The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-19 00:00:00

had not been able in the course of the debate to turn to
the recorded debates of the house, but trusting to
memory, subject to correction, he could not speak in
confirmation of the right hon. and learned gentleman's
recollection.
Mr. BRIGHT said the time would come when the
house would have to enter on this question, and others
in connection with it. In reference to legacy duty the
honourable gentleman said he knew a gentleman who
was left an estate in land of about 7001. a-year by a lady
who was no relation to him. That estate at 30 years
purchase Ras worth 21,0001., and there was about
11,0001. worth of timber on it, making together about
32,0001. Had such an amount of personal proporty
been left to him he would have had to pay about 3,200/.
legacy duty, and before the passing of the Succession
Act he would have had nothing to pay on it. Under
the Succession Duties Act, he consulted the officers of
the Government, and ask.3d them weat ho bad to pay.
He was asked his age, and on this the officers turned
to a table of calculations ; his interest was considered
to be worth 7,0001., and he had only to pay 7001. He
(Mr. Bright) would not insult the house by remarking
on the inequality of such taxation. He hoped if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer filled that office next year,
that instead of bringing in a nicely-balanced budget he
would introduce one to the notice of the house that
would deal with such questions. It would receive the
support of the house, and also the support of a large
amount of the people out of doors.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY drew attention to the pecu-
burdens borne by the land, such as poor's rates, county
rates, dec., that did not affect personal property.
After some remarks from Sir J. WALSH,
Tile CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
was not disposed then to enter into a full discussio❑ of
the queztion, neither did he think the house expected
him then to edter into the complicated question. (Hear.)
The great difference that existed between landed and
personal property rendered the application of the pro-
bate duty to land almost impossible. The probate was
a stamp on a document which enabled executors to deal
with personal property, but with regard to the different
character of landed property no stamp was required for
dealing with it, because an heir often succeeded without
any deed, and what was easy with regard to personal pro-
perty was very difficult and almost impossible with regard
to landed property. Personal property was easier af disposal
for rising the probate duty than was laud, and to dik•
pose of a portion of it under such circumstances would
greatly detriorate it in value. Nothing was so difficult
as to adjust taxation, and the only way in which he
thought an equivalent could be obtained would be by
the renewal of the probate duty altogether, and raising
the legacy and succession duty, but then the practical
effect of that would be to raise those two duties from 10
per cent, to 63 per cent.—a proposition that be thought
would be received with opposition in that house. (Hear.)
The only alternative, then, would be to abolish all gra-
dations of consauguinity and have one uniform rate of 4
or 5 per cent., which would be a proposition equally as
unpopular as the other. It was impossible to deal with
this qu‘eitiou without considering all the circumstances
with which it was surrounded, such as local taxation,
poor rate=, &c., and he thought the hon. member for Bir-
mingham would find his proposition not so simply de-
monstrable. With regard to applying the succession
duty to corporations, he thought great difficulties existed
in carrying it into effect. This calculation was that
there were three successions in a century, and, as cor-
porations never died, the calculation was that they would
pay 301. a century, or 6'. Bd. a year ; but the great
question would arise as to the exemptions, and he feared
if they attempted to put the law into execution with re-
gard to corporations, that the estimated 4,500/. revenue
would be more than swallowed up in law expenses to
enforce the payment.
Sir G. C. LEWIS concurred in nearly all that bad
fallen from the right_ hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
ths Exchequer.- The fault, if any, in not enforcing the
succeesion !duty of the~ corporation rested with him rather
than the present Chancellor.of the Exe,hequerl
.an d 114 had
abstained from enforcing it froM the earns concliiSiOn'S
at which the right hon. gentleman, tha,Chancellor:o:f the'
Exchequer had come to. The real difficulty idarPly-
ing the probate duty to land, was that in order to make
the duty productive, they must first rh-model the law of
wills as it affected real property.
Mr. HENLEY said the real question involved in this
sut,ject had not been touched on by previous speakers.
In considering it it was necessary they should look to
local taxation, the land tax, and also the subject of
stamps o❑ deeds. If a person sold an estate of 30,0001.,
he had to pay a very handsome sum in the shape of a
stamp on the conveyance transferring the land, whereas,
if the sum was in the funds, the fortunate party would
have nothing to pay. That was as clear an anomaly on
the one side as the other, and he believed that when the
subject was looked into that question must also be
examined. He could not let stamps remain on real pro-
perty and not put them on personal property. He,
however, was inclined to believe that the matter, as it
at present stood, was pretty nicely balanced.
Mr- LOCKE KING was glad to find the subject had
been brought under the consideration of the house, and
he should vote for the motion. There was a great amount
of personal property, such as railway shares, that bad to
pay the stamp duty. He should shortly bring the subject
under the consideration of Parliament.

Sir J. GRAHAM felt himself bound to oppose the
motion. He disagreed with the first part, but agreed
with the latter part, in reference to the succession duties
being enforced against corporations. The estimate of
Lord Aberdeen's Government was that it would produce
15,0001. and he thought there must be some error with
respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculation
of 4 5001.
The house then divided :
For the motion
Against it 172
Majority against the motion --104