HC Deb 06 June 1861 vol 163 cc671-6

Order for Consideration read.

MR. AYRTON

complained that one of the clauses would have the effect of extending hawkers' licences to a new class of persons. The words were "any tradesman or person who went to ask for an order for goods;" and, although commercial travellers and agents were specially exempted from the operation of the Act, it might be argued that shopkeepers themselves fell within the definition.

THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER

said, the law of hawkers was one not easy to construe and apply. The intention of the Bill was not to interfere with the established practice except in one particular case. That was the case of persons who, being hawkers in every other respect, yet escaped the licence tax through selling their goods by sample. The clause would not extend to any person who had a shop.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (imposing a penalty on persons signing any agreement for the hire of a furnished house),

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that the words of this clause were so loose that they might make the counsel who was instructed to draw a lease liable to a penalty of £20 for not presenting it with the proper stamp to the parties who were to sign it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the words to which objection was taken were, "And also any agent or person who shall prepare or be employed in preparing" the instrument.

The intention of those words was to bring within the scope of the penalties of the clause the responsible person employed in the preparation of the agreement and who presented it to the parties for signature. The old principle of the Stamp Laws made attorneys and solicitors who prepared such agreements liable to a penalty for presenting a document to the parties which was not duly stamped. That' was still the law of the land; but it was not usual to sue for these penalties, because the legal profession generally obeyed the law and presented to their clients documents with the proper stamp. But it was well known that house agents often framed these agreements without the intervention of a solicitor; and the object of the clause, therefore, was that the person whose business it was to present the agreement to the parties in order that it might be executed should be liable to a penalty if he did not present it duly stamped. The words of the clause were, he thought, not too wide, and any court of law would, doubtless, confine them within the plain reason and object of the enactment. No person would be able to sue under this clause except the revenue authorities.

MR. AYRTON

was not aware that attorneys and solicitors were bound under a penalty, as the right lion. Gentleman stated, to see that every deed they prepared was duly stamped, and he should be glad to have the statute containing such a provision pointed out to him. One difficulty was this, that there was nothing to connect the default of the agent with the default of getting the agreement stamped. There was another difficulty, arising from the fact that it was not stamped paper exclusively which was to be used, because adhesive stamps might be applied. On looking at the whole clause, he could not but think that we were going far in the direction of penal legislation with respect to stamps. At present an agreement might be stamp-fid six weeks after signing; but if this clause were passed a person could not sign a paper at the moment without the necessary stamp. The time might be late at night or early in the morning, and the place one at which a stamp could not be procured at the moment; and, therefore, it was going very far to say that a person must not sign the agreement without affixing the stamp. This was an abrogation of the present law for which there was no necessity, because the provision applying to the non-validity of unstamped agree- ments was sufficient for all purposes. It was not necessary that these agreements should be in writing at all, and people ought rather to be encouraged to make use of written agreements, in order to prevent misunderstandings, than be deterred from so doing by legal obstacles such as those now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The House ought not to deal with a question like this as if penalties were matters of course. It was not sufficient to say that the authorities would not be likely to make any undue use of a penal enactment—it was the duty of Parliament to consider very carefully how far there was a necessity for any penalty before it consented to it. He was sorry to say that in this respect the reformed lost by comparison with the unreformed House of Commons. Previously to the Reform Act the Members of the House of Commons felt that they occupied a position in which they were jealously watched by the people, and in which great caution, when dealing with matters like that now under discussion, was necessary on their part; but now it seemed to be very much the custom to have a popular cry, and to pay but little attention to legislative details on subjects to which that cry did not apply. He begged to move as an Amendment to leave out the words, "and also any agent or person who shall prepare or be employed in preparing the same."

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Instrument," in page 6, line 12, to the word "shall" in line 13.

MR. CRAUFURD

thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) applied to the whole clause.

MR. HADFIELD

objected to the clause because it imposed the penalty on the person who prepared the document, and not on the offending person who got the signature attached.

MR. HENNESSY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not this clause altered the law which permited the stamping of agreements with respect to the six weeks?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was not aware that there would be any alteration in the law of agreement with respect to subsequent stamping.

Question—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill"—Put, and agreed to.

On Motion that the clause, as amended stand part of the Bill,

MR. AYRTON

said, he had not divided in his Amendment in deference to some hon. Members who preferred voting on the clause. He opposed (he clause because it would introduce the singular anomaly of making it penal to do what the law allowed. A letter and its answer constituted an agreement in law with regard to letting apartments, if stamped, and the law permitted the stamping of one of these documents when the transaction was completed. The present clause abrogated that provision by requiring the stamp to be affixed before the agreement was completed under a penalty. Before they passed such a clause they should abrogate the whole law of agreements. He trusted this system of penal legislation would not be persisted in. He thought it most objectionable that the Board of Inland Revenue should have the power of imposing these penalties or not at their pleasure.

MR. HENNESSY

said, the clause would impose the penalty of £20 on the second of two parties to an agreement who did not, because he could not, sign on the stamp, simply because the stamp had been already obliterated by the first signature.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed that precedents of similar penalties were abundant, and they all rested on the principle of this clause. The objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), indeed, went far beyond the clause, arid was directed against the whole provision of the law which required that documents should be written on stamps. The after-affixing of the stamp was the exception not the rule. In the case of policies of insurance, bills of exchange, promissory notes, proxies, &c, parties were liable to positive penalties for not making use of the proper stamp. It was said that many of these agreements were made by correspondence, and arose constructively out of the effect of correspondence. On that point he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. But with such cases this clause had nothing to do. It was meant to apply, and he was advised that it did apply exclusively to those cases in which formal agreements were drawn, intended to be signed in common by the parties. If words could be devised, unexceptional in themselves, and excluding these constructive agreements, the joint effect of correspondence, in order to make the intention of the clause more clear, although he was advised it was clear already, he should make no objection. He wished to act on the principle on which, they had acted in regard to "bills and parcels, to make a low charge, and to take security by means of a penalty against any evasion of the charge. These transactions were of a very fugitive character, and hardly ever came under the view of any person but those immediately concerned, and there would be no security for the payment of the charge without a penalty.

MR. HADFIELD

said, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite right in calling attention to the matter. He objected that where correspondence was going on, and the person letting apartments consented to accept the proposal, the agreement being thus made, by this clause the person sending the letter would be rendered liable to a penalty for not writing on a stamp. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.

MR. HENLEY

said, that half the transactions in life were matters of correspondence, and if a memorandum were made, and a penalty, enforced because it was not stamped, it would be introducing quite a new law, which would be carried out into all the other descriptions of stamps. It appeared to him that this was a matter of very grave consideration. If a difference arose which had to be settled in a court of law it was usual to get such agreements stamped on paying the penalty, in order that they might be available as evidence; but there was nothing to compel people to stamp such agreements, if they did not wish to do so. If he understood the clause aright there was to be a penalty imposed if an agreement was not stamped, whether the parties wished to use a stamp or not. This was introducing a new state of things which might prove very serious indeed. He wished to know whether it was intended to enforce the penalty if the memorandum was not subsequently required to be stamped?

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that by the old Stamp Laws a deed could be stamped on payment of the penalty and brought into Court for examination, but the Court took no notice of the previous omission of the stamp. Now, however, the Court took judicial notice of the want of a stamp, and inflicted an additional penalty. This, he thought, gave sufficient protection to the revenue. The effect of the clause might be to encourage verbal contracts, and thus the revenue would rather suffer by it than otherwise. The whole of the circumstances had evidently not been taken into consideration by the advisers of the Inland Re- venue, because it was clear that it would make almost every letter a constructive agreement. He thought the clause should be withdrawn.

MR. PULLER

said, that there was no other case in which an immediate penalty was inflicted when liberty was given to the parties to stamp the agreement afterwards. The penalty which was inflicted upon the parties for not obliterating stamps was quite sufficient to meet the case.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he was quite prepared to amend the clause by inserting words to this effect, "provided that nothing herein contained should be considered to render persons liable to a penalty on account of any letters or correspondence by post, containing proposals for the letting or taking of a house." He must say that if the objections to this clause were so strong as to ensure its rejection, he must also drop the clause which provided for the reduction of the duty, taking his chance of getting the present high duty where he could upon agreements for letting houses.

MR. SPEAKER

stated that the Proviso could not be added unless the Amendment were withdrawn.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he would bring it up at a subsequent stage.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 38: Majority 34.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.