Sitting of 15 April 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolitan Interments: Convict Prisons; Railway Abandonment.
2° Medical Charities (Ireland).
Reported.—Indemnity.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN MALTA.
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of certain proceedings at Malta in reference to the Roman Catholic Church in that island. On the 10th of March, an ordinance was passed by which the Church of Rome was declared the dominant religion in Malta. On the 14th a proposition was made in reference to other religions, tolerating or protecting them. A Member of the Government of that island objected, and contended that the Church of Her Majesty, which Her Majesty had sworn to protect in all its rights and privileges, could not fairly be designated as a church tolerated in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, and maintained that it ought to be regarded as established. Her Majesty's Government were defeated, and the ordinance in its offensive form was passed. A protest was made by the Lord Bishop of

299
Gibraltar. From the part taken by Her Majesty's Government on the spot, there was very little room for doubt as to the answer which would be given to the question he had now to put, whether such ordinance had or had not arrived, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give their sanction to it, or, if not, what answer they proposed to return?
MR. HAWESreplied that his hon. Friend had scarcely stated what had been done by the Council of Malta quite correctly. The facts were these: In the council a proposition had been made for the amendment of the municipal code. In that part relating to religion there had been introduced, by a majority, a certain amendment which imposed a higher penalty on the interruption of the Roman Catholic worship. No ordinance had been passed; none, at least, had reached the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The Bishop of Gibraltar, within whose diocese Malta lay, had protested, and his protest had been received; but in consequence of these proceedings the noble Lord the Secretary of State had thought it right, if the amendment should be introduced into an ordinance couched in the terms stated, and imposing discriminating penalties on those who interrupted the worship of Roman Catholics, as compared with those who interrupted the worship of any other body of Christains, to declare that such ordinance should not be sanctioned.
SIR. R. H. INGLISinquired whether the term "Established Church" would be used as designating the Church of Her Majesty?
MR. HAWEScould give no further reply till the ordinance arrived.
Subject dropped.

SECURITIES FOR ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. STUARTwished to know, with reference to the Securities for Advances (Ireland) Bill, which stood on the paper for that night, how many sales had actually been effected under the order of the Commissioners for the Sale of Encumbered Estates in Ireland, and in what counties; how many orders had actually been made for the sales of estates; and whether, in any case, and in how many, application had been made to the Commissioners to have the sale effected on the terms of paying one-half the purchase-money, and providing for the other half by certificate, according to the mode pointed out by the Bill before the House?
The SOLICITOR GENERALhad received notice from the hon. and learned Gentleman too late to obtain the information. What he might state could only be matter of opinion; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for a return on the subject it would be furnished.
MR. STUARTobserved, that it would be idle to proceed with the Bill to which he had referred till the information he sought was produced.
SIR. G. GREYsuggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman should move for a return now.
Return ordered accordingly.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
On the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, in order to go into Committee upon this Bill,
SIR. H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he found in the amended Bill that copyhold estates and customary estates and memorials were included, and that they had not existed in the original Bill, or in the schedule which had passed through the Committee of the whole House, He wished to inquire, whether it was competent to the House to deal with any new heads introduced into a Bill of this nature, with the view of increasing the taxation of the country, without submitting them to a Committee of the whole House?
MR. SPEAKERstated, that if the duties were entirely new it would be necessary for them to go through a Committee of the whole House; but if they were merely reductions of old duties, it would not be necessary.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas anxious to make a very short statement in order to remove any misapprehensions which might exist with regard to this Bill, because it was extremely in convenient that any discussion should take place upon the question of the Speaker leaving the chair, as almost all the points that could be raised must be upon the schedule of the Bill. There had, however, been so much misapprehension on the subject that he might state that in the altered Bill now before the House there was no increase whatever—no additional tax had been laid on; but there was a considerable number of reductions. He and the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had received many suggestions with regard to this Bill, the whole of which had been considered and digested. Interviews had been had with many of the parties, and he believed he might say generally, that 99 of

301
the objections out of 100 had been removed by the alterations which had been made in the Bill. He had stated, when he introduced the Bill, that he endeavoured to proceed upon the ad valorem principle. Whether that was a right principle was a question for the House to decide; but upon it he had proceeded as nearly as he could. That was the principle that he had carried out; but what he wished to state now generally (because it was probable it might remove some apprehension) was the effect of the alterations. The great object was taken that words had been introduced which created doubts of raising money for short loans on deposit of deeds and other securities. He had struck them out altogether—all objections on that ground had been removed. Objections was taken to the charge on mortgages. That had been reduced. The duty on copyholds appeared to be of a higher amount than that of freeholds; that had been reduced. The duty on surrender and assignment of leases had been reduced. Settlements in pursuance of articles had been exempted. The reductions would be more conveniently taken on the schedules, or on the Bill as the matters arose in Committee.
MR. GOULBURNwas unwilling to prevent the House going into Committee; but he trusted he might be excused whilst he pointed out what appeared to him to be a grave defect in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to introduce a mode of levying stamp duties which had never been adopted in any previous Act, namely, the principle of levying an equal percentage on all transactions requiring a stamp. This had never before been acted upon, and for this simple reason—that, if you took an amount of duty in the lower part of the scale sufficient to produce the adequate revenue, it operated on the higher part of the scale with such extreme oppression that it would prove either ruinous to the party paying the duty, or be from evasion utterly inoperative as a measure of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had got himself into a difficulty, and if he proposed to make an ad valorem scale of duties on stamps for all the different subjects stated in the present Bill, it should have been made rather with reference to what would be to be paid on the higher amounts than on the lower. It appeared to him that that was the only manner by which they could give effect to a graduated scale without producing
302
inconvenient consequences. To take one example, look at the case of mortgages. The right hon. Gentleman introduced this measure as a relief to what was supposed to be a suffering part of the community—the landed interest of this country; and he stated that it was his object to give relief in the case of minor conveyances and in that of the borrowing of money on land, and thus facilitate transactions of that nature. Transactions by way of mortgage, whether upon land or other property, were carried on to a very large amount indeed, and when they talked of 20,000 l., 30,000 l., or 50,000 l. lent upon mortgage, they talked only of an every-day occurrence, in which the parties were so far in difficulty as not to be competent to pay immensely for the advantages they received; whether the necessity of mortgaging arose from circumstances of personal distress, or with the view of laying the foundation of a future fortune. Yet, see how enormously the duty upon these transactions was augmented by the present measure. Take a mortgage of 50,000 l.; the duty, which was previously 25 l., would now be 250 l., and, going up to 150,000 l., the duty would be 750 l., instead of 25 l. The necessary consequence of this arrangement would be, either that the ingenuity of mankind would devise some means of obtaining advances of money without the expense of a mortgage, and thus the revenue would not be obtained, or the exaction would operate in a ruinous manner upon those who were compelled to embark in such transactions. Again, observe how such a change of duty would operate upon private as well as public interests, suppose that upon a mortgage of 150,000 l. a person was paying at present 5 per cent interest. As the funds rose—as he hoped they would under the management of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—nearly to par, he went to his creditor, and asked to be allowed a reduction of the interest. Under ordinary circumstances, at present there would be no hesitation in acceding to such a proposal; but the case would be very different if this Bill should pass, for the creditor would say, "No, the Government imposes on you a penalty of 750 l., and I will not reduce the interest to the market rate," because I know you cannot pay that penalty. The heavy penalty imposed in the shape of a tax upon the mortgage, thus gave to the lender the power of maintaining a high rate of interest,

303
and a high rate of interest is not beneficial to a commercial community. It was well known, that in times of prosperity many of the great mills and manufactories that were built were upon loans borrowed upon mortgage of the building about to be erected; and he remembered in that wild period of prosperity which occurred some time back, that the practice of mortgaging was carried to such an extent that each story of a manufactory was mortgaged as the building advanced. If the House imposed this tremendously heavy charge upon mortgages, they would defeat the endeavours of persons who wished to embark in such transactions. The House must bear in mind also that there were other items in the stamp schedule that proceeded upon the principle of graduated duties, and were not included in the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman left bills of exchange perfectly open, and he was at a loss to understand upon what principle it was that the same rule was not applied to them; for if the right hon. Gentleman retained the present scale of bill duties, did he not imagine that persons who wanted to borrow money would resort to the bill-market rather than pay the enormous duties to which he had alluded; or, if he altered the present rate of bill stamps, and imposed a duty of 20 l. or 30 l. upon the drawing of a large commercial bill, in order to satisfy the principle of an ad valorem duty, what would be the feelings of the mercantile community? With respect to equitable mortgages, the right hon. Gentleman had exempted them from the heavy duty which the Bill originally proposed, and so far, no doubt, he had given an advantage to those who dealt with money on loans for short periods. The objection which he had to the principle, as far as mortgages were concerned, applied even in a stronger degree to settlements. If they made the duty so excessively heavy on the larger sums, in the case of marriage settlements, and imposed, as this Bill imposed, a duty not heretofore levied on contingent annuities, they obliged parties to resort to other modes of effecting their object; and he must say, that, in his opinion, such a provision was contrary to sound policy. He had been anxious thus briefly to state this outline of his objections previous to the Bill going into Committee, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might, if he thought it desirable, take them into his consideration, and repair
304
what he looked upon as an error in judgment in framing that scale of duties—an error which he believed would lead to one of the two consequences to which he had before referred—either to a general evasion of the duty as regarded the higher amounts, or to an oppressive exaction upon parties who were compelled to embark in such transactions, ruinous to them, and injurious to the general interests of the country. He wished further to ask why in one particular item the right hon. Gentleman had made the duty on mortgages double the amount of the duty on conveyances? In conveyances the man making a conveyance must be supposed to have something; but in the other case he would not be supposed to be so abundantly provided with available property. He should conclude by observing that, in his opinion, these were matters of considerable importance, and well worthy of serious consideration.
MR. MULLINGS, in stating the objections which he took to this Bill, said, that he did not see that it contained any provisions which would repeal any of the clauses of the Act passed in the reign of George IV., which regulated the transfer of mortgages. He considered that the duties on such transfers should be put in the same category as those to which this Bill referred. If they repealed the stamp duty on leases for one year, it was no longer necessary with regard to conveyances. He did not see, in such cases, that this Bill contained any provision for the production of deeds. The objections made by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as regarded mortgages, were well worthy of consideration. He wished, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not confined his objections to that part of the matter which related to mortgages on land only, but had extended it to mortgages on money, railway debentures, and a variety of mortgages. Bonds and warrants of attorney were now subjected to a very large duty. With regard to these, he thought that they ought to be all put in one class, and made subject to the same duties as the others. Taxing the public for loans, to the extent proposed by the Bill, was a very pernicious principle. It was, in fact, taxing the necessities and even the distresses of the people; for it frequently happened that parties who were obliged to execute a mortgage were not in circumstances to pay the expense of the instrument. Such cases had happened in

305
his own practice. Up to sums of 1,000 l. the Bill, he admitted, would afford relief, but beyond that the schedule was oppressive. For example, for 2,000 l. the present stamp was 6l.; under the Bill it would be 10 l. On 3,000 l. the present stamp of 7l. would be increased to 15 l.; on 4,000 l. it would be increased from 8l. to 20 l.; and on 5,000 l. from 10 l. to 25 l. So the scale went on. He contended that these charges were monstrous. There were other objections to the Bill, which he should reserve for the Committee; but under such circumstances, he could not consider it as a measure of relief. Nothing was more monstrous than the pressure of taxation on persons wishing to make settlements of annuities to the amount of 500 l. on members of their families. His only object in making these remarks was to bring the attention of hon. Members to the facts of the case, that they might know when in Committee what course they should take in the event of any amendments being proposed. He could not avoid remarking, that a reduction of the stamp duty in the matters to which he referred, would, instead of causing a decrease in the revenue of 300,000 l., produce an increase to that amount.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, benefit societies were exempted by the existing Act from stamp duties upon their transactions; and by a subsequent measure benefit building societies were placed upon the same footing. The Court of Common Pleas, on two occasions, had recently decided that benefit building societies were exempt from stamp duties. The transactions of these societies were of a very extensive nature. Large sums of money were invested in them not only by persons of the poorest class, but by others rather above them. It was, therefore, a matter of grave consequence to these parties that the exemption should be continued; but he did not find anything in the Bill upon the subject. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was intended that the Bill should continue the exemption?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was inconvenient to discuss the details of the measure at that particular stage, and he suggested that the House should go into Committee at once, when every question would be answered.
MR. HUMEhad no doubt that there was a considerable aggravation of the charges upon larger sums, but the intention was
306
that the duty upon all sums under 1,000 l. should be reduced to such a moderate amount as would afford relief to the smaller class of borrowers, and so be productive of advantage to the community. And then, in order to make up for the loss by this reduction, it was deemed necessary to apply an ad valorem duty to all sums above 1,000 l. Such was the objection; and then the question arose whether the percentage of duty was greater upon the large sums than upon the small. Now, the great complaint in this country had been that on large sums were charged but a small duty, whilst on small sums there was a large duty; and he understood the Government were disposed to equalise it, but he was favourable to the principle of an ad valorem duty.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that if the principle of an ad valorem duty were acted upon, it ought not to be confined to mortgages and stamps of the description referred to; it ought to be made general. But there was a hardship upon the House. They had been told that the country was about to receive a boon in the shape of a reduction of taxation to the extent of 300,000 l., yet they were now asked, in the absence of all information, to apply an ad valorem scale of duties which would press with great weight upon certain interests. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to forego 300,000 l. a year by the existing duties, he ought to give the House information whether the ad valorem duty would not produce a much larger amount. Unless he did, he was desiring the House to take a jump in the dark. Before the recess he asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury if he could produce a return of the number of stamps issued according to their respective values, and he was told the Stamp Office could not furnish such information. It was clear then that the House were asked to proceed in the dark. All the persons he had communicated with upon the subject concurred in the opinion that the Bill was an addition to the taxation of the country. It was therefore hardly fair to ask the House to go into Committee, unless an assurance was first given that, after it had been gone through, it should be recommitted, so that the country might have time to consider it maturely. Certainly the proposed stamp upon settlements and jointures were very hard. Why should they he charged upon a contingency which might never accrue at all?

307
The woman upon whom the settlement was made might die before it accrued; and it was clearly a hardship to place a tax upon parties under such circumstances.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, that the measure submitted to the House involved questions most difficult to determine, and comprised provisions which affected very many interests throughout the kingdom. He would ask the House to consider the circumstances under which they were now pressed to hurry into Committee on this Bill. They would well remember the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was about to propose an alteration in the duties which would operate as a great and substantial boon to the landed interest of the kingdom. That declaration was followed by a Bill which was now, he was glad to say, a defunct abortion, and of which, seeing that it was dead, he was unwilling to speak harshly. The right hon. Gentleman had evinced some impatience that he had been troubled with a great mass of suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. He (Mr. Sadleir) was bound to admit that, notwithstanding his impatience, the right hon. Gentleman had most gracefully and sensibly yielded to nine-tenths of those suggestions, and that, consequently, the House was not now called upon to consider the first Bill at all—a Bill which, he had no hesitation in saying, would, if it had passed, have brought an amount of disaster and ruin upon the commercial and agricultural interests of the country of which it was difficult to form any just conception. But although the worst parts of that Bill had fortunately been withdrawn, he thought there was great reason to complain that after the manner in which a similar effort was scouted by Parliament and the country in 1836, the Government should have again attempted to induce the House to adopt such objectionable provisions. He regretted to say, that the second Bill was not altogether free from objections; and although it might be very convenient for the occupants of the Treasury bench to avoid entering into any explanation of the Bill, especially as they might not be very conversant with the subject, it being a mixed question of agriculture, commerce, and law, they certainly ought not to have invited the House to consider the Bill in Committee without furnishing them with some explanations as to what they were determined to insist upon, and how far they intended to yield.
308
Were they determined to stand by the present schedules? What did they propose to do with regard to the large class of deeds which were unduly stamped at the present moment? He must confess that when he first saw the title of the Bill he thought it very encouraging, because it professed not merely "to repeal certain stamp duties, and to grant others in lieu thereof," but "to amend the laws relating to the stamp duties;" and he certainly had hoped, that, after the subject had been so long before Parliament and the country, some well-considered scheme would at length have been submitted to the House for the consolidation of the Stamp Acts, which were at present so scattered; for the simplification of provisions which were at this moment so complex and equivocal; and for diminishing the sources, and removing the causes, of the disputes which were continually arising out of the imperfect nature of the stamp laws; but he had been disappointed. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not proposed to impose any duty on any deed or writing which was not at present liable to duty. The right hon. Gentleman should well know that there were no laws which were so systematically evaded as the stamp laws. In the first place they dare not enforce them, because commerce and trade would be thus literally brought to a standstill. He hoped the House would be careful not to infuse into this Bill any of the objectionable principles which sealed the fate of the former Bill. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman said, that it was his intention to reduce the stamp duties on small transactions, and to increase them on large transactions. But what was the right hon. Gentleman's notion of a small and a large transaction? He regarded the sum of 1,000 l. as a large transaction, and subjected all operations beyond that amount to a high and increasing rate of duty. The hon. Member for Montrose, when he sympathised with those who negotiated small transactions, should recollect that cases under 1,000 l. were but a very small portion of those transactions in which the industrial classes of the country were interested. He objected to the increase of duty on every sum over 1,000 l.; the stamp duties ought to be diminished up to 10,000 l., and then there ought to be a gradual increase. There was one class of eases on which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase the duty

309
cent per cent. These were cases in which the stamp duty was now a shilling. He was of opinion that such an increase would be a great hardship. In cases of registration, with reference to leases or deeds, such an increase would be made according to the right hon. Gentleman's scale as to tempt many persons not to register at all, which was diametrically opposed to the policy of the hon. and learned Solicitor General with reference to land in Ireland, inasmuch as it was the object of the latter by recent measures to necessitate registration with reference to every transaction relating to land in that country. With regard to searches, nothing could be more objectionable than the stamp duties proposed, and showed great want of consideration and practical knowledge on the part of those who introduced this measure. With regard to the general principle he thought it exceedingly unjust that pure personalty should be charged with the same stamp duties as real property, and for this reason, that transfer in personalties occurred much more frequently than transfers of real property, and therefore the duties paid were much greater than they should be if the proportions were properly observed. Again, in matters of pure personalty, they had very heavy probate and legacy duties, an additional argument against rendering it liable to the same stamp duty as real property. He came now to the case of redeemable annuities, and he asked why were they to be charged a higher rate of stamp duty than mortgage transactions? A redeemable annuity was, in fact, a mortgage effected by a tenant for life, who, being anxious to raise money for improvements, could not adopt the usual plan of mortgage. It was, in fact, the tenant for life's mortgage, and he put it to the House whether in the present Bill an opportunity should not be taken to put both on the same footing. An omission he also regretted in the Bill was, that no attempt was made to set at rest those distressing doubts which the present state of the stamp laws created as to the rights of patentees. He objected to the plan of combining an ad valorem with a progressive scale of duties, the effect of which would be so to raise the expenses of mortgage transactions, as to drive parties to resort to practices which were making titles as voluminous as those Irish titles of which such complaints had been board of late. There were no laws so continuously evaded in this country
310
as the stamp laws, not from any disposition to commit fraud, but because the laws were in themselves so oppressive as necessarily to drive parties to every sort of shift and evasion. He regretted that no attempt bad been made in this Bill to remove all doubts as to the proper amount of duty to be charged on transfers of mortgages. They had heard many complaints as to the amount of litigation which the Irish tenure of leases for lives renewable for ever had created, but nothing could exceed the amount of litigation which had been created in this country by the uncertainty as to the proper amount of stamp duty to be charged on transfers. And yet although the matter had been a subject of general complaint for twelve or fifteen years, they were now considering a Bill for the amendment of the Stamp Duties, in which no attempt whatever was made to remove this great cause of doubt and dissatisfaction. With reference to portions for younger children, they were at present free from what was called the settlement duty, and he thought that the present Bill should be so framed as to continue that exemption. But the greatest objection he had against this Bill was its ex post facto operation, as even in its amended form it bore oppressively on deeds either wholly or in part executed. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether the Bill was not defective as regarded this point—whether, in fact, it was not without provision for the cases in which deeds may be either wholly or in part executed. This was a point which imperatively called for some distinct provisions. It was well known that there were constant conflicts as to what was the proper amount of stamp duty to be charged upon a deed. The matter was always uncertain; and from no public board or department, either in England or Ireland, could the proper information be obtained. There was not, in fact, a solicitor to a board in either country who would condescend to enlighten parties on the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester had given notice of clauses which would to a great extent remove the difficulty, but he (Mr. Sadleir) had not thought it loss of time to explain the matter fully to the House. He thought it highly desirable that a power should be vested in the commissioners of inland revenue of determining the proper amount of stamp duty to be charged on a deed, and that their decision should be binding upon all parties. He

311
believed that his hon. Friend's plan was to refer the matter to some judge in the common law courts. He trusted that in Committee some Member of the Government would state whether, in the case of deeds wholly or in part executed, the present or the new duties would be charged in case such deeds should be found to be unduly stamped. He understood the intention of Government in proposing the present Bill was to confer a boon upon the landed interest, and therefore he wished them to introduce a clause declaring every deed stamped before the passing of this Bill to be duly and legally stamped. He urged this upon the Government, because no man could contend that a party who went to the expense of stamping a deed at all meditated fraud. The parties who evaded the law, if evasion it could be called, were the great commercial interests who effected transfers of 50,000 l., 80,000 l., and 100,000 l. without the intervention of a stamp, and not the man who inadvertently, or through ignorance, had ratified his transaction with an improper stamp. This was done every day in this great city, transactions of vast amount being carried on plain paper by parties who knew very well that that paper ought to be stamped, but who dared the Government to enforce an absurd law, the effect of which, rigorously enforced, would be the total repression of the trade and commerce of this country. The party putting a wrong stamp on a deed meant no fraud; the defaulters were those who effected transfers on paper wholly unstamped. He asked no mercy for them, but he did claim consideration and exemption for those who, through the uncertainty of the law, had, inadvertently, put wrong stamps on their instruments. There were some exemptions with regard to shipping which were not alluded to in the new Bill, and, for that and for other reasons, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it would not be better to introduce a few words into the Bill, providing that all deeds exempt at present, should continue to enjoy that exemption under the new law.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in rising to address the Committee, he merely wished to state that he had never expressed any reluctance to hear objections on the Bill. When asked,
312
on a former evening, to postpone the Bill, he had refused to do so, not because he objected to discussion, but because he considered the objections started could be best disposed of in Committee. What he had objected to was, that Gentlemen should have asked him questions which, according to the forms of the House, he was not enabled to answer. Now, with regard to a great number of questions which had been raised, they referred to different clauses of the Bill, and different parts of the schedules; and he thought that the more consistent course would be to answer those questions as they arose. At the present moment he would only trouble the House with three or four general observations. It was not true that in introducing the measure he had said that he was introducing a Bill for the relief of all property—what he had said was, that the measure would be a relief in all transactions of small amount, and that he proposed to indemnify himself by raising a larger amount of duty on larger instruments. That statement seemed to have met with general approval; and he had further stated that he proposed an ad valorem duty, not a graduated scale, but an equable percentage, on the sum secured by the instrument, being one-half per cent on mortgage deeds or bonds. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University objected to that principle. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only say that he had received a great number of letters in favour of it. The question on this point was, whether a rich person who borrowed a large amount was not to pay the same proportionate duty as a poor person who borrowed a small amount. He had proposed, and he meant to abide, by an ad valorem principle, but of course must bow to whatever might be the decision of the House. He had heard it urged, that there might be a case of 100,000., lent to a great India house to prevent its failure, and that it would be hard to subject such a transaction to a proportionate stamp; but was not the case just as hard when the poor shopkeeper, borrowing a small sum to meet a pressing exigency, was made to contribute a proportionate amount to the stamp duty? It might be open to an objection to tax borrowings at all; but surely it was just that there should be the same percentage in the case of the large as of the small borrowing. He was quite aware that the amount charged on some borrowings would be very

313
large, and, therefore, having communicated with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, he was prepared to propose an equitable reduction. The rate proposed was now one half per cent. He proposed to reduce it to one quarter; that was to say, 5s. on the 100 l. It had been stated, that the Government proposition would add half a million to the revenue. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only say that he should be very happy if the prediction turned out correct. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire asked for returns showing what the result would actually be; but he was afraid that he could furnish no returns which would show exactly the effects of the alteration. He would, however, remind hon. Members that in these transactions, as in every other in this country, it was the mass of small transactions, and not the few large ones, that in the main produced the revenue. He had gone over the accounts carefully with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, some of whom had been Commissioners of Stamps, and the conclusion they had come to was that the loss consequent on the introduction of the present Bill might be taken at 300,000 l., or perhaps as low as 270,000 l., and the proposal he had just announced, reducing the percenage to one quarter, might entail a further loss of from 30,000 l. to 60,000 l. He could produce no figures that would settle the exact amount. He might, as in the case of other reductions which had increased consumption, hope for increase in some cases, but to give anything like an exact idea of the probable result of the change would be utterly impossible. All he could say was this, that having desired the officers who had the best means of forming an opinion on the subject to give him I their opinion, he now stated on their authority—he could have no other—that the loss on his original proposal would be probably, in round numbers, 300,000 l. Whether the multiplicity of transactions might not in a few years raise the revenue, he could not foresee; but the loss from his present proposal would be most probably from 330,000 l. to 350,000 l. He did not know that there were any other general observations requiring an answer, except that of the hon. Member for Car-low as to existing deeds. If that hon. Member had taken the trouble of referring to the Act, he would have found that the case of existing deeds was provided for. The hon. Member had also objected that there was considerable difficulty in ascertaining
314
how deeds ought to be stamped. The hon. Member for Cirencester had proposed a clause to remedy the difficulty. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that the hon. Member's clause would settle the matter in the most desirable way, but he would himself prepare a clause by which he thought that the difficulty could be satisfactorily arranged. He proposed to vest in the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes a power to define the proper amount of stamp to be affixed to any instrument, and that there should be, in addition to the usual stamp, a small stamp, to be called an adjudication stamp, fixing for ever the future legality of the instrument. He did not think there were any other general observations requiring an answer; and as to questions of detail, he thought they could be much better disposed of as they arose on the clauses and schedules.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit, whilst the House was in Committee, to address to them some general observations, which were however of a contradictory nature. He understood the right hon. Gentleman on a former evening to say, that he intended to bring in a measure for the advantage of the landed interest. The smaller proprietors, not the least important part of the landed interest, were to receive relief from a modification of the stamp duties that affected them. The right hon. Gentleman informed them that he could not make this beneficial change for the small proprietor, unless he, at the same time, made others which would affect the great proprietors, adopting an ad valorem system of imposts. He could not remember, when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, that the phrase of ad valorem escaped his lips. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes, it did.] The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to introduce a measure for the advantage of the small proprietors—that he anticipated that the change which he was going to make would cost the revenue from 300,000 l. to 350,000 l.—and that he was going to sacrifice from the surplus at his command a sum to that amount. That was an intelligible proposition; but what did the right hon. Gentleman say to-night? That he was prepared to benefit the small proprietors to the amount of 350,000 l.; but that, in compensation for this, he must lay taxation to the same amount on the great proprietors. Was that consistent with the

315
original statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was going to devote a certain amount of his surplus revenue to the benefit of the landed interest, when it turned out that the great plan of the Government was to relieve one portion of it at the expense of the others? The right hon. Gentleman introduced a measure, the object of which was to benefit the small proprietors by devoting to their relief a portion of the surplus revenue, as the right hon. Gentleman originally stated, for he anticipated a loss; but the present measure, even if it were politic and necessary, had for its object to increase the taxation of the landed interest, or at least a considerable portion of them. But whether politic and necessary or not, one thing he must say, that a measure of this kind ought to be brought forward frankly, and not under a false pretence. The Government should not, on an occasion of such importance, come forward and announce that they were going to introduce a measure for the benefit of the landed interest, which, when it came to be discussed, turned out to be one for raising the taxation of a portion of the landed interest. But if the right hon. Gentleman insisted on a compensation by an ad valorem scale, what did he mean to do with the 350,000 l. surplus in the Treasury, the application of which, in the way proposed, would not be necessary, and which probably some of his friends around him would wish to be devoted to the reduction of the duty on paper or some other article?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would not be in order to refer to what had passed in a former debate; but surely the hon. Member's memory must be defective, seeing that he had put words in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) mouth which he had never uttered, and—unintentionally of course—had misrepresented other words uttered not five minutes since. He appealed to the House whether, when he brought forward the stamp duties, he had not distinctly stated his project. What he had stated was, that he proposed a measure with regard to the stamp duties, the loss by which would be somewhere about 300,000 l., and the removal of the brick duty at somewhere about 400,000 l., both together about 750,000 l. Now, the hon. Gentleman said that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had somehow or other got 350,000 l. into his pocket; he hoped it might be so, but he was wholly at a loss to
316
know from whence it was to come. When he stated that he anticipated a loss of about 300,000 l., he stated also that he proposed to relieve transactions of a small amount, and to increase the duty on those of a large amount, and that on the balance of the account, he calculated that that loss would result. He had concealed nothing, neither had he deceived anybody. And with regard to the application of the ad valorem duty, when he brought forward the budget, and again on the following Monday, when he moved the resolution on the stamp duties, he stated most distinctly, and he believed nine-tenths of those who heard him would corroborate what he said—that he proposed to adopt the ad valorem principle throughout. He repeated that the hon. Gentleman entirely mistook when he said that there would be a gain on the change in the stamp duties of 350,000 l.; on the contrary, there would be a loss on the whole transaction of about 300,000 l. or 330,000 l. In order that there might be no further mistake, he wished again to state distinctly that he proposed to adopt an ad valorem duty in all cases, but to modify it so as not to require a different priced stamp for transactions of nearly the same amount; for instance, there would be a certain stamp for transactions of 2,000 l., another for those of 2,300/., another for those of 2,500 l., and so on, rising by small jumps, instead of taking the exact ad valorem duty in each separate case, and that upon the change taken altogether, including mortgages and bonds, there would be a loss to the revenue of from 300,000 l. to 330,000 l.
MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the increase of the ad valorem duty on large transactions would be the compensation for the decrease in the small transactions. If so, what was to be done with the 350,000 l. which he would thus have beyond the surplus he had calculated upon? Now, the right hon. Gentleman talked of a balance upon the whole operation. That phrase balance was a most convenient one; but upon what data was it drawn? They heard nothing of the balance when they were told about the compensation. They were now told that the revenue would lose upon the balance 300,000 l.; but that was not the original idea of the budget.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad stated distinctly that he increased the duty on the larger, and decreased it on the smaller transactions, and

317
that on the balance he should lose about 330,000 l.
MR. GOULBURNdid not clearly understand by what means the right hon. Gentleman arrived at that result. He should like to know on what principle he had based his calculation to arrive at the conclusion, that after settling in his own mind the amount of loss which would arise from the decrease of the duty in the smaller, and the gain which would follow from the increase in the larger transactions, there would still be a loss of 300,000 l. or 330,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the loss on mortgages and bonds at 60,000 l. only, while the rest of the loss he (Mr. Goulburn) presumed was to result from conveyances.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the great bulk of the loss would be on conveyances, which, from the great number of the small transactions of this nature, he calculated at 230,000 l.; but, in regard to bonds and mortgages, it was considered that the low amount of duty would induce parties to stamp such deeds in all cases, whereas now the duty was often evaded on small transactions.
MR. F. MACKENZIEasked in what manner, after the passing of this Bill, it was intended to enforce the stamp duty on large transactions of this nature? Would it not be evaded in the same way as, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it was now on deeds for small sums?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would not be worth while.
MR. HENLEYwished to know on what data the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at the conclusion, that by changing the mortgage duty from 10 s. to 5s. per cent, he would lose 60,000 l. From what the right hon. Gentleman had said when he brought forward the budget, he (Mr. Henley) did not gather any indication of the intention to tax annuities and jointures, or that any new head of charge was to be imposed upon the landed interest. But now it appeared, instead of receiving any relief, they were to be subjected to additional taxation.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought it would be more convenient to postpone the consideration of the question as to the propriety of taking annuities as consideration money, until they came to the schedule relating to that subject. With regard to the probable loss arising from the alteration
318
of the duty on mortgages, bonds, covenants, and securities, that must be a matter of estimate; but not so as to conveyances, for they could ascertain the actual proceeds of the stamps for those purposes. If hon. Gentlemen would take the comparative statement of the present and the proposed scale of duties in reference to conveyances, they would see that there would be a great saving in all transactions up to 1,000 l., the stamp being at that amount a common one in both cases of somewhere about 9l. From 1,000 l. up to 100,000 l. the duty was much the same under the proposed and the existing system, but beyond 100,000 l. there was a considerable increase in the new scale. Conveyances of property above 100,000 l. in amount were, however, of rare occurrence; consequently, the results by way of compensation against the loss in the smaller transactions, arising from them would be very small. The proceeds of the several stamps of 10 s., 1l., 1l. 10 s., 1l. 15 s., 3l. 6l., and 9l., now were 472,548 l. 10 s.; the equivalent stamps under the present Bill would produce only, supposing the number of transactions to remain the same, 226,229 l. 4s. 6d. If they added to this the stamps on leases for a year, and the following stamps, which were also to be abolished, they could not put down the loss at less than 300,000 l.; for which the only compensation would be the increase in transactions above 100,000 l. There would be also a loss on mortgages, deeds, and covenants, but the amount could not be so well ascertained, and must therefore remain a matter of estimate.
MR. HENLEYthought he had reason to complain, after the explanation they had just heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General, of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On a former occasion, he had asked for some account of the number of stamps of a particular character which had been issued, and he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that he had searched the Stamp Office, but could not obtain the information required. Now it appeared the Government had it in their hands, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, quoting it, endeavoured to show exactly what the result of the proposed change would be, so far as the stamps on conveyances were concerned.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was in a condition to prove what would be the loss, but not to show what would be the gain—that must remain

319
a matter of estimate. They could tell at the Stamp Office the number of stamps sold, but when sold they could not toll in what manner they were applied, whether for conveyances or mortgages; hence it was that he was unable to afford the hon. Gentleman the information he required. In the calculation he had made he had estimated that two-thirds of the stamps were taken for conveyances, and the rest for mortgages and bonds, but that must be a matter of guess.
MR. GOULBURNobserved, that at present the one pound stamp was applied indiscriminately to conveyances and mortgages; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have discovered how many were applied to conveyances.
MR. MULLINGSbelieved that at present the 15 l. stamp was not applicable to conveyances, but covered a mortgage of from 10,000 l. to 15,000 l., and a settlement of from 12,000 l. to 15,000 l.—the amount produced by this class of stamps was 4,500 l. or 4,600 l.; the average number of transactions which it embraced being 300. Under the new scale, averaging the transactions at 12,500 l. each, and taking the same number, 300, the stamp, which would be 62 l. 10 s. each, would produce 18,750 l., and deducting the allowance to be made for the difference between the mortgages and the settlements, they would be reduced down to a profit of 12,000 l. on this item alone.
SIR. H. WILLOUGHBYthought it was only due to the landed interest that they should know what new taxes it was intended to impose. Would an agreement for a lease require to be stamped? As he read the Bill, he believed it would be liable to a tax under the head of covenants.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would be more convenient for him to give the explanation demanded by the hon. Baronet when they came to the schedule. He might, however, say, that there was nothing in the Bill which could fairly be called a new tax.
MR. BRIGHTthought the House was called upon to go on with the consideration of this Bill in Committee under circumstances of a most unfavourable character. He doubted if there were three Members in the House besides the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who understood the Bill. There was a universal opinion out of doors, so far as he could gather it from the public papers, and
320
from conversing with people who were professionally interested in the question of stamps—there was a universal impression that this proposition, which was to have relieved the country from 300,000 l. of taxation, would really tend to increase the taxes, supposing the same amount of transactions to take place under this Bill as took place under the existing Stamp Act. He was not a lawyer, and did not profess to be able to understand these matters very readily, but he looked over the Bill when it was first brought in, and must confess that he was much puzzled by it, and the paper which had since been presented with the name of the Secretary of the Treasury on the back of it was, to him, equally puzzling. The question, nevertheless, was an important one; and he did not know what amount of labour and attention the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid to it, but it was one of those subjects which required the most careful deliberation on the part of the House. It had struck him. for two or three years past, that it would be desirable for the whole question of the stamp duties to be referred to a Commission or a Committee of that House, which beginning at the beginning, and going through the subject to the end, might not only afford information by which they might decide what deeds should be liable to these duties, and the rate at which the ad valorem duty (of the justice of which there could be no doubt, he thought) should be levied. The charge on a small transaction of 20 l. or 30 l. was but trifling on that system at the rate proposed, but if they followed it up to large amount, it became a heavy tax, and must interfere materially with the conveyance of landed property—a result which he should regard as most injurious, not only to the owners of property, but to the public. If, therefore, the ad valorem duty was to be persisted in, he thought it should be levied at a much lower rate than was suggested in the present measure. He had not, however, risen to discuss the merits of the Bill, for he had not made himself sufficiently master of it to do so, but to protest against its being pressed through Committee that night, seeing that much dissatisfaction existed in regard to it out of doors, and that it had but so recently been placed in the hands of Members, that they were not in a position to go fairly into the discussion of the various details involved in a manner satisfactory to the House or the public. He did not say this for the purpose of interposing

321
any objection to the course the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought proper to pursue, but he could not consent to go into Committee, and to pass the Bill at that rapid pace at which such measures usually progressed without expressing his own opinion that their deliberations would give but little satisfaction to the country, and that the probable result would be the bringing in of another Bill to amend the defects of this. He did not believe that any reduction of taxation would result from the Bill as it now stood, and, though he approved of the principle of the ad valorem duty, he thought the rate fixed in the Bill far too high. What he asked for was that more time should be given for considering the measure before they were called upon to pass it through Committee.
The SOLICITOR GENERALdid not think the hon. Gentleman had done justice to himself or the other Members of the House, when he said they found a difficulty in understanding the Bill. All matters of figures were, to a certain extent, complicated; but all the provisions of the Bill were plain and capable of ready explanation; and the hon. Gentleman would find, if he would allow them to go into Committee, that any matters of difficulty which might occur to him or other hon. Gentlemen would be fully explained. If, after going through Committee, hon. Gentlemen should find themselves unable to understand any part of the measure, or the amount of relief it was intended to give, then the objection to further progress would come with some weight; but he had always found that the elucidation of Bills of this nature was much assisted by the discussion in Committee, and the explanations then given, and that in this respect a Committee of the whole House was far more useful than a Committee upstairs. If the measure was referred to a Select Committee, as the hon. Member for Manchester had suggested, a considerable time would be consumed in hearing long statements from one side and the other, and in preparing a report in the shape of a large blue book; but the result would be that at the close of the inquiry they would be much in the same position as they were now. Besides, as he was informed, the forms of the House would not allow of such a proceeding being taken in the present case. With regard to the principle of the Bill, the hon. Member for Manchester, and the country also, he believed, approved of it. No doubt that principle was distasteful
322
at first sight to those who were not conversant with the wants of the small proprietors who would be relieved by it, and who were staggered by the idea that in some very rare transactions, involving perhaps a million of money—which occurred but very rarely indeed—there would be an increase in the stamp duty. He believed there was not more than one transaction in the year, on the average, amounting to 100,000 l.; and on all below that, down to 1,000 l., the duty was nearly the same under the new as under the present scale, while on all below that amount there was a very considerable reduction. As to the manner in which the proposition would affect the revenue, that must remain for the present a matter of calculation; but those on whose judgment the Government could depend, gave it as their opinion that there would be a loss of 300,000 l. Supposing this to be correct, and that the upper class of proprietors should be taxed by it to the extent of 300,000 l. more than they were at present, it was clear that the result would be a relief to the amount of 600,000 l. a year to the lower class. This would be a considerable advantage, not only to the smaller, but to the large porprietors, for that must necessarily be beneficial to them which facilitated the sale of property in small quantities, and so subdivided it amongst a larger class of proprietors. Believing that by allowing the Bill to go into Committee at once, it was more likely to receive emendation than by deferring it, he hoped no further objection would be offered.
MR. MITCHELLdid not think it would be just to apply the ad valorem principle to mortgages unless the amount of the duty was exceedingly small. The fallacy was that in taxing mortgages, while they supposed they were taxing property, they were taxing debt. Take the case of two men, each having an estate of 50,000 l., the one requiring to borrow 10,000 l., the other 20,000 l., to pay up railway calls) or for any other purpose; the man who required the larger loan, and was, consequently, the poorer man, would have to pay double the amount of duty which would be charged on the one who required to borrow only the 10,000 l. He thought, if they adopted the ad valorem system, if they took it at one-eighth per cent, it would be as far as they could in fairness go.
MR. SADLEIRthought it very alarming to hear the hon. Member for the important,

323
wealthy, and commercial constituency of Manchester express his inability to understand the provisions of a Bill so deeply affecting those whom he represented, and it certainly was in his (Mr. Sadleir's) opinion a reason for postponement; but, at the same time, it was right to tell the Government that the more closely the Bill was examined, the stronger was the opposition to it likely to become. He thought the Bill would be peculiarly injurious to Ireland. There was no part of the kingdom where land was concentrated in the hands of so small a number of persons as Ireland, while, on the other hand, there was the most extreme subdivision in regard to the occupation. They had heard of the advantage of subdivision in the ownership, and the facilities which in that respect the Bill would afford, but it was not to be expected that that result could be effected by a single operation. If such an alteration did take place at all, it would be gradual. Therefore, the Government had chosen a most unfortunate moment for making the proposed alteration—a most unfortunate moment for the creditor and incumbered owner, because the parties who intended to make purchases during the next four or five months in Dublin would calculate the ad valorem duty they would have to pay, they would deduct that amount from the purchase money, and they would thus visit an evil upon the puisne creditor. But there was another class of proprietors in Ireland—he meant that large class of proprietors who possibly might be able to preserve to themselves a portion of their properties by effecting voluntary sales without coming within the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act, and upon them this proposed alteration in the Stamp Act would likewise fall heavily; and so far as its high scale of duties extended, that scale would be severely felt. Some of the estates before the commission exceeded 100,000 acres, and one of them was more than 300,000 acres; and however such estates might be broken up, it was clear that they were not likely to be reduced to sufficiently small divisions to come under the advantages held out by this Bill. He begged to acquaint the House that it had hitherto been wholly impossible to obtain the opinions of any class of persons in Ireland with reference to the present Bill. The committee of solicitors in Dublin, who took upon themselves the onerous duty of watching measures of this nature, and who could form a practical estimate of
324
such legislation, had not given their views upon the Bill, so far as he had been able to learn. The commercial clauses in Belfast, Cork, and Limerick had been silent upon it. The landlord and tenant, the mercantile and the banking interest of Ireland, had been unable to communicate their views regarding it to any hon. Member of that House. Under such circumstances, he thought it would not be paying proper respect to Ireland to proceed with the measure; but, at all events, if it were proceeded with in the present stage, he hoped its further progress would be postponed until the Irish Members were afforded time to communicate with their constituents.
MR. HUMEthought that if there was any portion of the community more likely than another to be benefited by the present Bill, it was the people of Ireland. There was very little difficulty in understanding the proposal, if hon. Gentlemen would consult the printed table with which they had each been furnished, inasmuch as that table contained the cost of the stamp for every conveyance or mortgage up to 1,000 l. The higher amounts were certainly not expressed, and he regretted that such an omission had taken place. He was of opinion that the Committee might proceed with great safety to consider the first, second, and third clauses of the Bill. The first repealed the old Acts; the second enacted the new scale; and the third merely stated certain exceptions. The public press, to whose exertions the community owed a great deal, had been discussing the measure, and the suggestions of the newspapers were now published. The Government had assured the House that the aggregate amount of the general taxation would be less under the new Bill than it would be under the existing law, and therefore the measure ought to be proceeded with at once. He had been making inquiry on the subject at the Stamp Office, and he was there assured that nearly 300,000 l. would be the decreased amount of taxation in the aggregate. He knew the complaint was, that while the Bill would decrease the cost on small sums, it would increase it on large ones. Now when the income tax was proposed, he moved as an Amendment the reconsideration of the whole Tax Office, but he was left in a very small minority. He was, however, in favour of the present Bill, because it would more equally distribute taxation than was the case at present. He thought the cost of stamps ought

325
to increase when the amount went beyond 1,000 l. or 1,300 l.; and let those who sought for a less gradual increase than was proposed above that amount, bear in mind the number of years during which the lower classes had been paying unequally heavy taxes in stamps and other matters. He, therefore, hoped that no time would be lost in allowing the Bill to give that general relief which it was its design to impart.
MR. CONOLLYthought the consideration of the Bill ought to be deferred till Members were more fully masters of the subject. The readjustment of the stamp duties was a matter of great importance and difficulty.
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not see that, if the Bill were postponed for a week, or fortnight, or three weeks, the House would be any further advanced in the consideration of the subject. The objection founded on the condition of Ireland was an objection to the consideration of the Bill at all during the Session, and a proposal to defer the Amendment of the Stamp Acts altogether. Now, the inequalities of the stamp duties upon the transfer of land, and the great hardship inflicted upon the smaller proprietors by the very heavy charge placed upon them, had for many years attracted observation, and had been pointed out in a Committee of the House of Lords; and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, at least for the last year, given his attention to the subject. Very early in this Session it was stated to be a subject to which the attention of Parliament would be directed; and a month ago, in making the financial statement, he pointed out the nature of the measure he meant to propose. His right hon. Friend stated that what he proposed to do was to diminish the duty on the smaller conveyances and on transactions in small properties, and to make a more equable arrangement and distribution of the duties with respect to the larger amounts of property and conveyances. Therefore the principle of the present measure had been for a month under the consideration of the House and of the public. When the resolution was proposed, and the Bill brought in, the subject attracted a great deal of attention, as a matter of course, and his right hon. Friend had received numerous communications and various persons from different parts of the country, and various suggestions had been made to him, and objections offered, which he had endeavoured to obviate
326
as far as possible. Were they to postpone the measure for months, and was there or was there not inconvenience to be expected from doing so? It was well known there was the greatest inconvenience arising from the postponement of measures of this kind, and that many transactions would be put in abeyance by it. Well, then, if there was such a general agreement as to the necessity of the measure, and if the principle was approved of, let the House go into that consideration of its details to which each particular proposal was entitled. Because at present, if one hon. Gentleman got up to speak of mortgages, another spoke of conveyances, a third took up the question of the lower scale of charges, while another hon. Member went into the higher duties. The hon. Member for Bridport made an objection to the measure, which was an objection to the stamp duties exactly as they existed at present. He said, that if two persons had estates of 50,000 l. each, and that one of them raised a mortgage of 20,000 l., and the other a mortgage of 10,000 l., the former was a poorer man than the latter, but paid a higher duty. It was impossible for the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes to say what was the exact estate of any person. They could tell whether he had an ad valorem duty on the amount of mortgage, but they could not make inquiry into the amount of his property. Therefore, if the hon. Member's objection was good as to the present measure, it was equally good as to the present stamp duties. For example, in the case of a mortgage exceeding 5,000 l. and up to 10,000 l. a stamp of 12 l. was required—in the case of a mortgage exceeding 20,000 l. the mortgagee must pay a stamp of 25 l., or double the amount of the former, so that, though the hon. Member's objection was ingenious, it was not in fact sound. He hoped the House would go into the consideration of the measure, and consent to take the objections in Committee.
MR. MOWATTthought it due to the Government to proceed with the clauses of the Bill. The Act would relieve an existing pressure upon small properties, while it would extend a more equitable principle of ad valorem duty to large properties. Its grand principle had been apparent to the country for a considerable length of time; and he thought it would be more consistent with the conduct of the hon. Member for Manchester to establish that principle at once, than to seek to retard it.
MR. MITCHELLexplained that his objection to the measure arose from this, that it would operate unjustly; the fact being, that even with the reduced rate of increase now proposed, a transaction which in the present state of the law would cost 25 l., would by the new measure cost 50 l.
MR. HEALDthought the Bill would operate disadvantageously in the transfer of some descriptions of property. He was opposed to indefinite postponement; but, without a clear understanding, he would not affirm the principle of increasing the cost of stamps on property of the value of 1,000 l. and upwards. This proposed increase was exciting jealousy. The country did not require it, and the House did not understand that such would be its effect when first the subject was mooted. He wished to know how much the Treasury calculated the revenue would lose by granting relief in all cases up to 1,000 l.?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had stated a fortnight ago what the probable effect of the Bill would be. Upon all conveyances up to 1,300 l. it would afford positive relief. Upon all conveyances from 1,300 l. up to 100,000 l., there would be a decrease. Upon conveyances beyond 100,000 l. there would be an increase. Upon mortgages up to 3,000 l., there would be a decrease; beyond that there would be an increase. The loss to the revenue upon the whole of the conveyances, and upon some of the mortgages, allowing for the increase upon other mortgages, would be somewhere under 300,000 l. He calculated that the loss upon the whole of the now schedule, which was with two exceptions a relief, would be from 330,000 l. to 350,000 l., but of course this could only be an approximation to the actual loss. Still, this was his calculation. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would urge their objections to the various parts of the Bill when the same were submitted for consideration. If the measure turned out to be so objectionable that it ought not to pass, so let it be, but it was only fair to the House and the country that the objections should be stated and met in the usual manner.
MR. LAWunderstood that the object of the Bill was to reduce the amount of duty under 1,000 l., and that the estimate of the loss to the revenue was based upon that reduction. There was every desire to reduce the stamps under 1,000 l., but hon. Gentlemen on his (the protectionist) side
328
of the House did not admire the imposition of an increased burden on sums above 1,000 l. Mortgages were least able to bear additional taxation, and yet it was now proposed to place a shifting burden on them toties quoties.
MR. SPOONERcomplained that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question of the hon. Member for Stockport. The question was, what would the loss to the revenue be supposing there was no increase on the higher scale, while the right hon. Gentleman had told the House what was the estimated loss both upon the reductions and additions.
LORD D. STUARTdid not know whether the Bill would or would not increase taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had certainly said that it would decrease it. Whether it would be in the gross a remission of taxation or not, it would be a great remission to the poor people, and he (Lord D. Stuart) hailed the measure as a step in the right direction. He wished the poor and the rich to be taxed proportionably the same amount, and not, as had been the case, and was now the case, that the poor man should pay an infinitely larger proportion than the rich man. When Mr. Cobbett moved his famous resolutions with reference to the stamp duties in 1833, he said he would prove—and he (Lord D. Stuart) thought that Mr. Cobbett had proved—that in many eases the poor man paid forty times as much percentage as the rich man. This was an infamous state of things, to correct which the present Bill had been introduced; and the only fault to be found with it was that it did not go far enough. In 1833, Mr. Cobbett stated, on the subject of mortgages, that if the amount of mortgage was 25 l. the duty was 1l.; and that if it was 2,000 l., the duty was 20 l. The hon. Member for Montrose said this was the law still. Shame that it should be so! By the present Bill the poor man would only pay twice as much as the rich man, and it was a great improvement that he should pay only twice as much, instead of forty times as much. The Bill was, therefore, right in principle, and its consideration ought not to be postponed. The hon. Member for Manchester took a great interest in the freehold land scheme—a scheme for enabling the poor man to acquire a freehold. Did not that hon. Gentleman think that this Bill would confer a great benefit in lessening the charges on the property which, by that

329
scheme, the poor would be able to acquire?
ALDERMAN THOMPSONsaid, the best course would be to proceed with the Bill, for it evidently proposed a great reduction of expense to persons making transfers of property not exceeding 1,000 l. He had now been a Member of the House for thirty years, and Government after Government had periodically promised to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the stamp tax, but till the present time no Government had been bold enough to do so. He hailed the Bill, because it was a step in the right direction, but he was not prepared to adopt the ascending scale.
MR. MULLINGSexpressed his belief that the Bill was in an imperfect state, and introduced the principle of taxing transactions which had hitherto been exempt from the stamp duties.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERassured the hon. Gentleman that the Government were ready to listen to any suggestions that might be made on the subject of the Bill, and then to effect in it any changes which fairly could be considered amendments.
MR. G. SANDARSsaid, he and his Friends on that side of the House made no objection to the remission of the duty on sums under 1,000 l., but they did object to the enormous increase of the ad valorem duty above this sum; for instance, the scale of duties

ON BONDS OF

£1,000

at present was

£5

proposed duties

£5

5,000

…

9

…

25

10,000

…

12

…

50

20,000

…

20

…

100

25,000

…

25

…

150

100,000

…

25

…

500

200,000

…

25

…

1,000

ON MORTGAGES.

£1,000

…

£5

…

£5

4,000

…

8

…

20

15,000

…

15

…

75

40,000

…

25

…

200

and so on, 25 l. being the maximum under the present law, but increasing indefinitely under the ad valorem principle of the proposed law. If this principle were to be carried out, care must be taken to begin the scale low enough so as not to oppress any class, and deal out injustice to the nominally rich, who might require large advances of money on bond or mortgage. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question of the hon. Member for Stockport; and he (Mr. Sandars) again asked the right hon. Gentleman what was
330
the estimated amount—reductions under 1,000 l.—of the proposed scale; he did not ask for the balance of the amount between the decrease and increase, but he asked what was the estimated loss on the decrease alone; as it was the opinion of Gentlemen around him, that the increase in the larger sums would more than balance the decrease on the smaller. Before he sat down he wished to offer a remark on the stamp duty on memorials; as the Bill now stood, this tax upon sums under 100 l. amounted to a sum equal to that on the deed itself, and was most oppressive on small registries; it was also confined to the two register counties of York and Middlesex, and entailed on those counties unjustly this extra tax on conveyance and mortgages.
MR. HUDSONsaid, that there were some parts of the Bill liable to the strongest objection. He thought it would be better it should be postponed for a week. He was acquainted with many gentlemen of the legal profession, who had pointed out several parts of it that were very objectionable, and if the Committee were postponed for a week, some of these objections might be removed in the meantime.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, in compliance with a request from Mr. Sadleir, stated that all instruments signed before the 5th of July, 1850, would come under the operation of the old law, both as to the stamp duties and the amount of the penalty. He further observed that the 6th clause was prospective.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, nothing could be more unfortunate than if it should turn out that the effect of the present measure would be to increase litigation. It was the opinion of an eminent conveyancer in this metropolis, that it would be most difficult to fix the amount of stamp duty payable upon deeds executed before the passing of the Bill.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERwished to know whether the exemptions in reference to building societies were to be re-enacted?
The ATTORNEY GENERALreplied in the affirmative.
Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 3 and 4.
On Clause 5.
MR. HENLEY, speaking as to deeds executed before the passing of the Bill, wished to know what was to be done with them?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that by the Bill all unpaid duties would become Crown debts; and, as they would never cease to exist till they were discharged, no man could tell whether he had or had not a good title to any estate that he might have purchased.
The ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that if such a necessity existed under the Bill, it would be easy for the party affected by it to go the Stamp Office and ascertain the state of the facts; but, though an attorney might neglect to pay the stamp duty, that would not affect the title of the purchaser of an estate; the deficient stamp duty would be a debt to the Crown due by the attorney, supposing him to have been paid it in his bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the deed would not be vitiated, or the purchaser rendered liable to any debt, in consequence of the attorney having omitted to pay the duty.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 6,
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the reason for charging interest at the rate of five per cent upon the amount of the stamp, or of the difference between the insufficient and the proper stamp, where such stamp duty or deficiency should exceed the sum of 10 l., in addition to the fixed penalty of 10 l., was this: in some instances parties postponed for many years the payment of the proper duty, and, according to the present law, they were liable at any time to the payment of only a 5l. penalty. He would state one case by way of example. A gentleman purchased a very large estate, and he had either no stamp, or a very insufficient one, upon the deed. He held the estate for twenty-five years, when he sold it. The proper stamp had then to be affixed, and the duty amounted to 1,000 l. He paid the penalty of 5l., and thus obtained the interest of 1,000 l. for twenty-five years at the expense of 5l. It was to prevent such occurrences in future that interest was proposed to be charged until it should equal the amount of the duty or deficiency, after which no more than the full amount of the duty or deficiency, in addition to the 10 l., was to be charged byway of penalty. Last year a stamp was affixed to a deed that had been executed in the year 1834.
MR. SADLEIRobjected to the discretion given under this clause to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to require an oath from parties claiming to have a
332
deed or instrument stamped within twelve months after its execution, that it had not been duly stamped previously, by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertency, or urgent necessity. He thought that the present law, by which sixty days were allowed in Ireland, and forty-two days in England, within which any deed or instrument might be stamped on its mere presentation at the Stamp Office, might be allowed to remain; for experience proved, that whenever oaths might be required, they were always exacted at the Stamp Office. In fact, every possible delay was uniformly given there.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that at present, although six months were allowed in England, and, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, sixty days in Ireland, for the stamping of a deed, after the date of its execution, yet, so soon as the prescribed period had expired, the penalty was enforced. This clause was allowed twelve months, during which, upon proof, by oath or otherwise, so that it was to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that it was through inadvertence, necessity, or otherwise, that the stamp had not been previously affixed, the duty might be paid and the stamp affixed without any penalty being exacted; or the penalty might be lowered, according to the circumstances of the case.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7,
MR. MULLINGSobjected to the last portion of this clause, which provided that the deed must not have been signed or executed by any party thereto within the united kingdom when the same was so received as aforesaid from abroad.
ALDERMAN THOMPSONinstanced a case where this proviso would be inconvenient. A person died leaving his property to three trustees, one of whom went to South America, and was absent fifteen years. If a deed were sent out to him, this trustee would not be likely to execute it, unless he first saw the signature of his co-trustees attached to it. Great hardship would thus be inflicted if the clause stood in its present shape, and he trusted the Government would adopt the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester, and omit this part of the clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed his readiness to omit the proviso objected to.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 8,
MR. GOULBURNcomplained that its effect would be to allow a stationer to charge any price he pleased for stamps.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that, under the existing law, a stationer was allowed to charge what he chose for all stamps, except receipts. The clause merely proposed to put the latter class of stamps upon the same footing as the others.
MR. HUMEsaid, that some limitation as to retail price ought to be instituted.
The SOLICITOR GENERALdoubted the practicability of carrying out the suggestion.
MR. CARDWELLthought that the clause, if allowed to pass, would have the effect of saddling the public with an additional burden.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause was intended to give stationers sufficient inducements to sell stamps, and thus give accommodation to the public.
MR. HUMEthought that some certain allowance should be made to vendors of stamps, instead of leaving them to fix their own prices, and thus arbitrarily increasing the amount of a tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen said, he gave the clause up.
Clause struck out.
Clauses 9, 10, and 11 agreed to.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.

  SCHEDULE A.
  MR. MULLINGSproposed an Amendment. By the present Act a stamp of 2s. 6d. is imposed on all agreements, but if they contain above 1,080 words, a further stamp of 35 s. is imposed, and a further stamp of 35 s. for every additional 1,080 words. This scale of duties was continued in the schedule; and he proposed, as an Amendment, that the progressive duty on each 1,080 words be 2s. 6d., instead of 35 s.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would entail a considerable loss of revenue.
  MR. MULLINGSbelieved, on the contrary, it would largely increase the revenue.
  MR. GOULBURNsaid, he introduced an Amendment into the Stamp Act subjecting agreements to a stamp of 2s. 6d., and the consequence was a considerable increase of revenue. He could not say what the effect of this reduction might be; but by reducing the lower stamp to 2s. 6d.,
  334
  there had been a very large increase of revenue.
  MR. HUMEthought the Amendment a very proper one; it followed up the principle on which the Bill was framed, and did away with the extraordinary leap from 2s. 6d. to 35 s. He did not think the revenue would suffer; and if it did, it would be much better to make the reduction proposed.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be better if the hon. Member for Cirencester would allow his Amendment to stand over for the present, as no notice had been given of it. He would not estimate off-hand what loss of revenue it would occasion, but he was told it would be considerable. He thought it was not too much to ask that he should have time to examine what its effect would be.
  MR. MULLINGSat the suggestion of Mr. Hume, withdrew his Amendment.
  Schedule agreed to.

  SCHEDULE B.
  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 50 l., 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 10 s., 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 25 l.; under the one proposed it would go up as high as 1,000 l.
  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 100 l., he proposed that for every 100 l., 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 600 l. or 700 l. 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 10 l. or 100 l., should be made to pay a higher duty than the man who borrowed 1,000 l. or 10,000 l. 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 50 l., the duty was 20 s. He proposed to reduce it to 2s. 6d., and to carry that ad valorem duty fairly up. The present law, beginning with 20 s. for every consideration under 50 l., went as high as 25 l. for a sum of 20,000 l. There it stopped; and whatever the amount borrowed might be, the duty did not exceed 25 l.—whether it was 50,000 l. or 500,000 l., it was still 25 l. 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 500 l. as for a large East India house to borrow 500,000 l.; 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 20 s. on 50 l. 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 100 l., 2s. on 200 l., 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 60,000 l. The further loss occasioned by the proposition of the hon. Baronet would amount to only 48,000 l., 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 201,000 l. He originally proposed to reduce that duty from 1l. to 5s. on amounts not exceeding 50 l., 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 60,000 l. and 70,000 l. 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 60,000 l. 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 80,000 l. 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 80,000 l. 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.

  341

  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.

  342

  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 EXCHEQUER: Sir, 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.

SECURITIES FOR ADVANCEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. J. STUARTsaid, he was really astonished to hear at so late an hour the Motion that this Bill be then read a second time. The avowed purpose of the Bill was to facilitate the operation of the Act of last Session, for the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland. It recited that Act, and purported to be a Bill for its more effectual operation. He thought nothing could be more plain than that, before they proceeded to carry farther the operation of the Act of last Session, the House should be in pos-

343
session of some information in an authoritative shape to enable the House to judge how far the existing Act had been successful. He (Mr. Stuart) had throughout the entire discussion with reference to the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, felt that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England had a right to expect very tender treatment, not only at his (Mr. Stuart's) hands, but also at the hands of the House. He felt it, and the House he doubted not felt it, because that hon. and learned Gentleman was discharging a duty not directly incumbent upon him—because it was properly the duty of the law officers of Ireland to introduce and take charge of measures affecting the administration of the law and the disposal of estates in Ireland. The Irish Solicitor General—for whom he entertained a very high respect—sat there for the purpose of guiding the House in such proceedings by his advice and information. However, they had not heard one word of information from him. Anything more extraordinary, anything more absurd in the course of legislation in that House, was never known or conceived than that an English law officer of the Crown, in presence of an Irish law officer of the Crown, should take the conduct of a measure essentially Irish—and, when asked for information, to enable the House to judge whether the measure were a proper one or not, that that English law officer should confess himself not in possession of the required information. Whether the Irish law officer was in possession of the information remained to be seen. However, lest that hon. and learned Gentleman may not have been aware of what had already taken place in the House this evening, he would repeat to him three questions on the subject which he had already put to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England, without being able to obtain any information in reply. The first of these questions was whether any sale—and if any, how many—had been effected under the existing Act? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman know? Could he give any information on the subject? If he could, he hoped he would. Secondly, how many orders had been made by the commissioners for the sale of incumbered estates, but under which orders sales had not been effected? Before putting his third question, he begged to say that the House would hardly believe that this was a Bill which proposed to enable persons to purchase incumbered estates in Ireland, on the terms
344
of paying only half the purchase money; whilst, as to the remaining half, the purchaser was to be under no personal responsibility for the payment. Was ever an agreement for sale of land on such terms heard of? Surely, before so extraordinary a proposal was to pass into law, and before they were called upon to set it down in the Statute-book as regulating property in Ireland, that a man might, under sanction of the commissioners, purchase at any price they might choose to direct the sale to be effected at, and then be bound to pay only one-half of that price, and further, be under no personal responsibility for the remaining half which was to remain merely a charge upon the land; he begged to ask his third question—Had the commissioners been applied to and received any proposal from any person to purchase an estate under their orders on these terms? He paused for a reply to these questions. He also felt he was only doing what was right in asking the House to consider whether they would allow the discussion on the second reading of this Bill to proceed until they were put in possession of some satisfactory information on the points embraced in these three questions. He proposed that the debate should be now adjourned, with the view of its being resumed when the House had sufficient information to enable it properly to understand the present state of matters. He had only to add, in justification of this course, that he had given his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England, who had taken charge of this Bill, notice that he intended to put these questions; but his hon. and learned Friend, being unable to answer the questions, had put him to move, upon notice, for returns which should give the required information. As a little time must elapse before these returns could be obtained, it was only fair to adjourn this debate for the present.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, he was so personally referred to that he felt bound to come forward, even at the risk of postponing any information which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England might be able to give the hon. and learned Member for Newark. With respect to the fact of his hon. and learned Friend having the conduct of this measure, whatever might have been intended by that allusion on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he begged to offer this explanation for his own vindication. The Incumbered Estates Bill was originated

345
by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England before he (Mr. Hatchell) had the honour of a seat in that House. The subject of that Bill, which was now a statute, was long under the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend, and those with whom he advised in Ireland, at a time when he (Mr. Hatchell) had no expectation of a seat in Parliament. That answer was given on a former night, when the same charge was made from the same quarter, and the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have been contented with that explanation. The particular Bill now before the House, though introduced after he (Mr. Hatchell) obtained a seat, was engrafted on the former one, and was intended to form a portion of the existing law in relation to incumbered estates. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of that fact? Did he not feel its force as hearing on the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations? If not, he (Mr. Hatchell) must excuse his allusion to him. As the hon. and learned Gentleman had put three questions to him so pointedly, he was certainly surprised that he had not bestowed upon him the ordinary courtesy which, during his short experience in that House, he had observed to be extended to other Members when it was intended to put questions to them, in order that they might not be taken by surprise. He had not received that courtesy, and he had been surprised to discover that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England had been apprised of the questions, and that he (Mr. Hatchell) was called upon for the explanation. He put it to the House whether such conduct was just towards himself, or fair in a Member of that House? Now the hon. and learned Gentleman had put three questions. First, he had asked how many estates had been sold under the commission? Had he had notice, he could have stated the number, but under the circumstances he really could not say whether it was 5, 7, or 10. He presumed, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman occasionally read a newspaper—and the English as well as the Irish journals had given the information which he required. In reply to the second question, namely, what number of orders had been made, he begged to say that in a newspaper which he believed was sent to every Member of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the orders had been regularly published. As to the third question—whether any one
346
person had ever offered to buy upon the; terms proposed to be made the law by this Bill, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had charged him hypothetically with not having read the Bill, whether he had really ever read it himself, seeing that he could ask such a question? In the first place, how could any person offer to purchase on the terms stated in the Bill before the Bill passed? And as he (Mr. Hatchell) read the Bill, it contained nothing like what the hon. Gentleman had propounded. He said the purchaser of the estate was to pay only half the purchase money. Now, so far from that being the case, the purchaser had to pay the whole of the purchase money into the Bank of Ireland, and he was then at liberty to borrow half of it on the security of the estate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had—whether intentionally or inadvertently, he could not say—put the case in such a manner, that to ordinary hearers it might appear that the owner was to receive only half the purchase money, whereas, in truth, he was to have the whole. He did not know whether or not the hon. and learned Gentleman was satisfied with these answers to his questions; but he trusted that they were satisfactory to the House, and that when the hon. and learned Gentleman again desired information from him, he would be kind enough to give him notice.
MR. STUARTrose to explain. He had given notice of his questions in the early part of the night to the law officer of the Crown who had charge of the Bill, and he had not conceived it possible that he who was in charge of it was uninformed on the subject to which his questions referred. He had meant no discourtesy towards the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. One word with regard to the point on which he desired information. [Cries of "Spoke!"] He really must explain. The 13th Clause said that the money charged, that is, one-half the purchase money, should not be deemed a debt due from the purchaser.
MR. HUMEhoped that, except some very special grounds were shown, the House would not stop the further progress of the Bill, which appeared to him a very beneficial one, the object of it being to assist the purchasers of property, by not enforcing from them the whole amount of the purchase money, but allowing them a portion of it for the purpose of improving the land.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that the

347
hon. and learned Member for Newark had only proved to the House that he had read the 13th Clause, for had he read the first he would have seen that the whole of the purchase-money was required to be lodged in the Bank of Ireland. Recently property had been sold at six and a half, ten, and fourteen years' purchase, and this was occasioned by the purchaser being compelled to pay up the whole of the purchase money at once, without being able to resort to the aid which would be afforded by this Bill. If the Bill passed, they would find many persons anxious to purchase who now held aloof. He did not see what bearing any of the returns called for by the hon. and learned Member for Newark had upon the Bill. This measure would induce English capitalists to advance money, when they saw they could get clear and serviceable securities.
SIR. J. WALSHdid not rise at that late hour to address himself to the principle of the Bill; but he appealed to the candour and good feeling of Her Majesty's Government as to whether it was discreet and consistent with the general usages of that House to force on at a very late hour a measure which all admitted to be of very great importance, affecting as it did the sister kingdom, and involving the most important consequences. There was a general understanding that important Bills should not be forced on their attention at a late hour. That evening they had been discussing another Bill up to ten minutes past eleven, which was a very different measure from that before the House; it therefore was not possible that adequate attention could be given to this subject, he therefore hoped the Government would give way.
MR. ANSTEYtrusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would do no such thing—as this, probably, was the best of the series of measures brought forward by the Government for the good of Ireland—it was to be hoped that they would not postpone it for a night, or even for a single hour. It had been stated, that they could not expect the House then to consider the Bill before it; but the objections appeared to be altogether against its details; and if there were any objections to any particular clause, that was not the time to deal with them. The hon. and learned Member for Newark said, he wished to give an effective security to purchasers. What was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman last year, when the Incumbered Estates
348
Bill was before the House? He then said, if they required ready money to be paid down for the estates sold under the Act, they would be disposed of for a mere song, and he objected that there was no provision made so as to enable purchasers who might not be possessed of sufficient ready money at the moment to purchase property, to raise it by mortgage; but now, when an attempt was made to do that, the hon. and learned Gentleman said no; let there be no reservation—take care that the whole of the money is paid down. If hon. Gentlemen relied upon their objections of last Session, then they must support this Bill; but if they did not, the course they had pursued was at least—he would not say factious, but very imprudent. The question they had to grapple with at that moment was, whether the measures proposed under this Bill were likely to be simple, clear, and effective. He trusted they would, without delay, read that Bill a second time, and get into Committee within a few days, when it could be fully considered, so that it might pass in as perfect a state as possible.
LORD J. RUSSELLhoped, at any rate, the House would not occupy much more time in discussing whether they should proceed with the Bill or not. Unfortunately, they had got into the custom, whenever a Bill of any importance came on at eleven o'clock, to enter into a long debate as to whether it should be proceeded with or not. The question simply was, whether no Bill should be proceeded with after eleven o'clock, for if that course was adopted, there would constantly be a termination of further business after that hour. At any rate, some determination should be come to on the subject. He thought that Bills might advantageously be proceeded with after eleven o'clock; but if the House thought otherwise lot them so determine, but do not go on with a discussion from eleven o'clock to one to decide whether they would proceed with a Bill or not.
MR. DISRAELIthought with the noble Lord that they ought to proceed with Bills of importance, but there were circumstances which modified that proceeding. This was a question of great importance, on which the noble Lord behind him, the Member for Kildare, had already given a notice. There were many Gentlemen in the House, having connexions in Ireland, who had a right to offer their opinion. There was a general impression that tonight this discussion could not possibly

349
come on. He was unwilling to enter into a series of divisions to prevent the progress of a Government measure. If the noble Member for Kildare made the statement which he was prepared to make, it would lead to a debate till four o'clock in the morning. He hoped that before the debate was adjourned, the House would not fail to notice what had been stated to-night by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, that they might fully understand the measure before them when they next came to discuss it; because the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated distinctly that the reason he had not charge of the Bill was, that it was part and parcel of the Incumbered Estates Bill. Let the House recollect the pretence and the ground on which that Bill was taken through Parliament. It was a Bill unexceptionable in many respects, but it was passed through Parliament on the express ground of giving the people of Ireland the means of dealing with land which was not incumbered; therefore, they were dealing violently with property. What had they done this year? They had now passed this year a Bill called a Judgment Bill. By that Bill they had exempted future purchasers of land in Ireland from antecedent judgments. The effect of the Bills would be to do vast injury to the puisne creditors, while the debtor would remain in the same position as if he had done nothing. If that were the case, how could it be expected that these creditors could have any respect for the rights of property? Under the operation of these three Bills, how would the honest man be able to borrow money, having an objection to walk through the court? They had a right to consider the case of the honest man, and he did not think that in this case the Government were acting rightly towards him. He would not go further into the subject, and he would not have made those remarks, but for the purpose of showing the House what the effect of these three Bills taken conjointly would be.
MR. HENLEYhoped the House would not pass without notice the statement made that night by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, in order that they might fully understand the measure now before them when they arrived at the next discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated distinctly that this Bill was part and parcel of the Incumbered Estates Bill of last year. That Bill dealt, at all events, suddenly with landed property, and this
350
year a Bill called the Judgment Bill had been passed, which must be considered in connexion with these two Bills before the drift of the whole could be understood. These three Bills would enable a man to petition to sell his estate, and throw his creditors overboard. If the Government meant to sanction such a principle, he asked them what respect they considered that these creditors in their turn would pay to the rights of property when in other hands than their own? Would they be very; choice about the national credit? Under the operation of these three Bills, what chance had any man in Ireland who did not wish to put his estate through this court and cheat his creditors? How would he be able to borrow money if he wanted it? The case of such a man who wanted some assistance ought to be considered. He did not think that the Government was acting justly to that part of the community of Ireland which, by way of contradistinction, he would call the honest part. However, let the House mark the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, I that this Bill was part and parcel of the former Bill.
SIR. G. GREYwished to remark that one of two things should be done—they should either discuss the question of adjournment or the merits of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had made a speech on the merits of the Bill, and he would now only wish the House not to take that hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill as the correct one, and to postpone their opinion on the merits of the Bills until they came to their discussion. The hon. Gentleman appeared to charge the Government with offering opposition to the wishes of the Irish Members in wishing to press on the second reading of this Bill. But not a single Irish Member had asked for the postponement of the question. The hon. and learned Member for Newark took from the noble Lord at the head of the Government the chance of addressing his opinions to the House on the subject, which might have enabled them to get through the second reading that night. But now, as it was after 12 o'clock, if it was the wish of the Irish Members or the other Members of the House that they should adjourn the debate on the second reading, of course the Government would yield. The opportunity of carrying through was not lost by the act of the Government, but by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Newark.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that he was sorry that the Government were obliged to yield to an adjournment of the question. He wished, however, to remark that there could be nothing more unfair than the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that Irishmen who were inclined to play the rogue would be sewed by this Bill. The class whom this Bill would serve was that of the puisne creditors, who would be in a hopeless position if the Bill was not passed, and the honest men who wished to have full control over their property called loudly for the passing of the Bill.
LORD NAAShad intended to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, but he was glad that he had yielded to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark, who had made some 'important observations with regard to it. At that late hour he hoped the House would not ask him to go on with his statement, which would probably lead to some discussion; and he must appeal to the Government to postpone the measure till some future day, when he might have an opportunity of addressing the House when it was less weary than at present.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he came down to the House prepared to support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Kildare; but having heard the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Newark to their going on with the question that night, he thought it would be better to postpone it. In his opinion, the Bill, instead of raising the value of landed estates, would tend to depress it.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was prepared to leave it to the House whether the debate should be adjourned.
SIR L. O'BRIENsuggested that an order should be sent to Ireland to suspend the sale of incumbered estates until the fate of the Bill was determined,
Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now a Second Time."
LORD NAASobjected to a Bill of this importance being brought in at so late an hour, without some explanation being given. He could not help expressing some surprise that the right hon. the Irish Secretary had not prefaced the Motion by any statement. Medical relief was afforded in Ireland in
352
two modes—by the administration of the poor-law, and the establishment of dispensaries and institutions of that description, which were supported by voluntary contributions. He was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman which of these principles he regarded as the most effective and the least expensive.
SIR. W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that his reason for simply moving the second reading of the Bill was, that he understood some hon. Gentlemen intended to object to the principle of the measure, and he was anxious to reserve his observations until he had heard their remarks, otherwise he assured his noble Friend that he would not have made that Motion without a statement. He begged to say that he was anxious that the Bill should be read a second time that night, if possible, in order to enable him to get it into Committee pro formâ., for the purpose of introducing a number of alterations. It was perhaps unnecessary to enter at any length into what he might call the demerits of the system existing of medical charities in Ireland. He believed there was no Gentleman who had paid any attention to the subject who was not convinced that it was unsatisfactory in every way; that it was at once unequal and expensive; that the expense, instead of pressing equally on rich and poor, pressed unequally on both. He intended to remedy these evils by appointing a central board, and by placing the expenses on the poor-rates. It was sometimes said that the wishes of Irish Gentlemen were not attended to. Well, he submitted to any Gentleman who was familiar with the subject of medical charities since 1835 if there was one subject upon which a more unanimous opinion had been delivered than that there should exist a central superintendence with reference to medical charities? With reference to the proposed mode of supporting these charities, he assured hon. Members that there was no individual in the House who was more convinced than he was of the necessity of husbanding the resources of Ireland in every possible way, and avoiding, as far as possible, adding a single shilling to the rates of the country. He held in his hand the data and details which had led him to the conclusion that to place the support of the medical charities of Ireland on the poor-rates, would, instead of an expensive, he an economical change, and that even with reference to the hospitals, dispensaries, and infirmaries—or what he might

353
call the permanent charities of Ireland-there would be a saving of at least 20,000 l. a year. It ought not to be forgotten that a portion of the present revenue of these charities was made up of subscriptions, but which could scarcely be called voluntary. Look at the amount subscribed for the dispensaries, where the contributions of the grand juries were compulsory, and look at the amount subscribed for infirmaries, where they were not. In the former case the subscriptions were considerable, while in the latter case they were of a very trifling amount indeed. He begged the House also to hear in mind that under the poor-rate one-half of the expense would only be paid by the occupying tenant, and the other half by the owner, who might be supposed fairly to represent those who at present paid subscriptions, or who at least ought to have paid them. If he took into account the support of the temporary medical charities in Ireland, which at present fell upon the poor-rates, during the prevalence of fevers and other epidemics, he could not reckon the annual saving which would accrue from this measure at less than 30,000 l. or 40,000 l. During the year 1848, the charges which fell upon the poor-rates for the erection and support of temporary fever hospitals and other medical charities amounted to upwards of 80,000 l. By this Bill, however, it was provided that all the medical officers paid by a compulsory rate under its provisions should be bound to give the medical aid during such epidemics without any fresh payment. He hoped that hon. Members, however, would not look at the question altogether as a question of economy; because there was no question more worthy of favour and consideration than the support of the sick and destitute poor of Ireland. His noble Friend the Member for Kildare had asked him whether he thought the present or the proposed plan the least expensive. He answered, without hesitation, the proposed plan. It might be objected that this was too much of a medical Bill. If that was the case, let it be altered. He believed that a more highminded, honourable, and humane body of men than the medical practitioners of Ireland did not exist; but at the same time he had no desire to consult their interest exclusively in the matter. Believing that the Bill was sound in principle, he hoped the House would be kind enough to allow it to be read a second time, and if there were any exception to
354
the details, they would be considered in Committee.
SIR. D. NORREYSwished that his right hon. Friend had proposed to take the second reading of the Bill pro formâ. The principle of the Bill, which introduced a general central board, to superintend the charities of Ireland, was one of the most objectionable that could be devised. If it was to be independent of the Poor Law Commissioners, collisions would be sure to ensue; but if not independent, then he did not see why a separate board should be appointed.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, there was but one opinion as to the expediency of making material alterations in the existing system of medical relief; but the Bill as it stood was open to very serious objections. His right hon. Friend proposed himself to introduce alterations into the measure, showing that he did not quite approve of it himself. He, therefore, thought it should be withdrawn, and a new measure introduced, particularly as if the second reading were now agreed to, they would be precluded from discussing its principle.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, hon. Gentlemen would not he deprived of an opportunity of discussing the merits of the Bill by consenting to its second reading, and its committal pro formâ. If it was the general opinion, as it appeared to be, that amendment was required, it would be advisable to consent to the second reading, and hereafter to make such alterations in the bill as might be deemed expedient.
VISCOUNT BERNARDthought the question of medical charities of Ireland should be settled as speedily as possible. Great inconvenience resulted from the present anomalous position of those charities.
Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS.
SIR. G. GREY: I rise, Sir, in pursuance of notice, to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the interment of the dead in and near the metropolis. The House is aware that, by an Act passed towards the close of the last Session, the Act 12 & 13 Victoria, c. 111, power was given to the General Board of Health to inquire into the state of the burial grounds in the metropolis and other large and populous places; and they were also empowered to prepare a scheme to be submitted to Parliament to prohibit the practice of intramural interments. In pursuance of the power vested by Parliament in them under

355
the Act, the Board of Health, in the course of last year, instituted very extensive inquiries into the state of the burial grounds in the metropolis and the neighbourhood. They also instituted similar inquiries in certain towns of the united kingdom, and they have prepared the scheme embodied in their report which has been upon the table now for some weeks, applicable to the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood. The board considered the subject in two points of view, first, in reference to the effect of the existing practice on the public health, and, second, with regard to its effect on the decency and solemnity of burial. At this late hour I shall not think of stating the purport or nature of the evidence collected by the board in their inquiries, which forms the basis of the recommendations they have embodied in their scheme; for that report, I am aware, has attracted much of the public attention, and I believe that those I have the honour to address are perfectly aware of the nature of the mass of evidence collected by the board, and upon which the Bill is founded. I will only read a short passage, in which they give a summary of the facts that have come under their notice. It is from page 50 of the report:—
"From the replies to queries issued by the General Board of Health, it appears that the number of public and private burial grounds at the present time in the metropolis is 138; but this cannot be taken as the actual number, since a great many parishes have not yet sent in their returns. The total number cannot be less than 200, and is probably somewhat more. There are then in London, situated at various distances from each other, and each differing in extent, 200 centres of more or less pollution, each pouring off unceasingly day and night, its respective contribution of decaying matter, but the whole together, reckoning only the gases from decomposing human remains, amounting, as we have seen, in one year, to upwards of two millions and a half of cubic feet. Whatever portion of these gases is not absorbed by the earth—earth already surcharged with the accumulations of centuries—and whatever part does not mix with and contaminate the water, must be emitted into the atmosphere, bearing with them, as we know, putrescent matters perceptible to sense. That these emanations do act injuriously on the health of the people resident in the immediate neighbourhood of the places from which they issue, appears to us, by the evidence that has been adduced, to be indubitably established. From the law of the diffusion of gases, they must be rapidly spread through the whole of the atmosphere that surrounds the metropolis; and though they thereby become diluted, and are thus rendered proportionally innocuous, yet that they do materially contribute to the contamination of the air breathed by two millions of the people, cannot, we think, admit of any reasonable doubt. We submit, therefore, that a
356
case is made out for the total prohibition of interments in the metropolis, on account of the injury resulting from the practice to the public health."
I will now proceed at once to consider the general recommendations of the Board of Health. The substance of their recommendations is the prohibition of intramural interments within the metropolitan district, and in consequence thereof a complete change in the existing practice of interments. The Board of Health adopt the principle of appointing a board or commission, specially charged with the executive authority requisite for the accomplishment of this object; and they enumerate the duties with which that board or commission should be entrusted. The Bill is based upon their report, although it does not follow the recommendations of the board precisely in all their details; but it will be sufficient on this occasion to state shortly the main provisions of the Bill, reserving for future consideration mere matters of detail. It is proposed, then, in the first instance, in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Health, that a district should be formed, to be termed "The Metropolitan Burial District." The parishes to be comprised in this district will he enumerated in the schedule, and they constitute, for the most part, the district already known as the Registrar General's London District, with the exception of some few outlying parishes which it has not been thought necessary to include within the provisions of the Bill. For this district it is proposed burial grounds shall be provided, under the control and management of the board charged with the execution of the Act, who shall also be authorised to fix the foes and payments to be required upon all interments. It is further proposed to give power to the board to take, under agreement, or otherwise by purchase, any of the cemeteries in the district, with the view of shutting up those which may, upon inquiry, appear unfit to be continued as places of interment, but with regard to the others making use of them as burial grounds under the provisions of this Act. A portion of every such burial ground is, as is the practice now, to be consecrated and provided with a suitable chapel for the performance of the funeral ceremony, according to the rites of the Church of England; and other parts of the ground are to be appropriated to the interment of persons of other religious denominations. A power will be given to set apart portions of these burial grounds for any denomination of Christians

357
who, upon religious grounds, may require a separate place of interment. After one or more places of interment have been provided, it is proposed that power should be given to the Queen in Council to order burials in churchyards and other existing places within any portion of the district to be discontinued, subject to any exceptions which, due regard being had to the public health, may be expedient; and this prohibition may be extended from time to time until interments are discontinued throughout the whole district, with such saving rights as to family vaults, regard being had to the public health, as may be deemed necessary. It is also proposed that the inhabitants of any parish of which the burial ground is closed, shall have the same right of interment in the new cemeteries as they had in the parochial burial ground: and in order to provide for the natural wishes of persons to be buried near the bodies of their own relatives, power will be given to remove, without the expensive process called a "faculty," bodies from the intramural places of interment into the new grounds. Power is also given to provide in each district houses for the reception of the dead previous to interment, in order that the poor may not suffer in their health and comfort from continuing the dead in the rooms occupied by the living. One great practical difficulty felt with regard to framing provisions for extramural interments, was that of placing the poor in the same position with regard to burial grounds at a distance as they were with those that were near; and in order to remove that difficulty, it is proposed to empower those who choose to avail themselves of it to inter in these burial grounds at specified and moderate rates. A large portion of the income of some of the London clergy has been derived from fees upon burials; and justice requires that compensation should be given, both to them and other official persons for the loss they will incur by the measure. With regard to the clergy, regard will be had to any diminution of the expense now incurred by them on account of the duty from which they will be relieved, and provisions will be introduced for settling the compensation upon equitable terms. Looking at the large amount which some of the clergy have derived from these fees—in some cases they have formed nearly their whole income—it has been thought necessary to continue the compensation beyond the term of the existing incumbencies, as, in several
358
parishes, if this were not the case, the clergymen would be left without the means of support; but in all cases a power will be given of revision from time to time. With regard to the clerks and sextons, compensation will be given during the tenure of their office. It is expected that the receipts from foes and payments on account of the numerous interments from the metropolis, will fully cover all the expenses; but it will be necessary to make some provision for the immediate purchase of burial grounds and other expenses. Power will therefore he given to borrow money upon the security of the fees and payments, and of a rate which the board will be authorised to make, not exceeding the annual amount of one penny in the pound, in the event of the fees and payments proving insufficient for the whole expenses. With regard to the parties who are to execute the Act, the Board of Health have recommended that this power should be entrusted to a board specially constituted for the purpose; but there are obvious objections to the creation of a new commission, unless some indispensable necessity can be shown for it; and it has been thought by the Government that the Board of Health are fully competent, and that they are upon the whole the best body to carry the Act into effect in the first instance. It is, therefore, proposed that one additional paid member should be added to the board, it being conceived that with this addition and the appointment of such subordinate officers as may be required, they will constitute a body fit for the direction and control of interments throughout the metropolitan district. The House, however, is aware that the Board of Health has only a temporary existence. It will expire, unless renewed, on the 1st of August, 1853, and if not then continued, the duties to be performed under this Bill must be discharged through some other agency. Before the expiration of that period, the subject must come under the attention of Parliament. I have now stated the main provisions of the measure as briefly as I could; but I trust I have said enough to induce the House to assent to the Motion I have to make for leave to bring in the Bill. I cannot, however, sit down without expressing the sense I entertain of the ability and efficiency with which the Board of Health have discharged the duties imposed upon them by Parliament, and of the value of the information they have collected and

359
embodied in their report. The public, I think, are especially indebted to my noble Friend the Member for Bath, who, as an unpaid member of the board, within my own knowledge, has devoted most assiduously many months of valuable time to these duties, under circumstances, which, we all are aware, occurred last year, involving peculiar responsibility and anxiety, and who still is devoting his time and attention to the various and important duties with which the Board of Health is charged, and which they are performing with great benefit to the public. I shall conclude by stating my cordial concurrence with the hope expressed in the closing paragraph of the report of the Board of Health, that their inquiries, and the recommendations founded upon those inquiries, may eminently conduce to the public health, by leading at no distant period to the abolition of what they justly term "the great and growing evil" of intramural interments.
MR. LACYhad no intention of offering the slightest opposition to the Motion, of which he approved; but he wished to know whether the Government supposed that the estimated total annual expense of 112,000 l., would be defrayed by the fees without the rate?
SIR. G. GREYsaid, that was a matter of detail, but he was not prepared to say what sum would be required. The rate would only be levied in case of the fees and payments proving insufficient.
LORD ASHLEYsaid, that the Board of Health did not anticipate any call upon the public, in the shape of a rate, for they believed the fees and payments would be adequate to meet the expenditure.
SIR. B. HALLwas extremely thankful to the right hon. Baronet for this Bill, which he hoped would become law quickly. There was one board in London, the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Sewers, who had annually large sums of money passing through their hands; and he believed they had no power to order their accounts to be laid before Parliament. They were unaccountable. He suggested that a clause should be introduced into the present measure to avoid this mistake, and requiring the accounts to be rendered to Parliament annually.
SIR. G. GREYsaid, provision was made for a report of the board's proceedings and an abstract of their accounts being annually laid before Parliament.
MR. WYLDsuggested that a provision
360
should be introduced into the Bill to repeal the post-horse duty upon hearses.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Grey and Lord Seymour.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Smoke Prohibition; Estates Leasing (Ireland). Reported.—Brick Duties; Exchequer Bills.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition from St. Peter's, Thanet, complaining of agricultural distress; praying also that the salaries and pensions of public officers might be reduced. He would call the attention of the noble Marquess to this part of the prayer, because the petitioners stated that such reductions were necessary, in consequence of the depreciation in prices which had been occasioned by the late free-trade measures of the Government; and he must he allowed to say, that this was a most significant evidence of the effects of the legislative course which had been pursued, that there should now be an increased demand for parsimonious economy in the administration of the public service, which he was very much afraid might eventuate in preventing adequate remuneration from being given to public servants, by which means the public must themselves suffer. Their Lordships would see that this call for rigid economy was not a strong indication of that universal affluence and prosperity which it was said would be the consequence of the adoption of free trade. The people
296
only asked for strict economy, when they found that their means of paying the taxes were reduced; and the fact was, that the Government, by its course of legislation, had increased taxation disproportionately to the means which the people had of paying it—they had increased by one-third the pressure of the national debt, and a system of taxation which the people had been able to bear under protection, they now found entirely overwhelming. In fact, they found that they could not hear it, and he very much doubted whether they would consent to bear it longer at all. If the Government persevered in this rash experiment, which they were carrying on in the teeth of all experience, they must encounter failure; and he thought the petitioners would be entitled to a large remission of taxation, which it appeared they claimed.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS.
LORD PORTMANavailed himself of that opportunity to ask a question of importance, with regard to some errors which had crept into the statistical returns presented by the Board of Trade. In the course of the year 1848 certain returns had been made of the exports by that board. In the year 1850 a statement had been presented by the same hoard of the exports of 1848, which did not correspond with the returns made at the time. Now, if a mistake had been committed it ought to be set right; and, if no mistake had been committed, the discrepancy ought to be explained.
EARL GRANVILLEwas glad that the noble Lord had given him an opportunity of setting right a very natural misapprehension. The noble Lord had compared the last monthly report with the current monthly account of 1848, whereas the Customs had properly furnished the Board of Trade with the corrected accounts for 1848. The same apparent discrepancy would have been seen in the same month's account of last year. The note to the twelve months' accounts explained that the additions of the quantities in the twelfth month would not agree with the yearly total, on account of errors corrected. A central board had now been established at the Custom House, which he hoped would have the effect of diminishing the number of these errors. Instead of these returns being sent up from above 100 outports, the papers were sent up to

297
a department of the Customs in London, where they were compiled with more care and attention than could be expected from so many collectors.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CLERGY BILL.
LORD REDESDALEasked the Bishop of London whether he intended to proceed with the Proceedings against Clergy Bill. He said there was a strong feeling prevalent throughout the country that the right rev. Prelate should proceed, forthwith with that Bill. Nobody could say that the tribunal of the Privy Council gave satisfaction in deciding questions relative to false doctrine and heresy. The general opinion of the Church was that a convocation ought to be assembled. That was the feeling, although the Privy Council on a late occasion had declared that they had decided no point of doctrine. In asserting this they must have taken the words in the same non-natural sense in which they had treated the canons, articles, and catechism of the Church. Unless something satisfactory were done on this subject, great mischief, he was afraid, would ensue both to the Church and to the country.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that as the noble Baron had appealed to him and had asked whether he intended to proceed with the Proceedings against Clergy Bill, which in one of its clauses established a new court of appeal in cases of false doctrine, he had no hesitation to declare that I it was his intention to proceed with that Bill. That Bill, however, contained other important clauses not connected with the establishment of a new court of appeal As to the clause which related to the substitution of a new court of appeal, he had not, owing to his other occupations at this time of the year, had an opportunity of consulting his right rev. Brethren and the Clergy at large upon it. As soon as he had that opportunity he hoped to be able; to frame a clause which would be satisfactory to the Church and to the country at large. He was not prepared to say that the clause as printed in the Bill was the clause which he proposed to press upon their Lordships for adoption; probably not; for he wished to reserve to himself full liberty of action until he had consulted the clergy at large.
LORD REDESDALEthought that the answer which the right rev. Prelate had given to his question was, in the main, satisfactory. He (Lord Redesdale) was of opinion that as little discussion as was possible should take place on the clause,
298
and that the subject should not be treated like either a political or a controversial discussion. He regretted that at this period of the Session nothing could be done immediately, for if something were not done speedily it would be of no use; for if such a clause did not pass through their Lordships' House till the close of the Session, it would meet with all suitable obstruction elsewhere, and, in all probability, would be deferred to another Session.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, it might not be inexpedient to separate the clause substituting the new Court of Appeal from the other clauses in the Bill, for it might stand independently of them. It provided merely a court of appeal in reference to one particular class of cases. He believed there would be no objection to the Court of Appeal in matters of fact, but only in questions of false doctrine. He understood that, as far as regarded the discipline of the clergy, there was no objection to the Bill.
Subject at an end.
House adjourned till To-morrow.