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 and when the benefit fellinto
possession. It would, in fact, be a mortgage to the. G-
overnment 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
innumerable property, with 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 11 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-
' cuter. 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 bo different
to that under the present law. Were there no annuities
on personal property, were no persons Crown debtors now,
and bad any one been deterred from undertaking these
charges ? His right hon. friend talked as if those 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
bo 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 he 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 the 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 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right
hon. gentleman had challenged lt,s accuracy in a matter
where, if he had been inaccurate, he would have been
most culpable. Re 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. He 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." (Cheers
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
pleasing the multitude and the Manchester school—
(langhter)—without which they could not hold their places.
(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 tho tax and not the other.
Till that principle was fully carried out, and applied to
every case, the law would not be 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 ho 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 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 thry 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 front Mr. MULLINGB 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 trustees,
might require some alteration, and for that purpose ho
suggested its postponement. And in reply to Sir J. Walsh
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 the 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 on 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 lease.
Mr. W. T. EGERTON wished to know whether, if the
interest of the party had increased by the falling in of these
leases, he would have to pay on the increased value.
c, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the party would be
charged u the present value and not upon the prospec-
tive
hie. He had no doubt about the meaning of the
or • but if after the words " prior charge, estate
lllTiexest, he introduced these words, " the determina-