The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

to the time when public works should be discontinued.
He saw by the papers of that morning, that there were
60,000 m( n at present engaged, and if that circular
were to furnish the only rule, he thought the number
would require to be increased instead of diminished.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Treasury had
issued direecons to the Board of Works of a very precise
nature regarding the manner in which they were to dirai •
nish the number of men engaged on the public works.
He had no objection to lay those directions on the table,
when the Hon. Gentleman would bo put in possession of
the views of 11,r Majesty'., Government upon the subject.
RUSSO-DU TC H LOAN.
Mr. HUME presented various petitions praying the
flou,e to discontinue the payment of the Russo-Dutch
Loan.

DESTITUTION IN IRELAND.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know from the Secretary
for Ireland whether the Government had taken mea-
sures to prevent the families of those persons who were
confined in prison fur offences from starving. lie re-
ferred to one ease in particular—that of a woman, who,
Laving been confin+ d to prison ;or stealing some articles
of bread. found, on her release, that her husband was
dead. He wished to know if, in such cases us these,
Government had provided any resource ?
Mr. LABOUCHERE complained that the Hon.
Member had given no notice of his question. He
thought, however, that such a ease as that named by
the Hon. Gentleman should be the first to command the
attention of the relief committees.
NEW WRIT.
Lord MARCUS HILL moved that a new writ be
issued for the elt ction of a Member for the borough of
Lewes, in the room of Sir Howard Elphinstone, who had
accepted the office of a steward of the Chiltern Hun-
dreds.
CASE OF SIR THOMAS BRISBANE AND

OTHERS.
Dr. BOWRING called the attention of the H use to
the petition of Sir Thomas Brisbane and others, with a
view to the redress of the, grievance of which it com-
plained. The petitioners were the executors of a gen-
tleman who died a short while ago in India leaving per-
sonal property to the attiount of 150,0001., and the
executors retained a conSiderab!e amount in their
hands in anticipation of being called upon to
pay the legacy duty upon the residue. In the
year 1839, the probate of the will was granted.
Subsequently the legacy duty was demanded of the
executors, and paid, though they protested against the
claim as altogether illegal. The Hon. and Learned
Member having stated the particulars of the matter,
cited two cases in 1837 and 1838. in which, under ens.
logous circumstances, the legacy duty was not exacted.
The opinion of the late Sir William Follett was, that
the legacy duty could not be claimed under the
circumstances. This, he submitted, settled the question.
Ultimately the authorities in Scotland, probably acting
under the influence of menaces from the Government,
paid 9,2841. 6s. 4d. on the 19th of January,
1842, the Scotch judges having decided that the
legacy duty was payable. An appeal against their
decision was carried to the' House of Lords in the same
year; considerable delay took place, which was not,
however, attributable to the petitioner; but in
February, 1845, it appeartd so clear to the
House of Lot-de, and to the judges there as-
sembled, that they came to the opinion that the legacy
duty was not pa} able in this case, and declared that the
payment of the duty entirely depended upon the testator
at the time of his death. The Government had thus
appropriated about 9,2001. which did not belong to it.
He hoped that after the statement which had been made
the House would allow his motion for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the subject.
Mr. PARKER said that he did not at all dis-
pute the general facts stated by his Honourable Friend,
nor would he attempt to controvert any fact stated
by him, with one exception. The reasons on
which the Government had acted were sound ones,
and he would state them to the Mouse. An Act was
passed in the year 1796, and a principle had been elite-
blished under that Act, which had continued down to
the present time. The practice was that wherever let-
ters of administration were taken out, legacy duty was
payable upon the 1::a quests. That principle had not
altered in any way from the year 1796 down to that time.
The construction of the law since 1845 was somewhat
different from that which had ruled since 1796, for it
had been laid down by the judges that domicile was
the test of exemption from legacy duty, and that
administration on property in India was liable to legacy
duty. He did not think that the Hon. and Learned
Member had made out any case to call for
the intervention of that use. It was in the
power of the House of. Lords to pronounce a reversal.—
(Hear, hear.) It was in their power, and there might
be circumstances to warrant a decision not accordant
with general rules ; but until that supreme court
did pronounce such an opinion, he thought that there
was no case made out by the Hon. and Learned Member.
Mr. WARBURTON said it did not appear to him
that the Crown were prepared to refund the money,
and by this rule, if the Crown did wrongfully possess
itself of the money of a subject, they would never return
it. Wasit art ason that, because the money had been taken
by a mi,construction of the law, the Crown should not
return that money ? A distinction had been attempted
to be drawn in this case between the law as laid
down by the House of Lords in the cases of
the Attorney-General v. Jackson and Arnold v.
Arnold, because the property in this case was
partly in India and partly in England.
Was he to take the law as laid down by the Lord
Chancellor, or was he to take the law as declared by
the Secretary to the Treasury? That seemed to him to
be the simple question to be decided.
Sir R. H. INGLIS contended that at the time the
money was paid the law justified the Crown's receiving it,
and therefore the parties had no right to have itrefunded.
He concurred with the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and
would resist the moti.m.
Mr. HUME said that in 1838, when a similar claim
for legacy duty was made on the property of a party that
died in Jamaica, the payment was resisted, and the Go-
vernment did not enforce the claim.
The ATTORNEY- GENERA L said the Hon. Member
who had spoken in favour of the resolution misappre-
hended the question. In 1845 an alteration had been
made in the law regarding the legacy duty, and since
then it had not been enforced against the estates of those
who died abroad. With regard to the opinion of the
late Sir William Follett, that was an opinion founded
on a private case submitted to him, and was
not to be taken as any authority on the point. In 1795
two of the most eminent lawyers that had ever held
office in this country under the Crown, Lord Eldon and
Lord Redesdale, gave their decision that legacy duty was
payable in every case where the probate duty was
claimed in this country. From that time up till 1845 the
first lawyers in the country concurred in this decision.
In the case of Arnold v. Arnold, which, however, had
no bearing at all on the present case, Lord Cottenham
decided that the parties were not liable to pay the le-
gacy duty in England, as they had done AO in India. In
the case of the Attoiney-General v. Thompson. it was
decided that legacy duty was payable, and Mr. Thomp-
son accordingly paul it.
'Dr..BOWRING said Mr. Thompson denied that he
had paid it..
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that
the decision was appealed against, but Lord
Campbell, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lynd-
burst decided that the payment of the legacy
duty was governed by "domicile." If this case
had occurred before 1845, the duty would not have been
payable ; but if the principle of the lion. Gentleman was
to be adopted, every shilling levied since 1796
would have been an illegal act. It was a prin-
ciple in law, that all money paid through
the decision of juries, or by mistake, was not
recoverable.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.) He
repeated that was a principle in law. On these grounds
he felt it his duty to oppose the motion of the lion.
Gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT said that it appeared that Mr. Douglas
had paid a legacy duty upon certain moneys to
the amount of 9,2001. The Attorney General had
stated that the case was one perfectly similar
to that which might happen between private parties.
inasmuch as the money had been paid with the belief
that the just interpretation of the law required it.
Now he took the strongest exceptions to the arguments
of his Learned Friend, for the law had not been decided,
and at the very moment when the Crown demanded the
money the Crown was aware that the law was contested
in the case of the. Attorney-General v. Thompson.—
(Hear.) Now, if the case was similar to that of private
parties, he ventured to say that any man would
blast his character for ever as a man of honour, if he
refused to pay the money, and what was more, he would
affirm that there was not a mercantile house in the
whole of the city of London that would act
in the manlier the Crown had acted in this case.
He believed that domicile, instead of governing the law
of legacy duty for only the last two years, had been the
rule for the last twenty years. Tne Government, there-
fore, in calling upon the administrators to pay 9,2841. at
that time were acting against the principle of the law
us then existing, and as acted upon by the judges. The
Hon. Member then referred to precedents in support of
nthis
opno stiotisounp,
pa,iiirdt e
trioo u
teido
nby of expressing
ahnids dzetaerriml
Learned
Member for Belton. •
Sir F. TIIESIGER, said, that after the very clear
statement of his Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General,
there remained very little to state on this subject. The
iotnwlyoquiud grantestit
question
the
Select
ohtnamd
tt
toe
ec, cons
dc enr
wwoansl,d
beech h t
.
sidered to be equivalent ordering the money to be rnse-
funded. It seemed strange to him, that p
who had saved money under the law as it
then stood, should afterwarde, on a change taking
erso
place inahe law, call upon the Government to refund ihat
money. He would certainly vote against the proposition
of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. BERNAL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had last spoken had omitted one important point in
his view of this question. He (Mr. Bernal) maintained, ii
the facts contained in the petition were correct, the money
had been paid under a protest, and that at once toek
the case out of the narrow circlein which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had pieced it. It was a question of vast im-
portance, and it was very necessary taut points involving
considerations like the present ehould be permanently
set at rest. The money was paid according to the then
construction of the law, and nit under the law itself,
and the motion could not therefore be objected to on
that ground.
Dr. BOWRING replied, and asked leave to withdraw
his motion, promising at the same time, at a future
period to bring the subject forward in another shape.
The motion ,vas two rdingly edraen.
FLOtiGING IN THE NAVY.

Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a return of the
numbpr of iwrions flogged in the British navy till after
the other Orders of the day.
DEATHS IN IRELAND.

td (3. 1311YEINi_;1,._ )tto-,.? ,;ouip,-.117,:tir2 r.'tarn
of the number of deaths yiLteh hare occurred in each
parish of ;reland in each of the three last periods of ail(