The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

COUNTY COURTS.

BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY.
' The Earl of MALMESBURY presented a petition
from Christchurch, for the revision of the poor laws,
complaining of undue burdens on real property, and
praying for an alteration in the law of settlement. He
did not think that any subject discussed of late years
surpassed this in importance, especially at a period when
all statesmen seemed occupied with the laudable endea-
vour to adjust our taxation, and make the pressure as
equable as possible on all classes. The parish from
which this petition proceeded was a large one, and the
petitioners had in reality to pay another income tax on
their real property, because they had to pay a poundage
on the rental they derived from their property. That
income tax varied from 10 to 15 per cent. on the annual
value of the property ; in some parishes it had been as
much as 80 per cent. It should be remembered that real
property paid five millions a year for the maintenance of
the poor, and paid it in a most anomalous manner, some
parishes being taxed 80 per cent., and others only one
per cent. While a millionaire paid nothing on his
funded property, a man with a small cabbage garden
was compelled to pay from 10 to 80 per eel-li. on his
patch of land. The subject had been discussed in both
houses with great ability, and in 1850 a committee of
their lordships' house had been appointed. He took an
active part in that committee on behalf of real property ;
another noble lord had defended as ably what he con-
sidered the rights of personal property; the noble baron
opposite (Lord Overstone) might be considered to have
been the representative of the auriferous interest. (A
laugh.) He wished to ask the noble lord at the head of
the Government whether it was his intention to bring
forward any measure this sesion to reform the present
poor-law, or the law affecting the removal of paupers!;
and further, if the proposed succession duties on real
property should become the law of the land, he intended
to relieve real property from any portion of the burden
of about five millions, which it now exclusively paid for
the support of the poor ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN was understood to say that
it was not intended to transfer any burdens from per-
sonal to real property. In answer to the question of
the noble lord, he had to state that the business before
the other House of Parliament was such that it would

not be possible to bring forward a measure of this exten-
sive and important description with any reasonable hope
of carrying it this session. And if such a measure were
introduced and laid on the table, without a reasonable
hope of its being carried, it would be attended with very
mischievous effects on the country, with respect to the
duties to be imposed on successions, he would recom-
mend the noble earl first to understand the subject a
little better, and in order to do so, to wait till he saw
the resolutions. To say that poor-rate to the amount of
five millions was paid by real property was a mere fiction
of the noble lord's imagination ; perhaps one-fourth of
that would be nearer the truth. (Hear, hear.) It was
impossible for him to give any further answer to the
noble earl's question.
Lord OVERSTONE said that no subject could exceed
this, either in importance or in delicacy. He could wish
that the noble lord who presided over the committee of
1850 had been present to defend its proceedings and to
justify its report. He had taken some part in that com-
mittee, and had opposed some of the views of the noble
ear:

But the question was one of great delicacy, be-
cause it involved the most difficult of all questions—the
adjustment and equilibrium of taxation. A desire had

been expressed in some quarters to assess moveable pro-
perty, and to render it contributory to the poor rates ;
but the evidence taken before that committee showed

the great necessity of moving with circumspection,
for it was pre-eminently a question in which it might be
said—

Fools rush In where angels fear to tread.

(Hear, hear.) The more the ultimate consequences of
such theories were traced out, the more mischievous
would they be found to be.

The Earl of DERBY said he could not help thinking
that there was some confusion in the mind of the noble
lord between real and landed property. If the noble
lord meant to refer to the rates levied only upon land,
he quite concurred in his statement ; but he was quite
in error in saying that a very large portion of the rates
did not fall upon real but upon personal property.
Lord OVERSTONE did not say personal property.
The Earl of DERBY—But the noble lord said that a
large portion did not fall upon real property, and he
(Lord Derby) did not know any distinction except be-
tween real and personal property ; so that if a large
portion did not fall upon real property it must fall upon
personal property.
Lord 0 VERSTONE explained that what he had said
was that a large portion of the poor rate fell upon what
could hardly be called real property, by which lie meant
landed property, but upon houses and places of business.
The Earl of DERBY said that the discussion had not
arisen at all upon the distinction between landed and
other property, but upon real and personal property. it
arose out of the proposition which they understood had
been submitted to Parliament, by which a new and a
very heavy tax would be imposed upon successions to
real property—property which was now exempt from
the legacy duty, but upon which burdens of a dispro-
portionate amount had been laid for other purposes.
After a few remarks from several noble lords, the
subject then dropped.
THE CLITHEROE ELECTION CASE.

Lord BEAUMONT drew the attention of the house to
the fact that the house had sent no answer to the appli-
cation of the other house to concur in a joint address
to the Crown, praying her Majesty to appoint a com-
mission to inquire into the state of this borough. As
the case might arise over and over again, it was
highly desirable that the house should adopt some
definite course which might serve as a precedent.
If no one else made the motion it was the business of
the Government to see that some answer should be re-
turned to the House of Commons.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said he was very glad the
noble lord had brought this subject before the house, as
he thought it was proper the house should come to a
decision upon it. Some time ago a noble and learned
lord asked him what was his intention with regard to
this address, and he told him in answer that although he
had moved that their lordships should agree with other
similar addresses which had been sent up from the House
of Commons, it was not his intention to make any such
motion with regard to this address ; but that of course
it was competent for any other noble lord who thought
proper to make such a motion. If he recollected aright
his noble and learned friend gave some sort of intima-
tion of such an intention, but he supposed he must have
been mistaken. At all events it was competent for him
or any other noble lord to make the motion, and that
not having been done, he concluded that it was not the
wish or intention of any noble lord to take such a step,
and he, therefore, felt it incumbent on him to propose a
course for their lordships to adopt with reference to this
matter. Assuming, as he did, that their lordships were
disposed to agree in not adopting the address of the
House of Commons, it was necessary to consider what
was the proper and suitable course to take. The best
course to take, he thought, would be to move that the
address be taken into consideration that day six mouths.

Lord ST. LEONARDS made some observations
which did not reach the gallery, as to the jurisdiction of
the county courts in bankruptcy, and in reference to the
commission which was to be appointed on the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his earnest atten-
tion should be given to the subject during the recess.
Lord CAMPBELL expressed his satisfaction at that
statement of the noble and learned lord.
Lord BROUGHAM was glad to hear that the Go-
vernment intended to issue a commission, and he hoped
the subject would be fully and satisfactorily considered.
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
The Exchequer Bills Bill, after a few observations
from Lord ST. LEONARDS, was read a second time, and
the standing orders having been suspended, it was read
a third time and passed.
COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS (SCOTLAND)
BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
CHIMNEY SWEEPERS' REGULATION BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of CLANCARTY ',Tasted the house would
not be precipitate in passing the bill. He thought that
some inquiry should be instituted to ascertain, before
the bill became law, whether it would not give rise to
some inconvenience and hardship.
The Earl of WICKLOW also opposed the bill, which
he thought, if passed, would only encumber the statute
book. He moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he had brought
in the bill far the purpose of extending the pro-
visions of the act, which now only applied
to the metropolis, to the country generally. He
also proposed, in order to prevent the evasions to
which that act now gave rise, to include under its pro-
visions young persons under 16 years of age, who assisted
chimney sweepers, as well as apprentices. The present
bill was so simple that he did not art-lcipate any opposi-
tion would be offered to it, and he had not come forti-
fied with papers to show its absolute necessity, but he as-
sured their lordships that they could form no notion of the
physical and moral evils which were now inflicted on a
numerous and helpless class of the community in conse-
quence of the existing state of the law.
Lord ST. LEONARDS supported the bill.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was
read a second time.