HC Deb 26 April 1842 vol 62 cc1139-64
Mr. Elphinstone

said, that in asking the House to take into their consideration the propriety of imposing the same amount of duties on succession to freehold and copyhold property as is now paid on leasehold and personal property, he should endeavour, as concisely as he could, to point out to the public the anomalies and injustice of the present system, and then estimate the amount of revenue which might be obtained for the public service if the change he proposed were carried into effect. If he required any authority for the proposition he now made, he might quote that of a statesman, whose opinions were always looked up to with respect by hon. Members on the other side of the House, he meant Mr. Pitt, who, when he originally introduced the present plan of imposing probate duties in 1796 on personal property, also advocated the propriety of imposing similar duties on real estate. Mr. Pitt introduced a bill for this purpose, which he carried through every stage in this House; but it was carried Only by a majority of one on the third reading, and he was ultimately compelled to withdraw it on the question, that the bill do pass, the numbers being equal on a division. The House was probably aware, that the principal statutes now in force in relation to this subject were the 36th, and 45th, and 55th of George 3rd; and the effect of the law as it now stood was this, that if a person died possessed of any leasehold or personal property of any description, a heavy ad valorem tax called a probate duty was imposed; but if the person died possessed of freehold or copyhold property, no tax whatever was imposed; in addition to this, a duty called a legacy duty (which varied according to the degree of relationship of the parties receiving the property to the deceased) was imposed on leasehold and personal property, and also on charges on real estate. But if the testator chose to make a bequest of the land itself, then no legacy duty was chargeable on such land; so that while the land might be of great value, and the charges upon it of inconsiderable amount, the new owners of the land were exempted, while the poor man, who only received some small annuity out of the estate, was liable to the legacy duty. It appeared to him, that this state of the law was most unjust to the public at large. The public were continually told of the enormous value of landed property. If it be so much more valuable than other descriptions of property, why should it not contribute its just share of the burdens of the state? He could not understand on what fair principle it was that one man, by investing his savings in freehold property, was to relieve his children from contributing to the exigencies of the State, while another man, who chose to invest his money in the funds, was to render his descendants for ever liable. Could it be reconciled to the commonest principles of justice that the poor man, who saves by his industry a few hundred pounds, was to have his savings taxed, while the rich and wealthy heir to landed property of enormous value was to escape? Why was leasehold property to be subject to this tax, if copyhold was not to be subject? And if copyhold was to escape, on what principle was leasehold to be charged? Why was a reversionary interest in property in the funds to be taxed, while the entailed estate was to escape? On what principle could you exempt a farm, directed to be sold, from probate duty, while it was subjected to the legacy duty? Since he had first mentioned the subject he had received various communications from different parts of the country, pointing out the unfairness of the present system. He would read to the House, as most pertinent to the question, an extract of a letter from a gentleman residing at Leamington;— I was compelled to pay probate and legacy duty on the death of my father, whilst, about the same time, the whole of the very large parish of Beaulieu (containing 13,000 acres of laud, and in value nearly half a million) passed from the late Duchess of Buccleuch to her son, the present Lord Montague; and also a large estate in this and two adjoining parishes (worth nearly 100,000l.), which passed from the late Bishop of Winchester to his son, the late Mr. Tomline—in both cases without payment of probate and legacy duty, because the properties were freehold. I feel naturally galled, that my relatives and myself should be compelled to pay this tax on our personal property, derived from the savings of a long, laborious life, whilst those who imposed this tax on us did, whilst they so taxed us, exempt their own freehold estates of enormous value from similar taxation. Since those taxes were imposed, in 1797, they had produced to the revenue no less a sum than 62,329,084l., as appeared by the following account:—

Legacies. Probates and Administrations.
England £32,136,634 0 7 £25,504,823 18 8
Scotland 1,862,755 19 4 1,274,941 0 2
Ireland 609,840 5 3 940,089 7 11
£34,609,230 5 2 £27,719,854 6 9
Total. £62,329,084 11 11

And during the financial year ending in January, 1842, they have produced upwards of 2,000,000l., according to the following table:—

Legacies. Probates and Administrations.
England £1,109,317 1 7 £915,351 19 6
Scotland 69,787 15 7 57,955 0 0
Ireland 30,020 14 7 38,564 4 0
£1,209,125 11 9 £1,011,874 3 6
Total. £2,220,999 15 3

It must, of course, be difficult to estimate accurately the amount that would be received if those duties were imposed on landed property; but he thought they would produce between 1¼ and 1½ millions. He arrived at this result by referring to the figures made use of by the right hon Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in the course of his financial statement. The right hon.' Baronet had estimated the rental of land at about 40,000,000l. per annum, and he had estimated the rental of houses at 25,000,000l., and income from British and foreign funds at 30,000,000l., making a total of 95,000,000l. As the personal property of which the estimated income was 95,000,000l., had produced upwards of 2,000,000l. of duty, it was fair to estimate that the 40,000,000l. of rental would produce upwards of 1,000,000l. of duty; and though, on the one hand, part of the rental was probably entailed, yet, on the other, some of the houses were freehold, so that their incomes would probably compensate each other. He could obtain the same result by another calculation—the duration of life in the easy classes of society might be reckoned at fifty years, and it might also be calculated, that persons came into possession of their property when about thirty years of age, which would show a change in the ownership of landed property every twenty years; which would show (assuming the rental to be 40,000,000l.), that a rental of about 2,000,000l. would be every year subject to the tax. Now, at twenty-five years' purchase, the fee simple of this would be 50,000,000l. It had been estimated by a gentleman well acquainted with these matters (the late Mr. Gwynne, comptroller of the legacy duties), that, on an average, the amount received from legacy and probate duties, was about 3 per cent, on the value of the personal property subject to these duties in each year; and applying this calculation to the 50,000,000l. worth of land which would be subject to the tax, you would get a revenue of 1,500,000l. He ought to add, that these calculations were the lowest amount that would be received—in all probability the produce of the new tax would be much more. During the late debates on the Income-tax, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had expressed an unfavourable opinion to the motion he now made. He ventured to say, that the arguments made use of by those right hon. Gentlemen were without foundation. To begin with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that Gentleman bad stated, that the legacy duty received on personal property in six years, from 1796 to 1803, was 5,109,635l., and that the act of 1805 (the 45th George 3rd) having imposed a legacy duty on the charges on land, he found that in the six succeeding years the legacy duty rose to 14,700,000l.; and, therefore, there remained 8,900,000l. as a legacy duty paid by land. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had stated too much for the purposes of his argument. In the first place, these figures were not strictly correct, as part of the increase had been occasioned by the legacy duties on personal property being raised. But even admitting that the whole rise had been occasioned by making charges on land liable to the duty, still, as the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to state to the House that the land so chargeable was not subject to probate duty, and as the probate duty bore to legacy duty the proportion of one to one, the right hon. Gentleman had shown by his own figures that there was a loss to the revenue of at least 8,900,000l., in consequence of probate duty not having been charged during the period he had alluded to. The next fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the stamps on deeds amounted to no less a sum than, in England, 1,443,043l.; in Scotland, 103,671l.; in Ireland, 118,580l. —total, 1,665,294l.; and, consequently, that the landed property of this country was subject to a very heavy tax from which other property was exempt. No doubt, if the facts stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were true, his inference would be correct; but what would the House think when it turned out, on inquiry, that this amount of 1,665,294l. included not only stamps on conveyances and mortgages, but every species of legal deed to which personal property was liable, and was therefore totally inapplicable to the argument. He would mention a few of the items, comprising this sum of 1,665,294l., and the House could judge for itself. There were admissions to the learned professions, affidavits, agreements, bonds, charter parties, leaseholds and leases, certificates on drawbacks, deeds of all sorts, and declarations of trusts, grants and letters patent, powers and warrants of attorney, duties on law proceedings, mortgages, stamps on policies of life assurance, and settlements of personal property. He certainly had never heard a statement made in that House more calculated to mislead than that of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would venture to assert, that out of the 1,680,000l. so confidently alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, not more than 400,000l. at the very outside was paid as stamp duty on the conveyance of freehold or copyhold property. It also ought to be recollected, that the chief part of these conveyances took place in the neighbourhood of large towns, where plots of ground were required for the purposes of building, and did not, in fact, fall upon the landed gentleman, but on the tradesman and merchant who required the ground. In corroboration of this he might say, that the late Mr. Humfreys, the conveyancer, estimated that in Middlesex almost the whole of the land changed owners every fourteen years. If the stamps on conveyances are too high, the proper course for the House to adopt would be to reduce them. He did not, however, believe them to be more unjust to the landowner than receipt stamps to the tradesman. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for alluding to mortgages. There was no duty in the whole of the Stamp Act which more clearly demonstrated that the laws in this country were made for the rich, and not for the poor. If a needy tradesman requires to borrow for the purposes of his trade the sum of 50l., he has to pay 1l. as duty, while the rich landowner who wishes, for the purpose of improving his property by making roads or canals, to borrow 10,000l., only pays a duty of 12l., while if he were charged at the same rate as the needy borrower of 50l., he ought to be taxed 200l. If the sum of 1l. is a fair tax on 50l., the following table would show the loss to the public by the existing system:—

Sum borrowed. Stamp duty now paid by law. Correct stamp duty. Loss to revenue.
£ £ s d. £ s. d. £ s d
50 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
100 1 10 0 2 0 0 0 10 0
200 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0
300 3 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0
500 4 0 0 10 0 0 6 0 0
1,000 5 0 0 20 0 0 15 0 0
2,000 6 0 0 40 0 0 34 0 0
3,000 7 0 0 60 0 0 53 0 0
4,000 8 0 0 80 0 0 72 0 0
5,000 9 0 0 100 0 0 91 0 0
10,000 12 0 0 200 0 0 188 0 0
15,000 15 0 0 300 0 0 285 0 0
20,000 20 0 0 400 0 0 380 0 0
61,000 93 10 0 1,223 0 0 1,129 10 0

So that the country lost no less a sum than 1,129l. on thirteen mortgages. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies had said that hon. Members on this side of the House had forgotten the charges on marriages or family settlements. Really the noble Lord could not have made accurate inquiries on the subject, if he thought the charges on marriage settlements were a reason for exempting real property from legacy and probate duties. What were the facts? Why, that personal property paid more in proportion than land in case of a settlement. Supposing A and B were desirous of settling 20,000l. on the marriage of their daughters on the usual trusts, A being a landowner and B a fundholder; did the noble Lord know what the stamp duties would be? In the case of A (the landowner) he would have to pay

l s d
1 15 0 deed stamp
6 5 0 five skins.
£8 0 0
but in case of B (the fundholder) he would have to pay
l s. d.
25 0 0 duty on 20,000l
6 5 0 five skins.
£31 5 0

being the large sum of 23l. 5s. more than the landowner had to pay. He was sorry to trouble the House with these details; but the only way of answering the fallacies that had been brought forward in defence of the present unjust system was by pointing out the mistakes that had been made. He did not think the present scale of probate duties on personal property a good one; but still, if probate duties were imposed on landed property, the inequalities of the scale might be altered. He thought, on the whole a tax falling on property after death was a good tax; it was in the nature of such tax to be unavoidable. If a tax were laid on wine, or on any article of consumption, the public might evade the tax, by not using the article; but as every man must die, and leave his property behind him, the whole property in the United Kingdom must sooner or later become subject to the tax. He would no longer trespass on the attention of the House, but, repeating that he believed the proposition he had made was founded on justice and reason, he would leave it in the hands of the House to decide as they might think best for the interests of all classes of society in the United Empire. The hon. Member concluded by moving, That it will he expedient for this House, at an early period, to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the act 55 George 3rd, c. 184, with the view of imposing legacy and probate duties on succession to real estates, of the same amount as are now imposed by the said act on succession to personal property.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was sure, that every hon. Member who had heard the hon. Gentleman would be convinced, that this motion was brought forward more with the view of discussion than for any practical result. As far as the probable effect of such a change went, the House had practically discussed the subject when the noble Lord, the Member for London, had moved his resolutions. He had then stated, that by imposing the same duties on real and personal property, they would not produce so large a revenue as was anticipated, neither would it place the two properties on an equal footing. The hon. Gentleman proposed by his motion "to consider only the act of 55 George 3rd, c. 184, with a view of imposing legacy and probate duties on succession to real estates of the same amount as are now imposed by the said act on succession to personal property." Now, the hon. Gentleman was well aware that his motion merely meant to deal with real property, which was not under settlement—for the act which imposed the legacy and probate duties dealt with no personal property under settlement; if a party divested himself in his life-time of all property that could pass by devise, his estate paid no legacy or probate duty. It was clearly the view, therefore, of the hon. Member to apply his proposed enactment only to unsettled landed property. He was anxious to impress this upon the House, because it would have an extensive influence on the amount which the hon. Gentleman calculated he should obtain; and was important in determining whether the tax would really have the effect suggested. He had stated on a former night—and his statement had not been controverted— that the great bulk of the landed property of this country was under settlement; and if the same duty that was now applied to personal property were extended to real property unsettled, a large portion of the. landed property of this country would be as much exempted from the payment of this duty as it now was. He had stated then, and he had been since confirmed in the opinion, that the largest part of the unsettled landed property belonged to the small proprietors, and the effect, therefore, of the hon. Member's motion would be to exempt the bulk of landed property, which belonged to the large holders, and impose the duty on the smaller, superadding the legacy and probate duties to the charges to which they were at present subject. He, therefore, conceived, that the tax would upon this ground alone disappoint the hon. Gentleman, so far as the amount of revenue to be derived from it went. With regard to the property of the Duchess of Buccleugh, of which the hon. Gentleman's correspondent complained as not being liable to duty on its passing to Lord John Scott, no duty would have been paid under the present proposal, for the property did not pass by devise, but under a settlement made many years before by a former owner. So also was it with respect to the other property of large amount, to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted. Then, said the hon. Gentleman, "Your stamp duties are generally liable to the charge of committing great injustice, and operate most unequally." He would not then defend the stamp duties; he did not deny that they were imperfect; he had some years since himself endeavoured to effect a general reform, but he had been impeded by the numerous objections made by hon. Gentlemen to different parts of his plan. His successor, Lord Monteagle, had also attempted a reform; but he, too, was assailed by such general objections, that he was glad to retire from the fire under the shelter of a reduction of the duty upon newspapers. Although he thought that some improvement might be made, and although he was willing to look, after due consideration, to a change for the better, yet of course the power of doing this must depend, not only upon persons in office under Government, but also upon those who had thought upon this subject, and who were willing with a view to general benefit, to waive individual objections. Equal, or unequal, however, as the stamp duties might be, they had no very material bearing upon the question before the House. Inequality there assuredly was, but certain circumstances must be taken into account, and it must be recollected, that as they were laid on for the purposes of revenue, if they were theoretically equal, they might, for that purpose, be practically inefficient. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that personal property was subject to the probate and legacy duties, which had no reference whatever to land. It was true, that the act which passed in 1796 did not relate to landed property, and that Mr. Pitt was defeated in his attempt to include land; but Mr. Pitt returned to the attack, and not only succeeded in imposing the legacy duty upon personal property, but also on all real property directed to be sold. He thought, that he had shown the proportion between the amount of legacy duty paid on personal property and real property to be as eight to five. He admitted there was an inequality as to the probate duty, but the legacy duty was paid in the proportion he had mentioned. He would now consider a little what was the effect of investing money in land and in the funds, so far as the payment of taxes to the revenue was concerned. Suppose a man having 10,000l. of property wished to invest 5,000l. in the funds, and 5,000l. in land; if he purchased land he would be subject to a considerable amount of charge. It was difficult to say what was the relative amount of stamp duties paid on personal property and on real, but he had procured from the stamp-office a return of what would be the amount of charge imposed on an individual who laid out 5,000l. upon land. First, there was the duty on the contract of 1l; on the lease for years the charge was 1l. 15s.; on the principal skin of the covenant the duty was 55l., and there was also a duty upon every succeeding skin, amounting on all to 6l.; there was a charge of 2l. 10s. on the attested copies; and a charge of 1l. 15s. upon the outstanding term. And thus a total charge of 68l. upon the transfer of land was made, which was to be paid down in the first instance. But he would now see what it would cost a man to invest his money to the same amount in the funds. It would cost him nothing; for he might walk into the city, and without any expence on account of stamp-duty, his money might be invested, and become immediately profitable. Returning now to the case of a landed proprietor, he would suppose that he lived for twenty years, and that at the expiration of that period he died, leaving his lands to his son. The 68l. which he had paid in the first instance, if he had retained it in his own hands, would in the course of that time, have become more than doubled, but he would now be called upon to make no fresh payment in respect of his property. Supposing the man possessed of personal property to have also died at the expiration of the same period, also leaving his money to his son, a charge of 50l. would be made upon the 5,000l. which he had supposed him to possess, and thus the transfer of the personal property would be effected at a cost far less than that which would attend the disposal of landed property from one individual to another. Undoubtedly if the personal property of the deceased person was bequeathed by him to his brother or to a stranger, the charge for legacy duty would be considerably greater than he had suggested, though still smaller than the accumulated amount which the 68l. the landed proprietor would be liable to pay would have amounted to, had he been exempted from payment for the same period; but in arguing cases of this description he thought that it was more fair and just to take the ordinary course of succession to the son, than the more unusual one of bequest to a stranger. So much, then, for instances of particular estates. The hon. Member had said that a large proportion of the deeds in respect of which stamp duties were payable, were not, in truth, applicable to real property, but applied rather to matters relating to personal property; but from inquiries which he had made of those who were best able to afford information, and to draw just calculations, he found that a very large proportion of the duty derivable from this source was, in truth, paid in respect of deeds which affected or related to landed property, and not personal property, many of the latter being found to produce very little or no revenue on their being taken into account. The difficulty in arguing this question was, that they had no precise data to go upon, and that they could only found their conclusions upon general calculations; for, to go through the whole of the stamp laws with a view to the arrival at minute results, was a task the accomplishment of which would require the application of the force of a very large establishment. Those who were best acquainted with this subject calculated the total amount of these deeds at 1,700,000l., and of this a sum of 1,100,000l. had reference to landed property; while 600,000l. only was the amount in regard of personal property. But if the hon. Member was induced to suppose that he had calculated this at an improper ratio, he would take the comparative amount to be as two to one. [Mr. Ewart: You include leases which are personal property.] A lease on a landed estate was said by the hon. Member to be a chattel—a mere matter of personal property; but although this might be perfectly true, he said that it was a charge upon the landed estate. He did not know whether there were any other points in reference to this subject to which it was necessary for him to refer, but he must say, that the view which he took of this question remained unaltered after all that he had heard in the course of this evening. He did not deny that the stamp duties might and did require amendment, and that it was difficult, without a very careful and a very minute examination of them, to ascertain which of them applied to landed and which to personal property; but he contended that if this motion was carried, the effect of it would not be to produce that revenue which it was said would be realised from it; but that it would operate only on the small class of landed proprietors; but considering that they had among them some of the most independent and useful members of the community, he should be indisposed to press upon them with any undue measure of increased taxation.

Mr. Hume

thought, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made out so strong a case as to induce the House to vote in favour of his hon. Friend's motion. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that there was great inequality in the operation of the stamp laws, and he had admitted, that the burdens on personal, were as eight to five on real property. He told the House, however, that if this motion was carried, the existing law of settlement of land would prevent its being liable to the taxation, which was expected from it, but to that he said, that an act of Parliament might easily rectify this. He contended, that if any such exceptions existed, inquiry ought to be made, and these should be removed, as what was really wanted in this country was equality of taxation. He had received many letters complaining of the inequality of the existing taxation upon what was considered real and personal property. As an example, in a letter from Devonport, he learned, that the estate of Sir John St. Aubyn, in that borough, worth 16.000l. per annum, was leased for lives, and that the whole of those leases would be charged probate and legacy duty, while the freehold estate of Sir John St. Aubyn adjoining would go by descent without the payment of any duty at all. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the proposed tax on real property by descent, would fall upon the small landed proprietors. Why, that was the complaint under the existing law, for in ninety-nine out of 100 cases, the property of the poorer class was sold to be divided amongst children or relations and thus paid legacy duty, while in 999 out of 1,000 cases the real estate of the aristocracy went direct to the heir-at-law, and did not contribute any duty to the Exchequer. With regard to the complicated nature of the stamp duties and the alleged difficulty of getting data on which to assess real property by descent, he submitted it as the duty of Parliament, in the present state of the nation, to ascertain and define accurately the distinct burdens of taxation, and how they pressed on every class of the people. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had taken fire or six months maturely to consider and digest his views and propositions, before submitting them to the House. Why had he not appointed a commission at the close of the last Session to inquire into the nature of the burdens on real and personal property, and then he would have been enabled to furnish full information on this very subject about which so much difficulty was said to exist —information upon which Parliament and the Government might have acted. If Mr. Pitt had wished to tax real property, he would have had no difficulty in providing that the settlement of estates should not escape the fair burden; and, while mentioning the name of that Statesman, he could not avoid stating to the House, that there never was an act of the Legislature which proved more clearly the influence of class legislation than that by which the legacy duty on personal was first imposed, and real property exempted. He had, on a former occasion, adverted to the history of that bill, as it was found in the Journals of the House. It ap- peared, that a message from the Crown, on the 8th December, 1795, called upon the House to make provision for the extraordinary expenses of the public service, and two resolutions were proposed and passed by the House, expressing their opinion, that the duty should be charged equally upon real and personal property. The first of the resolutions was as follows:— Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that towards raising the supply granted to his Majesty, a duty be charged upon the clear value of any real estate, that upon the death of any person, shall descend, or pass by devise, or by force of any gift, grant, or conveyance, or by act or operation of law, to, or to the use of, or in trust for, any person or persons of the kindred of the deceased in the several degrees hereinafter mentioned (except purchasers for valuable consideration actually paid), in fee simple, fee tail, or for term of life or lives, according to the rates following. The second resolution was in the following terms:— Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that towards raising the supply granted to his Majesty, a duty be charged upon every legacy, and upon every share or residue of the personal estate of any person dying and leaving such estate of the clear value of 100l. or upwards, which shall pass either by devise or by force of the statute of distributions, or the custom of any province or place, to any of the kindred of the deceased in the several degrees hereinafter mentioned, according to the rates following. These were the resolutions on which Mr. Pitt proposed to levy an income-tax, equally on real and on personal property; and on the 8th of February, 1796, two bills were introduced founded upon these resolutions. On the 10th of the same month the bill for taxing personal property was read a second time, and ordered to be committed for the 12th. It was considered in committee on the 17th; and on subsequent occasions up to the 17th of March, when the report was considered; the third reading was carried on the 5th of April, by sixty - four to sixteen votes, the bill passed, and eventually received the royal assent on the 21st of April, 1796. With respect to the tax upon real property, however, the course was far different. The second reading of that bill was fixed for the 21st of April; on the 22nd it was committed; on the 25th and 26th it was also considered in committee; on the 5th of May the report was considered; on the 9th of May it was moved, that the reception of the report be deferred for three months, which was negatived by a majority of eighty-one to fifty-one; on the 12th and 13th of May the third reading was discussed, and the motion, that the bill be now read a third time, was lost by two, the numbers being for the third reading forty-six, against it forty-eight. A motion was then made, "that the bill be read a third time to-morrow," on which the numbers were fifty-four to fifty-three; and on the main motion for the third reading the House again divided, fifty-four to fifty-four. The Speaker gave his casting vote in favour of the third reading; but, upon the bill being brought forward the next night, it was postponed for three months, without any division or any cause being assigned, and nothing more was heard of it. He had been informed, that the cause of that course being adopted was, that certain of Mr. Pitt's supporters had visited him in the morning, and had told him, that if he pressed on the bill he should no longer receive their assistance; and the personal property had paid upwards of 62,000,000l. sterling as legacy and probate duty in these forty-six years; whilst real property had not paid one farthing. He (Mr. Hume) contended, that the cause of this class legislation was, that the people were not represented in the House; and it must be evident to every person, that to refer such a question as this to the House(of Commons as at present constituted, was to refer it to a jury of landowners, whose interests were opposed to those of the country at large. He contended, that the right hon. Baronet was maintaining the interests of the landed proprietors in opposition to those of the country in general, and he thought, that the right hon. Baronet would have some difficulty in proving to the House, that he was treating these with equal justice. He believed, that the right hon. Baronet was in a position of great difficulty—that he had hard taskmasters over him, and that he was unable to do that which he really thought would be for the interest of the country. But it should become a question for the right hon. Baronet soon to do justice to all interests: he differed altogether as to the amount of the tax which would be derived from the real property of the country. He took the value of landed property, as it was stated at a meeting of landed proprietors, in the course of last year, that the capital employed in land was three thousand millions sterling in amount. The average time for which that property would remain in the hands of the same proprietor, he was told, was thirty-three years, so that if this property were subjected to a tax of only 3½percent, on its transfer, an annual return of two and a half millions would be produced. Why, then, should the House be called upon to impose this obnoxious Income-tax upon traders and others, and thereby twice to tax personal property, when so just a tax as one on real property by descent, was capable of realising the total amount of the deficiency complained of? He contended, that there was no man in that House, who was desirous of doing justice to the people of this country, who ought not to concur in the view which he had presented to the House. He thought, that his hon. Friend was fully justified in bringing this subject before the House, and he hoped, that he would be supported in it. Instead of an Income-tax to add to the burdens of the people, this was a time when they were called upon to effect a reduction by economy and retrenchment in the expenditure of the country. Her Majesty, in her Speech from the Throne, had called their attention to that subject, but as yet nothing had been done to effect that object, and he should like to be informed what steps had been taken by the right hon. Baronet towards that end? He maintained, that they were not acting honourably in pressing the partial and unjust Income-tax bill, and on that ground he should divide in favour of his hon. Friend's motion.

Mr. Ewart

thought that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had argued upon a fallacious ground, when he had treated this question as if landed property and real property were convertible terms. There was a distinction between them which he thought he should be able to point out, for leasehold property was landed property, while it was not real property. The right hon. Gentleman, by a skilful species of legerdemain, had contrived to leave the case before the House as if the two kinds of property were of the same character. Leasehold property, however, did not partake of the quality of real properly, but was of the nature of personalty. There was a second point to which he would also refer. Leasehold property, in its character of personal property, paid the probate and legacy duty; but it was not only subjected to this burden, but, by reason of its connection with land, it was also called upon to bear the additional charge of stamps in transitu. This was the effect of a law which had been made by a predominant majority, but which, he thought, ought not to be continued after it was once pointed out.

Mr. Wallace

said, that in the country to which he belonged, the probate duty was the most tyrannical, disgraceful, and the most stringent perhaps of any enactment known in that country; it was, however, a little more genteel in England, and a little more prompt than in Scotland; and whilst the House was arguing the question as related to England, he demanded that the inquiry should also be applied to the country of which he spoke. If landed property paid its fair proportion of duty, the owners of the property would take care that the law should not act as it did at present. He attributed the present evil state of things to that horrid system of class legislation which prevailed in this country. Class-legislation prevailed to a great extent in that House, as was manifested in the passing of the Corn-law Bill; for he repeated that that bill was wholly made to assist that part of England which grew the best wheat. It was great injustice to make any distinction between the taxation of real and personal property. But this was the result of class-legislation. He hoped every man on his side of the House would denounce class-legislation; and whenever he got to the other side along with his friends, whenever that time might be, he hoped their opposition to that system would be unceasing, for it was class-legislation that had caused the present depressed state of our trade, manufactures, the shipping interest, and our foreign and domestic commerce. Hence there was no investment for capital, and consequently money was crowded into the funds and the Bank. The fact that the interest of money was never so low proved this. He affirmed that the rise in the funds, of which the right hon. Baronet boasted as a triumphant indication of his policy, was not produced by his measures, but by the general stagnation of trade, &c.; and he was sure that if what he then said should go before the public, many would join him in defying the right hon. Baronet to contradict his assertion.

Lord J. Russell

said, that there appeared to him to have been two strong objections stated to the present motion, one of which was that made to the words of the motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told the House that if this tax were imposed upon real property, were imposed upon the succession to real estates to the same amount as was now imposed upon personal property, in the first place it would not effect the object in view, of making an equality in those duties, and in the next place it would give but a small amount to the revenue. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was, that personal property which was settled was not liable to the probate and legacy duties, and therefore that a tax upon real property to the same amount would not affect that portion of it which was settled. He thought that a sound objection to the motion; but he owned that he did not see, and he heard no reason advanced why, if they had a tax upon the succession to property, that tax should not be equally imposed, or why it should not be applied to settled as well as to other property. He could understand the objection to a tax upon the succession to property, that it amounted to something very like a confiscation of the whole property; but if they agreed that it should be to a moderate extent only, and used it as one of the sources of taxation, he could not see the justice of saying, "We will impose that tax upon all property which is not settled, but large estates, which are settled, shall not be made to contribute to the revenue of the country in this way." The hon. Member for Dumfries stated, and he believed truly, that leasehold property, which was chargeable with and paid part of these legacy and probate duties, was likewise liable to stamp duty on conveyance, and was thereby liable in both characters to this tax. He believed also, that it was quite true that there was a great portion of property settled in families, and descending from father to son, or from one relation to another, which did not come within the operation of this tax, and which was entirely exempted from the bill of the right hon. Baronet; and therefore did he think, that although the objection to the terms of the motion might be sound, it did not take away the value of the general principle of the motion. If it were said that these taxes should be rendered productive to the revenue, and that they should be made equal—that great estates should not be exempted while small estates and small properties were subject to them, then would he agree to the proposition. There was also another reason why he could not vote for the motion, a reason to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer very naturally had not adverted. He thought the Government had a fair right to call upon them to agree to some system regarding the finances of the country. The system they had proposed was to impose a large amount of taxation on property and income. He had already stated it as his opinion that that was a measure to which they ought not to resort—that they had other means at their command of supplying the Exchequer, and amongst them an increase of the assessed taxes and an arrangement of the probate and legacy duties. The House had refused to agree to his proposition, and had since upon two occasions affirmed the principles of the right hon. Baronet's bill. That being the case, he did not think it would be advisable in him to aid by his vote a proposition for imposing additional taxes upon the country. He regarded an Income-tax as unadvisable and unnecessary, but he did not think it would be at all amending the condition of the country if, in addition to that tax, they were to consent to impose an additional burden on the country in the shape of probate and legacy duties. He thought it would be very fit when the Income-tax was passed to go into a revision of those probate and legacy duties, to say that so much was collected by them, that they would not increase that amount, but that it should be fairly levied upon all species of property. He would diminish taxation upon one kind and increase it on another kind of property, so as to make the tax fall more equally. As the motion stood on the paper, therefore, he could not give it his consent. As one of those who considered taxes as well as commercial restrictions in themselves an evil, he should not feel himself warranted, from any abstract love of this tax of probate and legacy duties, in giving his vote in favour of such a tax. Although he agreed, therefore, that there should be an amendment made in the present system, and that the hon. Gentleman's case had not been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he could not upon a division vote in favour of the proposition. He, however, hoped that the question might be reconsidered at a future period, and that justice would be introduced into this species of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the stamp duties were not altogether what they ought to be.

Sir R. Peel

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Montrose had given proof during the short period of time which had elapsed since his return to that House that he had returned to it like a giant refreshed. It would really appear from the charges which the hon. Member had brought against him that the hon. Member was not aware of what had been passing during his absence. The charge against him was, that he had deluded the agricultural interest, that he had conciliated their favour by false praise, that he had misused the power and the confidence that had been placed in him, and that if he were now to appeal to the country, such would be the indignation of the agricultural classes, on account of the deception practised towards them by him, that he should assuredly be left in a small minority. An attempt was thus made by those who supported the hon. Member, to excite dissatisfaction in the agricultural friends and supporters of the Government, on the ground that he had grossly betrayed the trust reposed in him and shown himself peculiarly unfavourable to them. Such had been the charge. The hon. Member now stated that he ought to be convicted of the grossest partiality, that he was the advocate of class interests, that he sacrificed the general interests of the community to a landed monopoly, and that he ought to be sentenced to condign punishment for so acting. Now, he felt convinced that a large portion of the community would believe that he had endeavoured to discharge his duty; that he had discouraged other considerations than those which a conscientious sense of public duty had dictated, and that he had attempted to do justice to all classes in the State. Thus was he on the one hand accused of having deceived the aricultural interests, and on the other of sacrificing every other interest for the sake of their class interests and for their peculiar benefit. He was surprised that during the absence of the hon. Member for Montrose from that House he had not meditated a little on the course which he himself pursued last Session; because, when the hon. Member denounced a property-tax as the most unjust of all taxes, that it seriously affected the industrious classes, and that it was in its very nature an odious tax. [Mr. Hume: The inquisition.] But the inquisition would apply to property. The hon. Member said, that the tax would diminish the funds of labour. [Mr. Hume: No.] Now, stop. He found that the hon. Member voted last year in favour of a motion stating "that the assessment of all property, real and personal, within the United Kingdom;" he apprehended that funded property was personal property. But the hon. Member contended last night that there never was a more iniquitous breach of public faith than in the taxation of personal property. He had heard the hon. Member say that parties who incurred debts and then taxed their creditors were guilty of a shameful violation of public duty; that all those who lent money were clearly entitled to an exemption; that it was perfectly right to tax the landowners, but that he objected altogether to taxation upon incomes derived from professions or trades. Last night the hon. Member said that any tax upon personal property was a violation of public faith, and yet he understood that the hon. Member voted last Session "that the assessment of all property, real and personal, in the United Kingdom, would be a fit and proper substitution for the excise and customs' duties." Would you tax funded property for that purpose? If it were at all a violation of public faith, it was as much so to tax funded property for the purpose of relieving the industrious classes of the people from the excise duties as it was to tax it for the purpose of redeeming the country from a great political emergency. If it were a violation of public faith to tax property it must be as great a violation in one case as the other. He could not consider this motion in any other light than as a renewal of the debate on the second reading of the Property-tax Bill. He did not mean to say that it was not perfectly fair, but it was quite clear that the motion and discussion on it was an obstruction, and an intentional obstruction, to the progress of that bill. He did not mean to say that it was a vexatious or factious obstruction, but that practically it was an obstruction. If the hon. Member denied that it was a practical obstruction to the progress of the public business, then was the hon. Member good enough to propose an additional taxation on the country of 1,500,000l. [Mr. Elphinston: No; as a substitute for schedule D.] The hon. Mover only proposed a reduction of one-half of schedule D. He proposed its omission, but he also proposed that the landed property of the country should remain in schedules A and B, and be liable to the legacy and probate duties. When they got to schedule D a discussion would arise as to the propriety of exempting incomes derived from professions and trades, and he should then be prepared to contend that in proposing a tax upon property it was just to tax income so derived as well as income derived from landed property. He should contend against the hon. Gentleman's proposition on more advantageous terms. The hon. Gentleman said, that a property-tax was perfectly justifiable—not only justifiable, but that there should be an additional impost in the shape of legacy and probate duties. As justly observed by the noble Lord, the hon. Gentleman's motion, according to its terms, implied only this—that real property should be subject to the legacy and probate duties upon the same conditions as those upon which personal property was now taxed; personal property being the subject of settlement was now exempted from those duties, and consequently that if the hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying his motion, and if the conditions on which it was founded were strictly adhered to, he would exempt from the liability to legacy and probate duties all large estates in this country which were the subject of settlement. It might be open to discussion whether the fact of settlement should prevail against those duties either in the case of real or personal property; but all the hon. Gentleman proposed was, that real property was to be subject to the same conditions that personal property was now subject to. It being exempted, it was quite clear that the only cases in which the hon. Gentleman would effect his object were those of landed estates which were not the subject of settlement, and consequently those which probably did not constitute the great mass of property in this country, or, at least, which were not the property of the great landed proprietors of this country. He trusted that the House, having given its assent to the principle of the Income-tax, having again and again affirmed that principle—he trusted that the majority of the House would not consent to a motion which evidently disturbed the arrangement to which the House had already agreed. The noble Lord had referred to the legacy and probate duties; but he believed that the noble Lord had not included them in his own motion. The noble Lord mentioned other taxes which he thought might be tried— taxes upon articles of consumption, many of which would be reduced by the measure of the Government; but he was rather surprised that the noble Lord, who had expressed so strong an opinion upon the legacy and probate duties, did not leave that opinion on record in the resolutions he recently proposed to the House. The noble Lord made a faint, indistinct allusion to the question of sugar and corn, and some reference also to assessed taxes, but this great principle of legacy and probate duties, as applied to real property, was not embodied in the formal resolutions of the noble Lord, a kind of record which was supposed to be peculiarly applicable to the opinions of great statesmen. The opinion of the Government was, that a tax upon income, objectionable as it might be, was still liable, on the whole, to less objections than any other imposition by which such sum of 3,700,000l. could be raised. The House having affirmed that point, he felt himself exempted from the necessity of entering into the details of this particular proposition before the House—a proposition for additional taxation which he was sure the House would not affirm. Whether he had asked for taxes enough or not, he was not prepared positively to declare. He could only say, that the question was a most extensive and complicated one; that no just conclusion could be drawn without looking to the whole of the stamp duties and taxes upon conveyances; and he did trust, if at any time a modification of the existing system should be made, that there would be a Government sufficiently in the possession of the confidence of the House to be entrusted with the review of the whole question, rather than it should be devolved upon a select committee. Any modification of the probate and legacy duties, or an extension of them to other property, could not take place without a change in other burdens that bore in a different way on different kinds of property. He would not pronounce a decided opinion against the consideration of a question of this kind. He should give his decided vote in favour of the imposition of an Income-tax in preference to an alteration of the probate and legacy duties. He thought it was unwise for persons in public situations, unless they were required by necessity, to give positive pledges of opinion on any subject so complicated in its details as this. Look to the probabilities of evasion which would arise on the imposition of such a tax, from the facilities which persons had for divesting themselves during life of the property which, unless the proposed tax were imposed, they would transfer by legacy. As the House had already recorded its vote in favour of that property-tax for which the tax proposed by the hon. Gentleman was put forward as a substitute, he did hope that it would be negatived by a large majority, and that the House would be allowed to proceed with the details of the measure which the Government had proposed to meet the financial difficulties of the country, and the principle of which the House had, after repeated discussions, affirmed by large majorities.

Mr. Ellice

hoped, that he should be acquitted by the right hon. Baronet from all implication in his charge of a desire to obstruct the measure he had proposed, if he voted for the present motion, for reasons which he would explain. He should do so, not because he wished to add this tax to that which the right hon. Baronet already proposed to raise by his bill; not because he wished, as the hon. Member himself did, to substitute it for schedule D; but simply because he did hope, that by agreeing to this motion, they would be advancing one step towards a reconsideration of the whole system of the duties affecting property in this country. Those duties stood on a most unequal, unfair, and unjust footing at present. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet in one thing—that it was impossible to replace the revenue in an efficient state without a direct appeal, in the shape of taxation, to the property of the country. He did not oppose the present measures of the right hon. Baronet on the grounds taken by some Gentlemen on his side of the House; show him a necessity for the tax proposed, and whether we were at war or at peace he would not flinch from voting for it. He was well aware of the force of the right hon. Baronet's objection to this motion—that it only embraced one-half of the subject; he was fully aware of the necessity of extending the principle, not merely to legacy and probate duty, but to other modes of transferring property. Many schemes were resorted to to evade the duty. One case had come under his knowledge, where a person, wishing to transfer some stock to a stranger in blood, a declaration was made on half a sheet of paper that the stock in question was held for the benefit of the one person during his life, and after his death of the other. By this means the 10 per cent, duty was evaded. He was fully aware of the weight of the right hon. Baronet's objection, but still he voted for the motion in the hope that it might lead to a full review of the present duties on property with regard to all contingencies. The commercial interest did not wish property to bear any unfair share of taxation; all they required was, that it should bear its full fair share of the public burdens. He must always regret to take a course differing from that of his noble Friend, but looking to the state of the country, and the manner in which public opinion was brought to bear upon their proceedings, he did think it was of the utmost importance that they should endeavour to preserve equity and equality in all their proceedings with regard to taxation.

Dr. Bowring

had listened with great pleasure to the doubting, hesitating manner in which the right hon. Baronet expressed his opposition to the motion before the House. It appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had not clearly understood the opinions of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had merely said that if foreigners with money vested in the funds of this country, were to be exempted from the payment of a percentage on these funds, on the same principle they should exempt the English fund-holder. But his hon. Friend had not expressed any positive opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of taxing funded property in general. He admitted that there might be some just objection taken to the wording of the motion before the House, and he should therefore move as an amendment the following words, in addition to the motion as it then stood:— As a substitute for some of those taxes which weigh most oppressively on the country.

Viscount Howick

said, that all sides of the House seemed to agree with his noble Friend as to the inequality of the taxation on real and personal property as it at present stood, but the motion now before the House, with the addition just made to it, would not by any means do away with that inequality. To effect that purpose, there would be required a much more comprehensive measure, and in the absence of any such measure the present proposition would only introduce new anomalies and impose new burdens on the people. He certainly agreed in the axiom that the business of an Opposition was, not to propose taxes, but to object to them, and he had himself never yet voted for a tax unless when proposed by a Government. He certainly was not now prepared to vote for a tax which he regarded as an addition to the burdens of the people without its securing a commensurate advantage. A legacy duty was in its nature a peculiarly offensive and oppressive duty, operating as it did at times when families were suffering distresses, and adding to their personal afflictions, by the inquiries and investigations it led to as regarded the amount of the property of the deceased that would be affected by it. He would himself have been much better prepared to vote for the taking off the legacy duty on personal property. For if they were to submit to the annoyance of an Income-tax with all its offensive inquisition into private affairs and its expensive machinery, surely it would have been better to have had a larger per centage at once, and so have got rid of some taxes in the Excise and Customs which pressed heavily on the industry of the people, as well as of the legacy duty on personal property. But, taking the motion as he found it, he must vote against it.

Dr. Bowring

withdrew his amendment.

House divided—Ayes 77; Noes 221: Majority 144.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Chapman, B.
Barnard, E. G. Christie, W. D.
Bernal, Captain Clay, Sir W.
Blewitt, R. J. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bowring, Dr. Crawford, W. S.
Brocklehurst, J. Dalmeny, Lord
Brodie, W. B. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Brotherton, J. Duke, Sir J.
Browne, hon. W. Duncan, G.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Duncombe, T.
Busfeild, W. Ellice, rt. hon. E,
Ellice, E. Plumridge, Capt,
Ellis, W. Rice, E. R.
Evans, W. Roebuck, J. A.
Ewart, W. Rumbold, C. E.
Fielden, J. Rundle, J.
Forster, M. Rutherford, A.
Fox, C. R. Scholefield, J.
Gill, T. Smith, B.
Granger, T. C. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hall, Sir B. Stewart, P. M.
Hatton, Capt. V, Stuart, Lord J.
Heathcoat, J. Strutt, E.
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Tancred, H. W.
Hutt, W. Thornely, T.
Jardine, W. Tuite, H. M.
Jervis, J. Turner, E.
Leader, J. T. Villiers, hon. C.
Marjoribanks, S. Wakley, T.
Marshall, W. Wallace, R.
Martin, J. Ward, H. G.
Mitcalfe, H. Wawn, J. T.
Murphy, F. S. Williams, W.
Napier, Sir C. Winnington, Sir T. E.
O'Brien, J. Wood, B.
Ogle, S. C. H. Wood, G. W.
Paget, Lord A. Yorke, H. R.
parker, J. TELLERS.
Pechell, Capt. Elphinstone, H.
Philips, M. Hume, J.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Buckley, E.
Acton, Col. Buller, E.
Adderley, C. B. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Ainsworth, P. Bunbury, T.
Alford, Visct. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Burroughes, H. N.
Arkwright, G. Campbell, A.
Bailey, J. Cardwell, E.
Bailey, J., jun. Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Baillie, Col. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baillie, H. J. Chelsea, Visct.
Baldwin, B. Chetwode, Sir J.
Bankes, G. Cholmondeley, hn. H.
Baring, hon. W. B. Christmas, W.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Christopher, R. A.
Barneby, J. Chute, W. L. W.
Barrington, Visct. Clayton, R. R.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Clements, H. J.
Beckett, W. Clerk, Sir G.
Bell, M. Clive, E. B.
Bell, J. Clive, hon. R. H.
Beresford, Capt. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Beresford, Major Collett, W. R.
Bernard, Visct. Colvile, C. R.
Blackburne J. I. Connolly, Col.
Blakemore, R. Coote, Sir C. H.
Bodkin, W. H. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Boldero, H. G. Cripps, W.
Borthwick, P. Dalrymple, Capt.
Botfield, B. Damer, hon. Col.
Bramston, T. W. Darby, G.
Broadley, H. Denison, E. B.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Dickinson, F. H.
Bruce, Lord E. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bruce, C. L. C. Douglas, J. D. S.
Buck, L. W. Douro, Marquess of
Drummond, H. H. Lockhart, W.
Duncombe, hon. A. Long, W.
Du Pre, C. G. Lopes, Sir R.
East, J. B. Lowther, hon. Col.
Eaton, R. J. Lygon, hon. General
Egerton, W. T. Mackenzie, T.
Eliot, Lord Mackenzie, W. F.
Emlyn, Visct. M'Geachy, F. A.
Escott, B. Mahon, Visct.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Mainwaring, T.
Farnham, E. B. Marsham, Visct.
Fellowes, E. Martin, C. W.
Filmer, Sir E. Marton, G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Master, T. W. C.
Follett, Sir W. W. Masterman, J.
Forbes, W. Meynell, Capt.
Fuller, A. E. Miles, P. W. S.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Miles, W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E, Mordaunt, Sir J.
Godson, R. Mundy, E. M.
Gordon, hn. Capt. Murray, C. R. S.
Gore, M. Murray, A.
Gore, W. O. Neeld, J.
Gore, W. R. O. Newport, Visct.
Goring, C. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Norreys, Lord
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Paget, Lord W.
Granby, Marquess of Pakington, J. S.
Greene, T. Palmer, R.
Grogan, E. Patten, J. W.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Halford, H. Pemberton, T.
Hamilton, J. Pigot, Sir R.
Hamilton, Lord C. Planta, rt. hon. J,
Hampden, R. Plumptre, J. P.
Harcourt, G. G. Pollock, Sir F.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Praed, W. T.
Hardy, J. Pringle, A.
Heathcote, G. J. Pusey, P.
Henley, J. W. Rashleigh, W.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Reade, W. M.
Herbert, hon. S. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hillsborough, Earl of Richards, R,
Hodgson, R. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hope, hon. C. Round, C. G.
Hornby, J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Howard, P. H. Russell, Lord J.
Howick, Visct. Sanderson, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Jackson, J. D. Seymour, Lord
James, W. Sheppard, T.
Jermyn, Earl Shirley, E. J.
Jocelyn, Visct. Sibthorp, Col.
Johnson, W. G. Smith, A.
Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Jones, Capt. Smollett, A.
Kemble, H. Somerset, Lord G.
Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Sir E. Stanley, Lord
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Lascelles. hon. W. S. Stuart, H.
Law, hon. C. E. Stock, Mr. Serjt.
Lawson, A. Sturt, H. C.
Lefroy, A. Sutton, hon. H M.
Legh, G. C. Tennent, J. E.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Thornhill, G.
Lincoln, Earl of, Tollemache, J.
Tomline, G. Wood, Col.
Trench, Sir F. W. Wood, Col. T.
Trotter, J. Wortley, hn. J.S.
Turnor, C. Wyndham, Col. C
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Yorke, hon. E.T.
Vane, Lord H. Young, J.
Vere, Sir C. B.
Vivian, hon. Capt. TELLERS.
Welby, G. E. Fremantle, Sir T.
Williams, T. P. Baring, H.