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

DICKENS'S "HOUSEHOLD WORDS."

in 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 whol4 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 those 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,
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 hashandry,
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 ion, 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 s per cent. on 1,000,000/. ;
abilys 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 1 to 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

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 vvith 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 havig already became law, Lord Lauderdale,brought

hon. gentleman would do whit he could to remove: the
inequality which at present existed between real and
personal property. The legacy and probate duties now
, produced about 2,300,0001., whereas, if they were ex-
' tended to all kinds of property, they would produce be-
tween eight and nine millions. When Sir R. Peel intro-
-1 duced the income tax a second time, he said that this
would enable him to make a vast reduction in the.eaxes
which affected the raw material of manufactures. and the
food of the poorer classes. And the effect of the imposition
of the income tax had been .that taxes to the amount
lof 13.inillions had been repealed or reduced. It was,
i therefore, hardly possible to form an idea of the reduc-
tion of taxation which might be made if these duties
were extended to real property. The division on this
resolution would test the value of the Reform Act. The
majority of the Parliament which in 1796 imposed the
duty on personal, and rejected that on real property,
was said to have been returned by 130 peers and great
landed proprietors. Now, since the Reform Bill, that
house was said to be composed of the representatives of
the people ; and he repeated that the division upon this
motion would enable the people .to judge how far this
was the case, and how much they had gained by that
measure, He trusted it would show that' they had at
any rate gained a majority of that house against the
longer continuance of this manifest and palpable injus-
tice. The hon. member concluded by moving "That
in the opinion of this house, real property should be
made to pay the same probate and -legacy duties as are
now payable on personal property."
The SPEAKER said that he had at a former part of
the evening stated that his secretary had received notice
from the agents of Mr. Callaghan,he petitioner against
the return for the borough of Carlow, stating his inten-
tion to abandon that petition. He found, however, that
his secretary had made a mistake in copying the letter
of the agents, and that it had in reality reference to the
withdrawal of the petition against the return for Lime-
rick; and not 'to that against"-thrrettfrn-foi edit. The-
house had, upon the statement which he had formerly
made, ordered the order for the reference to the petition
against the Carlow return to be discharged. As, however,
the house could take no step in a matter of this kind ex-
cept in accordance with the statute, it followed that as
there was no withdrawal of the petition against the Car-
los return, the order which they had made upon the
supposition that there was, was null and void. It was
now necessary that he should read the notice of the
agents with respect to the withdrawal of the petition
against the, return for Limerick, and that the house
should then order the discharge of the former order, re-
ferring it to the general committee on election petitions.
This having been done,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and
said—The office which I hold would naturally inspire
me with every prejudice in favour of the motion of the
hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He does
not propose, as is too often the case, to deprive the ex-
chequer of the funds which belong to it, and for which
it has ample employment. But he proposes to enlarge
its funds, by imposing certain taxes not now universally
applicable to the different kinds of property, upon a
certain class to which they do not at present ex-
tend. Notwithstanding this, it is my duty to object to
the motion which the honourable gentleman has made.
And first of all, with all respect to him, and while
granting the evident sincerity of his intention, and
the perfect fairness of the manner in which he has
stated the case, I cannot help pointing out to the house
that there is much inconvenience and something like—l
will not say evasion—but escaping from the rules of the
house, in discussions of this nature. The effect of a re-
solution of the nature of that moved by the hon. gentle.
man, is neither more nor less than to call on the House
of Commons to depart from the work of legislation and
practical business, and 'to content itself with the expres-
sion of abstract opinions. Supposing the house were to
adopt the resolution of the hon. gentleman, the question
of the probate and legacy duty would stand precisely
where it did before. The hon. gentleman knows that
there are plenty of instances of resolution of this kind
being adopted by the house, commonly with the same
want a forethought ; and which, notwithstanding that
they related to measures of great importance, have taken
no effect whatever. Now, these resolutions are not merely
of a neutral or negative character, but they do positive
evil ; because they tend to delude the country, and to
make it suppose that we are doing the public business,
when we are in reality doing no such thing, but merely
expressing abstract opinions that do not affect that which
should be done. The proper place to have proposed this
resolution would have been in a committee of ways and
means. The hon. member brought it forward in the
month of December last, when the budget of the late
Government was proposed, and he was then perfectly in
order ; but at present he calls on us merely for the ex-
pression of an abstract opinion ; and though I do not in-
tend to take advantage of that objection to escape in any
degree the discussion of the case, yet I do not enter on it
without a protest at least to this extent, and without en-
dea,vourine to point out to the house the practical incon-
yenience_that Attends this method of procedure. lam

`;',"-z-7c:;;;;;;;:bi:":4;;;;;;:iiii:;:s"-iTg-pCorr-t;-.2-crre-;;;,- ~:z-:----,,,;-t.ec.i. iici-a-14,7i-Afiati,„..r.-.6,,,kitmkrini,i-brar
duties are in truth not felt as a tax ; objections to them ing forward this motion are perfectly fair and just. I;'e
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 ask 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 is 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 23/4 ends of justice by laying the burdens of the public taxation
per cent. on 201. to 13/4- 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 Ido 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 43/4 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, 43,000,000/. ; 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 95,230,0001. 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
present state of the law as amongst the different holders
on incomes of less than 1501. a year, the amount of the
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 propertyi? at 22 years, and the rental by small proprietors. (Hear, hear.) The honourable
of Ireland at 15 years' purchase, and the average dura- i gentleman will say that this is a question between the
tion of lives while in possession at 22 years, this would I 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 being an accurate represen-
annually, 116,738,0001., which at 43/4 per cent. (the aver- tation, for this is indubitable, that, 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 Qf 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 \ much in the power of an owner of personal property to
impropriator tithes under 1501. a year, which are not put his property under settlement as it is in the power
included in the income tax returns. The amount under iof the landowner. (Hear, hear.) And personal pre-
lio/. a-year in schedule Ais 9,940,0001., of which 11. per 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
8,847,000/., which, at 25 years' purchase and 22 years' extent to which funded property is placed under settle-
duration of life 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 say that a considerable portion of the entire funded
real property in 1796, and had been allowed to accumu- 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." 1 of personal property correspond essentially with this
That was the legacy which he had left to the present I 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
bring the right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Dis- at all. (Hear, hear.) Deeds of gift are executed by
raeli) back to power, for they never would allow the
' parties in trust to reserve the proceeds and capital of the
continuance of the gross injustice at present perpetrated i property to the absolute and unrestricted disposalof the
person who constitutes the trust, and with power of re
-
large these taxes. He could refer to many instances of
' yoking the trust whenever he pleases, with no obligatiron.
large landed estates which had been bequeathed by land-
to publish the trust, so that it is in the power of any
makes knownof
owners, in order to show the amount which would have
settlements by
been realised to the nation had real property been charg- man, by writing certain things down on a sheet
which he keeps in his drawer, and
personal property
able to these duties. He would, however, only mention
body, to execute one of those voluntary
art
of ate duty. paper
no-
one instance. Lord Rolle, not long since, left to a rela-
deed of gift by which he carries his
tion of his wife an estate worth 40,000/. a-year ; the
beyond the rule of the legacy or rob
TMhrd. WILLIAMS—That
CHANCELLOR
of itshpe
value of that estate, at 25 years' purchase, would be
my complaint.
1,000,0001., upon which the legacy duty would have
been 100,0001., and the probate duty 15,0001., if real
not describe this practice to 'ustX.fell'
important purpose, namely, for the EgljoEfßsh—owi
property had ben subjected to these taxes. If a labourer
showing
go
on this estate, by frugal savings, had left behind him
tion is not a class uestion. 3 I purpose but for a most
property of the value of 201., including his scanty furni-
that this great, and
because it does not ive the momentous, and very difficult ques-
ture, and even his smock-frock, it would have been corn- •
vantages over. personalg properltayn
pelled to pay both probate and legacy duty, even if left q in the way it is supposed,.
to a brother or sister, And this was in England—in a
Christian country, where it was said that we acted on assigned to dwhiched
arero et ro toy
commonlytho and e
law.
(gear it as conferring in the present state
rant—
He t
tehaehab. surds,
the principle of doing to others as we would be done by.
entertained the highest opinion both of the abilitiesstate of
tThheelabwadlsatmatewoifilitnhge law I g
concede—
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 thate bout it, namely,
in due time will be remedied—but theto law has not
most odious and aggravated future a class of landed
the landed interest the stigma of screening themselves • that those laws are laws passed by the
from the payment of taxes which they imposed ; proprietors for the purpose of sec .
1 classes and the
upon ,
others, He had, indeed, great confidence that theri hi 1 elusive privileges, which the co
gear, hear.) Haying
g ' holders of money do not enjoy. (
uring to themselves ex-

cl ,deductions from the statement of the
honourable tleman, I shall now make a few remarks
on his sanu . e expectations with respect t,o the enor-
mous amount of landed property that may be brought
under the operation of the law by the change which he
proposes should take place. (Hear, hear.) I did not
precisely catch the actual figures he stated, but I thought
his calculation was that several millions were to proceed
from this proposed taxation of (landed property. But
the honourable gentleman has made a most serious omis-
siOn because it is not true that nothing whatever is paid
by landed property to the legacy and probate duty.
(Hear, hear.) Annuities and all sums of money charged
upon land pay legacy duty ; all lands directed to be sold
for the purpose of dividing the proceeds pay legacy duty;
and an eminent solicitor, Mr. Baxter, gave in evidence
befOre a committee of the House of Lords, ,that out of
ten wills disposing of unsettled landed property, nine
directed the estates to be sold and the proceeds to be
divided. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS--That was in a particular district
in Yorkshire. (Cries of ')rder, order.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am
going through the deductions one by one. And this
gentleman gave it as his opinion that this quantity of
land was liable to be sold, and to pay the legacy duty.
(Hear, hear.) I have had an opportunity of seeing Mr.
Trevor, an intelligent witness who gave evidence before
the committee of the House of Lords, and I asked him
the proportion he now forms of the legacy duty that is
paid by real property under the provisions of the act of
1805, and he computes it as seven-sixteenths of the whole
amount. (Hear, hear.) Your machinery does not
enable you to state with perfect precision the real amount
paid by real property, but a good judge tells us that it
amounts to seven-sixteenths of the whole. (Hear, hear.)
Though it is true that a great deal of real property
escapes the legacy duty, yet this is also unquestionably
true, that if you had the power to levy your legacy duty
uniformly and equally over the whole property of the
country, and if you succeeded in levying that legacy
duty over the whole of that property, I doubt very
much if you would get so good a proportion as seven-
sixteenths out of the land. (Hear, hear.) I think you
might get more than nine-sixteenths out of personal
property, and less than seven-sixteenths out of landed
property. (Hear, hear.) But another important deduc-
tion is to be made from the statement which the hon.
gentleman has made to the house. The supposition is
that the great bulk of landed property escapes altogether
the operation of this duty, but those who discuss the
. qtestion appear to forget the subsisting mortgages upon
the land.- --(Hear, heir, hear.) - Now, wha&proportion
of the land of the country is under mortgage ! I believe
I should be estimating moderately if I said the land of
the country was charged with mortgages to the extent
of a fourth part of its value. (Hear, hear.) It may be
more, but I assume it is one-fourth, so that the bene-
ficial interest to that extent pays probate and legacy
duty. (Hear, hear.) Now the hon. gentleman could
not intend to say that if this new system which he pro-
poses were established the parties should pay the tax
twice over. (Hear, hear.) Suppose there is an owner
of landed property which is valued at 22,0001., and the
income from which is 7001. a year ; suppose lso there
is a mortgage for 7,0001. charged on that land on
account of which the owner pays 4001. yearly ; surely
the hon. gentleman does not intend to say that the
owner of that land is to pay the probate and legacy
duty on the 7001. a year, and on the 4001. a year too.
(Hear, hear.) To come, therefore, to a true judgment
in the case, you must deduct from the whole mass of the
landed property of this country the portion of it that
pays probate and legacy duty in the shape of interest
upon mortgages. (Hear, hear.) Thus far I have only
spoken of the deductions that ought to be made from the
statement of the hon. gentleman ; further I will go on to
say, that it is one of those subjects that cannot be
viewed as an isolated question—we must take into view
many other circumstances and previsions with respect to
the landed property of the country. The hon. gentle-
man spoke of the stamp on conveyances. No doubt
was the policy of the Legislature comparatively to
burden the transfer of land, and to facilitate the
descent of land—on the other hand, to burden the
descent of personal property, and to make the transfer of
personal property easy. The statement has been often
made, and the hon. gentleman impugns it by stating
that the same stamp duty is levied upon the transfer of
railway shares that is levied upon the transfer.of a piece
of land. That is true, but he should recollect that there
is between 70,000,0001. and 80,000,0001. of property—
no small portion of personal property, namely, the funded
property of this country—that pays nothing' at all
upon transfer, and when settled to a considerable
degree pays nothing on descent. (Hear, hear.)
Although you may choose by your system of stamp
duties to fix the same rates for landed and personal pro-
perty, it will happen that your personal property will go
scot-free as to transfer where the landed property must
pay the stamp on transfer. (Hear.) The reason is that
the great bulk of personal property is capable of passing
by delivery, and being so capable it requires no legal
transfer ; it has no legal transfer, and the stamp duty is
not paid. It is quite true it is paid upon railway shares,
and on some limited descriptions of personal property ;
but as to the vast proportion of the transfers of real
property they are subject to no tax whatever but the re-
ceipt stamps ; and I believe it is but too true that that
that trifling amount is in many instances not paid at all.
(Hear.) The sum of 10s. is enough to cover the transfer
of a million of money, and the fact is that the great bulk
pays nothing or next to nothing upon transfers. (Hear.)
That the tax upon conveyances is a compensation for
legacy and probate duty is not entirely to be put out of
view, and when you are adjusting a system of taxation
for real property and personality, you must not forget
the facility of transfers whicti personality so entirely en-
joys, and thit-V1Z514,4r7,0u-sar enseethat -irst.yquai "--
rate is to be paid upon it, yet, in practical operation,
the great bulk of it escapes from the payment of the tax.
You cannot put that out of view in considering what
justice demands in dealing with the taxation on real pro-
perty. (Hear, hear.) lam the last person to claim any
favour fur real property—but it should not be subject to
unequal taxation ; and the amount should be estimated
not by any one duty, but by the operation of your gene-
ral fiscal system, and it is utterly impossible to exclude
from the view of that general fiscal system of local taxa-
tion. You cannot forget that in England alone
10,000.0001. a-year is levied off real property, about
which personality knows nothing at all.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Houses are charged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is
the realty that pays, Houses may be real property
as well as land.
Mr, WlLLlAMS—Railways.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I al-
ways looked upon the case of railways, in respect to the
rates they pay, as one worthy of consideration ; and I
agree with thehon. gentleman entirely, that railways and
the unfortunate owners of tithes are very unfairly treated.
(Hear.) In the consideration of your fiscal system
you cannot put out of view the fact that in England
something like 10,000,0001., and in the whole United
Kingdom 12,000,0001. or 13,000,0001., are levied off
real property for the purposes of local taxation, about
which personal property knows nothing whatever.
(Hear, hear.) That is not the principle of your law ;.
according to the principle of your law, personal property
is just as much subject to those local charges as real
property. (Hear, hear.) I do not, however, wish to
see personal property subject to those charges. It would
lead to confusion, tyranny, and a multitude of evils, if
you attempted to subject personalty to those charges ;
but I do not doubt that if plans of reform are driven to
an extreme extent you may bring that personal property
within the scope of local taxation. (Hear, hear.) In-
stead of endeavouring to reach mathematical precision
in each item of taxation, we should look on the result of
taxation as a whole, and endeavour to establish fairness
in its operation. (Hear, hear.) The time will come for
the discussion of the income tax, and at present I am
not going to open it prematurely, but I wish to advert
to a single point. I am not going to speak of the in-
come tax at this moment in so far as it falls upon skill
and labour, but I am only going to look at it in so far
as it falls upon property, and upon property, too, which
is the subject likewise of legacy and probate duty.
(Hear, hear.) Confining my view to that subject, I say
boldly you cannot defend the present incidence of the
income tax upon real property. (Hear, hear.) The in-
terest arising from money in the funds and the interest
payable on mortgages pay the income tax according to
the income actually received ; but real property pays the
income tax, not according to what is received, but it
pays the income tax on repairs, it pays the income tax
on arrears, it pays the income tax on vacant farms,
and in half-a-dozen other cases where no income is
re-
ceived.

gentleman as I shall
dranteeefual
gtoootdheanhdon.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Then amend it.
newihellwbiell
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No
mbea, sporog
it. (Hear, hear.) The melancholy plan to amend
driven to is, that we must perforce conclusion lam
in many cases to put up with inequalities, make up our minds
satis-
fied that, on the whole, the nequalities, and be
if those inequalities are f ends of justice are attained
(Hear, hear.) I think °llud
to balance one another.
that bear upon this disc these are all most important facts
into view you cannot discussion,
and without taking them
question. Therefore, arrive at a fair estimate of the
—to look at the o to look at some isolated question
description of peration of the law with regard to one
tions of other property, without considering the opera-
tions
reprehensiblesystems of taxation upon it is, IwillrzeiotTeye
to be corrected andpractice, but it is a practice that
d red in referenceg
to other topics, if we u
area li fi
te
od ,
arrivea considered ::' a
general conclu-
sion that will be a safe guide in practice' (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the mode in which one particular duty
is fixed, I think there is a strong case against it. The
present system requires amendment in consequence 9f
the capricious and absurd arrangement of the.
euscawlee
of duty. (Hear, hear.) Why are we toi therstop h
e when
no
have reached one million of money,
as fetoppiog
at that
such thing in this country except a fund
d that scale should
amount? And if nothing else be one,
that an immense amount of
be re -adjusted. It is cleardut
which, according to the
per,onal propertyesczsesrapye,
and especially through
present Law, should
fon of the present law is most
deeds of gift the opera I
unsatisfactory . (Hear, hear.) There has been an enor-
.
mous increase in the personal property of this country,
but the legacy duty does not grow larger.
The entire
amount that has paid legacy duty fora series of years is
~
~
about
45 000 000/ and there is very little doubt that if
you did not alter the principle of the law, looking to
personal property alone,
'instead of 45,000,0001., out of
which seven-sixteenths i s derived from real property,
you should get something very near to double that
amount. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has ad-
verted to the case of the poor man ; he says his property
pays the full probate duty, and I agree that 1 't does, and
that it is a great hardship. The wealthyman, who has
legal assistance, is enabled to avail him
self of the means
of escaping the burdens of the law,
but the man who
leaves 301. or 401. has no such
constructed that it calls upon
him with a disproportionate

.;

weight. And these are all things which call for that
serious investigation which he invites me to give the
subject. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the further
question, whether or not the land ought to be subject to
the payment of legacy and probate duty, it is impos-
sible, in my judgment, for the house to come to any
safe conclusion upon the subject until we have some
fixed principles laid down and adopted with reference to
the rest of our taxation. (Hear.) Before the house can
consider the question as to what is to be done with
the probate and legacy duty, I think it should have
more fixed and definite intentions on the subject of the
income tax than have been as yet expressed. The hon.
Gentleman says, Here is a system of law that operates in
td,vour of real property against personal property ; but
when you come to the income tax, and compare its effect
on real property and personal property, it is quite as
clear and undeniable that the income tax is unequal, in
favour of personal property and against real property.
(Hear.) It appears to me that the course which the
house may take with reference to the income tax must
necessarily be made the pivot for the arrangement of the
whole of our fiscal system. In considering the question,
we must necessarily take all the circumstances into
view ; but I am sure the hon. gentleman does not make
it a matter of censure upon me, that after my accession
to office, and when the whole of our system of taxation
is open from one cause or another, I am not now pre-
pared to state to him what may be the ultimate course
of the Government. Much must depend almost
everything must depend, with regard to the fiscal policy
of the next two years, on the course taken by the house
with reference to the income tax. When the time shall
come, I will state the views of the Government. I
assure the hon. gentleman that the whole of the question
shall -undergo from me the most careful examination,
and that the results which we may arrive at will be re-
sults to which we shall be led by no desire to favour this
or that class, but by the desire to do full and impartial
justice to all classes. (Cheers.) Whether the hon. gen-
tlerrean ought or ought not to be satisfied with this ex-
planation, I leave the question in his hands. It is from
no disrespect to him that I point out the inconvenience
of adopting this resolution, and I hope it may be con-
sistent with his views not to press it'upon the house for
adoption. At all events, I have done my duty by stating
the principles on which we are prepared to deal with
this question, and which has led us to the conclusion
at which we have arrived upon it. (Cheers.)
Mr. HUME thought the present was the time of all
others when the house should intimate their opinion
upon this subject, and he conceived that hisshon. friend
was quite in order in bringing it before them. The right
hon. gentleman denied that this was a class question,
but when in Mr. Pitt's time a bill was brought in to
levy the probate and legacy duty upon all property, it
was proposed by the landed proprietors, after it was
read a first and second time, and went into committee,
that it should be divided into two parts, one referring to
the real and the other to the personal property. They
compelled Mr. Pitt to divide it accordingly, and the bill
referring to the personal property was passed by a small
majority, but when they came to the bill referring to the
tax on real property the division was 30 to 30. When
the bill was returned to Lord Sidmouth, who was
Speaker at the time, he considered that it should go to
a second division, but Mr. Pitt was told that if he at-
tempted to bring it forward again he must take the con-
sequences. It was calculated that the value of real
property was 2,000,000,0001., out of which 80,000,0001.
annually was liable. It was Ind also that 52,000,0001.
was the total amount of personal property subject to the
tax; and was it fair that the 80,000,0001. of real pro-
perty should escape, while the 52,000,0001. of personalty
were assessed. This was a great injustice, and he con-
sidered it was fit and proper,. before the introduction of
the budget, that the question should undergo discussion,
and that the house should offer an opinion upon it.
(Hear.) He (Mr. Hume) admitted that deeds of gift
were frequently made of personal property, but notwith-
standing that, he believed if an accurate calculation were
made, it would be found that personal property contri-
buted more than real to the taxation of the country.
The right honourable gentleman objected to this motion
because settlements of real property may be made ;
but it was right to remember that settlements might
also be made of personal property. Then it was
said that the landed property of the country was alone
or specially subjected to the local taxation ; but if they
looked at the inhabitants of boroughs, the great majority
of whom had no other property than that of a personal
kind, they would find that they paid their full share of
the local taxes. It was quite a mistake to suppose that
landed property alone paid those local taxes. The ques-
tion was, was there anything peculiar in the settlement
of land which entitled it to exemption from the tax on
bequests ? With regard to railroads—all held to be per-
sonal property—he thought the incidence of this tax, as
it affected them, was most unjust. Again, the direct
taxation on the mass of the working and industrial
classes in this country exceeded belief. A statement was
made about three years ago by an American gentleman
as to the effect of taxation in the United States, in which
it was shown that the taxes there in 1849 and 1850,
upon import duties, amounted to $29,000,000, and that
that sum was enhanced' to $100,000,000 to the actual
consumers. With regard to the income tax, he entirely
agreed with the right honourable gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer that no tax of that kind which
they could lay on could be considered fair and equal
until they had a full inquiry by a committee of that
house as to the bearing of each individual item of our
taxation ; and he invited the Government to institute
such an inquiry forthwith. He would support the mo-
tion of his honourable friend (Mr. Williams) with the
greatest pleasure, this being a question which over and
over again in former times he (Mr. Hume) had endea-
voured to press on the consideration of the house and
the various Governments of the day with the view to a
remedy.

Mr. HENLEY was very much indlined to believe that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly aware—
certainly he (Mr. Henley) himself had the strongest opi-
nion on the subject—that any alteration in the direction
pointed out in the motion of the hon. member for Lam-
beth, so far from benefiting the Exchequer, would most
completely damage it. The right hon. gentleman had
very truly stated with regard to personal property, that
it had been the object to lay the tax upon the descent of
it, and upon landed or real property the object had been
to lay the tax upon the transfer. If it had been other-
wise, if the tax had been laid upon the descent of real
property, it would have been unproductive to the Ex-
chequer ; but it *as because of the tax on landed pro-
perty being imposed on the transfer, and not upon the
descent, that it had been so very productive to the re-
venue. But with regard to personal property—notwith-
standing the vast amount of that species of property
which was under bond fide and colourable settlements—
he thought a great deal more money might be raised on
the succession to that property than now found its way into
the Exchequer. The hon. member for Montrose had al-
luded very strongly to the incidence of direct and indirect
taxation in America ; but the hon. gentleman could not
have forgotten that the evidence given by American gentle-
men before the income tax committee went to show that
the whole imperial revenue of the country was raised by
indirect taxation, but that the direct taxation was levied
more for local or municipal purposes. The right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to
the weight of local taxation on landed as contradistin-
guished from personal property. He (Mr. Henley) did
not wish to go into that question, because he thought it
was only right to consider it with reference to imperial tax-
ation alone. The right hon. gentleman stated also that
he did not lay any great stress upon the stamps upon
conveyances of real property ; but he (Mr. Henley)
thought that a large item. On what were called deeds
and instruments, he believed it amounted to something
like 2,000,0001. a-year. They had never been able to
get from the Stamp-office the exact amount of money
raised in stamp duty, but it was believed by many people
that at least one-half of it affected real property. There
was another question which ought to be taken into con-
sideration—the redeemed and unredeemed land-tax,
amounting together to 2,000,0001. That was quite as
much as the legacy duty ; and the house must bear in
mind that, with regard to the redeemed land tax, that
had been paid in hard cash. He believed the land of
this country, in the items he had stated, paid a great
deal more than compensated for the exemptions by which
it was stated to be favoured in not contributing to the
probate and legacy duty. Before the house came to a
conclusion on this matter, they must look to the inci-
dence of the whole taxation of the country ; and if that
was fairly looked into, he was convinced it would be
found that the land of the country not only paid its full
share, but a larger share than any other species of pro-
perty.

Mr. BRIGHT said, if there was one thing more than
another in which the country felt more than an ordinary
interest, it was the very tax which the house was now
discum-
a few
question ineta
observations, which he thought would place this
perfectly odious point of view. He be-
lieved the
fully admitted thate
orof the Exchequer had that night
grievance, and requiredthe condition of this tax was a great
tleman was not the The right hon. gen-
:Crehmanecdeylior of the Exchequer
who had made such Qafonnri- admission. The right hon. gen-
tleman the member , Buckinghamshire admitted it ;
and not only admitted it uotfaheld out an expectation
that if he had remained ineithecre he would, before long,
have dealt with this tax
repealing it, or by
levying it equally on all kinds ofbY property. The present
hancellor of the Exchequer apper°
e it in some de-
something in the stamp d +
-1.1. y whicatao think there was
acomplaint was
forgot that
gree a balancing tax to the one of which'
which free-
now- made ; but the right hon. gentlem
ught the
leasehold property paid all the stamp tihtn3t; ro
hold paid. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright)
holders of leasehold property—and the great
the property in this metropolis was of that tenure had
of
h
a ;treat deal to complain of in this matter. Let the
house take the case of Belgrave and Bedford-squares,
the one the property of the Marquis of Westminster'
the other that of the Duke of Bedford. At this moment
the property in those squares was all held on lease.
During the whole time those leases ran each person who
succeeded on the death of a lessee of the property was
liable to pay probate or legacy duty, and that from 11.
to 101. per cent, according to the degree of consangui-
nity of the person who succeeded to the deceased. But
at the end of the existing leases the whole of this pro-
perty fell into the hands of the Marquis of Westminster
and the Duke of Bedford ; and the moment it came into
their possession the property would cease to pay this
tax at all, and the colossal wealth of which it was the
symbol was exempted from the payment of an impost
which pressed upon the property of a poor man in this
country, if even vethat property was only of the value of 201.
mar,
.who
di (Mr. Bright) knew a case in which an old
at to his ea in 1836, left some amount of property in
son, who on succeeding to it paid legacy duty
at the rate
his mother, °l'll.
en the
Per cent. The son died, and left it to
died and left - neither son, property paid again. The mother
That i•Oti dic(itat:l3 a year ago, _eali.en it paid once more.
who were now living, a ino- I vin it to h. .
us, and then t, is children,
' legacy duty was •
paid

again. (Hear, and a laugh.) So that in that case there
had been five distinct instances of the payment of legacy
duty since 1836 ; and if it had not been left in each case
to persons se' near of kin to the several testators the
amount paid in duty, increasing as it did in each more
remote degree of consanguinity, must have been enor-
mous. He maintained that it was a gross injustice to
tax this species of property, while other kinds in the
neighbourhood, just as accessible to the touch of the tax-
gatherer, was left altogether unassailed. (Hear, hear.)
He could not understand anything more fatal to good
order, or to the confidence of the people in the Govern-
ment, than a belief out of doors that there was an inte-
rest in the governing power which led it to tax heavily
on one spot and lightly, or not at all, on another. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the question
of local taxation as being in some degree a balance and a
compensation for the tax under consideration ' • but there
was really nothing in that. It only reminded him that a
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. gentleman
the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), under similar cir-
cumstances, fell back upon the stamp duty ; and now the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer fell back upon the
subject of local taxation. Neither of those arguments
had any force, because the legacy duty was imposed
long before stamps or any local taxes. He had now
shown the gross inequalities of the present tax ; and it
was for the interest of Parliament and the country that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be encouraged
to take the right course in this matter. He had only
now to say, that if ever the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer did set his heart to work to consider this question,
(he Mr. Bright) hoped he would also take into his con-
sideration, in connection with it, the barbarous principle
of consanguinity, by which one man receiving property
by descent paid 1/. per cent. legacy duty ; another, a
nephew, 3/. per cent. ; and another, a stranger, 101.
per cent. An illegitimate child was even taxed 101.
per cent., as if its illegitimacy was a crime upon itself.
(Hear, hear.) Nothing, he submitted, could be
more barbarous than a state of things like that. At
all events, the main question was before the public that
the Exchequer had received within the last fifty-five
years some 80,000,0001. or 90,000,0001. from the duty
in question, the greater portion of which had been charged
upon a class of society during all that time very inade-
quately represented in that house, and who believed it
had been so raised just because the landed proprietors of
the country were very adequately represented there.
(Hear, hear.) He must say that he had very high expecta-
tions of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
he would beg of the right hon. gentleman not to be
afraid of the hobgoblins which had been raised by the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), but fairly
to grapple with this question, and settle it in a way
which would meet with general satisfaction throughout
the country. (Cheers,)

Mr. WILKINSON said he agreed in the principle in-
volved in the motion of his hon. colleague, but he could
not see the use of pressing it to a division after the state-
ment which it had elicted from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Should his colleague, however, be still dis-
posed to divide the house, he (Mr. Wilkinson) would
vote with him.

Mr. WILLIAMS briefly replied.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

124

Majority against the motion
THE CASE OF M. BONACICH.

Mr. MUNTZ moved fora select committee to inquire
into the petition of M. Bonacick relative to the improper
seizure of the Novello, and to report how far he was en-
titled to compensation from the British Government.
Captain SCOBELL seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON stated that there was no man
who would be more zealous than himself to do justice to
the fair claims of any foreigner upon the Government of
this country, and upon every principle of equity and
justice the Government was bound to satisfy all just
claims made upon it. His objection to granting the
committee was, that the claim had been already fully in-
vestigated both at the Treasury and at the Foreign-
office, and he would advise the house not to consent to
the appointment of the committee, as he did not believe
that the individual for whom the committee was asked
had the slightest legal claim upon the Government of
this country.
Lord STANLEY said thtt he thought that an act of
injustice had been committed in this case, and that the
house and the country were bound in some measure to
repair it. It was quite true that M. Bonacich was put
into prison at the suit of a private person, but his impri-,
sonment was caused solely by the difficulties of the posi-
tion in which he was placed by the conduct of the Admi-
ralty in seizing his vessel. He did not think the house
was a fit tribunal to judge of the merits of the question,
and as he believed there existed a prirad facie case, he
thought the house ought not to refuse the inquiry asked
for.

Mr. M. GIBSON thought that on the face of these
transactions there existed a prima fade case for inquiry.
Mr. MUNTZ stated that the vessel was detained for
seven years, and sold for 1,0001., the whole of which sum,
with the exception of 1341., was appropriated to the pay-
ment of the Admiralty and brokers' fees.
After a few words from Mr. French, Mr. Hume, and
Mr. Wilson,
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to an appeal made
by an hon. member, stated that he had performed his
duty in stating the reasons why he thought the claim
was unfounded, and that the appointment of the com-
mittee would only involve an unnecessary waste of the
time of hon. members. As it appeared, however, to be
the general opinion of the house that the inquiry should
be gone into, he would waive his objection to the ap-
pointment of the committee.
The motion was then agreed to.
GRIEVANCES OF THE LETTER-CARRIERS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had no doubt the house
was in favour of the resolution he had to propose; and if
the Government would assent to it, ho world not trouble
the house with any arguments in support of it. The re-
; solution was—" That it appears to this house, from the
numerous petitions presented during the present session by
the letter-carriers of Great Britain and Ireland, that, con-
sidering the responsible and arduous nature of their employ.
ment, the amount of their official salaries is generally, in-
sufficient, and that their complaints of its inadequacy
merit the attention of her Majesty's Government." He
brought this motion forward in consequence of the nume-
rous petitions that had been presented from the letter-car-
riers of above 400 towns and districts in England, Scot-
land, Ireland, and Wales. They complained of the inade-
quacy of their pay, and stated that their sufferings had
been greatly aggravated in consequence of an order of the
Postmaster-General in July last, prohibiting them from
soliciting the Christmas-boxes which they been in the habit
of receiving. Ho did not advocate the system of paying
public servants by gratuities ; he believed it to be bad and
vicions—(hear)—and he believed the letter-carriers them-
selves thought so. But when these gratuities formed a
considerable part of their salary, they ought not to be taken
away without the salary being advanced in proper Lion.
Continual returns had been called for as to the amount of
the salaries and gratuities of these officers ; and they had
been told, when applying for increased salaries,
ta.at a portion of their pay was derived from Christmas-
boxes and gratuities. The order of the Postmaster-Gene-
ral applied originally to the letter-carriers of the whole
country, including the metropolis. The district letter-
carriers, or Two-penny Postmen, as they were called, num-
bered bout 900 ; the general post letter-carriers, about
300. Hearing what was in contemplation by the Govern-
ment, they made representations to the Postmaster-C ene-
ral, and the order was immediately suspended as regarded
the metropolitan letter-carriers. But it was still in force
as regarded the provincial letter-carriers ; and it was only
in abeyance as to the London letter-carriers; and might be
enforced next Christmas. But why should there be any
distinction ? The public cheerfully paid the gratuities,
thinking that the men were under-paid. He had to com-
plain of the system pursued in the post delivery of the me-
tropolis. Why there should be any distinction between
the two classes of letter-carriers in the metropolis, he could
not understand ; but if there was to be a distinction, it
ought rather to be in favour of the district letter-carriers,
the men with blue coats. The dutiel of the men with red
coats were over about ten o'clock in the morning, or they
were only engaged in sorting letters for the others. They
received from 235. to 30s. a week, with a very good super-
annuation allowance. I'he district letter-earners had ten
deliveries in the day, and they also assisted in delivering
the general post letters. But the great hardship fell
on the provincial letter-carriers. Their appeal to the house
was not premature ; for they had taken every means
to obtain redress from the Postmaster-General, and
were assured that he had no power to relieve them. As
many as 369 memorials from different towns and districts
had been presented to the Postmaster-General; and no re-
dress whatever had been obtained. He (Mr. Duncombe)
had received from 400 to 500 letters on the subject, repre-
senting that the case was one of great hardship, and re-
questing him to bring it before the house. The whole of
the provincial newspapers were advocating, much to their
credit, the cause of the letter carriers. There was scarcely
a gentleman in the house who had not had to present peti-
tions on the subject. Another ground of complaint by these
persons was that their small pay was stopped during sick-
ness. One letter carrier at Deal was knocked down by a
horse and cart ; his ribs were fractured, and he sustained
other serious injuries. He was unable to attend to his
duties for four months ; his stipend was stopped, and he
could obtain no relief from the Postmaster-General. When
on duty this man had to walk 20 miles a day ; he was at
work from six in the morning till eight at night; and for
this he only received 14s. a week. In some of the large
towns the number of letter carriers was extremely small
in proportion to the population, Manchester, with 300,000
inhabitants, had 80 ; Leeds, 20 ; Sheffield, 15 ; Bradford,
7, with 5 assistants. These men had no superannuation al-
lowances. An old woman at Beaminster, who had acted as
letter-carrier for 40 years, had recently been dismissed with-
out anyallowance. The Postmaster-General's answer to such
applications was that he had no power to grant any relief ;
the Legislature ought to give him this power for this was
a case where the public wished to be taxed in order that
these deserving officers might be properly remunerated.
(Hear.) Cases of defalcation were frequently occurring,
and the way to get honest servants was to give them adequate
Wages. (Hear.) Much to their credit, the middle class
and the gentry had taken up the claim of these persons ;
and ho hoped the house would entertain it.
Mr. IWART, in seconding the motion, said he had re-
ceived a strong representation from his own constituents as
to the importance of this case. There was great variety in
the wages paid to letter-carriers in different parts of the
nwpsColol
wore
nen: taer yeoun; the amount
towns. raTnhgeedrufermomoria2Ois.frionmLoLnidvoenrpot:l7cos.min.
mental improvement
of
employed, the o
notng a
omr hourso
recreation.duringm ent s
leisurew hi
Theyc h
bthee a
being
also
o allowedcomplained letter-carriers
for
of their wages being so much lowr than those of the Lon-
donl
rl e. tNt eEr
w carriers,EG A
TE said he could easily conceive that
London
great hardship was inflicted by the order
was an anomaly that the letter-carriers ininLcol
be allowed to receive Christmas-boxes, while those' in the
provinces were not. The result would be that the service
in the provinces would be worse performed.
Arr. J. WILSON said he entirely concurred in much
that had fallen from Mr. Duncombe. Regarding their
numbers and station in life; there could not be found a
more— respectable and praiseworthy set of men than the
upon whom devolved most important d •
1 tt e
Looking-earialtethe responsible
hiposhitiotnhewhihachd thoeypehrfeoldruau,t_lthisa,;
olfabloaueb°uw.rhiwch, which
nyearer to common dgreescarit patmioonunotf
la-
bour, was therefore paid at ft lower rate than any kind of

skilled labour—these things commended them to the con-
sideration of the house. Attention had been called to the
'case of the country letter-carriers, who were prohibited
from soliciting, not from receiving, Christmas-boxes,
though that probably did not make much difference. The
Postmaster-General very much concurred in the t 3 el,' a -
t ion s that had been made on their cases He had it at this
moment under consideration, with a view to rectifying it
in such a way as should prove of advantage to the Post-
office service. (Hear.) As the question involved a large
sum of money, there being thousands of persons employed
as letter-carriers throughout the country, it would be right
to allow the Postmaster-General full time to consider the
best mode of meeting the case. (Hear, hear.) As to the
London letter-carriers, the Postmaster-General was also
quite prepared to admit that there was at present an ine-
quality greater than was sanctioned or justified by the dif-
ference of duties they had to perform, and which ought to
be remedied in some way or other. (Hear, hear.) A dif-
ference had subsisted for some years. It had arisen out
of circumstances very different from those now existing.
The frequent arrival of mails during the day, and the
arrival of foreign mails, the contents of which must
necessarily be conveyed to every district at the earliest
possible moment, had greatly increased the duties de-
volving on the district letter Carriers. One of the ori-
ginal reasons in favour of a higher remuneration to the
twopenny-postmen still existed—they were obliged to
attend at very early hours to assist in the in-door business
of sorting letters. The difference of wages was not so
great as that of the superannuation allowance ; and the
public service had probably been injured by reducing the
superannuation allowance, because men sought to retain
the situations longer than they were able to perform the
duties. At present the superannuation allowance to the
general post letter-carriers varied from 201. to 501., accord-
ing to the length of service ; the highest amount that had
recently been given was 231. Bs. The Postmaster-General
allowed that that was a subject which would readily ad-
mit of some consideration. The complaint of the provin-
cial letter-carriers was already under his lordship's consi-
deration ; and he (Mr. Wilson) was sure the house would
rather leave the matter in his hands, with a view to arriv-
ing at a fair arrangement than deal with it themselves.
As to the anomalies said to exist in various parts of the
country, nothing could be more unfair or unjust than
that salaries should be paid to public servants without re-
gard to the ordinary wages in those districts. It was well
known that the rate of wages was very different
at Hertford, for instance, from what it was in a large
manufacturing town like Glasgow ; and it was the duty of
the Postmaster-General to consider at wliat rate he could
get those services performed. He would be much blamed
were he to pay 20s. a week to those men in the agricultu-
ral districts, because they were receiving 20s. in Liverpool
and other large towns. The honourable gentleman had
said, that the number of postmen should be in pro-
portion to the population. He could not take a more
fallacious test. At Liverpool packets were arriving at all
hours of the night, at uncertain times ; and to consult the
convenience of the commercial public, who were anxious
to have the letters brought by those packets with the least
delay, it was necessary to have a large force of men in
waiting, in order that no time might be lost on the arrival
of a packet. Again, at Birmingham, which was a great
thoroughfare for the mails to and from other towns, it was
impossible that the number of men employed in the Post-
office service should be regulated by the population of the
place, or that it should be any test at all. This was a
question of very serious financial interest. He was cer-
tain the house would not be parsimonious in doing justice
to such a deserving body of men ; but, considering the
immense amount of money paid for the management of
the Post-office, and the large proportion of the receipts now
sacrificed (he did not say improperly so) in that way, it
was evident that the slightest increase in the wages of
thousands of persons, unless absolutely necessary, must
form a very large charge upon the remaining small balance.
Wherever application was made to the Postmaster-General
or the Treasury in cases of this kind, a remedy was applied
if necessary. But it would be impossible to lay down a
general rule ' • he therefore hoped the house would leave the
Government to deal with the cases as they occurred, ac-
cording to the merits of each ; and each case would receive
the utmost attention.

After some further discussion, the motion was with.
drawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

Mr. COLLIER rose to move for a select committee for
the purpose of inquiring whether the Ecclesiastical Courts
might not be advantageously abolished, their jurisdiction
over all matters not purely ecclesiastical transferred to
other existing tribunals, and new courts established for
the purpose of dealing speedily and effectually with mat-
ters purely ecclesiastical ; and whether the jurisdiction of
the Court of Admiralty might not be advantageously trans-
ferred to local tribunals. He had not given this notice
until the intention of the Government, with reference to
the ecclesiastical courts, had been announced on the highest
authority. Had their announcement been satisfactory he
should not have interfered, but he was sorry to say it was
not so, as Government proposed to wait for the report of
the commission, and then only to interfere with the eccle-
siastical jurisdiction of the courts; whereas, in his opinion,
the better way would be to see whether they could not be
abolished altogether. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the
commission, he had this to say, that it was to a great ex-
tent composed of civilians practising in these courts, and
it was not unnatural to suppose that they would be inclined
to favour the courts in which they themselves practised.
(Hear.) The distinction between law and equity was bad
enough, but here, what with their civilian, their registrars,
their doctors, proctors, and surrogates, these ecclesiastical
courts were the greatest abuse that had lasted down
to modern times. They had over and over again
been reported against and condemned. In 1830 a
commission containing judges of the courts themselves,
after examining 30 or 40 witnesses, reported against them.
but recommended an inadequate remedy—the abolition of
all the courts except those of York and Canterbury. A.
committee of the House of Lords fully considered the sub-
ject in 1845, and reported for the abolition of the testamen-
tary jurisdiction, and a bill passed that house substituting
central tribunal, but it was thrown out in the Commons,
Subsequently the Irish courts were subjected to an inves-
tigation, and they were equally condemned. The general
concurrence of opinion was for the abolition of the courts,
and his belief was that nothing short of that would meet
the exigency. First, as to their jurisdiction over wills,
and their administration. This jurisdiction was originally
usurped. Our Saxon ancestors, before the conquest, were
in the habit of settling these questions in the old county
court, and it was not until the Norman conquest that the
clergy got hold of the jurisdiction. The reason given might
perhaps amuse the house. It was said that ecclesiastics,
being in at the death of the testator, would know his in-
tentions better than any one else, and would know what
was good for his soul, which they generally ascertained
to be the appropriation of his property to pious uses. (A
laugh.) They took care that none went to payment of
his debts, and it was not until the time'of Edward 111.
that they were compelled to depute administration to his
relatives. The number of these courts at present in exist-
ence was 372. (Hear, hear.) They were archbishops,
archdeacons, vicars, and manor courts, with several others,
and so numerous were they that it was almost impossible
to get at the limits of their jurisdiction. This led to the
greatest expense and uncertainty on taking out letters of
administration and in questions relating to the disposal of
the vastly increasing personal property of the country.
With respect to the expense, he found the salary of Sir H.
J. Fust to be for 1849, 3,9041. 13s. &1., and that of Mr.
Moore, the registrar, 8,2651.175. 4d. (Loud cries of " Hear, a
hear.") For this enormous salary the registrar never did
single duty, although having for thirty years received the
sum of 300,0001. (Hear, hear.) He certainly could not
understand how the hon. member for Montrose had rested
for the last twenty-five years with such an abuse in exis-
tence. (Cheers and laughter.) (Mr. Hume—l attacked it
twenty-five years ago.) Yes, but the hon. member had let
it rest ever since. There were three deputy-registrars
with salaries 2,3221.125., and three clerks 8321. 125., which
dwindled in 1852 to 851. 17s. 2d. Now these clerks did all
the business, while Mr. Moore got all the emolument. It
might be expected that the functionaries of these courts
would at least provide secure receptacles for the valuable
documents of which they insisted upon having the charge,
but the fact was that they were kept in an unprotected
room, next to a wheelrights, and there was constant dan-
ger that they might be all suddenly consumed. The com-
missioners had decided that a new building should be pro-
vided at the expense of the registrar, but their recommen-
dation had not been attended to. Again, it was almost
impossible to find a will. To a rich man it was difficult,
but to a poor man generally impossible. The suits in
these courts were most expensive. They could not deal
with all the questions that arose relative to the ad-
ministration of personal property, and some of their de-
crees must be enforced by a suit at common law. In con-
sequence of these and other defects a will was often con-
tested in these courts at once ; in illustration of which he
would state a case that had occurred about ten years since.
A gentleman died in Devonshire about ten years ago,
leaving an ample provision for his wife—the will was con-
tested in the Ecclesiastical Court, on the ground that the
testator was insane when he made it. After a contest of
several years, that court decided that the man was insane
at the time of making the will, but the estate had then
got into the Court of Chancery, and they directed an issue
to be tried by a jury as to the sanity, who, six years after
the same question had been decided by the Ecclesiastical
Court, pronounced in conformity with that decision. But
in the meanwhile the estate had been all swallowed up in
costs incurred in the three courts, and the estate not being
sufficient, the poor widow was incarcerated in a prison.
(Hear, hear.) This showed the working of the system.
Now, with regard to the remedy he would suggest. In the
first place, they had the County Courts, which, on the
whole, had exercised a very satisfactory jurisdiction, and
he saw no reason why they should not entrust to those
courts that portion, at least, of the jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical Courts. He had drawn up a bill, in which
he proposed to give to the County Courts jurisdiction in all
cases of probate in the ordinary form ; and he suggested
that the probate should be granted in the county court of
the place where the testator had died, and that one
probate should do for the whole kingdom. (Hear, hear,
hear.) He proposed further to give to these courts
jurisdiction in all cases of whatever amount, with the
consent of the parties, and in cases of small amount, say
300/., without such consent. In cases of a large amount,
when the parties did not consent to avail themselves of the
county courts, jurisdiction should be given to some higher
court—he thought one of the courts of common law would
be preferable, as that would be the fittest for deciding on
questions of fact—as whether the party was insane—
whether there was any fraud—whether the will was
executed,pro-
peroloymmonlaw
had alsoandothetrshisofadaysainlaglaer nature.ihath Thethey
exercised
courts
of
a local jurisdiction at the circuits, Which the Chancery
courts did not. Again, he believed the Court of Chancery
had already its hands full, and if more business were put
upon them an additional number of judges would be needed;
whereas there was, he understood, already a sufficient
amount of judicial force in the common law courts to dis-
pose
would of the
be desirablehebusi
business which
fohict the
hhe pproposedttohocounty
transfer to them.
tothem.
It
rheafve er
at
oe hme pi] ale,
tbeojuthrrndriontgiaornd iton the
awmaantdters he
equity,proposed
wher athtoo
amount was under the limit, because if in such cases the
wantthe
estateneees s ity
wouldt to
ghee i sera l ohwe aCdo our tp of
AtC h
pa
rneeseellt ,r foreei aie
thee d,
taken out in small cases at all. One of the great of
,some such ready jurisdiction probate was often not
de-
siderata in reference to testamentary law was a proper
and efficient system of registration of wills. He
proposed that there should be a local registrar
appointed by the judge of the County Court, to
whom the will should be taken in the first instance, and
that after probate it should be transmitted to the Registrar-
General in London, who shall keep all wills in his custody
in fire-proof places, and prepare an index for ready refer.
ence. There was already, he believed, the nucleus of such
a system of local registration in the registration above 101.
Then with regard to divorces. At present the ecclesiasti-
cal courts had power to grant divorces e mensa et thoro,
but not e matrimcmio. When the legislature recog-
nised the z ight of dissenters to be married out of the church,