The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-17 00:00:00

more than answered the right hon. gentleman. He would,
however, state again that as long as the property of a per-
son dying abroad was administered abroad it would not be
subject to duty.
Mr. MULLINGS said that the holders of heritable
bonds in Scotland, who were in precisely the same position
as mortgagees in England, would be taxed M 3 e lightly
than the latter class ; he therefore moved an amendment,
NavinF for its object the placing of these two cl is ses on an
oij nality.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the holders of
heritable bonds were in a different position from mort-
gagees in England.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause agreed to.

Upon clause 2,
Mr. MULLINGS moved the omission of the words
" past or future," because he contended that, as it stood,
the clause had a retrospective effect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Mullings) had put a
case with great fairness, which raised a broad principle of
opposition to the present bill. He (Mr. Mullings) said that
the house had no right to pass this bill, by which he meant,
of course, that it had no right, consistently with equitable
considerations, to pass a bill having a retrospective opera-
tion. Without, then, quarrelling with the terms the hon.
member had used, or questioning the propriety of them,
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would proceed to an-
swer the argument. The hon. and learned gentleman said
that all settlements anti that all titles to property already
existing, by or under which a future disposition not in
contravention of existing law, ought to be saved from the
operation of the bill. The right hon. baronet the member
for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) adverted to this subject
on a former night, and misstated the manner in which he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had explained the views
of the Government. He (Sir J. Pakington) said that it
had been stated as the only reason of Government for de-
clining to agree to the bill, and the basis of this exception
was that they could not afford it. The memory of the
right hon. baronet must have been short, for he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) had stated another and a more
important reason, to which he still adhered. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) utterly denied the right of
hon. members to take these cases out of the bill. The
effect of it would be, to exempt a vast mass of property,
for one or two generations, from the operation of the
act, and to produce an unjust and injudicious state of
things. Upon the first case put by the hon. and learned
gentleman, that of a life policy, he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) would say nothing, as a future
clause to the bill would probably set that point at rest.
Of the two other cases, he would take that of the pur-
chase of a reversionary interest. He would not enter into
the question of the rate of duty, for upon that question
he did not think any difference arose between him and
the hon. member opposite (Mr. Mullings). The question
was ratb er one of principle. Now, the hon. gentleman in
putting the case of the purchase of a reversion, said that
the parties acted upon the faith of existing laws, and that
it was not for the house to impose a law to turn a profit-
able into an unprofitable speculation. Bat what he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequr) said was this, that this was
the principle upon which every measure of taxation was
founded. He did not hesitate to say that the whole of the
knowledge which could be obtained from the operation of
other taxing acts was entirely in favour of the course pur-
sued in this bill. This, for instance, was the case with the
income tax. He did not shrink from discussinc, the ques-
tion of reversions, but it should not be supposed that the
case of reversions was a fair sample of the operation of the
law. On the contrary, it was taking the extreme case of
illustrating the severest operation of an act of this nature.
With regard to settlements he denied that there was any
fair ground for exemption. The law never intended that
settlements should be made use of to evade the legacy
duty, but a vast multitude of legacies had been
made for the purpose of evading the legacy
duty. Were these parties entitled to the exemption ?
Certainly not. Then he was told they had a right to ex-
emption because they had paid stamp duties on the settle-
ment deeds. The stamp duties, however, were a counter.
part, not of the legacy duty, bit of the probate duty, and
the probate duty was from six to twelve times as much as
the stamp duty. On these grounds he must entirely decline
to accede to the proposition.
After a few words from Mr. Matins, Mr. Mullings, and
Mr. Freshfield, in support of the amendment,
The committee divided.
For the amendment ...... 45
Against it

Majority
On our readmission into the gallery,
Mr. HENLEY was just concluding some observations
about leases for lives.

•
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had not been able to discover any principle on which they
could grant an exemption on the termination of a lease for
lives.

Some discussion followed, in which Mr. MALINS, Mr.
MICHELL, Mr. CAYLEY, and other hon. members took part,
and objections were made to the inequality and injustice
ofimposing the succession tax on the falling in of leases for
lives, and exempting the falling of leases for terms ; and it
was urged that it would fall hardly on many parts of the
country where it was the custom to grant leases for lives.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the clause only ap-
plied where the reversioner became beneficially interested.
In the case of leases for three lives, if one life dropped, the
reversioner did not become beneficially interested, but fol-
lowing the custom of the country, he would put in ano-
ther life. (No, no.) Well, then, the succession would only
accrue on the last life ; leaseholds for lives were in the na-
ture of freeholds, and not in the same position as leases
for years.
Mr. HENLEY said that the clause would operate as a
robbery upon those whose estates had been let on leases for
lives.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER protested
against the practise of applying such terms as " robbery"
and " confiscation" to clauses of bills—epithets that might
be much more forcibly and justifiably used with regard to
existing laws ; and that certainly ought not to be used by
gentlemen who had filled responsible situations under Go-
vernment. (Hear.) The principle of the measure was to
tax successions arising from a death only; but he quite
admitted the reality of the difficulty complained of. It
should have his best attention ; but he thought the views
of the committee would much more properly be tested by a
new clause. (Hear, hear.)
In answer to Mr. Sergeant SHEE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated
his statement of the previous evening respecting quasi cor-
porations, sole and aggregate—namely, that they would be
treated as nearly as possible identically with the legal cor-
porations. They would, however, be dealt with in another
bill.

Mr. SHEE said that his question had been misappre-
hended, and repeated it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave sub-
stantially the same answer.
After a conversation, the clause was then agreed to.
On clause 3, which provides that joint tenants taking by
survivorship shall be deemed successors,
Mr. Henley, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Mullings raised some
objections to the phraseology ; but, after an explanation
from the Solicitor-General, the clause was agreed to, as
was clause 4.

On clause 5, " Extinction of determinable charges to
confer successions,"
Mr. VANSITTART observed under this clause, where
an annuity was granted upon an estate, upon its falling in
the succession tax would be charged. He wished to know
whether insurance companies would be charged upon the
falling in of annuities in the same way?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to
defer any discussion on the tax, as it related to insurance
companies, until the 16th clause.

Mr. CAIRNS objected to the clause, and urged its post-
ponement.

The CHAIRMAN observed that as a verbal amendment
had been introduced they could not postpone it.
After a few words from Mr. CAIRNS and Mr. BARROW,
the committee divided.

For the clause 171
Against it 100— 71
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 6,
Mr. HENLEY said it appeared to him as the clause was
worded, that the successor would have to pay the tax in
the case of tenants for life giving up their lease. He ,was
sure that was not intended, but the clause should be
amended so as to leave no doubt on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if the
clause bore the construction which the right hon. gentle-
man seemed to think it did, it should be carefully con-
sidered, and it would not be difficult to meet the case
stated by the right hon. gentleman by a reservation.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 7,
Mr. VANSITTART said that the latter part of the claims
was so tyrannical that he should move its omission.
Viscount GALWAY said that the bill was of so ini-
quitous a character, it was so complete a robbery of the
landed interest, that he was sure it never would have been
brought forward except at the instigation of the gentlemen
on the right of the right hon. gentleman. He was a small
landed proprietor who lived up to his means—(laughter)—
and he thought he had as good a right as a country gentle-
man to stand up in defence of his property and rights as
the gentlemen of the Manchester school. The clause was
so important that he should move that the chairman do re-
port progress.
. _

. -
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if
there was a disposition on the other side not to proceed
further with the bill that night, the Government would
not press the other clauses. He hoped, as the noble lord
had had an opportunity of speaking his sentiments, that
he felt much relieved by it. (Laughter.) He did not ob-
ject to the frankness with which the noble lord expressed
his sentiments, and discharged himself of what he had to
say on the general policy of the measure, but he hoped that
to-morrow he would be prepared to discuss the particular
clause. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
• SOAP DUTIES.
The report on the soap duties was received.
SHERIFFS COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Mr. DUNLOP moved the omission of clause 5, stating
that his object in doing so was to substitute for it a clause
which would have the effect of placing the trial of cases
entirely in the hands of the sheriff principal instead of, in.
the first instance, in the hands of the sheriff-substitute,
and to allow no appeal except to the Court of Session.
The sheriff principal was, he observed, a barrister of some
standing, and evidently the best fitted to pronounce a de-
cision.

The LORD ADVOCATE supported the clause on the
ground that it was in accordance with the unanimous
opinion of the committee.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but in con -
sequence of there being only one teller none took place.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses G to.
9 inclusive.

Upon clause 10,
Mr. LOCKHART moved that the chairman report pro-
gress.

The LORD ADVOCATE hoped that the hon. gentleman
would not persist in his motion.
Mr. LOCKHART, however, did not
withdraw
Ibis
motion, and
The committee divided.
The numbers were—
For reporting progress
84-68
Noes
The clauses from 10 to 16 inclusive were agreed to.
Upon clause 17,
Mr. CRAUFURD objected that this clause left the evil;
of appeal untouched.
The LORD ADVOCATE admitted that in the mea,guve
as at first proposed it was intended that the appeal silo ula
be altered ; it had since been pointed out to him that; it
leave b cheaper and better in the majority of cases to
Th thecla matter as proposed in this clause.
to. 'and also clauses 18 and 19, wore then agree rlOn clause 23,
Mr, CRAUFURD said, ho should move to expunge this..;