The Press.
London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

and, as something must be dotie, for the evil ad-
mitted of no delay, he had voted for the second read-
ing of the bill, and should vote against sending it to
a select committee, because, after mature considera-
tion, he could see no better expedient. He denied
that the bill limited in the slightest degree the pre-
rogative of the Crown.
Mr CARDWELL insisted that a bill dealing with the
constitution of the House of Lords, the prerogative
of the Crown, and the dearest rights and most im-
portant interests of the community, required careful
consideration. Law ref9rm, he observed, was the
great demand of the day. The court of final appeal
was the arbiter of all the other courts. We had now
two courts of final appeal, and that which gave
universal satisfaction was to be ignored and ulti-
mately absorbed, and the other was by this bill to be
replaced by a tribunal admitted to be imperfect.
Mr. GLADSTONE said it appeared to him that the
bill absolutely extinguished any claim on the part of
the Crown to exercise the prerogative of creating life
peers; and be considered that the manner in which
the bill dealt with this great question was a reason
for further inquiry, in order that the measure might
give satisfaction to the public mind and bear marks
of deliberation. He did not like, he remarked, to
see the House of Lords, by its great salaried officers,
become pensioners on the public purse, in order to
fulfil duties which that house claimed as appertain-
ing to its public character ; and he objected to ex-
posing to hazard the independence and purity of the
bench.

Lord PALMF.RSTON said he regretted the circum-
stance adverted to by Mr. Currie, that there was a
strong difference of opinion between the Government
and some of their friends regarding this bill ; at the
same time they had felt it necessary to recommend
the measure, which originated in a conviction that
the condition of the appellate jurisdiction of the
House of Lords was one which it was not for the
public interest should continue, owing to the dimi-
nution of the legal force in that house, which it was
therefore desirable to strengthen. The question
was, not whether this was the best plan that could
be devised, but whether the bill, by giving an acces-
sion of legal force to the House of Lords, would
remedy an acknowledged evil. His opinion was that
it would; that the appointment of two salaried offi-
cers in that house would strengthen its legal force
sufficiently to enable it to perform its duties more
satisfactorily. The salaries were given not for legis-
lative, but for judicial functions, and there could be
no constitutional objection upon that head. As to
further inquiry, he thought the arguments of the
opponents of the bill showed that no further inves-
tigation was needed.

The SOLICITOR -GENERAL, in reply to a question by
Mr. Roebuck, said, if there be a prerogative in the
Crown to create life peers, the bill as at present
worded limited its exercise so far as to prevent more
than four persons sitting in the House of Lords at
one time as peers for life only.

Upon a division the amendment was carried against
the Government, by 155 to 133.

The Lill was, therefore, ordered to be referred to a
select committee.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill was
read and discharged.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES BILL.

Sir G. GREY, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said he proposed to continue the existing
act for one year, in order that the recommendations
of the commissioners might be considered by the
house.

The bill was then read a second time.

STAMP DUTIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for
leave to bring in two bills. The first provided for
the reduction of the duty upon proxy papers for
voting in respect to railway companies from 2i. 6d.
to 6d. At present, if the articles were not stamped
before taken out they were invalid, and he proposed
to adopt in regard to those instruments the same
course that was pursued in respect to similar docu-
ments, and to allow them to be stamped et a future
time upon payment of a penalty. The other bill
was intended to give to landowners in Scotland the
same advantages with respect to the income tax
which were virtually enjoyed by landowners in Eng-
land, and which had been conferred by act of Par-
liament upon landowners in Ireland.
Leave was given to introduce these measures, and
the two bills were brought in and read a first time.