properties over, 1501. I am afraid there the exigencies of the State. If it can be is no addition to be made on that ac- demonstrated that a great deal more money count; but I am obliged to the right will come from the land than I have anticihon. Gentleman the same for having pated, nobody will lend a more willing ear suggested it. Well, then, if we have to such a demonstration than myself. Only 36,000,000l. of income, the next question let us see what are the real and bona fide is, how often do successions occur? 1 grounds on which we are to base our exthink we may take an average at thirty pectations that the revenue will be larger, years; but by reference we may ascertain and I shall sincerely rejoice at so satisfacthat point. We have, then, successions tory a result. I will not go into the quesevery thirty years, landed property worth tion of personalty. There, again, we have thirty years' purchase, and 36,000,000l. to trust to the income-tax returns; and I of landed property on which to lay the may state that as with regard to realty, so tax. The next element of the calcula- with regard to personalty, there is a large tion is, at what rate will that landed portion of income that does not come under property pay the duty? The legacy the tax at all. I will not now go into the quesduty at present, on an average, is levied tion; but I venture to hope the produce from at a rate of 2 4-5ths per cent. It is personalty-with house property and mesquite plain the call on landed property suages-will be such as to raise the gross must be at a more easy and lighter rate, additional amount of revenue which I exfor two reasons- -first of all, because we pect from this measure within the period of tax no interest higher than a life interest, five years-I take this opportunity of corwhich reduces the tax by one moiety; and, recting my carelessness in stating four secondly, to a certain extent, because land- years on a former occasion-to two miled property runs more in a direct line than lions per annum. I will now explain the personalty. If property is left to stran- mode of payment of the tax on real and gers, it is more generally out of personalty, rateable property, and the time within which whilst realty in general descends to chil- parties succeeding will be expected to pay. dren or near relatives. If that is the case, Speaking generally, where the successor and if under the present scale of consan- to landed property is not also the residuary guinity the present duty only averages legatee, the first rent that accrues does not 2 4-5ths per cent, it is quite plain that lan- belong to him, but the second rent is his. ded property will not average more than We, therefore, propose that he shall not be one moiety, or 1 2-5ths per cent. One per subject to the payment of any duty until cent gives on thirty-six millions 336,000l., twelve months after he has succeeded to the and 1 2-5ths per cent would be something property: the second rent, which does belong under 500,000l. But when I make allow- to him, will then have been paid him; and ance for the greater frequency of direct some time will commonly have elapsed besuccession to landed property than to per- fore the demand is made. Then we prosonalty, I am sure I must make a consid- pose that he shall be liable to pay the tax erable further reduction; and I cannot es- in eight equal half-yearly instalments. In timate the proceeds which will be realised cases of direct succession, that arrangefrom landed property, properly so called, ment will make the tax payable without maat materially more, than 400,000l., or terial inconvenience; and also in cases of considerably less than half a million. I near indirect succession. In cases of 10 have now stated briefly the grounds on per cent succession, it will be a harder which I have arrived at that conclu- case. In respect to land, no doubt, even sion. I have endeavoured to state them on a life interest, the tax will take up durplainly, and you can sift, examine, and ing those four years a considerable share judge of them yourselves. The esti- of the income. As far as the State is mates-estimates I can hardly call them concerned, it will be perfectly open to con-the dreams, I was going to say, of cer- sideration whether there shall be a further tain wiseacres-but I will not use so offen- prolongation of the time; but I very much sive a term the dreams in which some doubt the general policy of that course, persons have indulged, have tended to pro- for I am afraid it would tend to bring pagate dangerous delusions on this subject, about an accumulation of encumbrances. and have exhibited me in the light of a It will be better to leave it in the form of Minister of monstrous rapacity, who would temporary difficulty, giving discretion to attempt to raise from the land sums of the Executive Government, as I rather money far beyond what is necessary for think is the case under the Legacy Acts, MR. BRIGHT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to a very important description of property, on which I think he has not given the Committee sufficient information. He proposes to draw a new line between rateable property and property not rateable. Now, I want to know upon which side of that line he intends to put railway_property, which is a property as hon. Gentleman know, very great in amount? Railway property already pays rates to a very large amount; it will be seen how large, when a return which I have moved for shall be laid upon the table, as it will be in two or three weeks. I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman has considered the point, that he should state to the Committee upon which side of the line he intends to place railway property. to give an extension of time in cases where | granted and made payable upon and for every there is real necessity for that indulgence. succession to the beneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to the receipt of any portion Generally speaking, therefore, it will be or additional portion of the income or profits understood that the basis of the tax, with thereof, that may take place upon or in conserespect both to real and rateable property, quence of the death of any person, under whatis to charge in no case higher than the ever title, whether existing or future, such suclife interest, to make all cession may be derived." deductions proper for encumbrances, and to allow in all cases a period of one year before making any demand in respect to the tax; after which it is to be levied in eight equal half-yearly payments. I adverted before to one distinction which it is proposed to make between cases of succession in fee and succession in life interest, namely, this-that if a person succeeds to the life interest, and dies before he has paid the entire tax, before the whole of the instalments have become due, as he succeeded to nothing but the life interest, and as that passed away with his death, the outstanding instalments shall abate; but if a person succeeds to the fee, and dies before the instalments become due, as he has had a continuing interest, and as he plainly became liable to the entire charge by his succession to the property, in this case, however short his life may be, the remaining instalments will become a debt to the Crown. I hope I may now release the Committee from the fatigue of attending to these remarks. I have endeavoured to confine myself as closely as possible to the question, and to the various points which have seemed to me to arise out of it. And I venture to express the hope-I do not challenge either contradiction or assent-but I venture to express a hope that the statement I have made will show that the Government, in making this proposition, have not been influenced by the motives imputed to them in some quarters; that they have endeavoured to examine the real right and jus. tice of the question; that they have endeavoured, as far as they could, to settle this great question permanently upon the basis of equity and fair dealing, by which alone it is their desire, not only that the whole of their own proceedings may be regulated, but likewise the proceedings of every body of men who may, from time to time, be entrusted with the care of the interests of this great country. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the Resolution as follows: Motion made, and Question proposed "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Stamp Duties payable by law upon or for or in respect of legacies, shall be The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is a question, Sir, of some difficulty. Prima facie, no doubt, it will appear that railway property is liable to rating; but, on the other hand, the value of railway property in the market is a value acquired after allowing for that deduction. At the same time, I must frankly own that the case of railway property has not as yet been specifically considered by the Government. It will, therefore, probably be better that I should take time to look into the subject, rather than that I should upon the moment give an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, it would be impossible, at this hour of the night (a quarter to twelve), to proceed satisfactorily with the discussion. He would therefore move that the Chairman do report progress. MR. FRESHFIELD suggested that when the Committee next sat he should be allowed to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice, and that the debate might then proceed upon it. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The view that the Government take, and that which I think the House approves, is, that there is a necessity for passing the Legacy Duties Resolution, and for getting the Income Tax Resolution through Committee before we proceed to part with existing revenue. It is therefore, a matter of great regret to see our evenings shortened. At the one end there is a lengthened discussion upon personal questions, and at the other end we are met by a Motion which induces delay. I do not complain of that: the time lost on each occasion is small, but there is an old Scotch proverb of which I may remind hon. Gentlemen-"Every little makes a mickle." I do not intend to oppose the Motion that the Chairman report progress, but I hope the Committee, bearing in mind the vacation before us, will come to a decision on this Resolution to-morrow evening. It is impossible at present to enter into details, the principle being the only question, and I trust that will be the view of the Committee. MR. NEWDEGATE: I do not understand whether the right hon. Gentleman has stated how the several percentages are to be charged in reference to consanguinity. Perhaps he will have the goodness to explain his views on this point. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What I stated was this-that I could not represent the maintenance of the existing scale of consanguinity as being absolutely vital to the measure; but I wished to put it to the Committee that it was vital either to maintain the existing scale of consanguinity, or, if they think fit to reduce the tax now charged upon the succession of strangers, then in the last case they must be prepared materially to increase the tax upon direct successions. The preference of the Government is most decidedly in favour of the former course; and their proposal will be to maintain the existing scale of consanguinity. MR. HUME suggested that a schedule, or some analogous measure, if it could be prepared, showing the various ways in which it was proposed to assess property on successions would better enable the Committee to judge of the merits of the question, than the explanations they had just heard. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied that there was no option in this respect for the Committee. They must pass the Resolution, and the Bill would contain the information required by his hon. Friend. MR. HUME had then no hesitation in saying that, under such circumstances, the sooner the Resolution was passed the better, because then the country would be in possession of the actual details of the measure, There were many details under the existing Legacy Act, and it was desirable to see how they were affected by the new measure. MR. CHRISTOPHER inquired whether it was intended to introduce one Bill only, and to make it applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, or a separate Bill for each part? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: One Bill for the whole. MR. E. BALL said, there were various successions on death, which he thought should come under some principle. A man might settle property upon his widow while she remained unmarried; which property, upon the second marriage, would go to the children of the first. There were various other successions of the like nature. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to tax them? MR. MALINS observed, that the succession to property was dependent on many other events than death. For instance, a man settled property on his widow as long as she remained unmarried. In the event of her contracting a fresh marriage, would the person to whom the property would pass, be called on to pay the duty? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have said that the tax was always to accrue in consequence of a death; but I did not say it was always to accrue in consequence of a death that had immediately preceded the succession. In this principle of the measure I think the learned Gentleman will find the key to his question. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, a question had been put in the early part of the evening relative to a measure closely connected with the succession tax, namely, the registration of settlements. He wished to ask what was the right hon. Gentleman's answer, as he did not exactly comprehend it? He understood there was to be no provision for the registration of settlements in this Bill, and he wished to know whether there was to be a measure to bring about a compulsory registration of settlements? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the right hon. Gentleman had, in point of fact, asked two questions: one, whether a Bill for the registration of settlements was to go forward; and another, whether the Bill he was about to introduce, if the Resolution were passed, was to include or imply a provision for the registration of such documents. The Committee would judge for themselves, when they saw the Bill with regard to the succession tax, whether the machinery was sufficient to ensure the levying of the tax. This was the main point. If the registration of settlements was a good measure, let it be passed; but let the House find the best possible machinery for levying the tax which was the subject of this Resolution. MR. AGLIONBY said, it had been admitted that there were inequalities between rateable and unrateable property in the assessments for local purposes. He, therefore, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it should not come under the consideration of the Government to devise some scheme for the more equitable assessment of such property for local purposes? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the first place, I do not feel, in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I have any strength to spare at this moment in order to deal with the sub. ject suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and, in the second place, neither am I authorised on the part of the Government to enter into it. It is a subject of immense importance, which must be considered upon its own merits. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, the right hon. Gentleman had not in his statement touched upon the manner in which the valuation and appraisement of estates should be made on succession. The expense of such valuations at present was enormous; and he wished to know whether any allowance would be made for that charge? heir to return his own rental, or was the assessment to the poor-rate to be taken? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The necessary process will be, that the party coming into possession will be called upon to give his own statement of the gross rental upon which he is taxable, together with the deductions which he claims; and those deductions will have to be settled according to general rules. House resumed. Resolution to be reported To-morrow. Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow. RYE WRIT-ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate [2nd May]— "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Baron to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and Port of Rye, in the room of William Alexander Mackinnon, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void." Question again proposed. Debate resumed. SIR CHARLES BURRELL said, that the evidence taken before the Committed was only delivered to Members yesterday; there had not, therefore, been time to give so important a subject the consideration which it deserved. Under these circumstances, he should take the liberty of moving that the issuing of the writ for Rye be postponed to that day fortnight. It appeared that the franchise in that borough had, to a great extent, been brought under the control of one individual. Amendment proposed "To leave out from the word That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no New Writ be issued for the said Town and Port until Friday the 27th day of this instant May,' instead thereof." Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That subject has not escaped my attention, but I thought it was one which must necessarily be reserved until we had the Bill before us. It is not a subject altogether new. The present Legacy Duties Act embraces it of necessity. All visible property, which is not real property, is already subject to all these considerations; and I think the machinery now proposed SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that will be found adequate to the disposal of being Chairman of the Rye Election Comthe question as affecting real property. Imittee, the House would probably expect will only remind the hon. Baronet that there is no question of valuation of property, so called. With capital values in regard to real property we shall have, generally speaking, nothing to do. The whole basis of the proceeding will be the net annual value. MR. HEATHCOAT inquired who was to give the rental in succession? Was the VOL. CXXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] him to make some statement after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Shoreham. He understood him to rest his Motion on the fact that the evidence was not delivered to Members till yesterday morning, and that the House consequently had not had time to become masters of it. That was a fair question for the House to consider, and he would leave the House to L adopt what course they would prefer; but if the hon. Member founded his Motion not on the evidence, but on the merits of the case, then he was bound to say, as Chairman of the Committee, that the House of Commons could not justly or properly refuse the writ. The question for the House must be, whether they ought to issue at once the writ, or disfranchise the borough. It appeared to him there was no middle course. He did not think anything could be gained by the suspension of the writ; for, to whatever period it was delayed, they would at the expiration of it be just in the same position as they were in now. For the disfranchisement of the borough he certainly thought there was no ground whatever. It was very true that a considerable number of the electors were at one time influenced by Mr. Jeremiah Smith, of whom they had heard so much. He believed that some electors were still under that influence -how many he could not say-but he had reason to think they were a small minority. He had also strong reason to believe, that a great majority of the electors were as pure and free from taint as any constituency in the kingdom. MR. BASS said, that having moved the adjournment of the debate when the writ was moved for, he wished to state his reason for doing so. He happened to be acquainted with many circumstances connected with the borough of Rye, and he knew many of the parties concerned in it, and having attended the Committee, he found that at least it was a case deserving consideration. But since then he had heard the opinions of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) and of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the subject, and it seemed to him that it would be unfitting for him (Mr. Bass) in his position in that House to resist the authority of such men. He had felt that it was his duty to confer with the noble Lord on the subject, and he asked the noble Lord to grant him an interview upon it. He had had an interview with the noble Lord, who went through the Report of the Committee, and, after very mature consideration, the noble Lord came to the conclusion that the writ for Rye ought not to issue without further consideration. The noble Lord authorised him (Mr. Bass) to communicate that as his view to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tufnell). As many hon. Gentlemen might not be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, it might not be an improper liberty on his part if he called their attention to two or three points, not of the evidence, but merely of the Report of the Committee. He confessed it was a matter of great surprise to him that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), who was Chairman of the Committee, having become perfectly acquainted with the history and proceedings of the borough, should have argued so strongly for issuing the writ. It was stated by one of the hon. Members for Dorsetshire, who was a high authority, that no Select Committee appointed to conduct any investigation, issued a Special Report without expecting it to be acted on by the House. The Report stated that the borough was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and called on the House, seeing the constituency was not in a position to exercise free election, to furnish a remedy for such a state of things. The Report stated that Mr. Jeremiah Smith corruptly lent money for electioneering purposes to a very large amount; that, in 1837, loans were outstanding to the extent of 15,000l.; that the Committee had the strongest grounds for believing that the system of political loans, and the exercise of political influence so obtained, had been continued by Mr. Smith, though on a less extensive scale, down to the last election of 1852. The House would recollect that last week he presented a petition from sixty-three gentlemen of the highest respectability in the town, begging the House not to issue the writ, because they were not in a position to exercise the franchise. If they allowed this writ to issue, it would be tantamount to an emphatic sanction for corruption, and would destroy all confidence in the desire of the House to prevent those disreputable practices. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he understood that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, now absent, would reserve his opinion until after he had read the evidence. He begged to suggest that questions of this nature, deeply affecting the rights of electors, should be discussed early in the evening, and not at one or two o'clock in the morning. o'clock in the morning. It was hardly decorous to be legislating on such a subject at such an hour. MR. SPOONER moved the adjournment of the debate. MR. TUFNELL said, that the argument of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) went to prove that the borough ought to be disfranchised, which was not the conclusion |