THIRD READING. (Hansard, 2 July 1867)

§ MR. HUNT
said, he must oppose the Motion. The Bill attempted to deal with licence duties in a piecemeal manner. The certificate duty was at present £9 for attorneys in London, and £6 for those in the country. Till 1853 it was £12 and £8. For the first two years after their admission attorneys had only to pay one-half the duty. The impost did not seem to keep gentlemen from going to the profession, for there were at present 13,475 attorneys on the roll. His hon. and learned Friend did not touch the licence duties paid by pawnbrokers and auctioneers, nor the licence duty paid by certificated conveyancers. The House had decided on the finances of the year. The loss to the revenue of the duty which his hon. and learned Friend sought to abolish would amount to £100,000 a year, which could not be spared.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, that very great pressure was put upon hon. Members to support this Bill. He thought the House ought to resist pressure coming from such a class of gentlemen as attorneys; and if for no other reason, he should give the Bill his decided hostility. It was objectionable as a piecemeal measure.

§ MR. DENMAN
said, he had frequently answered the objections to the Bill, which, he repeated, were unfounded.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, he had received, from attorneys in his constituency, letters requesting him to to support the Bill. The answer he had made was that he considered the question to be one for the Government, and that as long as the Government thought it necessary to retain this tax, he would support them in doing so.