Lords Sitting of 29 June 1808

APPROPRIATION ACT.
On the motion for going into a committee on this act,
Lord Hollandrose, and repeated his objections against inserting in this act the Grant to the college of Maynooth, and that to the East India company. The change in the amount of the former grant, he saw no reason to justify. It was a deviation from the principle upon which the grant had first been made, and upon which it had been augmented in the last session of parliament. He wished to learn from the noble secretary of state, by what inducements government had been led to diminish the grant, and thus depart from the principle which had first suggested it to the adoption of government, and the sanction of the last session of parliament. That principle, the world knew, was the principle of so far conciliating the catholics of Ireland.
Lord Hawkesburyacknowledged, that the grant had in some measure been diminished; but it was upon an understanding that no larger a sum should be granted I than was necessary to complete the buildings that were then commenced at this establishment. It was originally intended that accommodation should be provided for a certain number of students; but when it was proposed to carry that accommodation to an unlimited extent, it was thought proper to stop at what was first, conceived to be an adequate provision.
The Earl of Lauderdalereprobated the idea of circumscribing the privileges and powers of that house, by conforming to any understanding that might be supposed to have been agreed to in another place. There was no end to the extent to which such a mode of reasoning might be carried, if it was sufficient to say, that upon an understanding between ministers in another place, such and such a measure was to be
1096
adopted and inserted in the Appropriation act, thus attempting to deprive their lordships of the exercise of their judgment on such a measure.
Lord Hawkesburydisavowed any such design on his part, and only adverted to the principle upon which the measure had; elsewhere been adopted, and not to any particular understanding between individuals of his majesty's government on the subject.—The bill was then reported.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
On going into a committee upon this bill,
Lord Hollandinveighed against the principle of this bill in the severest terms. It went to oppress those who were already labouring under circumstances of distress and difficulty, by increasing the duties on deeds of conveyance, which besides must fall with peculiar hardship on the proprietors of land. The bill would also severely affect attorneys, and he should never approve of any principle of taxation that tended to press with peculiar weight on any particular class of the community.
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, that under the urgent exigencies of the present moment, it was necessary to have recourse to every possible source of revenue. The principle of the present bill had long been acknowledged and acted upon by parliament, and the increase of the duties in the present instance was only a further extension of that principle. That principle did not bear harder on the landed than on the commercial interest; on the contrary, it must weigh heavier on the latter than on the former, as transfers of property were more frequent among commercial men than among landed proprietors. It moreover would operate equally on the buyer and the seller.
Lords Rosslynand Lauderdale contended, on the contrary, that the hardships of the increased duty would fall almost entirely on the seller, who, from urgent circumstances was compelled to transfer his properly. Indeed, the principle of the bill was in every respect iniquitous and unjust.—After a few words from lord Hawkesbury, the house resolved itself into a committee, en the bill; after which, the report was received, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.