QUESTION. (Hansard, 20 April 1860)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the course which the Government would take with their business generally, for that evening, must depend on the progress of the other business. He did not, however, intend to proceed that evening with the Savings Banks Bill; and in consequence of having received from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) a representation that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to him to have the Resolution with respect to the malt duties discussed that night he would not proceed with that Resolution—the Government would not proceed with it, even if it was reached on the paper.

With regard to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), he might say that he had not heard anything on the subject of an intention to charge a threepenny stamp on the documents called weigh notes. He would, if the hon. Member permitted him, ask for particular information as to the circumstances and statistics, before he assumed that the hon. Member was correctly informed. But there were two observations which, perhaps, he might venture to make on the subject. One was, that the Government had no authority to construe the law; and any opinion they might give as to the effect of an Act of Parliament might possibly tend to mislead the public, inasmuch as it could not be an authoritative opinion, and could have no influence in a court of justice. If the intentions of the Government were asked it might be their duty to give an opinion. But with respect to the interpretation of the law, that was neither a common, nor, in point of fact, a necessary practice. In any case he would submit that this question of interpretation of necessity fell into the hands of the Revenue Department; and he thought it was the most convenient course in all cases that the interpretation should in the first instance be sought from them.

With respect to the question of the stamp upon dock warrants, there clearly could be no necessity for such a stamp upon their transfer from hand to hand, either with or without an endorsement. In any case that he was aware of—he 2065 spoke generally on the subject, because he was not acquainted with the particulars of any circumstance that had arisen, but undoubtedly the intention with which the House of Commons assented to a stamp upon dock warrants was that a dock warrant should be sufficient for all purposes upon having a single stamp affixed. With respect to delivery orders the case was not precisely analogous to that of dock warrants; but he would endeavour to give an explanation at once clear and sufficient. In order to make a document liable to a stamp as a delivery order three conditions were required. The first was that the goods must be in a warehouse or other place, if on shore, where they were kept for order—he meant that if the goods were in a warehouse, or were not kept for hire, there was no question of a delivery order. The second was that the stamp only accrued upon the delivery order under the double condition of there being both a transfer and a delivery. Whenever there was a transfer of property, accompanied with what in law constituted a delivery, then there was a liability to a stamp. He apprehended that it was a possible case that the same delivery order should be so used as to require both transfer and delivery by endorsement. In that case undoubtedly it would become liable, as he believed, under the terms of and in conformity with the Act to a second stamp. But that was not the case, he thought, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and he confessed that he was misled by the question of the hon. Gentleman, because he seemed to imply that in ordinary cases it had been the intention of the Government to exact a stamp duty upon every successive endorsement of a delivery order. Now there was no such intention; and he was not aware that the Government had taken any step whatever in that direction. If the goods represented by delivery order were transferred by endorsement without what constituted delivery in law first taking place there would be no necessity for a second stamp.

As to the case of endorsement to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and a charge of another stamp, he could only say it had no sanction from any officer of the Government, and if it had occurred it could only have been through gross error. In short, the essence of the delivery orders depended on the transfer of the property in the goods, and even then not without delivery.