The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

On the motion of LOrill4. HILL, a new writ was ordered
for Lewes, in the mom of Sir it. Elphinstone, who has
accented the stewardship of the Chiltern Liondreda
LEGACY DUTYONESTAYES OF BRITISII SUB-

'5.-E-CTS-HoMICILED IN THE COLONIES.

Br. BOWRINO rose to call attention to what he con-
ceived to be a case of great grievance, which had already
been laid before the house in a petition which he had pre-
sented. The facts of the case were as full ors:—A Mr.
Henry Douglas, a native of Scotland, after 60 years' resi-
dence in L•dia, where he amassed a considerable fortune,
died there, in 1839, leaving money invested in the public
funds of Great Britain to the amount of 154,7381, together
with property in India, and nominating by his w 11 the peti-
tioners, Sir T. Brisbane and Mr. Fleming, who resided in this
country, with three others, resident in India, his executors.
The executors obtained probate in the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury, in 1840, and having realised the estate,
divided it amongst the several legatees, as directed
by the will, but reserving a sum equal to what
would be the amount of legacy-duty, should it
he chargeable. Application was made for payment,
of the legacy-duty, but it was masted on the ground that
the property of an individual was always associated with his
domicile. In 1837, in Arnold v. Arnold, it had been de-
rided that the legacy-duty was not payable on the estate of
t British subject domiciled in India, and again in 1838, in
the case of the estate of a person named Bligh, who died in
Jamaica, Sir W. Follett had given it as his opinion (though
in that case the property wee in England), that the claim
for legacy-duty could not be maintained. Notwith-
standing the attention of the comptroller of the legacy-
duty was called to these facts he insisted upon payment, and
entered proceedings; and to avoid those proceedings,
the petitioners in January, 1842, paid the money 92841.65. 4d.
into the Stamp-office in Edinburgh. At that time there was
pending in the Home of Lords the appeal of Thomson v.
the Advocate-general, against the decision of the Scotch
iudges, confirming the liability to legsc7.doty in a similar
rase, but of which the petitioners and their agent were igno-
rant, though the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes
were fully aware of it, and allowed other claims to
stand over until that appeal should be decided.
The judgment upon the writ of error was pronounced in
Feb., 1845. all the judges concurring against the liability.
Acting under the advice of Mr. (now Commissioner) Burge
the petitioners memorialized first the commissioners of
stamps and taxes and afterwards. on two separate occasions,
in 184.5 and 1846, the lords of the Treasury, for a return of
the duty but without success--the ground upon which the
repayment was refused being that when the money was paid,
the law, as declared, was in favour of the liability to the duty
and that a subsequent decision giving a different construc-
tion to the cot of parliament world not justify the board
in refunding monies paid under a former construction.
It would be thus seen that 9,200!. had been received and was
held by the treasury, to which the highest cnut of appeal,
backed by the unanimous niftiest of the Judges and of the
Lord Chancellor, had declared they had no right, and as
they had refused to make restitution he called upon the
house to interfere. His motion would be for the appoint-
ment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon
he alleged grievance.
Mr. 1. PARKER.—Did not intend to dispute the facts, as
stated. When the money was paid, however, it was with
the full knowledge of what was understood to be the law at
the time, and with the conviction that if payment
was refused, process would issue; he saw no ground,
therefore, for taking this case out of the ordinary
course of revenue proceeding*. The act under which those
duties were charged was passed in 1796, and from that time
down to the late decision of the House of Lords, the principle
which had regulated all such proceedings was, that the
place of administration should be the test of the liability to
the legacy duty. In 1845 a different construction had been put
upon the act by the highest authority, and since thct period
the practice had been, and would be for the future, in con-
formity w;th that decision. The cases which had been
quoted were not similar to the one now brought forward.
In the Arnold cane the property was in India, not in England,
which circumstance altered the state of things altogether ;
and in tho ease of Bile, be had not understood that the
estate was in England. Up to the year 1,843, however, the
decisions cf the court' had been uniformly in favour of the
practice which, from the passing of the act until that time, had
prevailed. On the whole, therefore, he did not think the
hon. gentleman had made out any case for the interference
of the house.
Mr. WARBURTON said if the hon. gentleman's argu-
ment were to prevail, the result would be that in every ease
where the crown wrongfully possessed itself of the money of
the subject, reseitution should be refused.
Sir It. INGLIS having attentively considered the VW
he felt bound to actinieste with the Treasury in their reeist-
ance to the claim,

Mr. HUME observed dig the claim in Bliglea %bit
resisted, was abandoned by the crown this abowd they
were not confident in their mterpretatign of the law.
l'hc ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that since Feh-
rtairy, 1845, the homey duty did not apply to irises like the
present; bn. court the decision of the 110,1'e of Lords the
contrary ripistion prevailed in all I'm court.. It had been
laid down he Lord Eldon and Lord Redeslale, that when-
ever the property was subject to the probate• duty, and was
administerelf. to in this country, the legney• duty attached.
And front that time to 1845, the opinion of the law
officers of the crown, and every decision of the
Curt of Exeli quer, had confirmed that view.
The decisions iifthejudres ot Scotland hail been uniformly
to the same et!' et. If the parry had died after 184-5 the duty
would not hate been potable; but having died previous to
that year, it iva ly right that it should h., according to
the coneurr. n- deeisions of all the courts. It was laid down
that they Mowed h.. governed by the " odininittration " and
not by the " ' . But by eating upon the admieis-
teethe], theaiiveru rent hail lust a eimederalite amount of
duty ; and was it to be supposed, or would it be tolerated,
that they should file innormations against the parties ty
whom they sultiii.led that lam? If they conceded the propo-
sition befere the honor, every shilling they bad levied sines
1796 shnujil ha repaid ; while the c reesponditig claim of the
government could net be enforced. Upon that ground he
resisted the much*. If money were paid by a mistake of the
law, and hacestd received, in the belief feat such was the
law, shot indite) ought not to be recover mile. (Marks of
disseut.) lie nos sure that no living lawyer would deny
that pray' sitioa. as applied to a case bet wren subject and
eutiject ; heeri.ii, the question having b. en settled upon a
llisenerel pri..eiple, it would he unfair and tom ire to compli-
cate it by a re-imcuing of the whole cal-, and an examine-
lll,tin into em ry item of the account. Upon that ground also
would be ovii.i• the motion.
Mr. F. SCOT f thought it meet unjust to refuse repay-
ment of the duty in the present c ee. Be althgether disputed
he Atter iey-Gdoeral's avertion that between private iedi-
vidual. there could be no claim for • reiteration of funds.
He believed on tee contrary that there was not a mercantile
ere in London who would follow the example ef the govern-
ment in the pr oent ease.
Sir F. THESIGER exprereed his entire concurrent* in
the view of the Attorney-General, adding that he did not
even s, e hew a committee cauldacceraplish the bon. mover's
object, as Ito .i.lll would not be compulsory.
Mr. BERNAL maid that if the foes of the petition were
merest, a decided protest bed bees entered essifet the
of pit
oast tbe sty,--m
• WM* toot this wee eel
sarraw sampan, irldtin whisk dm ittortley-ammentbaika-
d,nroared b. ewe it.
Dr. BOWRING withdrew the notion, bur said that it tem
inipeesilde he could suffer the case to remain when it *was after
the adiniseiiie, iin the part of the two legal authorities, who
bed addreeseil the house, that it ass not the law that leeway
duly should G mini by individuals not diimieilei in Eng-
land.
Motion withdrawn.
aiGRTALITY IN IRELAND.

Lord G. BENTTiCIZrOs; tonceT.T;,i ;imperative re-
turn of th • number oldeaths w hi •h h arc occu reed in emelt parish
of Ireland, it. ovih of the three last peri•als ut six months, com-
mencing the 14 day of Sept.,and ending the Ist day of March,
respevirely ; with a seminary for each in clod." 'The rabble
lord, who was very imperfectly heard, said that the Irish
people ought pot to lie allowed to die like doge, without any •
record or the amount of mortality. But his iniasidisite ob-
ject in marine the pr. sent tootino woo to reeertaio that,
which it was of the areateA imporanee to know, whether
or not proper ear, hod !wee taken to ease the lives of the
people of Ireland in this period of ware.'). Last year sup-
plies of focal had been sent into the country, but tbieyear a
system of political economy had been adopted instead, while
the people we e dying by hundreds. According to a state.
ment lately made by the hon. coemoer for Limerick, it
would appear that the government wereoin poweasion of
data, 'hoeing an enormous amount of u•ortality in Ireland
arisiug fro.. starratiou and disease. But i• they were not,
he thought the information he required might be obtained
through the ch rgimen of all per-merino* ; just as a return
of the number of illegitimate children had been obtained
from the el, or, of England in 1841 and 1813.
Mr. LABOUCREKE mid that his ohp etion to the motion
arose from no diainehnotion to afford the house and the
country the :Idlest information regarding the destruction of
human life which had been going on, and which he feared
would still go on to a great extent, owl. g to the ineufliciency
of food. But he really did not know from what quarter the
government c. old obtain any additional information shove
that which the) had n.reutly promised to provide. They
had asseti,ed t, two returns, which lie believed
were the only ones that could lire had from offi-
cial mucus - namely, coroners and the constabulary.
He felt it t be a matter of reproach, that they: was not in
Ireland, as is this country, a register of births, deatlo, and
marriages. Rrliaious differences had hitherto rendered it a
matter of difficulty, but he was not without hope that that
difficulty would he cot over, and that ouch asystent would
ern long be provided for Inland. It was of the greatest
importance to that country teat such information should be
had. On the other hand, wahine could be more inexpedrent
than to give inaccurate statistical information—leading them,
as it would, to false conclusions. The motion of the. noble
lord mu open to that objection, as any information obtained
under it most be ratio ly voluntary—even ire the case he
suggest d, sot the clergy ; because they kept no register it
deaths, unli sa it might be for some purpose of their own ;
TO, rims the clergy of England wire hound to do no, anal,
therefor , the returns he alluded to of illegitimate children,
were to be relied on. All he could promise was,
to write to Ireland to ascertain if there was any
means of obtaiiiirro the information the noble lord
desired. Ile understood that the honourable member
r Limerick had stated, that the government of Ireland
were pr•asesiell of information, showing that 210,000 persons
had died of starvation, or disease arising from starvation,
since the comnieucement of the present scarcity. Ile (Mr.
Labourhere) was nut aware of the existence of any inch in-
formation, or of the soirees from which it could be obtained
by the govrniment ; but upon that point also he would
make inquiry. The noble lord had been pleased to say
that the great mortality in Ireland was owing to the govern-
ment haring acted upo a system of political economy, while
their predecessors had acted upon the principle of feeding the
people. That was not true, and he was at • loos to know upon
what facts the noble lord hex tided such a statement. The
qu rotary of food imported into Ireland by the prevent govern-
ment exceeded that imported last year by the late government.
He did not say this for the purpose of drawing any com-
parison between the conduct or exertions of the two govern-
ments, but merely to show how unjuot and impolitic it was
for the noble lord to make such a charge against the prwent
government unless lie was prepared to heck it by facts.
(Hear, hear.) There unfortunately existed in Ireland an
idea that the government ought to do much more then they
had the power to do. The noble lord's accusation, there-
fore, would go far to encourage that dangerous delusion. lie
(Mr. lAb ruchere) considered that they had done all that
was a Wan their power to mitigate the sufferings of the Irish
people. The noble lord seemed them of aacrificing the lives
of their fellow crettures on the shrine of political economy,
and it was only a few nights ago that anothr r hon. member
had accused them of a lavish and criminal waste of the public
money in an endeavour to sup* the people of Ireland with
the means of subsistence. Political economy did not teach
the minister dint unusual exertions were not to be resorted
to in an unusual state of things • hut it did teach
if those exertions were misdirected, the effect might be to
increase indeed of diminish the evil. The government had
shrunk from many niggestiona, sue* as attempting to supply
the whole country with food, because they were convinced
that such an attempt would lead eventually to • and greater
misfortune than they had now to contend &gained but that
did not justify the noble lord to make such • chine against
them without statiag a single fact in support of it. (Hear,
hear.)
Captain HARRIS thought it highly objectionable that
things should remain in their present state' and when the
people died in the manner which had been stated, them
ought at least to be a registry of their deaths. He would
suggest that the duty might devolve on the relief committees.
Nlr. F. SHAW suggested that it would be better if -hitt
noble friend left the matter to the government. The Clergy
in Ireland did not keep any registry of deaths, and the re.
turns obtained 'scold be imperfect. Perhaps the informa-
-1 tion required might bo obtained, and it had better be left to
the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the information could he
' obtained it should be laid before the house. He whhed to
say that, as reproaches had been cast on the government and
the legislature, both in that house and elsewhere, with re.
gard to the efforts which had been made to meet the distress
in Ireland, he should to-morrow, on the motion that the
Speaker do leave the chair, make a statement of what had
been done, what was now doing, and the reasons why he
thought it nesessery to provide out-door relief for the people
of Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCK said that be would be content with
the exertions promised to be made by the noble lord and
the right hon. get.tlentan to procure the information he
asked for. As it was mid by the right honourable
gentleman that he had brought forward no facts to
prove his ease, be mast, in answer to that challenge,
state that so far as the information provided by the govern-
ment went, the mortaiety in the present year was ninefold
what it was in the workhouses in Ireland last year. By the
returns it appeared that the average of the deaths in the
workhouses were 1,453 in a week as against 162 in the
corresponding period of last year, being an =creme of nine-
fold in the mortality. What was the amount of sustenance
stated by the right lion. gentleman to be sent by the govern
rent to Ireland in the last three weeks ? Why, 218,000
quarters of corn. In the year before last the apprehension
of famine in Ireland did not arise until October, but on the
22d August last year it was well known to the government
that the potcto crop had entirely failed, and they had three
months' earlier notice that famine would exist to an extent
far beyond that of last year, and the only provision they had
made for the last tbree weeks was 218,000 quarters of grain.
' The year before last, the governmentprorided 100,000 quar-
ters. thcogh they were =nod on to do no three months later,
and the famine war note° rztensire. He had thus shown what
he thought a complete case against the government for pot
haring provided food to meet the distress, and they should
lookto what had been done in France, and by the Emperor at
Russia to feed his subjects in Poland, as well as by the Em-
peror of Austria. Thom, two Emperors, in order to feed their
people, had brought into play alf their ammunition waggons
and their armies to 'sort to providing food, by which aeons
none of the subjects of Roods or Austria were permitted to •
perish by famine. Contrast that with what had ocetirred is
Ireland, where 240,000 persons had died, if not of famine, of
pestilence consequent on famine. Were not therm strong
facts to support the statement he had made? However,
after the assurances which had been wide by the
government, he would lease the subject of his Mo-
tion in their hands.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHECIT.;ER said the
' noble lord had introduced subjects in hielpeech foreign to
his motion, end had brought forward um facts to support
• them, but contented himself with asv rtions and asaump-
• tioos. The eseertion as to the number of deaths which had
occurred rested on no accurate feergiation, and was no doubt