The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE. OF. LORDS—(LAST
,NIGHT).
EAST INDIA TRADE.
Lord KING presented a petition from the royal
borough of Irvine against the monopoly of the EaSt
India Company, for a reduction of taxation, and
against the ,corn laws.
The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from
the Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool against the
East India Company's monopoly; also petitions to
the same effect from the trustees of the Liverpool
Docks, and from certain bankers, merchants,traders,
and others, of Liverpool.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from
the burgesses, manufactuiers, and others, of the bo-
rough of Halifax, praying that the trade with the
East Indies and China might be thrown open.
These petitions were all referred to the Commit-
tee on the affairs of the East India Company.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a pc.
tition from the parish of St. Pancras, against the
vestry act. The Noble Duke took this opportunity
to answer a question put to him by his Noble Friend
(Lord Goderich) on a former evening, with respect
to a return of country bank-notes stamped within a
certain period. On inquiry he found that he was
right in supposing, as.he.did, when he answered his
Noble Friend's question at tiro, that the amount of
Scotch notes was included in the account en both
sides. He had ascertained that it would be quite
impossible to distinguish between the stamps issued
for England and Scotland, except as regarded those
for I/. notes, which were.all Scotch. The account
included the notes of the charter banks.
Earl BEAUCHAMP presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Warwick, complaining of
distress, and praying for a repeal of the Malt and

Beer Tax.
DUTIES ON CONVEYANCES OF LIFEHOLD
PROPERTY—FIRE INSURANCES.
The:Earl of .MALNIESBURY wished to obtain
returns of the proceeds of two different descriptions
of Stamp Duties, in one of which he, as a land-
owner, felt a 'particular interest ; and the other of
which included the interests of many classes of the
community. As the day was now approaching on
which it was intended to submit to the other Howe
of ParliaMent the usual annual financial statement,
he thought he could not do better than allude to the
subject at the present moment. He wished to
allude to, and express his opinions upon, the stamp
duties upon conveyances of lifehold property. In
some of the western counties in which he was pos-
sessed of landed property, it was usual for cottagers
to hold their cottages on lives; and the custom was
a good one, us it encouraged the breeding up (if he
might use the expression) of a respectable class of
cottagers. When these individuals had children,
they naturally desired to put their children's lives
in their leases as well as their own; and the usual
tine for adding one life. to two others in such
case was (according to his own experience, and
hebelieved it was the same in the case of otherparties)
51. But this was not all; the tenant who paid his land-
lcrd 5/. on account of this transaction, had to pay to
Government a duty of 1/.155. on the conveyance, and
U. 10s. en the counter-part; thus making a sum of
31..55. stamp-duty, payable on a transaction of which
the cost as between landlord and tenant was only
5/. The existence of this Jet), opposed a great
obstacle to such transaetions.. The landlord might
say to his tenant, " pay me the fine by instalments ;
I know you cannot afford to pay it at once, and will
take it as you can spare it ;" but the stamp duty
must be paid upon the nail. The consequence of a
duty so disproportionate in amount to the value of
the transaction, was to prevent conveyances being
made in many cases in which they would otherwise
be effected. He was desirous of knowing the actual
amount of revenue produced to the Exchequer in
this way. He hoped that there would appear rea-
son for reducing this fluty ; he would have it lowered
(if not entirely remitted) to Is. or 2s. 6d. on each
conveyance. • Again, if he had five acres, which he
wished to dispose of in fee, say for a sum of 1494,
the stamp duty was 11. 10s. He wished to ascer-
tain the produce of that duty. There were few
things from which land suffered more than from law
transactions, as at present conducted. The law, or
rather taxation, weighed most heavily upon it. He
hoped to see these onerous and unjust imposts con-
siderably.lowered or altogether done away with in
the forthcoming financial arrangements. There was
another point affecting landed property which was
also well deserving of attention ;—he alluded to the
duty on policies of fire insurance. He would take
the case of common insurances. Ile or any other man
might not be wealthy enough to risk the chance of
a fire upon his - farm, and was compelled to in-
sure his dwelling, firm, buildings, stock, &c. In
1815 the expense of a policy of common insurance
Was 2s. per cent., and the dirty was 2s. Gil. (125 per
cent. on the insurance) ; but it was raised between
1815 and 1824 to 3s. (150 per cent. on the insur-
ance). Policies were now done at ls. 61, the duty
still continuing 35.; so that the duty was 200 per
cent. upon the charge of the offices which undertook
to guarantee people's property from loss by fire.—
What was the consequence ? Men of large property
who were able to afford the risk, did not insure at
all. They said, " Here are persons willing to insure
us for a sum upon which a duty of 200 per cent. is
added by the Government. We shan't pay it : we
will take our chance." He was satisfied that if this
tax upon fire-insurances were reduced considerably,
the Treasury would be fully repaid, and all deficit
prevented by an increase in the number and amount
of policies, at the same time that there would be
much greater security for property than at present.
. He might here observe, with reference to the first
part of his statement, that the duty on conveyances
of cottages was about 75 per cent. on the amount
generally demanded by landlords for the introduction
of a new life into a lease. The duty upon convey-
ances of property, in fee simple, below the value of
150/. a-year, was also very burdensome. The Noble
Earl concluded by moving for " A return of the
amount of stamp duties paid upon conveyances of
lifehold property under the annual value of 5/.—
[The cottages in question seldom or never exceeded
the value of 405., but he fixed 51. in order to save
trouble, and facilitate the making out of the account.]
Also for a return of the amount of stamp duties paid
on conveyances of property in fee, under the value
of 1501.—Ordered.
INTERNAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord HOLLAND—I received a note, my Lords
from my Noble relative (the Duke of Richmond)
.
on my way to the House, requesting me to give
notice that he intends bringing forward the motion
on Thursday next, which he was prevented, by in-
disposition, from submitting to the House this even-
ing. I now move that the House be summoned for
that day.—Agreed to.

PORTUGAL.
Lord HOLLAND—I now rise, ray Lords, for
the purpose of putting some questions to the Noble
Secretary for Foreign Affairs with respect to our
relations with Portugal. There appears to me to
be but scanty information on the subject. In request-
ing the information of the Noble Earl, it will be
necessary to refer to the communications from the
Throne, which we have had from time to time,
connected with the affairs of that country. On the
29th of July, 1828, in the Speech from the Throne,
his Majesty says, " he relies upon the wisdom of the
august House of Braganza to take the course which
shall be best calculated to maintain the interests and
honour of that illustrious family, and to secure the
peace and happiness of the dominions over which it
reigns." At the openinafrof the Session of 1829
we are told that " his Majesty has entered into
negociations with the head of the House of Bra-
gariza, in- the hope of terminating -a state, of affairs;"
and at the close of the Session this paragraph is in