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

THE SUN,

Chancellor of the Exchecit:er) stated as to relief from
taxation was this, that he proposed a measure with re-
gard to stamps, the loss upon which would bo. somewhere
under 300,000/. ; and another mervure with regard to
the duty on bricks, the loss upon which would be some-
what over 450,0004 ; or (eking the two together, a loss
of 750 000/. The Hon. Gentleman said, now that he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, somehow or
other, a surplus of 300.0001. But he was at a loss to
know whence it was to
come. When he stated that the
measure he proposed with regard to stamps would in-
volve a loss of somewhere under 300,000 L, he at the
same time stated that he proposed to relieve transactions
of a small amount, as he had done, and increase those
of a larger amount; and that upon a balance he should
lose 300,000/.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said the Right Honourable Gentle-
mite had spoke,' of an ad valorem duty, as well as of the
remission of a lower duty, which was to be accepted as
a compensation in relief of small proprietors. But what
did the Honourable Gentleman mean to do with the
300,000/. in teat case ? To Wk of a balance was a very
convenient fiction, but there was nothing said of a ba-
lance when there was talk of a compensation. The
Committee was now told that the loss on the balance
would be 350,000/. That was not the original idea of
the budget. In fact, it now turned out that, instead
of
of i as renatssion of taxation, there would be an increase
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
distinctly that there was to be an ad valorem duty, and
that e
lowerin the lesser duty without increasing the
higher cvoulcrbe a equivalent to a loss of 300,0001.
the lose
Mr. GOULBURN wished t, know on what principle
in
iloa. Gentt question had been calculated. The Right
tort span said that if the duties on large and small
More reduced were one-half, the loss would not be
than 60 000/.
_. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there would be a loss vevances—the re- great on con . duction on that branch alone was calculated at
FOO,OOO/. The increase in small transactions, it was
hoped, would help the venue ; and it was
t up re
seedrus that parties would get instruments stamped here-
af 'who had never got them stamped before. He cal-
Ciliated that something would be gained on this as well
as on.mortgages.
Mr. MACKENZIE asked how it was proposed to
enforce stamping a large transaction? It might be evaded
after the passing of this Act as it was before.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
Wee not worth while.
Mr, HENLEY said the sum of 60,0001. fixed by the
the Hon. Gentleman was so precise, that it was clear
nem must be materials in the possession of the Go-
'
_ernment whereon to base it. He, therefore, thought
the information should not be withheld from the House.
, The em
eeeTORNEY• GENERAL said it would be seen
Would
the
we:ll)l%mm estimate of coaveyances that there
would h
ee a considerable saving in transactions up to
1,000/. The common stamp of 9/. would suffice to that
sum' From that to 100,000/. the scale was nearly the
watt" as the present. Conveyances beyond 100,0001.
e_ere very rare. The proceeds of the present scale were
247,5481.
~ lOse which was equivalent in stamps to
4.'49/. Ss. 6d. The loss on conveyances, therefore,
Would, be 266,299/. 4s. 6d., assuming the same number
'.3.1 transactions after the passing of the Bill as before. If
bthe losses from leases for years and following stamps
ore added, it would amount to 300,0001. All that,
tuter, was of course a matter of estimate.
Mr..._ r. HENLEY considered that the House had cause
..2 complain in the matter. The Hon. Secretary for the
reeTreasury said he could obtain no return of the stamps on
nveYitiaoese_
w but the Attorney-General, nevertheless,
-.ined the House exactly what the amount of the trans-
_aftions svere. He was, therefore, in possession of data
~gnich had not been commueicated to the House.
ee CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
!dance r a loss but he could not prove a gain in this in-
Th'e Government knew the number of stamps
to 'as markt, but they could not tell how many would
. required for mortgages, or how many for convey-
-11" s Th
• ey could only calculate a each.
Mr• DRILLINGS said the 15/. stamps were not ap-
plicable to conveyances; they were only used in mort-
gages and settlements. He had it from good authority
at the oceeds of the stamp duty on the conveyance
of
.„.,mortgages of from 10,0001. to 15,0001., and on settle-
ments from 12,0001. to 15,0001., were 4.5001. or 4,6001.
~Taking them as all for mortgages, it would give an average
Lt.. 12,3001. but; taking two-thirds as mortgages and one-
Pird as settlements, and taking off 4,500 L, it would
i.eavoe 4,250/. Reducing this by omissions to 12,0001,
' would give the stamps 300,0001., u number equivalent
to 4,500/.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY said the Bill imposed new
taxes, which ought to have a full discussion. Under the
jsill agreements fir leases would be taxed for instance.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there was no absolutely new tax in the Bill; but he
thought it would be more convenient to call attention to
the points in question as the clauses were proceeded with.
Mr. BRIGHT said there was an almost universal
opinion that the 13111 would increase taxation, in place of
giving any relief. As few Hon. Members wero conver-
sant with" the nature of the Bill, he suggested that it
should be sent to a Select Committee, to whom the whole
question of stamps could be referred. He was favourable
to an ad valorem duty; but he wished one of a lower per
eentage than that fixed by the Bill, which in his opinion
woulit be a heavy tax as it stood upon all large transac-
tions in landed property.
leThe SOLICITOR-GENERAL said if the Bill was
llt to a Select Committee there would be a number of
'Ong statements in evidence, and a big blue book; but the
question itself would be absolutely where it was. Be-
Tzides 1-.'
, which he believed the forms of the House would
that. admit of such a course of proceeding. He believed
Ge,the country would be greatly benefited by the re-
„(.7,t411; but he also believed that there would be a loss
lurfalent to 300,000/. on the whole transaction.
IttAlr. MITCHELL backed the suggestion of the Hon.
--,-_-etnber. for Manchester. He also thought the Bill should
" considered in a Select Committee. The Bill would lay
a h
reayvY tax upon land, inasmuch as conveyances repr!.n-
islted property, while mortgages represented debt. _ I_
seleee°,Pilliore an ad valorem duty of 8 per cent. would be
'''''eut, and was an ground to im-
.Pose. as much as there y
be understood, ,
SADLEIR said that the more the Bill came to
_ alluderktood, the more general would be the objections
ea
to it. At present few comprehended its bearing;
7Ya the members of the Government itself were not of
agreement with one another on the subject—the Chan-
!!llor of the Exchequer stating one thing, and the At-
Z,?reill-General stating another. As regarded Ireland,
toastse Government, in his opinion, had taken a most unfor-
,otin, moment to apply the provisions of the Bill to that
Batheq•Y' Seeing tha whichs almost impossible to dispose
nTt_ large estates existed there under the en-
'!Le..red Estates Commission. The purchaser would
ti!ate the ad valorem duty upon the stamp, and de-
duct it from the
h was another
class d puhase money. But t ere
I
the 1 eserving the consideration of the House—name y,
ter‘,44rge class of proprietors who might be able to pre- .
Wes' ei•P°rticie of their property by effecting voluntary
se), of the remainder without coming within the operad-
Illteetc'e the Encumbered Estates Act. The proposed
comp ion would operate I uon them. The 1
"gill Fate 1
very several u
Cork, Limerick,
lit,' classes in Belfast, Dublin, . .
e rfowish,, rd bad been unable to communicate their
lend_ s to the Government, and the bankers and the
ei,. I.ld interest were in the same position. Under these
prieeterstancee, he hoped the Government would not
events
with the Bill at the present moment, or, at all
ti,rllll,. that ample time would be allowed for its con-
-4t Win before taking the next stage.
IIee.,,IIIIME could not understand the objection of the
derive be opposite, because if any class would
1, the
benefit from the passing of this measure it would
Would Proprietors and purchasers of Irish property, who
,1
1,000( to enabled to sell portions of property under
*eir _ at a reduced duty.—(Hear, hear.) When they
texi:tie_seured by the Government that the amount of
Presentutt Under this Bill would be less than under the
eYate is
it
e duty of .3, the sum of 300,000/., he considered
see
that 4 °f the House to support the reduction. It was
I) there be met
3' tea . e decrea,e on the smaller sums would
file ltiere
- pee nee on the larger ones; but he considered
thidee Icked distribution more equal than the former,
to th Which a l xempted
MI e in' arge mass of property had been e
„: Co Jury of the community at large. He trusted
igurd e,„7 `„‘teo would proceed with the Bill, in order to
ueee ,0'-'let to who had hitherto
the smaller proprietors
kr b'tleh 0
gees nod
co,_ ppressed.
Hon. Members
:Yere 40t ou
h rzy said that as many
tleonehedrePered to go into the discussion, and as most
-e trusted ve answers had been given by the Government,
4ideseti, the Committee would defer the further con-
Lord J, ojthe Bill to a future time.—(Hoar.)
t u• RUSSELL could how the postpone-
not see .
°F the n•
teebe ill for a week or a fortnight would assist
tit) 3 et which
Nu. Member let) Ilon. Members had in view. The
I, for Carlow objected to the proposed alter-
actiell 4,°_,ceount of the conditioti of Ireland. That ob-
-17, the illilLit,l:lot appi..
y onside to the present consideration
roese,,„io °lit to its ration at any period during
aim the ant
Would, if successful,
- of the R# defeat the consider-
N 4 lean - •-earnp Acts altogether. The subject had
umits! Jeers attracted public observation. The in-
.apoe, tirot°' tlite stamp duty on land had been remarked
(.7 enemiit°nY in writing and at public meetings, but
.by
Itlire into the
of the House of Lords, appointed to in-
t.elit hardst
° inequality of the Stamp Acts and the
tea
Char P inflicted on the smaller proprietors by the
dtteutieu 'rl,4e placed upon them. Last year the
bevoted 4°' the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
"talee thet'e the subject, which was brought
l'tese notice of the House early in the
4 ant Ben
,(3.11. Friend n, and about a month ago his Right
t*rieli he inters
pointed out the nature of the measure
Oty 0 Intended to propose—namely, to diminish the
441 ll 4 sillall s of
4 Or . er conveyances, and the transaction
00 , propriet
), ittrger °re, and at the same time to make duties
tie b„ transactions more equal. After the details
lite • be
given A
~ teeetes_ , and the resolution proposed. many con-
"no h ~"451 Were received ley his Right Hon. Friend,
ti; ilm ende
Jeetistl.
..aTOOred. as far as possible, to obviate the
°Rukf.w.Plch had been raised.—(Hear, hear.) But,
(pthe uir, would no inconvenince arise from delay-
oreee_
_alure for a month, and keeping the public in
it.
i ' et the intentions of the House?—(Hear, hear.)
'1 leen veee it. t et 02_4 eece always resulted from the postpone-
_lispt i 0 ! sures of this kind, many transactions being
~tl_ th„ r,,i_beyance. If there was a general agreement
'ilee tot'Lcciple tf the measure, let the Committee at
4°114, 14° EL consid •
je„ proere_ consideration of the details, in order that
:Cciee therm might be made.—Hear, hear.) The oh-
.. the
eTie!. by the Hon. Member for Bridport applied
thin eetis'..,trig Act as much as to the measure now
tok thac.cretion. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
Zee„7 2,a,‘,„4 ruan with an estate of 50,000/., mortgaged
wi-t: , would be in a worse position thee a
tO.OOOl, e," estate worth 20,0001., mortgaged for
fo laqiiir "lit this was not a matter for Parliament
I,r
4zltiqlitllnto.
, If, however the object was good
a„1; amount ,t applied equally to the present Act.
1; tint ~, el duty on property exceeding 5,060/,
'MM. th-'°le than 10,000 L, Wa3 121.; but exceeding
me hang
Rigs 251. The objection, therefore,

was not tenable; but that and all other objections would
tie bettAt considered as they arose on the different
clauses.—(Hear.)
Mr. MUWATT said, when he considered that th•D
sff.ct cf the Bill would be to facilitate the transfer f
small pot tions of land—that it would relieve the pressure
of stamps upon mortgages, conveyances, &c., 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 ti be as
low as possible, the amount would now be 501. for what
was formerly charged 251.

Mr. HEALD said, that after giving a portion of re-
lief out of the surplus revenue, the Bill would increase
the taxation on interests of more than 1.000/.—(ll,ear,
hear.) He wished to know how much the Chancellor
of the Exchequer calculated the Treasury would Lae by
granting relief in cases up to 1.000/ ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
upon all conveyances up to 1,300/. there would be po
sitive relief. Upon all c,inve)ances from 1,3001. to
100,0001. it was the same, or nearly the same thing; for
whilst et present 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 5001. would be
diteinishA, whilst above that sum it would be increased.
lie calculated the lo4s to the revenu'l upon the whole of
the conveyances, upon sonic of the mortgagee, and on
leases, would be somewhere under 300,000/. By the
alteration which he proposed tonight, in reducing tao
stamp duty on mortgages and bonds from one-half per
cent. to one-quarter per cent., 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-
mal 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
ill able to bear a stamp.
Mr. SPOONER remarked that the Right lion. 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,'itind a step towards a fair apportion-
ment of taxation between the 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 1,300/.
—(Hear.) But whether it might be wise to give the ad
dition asked for was another question.—( Hear, bear.)
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 be derived.

The CLIANCELLOR of tho 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 he found in
affixine: 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 t:efore that day woted come under the old Act,
and those executed subsequently under the new.
Mr. IL PALMER asked if the exemption in favour of
building societies was t ► he continued?
The ATTOItNEY•GENERAL was understood to
say that no alteration would be made as regarded the
exemptiour.

The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 3 and
4, sifter a short conversation.

On:clause 5, which makes all persons 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 t) the Crown?

Mr. LAW asked if a party who bad 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 moat 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 prescribed 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
5/. He knew an instance of this kind where a man held
an estata 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 unstaraped since 1834.
Alter some further discussion the clause was agreed
to.

Clause 7 was agreed to after certain words had 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 ho 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 at...tic ps 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 o; stamps should charge. If the clause
was not altered, he should move it be struck out.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would not insist oa the clause.
Clause struck out.
On clause 9,
Mr. SADLEIR understood the Chancellor cf 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 were then
agreed to.
On schedule A (the repealing schedule) being pre,-
posed,
Mr. MULLINGS wished to introduce certain words
into the schedule for 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. 61 ; and for every other 1,030 words, a further duty
cf 2s. 61

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, as the law
at present stJod, agreements containing un.tier 1,080
words were charged with a duty of 2s. 6d., anal 355. for
every further 1,050 words. As he understood the pro-
posed alteration, the effect of it would be to keep the