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

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF TIIIS DAY.
GLOBE.—Beside the great question of the Corn-laws,
upon which the landed interest is arrayed in opposition
to all the other interests of the country, there are many
other instances of the scrupulous care with which the
landowners have obtained protection for themselves at
the expense of the other members of the community.
One of these instances was brought before the House of
Commons last evening by Mr. Elphinstone, by a motion
for taking into consideration the .statutes which impose
taxes on personal property, with a view to the imposi-
tion of similar taxes on real property. Although the
motion was got rid of for the present, on a question of
form, it will be renewed in the course of the ensuing
week. By the law, as it now exists, personal property
is subjected to two imposts—the probate duty and the
legacy duty. The former is an ad valorem tax on the
whole amount of personal property of which an indivi-
dual may die possessed. The latter is a second tax
levied upon the same property, upon its distribution in
legacies, among those to whom it has been left by the
testator, in proportion to the degrees of their relation-
ship to the party who bequeathed to them an interest in
it, and the amount of that interest. With the exception
of annuities, or rent charges, arising out of land, real
property is exempt from both probate and legacy duty ;
it is transmitted by bequest, undiminished i value
by any impost, from one generation to another !
It was by no oversight of Mr. Pitt, who, in 1796,
imposed those taxes upon property passing by will, " in
order to support a war for the protection of all pro-
perty," that land was exempted from its operations.
The landlords—who were at that time not merely
supreme, but adsolute—compelled the minister to con-
fine his probate and legacy duties to personalty, and
to allow real estate to pass untouched. And having
thus, in its origin, withdrawn their shoulders from the
burden, the landed interests have, with characteristic
disregard to the complaints of the classes upon whom
it excusively falls, resisted every subsequent attempt to
remove it altogether, or to alow a similar tax upon real
property, by which an amount would be raised that
would allow of a correspondent diminution of taxation
on some article of general consumption. Mr. Elphin-
stone showed, from returns upon the table of the House,
the great amount of duty levied by means of this
tax on personal property. The very large propor-
tion of the Upper house are landowners. In the
Lower House the landlords employ their powers
with despotic sway to secure a majority in
their interests. With such facts before them, is it to
be wondered at if the people impute to Parliament that
they have passed laws, not for the public benefit, but
for their private advantage? Mr. Elphinstone strongly
put this pinching question to the House last evening.—
" What could be more unjust than for a merchant or
manufacturer, who died leaving some pittance for the
support of his wife and family, to have it subjected
to these taxes, whilst the heir of a large landed
estate—the inheritor of half-a-million of real pro-
perty—went scot free?" This distinction becomes yet
more demonstrative of galling partiality in favour of the
landowners, when it is considered that landed property
becomes subject to the tax when purchased by a partner-
ship capital or manufacturing purposes! Another glaring
disregard ofconsistency in the operation of th is tax, is found
in the fact, that "the freehold estate of a landed gentleman
is not charged with any duty of descent, except it have
to be sold to meet the demands of his family or creditors,
when it becomes subject to a legacy and auction duty."
In this case it also becomes subject to another duty—
that on conveyance. Within our limited space it would be
imposible to follow Mr. Elphinstone, step by step, through
the able exposition which he made of the marked partial-
ity in favour of land, by which the, existing system is
disgraced. The argument which those who contend for
the exemption of land from probate and legacy duty,
urge in support of that exemption, is, " tint, although it
were unjust to relieve land from probate duty under that
name, yet still land pays so large an amount in stamp
duty or conveyances and mortgages, that it is an equi-
valent to the legacy and probate duties on personal pro-
perty." The stamp duties, scarcely less than the probate
and legacies duties, also attest the tenderness with which
the landlords tax themselves, as compared with the
weight with which they oppress the less favoured classes.
That the interest which has been thus " protected"
from fair taxation will, on the motion being again
brought forward, make a strong fight for the preserva-
tion of its immunity from bearing a due share of the
national burdens, is probable that it will suc-
ceed in staving it off for any lengthened period is un-
likely. The exemption of land from these imposts
belongs to a day gone by. Like the old feudal privileges,
which have, one by one, passed away, this also must yield
to the force of truth and justice. The old fiction,
that land has its peculiar burdens, which are not borne
by the other national interests, has exploded. " The
people out of doors," said Mr. Elphinstine, " look with
great anxiety to the decision of their representatives
upon this question ; because the people of this country
are fond of justice and fair play, and they
cannot understand on what principle it is that while
they taxed the property of one class of the community,
they let the property of another large class be entirely
exempt from taxation.
STANDARD.—The question of duelling was again
brought forward in the House of Commons last night.
Mr. Turner, after presenting several petitions against the
irrational and unchristian practice, moved a resolution,
" That duelling is immoral in its tendency; that it brings
into contempt the laws of the country ; is con-
trary to Divine command ; and ought to be abolished."
The country is indebted to Mr. Turner for his
motion, for though the resolution embracing so
many abstract propositions—each of them indisputably
true—could not properly be adopted by Parliament,
which must he, above all things, careful not to
affirm mere abstract truths, the Houses of Par-
liament can hardly be better employed than in dis-
cussions calculated to awaken and inform the public
mind upon the subject of our social duties. The
frank expression of their opinions by such men as
spoke last night, all condemning the practice of private
combat, must go further to limit, if not to extinguish
the practice, than any law could do, as indeed Mr.
Turner himself proved by the list of legislators and So-
vereigns who had directed laws against duelling, unfor-
tunately in vain. Mr. Turner did us the honour to
quote the opinions of the Standard upon the subject of
duelling avowed six years ago, and to express his
approbation of those opinions, with an observation,
however, that the Standard does not now go so far.
Mr. Turner does us, however, an unintentional injustice
in this last observation. We go as far as ever we
went in our condemnation of duelling—but we
do not conceal that reflection and experience
• have taught us that legislation upon the sub-
ject of duelling must fail—we would almost say
ought to fail—unless it take the matter up earlier than
the actualcombat,or even than the delivery or acceptance
of a challenge. In every case of a duel the insulter is
the real challenger, and, if death follow the challenge,
the real murderer. Men of exalted rank—men of
proved and distinguished courage—may, perhaps,
smile at insults and pass them by ; but the
man of obscure station, and of a peaceful profes-
sion cannot, without a grievous loss of estimation in his
circle, submit to insult; and even that loss of estimation,
though what most dread as the greatest of calamities, is
not the worst consequence of his submission, if he is en-
gaged in any pursuit calculated to provoke antagonism or
enmity. Once set down as a man who would not resent
a personal insult—such a man would .be insulted by
bullies every day of his life—persecuted by insult to
his final ruin. The gentlemen of the bar are our wit-
nesses; even the humble writers of the periodical press
know this. Let not Mr. Turner blame us, then, as hav-
ing abandoned our abhorrenee of duelling. We have not
abandoned that abhorrence. We believe it to be sinful
and irrational, and that homicide in a duel is murder, as
fully as ever we held that opinion; and we believe that
the person who engages in a duel, except upon
an unequivocal and intolerable insult, incurs all
the guilt and ignominy of a murderer—in intention,
or in fact, as the case may be ; but, on the other
hand, we must allow that one upon whom an unequi-
vocal and intolerable insult has been inflicted, is not
• a free agent, more than any other man thrown upon his
defence. Mr. Turner goes a great deal further than we
are disposed to do in favour of duellists, for he would miti-
gate the punishment of murder in a duel to trans-
portation, a change of the law which we should
regard with horror, as calculated to facilitate the foulest
murder, in the form of a duel—such murders have been
committed, and would be committed again, in that state
of the law which Mr. Turner proposes. Thirty-six
years ago a major in the army quarrelled with a captain
of his regiment upon some slight pretence, forced
him into a small room at night, without seconds,
and under pretence of a duel shot him dead within a few
feet of his wife and children ; for this the Major was
tried, convicted, and hanged, and most righteously
hanged ; but under Mr. Turner's proposed law he would
at most be transported, probably only imprisoned two
years. Mr. Turner thus recognises a distinction between
murder in duels and ordinary murders—a distinction in
favour of the former which we utterly reject.