taining an expression of opinion on the sub- | general public, was altogether opposed to ject, he would divide the House. this tax. He would, with the permission of the House, read a letter which had been sent to one of his constituents by a common informer : Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the reduction of the Duty on Carriages." The House divided :-Ayes 24; Noes 59: Majority 35. RECEIPT STAMPS. "London, April 24th, 1850. "Sir-I have not the least doubt but you will be surprised at receiving this from me, but necessity makes men desperate. I have, in the whole, six of your unstamped bills, which if they should by chance fall into the hands of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, you are aware of what will be the result. Now, the best way to obviate such a chance will be for you to remit me a Post Office order for whatever trifle you can sp spare in cash, just to cover my present necessity. You shall have, whatever sum it is, returned within three months, as I expect to realise a little money within that time; and I will send you, by feel inclined to favour me, let me have an answer return of post, all your unstamped bills. If you by return of post; if not, I shall not deem it necessary to take any means to prevent the said bills from falling into the Commissioners' hands, which it is very possible they may do, unless care is taken to prevent it. You will please to direct to me, 10, Wilson-court, Wilson-street, Gray's-innroad, London. You are aware, perhaps, that I have had the misfortune to let the Stamp Office get hold of one or two lots of bills, which I hope you will endeavour to prevent in your case, by complying with my suggestion. You can make an order payable at Mr. Ogg, Money Order Office, Gray's-inn-road, for what sum you may think proper, and by return of post, as I am in great also prevent any ill effects arising from the aforeneed at present, and you will much oblige me, and mentioned circumstances, as I am afraid the Stamp Office will ultimately get hold of all the unstamped bills which I have in my possession, which will be entirely obviated by your complying with my request, as I shall then have it in my take better care of them than if they are left in power to remit them to you, and you can perhaps MR. HEADLAM said, that the Motion of which he had given notice was for the Abolition of Stamps imposed upon Receipts. He had hoped that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would have remitted this tax long since, in consequence of the representations that had been made to him, more especially as the reduction of other stamp duties had given great relief to the public. The chief argument which, in his opinion, was in favour of the abolition of this tax, was its systematic evasion on the part of the public. This was the greatest evil to which a tax could be exposed. The late Sir Robert Peel was so strongly of this opinion that he remitted the auction duty, although the remission at that time was neither demanded nor expected. There were few taxes which in principle were more objectionable than this, for it was a tax which almost more than any other was liable to that great moral and practical evil, the being open to continual evasion, and with impunity, on the part of all classes of society. The systematic evasion of the law with respect to receipt stamps was best shown by reference to the decrease in the duty received by the Government from this source. Not- hands. withstanding the greatly increased number "P.S.-An answer, as I said, by return of of payments which were now made, the re-post, will much oblige, as delays are dangerous, venue from receipt stamps was falling off and I have enclosed one of your bills, that you every year. In the year 1848 the amount derived from receipt stamps was 162,750l.; in 1849, 185,7071.; and in 1850, 153,7681.; whilst in 1823, when the population was much smaller, the tax produced 185,000l. Another great objection to the tax was that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were, under its operation, made the tools of unprincipled informers, who applied them to the purposes of the most flagitious extortion. The tax was altogether inoperative for good, since the practice had become so general of paying and receiving amounts from the smallest to the greatest, without any stamped formalities, that even to offer, much less to receive, a stamped receipt was now considered a commercial imputation, a personal insult. The opinion of the commercial world, as well as of the my may know all is right. * "To Mr. Daniel Oliver, Wholesale Grocer." He held in his hand a memorial from the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, recommending the abolition of this tax, and stating as a reason for the abolition, that it was a sound guiding principle in legislation, that duties to which the country had continued to show repugnance, and which the Government had not enforced, should be abolished. He held in his hand a document which had been laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1828, where he found the same statements were made concerning the malignancy of the persons who gave information as to the evasion of this tax. It was there said, that "they always originated in malice." He had moved for a return with respect to the threepenny stamp, that being the smallest amount of the tax. He found that the sum that had been received in respect of that stamp duty in 1847-8 was 22,0751., and there had been that year 102 prosecutions, and in 1848-9 there was a sum of only 19,8467. received, while there were 119 prosecutions. They had seen the manner in which these prosecutions had been got up; and he appealed to the House whether there was any instance where so small a sum was produced by so much annoyance and litigation. He believed that by a small modification of the duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might raise, at least, as large an amount of revenue as that which he now derived from it. He would mention one mode in which that might be done. They were all acquainted with the system of paying bills by means of crossed cheques. There had been great doubt thrown on the legality of that proceeding by a judgment that had recently been pronounced by Mr. Baron Parke. That judgment had only direct reference to the case of a cheque crossed with the name of a particular banker; but the reasoning whereon it was founded, applied to cheques crossed in blank. In proof of that he read the following sentence from the judgment: "The crossing a cheque with the name of a banker cannot be meant to operate as an endorsement to that banker; for it is not meant to transfer the property in it to him, and it wants the essential ingredient in endorsements, which is delivery. It cannot be supposed to be something equivalent to a direction to the drawer not to pay to the bearer, but to a particular person only, for it would then come under the operation of the stamp law, 55 Geo. III., which excepts cheques payable to bearer." He was aware that Mr. Baron Parke had thrown out some extra-judicial opinions, from which it might be inferred that crossing a cheque in blank was valid; but the judgment itself proceeded on a different principle, and no reliance could now be placed on the practice of crossing cheques. Now, crossed cheques were a great convenience to society; and what would be easier than to give validity to crossed cheques by the payment of a stamp duty of only one penny, which, he believed, would raise a considerable revenue. There was another mode in which an evasion of the present law might be avoided. If a cheque were drawn on a banker in London within a certain distance from London, a 50l. penalty was incurred; but cheques of that description were constantly being drawn. Let permission be given for this to be done upon payment of a duty of twopence. There were various other modes by which validity might be given to instruments upon payment of a small duty, by which means a great benefit would be done to the public. It was not for him to propose substitutes for the duties sought to be repealed; but he had suggested two, and there was no doubt that many others far less objectionable than the present might be devised. When therefore the House had to consider on the one hand the serious objections to the tax, and the facility with which the same revenue might otherwise be raised, he thought it was their duty to accede to his Resolution. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was very much afraid that if he were to assent to the repeal of this tax on the grounds which had been stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-uponTyne, he would soon have but few taxes left. They had long heard that certain taxes pressed hard on particular interests, interfered with some process of manufacture, or diminished consumption; but almost the sole ground on which his hon. Friend had proposed the repeal of this tax was, that people did not like to pay it. The House had very recently negatived the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) with respect to the duty on carriages; and that Motion was based, like the present one, on the frequent practice of evasion. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir G. Strickland) had stated some time ago that if they repealed all the taxes which were evaded, there would soon be no direct, and very few indirect, taxes left. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) had said that so long ago as 1828, the giving of a stamped receipt was a reflection upon the integrity of the man who paid the money; but he could not see how that could be the case. He did not understand how the enforcing a receipt could be a reflection on the integrity of the man who paid the money. Looking over the list of taxes, he did not think this was one of those which had the first claim to repeal; and the tendency of such demands as the present one was to compel the Government to have recourse to indirect taxation. He confessed he did not much pity persons who incurred hardships by the evasion of the law; they had it in their power to protect themselves. He did not enough, that on a remission of taxation there were taxes to be selected in preference to this; but what right had the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that this Motion was for remission of taxation? [The CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER: Have you read the notice paper?] Yes; those might be the particular terms of the Motion; but the hon. Member did not desire a remission of taxation, but contemplated rather an increase of revenue. It was not put on the ground that people did not like to pay the tax, but that they did not pay it. How often did the right hon. Gentleman evade the tax himself? What Member present gave stamped receipts in his daily transactions? It was not done once in a hundred times. But nobody would object to a uniform penny stamp, just as nobody minded paying for the postage stamp. Tradesmen would be in the habit of making out a bill upon a sheet with a penny stamp upon it; whereas now, if you asked a tradesman for a stamp receipt, he stared at you in astonishment for doubting him. The evasions were really terrific in extent. think much of a grievance which could be got rid of so cheaply; all that they had to do was to comply with the law, and then they might set all the informers in the world at defiance. Those, however, were the only grounds on which the hon. Gentleman had moved for the reduction of the tax. He hardly thought the complaints made against it were universal, for almost the only complaints which had come under his notice proceeded from the immediate neighbourhood of the borough represented by the hon. Gentleman, and from the Society of Friends. Looking at the working of this tax, and at the general scope of taxation, he thought that 120,000l. or 150,000l. a year might be much better applied to the remission or abolition of other taxes than the tax on receipt stamps. The hon. Gentleman had suggested the imposition of a small stamp duty on crossed cheques, and had expressed the opinion that a large revenue might be derived from that source. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He could not see how a revenue could be derived from the stamps to be imposed on crossed cheques, when the public, as MR. BROTHERTON apprehended that the hon. Gentleman said, evaded the pay- the Motion was to abolish receipt stamps. ment of the stamp on receipts. The tax [Mr. AGLIONBY: The present receipt on the crossed cheques could be evaded stamps.] He could not give his consent just as easily as the other. He had not to that; but it was evident that the reyet heard any suggestion likely to act on venue from this source under the present the consciences of the public, and induce system of levying it was decreasing, and them to stamp any documents; and he was he thought a uniform penny stamp would afraid if he gave up the revenue derived be far more productive. The amount from the stamps on receipts, and relied on being so trifling, a regular system would that to be derived from the small stamp prevail, and people would carry these on crossed cheques now proposed, he stamps in their pockets. There was a should find the public just as unwilling to growing feeling in the country in favour of pay it; and hon. Gentlemen in that House that plan. The present duty fell hard therefore, like the hon. Member for New-upon those who, like the Society of castle-upon-Tyne, on the present occasion, moving for its reduction or abolition. He must therefore oppose the Motion, and he trusted that the House, as it had done COLONEL THOMPSON would say, in once before in the course of the evening, answer to the appeal to Members of would negative the proposition. the House, whether they were not in the MR. AGLIONBY would support the Mo-habit of declining to give or take receipt tion of the hon. Member (Mr. Headlam) not to remit, but to alter, this mode of taxation; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would go to a division upon the question, that the public might see who were, and who were not, in favour of this proposal. The majority would not be given to the right hon. Chanoellor of the Exchequer because of his arguments, but for another reason, which so often gave a majority to those benches. It might be true The Chancellor of the Exchequer Friends, had a conscientious feeling about the matter, and who contributed more than their fair proportion to this revenue. stamps, that he never did such a thing in his life. It was against his interest to decline a stamp, for he put himself in the power of another to the extent of the money paid. He never knew any one refuse to give a receipt stamp if asked. There was a feeling of honour about it. Take the case of landlord and tenant, for instance; it would not be handsome to refuse. Tradesmen, in general, did not feel any objection to give a receipt stamp, {FEB. 17, 1852} MR. HINDLEY expressed his hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would direct his attention to the suggestion of a uniform receipt stamp. The introduction of such a measure would be just to all parties, and would give general satisfaction. Australia. 702 which they thought a fair demand on the | he believed that before the expiration of part of one who paid a debt-a thing that such contracts fresh ones had been entered was more than everybody was in the habit into at most favourable rates; and if the of doing. granted, he should be able to show that returns for which he moved should be 200,000l. a year had unnecessarily been given to that company for twenty years, causing an expenditure to the country of 4,000,000l. He understood that a copy of the contract entered into with the West India Company for the conveyance of mails to the West Indies and the Brazils had already been laid before the House, and also that a tender had been made by the to the Brazils for 80,000l. a year, whilst Screw Company for the carriage of mails the old contract was not less than 270,000l. a year. If such an offer was in existence, jection to its production; and if not, he he did not suppose there would be any obtrusted a direct negative would be given to the statement, that a fresh contract had been entered into at the rate of 270,000l. a year. Motion made, and Question put— "That, in the opinion of this House, the present Stamps imposed upon Receipts should be abolished." The House divided :-Ayes 28; Noes 61 Majority 33. MAILS TO AUSTRALIA. tleman had moved for papers on the subMR. COWPER was glad the hon. Genjects to which he had adverted; for it was only in the absence of any correct information that the hon. Gentleman could have made his statement. He spoke of a certain conditional or provisional contract which be supposed to have been made with Mr. Walton. MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH moved for copies of the contract which were entered into with Mr. Walton for the carriage of the mails to Australia, and to the West Indies and the Brazils. He found, on inquiry, that the contract with Mr. Walton had not been completed, and that only a provisional contract had been entered into, and that no security had yet been taken by the Board of Admiralty. He believed the route by the Cape was the only one by which emigrants from Europe could reach Australia; and this was the moment chosen by the Admiralty to limit their mails to every alternate month. The Admiralty been some time ago received, it was necesThe fact was, that the tender having had the means of carrying out the com- sary to prepare a formal document, called munication through established companies," articles of agreement," which were of whose capital was paid up, and whose vessels were ready to perform the voyage. They had received offers from one company at least to carry the mails to Australia by the Cape, and he believed they would carry them at a small rate monthly; but notwithstanding this offer, they had entered into an arrangement to carry the mails at a lower rate and at an impossible speed, with a gentleman whose company was not yet formed; and if the statements in cir- company.] On the contrary, he (Mr. Cow[Mr. F. FRENCH: That they are no culation were correct, that the performance per) was told that they were a company; of the contract would entail a loss of 6,000l. that they had applied to the President of per voyage, he thought it would be impos- the Board of Trade for a charter of incorsible for such company to be established.poration; that the Board of Trade had no He wished to know if the Admiralty had ascertained whether the gentleman in question would be able to procure sufficient resources to enable him to get beyond the Cape. It was incumbent on the House to see that such contracts were likely to be carried out. In some cases of contracts large penalties had been incurred, but no steps had been taken to enforce them; and considerable length, and which had not yet been signed. It was useless for the hon. Member to move for the contract, because, not being signed, it was not legally in existence. As soon as it was signed, the Admiralty would be happy to produce it. He was surprised the hon. Member should bring so many accusations against the company. He said that they had no vessels. objection, and had signified their intention to grant the charter. He could not say whether all the legal preliminaries had been gone through; but he expected before long that every formality would be complied with. He was also informed that the company had got two screw vessels of great speed capable of performing the services with efficiency. He believed there was not the slightest foundation for the | looking through the return the other day accusations brought against the company of the number of 101. houses in some of by the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the statement that an offer had been made to perform for 80,000l. that service in the West Indies which was now performed for 270,000l., he knew not where the hon. Gentleman had heard of such a proposition. Any document referring to it which the hon. Gentleman could point out, would be new to him. The statements of the hon. Gentlemen were founded on mistake and misapprehension. With respect to the contract for mails to Australia, the Admiralty had taken the simple course of calling for tenders, accepting the lowest, and giving the persons who had accepted every facility they required for the execution of their contract. Under these circumstances the Admiralty could not have acted otherwise than they had. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. LORD DUDLEY STUART moved an Address for sundry returns in connexion with the proposed alteration of the Parliamentary franchise. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, there was no objection to give the information required by his noble Friend, but he hoped he would not press his Motion in its present shape. A portion of the information would be given in returns moved for by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and another portion in the plan promised by his noble Friend at the head of the Government to the hon. Member for Manchester, both of which would be ready in a few days. With regard to giving the precise number of 51. houses, it was obvious that it could not be stated until Commissioners were sent down to report on the boundaries. He hoped his noble Friend would not move for what would only be duplicate returns. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that the return moved for by the hon. Member for Manchester was for a map setting forth the boundaries of the proposed new boroughs, and the existing boroughs; but what his noble Friend and Colleague asked for was a return of the population of the proposed new boroughs-that was, the number of 51. householders in each of these aggregation of boroughs. He was Mr. Cowper the old boroughs which formed part of Schedule A in the first Reform Bill, and which, strange to say, were now to be resuscitated in Schedule B, and he found that one of those boroughs had only fourteen 107. houses in it. That place was to form a part of a new borough by being added to one of the boroughs which now returned Members to Parliament. Before the House went into Committee on the new Reform Bill, the Government ought to inform them what was the number of 51. householders in those miserable and contemptible boroughs put together in Schedule B. The Government said that those boroughs in themselves were not fit to return Members to serve in Parliament; therefore, in order to make them fit, they proposed to join them to other places which already returned Members. The object of his noble Friend was to learn how fit those places would be after having been put together. Calne was unfit, Abingdon was unfit, and so on for sixty-seven boroughs. The question was, how were these places by the addition of other equally unfit boroughs to be rendered fit? Previous to the passing of the first Reform Bill, all this information was given, and it was equally necessary that similar information should be afforded now. SIR GEORGE GREY said, his hon. Friend was under a complete misapprehension as to the information about to be laid before the House by the Government. Not only would the information asked for by the hon. Member for Manchester be furnished, but the whole of the information which the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) wished to obtain would be afforded, so far as the Government could give it. But it was impossible to give the number of 51. householders of those boroughs, the boundaries of which had not been accurately fixed. If his noble Friend would wait a few days, he thought the return that was about to be made would give him all the information that the Government could at present obtain. LORD DUDLEY STUART said, that after the appeal of his right hon. Friend, he could not refuse to wait a few days; but if the information he required should not then be supplied, his right hon. Friend must excuse him if he should repeat his present Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock. |