The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTY.

Mr. GLADSTONE objected on general grounds to the
form of the resolution ; and with regard to the question
itself, he denied that it was a class question. The present
law was unfavourable to great and favourable to small ,
holders of real property, and it did not give to landed pro-
perty generally the advantages supposed. He disputed the
ground taken by Mr. Williams as to the large amount to be
gained by the revenue from the proposed alteration ; because
st should be remembered that all legacies, itc., chargeable
upon land, paid the duty, and that the land itself was ;
charged upon mortgages to about a fourth part of its value, ,
and paid the duty proportionately, thu. making the amount
paid by real property about seven-eighths of the entire
amount derived from that source. Then he argued that the '
tax could not be considered as an isolated tax, but must be
viewed in reference to the general system of taxation, and
particularly in relation to the Income-tax, which pressed
with great comparative weight upon real property. Ad-
mitting that the operation of the law was unsatisfactory in
many respects, he yet hoped the hon. member would eon- ,
eider the expediency of withdrawing his motion.
Mr. HUME said this was a most important question
and his hon. friend was quite right in bringing it forward.
It had been his lot to hear many Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer say that it was not convenient to bring forward
such questions as this, in this shape. But he thought the
time had come when it ought to be stated what was to be
done, with regard to these duties.
Mr. HENLEY said the right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) had truly stated the evidence before
the income tax committee, and he believed before
the committee of the House of Lords, that seven-six-
teenths of the existing duties were paid by land ; and if they
took that and the amount of stamps there was a targe pus
amount. But the right bon. gentleman had omitted one
very important element, and that was the land tax. He
did not know whether the right honourable gen-
tleman. remembered that some two millions • year
was paid by the land tax, and principally by the
Southern and Midland counties of England. hat WAS a
very important element to be considered. It was equal in
amount to the whole of the legacy and probate duties.
(" Nis.") The hon. gentleman said "No. , [Mr. Hume
was here understood to observe that a portion of it was re-
deemed.] Well, if it was redeemed, those who redeemed
it had paid hard cash for the redemption, and it was hardly
fair that another tax should be laid upon them immediately
afterwards. Putting the income-tax wholly aside, he be-
lieved that the land of this country paid in the three man-
ners he had stated what a great deal more than compensated
for the exemption from the probate and legacy duty.
Mr. BRIGHT said he rose merely for the sake of stating
one or two points which, it appeared to him, placed the pro-
bate and legacy dukx on personal property in a particu-
larly odious light with a large portion of the people of this
country. The right hon. gentlemen (Mr. Henley) said
they could sot go against the feelings of the people.
NQW, he believed if there was one thing more than
another in which the large majority of the people were
agreed, it was on this very point that t he taxes they were
discussing to-night were laid on in an unequal and uajuet
manner. Now he understood—for he was not in the whole
of the time—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fully
admitted that in the speech he had made, and he was not
the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who bad admitted
that. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli)
in a spuch he made on that side of the house, admitted
that thus tax was a very great wrong, and that a remedy
was required; and-more than that, he intimated that if he
had remained in office he would have dealt with this tax,
or have made it equal on all property. Now the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Henley) had got some singular notions on
this question. He seemed to think them was some-
thing in the stamp duties which was, in some degree, a ba-
lancing tax, but the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget al-
together that leasehold property was liable to this tax,
it being personal property, and was also liable to all the
stamp duties of every kind which freehold property paid.
Now, the great bulk of the property in this metropolis was
leasehold. Take the case of Bedford-square or Belgrave-
square, one the property of the Marquis of Westminster
and the other of the Duke of Bedford. At this moment
the property was leasehold. Mr. Cubitt, or some other
builder, had invested capital and built houses en it, and
they had leases. During the whole time that these leases
continued the house was liable to this tax. The leases con-
tinned, say for 99 years, and during that time that pro-
petty might pay two or three times over • probate and
legacy duty of from 1 to 10 per cent. But at the end of
the lease the whole property being vested in the Marquis
of Westminster or the Duke of Bedford, and he believed
that in Bedford-square the property was rapidly fall-
ing in, when all thu property, which had been paying
probate and legacy duty since 1797 fell into the possession
of the Duke of Bedford or the Marquis of Westminster, it
ceased to pay this tax at all. He begged the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who he believed wished the tenure of his office
to be useful to the country, not to be afraid of those hobgob-
line which hon. gentlemen opposite had raised, but that he
, would grapple with the question, and deal fairly with all
the taxpayers in the country.
- -

Mr. WILKINSON was boned to say he did not see any
good at the present moment in pressing this question. He
was afraid that at the time the tax wee imposed there was
an intention to favour landed property, as against personal
property, because they knew that the legislature of this
country then consisted of landowners. He should vote for
the motion.

Xr. W. WILLIAMS said he considered the speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer required an answer. He
(Kr. Gladstone) had displayed his vast fund of ingenuity,
and bad failed to overthrow the case made out that it was
unjust to impose a tax on one description of property alone.
lie bad referred to Mr. Trevor's evidence on the income
tax. Mr. Trevor said he believed that as nearly as possi-
ble nine-sixteenths of the real property of this country was
tinder settlement, and he came to the conclusion that the
other oevon-oistoontlrs paid the legacy and probate duties.
Miyake awe minotroes odd not have been tittered.
The bow dm divided—
A
Noyoses 17124-63

The motion was therefore lost.
THE SHIP
_NOVELL°.

On the gallery being opened, we found
Mr. MUNTZ moving for a select committee to inquire
into the petition of Mr. Bonacich, relating to the improper
seizurelof the Novell'', and to report how far he was en-
titled to compensation.
Captain SCOBELL seconded the motion.
Viscount PALMERSTON assured the house of his
anxiety to do justice to foreigners, but he thought it was
not expedient that the house should, without some very
strong presumptive grounds, take up claims which the go-
vernment had frequently and maturely considered. If
they were to do that the Rouse of Commons would have
little else to do from the beginning to the end of each ses-
sion than to appoint committees of inquiry. In the present
case, Mr. Bonacieh's claim had been most anxiously and
maturely investigated both at the Foreign-office and
the Treasury. The fact was, that he was
neither the owner of the cargo nor the ship.
The vessel belonged to two merchants at Venice,
and had been consigned to a merchant in this country.
When she arrived here she required, in Mr. Bonacich's
opinion, certain repairs, and he placed her in the hands of
a shipwright, named Hales. While she was undergoing
those repairs, an opinion was started that she was a French
privateer, and not the bona fide property of an Austrian.
She was therefore seised by the Admiralty pending the in-
vestigation of the fact ; and the statement proving to be
untrue, the detention was put an end to. Well, Mr. Bona-
eich was called upon to pay the shipwright for the repairs,
and, not having the moans. he was put into prison at the
snit of the shipwright, and not at all at the instance of the
government. He was, in fact, put in prison for debt.
After a certain time the vessel was sold—certainly to a great
disadvantage—(hear, hear)—and the proceeds were not
enough to satisfy the legitimate claims upon the
vessel. Bat Mr. Bonacich had no legal interest
in the matter. The owners might have some
claim for the loss they bad sustained ; but Mr. Bona-
cich had claimed in the quality of owner, and it was upon
that ground that he (the noble viscount) thought that he
had no claim in justice. It was perfectly true that Mr.
Bonacich might have been in great distress. Men gene-
rally altered in the course of so long a period as between
1801 and 1853, and therefore it was perfectly conceivable
, that the physical appearance of Mr. Bonscich might not be
so good now as it was at the time when he first came to
this country ; but the government did not make compensa-
tion for such a circumstance as that. (Laughter.) It was
• true also that Mr. Bonacich, who had placed himself in a
position of difficulty: by ordering, upon :his own
responsibility, repairs fur which he was unable to pay, had
r also placed himself in a situation of difficulty with regard to
a benefit society which had been established in this country
for the purpose of affording the means to claimants to pro-
secute thei, claims. (Murmurs.) He (the noble viscount)
• was informed, and he believed it to be true, that Mr.
Bonacich had received assistance to a considerable amount
r from those parties; and of course they were naturally
urgent for his claim to be admitted after the advances they
had made to him, in the full belief that he had large claims

upon the government ; but that was not any ground on
which the house could proceed. His (the noble viscount's)
objection to the motion lay in the fact that it had already
I been most carefully inquired into, and the decision come to
had been, that Mr. Bonatdch was not entitled to compensa-
tion, on the ground that be was not the owner of the vessel.
ord STANLEY said the noble viscount bad certainly
made a moat ingenious defence; but this was nevertheless seas*
in which • substantial injustice had been done. (Cheers.)
~No doubt the noble viscount was strictly accurate in saying
that Mr. nonacid% had been put in prison on account of a pri-
vate debt; but under what circumstances had that debt
been incurred ? It had been contracted in consequence of
the difficulty of the position in which he had been placed
in the improper seizure of his vessel. (Hear, bear.) lie
(Lord Stanley) did not say that the government was pri-
marily responsible; but still it was responsible in some
measure, and the longer the injustice bad been done, the
mere speedily and ample ought to be the redress. (Hear,
hear.) It having been his (the noble lord's) duty to inves-
tigate the subject while in office last year, he had come
to the conclusion that there was a fair prima facie case fur
inquiry. (Cheers.)
After some conversation,
Viscount PALMERSTON had performed what he consi-
dered his duty in laying before the house the reasons which
had led hint to think the claim unfounded ; but as it seemed
to be the general opinion that another inquiry should be
gone into—(hear, hear) —he should not oppose the appoint-
ment of the committee, especially as the noble lord, after
having had official cognisance of the facts, had come to a
different conclusion from that which he had himself arrived
at. The nob'e lord, however, had not explained why he
did not himself afford the redress asked for.

The resolution was then agreed to.
GRIEVANCES OF THE LETTER-CARRIERS.

Mr. T. DI.INCOMBE, in presenting a number of peti-
tions, bron4ht under the consideration of the house the
grievances of the letter-carriers of the United Kingdom ;
pointing out the principal hardships of which they com-
plained, viz., hard and increasing work; miserable wages
(aggravated by the practical abolition of Christmas boxes) ;
the absence of superannuation allowance (in the case of pro-
vincial carrien) ; and inequality and absence of sysnm in
all the arrangements. He moved that their complaints
were well-founded, and worthy of attention.
Mr. WILSON said that most of the grievances complained
of were under the consideration of the Postmaster-General,
who was most anxious to improve the condition of a useful
and respectable clan of men. With regard to inequality in
the rate of wages, &c., he raid there would indeed be in-
equality were a uniform rate adopted throughout the king-
dom without reference to the various rates of wages in
different districts ; and the amount of population would be
altogether fallacious as a test of the amount of labour de-
manded. As for the amount of salaries, it was altogether a
question of finance.
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Duncan, and Col. Sibthorp supported
the claims of the letter carriers ; and Mr. buncombe begged
to withdraw his motion.
_

The satisfaction expressed at the announcement of Mr.
Winsox here drew from that hon. gentleman an explana-
tion that he had not promised a revision of the entire sys-
tem of employment at the Post-office.
Mr. V. SCULLY drew attention to the hardships of the
letter carriers iu Ireland ; to which
Mr. M'GUIRE added some illustrative information.
S.me sarcastic allusions to " cheese-paring " on the part
of the last-mentioned hon. gentleman brought up
Mr. HUME, who deprecated interference with the exe-
cutive of the government.
After some further conversation, the motion was with-
drawn.