The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-20 00:00:00

!~ .

but to malt. '77by should the duty on malt be comtinaed
for a year after peace had been proclaimed.
Mr. GOULBURN said the same principle was appli-
cable to spirits and malt ; they were Excise duties, and
when you repealed such duties, you must either repay the
duty paid by the trade on their stock in hand or else give
them time to dispose of it.
Mr. DISRAELI said the objection to the clause was
that it did not provide for a period after the war, and if
it was.paesed-iis it now stood there might be no time al-
lowed to the maltster to deal with his stock in hind.
Mr. BASS said that the maltster did not want any such
time.
Sir F. KELLY said that as the bill now stood the duty
was no longer a war tax, for it might continue a for a year
after the war was over, and if it was wished to give time
to the maltster, the time should be fixed a week before
the sth of July.
Sir C. WOOD said that the fact was that there were
reasons connected with the malting season which made it
convenient that the malt duties should cease on sth July.
There might, however, be numerous inconveniences in a
fixed time. Perhaps it might be considered, and on the
report words brought up to the effect—" that the duty
should cease on the quarter-day next, ensuing after six
months afterethe ratification ofepeace." At the close of
a war there was generally the heaviest expenditure, espe-
cially in paying off ships.
Mr. LABOIJCHERE said it would be best to leave the
matter 'to the consideration of the Government, but he
thought that the wards six months after the conclusion of
peace w.onll be sufficient.
Mr.' BASS said that the sth July was the most conve-
nient (ley for the duty to begin or terminate. The Govern-
ment would get little or nothing by the tax in the next
six months, .as the malting season was over.
Mr. DISRAELI was sorry to hear that the Government
would receive so emelt an am
amount of this duty in the next
six months ; for, when he propose to postpone the con-
sideration of the question, it was said that it would mike
a difference of 2.5 ) 000/. (Hear, hear.) Ho thought the
point under discussion required inquiry, and the clause
had better he postporiecteea''7'2°ll/- . •
Sir J. SEIELLEY had a suggestionto make wineh would
relieve the farmers and barley growers from a great
grievance, an I increase the duty uierived from malt. By
the Excise regulations barley was only allowed to be in
what was callee the steep for 48 hours, and it was only the
best quality of barley produced in superior land like that
in Norfolk, that in that time could become malt. In his
land he had had only three instances in which any barley
of his had paid the malt tax. He would suggest that if the
number of hours for steeping were extended to 60, on
notice being given to the Excise, it would- be a-great
relief to the agriculturist, as barley grown on inferior lands
would be made into malt.
Mr. BASS said that Mr. Disraeli had misapprehended
what had been stated the other night with regard to a loss
of duty of 250,0001. The reason was not that the malting
season was over, but if time had been given the stocks on
hand of the maltsters would have been made over to cus-
tomers, and he thought the loss of duty would have been
quite 250,0001. ,
After a short conversation,
Mr. WILSON urged that, notwithstanding all that had
been said, it would be better to retain the words in the
clause, es they made the period for the duty's ceasing more
convenient, and were in accordance with precedent.
The blank in the clause was then filled up with the words
" sth of July after the conclusion of peace," and the clause
as amended agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
Oa the schedules,
Sir J. TROLLOPE expressed his opinion that it would
have been better to have re-imposed the beer duty rather
than have increased the malt duty.
Mr. BASS said great injustice was done to the beer
trade at present by not allowing on the export of beer a
drawback on the hop duty as well as the malt duty, which
put the traders to a great disadvantage in competing in
foreign markets.
Mr. HADFIELD said the complaint of the hon mem-
ber was well founded. It was desirable to encourage the
manufacture of beer, and that they should have a free
market abroad.
Mr. WILSON' said he ditteaot deny the injustice, and
it was worthy the consideration'of Government.
The schedules were then agreed to.
Mr. WILSON then brought up two new clauses, which
he stated to be for the purpose of regulating the duty on
malt used in distillation, to regulate the drawback in a
way which would abolish a grievance the scotch distiller
had long complained of, and enabling the spirit dealers in
England and Ireland to send spirits to Scotland, if they
chose, to be on the same footing there as the Scotch
distillers.
The clauses were inserted and the house resumed.
SUGAR DUTIES.
The house having resolved itself into committee on ways
and means
Mr. WILSON moved the following resolutions :-
1. That in lien of the duties of customs upon sugar and
molasses, which shall become payable from and after the sth
day of July, 1854, under the act 11 and 12 Vict., c. 97, the
following duties shall be charged on sugar and molasses im
ported into the United Kingdom—that is to say :
Candy, brown or white, refined sugar, or sugar ren-
dered by any process equal in quality thereto (except
as hereinafter mentioned), for every cwt.
White clayed sugar, or sugar rendered by any pro-
cess equal in quality to white clayed, not being re-
fined or equal in quality to refined, for every cwt....
Yellow Muscovado and brown clayed sugar, or
sugar rendered by any process equal in quality to
yellow Muscovado or brown clayed, and not equal
to white clayed, according to a standard to be fur-
nished by the Treasury, for every cwt.
Brown Muscovado, or any other sugar, not being
equal in quality to yellow Muscovado or brown clayed
sugar, aecordiug to a standard to be furnished by the
Tr; usury, for every cwt
Molasses, for every cwt 4 6
2. That the duty of 17s. 4d. (with 15 per cent. thereon)
for every cwt. now payable on candy, brown and white, re-
fired sugar, or sugar rendered by any process equal in quality
thereto, shall continue to be charged on all such sugar, being
the growth or produce of any foreign country, until the 16th
day of August, 1854, inclusive, and that from and after the
16th day of August the duty of 16n. shall be charged on such
sugar for every cwt:
3. That in lieu of the bounties and drawbacks now payable
on the exportation of refined sugar, the following bounties or
drawbacks shall be allowed from and after the Bth day of
May, 1854, on the exportation from the United Kingdom of
the several descriptions of refined sugar hereinafter men
tioned—(that is to say),
Upon refined sugar in loaf, complete and whole, s. d.
or lumps duly refined, having been perfectly
clarified and thoroughly dried iu the stove, and
be ng of an uniform whiteness throughout, or
such sugar pounded, crushed, or broken, or
sugar candy, the cwt
Upon bastard or refined sugar, broken in pieces,
or being ground or powdered sugar, or such sugar
pounded, or crushed or broken, for every cwt,,, 11 0
Re said after the ex elanatione which had been already
given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was unneces-
sary for him to enter at any le.gth into the changes pro-
posed unless he were asked for explanations. It was ne-
cessary for him to state, however, that by one of the resolu-
tions it was proposed to delay the operation of the reduction
of the duty on refined sugar for six weeks after the sth of
July, which was the period fixed by the act now in force.
At the present moment the duty on ordinary sugar used
for refining was 14s. 11d. and a fraction, and by the act it
would be reduced on the sth July to 12s. Now the English
refiners could not by possibility avail themselves of the re-
ducion of the duty on the raw material until the sth July,
and it was, therefore, only fair towards them that they
should not be exposed to the competition of the foreign
refiner who could bring in his refi,,ed sugar on the day on which the English refiner could only get his raw material
at the reduced rate. The period required for the refining
of sugar was stated to be about six weeks or two months,
and it was therefore proposed to suspend the reduction of
the duty on refined sugar for that time. There haul been
a great objection to this proposal, on the ground that per-
sons who were importers of foreign refined sugar, had, in
anticipation of a period when they would have a command
of the mai ket, in consequence of the disability, if he might
use the term, under which the British refiner would be
placed for the period he had named, ordered a considerable
quantity of sugar fromabroatt. to arrive at that particular
period, and they complained that if this resolution passed
they would not have the same command of the market that
they had anticipated. At the same time it was but just to
the British refiner, who asked that he should be brought
into competition with the foreign refiner only at the time
when he could bring his product into market in a refined
state. Whether six weeks was the proper period or not
might be a mater for consideration, and the Government
would be quite ready to listen to any representations that
might be made to them on that point ; and if it were
litowti that four weeks were sufficient there would be
no objection to alter the bill, or if it should appear
on inquiry that the amount of the duty charge-
able on the foreign refiner was larger under the par-
ticular circumstanced of the case than would fairly cover
the British refiner from the competition to which he
would be subject, there w ,ul,l be no objection to consider
that point also. In passing these resolution.; to night the
house in no way foreclosed itself from any further consi-
deration of the point. They could consider any represen-
tation_ of the parties iuterested, their only desire being to
do that which was fair to all
parties in this complicated
Subject,
Mer• MOFFAT complained that they were going back
wro,?•.fie.
thold System of ad valorem. duties, which was fraught
faith, ustice. The resolutions also involved a breach of
fir J. PAKlNGTONexpreseed the great satisfaction he
felt at thebrinezission Government had made, which he be-
lieved to
had conceive,' theatnn the strictest principle of justice. He
had taken his lea there was any subject on which he
but it seemed hevsytugt Was the sugar duties—(laughter)
Government ha,i mistaken. He was glad to tiud that
West India interest by ertebd the injustice inflicted on the
sugar in bond. The differ: prohibition of refining their
tie' duty between 12s. and
lls. was ap equivalent for th:
Mr. THORNELY said the raver of refining in bowl.
be, that the
so many different duties on differ cunlty he felt was having
tsqualities • the conse-
quence of which would
unties wotild be levied
differently in the various perte_
Mr. DUNLOP thought that if the resolutions
in their present shape the arrangement
regardingrepassed
t
umolasses
and the drawbeck would give great diseatiact
had perfect confidence that they would fairly but
he
sidereal, and that justice would.be done tomall pa
Mr. BROWN bought the simplest and Tiitellties.
3 Way of
meeting the difficulty which had arisen, would be to allow
a small drawback to the home refiners till the 16th of
August.
Mr. WILSON said the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Pakington) hail correctly stated that this scale was an at-
tempt to rectifyan inequality which had previously existed
with reference tothe =min tof the saccharine matter in the
different kinds of sugar. No doubt, the most complete
way of adjusting that inequality would be to allow refining
in bond ; but the difficulties attendant upon such course
would render it impos ible to adopt it. He wished it,
therefore, to be distinctly understood that the Government
had no intention whatever of departing from tbds scale, or
allowing refinement in bond.
The resolution was agreed to.
On the second resolution,
Mr. CAIRNS thought it desirable that the committee
'honk' clearly ntelerstand what was the nature of the
grievance, of which a number of merchants ccenplained
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making the, announce-
ment which had been followed by the introduce ion ref the
resolutions, stated that on the sth of July a ch %lige would
take place in the sugar duties, by which fore ign refined
sugar would be admitted at 16s. per cwt. The merchants
naturally acting upon that announcement had given orders
for foreign refined sugar, and entered into con teacts by
which they were still bound, to the extent of to any thou-
sands of pounds. Bat now the Secretary to the , Treasury
put back the day from the sth of July to the 11 ith of Au-
gust, a period that would embrace great pm' dun of the
fruit season, during which the sugar trade was 113 .ost active
and the result would be a heavy loss to those
nerchants:
Us wished it to be understood that if, on c(tu sideration,

the Government did not think &Jo take any steps to re-
lieve the trade from that hardship, the comra.ttee by assent-
ing to the resolution, would not be precluded from agitat-
ing the question again. •
• • Mr. MOFFATT thought that as very large contacts were
,pending the decision of the question, it would be f r better
-to put an end to the uncertainty. He therefore trusted
that the hon. gentleman would not oppose the alteration
in the date to the sth of July.
Mr. MILES hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would
not give way to the pressure by which it was attempted to
induce him to alter the date fixed by the Government,
namely, the 16th of August.
Mr. H. BAIL LIE wade a similar remark.
Mr. DIG BY SEYMOUR argued against the injustice
of altering by an ex post facto determination the announce-
ment on the faith of which the trade had acted to a con.
siderable extent.
Mr. GOULBURN thought a question of principle was
involved in this question. If a chancellor of the Exche-
quer came down to the house and made a statement upon
which it was p rfectly impossible that he could have con-
sulted with the parties interested, it would not be right
to oblige him to adhere strictly to the terms of that state-
ment. It was obvious that he might afterwards see the
parties, and have beneficial alterations su:gested to hire
befor he proposed the formal resolutions. As for the
trade, they ought not to have speculated upon the Chan-
cellor's statement, but have waited until those resolutions
had been proposed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON, having thanked the right hon. gentle-
man for the constitutional reasons he hail given, sad I that
his defence was not in the present case required. It was
a mistake to suppose that the Ch ncellor of the Exchequer
hail made the statement which had been attributed to him:
for the right hon. gentleman had in his hand, wee', be
made his financial etatiment, the very resolutions which
he (Mr. Wilson) had proposed, and t .oe resolutions would
h we been proposed at the time but for the objection raise.'
by Ms. T. Baring. (Hear.) !he Government would cer-
tainly not cm ider its If precluded by the passing of he
resolution irons rec t .sidering the quest on.
Mr. J. L. RICARDO was surprised to hen • the tatement
that the r. solution was in the hands of ,he Chancellor of
the Exchequer the other night. Certainly the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had mentioned no distinction betty. en
the time at which the two rates of duty would operate, and
it seemed difficult to account for his omission to do so. He
was surprised to hear Mr. Goulburn arguing that mer-
chants ought not to have speculated on the statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; for during the long ,
perio I which Mr. Goulburn had himself held the office he
had never made a statement which he did not fairly and
honestly carry out. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ricardo)
thought the trade had been very unfairly treated
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR also contended that the faith
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pledged to
alter both the duties simultaneously on the sth of July.
Mr. ARCHIBALD HASTIE considered that they must
be very inexperienced and premature men who could have
speculated on the budget of a Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. (Laughter.) It seldom happened that the finan-
cial statement was correct in every particular, and he cer- '
tainly should have thought that the merchants of this
country were men of too much sound sense to have specu-
lated so hastily.
Sir C. WOOD thought the course proposed to be adopted
by the government was fair, and he made this remark be-
cause he felt that he had himself acted with a little in-
justice to the sugar refiners some years ago. If the effect of
altering both duties on the same day had been represented
to him before the passing of the ait of 1813 he should have
been disposed to have made a difference of about 6 weeks ;
but, after the act had been passed, he did not think it
werth while to re-open the question.
Mr. CAIRNS deprecated the discussion of the ant ject
on the merits, upon the present occasion. If the government
did not accede to the wishes of the merchants the question
might be debated on another occasion.
Mr. MOFFATT should have been glad to have left the
matter in the way in which Mr. Cairns had stated it ; bat
if he was to understand from the observations of the right
hon. baronet, that the government were not open to con-
viction, he should divide the committee. Sir C. Wood had
said nothing contrary to what had been stated by Mr.
Wilson, but as reasons had been given for altering the
day, he was anxiuos that it should not be supposed there
were no reasons on the other side.
, Mr. T. A. MITCHELL contended that the trade were
perfectly justified in acting upon the statement of he
Chancellor o the Exchequer, and that another course
ought not now to be adopted by the hon. gentleman.
Lord J. RUSSELL reiterated the pledge that the Go-
vernment would reconsider the question, and
The resolution w is then agreed to.
The third resolution %yes also passed.
THE INCOME TAX RESOLUTION.
Mr. WILSON moved that, towards raising the supply
granted to her Majesty, there shall be charged and raised
yearly, from and after the sth day of April, 1814, in lieu
of the rates and duti Is chargeable under the act 16 and 17
Vic., c. 31, and of rates and duti s granted in the present
session of Parliament, for and in respect of all property,
profit, and gains, chargeable under the said act, the duty
of one shilling and twopence for every twee y shitings of
the annual value or amount of all sach property, profits,
and gains resp ctively.
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested to Mr. Williams to post- pone the amendment of which he had given notice.
Mr. WILLIAMS declined, unless another opportunity
to bring it forward were to be given him.
Lord J. RUSSELL explained that he wished the post-
ponement to be until another session.
Mr. WILLIAMS, however, proceeded to explain his
amendment, which was a resolution to the effect that,
before the country should be subjected to additional taxa-
tion, teal property should be made to pay the same pro-
bate
duty as is now payable on personal property, and
that corporate, collegiate, and ecclesiastical property should
pay a duty equivalent in amount to the prob ste and legacy
duties levied on other ki ails of property. He did not wish
to put any obstacle in the way of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but to make the rich pay what was at present
borne only by the poorer classes, and he declared that
common honesty demanded the alteration. He entered at
some length into the alleged inequality and injustice of
the present system, and he concluded by moving his
amendment.
The amendment having been seconded,
Mr. WILSON admitted the great importance of the sub-
ject, but et the same time he did not intend to follow the
hon. member through all the arguments and facts th et he
had brought forward. Neither did he dispute the justice
of his propositions, but he asked the hon. ineinb,r just to
consider for a moment what would be the practical effect
of his amendment. The committee were asked to in :mese
the income tax for the purposes of the war, and the hon.
member seemed to think this a fitting opportunity for
Parliament to settle the nice and knotty questions arising
between real and personal property. If the hon. member
would uudertake to suspend the war while they were con-
sidering those questions, the amendment might be a rea-
sonable one, but as the war could not be suspended, and I
money must be had without delay for carrying it on, the
proposal of the hon. member was most inopportune.
(Hear, hear.) He would not go i• to the argument of
whether or no a distinction should he made between real
and personal property; but he must remind the hon. mem-
ber that the probate duty was nothing more than a stamp I
duty, while real property was subjected to certain stamp
duties from which personal property was altogether ex-
empt. (Hear.) With regard to the appuication ot' the suc-
cession duty to corporate property, he had the satisfaction
of being able to tell the hen. member that a bill was in
coarse of preparation, for the purpose of accomplishing
that object; and without pledging the Cewerninent to
pass it this session, he thought he might go the length of
Qaying that should no unforeseen difficulty arise to pre-
vent it, the bill would be shortly laid before Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he hoped the
hon. member would not think it necessary to persevere
with his motion. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. WALMSLEY would not pretend to say whether
' this was an opportune or inopportune moment for bringing
forward this question, but he was satisfied his hon. friend
the member for Lambeth had made out a strong case for
the consideration of the house. (Hear, hear.) He was
piety's(' with the observation which had just fallen from
the Secretary of the Treasury, in which the hon. gentle-
man admitted all that had been said about the irjustice
and inequality of this tax, and he did hope that ere long
the Government would feel the necessity for bringing in a
bill placing real property upon the same footing as per-
sonal property. (Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL remarked that the injustice of the
tax was admitted, and now was the time to r medy the
evil when we were raising taxes to carry on a war. If the
tvar lasted, of whi:h there appeared to be every prospect,
the minister must come again soon for mor , taxes,
.and no
more fitting opp mtunity coal be airoriled than that for
remedying those inequalities in our fiscal system. (Hear,
hear.) But at all events the ecclesiastics should not object
to pay this tax, because, with the exception of Vie Quakers,
they were the only class who claimed exemption from going
forth to tight the battles of the country. (Laughter )
Mr. W. A. WILKINSON hoped his hon. colleag .e
would withdraw the ameuti went after the statement of
the Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. HAUFIELD declared that these distinctions made
between one elase of property anti another were injurious
and inconvenient to the parties who possessed property.
They tended to great vexation in various ways, and led to
interminable confusion of all sorts.
Mr. HENLEY agreed with the hon. member who had
just sat down that all property oust to be taxed alike;
but when they took inso consideration the land tax, the
stamp .uties, and the various other imposts that real pro- '
perty was_ liable to, he thought the land would not come
badly out of the account,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS then replied, and reminded the
Secretary to the Treasury that personal property was just
as much liable to the stamp duties as real property.
Thinking it more likely that the principle of his amend-
ment would be carried into effect by leaving it in the
hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would consent
to its being negatived.
The amendment was then put and negatived.
Mr. CROSSLEY remarked on the unanimity with
which the votes had been passed in committee of supply
for the expense of the war, and said he was surprised to
find, when they got into committee of ways and means,
that objections were made to the malt tax and the income
tux. When the propos LI for a loan was brought forward,
he should oppose it by all the means in his power. It was
certainly not a time to borrow money, when the Bank
rate cf discount was 5i per cent.—three times what it
was a short time ago. (Hear hear.) It would be better to
create terminable annuities, at a period when the rate of
interest was lo v. Of the existing debt, 250,000,0001. had i
wviihtohl
ecoimneop
been contracted without the Government receiving a
fraertfehreinngeeof the money. If he could get 5 per yent. for
:al and
tni
' 5,90
/. in perpetuity, he would undertake, in 252 years, 1
terest, to pay off the national debt. In
to the income tax, it should be remembered that
entirely
while traders professional men were taxed on their
approved of the selection made by the Chancellor
, farmers were only taxed on one half. He
of the Bache
one, moved by Mr. then
agreed to, as was the following
8,000,000/, be gramst of the her
Majesty,
tower Is making
United Kingdom of Groat Bri
tainc
ensa
do Veal
at enddtifhin fund ou fin theof
The house then resumed.
Mr. WILSON moSveTdAtihPat ACTS,
Mr.
should go into
committee on the Stamp Acts.
In answer to a question from Mr. VeNeE,
Mr. WILSON said that he proposed, in committee,
to
move resolutions preliminary to a bill being introlucdfor
establishing an ad valorem stamp duty 011 Bills of
measure
Exchange.
The proper time to discuss the principle of the meas
would be on the second reading. By assenting to the reso-
lutions now, the hon. member would not be precluded
from objecting to them at any subsequent stage.
Mr. W. BROWN urged the po ttponement of the resolu-
tions until a deputation of merchants, who had considered
the question, had had an opportunity of laying their views
before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. MITCHELL submitted that there was no necessity
for proceeding with the resolutions immediately, as they

s. d

60

14 0

2 0

15 0

did not relate to the supplies to be raise for carrying on
•
the war.. -
of LthoeMp J. RUSSET
it
was
necessary,
for the despacth
~that the resolutions should now go
through their present stage. There were many stages after
the iutroduction of the bill on which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would be ready to receive any representation
that might be made. If the house poQtponed the first stage,
consider Lble delay would be occasioned thereby.
The SPEAKER then left the chair.
Mr. WILSON then moved the following resolution ;--
That from and after the 10th day of August, 1854, in lieu
of the stamp duties now payable on the bills of exchange.
drafts or orders, anti promissory notes, for the payment of
money hereinafter mentioned, or any of them, there shall
be granted and paid upon the several hills, drafts, or order
and promissory notes hereinafter respectively described,
the following stamp duties (th it is to say): Inland bill of
exchange, draft or order for the payment to the bearer or
to order, at any time otherwise than on demand, of any
sum of money,
Not exceeding
25
Exceeding... 225 and not exceeding 50
lt 50
PP 75
ft 75
PP 10)
72 100
PP 200
200
300
300
7, 400
403
If 500
500
Pt 750
750
ft 1,000
Pt 1,000
Pf 1,500
PP 1,500
2,003
2,000
3,000 . 110 0
77
4,003 3,000
and upwards 4,000
2 5 0
The CHAIR MAN put the items separately, and tee first
nine were agreed to.
On the next item, "exceeding 750/. and not exceeding
1,0001. 10s."
Mr. VANCE said that by tho present scale, bills of this
amount only require an 81.-6,1. Wimp ; and it was now
proposed to raise it to 10s The effect of the new scale
would be to increase the duties on large transactions,
though it diminished them on small ones. (Hear, hear.)
He thought it extremely unfair that the rate Of duty
should be increased on bills of any amount. This was not
a war tax ; it professed to be an adjustment of the stamp
duty on bills of exchange. Nothing could be more unfair
than to place the wholesale trader in a worse situation
than he was now in, while relief was given to the small
trader, whose profits on his. small transactions were much
larger in proportion than those of the large trader on his.
Proceeding further in the scale, he found that the increase
of duty was still greater. Bills for 1,0001. to 1,5001.,
which now required a 12s. Cl. stamp, wer) raised to 153. ;
and those from 1,5001. to 2,0001. were raised from 12s. 6d.
to 233. lie should move as an amendment that on bills
exceeding 75.4, and not exceeding 1,000/.' the stamp duty
should be Bs. 6d., as at present, instead of 108. as pro-
posed.
Mr. WILSON said it would be impossible to introduce
the ad valorem principle of change without imposing a
higher rate upon the larger amounts. That had been done
by Sir Charles Wood four years ago, when he proposed to
alter these duties. What the Government aimed at was
to take away the very fair ground of complaint that ex-
isted with regard to the high rate of duty on small
transactions. The present stamp duty of 2s. 6d. on a
small bill was as much as one-eighth per cent. on the
whole amount—what a merchant would call a con-
siderable coinmsssion. The high rate of duty was a tax
upon the whole of that class of transactions. The sole
principle of the scale was to give relief on small amounts,
and to charge a corresponding but not an undue sum
on large amounts. The hononrable gentleman's objection
went to the very principle which the Government wished
to assert—that of an ad valorem stamp duty on bills .of ex-
change. It was quite true, that at present for a bill of
7501. to 1,000/. the stamp duty was only Bs. 6 e for a two
months' bill ; but for a three months' bill it was 12s. 6d.
What he proposed was, not only to introduce an advalorent system, but greater simplicity than had hitherto prevailed,
and therefore to abolish altogether any difference as to the
dates of bills. There would only be one rate of stamp, in-
stead of two, as at present. But the new scale, for a trans-
action not exceeding 251. the stamp would be 3d ; hitherto
it had been 2s. for short dated bills, and 2s. 6d. for long
ones. For transactions under 501. the new stemp would be
6d. ; the present stamps were 2s. 6d. and 3s 6d. So on, in
every step in the new cale the stamp duty bore exactly
the same proportion to the amount—a shilling for every
one hundred pounds. Above le.o/. the simplicity of the
scale was still more observable • the number of hundreds
of pounds showed the number Of shillings required in the
stamp. The complaint of the right hon. gentleman was
one to which they pleaded guilty ; it was their intention to
make large transactions pay lather more than they had
paid, and at the same time to relieve very small amounts
from the heavy tax which they had hitherto pale.
Mr. SPOONER asked if the right hon gentleman had
made any calculation of the extra amount of revenue to be
derived from the increased duties on large bills, and whe-
ther it would compensate for the reduction on small ones.
Mr. WILSONseid the object had not been to increase the
revenue, but to e ,nalise the rates ; and, as they were at
present advised, on the most careful calculations that could
be male by the officers of inland revenue, they should get,
as nearly as possible, the same amount of revenue as at
present, with the aid of the stamps on foreign bills. The
effect of the whole scheme would be as nearly as possible a
balance.
After a few words from Sir G. GOODMAN, which were
not heard in the gallery—
Mr. CROSSLEY said the existing scale was most ini-
quitous towards small traders. He denied that their pro-
fits were larger in proportion than those of large trailers.
The proposed ad valorem scale was one of the best features
iu the new budget ; it supplied an improvement which was
indispensable.
Mr. MITCHELL denied the justice of an ad valorem
scale, and contended that larger profits were realised on
small transactions. It would be better for the Government
to risk a little revenue, and not raise the duty on large
amounts beyond whit it was at present. He entirely ob-
jected to the proposal for -imposing the stamp duty on
foreign bills, and should oppose it when it eatuebefore the
committee.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the stamp duty on a bill for
201. was eighteen times as large in proportion es that on a
8531. bill. Tnie was a most grievous inequality, and he
was gia.l it was to be redressed.
Mr. W. BROWN referred to the reports of Messrs.
Whitworth and Wallis, the commissioners to the Unite I
States, in proof of the rivalry which this country had to
maintain with America. As it was the last feather which
broke the camel', back, Government ought to be extremely
careful how they cast any additional burden on the com-
merce of the country. There were many transactions on
which merchants did not make a greater profit that one-
sixteenth per cent.
Mr. CH EETHAII urged that the revenue to be derived
from foreign bills, woald have enabled the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to leave the stamps on large bills at the
same amount as at present.
After a few words from Mr. TRORNELY and Mr.
SPOONER,
Mr. MASTERMAN expressed an opinion that the new
impost on foreign bills was extremely objectionable.
Mr. SPOONER asked how the case was to be met of
foreign bills drawn abroai.l. Was the acceptor to stamp it ?
Or was he to refuse payment of it ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON recalle f theattention of the committee to
the question before it, the duty on bills between 7501. and
1,0031. He admitte I that the whole framework of the
scale was connected ; but the committee had passed all the
rates which were lower than the present ones, and now ob-
jection was taken to the first that was an increase. He
thought the committee had gone too far to do this. He
would postpone the question of foreign bills till they came
to that p irt of the scale.
Mr. SPOONER said if the whole formed part of the
same scheme, they must consider them all at once.
Mr. WILSON said the whole were parts of the same
scheme, but the committee had already passed the resolu-
tions by which the revenue would low money. He sub-
mitted that these questions might be all fully discussed on
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. GEACH considered that part of the scheme which
related to inland bills a great improvement on the present
system. The new scale was an ad va'orem one throughout,
at least to an amount beyond which the bills ware drawn.
He thought 4,0001. was a judicious amount at which to
stop. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for
introducing this measure; it was a great boon, and would
work beneficially for the mere tntile class.
Mr. VANCE repeated his objection to raising the duty
on large bills, and said that the proposed duty on foreign
bills would often CALM) a double tax to be paid, as two sets
of bills were often drawn in respect of the same transac•
tions. He did not intend to press the matter to a dile'
sion.

tern of composi ion for the stamp duties in the case of bills
drawn by co'onial bankers, but the difficulty will be to find
some data whereby we may compute the amount of bills
drawn by them. If it can be made practicable, we shall be
glad to entertain the idea.
Mr. T. HANKEY con-idered the explanation given by
the hon. gentleman in answer to nis question was satisfac-
tory, but the principle that it was not necessary to affix the
stamp was he thought objectionable —for it einem:tett to a
new stamp duty on receipts which would fall, not on the
merchant and bankers, but on the manufacturing interest
of the country'.
Mr. GLYN thought his hon. friend had run away with
a wrong idea. The principle of the bill was that all foreign
bills before they circulated, should be liable to the stamp
duty. It had nothing to do with the question of the
receipt stamp.
After some further conversation the resolution was
agreed to.
The next proposition was to impose upon
Foreign bill of exchange, drawn out of the United King-
dom, and payable within the United Kingdom, the same
duty as on an inland bill of the same amount and tenor ;
or foreign bill of exchange, drawn out of the United
Kingdom, and payable oat of the United Kingdom, but
indorsed or negotiated within the United Kingdom, the
same duty as on a foreign bill drawn within the United
Kingdom, and payable out of the 'United Kingdom ; or
promissory note, for the payment, in any other manner
tram to the bearer on demand, of any sum of mo ley.
Not exceeding £ £ s. (1.
Exceeding £25 and
25 ... 0 0 3
not exceeding 5 i ... 0 0 6
„ 50
Pt 75 ... 0 0 9
75
PP
Promissory note, for the payment, either to the bearer
on demand or in any other manner than to the bearer on
demand, of any sum of mouey ;
£ £ a. d.
Exceeding 100 and neet aceedine 200 ... 02 0
„
200
e.... .
300 .. 0 3 0
PP 31) '„ '
1,500 500
PP IP
PP 400 ~
•••••. 500 ... 0 5 C
SP . .
IP
75') • 1,000 ... 010 0
1,000
• 1,500 ... 015 0
PP
ss „
2,000 ... 1 0 0
71 2,000 „ 3O )0 ... 110 0
PP 3 000 PI
• 4,000 ... 2 0 0
4,')00 and upwards 2 5 0
Mr. ;:seeNcE moved to omit the word " endorsed." He
considered that bills which were merely sent here for
endorsement should not be liable,
Mr. WILSON urged that if the word "'endorse" were
left out, there wou'd be no evidence of negotiation. The
object was to catch bills drawn in one country, payable in
another, but negotiated here for the purpose of goods fur-
nished by merchants of London, Glasgow, or elsewhere ;
therefore the word " eudorsed" was necessary. Such
cases as that which the hon. member had put he believed
were extremely rare.
The resolution then passel.
The next resolution submitted was—" That it is expe-
dient to amend the laws relating to the stamp duties."
Mr. HADFIELD said that great inconvenience had oc-
curred in consequence of certain defects defects in the aet
of last session, especially in reference to the stamps on
conveyances.
Mr. WILSON intimated that he had a resolution to
move presently to remedy the mistake which he was aware
existed in the act of last session.
The resolution having passed,
Mr. PHI NN, on the part
.of the hon. member for Porn-
fret (Mr. Oliveira), submitted a nropositiou for imposing
. the penny stamps upon bankers' cheques. At present all
cheques would be subject to the penny stamp were there
not an exception in favour of such as were drawn within
fifteen wiles of the banking house where tliey were pay-
able ; but he might appeal to the house whether the law
which made it illegal to draw a cheque beyond the fifteen-
mile limit without a stamp was nut violated ? (No. no.)
He spoke from his own experience—(Lear, and a laugh)—
when he said he knew thtit persons were frequently in the
habit of violating the'laserid thiirrespect. If a man was tif-
' teen miles from London-and grew a cheque upon a London
banker which he traustuitted to a correspondent within the
fifteen mile limit, that was a violation of the law—( No,
no)—and it was constantly done. (Hear, hear) Again,
persons who were in the habit of banking paid their trades-
men by crossed cheques, which they got the payee to sign,
which cheques were their evidence of payment, and in this
way the receipt stamp was evaded. (No, no.) He be-
lieved such a tax as he suggested would bring at least
231,000/. to the revenue, which would enable the
Government to abolish the newspaper stamp, and
thus get rid of a great anomaly. Then the
tax on cheques would . fall entirely on persons in
easy circumstances, and would be collected without cost.
He did not intend to press the matter now, but he hoped
that an opportunity would be afforded for discussing it at
a future state.
Mr. GLY''.et thought the hon. and learned gentleman was
nude' a misapprehension in supposing that since the act of
last year. by which a person drawing a cheque beyond the
fifteen mile limit 'night make it legal by affixing the penny
stamp, there had been any evasion of the duty. As far as
the bankers were concerned, the imposition of a penny
stamp on cheques would be an advantage to them, in so
far as it would save them trouble, but it would impose a
very heavy impost upon the public, and be attended with
consi lerable inconvenience. the extent of which might be
judged of from the fact that 200,000 cheques hest on one
occasion lately been paid into one banking-house in a
single day.
Sir J. TItOLLOPE stated that the tax would operate
hardly on the Poor Law Board, where all amounts, even
the very smallest, were pail by cheques.
Mr. WILKINSON thought that this tax would derange
the economy of circulation of payment .3, cheques, which
was carried on to the extent of millions daily, especially on
the Stock Exchange ; and, besides, payments by small
cheques would be stopped.
Mr. BRIGHT said he understood his hon. and learned
friend only to throw out a suggestion with regard to this
s amp. What had been said by the member for Kendal
with regard to bankers paying large sums by cheques ap-
plied equally to receipeetateps. if his hon. and learned
friend proposed this as an additional tax he would perhaps
be taking on himself a duty which did not devolve on
him, and he (Mr. Bright) would oppose it ; but he under-
stood his hon. friend to connect this duty with a tax
which was now doomed by the house and the country, and
the question was, whether it should not be substituted for
ithe uewsp3p4r stamp. He believed the pa elie would gain
by the abolition of the newspaper stamp; and the only ques-
tion was, which of the two taxes would be the most pro-
fitable. He thought the question one well worth the con-
sideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
house, with a view to its adoption. He himself drew runny
I cheques in his business, and he personally would have lie
objection to the tax, and would be glad to see it substituted
fur the newspaper stamp.
Mr. V. SCULLY thought that no valid objection had
been made to the tax, anti he saw many advantages to he
derived from it, as the drawing of cheques would be in
itself a system of receipts and keeping accounts.
Mr. W. BROWN thought the tax would destroy the
labour-saving system of payment by cheques, which he
contrasted with the system pursued iu France, where it was
still necessary for persons who made large payments to take
their money about in bulk and carry it in wheelbarrows
Mr. MASTERMAN totally disapproved of the proposed
alteration, which would seriously interfere with the system
of payment by cheques.
Mr. GEACH did not quite agree with those who thought
this tax would bring back a system of payments in money,
but he thought that if a penny stamp on cheques had
existed long ago we should not have hat the present easy
mode or payments by cheques. He thought that the inn-
position of the stamp would produce more injury to
business than could be compensated for by the produce of
the tax.
Mr- BROTHERTON said that many of the arguments
used against this proposition were equally applicable to
stamps as bills of exchange. He did not think the tax
would press heavily. All the bankers in the house seemed
to be against it, but he had been that day in conversation
with a large Loudon banker who was in favour of it, and
he (Mr. Brotherton) agreed with Mr Bright that it would
be an excellent substitute for the newspaper stamp. He
thought the suggestion well worthy of the consideration of
the Chancellor of the Exohequer.
Mr. COBDEN said this was evidently one of those cases
in which a great deal might be said on bath sides, or else
g
the discussion would not haveone on so long, when it had
been somewhat irregularly int/ th laced, and merely as a sug-
gestion by a private member to the Government, and pro-
bably f the consideration of it was postponed a great 'meal
more might be said in its favour. He was never alarmed
when he heard gentlemen connected with mercantile and
banking interests Bey that a particular measure would cause
the inevitable destruction of those interests to which they
belonged, and therefore he felt no alarm at hearing Mr.
W. Brown say, that if this tax was laid on die pies, we
should go oack to the system now pursued in France,
where, owing to a wholesome dread of paper money and
assignats, many persons male their payments in five-
franc pieces, carried about in wheelbarrows. He saw no
difficulty in the working of this duty. The system was in
operation already, for bankers now issued two sets of
cheque-books—ono set stamped for the country, and
another unstampe,l for town, and they had only to keen all
their cheque books stamped. It was said this would be a
heavy tax, but what were. the ordinary cheques drawn by
stockbrokers ? Not often less than 201. [An hon. member
here said—" Every day of less amount."] Well, then,
the transactions in Cousols were much smaller than he
thought —say 101. thee. The penny stamp was only the
2,400 th part of the amount of the cheque, and he should
be glad if any one would calculate what the per centage of
that was. The right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Trollope)
made a difficulty about the Poor Law Board, but t ere
might easily be exemptions in cases of that sort. He
thought this tax of a Id. stamp would be a good substitute
for another of the same kind ; and he thought it would be
as well to make some inquiry as to the number of cheques
issued, and ascerlain whether the system would not work
as well as that of the Id. receipt stamp.
Mr. W. BROWN explained that he did not mean to
assert that the tax would have such an effect on payment
by cheques as to compel a recourse to the French system
of payments.
Mr. GOULBURN stated his opinion that the question
involved in this tax was not confined to drawers of large
cheques, but would tip Ate with severity on the class of
minor tradesmen who kept accounts with bankers, in order
to the greater security of their money, than it would have
by keeping it in their shops, and were accustomed to pay
their accounts by small cheques.
Mr. WILSON said he had listened with great attention
to all the arguments which had been urged for and against
the proposition, and he had to inform the house that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the greatest atten-
tion to the question during the last six months, for reasons
very different to any that had been just Bested, it would
be highly impolitic and injurious to impose this tax. He
did not mean to say that it would not inflict injury on
large traders, or that it would not alter the character
of large transactions in London, and especially on the
Stock Exchange. but real considerations that bed weighed
with the Government, as to the impolicy of proposing
such a tax were these. (Hear.) There was nothing in
which- there had been a greater development in the last 20
years than the banking system : and if reference was made
to 25 years ago it would be found that the state of things
was most inconvenient as compared with the system now
prevailing. What had happened in Scotia dbe ore joint-
stock bans were established in England ? In every vil-
lage i a Scotland there were branches of joint-stock banks,
and no one could understand what the secret was that en-
abled as many as three branches ef joint-stock banks to be
maintained in a village in Scotland containing, perhaps,
one thocisand inhabitants. It all arose from the economy
of capital, and the giving of interest on small sums from
day to day. The cousequence was that there were deposits
in the aeotch banks to the amount of 33 millions sterling,
bearing interest, whereas the currency was so economised
by using cheques and keeping banking accounts, that the
wholts of the notes in circulation was barely three millions.
They mist watched with the deepest interest the develop-
ment sec the same principle in England, and were anxious
to avoid anything that should act in the way of obstruction
Mr. P.l UNN consented to withdraw the motion, but

The proposition then passed. The other duties in the
Sable were agreed to without discussion.
The resolution as to foreign bills of exchange was then
prop .sed, viz :
Foreign bill of exchange, drawn in, but payable out of,
the United Kingdom,
If drawn singly, and not in sets of more than two, the
same duty as on au inland bill of the same amount and
tenour.
If drawn in sets of three or more,
For every bill of each set, wietro the sum £ £a. d.
payable thereby shall not exceed........ 25 0 0 1
Where it shall exceed 251. and not exceed 50 00 2
PP 50
PP 75 0 0 3
PP 75
PP 100 0 0 4
PP 100
PP 20) 0 0 8
PP 200
PP 300 0 1 4
PP 300
PP 400 0 1 4
PP 300
~ 500 0 1 8
~ 500
PP 750 0 2 6
~ 750
~ 1,000 03 4
PP 1 000
PP 1,500 0 5 0
PP 1,500
IP 2,000 0 6 8
2 000
PP 3,000 010 0
PP 3,0J0 4,000 013 4
~ 4.000 and upwards 0 15 0
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE inqnired how it was intended
to collect the revenue on foreign bills of exchange ?
Mr. WILSON said the difficulty of collecting a stamp
duty on foreign bills was, he believed, the only reason
why, up to this time, it had not been imposed. With re-
gard to bills drawn in this country, that difficulty did not
exist; but bills drawn in foreign countries, and requiring
to be accepted here, it would have been inconvenient if the
merchants receiving them had been ' compelled to take
them to the Stamp-office to be stamped. In France, Bel-
gium, Holland, and other foreign countries, every bill
drawn upon those countries must be taken to the Stamp-
office to be stamped with the government stamp, but it
had always been the policy of this country not to inflict
upon its merchants this inconvenience. The ingenious in-
vention of the adhesive stamp, however, removed the di-
fficulty, and the party receiving the bills, who would be
always the party liable, might, when they came to his
hands, affix the stamps, which would be prepared to corre-
spond with the rates mentioned in the schedule, and no
inconvenience would be inflicted.
Mr. T. HANKEY—When must the stamp be affixed—
when it is presented for acceptance or when it is paid ?
Mr. WILSON—It was originally proposed to adopt the
same course which is put sued in France, in Belgium, and
in Holland, and require the bill to be stamped previous to
acceptance, but in consequence of objections raised by my
hon. friend, the member for South Lancashire, and others,
that under particularcircumstances that would expose mer-
chants to some delay in presenting their bills for acceptance
we have so drawn the resolution that the stamp may be
affixed at any time before the bill is endorsed or
passed away from the person who first receives it. Thus a
person who receives a batch of bil s may present them for
acceptance unstamped, but before he pays them away or
passes them to his bankers the stamps must be affixed.
sibil
Mr. GLYN—Has the hon. gentleman considered the pos.
ity of allowing Colonial bankers who draw largely bills
(of exchange on this country, to compound for the stamp-
luty in the same way that the bankers in Ireland and
Scotland are allowed to
IhMr. WILSON-1 have coa°a
arhesitation in saying that 7e.
uleerttocues.onsiwe dersdthatsubject, for it has never been sub
have every disposition to carry out a gig

TILE SUN, LONDON, SATTIMAY TIVENING, MAY 1,r4:

did not think that 100,0001. lev'ed on the wealthy should
stand in the way of the removal of a tax which was an
impo4 on knowledge and enlightment.
Mr. T. FfANKEY believed teat if the tax were pro-
p ,sed it would be generally advantageous. He entirely
agreed with the hon. member for the West Riding, and
felt convinced that the proposed tax would be no impedi-
went in the way of banking.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the resolutions
were agreed to and reported to the house.
Mr. J PHILLIMORE moved the second reading of the
Chimney-sweepers Bill, sent down from the House of
Loris. He oontended that nothing but ignorance and
bigotry prevented the existing law being so successful in
the country as it had been in London, nd justified the
bill. which met the means whereby the law was evaded,
by citing various cases of extreme cruelty practised to-
war is children of tender a e.
The motion was seconded by Mr H. G. LIDDELL.
Mr. FITZROY opposed the bill, which, whilst it would
not afford a remedy for the evils suggested, introduced, he
said, a novel, arbitrary, and despotic system, and would
inflict the greatest injustice. He moved to defer the second
reading for six months.
The amendment was supported by Mr. Craufurd, and
the second reading by Mr. Kinnaird and Mr. Ewart, who,
however, objected to some of the details of the bill.
Mr. 'ALPO LE strongly objected to the bill. Although
he was anxious to put down the offences in question, he
was adverse to a mode of legislation which woul i not affect
the end in view, while it woulu interfere injuriously with
legitimate trade.
Sir T. ACLAND could not consent to throw out this
bill, however imperfect it might be
Mr. T. CHAMBERS obierveil that the wrong was fiat
denied, but with the best intentions the bill failed to re-
medy it.
Lord J. RUS TELL did not think it a reasonable mole
of legislation, that because the law was violated and cruelty
practised, therefore this bill should pass. If there was to
be a bill on the subject,lt Should Isireffectual in punishing
offenders, and should pat punish the innocent ; he did not
believe, however, that this bill would answer either condi-
tion, and he should vote against the second reading.
Sir B. Hall and Sir J. Shelley oppose I the bill, the
second reading of which was supported by Mr. Keating.
Upon a division, the amendment was carried by 112 to
39; so the bill was lost.

PUBLIC STATUES BILL.
On the motion for the second reading,
Mr. WALPOLE remarked that the bill did not apply to
the statues of several eminent members of th house. He
perhaps ought not to wonder at the Government taking no
interest in the statute Of .Lord George B-ntinck, but it was
remarkable that they sh Puld•have.omitted the statues of
Fox and Pitt. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE replied that these statues were respectively
the private property of he Duke of Portland, the Duke of
Bedford, and the E.A.rl of Harewood.
The bill was then -.-ead a second time.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Mr. AIULLINGS obtained leav e to bring in a bill to
amend an act of the 12th. and 13th years of her present
Majesty, for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to
animals.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES RILL.
Mr. 80141E11°N o,,veit to norninAte the select com-
mittee on the Friendly Societies Bil : Mr. &Aileron, Mr.
Adderley Mr. Bonham Carter, Mr. Fitzroy Mr. Atherton,
Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Foley, Mr. William Fitzgerald, Mr.
Edward Egerton, Viscount Go leri ,h, Mr. Hindley, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Gregson, Mr. Wickham, and Mr. Evelyn
Denison, wi h power to send for persons, papers, and re-
cords. and five to be the the quorum.
Agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE ..btained leave to bring in a bill
to alter and amend the mole of taking evidence in the
ecclesiastical courts of England and Ireland.

NEWSPAPERS.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved for a return of the titles,
names, and addresses of publishers, weight and date of
registration of every registered newspaper, whereof a por-
tion is stated on the newspaper itself to be published with-
out stamps.
Agreed to.

EW .
Mr. WILSON (forte AttorFOREST ney.General) obtained leave
to bring in a bill for the settlement of claims upon and
over the New Forest.
The house rose at ten minutes to twelve o'clock.