The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-01 00:00:00

IMPER I

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mare/i`3l.
rr -eel fit! tee-- eoe te-Cs. hie scat upoe the
.
keesesis at , ‘,..e.
PETITIONS.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented petitions from Lime-
rick, and one from Cork, against the abolition of the
Lord-Lieutenancy.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL presented several pe-
titions from places in Ireland against Papal aggression.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
from places in Scotland with a similar prayer.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a great num-
ber of petitions with a similar prayer.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition from
Cheshunt praying for the enfrenchisernent of copyhelds.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE
OF LORDS—CHANCERY REFORM.
Lord LYNDHURST rose to direct the attention of
their Lordships to the Bill for the reform of the Court
of Chancery, which had been introduced into the other
House, and to the Bill respecting the appellate jurisdic-
tion, which was about to be introduced into this House,
and those subjects were so intimately connected that it
would be impossible to discuss the measures separately.
His Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack was
affected by both Bills, and therefore they must be dis-
cussed as one measure. If one Bill should be lost, and the
other carried, it would involve matters in the most inex-
tricable confusion. He asked why the whole measure
was not introduced into their Lordships' House?—(Hear,
hear.) He believed there had never been an instance
in which Bills relating to the Court of Chancery had
not been introduced into their Lordships' House,
and why, he asked, had that precedent been
departed from in the present instance? There was not
an assembly better calculated in the world to introduce
and to perfect a measure of this nature than that he had
now the honour of addressing. How was it composed?
There was his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack,
a most accomplished lawyer, there were two Members who
had held the office of Lord Chancellor, there was a
Noble and Learned Lord who had recently retired from
the Rolls, and who had for years exercised the office of
Master of the Rolls with great credit to hiniself; they
had his Noble and Learned Friend who had recently
been raised to their Lordships' House; there
was the Lord Chief Justice of England, and tere was
his Noble and Learned Friend, who had long been one
of the Masters in Chancery, and who had subsequently
been an officer of their Lordships' House. There was
his Noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, who had
paid great attention to the subject, and several other
Noble Lords, who were well acquainted with the
position of the House and of the courts. Why
then had this Bill not been presented to this
House? It had been promised last session, it had been
mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and it was
not introduced until just before Easter. Had it been
originated in this House, it would have been carried, ma-
tured, perfected, and sent down to the other House before
this period. He, therefore, asked why this unprece-
dented course had been adopted? The only reason he
could imagine was, that the Government would not put
into the bands of the Noble Lord on the wool-
sack so utterly worthless a measure. Its ten-
dency could not but be to increase the num-
ber of appeals to this House. If this new tribunal
should reverse the decrees of the great lawyers who
presided in the courts below, suitors would not acqui-
esce, but would appeal to their Lordships. He had
heard that there was an intention to infringe upon their
Lordships' privileges, by taking away in certain
cases the right of appeal to their Lordships.
He could not believe that such intention existed. He
was anxious for some explanation on this subject. He
had been told that the reason why the Bill originated
in the House of Commons was because it was intended
to transfer the Church patronage of his Noble and
Learned Friend to the First Lord of the Treasury, al-
ready sufficiently burdened with patronage. Of course
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government could
not have asked his Noble and Learned Friend to com-
mit such a suicidal act. Never were more fallacious
reasons offered for, such a measure than those
offered for this change. One reason was, that
the patronage had been used by the holders of
the Great Seal for party purposes. He denied that it
had ever been so used. He could say that he had
never, in his distribution of Church patronage, been
actuated by any such motives. (Hear, hear.)
His first important piece of patronage he had given
to the late Rev. Sidney Smith, from whom he differed
in politics. But was it less likely to be distributed
without reference to party by the First Lord of the
Treasury than by the holder of the Great Seal?—
(Hear, hear.) There was another reason assigned.
His Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack was
oppressed by the weight of his duties, and it was
necessary to relieve him, but the distribution of this
patronage was but a feather in the scale of the burden
weighing on the Lord Chancellor. This was the lightest
burden with which the Lord Chancellor was oppressed.
Another reason given was that the Laid Chancellor was
apt to be influenced by the recommendation of livings,
but the First Lord of the Treasury might be influenced
by a clerk in his office. The alteration had been re-
commended by a Committee of the House of Commons
—that is to say, by a Committee appointed by the First
Lord of the Treasury, and composed of his partisans ;
and that Committee, without hearing the Chancellor
decides that it is advisable to transfer this patronage
from the Lord Chancellor to the First Lord of the
Treasury. It was said that the Great Seal had
been held by ecclesiastics when this patronage
was originally attached to it ; but the Great
Seal had been held uninterruptedly by laymen for the
last 200 years. Would such an attempt have been
made when the Gnat Seal was held by
Lord Thurlow, or Lord Eldon, or his Noble
and Learned Friend near him (Brougham)?
and be felt convinced that his Noble and Learned Friend
on the woolsack would not submit to such a degrada-
tion, but transmit the patronage of his office unimpaired
to his successor. He wished to know why the usual
practice of introducing Bills relating to the Court of
Chancery into the House had been departed from in
these cases.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought his Noble and
Learned Friend must have forgotten all the rules of their
Lordships' House. He had been discussing two things
called Bills, neither of which bad been introduced into
either House of Parliament The Bill of which his
Noble and Learned Friend had spoken bad
not yet been introduced into the other IL 'use of Parlia-
ment. Various draughts had been prepared, and he
supposed his Noble and Learned Friend must have got
hold of one of those draughts, and have been alluding
to clauses which never were likely to be brought
before Parliament.—(Hear.) He could assure his
Noble and Learned Friend that there was no intention
whatever to interfere with their Lordships' appellate
jurisdiction. His attention had been attracted to the
subject, and it had rested with him solely to move for a
Committee. Several Bills for the reform of the Court of
Chancery had been introduced into their Lordships'
House, but they had never reached the House of Com-
mons. Was it astonishing, therefore, that the opinion of
the other House should be asked upon a measure which
had already been discussed in the House of Lords?
It was a most inconsistent course to enter into a dis-
cussion on imaginary clauses of an imaginary,
Bill. Be would not be led on by the ex-
ample of his Noble and Learned Friend to
commit so monstrous an irregularity. The
subject of Chancery reform was one of extreme diffi-
nifty. His Noble and Learned Friend bad proposed
several measures on that subject, but he had never suc-
ceeded in propounding a measure satisfactory to Parlia-
ment. In answer to his Noble and Learned Friend, be
said that the matter having been repeatedly discussed in
their Lordships' House without any Bill having been
sent down to the House of Commons, his Noble Friend
at the head of the Government thought it expedient to
take the opinion of the House of Commons, and he
thought that the course adopted by his Noble and Learned
Friend, in asking a question to hang a speech upon it,
was not in order, and was not calculated to add to the
respect which the House of Commons would entertain for
their Lordships' House.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that bow extraordi-
nary soever might have been the question of his
Noble and Learned Friend, the answer to it
was more extraordinary still, inasmuch as it
was no answer at all. His Noble and Learned
Friend asked the reason why this measure was intro-
duced into the House of Commons, and the answer was-
that his Noble and Learned Friend had no
doubt there was a good reason, but be did
not know what it was. It was clear from what
had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend on
the woolsack, that the Bill was no Bill of his, and that
he was not answerable for it; and, under these cir-
cumstances, be thought is would be better to
abstain from discussing the measure, although
be would not abstain from entering his pro-
test against all attempts at stripping the Great
Seal of its ecclesiastical patronage. The holder of the
Great Seal had never used that patronage for party pur-
poses. The first piece of preferment which he
gave away was a prebendal stall, and that
he bad given to the Bishop of Exeter ; the
second was to a friend of Sir F. Pollcck,
who was opposed to the Government of which he was a
member; and the third was to a gentleman named Cole-
ridge, who was also opposed to him, and he handed over
to the prelates the gift of all livings under 200/. a year;
and against that sacrifice he had received a strong re-
monstrance from several party men.
Earl GREY said, that nothing could be more inaccu-
rate than to say that the Lord Chancellor had not an-
swered the question. He bad answered the question,
and given a very good reason why the Bill should be
introduced into the Commons instead of into their Lord-
ships' Hoirse.—(Hear, hear.) He (Earl Grey) would add
another reason to that which had been stated by his
Noble and Learned Friend, and that was, that the pros-
pect of successful legislation was greater in a vast ma-
jority of instances when Bills were first introduced into
the House of Commons than when they originated in
their Lordships' House.—(Bear, hear.) If he was not
mistaken he had heard the Noble and Learned Lord op-
posite express a similar opinion. With regard to the
irregularity of their Lordships' proceedings, he believed
that what had been said by the Noble Lord (Lord
Brougham) was too true, and he believed that the irre-
gularity to which he had referred—viz., that of discuss-
ing questions not before the House, dated from the time
the Noble and Learned Lord became a Member of the
House.—(Laughter.) He denied also that the Noble and
Learned Lord on the woolsack had disclaimed any share
in the preparation of the Bill. The fact was that his Noble
and Learned Friend could not have said so, because, with-
out betraying any secrets, he (Lord Grey) would say that
the Bill bore at least as much the impression of his Noble
and Learned Friend's mind as that of any other person's.
He was surprised to hear the Noble and Learned Lord
opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) speak of the ecclesiastical
fpatronagethat
dutyof
the
were
properlyLor doneChancellord iat wsraes onequir whichinglittleotuigmhet.
If
to occupy a very large portion of time, whoever it was

Mr. COWAN presented several petitions from Edin-
burgh against Papal aggression; also petitions against
the present mode of assessing the income-tax.
Mr. FERGUS presented a petition from the county
of Fite against the mode of assessing the income-tax on
farmers.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Dundee
against Papal aggression.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition against the
excise duty on paper.
Mr. FRE WEN presented a petition from tenant-
farmers in Sussex against the removal of Smithfield-
market.
Mr. WILCOX presented a petition from the Reform
Asscciation. Southampton, praying for the repeal of the
window-duties.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from Glou-
cestershire against Papal aggression.
Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition against the
abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR presented a petition
from Middlesex against Popal aggression.
Mr. MILES presented a petition from Somersetshire
to the same effect.
Mr. HENLEY also presented a similar petition from
Oxfordshire.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from certain
individuals complaining that a portion of the poor rates
of a metropolitan parish had been used to defray the ex-
pense of calling and advertising a meeting on the subject
of Papal aggression.
Mr. HUME presented a petition against the Bible
monopoly.
Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions against Papal
aggression, and for the repeal of the Maynooth grant,
from the inhabitants of Bothwell, &c., and signed by
nearly 2.000 persons, and from the congregational
church of Carluke, in Lanarkshire.
Mr. ALCOCK. presented a petition from 500 ladies
of Clapham and Wandsworth, praying that any lady
under ago entering a convent with or without the con-
sent of her parents shall forfeit all her property
to the Crown ; and. that convents be visited by proper
authorities appointed by Government.
Sir G. STAUNTON presented a petition from the
clergy of the deanery of Droxford, in Hampshire,
praying for a more equitable assessment of the poor-
rates on all descriptions of property.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice to ask, shortly after
Easter, for leave to bring in a Bill to protect the voter.
POSTPONEMENT.
Lord J. RUSSELL postponed his motion respecting
the Kafir frontiers until Tuesday, April 8.
RELIEF OF THE DESTITUTE POOR IN IRE-
LAND.
Mr. REYNOLDS begged to give notice that to-
morrow he should ask questions of the First Lord of the
Treasury respecting the Act under which the destitute
pcor in Ireland were relieved, and the way in which the
poor-rates were levied.

WINDOW-TAX.
Lord DUNCAN postponed his motion respecting the
window-tar for a week.

BORNEO AND SIR JAMES BROOKE.
Mr. HUME gave notice that he should to-morrow
move that a petition be presented to her Majesty praying
that Sir James Brooke be superseded in his government
of the Polynesian Islands, and that an investigation
should be instituted into his conduct.—(Hear, hear.)
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPSIN THE COLONIES.
Lord JOHN MANNERS begged to ask the Noble
Lord at the bead of the Government whether the regu-
lations which gave precedence to the Roman Catholip
bishops in the colonies—whose appointment, it should be
recollected, emanated not from the Queen, but from the
Pope—which had been issued under the authority of the
British Government, were still in existence, and if they
were, whether there was any intention on the part of the
Government to do away with or to alter them?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, in answer to the Noble
Lord's first question, he had to say that the regulations
were still in force; but with respect to the other inquiry
he could give no answer.

THE KAFIR WAR.
Mr. HUME said that as this country was largely in-
terested in the expense of the Kafir war, ho wished to
know whether the Government had taken any measures
to relieve the colony of the Cape of Good Hope from a
purely military Government, for Sir H. Smith seemed
intent rather upon the aggrandisement of his military
reputation than the welfare of the colony. He wished
to know what answer had been received to the last dis-
patch?

Mr. HAWES said that no answer had as yet been re.
ceived, but that Sir Harry Smith was in no way an-
swerable for the expenses occasioned by the contest with
the Kafirs.

THE BALLOT.
Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to ask his Noble Friend
at the head of the Government, whether in the projects
which he intended to bring into the House for the future
government of the country, he intended to introduce any
measure for securing the ballet?—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to request to be
excused from answering the question.—(Langhter.)
INCOME-TAX.
In reply to Mr. CORBALLY,
Sir BENJAMIN HALL said, that in the event of
the Government not acting satisfactorily, he should cer-
tainly divide the House when in Committee on his no-
tice cf motion respecting the income-tax.
THE DEAN OF MANCHESTER.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to ask the Noble Lord at ,