Star.
London, England, 1824-04-02 00:00:00

DUTY ON LEGACIES.

Mr. HUME rose, pursuant to wake, to move for a
return of the duty paid upon le•,>,acies, where :he amount
of such legacies was under 100/. His object was to
spew that the revenue derived from such d►ity was very
trifling compared to the whole amount of the legacy
duties, which he calculated at 1,800,000/. while it ope.
rated very ti ti towards those who were obliged
to pay it. Tne lion. MemLer mentioned several cases
where sehall legacies had been left, which the legatees
were not able to procure without considerable expense.
In one instance upon a legacy of 961. an expense of 141.
had been incurred. Ile complained of the fee of 30s.
per cent. which was paid to the Proctor, and was sure
that if the subject was properly investigated many thou-
sands would be saved to the Public. The Honourable
Member proceeded to read an extract from a letter
which he had received from a Magistrate in the country
relative to the severity of the officers in including the,
most trifling articles in the inventory of goods lelt by
a deceased person.- It frequently happened that an in-
d►vidual died, leaving propel ty to the amount of 1000/.
but who might not be worth 501. when his deists were
paid. In taking out probate, however, his executors
were obliged to pay to the full amount. It might be
said that they had their remedy afterwards, as the duty
would be returned upon a proper representation ; hut
such were the delays and obstacles attending this course,
that it was, seldom if ever re:Anted to. The 1-lononrable
Member concluded by moving. That there be laid
before the House a return of the amount- received in
Stamp Daties upon Legacies, Probates of Wills, and
Administrations for Goods, tinder 1001. fur the year
1821, di linguishing the respective amounts received for
Scotland and Ireland."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIBQUER did
net rise for the purpose of making any objection to the
Honourable Member's motion, as he saw no reason for
refusing the returns he had called for. With respect to
the object of that motion, however, he feared he should
not be so well able to sati,fy the Honourable Membor.
lie could not help saying that the instances alluded to
by the Honourable Gentleman were deserving of atten-
tion; but he could not venture, without further consi-
deration, to hold out any hopes of farther deduction
from the general revenue of the country. He had given
the subject as much of his con,ideration as was com-
patible with his other duties, and could only say that he
felt every disposition to concede whatever he consistently
could in matters of minor importance like the present.
After a few words from Lord BINNING, Mr. LOCK-
HART, and Mr. Home, the motion was agreed to.

the disappointment which he • now felt on discovering
that those liberal tied wholesome sentiments had been
se soon forgotten or abandoned with respect to the Coal
Duties, which exhittitecL a vicious system of taxation.
The Right Honourable Gentleman had complained, and
very justly complained, of the great inequalities of the
duties on spirits, and had introduced a measure to re-
medy the defect, and to place the parties who were en-'
gaged in the manufacture on the same footing. The
Honourhble Member here read an extract from the
Right honourable Gentleman's speech in support of his
argument. Here was a plain system of taxation laid
down, and. why should the Right Honourable Gentle-
man think it right to comply with it in one instance and
depart from it in another ?. In the one case he legislates
for the general interest, and in the other for the benefit
of individuals against the general interest. The interests
of the agriculturists and the distillers had grown under
the measure ; and it was deemed expedient to introduce,
a general one-to benefit the whole community. This
was, in his opinion perrectly correct. If it were said
that the recent duties which were proposed were for the
'benefit of the consumer, why not carry the measure
,further? Let all the duties on coals be at once reduced.
He begged to offer a few remarks on the qualities of the
coals in the North. There were coals to be had of an
inferior price, but there being.no difference of duty,
those inferior coals were not brought to market. It was
suggested that is was impossible to introducer measure,
to give general relief, and that there were certain in-
terests connected with the internal coal tra.le which re-
quired protection. Bat it was yet to be shewn what
those interests were. It ought to be a rule in legislation
never to sacrifice general interests for the benefit of par-
ticular interests. The coal interests of the North had
grown up for a century under the laws imposed by Go-
vernment, they bad thriven tinder them, and those laws
had been acted upon to- the benefit of the community.
Ministers were well aware, they must of necessity know,
that the persons connected with' the coal trade in the
North did not quietly submit to any measures irjulious
to their interests without an inquiry ; and vet a measure
was propose-1, that inland coals were to be received in
London without paying an equal duty with those te-
ceived by sea. The persons in the coal trade in the
North had ;areal), been led to believe that Government
would never suffer their interests to bo sacrificed. lie
had a letter in h'ts hand confirmatory of this determi-
nation, which he would take the liberty of reading: it
was dated March 11, 1812, and came from the Secre-'
Cary of the Treasury. The lion. Member then read some
extracts from it, and he also refl.:red to a Ti camry
Minute of a subsequent date of a ,iurilar nature, from
which he read a few passage:. \\lien the Paddingtoo
Canal Bill was introduced, in the year 1805, a clanse
was inserted for the protection of the coal trade of the
North; by which a duty of 10s 2:1. per ton was im-
posed on coals entering London by canal. To prevent
the alarming effects of 1815, Government had also con-
firmed their intention of protecting the interests of the
Northern coaLtrade. Ile begged to occupy the atten-
tion
of the Committee a short tia)e, t 3 enter into some
points on which he was satisfied the Right Honourable
Gentleman wanted information. , The radividuals cr-n-
-nected with the coal trade in the N firth were very gi
that the Right Honourable Gentleman had taken B.
duty off coals brought into the port of London. Ile
had stated that the measure " would put an en.l to all
monopoly?! There was an opinion prevailing to a con-
siderable extent, which. was quite erroneous, as to a re-
gulation which was said to exist among the coal pro-il
prietors of-the North, that limited die supply of coals
brought into the London market. He was ready to
answer this question at the Bar of the House; and he
would say, that no regulation did exist for the purpose
of limiting the quantity of coals to be brought into the
London market. The Honourable Member here enu-
merated the number of ships employed in the coal traJe-
in Newcastle and Sunde land -; and he also stated the
number of men generally engaged in working the mines
and navigating the vessel,,. He said it was a very dif-
ferent thing carrying on the wor k of a colliery from
any other trade, for coals perished unless sold almost
immediately after they were brought up. Besides,
another disadvantage attended the trade, it was re-
stricted, by the impolitic system of heavy duties, from
carrying coals into the best market. There was a taste
among the people of London for large round coal, but
there was a smaller kind of coal which was consumed
at the pit's mouth, which might be used with great ad-
vantage; they were quite as good in quality; however,
a strung prejudice existed in London against them, and
they were not brought. The only regulation which
existed among the coal proprietors was to keep up a
supply, without endangering the trade. They were too
far North, to use a familiar expression, to injure the
trade by impolicy on their part. It was well known to
the Committee, that certain mines furnished certain
quantities of coals for the market ; but it often hap-
petted; from a thousand circumstances, that these sup-
plies were taken from other sources when any of the
regulated ones failed. The Hon. Member referred to
a document which slimed the number of vessels laden

with coals thaf entered London last year. In February,
there were 100 ; in March, 150 ; April, 1.46 ; May, 1.50 ;
June, 144.; and in December, 369. All these cargoes
were bought up when they arrived, so that the sellers
had no sort of contronl over the market, as had been
suggested. The Legislature had thought it proper, for
the security of the consumer, that meters should be ap-
pointed to see that the cols were accurately measured.
This had been done at a very early period, a,t the first
enactment, when duties were imposed on coals. It ap-
peared that last year ships lying in the Thames were in
want of meters. In January, 180 ships arrived, and
from the 10th to the middle of February, not less than
forty wanted meters; and indeed during the whole of
the year, there were from 100 to .(270 ships wanting
meters, before they could deliver their cargoes. Thus
it was clear that the sellers had nothing to do with-the
scarcity, if any existed, in the market. The Corpora-
tion of London had thought it right to appoint addi-
tional meters, so that the inconveniency arising from
delaying vessels would he less likely hereafter to take
place. lie apologised to the Committee for having oc•
cupied its attention so long, and concluded with moving
the three following Resolutions:
1. That it is the opinion of this Committee that the Duties on
Coa;;tczti x and il
reiseril c.i..stwiesert,nd,
orw b Cou
nties
of inland navigation, into the Coties
ofid,i
shall be repealed, and that the follow-
ing duties shall be laid on coals, culm, and cinders, excepting
by Wright,char-
coal,whieli a
madere usuallyfroni wood
; viz.
4s.Gttl: per ton on those coals, &c.
usually and Gd. a ckaldron on those
sold by measure.
2. That the duty of 4s. 6d. per ton be laid on coals broUght by
the Grand Junction Canal to Paddington, Grove Park, or be
brought down the Thames below Staines-bridge.
1 3. That it is expedient that the said duties shill be wholly but
!gradually repealed.

On the Resolutions being put by the Chairman (Mr.
BROGDEN),

Mr. LITTLETON said, when the measure was be-
fore the House on a former occasion, he considered the
question to have been maturely considered and settled.
Hs was persuaded that if delay for the 'purpose of in-
quiry had been requested; his Right Hon. Friend (the
ChancellOr of the Exchequer) would have gladly com-
plied with the request. The subject of coals carried
coastwise had been mooted and set at rest, as he (Mr.
Littleton) believed. He would now proceed to notice
what had fallen from the Honourable I3aronet respect-
ing the conveyance of coals by canal at the time to
which the Honourable Baronet had alluded. This mode
of conveyance was then extremely limited. Al though
it was very extensive now compared with former occa-
sions, yet it was an exceedingly expensive conveyance.
A duty on coals carried by the Grat] Junction Canal
was. imposed in 1805. The coal proprietors of the
North represented to the Treasury that they should be
seriously injored by the Canal, and a clause was intro.
duced in the Bill for the purpose, it was alleged, of
protecting the revenue, but in reality for the purpose
of affording protecion to the Northern coal proprietors.
Ile lamented that such a mode should have been adopted
however the duty was imposed. Those Gentlemen, who
were so actively employed for the monopoly in London,
were not contented with that, but went so far as to in-
sert in the Bill a clause which imposed a duty on coals
if conveyed by the Grand Junction Canal,, and if after-
wards carried by land seventeen miles round London,
or thirty-one miles by water. By this means not only
was London secured to them, but also several, miles
around. Ile would read a comparative statement of
the costs of tonnage of two descriptions of coals. The
tonnage of the Newcastle coal, as to us cost price, was
as eleven to seventeen; and the tonnage of the Stafford-
shire coal, as to its cost price, was as twenty-nine to
eighteen. The -King's duty on Newcastle coal, com-
p:tied with its cost price, was as thirteen to seventeen;
and the King's duty on Staffordshire coal nineteen to
eighteen. These statements might be safely relied on ;
they had not been made up for the present occasion,
hut had been some time prepared. For these reasons
he hoped the 1-louse would go along with him in oppos-
ing the Resolution of the lion. Baronet—(Henr).

The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
it just towards the Hon.. Baronet and his Northern
Ii iends to explain w hat had fallen fitin him on a former
occasion. It wa. true that the alteration proposed left
an inequality of duty, for his proposition was to put a
July ot Is. inland coal. But it was for this reason
that Parliament had allowed 50,000 tons of inland caals
to come into the Poi t of London, and he was site that
this introduction wind] not prejudice the interests of
the coal-ownea sof the North. The Hon. Baronet had
spoken of the inferior quality of the inland coal ; hot he
(the Chancellos):thought this was a reason ifir The IC-
duction of the duty. But there was another considera-
tion which had 'been lost sight of, and that was the
tonnages which the ('anal Company were ,u 11. to
charge upon the-inland e7,,r. It was quite immatei ial
whetrwi this tAx %%:r.• to the Glove' nment or to that
Tie• I/ Panonet had alluded to the ex-
infoliou coal of the north ; but, in point
tact, that species of infeam coal which now bore an
expoit du:), ss. per chaldron had, under a higher
d“ty of 9s. increased in the amount of its exports----
(1 lea r)—and tlierelore There seemed no tisk of a decrease
under the pre ent low duty. He (the Chancellm)could
not, Cie:elute, acquiesce in the resolutions which were

prop,cd. if he assented to the second, it would
go to ►etain that very inequality which was the cause
of the aggravated injustice of which such loud com-
plaints had been made. Nor could lie acquiesce in the
thir'd resolution, which went to pledge the House to re-
duce the whole duty on coali in the course of three or
four years. If such a pledge were given, a loss of.
900,0001. would arise to the revenue at the end 'of that
peticd; and all -the calculations which he had made
upon the surplus of these years would he destroyed.—
He did nut think it incumbent on hint to be guilty of
this suicidal act. therefore he would give the resolutions
his decided negative.
Mr. ELLISON said, that no monopoly existed on the
part of the Northern Proprietors of Coal Mines. Ile
hoped the house would agree to the Resolutions.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY only wished that the inhabi-
tants of London should have the means of purchasing
either the irdand or the sea-borne coals, as they might
find convenient. The duty had hitherto operated as a
prohibition on the inland coals; though he did not be-
lieve that any considerable quantity of the inland coals
()old ever find their way-to the London market.
Mr. S. 11'onTLEy said, that the Northern Proprie-
tors wished no other advantage, over the inland Coal-
owners than what they derived frost nature. The
Northern Proprietors paid a duty of nearly cent. per
cent. on their coals. If the duty was taken off the
Northern Coals, it would be of the utmost advantage
to the consumer; as a duty might, with equal propriety,
be imposed on coke as on coal. As long as the
northern ptoprietc•rs had die best article, they must
have a monopoly of the market. He wanted no duty
to be laid on the inland coal, he only desited the duty
on the sea-borne coal to be taken off. •

Mr. LA MwroN denied that the proprietors of coal
mines in the North had entered into a resolution to cir-
cumscribe the supply of coals -to the .Metropolis.—
Whatever regulations they had entered into were to
secure a regular supply of coals at all seasons to the
London market. They wished not for any monopoly.
All they wished for was a clear stage and no favour ;
their object was to be placed on the same footing with
the inland coal-owner. About WO tons of inferior coals
were burnt and left to rot on the ground, on account
of the high duties and the impossibility of exporting it,
or of bringing it to London on account of its inferior
quality. He wished, therefore, that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would allow this species of coal to have
a reduction in duty.
Mr. NEWMAN had no fear of the continuance of a
Tax so partial and so oppressive as this was. Though
it had been imposed upon some parts of the country for
more than a century, yet it was not to be borne for ever.
Mr. MONEY considered that the Coal Trade was
one of the greatest nurseries of our seamen; and there-
fore this was not a question of light moment, especially
as the coal vessels had, within the last century, removed
above 13,000,000 of tons of ballast from the Thames ;
and therefore he hoped the House would pause before
they did anything on so important a subject.
Mr. H. SUMNER had always conceived that this tax
was among the first that ought to be repealed. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had wisely disci ibuted his
relief from taxation, not giving the preference to any par.
titular interest, but to a certain extent relieving each.
Alderman BRIDGES assured the House that the
City of London did not treat the relief from this-Tax
lightly, They 'had only their share of this Tax, to ma-

•
_ _ .

..
.

the National Representatives, the Resolution of the
Storthing deserves notice, " that the editor of the Mor-
senNad 'hall have free accgss to the JOurnals which ate
...kept in the Storthing and its divisions (in order, accord-
ing to the agreement made by him with the Committee
that draws them up) to publish the debates which take
place with open doors ; and with respect to secret de-
bates of the Szorthing, he shall receive those communi-

cations which the President, on consultation with the

La githing and the Odelsthing, shall find fit for publication."
STOCKHOLM, MARCH 16.
The departure of the Clown Prince for Norway is

now fixed fur the 12th of April, and that Of his Majesty
- for the2,Ctt. Count Von Tholt, one of the richest land-
owners in Scania, died lately.
BERLIN, MARCH 25.
An account from the province of Bromberg, states,
that the experiment made last year of sending cloth

manufactured in that province to London for salt., for
re-exportation, has succeeded so well, that an order for,
1,000 pieces has been received, and since that another
for 1,300 pieces; and all the (woollen) cloths sent from
Bromburg, to the fair at Frankfort on the Oder, were
Thought-by an Englishman.