The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 28, 1857. VrottOings arlianunt. HOUSE OF LORDS.—MoNDAY. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, upon the request of Lords Lyndhurst and Campbell, postponed the second read ing of this important bill to Tuesday, March 3. PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the bill be read a second time. Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to the present mea sure because it virtually placed all the testamentary jurisdiction of the country in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Why was the burden of this jurisdiction to be thrown in the first instance on a Vice• Chancellor, when there existed ajudge of the Prerogative Court fully able and competent to discharge his duties ? Again, he objected to the bill because it deprived the heir at law of the established right—maintained at all times in courts of equity—of having the validity of a will adverse to his interests as heir• at law tried by an issue. With regard to the question of compen sation, he could have wished that the bill had contained more satisfactory information. In com mittee he should certainly move such alterations as seemed requisite to make the bill more complete and successful. Lord LYNDHURST did not rise to oppose the second reading of the bill : It had been his intention, however, to make a few cbser vations respecting some of its provisions, but on looking around the house just now he had made a calculation which was rather amusing,—he found there was just one third of a peer to each bench the house was almost de• serted] ; and, as he did not care to address empty benches, he should postpone his observations to a future stage of the bill. He hoped their lordships would think that he was justified at this moment in not replying to the obser vations of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack. Lord CAMPBELL, like his noble and learned friend, was indisposed to address empty benches, but, as this would be his last appearance in the house before going circuit, he thought it necessary to say just a few words on the subject of this bill. There could be no doubt that a change was requisite in the testa mentary jurisdiction; the only question was how that change was to be effected. He Must confess he was nit at all satisfied with the scheme of the Lord Chancellor, which amounted to nothing more or less than this, that every contested will cause was to become a Chancery suit. First of all the matter would come before a Vice• Chancellor, who would direct an issue to be tried at common law ; the cause would then come back to him, and he would have to say whether he was satisfied with the verdict or not. From the decision there would be an appeal to the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices, just as there was with regard to a Chancery case, and afterwards there might be an appeal to that house. Now, were their lordships of opinion that such a machinery would effect any advantageous change if substituted for the present mode of proceeding before a very learned judge in the Prerogative Court, with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose judgment was final in the matter ? In his opinion, the new court ought to be a Queen's Court of Probate, guided by common law procedure, and presided over by a common-law judge. Having entered his protest against this jurisdiction being added to that of the Court of Chancery, he only hoped that the bill might be referred to a select committee. Lord WYNFORD here expressed his opinion that the stigma of Chancery would be fatal to the bill. Lord WENSLEYDALE approved the principle of the bill, but thought the appointment of a Vice-'36ancel • for to preside over the court a very doubtful ad vantage. _ _ The LORD CHANCELLOR briefly replied, remarking that many of the objections made to the bill might be surmounted in committee. The bill way then read a second time. The Royal Marine Forces Bill went through com mittee. The Chief Constables Bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY. NEW MEMBER. Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN took the oaths and his seat for West Kent. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. HAYTER, a new writ was ordered for the election of a new member for the city of Glasgow, in the place of Mr. John M'Gregor, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. NEUFCHATEL. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. Kinnaird as to when the conference on the Neufchatel question was to meet, and whether there was any hope of the matter being brought to a speedy and satisfactory termination, said:— No specific time has yet been fixed for the conference, but I believe that all the powers united with the French Government have been invited, and have assented to attend the conference. With regard to the second branch of the THE PRESS. hon. gentleman's question, all I can say is that the Swiss Government have shown the greatest possible moderation by releasing the prisoners ; and I think there can be no doubt that the King of Prussia, when the conference is opened, will show that he is animated by the same spirit, and that the result will be a satisfactory arrangement. THE BUDGET. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. JAMES APOREGOR rose, and resumed the de bate upon the budget. He argued that if the house was satisfied with the scheme of finance proposed for 1857-58 the income tax must be perpetuated, which the country would not bear. The estimates he thought extravagantly high, and he should certainly support Mr. Disraeli's amendment. Lord J. RUSSELL said the ground taken by Mr. Glatbtone was, not that there was no great remission of taxes, but that there hail been a departure from the policy of abolishing a vast number of small duties and simplifying the revenue. The principal merit of the budget of Sir R. Peel, Lord John ob served, was that it removed a great number of pro tective and differential duties, and asserted the just principles of tree trade. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer departed from those principles? Had he, having been a free-trader all his life, inaugurated a new policy? Nothing of the kind. He (Lord Jahn) did not agree with him as to the duties upon fire insurances and upon paper, holding that all these Excise duties were of a most injurious nature. He was desirous that the income tax should termi nate in 1800; but he did not see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had interposed any obstacle in the way ; he should say that his proposals were not only not opposed to the budget of 1853, but were specially calculated to carry that budget into effect. At the same time he hoped, when the house was in committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt a different scale of tea duties, so as to mitigate the pressure upon that article. With respect to the vote in the committee of supply, he thought it would be the duty of the house to look most carefully and vigilantly into the charges for the public establish. ments. As the groat Crimean war was now over, and he trusted the Persian and Chinese disputes were upon the point of being settled, he did not see why arrangements which will be good in 1858 and 1850 should not be adapted to 1837, and why we should not now come to a resolution as to what our peace estimates shall be : I shall listen (said the noble lord) with great attention to the statements that may be made by the Ministers of the Crown with regard to the estimates they propose. I believe, as those estimates now stand, there is no doubt that if they were to be followed for the next two years the calculation of the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire would prove substantially correct, and that we should have a deficiency of nearly 5,000,0001. in those years. It was a question fairly raised, and he could not but think, with reference to the expenditure of 1848, that some reduction of the estimates was practicable, and that the house was entitled to call for a peace estab lishment. He was ready to go into committee of ways and means with the Chancellor of the Exche quer, and to allow that, keeping in view the policy and justice of putting an end to the income tax in 1860, he did not require a large concession of indi rect duties in 1857. Mr. BENTINCH was not prepared to support either the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the resolution of Mr. Disraeli. He could nut con sent to vote money until he knew for what purpose, and he moved that the debate be adjourned, with the ulterior object of suspending the decision of the house until after its decision upon the army, navy, and ordnance estimates in a committee of supply. Mr. Moscgrox MILNER thought the Government were rather prepared to carry out their economic reductions with so much energy and vigour that he feared there was a tendency to abandon some of the improvements originating in the war. He was satis fied with the budget : If the remission of the taxes on tea and sugar should in some degree be postponed, the people would recognise that this postponement arose not front deficiency of good will or ability, but solely from the occurrence of those awful circumstances through which the country bad so gloriously passed within the last few years, humbly sub mitting to the decrees of Providence, and thankful that they had at last obtained a satisfactory peace. Sir J. TYRELL supported the motion of Mr. Ben tinck. Mr. WILKINSON supported the Ministerial project of finance. Mr. LIDDELL supported the resolution of Mr. Disraeli, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sincere in his calculations he aimed at the same result, and if the calculation was incorrect, its effect would be to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to modify his plans. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE supported the budget. Mr. WHITESIDE considered that the arrangements required revision. The budget was inconsistent with " sound finance," and, with respect to the tea and sugar duties, opposed to "common honesty," 197 Sir F. BARING cordially supported the Government scheme of finance. He gave them credit for having accompliThed the utmost amount of prudent reduc tion, and yet maintained the revenue of the country on a sound basis. Mr. IVALeoLE insisted upon the expediency of settling the expenditure of the country before going into committee of wars and means. He should support Mr. Disraeli's resolution, for the object of the resolution was to abolish the income tax in 1860 by a wholesome reduction of the expenditure, and the first object of the committee of ways and means was to reimpose the income tax for 1858, 1859, and 1860, before the house knew what was to be the expenditure of those years. It was not only in the military and naval establishments that a reduction of expenditure ought to be looked for, but still more in our civil departments. He was not for undue reductions; but when the fact was that our expendi ture was now 10,000,0001. more than that required four years before the war commenced, it was im possible, he said, to deal with the subject properly unless the reasons of this expenditure were analysed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declined to say that the remission of the income tax in 1860 was probable or possible, and these alarming words should induce the house to adopt Mr. Disraeli's resolution. No budget could be satisfactory to the country unless it secured the proper adjustment of revenue and expenditure, and the fulfilment of a pledge solemnly given. Mr. CARDWELL observed that those who were de termined to enforce economy should not vote for a dilatory motion, but should go into a committee of ways and means, where, when asked to vote in time of peace duties which pressed upon the poorer classes of the community, the house might give effect to their views of economy by refusing to impose those duties, replenishing the Exchequer without im poverishing the people. He should vote for going into committee. Mr. GIBSON believed that if Parliament sanctioned the expenditure of the present year it would lay a foundation for a deficiency in future years and lead to the gradual subversion of the policy of 184.2. lie was for maintaining as part of the ordinary revenue of the country a fair and moderate income tax, be lieving it to be the keystone of a free commercial policy. If the house should be firm in rejecting this budget ho had no doubt that the (government would reconsider it and bring in one founded upon a re duced expenditure. Mr. NiwnectArE would not consent to vote the proposed duties for three years until he had had an opportunity of sifting the expenditure. He should support the motion for adjourning the debate. Sir C. WOOD objected that the motion of Mr. Disraeli, of an abstract resolution stopping the house from discussing the budget in committee, was a waste of time; the Government had not by their own free will adopted the course which had been pursued, but in deference to the general wish of the house ex pressed on all sides. [" No, no," from Mr. Disraeli] : I am certainly much mistaken if the right hon. gentle- man himself did not sac that it was indispensable that there should be a financial statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer before we proceeded to consider the estimates. Mr. Disasym : I am quite sore that I never expressed any wish of the sort. lam quite astonished at the Govern went for having taken this course. The recommendations which they received to adopt it proceeded from a noble lord and a right hon. gentleman behind them, not from me. I am not aware that any gentleman on this side of the house rec)mmended this course. It is one of which I en tirely disapprove, and I am certain I never at any time sug gested it to the Government. Sir C. WOOD: Weil, then, it was pressed on us by my noble friend the member for London and by the tight hon. member for the University of Oxford. Mr. GLADSTONE : f beg the right bon. gentleman to except me. I never pressed upon the Government any such course. Sir CHARLES Woon said that his ears then had very much deceived him. The right hon. baronet then proceeded at great length to review Mr. Glad stone's arguments, and concluded by declaring, with regard to the estimates for the present year, he believed it not to be possible to reduce them :LI, titer. He believed they would be smaller next year, but he would not pledge himself. The Government would do all they could, but he repudiated any contract or engagement. The house divided upon Mr. Bentinck's motion for the adjournment of the debate, when there voted, — For the adjournment 25 Against it . 477 Majority against Mr. Bentinck's motion 452 The house then proceeded to divide on Mr. Dis raeli's amendment, when the numbers appeared,— For the amendment For going into committee Majority for Government The house accordingly resolved into a committee of ways and means.