of this scheme at all. Religious corporations, including
religious and benevolent societies, would be taxed only
on bequests, and on property enjoyed anterior to the
present century. As regarded corporations sole, of a
clerical nature, succession to offices ought not, he thought,
to be taxed as ordinary successions, but that the property
should be considered as a provision for the discharge of
certain duties; and for this reason, and also because the
present law laid a heavy imposition on the accession to
ecclesiastical property, these corporations sole would be
exempt. Combinations of trustees holding property
continuously transmitted would be considered as virtually
corporations, and be so treated. In answer to questions,
he added that all ecclesiastical corporations aggregate
would be liable, but any portion of income paid to the
ecclesiastical commissioners, and distributed in aid of
spiritual wants, or to eke out small benefices, would be
considered in the light of provision for the discharge of
duties. Any endowment which could be assimilated to
the case of corporations sole would be exempt. It was
impossible to make a specific enactment in regard to
educational funds. The bill was then read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.

On Monday, June 13, on the order forgoing into
committee on the Succession Duty Bill, Sir J. PAKINGTON
moved to defer its committal for six months. Disclaiming
all party feelings, he asked the authors of the bill to join
issue with him as regarded the arguments already urged
against the bill, and which, he contended, were
unimpugnable. Reviewing the policy upon which the
measure was founded, he argued that the tax, which it was
attempted to justify on the ground of expediency, in
order to remove an anomaly, was vicious and unsound in
principle; that this was a question affecting, not the
interests of land alone, but other interests more nearly;
that the measure aimed a blow at the aristocratic institutions
of the country, and at the property which supported
them; that it interfered with all settlements, touching
the humblest child of the gentry, and, while ostensibly
directed against one anomaly, it left other anomalies,
bearing against the land, unremoved. The income of
rateable property was £80,000,000, and, according to
Mr. Gladstone's admission, the direct burdens thereupon
amounted to between £14,000,000. and £15,000,000, but
which might be more correctly taken at £17,500,000
a-year; while the burdens upon personal property were
under £4,000,000. He specified various instances in which
real property was unequally burdened, and, referring to
that portion of the ministerial plan which imposed an
annual tax of 6d. in the pound upon corporation property,
he denounced this as a property tax in a most objectionable
form, and could see, he said, no sufficient reason why
corporations sole should be exempt from the tax. In
considering the machinery devised for collecting the
duty, he insisted upon its inquisitorial character, and
upon the tyrannical penal clauses of the bill, hoping and
believing, he said, that, if Parliament should be so
subservient as to pass the bill, the country would, by every
lawful and legitimate means, resist it. He pointed out
the enormous arbitrary power which those clauses gave
to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue over trustees,
guardians, and other accountable parties, and also the
accumulated tax which would accrue under the clause
treating the interest of a successor in real property as an
annuity. In conclusion, he contended that there was no
emergency to justify the tax, which was imposed, either
to supply a deficiency which the ministers had themselves
created, or from a motive less creditable to them, resulting
from the mode in which the present administration
was constituted.—The bill was opposed by Mr. Freshfield,
and supported by Mr. Headlam and Mr. R.
Phillimore, who characterised Sir John Pakington's
speech as radical and revolutionary.—Mr. MULLINGS
distributed his arguments against the bill under three
heads: first, the nature, operation, and consequences of
the tax; secondly, its amount; and, thirdly, the
machinery by which the measure must be carried into
effect. The produce of the tax, he observed, had been
assumed by Mr. Gladstone at £2,000,000; but Mr.
Mullings inferred, from his own calculation, that the
amount would be at least £3,175,000. Under the last head
he insisted upon the severity of the penal clauses, which
would, he said, terrify persons from becoming trustees or
executors; and he expressed a hope that the house
would not pass the bill, which he considered one of the
most dangerous and mischievous measures ever
introduced.—Mr. W. WILLIAMS supported the bill, which
repaired a gross injustice. He reproached Sir J.
Pakington with having sustained this tax while confined
to personal property, yet, when applied to real property,
talking of rebelling against the authority of Parliament.
—Sir J. TROLLOPE disputed the accuracy of some of
Mr. Williams' calculations, and showed how severely
the succession duty would act upon small freeholders and
copyholders. He objected to the tax, moreover, because
of the inequality of its incidence, depending upon the
duration of human life. In one estate, in 66 years, there
had been seven successions, and in several the successors
were not lineal. He, as well as Sir J. Pakington,
protested against the exemption of corporations sole.—
Mr. PELLATT defended the bill as the key-stone of the
budget, of which his constituents approved, though he
did not think corporations sole should be altogether
exempted from the succession duty.—Sir J. WALSH
concurred with Sir J. Pakington in believing that the
existence of the ministry depended upon the introduction
of this measure, which was intended as a boon to
conciliate the extreme democratical party in that house.
He objected to the tax that, assuming a grievance to
exist, it would afford no remedy to the party aggrieved,
while it cast an additional burden upon a class over-
burdened already. It was unnecessary, he maintained,
in the present circumstances of the country, to extend
direct taxation by saddling this class with an impost as
tyrannical in form as onerous in amount. In the last thirty
years, a balance of nearly £30,000,000 of taxes, which
pressed almost entirely upon trade, commerce, and
manufactures, had been remitted, relieving the inferior
classes, while £10,000,000 of taxes had been placed upon
property classes; it was time, therefore, he thought, to
consider whether the principle of repealing indirect
taxation should be carried further.—Lord J. RUSSELL
thought that the question whether the house should go
into committee upon this bill was not a difficult one. A
revision of our taxation had been long called for; and in
entering upon this operation, which could not be
accomplished suddenly, it was natural to endeavour to correct
an anomaly in respect to the legacy duty, acknowledged,
by Mr. Pitt, and indirectly admitted by Mr. Disraeli in
his financial statement, who avowed that a duty upon
successions was under his consideration. Sir J. Pakington
had inveighed against the principle and the injustice of
this tax; but he had not been struck with this objection
when the tax applied only to personal property; and
even now, although he wished to get rid of the bill, he
did not propose to repeal the legacy duty. He (Lord
John) thought the house and the country would generally
agree that if there was to be a legacy and
succession duty, it should apply to all kinds of property.—
After some remarks from Mr. W. DUNCOMBE and Sir
E. DERING, both of whom opposed the bill, the house
divided, and the amendment was negatived by 268
against 185; and the house went into committee pro
forma, to sit again on Thursday.

Mr. FITZGERALD moved the issue of a New Writ for
Sligo.—Mr. BUTT moved, as an amendment, to suspend
the writ for a fortnight, until the evidence should be in
the hands of members.—Lord PALMERSTON thought the
amendment more in accordance with the practice of the
house. After a brisk discussion, and a division, the
debate was adjourned until that day week.

Mr. FRENCH, in moving for certain papers, called
attention to the Habitual Imprisonment of Shipwrecked
Sailors, and other British Subjects, being Persons of
Colour, by the Authorities of South Carolina.

On Tuesday, June 14, Sir J. TYRELL moved for a
New Writ for the Borough of Harwich, in the room of
Mr. Peacocke, whose election had been voided.— Sir J.
SHELLEY, by way of amendment, moved that a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the
representation of that borough, which he described as
one of the most corrupt places in England.—Mr. HEADLAM,
chairman of the election committee, stated that
there was no evidence of general bribery or treating at
the last election, and no foundation for issuing a
commission under the act; he should not, therefore, oppose