said, he rose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday next, that he might have an opportunity of making some remarks in reference to the documents which had been presented to the House relating to the Burmese war. It could not but have been observed by those who bad read with attention the despatches and correspondence in question, that nearly all the more important documents were not given in full, but that only extracts of them were furnished. When they had papers referring to communications with civilised countries with which they were engaged in war laid on the table, it might be impolitic to give information to the enemy, and there might also be risk of giving additional offence by the publication of the whole of the documents which might contain irritating matter; but he could not understand how these reasons could apply to Burmah, any more than they could apply to the papers in reference to the war with the Kafir tribes. It was not likely the Burmese Government could get access to our blue books, and he did not know of any great evil that could arise even if they did. He therefore asked, how could the House judge of the character and conduct of those by whom we had been involved in this war, unless they had all the information that could be afforded, and how could the public men engaged in it be justified unless the whole case was seen by the world? He observed that Lord Dalhousie had sent Commodore Lambert to Rangoon with specific instructions, and, among the rest, with some very emphatic directions to avoid hostilities until he had communicated with India; but he found those instructions had been set aside and departed from, and, yet, in reading the correspondence of the Governor General after these events had occurred, he had not found one word of censure or of disapprobation in reference to the evident disobedience to his orders. The Earl of Derby, the Premier of the day, had indeed expressed in the House of Lords his disapprobation of the precipitate conduct of Commodore Lambert; but the Governor General had not. The despatches from the Governor General were nearly all garbled and mutilated, and that circumstance had led him to the supposition that portions of those despatches had been suppressed which might be necessary for the vindication of the Governor General himself, for, as they stood, he did not seem to him to! have vindicated his own authority, or that he had a will and purpose which would be obeyed by those under his command. He thought the House should have the fullest information before it respecting such grave questions, unless in the cases to which he had already alluded, of war with civilised countries. He was the more particular in calling the attention of the House to the present case, because he remembered well what had been done with the despatches relating to the Affghan war, the circumstances connected with which were not known for two years after. In that case some of the secretaries employed in the preparation of the documents hardly knew their own productions. He would read an extract from the admirable historical work of Mr. Kaye in reference to this subject, as follows:—

"I cannot, indeed, suppress the utterance of my abhorrence of this system of garbling the official correspondence of public men; sending the letters of a stateman or diplomatist into the world mutilated, emasculated, the very pith and substance of them cut out by the unsparing hand of the State anatomist. The dishonesty by which lie by lie is palmed upon the world, has not one redeeming feature. If public men are, without reprehension, to be permitted to lie in the face of nations—wilfully, elaborately, and maliciously to bear false witness against their neighbours—what hope is there for private veracity? I care not whose knife, whose hand did the work of mutilation; and, indeed, I do not know. I deal with principles, not with persons, and have no party ends to serve. The cause of truth must he upheld. Official documents are the sheet-anchors of historians, the last courts of appeal to which the public resort. If these documents are tampered with—if they are made to misrepresent the words and actions of public men, the grave of truth is dug, and there is seldom a resurrection.…In most cases the lie goes down unassailed, and often unsuspected, to posterity; and in place of sober history we have a florid romance."

He did not wish to apply these severe remarks to the East India Company; but the very process of mutilating the Affghan documents had, as they knew, taken place under the direction, with the approbation, and under the very hands of men still living among them, and holding a distinguished position in political affairs. Without charging anything of the kind against any one in this case, he held that the House were bound to be watchful and suspicious on such a subject, and to see they were fully informed as to what was done; for, let them mystify it as they might, it was ultimately to that House that the responsibility of providing for the consequence of those wars would come. He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control where and by whom the papers respecting the Burmese war were prepared to be laid before Parliament, and who was responsible for the selections of the extracts?

said, it was not his intention to enter into any discussion with the hon. Member in respect to the policy which all Governments adopted, rightly or wrongly, of withholding such portions of papers asked for as they might deem it expedient to produce. He thought the practice of cutting out extracts of despatches was very often abused. He remembered that when he brought before the House the subject of the Affghan war, he pointed out that the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes had been mutilated to such an extent that in many cases the letters he wrote were made to express an opinion precisely the contrary of that which he really entertained. He must complain, however, of the course taken on the present occasion by the hon. Member, who had put on the notice paper a simple question—who was responsible for the selection of the extracts laid before Parliament? Of course, the simple answer was, that the then President of the Board of Control was responsible; but he complained that the hon. Member should have taken an opportunity of making statements with respect to those de- spatches without giving notice to the late President of the Board of Control, who was the responsible Minister at the time, but who was not now present to vindicate the course he had taken. He had no hesitation in saying, whatever the consequences might be, that the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Herries) was responsible for the despatches in question.

said, he must also express his disapproval of the practice of mutilating official documents, which were, in fact, the "raw materials" of history. He had been authoritatively informed that two despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, which entirely exculpated Dost Mahomed from the charge of having provoked the Affghan war, bad been mutilated in a most disgraceful manner. He had no language to express his disgust and indignation at conduct so unworthy and dishonourable. In the Navy estimates he found that provision was made for a pension of 150l. a year for Capt. R. Lambert, in consideration of his services in the Burmese war; but he was credibly informed that if all the documents relating to that deplorable event were before the House, there would appear strong reason to suspect that the officer in question deserved no such remuneration, having been the person who, by his disobedience of orders, had himself been the cause of hostilities in the first instance.

It is my duty as President of the Board of Control, I believe, to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for the West Riding; and in reply I have to state that the despatches on the subject of the Burmese war were prepared at the Board of Control, and that the President of the Board of Control at the time the extracts were prepared is responsible for them. I have no reason to complain of the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), as my conduct is not impugned; but I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baillie) that it is inconvenient that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Herries) should have been impugned as it has been to-night, more or less, without his having the slightest notice that it would be questioned.

said, that he had no intention of impugning the conduct either of the late or the present President of the Board of Control; for he never yet met with any one who could tell him who was responsible for the garbling of despatches. He had asked several persons who were likely to know, and had been invariably told that the papers were prepared at the India House.

said, that he had seen a private letter from an officer in the India Company's service, which gave a most appalling account of the mortality amongst the troops engaged in Burmah. It stated that one regiment had lost—not in action, but from the effect of the climate and the inconveniences to which the troops were exposed—no fewer than 400 men; and there were three, or at any rate two other regiments, which had been reduced to mere skeletons by the operation of the same causes. Now, although he was not particularly fond of soldiering, he thought that the lives of soldiers were just as valuable as the lives of Members of that House, or of any other persons who remained at home; and when he read these statements he could not help asking what this war was all about, and what we, or the Burmese, or any one else, had to gain from it? He thought the House had a right to complain of the manner in which information on this subject had been laid before them. The despatches were so mutilated that, generally, they were without the head and the tail, and in some cases they did not contain the middle completely. It seemed to him evident that a deception had been intended to be practised on the House; and that, whoever might be responsible for it, the course which had been taken with respect to these despatches was such as, if it had been practised in common life, or with respect to commercial transactions, would have excluded those who had been guilty of it from respectable life over afterwards. He hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had to prepare any papers he would do so on a better plan than that which had been pursued by his predecessors. If a person were to judge from these papers, he would certainly believe the Marquess of Dalhousie to be a much less able man than he was generally supposed to be; and if he (Mr. Bright) were a personal friend of that nobleman, he should demand that the papers should be given in extenso, for the vindication of his reputation. He could not express his opinion too strongly with respect to a practice which approached the secrecy and irresponsibility of despotic Governments, and could have no relation whatever to the constitutional principles under which the Government of this coun- try was said to be carried on. He would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the statement to which he had referred, with reference to the health of the troops engaged in the Burmese war, was correct?

said, that he could not answer the particular question which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman; but he was sorry to say that it was certainly true that there had been considerable mortality amongst the troops in Burmah; those stationed at Rangoon had continued in good health, but amongst those at Prome there had been very great mortality.

put the question of which he had given notice, to inquire of the President of the Board of Control whether the Legislative Council which it is intended to appoint in India will be a council open to the public, or having its proceedings made known by being reported to the public?

was understood to reply that it was not his intention to provide for that point by legislation in this country.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether, on any future occasion, side by side with the foreigners, who could under the new duties introduce soap at the rate of 8d. per cwt., British manufacturers, who exported soap and received the present drawback of 14 guineas a ton, would be allowed to bring it back to this market on the same scale of duties as foreigners paid?

said, that inasmuch as if this point were not clearly understood it might lead to extensive losses, the House would, perhaps, excuse him if he gave a detailed answer to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark. The hon. Gentleman would be aware that, according to the Resolution of this House, the Excise duty upon soap would expire on the 5th of July next. He would be also aware that, according to the Resolution of this House, the import duty upon soap had been reduced from a corresponding rate to that of the Excise duty—namely, to 8d. per cwt.; but that reduction had not yet passed into a law. However, a Treasury order had been issued with regard to the other duties and that also; and that order would be sus- pended, so that at present no import of soap would take place at the low duty—at least until after the Excise duty should have been abolished. With regard to the preparations which many persons were making to export soap under the heavy drawback, with the expectation that they would be able to reimport it from the Continent at the low duty of 8d. per cwt., or from Ireland and the Channel Islands free from duty altogether, he must inform his hon. Friend that although it appeared that under existing circumstances such an operation was possible, yet upon communications with the authorities of the Excise and Customs, he must give his hon. Friend and the public at large warning that every means would be taken to prevent such an operation from being successful. He had made this statement thus particularly in order that those who were making preparations to obtain indirectly a drawback on their present stock should not have any right to complain if they found that the authorities of the Excise and Customs should prevent any such operation from being successful.

said, he had a question to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London with regard to the administration of justice in this country. The House would remember that at an early part of the Session a witness was committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms for refusing to take an oath before one of the Committees of that House; and upon that occasion he took the opportunity of calling attention to the anomalous state of the law upon the subject, reminding the House that by the present state of the law Quakers, Moravians, Separatists, or persons who had been members of those creeds, were exempted from taking the oaths, and allowed to give evidence upon affirmation; but that other persons, although they might entertain conscientious objections on the subject, were not allowed to substitute an affirmation for an oath. He had then suggested that power should be given to the tribunals of this country to allow an affirmation to be substituted for an oath where it appeared to them that the refusal to take the oath proceeded from conscientious motives. Since that time the Common Law Commissioners had in their second Report recommended that very measure, together with several other important changes in procedure. There had been also last night, as he saw by the public papers, an interesting conversation upon the subject in another place, when two of the highest legal authorities in the country gave their sanction to this proceeding, and he feared that this would give rise to more frequent refusals to take the oath than had been hitherto met with. He understood it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out all the propositions of the Common Law Commissioners; but among those propositions were some which would doubtless lead to considerable discussion, whereas this simple change of the law with regard to oaths would not, he believed, meet with opposition from any quarter. He begged, therefore, to ask whether the Government would take into consideration the propriety of introducing a Bill immediately for the purpose of making this change separately, without waiting for the adoption of the other recommendations of the Common Law Commissioners?

said, that he could not, on the instant, state what course the Government would pursue on this question; but the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) should receive their consideration.

said, that on the 16th June orders were given by the Home Secretary to close 106 graveyards in the metropolis. He wished to know how many new burial grounds or cemeteries were being provided under the Act of last year to replace those ordered to be closed?

said, that his hon. Friend was quite correct in stating the number of graveyards which had been closed by Order in Council. Other graveyards in the metropolis were under examination, and the rest would probably be closed at no distant period. The Act of last year gave the Home Secretary power to close graveyards, the continuance of which was injurious to the public health, but it did not vest in him any power to provide new graveyards. That arrangement was left to the parishes concerned, and he was not therefore able to state to his hon. Friend exactly what arrangement had been made by the parishes to provide new means of interment. He did, however, happen to know that several parishes were engaged in providing new places of interment, and he also knew that, besides the great cemetery at Woking, established by Act of Parliament two or three years ago, there was a Bill which had passed through that House, and was now under discussion in the House of Lords, for providing another cemetery at a certain distance from the metropolis. It was within the circumference of what was called the metropolitan district, and could not have been undertaken without the sanction of the Secretary of State. He had, however, felt it his duty to give that sanction from a desire to afford every facility for supplying the place of those graveyards which he had felt it his duty to close.

said, he wished to know whether it was intended by this clause to impose a tax where there was a present gift of the property, but accompanied by a secret trust or reservation. He would suppose that a father, with the purpose of evading the legacy duty, made a present of a certain amount of property to his son in his lifetime, or when he believed himself to be near his death. The money or the estate was received and became the property of the son, with a secret understanding and reservation that the son should for the rest of the lifetime of the father give him the interest of that property. On the death of the father the money or the estate became absolutely the property of the son; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government that a Court of Law should decide in these cases, when it was admitted that the intention of both father and son was to evade the legacy duty? If this clause passed in its present shape, it would be years and years before the Courts of Law or the court of last resort would finally put a judicial construction upon the exact meaning of this clause. One Judge would say that there had been no fraud, and another would decide the reverse.

said, the hon., and learned Gentleman had put to him two questions which he bad illustrated with cases, and he must say that he thought that the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be much clearer without the illustrations. The second illustration he put was placed on a foundation that made it quite distinct from his first illustration, and then a gloss was put upon it which brought it back exactly into the same category as the first. As to the first illustration, he understood it to be this: suppose a father confers upon a son a gift of 100,000l., with a secret reservation or engagement— a secret trust or arrangement—under which there is to be paid to the father during his life an annuity of 3,000l. a year, that secret trust or arrangement not being capable of being enforced in a Court of law, would it, according to the intentions of the Government, come within the purview of the Bill? The answer as to the intentions of the Government was this: So far as they could clothe their intentions in words, they did not suppose that the words they used in the former part of the clause would bring such a case as that within its operations. But with respect to the second part of the clause, he was not prepared to give the same answer. The object of that second part was to cover, as far as they could, cases where parties meant to evade the Act. They were not, prima facie, exempt by the operation of the second portion of the clause; but it must depend, he apprehended, on the specialties of each case. The intention to evade might exist, and yet not be such as would satisfy a Court of competent jurisdiction. If there were circumstances to satisfy a Court of competent jurisdiction that the arrangement had been made for the purpose of evading the operation of the Act, then, whatever the nature of the arrangement was, it would, according to the intentions of the Government, come within the meaning of the clause. If the evidence fell short of that, he need not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it could not come within its operation.

said, he would suggest the introduction of words to give full effect to the intentions of the Government, thus at once putting an end to all doubt as to the meaning of the clause, but leaving, of course, the question open as to the policy of the enactment. Was it really the intention of the Government to enact a law that no parent should give to his children any amount of property when he knew his death was approaching, without such act being considered as an intention to commit a fraud? If such were the meaning of the Government, they should state it.

No; that is not our meaning.

said, that was the case that was put; and he wanted to know, before the clause was agreed to, what was the description of case which the Government meant and intended should amount to a fraud under this Bill, if it were passed into a law?

said, he thought the words of the clause were sufficiently explicit, and, except from the desire of multiplying words, there could be no objection to the adoption of the clause as it stood. If his hon. and learned Friend had observed the words of the clause, he thought he could not entertain any difficulty about the matter. Wherever property wa3 given absolutely, though given with an honourable and moral engagement, as distinct from a legal and equitable contract, that honourable and moral engagement would not come within the meaning of this Bill. When his hon. and learned Friend had accomplished the task of defining every variety and mode that were used to accomplish frauds, then he might hope to express in a definite enactment the means of preventing them; but at present legislators were obliged to have recourse to general provisions to meet such cases. If the father should give his son a property out-and-out, and therefore became bond fide dependent upon the bounty of his child, that in itself would not be an infraction of the law; but if the father gave the estate out-and-out, and by another and independent instrument the son gave, out of the property, or out of some other means, some corresponding advantage, then the union of the two things would manifestly show a purpose of accomplishing by the two acts a fraudulent evasion of the statute. However, if his hon. and learned Friend thought it absolutely necessary, he would not object to the introduction of additional words hereafter.

said, he would now move the omission of the words of which he had given notice.

said, it was a general enactment in general terms, not meant or calculated to give any court a right to make the law, but a right of saying whether the facts of a case came within the law already made.

said, he was of opinion the words were much too general, especially the term "other" annexed to "disposition of property," as distinguishing it from the express mode of disposition previously noticed. That was far too wide.

said, he was of opinion that it was very essential to define what was or was not a fraudulent evasion. As far as he understood, if a man gave his son an estate, and the son by any instrument settled that estate upon his father, it was a fraudulent evasion.

said, he considered that the clause as it stood would give rise to a great deal of difficulty, and would be very liable to misconstruction. The latter part of the clause appeared to him not to convey the same meaning as the former part, and he was of opinion that the omission of the words proposed to be omitted would be desirable.

said, he considered that it would not be advisable to omit the words. It seemed to him very necessary to make provision that a court of competent jurisdiction should have power to decide whether any disposition had been fraudulently made to evade the duty. It might be necessary to have to encounter fraud of the most ingenious character, and it was, therefore, their duty to adopt every possible precaution against it; but if the latter part of the clause were struck out, there would be no security against anything but an engagement, secret trust, or arrangement capable of being proved in a court of law. If they wished to stultify their own proceedings by passing an Act that every man would be able to drive a coach and four through, they would adopt the Amendment.

said, he considered that various meanings might be attached to this clause; but, without expressing his opinion as to whether the words ought to be expunged, he would wish to ask, what was meant by the words "court of competent jurisdiction?"

said, he thought it would be found that the words which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Vansittart) proposed to omit, were altogether unnecessary. He thought they were called upon to pass a penal enactment, when human ingenuity could not state a case to which it would apply.

said, he would suggest that an answer should be given to the question of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with respect to what was to be considered a court of competent jurisdiction. They would find by the 38th and 39th clauses that the Commissioners themselves were to form the court in many important cases, and that the public were left solely to their ipse dixit.

said, it would be observed that the portion of the clause contemplated an instrument that was to be set aside, and for that purpose an appeal must of necessity be made to a court of equity. That court of equity might be the Court of Exchequer, which in matters of this kind still exercised an equitable jurisdiction, or the Court of Chancery. If any person was alarmed at the words "court of competent jurisdiction," there could be no difficulty in altering the words into "court of law or equity." An infinite variety of cases might be pointed out in which attempts would be made to evade this duty. This provision, however, was one which had existed for years in connexion with the legacy duty—it would only be administered in the Superior Courts at Westminster Hall, by the Judges of the land— it was a branch of jurisprudence already well known to our laws; and, therefore, he thought it ought not to excite alarm among hon. Members.

said, he differed most entirely from the hon. and learned Solicitor General in regard to the application of the law. He would challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out to him a single case in which a life interest having been given, with a power of revocation, the legacy duty could be made to apply.

said, he did not know what power the Law Courts might have in this country, but it would be found very difficult to carry the law into effect in the Courts of Scotland. The writers to the signet of Edinburgh had sent to London a case in which they stated that it was impossible to understand the Bill, and that the law terms were to them quite unintelligible.

said, that in consequence of having seen the statement of the writers to the signet, he had gone carefully through the Bill, and he certainly could not understand why the Bill should he considered so unintelligible, because he found that the addition of a dozen words would make the law perfectly applicable to Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was of the same opinion as himself; and he (the Lord Advocate) could not but think that those who had issued the statement had not given sufficient attention to the subject.

said, the present was a most important point, not only for the House hut for the public to consider. The essential point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) remained unexplained — namely, why, and with what meaning, was the word "fraudulently" used in the latter part of this clause. The meaning of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exehequer no one could misunderstand. The more odious a tax was likely to be, the more necessary it became to fence and guard the collection of that tax by the most stringent powers. But no feeling of that kind could justify the Government in calling that fraudulent which the law of England had not declared to be fraudulent; and this was the point he wished to have explained. Was the clause intended to be declaratory of the existing law, or was it intended to be the creation of a new offence? If it were intended to be declaratory, then he would ask whether the Government was justified in saying that it was now fraudulent to make an arrangement by which to seek to evade the tax. No doubt every species of ingenuity would be resorted to to protect the public from the imposition of this most grievous burden; but he disputed the right of the Government to interpose words in this Bill which declared that to be fraudulent which the law had not declared to be so; still more did he dispute their right to declare that, hereafter, that should be considered fraudulent which the law had hitherto not deemed so. He would warn the Committee whether it was wise, for the sake of the convenience of the Government, to run counter to the moral feelings of the country, by attempting to declare that to be an offence at law which was not an offence.

said, the moral feelings of the country were not in the smallest danger of being shocked or annoyed at all by this clause. In fact, the question had nothing to do with moral feelings—considered on either side of the alternative he had put. The right hon. Gentleman said, either this was a declaratory enactment, or it was the creation of a new offence. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to answer that it was neither one nor the other. It was no declaratory enactment, and it was no creation of a new offence. The clause said nothing about fraud, nor what constituted fraud. It used language which was perfectly well known to the law. If three Judges out of four in Westminster Hall had the power to declare that such and such a disposition of property was not fraudulently made for the purpose of evading the duty, then those same three Judges were just as free to declare that a certain act was a fraudulent disposition to evade the succession duty. What the Bill was intended to say was this, that where a competent jurisdiction should declare that a disposition of property had been fraudulently made for evading the duty, then, acting upon the principle of the law and the reasons given by the Court for its judgment, it should be lawful for them to declare a succession to have been conferred.

said, the Committee had been told what the law on legacies was as established by the decisions of the courts for a long series of years; but it should be remembered that they were now dealing with the whole property of the country at the present moment, and, although he voted for the principle of the Bill, yet he held himself bound to see that that principle was fairly and justly carried out. He very much feared that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was about to introduce a fresh principle and a fresh law, not only as regarded real property, but as affected personal property also. It might take a long series of years to establish the law by a course of uniform judgments on the subjects; and during the interval every person disposing of property would be subject to have his family arrangements disputed and disturbed. In many instances the successor would be liable to be brought before a Court of Law to determine whether disposition was fraudulent or not. In all these cases heavy costs would be incurred, because in no case where the Crown prosecuted were costs allowed. They all knew that the officers of the Crown who would have to carry out this measure would not be affected by any decision that might be come to. They saw what had been done in the recent cases of custom-house prosecutions; and he feared the same consequences would follow from these succession-duty prosecutions. Under these circumstances he hoped his right hon. Friend would consider the proposition which had been made to him, and that he would, at all events, strike out the word "fraudulently" from the clause.

said, that if he struck out the word "fraudulently" it would be a most fatal gain to his hon. Friend. The fear of his hon. Friend was this, that an honourable arrangement made for family purposes might come within the operation of this portion of the clause. He did not think there was much foundation for that fear as the clause now stood; for he did not believe that any court of competent jurisdiction would declare any arrangement for purposes of an honourable character was fraudulently intended to evade the duty. He thought the word "fraudulently" would operate as a protection to such transactions. Certainly, if the word "fraudulently" were left out, it would subject family arrangements to be questioned, especially whenever mixed motives might be reasonably assigned. It would, therefore, be dangerous to omit the word "fraudulently," as it had a definite meaning in law, and which, if retained, would confine the court strictly to the question of intention to evade the duty.

said, that no case had been suggested to which these words would apply; and the Committee had a right to assume that there was no such case, and that the words were unnecessary. The only case which could occur was the same as had arisen under the legacy duty, that of a man making himself merely tenant for life of his own property, in order to evade the duty payable on his death; and this was sufficiently provided for.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that many trusts were created for the purpose of avoiding the legacy duty. As to omitting the word "fraudulently" from the clause, if that were done the power conferred would be most fearful. It was not intended to render the word "fraudulently" more elastic or comprehensive than it was at present understood by the law.

said, he had often been asked what the law was upon a given subject, and he had answered that he did not pretend to understand the law, but he hoped he was able to understand what the intention of the Legislature was, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not so stultify this matter as that the country should not be able to understand it.

said, the ob- ject of the clause was clear enough. The principle was that the revenue should he fairly collected. It was admitted that there might be bonâ fide arrangements made by which the tax might be evaded. The Government had not the slightest wish to impose a duty on bond fide transactions, but, as great ingenuity would be fairly set to work to evade the duty, the object of this clause was to meet those cases.

said, he would not preface the question he was about to ask with any observations, but he begged to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether or not a family arrangement which should have the effect of evading the legacy duty, though not designedly made for that purpose, would, under this Act, be considered as fraudulent; and, if not, under what circumstances it would be held to hear a fraudulent character?

said, according to his view of the Bill the intention of its framers was, that although a disposition of property should de facto evade the duty, yet it would not thereby become fraudulent; and that even a disposition made with the express intent of evading the duty would not by the mere intention alone become fraudulent. But a disposition made to evade the duty must be attended by some other circumstances by virtue of which it might be said to be made fraudulent; and accordingly, the words of the clause were not that the Court should set aside such disposition, but that the Court should declare a succession to have been conferred on such person, at such time, and to such extent as the Court should think just.

said, if the Committee consented to pass the latter part of the clause, they opened the door to oppression and tyranny such as never had been sanctioned by Parliament for a hundred years back. It evidently aimed at this—that oral evidence should be considered sufficient proof of fraud. Let the Committee just look at the inducement to heirs-at-law to get up evidence of this kind in cases where those to whom they were heirs had made gifts shortly before their decease—to illegitimate children, for example—and to prove fraud.

said, he must confess that from what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he thought that great doubt would be thrown upon the subject by the adoption of this clause. He understood (he hon, and learned Gentleman to say that a person in articulo mortis might dispose of property for the purpose of evading the duty, and yet that such a dispposition would not be considered a fraud. He would therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to state what those circumstances to which he referred were, which, in the eye of the law, would be considered a fraud?

said, he should be exceedingly happy to give an answer if his mind was sufficiently comprehensive to have every variety of circumstance that could occur before it. How could he determine what these circumstances might be? Wherever doubt was introduced into the disposition of property, wherever a malus animus was apparent, wherever one thing was done and another thing was intended to be done, wherever there was a secret understanding to evade the Act—that was fraud; but where there was a bond fide transaction, though in contravention of the Act, it would not be a violation of it so as to be regarded as fraudulent.

said, he felt alarmed at the explanation of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It was not, it appeared, a fraud to part with property, in evasion of the Act, when in articulo mortis. What, then, constituted fraud under the Act? As the law stood, the Attorney General could file an information, or bring an action for the amount of legacy duty whenever it was duo, and the only question of law was, whether the duty was payable by him or not; and the only question of fact to be determined was, whether it had been paid or not; but, if this Bill passed, the Attorney General could file his information, or bring his action for the amount of duty on the ground of fraud, which he never could certainly ascertain till he had elicited a discovery from the person who was alleged to be liable to pay that duty by means of a suit in the Court of Chancery; and the consequence of that suit, let the Committee be well aware, was this—that whether the party against whom the suit was brought was adjudged liable or not, he must pay his own costs, because the Crown paid no costs. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware of that fact, which was not a technical but was an invariable rule.

said, he was glad of this opportunity of being enabled to state that he had received the authority of Her Majesty's Government for' the purpose of rectifying the very serious evil to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that he hoped soon to bring in a Bill to relieve parties from costs where defendants against the Crown gained their cause.

said, he begged to move as an Amendment that the duty should be at the rate of 2l., instead of 3l. per centum. In doing so, he founded his reasons for urging this proposal upon the justice and policy of the case. He did not believe the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of those persons who would impose taxation without having good grounds for it; but, according to the varying rates of the duty contained in this clause, the right hon. Gentleman would seem to have regarded the tax in the light of a tax upon good fortune—a tax upon good luck—measured by the amount of expectancy on the part of the successor. The number of times the duty would be inflicted in the case of brothers and sisters must be much greater than in the case of any other relatives. In the largest families the number of years that must elapse between the death of the eldest and the youngest could not be very great; and the recollection of hon. Members would no doubt present them with many instances of the sort. He himself was at that moment in the possession of property which passed through the hands of four sisters before it reched him, and that in no longer a period than five years. And he thought that for property to come under the constant inspection and control of the fiscal authorities so often as that, and which it would do under this Bill, would be decidedly inconsistent with justice. As to the policy of the tax, he would take the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman whether the measure as it stood would not hold out a great temptation to a father so to entail his property that his chsidren should take it as from him, and not in succession one to another, and thus pay the duty of 1 instead of 3 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted the proposal he (Mr. Philipps) now made, he did not believe the symmetry of his plan would be in the least degree marred. Death was "the king of terrors" to most men, but the cause of joy and rejoicing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. And whenever he read the obituary of a person who was described as being universally lamented, he would add, "except by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." He should regret, however, to see the revenue of the country maintained from such a source as that. And he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would remember that the cup he was administering to them was not a very palatable one, and allow the infusion of the small drop of sweetness which he (Mr. Philipps) now proposed to add to the dose.

said, he must admit the fairness with which this question had been raised —a question which, though as it stood upon the paper appeared unimportant, was in reality of extreme importance. As regarded what the hon. Gentleman said about the symmetry of the measure, he would be willing to make a concession to him on that score. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a succession of four sisters or brothers in four or five years—

I said four sisters in five years.

Is it real or personal property the hon. Member speaks of?

Both.

What we are here dealing with is real property. The Committee should recollect, however, that by this Bill they were dealing with real property and settled personalty, upon which, so far from its operation being severe, in all probability it would not be felt at all. There must be an interval in life interests before the duty would accrue; and if the party succeeding died before twelve months had elapsed, the claim for duty would fall to the ground. The extreme rapidity of succession, therefore, qualified itself in a great degree. Every time a new succession accrued to a life interest or realty, in five years the unpaid portion of the duty dropped altogether. But in his opinion the Committee could not consent to lighten the percentage of duty on the succession of brothers and sisters under this Bill, and leave the legacy duties unmitigated. Would the hon. Gentleman effect his proposed alterations in the succession duty, and confine them to real property, whilst the legacy duty would remain as it stood?

I have no objection whatever to extend it to personalty.

This opens a very wide question indeed. They must now confine themselves entirely to the question before the Committee, which regarded the duty upon successions. The scale of duties upon successions was the vital part of the measure. The 3 per cent rate legacy duty had been a most productive one. In 1852, whilst the duty upon direct successions paid in legacy duty, at 1 per cent 238,000l., that upon indirect successions of brother and sister produced 471,000l. He was not indisposed to hearken to any reasonable suggestion, but what he felt bound to maintain was the policy of the Bill. Upon the whole, and after the most careful consideration, the scale seemed to him to be not unjust. If an alteration were to be made at all in the scale, they must not stop where the hon. Gentleman would stop. Undoubtedly, the duty of 10 per cent was a heavy one, but then it was to be paid by those who, for the most part, had not had expectancy. The general principle of the Bill was expectancy. The Committee would bear in mind that this was a tax in the nature of a property tax, and was not altogether free from clanger—the danger was, the arbitrary multiplication of the rates. He had heard a great deal in that House, recently, of the policy of extending direct taxation. [Mr. PHILIPPS: Not from me.] No, not from the hon. Gentleman, nor from me either. The difficulties in the way of direct taxation were immense, and they must have a very stringent machinery in order to carry it out; and the only reason which could induce that House to grant such powers, would he, first, the necessity for direct taxation; and, secondly, that those stringent enactments would be tempered by the spirit of society, by the freedom of our institutions, and by the responsibility of public officers to that House. But he saw great danger in the doubling and trebling which it was perfectly conceivable must arise upon this tax; and the existence of these high rates in the scale was a very effective barrier and obstacle to that doubling and trebling of the low rates in the scale which otherwise, in any temporary financial difficulties, must be proposed. He opposed, then, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, because the maintenance of the present consanguinity scale was necessary to the efficiency of this tax, because, under any system of wise and humane legislation, direct successions ought to be treated tenderly and gently in an Act of this kind, and because he thought the preservation of the present high rate as to indirect successions was the greatest security against any future tampering with this tax.

said, he considered the proposition of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Philipps) was a most reasonable one. He thought the succession of brother and sister had not much to do with the 10 per cent succession of perfect strangers, seeing that the children of the same parent were almost as nearly connected as parent and child. He was anxious to correct the impression that the succession duties would be levied so rarely as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. In the instance mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Philipps) the duty would have been paid four times over within a very short period indeed, for the subsequent clause in the Bill only limited the case to life interests, and left the duty payable on successions in absolute right repayable, whether the party lived two years or seven. He (Mr. Barrow) believed this measure would materially affect the interests of the middle classes of society to which he belonged, and which he represented in that House. It was rot a question whether the eldest son should be taxed or not, but whether the tax would not fall with extreme hardship upon the middle class of society, amongst whom direct successions were not perpetuated. Numerous families eked out a moderate income by three or four sisters living together, and upon the death of each of these this tax would come into operation with very great severity. If he wished to see this Bill hereafter repealed, he should not urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the alteration of the percentage, because he was certain it would help materially to create a feeling out of doors which, sooner or later, would produce a repeal of this and of all other succession taxes.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of step-children, who were to be taxed, according to this Bill, in the same way as strangers, though he thought they stood in the same relation as sons-in-law; and he put it to the Committee whether they ought not to be taxed in the same lenient manner?

said, it was impossible to accede to the suggestion. No doubt particular cases would arise where the application of the scale laid down might seem to involve hardship, and he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the strongest of these cases. There was no reason which would admit step-children, and exclude adopted children. But there was a case which was stronger than either —that of natural children, and there was the case of a sister or brother-in-law, who were treated by this Bill as strangers. He would recommend the Committee not to take up isolated cases which might come under the notice of an individual Member, and strike him with a force disproportioned to its importance; but if they proposed to alter the scale at all, then to consider and revise it in all its bearings.

said, he thought there was one case of peculiar hardship—that of natural children whose parents had subsequently married. He thought their case deserved the serious attention of the Committee, for they were often brought up along with the legitimate children, and treated as members of the same family, and he saw no reason why they should be punished for the faults of others. In Scotland, as they were aware, such children were legitimised, and they would be treated by this Bill as relations by blood; he could not see why they should be treated differently in England.

said, he thought that a very strong case existed for an alteration in the duty to be paid by natural children. The law relative to natural children was peculiar to England, the law of other countries recognising adopted children as well as natural children.

said, he should move as an Amendment that children born without marriage whose parents married subsequently, should pay a duty of only one per cent.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his suggestion, which opened a large question. He was well aware that it was hard to punish innocent parties; but if privation of benefit was punishment, he feared that society teemed with such instances. If the hon. Gentleman wished to, legitimise such children as he had referred to, and place them in the same position as they were placed in Scotland, it was a fair question for him to introduce, though he did not say he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could agree to it; but it was surely beginning at the wrong end to raise such a question as that on' a Bill for levying duties on successions.

said, he wished to understand what the operation of this clause would be in the following case. Suppose a father and son were to grant a joint lease of a farm to a tenant for a period of that tenant's life. In course of time the father died, and the son would, of course, pay the duty on succeeding to this farm as well as on the other portions of the estate. But the tenant died a few years afterwards, and the farm reverted into the hands of the son: would the son then have to pay upon any increased value which the farm might have derived during the occupancy of the tenant? He believed that was not the intention of the Government; but he feared that as the clause now stood that would be its effect. He was afraid the terms of the clause would inflict the hardship of the tax upon those who let their land for lives; whereas those who let it for a term of years would be exempt. He hoped the case would be provided for by the Government.

said, the subject was under consideration on the part of the Government, including the whole question of leases.

said, he wished to know how the clause would operate in another case. Suppose a man left 2,500l to each of four children; one of them married and settled his fortune upon his wife and children; he wished to know whether that person would not have to pay the succession duty twice over—once when he succeeded his father, and again, in the case of his wife dying without children, when the disposition of his property would revert to him?

said, that that was not the intention and would not be the effect of the clause.

said, he thought, as this was a Bill which could not be altered by the House of Lords, it was of paramount importance that its provisions should be clearly settled in that House. Besides the affirmative and negative provisions embodied in the clause, there was another point which he wished explained. There might be property which in fact was the owner's in expectancy, which he would have to pay a duty for, deriving it from some disposition or settlement, other than that made by him. The clause imperatively required the parties enforcing it to demand the duty from the person who might have made the disposition of the property within the terms and purview of this particular clause.

said, he had also looked at this clause, and felt considerable hesitation as to what would be its probable effect. He thought some alteration ought to be made so as to do away with all obscurity and ambiguity.

said, he should not propose the verbal Amendment of which he had given notice, relative to leases determinable on lives or ninety-nine years; but if an alteration were not made, he should, at another stage of the Bill, bring up a clause to meet the unfairness of which he complained. It was unfair to put the tax on one class of men, and take it off others. He could only regard such a proceeding as another sop to county Members who gave their support to the Government.

agreed to insert such words as would clear up the difficulty.

said, that as this clause originally stood, the only policies of assurance exempted from the operation of the tax were those effected by persons on their own lives. In consequence, however, of the arguments which had been urged by various hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House, the Government had determined to amend the clause so as to extend the exemption to all policies of assurance, whether for the lives of the assurers or not. Policies of assurance effected by purchasers in reversion would be exempt; but of course any policy that was treated as property would, like any other property, be charged with this tax,

said, that as although there was no doubt as to the object proposed, there might be some as to the precise words by which it was to be effected, he would suggest that the consideration of this Clause should be postponed.

said, be must complain that small leasehold estates were taxed double what large landed estates had to pay, because they were subjected to probate and succession duty, and to stamp duty as well. This was an injustice from which leasehold property ought to be relieved.

said, the hon. Gentleman complained that they were doing a great injustice by making leasehold property pay probate as well as succession duty by this Bill. Why, he might as well object that it did leasehold property an injustice, by making it pay income tax. The Bill did not touch the probate duty, and they were not able to reform everything at once. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not oppose this clause, which was a clause entirely of relief to the class of property which he befriended.

said, he wished to call attention to what he conceived to be one of the points in the Bill which would operate so oppressively that, when it came to be practically worked, it would be found that such a tax could not be and ought not to be permanent. He was not now going to raise the question of the whole principle of the Bill. He agreed to a tax on legacies of personal estate, and thought there was nothing unreasonable in the taxation of successions to landed estate. He agreed also that if they wished to extend the tax to settled realty and to settled personalty, in principle he could see no absolute objection to it. But what he wished to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a point which he (Mr. Walpole) felt most strongly. He believed that in the end they would destroy to a great extent that system of trusts in this country which to his mind was one of the most advantageous systems ever established in any country. The present clause provided that when a duty was payable upon a succession, such duty should be paid when the party became entitled in possession to his succession, but that where there was any other charge which prevented the successor from being entitled to the full enjoyment of the succession—

"the duty in respect of the increased Value accruing upon the determination of such charge, estate, or interest, should, if not previously paid, compounded for, or commuted, be paid at the time of such determination."

As he (Mr. Walpole) read this clause, he believed the result would be to create a mortgage to the Government of all the real and personal estates in the United Kingdom, perpetually to be paid off, and perpetually to be renewed. Let them see the effect that it would have on the system of trust. A person was trustee of a large landed property with estates for life to A, B, C, & c, and innumerable charges for younger children, besides charges for old servants; there might be at the same time a large amount of settled personal property in the funds with innumerable interests connected with it, which he had likewise got to dispose of to the persons that were beneficially entitled to it; if this Bill should pass he would be an accounting party to the Government from the time he accepted his trusteeship. Every time a charge fell in he must go to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and pay the duty, or employ a solicitor to do it for him. When the property was small, it would be so galling to him that he would give up his trust, and if he employed a solicitor see what an expense they would be putting on that property. He (Mr. Walpole) believed that he was trustee for as many persons as most Gentlemen in that House; but if the Bill should pass into law, nothing would induce him to accept a trust again, except for the purpose of conferring upon those he regarded as much benefit as he could confer upon them even at some personal risk.

How is the trustee damnified any more than an executor under the present Legacy Duties Act?

Under the Legacy Duties Act there was always a person who on the death of another was known to be the representative of the whole of the personal estate, and he was the sole accounting party. He was known by the Government, and nothing more was required than for that person to give a full account of all the property he had. But how was it when they came to deal with a question of succession? When a person died, how was the Government to know the property chargeable with the duty? The person was tenant for life in one estate, and there was a succession duty payable upon the property; he was tenant in tail upon another, the same thing happened; he was tenant for years in a third, the same thing happened; he had a life interest in a settled estate, the same thing happened; the trustees of the property were bound to account, and the Government could only ascertain the person to pay the duty in one of two ways; they must either call upon every relation of the person who died to give an account of everything he knew respecting the person's property that was just deceased, or they must have such stringent penalties imposed upon the trustees as would compel them to come in, whether they were willing or not, to account for the property. They might be obliged to have recourse to the penalties. Parties would try to evade them; and suits would be instituted by the Attorney General to compel payment of the duty. The result would be that they would be forced to repeal the tax, or to make real property liable to a duty on succession in the same way that personal property was liable to it.

said, though his right hon. Friend had spoken with great candour and plainness on this subject, he had really left him very much in the dark as to the course which he thought ought to be pursued. He was glad, however, to find that he was not prepared to state that the extension to real property of the duty now paid by unsettled personalty constituted an act of robbery, and in certain cases an act of plunder—a declaration which was made on the other side of the House, amidst vociferous cheering on the last night of the debate. He did not mean to say that the opinion was entertained by all those who sat on the opposite side, but it was entertained not by an inconsiderable section; it was energetically entertained by them, and boisterously supported. His right hon. Friend did not say he was prepared to abandon the 2,500,000l. of money derived from these successions— he did not glance at such a course—he admitted the principle of the extension was fair; and towards the close of his remarks, he alluded to a different form of proceeding, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not see in what particular the exact difference existed. He had left him unable to devise in what essential respect the position of trustees and executors, under the Bill the House was now invited to pass, would be different from the position they now held under the present Legacy Duty Act. Were there no annuities charged upon personal estates; were there no liabilities when those annuities were paid up; were there not Crown debts to be incurred; and did a person, from the fact of his becoming a Crown debtor, refuse to undertake those charges? The trustee would be enabled to give an account with such particularity to the officers of Inland Revenue as would enable them to call at the proper time for the additional succession duty that might be charged on every man's succession. It would be possible to adopt another alternative—to take all the successions at once, and take the whole tax upon them, and be done with them; and so far as giving facilities to parties who desired to take that course, the subject was worth consideration; but it would be a great burden to make it compulsory on the trustees to have all the persons' estates valued at the time for the succession duty, and to charge him for the whole. The reason why that course was not pursued by the Government was through consideration for the taxpayer. It was better for him to pay the duty at the period when the charges or incumbrances fell in, than to have them all valued in the first instance. With regard to the mode of discovering them, he begged to point out to his right hon. Friend that the means of discovery would be placed in the hands of the Government at the period of the first succession.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into a great inaccuracy with regard to the language which had been used on that (the Opposition) side of the House, which he felt bound, as a matter of justice, to correct. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a contrast between the language which had just been used by his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and that which had previously been used by other Members on the same side of the House, who had described the extension of the legacy duty to real property as an act of robbery or plunder. Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) begged distinctly to state that the right hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken. Neither the word "robbery," nor the word "plunder," had been applied by any one to the extension of the legacy duty to real property. The word "plunder" was used by himself (Sir J. Pakington), and applied to that particular part of the Bill which referred to the manner in which the succession duty was taken from timber; and the word "robbery" was first used by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michel!), and repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and applied to that particular part of the Bill which took the succession tax from leases for lives, and not from leases for years. He (Sir J. Pakington) was sorry to add, that so far as he was concerned, he was not disposed to recede from the word he had used. There was another hard word which he had used, and that was the word "confiscation;" but the word was not his own; he had quoted it from one of the highest authorities in the kingdom on this subject, and applied it to that part of the Bill which taxed settled personalty by ex post facto legislation. He was at all times unwilling to use exaggerated language; but there were cases where only strong words would fitly and appropriately tell the truth; and he, for one, whether in that House or out of it, was determined to say distinctly what he thought; and when he believed that strong words would best suit the case, he should not be deterred by any lectures from the other side of the House from using them. He begged to add that he agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole). He thought that the same principle of taxation ought to be applied to personal and real property; and it was because he thought that they ought to be dealt with alike, and that there ought to be no invidious distinctions between different classes of property, that he objected to the extension of this tax to real property, until they had redressed its inequalities as regarded personal property.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had challenged the accuracy of his statement in a matter on which, if he had been inaccurate, he should have been highly culpable. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had used the word "plunder" himself, hut only in a particular acceptation, and with reference to a particular clause. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never said that the right hon. Gentleman had used it with reference to the Bill at large. It was also true that the word "robbery" was used by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) with re- ference to a particular provision of the Bill; but he did not refer to either the hon. Member for Bodmin or the right hon. Gentleman. He would read a few words to the House, and leave the right hon. Gentleman to judge where they came from: —"Lord Galway moved that the Chairman, unless some explanation were given of the meaning of the clause, report progress. He thought the whole scheme an iniquitous one. Indeed he considered it nothing better than a downright robbery." Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not been inaccurate. He had shown where the inaccuracy lay. The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard these words, or he was quite sure he would not have administered the rebuke which he had done.

said, it appeared from what the right hon. Gentleman had stated that hard words were used in three instances, and the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that he (Sir J. Pakington) was right in two of them. The third, he confessed, he had not recollected.

said, he was afraid the Committee would lose sight of the important clause then under discussion in their attempt to fix the precise meaning of words which had been used in a former debate. He was sorry to say that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not succeeded in removing the impression which had been produced upon his mind by the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and therefore he would suggest whether it would not be advisable to take more time for the consideration of the clause. He had been disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had concluded without moving an Amendment, or suggesting any alternative by which the difficulty might be got rid of.

said no obligation would be thrown on any trustee by virtue of this Bill, unless he happened to be the trustee actually in the possession of the property; and, therefore, in ninety-nine of the cases which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) seemed to apprehend, there would be no new duty, in point of effect, cast upon trustees. Where the trustee was actually the recipient of the rents and profits, he would, no doubt, be liable to pay the duty; but that was an obligation which was small indeed as compared with the onerous obligations which were now discharged by the trustees and executors of personal property, such as leasehold estates, which were now subject to legacy duty. The apprehension of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), he was certain, would be removed to a great degree before the Committee arrived at the end of the Bill.

said, he must admit that he had, on the previous evening, attempted to stop the progress of this most iniquitous Bill, by moving that the Chairman report progress. He had no hesitation in using the word "plunder" in reference to this Bill; for he did not by any means consider that to be too strong an expression. It was a decided attempt to plunder the aristocracy and the landed proprietors of this country. It was an attempt (which would probably succeed) made by Her Majesty's Government to please a multitude, who cared nothing at all about them, who would laugh at them out of that House, and who would attempt to undermine that which was the best safeguard and security of the Crown and constitution, about which, in his opinion, the Government cared very little. This Bill had been brought forward to please the Manchester school, without which the Government could not hold their places, and by which they were held in the greatest contempt. The Manchester school was composed of people who, of all others, most delighted in undermining; they wore two faces under a hood; they were true moles underground. The Government ought to be independent, and not to be at the beck of a set of people that did not hesitate to plunder their best friends, in order that they might gain the support of the Manchester school. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, by the operation of this Bill, become the recipient of stolen goods; and there was very little difference between the thieves who stole and those who received the stolen goods.

said, that in referring to a discussion on the previous night on the subject of leases, it had struck him that this section of the Bill really met the whole case of leases in every instance in which the succession took place after the Act came into operation, and that it would be wholly unnecessary to introduce into it any provision to meet the falling in of leases for lives, unless in the single instance in which that event had occurred before the Act came into operation He wished to make one suggestion which ra- ther touched the principle of the Bill. He thought that it proceeded upon too technical a distinction between successions taking place upon death and other successions; and he would suggest, that in order to give due effect to the whole principle of the measure on the ground of perfect and equal justice, it should apply to every species of succession, and not be confined simply to successions that arose upon death, as was at present the case.

said, if he understood rightly the interpretation which had been given of the clause, a new succession duty would have to be paid upon every falling in of a lease if the property should be let again at an increased rent. With regard to the liability of trustees, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had argued that a trustee would be in no worse position under this Bill than under a will at present. But he would put this case, which was a very common one:—Persons having a life interest in estates had settled them in trustees. Upon that life interest, before the trusts were settled, there had been various charges, many under old family settlements, still not discharged from the estates, and payable out of the life interest. Would the trustees, under such circumstances, be liable to look after the succession of the persons who took those charges? He (Mr. Henley) could not see his way under this Bill, and had taken serious advice as to whether it would not be expedient for him to resign the trusts which he held.

said, he thought, as the Bill progressed, the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman would be greatly relieved. The duty would be imposed on the successor, the individual who took the beneficial interest. Whenever a successor was in possession, that successor would be liable to the duty. The duty was thrown upon trustees only by the 43rd clause. When the successor was of full age, and in the enjoyment of the property, he was the person liable to pay the duty. The trustee was liable only where he was actually in the receipt and in enjoyment, holding upon trust for some person, described in the Bill as infant, ward, person under age, curator, &c.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to read the first part of the clause, which stated that—

"The following persons shall be held accountable to Her Majesty for duty payable in respect of any succession, but in respect only to property or funds received or disposed by them respectively and with their concurrence—that is to say, every trustee, guardian, committee, tutor or curator, or husband, in whom respectively any property, or the management of any property, subject to such duty, shall be vested," & c.

It appeared that the executors would have to account for property which belonged to the deceased person on whose death the duty arises. The trustee in this case would have to account for property not belonging to the deceased person, but which belonged to other persons, in respect to which the deceased person only had a life interest. In the one case the clause would call the executor to account for all-personal estate he was likely to be possessed of; in the other case it would call on every trustee of J any property which the deceased person had for his life, or a limited interest in, to account. They would have to ascertain what those particular trusts were, which fact could only he ascertained by the powers given under one of the clauses, or by exacting penalties which they imposed in another clause. He thought that he furnished a strong reason why they should be cautious in passing this Bill into a law. The only remedy he could suggest, in order to make it a good Bill, would he to strike out several of the clauses, and make it a Bill to charge a duty upon a real estate in the same way as it was now charged upon a settled estate.

said, he wished to know, in respect to funds in reversion received and disposed of, the estate not having fallen in, whether or not it was to be continually liable at all times for the amount of duty arising on these successions?

said, he would suggest that the discussion of those points should be deferred until they came to the consideration of the 43rd clause, which referred to the liabilities of trustees.

said, he hoped when they came to the 43rd clause, that the Bill would be put in some shape, so as to afford protection to trustees. As regarded the objection of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), he must say that he did not think the clause to which he referred applied to leases; but he must say that he was of opinion that the principle of the Bill ought to be extended to what the hon. and learned Gentleman termed the shifting clauses.

said, though entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill, he begged to express his satisfaction at the temper and moderation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was strongly of opinion that the responsibility of trustees ought not to be increased, and he hoped that before they came to the 43rd clause, this portion of the measure would be reconsidered.

wished to know, under this clause, whether a landlord would be liable for succession duty in respect to the increased value of an estate by the falling in of leases after he had come into possession?

said, there was no doubt as regarded the intention of the Government. It was not to include the case of leases in this clause. The purpose of the clause was to point out the time when the duty was payable; but, after what had been said, it would deserve further consideration, whether, for the purpose of obviating such an effect as that referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, some alteration should not be made in the clause.

said, he thought the clause, as it stood, clearly applied to building leases.

said, the clause was intended merely to define the time when the duty should be payable, and not to impose the duty or describe the persons liable to the payment of it.

said, he wished to know whether a son succeeding to his father's property in a few years was or was not, upon the expiration of building leases, to pay duty on the increased value of the property?

said, that if the construction of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) was correct, great complication would follow in the working of the measure; and then two questions would arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the succession duty would become payable upon all leaseholds, whenever they terminated, whether they were for terms of years or for lives. That was wholly at variance with the discussion on the previous night. The other question was at what period the increased value was to take place.

said, that of course leases for years would not be subject to the tax, no succession occurring in those terms.

said, he would suggest the case of a person succeeding to property held under leases, which at the termination of those leases would become much improved in value;— would the successor be charged on the present value or on the prospective value?

replied, that he would be charged on the present value.

said, he would beg to advise that the clause should be reconsidered, in order to put an end to all doubts on the subject.

said, he concurred in the suggestion, and moved that the Chairman report progress.

said he hoped the third reading would not be gone into at that late hour (25 minutes past 12), as it involved questions of great importance, and he had given notice of an Amendment, to read it a third time in six months.

said, he should support the appeal of the hon. Member (Mr. Conolly). The Bill was of the greatest importance to the Irish distillers, and they complained of the injustice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measure. The effect of the Bill would be to render the exportation of Irish whisky impossible. He held in his hand tables showing that the decrease by leakage was double that which the Government proposed to allow for.

said, he could not accede to there-quest to appoint a night for the third reading of the Bill. A night had already been appointed for discussion, and on that occasion the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Conolly) did not think fit to make his appearance. The great mass of financial and other business now remaining to be disposed of, made it impossible for the Government to appoint another night for the discussion of this question.

said, he thought that the question was one of too great importance to be disposed of at that late hour, for it was not, he considered, a mere fiscal question, but one concerning the demoralisation of a large class of the community. He had mixed with the population of the north-western parts of Ireland, and they required very little stimulus to be driven to the illicit distillation of spirits. Such had been the immediate effects of the measure of the late Sir Robert Peel; and the evil did not rest there, for when a body of men was found banded together for illegal purposes, there would be a focus for everything else that was bad. There would be, also, considerable difficulty in carrying out the law, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman not to lose sight of that difficulty. When Sir Robert Peel proposed his measure, the immediate result was that the gaols were filled with persons convicted under the excise laws. In Donegal, the county which he had the honour to represent, that was certainly the case, and certainly such a state of things ought not to be encouraged. Considering, then, that the proposed measure would be injurious to the social character and morality of Ireland, he felt it his duty to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Donegal had given the best possible answer to his own opinion, that it was not practicable at that hour to discuss the merits of the Bill, by himself commencing a discussion on the subject. Although he was unable to concur in the view of the hon. Gentleman as regarded this measure, he was willing to allow its great importance; but, without wishing to disparage the motives of the hon. Gentleman in entering into this discussion, he must say that he thought that his remarks would apply more to the county which he represented than to the whole of Ireland; but, in considering a measure of finance, it was not expedient to consider only the condition of one county but of the whole country. It had been said that the Government had now reproduced the measure submitted to Parliament by Sir Robert Peel in 1841. But they did not propose the same measure, and the measure which they did propose was brought forward under different circumstances. Sir Robert Peel proposed to increase the duty on spirits 1s. per gallon. The present measure, deducting the allowance for wastage, increased the duty little more than 6d. per gallon. Then with respect to the difference of circumstances. The failure of the duty proposed by Sir Robert Peel was not owing to its being simply an increase of 1s. per gallon, but it was demonstrable from the figures on the table, that the failure was in a great measure owing to the powerful and remarkable temperance movement of Father Mathew, under which the consumption of spirits was rapidly diminishing. But there were other circumstances which ought also to be taken into view. Things were very different now from what they were in 1842, and it was much easier to make a change in the administration of affairs in Ireland now than it was at that time. As an instance, he might refer to the recent extension of the income tax to that country. The Government placed great reliance on the improved administrative means at their command, and did not foresee any very great difficulty in collecting this increased duty. The Government had come to the conclusion, that the services of the constabulary force might render most powerful assistance in the collection of the spirit duty in Ireland. Their intimate know-lodge of the population, of their habits, of their dwellings, and of what was going on upon every spot in the country, would enable them to lend the greatest help to the revenue department, irrespective of their more direct duties as a constabulary police. The question had not been dealt with by the Treasury alone. It would have been absurd, on the part of the Government, if they had adopted a measure of the kind irrespective of the opinions of those who were acquainted with the country. They had therefore consulted the opinions of Gentlemen, not only of that House, but of those who were the responsible servants of the Crown, and engaged in the administration of the government of Ireland. Those were the general grounds upon which the proposal was made, and those grounds had already been amply discussed. Those were the grounds upon which the House had decided, by a majority of nearly three to one, to confirm the principle of increasing these duties, and he hoped the House would continue to support that principle.

said, that, while adhering to the opinion he had formerly expressed, that illicit distillation would be greatly increased by this measure, yet, considering that on the second reading of the Bill, and when in Committee, the objections to it might have been made, he did not think hon. Members would be justified in taking a division on the third reading of the Bill. Still, there was the question of wastage in bond; that was one which was greatly agitated in Ireland, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would even now give it his serious consideration.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman, that, in his great Budget speech it was intimated that the Government meant to make some new arrangement on the subject of wastage. With regard to the employment of the constabulary force, his objection to that scheme was not in a fiscal but in a social and moral point of view. The House was certainly entitled to some explanation with regard to the arrangements for the combination of the existing revenue police and the constabulary, for the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged the propriety of not involving the constabulary in the unpopularity attached to the revenue police. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not introduce a new source of moral disorganisation in Ireland; He did not wish for delay merely to defeat this measure, but he desired the third reading to be postponed, in order that time might be afforded to consider whether the proposed scheme was calculated to benefit the country in a moral and social point of view.

said, though not at all wishing to retard the progress of the Bill, still, he thought, some little forbearance should be shown to those who wished to have further time for consideration, as the employment of the constabulary force in the collection of the revenue was a matter of serious importance. In the county he had the honour to represent, and which was one of the counties in Ireland which had never been disgraced by outrage, an extra police force was sent down in 1845, in consequence of the state of things caused by the famine. Two years ago the grand jury memorialised the Lord Lieutenant to remove that additional force, which cost the county 1,200l. a year. The Lord Lieutenant sent word that the requisition must be made by a meeting of magistrates. Accordingly a second memorial was adopted, but to this day the county was subjected to that additional tax. The employment of a police supported by local taxation for the collection of the Imperial revenue, was a point of considerable importance, and called for the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, there seemed to be much misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the employment of the police. It had been the subject of very anxious consideration. The officers of the revenue and of the constabulary force had been consulted upon it; not only the heads of the police, but those who were actively engaged in its duties, and most conversant with the nature of those duties; and the opinion arrived at was, that the constabulary force could take upon themselves the duty of assisting the revenue police without at all interfering with or affecting their regular or ordinary duties. Still, however, the Government had not come to any conclusion upon the subject. They had not determined to amalgamate the two forces, nor had they come to a decision that the constabulary force should be employed in levying this spirit tax. All that was now proposed to be done was of an initiatory character. It was proposed that the revenue police should be left on an effective footing, and that the constabulary force should be used in support of the revenue police, so far as was consistent with their other duties, and with especial reference to the local information they could render. It was in fact intended, in the first instance, as an experiment. As to the imposition of any new and onerous duties on the constabulary body, he could assure the House that no new or onerous duties whatever would be thrown upon them.

said, there were two points for consideration before the House. The first point was, as to the policy of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the second point was, as to the amount of allowance for collection. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had laid before them nothing more than a vague plan for enlisting the services of the constabulary in the collection of information. Now, he maintained that the addition of even a penny a gallon to the existing duty upon spirits, without a very considerable addition to the powers at present enjoyed by the Excise for collection, would be, not only dangerous, but impossible. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not prepared to show that he could employ the constabulary in the collection of the revenue, in the same manner in which the revenue police were now employed, he (Lord Naas) was of opinion that it would be perfectly absurd to think that they would secure by any other means a sufficient guarantee that the additional duty proposed could be collected. He thought that they ought not to proceed any further that evening with the discussion of the Bill.

said, he was opposed to the employment of the constabulary in the collection of spirit duties, as that would tend to lower the moral position of the force. But, bad as that plan would be, what was now proposed was worse, for it was contemplated to make the constabulary common spies and informers for the revenue department in every village throughout Ireland. No respect, no safety even, could be expected for the constabulary under such circumstances; and, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, he asked the House not to make them spies and informers.

said, he quite agreed with every word of the hon. Member who had last spoken. He could not conceive that anything more injurious to the character and efficiency of the constabulary could be invented than the proposed plan of making them collect information for the revenue police.

said, he fully concurred in all the objections which had been urged against the employment of the police in collecting the revenue. As to the spirit duties, he must tell the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the Act of Sir Robert Peel in 1841 which had reduced the revenue in 1841, and had increased illicit distillation. In 1841 the number of detections was 1,801; of persons in gaol, 171. In 1842, when the Act had had time to work, the number of detections was 1,895; of persons in gaol, 441. Next year the first head had increased to 3,456, the second to 911; and the spirits brought to duty fell off 5,546,000 gallons. Last year the number of detections was 2,904; of persons in gaol, 557. Every attempt to increase the duty was attended with increase of crime and of illicit distillation, and with a reduction of the revenue. He believed that at the present time about 3,000,000 gallons of spirits consumed in Ireland was supplied by illicit distillation. The state of the mountain districts was just the same now as when Sir Robert Peel brought in his measure, and the low selling price of oats, compared with the high duty, gave a premium on illicit distillation.

said, that as one who had not an acre of land in Ireland, he perhaps might be listened to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he suggested to him to adjourn the debate, seeing the feeling which existed among the Irish Members. ["No, no!"] Well, he had seen enough of the Irish Members to believe they would beat him if he did not yield.

said, he must complain that the House had heard no statement of the duties which the Irish constabulary were to discharge with reference to the collection of the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give them a minute and detailed explanation of the nature of the service on which that noble force was to be employed—not a statement made now, and on the spur of the moment, but a clear, definite, and satisfactory statement on some future and fitting opportunity. Till that was done, he would oppose the third reading of the Bill, and he now moved the adjournment of the House.

said, the very reasonable request of the noble Lord was, that a minute and detailed account should be given of every little point in connexion with the service of the constabulary with regard to the collection of the revenue. Now, he could assure the noble Lord,, that neither that night nor on the spur of the moment, nor any other night, would he receive from him, or the Government, a statement of the kind he had asked for. And the reason why he would not give such a statement was, that they must be guided solely by experience in the matter, as this was a case in which the judgments of the most experienced and responsible persons could only lead them up to a certain point. They must proceed very cautiously in adopting the services of the constabulary for this purpose, and therefore it was impossible to give such a minute explanation as the noble Lord required. The request of the noble Lord was most unreasonable: it was equivalent to saying, you shall not go into the water till you have learned to swim. He was afraid that if this Bill was not to be read a third time till that request was complied with, the Session would be prolonged to a period far beyond the ordinary limits.

said, he thought it a reasonable request made by the noble Lord, especially as he understood, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening, that the Government had a plan prepared. Instead of bandying words from one side of the House to the other, which only created acrimonious feelings, it would he far better for the Government to make a statement of the manner in which it was intended the system should work. He, for one, would be content to be bound by the opinion of Sir Duncan M'Gregor as to the employment of the force in the collection of the revenue.

said, he had had something to do with consulting Sir Duncan M'Gregor and others of the police officers under him in Ireland upon this subject. Sir Duncan M'Gregor stated that some years ago his opinion had been very adverse to any consolidation of these two forces, but that in consequence of the opinions to the contrary given by some of the best-informed officers, and by men most conversant with the districts in which illicit distillation was carried on, he had yielded up his own opinions, and was now not adverse to the consolidation of the two forces. Upon full consideration of the subject, however, it did not appear to the Government desirable that that consolidation should take place at once. There were various reasons why that consolidation should not take place; but this, it was stated, might fairly be done without in any way damaging the morale of the constabulary. The members of that force knew the haunts and habits of the people, knew where illicit distillation went on, and the Government proposed to bring the two forces a little nearer together—to make available for the one the information which the other possessed—not to turn them into spies, but to make available for the public service the information possessed by a public department paid out of the public funds. If, in a future year, changes were found necessary, they would be adopted, but, at present, it was only thought advisable to proceed step by step, and this was the first step. The London police gave this information and performed these duties; so did the Dublin police, and if the House gave weight to Sir Duncan M'Gregor's opinion, and to that of all his best-informed officers, that advice would be to take this very step. The Government had adopted this plan after full consideration; they had acted most cautiously in the matter; and there was no room for any of the objurgations thrown out by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

said, it might be very right to transfer the duties of the revenue force to the ordinary police, but to make the one the detectors to the other was the very worst system that could be devised. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) had explained the plan, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to do; and all he could say of it was the right hon. Baronet had better have imitated the conduct of his Colleague, and kept it concealed. He did not think, however, that Sir Duncan M'Gregor was a better judge of the matter than the Irish country gentlemen who were in communication with the people, and who administered the laws; though he doubted much whether that gentleman would give an opinion which would have the effect of making the force he commanded a set of spies.

said, that though this was a great question about spirits, and though he was an Irish Gentleman, he confessed he was not very full of the subject. He thought, however, they ought all to concur in the view that as it was now half-past two o'clock in the morning, it was high time they should be permitted to retire to repose. When the Gentlemen opposite were in office, it had been their constant habit to introduce important Irish questions at very late hours; and when he had often protested against that practice, they had invariably imputed to him that he was offering a factious opposition to necessary measures of their Government. They had since changed their position, and were themselves now engaged in a course similar to that which they had formerly condemned. For his own part, he had then stated that no matter what Government might be in office, he would equally object to proceeding with important Irish business at an unreasonably late hour, and he would therefore now concur in requesting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to a postponement of the debate upon the Bill before the House. He believed that time would be gained by adopting that course, for already there had been nearly two hours consumed in discussing the mere question of adjourning the debate. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien), who was well acquainted with the subject of the present Bill, had stated that there was an important matter upon which he and other Irish Members were anxious to express their views, in regard to the question of wastage of spirits in bond; and he believed there was another matter of equal importance, as to the unfair advantage given to the Scotch distiller by the drawback allowed to him of one-half of the duty on malt used in making Scotch spirits. In reference to the contemplated employment of the Irish constabulary to aid in collecting the public revenue, he would take this opportunity of urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of at once relieving the several counties in Ireland from those charges they were at present subject to, for maintaining a body of extra police no longer required for any local purposes. In the county which he represented, the charge for extra police amounted to no less a sum than 6,000l. a year. It would be quite unfair to continue this liability, now that the constabulary of Ireland were to be employed in aid of the revenue police. He trusted that, when the proper tithe arrived, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would not fail to attend to this matter. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite had now expressed themselves very strongly against employing Irish policemen as spies. He perfectly concurred in every objection to their being used for any such purpose. But he would remind those hon. Gentlemen that when they were in office, they had not exhibited any such sensitiveness; and whenever a legitimate opportunity might arise he would undertake to demonstrate that, whilst the late Government was in office, Irish policemen had been employed as spies in the most odious sense of the term. They had been so used during the last general elections; and, as one instance, he might refer to a hook called A Fortnight in Ireland, lately published by Sir F. Head, who had obtained every information to enable him to libel the Catholic clergy, through Members of the late Irish Government, aided by Sir Duncan M'Gregor and a spy system introduced during the last general election into the Irish police force. He defied any impartial person to read portions of that hook, and entertain any doubt respecting the accuracy of his present statement. But he would reserve any further observations on that subject until a more opportune occasion. He would again press the right hon. Gentleman to consent to a postponement of the debate, as he believed no time would he saved by continuing it at this very late hour—or, rather, this early hour of the morning.

amid loud cries of "Divide, divide!" said, he wished to say that, in his county, they were paying a large sum for the maintenance of the police in order to preserve the peace; and now they were to be charged with this additional duty of collecting the revenue.

said, he did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) would coincide in the opinion that the views of Sir Duncan M'Gregor were valueless, for if such were the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would scarcely have looked for them. He thought the best course to he adopted was to read the Bill now a third time, and take the further discussion on the final stage.

said, he thought the suggestion of the noble Lord a very fair one. He wished, however, to refer for one moment to what had occurred that evening in another place. He had very great respect for the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but he could not help saying that he had felt the greatest pity for that noble Lord on that afternoon as he heard him reading the affidavit of a certain James Bourke, one of the greatest malefactors that ever lived. He would undertake to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would but place at his disposal a sum of 5s. out of the Consolidated Fund — he (Captain Magan) himself would not spend it for such a purpose—that he would bring the said James Bourke to the table of that House, and he would get him to swear that the paper on which the affidavit was written was black, and that the ink was white; and with regard to his colleague, he (Capt. Magan) bad ascertained on the most respectable evidence, that he had sworn that he knew a certain public-house from the sign-board which was displayed upon a particular day, and it afterwards turned out that on that very day the sign-board was in a carpenter's shop painting in Athlone. With regard to the attestation in the case of Sir Richard Levinge, he was perfectly satisfied that there was not one man capable of giving disinterested evidence in that neighbourhood. All of them were violent partisans; and he would say that if Sir Richard Levinge had been returned, that every one of the Brown family would have been provided for in the police. The whole story about the practices at the last election for the county of Westmeath were utterly untrue. So far from it that it was perfectly notorious that the unfortu- nate farmers were quivering in their shoes, through dread of the landlords, while they were giving their votes according to their consciences. He could assure the House that Sir Richard Levinge was more of an old woman than a man; and he (Capt. Magan) did not want to take refuge he-hind the forms of that House. When Sir Richard Levinge read his (Capt. Magan's) words in the morning, he was quite at liberty to consider them as having been used outside it.

said, he must protest against the introduction of such topics at such an hour, and the language in which they were clothed. He demanded as a right that the right hon. Gentleman should consent to the adjournment of the House, or, at all events, if he would not consent to that course, let the Government have the decency to listen to the objections of the Irish Members to their measure.

said, he did not feel justified in supplying the House with the detailed information required, for it would be very impolitic to do so.

said, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any legislation on the subject of the amalgamation of the constabulary and revenue police during the present Session, for he assumed that an Act of Parliament would be necessary on the subject before they could employ the constabulary in the collection of the revenue?

replied, that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any such measure during the present Session.

hoped, for the sake of Mr. Speaker, if from no other motive, the Government would accede to the proposal for adjourning the House.

said, he would suggest that the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) should give the House his lucid views upon the subject.

said, he could only characterise the conduct of those who were bringing forward these repeated Motions for adjournment as factious.

said, he must deny the imputation of factiousness, for his question was relative to the incorporation of the two branches of the police force in Ireland, and was a natural corollary to the measure of the Government. He was sufficiently acquainted with the state of the law to be able to say that it was absolutely necessary for the Government to introduce a new Bill before they could call on the constabulary force of Ireland to act under the regulations of this Bill.

said, that the best practical reproof which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) and hon. Gentlemen on the other side had received was conveyed to them by the conduct of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), who, having put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, and having received a reply which must be satisfactory to every candid man in that House, had withdrawn himself from their company, and had desisted from an opposition which he seemed to think not warranted either by the forms or the spirit of the House.

said, he considered that the Opposition had been most unjustly treated in this matter, and he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he would not allow the Irish Members, for whom he had great respect, to be bullied by the Government.

Sir, any one who has had experience in this House knows that when a minority—however small, and however unreasonable may be their views — choose to go on dividing through the night, there is probably no advantage to be gained by persisting in opposing them. Therefore, seeing that we should only have a recurrence of angry speeches and divisions, I certainly should think it would now be the wiser course for this House not to proceed to the consideration of the third reading of this Bill. What the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phinn) who has just spoken has said, is perfectly true. There was one person (Mr. Napier) on the opposite side of the House who took a fair and reasonable course. I can say for him what I cannot say for others—that he was not factious. He stated his objections, and an answer having been given to them, he withdrew from the House, to show that he would not give any further coun- tenance to this opposition. A minority may certainly persist in dividing the House, but their conduct both by this House and the country at large will be deemed very factious. That character must remain with them, but I shall not oppose the Motion for adjourning the debate.

moved, "That the House do now adjourn."

said, he objected to proceeding with the measure without deliberation.

said, he would suggest that the Bill should be now read a third time, reserving the question as to the machinery and as to the employment or non-employment of the police force. He and his friends were strongly opposed to this measure, but they had seen that they could not defeat the Bill, and they might depend upon it if it were not read a third time now that it would be upon some future occasion.

said, he thought that individually he had been ill-treated by the Government, who had acted in a tyrannical and unjust manner.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had at an early period stated his strong objections to this Bill; and to those objections he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) bad given his best attention. Upon the last occasion on which this question was discussed, the hon. Gentleman, who professed great interest in the matter, had not thought it worth his while to attend to give his vote; and he put it to the hon. Gentleman now, whether if the Succession Tax Bill had been concluded by ten o'clock, the hon. Gentleman would have been in his place to vote upon this subject, which he said so deeply interested his constituents. The hon. Gentleman had not spent the whole day in anxious discussion of public matters. He had not made his appearance until midnight, and then he came in that garb which showed that he had been engaged in convivial occupations. In fact, the hon. Member had come fresh into the field to oppose those who had been engaged for eight hours in the pastime of discussion. The hon, Gentleman had been playing the stale game of converting a minority into a majority; but, so long as any resolution or spirit remained in the majority, he trusted that that course never would be sanctioned.

said, that the whole of these proceedings had been occasioned by the taunting and sneering manner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he begged to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the reasonable proposition of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr, Bowver).

replied that, as regarded the separation of the machinery from the Bill, that was effected already. The House was not called upon to give any sanction to the employment of the constabulary. The whole arrangement would take place under the authority of the Executive, upon their own responsibility, subject to the obligation of coming to that House for the purpose of sanctioning whatever they did.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had read them a lecture about minorities ruling majorities: would the right hon. Gentleman consent to take the opinion of the majority of Irish Members?