Star.
London, England, 1829-06-26 00:00:00

of fines and recoveries, to make good the loss to the
:avenue in consequence of the diminution of the stamp
duties, and to grant compensations for fees of officers,
and for alienation fines, and to raise the fund for those
purposes by means of a stamp duty, it may appear rea-
sonable at first sight that the duty should be imposed
on the substitute; but we consider it advisable, for the
security of titles, that the substitute should be clogged
with as few formalities as possible. The amount of the
stamp duties on fines and recoveries can be ascertained
at the Stamp Office. From the returns made to us of
the number of fines and recoveries in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas at Westminster for the last three years, it
would seem that the stamp duties payable for the fines
and recoveries in that Court cannot in any oat year
exceed 12,0004 or thereabouts. It appears from what'
we have already observed, that on the average of the
last three years the fines payable at the Alienation
Office on fines and recoveries in the Court of Common
Pleas at Westminster, amounted to 15,4491.65. SI per
annum, and we have ascertained that the fees of the
officers of that Court do not exceed upon the average,
exclusive of those fines, 10,0001. per annum. The
amount of the alienation fines, payable in respect of
fines and recoveries in the Courts of Great Sessions in
Wales, and in the Courts of the Counties Palatine.
and of the fees of the officers of those Courts. we have
not been able to ascertain, but they cannot amount to
a large sum. Therefore we do not anticipate any diffi-
culty in raising the sum to supply the diminution in the
stamp duties, and for the compensations.
According to the existing law, a tenant in tail, if he
acquires a base fee by means of a fine, lets in upon the
qualified estate so acquired all charges and estates pre-
viously made and created by him'; and if he acquires
a fee simple by means of a recovery, lets in such
charges and estates on the fee simple. We propose that
the substitute should have the same operation. except as
against purchasers for a valuable consideration without
notice; but that as against such purchasers the prior
charges and estates shall have no greater validity than
they would have bad against the issue in tail or re-
mainder-men, giving to the purchasers the same right
of avoiding such prior charges and estates as the issue
or remainder-men would have had; this we think the
proper measure of justice to both parties, unless the
establishment of a general registry shall make the point
of notice unimportant, for we see no reason why such
purchasers should suffer from the want of proper pre.
caution and diligence on the part of any person having
a claim on account of any previous charge or estate,
which he may have neglected to secure, by availing
himself of the substitute which can be so readily re-
sorted so.

We recommend that the substitute for fines and re-
coveries should in every case (except that of a tenant in
tail, with the immediate remainder or reversion to him-
self in fee, who, where there may be a prior beneficial
owner, may happen to avail himself of it without his
concurrence), have the effect of not letting in the
charges and estates created by any person claiming
any estate or interest, to take effect on the determina-
tion or io derogation of the estate tail to be barred, or
of the base fee, it the same shall have been previously
acquired; and that it should in this respect have pre-
cisely the same operation as a recovery. In the ex-
cepted case, the substitute will produce the same effect
as a fine levied by a tenant in tail in remainder. with
the immediate remainder or reversion to himself in fee,
and will, in accordance with the law as it now statists,
let in all charges and estates affecting this ultimate re-
mainder or reversion. It he should be desirous of pre-
venting this mischief, he must procure the concurrence
of the first beneficial owner. He can now prevent it
by suffering a recovery.
We recommend that the 39 and 40 Geo. S. c. a 6. and
7 Geo. 4, c. 45, should be repealed, and that the sub-
stitute for Goes and recoveries should be made appli-
cable to money to be laid out in land to be entailed.
Fur we can see no reason why money so circum-
stanced should not be unlettered by the same process
as the land itself would be if purchased. Fines and reco-
veries could not, from their nature, be made to apply
to money, and consequently an application to the
Court of Chancery was the expensive expedient resorted
to; bat the same ohk ction does not apply to the substi-
tute. When by means of the substitute the money
is discharged from the entail and remainders, or, as
may sometimes happen, from an entail only, the trus-
tees will, if the money should be discharged from all
interests and charges subsequent to the entail. and there
should be none such subsisting, either upon the interest
in tail, or prior thereto, pay it over immediately to the
person barring the entail, and will, if there should be
any interest and charges still subsisting, hold it in trust
for the person barring the entail, and the persons en-
titled to such interests and charges. It the money
should be in Court, it may be paid upon application to
the Court, on producing evidence that the person bar-
ring the entail is entitled to receive it.
We propose as the substitute for barring entails in
lands held by Copy of Court R ill, a surrender by the
tenant in tail, and that the substitute in thi, case should
have the name operation as the substitute in regard to
lands not held by Copy of Court Roll, and that if the
concurrence of the first beneficial owner should be sig-
nified by a deed. such deed should be presented at the
Lord's Court at the time when the surrender it pre
seated or made. _ _

For the reasons which we have already stated, we
recommend that tenants iu tail, es provision viri, should
have the power of barring their estates tails
We propose that the substitute should not extend to
tenants in tail alter possibility of issue extinct, nor to
tenants in tail who are now prohibited by the 54 and
35 Hen. VIII. c, 8, or by any other statute, Roar bar-
ring their entails, u we do not fe:l ourselves authorised
to recommend any alteration in the law in this respect.
For the benefit of creditors, and to diminish the
number of base fees, we recommend that whenever an
lestate tail shall, under the Bankrupt Act, have been
converted into a base tee by the bankruptcy of a tenant
in tail, the base tee shall, immediately on the detei gni-
n4tion of the prior estates, be expanded into a tee sim-
ple. And for the like reason we recommend that a base
see vested its a person at the time of his bankruptcy,
who would bare been tenant in tail if the base tee had
not been created, shall, on the determination of the
prior estates, but subject to any charges and estates
affecting the base fee, be expanded into a fee simple.
lrs accordance with the present law, we propose that
the estate to be acquired by the substitute, and also the
estate to be acquired by the expansion of a base tee
after bankruptcy, shall be commensurate with the estate
which would have been acquired by a recovery.
To avoid the mischief arising from a fine or recovery
of lands, of the tenure of ancient dement., being levied
or suffered in the Lord's Court after a fine or recovery
has been levied or suffered in the Court of Common
Pius at Westminster, which has not been reverted by
the Lord, we recommend that the floe or recovery io
she Lord's Court shall not be deemed void, but shall
be considered as having restored the team. is that
part of our Report which relates to the Limitation of
Anil" see.propose dun the writ of Dibielt shall be