The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-17 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-( \ E;,'l ER DAY. ) '

(From our Second Edition of last night.)

DAY V. DiA-JUDGMENT.

The Ntarrra of the liohrs this morning g :re judgmr-nt in this case,
which came before the Court upon the petition of Richard Thomas
Saunders. who t rayed a eec'aration tl at he was ent tied to the income of
the residue of the personal e.ta'e cf the testator, George Day (the I tte
eelettratcd blacki ig-m ,nufacturer), whirli had :seemed, due sir ec the
death of his late wire, I:argsret Susanna Saunders, and a•eintefoith to
accrue, due during his own life, and fi r consequential directions. Mrs.
Saunders was the !totem's dauhttr, and the testator by his will, dated
the sth April IS4O, gave the residue of his persbnal estate to Trustees
in tru.t, to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce thereof to
his daughter and her as,igns for her life, fur her separate usr,independent
of any husband with whom she might ihtermarry, and without power of
anticipation. As the will originally stood, an interest for life was ex-
pre sly given to any husband of his daugh:er, and the trusts fta the
benefit of the children were matte to commence on the death of both
hu-band and wife ; but the testator at some time, which was not known,
obliterated the words containing those directions; while in a direction as
to the maintenance of the children after the de.ith of persons entitled to
the life interest, he !eft the wor,ls and any such litt,batul as aforesaid ;"
and whether those word: should have any, and if any, what effect, was
the question to be determined in this petition. The daughter after the
testator's death (but pursuant to arratig,,ments made in his life ti me, and
with his consent) married Mr. Saunders, the petitioner, but had since
died, leaving Mr.• Saunders and several children surviving her. It
had been contended on behalf of the petitioner, that notwithstanding
the obliteration of the express gift to him, air implied gift to him still
remained. On the other hand, it had been contended for his children
that the weeds " and any such husband as aforesaid," in the direction
et what was to he done after the death of Mr. Saunders, were inconsis-
tent with, or repugnant to, what was the intention of the testator as
shown by the obliteration of the words which expressly gave a life inte-
rest to Mr. Saunders. His Lordship was of opiciott the testator had re-
voked the direct gift, and could not mean his will, in the state he had
left it, to operate as an implied gift to the same effect; that according
to the true construction of the will, the testator's residuary personal
estate on the death of his daughter became the property of her children
living at her death; and that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit
which he prayed by Isis petition.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuLr 16.

--
The SPIAKER took the chair at about Five minutes to Four.

ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL.

if'j.4

~} !T`

Sir M. WOOD moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. PRYME said that this Bill proposed a tax upon coals,
and he had always thought that improvements in buildings—
whether Ramsgata Pier or Royal Exchange—ought not to be
carried into effect by a tax levied on one of the necessaries of
life; and that it was unjust that the inhabitant of an obscure
alley, who was struggling for subsistence, should be forced to
contribute, and in a much higher prcportion, according to his
means, than the richer of his fellow-citizens. He therefore
moved that this Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. W. ATTWOOD seconded the amendment. He
should be happy to see the Royal Exchange rebuilt—( Hear)
—and every improvement in the City effected; but he did not
think these objects should be attained by the imposition of such
a duty as this. That House had appointed a Committee to
investigate the coal trade and the coal duties; and the Committee
recommended that those duties should be continued for seven
years, and at the expiration of that period be subject to re-
vision. A public Bill with this object in view had been
brought in, and now a private Bill was introduced to continue
for twenty years the duties which had been by the other Bill
only authorised for seven. Were not these Bills utterly incon •
'Agent ? And was it possible that the House would sanction
—against the recommendation of its own Committee—.
such a Bill as this? Let it be recollected, with respect to
the effect of the coal duty on the poorer classes of the people,
that it was not merely the direct amount of that tax, for
perhaps the poor man did not consume a ton, or a couple of
tons per annum. But when they considered by the compo-
sition of the due that they called on the poor man to sacrifice
his fuel for one day in the year to contribute towards the
Royal Exchange—when they considered that every thing
which he consumed was rendered dearer by the operation of
this tax—when they considered further that those who would
give him employment were prevented by the operation of this
coal duty from coming into competition with those who re-
sided at a distance from the metropolis, it would be seen that
it pressed with no small weight on the poorer classes.—
( Hear.) Here was the City of London seeking to perpetuate
the whole amount of this duty on the inhabitants of the City,
for the fixing this for twenty years must be considered as no-
thing less than a perpetuation.—( Hear.) If to improve the
streets the coal duty was to be continued there would always
be similar purposes found for the disposal of a sum of money,
and if that was to be supplied by the coal duties it would never
be removed from the City of London. It was proposed
that for twelve years there should be paid 7,0001. a year as a se-
curity for 150,0001. proposed to be raised. It was proposed this
should take place when changes were taking place, and no one
could tell to what extent they were likely to be carried. By
the prolongation of twenty years, the House deprived itself of
the advantage of reconsidering the duty, and adapting it to
altered circumstances. Upon these grounds he supported the
amendment of the Hon. Member (Mr. Pryme), arid trusted
the House would not sanction the principle of imposing the
whole amount of the coal duty for twelve years in opposition
to the principle laid down by the Coal Trade Bill, that it should
only be for seven years, and after that time be open for revision.
Mr. L ABOUCrIERE felt it his duty to say a few words,
because he thought the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had
rather mis-stated the cese. The Hon. Gentleman had stated
that the Bill which he ( Mr. Labouchere) hail introduced im-
posed a duty upon coals for seven years, and that then it con-.
templated the eecession of those duties after those seven years.
whereas the Bill before the House proposed to continue those
duties for a much longer period. He had the pleasure of
meeting the Hon. Gentleman in the Committee upen whose
recommendation the Bill as as introduced, and he must be
aware that the Coal Trade Bill, so far from imposing duties
for any fixed period, only commuted the duties which
already existed, and which must txi4t. for -- a much
longer period.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Bill pro-
vided that -for the next seven sears a much more
simple machinery should be applied to the collection of these
duties, and one more conducive to the public advantage.
That was the sole and simple object of the Bill ; :Lid it was
optional with Parliament, at the end of those seven years, to
consider that commutation, and renew if it were found. to wog k
well. He thought it necessary to say so much, lest the House
should be led a, try by the statements of the Hon. Gentleman.
He would now address himself to the Bill before the House,
and he so far agreed with the Honourable Member, that
lie thought it extremely desirable those duties should cease
altegrthrr.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He should be very glad
to see the time when the Bd. duty would cease altogether,
and he had strong hopes that that would be speedily effected.
The louse should recollect the circumstances under which
this tax was levied:. It was originally contemelet-d that this
duty of 81. per ton should he continued for cer ain I,u .p rs,s
until the yees 1838. for the payment of certain duties in trust.
In con equence, however, of the great increase of tr.rde in the
Port of Londor. it was found that the du'y would be p ri.l cff
before that period, and that it would be but just to provide
fur its ceasing. Tint House would admit that it w of
great general importance and interest that the loyal
Exchange, which had been destroyed by a late unror-
tunate areiti.-nt should be bit upon a scale of splendour
worthy of the ii.:-wortanec of this great commercial metropolis ;
and the only cite stion was how the funds could be mist
conveniently I.roveled f..r this i,urpo,e. Upon the whole
be w‘s inclined to believe that the recommendation of ti e
Committee was the Lest em.rse to adept, Lamely to allow
the duty to continue for the fu'l time, and it was upon
that around I:e should go with the proposition of the Ho-
nourable .Member opp site, if it were thought necessary to
livid- the Houle. II had been said by sonic Hon. Members
that, in the 'nurse they were adopting, they acted inconsis-
tently with the Bill which eniatinted from the Coal Trade
Committee. Now, in antra or to that, lie must say they were
Lot acting inc.nisistently with that Bill, Lut u ith the report (.1
the Cummins e. In cnnelusi, n. l.e hal only to repeat that,
if the H )use divided, he should think it to be his duty to
supoort the motion of tie Hon. Member.
MA II E thought the (tight Hon. Gentlem tit had not
corrartly stated the situation in which they were placed with
regard to the Bill lie ( Nlr. Ilurec) thought it wis quite
competent tee the Bill to pass, for the purpose of making the
improvements alluded to in the city of London, without any
additional tax being made urn coals. He objected to the pot r
Iran being taxed for any such purpose. Arid as a proof of
the validity of that objection, be hid only to refer to
what took place in 1830. when a security was given
upon the tax on coal.t, in order to enable the parties
to proceed with the erection of London Bridge. By the Bill
to enable the erection of that great undertaking, a tax of Bd.
was to be levied on coals, till the whole amount was paid.
Such a tax i e considered sufficient on the poor man, without
increasing it further, as proposed by the present Bill. Out
of 137,0001., which was the pro-tees of the tax. 84,00;'/.
was applied towards the re-payment of the borrowed
money ; if that liquitlatien went on, it would all be paid
u) in 1831 or 1852 ; and then, if the 1-kus:t did not
V ila fit to renew the grant, then of caurse the City
would revert to the 4d. per ton granted them by charter.
The question for the House to consider was, whether they
would continue a tax upon that which was a necessary of life
to all the people. of England. and the two neighbouring coun-
ries. If they passed the Bill they made that tax responsible
for another 150.000/ , which at all events would continue tie
tax fur three )ears. He protested against a tax being conti-
nued for any such purpose upon an absolute necessary of lire.
Let the rich merchants of London follow the example of their
brethren of Liverpool, and raise the money amongst themselves.
There had been many meetings held upon a late occasion, when
sneny uf the merchants of London stated that it was disgraceful
that no more than firma 70,0001. to 80,0001. should be spent
upon a Corueation, but was it not much more disgraceful for
the rich and psi. eely city
of London to put a duty upon every
piece of coal continued by the poor around them ? Why should
not the merchants pay their two guineas a-year for the use of
congregated or the purpose of
the Exchange in which they
conducting their business ; or why should not the rents of that
property be applied for the purpose of repaying the mraw honey
i?
He would, therefore, ask the lion. Member withds
and to allow the
opposition to•the third reading of the Bill,
sense of the House to be taken on the amendment, which
_
would take away the power of continuing the rid. tax on coals.
When the Bill was read a third time, he would propose that
alteraeione which would relieve them from the difficulty they
were theta under.
Mr. WARBURTON agreed in the observation made by
his fiun. Friend, as to the propriety of time mei chants of Lon-
don raisins,' a fund for tire building.—(He.-, hear.) Thaw
who used it ought to pay for it.
The SPEAKER said the object of the Hon. NiKnber for
Kilkenny appeared to be to take a burden from one fund And
to lay it upon another; now be (the Speaker) doubted if
such an object could be cliectel upon the third reading of
a .Bill.