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

*4"

"
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
- were fixed and definite.intenti9P4 on the subjcct.of t4e
income tax than have been as, yet expressed. The
gentleman says,' Here is a system -of law that operates in
favour 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-
tleman 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 houfie 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 his hon. 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 found 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 thek 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 1111(110 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—
c.:rtainly 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-
bath, 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 was 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
got 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 hee-.1 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' ilthat
was fairly rooked `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.

another
BRIGHT said, if there was one thing more than
• el,' In which the country felt more than an ordinary
dirLte_revt., it was the very tax which the house was now
a fe
sing ' and he rose merely for the purpose of making
w observations, which he thought would place this
Yieve estion in a d
the Peietly odious point of view. He be-
fully admitted that Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night
at the condition of this tax was a great
grievance, and required. a remedy. The right hon. gen-
tleman was not the only Chancellor of the Exchequer
who had made such an admission.
tleman the member for Bu, The right hon. ten-
arnshire admitted it ;
nd not only admitted it, but
out an expectation
hat if he had remained in office he would, before long,
_eepreling it, or by
levying it equallyta
have dealt with this tax, either by r
on all kind
ofprops
to tninl:he
present
liancellor of the Exchequer appearedP
'something in the stamp duty which made it in Sk thoeretne'v'd-aes-
gree a balancing tax to the one of which complaint
was
now made ; but the right hon. gentleman forgot tha
leasehold property paid all the stamp duty Which t
free-
hold paid. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) thought the
holders of leasehold property—and the great bulk of
the property in this metropolis was of that tenure—had
a great 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.
buring 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 U.
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,passession the property would cease to pay this
tax at all, and the colossal wealth of which it was the
13Y,1.b.3.1 was exempted from the payment of an impost
pressedwf upon the property of a poor man in this
',Weatrry, even that property was only of the value of 201.
to"!`an ) He (Mr.. Bright) knew a case in which an old
, who died in 1836, left some amount of property in
'stock to his son, who on succeeding to it paid legacy duty
at the rate of 1/. perteent. The son died, and left it to
his mother, and then hoperty paid again. The mother
died and left it to another
on, and then it paid once more.
yearg
That son died about aago,ileaving it to his children,
who were new living, and tlen the 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 questiori
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 11. per cent. legacy duty ; another, a
nephew, 31. per cent. ; and another, a stranger, 101.
per cent. An illegitimate child was even taxed 10/.
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 expectai
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 7l
Against it.. . 124

Majority against the motion
THE CASE OF M. BONACICH,

Mr. MUNTZ moved for a 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
jnstice 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 that 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 primeg fade 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 facie 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 corn-
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 hid no doubt the house
• was in favour of the resolution he had to propose • and if
. the Government would assent to it, he would 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, eon-
sidering the responsible and arduous nature of theiremploy-
ment, the amount of their official salaries is generally in-
r sufficient, and that their complaints of its inadequacy
1 merit the attention of her Majesty's Government." He
brought this motion forward in consequence of the nume-
-1 roux 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. He -Aid not advocate the system of paying
- public servants by gratuities ;he believed it to be bad and
vicious—(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 proportion.
. 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,
' that 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-
• tiered about 900; the general post letter-carriers, about
300. Hearing what was in contemplation by the Govern-
ment, they made representations to the Postmaster-Gene-
. 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 duties 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. The district letter-carriers had ten
deliveries in the day, and they also assisted in delivering
the general pcist 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 smal
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 Beaiininster, who had acted as
letter-carrier for 40 years, had recently been dismissed with-
out any allowance. 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 i 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 he hoped the house would entertain it.
Mr. EWAItT, 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
some
paid to letter-can in different parts of the
country; the
atmowounnst. ranged from 20s. in London to 7s. in
country
The memorial from Liverpool com-
plained of the long hours during which the letter-carriers
were employed, not a moment's leisure being
g allowed for
mental improvement or recreation. They also complained
of their wages being so much lower than those of the Lon-
VTE said ho could easily conceive that
doNE wcarroiEersal.
3nir letter.
groat hardship was inflicted by the order in question.
should question. It
was an anomaly that the letter-carriers in London n
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.
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
duties.
Looking respectable and praiseworthyeve most set
important of menantthdanut.the
letter-earn devolved letter-carriers, upon whom .
which they had to perform—a,
great amount of labour .
Looking at the responsible ation which they held, the
nraetearetrhanto
acnoymkinmond leaf-
bdoeu.rscr:Pwtaiosnthoefrelfaobreouprawidhlacth'abloeinwegr,