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

tion. However upon them would rest the responsibility
of having passed the measure, and upon them would
hereafter devolve their duty of confessing that they had
made a mistake, for if they remained in office until this
time next year, they would certainly have to ask their
lordships to repeal the present bill. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE admitted the ability with which
the noble lord near him (Lord Monteagle) has stated his
opposition to the bill ; but still it was not necessary for
him to detain their lordships with a lengthened reply.
It was enough for him to state that he had recently
been over to Ireland, where he had the pleasure of mix-
ing freely with the commercial classes, and he had
heard no opposition to the financial measures of the Go-
vernment, so far as they applied to them. (Hear.)
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
COPYHOLD BILL.

This bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

TAXING OFFICER, COMMON LAW BUSINESS
(IRELAND) BILL. _

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of this bill.
After a short discussion the bill was read a second
time.

SOAP DUTIES BILL.-MALICIOUS INJURIES
(IRELAND) BILL.
_ _

The above bills severally passed through committee,
and were reported, after which the house adjourned at
9 o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS-{YESTERDAY•)
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. MILLINGS and Mr.
IfENLET,
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—(kear, 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 masidered 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 of human legislators who would so frame human
laws as in every case to adjust their operation to the moral
excellence or demerits of the transactions to which they
applied, he would be most happy to hear how he would
proceed. He contended that Parliament could do no such
thing ; it could only proceed on broad, simple, and intelli-
gible rules. (Hear, hear.) The clause, as it stood, was not
only moee conforinahie to precedent but justice, than it
wasild be if amended in the mariner proposed. It was all
vary well to cite cases in which incumbrances had been
mated filial piety, hut they all knew that the great
bulk of these incumbrances were created by the great ten-
dm-ley of the higher classes to live beyond their means—
(hear)—and therefore, forsooth, they were to legislate with
a special tenderness in favour of those classes. (Ironical
cheers.) If the doctrine were so correct that an allowance
&wild be made for incumbrances, why was it not provided
that an allowane3 should be made for money borrowed on
palonal security ?
Mr. M.•VLINS—It cannot be got.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—But it
was notorious that it was got. (Hear.) And it was un-
jusb to provide for o,ne case and not for the other.
Mr. MALINS said if the right hon. gentleman had be-
lourpcl to the profes.ion of the law, he would have known
Quit it was very uncommon for heirs expectant to borrow
Noliey on personal 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
ju 3tice 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 cx post facto clause. If, es his
hen. friend (Mr. Mailings) proposed, the operation of the
clause were limited to the future, parties would, at all
events., have notice.
A fter a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. BAR-
RO
T he house divided—
For the amendment
Against it

Majolity.

our return to the gallery we found
M r. WALPOL E protesting against the clause altogether,
aA r Arospective in its operation, depriving the creditor of
his security, and taking away from successors that to
whi eh they were, justly entitled. The right lion. gentle-
mat t had said that only a few cases were put forward, but
the* a were merely illustrations, the rule being against the
clan se. (Hear.) It was a clause that deprived the credi-
tor .of all security, and taxed the successor for that which
he would never see or enjoy. He felt so deeply impressed
with the injustice of the clause that he challenged hon.
gentleanen to get up and say, oven after the vote they had
given, that they would still adhere to a principle such as
he ha 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
fraine 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-
ractc r. 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-
men is of the real property comprised in the succession."
Tl ie words having been added, the question was put,
that the clause as amended stand part of the bill.
Sv • J. PAKINGTON opposed, and declared his inten-
tion of taking the sense of the committee upon the clause.
For the clause lOB
Against it 92

Majority l6
Clause 39 was then agreed to.
Ch ',uses to 38 were agreed to after slight discussion.
Tli a clatise was agreed to, as was also clause 40, with
some verbal amendments. _ _

-0; clause 41, which makes the duty a Crown debt,
chargeable as a first charge on the estate.
We-. MILLINGS moved an amendment, to insert the
won as " simple contract," the effect of which would be to
plaza the charge as against the successor or trustee in the
positi on 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-
covo]y-
A 'conversation ensued, in the course of which Mr. Mul-
Hugs,, Sir W. Joliffe, and Mr. Henley, argued that the
clans 3, as it at present stood, would prevent any successor
or tr., istee 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
estat 3 for same previous succession • while the Chancellor
of tit e Exchequer and the Solicitor-General denied that it
wont d in any way interfere with titles, and that it was ne-
cessary for the protection of the revenue that the privilege
of th, 3 Crown to recover should be maintained. At length
Tit e SOLICITOR-GENER 4.L said that he had a propo-
shier I 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 aft acted all the property of the debtor • or by a like ana-
logy when the succession duty was unpaid the right of the
Crow n would be against all the property of the successor.
Ho, Inowever, would add the following words to the clause,
whici h he thought would accomplish the object of hon. gen-
tlemt ,n opposite. He proposed in the 16th line, after the
word 3 " charges and interests created by him," to add
thesd words, " but such duty not to charge or affect any
other real property of the successor than the property com-
prised lin such succession." (Hear, hear.)
Th is amendment was agreed to, and that of Mr. MIIL-
Lrat s withdrawn.
Th a clause as amended was then agreed to.
Cli 'use 42 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
On clause 43,
Mi WALPOLE said he feared the operation of the
claret a as it stood would be to destroy trusteeship in this
coup try. 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. Hero the parties
Rabb to pa y as well as the amount of the property, would
be u nknovin, and the duty would be payable by instal-
ment H. Nothingwas 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 ersonal property would
pay mere 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
creedsuton it. might There
ert liv in t be three trustees for a pro-
py, g differ° n 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, an,i
perpetually the subject of account. the
property would be
The 48th clause re-
quired parties to eceount; but thesCizveernrnent would not pea that clause in force t
wen 3 • so that they would
ill the
prol-mbly have who
fall back on
n" the parties
the 4-ith clause, which gave penalties aig,,,irst.
trusteesue bile-
ing to account. The responsibilities OF trustees ,o
foundh: to
increased so much that persons would hardly be
accept those offices, and the whole system trustse would
be destroyed. The only alternative would be to m
solicitor to pay the duties when they 'became due, nitroLa
a heavy lawyer's bill would. be added to the duty. (Hear,'
bear.) Some hon. members thought this was especially
tax' on the landed interest, but the parties who would
suffer moat were the small owners of land— " statesmen,"
as they were called in Cumberland and Westmoreland.
It would also be severely felt by the small fundholders.
It was calculated that half of that description of property
was held in trust; and of 280,000 persons who re-
ceived dividends on flinched property, 250,000 received
less than 1501. a year. (Hear, hoar.) This was so hard