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

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

In reply to Mr. SANDAES,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
did not intend to proceed with the Savings Banks Bill
this evening. All he proposed doing was to move that
it go into committee, pro forma, in order that it might
be reprinted. The committee on the bill would pro-
bably not come on till the week after next.
SLAVE TRADE AT HAVANNAH.
In reply to Mr. BAILLIE,
Lord PALMERSTON said the Consul-General at
Havannah, made reports periodically to the Foreign-
office of all facts connected with the slave trade, and of
course he had reported any importations f slaves
which had been made into the island at the date of the
last dispatch. He might state that his right hon. friend
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made a
communication to the Spanish Government on that
subject.

ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH) BILL.
Mr. HUME wished to know who was to have the
charge of the Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) Bill, in the ab-
sence of the Lord-Advocate who was now in Scotland.

Lord PALMERSTON said, any bill which required
the presence of the Lord-Advocate would, of course, be
postponed until hia return. (A. laugh.)

SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.

The committee on this bill was then resumed.
Clause 29, 30, and 31 were agreed to.

On clause 32,

Mr. WALPOLE proposed to insert words to make
the bill prospective instead of retrospective, so far as
this clause was concerned.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not accede to
the proposal.
Mr. WALPOLE said he could not allow the injustice
of this clause to pass, and if he stood alone he would
divide.

After a few words from Mr. MuLLINGS and Mr.
HENLEY,

Dr. PHILLIMORE appealed to the Solicitor-Gene-
ral to take the clause into his serious consideration, with
a view to its amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUR said that if
his right hon. friend intended to meet the case of the mort-
gagee only, he ought to frame his amendment with that
view, but as it stood at present the amendment would
affect other species of incumbrance made prior to the time
appointed for the passing of the act. The principle of the
clause as it stood was in accordance with the analogy and
precedent of former legislation. His right hon. friend said
that the clause affected the security of the creditor, but so
did the income tax, which they had just passed. He de-
nied that there was any peculiar injustice in the clause.
Mr. MALINS said he knew a caso in which a party who
would have succeeded to 5,0001. a-year on the death of his
father, had spent it all by anticipation, and under the clause
he would have to pay the succession tax on the whole
amount.

Viscount MONCK said the meaning of anticipating was
obtaining the value—(hear, hear)—and if a party had im-
providently obtained the value in anticipation, he ought
not to be exempted. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the more the case was argued
the harder it seemed.
Mr. HEADLAM said the amendment interfered with
the whole principle of the bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON considered the amendment founded
in the strictest justice.
Mr. MALINS protested against the clause, as unjust to
many successors.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if the
hon. and learned gentleman would undertake to provide an
assembly of human legislators who would so frame human
laws as in every case to adjust their operation to the moral
excellence or demerits of the transactions to which they
aPplied, he would be most happy to hear how he would
1= He contended that Parliament could do no such
lit could only proceed on broad, simple, and intelli-
gible
;eke. ear,hear.) The clause, as it stood, was not
13nlY tore Conformable to precedent but justice, than it
would
,r, --"'„ if amended in the manner proposed. It was all
vcie-jatewdeub,toottrbeai
Piety,
in which ineumbrances had been
bulk of these ine-ue IT, but they all knew that the great
dency of the higher lances were created by the great ten-
(hear)—and tberefo classes to live beyond their means—
a special tenderness in forsooth, they were to legislate with
cheers.) If the doctrine
favour of those classes. e
(Ironical
should be made for inen were so correct that an allowance
that an allowance should be rat,d, for money
eeg, why was it not provided
personal security ? borrowed on
Mr. MALINS--It cannot be got.
The CHANCELLOR of the p.x,„
was notorious that it was got, aintw'rQUEß—But it
just to provide for one case and not for thitna it w"
un-
Mr. MALINS said if the right hon, geZather.
longed to the profession of the law, he wouirsn had be-
that it was very uncommon for heirs expeetanirZu_known
money on personal security, when there was landed
to offer ; it was not done in one case in ten thoue,,,d:—a,p'e
en
construct a system of legislation which would ,a
justice of every case was, he confessed, beyond. his pc, ;'-'re
but that was no reason why the house should in this case
commit an injustice by an er post facto clause. If, as his
boa. friend (Mr. Misillinge) proposed, the operation of the

clause were limited to the future, parties would, at all
events, have notice.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. BAR-
ROW,
The house divided—
For the amendment ll6
Against it 124

Majority 8
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. WALPOLE protesting against the clause altogether,
as retrospective in its operation, depriving the creditor of
his security, and taking away from successors that to
which they were justly entitled. The right hon. gentle-
man had said that only a few cases were put forward, but
these were merely illustrations, the rule being against the
clause. (Hear.) It was a clause that deprived the credi-
tor of all security, and taxed the successor for that which
he would never see or enjoy. He felt so deeply impressed
with the injustice of the clause that he challenged hon.
gentlemen to get up and say, even after the vote they had
given, that they would still adhere to a principle such as
he had described, (Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complained
of the irregularity of re-opening discussion on a question
which had already been decided by a vote of the commit-
tee. His right hon. friend opposite had been invited to
frame an amendment to meet the particular case of which
he complained, but, instead of that, he proposed one of so
general and sweeping an operation that it would cover not
only the class of cases referred to, but also a large number
of an entirely different description. That amendment he
(Mr. Gladstone) felt bound to resist, as unjust in itself
and foreign to the principle of the bill. As to retro-
action, his right honourable friend should remember
that almost every taxing act was retroactive in its cha-
racter. With respect to the observations that had fallen
from the right hon. member for Droitwich, he was will-
ing to meet that gentleman's views by inserting after
the word " encumbrance" the words " 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."
The words having been added, the question was put,
that the clause as amended stand part of the bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON opposed, and declared his inten-
tion of taking the sense of the committee upon the clause.
For the clause lOB
Against it 92

- 1.6

Majority
Clause 39 was then agreed to
Clauses to 38 were agreed to after slight discussion.
The clause was agreed to, as was also clause 40, with
some verbal amendments.
On clause 41, which makes the duty a Crown debt,
' chargeable as a first charge on the estate.
Mr. MITLLINGS 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 SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected that the amend-
ment would deprive the Crown of its ordinary right of re-
covery.
A conversation ensued, in the course of which Mr. Mul-
ling's, Sir W. Joliffe, and Mr. Henley, argued that the
clause, as it at present stood, would prevent any successor
or trustee conveying or making out a clear and unencum-
bered title, because it would be almost impossible to ascer-
tain whether the Crown might not have a charge on the
estate for same previous succession ; while the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General denied that it
would in any way interfere with titles, and that it was ne-
cessary for the protection of the revenue that the privilege
of the Crown to recover should be maintained. At length
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he had a propo-
sition to make which he thought would meet all the objec-
tions which had been brought forward. The clause as it
stood put the Crown in no better situation than any sub-
ject; for when a man obtained a judgment against any one
it affected all the property of the debtor ; or by a like ana-
logy when the succession duty was unpaid the right of the
Crown would be against all the property of the successor.
He, 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
other real property of the successor than the property com-
prised in such succession." (Hear, hear.)
This amendment was agreed to, and that of Mr. MIIL-
LING s 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 on 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 instal-
meats. 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 operation settled personal property would
pay more to the duty than real property. (Hear, hear.)
They would neither know the persons to account for the
property, the property itself, nor the parties who were to
succeed to it. There might be three trustees for a pro-
perty, 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 re-
quired parties to account; but the 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 trustees fail-
ing 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 would be 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 was especially a
tax on the landed interest, but the parties who would
suffer most were the small owners of land—" statesmen,"
as they were called in Cumberland and Westmoreland.
It would also be severely felt by the small fundholders.
It was calculated that half of that description of property
was held in trust; and of 280,030 persons who re-
ceived dividends on funded property, '250,000 received
less than 1501. 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 property, and leave the trustee
exempt. He hoped the Government would fully consider
the matter ; for the operation of the bill as it stood would,
in the course of 10 years, render it the most unpopular
measure that ever was passed.
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 property 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 im-
mediate payment, and this ought to be done in the present
case. The successor to real property would only have to
pay 51. on an estate worth 1,0001., and he would have four
and a half years to pay it in. There was no great hard-
ship in that, not even to the poor "statesmen" of Cumber-
land. (Hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if
all 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 ho did not
think any good or valid ground had been shown for these
apprehensions. The right hon. gentleman had certainly
shown that difficulties attached to the working of that bill
which did not attach to a legacy duty, imposed as it was
upon property of which they became cognisant through
the medium of wills and administrations. It was quite
true that in this case they did not know the persons who
were to account for the property, nor those who were to
enjoy the property. The question whether the machinery
of this bill was sufficient, and whether, if sufficient, it was
harsh, might arise more properly under the subsequent
clauses. There were two methods, either of which Parlia-
ment might adopt. They might go upon one or more of
the parties connected with the property, and get at the
nature and amount of the succession through the medium
of those parties; or they might look to the property, and
lay the tax upon it, leaving the persons to show themselves
or not, as they pleased. They followed the first plan with
respect to the legacy duty,—the second with respect to the
income tax, speaking generally ; for in general they had
no occasion to call upon persons for returns, but they
looked to the property, in many instances taking no
cognizance whatever of the owners. Under the present
bill they would not adopt the latter course. As to
certain descriptions of property, in the income tax, they
were obliged to go to individuals and call on them for
returns ; and that would have been the case in the
succession duty, if they had adopted that principle. But
it would not have been wise or equitable to adopt that
principle in. regard to those great matters of property
which it was in their power to get at, especially all real
and visible property, the funds and public securities and
shares in public companies. Had they adopted that course
of proceeding and gone upon the property the assessment
must, in the first instance, have been made upon the gross
value, irrespective of incumbrances and irrespective of
divisions of interests. An assessment upon the gross value
was liable to this great and fatal objection • it would have
been necessary to have a system of minute investigation
and of return of duty, fenced about with all the jealous
hindrances that were required to secure the revenue in
cases where a return of duty was sought. In the case of a
person dying possessed of estates in different counties, be-
sides personalty, debts, &c., 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 an undivided succession, to come
to London to exhibit the state of his affairs, to state the
deductions he claimed, and the incumbrances affecting the
property, and then to get his returns as he could. It was
perfectly plain that that process would have been a most
vexatious one, and would have ended, as it did in the in-
come tax, in levying a larger per tentage than the tax no-
minally and professedly imposed. But if they were not to
go directly upon the property, to whom were they to go ?
Mr. Walpole had almost answered his own suggestion of
going to the successor, for he said they did not know the
successor ; and though in many cases they might know the
principal successor, still they might not know the subordi-
nate successors, or those taking subordinate interests, or
even independent interests. Generally speaking, there
was but one person who would be cognizant of all the suc-
cessionst:.voweesseeesth
settlement
oe
t/kndmightoel all the parties—the trustee or trustees ; they
eoParmLileeostewwnhkeootewcwoutedldgbee
olfootkheed
stuoccaesssobersingwht
fybenefiethl interests. The successor under a
not ordinarily
lowed the analogy of the Legacy
hi his possessithog of that document ; it was
n or
irmmand.They fol-
under settlement would occupy tie rurateypeAscati,o an n
asd trustees
trustees
much with respect to
uthnedeqruteessttaionmeonftawrYlietaiherP°Bthietiy"shoulod go upon the property
or on the persons connected with it in somlyihor other.
Then, with respect to the other objection,
trustees would be one of much anxiety, responsibility, e eanoCl.
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
uses, that was to
under landed settlement were trusts for
the Legacy Duty Act. The great bulk of trusts created
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
I dangers suggested were quite imaginary. The clause
assimilated the case 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.
Mr. BARROW said that he knew the difference of being
a trustee to property left by will and settled property, and
being a trustee to settled property, he strongly objected to
be made responsible by an ex posy facto law for more than
he assumed when he undertook the trust. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS said that if they were to levy a succession
tax at all, it would be impossible to go to the extent pro-
posed—that of exempting all existing trustees.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proposed some slight
alterations in the clause with a view of meeting some of
the objections urged by Mr. Walpole, which were accepted,
and the clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 44.
Mr. DRILLINGS suggested that the latter part of the
clause should be struck out.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would not be possible to accede to the proposition, because
they had no other control over unprincipled persons
making fraudulent returns.

Sir S. PAKINGTON said this was one of the clauses at
the proposal of which he had felt the greatest alarm. He
wanted to know how small properties of the value of from
1501. to 2001. a year were to be dealt with. (Hear, hear.)
There was no greater delusion than to suppose that this
was a question which affected only the larger properties ;
he believed it essentially concerned the smaller ones, which
in addition to the tax would be saddled with heavy law
expenses.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
right hon. baronet forgot that all leaseholdyrs were liable
to a succession tax and probate duty—(hear, hear)—a tax
infinitely more severe than this, because parties were ob-
liged to pay on the gross amount of their inheritance, being
left to get it back how they could—and the woes of such
persons remained at present unsung by the right hon.
baronet, (Hear, hear.) The law would work in a com-
paratively easy manner for freeholders; the net annual
value and the age of the party would settle the whole
affair. The object was to call upon parties for an account
of the value of the estate. If the Government were not
satisfied with the account, they would cause to be made
another valuation, and in the event of a party not appeal-
ling against that valuation he would have to pay part of
the costs.

Mr. HENLEY observed that it might happen that the
Government valuation differed only in a slight degree from
the previous ones.
Sir T. D. ACLAND suggested that there should be a
per centage charge for the excess of the second valuation
over the first. _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
wish to make any party responsible for casual errors which
prudence could not avoid. The mild and moderate work-
ing of the act depended not so much on what was done
there as on the whole tone of public feeling and the power
of appealing to Parliament in case of abuse. Those who
had watched the working of the Legacy Duty and the In-
come Tax Acts must have come to that conclusion. All he
desired was that parties should be subjected to the expense
of a second valuation when there had been a want either
of bona fides or of common prudence. (Hear, hear.) It
would never do to have a per tentage criterion ; under
such an arrangement there would be a systematic deviation
from the truth. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY was glad to hear the right hon. gentle-
man's declaration of his wish. There was nothing more
subject to contradiction than the value of property. What
he would suggest was, that either the successor or the
trustees, one or both of them, should render an account of
the property to the best of their knowledge, information,
or belief ; and if they did that, he thought they ought not
to be exposed to any of the perilous consequences threat-
ened by this clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think the parties were in any such danger as had been
pointed out by the hon. and learned gentleman; for it was
not to be supposed that there would be such a wasteful,
profligate, and absurd expenditure of the public money, as
to surcharge over and over again persons who had made a
bona ficle return, in spite of the correction of a judgment
of the Court of Appeal. (Hear, hear.)
The committee at length divided—

For the amendment
Against it

Majority 25
The amendment was thus lost, and the clause was then
agreed to.
On clause 45, ' " Penalty on not giving notices of suc-
cession."
Mr. MULLINGS objected that no period was fixed in a
case where the penalties were cumulative.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
clause sufficiently distinct and specific.
Sir F. KELLY considered the requirements of the
clause too general and oppressive to leave hope of com-
pliance.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE took a similar view, and urged that
the exemptions could not be established in the time spe-
cified.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the 45th clause
applied not to payment of duty, but to the giving of notice
and attached a penalty of 10 per cent. when such notice
was not given within twelve months. He did not consider
that that could be called a harsh provision.
After some further discussion,
The clause was agreed to, the word " wilful " being in-
serted before " neglect :" and one or two other amend-
ments having been introduced with a view of rendering
parties not liable to the penalty until after notice and
wilful neglect.
Mr. HENLEY then moved that the chairman report
progress.

Te CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
right hon. gentleman would permit them to go on. They
were now in the month of July, and it was requisite that
they should get through with the business.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was understood they were
to commence with the committee on the India Bill on
Thursday, and the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had an-
nounced his intention of proceeding with it de die in diem.
He thought great inconvenience would arise, after having
arrived at a certain stage of this bill, they should then put
it off to an indefinite period.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be his duty to propose that this bill be taken again
at 12 o'clock this day. He was anxious that it should
have gone on while their minds were fresh on the subject.
Mr. HENLEY observed that the Pilotage Bill was al-
ready fixed for the morning sitting this day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he in-
tended to take this bill first.

Mr. DISRAELI thought there was every reason why
they should not proceed with this bill in a morning. In a'l
probability the bill could not be criticised in detail in
another place, and therefore it would be well that they
h'%ve the assistance of the gentlemen in the long robe in
discussing the bill in this house, and they could not attend
in a morning.
The CHANCELLOR oft he EXCHEQUER quite agreed
in that. At the same time there were circumstances that
were stronger than they were. They had had great assis-
tance from the gentlemen of the long robe, and he hoped
that they would be able to be with them to-day. It would
be his duty if the bill was not finished in committee that
night to propose that it be taken at the morning sitting
this day.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE was ready to go on with the bill,
but he had strong objections to going on with it this day,
for other bills of importance were already fixed, and when
the legal gentleman could not be present.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
general convenience of the house might be met by going
on with the rest of the clauses now, postponing till the re-
port that relating to timber, with respect to which the
powers of discussion were not exhausted.
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that; this bill should be taken
on Thursday instead of the India Bill.

After a few words from Mr. MALINS,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
alter the arrangements in regard to the business on Thurs-
day and Friday.
Sir J. PAKINGTON considered it would be more con-
venient to the Government as well as members generally,
to postpone the India Bill till Monday, when it might be
taken de die in diem as the noble lord proposed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having
consulted Sir C. Wood said an arrangement might be'
made to take the bill instead of the India Bill on Thurs-
day. (Hear, hear.)
After some further conversation the motion for reporting
progress was agreed to, upon the understanding that the
committee should be resumed on Thursday, on which day
it is to have precedence over the other orders.
In answer to Mr. BRIGHT,

Sir C. WOOD said the second read4ng of the India Bill
would stand for Thursday, after the committee on the Suc-
cession Duties Bill, which he hoped would be concluded on
that evening. The India Bill would most certainly be
brought on on Monday, and be then proceeded with de die
in diem.