him, but the second rent is his. We, therefore, propose that he shall not be subject to the payment of any duty until twelve months after he has succeeded to the property: the second rent, which does belong to him, will then have been paid him; and some time will commonly have elapsed before the demand is made. Then we propose that he shall be liable to pay the tax in eight equal half-yearly instalments. In cases of direct succession, that arrangement will make the tax payable without material inconvenience; and also in cases of near indirect succession. In cases of 10 per cent succession, it will be a harder case. In respect to land, no doubt, even on a life interest, the tax will take up during those four years a considerable share of the income. As far as the State is concerned, it will be perfectly open to consideration whether there shall be a further prolongation of the time; but I very much doubt the general policy of that course, for I am afraid it would tend to bring about an accumulation of encumbrances. It will be better to leave it in the form of temporary difficulty, giving discretion to the Executive Government, as I rather think is the case under the Legacy Acts, to give an extension of time in cases where there is real necessity for that indulgence. Generally speaking, therefore, it will be understood that the basis of the tax, with respect both to real and rateable property, is to charge in no case higher than the life interest, to make all proper deductions for encumbrances, and to allow in all cases a period of one year before making any demand in respect to the tax; after which it is to be levied in eight equal half-yearly payments. I adverted before to one distinction which it is proposed to make between cases of succession in fee and succession in life interest, namely, this—that if a person succeeds to the life interest, and dies before he has paid the entire tax, before the whole of the instalments have become due, as he succeeded to nothing but the life interest, and as that passed away with his death, the outstanding instalments shall abate; but if a person succeeds to the fee, and dies before the instalments become due, as he has had a continuing interest, and as he plainly became liable to the entire charge by his succession to the property, in this case, however short his life may be, the remaining instalments will become a debt to the Crown. I hope I may now release the Committee from the fatigue of attending to these remarks. I have endeavoured to confine myself as closely as possible to the question, and to the various points which have seemed to me to arise out of it. And I venture to express the hope—I do not challenge either contradiction or assent—but I venture to express a hope that the statement I have made will show that the Government, in making this proposition, have not been influenced by the motives imputed to them in some quarters; that they have endeavoured to examine the real right and justice of the question; that they have endeavoured, as far as they could, to settle this great question permanently upon the basis of equity and fair dealing, by which alone it is their desire, not only that the whole of their own proceedings may be regulated, but likewise the proceedings of every body of men who may, from time to time, be entrusted with the care of the interests of this great country. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the Resolution as follows:—

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to a very important description of property, on which I think he has not given the Committee sufficient information. He proposes to draw a new line between rateable property and property not rateable. Now, I want to know upon which side of that line he intends to put railway property, which is a property as hon. Gentleman know, very great in amount? Railway property already pays rates to a very large amount; it will be seen how large, when a return which I have moved for shall be laid upon the table, as it will be in two or three weeks. I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman has considered the point, that he should state to the Committee upon which side of the line he intends to place railway property.

That is a question, Sir, of some difficulty. Primâ facie, no doubt, it will appear that railway property is liable to rating; but, on the other hand, the value of railway property in the market is a value acquired after allowing for that deduction. At the same time, I must frankly own that the case of railway property has not as yet been specifically considered by the Government. It will, therefore, probably be better that I should take time to look into the subject, rather than that I should upon the moment give an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman.

said, it would be impossible, at this hour of the night (a quarter to twelve), to proceed satisfactorily with the discussion. He would therefore move that the Chairman do report progress.

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 view that the Government take, and that which I think the House approves, is, that there is a necessity for passing the Legacy Duties Resolution, and for getting the Income Tax Resolution through Committee before we proceed to part with existing revenue. It is there fore, a matter of great regret to see our evenings shortened. At the one end there is a lengthened discussion upon personal questions, and at the other end we are met by a Motion which induces delay. I do not complain of that; the time lost on each occasion is small, but there is an old Scotch proverb of which I may remind hon. Gentlemen—"Every little makes a mickle." I do not intend to oppose the Motion that the Chairman report progress, but I hope the Committee, bearing in mind the vacation before us, will come to a decision on this Resolution to-morrow evening. It is impossible at present to enter into details, the principle being the only question, and I trust that will be the view of the Committee.

I do not understand whether the right hon. Gentleman has stated how the several percentages are to be charged in reference to consanguinity. Perhaps he will have the goodness to explain his views on this point.

What I stated was this—that I could not represent the maintenance of the existing scale of consanguinity as being absolutely vital to the measure; but I wished to put it to the Committee that it was vital either to maintain the existing scale of consanguinity, or, if they think fit to reduce the tax now charged upon the succession of strangers, then in the last case they must be prepared materially to increase the tax upon direct successions. The preference of the Government is most decidedly in favour of the former course; and their proposal will be to maintain the existing scale of consanguinity.

suggested that a schedule, or some analogous measure, if it could be prepared, showing the various ways in which it was proposed to assess property on successions would better enable the Committee to judge of the merits of the question, than the explanations they had just heard.

replied that there was no option in this respect for the Committee. They must pass the Resolution, and the Bill would contain the information required by his hon. Friend.

had then no hesitation in saying that, under such circumstances, the sooner the Resolution was passed the better, because then the country would be in possession of the actual details of the measure, There were many details under the existing Legacy Act, and it was desirable to see how they were affected by the new measure.

inquired whether it was intended to introduce one Bill only, and to make it applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, or a separate Bill for each part?

One Bill for the whole.

said, there were various successions on death, which he thought should come under some principle. A man might settle property upon his widow while she remained unmarried; which property, upon the second marriage, would go to the children of the first. There were various other successions of the like nature. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to tax them?

observed, that the succession to property was dependent on many other events than death. For instance, 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?

I have said that the tax was always to accrue in consequence of a death; but I did not say it was always to accrue in consequence of a death that had immediately preceded the succession. In this principle of the measure I think the learned Gentleman will find the key to his question.

said, a question had been put in the early part of the evening relative to a measure closely connected with the succession tax, namely, the registration of settlements. He wished to ask what was the right hon. Gentleman's answer, as he did not exactly comprehend it? He understood there was to be no provision for the registration of settlements in this Bill, and he wished to know whether there was to be a measure to bring about a compulsory registration of settlements?

said, the right hon. Gentleman had, in point of fact, asked two questions: one, whether a Bill for the registration of settlements was to go forward; and another, whether the Bill he was about to introduce, if the Resolution were passed, was to include or imply a provision for the registration of such documents. The Committee would judge for themselves, when they saw the Bill with regard to the succession tax, whether the machinery was sufficient to ensure the levying of the tax. This was the main point. If the registration of settlements was a good measure, let it be passed; but let the House find the best possible machinery for levying the tax which was the subject of this Resolution.

said, it had been admitted that there were inequalities between rateable and unrateable property in the assessments for local purposes. He, therefore, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it should not come under the consideration of the Government to devise some scheme for the more equitable assessment of such property for local purposes?

In the first place, I do not feel, in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I have any strength to spare at this moment in order to deal with the subject suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and, in the second place, neither am I authorised on the part of the Government to enter into it. It is a subject of immense importance, which muse be considered upon its own merits.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not in his statement touched upon the manner in which the valuation and appraisement of estates should be made on succession. The expense of such valuations at present was enormous; and he wished to know whether any allowance would be made for that charge?

That subject has not escaped my attention, but I thought it was one which must necessarily be reserved until we had the Bill before us. It is not a subject altogether new. The present Legacy Duties Act embraces it of necessity. All visible property, which is not real property, is already subject to all these considerations; and I think the machinery now proposed will be found adequate to the disposal of the question as affecting real property. I will only remind the hon. Baronet that there is no question of valuation of property, so called. With capital values in regard to real property we shall have, generally speaking, nothing to do. The whole basis of the proceeding will be the net annual value.

inquired who was to give the rental in succession? Was the heir to return his own rental, or was the assessment to the poor-rate to be taken?

The necessary process will be, that the party coming into possession will be called upon to give his own statement of the gross rental upon which he is taxable, together with the deductions which he claims; and those deductions will have to be settled according to general rules.

said, that the evidence taken before the Committee was only delivered to Members yesterday; there had not, therefore, been time to give so important a subject the consideration which it deserved. Under these circumstances, he should take the liberty of moving that the issuing of the writ for Rye be postponed to that day fortnight. It appeared that the franchise in that borough had, to a great extent, been brought under the control of one individual.

said, that being Chairman of the Rye Election Committee, the House would probably expect him to make some statement after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Shore; ham. He understood him to rest his Motion on the fact that the evidence was not delivered to Members till yesterday morning, and that the House consequently had not had time to become masters of it. That was a fair question for the House to consider, and he would leave the House to adopt what course they would prefer; but if the hon. Member founded his Motion not on the evidence, but on the merits of the case, then he was bound to say, as Chairman of the Committee, that the House of Commons could not justly or properly refuse the writ. The question for the House must be, whether they ought to issue at once the writ, or disfranchise the borough. It appeared to him there was no middle course. He did not think anything could be gained by the suspension of the writ; for, to whatever period it was delayed, they would at the expiration of it be just in the same position as they were in now. For the disfranchisement of the borough he certainly thought there was no ground whatever. It was very true that a considerable number of the electors were at one time influenced by Mr. Jeremiah Smith, of whom they had heard so much. He believed that some electors were still under that influence—how many he could not say—but he had reason to think they were a small minority. He had also strong reason to believe, that a great majority of the electors were as pure and free from taint as any constituency in the kingdom.

said, that having moved the adjournment of the debate when the writ was moved for, he wished to state his reason for doing so. He happened to be acquainted with many circumstances connected with the borough of Rye, and he knew many of the parties concerned in it, and having attended the Committee, he found that at least it was a case deserving consideration. But since then he had heard the opinions of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) and of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the subject, and it seemed to him that it would be unfitting for him (Mr. Bass) in his position in that House to resist the authority of such men. He had felt that it was his duty to confer with the noble Lord on the subject, and he asked the noble Lord to grant him an interview upon it. He had had an interview with the noble Lord, who went through the Report of the Committee, and, after very mature consideration, the noble Lord came to the conclusion that the writ for Rye ought not to issue without further consideration. The noble Lord authorised him (Mr. Bass) to communicate that as his view to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tufnell). As many hon. Gentlemen might not be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, it might not be an improper liberty on his part if he called their attention to two or three points, not of the evidence, but merely of the Report of the Committee. He confessed it was a matter of great surprise to him that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), who was Chairman of the Committee, having become perfectly acquainted with the history and proceedings of the borough, should have argued so strongly for issuing the writ. It was stated by one of the hon. Members for Dorsetshire, who was a high authority, that no Select Committee appointed to conduct any investigation, issued a Special Report without expecting it to be acted on by the House. The Report stated that the borough was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and called on the House, seeing the constituency was not in a position to exercise free election, to furnish a remedy for such a state of things. The Report stated that Mr. Jeremiah Smith corruptly lent money for electioneering purposes to a very large amount; that, in 1837, loans were outstanding to the extent of 15,000l.; that the Committee had the strongest grounds for believing that the system of political loans, and the exercise of political influence so obtained, had been continued by Mr. Smith, though on a less extensive scale, down to the last election of 1852. The House would recollect that last week he presented a petition from sixty-three gentlemen of the highest respectability in the town, begging the House not to issue the writ, because they were not in a position to exercise the franchise. If they allowed this writ to issue, it would be tantamount to an emphatic sanction for corruption, and would destroy all confidence in the desire of the House to prevent those disreputable practices.

said, he understood that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, now absent, would reserve his opinion until after he had read the evidence. He begged to suggest that questions of this nature, deeply affecting the rights of electors, should be discussed early in the evening, and not at one or two o'clock in the morning. It was hardly decorous to be legislating on such a subject at such an hour.

said, that the argument of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) went to prove that the borough ought to be disfranchised, which was not the conclusion he had arrived at after a careful perusal of the evidence.

said, he consented to the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow, when he trusted his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) would be sufficiently recovered to attend.

said, he thought time ought to be given to enable Members to consider the evidence. But he wished more particularly to call the attention of the House to a concise statement published in the shape of a pamphlet by Major Curteis, which he thought hon. Members would do well to possess themselves of. In his concluding paragraph Major Curteis said—

"There is no doubt, whatever, that a great many of the respectable and independent electors of the borough would rather see it disfranchised than that the system originated by Mr. Smith should be continued or transferred by him to another. It is to be regretted that the Committee did not prosecute their inquiries further, as the fullest disclosures would have been made of a system of corruption established by one person."