ago, the impossibility of maintaining a total exemption
for real property or settled property from a tax applicable
to personal property has become more manifest. The
exemptions are a means by which astute lawyers contrive
to escape the operation of the tax on succession and
personalty: another reason for abolishing the exemption.
It may be said that the stamps on settlements are a
countervailing consideration: but the charge of 5s. per
cent, is no counterpoise to the probate–duty alone, which
amounts to 2, 3, 31/2, or 4 per cent. One case is more
flagrant than all the rest. Certain property, such as
leasehold property in houses, bears all the charges of
personalty, including probate and legacy duties, all the
charges on land, including land–tax, and local burdens.
A law so entirely without foundation or warrant in truth
and reason cannot be maintained. Some would abandon
it altogether, as accounting a tax on succession abstractedly
illegitimate; though a tax on that incident of
civilisation which secures the transfer of property even
beyond the grave is rationally liable to charges on behalf
of the state. Besides, the tax is no innovation; and it
is at present a constituent part of the annual income,
which cannot spare a sum between £2,000,000 and
£2,500,000 of the permanent revenue. Touching upon
the claim of existing settlements to be spared, Mr.
Gladstone argued that the law of settlement was not
originally intended to escape the tax on succession.
Touching upon the sliding scale of duty according to the
degree of consanguinity, he said that he did not
disapprove of the distinction in favour of direct succession,
although the range from 1 to 10 per cent, might be too
broad; but he proposed to maintain the scale for the
present. A change which he proposed to make was, to
substitute for the present distinction between settled
property or real property and unsettled personalty, a new
distinction, which he would colloquially call one between
rateable property and non–rateable property; charging
upon the former a trifle under half the legacy–duty that
would be paid by the other class. On direct succession
he proposed to make no higher charge than that for a
life–interest payable by instalments, and to make the
charge upon the net rental; for he did not desire to see the
owners even of encumbered estates displaced in England,
as they have been in Ireland. Should the owner of an
encumbered estate alienate his property, realise its value,
and discharge its encumbrances, then the residue of the
total amount would present the duty upon which the
tax upon his succession would be payable: if he realised
£500,000 and paid £300,000 of encumbrances, then he
would pay tax on £200,000. The amount which Mr.
Gladstone expected to derive from the tax had been
grossly exaggerated, through the misapprehension of his
original statement. The amount of landed income in
this country is overrated, no doubt in consequence of
the social power, station, and influence of those who
possess the land. But, basing his calculations upon the
income–tax returns, he explained that he only expected
to derive from the charge upon settlements, personal or
real, something over £200,000; and from landed
property, as distinguished from houses and messuages, in
the three kingdoms, not more than £400,000; from the
additional legacy–duty in Ireland between £60,000 and
£80,000; but from the personalty, in which case the
data are more conjectural, he thought it probable that
within five years—not four as he had previously stated
—the gross additional amount of revenue might yield
£2,000,000 per annum.—In a conversation that ensued,
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised Mr.
Bright to consider whether railway property, which is
rated, should be classed with rateable or non–rateable
property. After some controversy with Sir John Pak–
ington and other opposition members, Mr. Gladstone
reluctantly consented to report progress; the committee
to sit again on Friday.

On Friday, the 13th, the debate, in committee, on
the Legacy Duty, was resumed and concluded in a very
thin house. Ultimately the resolution was agreed to
without a division, Mr. DISRAELI having suggested
that the opposition should be reserved for the second
reading of the bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought
forward his motion for his proposed alterations with
regard to the Assessed Taxes.—Mr. BRIGHT complained
of the taxes upon armorial bearings as being ridiculous
and inconvenient, and wished them to be included in
the remissions.—Colonel SIBTHORP proposed a new tax
—a tax upon foreigners entering this country—opera
singers and dancers—who he was sorry to say were
patronised by the upper classes, whether they were good
or bad characters—and who carried away immense
sums of money, and in return laughed at us for being
such consummate fools.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, understanding that they were only in
committee pro formá, would postpone the consideration of
these important questions.

The house then resumed, and the Expenses at
Elections Bill was read a second time, after a characteristic
protest from Colonel Sibthorp.

A New Writ was Ordered for the Borough of Rye,
after a debate, and after a motion for the adjournment
of the house had been negatived by a large majority.

The house went into committee on the Merchant
Shipping Bill, but reported progress, on the motion of
Mr. Hudson, without agreeing to any of the clauses.

The house then adjourned to Thursday, the 19th.

On Thursday, May 19th, the house went into a
committee of supply on the Miscellaneous Estimates.

On the vote for public buildings in Ireland, Mr.
SPOONER moved that the sum be reduced by £1235 13s.,
the amount intended to be applied for the Repair of
Maynooth College.—Mr. W. WILLIAMS supported the
amendment, on the ground that an assurance had been
given, when the annual payment was agreed upon,
that no further charge of any kind should be made.—
Sir J. GRAHAM denied that any such assurance had
been given.—Mr. A. PELLATT supported the amendment
on the voluntary principle.—Mr. CORRY referred
to the alleged assurance from Sir R. Peel that the
charge should not be increased.—Mr. S. HERBERT
added his denial to that of Sir J. Graham that any
such assurance had been given, and read an extract
from Sir Robert's speech in proof of his statement.—
Mr. WILLIAMS moved another amendment reducing
the vote by various other items, amounting in all to
£1256 5s.—The house divided on both amendments,
when that of Mr. Williams was lost by 80 to 43, and
that of Mr. Spooner carried by 74 to 54.

An amendment by Mr. WILLIAMS to the vote of
£3368 for a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical
Commission, was lost by 63 to 44.

On the vote for the Household Expenses of the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland , Mr. WILLIAMS moved another
amendment, reducing it by £1759 the expense of the
Lord Lieutenant's chaplain and the Queen's plates.
He especially objected to the employment of any
portion of the public money in the encouragement
of horse–racing.—This amendment was also lost by
92 to 31.

On the vote for Secret Service Money some discussion
took place—Mr. WISE, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Lord D.
STUART, without giving formal opposition, protesting
against the principle; and Lord Dudley especially
alluded to recent events, in reference to the supposed
application of the vote.—Lord J. RUSSELL explained
that the sum asked was the same as last year, and that
no portion of it went to the detective police.

On the first vote for Prison Expenses, Mr. LUCAS
moved that the committee report progress, the subject
being a very important one, which there would not
be time to discuss, it being then nearly eleven o'clock.
His objections related to the want of provision for
Catholic chaplains in the prisons of England and
Scotland.—Mr. V. SMITH took that opportunity of
referring to the large increase in the expense of
transported convicts.—Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would
be soon necessary to state the intentions of the government
on the subject of transportation; and, in the mean
time, he asked Mr. Lucas to withdraw his motion,
which that gentleman consented to do.—The votes were
then agreed to.

On the vote for Salaries, &c., for the Universities,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed it, on the same ground that
he did the vote to Maynooth.—Lord J. RUSSELL replied
to several objections upon the subject by stating that
the government hoped to be able to meet them next
session, but at present could not forego the vote.—