The Express.
London, England, 1860-02-17 00:00:00

LONDON. .FRIDAY, FBB. 17.

THERE is one portion of the Budget which de-
serves special consideration. According to the 10th
Raeolation it is proposed to levy Probate Duty upon
all Wills whatsoever; sod u Wills apply only to
personal property, this amounts to an additional tax
upon Personalty as distinguished from Lando, Realty.
It certainly does appear, according to the CHAN-
CELLAR of the EXCHEQUER himself, that the suc-
cession duty has scarcely produced half of what was
originally expected; and it Mr. GLADSTONE'S cake-
Wiens were correct when he imposed that tax, it
follows that Real property does not at present pay as
much as it ought. The truth probably is that the
devolution of land in the direct line from father to son
is much more common than was anticipated, and
therefore the one per cent. charged in such case has
not produced the results expected. Nevertheless it
is clear that if Mr. GLADSTONE adheres to his original
estimates, he ought at once to increase the succession
duty. It mast he admitted, however, that the
Budget is not wanting in boldness as it stand,, and
that if to the other opposing interests the county
gentlemen IMO roamed into activity, there would be
alight hopes indeed of carrying it through the Par-
liament. For the sake of the benefits which the
Budget will outer upon the country, it is perhaps
wise to postpone the demand for increasing the inc.
osesioa duty on land. Nor is there the least doubt that
before long the burden of taxation upon Personalty
as compared with Realty mast be deliberately con-
sidered and fairly realised.
Admitting, however, the necessities of Mr. GLAD-
mimes position, and that he cannot increase the
burdens on laud, it is very difficult to understand
why additional burdens should be laid upon Per-
:meaty. In form, no doubt, it seems that the
Cunciti.Los of the EXCHEQUER intends simply to
do away with an anomaly—an exception. At pre-
sent, if a man makes a will, his estate pays a certain
sum for what is called Probate Doty. Bat if the
Will has been made under what lawyers tom a
Power, he pays no probate duty, because it is oosisi-
dared that such a Will is part of the edgiest
document containing the power or authority to
make it. An instance will explain the nutter.
Suppose JOHN SMITH marries, and settles 10,0001.;
the ordinary effect of such a settlement is that Joey
SMITH would enjoy the income of the money for his
life, that his wile would enjoy it in case she sur-
vived, and that then their children would share it
according to the proportions fixed by the parents, or
one of them. For the purpose of making this die.
tribotion among the children, a power authorising
them to distribute is reserved by theltarriage Settle-
ment; and this power is efts. exercised by a wilL
Now, at present, a will made under such eireum-
Eames is not charged with probate duty. The
notion is that the whole of the money settled
—the 10,0001.—was really disposed of by the original
estilement executed an the marriage, and that the
will merely defines the portico of the fund to be
taken by each of the children. In feat the original
settlement and the will are regarded as parts of one
and the same instrument, and therefore not subject
to probate duty. No doubt it may be said that all
this is mere technicality ; that a will is a will, and
that therefore it ought to be treated ea such for all
pupae:a. If a man chooses to reserve to himself, or
to his wife during his life, the power of distributing
a sum of money amongst biz children, he must pay
for it. The distinction drawn is simply technical, and
ought not to be countenanced. It is certainly true
that in same Gams the distinction is perhaps illusory.
Semetimes preen give personal property or bequeath
it to others, and in such deed or will confer a power
oa the recipient of the bounty to dispose of the pro-
perty to whomsoever he plums. In other wards,