§ On the Order of the Day for the third reading of this bill,
1012§ Mr. Tierneysaid, it had been observed the other evening, that, by the 53rd of the late king, respecting the redemption of the land tax, the difficulties in the way of this subject had been in a great measure removed. Now, he was by no means satisfied that such was the case, and wished to hear the opinions of the learned gentleman opposite. The point complained of was, that government proposed to pay off the five per cents without the notice to which the holders of that stock were by law entitled. By the 37th of the late king, the holders of five per cents were rendered liable to reduction either into three or four per cents, according to their own option; but it was with the express condition that they should not be liable to any such reduction, until 25,000,000l. of the three per cents should have been redeemed and paid off. Now, in the 25th of George 2nd, there was this important clause, that no redemption, no paying off of the three per cents, should take place, until twelve months notice had been given of the intention to do so to the holders of that stock. It was said on the other side, that the purchases made by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, as well as the amount of the land tax redeemed, were much more than sufficient to render the holders of five per cents liable to reduction. To this however the holders of five per cents replied, that the reduction in the one case and the redemption in the other, were not bona fide a redeeming and paying off of the three per cents, and therefore that the notice had in fact not been given.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, it was perfectly obvious that the clause in the 25th George 2nd, by which it was enacted, that the holders of three per cents should have twelvemonths notice, had been virtually annulled by the voluntary sale or redemption of a much larger amount than 25,000,000l. of that stock. When the holders of three per cents had voluntarily consented to that paying off, the holders of five per cents were necessarily rendered liable to be paid off in consequence. If it were said, that the holders of three per cents had an advantage which they ought not to have relinquished, the answer was, that they had waved that advantage. The holders of five per cents, therefore, could by no means say, that the act of parliament which rendered a twelve months' notice to the holders of three per cents before the re-payment of those holders 1013 imperative, secured them from reduction; since the holders of the three per cents had declared themselves satisfied with being repaid without any such notice. That expression of satisfaction, and the repayment consequent upon it, were quite sufficient to justify the present measure.
§ Mr. Tierneywas by no means satisfied with the explanation of the learned gentleman. The holders of five per cents had been expressly secured by act of parliament from being paid off, until 25,000,000l. of the three per cents had been redeemed on a notice of twelve months. That notice had not been given; and on that ground the holders of five per cents stood.
§ Mr. Huskisson,although he admitted that, by the 16th clause of the 37th of Geo. 3rd, the holders of five per cents were entitled not to be paid off until a twelvemonths' notice had been given to the holders of three per cents of the intention to pay off 25 millions of that stock; contended, that the much larger reduction that had taken place in the three per cents by the spontaneous consent of the holders of that stock rendered any such notice, before the re-payment of the five per cents unnecessary. He did not deny, that the reference in the 37th of Geo. 3rd, was to the provision in the 25th of Geo. 2nd that the holders of the three per cents should not be paid off without 12 months notice; but his argument was, that their having consented to be paid off; beyond the amount specified in the 37th Geo. 3rd, was equivalent to the condition of notice; and therefore that the holders of five per cents, in the present case, were virtually placed in the condition which the 37th of Geo. 3rd contemplated.
§ Mr. Ellicesaid, that the House ought not to proceed without being quite clear on the point of law. He could not understand the meaning of the act, unless it was explained as requiring a bona fide payment of capital stock to the amount, and after the manner stated by his right hon. friend. The point would, he trusted, be brought by some holder of 5 per cents before a competent tribunal, where it might be solemnly decided.
§ After a short conversation, the bill was read a third time.
§ Mr. Humethen proposed a clause for the purpose of declaring, that the Bank should not derive any profit from the ma- 1014 nagement of the increased capital stock caused by this measure. Unless some specific clause were inserted, there was nothing to prevent the Bank, under this bill from receiving their charge of 300l. per 1,000,000l: on the 7,000,000l. of additional stock now placed in the capital of the four per cents. In 1808, the public debt amounted to 613,000,000l.; it had since been increased nearly 200 millions. There could be no pretence for making the present bill a source of additional profit for the Bank, when public economy was the object of the Measure, and when it would entail upon them no additional trouble.
§ Mr. Manningsaid, that the Bank never hinted at any additional charge for managing these transfers. During the last 30 years, that corporation had never been in the habit of receiving any thing where stock was only transferred from one fund to another. But to say, that the Bank were not to derive their stipulated per centage upon the management of any additional capital, was to press for a total breach of the existing contract between the Bank and the public, the terms of which wore secured by a former act of parliament. If the proposed clause were adopted, the terms of that act would be violated, and a total change would be made in the constitution of the existing arrangement for managing the public business. The Bank received no remuneration for forgeries upon stock; and when they made the last arrangement with the public, the charge of interest agreed upon, comprehended the risk incurred by the Bank in the forgeries which he alluded to. This clause, if adopted, would release them from the compact; and on that ground he should oppose it.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that the question was simply this—whether the Bank ought to receive a per centage for executing a gill which entailed upon them no additional trouble? The hon. director had talked of the risk of forgeries; but the Aims annually to be paid by the Bank would be less under this bill than before, and the risk would be therefore less. He could see no reason, on any principle of equity, why this additional charge of 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year should be put into the coffers of the Bank. How could that House consent to such a charge, when they recollected the desire for retrenchment which they had lately 1015 evinced in the debate upon the reduction of two lords of the Admiralty? The sum which they had on that occasion saved to the public by their vote, they would now give away by rejecting this clause. For the sake of the precedent, if not for the sake of economy, the House ought to adopt it; by and by they might be in a condition to reduce the four per cents to three, and if they rejected this clause now, how could they introduce a similar one in such an event as that to which he alluded?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could not see how such a clause could be proposed without previous communication with the Bank. Why the Bank were not to have as fair a claim to equitable consideration in managing the affairs of the public as any other body, he was at a loss to consider.
§ Mr. Ricardosupported the clause, because the Bank would have no additional trouble by the management of the public business under this bill.
§ The clause was negatived, and the bill passed.