The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-07 00:00:00

The committee divided on the retention of the clause as
amended

Ayes
Noes
38-34
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then said
that he would on a future day move to recommit the bill in
order to add the proviso of which he had given notice.
The report was then received.
SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTS IN SPAIN.
On tho question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Sir R. PEEL asked what steps had been taken with
regard to the religious persecutions which 700
British subjects, merchants and others, in the south of
Spain, were undergoing by being prevented holding divine
service in their houses.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had taken steps in the
matter. The fact was, Mr. Gordon, the vice-consul at
Xeres, had behaved in an unjustifiable manner in forbid-
ding a Protestant service anywhere except in his own house,
and that, being a Roman Catholic, he would not allow.
Our minister in Spain suggested Mr. Gordon's resignation,
but that not having been sent in, he (Lord J. Russell) had
taken measures to have another person appointed. It was
the opinion of Sir A. Buchanan that the Spanish govern-
ment had no desire to press the law of the country against
Protestant observances.

ADMIRALTY ANCHORS.
Mr. LINDSAY said he referred the other night to the
cost of Admiralty anchors, and distinctly showed that we
were paying close on three times the market price for them.
He had since received a letter from a firm, who stated that
they had recently made anchors for the Spanish Govern-
ment at £2O per ton below what the Admiralty were paying,
and these anchors were to be made exactiy the same, and
were to be proved by the same test as the Admiralty an-
chors. A few years ago, his informants added, the contrac-
tors for chain cables failed, and since then the whole of
these had been made by the house which manufactured the
anchors. He was not before aware of this fact, and the
letter itself was one of the advantages which resulted from
these discussions. (Hear.) He wished to know how it was
that the same firm had the monopoly both of the anchors
and of the chain cables, and what price was paid for these
cables.

Lord C. PAGET said he had distinctly told his hon.
friend that the same firm supplied both the anchors and the
cables, and he would now state that if any firm would make
a proper offer to the Admiralty they would be prepared to
consider it, both as regarded anchors and cables. The prices
charged by the present contractors were occasionally re-
vised, according to the market prices of the day, and there-
fore it was not fair to say that the Admiralty were paying
at an excessive rate for their anchors and cables.
IRON SHIPS.
Sir J. ELPHINGSTONE said the proposal to use in the
construction of iron-clad ships timbers cut out for other
vessels was, in his opinion, an improvident one. The
proper form of iron-clad ships was yet undecided, and
he therefore proposed to move a resolution that no con-
struction of iron-clad ships be entered on by converting the
timber prepared for ships of the ordinary description or
otherwise until the form best calculated to obtain the quali-
ties necessary for iron men-of-war he decided by a commit-
tee of men of science and practical knowledge. It would
be the height of folly for the purpose of keeping the ex-
penses of this iron fleet out of the current expenses of the
year to run the risk of having to reconstruct our navy.
BENTINC h doubted very much whether the object
of using this timber in this way was not to keep the expenses
of the iron fleet out of the present estimates, so as to bolster
up the unfortunate Budget. He should be glad to have an
assurance from the Government that the real intention was
not to make the figures meet, and to throw dust in the eyes
of the house as to the likelihood of an augmentation of the
Navy Estimates being needed. (Hear.)
Sir F. SMITH asked whether some of the two and three
deckers now lying in our ports could not be cut down for the
purpose of being converted into iron-clad vessels. He agreed
with his hon. and gallant friend that it was important to
determine as soon as possible whether we had adopted the
best form in the Warrior. Some officers of great experience
were of opinion that we had not.
Lord C. PAGET explained the manner in which the
timber would be used, so as to give displacement enough to
carry the necessary weight. It would not do to cut down
our line-of-battle ships, as they had not sufficient displace-
ment to carry the weight,of armour and the necessary num-
ber of guns.
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house wen
into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY.
Upon the vote of £469,835 for new works and improve-
ments in the harbours and dockyards,
Sir F. SMITH called for some explanation of various
items in the vote, particularly the items of £5,229 for the
new plank stores at Deptford, £160,000 for, convict labour
at Chatham, and £lO,OOO for the north inlet dock at Ports-
mouth. He also wished to know what had become of all
the money voted last year, which had not been expended.
He begged to move that the vote be reduced by the sum of
£3,225, proposed for additional accommodation for spinning
machinery at Chatham.
Mr. WHITBREAD could assure the hon. and gallant gen-
tleman that most of the money given on vote 11 had been I
spent.

Sir M. SEYMOUR asked for some explanation as to how
far the arrangements had been improved for officers and
men in the naval barracks at Devonport ?
Lord C. PAGET said the barrack accommodation at
Davenport would enable the Government to lodge 2,000
men, and convenience for married sailors would be made
very much upon the principle of military barracks; but he
was not prepared to say that the buildings would be fitted
up with all the improvements and conveniences of soldiers'
barracks.

The reduction was then agreed to, and the Chairman put
the reduced vote of £466,610 for new works, improvements,
and repairs.

Mr. WILLIAAIS called attention to the expenditure
upon Keyharn Dockyard. Upwards of £lOO,OOO more than
the original estimate had already been spent, and another
£lOO,OOO would be required before the work was completed.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE thought the Government had
acted NI isely in salting their own provisions, and he was
sure that if carried out, under proper supervision, a very
superior article indeed might be supplied to seamen.
Mr. LINDSAY thought i t would be as well to postpone
the 7X15,000 for Chatham till after a committee inquired
whether the larger sum of £980,000 should be expended on
the dockyard of that place. He should therefore move
that the vote be reduced by £15,000.
Lord C. PAGET said that toere was a great necessity for
increased basin accommodation. They had only 37 acres,
whilst the French had 115. Chatham would give 55 more.
As to the selection of Chatham he thought it the best, and
the safest,'and the most convenient. The works would also
keep the river clear of mud.
Mr. CONINGRAM thQugh that Chatham was the mat

attaching a penalty to that which the law allowed. As the
' law stood, an agreement need not be stamped until after it
was executed. A letter offering to take apartments con-
stituted, with an answer accepting the offer, an agreement
to take them. If this clause passed, the person writing the
first letter would be liable to a penalty; whereas the pre c-
tice at present was to g t one of 'he letters et onped after-
wards, as evidence of the whole transaction. The law
relating to agreements must be entirely altered if such penal-
ties as these were to be imposed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
argument of the hon. and learned gentleman was an argu-
ment not merely against this clause but against the principle
of requiring written agreements is be stamped. There were
abundant precedents for levying penalties for the non-
stamping of agreements at the time of execution. Policies
of assurance, bills of exchange, promissory notes, and bills
of lading all subjected parties to a positive penalty if the
stamp were not affixed at the time. He agreed with the
hon. and learned gentleman that correspondence consti-
tuting an agreement ought to be exempted ; but he was
advised that this clause would not apply to such cases, but
would apply exclusively to cases in which formal agree-
ments were drawn with the intention of their being signed
in common by the parties. If there were any doubt as
regarded the exemption of letters, he should be happy to i
introduce words making the exemption clear. The ques-
tion really was whether they were to lay any penalty at
all upon neglecting to use a proper stamp upon agree-
ments for letting furnished houses for a term of less than
a year. At present a very heavy duty was exigible on such
agreements, but it was never paid. What, therefore, he
proposed to do was to diminish the duty to a reason-
able amount, and to make provisions against its evasion.
These agreements were fugitive documents, they were in-
struments that never came under the cognisance of any
third person, except in the rare case of a dispute, and under
such circumstances the only reasonable course to pursue, in
order to protect the revenue, would be to lay a penalty on
every attempt to escape the payment of it.
Mr. HADFIELD still maintained that the clause would
affect every person who corresponded with another cn the
subject of letting a house, if the negotiation terminated in
the acceptance of an offer. He would suggest that the right
hon. gentleman should withdraw the clause and bring up a
properly drawn one.
Mr. HENLEY thought the clause was the commence-
ment of a new system. At present no person could produce
in court an unstamped memorandum unless he chose to pay
the penalty of X 10; but it was optional to him to have it
stamped or not. The object of the clause seemed, however,
to be to make the drawing up of such a memorandum the
subject of a penalty.
Mr. CRAUFURD said that the clause would not pro-
tect the revenue, because the agreements in question did
not require to be reduced to writing at all.
Mr. PULLER said that if correspondence were exempted
the clause would be useless, because all agreements would
be thrown into that form. The one party would write mak-
ing an offer ; the other reply accepting it, and the two let-
ters together would make a contract.
Mr. GLADSTONE read a form of proviso which he was
prepared to move, in order to meet the objections of hon.
gentlemen. He relied on the moderate amount of the duty
as,the best reason why persons should not attempt to evade
it, but if the clause was not agreed to he must fall back on
the present high duty, and take his chance of getting it
when he could.
Mr. AYRTON said the proposed proviso would not meet
the case.