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

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 as it stool 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.") 'lhey 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 1,000/., 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 he 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 obligod 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 'timer to get at, especially all real
and visible property, tile funds and public securities and
shares in public companies. Mad 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 most
vexatious one, and would have ended, as it didin the in-
come tax, in levying a larger per centage 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-
cessions and all the parties—the trustee or trustees ; they
were the only parties who could be looked to as being in
possession of complete knowledge of the successors who
were to take beneficial interests. The successor under a
settlement might know nothing of that document ; it was
not ordinarily in his possession or command. They
lowed the analogy of the Legacy Dnty Act, and trustees
under settlement would occupy the came position as trustees
under testamentary disposition. So much with respect to
the question of whether they should g upon the property
or on the persons connected with it in ,some way or other.
o
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 tho burden thrown upon trustees by
this bid 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 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 trusted to property left by will and settled property, and
being a trustee to setted property, he strongly objected to
be made responsible by an ex post 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 SOL ICITOR-GENER AL 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. MULLINGS 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 J. PAK INGTON 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
150'. 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 ;
ho 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 leaseholders 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 centage criterion ; under
such an arrangement there would be a systematic deviation
from the troth. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. BELLY 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
ho 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 fide 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.

164

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 coin.
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. Ho did not 4ionsider
that that could be called a harsh provision.
After Borne further discussion,
The clause was agreed to, the word "wilful" being in-
serted &before " neglect :" and one or two other an: end-
merits 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.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
ohnope(l tlm
right hon. gentleman would permit They
were' now in the month of July, and it was requisite that
they should get through with the business.
•"th the committee the
toSeiroijni.nrelAicKe lINviGTON said it was understoodl itaheßyillveorne
Thurcs edda i sand intention theoobf Ipei].olocer
eda
i(nLgory,di Russell)
de )
ihnaddievaa u
110 thought great inconveniencetis NbVioll, 11litlhyaerl.
arrived at a certain stage of h
it off to an indefinite period.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
arias,
erthhenavpinngt
world be his dut to propose that this bill be taken again
at 12 o'clock thisyday. He was anxious that it should
have gone on while their minds were fresh on the subject.
ThMr.e. HEN for the that the Pilotage Bill wsaaisdali-t
ready fixed
g sitting this day.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he in-
tended to take this bill first.