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

After a few words from Sir W. JoLLIFiE,
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. WALPOLE had understood the right hon. gentle-
man to intend that, under this bill, as under the Legacy
Duty Act, a wife should pay no duty ; but, whatever
might be the effect of this clause he thought that under
clause 17, as it was worded, a wife would have to pay ten
per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
intend to exempt the wife, as she was exempted under the
Legacy Duty Act, and would bear in mind the right hon.
gentleman's observations, when clause 17 was before the
committee.

After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, the clause was
agreed to.

On clause 10, which was a "provision as to married per-
sons chargeable with the succession or legacy duty,"
Mr. COBBETT thought this provision ought to include
step-children as well as sons-in-law. If a son-in-law suc-
ceeded to a legacy on the death of his wife's father, he
would pay no more than a lineal descendant. A step-son
stood in a very similar relationship to` a son-in-law, and
and should, he thought, pay only the same duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the 'EXCHEQUER felt it im-
possible to accede to the hon. gentleman's suggestion.
Though he thought the policy of the consanguinity scale
sound, yet he admitted that there were many eases in
which its application appeared severe and invidious, and
some in which it amounted to cruelty. He was by no
means sure that the hon. gentleman had mentioned the
strongest case in stating that of a step-child. What was a
step-child ? An adopted child—very little more. He was
not at all certain that the case of natural children was not
stronger. (Hear, hear.) Again, there was the case of a
wife's sister. The idea of the law was, that a brother-in-
law and sister-in-law were brother and sister in feeling ;
and that was not a mere fiction of law, but was often
actually realised in tho relations of life.
Mr. HADFIELD said that in Scotand natural children
paid the same legacy duty as legitimate children. The
effect of the law in this country was to make the innocent
suffer for the guilty. (Hear, hear.) He thought that in
cases in which the parents of an illegitimate child mar-
ried after the birth, it was hard that there should be a
difference of 9 per cent.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE thought the raising of this
question showed the wisdom of the right hon. gentleman's
adhering to his own scale. (Hoar, hear.) In point of fact,
however, there was no country except England where the
claims of natural and adopted children were not fully re-
cognised. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD said he should move as an amendment
that children born without marriage, whose parents mar-
ried subsequently, should pay a duty of only ono per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if the
deprivation of benefit were punishment, he must admit
that the innocent would be punished for the guilty; but
he would like to know whether the whole constitution of
society did not teem with such cases. (Hear, hear.) The
amendment involved the whole of the law with regard to
legitimacy. If the hon. gentleman thought it would be an
improvement in the law of marriage to assimilate it to
that of Scotland, let that serious question be considered
separately ; or if he thought that the status of illegitimate
children ought to be altered, that question must be con-
sidered with reference to the entire law of inheritance. It
would clearly bo beginning at the wrong end to make this
petty and partial change without considering tho import-
ant principle which it involved in all its breadth of appli-
cation.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.
On clause 11, in rely to a question from Mr. HENLEY,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the question of leases
for lives, that is, bona fide leases made for lives in portions
of the country whero that mode of letting was adopted
preferably 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
cases in which a father and son granted a lease jointly
would be removed.

Mr. WALPOLE wished to put the case of a person who
derived 10,0001. in the funds from his father, and who
married and settled that property on 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 had settled the party
would not have to pay an additional duty. The only duty
which he could ever have to pay was that which would
have been payable had no settlement been made at the
time of his marriage.
After a lengthened technical conversation between va-
rious 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
was agreed to without alteration.
Clauses 14 and 15 were agreed to with some verbal
amendments.
Clause 16 was postponed.
Clause 17 which treats
some discussion ; but
t of exemptions, was passed after
promised carefully to rthe Chancellor of the Exchequer
to its amendment on thee() t'usider its language with a view
On clause 18, Leasehoaingingup of the report.
Estates, not to be charged with
legacy duty as personal estat
Mr. W. MICHELL coomn velisineiel dellhat it was an injustice
to charge probate duty
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
as it was
hon. gentleman would not
eopposeu theof clause,
really eared relief to a des
be app to be much interested. Property in which
casesuuucete g
interests, on the
The clause was then agreed to.
ini at
On clause 19, " Duties to be paid
on
the
of
entitled
in Possession,
but
determination thereof,"
stassourdi biei-
coming
Mr. WALPOLE said that
this
clause would be found so
oppressive that it could not and ought not to be carried,
into effect. He would admit that there was nothing un.
reasonable in lacing
the same duty on real and personal
' p
props y ; but ho believed o
that the clause would, Lora
rtf trusts in this county
great extent, destroy that system The present' law
whuth bad boost bud go advultag
two.