The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-21 00:00:00

TJNIPORM PENNY RECEIPT STAMP.

Mr. BROTHERTON called the attention of the
House to the petition of W. M. Christy, and others (pre-
sented 14th May), relative to an uniform penny receipt
stamp. He thought if a penny receipt stamp was
adopted, it would induce business habits among the
people, and be productive to the Exchequer. He moved
that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
however desirable the reduction in the tax might be, he
was afraid the state of the revenue would not permit it
at present ; and he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would
withdraw his motion.

The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
COMPARATIVE RECEIPTS OF REVENUE.

Lord G. BENTINCK moved for returns, showing
the comparative receipts of revenue in the years ending
the sth' day of January 1842 and 1847, from those Wares
on which reductions of duty have and have not in the
interim taken place, and distinguishing any increase of
revenue from the last alteration of the sugar duties. He
then proceeded to say that he should not dwell upon this
motion, which he believed would be unopposed, but
there were certain statements made, in what he might
term a State paper—(Laughter)—which had been re-
cently issued by Sir Robert Peel, in the shape of an
address to the electors of Tamworth, that made it ne-
cessary for him to occupy for a short time the attention
of the House. The Noble Lord then entered into a
series of calculations, to show how erroneous was the
statement of the Right Honourable Baronet, and that
instead of the recent alterations in the tariff being
productive of no loss to the revenue, or the
the commerce of the country, the revenue had lost no
less a sum than four millions on those articles, the duties
on which had been reduced, and there had beat no in-
crease in their consumption; while, strange to say, the
duties on those articles which he had not interfered
with had been productive of a large increase to the re-
venue. Now if the Right Hon. Baronet had dealt with
the remaining portion of the revenue as he did. with the
two ninths which embraced the articles on which the
duty was reduced, the result would have been. that up-
wards of twenty millions would have been last to the
revenue. He thought it right to draw attent;ion to this
document, lest it might go forth to the co unatry that
these sentiments were correct, and that error Aeons ideas
might thereby be propagated at the ensuing election on
the subject of free-trade.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
object to the returns. He confessed he was not prepared
to hear such a long dissertation on the subject at this
period of the session. He trusted, however„ that there
would be an increase in the revenue of those •ar tidies, the
duties on which had been reduced, and much less on
those the duties on which had been altogether repealed.
—(Laughter,) And secondly, he thought LhLt the bad
phraervveensttstohfe
rlaetve yenueearfrsomhad beicnognstroibpurotedducvtic
rrey
aga rietaottlhyetro.
wismerw. onuludmhaEveobb
objected to the infeen s e tlrawn by the
, Noble Lord from the late
reduction of tariff, and
considered that he had failed altogether
in the censure
which he had directed against the doctr'tnes of free trade.
Mr. BANKES was of opinion that r Noble Lord
had f urlal
wy made
n attentionout h
ri his
scpaesce
t,
inagndthethiel
f
ticles, the duties on which had not 1
n acreat
toyusetc.'inwthhies vahe
tl ahnlr-
tak y
confirmed the accuracy of what he hadeanocbhseedr, fully
advanced.
Mr. GOITLBUR,N would not n
on the Noble Lord's statement, 1 when the returns
moved for were on the table it would be at once seen
whether his calculations and the i.nfe rences he drew from
them were correct.
After a few remarks from Mr. WILLIAMS,
The motion was agreed to.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER, &c. BILL.
The report on this Bill was h:ought up and received.
Mr. P. BORTHWICX tho'tght it would be a very
great improvement on the Bill if the latter part of the
2d clause was omitted, and that the new bishop should
be permanently excluded fr:om Parliament. He hoped
the Noble Lord would take that point into consideration,
otherwise he would feel it to be his duty to call the at-
tention of the House to the subfect on the third reading.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had given the subject
a good deal of consideration, and he was of opinion that
the course proposed in the Bill was the most eligible one
that could be adopted. At all evonts, he could not assent
to the exclusion referred to by the Honourable Gentle-
man.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN agreed with the Noble
Lord, and considered that tha coin: se proposed to be
adopted in the Bill was tb.e best under the circum-
stances.

Sir J. GRAHAM had deliberately, carefully, and
anxiously considered the Bill, an d though he was de-
termined to give no further opposition to its progress,
he was desirous to take that oppo.rtunity of saying, that
on the third reading of the Bill tie would state his rea-
sons for voting against it.
Mr. HENLEY protested against the Bill, and took
that opportunity of doing so as he would not be in the
House to-morrow (Wednesday)l, when it would be read a
third time.
Mr. WAKLEY considered 'that the rotatory 'principle
in the Bill was the only 'redeeming point which it
had, for it loosened the fixity which was generally
supposed to belong to the. privileges of the existing
bishops. One of those piivileges was a seat in the
House of Lords; but, by this Bill, the privilege in this
respect of one of the oldest bishoprics in the kingdom
must be laid in abeyance, This to him 'was most satis
factory, and he would not be sorry to see the whole
episcopal body removed from Parliament altoge Cher; nor
did he think that the interests of religion nor of the
Country would Nuitain any loan by such a prq.ceeding.

If the Noble Lord had any surplus Church funds at his
disposol, he thought they w.uld be much better expended
in parochial clergy han by creating new bishops.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a third Cale to-
morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This BM was !Tad n third time and paqsed.
-BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

On the order of the day for the third reading of this
Bill,

Mr. STUART objected to ac Bill, because he did not
see what good object was to be gained by the abolition
of the Court of Review, ar.d the transfer of its powers
to the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery had
already more than enough of business to occupy it, and
as the expense of the litigation, either to the public or
the legal profession was not to be diminished by this Bill,
and as no one had the least fault to find with the Judge
who presided over thelCourt of Review at present, he
did not think that any commensurate advantage was to
be gair.ed by its abolition, Besides, as there was a
Committee of the House at present sitting upon the
subject of the fees in law courts, he thought it would
be better to postpone the measure till that Committee
made its report. The Bill, in fact, could not be
considered a permanent measure, and like the court
which it proposed to abolish must have only a transient
exigence. He therefore considered it was extremely
injudicious to countenance this tampering with the law
courts, and he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill. and he
would therefore move that the Bill be read a third time
that day three months.
Mr. BODKIN would vote for the third reading of the
Bill, and was surprised at many of the remarks just
made by the Hon. Gentleman who bat sat down.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL concurred in that
surprise, and said that there was nothing in the objec-
tions made entitled to any weight. The Bill,
he contended, had been duly considered, and
had been the result of two measures that
had been introduced into the House of
Lords, and of the recommendation of a Committee of
their Lordships' House. The Court of Review had fallen
into disuetude, for the business of the Court was now
performed by the Vice-Chancellor in his own Court,
and he thought its abolition could not be of much con-
sequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would sanc-
tion the Bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM thought the explanation of the
Attorney-General was most full and satisfactory, but it
was his opinion that no valid reason had been given for
transferring the powers of this Court back again to the
Court of Chancery, and he apprehended that the reason
for the transfer was a desire to continue the present
number of Vice-Chancellors, it being understood that
the number in future was to be limited to two.
After a few words from Mr. P. BORTHWICK, the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority

Sir J. GRAHAM then moved the insertion of the
following clause :—And be it enacted, that no judge of
any County Court, who has been appointed, or who
shall hereafter be appointed to that office, under or by
virtue of the hereinbefore recited Act, passed in the
tenth year of the reign of her Majesty, intituled, " An
Act for the more easy recovery of Small Debts and De-
mands in England," shall, during his continuance in
such office, be capable of being elected or of sitting as
a Member of the House of Commons.
The clause was agreed to.

Sir C. PRICE saw no reason why the judges of the
county courts should not be eligible to have seats in
Parliament; but he would move that the metropolitan
Members should be excluded.
Sir J. GRAHAM could not assent to the alteration
suggested.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. MORGAN
O'CONNELL,
The amendment was withdrawn.
.Mr. BROWNE then moved a clause giving power to
judges of county courts to issue warrant to arrest a
debtor in certain cases, such debtor being within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and to detain him
in custody for a limited time, or until an order obtained
to hold him to bail, when the custody to be transferred
to the sheriff or officer holding a capias issued thereon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause.
Mr. BROWNE did not wish to divide the House, and
the clause was,by leave, withdrawn.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.