Sitting of 31 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sir John Barnard's Act.
3° Income Tax; Stamp Duties.

INCOME TAX BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it may be convenient that I should mention the order in which I propose to take the remaining financial business before the recess. I propose to-day to read a third time the two Bills on the orders—the Income Tax Bill and the Stamp Duties Bill. On Monday I propose to commence with what are known as the Customs Charges Resolutions; and after those to take the second reading of the Wine Licenses Bill. If not objected to I would also read a second time the Bill for the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act, if the House shall give me leave to introduce it to-
  1698
  day. It cannot pass this House till after the recess, but inasmuch as there is a charge depending on it, I trust the House will expedite its progress as much as possible. On Tuesday I should report such Resolutions as the Committee on Customs Act may think fit to adopt on Monday, and insert them in the Customs Duties Bill. There has been already inserted in it a clause with respect to drawbacks on wine. It will be advisable that the Bill should then be reprinted, that it may be seen with all its provisions as a whole; and when the House reassembles after the recess I will take a convenient opportunity—not for several days after the meeting, however— of asking the House to put the Bill through the remaining stages. With respect to the Wine Licences Bill I reserve to myself liberty, presuming it be read a second time on Monday, of committing it pro formâ on Tuesday, with a view to certain Amendments which it may be worth while to introduce. Several very good suggestions have been made referring to matters of detail—some to mitigations of charge and some to provisions against the abuse of authority on the part of magistrates in granting licences—which I would introduce; and as it may be convenient for the House and for the public likewise to see the Bill with these suggestions embodied, that Bill must be reprinted also. In Committee of Ways and Means it will be my duty to at k for the charges on licences, which are a necessary supplement of the second reading of the Wine Licences Bill, and with respect to which I should have no change to propose, except perhaps one or two minor adjustments in way of mitigation. These charges, if adopted by the House, would then be inserted in Committee on the Bill on Tuesday, that stage being taken pro formâ, and then hon. Members would have the opportunity of seeing the whole measure in the precise form in which the Government intend to submit it for the final consideration of the House. With this explanation, Sir, I beg to move the third reading of the Income Tax Bill.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House to the manner in which this particular Bill has gone on. It is a Bill of very great importance, and on Wednesday, after the hour when, ordinarily, public business is not proceeded with if there be any dispute—because if there be the least question you cannot go on, according to the forms of the House— a clause was introduced which had not

  1699
  been printed, and which nobody, except the Members of the Government, knew anything about. I must enter my protest against that mode of conducting business on an important taxing Bill. I do not mean to say that the clause is an improper one. It may be a very convenient way of granting the sort of appeal given in that clause; but I do protest against clauses which are of consequence, whether for good or evil, being introduced into Government Bills of such importance when nobody knows anything about them. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the clause to which I referred printed? Did anybody know anything about it? Was it not proposed after a quarter to six o'clock, when every one leaves the House supposing that nothing but routine business will be proceeded with? All I can say is, if it were so, that is not the course which has ordinarily been followed. Before any clauses are introduced into a Bill, the common practice is to print them, that hon. Members may know what they are legislating upon. But that was not done in this case. With regard to the Bill itself, I have nothing to say against its being read a third time; but I have considered it my duty to call attention to this point, because I think that the observance of the ordinary forms of this House is not only a matter of great convenience, but also of the greatest advantage to the conduct of public business. With regard to the order in which the business of the House is to be taken next week, as sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to offer. Being quarter sessions week, many hon. Members who are connected with country business will not be able to be here on Monday, and therefore I shall hold myself free, if the Wine Licences Bill be read a second time on Monday, to take any course I may think necessary in Committee when that stage arrives. I am not sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to modify some previsions in the Bill; some of them—and I especially refer to that clause with regard to the interference of magistrates—are so objectionable in their present shape that they have been made the subject of much comment. I hope, however, to see them in a different guise when they come before us again. With these observations I do not object to the third reading of this Bill; but I do hope that, in future, if clauses of an important nature
  1700
  are to be introduced into a Government Bill they will be printed and notice given of them, so that this House may know what they are doing.
  Mb. DARBY GRIFFITH: I beg to corroborate the view taken of this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. I must say I have seen communications pass between parties who carry on business at the table and those on the Treasury Bench which were entirely inaudible in the House, and which I afterwards found resulted in the insertion of clauses without any knowledge on the part of hon. Members who took an interest in the subject, and which, had they known of them in time, they would have opposed.
  Bill read 3°.
  On the Question that the Bill do pass,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it quite right, Sir, that all matters appertaining to the business of this House should be very strictly watched and criticised, and I am always glad to hear such criticisms made; but the right hon. Gentlemen is not accurate in the statement he has made, as I think I can show. I frankly own I have been indebted to the courtesy of the House on more occasions than one for consenting, at an unusual hour, to pass a particular stage of this Bill, and postpone discussion till a future stage, with a view to the general convenience of this and the other branch of the Legislature. Nobody can reproach the right hon. Gentleman with inattention to his Parliamentary duties. He is so constant in his attendance on the proceedings of this House, as well as so valuable in the assistance he gives in all public matters, that occasional absence on his part is always sure to be excusable. But, Sir, I must state that the Bill was not brought on upon Wednesday after the time when public business ceases, but before that time. It was concluded after the time when public business ceases, but in the presence— I do not recollect of what Members—but of a number who take an interest in the matter, and by whose consent the Bill was carried forward, while it was in the power of any one of them, by a simple objection, to stop it. In fact, to show that full notice was taken of all that took place in regard to the insertion of the clause referred to, I may mention that one hon. Gentleman put the question whether it could then be regularly introduced, which was ruled in the affirmative. With regard to the clause not having been printed, the

  1701
  remark may be technically correct, but substantially it is not so. It relates to a point of relief raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) who gave a notice, which was printed in the Votes, of a clause for the purpose of giving an appeal, and what we proposed and inserted in the Bill was really an Amendment of his Motion. Technically it was not the hon. Baronet's clause, for it was drawn up differently, but it had the same object in view, and a clause in such cases cannot always be printed in the Votes.
  MR. HENLEY: The right hon. Gentlemen says that the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham gave notice of such a clause; but I do not think that ordinarily speaking, the House would suppose because any hon. Member gave notice of a clause therefore the Government were going to adopt it; or, adopting its spirit and principle, would bring up a clause of the same kind. Hon. Members are not generally so fortunate in getting the consent of Government to amend taxing Bills. All I can say is, that when the Government make up their minds to amend a Bill in any particular it would be well to print the clause or clauses proposed to be inserted in the usual manner, and then there can be no objection.
  Bill passed.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the Third Reading of the Stamp Duties Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I wish, Sir, to draw your attention to a question which arises on the proceedings connected with this Bill in relation to the forms of the House, which I think it important should not be overlooked. I would ask whether there is not an irregularity in the Bill which strikes at one of the most important privileges of this House. We know very well that no tax can be imposed on the subject unless founded on Resolutions of the whole House in Committee. One tax proposed by this Bill is on contracts for the sale of stock. Now, there was a Resolution of the House in Committee upon that subject, but that was a Resolution to
  1702
  this effect,—that, provided the Act which is called Sir John Barnard's Act be repealed, there should be imposed on contracts for the sale of stock a certain duty. That Resolution having passed a Committee of the whole House, involving a condition precedent—namely, the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act—a Bill was introduced containing a clause proposing to repeal the Act; and by the same Bill it was proposed to impose the duty on contracts for the sale of stock. We had last night a discussion on that clause, the result of which was that it has been withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice of the introduction of a Bill to repeal Sir John Barnard's Act. The matter, therefore, stands thus:—That Bill has not yet been introduced; Sir John Barnard's Act has not been repealed. The course that Parliament may take with respect to the repeal cannot be certainly known, and in this Bill, which imposes a stamp on contracts for the sale of stock, there is no condition precedent; it is a positive imposition of a stamp duty on all persons who deal in stock, the condition precedent not having been complied with. The question I would submit to you, Sir, with great respect, is this, whether the Bill, so far as it proposes to impose a tax on the sale of stock, is warranted by the Resolution of the House, I respectfully submit that it is not. I contend that until Sir John Barnard's Act be repealed it is not competent to the House, under this Resolution, to impose a tax upon these contract notes; and I therefore submit that the proper course for the Government to pursue is to strike out of this Bill the words which refer to contracts for the sale of stock, and to deal with that subject hereafter either in another Bill or in that by which it is proposed to repeal Sir John Barnard's Act. If that Act be repealed the Resolution of the House will warrant the imposition of this tax.
  MR. SPEAKER: On referring to the Resolution I find that it was a provisional and conditional one. The terms are, "Provided that the Act passed in the seventh year of the reign of King George H. shall be repealed," and so on.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to know whether a stamped form would be provided for certified extracts from the registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be required to provide both

  1703
  impressed and adhesive stamps for such documents; but I am not aware that we have any power to compel the use of a particular form of words. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Cairns), who is, I think, quite correct in his statement, that a condition was inserted in the Resolution which, owing to the omissission of the clause repealing Sir J. Barnard's Act, is not now followed in the Bill. When we last night came to the conclusion that, in deference to the privileges of the House of Lords, it would be better to deal separately with the subject of that clause, I did not observe that an Amendment would consequently be required in the schedule. The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that necessity at the most seasonable time, and I shall propose to withdraw the Motion for the third reading of the Bill, and to recommit it, in order to insert in the schedule words which will affix to the imposition of the tax the same condition as was originally specified in the Resolution. [Sir H. CAIRNS: Contingent taxation! You can't do that.] I do not know that. It appears to me to be clearly within the powers of the House, and I am not prepared to admit that a tax which is to accrue upon a certain contingency is a novelty in any sense. I shall, therefore, propose to go through the necessary form of recommitting the Bill, with the view—if that, Sir, meet your approval as a matter of order—of bringing the schedule into exact conformity with the Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKER: As to the matter of form, there have been many occasions upon which a similar course has been pursued. The order must he discharged, and the Bill be recommitted. As to the matter of substance, it does not come within my province to give any decision.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would then move that the Order for the third reading of the Bill should be discharged.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped that if the Bill had to be recommitted it would be reprinted. Amendments of an important character had, as he believed, been introduced which it was very desirable that the House should see; and as it would occasion no delay, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, accede to his suggestion.
  MR. DISRAELI: This is not a mere matter of form, because the principle of
  1704
  contingent taxation is a most important one. I am not at this moment prepared; to say that there may not be precedents for its adoption, but at the same time I have not them at hand. Taxation is always founded upon an estimate submitted by the Minister for the service of the year, and all propositions for taxation bear a relation to that estimate. Any departure from this salutary course may seriously affect the financial system of the country. If the principle of contingent taxation be admitted, we may find that our expenditure and our revenue do not balance. This is therefore not a matter of form merely, but involves a most important principle. I assume, as a matter of course, that we shall not be asked to go into Committee on the Bill to-day. Even as a matter of form, notice of the recommittal would be required; but, as a principle of great importance is involved, I take it for granted that time will be given to us to make ourselves thoroughly acquainted with the subject, so that we may bring to the Committee the result of the reflection and information which are so necessary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I cannot understand the importance which has been given to this matter by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. There is no question of contingent taxation at issue. All that will be proposed to the House will be to adapt the schedule to the language of the Resolution. If any objection attaches to contingent taxation, it is one which applies to your own Resolution. Your own Resolution is framed in these words, "Provided the restrictions on dealings in the public funds" contained in a certain Act shall be repealed then "for and upon every note," there shall be a certain stamp. We propose now to put into the schedule precisely the same words as were adopted in the Resolution of the House,—"that, provided the restrictions in dealings in the public funds contained in the Act of so-and-so shall be repealed by any Act passed in the present Session, then from and after such repeal these duties shall attach." Therefore there is not the smallest objection in point of principle, unless that objection be carried to the extent of affirming that your own Resolution was unconstitutional and improper.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: No doubt the hon. and learned Attorney General has not the least objection to that which is proposed, but there is a graver question— whether there is not an objection to it

  1705
  founded upon the forms of the House. I venture to say that the objection does not apply to the Resolution. A Resolution is n its nature temporary and provisional, merely to stand until a Bill is brought in and passed, and therefore the object of this Resolution being framed as it is, is to show that it is intended to introduce the Bill which is referred to as a condition precedent before you introduce the Bill imposing the tax. That which the Resolution says in effect is this:—"Let there be a Bill passed in this Session repealing Sir John Barnard's Act, and then let a Bill be brought in and passed which will impose a tax upon contract notes; and I venture to think that no precedent will be found in which a Bill has passed this House imposing a tax not directly and absolutely, but upon a certain contingency, which is a speculative contingency that Parliament will do something else by some other Bill. If there be such a precedent there may be no reason why we should not follow it, but if there be not, it would be a most inconvenient and irregular practice to introduce upon the present occasion, and one about which there will be a great deal to be said. I understand that the Motion for the recommitment of the Bill cannot be made until a future day. When we see the words which it is proposed to insert in the schedule, and the precedents which the Government, if it can find them, will then bring forward, will be the time to consider the proposition. In the meantime, I apprehend that the House would not think it advisable, without notice and without precedent, to adopt such a proposal at once.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken when he alleges that a Resolution relating to the imposition of duties is in all cases a merely temporary arrangement and provision, lasting only until a Bill is brought in. In the case both of Customs and Excise the duties are levied immediately upon the Resolution being passed. I contend that when you agreed to the Resolution in this instance you affirmed the principle of contingent taxation, if you choose so to describe it. The objections ought to have been taken at that time. I am informed that if the course which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend is not adopted, it will prolong the sitting of the other House of Parliament, and will lead to much inconvenience. I cannot see that this is anything more than a technical objection, to which an importance has been given which
  1706
  it does not deserve, and I hope that there will be no further opposition to the course proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he considered that the House had very imprudently agreed to the Resolution on the subject of the Stamp Duty on contract notes. The difficulty which had arisen was an instance of the evils resulting from this hurried manner of transacting the public business. The condition precedent, namely, the repeal of Sir John's Barnard's Act, had not taken place; and it was clear that the Resolution would not justify the passing of the Bill as at present framed. He hoped that the Government would accede to the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) for reprinting the Bill with the Amendments. The present Bill contained so large a number of Amendments that its own parents would not know it. Many of these Amendments had been introduced by the Secretary of the Treasury at a late hour, without any explanation whatever, and it was most important that the House should be fully aware of their nature. The provisions of the Bill were such as to tend to fetter every transaction of commerce, and it was most unfair and unjust that the House should be called upon to pass it without knowing the nature of the Amendments which had been introduced.
  MR. J. C. EWARTstated that great interest was felt with respect to the Bill by the commercial world, and expressed a hope that the Bill would be reprinted before passing through its final stage.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the Amendments which had been referred to as having been introduced late on the previous evening were only three in number, and were intended to meet objections which had been raised principally by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. These Amendments were of a purely technical nature, and did not affect the general operation of the Bill. The importance of passing the measure that day arose from the circumstance that the revenue to be derived under it would amount to about £1,000 a day, and thus if its becoming law were delayed until after Easter, the country would lose about £14,000.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, be hoped that the proposal to reprint the Bill with the Amendments would be acceded to. It was a measure which concerned much the mining and the banking

  1707
  interests, and interfered with the transactions of all the commercial classes of the country. The objection urged against reprinting the Bill was that the delay would cause a loss of £1,000 a day to the revenue, and if not passed before the Easter recess the total loss would not be less than £14,000. But he contended that the gain of this sum would be but a poor compensation for the litigation and annoyance which might arise from passing a Bill in an incomplete or ill-considered form.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not accede to the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) opposite, but, as no serious loss to the revenue will be involved, I am prepared to meet his objection by withdrawing from the Bill the part of the schedule which refers to contract notes. [Sir H. Cairns: That is what I suggested.] I did not understand that. Well, then, I will omit from the schedule the words relating to contract notes, and leave the whole question to be dealt with in a subsequent measure. With regard to the reprinting of the Bill, I may observe that the Amendments which have been made have been principally designed to remove from the Bill certain words with respect to which it was suggested that difficulties might arise. There is but a single case in which new words have been inserted in the clauses, and these simply refer to the mode of cancelling stamps on the various documents, and involve no extensive or general change in the terms of the Bill. The effect of the words introduced is to provide for cancelling stamps, by impressing as well as by writing upon them, and this alteration has been made in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. If the Bill is required to be reprinted, it will cause delay and consequent loss to the revenue, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire will not insist upon seeing the Amendments in print before the Bill passes.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that when he had suggested that the Bill should be reprinted he understood that it was to be recommitted on a future day, and that therefore its printing would cause no delay. As that course was not to be adopted, his observations did not apply.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcomplained that considerable inconvenience was frequently occasioned by communications be-
  1708
  ing made to the Chairman by Members of the Government in so low a tone that they did not reach the ears of the Members of the House.
  MR. LOWE: The course which the Government proposes to take is this:—We propose, in conformity with precedent, to re-commit the Bill at once, in Committee to strike out the part of the schedule relating to contract notes, to report immediately to the House, to read the Bill a third time, and to pass it. That is a course which is sanctioned by precedent.
  MR. KERinquired whether the omission of contract notes from the operation of the Bill would affect the revenue.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Only to a limited extent.
  Order for Third Reading discharged.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee; Bill recommitted with regard to the Schedule; Considered in Committee.
  House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, considered; read 3° and passed.

SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c. REPEAL BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER Moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act 7 Geo. II., c. 8, commonly called Sir John Barnard's Act, and the Act 10 Geo. II., c. 8, which made the former Act perpetual.
  MR. WISEsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to have made some statement to the House with respect to his object in introducing this Bill. Sir John Barnard's Act was passed for the purpose of preventing "stock-jobbing." That Act had been found to work so well that it had been made perpetual, and he doubted the policy of repealing it. There could be no objection urged against the buying and selling of stock and public and other securities; but "stock-jobbing" was a thing which he hoped every hon. Gentleman in the House would endeavour to do all in his power to prevent. He was anxious to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the effect of repealing this Act would not be to promote the injurious practice of "stock-jobbing."
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that those who had drawn up this Bill had appeared to have totally overlooked the existence

  1709
  of the Act of the 8 & 9 Vict., which was directed against all kinds of "gaming and wagering," and therefore applied to stock-jobbing and wagering in time bargains. The statute 8 &, 9 Vict., c. 109, was passed to prevent qui tam actions in cases of betting under an old statute of Charles, which was supposed to have become obsolete, but under the provisions of which numerous actions were brought against Lord George Bentinck and others. He was counsel in that case for the informer who had brought the actions, and anything more absurd could not be conceived than the proceedings which were necessary to be taken in those actions. The principal witness in the case swore that he had burned his books, and he could not state anything whatever as to his transactions with Lord George Bentinck. The House had consequently agreed to pass an Act which would relieve the defendant from penalties accruing under an Act which referred to a state of things that had become entirely obsolete. He believed that the Government were wholly ignorant of this Act of 8 & 9 Vict., when they decided upon repealing this Act of Sir John Barnard, because that Act equally applied to wagering. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to state whether it was his intention to derive a revenue from wagering transactions on the Stock Exchange. These dealings in the funds no doubt took place at the present time to a very large amount, but it was a very different thing to license and sanction them, as would be the case if this Bill were to pass. If the principle of allowing these wagerings were to be applied to the Stock Exchange, it should be made equally applicable to transactions at Tattersall's. What took place at the "Corner" was perfectly patent and known to the world. Everybody knew the nature of the betting that was going on there. There was nothing to prevent any person at Tattersall's offering or taking, for instance, 40 to 1 on the double event of Lord Palmerston's horse winning the Derby and the passing of the Reform Bill in the present Session. If it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain a revenue from contracts entered into for wagering transactions on the Stock Exchange, he could not do so under the provisions of the present Bill, for the Act of the 8 & 9 Vict, would prevent him, and it would be necessary to repeal that Act as well as Sir John Barnard's,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, in the presence of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he should be slow to offer an opinion of his own on any legal point. But Sir John Barnard's Act, considered along with other legislation, placed members of the Stock Exchange under a peculiar law, exclusively applicable to them. In the opinion of those gentlemen the effect of the Act was to proscribe and render penal, not only what were called and understood to be wagering transactions, but likewise the regular and ordinary form under which the whole of that vast and beneficial business of dealing in the funds was conducted. He, therefore, now intended to repeal the Act treating in an exceptional manner this particular class of pecuniary transactions, leaving them subject to the general provisions of the law as determined by the Wagering Act; and, in laying on the table what he hoped would be merely a repealing measure, care should be taken not to interfere in any manner with the operation of the Wagering Act.
  Leave given.
  "Bill to repeal the Act of the seventh year of King George the Second, chapter eight, commonly called 'Sir John Barnard's Act,' and the Act of the tenth year of King George the Second, chapter eighth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. LAING."
  Bill presented, and read 1°.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to state that as some attention had been drawn to the matters proposed to be dealt with by the Bill, he would not fix its second reading until the 19th of April.
  House adjourned at a quarter-after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Stamp Duties; Income Tax:
Royal Assent.—Consolidated Fund (£850,000); Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Endowed Schools; Benefit Societies Rules Amendment.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.— INCOME TAX BILL
Read 1a, and to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next; and Standing Orders No. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.
House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock to Monday next, half past Four o'clock.