The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

was that the duty on successions should become payable
when the party became entitled in possession. But the
clause went to provide that where there was any other
charge, which left him not in the entire possession of the
property, an additional duty was to be paid, on the deter-
mination of the prior charge anti when the benefit fell into
possession. It would, in fact, be a mortgage to the Go-
vernment of all the real and personal estate in the kingdom,
perpetually to be paid off and perpetually to be renewed.
The effect on the system of trusts, that persons who
were trustees of large landed property, with charges,
comprising life annuities to A and B, and remainders in
tail, and charges for young children and old servants, and
who might be at the same time trustees for settled personal
property, with innumerable charges upon It, which they
had to carve out—if this bill passed, would be that they
would• have to account to the Government every time a
charge fell in and pay the duty to the officers of in-
land revenue, or employ solicitors to do so. If they did
the first, where the property was small, it would be so
galling that they would throw up their trusts ; and, if
solicitors were employed, the expense would be very great.
He (Mr. Walpole) was a trustee in many cases, and he
deliberately said that, if the bill passed into a law as it
stood, nothing would induce him to accept a trust again,
except for the purpose of conferring as much benefit as he
could on those he regarded, at his personal risk. [The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : How would a trustee
be damnified more than in his present position under the
legacy duty 'l] That was a common mistake. An execu-
tor was the sole accounting party ; he knew the property,
and nothing more was required of him but to give a full
account. But how would it be, when a trustee had to
deal with a succession tax, as applicable to tenants for
life, tenants in tail, and other charges. The trustee must
account for the property ; and either you must call on the
person succeeding to give an account, or impose penalties
so stringent as to compel the trustee to do so. You would
be prying into persons affairs merely because you thought
they ought to give an account, or be driven to enforce pen-
alties, by suits brought by the Attorney-General. There
was therefore a great difference between a trustee and exe-
cutor. This was so serious and oppressive an enactment
that it was certain that man after man would throw up his
trust, for they never would undergo all the liabilities con-
sequent on being crown debtors, and it would be found
that the tax must be repealed, or it would be necessary to
do what he (Mr. Walpole) wished had been done—simply
make real property liable to a succession duty, as personal
property was to a legacy duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
right hon. friend had spoken on this subject with the can-
dour, fairness, and plainness with which he spoke on all
subjects, but' still he must confess that his right hon.
friend had left him rather in the dark as to what course
he wished him to pursue. His right hon. friend had
made some important admissions. He was far from say-
ing that the extension of the succession tax to settled pro-
perty was an act of " robbery "—(hear, hear)—or
" plunder "--(hear, hear)—a declaration which was made
amidst vociferous Cheering from the other side of the house
last night, when the whole act was declared to be one of
" robbery "—(hear', hear)—and that assertion was sup-
ported by at least a section of the other side of the house
vehemently and boisterously. (Hear, hear.) His right
hon. friend was not of that opinion, but said that if there
was to be a legacy duty, there was no reason why it should
not be extended to land and settled property. His right
hon. friend did not say he was prepared to abandon the
two millions now derived from the legacy duty ; he did
not glance at such a course, but admitted the fairness of
the principle of the extension of the tax. His right hon.
friend, however, had objected to the form of the machinery
of this clause, but (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could
not divine what he meant when he said that the position
of trustees and executors under this bill would be different
to that under the present law. Were there no annuities
on personal property, were no persons Crown debtors now,
and had any one been deterred from undertaking these
charges ? His right hon. friend talked as if these minor
real estates were subject to perpetual inquiries more than
successions to personal estates. At the period of a death
the trustee must send in an account, and the charge would
be laid not on the gross annual value of the property, but
after it was subjected to such deductions as the successor
could establish, and he would sure to give a clear specifi-
cation of charges for which he would be entitled to deduc-
tions ; and by so doing a clue would be constituted and a
guide afforded to the officers of the Inland Revenue. It
was thought that it would be more convenient if the succes-
sion duty on those minor estates were paid on when they
fell in than to have them valued in the first instance.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—The right hon. gentleman had
fallen into a great inaccuracy with regard to the language
which be stated had been used on that side of the house. '
He had contrasted the language of his right hon. friend
with that of other gentlemen who had denounced the legacy
duty on real estate, amidst loud cheers, as an act of " rob-
bery," and as the right hon. gentleman beside him had
added, of "plunder." The right hon. gentleman was mis-
taken with regard to either word having been applied to
the extension of the legacy duty to real property. The word
"plunder" was used by him (Sir J. Pakington), the word
"robbery" by the hon. member for Bodmin, and repeated
by his right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire. The
word " robbery" was applied to that particular part of the
bill which imposed a succession tax on leases for lives, and
exempted leases for terms—(hear, hear)—and the word
"plunder" was used by him (Sir J. Pakington) with re-
gard to the succession duties on timber. He had said that
ho called it rather an act of " plunder" than " taxation,"
and he was not inclined to recede from that opinion. An-
other word, " confiscation," had been also used by him
(Sir J. Pakington) ; and it was quoted from tho opinion Of
high authority as applicable to the taxation of settled per-
sonal property by ex post facto legislation. He asserted
that such strong words were the only ones that met the
case ; and as he was in the habit, both in and out of the
house, of saying exactly what he thought, if he felt that a
strong expression met a case, he would not be deterred by
any lectures from the other side from using such expres-
sions. (Hear, hear.) It was because he thought that real
and personal property should be taxed, and all alike, that,
he objected to this bill until all its inequalities were re-
dressed.
The CIIA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right
hon. gentleman had challenged hl/4 accuracy in a matter
where, if ,he had been inaccurate, he would have been
most culpable. He admitted that the right hon. gentle-
man had applied the word " plunder" to a particular clause,
and although the hon. member for Bodmin had used the
word "robbery," he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not alluded to him. But he would read to the right hon.
gentleman that to which his observation applied, which
was this :—" Lord Galway moved that the chairman, un-
less some explanation were given of the meaning of the
clause, report progress. Ho thought the whole scheme ini-
quitous. (Cheers.) It was a downright robbery—(re-
newed cheers from the Opposition benches)—and he was
perfectly satisfied that the right hon. gentleman would
never have introduced it all, but for the gentlemen on his
right, the gentlemen of the Manchester school." (Cheera
and laughter. That showed that he was not inaccurate ;
and the right hon. baronet could not have, heard what he
said, or he would not have administered a rebuke on him.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said a few words across the table;
after which
Mr. PIGOTT thought they had better return to the sub-
ject under discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had not removed the impression on his mind which had
been made by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Midhurst, and he would suggest that time should be given
for the consideration of the clause. He was disappointed
that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had not
moved an amendment, by which the difficulties with re-
gard to trustees might have been got rid of.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said no obligation was
thrown on any trustee by this act, unless he was a trustee
in actual possession of the property; so in 99 of the cases
out of 100 which his right hon. friend apprehended would
arise no duty would be cast on the trustee, nor would his
duty be half so onerous under this act as that which was
discharged by executors every day.
Col. SIBTHORP said he should do all in his power to
stop the progress of this most iniquitous bill. (Laughter.)
He did not think the word "plunder" at all too strong.
The bill was a decided attempt by government to plunder
the aristocracy and the landed interest, for the sake of
leasing the multitude and the Manchester school—
laughter)—without which they could not hold their places.
13
Hear, hear.) He repeated that he considered the bill an
attempt by the government to plunder and rob their best
friends.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER said the principle of the

section (the 19th) was an extremely just and proper one—
that charges on property should pay the succession duty
when they fell in ; but he would suggest an addition, to
meet the case of charges falling in before the passing of the
act. The bill was confined strictly to successions by
death ; but there was in reality no difference in the result
between those and other successions ; and there was no
reason why one should pay the tax and not the other.
Till that principle was fully carried out, and applied to
every case, the law would not bo equal. Still, he did not
that a reason why they should not pass the clause as it
stood.
Mr. HENLEY wished for some information as to the
liability of trustees of estates for lives. He stated a case
in which he was concerned, and said that the proposal of
this measure had led him seriously to consider of giving
up his trust.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the successor in
every case would be liable for the duty, and only when he
came into possession of the property. The trustee was
only liable when he was in actual receipt and enjoyment
of the property ; the cases were more accurately defined
by the 33d clause.
Mr. WALPOLE referred to the first portion of the
clause, and said there were cases in which both the trustee
and the successor would be liable. The case was not at all
similar, as had been alleged, to that of an executor paying
duty on the property of a deceased person. In this case
trustees would have to pay on property the value of which
they could not accurately estimate. Then there was the
difficulty of finding out who were trustees, which would
give rise to the most searching inquiries and demand most
extensive machinery. He did not think the clause could
be amended, and that was the strongest possible reason
for pausing before passing the bill. The trustee would
have to account for every charge upon the property for
four years, and to make returns of them as they fell in.
The best way to amend the bill would be to introduce a
clause levying the duty upon real property, in the same
way as it was now levied upon personal property.
After a few words froth Mr. MULLINGS and the SOLI-
CITOR-GENERAL,
Mr. CAIRNS said that, as there was a doubt whether
this clause applied to leases or not, words ought to be in-
troduced to remove it.
Mr. MALINS considered that the fact of making the
trustee a crown debtor in all cases of successions to pro-
perty of which he might be the trustee, would throw
additional difficulties in the way of dealing with property.
In answer to a question from Mr. HEADLAM,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no intention of including leases in this clause. _He
admitted that the clause, so far as it related to trustom,
might require some alteration, and for that purpose he
suggested its postponement. And in reply to Sir J. Walsii
he added that leases for lives would be dealt with by a
separate clause. In the case of leases for years falling in
as there was no death there would be no succession duty
charged.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS urged, that according to the
clause as it stood, as every interest was chargeable, each
lease as it fell, supposing that it gave an increased value to
the successor to tho possession, would be liable to the
duty. It would be better to reconsider the wording of the
clause.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that no duty was
imposed ou the determination of a lease for years, or on the
determination of any interest except by death ; and as a
lease for years did not determine by death but by efflux of
time, as he read the clause, he did not think it would not
apply to the falling in of such a louse.
Mr. W. T. EGERTON wished to know whether, if the
interest of the party had increased bythe falling in of these
leases, ho would have to pay onthe increased value.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the party would be
charged upon the present value and not upon the prospec-
tive value. Re had no doubt about the meaning of the
clause himself, bnt if after the words " prior charge, estate
or interest," he introduced these words, " the determina-

• tion of which would create a succession," he hoped it would
satisfy those who did entertain doubts.
Mr. HEADLAM still entertained a doubt whether the
party would not be charged on the increased value ef the
estate on the falling in of the leases. He would, therefore,
suggest a postponement of the clause.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved that the Chairman report
progress, which was agreed to.
EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. CONOLLY said that the bill seriously affected the
interests of the people of Ireland, and as it could not be
properly discussed at that hour, he hoped the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would not press the third reading.
Mr. GROGAN supported the appeal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not,
consistently with the state of public business, agree to the
request for postponement.
Mr. CONOLLY opposed the increased duty as being cal-
culated to stimulate illicit distillation in the north-western
districts of Ireland. The hon. member concluded by moving
the adjournment of the debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted the
adjournment, and said that the hon. member had himself
offered the best argument against his motion by entering
into the merits of the main question. He admitted that the
district alluded to by the hon. member was peculiarly situ-
ated, but the business of the house was to legislate for the
whole kingdom and not for any particular district. This
increase was not so onerous as that proposed by Sir R.
Peel in '42, being only in. fact sixpence the gallon, deduc-
tion being made for the allowance for wastage in bond.
Besides, much of the failure of Sir R. Peel's project arose
from the Mathew movement in Ireland. The government
intended to make the services of the constabulary aux-
iliary to those of the revenue police. They had not come
to a conclusion on the question whether or not the two
bodies ought to be consolidated; but they were con-
vinced that the constabulary could render great assist-
ance in the collection of the spirit duty ; and their opinion
on this point was founded on the authority of responsible
servants of the crown engaged in administering the govern-
ment of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) It was perfectly rational
to anticipate the collection of the increased revenue, and
the house having repeatedly decided in favour of the pro-
posed change, he hoped that decision would now be con-
firmed.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN thought that after what had been
done already the measure should not be subjected to any
further opposition ; but as the question of drawback re-
quired consideration, he hoped this stage of the bill would
not be pressed that evening.
Lord C. HAMILTON was against passing the third
reading until the government had stated by what improved
machinery they meant to prevent illicit distillation. (Hear,
hear.) He well remembered the social and moral evils
which arose from the former attempt to levy an increased
duty ; and he would particularly remind the right hon.
gentleman that he had promised not to involve the consta-
bulary in the odium which might attend the collec of
the tax.
Mr. H. HERBERT could assure the Chancellor.of the
Exchequer that great dissatisfaction would be caused by
the employment of the constabulary. (Hear, hear.) His
own county was at that moment supporting a larger body
of police than it actually required ; and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer now proposed to increase the duties of the
constabulary for imperial purposes. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. YOUNG said there appeared to be an entire mis-
apprehension with regard to the use that was to be made
of the constabulary. It was the opinion of many of the
officers of that force most conversant with the counties in
which illicit distillation had been most prevalent that the
constabulary might be employed to assist the revenue offi-
cers without any injury to its morale. The revenue police
were to be placed in an effective condition ; and the con-
stabular were to assist them with local information, the
furnishing of which was to be stimulated by rewards and
regulations adapted to promote the object. There was no
ground for supposing that new and onerous duties were to
be thrown on the constabulary. He believed that the ob-
jections to the measure of 1842 did not apply to the pre-
sent one, and that this moderate additional duty might be
safely collected. (Hear.)
Lord NAAS had always thought it perfectly right in
principle that the highest leviable duty should be collected
on spirits. His practical objections to the measure wore
greatly weakened by the right hon. gentleman's statement
as to the providing of new machinery. His right hon.
friend, however, had now merely shadowed out a vague
plan of enlisting the constabulary, but unless he could
show that he could employ them in the same way as the
revenue force it was impossible to suppose that the in-
creased duties could be collected. Unless ho was prepared
to Icy before them a distinct and perfect plan for the em-
ployment of the constabulary, ho (the noble lord) should
oppose the measure. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
services of the constabulary might be properly used in the
manner proposed, but it would be much more judicious to
postpone the matter for a year, until further inquiries
could be instituted upon the subject.
Mr. CAIRNS applauded the uniform conduct of the
constabulary, and attributed it to the fact, that it had
alivays been employed solely in the enforcement of the
criminal law ; and he had always thought that the use of
them in still-hunting would have been a serious blow to the
efficiency of the force. But the plan of the right hon. gen-
tleman was infinitely worse, for he proposed to make thorn
common spies and informers. (Cheers.)
Colonel DUNNE entirely concurred with the lion. gen-
tleman who had last spoken, and he must express his sur-
prise that any such scheme could have proceeded from any
one who had been connected with Ireland.
Captain JONES also agreed with every word which had
been said on the subject of the police. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer was certainly right to a certain extent as
to what he had said with respect to the effect of Father
Mathew's temperance movement; but it was, nevertheless,
the act of Sir H. Peel which had reduced the revenue, and
filled the gaols with persons convicted of offences against
the revenue lawe. In proof of this statement the hon.
and gallant gentleman went through the statistics he had
laid before tiro house on a previous evening. When the
duty was at its lowest point the receipts had been the
greatest, and the sum at present yielded to the Exchequer
proved that it was already too high. Probably 3,000,000
gallons were now supplied every year by illicit distillation.
The circumstances of the country were the same now as
they wore when Sir Robert Peel raised the duty, and the
result of the present proposal would be the same as had
followed the policy of that statesman.
Lord GAL WAY suggested to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer the propriety of adjourning the debate at once, as
he had seen enough of Irish members on occasions like this
to be satisfied that they would succeed in their object if
they determined to persevere.

For the adjournment 34
Against it ll3

Majority
Lord NAAS still opposed the third reading of the bill,
and moved the adjournment of the house, as he must be
told how and in what manner the constabulary force of
Ireland was to be employed in carrying out the provisions
of this bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would be
unable to tell until the experiment of this bill had been
tried, and he hoped the noble lord would withdraw his
opposition. To protest that this bill should not pass until
the information asked was given, would be about as reason-
able as a man saying, "You shall not go into the water
until you have learned to swim." (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Mr. NAPIER was rather surprised to hear this declara-
tion of the right hon. gentleman, seeing that he had already
stated that the details for carrying out the budget, which
of course included this bill, were quite ready. In a
measure like this, the means of collection should be ascer-
tained as early as possible, and it certainly was not unrea-
sonable to ask for delay to admit of that information being
obtained. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. YOUNG did not think there was any reason for

loss of temper on this matter. Something that he said had
been misinterpreted. It was stated that his right hon.
friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would state the
details of the plan of collection. (The right hon. gentle.
man read an extract from the speech on the budget, to the
effect that the constabulary would be called on to give
their assistance in the collection of the revenue.) He had a
conversation with Sir Duncan Macgregor, who said ho had
once been of opinion against a consolidation of the two
forces, but from representations made to him he had
yielded that opinion. The constabulary had extensive
local knowledge, knew every house, and the occupation of
the inmates, but they had never given any information.
All that was intended now to be done was to bring the two

forces a little together. This was all, not to make the po-
lice spies. They wished to go step by stop. This was the
first step, and if they found it succeed, they might go a
little further. They had acted most cautiously, and there
was no call for the observations which had been made on
the other side.
Colonel DUNNE thought the proposed employment of
the constabulary would by no means make that force more
popular in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) said they should not get the plan ; but they had got
it, and it was a very unwise one. They had-got the opinion
of Sir Duncan Macgregor, but he was not so able to form
an opinion as the country gentlemen. He (Col. Dunne)
objected to the plan, which made the measure much
worse.

Mr. V. SCULLY said if the constabulary were to be used
to collect the revenue in Ireland, the Irish people should
be entirely relieved from the charge of that force. He quite
concurred in the observation that the police should not be
used as spies ; but when the opportunity occurred, he
should be prepared to prove that when gentlemen opposite
were in office, they did use the police as spies.
Mr. CONOLLY said in his county they were paying a
large sum for an extra number of police to keep the peace,
and now it appeared they were to be employed to collect
the revenue.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Napier) was particularly anxious to have the opinion of
Sir Duncan Macgregor. Now ho had got it ; and then it
was said his opinion was not so good as that of the country
gentlemen. He thought the right hon. gentleman could
hardly, after this, persist in his opposition. He must see
that any plan for the regulation of the police was a matter
of detail, and could not be considered in that house. If
the house would now agree to the third reading of this bill
—if there was any question with regard to wastage, they
could take that question afterwards ; but really, after the
two hours' discussion they had had, he thought they ought
to be allowed to take the third reading.
Mr. MAGAN thought the observation of the noble lord
a fair one. But he rose to allude to a subject which
passed elsewhere this evening. (Uproarous laughter.) He
pitied Lord Eglinton for the exhibition that noble lord had
made of himself that evening in the House of Lords. He
was astonished at Lord Eglinton having made use of an
affidavit signed by ono of the greatest malefactors in Ire-
land—a person whom he (Captain Mogan) would under-
take, if means were placed at his disposal out of the Con-
solidated Fund, to induce to swear that black was white.
(Great laughter.) All the other subscribers were persons
incapable of giving disinterested evidence, being mere
yiolont partisans. (Great laughter.) The gallant gentleman
vv2o proceeding to go into the whole details of the
ques,tion, telling anecdotes illustrative of the characters
of ty.ok:e persons; but cries of Divide and Question led him
to give -'ay • and
Lord C. gAMILTON returned to the point immediately
before the house, but the house by this time (quarter past
2) had become exceedingly impatient, and ho did not ob-
tain a hearing.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared
his readiness to offer the house every information that was
possible ; but it was out of the question to produce a de-
tailed plan beforehand.
Lord NAAS asked, then, if the Government would offer
this session any bill for the now regulation of the consta-
bulary ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
—No.
Lord GALWAY implored the house at that hour to'con-
eider Mr. Speaker. (Cheers from the English members.)
Ho entreated hon. gentlemen not to ask the house to divide
again. (Cheers, and cries of Divide.)
Hon. gentlemen persisting, the house divided on the
question of adjournment :
For adjourning 2B
1
Against o9— 81
The house accordingly proceeded; and on re-entering the