likely to take place, I find myself under the necessity of voting for the motion of my honourable friend.

The motion was negatived without a division,

DUTY ON SUCCESSION TO REAL ESTATES.

May 5.

ON N the motion that the bill for granting a duty on succession to real estates in certain cases be immediately recommitted, Mr. Rashleigh moved, that it be recommitted on that day three months.

Mr. Fox said, that this measure laboured under two objections; first, the novelty of the principle, as a tax upon capital; and secondly, the iniquity of the application. It was a system which, if acted upon to the extent to which the principle might be carried, (and he admitted the present instance to be only a slight degree,) would enable the state to seize upon the whole property of the country. Of all shapes in which despotism had ever appeared in history, the most frightful was that under which the sovereign became heir to the whole property of individuals; and were the principle of this measure once admitted, it was impossible to calculate how far it might be extended. From brothers and relations in a collateral line, it might in time reach to children, and from four or five per cent. the tax might be increased to ten or twelve. This was his principal objection to the bill. He had another, however, grounded upon the particular hardship which would in certain cases attend its operations. In cases of marriage settlements, children were most frequently the objects for whom provision was made, but sometimes collateral relations had an interest in the settlement. A case of that kind had come under his own experience. In case of the death of his nephew, Lord Holland, he was to succeed to the estates of his elder brother, by an article in the marriage settlement. As it happened, he had not given any consideration for the contingent benefit of this settlement, He might, however, have paid his brother some consideration for it, and in this case, were the tax to attach upon this property, the contract would be violated, because he would not receive it in the same circumstances in which it was when

he concluded the bargain. On these grounds he seconded the amendment.

The question being put, that the word "immediately" stand part of the question, the House divided:

On the motion, that the report of the committee on the said bill be now taken into consideration, Mr. Crewe moved, that it be taken into consideration on that day three months.

Mr. Fox said, that all his objections to this measure remained in full force. It was, in fact, what he had stated it, a tax upon capital, for it was levied in proportion to that capital. If it was really a tax upon income, why not fairly lay it upon income? It was said, that it was to be paid by instalments during the first four years, but if the same was paid by the man who enjoyed four, and the man who enjoyed forty years, it could not with propriety be said to be a tax upon income. In such a country as this, all taxes on capital were particularly dangerous. He did not mean to undervalue the constitution of this country, but he believed that much of our prosperity might be owing to the complete disposal of property which was enjoyed. If this tax had been laid on the transmission of property by sale, he believed no man would have denied its bad effect; but when freedom of disposal even at death was impaired by annexing burdens to the transmission, the bad consequences would, in a certain degree, be felt. In all cases where the payment of the tax depended upon the terms of succession, production of deeds was inevitable. Whether a brother succeeded as heir to his brother or to his father, in a variety of possible cases, he would be liable or not liable to the tax; of course, a minute examination of settlements would be necessary, if the tax was meant to be effectively levied. With regard to the levying_of 100,000l. by the tax, it was not the extent of this sum, but the precedent that was thought to be dangerous: it might be extended to direct succession; and he saw no difference in the principle. It was said, there was less right to expect in the cases subject to the tax; but there were many instances where the expectation was greater in collateral than in direct descent, as in the case of entails, where the heir had a greater cer

tainty of the possession than a son, whose father might dispose of what part of his estate he pleased. Upon the whole, there was no principle of taxation more destructive than that which tended to destroy forcibly the power of exchange and transmission, and thereby lessen the desire of acquisition. And, as this bill encroached upon this principle, he hoped, notwithstanding the result of former divisions, that the House would consider seriously the consequences that might follow from so new and unprecedented a system of taxation.

The House divided on the motion, That the word "now" stand part of the question:

Tellers.

Mr. Crewe

Lord Cavendish 52.

MR. GREY'S CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS, RELATIVE TO THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

May 6.

THIS day Mr. Grey brought forward several heavy charges against ministers. They had, he said, violated the act of appropriation, the main pillar of the pecuniary privileges of parliament, by diverting the grants of money to other purposes than those for which they were voted, and they had endeavoured to screen themselves by spurious accounts. He then detailed the particulars in proof of his accusation, adding, that if the necessities of the times had compelled them to have recourse to such methods for procuring money, they ought, without disguising the fact, to have applied to parliament for indemnity. The House of Commons had, he said, been notoriously faulty in not setting limits to the extraordinaries during the American war; and the committee appointed to examine and digest the public accounts had particularly pointed out the ruinous consequences of such negligence. Mr. Pitt had censured it himself with peculiar severity, but had nevertheless been more guilty than any of his predecessors. So determined was the House to put a stop to these infractions of its rights, that it passed, in 1784, a resolution, that should parliament be dissolved before the act of appropriation had passed, to misapply the money granted should be reputed a high misdemeanor. An act had also been passed under the present minister, to obviate the bad consequences of balances remaining with the paymaster-general, and to provide for the constant pay of the army; but this act had been notoriously infringed; the paymaster having actually in his hands a balance of eighty-three thousand pounds. Mr. Grey,

after mentioning other instances of misapplication, adverted to the disposition-paper, a species of voucher first used in the prodigal reign of Charles II. and established at the Revolution, as an authentic document, to inform parliament in what manner the supplies they had granted had been expended. This paper he considered as a mere deception; its contents represented the sums voted by parliament, as issued and applied conformably to its intent, which was contrary to truth. This he might be told was only a form; but the practice was in fact directly opposite to the regulations enacted by the legislature, in order to preserve to itself the power over the national purse, against the attempts of ministers to dispose of the nation's money at their own discretion. On these various premises, Mr. Grey moved the following resolutions:

1. "That at all times, and under all circumstances, it is the indispensable duty of the House of Commons vigilantly to superintend the expenditure of the public money, and strictly to inquire into the application of the grants made by parliament to the service for which they have been voted.

2. "That by an act passed in every session of parliament, the particular sums granted for each particular service are specified, and the money that shall be paid into the exchequer is appropriated to their discharge: and that it is strictly directed that such aids and supplies shall not be applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatever, other than the uses and purposes mentioned in the said act.

3. "That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April, 1796, that the sum of 644,106l. 78. 9d. was then due to the several colonels or commanding officers of his majesty's forces, for net off-reckonings and clothing for the years 1794 and 1795, although, by acts passed in 1794 and 1795, money was granted to discharge the same; and although the said acts direct that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the same, and not otherwise.

66

4. "That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April, 1796, that the sum of 146,900l. 125. 4d. is now due to the general and staff officers of his majesty's forces for the years 1793, 1794, and 1795, although, by acts passed in the said years, money was granted for payment of the said sum; and although the said acts direct that the said money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the said sum, and not otherwise. 5." That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April, 1796, that the sum of 34,313l. 138. 3d. is now due to the several governors, lieutenant-governors, and other officers of his majesty's forces and garrisons, in Great Britain and parts beyond seas, for the years 1794 and 1795, although, by acts passed in the said years, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said acts direct that the money so granted shall be applied in discharging of the same, and not otherwise

6. "That it appears from an account presented to the House on the 21st of April, 1796, that the sum of 31,0561. 3d. due to

the general and staff officers of his majesty's forces, for the year 1794, was paid out of grants for the year 1796, although, by an act passed in 1794, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said act directs that the said money so granted shall be applied in discharging the same, and not otherwise.

7. "That it appears from an account produced to this House on the 21st of April, 1796, that the sum of 172,100l. due for offreckonings, to the 24th of December, 1794, and which remained due on the 21st of January, 1796, was discharged out of the vote of credit granted for the express purpose of defraying expences that may occur in 1796. By an act passed in 1794, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said act directs that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the same, and not otherwise.

8. "That it appears to this House, that by an act passed in the 23d year of his majesty's reign, for the better regulation of the office of paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, it is enacted, That no money for the service of the army shall be issued from his majesty's exchequer to the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, or shall be placed or directed to be placed in his majesty's hands or possession; but the same shall be issued and directed to be paid to the governor and company of the bank of England, to be placed to his account.

9. "That it appears to this House, from an account produced on the 22d of April, 1796, that, in open contempt and defiance of the said act, the sum of 430,200l. has been issued directly to the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, in exchequer bills, on the vote of credit for 1796; and that a balance of 83,300l. was remaining unissued in his hands on the said 22d of April, 1796.

IO. "That it further appears to this House, that, by the said act, the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces is directed and required to form his memorials and requisitions to the treasury, and to issue his drafts upon the governor and company of the bank of England, upon the 24th day of June and 24th day of December in every year, in equal payments, to such person or persons as have a regular assignment from the several colonels, lieutenant-colonels, commandants, majors, captains-commandant, and captains, for the monies appropriated for the clothing of the non-commissioned officers and private men of his majesty's regular forces.

II. "That it appears to this House, that the sums of money appropriated for the clothing of his majesty's regular forces, and which, according to the provisions of the said act, ought to have been issued on the 24th of December, 1794, the 24th of June and 24th of December, 1795, had been directed to other purposes, and still remained due on the 1st of January, 1796, in open contempt and defiance of the said act.

12. "That it appears, that an account is annually presented to this House, shewing how the money granted for the service of the preceding year has been disposed of, distinguished under the several heads, and the parts remaining unsatisfied, with the deficiency thereupon.