venue is injured by endeavouring to exact so high a duty on bonds for a few hundred pounds.

In the scale of duties on CONVEYANCES there is no such glaring inconsistency as in that of duties on Mortgages. If it be a correct principle that all amounts of property should be taxed according to the same rate of proportion, then is the greater part of this scale just and proper. From 1501. up to 100,000l. the duty is 17. per cent. on the average value. But on value not reaching 207. the duty is 10s.; amounting to 207. and under 507., it is 17.; amounting to 50l. and under 1507. it is 17. 10s.; being in each of these three last instances more than 17. per cent. on the average. Mr. Rice admitted "that the duties from 351. to 1007. in this schedule were open to objection," and promised a remedy. His figures may, perhaps, have been misreported, because it is evident that the objection commences with the very commencement of value, and continues to apply till you reach the amount of 1507. Moreover, on all value above 100,0007. the duty is stationary at 10007. For this full stop we can see no good reason. If it be merely to avoid the accumulated array of figures in the schedule, this would be saved by merely adding that a certain additional duty shall be paid for each specified amount of increase in the value or consideration money.

After having observed the equality of proportion which is maintained in the schedule of stamps applicable to Conveyances, it is surprising to find that in another schedule to the same act-the duties on PROBATES and LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION-the per-centage on different amounts of value jumps up and down without apparently any rule at all, just or unjust:

On value

Above £20 and under £100, it is £0 16s. 8d.

And on all amounts beyond £1,000,000, the duty of

£15,000 remains the same.

In the scale of duties on Letters of Administration, there is

more regularity and greater injustice:

On value

Above £20 and under £50, the duty is £1 8s.{ mean average.

per cent. on the

And on all amounts beyond £1,000,000, the duty of £22,500 remains the same.

In

The slightest notice of these calculations must be sufficient to convince the public that they require amendment. these it will be observed, and the remark may be extended to most other parts of the Stamp Laws, the greatest proportion of burden seems to be imposed on those amounts of a moderate value which belong to the middle classes, and which it must be well known to every practitioner form the subject-matter of by far the greater number of legal transactions. If these were in some degree relieved, and an equal rate of tax extended to the accumulations of the millionaire, the increase from the latter might be made to supply the reduction on the former, equal justice would be dealt out to both parties, industry would be encouraged, and the revenue would not suffer.

In any arrangement of the duty on Probates, it would be desirable to provide against the inconvenience which is now felt from the mode in which this duty is paid. A man dies leaving effects of the value of 10,000.-the probate duty must be paid on this amount, without any deduction for debts. It afterwards happens that his executor has out of these effects to pay 50007. in discharge of the deceased's debts; when this is done, then the executor must apply to receive the duty on 50007. back again, which process is so troublesome and expensive, that the duty is usually given up altogether as the smaller loss. This surely is an abuse to which an immediate remedy should be applied.

Here we would also introduce a word or two respecting the fallacious mode adopted by Mr. Cobbett, of comparing two distant steps in the graduated scale of duties; because both his statements being individually correct, it requires a little explanation to show that the inference he would draw from them is completely erroneous. Mr. Cobbett, in his speech in the House of Commons on this subject, stated, as a specimen of the probate duties, that "if a deceased leave property above the value of 201., his successor will have to pay a probate duty of 10s., i. e. 27. per cent. on the value; whereas if the deceased leave property from 30,000l. to 500,000l., the successor will have to pay a probate duty of only 17. 10s. per cent." Both these statements are correct, and yet any general idea of disproportion derived from such premises would be just as delusive as if he were to state the two facts, that A. B. is a very tall Dutchman, and C. D. a very small Englishman, and thence argue that all the English must be dwarfs, and all the Dutchmen giants. It is the truth, but not the whole truth; 27. is the probate duty on 20l., but it is also the probate duty on all value from 201. up to 1007.; and, to go to the opposite extreme, we might quote the very same instance of duty to prove how much the poor are favoured in this scale: thus we might say, that if a deceased leave property of the value of 997. 19s. 11ąd., his successor will have to pay a probate duty of only 10s.; whereas if the deceased leave property of the value of 30,000l., the successor will have to pay three times as large a per-centage. Each sum denoted in the graduated scale of probate duties forms the charge on all value comprised within two limits, these being in the instance before us 201. and 1007. In order, therefore, to form a just comparison between two distant steps in the scale, the mean average between the two limits should be taken: between 207. and 1007. the mean average of value would be 507., on which the duty of 10s. would be 16s. 8d. per cent. And this reference to the mean average should of course be made in every calculation respecting the scale of stamp duties.

LEASES are instruments of very general and frequent occurrence; if therefore any inequality exist in the scale of duties upon them, the effect will be experienced to no incon

siderable extent. The fact is, this scale very much resembles the one applicable to mortgages, the highest rate of duty being received from the lowest rental. Where the rental does not amount to 201. the stamp is 17., or 1 in 10 on the average; and if the same per-centage were paid on a rental of 9007., the stamp on the latter would be 907., whereas it is only 67. The scale commences with levying 107. per cent. on the lowest rental. As the rental increases, the per-centage lessens to 21. 10s. per cent., 17. per cent., and as low as 14s. per cent. Here justice evidently directs a more fair distribution of the burden. Let the higher rentals pay more, and the lower rentals pay less, by requiring all to pay in the same proportion. The stamp on the Counterpart of a Lease is 17. where the rent is under 207.; and on all counterparts, where the rent is above 201., the stamp is the same amount, 17. 10s. In the case of large property this may be a small matter, but on small leases it is so severe an exaction, that the security of a counterpart is very frequently neglected. These duties might easily be arranged so as to be more fair without being less productive.

sums.

Though not exactly forming a part of Conveyancing Stamps, to which we have chiefly confined our observations, we may briefly notice that in the scale of duties applicable both to PROMISSORY NOTES and BILLS OF EXCHANGE, and to RECEIPTS, the per-centage is much greater on small than on large Mr. Rice said that the rich man is as much affected by it as the poor man, the transactions of both equally consisting of a multiplicity of small bills and receipts. Leaving this remark to have what weight it may with men of business, we admit that it would be nugatory to make the duty on bills of exchange for large sums greater than the expense of transmitting the amount in specie from one part of the country to another.

The duties on APPRAISEMENTS and AUCTIONS are also obviously unequal: on an Appraisement of between £100 and £200, 10s. is charged, and on all Appraisements exceeding £500 only £1; there can be no reply to this, the one is too high or the other too low. The auction duty Mr. Rice admitted to contain anomalies which ought to be removed. It may be said in favour of the less duty on plate and jewels,

that they are articles having a fixed market value according to weight, and that if the auction upon them were high, they could never be sold by auction.

Sufficient examples must now have been furnished to demonstrate that the entire schedule of stamp duties requires an efficient revision. If these examples have been few in number, they are those of the greatest importance, being of the most constant occurrence; and the several duties on other less important instruments appear to have been weighed in the same unequal scales. Some wicked imp might be thought to flit with inconstant wing over the whole schedule, perching upon the figures, twisting them into other shapes, dragging them to and fro, and producing all the mischievous confusion we have described.

Not only is the principle of equal proportion violated in these duties, but even that of inverse proportion is often adopted. The former principle is not only founded on common sense, but has been directly recognized by the legislature of this country in the well-known Income Tax. If it were applied to the utmost practicable extent, in a revised scheme of stamp duties, still would the burden press with more than equal severity on properties of small value. For there are many instruments, not containing any reference to money or value, the stamp on which cannot be regulated by that standard, and it is therefore, in the absence of any ground for distinction, of one uniform amount. The stamps on all these instruments, such, e. g. as affidavits, appointments, revocations, surrenders, and all those to which the general deed stamp is applicable, are a very small charge to persons of large income, but a heavy burden to others of more limited means. Even, therefore, if those instruments where the different amounts of value call for corresponding gradations of duty, were taxed according to the exact rule of equal proportion, yet would the whole result be in favour of the wealthy, on account of the many other instruments which must all be taxed alike, because a practical ground of distinction between them cannot readily be ascertained.

There is, however, one instance in which the stamp remains the same, whatever may be the value, where we can perceive no sufficient reason for such uniformity.