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

should set aside a disposition made for evading the duty,
but that the court should find that the disposition had
been made fraudulently, and should then set it aside. If,
therefore, a man in articulo mortis should part with his
property, that would not be, per se, a fraud: He would
repeat that, by the words of the clause as they stood, a
disposition did not become void because it had been made
to prevent the duty from attaching upon the property.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said if the clause passed as it stood,
it would give rise to an amount of oppression and iniquity
such as had not been practised in this country for con-
Mules. By the latter part of the clause, oral evidence
might be brought to establish fraud ; and this would be
a great temptation to persons where there were family
differences.
Mr. SPOONER wished to know, after the last answer
of the Solicitor-General, what additional circumstances
would constitute the fraud.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he should be ex-
tremely happy to answer this, if his mind were sufficiently
fraud
might to decide what varied descriptions of
might exist. Wherever males animus deceit was introduced
into the matter, wherever the thing was made to bear one
aspect in reality having. another ; wherever onetlunf.f
done, and another pretended ; wherever a character
de-
ceit or falsehood was thrown over a transaction, that made
it fraud. But the simple act of parting with property,
though done in contemplation of death, would not, in his
opinion, constitute fraud.
Mr. WALPOLE said that by the present bill the Attor-
ney-General would have to file his bill, or bring his action
for the amount of duty, on the ground of fraud, which he
could never ascertain until there had been a previous pro-
ceeding at law or equity to decide it. In those proceed.
ings, whatever the result, the party must pay their own
costs ; the crown paid no costs. (Hear, hear.) Under the
Legacy Duty Act, in 99 cases out of 100, the party knew
that he was liable to the duty ; but under this act the
Attorney-General could not know, when commencing his
suit, whether the party was liable or not, as this depended
on the question of fraud. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as reference had
been made more than once to the crown paying no costs,
he would take that opportunity of stating that he had re-
ceived authority from the Government to introduce a bill
for the purpose of rectifying that very serious evil. (Hear,
hear.) The bill would shortly be laid before the house,
and he hoped it would speedily pass both branches of the
legislature. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided :
For the amendment 63
Against it
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 8.
On clause 9.
Mr. PHILIPPS proposed that in the cose of the succes-
sion of brothers and sisters, the duty should be two per
cent. instead of three, as proposed by the bill ; and he
should be prepared to make the same reduction in the case
of personal property. There were cases in which brothers
and sisters would have to pay the duty four times in five
years, which at three per cent, would amount to a. very
large sum. If the bill passed in its present shape, he
thought that, to use the phrase in obituary notices " much
and deeply regretted," it might be fairly added, " except
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." (Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question raised by the hon. gentleman was one of extreme
importance. The hon. gentleman had spoken of a succes-
sion of sisters four times in the course of five years. Now,
in that case, the party succeeding to the life interest would
pay no duty at all, because it was provided in the case of
life interests that twelve months must elapse before any
claim for duty could accrue. They were by this dealing only
with the succession to real property and settled personalty,
and it would be extremely incongruous and inconsistent to
lighten the per centage on the succession of brothers and
sisters to such property and to leave it unmitigated in the
case of personal property. With regard even to the re-
venue the question was not unimportant, for whereas the
produce of the direct succession at 1 per cent, produced
only 238,000/. in 1852, the direct succession of brothers
and sisters at 3 per cent. produced 471,0001. He thought
that the scale, on the whole, was not unjust, and that the
maintenance of its general structure was important as a
matter of policy. He believed that if any alteration of the
scale were considered desirable, the house would be dis-
posed to deal, first of all, with the 10 per cent. duty. He
was not himself opposed to the 10 per cent. duty ; he
thought the present 10 per cent, arrangement was a wise
arrangement, and that it was justified by the consideration
that the duty fell on parties who had no expectation of
the succession, though that was not the case always. They
had heard a great deal of late of the advantage of direct
taxation—not from the hon. gentleman nor from him (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer)—but there were immense
difficulties in the way of its being carried out, and the
stringency of the machinery required to collect it would
be excessive. (Hear, hear.) He thought there would be
great danger, therefore, in doubting the direct taxation
which existed, and the existence of the high rate at one
end of the scale would be an obstacle to the raising of the
rate at the lower end in times of difficulty, should the
Chancellor of the Exchequer be disposed to look to that
source of taxation as a means of raising the revenue. He
thought the maintenance of the present consanguinity scale
was important ; for if they reduced the 10 per cent. to 6,
they would, without altering the duty payable in the case
of the succession of brothers and sisters, have to raise the
lower duty from Ito2i or 3 per cent. (Hear, hear.)
11r. BARROW said that notwithstanding what the
right hon. gentleman had said, there might be cases in
which sisters would have to pay the duty four times in the
course of five years. He believed the tax would fall most
heavily on the middle class, because there were more
numerous cases of three or four sisters living together in
that class than in any other, and on the death of each the
tax would fall on the others. With regard to the question
of direct taxation, it was only quite recently that one of
the representatives of the Manchester school told him that
when this question of direct taxation became more venti-
lated, it would be better understood at the end of 1860
than it was now.
Mr. MULLINGS said the amendment would abstract
only one-ninth of the entire estimated produce of the tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that even one-tenth of 3,500.000/. was 350,0001.