THIRD READING. (Hansard, 18 March 1880)

§ MR. GREGORY
drew attention to the incidence of the probate and succession duties, observing that he did not think that when the whole subject was carefully inquired into real property would have any reason to shrink from the investigation. There were, however, cer- 1213 tain details in which a modification of the existing rules was desirable.

§ MR. J. G. HUBBARD
expressed the opinion that, amid a choice of difficulties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to make financial proposals the least disturbing to the general interests of the country. He trusted, however, that the whole of our financial system would be reviewed in a new Parliament.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
complained that, under the operation of the Bill, the incidence of the tax was increased on personal property only. The succession duty was not above 3 per cent of the annual value; whereas the probate and legacy duties together were already 3 per cent, and it was intended by this Bill to increase them, so that they would be something like 3½ per cent. The result would be that for the future personal property would pay, in the shape of probate and legacy duty, seven times as much as real property. But that was greatly aggravated by the fact that leasehold house property was treated differently from freehold, and was subject to probate and legacy duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the subject in this hasty manner, was greatly aggravating the injustice which already existed; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), if he should have the honour of being a Member of the next Parliament, would take every opportunity of calling attention to the grave injustice that was caused and aggravated by this Bill. The worst of the matter was that this was not a mere temporary tax. They could not increase the probate duty without making a permanent addition to the burdens of the country, and in making it it might have been possible to solve some of the questions on which complaints were made. He should protest against the Bill in its present shape, and against the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken in introducing it at such a period of the Session.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would not follow the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) into the questions which he raised before and had now briefly revived again. He admitted that there were some points referred to by the hon. Gentleman which were deserving of consideration at a future time. With regard 1214 to certain details mentioned by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), his hon. Friend had communicated with him. He was aware that they were matters worthy of attention, and he would be glad to communicate with his hon. Friend to see what could be done to mitigate the inconvenience.