The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 8, 1853.

in this case, as the five years would have expired before
the bill came into full force. In the first year little or
nothing would be obtained from the tax, in the second the
revenue derived from it would be but the verest trifle, and
efiveect And what would years mustelapwsoebd b before
the positionethetaxw thenouldof those come ionst:full
ffwho
had paid the five years of the instalments? With what
justice could they say that they would levy this succession
tax on those unfortunate persons who came to their estates
within five years ? They. would say, "We were promised
that others should come in and bear their share, but after
we have paid for five years, it appears that now they are
only to have the luxury of paying some other tax in com-
mon with others of the community." (Hear, hear.) He
must say he thought his right hon. friend had now made a
proposal that would not hold water. His right hon.
friend admitted that was done with this tax should be
done with the legacy duty ; they were wedded together
and must stand or fall together. If they were disposed
to say that this legacy duty should exist for five years
only let them do so, but do not let them pass an
enactment confessedly for the purpose of putting all pro-
perty on the same footing, which would leave tha legacy
duty permanent, while this succession tax was limited to
fiveyea
years.
(Hear.)
(Hear.)
Viscount GALWAY observed that what he proposed
tax would,
wtoolulimd, ac
limit the tax
t
adxto
othe G
1860, theovyeernarmwenht, when the
;
eiinconmns
the amendment he wished to submit was, that tho opera-
tion of this act continue till the 19th of May, 1860, and no
longer.
Mr. DISRAELI had intended to rise, but his noble friend
anticipated him, to propose that instead of the term
of five years, as suggested by his right hon. friend, they
should adopt the term of seven years ; and he did so on the
faith of a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, when he first introduced the proposition to the notice
of the house. At the period when the income and property
tax was last renewed he felt it his duty, on the part of the
late Government, to propose to the house to consider the
propriety of making some difference in the rates of assess-
ment under the different schedules of the measure ; but
the right hon. gentleman did not agree in principle with
that proposition. The right hon. gentleman acknowledged
that some difference ought to be established in order to
equalise the burden, but he said, " I am about to propose
a measure to extend a succession duty on all settled pro-
perty, and that will be, in some measure, a compensation
to those classes who are now liable under the income and
property tax, in whose favour I cannot recognise the dif-
ference you wish to establish." Now, the right hon. gen-
tleman proposed that the income and property tax should
be continued for seven years ; and not only that, but, if
his view was carried into effect and bo realised, that the
income and property tax should then cease and determine.
But if this measure were really brought forward as a com-
pensation, it ought to cease and determine when the bur-
den for which it was the compensation no longer existed.
It appeared to him, therefore, that the period for the con-
tinuance of this tax ought to be the same as that for the
continuance of the property and income tax—viz., seven
years. With regard to the argument of the right hon. gen-
tleman, that if they limited the duration of the act arrears
would be payable, and that would be a great hardship, he
would remind him that if the property tax terminated to-
morrow, arrears would be payable in that case also. With
regard to the legacy duties and this act being bound toge-
ther, they might be identical in principle but not in form.
This was a separate act, and was only to be so considered.
If the principle of the bill was so just that they could not
consent to retain the old legacy duties without extending
the principle of the tax to real and settled property, they
might rest assured that at the end of seven years, in this
age of progress, they would not have so far deteriorated as
not to feel the force of truth and justice in relation to
that principle. He protested against the principle laid
down by the right hon. gentleman that this bill, which
was distinctly and palpably before them, could only be
considered with reference to an act with which it had no
legislative connexion. He could not look at this bill but
as a proposition brought forward as a compensation for a
tax that was to come to an end in seven years, and he
thought that it was politic and just to limit this tax to the
same period.
eRnl;
odeclaredn
dhoef ws
such
cuhl da not
detestablevote ei tahe r
.
fornetcondemned
Colonelen deoe
mniS
mnl :1 He
it
in
principle, and he said throw it out,
and throw out the Government with it.
The committee divided :
For the amendment
Against it...

125
195
Majority —7O
After a few words from Sir F. KELLY and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
The clause was agreed to, as was clause 56 and the
schedules.
Clauses 16 and 22 were struck out.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought np
the following clause : -Provided that no person entitled, at
the time appointed for the commencement of this act, to
the immediate reversion in any real property, expectant
upon the determination of any lease for life, shall be charge-
able with duty in respect of such determination, in the
event of the same occurring in his life time.
Some discussion took place, in which Mr. Henley, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Cayley took part.
The clause was then agreed to.
The • CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER next
brought up the following clause :—" Section 16. No policy
of insurance on the life of any person shall alone create the
relation of predecessor and successor, between the insurer
and assured, and no bond or contract by any person
bona fide for valuable consideration in money or moneys
worth, for,,the payment of money after the death of any
other person, shall alone create the relation of predecessor
and successor between the person making out such bond or
contract, and the person to or with whom the same shall
be made ; but any disposition or devolution of the moneys
payable under such policy, bond, or contract, if otherwise
within the provisions of this act, shall be deemed to confer
a succession."
Mr. FRESHFIELD moved that the word " other" be
struck out before " person," so as to make the clause apply
to the obligor himself.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted the
proposal, "on the ground that it would lead to numberless
evasions. It would cause wills to take the form of post
obits.

The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was then agreed to, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, in answer to Sir F. Kelly, agreeing that the bill
as altered should be printed before it reached its final
stage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought
up the following clause :—" Section 22. Where timber
trees or wood shall be comprised in any succession, the
successor shall be chargeable with duty upon his interest
in the net moneys which shall from time to time be received
from any sales of such timber trees or wood, and shall ac-
count for and pay the same yearly ; provided, that if the
successor shall be desirous of commuting the duty, and
shall deliver to the commissioners an estimate of the net
monies obtainable by him from the sale of such timber
trees and wood, as may, in a prudent course of manage-
ment of the property, be felled by such successor during his
life, the commissioners, if satisfied with such estimate,
shall accept the same and assess the duty accordingly."
Sir J. TROLLOPE hoped the right hon. gentleman
would expunge the clause altogether ; for it would add but
an infinitesimal sum to the revenue, and it would lead to
an immense amount of vexation and annoyance. (Cheers.)
Colonel SIBTHORP suspected any modification pro-
ceeding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
looked on the bill as altogether a gross robbery. (Cheers.)
The revenue returns recently published were all humbug
and nonsense, the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
being to deceive the public and to increase his reputation
as a financier. How did the right hon. gentleman intend
to deal with the copyholder, who could not cut down a tree
without paying one-third of its value to the lord of the
manor, besides a heavy fine ? Would he (the copyholder)
be charged on the gross sum ? If he were it would be a
gross robbery. (Laughter.)
Mr. BUCK opposed the clause. It was taxing a com-
modity for which the owners had not received any, benefit.
Mr. V. SMITH said however difficult it might be to tax
timber he did not see why, when they taxed every thing
else, they should not tax timber. At the same time he
wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain his
modified proposition. If they cut down hedge-row timber
were they to keep an account of that, and to hand it over
to the tax-gatherer ? Then he thought that timber cut
down for the purpose of the estate ought not to be taxed.
Then he wished to know what was to be done with regard
to ornamental timber. According to the clause as it at
present stood, ornamental timber would be valued with
the other. They ought to present a fair alternative to the
owner.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with
reference to the first question he thought he had answered
it -;by anticipation, namely, whether every transaction,
however small, was to be subject to taxation. He said
that was a matter of no great moment, and there was no
great objection to the introduction of a low minimum.
With regard to the question of timber employed in the
repairs of the property, his right hon. friend said they
ought to specify a minimum ; he did not think it possible
to specify a minimum more distinct than by saying that a
party should be liable in respect of the moneys that he re-
ceived in respect of timber. Of course, if a deduction was
made for repairs the timber ought not to be charged as a
part of the repairs. Ho must again remind the committee
that the -difference apprehended in estimates of that
desciiption was not found in practice. They had never
yet had an appeal, and that was the best answer he could
give. With regard to ornamental timber, ho would
venture to put it that the clause stood perfectly
well. They might describe ornamental timber as
timber that was not usually to be cut. Then he appre-
hended
they would not be liable to pay anything in
respect of the first alternative. That which the party was
liable to make a return of was in respect of sales. He would
not enter into the general discussion, as they went through
the whole of it on a former night. His right hon. friend
went into inmost fairly, and said they had reduced the
scale so that the proceeds would not be much. Into that
he would not enter.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER must enter into the practical
working of the clause. The policy of Government for the
last ten years had been to reduce the duty on foreign tim-
ber, and now they were laying practically an excise duty
upon it. The penalties which were laid by this act would
be exceedingly oppressive, to say the least of it. When-
ever a gentleman bad a fall of timber an Excise officer
would come upon the estate and inquire whether it should
be 1 per cent. or 10 per cent. Ho objected to the clause
altogether.
Sir T. D. ACLAND experienced great pleasure at the
course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
thought that the clause, as it now stood, entirely got rid
of objections. It appeared to him, however, that• if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to avoid evasion, ho
ought to name a minimum in the clause.
Mr. HENLEY said it did not appear clear whether,
when timber was cut down for repairs, it would bo exempt
from duty. He (Mr. Henley) was, however, averse to
taxing timber at all ; it had always been the policy of the
country to encourage the growth of timber. The word
" wood" was now introduced into the clause for the first
time. This word would almost inevitably lead to confu-
sion' and it would be a matter of doubt whether, under
that term, underwood would not come in.

Mr. K. SEYMER thought the difficulty of taxing tim-
ber would be so great that this clause ought not to be
pressed. This would only be following the same principle
as was followed in the case of stock in trade.

Mr. BOOKER complained that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not appear to have taken into consideration
the care and attention which was required to bring timber
to a state of perfection. Timber, too, was of an excep-
tional nature. Its growth ought to be supported for the
sake of the " wooden walls of Old England." (Oh, oh.)
The hon. gentleman then proceeced to read a letter from a
friend deprecating the proposed measure as disadvan-
tageous to the British oak. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and
laughter.) During the reading of the letter there we-:e
repeated cries of " Name, name," and when the hon.
member read the signature of " W. S. Wood," great
amusement was created. The hon. gentleman assured the
house that it was no assumed name, and gave the writer's
address as " White House, near Hereford."
After a few words from Sir E. DERING,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE contended that timber stood on a

different footing from other species of property. He pro-
ceeded to illustrate his position in a long speech, which
was almost entirely drowned in vociferous cries of
" Divide."

The committee then divided—
For the clause 195
Against 179-16
In reply to an objection from Mr. HENLEY respecting
the valuation of underwood,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he would alter
the clause so that it would read timber, trees, or wood not
being coppice or underwood.
Colonel SIBTHORP asked the hon. and learned gentle-
man to go a step further, and impose a tax on sawdust.
(Laughter.)

MII,ES said the wording of the clause would lead
to constant disputes between the successor and the tax
gatherer as to the valuation.
Mr. P. MILES was apprehensive that parties would be
called upon to pay the tax upon the not proceeds of the
wood, when it might happen the expense of cutting had
swallowed up all the proceeds.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in that
case the party would neither pay the tax nor would bo
called upon to render an account of the sale. Ho would
be required to render an account of his profits when there
were any, and upon these profits the tax would have to be
paid.
After some further discussion,
Mr. MILES thought that nothing under 30 years'
growth should be estimated in the valuation, and proposed
to add a proviso to that effect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
impossible for him to accede to those words. In Scotland
he had seen valuable timber not 30 years old.
Mr. C. BRUCE said, in his experience, wood which he
had cut under 30 years of age had not more than paid the
expenses.____

Mr. DUNLOP mentioned a case in which 1501. a year
was derived from timber under 25 years old.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause agreed to.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the house
resumed, and the chairman reported progress.
___

NEWSPAPER STAMP BILL.
The second reading of this bill was fixed for this day,
PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS REPEAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time, with the understanding
that it was to be committed pro forma, and reprinted.
MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,
Sir J. YOUNG; in answer to a question from Mr. Ma-
guire, explained that the bill would abolish ministers' money
as it at present stood, but that he did not expect that the
whole amount of tax would be remitted. He denied that
any pledge had been given for the total abolition of the
tax. The bill would mainly exempt houses to be built,
would establish a commission to revise the rating, and
would give housekeepers, who were liable to rating, power
of redemption on very favourable terms.
Messrs. Maguire, Sullivan, and Grogan severally ex-
pressed their disapprobation of the principle of the bill as
stated by the right hon. gentleman.
Resolutions passed, leave given to bring in the bill.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SALE, i&c.. OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. WHITESIDE moved the second reading of this
bill.

Sir J. YOUNG approved of the principle of the bill, but
hoped it would not be pressed this session beyond its pre-
sent stage.
Mr. WHITESIDE could hardly understand any objec-
tion to this bill, and intimated that he should press it for-
ward.

After a few words from Mr. KEOGH and Colonel DUNNE
the bill was read a second time.
The Brecon Collegiate Church Bill passed through com-
mittee.

PARISH CONSTABLES BILL.
The order for the committee on this bill was read and
discharged.

CUSTOMS ACT.
The report of the committee was brought up, and agreed
to.

CUSTOMS ACTS (ISLE OF MAN).
The house havinh, resolved itself into committee on the
resolutions for in-wooing customs duties on the Isle of
Man,
Sir J. WALMSLEY objected that this bill was an in-
fringement of the privileges of the Isle of Man, and with
the rights of property, and he hoped that unless the Go-
vernment could show that they had the consent of the
House of Keys and the people of the island, that the house
would not sanction the imposition of increased duties.
He read documents showing that the proposition had not
been submitted, as promised, to the authorities of the
island, and ho complained that provision was not made by
the Government to give to the House of Keys control over
the taxes it was proposed to raise. This was an attempt
to bring the island, with the customs of the Isle of Man,
within the general customs laws of the kingdom for the
first time, and as this was opposed to the privileges and
rights of the people of the Isle of Man, he should, if the
resolutions were pressed at that late hour, divide against
them.

Mr. J. WILSON said that the proposed bill was neces-
sary to remote impediments to the trade of the island, and
to prevent smuggling. He had communicated with the
Lieutenant-Governor, and informed him of the proposed
changes, and he had called the House of Keys together,
who had made certain suggestions in the bill which would
be founded on these resolutions, and would be considered.
Sir J. WALMSLEY moved that the house do adjourn.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he could not do that while the
house was in committee.
Sir J. WALMSLEY would throw every obstacle in the
way of the resolutions, and moved that the chairman re-
port progress.
The gallery was cleared for a division, brt none took
place, and the chairman having reported progress, the
house resumed.

The Stamp Duties Bill, as amended, was considered.
The Land Revenues Bill passed through committee.
The Spitalfields and Shoreditch Improvement Bill was
read a third time and passed.
THE NAVY.

Sir J. GRAHAM obtained leave to bring in a bill to
prolong the period of the service of seamen from five years
to ten years. and otherwise to amend the laws relating to
the navy. The right hon. baronet also brought in a bill to
raise a force of 10,00 naval coast volunteers, to be em-
ployed in case of need.

Sir J. YOUNG obtained leave to bring in a cab bill for
Dublin.

Mr. WILSON brought in a bill for the punishment of
offences in the colonies relating to coin. -
The house rose at 10 minutes past 3.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—JULY 7.
(Before the Lords Justices.)

THE YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY V,

HUDSON.

This case, which was argued a short time back, was
placed in their lordships' paper this morning for judg-
ment. The bill was filed by the York and North Mid-
land Railway Company against Mr. Hudson, for an ac-
count in respect of certain shares in the North British
Railway Company and other companies. These shares
had been subscribed for in the name of the defendant,
who was the chairman of the plaintiffs' company, and
he received the dividends on them and sold them. The
company had a separate account with their bankers in
respect of these shares ; the calls on them were paid by
the bankers, and the company were charged in this ac-
count for interest and commission ; and the defendant
paid in to this account sums received for the shares and
balances due in respect of them. The plaintiffs alleged
that the moneys received by Mr. Hudson for the shares
had not been fully accounted for, and even if they had,
that the money had not been duly applied in payment of
the calls, so that bankers charges for commission had in
consequence arisen. The Master of the Rolls directed
an account in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant,
without disputing the right to this account, complained
of the terms in which it was directed, as being calculated
to place him under undue difficulty, and the object of
the appeal was to have this direction altered.
The Lord Justice Turner, after stating the facts giving
rise to the question, said that the decree made was unu-
sual, and though probably the rights of all parties might
have been worked out under it, yet it was better that
the usual forms of the Court should be adhered to.
On these grounds, and without reference as to whether
the decree was as favourable as it ought to have been to
the defendant, or whether the alterations might not ope-
rate to his prejudice, it would be well to vary it in some
particulars.

- The Lord Justice Knight Bruce added that the costs
of the appeal on both sides would be costs h the cause,
and that the decree as altered might probably lead to
precisely the same result as if it had stood as originally
pronounced. The difference from the Master of the
Rolls was slight, or was none.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-JULY 7.

MARY ANN BRUNSDEN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF HENRY BRUNS•
DEN, V. THE WATERMAN STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Manisty appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Seijeant Wilkins, Mr. Hugh
Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Unthank, were counsel for the de-
fendants.

The defendants are the proprietors of the Waterman
steamers plying on the Thames, and the action was
brought by the plaintiff, a widow, under Lord Camp-
bell's act, to recover damages for the death of her son, a
boy of 17 years of age, by whom she was supported,
occasioned by the negligent management of one of their
vessels.

It appeared that on the 22d of March last, at about
eleven o'clock in the forenoon, the brig Indian, bound
for Newcastle, and in which Brunsden was serving, was
being towed into the East India Docks, by means of a
rope fastened by the one end to her capstan, and by the
other to the pier-head of the dock. While in this posi-
tion, the Waterman steamer No. 7, coming from Wool-
wich, passed between her and the pier, in order to land
the passengers destined for the docks. In doing so her
keel became entangled in the rope, and the capstan,
being forced back, struck the boy, who was working
with the captain at one of the bars, and inflicted on him
injuries from the effect of which he died a few days after-
wards. .

On the part of the plaintiff, evidence was adduced to
prove that the speed at which the Waterman steamer
was going was excessive ; that by the regulations in
force on the river, vessels going up or coming down are
required to pass on the outside of all boats being towed
into the docks ; that a flag is always hoisted to give
warning when vessels are so being towed ; and that the
captain of the Waterman, in attempting to pass on the
inside of the Indian, had violated the above regulations,
and the owners were therefore liable for the fatal conse-
quences that ensued.
The defendants, on the other hand, alleged that the
rate at which their boat was proceeding was moderate ;
that it was a common practice to moor vessels to the
buoys near the docks, and for other vessels to pass be-
tween them, when so moored, and the pier of the docks ;
that on the present occasion there was considerable
space between the Indian and the pier ; and that had a
proper 100k-out been kept by the crew, and the "palls
attached to the capstan as soon as the rope caught, the
accident would not have occurred. One of the wit-
nesses, however, the dock-master of the East India ,