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

INDIA

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE moved for copies of all pa-
pers relating to the case of Viccagee Meyee and Peston-
gee Meyee, British subjects and Parsee inhabitants of
Bombay and Hyderabad, that have been transmitted to
the India. House or the Board of Control, or have ema-
nated from the Court of Directors or the Board of Con-
trol, relating to the said case.---Agreed to.
MEDICAL REFORM.
Colonel DUNNE asked the Secretary for the Home
Department what was the determination of the Govern-
ment as to a proposed bill for regulating the medical
profession ; also, as to the confirmation of certain bye-
laws adopted by the Pharmaceutical Society.
Lord PALM ERSTON said he hoped to be able to
briie", in a bill on the first of the matters, probably not
with the view of passing it this session, but to see whe-
ther there would be any objection to the arrangements
contained in it. At the same time, he did not preclude
himself from proposing to carry it this session, if he
found time for that purpose. With regard to the bye-
law; of the Pharmaceutical Society, they were sent to
him for approval, and he had sanctioned them, subject to
any legal decision which might be come to. On one of the
articles to which objection had been made on the ground
of its being inconsistent with law, that was a matter
which could only be decided by a judicial tribunal.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
In reply to Mr. SANDARS,
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. BAUM;
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 of 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 his 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 case 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
laws as in every case to adjust
t
trahneisracotpioeranstitoon to
whicht iemoral
applied, he would be most happy to hear how he would
proceed. Ho contended that Parliament could do no such
thing ; it could only prod) simple, and intelli-
gible rules. (Hear, he,,r. Theon broad,
only more conformable to clause, as it stood,. was not
would be if amended in the manner
but justice, than it
very well to cite cases in whichproposed. It was all
created by filial piety, but they ineumbrances had been
all knew that the great
bulk of these incumbrances were created by the great ten-
dency of the higher classes live beyond their means—
(hear)—and therefore, forsooth, they
were
classes,
legislate with
a special t,nderness in favour of t
hos
_provided
(Ironical
cheers.) If the doctrine were so correct thatl aneB. allowance
should be made for incumbrances, why Wa.,it.notthat an ano.v.vl3) should be made for money borrowed on
personal necurity ?
Mr. M ALT NS—lt cannot be got.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—But it
was notorioni that it was got. (Hoar.) And it was un-
juv, to provide for one case and not for the other.
Mr. 2,IALINS said if the right hon. gentleman had be-
longed to the profession of the law, he would have known
that it was very nnconareon for heirs expectant to borrow
money on p.,3rsonal security, when there was landed estate
to offer ; it was not done in one case in ten thousand. To
construct a system of legislation which would meet the
justice of every case was, he confessed, beyond his power ;
but that was no reason why the house should in this case
commit an injustice by an ex post facto clause. If, as his
hon. friend (Mr. Mullins) proposed, the operation pf 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
ch
he would never see or enjoy. He felt so deeply imp
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,
AausKerNasGamToenNdedo odfetehlearbeidll.his thsattrthje. clause
ppostasnedd,panartd
inten-
tion of taking the sense of the committee upon the clause.
For the clause lOB
Against it 92

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-
lines, 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 unpaad 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
add
the
words charges and interests created by him," o
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.
Mue-
LINGS 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-
ments. 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. Tho 4Sth 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 frindholders.
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 1,000/. 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 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 hs 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 affeirs, to state. the
deductions he claimed, and the incumbrances affecting the
property, and then to get Hs 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 centage than the tax no-
minally and professedly imposed. But if they were not to
go
Mr. Walpole upon the property, to whom were they to go ?
en: had almost answered his owe 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, -stil they might not know the subordi-
nate successors, or
i e
thos taking subordinate interests, or
even independent nte
was but one person reste, Generally speaking, there
whowould be cognizant of all the suc-
cessions and all the
parties—tine trustee or trustees ; they
were the only parties who
could be looked to as being in
possession of complete knowledge of
The successor
successors who
nort under a
wore to take beneficial interests 11
settlement might know nothing of that douccucmeses
not ordinmily in his possession or eennmand. They was
the analogy of the Legacy Dew Act, and trustee%
under settlement would occupy the same imition 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, thaet the case of
trustees would be one of much anxiety, responaThility, and
liability, that no one would be found to undertake the duty,
he did not think th it the burden thrown upon trustees by
this bill would be greater than it was under lawe already
imposed. Indeed, trustees under this clause would). have
less responsibility than they had under existine were
With regard to the small holders in the fnnde, they Isitehret
:secured already ; and it was only the largo ones who might
theo
devise the moans of escaping the tax. With regard to
trustees to landed settlements, they. would be placed in a
favourable position than were trustees now under
under landed
Duty Act, The great bulk of trusts created
eifstattesyhn'atnt
say,
treats
-reianded settlement were trusts for uses, that was to
ate with reear 1 to which the trustees to settled
under the clausoe
empower to' raise money or receve rents, and
dangers sn power to receive rents, their liability
assimilated the
o.o,oB:xwdould be very light indeed. If so, the
case of the trustees to settled property to
Were quite imaginary. The clause