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'tho 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 cen-
turies. 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
comprehensive to decide what varied descriptions of fraud
introduced
into exist. Wherever malus animus deceit was
into the matter, wherever the thing w
aspect in reality having another ; wherever ad
v
done, and another pretended ; whereveraeme to bear one
r onocharacttehirngofwdase-
ceit or falsehood was thrown over a transactio.nh, that made
if. fraud. But tho simple act of partingwi
though done in contemplation of death, would noptr,ogrthiy;
opinion, constitute fraud.
Mr. WALPOLE said that by the present bill the Attor-
ney-General would have to file his
und bill,
of or bring his
which h action
for the amount of duty, on the gro fraud, e
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 coso 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 238,0001. 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. Ile 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 cont. 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 Excheiuer)—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 ono
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 tho 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.)
.tir. 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 fail 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 reprea6ntatives 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 ono-ninth of the entire estimated produce of the tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that even one-tenth of 3,500 0001. was 350,0001.
After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE,
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 orlegacy 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 seine 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 the 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
eases in which the parents of an illegitimate child mar-
ried after the birth, it was hard that thero 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. (Hear, 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 one 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 be beginning at the wrong end to make this
petty and partial change without considering the import-
ant principle which it involved in all its breadth of apply
cation.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and tho clause
agreed to. _ _

-On clause 11, in reply 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 where 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
3
was agreed to withoutse discussion took
amendments took place ; but it also
Clauses 4 and 15 atewere agreed to with some verbal
Clause 16 was postponed.
some
Clause
discussion 17 which treats of_?xereptions, was passed after
- but the c.ellor of the Exchequer
promised carefully to reconsi(hleanr its language with a view
of the report.
to its amendment on the bringinn.
On clause 18, "Leasehold Estalesup not to be charged with
legacy duty as personal estate,"
Mr. W. MICHELL complained that it was an injustice
aap
it
tcl
,the
to charge probate duty on leaseholds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIa
geljlauE! h°
hon. gentleman would not opposo
really one a
interested.
description of
of relief to P property in I was
Av Lich
he appeared to be much interetoste.d.
The clause was then agreed .
"Duties to bo paid on the successor On clause 19,
outstanding
be-
coming entitled in possession, but in the case of outsta •
interests, on the determination thereof,"
Mr. W,• rE said that this clause would bo found so
&could not and ought not to be
.carried
opp • -Kw.
i4O ..; , . -.:He'vf.6 i admit that there was nothing un-
remit* .le in piaci. _
... same duty on real and personal
property ; but ho boh p• that the clause would, to a
great" extent, destroy tliht Mtem of trusts in this country
W 4411114 bega (944 ie, wiantageous. The present law
t',72:., I )9,,c/
k \.,___ 74 :174
IT
-.:....11/
kit'--.'