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

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. 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. 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„

rile 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 anti 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 appealinc, to Parliament in case of abuse. Those who
had watchedb 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 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 oethem, 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 tho correction of a judgment
of the Court of Appeal. (Hear, hear.)
The committee at length divided—
For the amendment 139
Again3t 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 whore the penalties were cumulative.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
chaise sufficiently distinct and specific.
Sir F. KELLY considered the requirements of the
clause too general and oppressive to leave hopo of com-
pliance.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE took a similar view, and urged that
the exemptions could not be established in the time spe-
ci fled.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the 45th clause
applied not to p.Nyment of duty, but to the giving of notice
and attached a ponalty 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 abeforo " neglect 9' and one or two other amend-
ments having been introduced with a view of renderinr,
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 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 cortain 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 wore fresh on tho subject.
Mr. HENLEY observed that the Pilotage Bill was al-
ready fixed for the mornine, sitting this day.
The CHANCELLOR of 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 al
probability the bill could not be criticised in detail in
another place, and therefore it would be well that they
have the assistance of the gentlemen in the long robe in
discussing the bill in this house, and they could not attend
in a morning.
Tho 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-clay. It would
be his duty if the bill was not finislr..d in committee that
I 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 the:: 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 moro 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 ariangemeat 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.