Page 164
far as the Exchequer is concerned. My colleagues may think that to take advantage of restraints in this way would be unjust, and undesirable in view of the far-reaching effects on policy. Moreover, a restraint upon anticipation is a device of a temporary nature; it operates only during the marriage of a woman, and on the death or divorce of her husband she is placed in the same position with regard to her future income as an unmarried woman. She may raise capital upon it or come to an agreement with the other beneficiaries to obtain a capital sum in the way I have suggested.
9
Further-
more I should mention that it is open to any married woman who is subject to a restraint to ask the Chancery Court to remove the restraint for a specified purpose. This was in fact done by Countess Mountbatten to enable her to provide a dowry for her eldest daughter on her marriage. On any such application the Court would take into consideration only the benefit which would accrue to the married woman by the removal and would certainly not be influenced against the application by the incidental effect which the removal might have in reducing her liability to tax. In very large estates such as the one which forms the subject of the Bill, it is difficult for the beneficiaries to foresee the occasions or purposes for which it would be desirable to raise capital sums on the security of future income. So long as the restraint exists, it would be necessary to apply to the Court each time that the raising of a capital sum was desired, and this would involve a number of expensive applications.
16.
My conclusions are as follows:-
(1) If we are prepared to support the principle of a
general Bill releasing married women from the disability which attaches to them by reason of restraints on anticipation we should, I think, support the Mountbatten Estate Bill.
(2) If we are not prepared to support such a general
Bill we should, I think, oppose the present Bill, as it does not seem to me right in this case to confer a favour on one individual which is denied to others.
House of Lords, S.W. 1.
20TH JUNE, 1949.
Page 164
J.
Page 164
-5-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.