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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 2, 1853.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a place
in Glamorganshire, praying for the Extension of County
Courts ; also, petitions from the Portsmouth and Nor-
wood Literary Institutions, praying for the distribution
of Parliamentary papers.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented several petitions
from different places in Scotland, against the Maynooth
grant.
In answer to the Bishop of MANCHESTIR,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that it was not the
intention of her Majesty's Government to make any
alterationi n the system by which convicts were now sent
to Bermuda and Gibraltar. He was happy, however, to
inform the right rev. prelate that the convicts at those
places would be rapidly placed on the same footing as
those who were confined in prisons. New prisons were
being built for their reception, which were lighted
and ventilated on the new system, and where they would
be under better supervision than in the hulks.
In answer to Lord CAMPBELL,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that it was not at
present convenient to say what were the intentions of
her Majesty's Government with reference to the aboli-
tion of transportation as a secondary punishment, be-
cause there must be a great alteration in the system of
secondary punishments and the prison accommodation
before the Government could come to a final opinion on
the subject. It was his own conviction, however, that
before long it would be necessary, for the good of our
colonies, to bring the punishment of transportation to a
close. _ _

Lord CAMPBELL said he hoped that transporta-
tion would not be abolished, because, as a judge, he
believed that if he sentenced a man to imprisonment for
life—it would not produce the same effeet-asif hs sen-
tenced him to transportation for life.
After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that if the question of
transportation would be discussed he hoped it would be
in the shape of 'a bill, and he hoped that they would not
only consider the abolition of transportation, but also
the means of supplying its place, in order that we might
not increase the social evil which we sought to remedy.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM and Lord
WHARNCLIFFE,
The subject then dropped.
The Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The Bail in Error Bill passed through committee.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY then rose to move for
certain returns, respecting railway accidents that had
occurred during the year 1852, and said he wished to
take, the opportunity of drawing the attention of their
lordships and of her Majesty's Government to this sub-
ject, which had lately created considerable interest in the
public mind. A strong feeling existed, in which he par-
ticipated, that these accidents had lately considerably
increased, and were still increasing. He believed that
during the last year a greater number of railway acci-
dentshad occurred, and that more lives had been sacri-
ficed in consequence of those accidents, than at any
former period. Scarcely a week had passed in which
the public prints had not contained some lamentable ac-
count of mutilation or death. A strong impression
existed in the public mind that the manner in which
railways were managed was extremely dangerous to pas-
sengers, and that sufficient endeavours were not made
to prevent the occurrence of accidents ; and it'was con-
sidered desirable that a third power should be interposed
between the railway companies and the public, to pro-
tect on the one hand capital and industry as it ought to
be protected in a commercial country, and on the other
hand to protect the lives of her Majesty's subjects from
such injuries as might with due precaution be guarded
against. Travellers were not now on the same footing
as they were sixty years ago. Formerly, persons tra-
velling from Edinburgh to London took the precaution
of making their wills, the journey occupying something
like a fortnight. But things were now altogether
changed, and fromthe slowest point of travelling we bad
arrived at the most rapid, and persons now starting on
a railway journey thought it necessary to insure their
lives. There was something ridiculously tragical in
the appearance of many of the railway offices by the
side of the time bills were to be seen notices posted,
with the most ingenious candour on the part of the
directors—notices in the most seductive terms, advising
the traveller to insure his life, showing him that it was
his duty to do so, in justice to his wife and children ;
and many persons were induced to do so under the im-
pression that they might never see their friends again,
and that if their friends should happen to see them they
might not be able to recognise them in a shapeless mass.,
To show the extent to which insurances of this kind
were incurred he was informed by credible witnesses
that the railway insurance companies had received some-
thing like seven per cent. as a dividend. The public
were clearly at the mercy of the railway companies.
Formerly the coach proprietor and the innkeeper stood
hat in hand before the public, but now the public were
obliged to stand hat in hand before railway directors.
The subject of railway travelling was one which ought
to engage the attention of the Government, and some
effort ought to be made to tranquillise the public mind.
Some time ago he was requested to make a representa-
tion to the directors. They confessed the annoyance ;
acknowledged that there could be no reason for having
only three trains to London and four down trains ; they
also admitted the cruelty of detaining these poor people
at Southampton, and the injustice of having taken away
the day communication by post, but promised that the
matter would be remedied in March. Sic vole, sic jubeo.
The station-masters admitted that the evil arose from
nothing but the want of a little management. He urged
on the Government the necessity of considering whether
they could not apply some remedy without infringing
on the rights of the companies or the rights of property;
and felt quite certain they could not do a more pepular
thing than to institute an investigation into those evils
of which the public had so much right to complain.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord VIVIAN wished to ask whether the Govern-
ment could not interfere and stop the traffic on a line in
the event of its being in a dangerous condition ?
Lord STANLEY (of Alderley) said that after a line
was once opened the Government possessed no power to
interfere with it or stop the traffic.' The Board of Trade
was empowered by act of Parliament to send down in-
spectors to examine the line, whose duty it was to cer-
tify whether the line was in a fit state to be opened and
could be safely worked, and until such certificate was
given no line could be opened. With respect to the
subject which had been brought under consideration by
the noble earl, he thought there was none more deserving
of their lordships' attention.
The returns were then ordered.
Lord MONTEAGLE 6ve notice of his intention, on
Friday next, to present a petition from Bombay, on the
subject of the renewal of the East India Company'
charter.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at a few minutes to four
o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time, and
ordered to be committed :—Manchester and Salford
Education ; City of Dublin Steam-Packet Company ;
Lands Improvement Company.
WEST LONDON WATERWORKS BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. BARROW moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
Sir J. SHELLEY suggested that the bill should be
referred to a select committee, as the subject stB to the
supply of water to the metropolis involved details which
could not be inquired into satisfactorily by the house.
Lord SEYMOUR opposed the suggestion of the hon.
baronet, on the ground that the whole subject had al-
ready been investigated by a committee of the house.
He thought it would be most unfair to sanction
a competing scheme like
in the present, after the settle-
ment which was come tothe last Parliament respect-
ing existing water companies, and which imposed on
those companies very heavy conditions, for the purpose
of obtaining an improved supply of water. If the pre-
sent water companies did not fulfil their engage-
ments, the better course would be, instead of sanc-
tioning opposing schemes, to deprive them of their
powers, and place the supply of water under the control
of a municipal body. He should vote against the second
reading.
Sir B. HALL supported the bill.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Bouverie, Lord
jhou s. Manners,
divided,o rt
W alms l y,
ed
Against it, 9 3
and
dot—
-99
others,
took part, the
F
n reading,
there p
appeared—
Sirwhen
second

Majority, 6
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.
CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
Mr. V, SMITH appeared at the bar,
and reported
that the committee appointed to inquire into the peti-
tion against the return for Cambridge had come to the
resolution that Kenneth Macaulay and John Henry
Astell, Esqrs., were not duly elected for that borough,
and that the last election was a void election ; also
that they were both guilty, by their agents, of
bribery at the last election. [The resolution come
to was given in detail in The Sun of yesterday.]
On the motion of the hon. member, it was agreed that
the evidence taken before the committee should be laid
on the table of the house.
The HoN. MEMBER also gave notice that to-morrow
he would move that the evidence be printed, and that
no writ be issued for Cambridge until the 11th of April.

Pin a bill in the House of Lords to suspend its operation,
in order, as he said, " That their lordships might have
an opportunity of preventing that injustice which must
ensue if one sort of property was to be taxed and land
was 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
1815 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
duty, 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,
while 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-
counted for by the estates of the aristocracy not being
held by this tenure. If a landed estate is left to a
person which is charged with mortgage or other debt,
and along With it funded or any other personal property,
Ihe 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
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 11 per cent. on
1,0001., and would be only 4 per cent. on 1,000,000/. ;
above 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 excluisively 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 promoted
to the secretaryship of that board, said in his work,
"The Progress of the Nation" :—" The probate and
legacy duties are accompanied by the advantage which
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 ;
that it engenders irritation, and is regarded as a greater
burden than the payment of duties to a greater amount
on consumable commodities. The probate and legacy
duties are in truth not felt as a tax ; objections to them
I as levied in this country might be brought forward, viz.,
the partiality shown in excluding from their operation
that description of property which from its greater com-
parative value and security is called real property.
This partiality has always been felt as a grievance,
and the sense of injustice which it is calculated to
awaken is of more moment than any temporary irritation
that may accompany any demand for money taxes."
This was a most important statement, considering the
authority of the person by whom it was made. In the
year 1851 the amount of property which paid the legacy
duty was 51,837,0001., and the amount of the duty was
1,315,3801., the rate varying according to the degrees of '
consanguinity from 1 to 6 per cent.; and, in fact, being
10 per cent. when no relationship existed between the
testator and the legatee. The average rate was more
than 21 per cent. In the same year the amount of the
probate duty was 1,063,400/., the rate varying from 21
per cent. on 20/. to 11 per cent. on large sums up to one
million, all above that sum paying nothing. In some
cases legacy duty only, and in others probate duty only
was paid; and as there was no official return of the gross ,
amount on which the probate duty was paid in 1851, he
had taken it as the same as that on which the legacy
duty was paid. The average duty paid on this was more
than 2 per cent., making the average rate of the legacy
and probate duties together more than 44 per cent. In
the year ending April 5, 1851, the rental of real pro-
perty on which the income tax was paid in England,
Wales, and Scotland, was, of land 47,800,0001.; of mes-
suages, 43,000,0001. ; of manorp, mines, quarries, and
tithes belonging to lay impropriators, 4,430,000/. ;
making together 95,230,000/. Taking the same descrip-
tions of property in Ireland at 12,500,0001., they amount
together to 107,730,0001. As no income tax was paid
on incomes of less than 1501. a year, the amount of the
rental in Great Britain did not include land, houses,
mines, manors, quarries, and lay tithes of less value than
1501. a year, except in cases where other property com-
bined to make up an income of that sum. If this enor-
mous amount of real property was made to pay the pro-
' bate and legacy duties, it would produce the following
amount, taking the annual rental of Great Britain at 25
years' purchase, and the average duration of the lives in
possession of that property at 22 years, and the rental
of Ireland at 15 years' purchase, and the average dura-
tion of lives while in possession at 22 years, this would
give us the amount on which these taxes would be paid
annually, 116,738,0001., which at 41 per cent. (the aver-
age amount of the taxes), would amount to 5,253,0001.
From this a deduction should be made of the amount of
real property which now pays those duties. This, Mr.
Trevor, the comptroller of legacy duty, estimates at
500,0001., being two-fifths of the whole amount of the
legacy duty; but Mr. Pressly, commissioner of stamps
and taxes, estimates it at less than 400,0001., in refer-
ence to which he said:—"l have endeavoured to arrive at
something like a calculation, but it is very unsatisfac-
tory." Against this deduction again should be placed the
value of land, houses, mines, manors, quarries, and lay
impropriator tithes under 1501. a year, which are not
included in the income tax returns. The amount under
160/. a-year in schedule Ais 9,940,0001., of which 11 per
cent, is personal property, leaving of real property I
8,847,0001., which, at 25 years' purchase and 22 years'
duration of life in possession, gives 452,400/., a medium I
between the estimates of Mr. Trevor and Mr. Pressly.
If the probate and legacy duties had been imposed on
real property in 1796, and had been allowed to accumu-
late with interest and compound interest to this time,
they would have paid off the greater portion of the na-
tional debt. The injustice of these taxes did not escape
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), who
in his speech on the budget said, "We have not neglected
carefully to examine the question of the probate duties,
and we think it not impossible to bring forward on the
right occasion a duty on successions that will reconcile
the system of injustice now so much complained of."
That was the legacy which he had left to the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he did not carry out
faithfully these principles, the nation would triumphantly
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
by these taxes. He could refer to many instances of
large landed estates which had been bequeathed by land-
owners, in order to show the amount which would have
been realised to the nation had real property been charg-
able to these duties. He would, however, only mention
one instance. Lord Rolle, not long since, left to a rela-
tion of his wife an estate worth 40,0001. a-year ; the
value of that estate, at 25 years' purchase, would be
1,000,0001., upon which the legacy duty would have
been 100,000/., and the probate duty 15,0001., if real
property had been subjected to these taxes. If a labourer
on this estate, by frugal savings, had left behind him
property of the value of 201., including his scanty furni-
ture, and even his smock-frock, it would have been com-
pelled to pay both probate and legacy duty, even if left
to a brother or sister, And this was in England—in a
Christian country, where it was said that we acted on
the principle of doing to others as we would be done by.
He entertained the highest opinion both of the abilities
and the moral qualities of the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and doing so, he implored him to take this
subject into careful consideration, and to remove from
the landed interest the stigma of screening themselves
t from the payment of taxes which they imposed upon
others. He had, indeed, great confidence that the right