This feeling came to a climax when " the bookseller" who so ably led the House of Commons was gathered to his fathers. He left be hind over a million of money, but not a penny to charity. Since that will was proved the Radicals have been clamant for a substantial increase in the succession duties, holding that in the transfer of money acquired in life at his death to some one who has earned no part of it, is a fair time to tax capital, and tax it heavily,, The living millionaire has enjoyed in life the protection which the S»tate gives him, and he has been enabled to sit under his own vine and fig-tree in luxury, no man daring to make him afraid. The State has but lightly touched his gold while he lived, and has not by undue taxation fettered his freedom of action or clogged his enter prise. His money was free to him to invest as he chose, and the State asked of him but a mere mite for revenue pur poses. When the time comes for him to dispose of that property and look upon it for the last time—that is the time, say the Radical 3, for the State to step in and take its share before those who have not earned it come in and take it all. Every chance is given to capital while it is in the hands of the living creator of it, but the demand is now that the man whose fortunate birth places him in a position far beyond the necessity of having to toil for his bread —whether that toil be by brain or by bodily labor—should pay to the State a heavy toll for his right to use this species of " unearned increment." The business aptitude of thetestator enabled him to monopolise to himself a large proportion of this world's goods. The <$e#jtand is oow that such monopolies **"»tii4 B£fc fy@ foanded down to the next SlJ>'. * wtkQUt « fe?avy fee first generation p tt^/Tf^lamor paid to the commw. r t. * 3 for this sort of taxaw* 11 «? com paratively new, but the principle 0. 