The Earl of Aberdeen was still unable to understand the course of Lord Derby; who had truly said that the Bill was the cornerstone and foundation of the financial system of the year, and assigned his desire not to destroy that system as a reason for not opposing the second reading, but who now came down with an amendment which would destroy the whole edifice-with what sincerity and tenderness for the preservation of the corner-stone, Lord Aberdeen would leave the House to judge.

If the amendment were carried, not one farthing of the tax as regarded settlements, would be paid within one generation. "That is what the noble Earl calls preserving the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system of the year!" He had also affected great tenderness for small proprietors: but settled estates are rare among the middle classes, who are at this moment liable to the legacy duty. The noble Earl (Winchilsea) who spoke early in the debate made a touching allusion to the "bold Barons;" and, judging from eppearances, some noble Lords seemed disposed to act on the principle which actuated the bold Barons of old-that of feudal exemption from burdens borne by the rest of the community. The object of the present measure was to extend to the bold Barons

Lord Aberdeen showed that no precedent existed for the course then proposed to be taken. Previous amendments effected in bills sent up from the other House had been agreed to, because they did not touch the produce of the tax; but the amendment was of a totally different character; and would destroy the intention, and cut off the produce of the tax. But, whatever the House of Commons might do, it was utterly impossible for the Government to think of acceding to the amendment.

He was proceeding to describe how the late Government had adopted the principle of a tax on successions, when the Earl of Malmesbury cried, "No, no!" Lord Aberdeen, in support of his assertion, then quoted from the speech of Mr. Disraeli, as reported in Hansard, but Lord Derby called him to order, adding, "I can save the noble Earl some trouble in referring to reports of what is said to have taken place in the other House of Parliament, by simply assuring him, upon my own knowledge, that no proposition nor scheme for imposing any succession-duty was at any time submitted to my consideration, or to the consideration, as far as I know, of any single member of the Cabinet of which I was the head."

Lord Aberdeen retorted, that Lord Derby himself had not been strictly in order, and he proceeded to read from speeches delivered by Mr. Disraeli on the 3rd and

16th of the preceding December, passages stating that the late Government had carefully examined the question of the stamp and probate duties, and did not think it impossible at the right time to bring forward a tax on successions. The Earl of Hardwick as a member of the late Cabinet, denied that any idea of imposing such a tax as the present had ever been presented to them. He also took Lord Aberdeen to task for sneering at the "bold Barons." Earl Granville admitted that Lord Derby was not responsible for everything said and done by his political adherents in the other House. He also explained that Lord Aberdeen had not intended any taunt by his allusion to the bold Barons, and that as regarded the propriety of the course taken by Lord Derby, he had only contended that it would be most unwise and inexpedient. There were not twelve persons, he said, in that House whose personal interests would be affected by the Bill, and their votes would be found on the side of Government.

The Duke of Argyll showed that the clause was not retrospective, inasmuch as it did not impose a tax on persons who had already succeeded, but on those who for the future should inherit successions. He also charged the late Government with having rendered the present measure necessary by their rash and reckless proposals in re

ference to the income-tax.

Lord Lansdowne pointed out, that the particular character of the financial system was not that the succession tax and income-tax should act together, but that the action of one should ultimately make provision for the abolition of the other. Where was it more

natural to extend direct taxation than to those who enjoy the great privilege of society, that of succeeding to property? The tax was not aimed at a particular class, but at all classes; and the position of the owners of land would be strengthened by making them amenable to the same law as their fellow-subjects. The great families of the country did not owe their position to exemptions from burdens. Did the Duke of Norfolk owe his high position to having escaped the legacy-duty? Why, the great families and landed proprietors would gain, in the prosperity of the country, infinitely more than they would be called on to pay. The system of finance of which the Bill was a part, was a sound system, because it left the prosperity of the country at liberty to increase, and gave security that only one great direct duty need be preserved, when the present income-tax expired.

The Committee then divided on the amendment, when there appeared Content 62, Non-Content 102.

After considerable minute discussion the remaining clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed

On the motion for the third reading on the 28th of July, the Earl of Clancarty stated his objections, and charged the ministers with scouring the embassies of the Continent for votes, and depriving Ireland of its Governor in such haste that time was not allowed for the Lords Justices to be sworn.

On the question that the Bill do pass, Lord St. Leonards spoke at considerable length, chiefly for the purpose of proposing clauses as a protest against the measure. Their main object was to cut off

its restrospective operation, but they were not adopted, and after a brief conversation the Bill passed. In the House of Commons, on the 14th of April, Mr. Milner Gibson brought forward the subject of taxes on knowledge. He moved three resolutions, to the effect that the advertisement duty ought to be repealed; that the policy of subjecting the cheap periodical press to stamp duties and other restrictions, is inexpedient, and the law relative to taxes on newspapers in an unsatisfactory state; and lastly, that the excise-duty on paper materially obstructs good cheap literature, and that the maintenance of this tax as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic, and would impede the progress of education. He said he had thus framed his motion in consequence of having observed that, although the three taxes might appear to many unconnected, they had been imposed at the same time, and were part of a system of policy designed, to a certain extent, to restrain the press. But the resolutions would be submitted to the House separately, so that the assent to one would not pledge to another. It might be said, that he should have waited until the appearance of the Budget, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to deal with these taxes, a vote of the House would strengthen his hands; if not, it might suggest to him the propriety of falling in with its views. The last resolution affected about 900,000l. of the public revenue, but it did not pledge the House to an immediate repeal of the duty on paper, but only that as early an opportunity as the state of the revenue would allow should be

taken to abolish this duty. Mr. Gibson urged the oppressive nature of this charge upon the vehicle of knowledge, and the difficulties it cast in the way of literary speculation, and the consequent check it gave to sound education. He then dwelt upon the injustice, impolicy, and inequality of the advertisement duty, a tax of small amount, only 178,000l. a year, which he denounced as a barbarous toll, unworthy of a commercial country; and he insisted upon the impossibility of protecting newspapers, whose legitimate fund was their advertisements, against untaxed compositions. The removal of the duty would augment the number of advertisements, and the consequent increase of postage would alone cover the loss of revenue. In the last place, Mr. Gibson discussed the policy of restraining by stamp duties the cheap periodical press from pub lishing news, contending that this was a question of policy, not of revenue. The stamp-duty on news papers originated in a desire to restrain their issue, from a false theory which associated cheap with mischievous publications; whereas, cheap periodical works, narrating the current events of life, supplied antidotes to the poison of seditious and blasphemous writings. When the amount of duty was reduced, the restrictions were made more severe, on the ground of "safety;" but at the present day no objection was entertained to the diffusion of useful knowledge, or even of political information. The power of the Government was now sustained upon the utility of its policy and its desire to benefit all classes. If the stamp-duty upon news found an equivalent in the exemption for postage, let the established papers

remain as they were, and let the unstamped papers pay for transmission through the post; but postal revenue should not be connected with a tax upon news, which was a clumsy and defective scheme. A small postage upon the transmission of newspapers would go far to replace the revenue lost by the repeal of the stamp-duty. Mr. Gibson dilated upon the defects and inconsistencies of the law relative to newspapers, the attempt to define which term he showed to abound with perplexities, which, he said, it behoved the Government to remove without delay.

Mr. Ewart seconded the motion, and dwelt upon the advantages that would accrue to morality and order from the repeal of the stamp and advertisement duties.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the resolutions related partly to subjects of policy, aud partly to matters of revenue. On the question of policy he had no special authority to speak; but he believed that the law relating to taxes on newspapers was in an unsatisfactory state, and it was the intention of the Government shortly to bring in a Bill to clear up the state of that law, and to prevent any harsh or severe interpretation of it, irrespective of the question of the stamp-duty. As to the second resolution, it had been said that the stamp-duties had not been imposed for revenue, but to restrain the press. was not the policy of the present Government; they thought that perfectly free discussion was not only not to be regarded as an evil, but contributed to strengthen the institutions of the country, and nothing would be done by the Government to afford ground for a

This

contrary opinion. It would be a breach of duty on his part to encourage or advise the House to pass these resolutions. He had already protested against the practice of condemning taxes which the House was not prepared to repeal, thereby creating expectations not to be fulfilled. Mr. Gibson had not proposed any substitutes for these taxes, amounting to 1,400,000l., and the House should not condemn taxes unless prepared to dispense with them or to provide substitutes. He should, therefore, move the previous question. With respect to the paperduty, he should be glad to dispense with it, for, though a large part fell upon paper used for inferior purposes, he agreed that it was a most objectionable tax upon mental efforts. The advertisementduty he likewise acknowledged was a very onerous charge. But he warned the House of the mischievous precedent it would set by condemning taxes on isolated grounds, without regard to the expenditure of the country. In the eight weeks he had been in office, propositious had been made in that House for the repeal of duties to the amount of 7,000,0001. The claims on behalf of newspapers for relief from taxation would have a fair consideration-that is, a just and impartial comparison with claims for relief by other great interests of the country. He admitted that it was fair that these questions should be raised, but he prayed the House not to slide into the bad habit of dealing so lightly with these questions of revenue without the means of giving practical effect to their resolutions.

Mr. Bright said the speech of Mr. Gibson had not been an

swered. These duties were not brought forward as unjust taxes, but as instruments which restrained the press; and it was time that a Government professing a regard for education should deal with these taxes. It was not a question of revenue, for it could be shown that if the advertisement and stamp duties were abolished, the loss of revenue would be so small as not to be put in the balance against the advantages which would arise from

it.

Mr. W. Williams, Mr. D. Seymour, and Mr. J. Phillimore, also supported the motion, and the Attorney-General gave an exposition of the state of the newspaper law.

Lord John Russell said, these duties all stood upon different grounds, and he did not think that the term taxes on knowledge applied to them. It had been said, that the stamp-duty was originally imposed as a restraint upon the diffusion of knowledge, and he did not think it consistent with the policy of this country to impose such a restriction; but while he regarded this as a tax for revenue, he was afraid if it was removed mischievous publications would still exist. With regard to the paper duty, he put it to the House whether it was not premature to enter into a question which in volves the general taxation of the country.

Mr. Disraeli sympathised with Her Majesty's Ministers, having had to consider this question when in office, and his colleagues had thought that no time should be lost in proposing the repeal of the advertisement duty; but it was the opinion of Lord Derby that, on the whole, it was better that it should

be postponed until the Government had time to consider duties of an analogous character. Was the House, then, justified now in dealing with the first resolution? His opinion was that they were not justified in dealing with all the three duties, considering them in a fiscal point of view; he proposed to consider only the first. What was the principal argument brought forward by Lord J. Russell? Why, that no proposal for the remission of taxation should be made before the Budget, and what success it would have afterwards the House would decide. The proposition amounted to this, that the administration of the day should have the exclusive privilege and monopoly of proposing a remission of taxation. Such a doctrine was most dangerous.

What chance had the House of dealing with this important question, if they lost the present opportunity? He was ready to vote for the repeal of the advertisement duty, as this was a policy he had been prepared to propose to the House as a policy which he believed sound and beneficial; he did not think the House could advance the general question if this opportunity were missed, and he recommended them to adopt the motion.

Mr. J. Ball did not consider Mr. Disraeli's support an honest one, and would not, therefore, join him in voting for the resolution.

Mr. Cobden presumed that Mr. Gibson was in earnest, and desired to see these taxes abolished, and he heartily accepted the assistance of Mr. Disraeli and his friends. Upon the general question he referred to the evidence of the large circulation of exceptional publications, contending that in the absence of the duty the good cheap