The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.

The house then went into ammittec on this bill.
On clause 7_,
Sir F. KELLY begged to put two cases to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. The first referred to the former part of
the clause, whereby the succession duty accrued in every
ease where there was any engagement, secret trust, or ar-
rangement capable of being legally enforced. Now, sap-
pose a father gave a sum of money, say 100,0001., to his
son during his lifetime, but where a written document
existed by which the son was to pay his father bask an an-
nuity of 3,0001., but which was not of a nature capable of
being enforced by a court of law, would the tax
be payable The second ease referred to the latter
part of the clause, by which the tax was aloe
chargeable in any case where there was any engagement or
arrangement with a fraudulent intent to defeat the net.
Now, suppose that in the instance he had just put there
was no written document, but that the fatter had given
the son the money out and out, relying on b honour to
pay him the annuity, would the tax accrue also in that case?
Ile felt certain that the clause would lead to much litiga-
tion, and that years would elapse before the courts of last
resort had decided the meaning of the statute.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
if, in the first instance supposed, the document was not of
• eharacter capable of being enforced in a court of law or
r= tax would not accrue under the former part of
With respect to the latter part, his answer
Oaddldep&nd upon the specialties of each case ; but when-
ever tilts proper court was convinced that there had been ,
sillseapt at fraudulent evasion, it would enforce the tax. '
he hie what the bon and learned gentleman had said about
As litigation likely to etude, that did not much impress
him beanies in matters of much less difficulty years had
aped before a sufficient code of precedents had bees
heated to establish precisely what the law was.
Sir F. KELLY suggested the actual insertion of the
wards—" capable of being enforced by a court of law or
etraity," which would render the meaning of the former
pet of the cisme perfectly clear. As for the latter pert,
is ad sat think the right hon. gentleman's answer at aO
selkhetery. He wished to know what would casaitsee
head within the meaning of the clause ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would assent to the is-
Weisetlon of the words, though he thought they vigil be
ISM surplusage. Where property was given abesiallek,
akketigh there might be an honourable understeadles
mend eagagemant between the parties, it would met MON
within the meaning of the bill; but where, althea. the
Fogerty was given out and out, the son, for ban" pm
Wk to his father by another deed, and from other esuress,
as wdealeat, then, although either deed, taken by Welt;
weaKttetonewlsWn the province of the law, yet the two,
shim telum
tt acts Vie,
isgetheron. , would amount to proof of a heads-
hat aempt
Xr. VANSITTART moved the omission of the latter
poet of the clause, because if it were allowed to stand hardly
say family arrangements could be made without a lawsuit
glean the parties in the farm.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER protested
e~tnst the notion that family arrangements would be gene-
rally obn -lions to as eseetatent against fraudulent eva-
dem If the cheaters/swat, was true, the parties ought
119 law lawsuits Aim la the face. (Hear, hear.)
Ilmiesamitess
Pee the amesimmt
haelast it

neiiamis was then agreed to, as we. chase 8.
Oa dame 9,
Kr. PHILIPPS proposed that in the cue of the micas-
dim of brothers aadsisters, the duty should be two per
eat lashed at three, as proposed by the bill ; end he
&Mid be geopmed to make the same reduction in the case
purety. There were MIS in which bruthen
sisters would have to pay the duty four times in Ste
gain, which at three per cent. would amount to a very
loge sum. If the bill passed in its present shape, he
thagght that to the and phrase in obituary notices "much
ad deeply regretted," it might fairly be added "except by
Os Cionsellor of the Exchequer." (Laughter.)
Mr. SADFIELD said he should move as an amendment
that children born without marriage, whose parents mar-
ried subsequently, should pay a duty of (nay one per cent
Both amendments were withdrawn, and the clause agreed
to.

Ma clause ii, in reply to a question from Mr. HENLEY,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the question of leases
for lives, that is, leases bona fide made for lives in portions
of the country where that mode of letting was adopted pre-
ferably to the ordinary mode of letting by years, was under
the consideration of the government, and he hoped that all
doubt with regard to the operation of the tax in cues in
which a father and son granted a leue jointly would be
removed.

Mr. WALPOLE wished to put the ease of a person who
derived 10,0001. in the funds from his father, and who
married and settled that property oa his wife or children.
The question was, whether after such a disposition, after
the death of his wife, and in default of children' the
party would not have to pay a second duty on again taking
possession ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that on becoming
repossessed of the property which he bad settled the party
would not have to pay an additional duty. The only duty
which he could ever have to ply was that which would
have been payable had no settlement been made at the
time of his marriage.
After a lengthened technical conversation between vari-
ous learned members, certain alterations in the section were
accepted by the Solicitor• General, and
The clause was agreed to.
. .

Clause 12 was agreed to without discussion.
On clause 13, some discussion took place ; but it also wu
agreed to, without alter►tion.
Clauses 14 and 15 were agreed to with some verbal

Clause 16 was postponed.
Clause 17 which treats of exemptions, was pasted after
rome discussion ; but the Chanoellor of the Exchequer pro-
mised carefully to reconsider its language with • view to
its amendment on the bzinging up of the report.
On clause 18, "Leasehold EsMtes not to be charged with
legacy duty as personal estate,"
Mr. W. MICHELL complained that it was an injustice
to charge probate duty on leascLolds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
hon. gentleman wonld not oppose the clause, as it war really