§ The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Paper Duties' Bill.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ The right hon. Gentleman then proposed to add the following proviso in order to meet a particular case:"—"Provided always, that until the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, nothing herein contained shall extend to subject to a duty, or to any regulation of the Excise, on any goods, wares, or articles manufactured under a patent, bearing date the fourteenth day of February, in the third year of the reign of his present Majesty, granted to Thomas 299 Robertson Williams, Esq., late of Norfolk-street, Strand, for securing to the said Thomas Robertson Williams, and his assigns, the benefit of the invention as set forth in the said patent, of a new combination of fibrous materials, forming, by means of machinery, artificial skins, which may be applied to the purposes for which skins, leather, vellum, and parchment, are used; and which patent is now by assignment vested in Charles Stanbridge and William Forbes Marshall, of the parish of Saint Luke, in the county of Middlesex."
§ Mr. Thomas Duncombeobjected to the proviso, and stated that, in 1833, a Mr. Williams took out a patent for a certain article; previous to doing which, however, he applied to the Excise Commissioners to know whether it would be liable to duty as paper. The solicitor to the Excise, in answer to his petition, stated that, in his opinion, the revenue laws could not apply to the article, except it was manufactured into an article which could be used as paper. Upon this representation, Mr. Williams took out his patent at an expense of nearly 500l. In 1835 he transferred his interest in the patent to the persons introduced into this proviso, Messrs. Stanbridge and Marshall. Before the transference was effected they again applied to the Excise, the excise officers visited the premises, saw the manufactures going on, and told them it would be impossible the article manufactured should come under the excise duty. This was the statement made in his (Mr. Duncombe's) presence, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-street, the other day; a statement, so far uncrntradicted by the Excise Solicitor—also present. But then, Say the Excise Commissioners, "the article you, Messrs. Stanbridge and Marshall, are manufacturing is different from that manufactured in 1833." Now, these Gentlemen, (Messrs. Stanbridge and Marshall,) deny positively that such is the case. They say to the Excise, "we gave you samples of the article manufactured in 1833, and if, as you say, the article now manufactured differs from that, we call upon you to produce those samples of 1833, and compare them with the article we now manufacture. We have the duplicates of those samples. Mr. Williams is ready to make an affidavit that they are the true duplicates of those samples, and we call upon 300 you, the Excise, to produce the originals." "No," (say the Excise) "we cannot find them;" and then these Gentlemen were told that the article they now manufactured was different from that originally manufactured, and was subjected to duty. He, (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) believed that Messrs. Stanbridge and Marshall were manufacturing the same article which, in 1833 and 1835, the Excise declared free from duty. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been imposed upon by some interested individuals in the trade, jealous of the invention, and desirous of ruining the projectors; and he considered it a most unfair and unjust case. He (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) asked the House—he asked his right hon. Friend himself, was it fair—was it just—in an Act repealing a certain duty to introduce a clause avowedly for the purpose of excluding the manufacture of two individuals from the benefit of that remission, and limiting a patent duly obtained to two years; particularly under the peculiar circumstances of this case? He moved, in conclusion, as an amendment to the proviso of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave out the words "until the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight," in order to insert the words "during the continuance of their patent."
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that so far from the clause inducing an injury to the proprietors of this patent, so far from depriving them of any rights which they were entitled to at present, it extended to them a certain qualified protection in [their business which they could otherwise not enjoy. This clause protected them from a tax imposed by the present Bill during a period of two years; an act of grace on the part of Government which the parties were by no means entitled to demand. The fact was this: the patent was originally proposed to be applied to the manufacture of tea boards, bottle stands, &c. which, of course, were not included in the payment of the duty levied on paper; but this article had since been used in the production of an article intended as a substitute for milled boards; and here, of course, as an act of justice to those who paid duty upon those articles, it became necessary to levy the duty upon this peculiar branch of this manufacture; a period of two years being allowed 301 the parties, in order to prepare for the competition it would have to meet with. As he said before, then, for any thing for which this patent was originally contemplated, the holders of it would continue to receive protection to the uttermost; and for other matters which it had since been applied to, they would also be protected for a period of two years. The omission of this clause would, therefore, operate to the disadvantage of the patentees, by immediately subjecting them to a tax which they would now be freed from during the above specified period.
§ Mr. Warburtonthought that, as this clause was framed to affect the interests of particular parties, it partook of the nature of a Private Bill, and should be treated accordingly by the House.
§ The Chancellor of the ExchequerI believe it will be found that, in various instances, it has been decided, that in general Acts clauses may be introduced saving particular patent rights.
§ Mr. Grotewas only acquainted with the circumstances of this case through the statement of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury. From what he had heard he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far, that this proviso would place the Messrs. Stan-bridge and Marshall in a better situation than they would under this Bill be without it. But the question was, whether they were not entitled, in equity and justice to ask for something more than even this proviso gave them? They stood in this position:—if he (Mr. Grote) understood the case—the officers of the Excise had authorised them to manufacture a certain article free of duty. Upon the faith of that they bought their interest in this patent. By the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this article of manufacture was to be made liable to duty. And this proviso will grant them an exemption from duty for two years, as an indulgence; so that out of the fourteen years of patent right, during eleven they will be subjected to duty. Under these circumstances, and he believed he had stated them correctly, he (Mr. Grote) considering that, as in all probability, this Bill, even with this proviso, would be to them utter ruin, felt bound in justice to support the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury.
§ Mr. Wakleysupported the amendment of his hon. Colleague. He sincerely 302 hoped the House would not sanction a clause so unjust as the 16th Clause of this Bill, which would have the effect of ruining these manufacturers altogether, after they had expended a large sum in purchasing their interest in the Patent, and had exhausted their capital upon it, on the understanding that the article produced would be free of duty. He hoped the 16th Clause would be expunged from the Bill.
§ Mr. Thomas Duncombe, in reply, read a passage from the affidavit of Mr. Williams, proving, that the article now manufactured by Messrs. Stanbridge and Marshall, was the same as that produced in 1833. He should divide the House upon his Amendment.
§ The House divided on the original Motion:—Ayes 56; Noes 22: Majority, 34.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Sir C. | Howard, Philip H. |
| Alsager, Captain | Knox, hon. J. J. |
| Alston, R. | Mackenzie, S. |
| Baines, E. | Maule, hon. F. |
| Baldwin, Dr. | Morpeth, Lord Visct. |
| Bannerman, A. | O'Connell, J. |
| Baring, F. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J. | O'Loghlen, Michael |
| Blake, M. J. | Palmerston, Lord Vis. |
| Blamire, W. | Parker, M. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Parker, John |
| Brady, D. C. | Pryse, P. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Rice, rt. hon. T. S. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Chapman, A. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Ruthven, Edw. |
| Denison, J. E. | Seymour, Lord |
| Divett, E. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Dowdeswell, W. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Ebrington, Lord Visct. | Stuart, V. |
| Ferguson, G. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C. | Thomson, rt. hon. C.P. |
| Fitzroy, Lord Charles | Thornely, T. |
| Forster, Chas. Smith | Tulk, C. A. |
| Fremantle, Sir T. | Tyrrell, Sir J. T. |
| French, F. | Young, G F. |
| Gladstone, W.E. | |
| Grey, Sir G. | TELLERS. |
| Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. | Baring, Mr. |
| Hodges, T. T. | Smith, V. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Grote, G. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Hawes, B. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Hume, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Knightley, Sir C. |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Philips, M. |
| Chalmers, P. | Praed, W. M. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Thompson, Colonel |
| Forbes, W. | Trevor, hon. A. |
| Gordon, hon. W. | Wallace, R. |
| Walter, J. | TELLERS. |
| Warburton, H. | Duncombe, T. |
| Wood, Alderman | Wakley, T. |
§ Clause agreed to, and Bill passed.