§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he presumed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester would allow his Amendments to this schedule to stand over in the same way. If the hon. Gentleman would communicate to him his proposals, he would take them into consideration. The duties in Schedule B applied to bonds and mortgages, which were put on the same footing. On the first item, where the consideration was under 50l., the present duty was one-half per cent: he proposed to reduce it to one-fourth. In lieu of 5s. he proposed 2s. 6d.; and in lieu of the next item of 10s., he proposed 5s.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Duty be two shillings and sixpence."
§ MR. MULLINGSsaid, that the highest amount of duty by the present scale was 25l.; under the one proposed it would go up as high as 1,000l.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the two first items were agreed to, the question of an ad valorem duty might fairly be raised on the third—where the sum exceeded 100l., he proposed that for every 100l., or a fractional part thereof, there should be an additional duty of 5s.
§ MR. GOULBURNdisapproved of the application of the ad valorem principle in this case; he only approved of it as applied 335 to the raising of revenue. If that principle were adopted, they must take care to begin the scale so low, that the higher duties might not he oppresive. Unless they meant to impose a tax of 600l. or 700l. on the already distressed owners of large estates in many instances, they must begin far lower than either 5s. or 2s. 6d.; and that would involve a very great loss of revenue. For that reason the ad valorem scale had not been adopted in previous statutes. It was for the Committee to determine whether 2s. 6d. was a proper point from which to commence.
§ MR. ROEBUCKwished to know why a poor man, wanting to borrow 10l. or 100l., should be made to pay a higher duty than the man who borrowed 1,000l. or 10,000l. Surely the man who wanted to borrow a large sum was just as capable of contributing to the revenue as he who borrowed a small sum; and the small sum was just as important to the latter as the large sum to the former.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, he had already stated, in an early part of the evening, that the imposition of a heavy burthen on large bonds and securities would place restrictions on the employment of capital in various ways in which it was at present employed most advantageously for all classes. He did not ask that a smaller rate of duty should be placed on large sums than on small ones; but if the amount were heavy, especially in the case of mortgages on factories or shops, the parties might be prevented from obtaining such reduction of interest as they might otherwise secure. It was most desirable that the ad valorem duty should be fixed sufficiently low, so as not to oppress the higher class of borrowers, while it gave considerable relief to the lower.
§ MR. ROEBUCKagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the same rate ought to prevail from the bottom to the top of the scale, but could not consent to the amount of the latter being made an argument against the ad valorem principle.
§ MR. DISRAELIunderstood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge to say that, if they adopted the ad valorem principle, they must take care the first step was a small step, and he thought the principle a sound one.
§ SIR. H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the first step too high. Instead of 2s. 6d. it ought to be Is.; and he would propose an Amendment to that effect.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Duty be one shilling."
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to state to the Committee what the law was, and what it would be. At present, on a bond not exceeding 50l., the duty was 20s. He proposed to reduce it to 2s. 6d., and to carry that ad valorem duty fairly up. The present law, beginning with 20s. for every consideration under 50l., went as high as 25l. for a sum of 20,000l. There it stopped; and whatever the amount borrowed might be, the duty did not exceed 25l.—whether it was 50,000l. or 500,000l., it was still 25l. Here the ad valorem principle seemed to be quite lost sight of. The man borrowing a large sum was probably the richer man; but this was a circumstance into which the Legislature could not enter. It might be just as impossible to the shopkeeper to borrow 500l. as for a large East India house to borrow 500,000l.; therefore it would be unjust to tax the former in a higher ratio than the latter. There might be an objection to taxing any bond, mortgage, or warrant of attorney at all; but so long as such matters were subjects of taxation, it seemed fair to carry out the principle of an ad valorem duty. No doubt the objection remained that it would be harder, as compared with the existing law, on those who borrowed much than on those who borrowed little; but the only possible principle of an ad valorem duty was to impose, not a high, but a low duty. Heretofore everybody had thought the duty of 20s. on 50l. too high; he now proposed to reduce it 2s. 6d.; but the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham said that to make the taxation fair it must be reduced still lower. He must say he thought the argument in favour of the wealthier classes was not very fairly applied; he was in effect asked cither to throw up a large portion of revenue—and by his own proposal a very serious amount would be sacrificed—or to put a limit to the ad valorem duty.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, they were now endeavouring, in constructing a new system, to do it on a just basis. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward the anomalies and monstrosities of the old system, as though the House was responsible for them any more than himself, and as if reference to them were any answer to the objections on the present occasion. He spoke as if there were two interests before the House, that of the rich, and that of the poor. [An Hon. MEMBER: 337 So there are.] But their endeavours should be to do justice to both. They had all agreed that the ad valorem principle should be carried into effect with due regard to the interests of both; and if it were found that its effect would be, not only to press on those nominally rich, but to throw difficulties in their way, which might be very injurious to the community, the wisest course would be to take up a position in the initiative, which should prevent those inconveniences, and at the same time relieve the poor, He should support the Amendment, if his hon. Friend persisted, as he trusted he would, in pressing it to a division.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he accepted it as a necessity that a certain amount of revenue must be raised; that was one of the objects of the Bill; otherwise it was one of the most mischievous in the whole series of legislation. Were it supported on any other pretence than that of wanting money, he would meet the whole thing in the face, and declare that there could be no more mischievous mode of taxing the people than this Bill proposed. He accepted it only as a direful necessity, and sought to reduce it to its minimum. If the House took his advice, it would throw the Bill out that instant, and prefer any other mode of raising revenue to this most mischievous interference with the administration of justice. There never was so great a mischief done to justice, so flagrant a bonus to injustice, wrong, and every possible fraud and perjury, as regarded the honest man in this country, as was derived from this Bill. It was a direful necessity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wanted to raise by it a certain sum; if he would assure the House that he could not raise that sum without beginning at 2s. 6d., he (Mr. Roebuck) would accept it; but if it could be done by beginning with a shilling or a penny, let them begin with that. Do not let them talk of rich and poor; that had nothing to do with it. The ad valorem principle was now admitted, and it would be a precedent on other occasions; they were not going to get out of it; it should be applied in every other case, as it had been admitted in the Stamp Act. Let the right hon. Gentleman state how much he expected to raise by his duty, and how much less the amount would be if the scale began with a shilling. The Committee had a right to ask him these questions. Let him satisfy them on 338 these points, and they would then go along with him most certainly.
§ MR. BANKESsaid, this question had not arisen out of a dire necessity, but out of a surplus—an extraordinary incident, no doubt—and the question how they were to deal with that surplus revenue had given rise to this discussion. His first impression as to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was very different to that he now entertained, He had heard nothing of the ad valorem., principle; but something was said about relief and remission, as applicable to the land. Now they came to the question of an ad valorem duty for the first time, but not for the last. If it were admitted, let them be careful how they acted upon it. Let them take care to begin at such a point that there might be no undue harshness in its operation. He admitted the justice of the principle, and he was ready to adopt it in the present instance; but in doing so he thought they should begin with a low scale. With regard to agreement stamps, it would be a great boon if they were done away with altogether, because it was well known that they gave rise to great fraud and perjury in the courts of law. The right hon. Gentleman introduced two measures on this subject which were entirely different, and though the last was a great improvement on the first, it should receive great amendments before he gave his sanction to it. If the hon. Member for Evesham pressed his Amendment, he would vote for it.
§ MR. HUMEacknowledged that revenue was a matter to be considered in the present instance; but it seemed to him that they might obtain a greater revenue by beginning with a duty of 1s. instead of 2s. 6d. If the duty was very low, people who saved money, and who now put it into clubs where they were subject to frequent losses, might avail themselves of the advantages of insurance offices. The result of the Amendment would be that two or three operations would take place where only one took place at present, and in this manner the revenue might be increased. Let the duty be 1s. on 100l., 2s. on 200l., and so on, through the whole scale, and he believed the revenue would not suffer in the slightest degree. But even if the revenue suffered slightly, the social advantages which the Amendment would bring with it should induce him to vote for it.
§ MR. HENLEYwould vote for the Amendment if the hon. Baronet pressed 339 it to a division. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that evening that he made a reduction of from 10 to 5 per cent, and the loss occasioned by the change he estimated at 60,000l. The further loss occasioned by the proposition of the hon. Baronet would amount to only 48,000l., but it was by no means certain that such a loss would result from the proposition of the hon. Baronet. It was not of such great consequence, in any case, that it should stand in the way of cheapening transactions altogether, and taking away the temptation to fraud.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that some regard must be had to the revenue, though they were dealing with a surplus. At present the amount of revenue derived from this 1l. duty was 201,000l. He originally proposed to reduce that duty from 1l. to 5s. on amounts not exceeding 50l., and now he proposed to reduce it to 2s. 6d., which was a pretty large sacrifice. But the hon. Baronet proposed that it should be reduced to 1s. Now, the loss which the revenue would sustain by the further reduction he had himself proposed would be between 60,000l. and 70,000l. a year. This was a very material sum on one item in the schedule.
§ MR. HENLEYobserved that the right hon. Gentleman confined his statement to the single item of the 1l. duty; but he forgot that it was an ad valorem tax, and that upon the larger amounts there would be a great increase of revenue.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, there was considerable difficulty in dealing with the stamp laws; but, on the whole, he was disposed to think that, with regard to bonds and mortgages, when the object was to afford relief, it was better to have a duty that was too low than one which was too high. With regard to conveyances, he would say nothing, because where a man was wealthy enough to purchase an estate, it might be considered fair enough that the higher duty should be levied. The only difficulty in his mind was as to the effect the change might have on the revenue; but as only 60,000l. of the revenue arose from the duties on bonds and mortgages, he did not consider it an imprudent step to hazardt hat sum, or even 80,000l. on a question which affected every man who wished to borrow money to pay his debts or commence business. By imposing a heavy duty on a large amount of transactions, they would give rise to a system of 340 evasion and fraud which no ingenuity of lawyers could guard against. They would only risk a loss of 80,000l. by acceding to the proposition of the hon. Member for Evesham, but then they should take into calculation that by reducing the duty they would give rise to a greater number of transactions, which was to be set against the anticipated loss. For these reasons he was disposed to vote for the Amendment.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 135: Majority 29.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | East, Sir J. B. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Edwards, H. |
| Archdall, Capt. M. | Egerton, W. T. |
| Arkwright, G. | Ellis, J. |
| Baillic, H. J. | Emlyn, Visct. |
| Bankes, G. | Estcourt, J. B. B. |
| Baring, H. B. | Fagan, W. |
| Barrington, Visct. | Farrer, J. |
| Bass, M. T. | Filmer, Sir E. |
| Beckett, W. | Floyer, J. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. | Forbes, W. |
| Beresford, W. | Forester, hon. G. C. W. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Forstor, M. |
| Best, J. | Fox, S. W. L. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Galway, Visct. |
| Blair, S. | Goddard, A. L. |
| Blandford, Marq. of | Gooch, E. S. |
| Blewitt, R. J. | Gordon, Adm. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Gore, W. R. O. |
| Booth, Sir R. G. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Bowles, Adm. | Granby, Marq. of |
| Bramston, T. W. | Greenall, G. |
| Bremridge, R. | Greene, J. |
| Broadley, H. | Greene, T. |
| Brooke, Lord | Guernsey, Lord |
| Brown, W. | Gwyn, H. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Hall, Sir B. |
| Buck, L. W. | Hamilton, G. A. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Harris, hon. Capt. |
| Burroughes, H. N. | Harris, R. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Hayes, Sir E. |
| Castlereagh, Visct. | Heald, J. |
| Chandos, Marq. of | Heneage, G. H. W. |
| Chaplin, W. J. | Henley, J. W. |
| Christopher, R. A. | Henry, A. |
| Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. | Herbert, H. A. |
| Clifford, H. M. | Heryey, Lord A. |
| Clive, hon. R. H. | Heyworth, L. |
| Clive, H. B. | Hildyard, R. C. |
| Cobden, R. | Hodgson, W. N. |
| Cocks, T. S. | Hotham, Lord |
| Cole, hon. H. A. | Howard, P. H. |
| Colvile, C. R. | Hudson, G. |
| Conolly, T. | Hume, J. |
| Devereux, J. T. | Johnstone, Sir J. |
| D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. | Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. |
| Disraeli, B. | Jones, Capt. |
| Dod, J. W. | Ker, R. |
| Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. | Kershaw, J. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Lacy, H. C. |
| Duncan, G. | Legh, G. C. |
| Duncombe, hon. O. | Lennox, Lord H. G. |
| Duncuft, J. | Lindsay, hon. Col. |
| Dunne, Col. | Locke, J. |
| Lockhart, W. | Salwey, Col. |
| Lushington, C. | Sandars, G. |
| Mackenzie, W. F. | Seymer, H. K. |
| M'Neill, D. | Smith, J. B. |
| Meagher, T. | Smyth, J. G. |
| Mahon, Visct. | Smythe, hon. G. |
| Mandeville, Visct. | Sotheron, T. H. S. |
| Manners, Lord J. | Spooner, R. |
| March, Earl of | Stafford, A. |
| Masterman, J. | Stanley, hon. E. H. |
| Meux, Sir H. | Stephenson, R. |
| Mitchell, T. A. | Stuart, Lord D. |
| Moody, C. A. | Stuart, H. |
| Mundy, W. | Thompson, Ald. |
| Naas, Lord | Tollemache, J. |
| Neeld, J. | Turner, G. J. |
| Newry and Morne, Visct. | Verner, Sir W. |
| Norreys, Sir D. J. | Verney, Sir H. |
| O'Brien, Sir L. | Vyse, R. H. R. H. |
| Ossulston, Lord | Waddington, H. S. |
| Packe, C. W. | Walmsley, Sir J. |
| Pakington, Sir J. | Walpole, S. H. |
| Palmer, R. | Walsh, Sir J. B. |
| Plowden, W. H. C. | Walter, J. |
| Plumptre, J. P. | Williams, J. |
| Rendlesham, Lord | Yorke, hon. E. T. |
| Renton, J. C. | |
| Roebuck, J. A. | TELLERS. |
| Rushout, Capt. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Sadleir, J. | Mullings, R. R. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Adair, R. A. S. | Ferguson, Sir R. A. |
| Anstey, T. C. | Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J. |
| Ashley, Lord | Fordyce, A. D. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Fortescue, hon. J. W. |
| Baines, rt. hon. M. T. | Freestun, Col. |
| Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. | Grace, O. D. J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Grenfell, C. W. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Berkeley, C. L. G. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Blackall, S. W. | Grosvenor, Earl |
| Blake, M. J. | Hanmer, Sir J. |
| Bouverie, hon. E. P. | Hardcastle, J. A. |
| Boyle, hon. Col. | Hastie, A. |
| Brockman, E. D. | Hastie, A. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hatchell, J. |
| Browne, R. D. | Hawes, B. |
| Buxton, Sir E. N. | Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. |
| Carter, J. B. | Headlam, T. E. |
| Cavendish, hon. C. C. | Heathcoat, J. |
| Cavendish, hon. G. H. | Heneage, E. |
| Cavendish, W. G. | Heywood, J. |
| Childers, J. W. | Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. |
| Clay, J. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Clements, hon. C. S. | Hodges, T. T. |
| Cockburn, A. J. E. | Hollond, R. |
| Coke, hon. E. K. | Howard, hon. C. W. G. |
| Cowper, hon. W. F. | Howard, Sir R. |
| Craig, Sir W. G. | Hutt, W. |
| Dalrymple, Capt. | Jervis, Sir J. |
| Davie, Sir H. R. F. | Keppel, hon. G. T. |
| Dawson, hon. T. V. | King, hon. P. J. L. |
| Duff, J. | Labouchere, rt. hon. H. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Langston, J. H. |
| Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. | Lascelles, hon. W. S. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Lewis, G. C. |
| Ellice, rt. hon. E. | Littleton, hon. E. R. |
| Elliot, hon. J. E. | Loveden, P. |
| Evans, W. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Fergus, J. | M'Cullagh. W. T. |
| Ferguson, Col. | M'Gregor, J. |
| Matheson, Col. | Shelburne, Earl of |
| Maule, rt. hon. F. | Simeon, J. |
| Milner, W. M. E. | Smith, J. A. |
| Monsell, W. | Somers, J. P. |
| Morgan, H. K. G. | Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. |
| Morris, D. | Spearman, H. J. |
| Mowatt, F. | Talbot, J. H. |
| Mulgrave, Earl of | Tancred, H. W. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Thompson, Col. |
| Paget, Lord A. | Thornely, T. |
| Paget, Lord C. | Towneley, J. |
| Paget, Lord G. | Townshend, Capt. |
| Palmerston, Visct. | Trelawny, J. S. |
| Parker, J. | Tufnell, H. |
| Peel, F. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Perfect, R. | Wall, C. B. |
| Pilkington, J. | Watkins, Col. L. |
| Power, Dr. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Power, N. | Willcox, B. M. |
| Rawdon, Col. | Wilson, J. |
| Rich, H. | Wilson, M. |
| Romilly, Col. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Romilly, Sir J. | Wood, W. P. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Russell, hon. E. F. | Wyld, J. |
| Rutherfurd, A. | Wyvill, M. |
| Scrope, G. P. | TELLERS. |
| Seymour, Lord | Hill, Lord M. |
| Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. | Howard, Lord E. |
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I beg to state that, in consequence of the decision just arrived at by the House, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed further with this Bill to-night. I do not wish to be understood as assenting to any proposition implied by that vote—that I am anxious to guard against—but not knowing what the effect out of doors of this vote will be, though I know it will involve a serious loss of revenue, I must take time to consider before further proceeding with the measure.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.