The Press.
London, England, 1853-07-09 00:00:00

SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.

The committal of the bill being resumed on Mon-
day,
Mr. IVALeoLE in the 3:lrd clause proposed an
amendment to efface its retrospective character. The
clause referred to the allowance to be made in case
of incumbrances, and he suggested the insertion of
the words " after the passing of this act.," in order to
establish a just distinction between the incumbrances
created prior, and those effected subsequent to, the
enactment of the present measure :

" A++ the clause stood it would seriously affeet the seen•
rity of existing creditmrs mid mortgagees, where the estate
might he mortgaged to the full value, and he therefore
wished that the act slionhl not have a retrospective effect."

The SOLIcITeR-GENERAT. and the CHANCEL on of
the EXCHEQUER opposed this amendment, alleging
that it interfered with the principle of the bill, and
would seriously diminish its utility as a source of re •
venue. The latter, after• several members had
spoken, argued the question from an abstract and
moral point of view :
If the lion. gentleman would undertake to provide an
assembly of human legislators who would SO frame human
laws as in every ease to adjust their operation to the moral
excellence or demerits of the transactions to which they ap-
plied, he would be nowt happy to hear how he would proceed.
Ile contended that. Parliament could do nu suck thing : it
could only proceed on broad, simple, and intelligible rules.
(Hear, hear.) The clause as it stood was not only more
conformable to precedent but also to justice than it would ho
if amended in the manner prigsoseil. It was all very well to
cite eases in which incumbrauces had been created by
filial piety, but they all knew that the great bulk of these
incumbrances was created by the great tendency of the
higher classes to live beyond their means—(sear, hear)—
and therefore, forsooth, they were to legislate with a special
tenderness in favour of those classes.—(frosicai cheer.. )
If the doctrine were so correct that an allowance should
be made for incumbrimees, why was it not provided that
an allowance should be made for money borrowed on per•
sonal security ?"
Proceeding presently to It division, the committee
negatived the amendment by a narrow majority. The
numbers were :
For the amendment
Against
Majority
- - -

Air. WALrot,E, renewing his opposition to the
clause, which he characterised as essentially unjust,
"•lepriving creditors of their security, and taking
away from successors that to which they were justly
entitled,"

The CHANCELTAM of the ExcliEQuEn complained of
the practice of reopening questions which had been
once decided by a division. In deference, however,
to the appeal on behalf of successors, he added words
to the clause including, among the ineumbranees to
be allowed for, all moneys expended by the heirs pre-
%ions to their succession upon substantial repairs or
permament improvements of the real property to
which they succeeded.
Sir J. PAKINOTON reftl‘Wki to accept this alleviation
of a detail in a clause whieliwas vicious in principle.
lie therefore divided) the committee on the general

SATURDAY,

question, - that the clause stand part of the bill."
There appeared :
For the clause

Against
Majority —l6
At the 40th clause, and midnight, the further pro.
,gress of the bill, after much resistance from Mr.
ULADSTONE, who wished to go on, was adjourned.

The committal of the bill being resumed on Thursday
night, the last clauses passed, after a long debate, in
which a great many divisions were taken on amend-
ments in detail. Seine trifling alleviations were car-
ried, and several new clauses introduced—one to ex.
enipt from the duty persons now beneficially entitled
to real property subject to leases for life ; a second,
to declare life policies and certain post-obit bonds
not successions ; a third, prescribing the rule for
charging the duty upon timber; and a fourth, di.
rectiug how annuities should be valued.