The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-15 00:00:00

THE S

. .
fused by the Hon. Member, he would ask, where
the question would then be ? The next best thing to
a withdrawal, would be to vote with the Honourable
Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton), and this, he
for one should do. The fact was, the law bad done
all it could do, but society refused to act upon that
law.—(Hear, hear.) The opinion already expressed
in that House, echoed as it loudly would be by the
country, would be the surest way of rooting up this
great crime of society.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. TURNER, in reply, stated that he would be con-
tent to leave the whole subject in the hands of the
Right Hon. Baronet. He trusted the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet would introduce a Government measure on the
subject, and would not let the heavy responsibility of
introducing a Bill on the subject devolve upon an indi-
vidual Member. If, however, the Right Hon. Baronet
did not introduce a Bill on the subject, he (Mr. Turner)
should feel it his duty to do so. He wished to correct a
misapprehension under which some Hon. Members
seemed to labour as to a statement which he had made.
What he had said was that it was the law of Switzerland
that the man who killed another in a duel should be
liable for the debts of the deceased. He would at once,
seeing the general feeling of the House, withdraw the
motion, and he took no merit to himself for so doing.
The motion was then withdrawn.
PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTIES.

Mr. ELPHINSTONE then rose to move—" That
this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House, on an early day, for the purpose of taking
into consideration the Acts 36 Geo. M., c. 52, 45
Geo. 111., c. 28, 48 Geo. 111., c. 149, and 55 Geo. 111.,
c. 184, with the view of imposing the same amount of
probate-duty on real estate, as is now, in similar cases,
imposed on personal property ; and, likewise, of con-
sidering the expediency of imposing a probate-duty in
all cases, on the death of the cestui que trust (whe-
ther the trust property be realty or personalty); in order
to substitute such proposed probate-duty on real estate
for some of those taxes which now press most
heavily on the productive industry of the people."
In asking the House to take this subject into their
consideration, he hoped he should be enabled
to show to them that it was only just and fair
that the same taxes should be levied upon real property
which were levied upon personal property. As the law
at present stood, all personal property was liable to the
payment of probate duty and legacy duty upon the death
of its holder. Probate duty was levied upon the whole
of the property according to its value, whil3t the amount
of legacy duty.imposed varied according to the degree Of
relationship subsisting between the party receiving the
legacy and the deceased. There was this difference
between the two duties—that while real property was in
no case liable to the probate duty, in certain instances,
annuities, rent-charges, and lands directed to be sold under
the provisions of the Act 43 Geo. 111. were liable to
legacy duty. With these trifling exceptions, it might be
assumed that personal:property was in all cases liable to
these duties, while real property was.exempt.--(Hear,
hear.) Now this state of things was.most unjust to the
trading and commercial classes of this country.—
(Cheers.) It exposes} the Members of that and of the
other House of Parliament to most unpleasant imputa-
tions. It was known that the great majority of them
were landowners, and it exposed them to the imputation
of having passed a law, not for the public benefit,
but for their own private advantage.—(Cheers.)
When the imposition of the legacy duty was first pro-
posed by Mr. Pitt in the year 1796, he had intended to
impose the same tax upon real property, and although
the landowners were too strong for him, he told them
that he considered it would be unjust to lay a tax upon
personal property to which real property should not be
at the same time liable.—(Cheers.) Mr. Pitt, in intro-
ducing the Bill, said that he considered it but right that
property should contribute towards the expenses of a war
undertaken to defend the rights of property,and that landed
property being the most permanent of all property ought
to be called on to contribute accordingly—(Cheers)--
but, continued Mr. Pitt, " I do not intend that the im-
position of the legacy duty shall be confined to landed
property. I intend that it shall be imposed on per-
sonal property also."—(Hear, hear.) Such were the
sentiments of Mr. Pitt.—(Hear, hear.) The exemption
of real property from
.those duties was not only unjust,
it was absurd. In cases of leaseholds held for a term
of years, the leasehold was considered as personal pro-
perty, and was liable to the tax, but when a leasehold
was held for lives it was considered as real pro-
perty, and was exempt. It so happened in the
borough of South Shields that one-half of the
town was let on leases for lives, and the other
on leases for a term of years, so that one-
half of the inhabitants of the town were liable to the

tax, and the other half were exempt. He would ask
the House how they could suffer the liability to a tax
to be regulated by these absurd technicalities ? (Hear,
hear.) Why should the leaseholder in London be sub-
ject to this tax, while the copyholder in the country was
exempt ?—(Hear, hear.) He would now proceed to
show, from papers on the table of the House, what
was the amount , paid by the personal property of the
country from which the real property was exempt. It
appeared that, for the year ending sth of January, 1844,
a sum of 2,239,768 L 7s. W. had been levied as probate-
duty and as legacy duty; while from the returns, as
regularly laid before the House, it would appear that
from the year 1797, when these taxes was first imposed,
up to the close of last year, a sum amounting to
66,835,9591. had been contributed to the revenue from
the personal property of the kingdom by these taxes,
for which the real property was entirely exempt. There
were no precise means of getting at the amount which
the revenue would derive from the imposition of the
probate and legacy duties upon the real property of the
kingdom, but he thought they nlight arrive at some near
conclusion on the subject by a little calculation. Mr.
Gwynne, who had for years held a situation in the
Legacy Duty office,
,and who was a high authority on
the subject, estimated that one-thirtieth part of the per-
sonal property of the country was annually subjected to
these duties. The Right Hon. Baronet, in introducing
his measure for imposing th 6 income-tax, had estimated
the gross rental of the kingdom at 39,400,000/. ; now,
estimating the value of lande4 estates at 25 years pur-
chase, that would give 985,000,000 L, as the landed capi-
tal of the kingdom. If they applied Mr. Gwynne's cal-
culations to this statement, they would find that
33,000,000/. would be liable to this tax, and
that a revenue of about a million and a
half annually would be derived from this source.
There was another method of arriving at the
same conclusion. From Mr. Porter's valuable work on

the " Progress of the Nation" it appeared that there
were 46,000,000 of acres under cultivation in this coun-
try. if they took the rental at an average of 15s. an
acre, they would arrive at pretty nearly the same amount.
But whether his calculations on that point made the
amount too large or too small, still the fact remained
the same, that the land was exempt from a tax which
personal property was called on to pay. What could be
more unjust than that a merchant or manufacturer leav-
inra small pittance to his widow and family, should
have that pittance lessened by the imposition of these
duties, while the landed proprietor, who inherited an es-
tate of perhaps half a million, went scot free.—(Hear,
hear.) What could be more galling than that, land,
while it continued to be the property of a landed gen-
tleman, should not be subject to this tax but that the
moment it should be employed for the purposes of
commerce, that moment it was purchased by
partnership capital, it became liable.—(Hear, hear.)
The moment it was directed to be sold to satisfy the
demands of his family it became subject to the legacy
duty. It was a great injustice that land ordered to be
sold should be saddled with this legacy duty, because
it was also at the same moment liable to other taxes.
It was liable to auction duty, and to the duty paid on
conveyances—such was the case with land directed to
be sold ; but land that was inherited was exempt, Taxes
on real property had been imposed in all civilize&
countries, except England and Spain. The Romans
had levied a very large revenue from the levying of the
twentieth penny—the vicesima pars. France derived a
large revenue from the imposition of a tax upon real pro-
perty. The same was the case in Belgium, in Holland,
in Germany, in Switzerland, and in many of the smaller
States of Italy; and he-trusted the time was not far dis-
tant when the same would be the case in this country.
When he brought this question before the House two
years ago he was met by two assertions—the first of
which w as that it would be unfair to adopt this course,
because the stamp duties and the duties upon mortgages
were more than equivalent to any extra burdens which
might be imposed upon other classes. But he was able
to show the fallacy of this assertion by stating that the
whole amount derived by the revenue from stamps upon
deeds and other documents amounted to 1,600,0001,-but
then, in that sum was included the stamp duty upon per-'
sonal property, and he knew that only 400,000/. was de-
rived from real property, and mortgages, and settle-
ments, while the remainder of the 1,600,0001. was made
up out of personal property and bonds of every descrip-
tion. He was ready to admit that, these stamp duties
were a heavy burden upon the landed proprietary, inas-
much as they considerably increased the expenses of the
transfer of property. He was fully borne out in his views
upon this subject by the opinions of the eminent
conveyancers of the day. He found the same
principle of benefiting the rich at the expense
of the poor, pervaded all those laws. He should
take the case of a mortgage, or transfer of property, nn-
der 100/, and the stamp required for that would be 11,
whilst the amount of stamp duty on a mortgage of
20,000/. bore by no means a relative and proportionate
increase. If a poor man were to, require to transfer
property to the amount of 20/. the stamp duty would be
10s., whilst the rich Nobleman, who would have to trans-
fer property of the value of 20,0001, would pay 1,003/.
When a very large quantity of goods were to be sold,
those duties pressed much more lightly upon the large
salesman, and they made a distinction in his favour
against the small tradesman. Now he • thought what
was fair in one case was, and ought to be applied to all.
He should, if the House went into Committee upon this
matter, be able to - prove to their full satisfaction, that
the same principle should' be in operation with respect
to both personal and real property ; and he thought
this was quite a sufficient reason for his making this mo-
tion. The people of this country, above all other things,
loved fair play, and they could not understand, the rea-
ltupb
be
thee n acbolrdnetomfsson for this unfair decision.
notM sre.e how
TRELthAisWmNoEtiYon
couldsec b
ondeedopthpeoseirbiecon.auslie
Hd diond
.
keep Gentlemen
a d
opposite had said that it was necessary to
laws ,e in
tho order that
imposed the l anudphoonl dtehres
should
gentlemenagriculturalh4lterest.
alluded
to the necessityltwasttue
that some
of
of
upholdingth
those
those laws to meet mortgages, and enable them to grant
marriage settlements. He denied that those burdens
pressed more heavily upon the agricultural than they dAI
upon any other class of the community, The former
paid quite as heavily as the latter for the support- and
repairs of the highways. Again, the land and oiler
taxes were borne by the others quite as heavily as the
landholders. He utterly denied that the land bore
more than its fair proportion of the burdens of the

Bt7ate. ~ In consequence of the pressure of heavy excise
duties, the artisan now paid as much for one pound of
tobacco as would buy nine pounds, and the same was
applicable to a vast number of other commodities, so
that more than two-thirds of his labour went for the
payment of taxes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
ask whether, in point of order, this motion could be put.
The matter had been already twice discussed in this
House during the course of the last session. It was an
unusual course to make such a motion as this, which
affected the right of imposing new taxes.
The SPEAKER thought that the motion, as it stood,
was irregular. He had considerable doubt as to the
right of the House to impose any tax on the people
without a -direct message from the Crown.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the motion ought not to be taken at present.
Mr. HUME submitted that the House was perfectly
competent now to entertain the motion. The Hon.
Gentleman then read the motion. He considered that
the motion was legitimate, inasmuch as it did not pro-
pose any new tax; The utmost effect of it would be to
disburden one part of the community that was oppres-
sively taxed, and to compensate for that removal by
taxing those who could bear it. He hoped the day was
not far distant when the whole House world resolve it-
self into a Committee for the purpose of considering the
general subject of taxation ; more especially the ques-
tion of equal and unequal burdens borne by diffe-
rent - classes of the community. The Hon. Gentle-
man was about entering into the subject matter of the
motion when,
Sir R. PEEL rose to order. He assured the Hon.
Gentleman he would not have risen if he did not
consider that one of those safeguards against entering
too hastily into the subject of taxation was about being
invaded. The question then before the House was, not
whether the Hon. Gentleman's motion was politic or im-
politic, but whether or -no he was in order in making
that motion. • The Right Hon. Gentleman the Speaker
seemed to be in doubt upon the matter, but expressed
an opinion that the present motion was, at all events,
an evasion of the established rules of that House. Now,
he (Sir R. Peel) considered all interference with the
rules of the House as most dangerous, but evading them
. worse than any other species of innovation. If the
Hon. Gentleman were allowed to persevere in this mo •
tion, it might form a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Baronet need not.
be under any apprehension that he would at-
tempt to evade any of the rules of that
House. He believed there was no Honourable
Member more anxious to maintain the rules of that
House than he was. The fact was, he considered that
the opposition given to the motion by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was an
attempt to smother the motion, and as such he opposed
it ; but if there was any doubt that the motion was not
in conformity with the rules of the House, he would
have recommended his -.Honourable Friend to withdraw

the motion.
Mr. BARING thought it would be very wrong in the
House to decide without due consideration. lie agreed
in what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet as to
the propriety of preserving the rules of the House, and
that they should be particnlarly cautious in everything
that regarded taxation. The Hon. Gentleman might
have been guilty of some irregularity in bringing the
matter before the House, but he was sare the Hon. Gen-
tleman would not persevere in it contrary to the disposi-
tion of the House. _
._,___ ...
Mr. ELPHINSTONE ‘ was willing to withdraw the
motion, but he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
allow him.to fix some day next week for the considera-
tion of the motion.. . --
Sir R. PRF.L.--Yes, Tuesday or Thursday.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE hoped the Right lion: Baronet
would allow him to fix on a Government night. . --
Sir R. PEEL could'not consent to that proposition.
Mr. WARBURTON would suggest to his Hon. rela- -
tire that the debate should be adjourned, and he thought.
no objection could be_made to the motion.
The SPEAKER said he could not at that moment Re-
collect 'every precedent which would apply to the, present
case. H 6 `.thought it" was a case in which the douse
ought to, pause before it came to any decision.
Lord J. MANNERS thought it would be much better
to adjourn the debate to another evening.
Sir. A. LEITH- HAY objected to the adjournment of
the debate. '.. -‘ . . .
After a few observations from Mr. EViAIiT and Sir R.
PEEL, the motion was withdrawn.
POST-OFFICE.
Mr. -WALLACE, pursuant to notice, moved—" That
full effect be given to the Act, commonly called the,
Penny :Postage Act, by the. issue of postage free
stamped paper, without restriction as to size or quality,
—in addition to the use of labels, postage free envelopes,
and prepayment at post-offices, as at present."
The .CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that the Hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his
motion, as its adoption could not be attended with any
good.
Captain BERNAL said he was desired to express, on
the part of several stationers, their dislike of this mea-
sure for stamping half sheets of paper. They believed
that the •Government had the same security in the
' present stamped envelopes. . He believed, too, that the
people were perfectly satisfied with the present plan,
and he could not understand why the Hon. Member for
. Greenock should be so anxious to press his. proposal on
the Government, and he 'hoped that the Government,
would give-him (Captain BerneWan assurance that these
sheets would not be issued to anyzypat extent. He un-
derstood that a considerable quantify_ a peculiar kind
of paper had been laid in by the aditirnment to the
amount of hundreds of tons, at Is. Id. per 1154 and that
they were afterwards obliged to get rid of it at-ii loss
of ninety per cent.
' -=ira
Mr. F. BARING stated that the late Government,
had contemplated an issue of Mr. Dickenson's peculiar
paper, but had ' not done so from an apprehension of
creating a monopoly. He hoped the Government, n bile
consulting the convenience of the public, would be care-
ful not to create a monopoly of that kind. ..
Sir GEORGE CLERK said it had been con3idered
worth while to try the experiment of the half sheets
stamped for writing inside. Not a day passed by but
suggestions game to the-Treasury of improvements in
the postage plau,,but he did not think that any sugges-
tion had been made of any advantage, to the public
arising from the issue of stamped - sheets.
and affixing labels to it.
He believed the public found. as much or more advantage
arise frenitlie. stamped sheets,
to-,.1..he expense of
inelis writingespecially
ch i ai
rlyco
to
ovne
tn
inconvenience
um
poor,
eme common ni paper,
f they.went might
buyinestamped sheets, if they shdiild spoil the letter in
writing, as it would be impossible to recover the-penny
stamp from the Post-office. He could 'iligure the Ijon.
;Gentleman thatthey were trying the experluient'on: 'a
very small scale. --A small quantity only of stamped
half-sheets were to-be issued,-in order to .ascertainvehe-
wALLACE. still 'remained of-opinion that 'the
. they the plan wouldafford additional convenience to the.
...
. pumblirc..
penny stamps on. full sheets.*paper would 'be a great
,
Convenience to the public, especially to the poorer classes.
• He was of opinion that the plan of the half-sheets would
be a failUre ; but evidently seeing that - the House was
against his proposition, he would withdritiv- his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn. - T.' •,,' ''