The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

THE

which occurred annually, that moment Lord Portman
was summarily dismissed; no communication was made
to him; Lord Portman was is the country, and on his
return be found a notice on his table, that he had been
superseded by the Government; there was not one word
of explanation, and the political partisen of the Govern-
ment in the parish was instituted in hie stead. The
parishes complained that they were nbt allowed to vita
nage their own affairs, and that mandamuses wore tip-
plied for to coerce them. He thought, under the °dr-
cumstances, that the motion of his Noble Friend was a
very fair one, and he hoped he would press it to a di-
vision.—(Hear.)
Mr. JACOB BELL vindicated the conduct of the
parish of Marylebone a► some length, and contended
that the aspersions which had been cast upon them had
been undeserved.

Mr. HENLEY said that the House had nothing to do
with the management, good or bad, of the Mar) iebone
vestry. The only question before the House was whether
the authority of the Poor law Board ought to be ex-
tended to parishes having local Acts. Ho had heard no
reason why the exemptions should be continued, and he
should, therefore, vote against the proposal of the Noble
Lord.

Mr. WAKLEY raw no reason why a continuance Act
should be now introduced, inasmuch as the Poor-law
Board would not expire till next year. What was
wanted was a poor-law court, with a poor-law judge,
where applications from different parishes could be heard
and decided in pnblic, and then in a short time you would
have a code of laws for your guidance. Ho trusted that
the Government would relinquish this Bill.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS hoped that the Right Honour-
able Baronet opposite would consent to withdraw all in-
terference with parishes and their affairs, or that the
Howe would ' support the motion of the Noble Lord
(Lord Dudley Stuart).
Lord EBRINGTON would suggest to the Right 'don.
Baronet that he should look very carefully into the state
of the metropolitan workhouses, in some of which
there bad been of late a very alarming amount of mor-
tality. He (Lord Ebrington) would give his support to
the Bill.
The Marquis of GRANBY was quite tired of hearing
the uncontradicted statements of Hon. Members respect-
ing the universal employment of the lower orders.—(oth,-
oh, and Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury
said that there was less pressure in the workhouses in
consequence of the increased employment, but could the
same be said of some parts of Ireland, where they were
told the assistance of the soldiery was required to m sin.
tain order? The Honourable Member for Montrose had
told them the other evening that there were thousands
of unemployed persons in Scotland who ought to be
sent to Australia, and to-morrow night there was no be
a ball in London in aid of those who were out of em-
ployment in this city. With these facts before him, ho
confessed that he was tired of hearing it asserted that
there were no persons out of employment.—(Hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR was one of those who ha d
voted for the original Bill. He should be sorry that all
central power should now be withdrawn, for he thought
that the poOr would suffer by it. It appeared there was
a doubt with regard to the law. This might be an in strur
ment of very great torture to the ratepayers. Therefore
he would vote that an amendment should be made.
Sir DE LACY EVANS offered a few observatio7as
in favour of his amendment, which, however, could not
be moved. He said that to leave the nomination of the
officers in the vestry, and the removal of them not in the
vestry, would be to take from the vestry ail its au Liao-
rity together. If subordinate officers in the army c ould
say to their superior that his orders were not legal, and
that their legality must be shown before they were teem.
plied with, they coul I not get on. And this was not ull
for if the arguments which he opposed were good,, the
whole of the vestries should be put au end to, and com-
plete centralization estahliAied. At any rate, it was
quite clear that the two systems could not go together.
Lord DUDLEY STUART explained that he did not
mean anything beyond making those parishes which
had local Acts independent of the Poor-law Board.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,—
Ayes ... . . 33
Noes ... ... 112
Majority ..„ —79
The House then resolved itself into a Committee, :Mr
BERNAL in the chair.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Lord DUDLEY STUART moved that the blank be
filled up with the words " filty-thfee".instead of " fifty-
four," his object being to limit the duration of the Bill to

one year.
Mr. SOTHERON thought it would be much beater
to extend the time to five years, the period . for
which the original Bill,was passed, and gave notice of
his intention to move the insertion of words to that
effect.
After a few worth from Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Abel
Smith, and Sir J. Trotlope,
The Committee divided on the proposition that the
blank be tilted up with the words " fifty-four."
For the amendment ... 26
Against it ... ... 72
Majority for " fifty-four" ... —46
Oa our return to the gallery,
Mr. J. A. S bII ra complained of certain new regula-
tions which had been thrust upon the Chichester board
of guardians since the Right Hon> Gentleman opposite
came into office.

Sir JOHN TROLLOPE explained that these regula-
tions, though sent out by him, had been prepared by his
predecessor.
The Bill then went through Committee.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL wished to ask the Hon.
Member for Wiltshire whether he intended to take any
other opportunity of moving that the Poor-law Bill be
continued for five years?
Mr. SOTLIERON took that opportunity of giving no-
tice that, on the report being brought up, he would move

that the Bill be continued for five Years.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL said he would give -such a
proposition all the opposition in his power, and hoped
the matter would be brought on at a period of the
evening when it could be fully discussed.
Mr. WALTER also would oppose that proposition.
If the Bill was to be continued from time to time the
oftener it was brought under revision the better.
The House then resumed; the report to be brought up
on Thursday.
The Turnpike Trusts Arrangements Bill passed
through Committee
The Differential Dues Bill was read a third time and
passed.
On the question that the Passengers' Act Amendment
Bill be further considered,
Mr. CARDWELL reminded the Right Hon. Colonial
Secretary that his Hon. Friend the Member for South
Lancashire and himself had a clause to bring forward
relating to the passenger-fee levied on emigrant vessels.
He did not complain of the lateness of the hour (it was
now a quarter past one o'clock), but the debate would
occupy some time; however, if tno Right Hon. Gentle-
man WiNhed to go on he (Mr. Cardwell) was ready.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON thought the debate might
go on; he did not think it would occupy much time.
Mr. WILLIAM Bt OWN hoped the consideration of
the Bill would be postponed. He expected great sym-
pathy from Hon. Members opposite, as his clause would
to some extent relieve the shipping interest, but the
House was very thin at present, and most of the Members
he referred to were absent. _

The Bill was then postponed to Thursday next.
The Committee on the Grand Juries (Metropolitan
Districts) Bill, was postponed to Friday next, after some
remarks from Mr. Stuart Wortley, objecting that the
Bill went too far, and suggesting that it would be better
to retain the power of summoning grand juries with
limited powers.
The Ecclesiastical Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill
passed through Committee.
The Inland Revenue Office Bill, the Hereditary Casual
Revenues in the Colonies Bill, the Excise Summary Pro-
ceedings Bill, and the Bishopric of Quebec Bill were
severally read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.
The Nlasters'. Act Extension Bill was committed pro
forma in order to be re-committed on Friday next.
The Nisi Prius Offiet3rs (Deficiency of Fees, &c.) Bill
passed throegh Committee.
Mr. STAFFORD moved for, and obtained leave to

bring in a Bill to amend the Act 11 Geo. IV., 0.20.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON moved for, and obtaieed
leave to bring iu a Bill to alter and amend certain Acts
relating to the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of
the Crown.

The House then adjourned at 20 minutes before Two
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May
1110 LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat 0n24. the Woof
sack at Frye o'clock.

Lord
MR. COBBETT'S CASE.
CAMPBELL presented a petition from Mr.
Jesse Oldfield,
law with regard to
of the present state of the
pauperis and !c' actions brought in formd
Mr. Oldfield stated that he alteration in the law.
praying for writssome alteration
of habeas corpus, and
well. known proceedings had been a party to the ori-
ginal Mr. Cobbstt had been m"
prison, and that since that time—s
in consequence of which
committed to the Queen's Bench
the commencement of
habeas corpus had
October, 1839—above 100
obbvast number of
been moved for by Mr. Cobbetr, aonefd
all in forma
actions brought against him by Mr.
numberttßiri
paitperis, and at the present time there wetet'
pend-
ing no less than seven actions, also broughtreagn:iwns him
by Mr. Cobbett.
Atter a lz-w words from the LORD CHANCELLOR
the
Lord CA :' PBELL moved for a return of
of writs of habeas corpus moved for by Mr. Cobbe
the Ist October, 1839. co
The return was agreed to.
PETITIONS.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition
e
from builders and othiers in
the enfranchisement o opyhoth m etropolis, praying for
lds. ropolis,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY • presented a
l
petition against the pooth grant.
L . •
.tha
On the motion of Lord CE)Ln?e lisEndSTplEsßsed, stock in
t
Trado Bill was reed a third 1
On the motion of the same Noi:Etsealthe Highway
Raes Bill wAs read a third time and c
Oa the motion for the bringing up the' report on" the
Comrom Law Procedure Bill,
-. Lord-LYN DIIURST said that a rurcour
Government,dgon
e
abroad that this Bill was distasteful to the
fitin Com.
and .that they had retarded the progress 0
mitt-e. Ho would app:,al to the Noble and Lea
and
Learned
Lurds opposite a bather this was the
ease,
could to
whether, in tact, they had not done all they
facilitate its , progress. •In fact, had ,it not been
owing to the uufortunater illness of the Noble
and Learned Lord on the -Woolsack the Bill
would long ago have' passed through this House.
The Bill itself was esloulated to be of gieat service to
the pubic, and would tit) tvnay with a great number of
.teehuicaltries whist;: at present very much inilwdea the
due administration of justice. The Noble sod Learned
Lord proceeded to quote as number of instances in which

►S U

the ends of justice bad been defeated by, the court hay-
ing pushed the technicalities of the law to a most absurd
extent.

Lird CRANWORTH concurred in the extreme im•
portance of the measure.
The report was then received, end the Bill was or-
thred to be read a third time on Thursday next.
PROPERTY-TAX CON rINUA'NCE BILL.

The Earl of DERBY, in moving the second reading of
the abave Bill, spoke as follows :—My Lords, although it
has been suggested by a Noble Friend of mine that it would
be desirable to read the Property Tax Continuance Bill
merely pro farina, with a view of postponing the discussion
upon it in going into Committee, I think under the peculiar
circumstances in which we are placed as regards public busi-
ness such a course would be attended with inconvenience to
Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, as well as to
some on the Ministerial side It is important that this Bill
should receive the Royal assent with as little delay as possi-
ble. I therefore submit to your Lordships the proposition
that you will now read a second time the Bill for the contin-
uance of the property and income-tax for one year longer.
In bringing this subject before your Lordships it will not
of course be expected that I should go into any details as
to the state of the revenue and expenditure of the country,
or as to the particular reasons which have induced the
Government to propose the renewal of this tax. Your Lord-
ships must be well aware that at the commencement of the
present session, upon the change of the Government, there
was a general understanding on the part of this as well as
the other House of Parliament that with the exception of
such measures as were not likely to lead to serious differences
of opinion, no business was to be brought forw ird by her
Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty's Government have even
declared that in the present session of Parliament it was
not their intention to introduce any measure that would be
likely to involve any serious conflict of opinions, and more
especially in regard to questions affecting the finances of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) There was, my Lords, more than
this understanding—there was a distinct declaration that no
measure materially affecting the commercial or fiscal condi-
tion of the country would be introduced into Parliament
this session. The question, then, for the consideration of her
Majesty's Government, was not whether any alteration
could be made in the fiscal or commercial policy of
the country, or whether -they could make such alter-
tions in the revenue and expenditure of the country as
might enable them to dispense with a tax of this
character, the objections to- which he should be the last
man to undervalue.—(Heare hear.) But, my Lords, the
question was, whether any alteration of the tax itself,
whether by any new arrangement of the system under
which it was levied, it would be possible for us to dispense
with either the whole or any portion of it. Now, I think a
single word will satisfy your Lordships that, even if it had
been desired wholly to dispense with this tax, which was
levied originally for a temporary purpose, and which I
still hope may be looked upon as temporary, but ;is
merely continued from year to year to meet the pressing
necessity of the case—l think your Lordships will agree with
me, that unless we feel ourselves in a position for making
some general or final arrangement in respect to the
whole system of taxation, it would be inexpedient
to continue the whole or any portion of the tax, at
least for the present.—(Hear, hear.) But practically speak-
ing we had no alternative placed before us; for though
there is a surplus of income over the expenditure of last year
—yet as an important alteration in the taxation of the
country had taken place, the effect of which did not come
into full operation until the present year—it was difficult to
say what the result of such alteration would be upon the
revenue of the country. If the income tax had been alto-
gether taken off in the course of this year, we may reason-
ably calculate that at the close of the financial year, instead
of this surplus, there would be a deficiency of income to
the amount of 2,500,0001. And by the loss of the remaining
half of the income tax that would fall upon the following
year, the result of our not renewing it wouldbe this—that
the year of 1853 we would find ourselves in a deficiency to
the amount Of about 5,000,000/.—( Hear.) The statement
which my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer submitted to the House of Commons a few evenings ago
went to show that the result of obtaining the whole tax,
supposing that no alteration had been made in the receipts,
wouldbe, on the best calculations, to give a surplus of
450,0001. upon the revenue of this year. This is a surplus
which I think is not more than is absolutely necessary to
meet the probable exigencies of the State, and the call that ,
may be made on us for increased expenditure. Nor is it
more than is necessary for us to keep as a balance in hand
for the maintenance of public business.—(Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, feeling ourselves bound by the
stipulation which we have entered into—not to introduce, in
the present session, any material alteration into our financial
or fiscal regulations—and I will also fairly admit, trot having
the opportunity of considering or of proposing to Parliament
any matured plan for the arrangement of our fiscal affairs,
though we should even consider such to be ultimately expe-
dieUt—her Majesty's Government feel that they have no al-
ternative, while desirous to retain a surplus revenue, and
having a due regard to the maintenance of public faith and
public security—they, I say, feel that they have no
alternative than to make that proposition which I now sub-
mit to your Lordships, namely, to continue without alteration
or amendment the existing property tax for another year,
in order • to afford us in the interval the fullest
opportunity of considering -whether it will be prac-
ticable to make any alteration in the financial system of the
country, and to dispense with the whole or any portion of
this tax.— (Hear, hear.) At the same time I should be de-
ceiving your Lordships •-I should not, I think, be acting a
frank or honest part if I were to hold out any very sanguine
expectations that this would be the last occasion upon which
I should deem it necessary to submit to this House a propo-
sition for the renewal of the tax. While 1 say this, my
Lords, I cannot but admit the strength of the arguments
that are urged for the removal or modification of the tax,
because I think, not only that it is one which ought not to be
resorted to except for the purposes of war, and should not be
looked upon as part of the ordinary resources of the country,
but also because, from the best considerations that I have
been able to give it, and from the considerations given to it ,
by successive Committees of the other House of Parliament,
I believe the difficulties are almost insuperable which stand
in the way of diminishing its injustice and inequality.—
(Hear.) With that impression, I should be glad if the present
state of the revenue, or looking forward for a year or two, I
should, I say, be happy if the revenue were in such a stateas
would enable me to hold out expectations of the reduction or
the abolition of this tax. But I think the course which the
Government is taking, of proposing to continue it for the pre-
sent year, is that which affords to Parliament the fairest and
best opportunity of considering the practicability in a future
session of Parliament of its entire abolition or reduction ;
and I, for one, am willing to rest the proposition for the con-
tinuance of the tax for another year simply upon the ques-
tion of necessity, for the purpose of maintaining the public
credit.—(Hear, hear.) If it can be shown in any future
session that the credit of the country can be maintained, and
that our finances can be upheld with due consideration ler
the expenditure of the country, I shall be the first to rejoice
the
ethe
Governmentaboli on
of
o fthe
whichtax I . Andaina
if ite shouldmheer
vteonf
fallort ot
the
submithe
teol o t
redac-
tion
of
Par-
liament a proposition for the repeals or
of a tax which in its operation I believe to be not only
unpopular, but justly so, no one will be more
circumstancesrejoicede
a t having
then
whiouht y
we
s dt
ai socdh—a rwg
t. h U
then duenr
dtehr
standing that we have a prospect at no distant period
that the policy of this tax will be duly considered I
as well as our commercial and financial policy generally,
trust that your Lordships will not only give your consent to
the second reading, but in the position in which we are
now placed, you will be also of opinion that ,the continuance
of this tax for a single year is the only court(' it is possible
for her Majesty's Government under the circumstances to
take. I have, therefore, to move your Lordships that the
Property Tax Continuance Bill be read a second time.
The Duke of bTE WCASTLE was eat-mei), sorry to tres-
passcame to a final decision upon the question. t
o
upon their Lordships for a short time before
was the
more more anxious to do so because it was not his intention they
ye
op
measureposethe hissecon cordial assent. do the
Nevertheless,contrary, he
hefelt
would,give
the it
desirable, in the present state of the country. that there
should be a discussion upon the financial affairs of the
country. He would remind their Lordships of the circum-
stances under which this tax originated, and was continued
by successive Governments. The Noble Earl would forgive
him for referring to a statement which he made last year
in respect to this subject. The Noble Earl's statement on
the present occasion as to this fax being originally pro-
posed as a temporary measure, was the truth, but it was
not the whole truth. The tax was originally proposed, not
only for the purpose of meeting a temporary deficiency,
but also of enabling the Government to deal with the other
revenues of the State in such a manner as would enable them
to dispense with it as a permanent tax. In 1840, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer of that day, being in a deficiency,
recommended, as an experiment, that 10 per cent. should be
added to the direct taxes of the country, and 5 per cent. to
the indirect taxes. _What was the result? The 10 per cent.
brought in the.whole amount of the tax contemplated; but
the 5 per cent. returned something less than 2 per cent. upon
the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
fact was thus proved that the taxes upon articles of con-
sumption had reached their utmost limits. It was therefore
necessary, with a view to their reduction, that in the mean-
while an income-tax should be reimposed. That was the
policy of the late Sir Robert Peel in 1842. On the 19th of
May, the Noble Earl, in reply to the Noble Marquis the
then President of the Council, said he was prepared to vote
for the abolition of , the property-tax, as such a system of
taxation was calculated to bring ruin on the country. He
(the Noble Duke) contended that all the evidence they
could obtain went to show that this system of taxation
had conduced considerably to the prosperity of the coun-
try. As one of the strongest proofs of such prosperity, he
need only refer to the late speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Within the -last ten years there had been a
remission of taxation amounting to about 12,000,0001., not-
withstanding which the revenue of the country was in as
prosperous a state as ever it was before such remission, and
the comforts and happiness of the people bad been consi-
derably increased. Of coffee, in 1841 there were
28,500,0001b5. consumed, while in the last year the quan-
tity was 32,500,0001b5. Tea, in 1841 was 36,500,0001b5.,
whereas in 1851 it rose to 54,000,0001b5. The consump-
tion of sugar in; 1841 was 4,000,000 cwts. ; in 1851 it was
6,500,000. Cocoa, in 1841, was 2,000,000 cwt.; whereas in
1851 it rose-to nearly 3,000,000 cwt. Our exports increased
within the time more than 50 per cent., and our imports
more than 70 per cent. What, however, Tees the case with
America? Why, the last speech of the President of the
United States contained a paragraph lamenting the large
exports of specie which were gradually leaving the coffers of
the country; while, on the contrary, the specie in the coffers
of this country had increased tremendously within the last
few years. It might be said that the discovery of the gold
mines in California bad led to such a result. Why, this was
a fact that told altogether against the Noble Lord's argu-
ments, and rendered a return to protection absolutely impos-
sible. He had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
admissions as to the result of their legislation in reference
to
sugar with the greatest pleasure, because it was a
triumphanta proof of the success of such legislation. The
inclevraenasteagines:ttgeainshedippfrig. the repeal of the navigation-laws
thsoin
Hinucriel,a:,ottiinct
wtheeretraenqueiatltlyraadpepharaent There has not only been a large
importance. Some of the
beco oewb;tutphere has been a corresponding
number of seamen employed. Besides that
to a position of the greatest
hief ports of the country, such as
a ,
and me
i!ne t raepp ot
et s
oo
ff
the intercoursedoo at
declamation
abtei
ot wt
ae between
.eYanoudnAg,m" America,
effects of the repeal of the navigation-
-lE‘aGuwl:soFphad been favourable to the shipping interest.- Vessels
are now built cheaper and better; thanw. trhoey hiald been,as Noble
point was thewwe aware. Lords who were fond of yachting
Ano-
ther and a most important
agricultural interest had bees affected by tliye r
in which the
corn-laws. Putting aside the effects upon the laeritiredfs the
a
farmers, what had been the effect-upon the great bulk of thed
population of the country? Let their Lordships go, not
merely into the markets of market towns on market days,
and converse with those who bought 'and sold there, but go
among the people ; let them follow the members of the other[ouse in those domiciliary visits which they would soon
have to pav (A laugh)— and he, was persuaded they
• ~„„s, d the altered position of the inhabitant..
He dill)1' llut merely speak of the great hives of our popula-
tion, Glasgow and 13irmingliam, Liverpool and Manchester,
but of couninhabitants-archf 6,000 or 10,000 inhabitantaauch as