The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-11 00:00:00

PUNISHMENT BY DEATH.

Mr, EWART presented petitions from several places
in Scotland, praying for the abolition of all capital
punishment.
RELIEF COMMITTEES IN IRELAND.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, seeing the Right Hon. the
Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to know whe-
ther the circular which had been issued by Mr. Reding-
ton was to be the sole guide fur relief committees relative
to the time when public works should be discontinued.
He saw by the papers of that morning, that there were
60,000 men 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 directions to the Board of Works of a very precise
nature regarding the manner which they were to dirni •
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 be put in possession of
the views of her Majesty'slGover nmentupon the subject.
RUSSO-DUTCH LOAN.
_ _

E presented various petitions praying the
House to discontince the payment of the Russo-Dutch
Loan.

DESTITUTION IN IRELAND.

Mr. P. SCROPI wished to know from the Secretary
for Ireland whether the Government bad taken mea-
sures to prevent the families of those persons who were
confined in prison for offences from starving. He re-
ferred to ono case in particular—that of a woman, who,
having been confined in prison lor stealing some articles
of bread, found, on her release, that her husband was
41 e a (I. He wished to know if, in such cases as theie,
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 lion. Gentleman should be the first to command the
attention of the relief committees.
NEW IV IT.

Lord MARCUS HELL mov. d that a new writ be
issued for the election of a Member for the bw-ough of
Lewes, in the room of Sir Howard Elphiustone, 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 II 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-
eonsl property to the amount of 150,0001., and the
executors retained a considerub!e amount in their
hands in anticipation of being cAled upon to
pay the legacy duty upon the residue. In the
year 1839, the probate of the will was granted.
Subsequently the legacy duty aas demi.nded of the
executors, and paid, though they pr,,teE•ted against the
claim as altogether illegal. The lion. and Learned
Member having stated the particulars of the matter,
cited two ewes in 1637 and 1838. in which, under ana-
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. Thi-, he submitted, settled the question.
Ultimately the authorities in Scotland, probably acting
under the it,fluenec of menaces from the Government,
paid 9,284: Gs. 4d. on the 19th of January,
1842, the Scotch judges having decided that the
legacy duty was payab!e. 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, 1843, it appeared so clear to the
House of Lord,, and to the judges there as-
sembled, that they came to the opinion that the legacy
duty was not payable 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.
Ile 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 ',louse. An Act was
passed in the year 17%, and a principle had been esta-
blished under that Act, which had continued down to
the present ti.m9. The practice was that wherever let- '
ters of administration were taken out, legacy duty was
payable upon the bequests. 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. lie did not think that the Hon. and Learned
Member had made out any case to call for
the intervention of that House. 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 lion. 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. Wash a reason that, because the money had been taken
by a misconstruction 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 It. H. lINIGLIS 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 it refunded.
He concurred with the lion. Member for Sheffield, and
would resist the motion.

forMrleg Uancy was made on the property of a party t
BdluEtysaid that in 1838, when a similar claim
t
died in Jamaica, the payment was resisted, and the Go-
vernment (lid not enforce the claim.
The ATTORNEY-GENEIIA L said the llon. 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 notbeen 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 Bedesdale, gave their decision that legacy duty was