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

]SDAY EVENING, MARCH 2, 1853.

the, East Riding of Yorkshire, against the admission of
Jews into Parliament.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS presented a petitionfrom Surrey,
in favour of the separation of Church and State.
IVlr. MULLINGS presented a petition from a body of
London solicitors against the Examiners of Chancery
Bill.

in a bill in the House of'Lords to suspend its operation,
in order, as he said, "That their lordships might have
an ppportunity of preventing that injustice which must
ensile if one sort of property was to be taxed and land
wai not." This bill was rejected, and he entered a pro-
test in the Lords' journal, condemning in strong terms
the injustice of taxing personal property and wholly to
exempt real property. In 1804, 1805, and 1815 acts
were passed to extend the area of these taxes, and from
ISIIS they had continued the same to the present time.
In the act of 1805, legacies left by will, chargeable on
land, and also the proceeds of sales of land directed by
will to be sold, were both made subject to the legacy
ointy, but not to probate duty. The following were
some of the partial and unjust provisions of the acts im-
posing these taxes :—Leases on hand for a term of years
including outlay for improvements, must be valued, and
both probate and legacy duty paid on the full valuation,
whitle leases of land for lives, and the land itself, pay
nothing. Houses built on building leases pay both
duties on their full value, but the ground landlords pay
no duty, neither are those taxes paid on the value of
the same houses when they fall into the landlords hands
after .the expiration of the leases. Houses built by
landlords on their own land are exempted from paying
both of these taxes. Lands sold on a lease of one thou-
sand years for a peppercorn rent, although as good as
freeholds, pay both duties on the full value. This is ac-
couißted for by the estates of the aristocracy not being
held by this tenure. If a landed estate is left to a
perrn which is charged with mortgage or other debt,
and along with it funded or any other personal property,
he can apply the latter to pay the debts on the landed
estate without paying upon it either of the duties ; the
value Of a farmer's lease, including outlay on improve-
ments, of his stock, crops, implements of husbandry,
furniture, and even wearing apparel, must pay both
probate and legacy duty, while the owner of the land
pays nothing. Probate duty must be paid on the full
value of an insolvent estate, and the whole amount is
not returned. Property left by a husband to a wife, or
a wife to a husband, pays neither of the duties. Per-
sonal property of every kind of the value of 201. and up-
wards pays both duties. Numerous means were re-
sorted to of evading the probate and legacy duties, and
the practice was carried to a vast extent. For instance,
persons possessing large landed property saved large
sums of money for their younger children, which to
avoid these duties they gave to them in their life-
time. The late Lord Stowell, the judge of the Ad-
miralty Court and Consistory Court of the Bishop of
London, where wills are proved, in order to save pay-
ing these duties under his will, transferred large sums
in the public funds to his son, whom he required to
,give him (Lord Stowell) a power of attorney to receive
the dividends, which he did during his lifetime ; the son
died a short time before him, and a Chancery suit was
instituted to ascertain to which of the two the property
belonged, so that the learned judge was after all taken
in. Property given by deed of gift was, after death or
by deed of' settlement, exempted from the duties. In
the case of funded or other property registered in joint
names, the survivor took possession of the whole with-
out paying any duty. Mr. Porter in his work "The
Progress of the Nation" stated that less than three- '
tenths of heads of families who die annually leave pro-
perty subjected to these duties. The probate duty, like
our whole system of taxation, threw its heaviest burden
•on the poorest classes. A legacy of 201. paid 24 per
cent. probate duty, but the duty was reduced in amount
as the value of the bequest rose. It was 14 per cent. on
1,0001., and would be only I per cent, on 1,000,000/. ;
abova that amount no duty was charged. On letters of
administration taken out when there was no will, the
probate duty was 50 per cent. more. As a proof of its
pressure on the poorer classes, he might mention that in
1848 there were 26,463 letters of administration and
wills proved, the value of the property left by 17,602
persons being from 201. to 2501. The aristocracy and
landowners justified their exemption from paying those
taxes, on the pretence that the conveyance of land sold
was excluisivlly burdened with heavy stamp duties.
But in fact the conveyance of land sold paid precisely
the same stamp duty as the conveyance or transfer of
shares or stock sold in railways, canals, docks, joint-
stock banks, insurance companies, gas works, mining
companies, harbours, water companies, and all other
joint-stock companies, and the bonds of corporations,
except the stocks of the Banks of England and Ireland,
and'of the East India Company, which paid only 30s.
for the transfer of all amounts, however large or small.
All the shares he had enumerated, except the last, paid
the duties of from 21 to 11 per cent. on probates, and
from Ito 10 per cent. on legacies. Mr. Porter, who
for many years was head of the statistical department of
the Board of Trade, and who was afterwards pronloted
to the secretaryship of that board, said work,
" The Progress of the jsTAtion" :—" The FA* and
legacy duties are accompanAlipby the advantait4-hick
generally attends direct taxation, that a much larger
part of their produce than taxes indirectly collected finds
its way into the public treasury ; they are also free from
the evil effects commonly ascribed to direct taxation

Mr. SMYTH presented a petition from the letter•
carriers of York; praying for the redress of their griev,
antes.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition in favour o
the London University returning members to Parlia
ment.

Mr. MILES presented a petition from Cumberland
against the admission of Jews int* Parliament ; also a
petition against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
letter-carriers of Bridgnorth, complaining of the order of
the Postmaster-General abolishing Christmas bo:zes.'
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Montrose in
favour of the extention of the county court system to
Scotland ; also a petition against the taxes on know-
ledge..
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Birmingham
in favour of an ocean penny postage.
PILOTAGE.
Viscount GODERICII wished to ask the President
of the Board of Trade whether he was able to give an as-
surance that he would bring, forward the measure relating
to pilotage, of which he had given notice, on Monday
next ?

Mr. CARDWELL said he had consulted with his
noble friend the member for the City of London, and he
had no doubt that he should be able to make his state-
ion. right
ment on Monday next.
• < THE GUARDS,
Ccroeltaonryel
at
tIWNDSar
if LINDSAY
waswished
true
wt o
takt
e the
hon,
member the
for Montrose stated last night, namely, that there had
been no reduction made in the emoluments of the colonel
of the Grenadier Guards, as recommended by the com-
mittee of 1835 ?
Mr. S. HERBERT was glad to have an opportunity
of setting this question right. He apprehended that the
hon, member for Montrose had not been correctly re-
ported in the newspapers, as the hon. member did
not state that no reduction had been made in the emolu-
ments, but that the recommendation •f the committee
'of 1835, that the office of Colonel in the Guards should
only be conferred upon veterans in the army. Now,
first of all, with regard to the recommendation of the
committee in reference to the reduction of the emolu-
ments, it had been strictly carried out, and the pay of the
Senior Colonel in the Grenadier Guards had been reduced
from 4,000/, a-year to 3,0001., while that of the two junior
colonels had been reduced from 3,0001. to 2,0001. With
regard to the recommendation which the hon. member
for Montrose referred to, he begged to state that he had
looked over the report and proceedings of the committee,
and that he could find no such recommendation
recorded, nor could it well have been made, for it
had been the practice, from time immemorial, to give
the colonelcies of these regiments to such members of the
royal family as were capable of holding important mili-
tary offices. Up to 1835, of the ten colonels who held
the office in question, only four were not members of
the royal family, and of that four the Duke of Welling-
ton, who of course was an exception to all rale, was one.
Now, Prince Albert at the time of the death of the Duke
of Wellington, was the senior colonel in the Guards, and
it was in the natural course of regimental promo-
tion, that he succeeded to the colonelcy of the Grenadier
Guards, and the Duke of Cambridge to the Fusi-
lier Guards. He might also be allowed to add,
that while Prince Albert held the appointment
of colonel of the Fusilier Guards he never drew the full
amount of his pay of 2,0001. a year, but devoted a por-
tion of it to increasing the comforts and improving the
condition of the men. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME having been on the committee
remembered distinctly that it was the wish of
the 'committee that the three colonelcies of the
Guards should always be conferred as a sort of hono-
rary distinction upon veteransk in the army. A recom-
mendation to that effect was proposed by a member of
the committee who was connected with the navy, and if
it was not embodied in the report of the committee,
he was sure the right honourable member for Coventry,
who was then Secretary at War, would bear him
out when he stated that the Government of the day were
favourable to carrying out the wishes of the committee
on this subject. He had no wish to throw any reflec-
tion on Prince Albert, or the Duke of Cambridge ; on the
contrary, he thought both had done honour and credit
to the station which they filled ; but he had a
right to blame the Government of the day for neglect-
ing to see that the recommendation of the committee was
carried out.

Mr. HERBERT said it might have been the intention
of the committee that these offices should be kept
for veterans in the army ; but their report made no
mention whatever of any such intention.
FOREIGN REFUGEES. _ _

Lord D. STUART said he wished to ask the Go-
vernment a question of some importance. It was cur-
rently rumoured that demands had been addressed by
certain foreign powers to the Government of this
country for the removal or expulsion of certain, political
refugees who had found an asylum in England.
Now, he wished to ask the Government if there was any
foundation for those rumours, and if there was, what
course they intended to pursue ? (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said—Sir, In answer to my
noble friend's question, of whether any application has
been made by foreign powers to her Majesty's Govern-
ment for the expulsion of any foreign refugees now in
the United Kingdom, I have to state that no such ap-
.

.._ • _
plication has been made. (Hear, hear.) In reply tS
the other question, of what course the Government

would pursue in the event of such an application being
made, I have only to repeat what has been stated on a

former occasion in this house, that any such application
would be met with a firm and decided refusal.
(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) It is indeed obvious that

that must be so, because such a measure could not be taken
by the Government of this country without fresh powers.
being conferred upon them by act of Parliament ; and I
apprehend that no Government, even if they were in-
clined to do so, could apply to this house
for such powers with any chance of success—
(loud cheers)—inasmuch as no Alien Bill, passed within
the present century, ever gave the Government
power to expel foreigners from the kingdom except with
reference to considerations connected with the internal
safety of the country. The British Government has
never undertaken to provide for the internal safety of
other countries, and it is sufficient that Parliament should
give the Government measures for our own internal
security without meddling with that of other countries.
(Hear.) But I cannot confins my answer to this simple
statement. I must ask to be allowed to add that, while
on the one hand British laws and the spirit of the British
Constitution.give to foreigners of all political opinions
'and all categories a secure and peaceful shelter within
this country, I think, on the other hand, that those
foreigners who avail themselves of the hospitality of
England are bound in every principle of honour—
(loud cheers) —as well as by a regard not
only to international law, but also the law
of the land, to abstain from entering into any intrigues
or pursuing any courses intended for the purpose of
giving umbrage to foreign Governments, or of disturb-
ing the internal tranquillity of foreign countries. (Cheers.)
In reply to Mr. SCHOLEFIELD,
Mr. FITZROY said a fourth portion of the census of
1851 would shortly be published, and laid before the
house. The delay that had taken place was owing to
300 pages of the work been accidentally burnt at the
printers.

DICKENS'S " HOUSEHOLD WORDS."
In reply to Mr. COLLIER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the report of the law officers of the Crown on the pre-
sent state of the law affecting newspapers, had not yet
been received by the Government.
PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTIES.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS, in rising to bring before the •
house the subject of the extension of the probate and
legacy duties to real property, said he had given notice
before Christmas of a motion to this effect, with the view
of thus making up the -deficiency in the revenue antici-
pated as likely to result from the reductions announced
by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. In deference
to the generally expressed wishes of the house, he had
withdrawn that motion. It had long been one of the
most crying grievances of our system of taxation--that
real property was exempted from those probate and
legacy duties which were levied on every description of
personal property. The act which imposed the probate
and legacy duties was passed in 1796. Mr. "Pitt, ap-
prehending successful opposition from members of both
houses of Parliament to subject their estates to those
taxes, brought in two bills —one to subject personal pro-
perty to pay them, and the other to impose the same
duties on real property. On the introduction of the
first bill, Mr. Fox objected to the separation into two
bills. He said "There was a great deal of force in the
objection about not bringing forward the other bill with
regard to the tax on landed property. He saw no good
reason why they should be separated, but many why
they should be kept together." Mr. Pitt agreed " that
the principle on which the two bills was founded was
much the same, and if this bill passed it would be very
desirable that the principle should be extended to real
property." The bill passed—only 16 voted against it.
It passed the Lords without opposition, and soon re-
ceived the royal assent. That bill having been secured,
the other bill was proceeded with, to impose the same
duties on real property, on which occasion Mr. Pitt
said, "That the principle of the bill having been already
recognised in the personal succession tax, and also on
the duties formerly existing upon legacies, it never could
be paid with reluctance, because persons would feel
little or no hardship in paying a tax out of that property
which they did not expect to enjoy." The bill passed
with little opposition to the third reading—a motion
made by Mr. Pitt that it be now read a third time was
. lost by a majority of two. He..then moved that it be
read a third time next morning, when the numbers for
and against were equal. The Speaker gave his casting
vote for the motion, but Mr. Pitt, seeing no chance of
passing it through either house withdrew it. The other
bill having already become law, Lord Lauderdale brought

that it engenders irritation, and is regarded as a greater: deavouring to point out to the house the practical incon-
burden than the payment of duties to a greater amount venience that attends this method of procedure. lam
on consumable commodities. The probate and legacy convinced that the motives of the hon. gentleman in bring-
duties are in truth not felt as a tax ; objections to them ing forward this motion are perfectly fair and just. We
as levied in this country might be brought forward, viz., are not disposed, either on this or on the other side of
the partiality Shown in excluding from their operation the house, to contend for exclusive privileges in taxation
that description of property which from its greater corn- of one kind or the other. Such a privilege needs only to
parative value and security is called real property. be named to meet with universal reprobation. The neces-
This partiality has always been felt as a grievance, sary defects of human legislation in these matters render it
and' the sense of injustice which it is calculated to impossible to attain in practice perfect equality in taxa-
awaken
is of more moment than any temporary irritation tion, but it is now universally admitted that that is the
that may accompany any demand for money taxes." object to which your legislation should be directed. But
This was a most important statement, considering the then I must represent—and I think that I may &sk the
authority of the person by whom it was made. In the assent of the hon. member to this proposition— that that
year 1851 the amount of property which paid the legacy perfect equality must of necessity be the result, not of
duty was 51,837,0001., and the amount of the duty was one of your taxes only, but of your entire system of taxa-
-1,315,3801., the rate varying according to the degrees of tion. It ie.impossible to lay on any one tax which shall
consanguinity from Ito 6 per cent.; and, in fact, being operate with entire equality. You must consider each
10 per cent. when no relationship existed between the part of your system of taxation with reference to every
testator and the legatee. The average rate was more other vital and essential part of it, and must strive to
than 21 per cent. In the same year the amount of the attain a great general result which will fulfil the great
probate duty was 1,063,4001., the rate varying from 24 ends of justice by laying the burdens of the public taxation
per cent. on 201. to 11 per cent, on large sums up to one equally on men's shoulders according to their strength ;
million, all above that sum paying nothing. In some and that is the principle I shall endeavour to apply to
cases legacy duty only, and in others probate duty only the consideration of this and of every other similar sub-
was paid; and as there was no official return of the gross ject. I must say in the first instance that Ide not
amount on which the probate duty was paid in 1851, he think the statement of the hon. gentleman is as accurate
had taken it as the same as that •on which the legacy as a general fact when he represents the question—the
duty was paid. The average duty paid on this was more important and difficult question before the house—as
than 2 per cent., making the average rate of the legacy being a class question or a question of class interests.
and probate duties together more than 41 per cent. In He spoke at one time of the exemption that " the great "
the year ending April 5, 1851, the rental of real pro- had secured for themselves as against " the small." Now,
perty on which the income tax was paid in England, it appears to me that that is a distinction eminently in
Wales, and Scotland, was, of land 47,800,0001.; of mes- contradiction to the actual state of the case. If he means
suages,. 43,000,0001. ; of manors, mines, quarries, and to speak of the great owners of real property as against
tithes belonging to lay impropriators, 4,430,0001. ; the small
making together 95,230,000/. Taking the same descrip- Mr. WILLIAMS : No, no, the owners of real as
tions of property in Ireland at 12,500,0001., they amount against personal property.
together to 107,730,0001. As no income tax was paid The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : The
p
on incomes of less than 1501. a year, the' amount of the present state of the law as amongst the different holders
rental in Great Britain did not include land, houses, of real property is unfavourable to the great and emi-
mines, manors, quarries, and lay tithes of less value than nently favourable to the small owners ; because it is
1501. a year, except in cases where other property corn- generally proved that the land of the country is under
bined to make up an income of that sum. If this enor- settlement, and in the process of putting it under settle-
mous amount of real property was made to pay the pro- ment it has undergone considerable changes, and that
bate and legacy duties, it would produce the following portion of the land which is not under settlement, and
amount, taking the annual rental of Great Britain at 25 which is a small proportion of the whole, is, with the
years' purchase, and the average duration of the lives in exceptions usually to be found, the land which is held
possession of that property at 22 years, and the rental by small proprietors. (Hear, hear.) The honourable
of Ireland at 15 years' purchase, and the average dura- gentleman will-say that this is a question between the
tion of lives while in possession at 22 years, this would landed class and the owners of personal property .; but
give us the amount on which these taxes would be paid that would be very far from heir)... an accurate represen-
annually, 116,738,0001., which at 41 per cent. (the aver- tation, for this is indubitable, that,b whether the exemp-
age amount of the taxes), would amount to 5,253,0001. , tions now enjoyed be just or unjust, politic or impolitic,
From this a deduction should be made of the amount of they are exemptions that it is in the power of every man
real property which now pays those duties. This, Mr. holding personal-property to secure to himself just as
Trevor, the comptroller of legacy duty, estimates at much as it is in the power of the owner of real property
500,0001., being two-fifths of the whole amount of the to do so. (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to prove that
legacy duty; but Mr. Pressly, commissioner of stamps I by. any elaborate argument, but merely by a statement
and' taxes, estimates it at less than 400,0001., in refer- 1
that lies upon the surface of the case, namely this, that,
ence to which he said:—"l have endeavoured to arrive at considering the mode in which land is usually dealt with
something like a calculation, but it is very unsatisfac- and the mode in which the great bulk of the land escapes
tory." Against this deduction again should be placed the the payment of legacy duty as under settlements, it is as
, value of land, houses, mines, manors, quarries, and lay I much in the power of an owner of personal property to
impropriator tithes under 1501. a year, which are not i put his property under settlement as it is in the power
included in the income tax returns. The amount under of the landowner. (Hear, hear.) And personal pro-
-1501. a-year in schedule Ais 9,940,0001., of which 11 per I perty in this country does go very extensively under
cent. is personal property, leaving of real property settlement. I have been making inquiries to see the
8,847,0001., which, at 25 years' purchase and 22 years' extent to which funded property is placed under settle-
duration olife in possession, gives 452, 400/„ a medium ment, and it is impossible to attain anything like per-
between the estimates of Mr. Trevor and Mr. Pressly. feet accuracy in the calculation, but I will venture to
If the probate and legacy duties had been imposed on I say that a considerable portion of the entire funded
real property in 1796, and had been allowed to accumu- j property is under settlement at this moment. (Hear,
late with interest and compound interest to this time, hear.) The difference between the settlement of
they would have paid off the greater portion of the na- landed and personal property is this—the settlement
tional debt. The injustice of these taxes did not escape of landed property is always made with perfect bond
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), who fides—it is made in reference to family arrangements--
in his speech on the budget said, "We have not neglected it is commonly made in the early part ,of the life of the
carefully to examine the question of the probate duties, actual possessor of the property, with reference to the
and we think it not impossible to bring forward on the contingency of his death, which is not likely to take
right occasion a duty on successions that will reconcile place for many years. (Hear, hear.) Many settlements
the system of injustice now so much complained of." of personal property correspond essentially with this
That was the legacy which he had left to the present
nexpeiteosal of d.
the
b
settlement of landed property ; but there are settlements
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he did not carry out of personal property, such as by deeds of gift, that do
faithfully these principles, the nation would triumphantly
not correspond with this settlement of landed property
hear.) Deeds of
and are
atTl of the
bring the right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Dis-
raeli) back to power, for they never would allow the
continuance of the gross injustice at present perpetrated patartie all.s in (Hear,
trustear,
to
ha
reserve the proceeds
property to the absolute and unrestricted disposal
by these taxes. He could refer to many instances of person who constitutes the trust, and with power
re-
large landed estates which had been bequeathed by land- yoking the trust whenever he pleases, with no ob of
owners, in order to show the amount which would
have to publish the trust, so that it is in the ligation
been realised to the nation had real property been charg- man, by writing certain things down on power of any
able to these duties. He would, however, only mention which he keeps in his drawer, and m a sheet of paper
one instance. Lord Rolle, not long since, left to a rela- body, to execute one of those volu akes known to no-
tion of his wife an estate worth 40,0001. a-year ; the deed of gift by which he carries his
settlements by
value of that estate, at 25 years' purchase, would be beyond the rule of the le ac his personal property
1,000,0001., upon hich the legacy duty would have Mr. WILLIAMS—That's
or probate duty.
been 100,0001., and the probate duty 15,0001., if real The CHANCELLOR 8 part of my complaint.
property had been subjected to these taxes. .
If a labourer of the EXCHEQI:IIR—I do
not describe this rad'
onthis estate, by frugal savings, had left behind him P Ice to justify it, but for a most
important purpose,
property of the value of 201., including his scanty furni- that thisgreat, namely, for the purpose of showing
ture, and even his smock-frock, it would have been corn- tion is not and momentous, and very difficult ques-
pelled to pay both probate and legacy duty, even if left because
..a class question in the way it is supposed,
to a brother or sister, And this was in England—in a vanes it does not give the landed property those
ad-
Christian country, where it was said that we acted on ass.commonly
ges over personal property which are too
the
the principle or doing to others as we would be done by, igned to it as conferring in the present state int_
He entertained the highest opinion both of the abilities law. (Hear, hear.) The bad state of the law I
ncede—
and the moral qualities of the present Chancellor of the 1 the absurd state of the law I am willing to co
Exchequer, and doing so, he implored him to take this I each in due time will be remedied—but the law has not
feature about it, namely,
subject into careful consideration, and to remove from 1 that most odious and aggravated
b the class of landed
the landed interest the stigma of screening themselves 1 that those laws are laws passesdec y
of "ng to themselves ex-
from the payment of taxes which they imposed upon 1 proprietors for the purpose
•the commercial classes and the
others. He had, indeed, great confidence that the•right elusive privileges, which .
(Hear hear.) Having
holders of money do not enjoy. r.