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

tem of composition for the stamp duties in the case of bills
drawn by colonial bankers, but the difficulty will be to find
some data whereby we may compute the amount of hills
drawn by them. If it can be made practicable, we shall be
glad to entertain the idea.
Mr. T. HANKEY considered the explanation given by
the hon. gentleman in answer to his question was satisfac-
tory, but the principle that it was not necessary to affix the
stamp was he thought objectionable—for it amounted 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 Ivan
Foreign bill of exchange, drawn nut 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 out 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
than to the bearer on demand, of any sum of money.
• s. d.
Not exceeding 25 ... 0 0 3
Exceeding £25 and not exceeding ... 0 0 6
50
75
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 money :
X - 2s. d.
Exceeding 100 and not exceeding.— 20(1 ... 02 0
200
30J PP
300 0 3 0
PP
PP
2O 400
PP 500 ... 0 5 C
500
PP 7:!0 ... 0 7 6
750 l,OOO ... 0 10 0
~ 1,000 PP
1,500 _. 0 15 0
1,500
PP 2,000 ... 1 0 0
22 2,000
3 0;)0 ... 1 10 0
„ 3 000 21
4,000 ... 2 0 0
PO 4,000 and upwards 2 5 0
Mr. VANCE 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 would 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 "endorsed" was necessary. Such
cases as that which the hon. member had put he believed
were extremely rare.
The resolution then passed.
The next resolution submitted was—" That it is expe-
dient to amend the laws relating to the stamp duties."
Mr. HADFIELD said that Aunt inconvenience had oc-
curred in consequence of certain defects defects in the act
of last session, especially in reference to the stamps on
conveyances,
Mr- WILSON intimated that he bad a resolution to
move presently to remedy the mistake which he was aware
existed in tie act of last session.
The resolution having passed,
Mr. PHINN, on the part of the hon. member for Pom-
fret (Mr. Oliveira), submitted a proposition for imposing
the penny
sterops 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 miles of the banking house where trey 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 not violated? (No, no.)
He spoke from his own experience—"(hear, and a laugh)—
when he said he knew that persons were frequently iii the
habit of violating the law in this respect. If a man was fif-
teen miles from London and drew a cheque upon a London
banker whica he transmitted 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 werein the habit of banking paid their trades-
men by crossni 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
25e,0001. 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 chelues would fall entirely on persons in
easy circumstances' and would be collected without cost.
He did not intend to preas the matter now, but he hoped
that an opportunity would be afforded for discussing it at
a future stage.
Mr. GLYN thought the hon. and learned gentleman was
under a misapprehension in supposing that since the act of
last year, by which a person drawing a cheque beyond the
fifteen mile limit might 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
considerable inconvenience. the extent of which might be
judged of from the fact that 200,000 cheques had on one
occasion lately been paid into one banking-house in a
single day.
Sir J. TROLLOPE 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 icy 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 be understood big hon. and learned
fdend only to throw out a suggestion with regard to this
scamp. What had 'been said by the member for Kendal
with regard to bankers paying large sums by cheques ap-
plied equally to receipt stamps. 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
the newspaper stamp. He believed the public would gain
by the abolition of the newspaper stamp; and the only ques-
tion was, which of the two taxes would he 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 many
cheques in his b,usiness, and he personally would have no
objection to the tax, arid would be glad to see it substituted
for the newspaper stamp.
Mr. V. SCULLY thought that no valid objection had
been made to the tax, ana he saw many advantages to be
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 in 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. MASTERMA.N 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 hail the present easy
would produce more injury to
pcheques- He thought that the im-
pensated•fOr try the produce of
tpmbhouoess
ttneiaeooxsnst. poafy
thanmt
could
one
ut
sshtiab
byi
stamp
c m
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 London 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 Exchequer.
Mr. COBDEN said this was evidently one of those cases
in which a great deal might be said on both sides, or else
the discussion would not have gone on so long, when it had
been somewhat irregularlyintroduced, anti merely as a sug-
gestion by a private member to the Government, and pro-
bably .f the consideration of it was postponed a great ,real
more might be said in its favour. He was never alarmed
when he heard gentlemen connected with mercantile and
banking interests s ky that aparticular measure woubl 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 cheques, we
should go back to the system now pursued in France,
where, owing to a wholesome dread of paper money and
assianats,
many persons made their payments in five-
franc pieces, carried about in wheelbaiTows. He saw no
difficulty in the working of this duty. The system was in
heoperationne-boo ks
already,
for bankersstatnped nfoorw itshseuetclotawstoryse, sets of
--°ne set
for town, and they had only to keep all
c
books stamped. It was said this would be a
tahneoitrh chequeer uns taillp
heavy tax, but what were the ordinary chequesdrawn by
stockbrokers? Not often less than 201. [An hon. member
here said—" Every day of less amount."] Well, then,
the transactions in Consols were much smaller than he
thought —say 10/. then. 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 there
might easily be exemptions in cases of that sort. He
thought this tax of a ld. 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
aisssuweell issued,
asa thatascertainndofthld. receipt stamp.
mean whether the aystem would not work
Mr. W. BROWN explained that he did not to
assert that the tax would have such an effect on payment
by cheques as to compel :a recourse to the French system
e

1 n-1

*, rZI

did not relate to the supplies to be raise for carrying on
the war.
Lord J. RUSSEL said it was necessary, for the despacth
of the public business, that the resolutions should now go
through their present stage. There were many stages after
the introduction of the bill on which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would be ready to receive any representation
that might be made. If the house postponed the first stage,
considerable 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 lien
of the stamp duties now payable on the bills of exchaage,
drafts or orders, and promissory notes, for the payment of
money hereinafter mentioned, or any of them, there shall
be granted and paid upon the several bills, drafts, or order
and promissory notes hereinafter respectively described,
the following stamp duties (that 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... i:,25 and not exceeding 50
PP 50 75
PP 75 PP 10)
Y 1 100
7, 20')
PP 200 PP 300
300
PP 400
PP 400
500
IP 500
IP 750
11 750
PP 1,000
PP 1,000 1,500
PP 1,500
2,000 1 0 0
~ 2,000
3,000
PP 3,000 PP 4,000
4,000 and upwards
The '6II:IIRMAN put the items separately, and toe first
nine were agreed to.
On the next item, '
1,0001. 10s."
Mr. VANCE said that by the present scale, bills of this
amount only require an Bs. 6d. stamp; and it was now
proposed to mile 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. 6.1. stamp, were raised to 15s. ;
and those from 1,5001. to 2,0001. were raised from 12s. 6d.
to 20i. He should move as an amendment that on bills
exceeding 75.11., and not exceeding 1,009/., the stamp duty
should be Bs. 6d., as at present, instead of 10s. 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 cornnasssion. 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 honourable gentleman's objection
went to the very principle which the Government wished
to assert—that of an ad ?Worm, stamp duty on bills of ex-
change. It was quite true, that at present for a bill of
7501. to 1,0001. the stamp duty was only Bs. 6 I. 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 sort dated bills, and 2s. 6d. for long
ones. For transactions under 501. the new stamp would be
6d. ; the present stamps were 2s. 6tl. 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 11.01. 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
ono to which they pleaded guilty ; it was their intention to
make large transactions pay rather more than they had
paid, and at the same time to relieve very small amounts
from the heavy tax which they had hitherto paic'.
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. WlLSONsaidthe object hail not been to increase the
revenue, but to equalise the rates s • and, as they were at
present advised, on the most careful calculations that could
be made 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.

"exceeding 750/, and not exceeding

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•it house. He
perhaps ought not to wonder at the Government taking no
interest in the statute of Lord George 13,mtinck, but it was
remarkable that they should have omitted the statues of
Fox and Pitt. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE replied that these statues were respectively
the private property of the Duke of Portland, the Duke of
Bedford, and the Earl of Harewood.
The bill was then -..ead a second time.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Mr. MULLINGS obtained leave 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.

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
in 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 ou large
amounts beyond what 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 camebefore the
committee.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the stamp duty on a bill for
201. was eighteen times as large in proportion as that on a
85Y. bill. This was a most grievous inequality, and he
was glad it was to be redressed.
Mr. W. BROWN referred to the reports of Messrs.
Whitworth and Wallis, the commissioners to the Unite
States, in proof of the rivalry which this country had to
maintain with America. As it was the last feather which
broke the camel's 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 EETHAM urged that the revenue to be derived
from foreign bills, would 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. THORNELY 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 drawnabroad. Was the acceptor to stamp it ?
Or was he to refuse payment of it ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON recalled theattention of the committee to
the question before it, the duty on bills between 7501. and
1,000/. He admitted 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 part 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 lose money. He sub-
mitted that these questions might be ali fully discussed on
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. GEAC El 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,orent one throughout,
at least to an amount beyond which the bills were 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 ou foreign
bills would often cause 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 divi-
sion.

The proposition then passed. The other duties in the
table were agreed to without discussion.
The resolution as to foreign bills of exchange was then
proposed, 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 an inland bill of the same amount and
tenour.

If drawn in sets of three or more,
For every bill of each set, where the sum £ £B. d.
payable thereby shall not exceed 25 .0, 0. 1
Where it shall exceed 251. and not exceed 50 0 0 2
PP 50 ' „ 75 0 0 3
1, 75 „ ]OO 00 4
100
~ 200 0 0 8
~ 200
~, 300 0 1 4
II 300 PP 400 0 1 4
JP 300 ~ 500 0 1 8
7, 500 PP 750 0 2 6
PP 750 PP 1,000 0 3 4
If
1 000 ~ ' 1,500 0 5 0
Il 1,500 ~ - 2,000 06 8
PS 2.000 . ~, .. .3,000 010 0
PP 3,000 , , 4,000 013 4
t, 4,000 and upwards ............... 015 0
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE inquired 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, tip 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
bands, 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—Wheu 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 pursued 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 part i c nlar ci rcum stances 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 bills may present them' for
acceptance unatamped, but before he pays them away or
Passes them tici:mhias bawanykers the stamps mast be affixed.
Air. GLYN—Has the hon. gentleman considered the pos-
sibility of allowing colonial bankers who draw largely bills.
exchange on this country, to compound-forth*, stalk).
that the "bankore In Ireland and
Scotland are allowed to colnpound ?
Mr. WILSON—I have no hesitation in sayiniv that we
,have
_sot considered that subject, forit has never been sub.
witted to Iv. We have every dispoliitioti to carry out a eye.

payments.
Mr. 001:ILBURN stated his opinion that the question
.nvolved in this tax was not confined to drawers of large
cheques, but would operate 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 stated, it would
London,
that had weighed
and especially on the
be highly impolitic and injurious to impose this tax. He
mhePr°eliewYas of proposing
nothing in
w
did not mean to say that it would not inflict injury on
large traders, or that it would not alter the character
(Hear.) There
in the last 20
ofst 0
cl akrgEexethraannsgea
Exchange,
transactions
rcsi na 1
considerationsLo
dn
swuhictihchhaththteaexrGe had
owveerernbmeeets g
, a
greater to the
development
i
these.
at
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 id be'ore joint-
stock banks were established in England? In every vil-
lage in Scotland there were branches or joint-stock banks,
and no one could understand what the secret was that en-
abled as many as three branches of joint-stock banks to be
maintained in a village in Scotland containing, perhaps,
one thousand inhabitants. It all arose from the economy
of capital, anti the giving of interest on small sums from
liar to day. 212a.consequence-was that there were deposits
in the. scotch banks to the amount of 33 millions sterling,
bearing inter .est, whereas the currency was so economised
by-using Cho ques and keeping banking accounts. that the
whole of the notes in eiredigtion' was barely three millions.
They ha I wa.tehecl with the deepest interest the develop-
inert of the same principlQ in England, and were anxious
to avoid anr%hing that should act in the way of obstruction
X.T. PIUS. N oeutented to withdraw the zuotioza, but 1

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 20, 1854,

did not think that 100,0001. levied on the wealthy should
stand in the way of the removal of a tax which was an
impost on knowledze and enlightment.
'Mr. T. HANKEY believed tint if the tax Were pro-
p ,sed it would he generally advantageous. He entirely
agreed with the hon. member for the West Riling, and
felt convinced that the proposed tax would be no impedi-
ment 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 contended that nothing but ignorance and
bigotry prevented the existing law being so successful in
the country as it had been in L.milon, ml justilied the
bil! . which met the means whereby the law was evadod,
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. WALPOLE 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. ACL AND could not consent to throw out this
bill, however imperfect it ►night be
Mr. T. CHAMBERS observed that the wrong was not
denied, but with the best intentions the bill failed to re-
medy it. •
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think it a reasonable mode
of legislatiou, that because the law was violated and cruelty
practised, therefore this bill should pass. If there was to
be a bill on the subject, it should be effectual in punishing
offenders, and should net 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 opposed the bill, the
second reading of which was supported by Mr. Keating.
Upon a division, the amendment was carried by 112 to
39 ; stabs bill was lost.
PUBLIC STATUES BILL.
•