The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-13 00:00:00

STAMP DUTIES

On the question of going into committee on the Stamp
Duties Bill,
Mr. HIMIE deprecated the bill as regarded certain
enactments respecting bills of internal revenue and fo-
reign bills of exchange. He considered if this bill passed,
and they laid a tax on foreign bills of exchange, it would
do a vast mischief to the commerce of this country, which
was the depot for the money trade as well as the produce
of the world. He should therefore move, when the house
went into committee, to strike out the clause which would
impose any tax whatever on foreign bills of exchange.
Mr. J. M'GREGOR objected to the differences made
in the schedules of this bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said as
this was a bill for amending the stamp duties, he thought
it would be for the convenience of all parties if the house
first went into committee, and then discuss the clauses of
the bill. (Hear.)
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into committee on the bill.
On clause 3,

Mr. HUMS said this was the clause he objected to, and
on which he intended to take the sense of the committee.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it would
be much better to wait till they came to the schedules.
Mr. GLYN said, though he might perhaps be inclined
to say that all taxes wore injurious to commerce, yet at
the present time he thought it would not be expedient to
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dispense with the
revenue which would be derived from the tax on foreign
bills of Exchange. If this tax were to operate on the foreign
relations in commerce of this country, he should be very
careful to sanction it. But where could be the risk to our
commerce of charging ls. per cent. which this bill would
impose on foreign bills of exchange ? (Hear.) He should
support the clause as it now stood.
Mr. MASTERMAN expressed his dissent from the prin-
ciples of this clause.
Mr. W. BROWN disapproved of the stamp on foreign
bills. The amount of taxation proposed to be imposed by
this measure was larger iu fact than it appeared at first
sight. Every transaction would necessitate at least three
bills, and consequently three stamps. Thus instead of a
tax of ls. per cent., one of 3s. per cent. would virtually be
imposed.
Mr. WILSON said that this was far from being a new
tax, or a very great addition to existing taxation. At
present all bills drawn in the United Kingdom upon firms
out of the United Kingdom—representing of course no
small part of our export trade—were subject to rates of
duty much higher than those in the present measure.
Thus, a bill above 3001. and under 500/. was chargeable
with a stamp duty of 45., whereas by the present bill the
duty varied from ls. to ls. Bd. ; in fact, it was not until
the high amount of 3,0001. was reached that the duty
proposed in this measure equalled what was imposed
under the existing law. It was, therefore, no new element
in taxation to stamp foreign bills of exchange, and in
making a great reduction in the stamp upon the whole
mass of bills circulating in this country, it seemed only a
reasonable thing to ask that all transactions, as far as pos-
sible, should contribute to our taxation. In former times
there might be some reason for exempting bills drawn out
of England from duty, on account of the difficulty of hav-
ing tho bills stamped. Now, however, the introduction
of adhesive stamps had put an end to difficulty in that
case. In fact there was no reason whatever for exempt-
ing foreign bills, if a stamp duty on instruments of that
class were to be imposed. He asked the committee to
recollect to what precision and facility of accounts the in-
troduction of bills had led. A periodical settlement was
arrived at, and a bill drawn for the balance. This bill
could ho discounted, and thus a man was enabled to use his
capital more constantly, and so carry on business at a less
profit than could formerly be done. Why should not this
bo extended to the small tradesman as well as a large capi-
talist? At present the stamp duty utterly prevented it,
but the more moderate scale fixed by the present measure
would put the matter on a proper basis. Again, it had
been held out that this measure would destroy London as
a money market. The committee must be aware that
stamp duties of this nature existed at Paris and at Amster-
dam, and yet those cities were second only to London as
money markets. But he believed that those who enter-
tained any fear upon the subject wore a comparative few,
for memorials in its favour had been received from the
leading men of London, Manchester, and Glasgow.
Mr. J. B. SMITH, though he thought some parts of the
measure under consideration deserved commendation, dis-
approved of taxing foreign bills.
Mr. M`GREGOR thought that if a commodity were
taxed at all, it ought to be taxed irrespective of its origin,
and that a bill of exchange, if subject to any stamp duty,
ought to bear that duty, wherever it might happen to be
drawn.

Mr. T. BARING thought that every member of the
committee would agree that if there was no evil to com-
plain of and no remedy to be administered, it was unwise
to disturb existing fiscal arrangements. The evil com-
plained of was, that bills of exchange purporting to be
foreign bills were really drawn in England, and thus were
valueless in the hands of innocent holders. Now, this
evil might be met by allowing such bills to be stamped as
inland bills, if it were made out satisfactorily that the
holders were innocent. But the measure under considera-
tion would not meet the evil. Those who would issue in-
land bills as foreign ones would not be prevented by the
present measures. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) had
stated that duties like those under consideration were
levied in France • but it was quite otherwise in Prussia
and Austria. He thought that now we had removed all
restrictions from commerce it was strange to propose a
new restriction on commercial pursuits.
Mr. WILLIAMS would have no objection to see all
stamps on bills of exchange abolished. But as he under-
stood the matter it stood thus :—ln order to reduce the
rate of bills of exchange generally it was necessary to put
a duty upon foreign bills. This being so he had no objec-
tion to the measure. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
it desirable to remind the committee of the meanin of the
vote which they now called upon to give, for he though t that
the
observations of hon. members tended to complicate the
matter. This was not a new tax, it was the equalisation
of an existing duty, and the removal of an exemption
which ought not to exist. He went on this principle iu the
first place, that all trade, whether between one country and
another, or between thecountry and the towns, was but
thetebirat.slsnso very d
seeoend place he went upon this other principle,
oils desirable—not for fiscal objects only—that
the
through
the
means
off
bileror exchange should be worked
ra
to do this, it was desirables that
texchange. e
uNoohwi
g,
brate in ordere
f
duty bon
Baring),
said
tntl be reduced. The hon.
t
principle of removing all restrictions we had gone upon the
had
our commerce ;
ho (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
of xe
er)d
upon that footing th ".
not been aware
member—
uponpro-
trade,
put home and foreign commerce upon a firm footing. In
late times the House of Commons had r,
mt
hoevye dw
e 6 rhe now
a°.
kles
upon the foreign trade of this country,
about to remove impediments to the home trade. The
fact was that the present 4 duty
even 6r cent.yuoninl;endbil (gear,
bills of
eexr-,
change amounted to 2, , p 5,1 e
Williams)hear.) The hon. member (Mr. had said that it
might be better to remove the fetters upon the home trade
duty
perfectly simple. It could not be done,
that was
without imposing any upon foreign bills, but the an-
swer to
because
the revenue of the country. If the circum-
stances, diminish
Government
ossible for him to persevere
of exchange it would be imp
mittee chose to negative this clause relating to foreign bills