RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 21 July 1863)

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he rose to move the following Resolution:— That the present amount of Stamp Duty on Proxy Voting Papers, involving the necessity of procuring a Stamp of a particular amount, not always easily accessible to the Voter, and thus impeding the exercise of a franchise, and also, according to the analogy of Draft and Receipt Stamps, excessive in amount in comparison with such Stamps, and not involving consideration of importance to the Revenue, might conveniently be reduced to one penny. The tax on a proxy voting paper was sixpence. The state of the law on the subject was anomalous, while there was often much difficulty in procuring the necessary stamp. This gave great facilities to directors of large companies to obtain proxies by sending them out already stamped, and then charge the expenditure to the company, so that it was in fact almost impossible for any private shareholder to secure proxies to be used as against the directors. So much did the present tax impede the operation of voting in the ordinary way of sending out proxies that they were generally confined to what were called "star" shareholders—gentlemen holding a certain qualification in stock. The revenue derived from this source did not exceed some £15,000; and he believed that if the reduction which he recommended took place, proxies could be much more extensively used, and no loss of revenue would result from the change.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he would second the Motion. He begged to call in aid of the Resolution the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had been engaged throughout the Session in investigating the causes of and the remedies for the present discreditable state of railway legislation. One result to be deduced from the evidence before them was, that railway managers involved their shareholders in almost unceasing litigation, and that on the part of the great companies that litigation had for its chief object the prevention of the further extension of railways, thus putting a stop to these most beneficial investments If the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were acceded to, it would give access, in the management of railways, to the genera body of shareholders, instead of, as at present, practically limiting the management to the board itself, and to such persons as might receive proxies. He be- 1166 lieved a penny would be habitually paid, rather than that shareholders would exclude themselves, as at present, from all voice in the management. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wholly recouped.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he felt that it would be almost pedantic on his part if, in regard to a question of such fiscal importance, he raised any debate on the form of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, particularly as he thought his object rather was to draw attention to the subject and try the ground for future proceeding, if he should think fit, than to press the Motion in its present shape on the acceptance of the House. He admitted that there was a good deal of force in what had fallen from the hon. Members who had addressed the House. The question of railway policy was indeed a very large one, and the Motion touched but a very small and infinitesimal part of it. But still he did not at all deny that it was a question which might have its importance. As far as Government was concerned, they had shown no indisposition to facilitate the exercise by proprietors of joint-stock companies of their privilege through the medium of proxies; because not a very great many years ago, as late as 1844, the tax on these proxies was 30s. each, and it had been reduced by different Acts, some of which he had himself proposed, from 30s. to 6d. They had, therefore, shown every disposition to facilitate the increased action of shareholders in joint-stock companies without the expense of personal presence. The question in his mind really was this—in the first place, would it he agreeable to these joint-stock companies in general, and particularly to railway companies, that still further facilities for the use of proxies should be given; and secondly, was it likely that if the stamp on proxies was reduced, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the number of proxies issued would be very largely increased? He did not attach much importance to the second of these reasons, but he 1167 admitted that the question of giving facilities to proprietors of shares in joint-stock companies was not without importance, and he only wished for evidence of such a desire to enable him to form an opinion. The hon. Gentleman had said, that if he had had a little more time, he would have been able to show by evidence that such a desire did exist. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not say that the desire did not exist, but only that he had no evidence of it. Of course the action of the hon. Gentleman in raising the question would have the effect of calling attention to the matter. The hon. Gentleman was justified in what he had done, and he trusted the effect would be to place him in a position to come to a decision, and on the part of the Government to make a proposition to Parliament upon the subject. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that explanation, and would not press his Motion.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, that he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his fair and courteous reply, and to intimate that he would not press his Motion.