The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-16 00:00:00

THE SUN,

was not tenable; but that and all other objections would
be bc•t?r considered as they arose on the different

clauses.—(Haar.)
Mr. MO WATT said, when he considered that the
eff.ct of the 13111 would be to facilita+e the transfer ( f
small portions of laud—that it would relict e the pressure
of stamps upon mortgages, conveyances, &e., having re-
lation to small properties, while it would extend the
equitable principle of ad valorem taxation to large pro-
perties—he was at a loss to discover on what ground the
measure could be objected to.
Mr. MITCHELL said his remark was intended to
show that whilst the duty on mortgages ought to be as
low as possible, the amount would now be 51(1. for what
was formerly charged 251.
Mr. HEALD said, that after giving a portion of re-
lict out of the surplus revenue, the Bill would increase
the taxation on interests of more than 1,000/.—(ll(ar,
hear.) He wished to know how much the Chancellor
of the Exchequer calculated the Treasury would lose by
granting relief in cases up to 1,000/ ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
upon all conveyances up to 1,3001. there would be a po-
sitive relief. Upon all conveyances from 1,3001. to
100,0001. it was the same, or nearly the same thing; for
whilst at preent the amount jumped from thousand to
thousand, it was proposed to make it jump from hun-
dred to hundred, and the consequence would be that the
stamp on every sum between 1001. and 500/. would be
diminished, whilst above that sum it would be increased.
lie calculated the loss to the revenue upon the whole of
the conveyances, upon some of the mortgages, and on
leases, would be somewhere under .300,000/. By the
alteration which he proposed tonight, iu reducing the
stamp duty on mortgages and bonds from one-halt per
cent. to one-quarter per cant., he expected to incur an-
other loss ; but, believing that by so doing he could in-
crease the number of transactions on which the stamp
duty was laid, he calculated the loss upon the whole of
the two schedules to be from 330,0001. to 350,0001.
Mr. LAW said the object of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man was stated to be a reduction of the duty on amounts
under 1,000/., and his calculations were based on that sum,
and he (Mr. Law) believed there existed a general desire
to relieve those parties who were liable to the payments
to that extent. But there existed on that (the Opposi-
tion) side of the House such an " ignorant impatience
of taxation," that they were not prepared to receive any
additional burden.—(Hear, hear.) Mortgages were very

able to bear a stamp.
Mr. SPOONER remarked that the Right Hon. Gen-

tleman had not answered the question of the Right Hon.
Member for Stockport, who wished to know what would
be the loss upon the reduction if there should be no ad-
dition.
Lord D. STUART believed the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would show a great increase from the pro-
posed alteration. But at all events it would be a great
relief to the poor,'and a step towards a fair apportion-
ment of taxation between tie poor and the rich. In
many cases the poor man paid 40 times as much as the
rich, but by the Bill he would only pay about twice as
much. He was surprised that the Hon. Member for
Manchester should wish to delay the measure, which
was calculated to facilitate the transfer of those freehold
properties which the Hon. Member was so desirous of
placing in the hands of the middling and lower classes.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON trusted the Committee
would proceed with the Bill, which would confer a great
benefit on persons making transfers not exceeding 1,3001.
—(Hear.) But whether it might be wise to give the ad
dition asked for was another question.—(Hear, hear.)
He hailed the Bill with satisfaction, considering it a step
in the right direction; but, in recommending the Com-
mittee to proceed with it, he was not at all prepared to
adopt the ascending scale.—(Hear.)
Mr. MULLINGS said the Bill was in a most imper-
fect state, and required much more consideration, inas-
much as it proposed to tax property which had hitherto
not been liable to stamp duty, such as annuities, rents,
-Government debentures, &c., from which a considerable
revenue would he derived.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said
if the Hon. Member would submit his suggestions on the
subject to the Government they should receive careful
attention.
Mr. SANDARS thought they ought to be informed
what would be the actual loss on the remission of taxa-
tion, without reference to the expected increase. He
also pointed out the heavy tax inflicted on parties who
had to register memorials in the register counties of
York and Middlesex.
Mr. HUDSON advocated the postponement of the dis-
cussion for a week. He had been in communication
with gentlemen connected with the legal profession, who
had pointed out many objections to the measure; and he
thought, therefore, that some further time ought to be
afforded for its consideration.—(Divide, divide.)
After some further conversation, the first clause was
agreed to.

"On clause 2,
Mr. SADLEIR wished to know how the case would
stand with instruments executed prior to the passing of
this measure. lie knew that one of the most eminent
conveyancers, who had carefully examined this clause,
thought that the greatest difficulty would be found in
affixing the proper duty, and to know whether they
would come under the old or new law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, if the Honour-
able Member would refer to the end of the first clause,
he would find the difficulty removed; for it was there
provided that the old duties contained in schedule A
should be repealed, except as to so much and in such
parts of the said duties respectively as should have ac-
crued in respect of any deed or instrument signed or exe-
cuted, or which should bear date before or upon the sth
July, 1850. So that all duties and all penalties on deeds
executed before that day would come under the old Act,
and those executed subsequently under the new.
Mr. R. PALMER asked if the exemption in favour of
building societit-s was to be continued?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was understood to
say that no alteration would be made as regarded the
exemptions.
The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 3 and
4, after a short conversation. _

Oa:clause 5, which makes all persona receiving moneys
for stamp duties, and misappropriating the same, debtors

to the Crown,
Mr. HENLEY wished to know what would be done
with the deed in such cases? Was the party who had
been defrauded of the stamp duty to be deprived of the
use of his deed?
Mr. WALPOLE asked how a good title could ever be
made to the estate of a solicitor under such a law, for
how could it be known to what extent he might be a
debtor to the Crown?
Mr. LAW asked if a party who had paid the amount
of duty so misapplied would he allowed to have the
benefit of his deed on proving that he had paid the
money?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was un-
derstood to say that the stamp would be made good in
such cases.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 6, which raises the penalty on deeds stamped
after execution from 51. to 101., and makes other altera-
tions in the mode of imposing it,
Mr. SADLEIR protested against the innovation con-
tained in this clause. At present parties were enabled
to get a deed stamped within sixty days after execution
in Ireland, and six weeks in England, without any ex-
planation or affidavit. Had this practice worked ill?
Had it led to any fraud, or had there been any complaint
from the solicitor of stamps, or any protest against it?
None whatever, while many very important classes of
the community would be found strongly in favour of
maintaining the present system. It was most unwise to
multiply occasions for administering oaths, and he knew
many who entertained strong objections to making the
long affidavits which were often required for the pur-
pose of stamping deeds after the prescribel period
had elapsed. He objected, moreover, to giving the
Commissioners the discretion of requiring oaths at their

pleasure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that under the
present system an affidavit was required after the ex-
piration of six weeks. That alteration was found neces-
sary in consequence of the frequent occurrence of cases
in which the duty was not paid at all until it became ne-
cessary to sell the estate, and then after a lapse of years
the stamp was impressed on payment of the penalty of
5L He knew an instance of this kind where a man held
an estate for five-and-twenty years without paying any
stamp duty at all. At the end of :that time the estate
was sold, and it was found that a stamp of 1,0001. was
payable, and this was obtained on payment of a penalty
of 5/., the vendor having enjoyed the interest for 25
years. He knew another case of the same kind, in
which a deed had remained unstareped since 1834.
After some further discussion the clause was agreed

to.
Clause 7 was agreed to after certain words bad been
omitted, on the motion of Alderman THOMPSON.

On clause 8,
Mr GOULBURN thought this clause would impose
an additional charge on the public, by allowing station-
ers to charge as they pleased for stamped paper.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that at present a
vendor of stamps charged what price he pleased for all
stamped paper, except receipt stamps. It was proposed
by this clause to put receipt stamps on the same footing
in that respect as other stamps.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that there was no
profit on receipt stamps to the seller.
After a few words from Mr. CARDWELL and Mr.
FORSTER in opposition to the clause,
Mr. HUME thought that Government ought to fix the
sum which sellers of stamps should charge. If the clause
was not altered, he should move it be struck out.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
would not insist on the clause.
Clause struck out.
On clause 9.
Mr. SAI)LEIR understood the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to state that it was not intended to impose any
duty on deeds at present exempted. He wished the right
Hon. Gentleman, if that was his intention, to state so
decidedly.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
state his intentions when they came to the schedule.
The clause and the remaining clauses wei e then
agreed to.
On schedule A (the repealing schedule) being pro-
posed,
Mr. MULLINGS wished to introduce certain words
into the schedule fur the purpose of reducing the duty on
agreements up to a certain amount.
Mr. HUME wished to know what corresponding duties
the Hon . Member proposed to enact ?
Mr. MULLINGS said he had a clause which he
would propose to introduce into schedule B, respecting
corresponding duties. At present he proposed to insert
in schedule A words to the effect that in agreements con-
taining less than 1,080 word., there should be a duty of
2s. 6d. ; and for every other 1,080 words, a further duty
of 2s. 6d.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, as the law
at present stood, agreements containing under 1,080
words were charged with a duty of 2s. 6d., and 355. for
every further 1,080 words. As he understood the pro-
posed alteration, the effect of it would be to keep the

first charge of 2s. 6!. as at present, but to make the
second charge 2e. 6'.3. instead of 355. TLat would cause
a considerable loss to the revenue.
After a short conversatior,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. Gentleman had not given notice of his proposed
amendments, as he hai of his clauses; and as his propo-
sition would involve a loss to the revenue, he • thought
there ought to be some time allowed to consider it.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether the Hon. Member
intended pressing his amendment?

Mr. MIJLLINGS—I do.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had not had an opportunity of considering the proposal,

and only wanted time fir that purpose.
Mr. HUME suggested to the 'lon. Member not to
press his motion to a divioion under the circumstances.
Mr. ROEBUCK also said it was only fair to give time
for the consideration of the proposition.
Mr. HMllE—Give notice.
The amendment was then understood to have been
withdrawn, and schedule A agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
moved that schedule B should be agreed to. In doing
so he said he proposed to make a reduction of from one-
half to s quarter per cent. He proposed to reduce the
duty upon bonds for any sum not exceeding 50/. to from
ss. to 24. &l , and not exceeding 1001. from 103. to ss.
Mr. GOULBUItN said he did not approve of the
principle of an ad va!orevs duty being applied•in matters
of revenue. If they were prepared to go on with that
principle they would make the lower part of their scale
so low that it would entail considerable loss upon the
revenue, while they would be obliged to make the higher

part too high.
Mr. ROE SUCK wished to know whether it was to be
supposed just that the poor man, who only wanted to
borrow 101., should pay as much in proportion as the
rich one who wanted to borrow 10,000/.? The small
sum to the indigent person was of greater consequence
than the larger sum to the opulent man.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said he had at an eirlier part of
the evening stated his opinion with respect to the bene-
fits derived by the community at large and the com-
mercial affairs of the country from affording facilities for
the execution of securities for advances of large sums of
money. By imposing heavy burdens upon such trans-
actions they imposed restrictions upon the employment
of capital, which would act in a very injurious manner.
If they were going to fix an ad va/orensjcluty it should
be done so as to press lightly upon the lower party.
Mr. ROEBUCK said if the Right Hon. Gentleman
wished to make his rule from the bottom of the scale to
the higher part of it he would agree with him; other-
wise he would oppose him. .
Mr. DISRAELI said if they adopted the ad valorem
duty, he agreed with the principle that the first step
ought to be moderate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said at
present there was a duty on bonds exceeding 50/. of 55.,
that he proposed reducing to 2s. 6d.; and he proposed
making a proportionate reduction on the present scale of
duties like that which he had stated. He proposed that
the duty on no bond should exceed 251., no matter what
the sum. By the present law, if a trader or shopkeeper
wanted to borrow 500/., he had to pay a stamp duty of
121., while the party who wanted to borrow 500,0001.
only paid 251. That was an injustice and an anomaly
which he wished to remedy.
After a short conversation, in which several Hon.
Members took part,
An Hors. MEMBER (whether Mr. Mullings or Sir H.
Willoughby we could not ascertain) was understood to
move as an amendment that the sum of Is. be substituted
for 2s. 6d. in the proposition of the Chitncellor of the
Exchequer.
Mr. DISRAELI said what they were then endeavour-
ing to do was to construct a new system, and while doing
so they should try to construct it upon a just principle.
—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer alluded to what was anomalous and
monstrous in the old system, as if they were responsible
for it more than himself,' and as if that reference was au
argument for the course he had pursued on the present
occasion. The Right Hon. Gentleman argued as if there
were two questions before the House—namely, the con•
sideration of the interests of the rich and poor. As far
as he understood the matter, he conceived they were en-
gaged in an endeavour to be equally jest to the poor as
well as the rich, and it was said the ad valorem system
ought to be carried into effect with respect to both. It
was necessary that in any initial step which they made
in that matter they should take up that position, that
while they relieved the poor as much as possible they
would impose no improper or impolitic burdens on the
more wealthy portions of the community. He should
support the motion of his Hon. Friend if he proceeded to
a division, as he hoped he would.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was another element in the
whole of that discussion which had been left out by the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. They had a reve-
nue to raise. The Bill itself was a most mischievous
Bill—one of the worst that could be introduced. It was
one only for raising money, and as such he accepted it
under an impression of its direful necessity. But he
would put the question, what was to be received
by that Bill. If the House took his advice, they would
throw it out of doors altogether. It was a most mis-
chievous Bill, because of its interference with the ad-
ministration of justice, and could only be tolerated on
the score of the revenue which they were told was to be
raised by it. He would like the Chancellor of the Ex •
chequer to tell them what would be the amount of reve-
nue raised if they began with ls. instead of 2s. 6d.
Mr. BANKES said, that question had not arisen from
a necessity, but a surplus in the revenue.—(Hear, hear.)
It was that extraordinary incident of a surplus which
Lad given rise to the present discussion.—(llear.) He
confessed that his impression of that portion of the.sub-
ject, when listening to the debate on the budge•, was very
different from what it was at present. He had then
heard nothing of an ad valorem duty.—(Hear.) He had
heard nothing but of some small relief applicable to the
land. But if he was in error it might be so. However,
they had now come, it seemed, t ) an ad valorem duty;
and if it was to bo an admitted principle, let them prove
how they were to act upon it.— (Hear.)
Mr. HUME said he believed it would be better to
begin at is. than at 2s. 6d. He had been informed that
if a considerable reduction was made in the amount of
those duties the humbler classes would very much in-
crease the number of their deposits in large offices; so
that the Exchequer would perhaps suffer no loss from the
teration.
Mr. HENLEY raid it should be remembered that
they were dealing with a surplus, and not with a defi-
ciency; and as, according to the calculation of the Right
Hon Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
reduction from 2s. 6d. to ls. would only entail a further
loss of 48,0001., they should not be deterred from ef-
fecting that reduction by the apprehended loss to the
revenue.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was true they were dealing with a surplus, but if they
were to calculate too much on that surplus they would
soon lose it altogether. He proposed that the duty
should be reduced from 11. to 2s. 6d., and that would
surely in itself be a very liberal measure.
After a few words from Mr. Henley, Sir H. Wil-

loughby, and Mr. Mulling!, -
Mr. GOULBURN was disposed to think that as to
bonds and mortgages, being for the relief of persons in
distress, it was better policy to place the duty too low
than too high.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For Sir H. Willoughby's amendment ... 164
Against it
Majority against the Government ... —29
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheering.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House
then resumed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
after the decision which the Committee had come to,
which involved a most serious lots to the revenue, and

which, if adopted throughout the Bill, would render it
impossible for him to go on, he must ask the House to
allow him time to consider the course he should take.
Although the amendment applied only to bonds, the
principle involved mortgages and other things. He
should, therefore, take time t,) consider, and would post-
pone the further consideration of the Bill till Monday
next.—(Heir, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL begged to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether
the Bills 'elating to the mercantile marine would be pro-
ceeded with on Friday?

Mr. LABOUCIIEfiE said they would not come on,
as he proposed taking the Australian Bill on that night,
and he should not be able to fix any evening for their
discussion.

SECURITIES FOR ADVANCES (IRELAND

BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill,

Air. J. STUART said the present Bill was introduced
for the purpose of facilitating the operation of the Sale
of Incumbered Estates Act. He had, in the early part
of the evening, suggested that the House ought to have
some authentic information on the subject. That infor-
mation appeared to him indispensably necessary to
authorise the House to pass the Bill. He had com-
plained that his Right Hon. Friend the Solicitor-General
for England had discharged duties which did not pro-
perly belong to him. It was the duty of the Irish law
officers to attend there and guide the House by their in-
formation and advice. Now, they had not had
a scintilla of information from the Irish law officers.
Nothing could be more absurd in the course of legisla-
tion than that the party in charge of a measure, when
asked for information to guide the House as to
whether the measure was proper or not, should
declare that ho was not in possession of any au-
thentic information. Whether the Irish Solicitor-
General had any information to give them he
had yet to learn. lie had, in the early part of the even-
ing, asked three questions. First, whether any sales
had taken place under the Encumbered Estates Bill ?
secondly, how many orders had been made by the Com-
missioners for the sale of encumbered estates, and how
many were cow in operation,
.but under which no sales
had been effect-d ? and the third question had reference
to the enactments in the proposed Bill by which parties
were enabled to purchase estates, paying only half the
purchase money, and without aoy personal responsibi•
lity for the payment of the other halt. He did not think
that such a sale had been eve' heard of in any country
in the world. He wished to know if any proposals had
been male to purchase estates on these terms ? He
paused for information.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
the House would consider it but reasonable not to al-
low such a Bill to proceed to a second reading until
that information had been obtained. Having'given
the lion, and Learned Solicitor-General fur England
due notice of those questions, and he having suggested
that the returns which would give that information
should be moved for in the usual manner, and having
refused to allow them to be moved for at once, it was, he
thought, only reasonable to move the adjournment of
the debate until that information was furnished.—(Rear.)