The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-05 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

Mr. HATTER moved the issue of a new writ for West
Cornwall, is the place et Mr. Peedarree, deemed.—
Agreed to.
SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
The house then went into committee oa this bill, ream-
the consideration of clause 29.
Mr. WALPOLE objected to the proviso.
The Cnaticaiwit of the E1C11740 II and the Souct-
Toa-Ciaitaaati pre soma explanation of it, and the clause
was agreed to.
Clauses 31 aad 32 were agreed to.
On clause 33, which refers to the cam of allowance to be
made for ineumbrances,

Mr. WALPOLE proposed to insert after the word " sue-
comoc," to line 15, the words " after the passing of the
act," the object being lb make a distinction between incurs-
brumes created before the passing of the act and
incnm-
brances created after its passing. As the clause stood it
would seriously affect the security of existing creditors and
where the estate might be mortgaged to the
ral°lll2lr, and be therefore wished that the aet should not
have a retrospective effect.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the amendment
oa the pound that it would affect in a great degree the
principal of the bill, and would diminish its operation ass
source of There could be no doubt that if the

eneeesbraneers took the estate in lieu of the ineuntbrana,
he would be liable to the duty, and • mullo furtiori, the
•ueowor should be liable to it.
__ _

Alter a few words frost Mr. MINIMS and Mr. B•attow,
The house divided—
For the amendment ll6
Against a
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. WALPOLE protesting against the clause slether,
as retrospective in its operation, depriving the creditor of
his security, and taking awn y from successors that to which
they wersostly entitled. The right hon. gentleman had
said that only a few eases were put forward, but these were
law* illustrations, the rule being against the clause.
(Hear, hear.) It was a clause that deprived the creditor of
all aaaarity, and taxed the successor (or that which he would
would sever me sr enjoy. He felt so deeply impressed with
the Injustice of the clause that he challenged hon. gentle-
men W get tip sad say, elan after the vote they bed gives,

that they would still adhere to a principle such as he had &
I
embed. (Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complained
of the irregularity of re-opening discussion one question
which had already been decided by a Tote of the committee.
' His right hon. friend opposite had been invited to frame an
amendment to meet the particular cast of which be com-
plained, but, instead of that he proposed one of so general
and sweepng an operation that it would cover not only the
class of cues referred to, but also a large number of an
entirely dais rent description. That amendment he (Mr.
Oltalstooe) felt bound to resist, as unjust in itself and
foreign to the principle of the bill. As to retroaction,
his right honourable !sista should remember that
almost every taxing act was retroactive in its
character. With respect to the observation that had
fallen from the right hon. member for Droitvrich, he was
willing to meet that gentleman's views by inserting after
the word encumbrance" the Ivor:* " also in respect of
any money which the successor previous to succession may
have laid out in substantial repairs or permanent improve-
ments of the real property comprised in the succession."
These words having been added, the question was put
that the clause as amended stand part of the bill.
Sir J. PAKINOTON opposed, and declared his inten-
tion of taking the sense of the committee upon the clause.
The committee divided—
For the clause
Against it
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses to 38 were agreed to after slight discuuion.
The clause was agreed to, as was also clause 40, with
some verbal amendments.
On clause 41, which makes the duty a crowu debt,
chargeable as a first charge on the estate,
Mr. MULLINGS moved an amendment, to insert the
words "simple contract ;" the effect of which would be to
place the charge as against the successor or trustee in the
position of a simple contract instead of a crown debt.
The 80LIC1101t-GENERAL said that he had a pro-
position to make which he thought would meet all the ob-
jections which had been brought forward. The clause as it
stood put the crown in no better situation than any subject ;
for when a man obtained a judgment against any one it
affected all the property of the debtor ' • or by • like analogy
when the succession duty was unpaid the right of the crown
would be against all the property of the successor. lie,
however, would add the following words to the clause,
which he thought would accomplish the object of hon. gen-
tlemen opposite. He proposed in the 16th line after the
words "charges and interests created by him," to add
these words, "but such duty not to charge or affect any
otter real property of the successor than the property com-
prised in such succession." (Hear, hear.)
This amendment was agreed to, and that of Mr. Mut
Ltstos withdrawn. _ _

The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Clause 42 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
On clause 43,
Mr. WALPOLE said he feared the operation of the clause
as it stood would be to destroy trusteeship in this country.
The case was essentially different from that of executors and
administrators of personal property, who were known, and
were called ou to pay the legacy duty at once, the property
also being known. Here the parties liable to pay, as well
as the amount of the property, would be unknown, and
the duty would be payable by instalments. Nothing was
so much complained of at present, at the Legacy Duty
office as these deferred payments. This was no question
affecting real property only ; when this law came into ope-
ration settled personal property would pay more to the
duty than real property. (Hear, hear.) They
would neither know the pyrsoLs to account for
the property, the property itself, nor the parties
who were to succeed to it. There might be three trustees
for a property, living in different parts of the country.
Where a settled estate consisted of both real and personal
property, with charges thereon, the trustee would be an
accounting party for all his life probably, and the property
would be perpetually the subject of account. The 48th
clause required patties to account; but Ike government
would not put that clause in force till they knew who the
parties were ; so that they would probably have to fall
back on the 44th clause, which gave penalties against trus-
tees failing to account. The responsibilities of trustees
would be increased so much that persons would hardly be
found to accept those offices, and the whole system of trusts
would be destroyed. The only alternative wouldbe,to employ
a solicitor to pay the duties when they became due, whereby
a heavy lawyer's bill would be added to the duty. (Hear,
hear.) Some hon. members thought this war especially a
tax on the landed interest, but the parties who would
suffer most were the small owners of land—" states-
men," as they were called in Cumberland and West-
moreland. It would also be severely felt by the small fund.
holders. It was calculated that half of that description of
property was held in trust ; and of 280,000 persons who
received dividends on funded property, 250,000 received
less than 1301. a year. (Hear, hear.) This was so hard
and objectionable a part of the bill, that he could not agree
to it. He would suggest that in all cases they should tax
the beneficial recipient of the property, and leave the trus-
tee exempt. He hoped the government would fully consider
rile matter; for the operation of the bill as it stool would,
in the course of 10 years, render it the most unpopular
measure that ever was gassed.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said his great objection to the bill
was, that it gave four years' credit for the succession duty
on real property, while on personal proper y it must be paid
in 21 days. (" Hear, hear," and " A year.") They must
account in 21 days. and payment must be made too. In all
mercantile transactions a discount was allowed for imme-
diate payment, and this ought to be doe* in the present
case. The successor to real property would only have to
pay U. on an estate worth 1,000/., and he would have 4,
years to pay it in. There was no great hardship in that,
not even to the poor " statesmen" of Cumberland. (Hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
ell the evils anticipated by Mr. Walpole were to attend the
working of this bill they would bring their own cure, for
they would infallibly lead to its repeal ; but be did not think
any good or valid ground had been shown for these appre-
hensions. The right hon. gentleman had certainly shown
that difficulties ettsched to the working of that bill which
did not attach to a legacy duty, imposed as it was upon
petty of which they became cognisant through the
of wills and administrations. It was quite true that im Me
case they did not know the persons who were W Minent
for the property, nor those who were to enjoy the Impiety.
The question whether the machinery of this bill was suffi-
cient, and whether if sufficient, it was harsh, might arise
non properly under the subsequent clauses. There were
liese methods, either of which Parliament might adopt. They
might go upon one or more of the parties connected with
do y, and get at the nature and amount of the sae-
emtMtt the medium of those parties ;. or they might
IMkfibMe property, end lay the tar upon it, leaving_ the
hi show themselves or not, as they pleased. They
Me lit plan with respect to the legacy duty,—
the tad with respect to tie income tax, speaking llMmlly
for in general they had no occasion to call upon persons for
returns, but they looked to the property, in manyinstmess
taking no cognisance whatever of the owners. Under the
present bill they would not adopt the latter mum As to
certain descriptions of propert in the income tax, they
were obliged to go to individuals and call on them fee
menensi and that would have been the ease is the
etamedea slaty, if they had adopted that principle. Bat
▪ wield let have been wine IS equitable to adopt that
pelneip.le in regard to those great matters of property which
Mims in their power to get at, especially all real and visible
geoperty, the funds and public securities and shares la
Intilie companies. Had they adopted that course of pro-
' seeding and gone upon the property the assessment must,
lathe ant instance, have been made upon the gross value,
irrespective of Incumbrances and irrespective of divisions el
interests. An assessment upon the gross value was liable to
this greet and fatal objection ; it would have been noose-
sary to have a system of minute investigation and of return
of duty, fenced shout with all the jealous hindrances that
were required to secure the in cases where a re-
turn of duty was sought. In the ease of a person dying
rita"of estates in different counties, besides personalty,
l
tess,&i.e., it might be said that, as the estates were known
to be his property, the tax might be levied from the
occupiers, giving them power to deduct, as under
the income tax. But, had they taken that course,
they would have obliged the person succeeding to that
property, even if it were ea undivided succession, to come
to London to exhibit the state of his affairs, to state the de-
ductions he claimed, and the incumbrances affecting the
It

property, and then to get his returns as he could. It ws
perfectly plain that that process would have bees a most
vexatious one, and would have ended, as it did is the

income tax, in levying a larger per center than the tea no-
minally and professedly imposed. But if they were not to
go directly upon the property, to whom were they to go ?
Ir. Walpole had almost answered his own suggestion of
going to the suooeseor ; for be said they did not know the
successor; sad though in many C 4840 they might know the
principal successor, still they might not know the subordi-
nate successor, or those taking subordinate interests, or
even independent interests. Generally speaking, there
was but one person who would be cognizant of all the sac
cessions and all the parties—the trustee or trustees; they
were this only parties who could be looked to as being in
possession ot complete knowledge of the summon who
were to take beneficial interests. The successor under a
settlement might know nothing of that document ; it was
sot ordinarily in his possession or command. They fol.
lowed the analogy of the Legacy Duty Act, and trustees
under settlement would occupy the same position as trustees
under testamentary disposition. So much with respect to
the question of whether they should go upon the property
or on the persons connected with it in some way or other.
Then, with respect to the other objection, that the case of
trustees would be one of much anxiety, responsibility, and
liability, that no one would be found to undertake the duty,
he did not think that the burden thrown upon trustees by
this bill would be greater than it was under
laws already imposed. Indeed, trustees under this clause
would have less responsibility than they had under existing
laws. With regard to the small holders in the funds, they
were secured already ; and it was only the large ones who
might devise the means of escaping the tax. With regard
to trustees to landed settlements, they would be placed in a
more favourable position than were trustees now under the
Legacy Duty Act. The great bulk of trusts created under
landed settlement were trusts for uses' that was to say
trusts with regard to which the trustees to settled estates
had no power to raise money or receive rents, and if they
had no power to receive rents, their liability under the
clause would be very light indeed. If so the dangers sug-
gested were quite imaginary. The clause assimilated the
I Me of the trustees to settled property to that of trustees
under the legacy duty act. And where they differed, the
difference was in favour of trustees to settled property.
The committee at length divided—
For the amendment 139
Against it
- -

The amendment wu thus lest, and clause wu then
spud to.