The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-31 00:00:00

" S. G. 0." ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

A Chamber of Agriculture was last week formed
in Dorset. A county meeting was held in Dorchester,
Lord Ashley in the chair, and there were also present
Lord Sidney Godolphin Osborne and Mr. Floyer, M.P.
On the motion of Lord S. G. Osborne, a petition
to Parliament was adopted, setting forth that
the present system of local taxation is unjust,
being exclusively levied on. the owners and
occupiers of real property, and that many of
the charges thereon, such as maintenance of highways, the
police, registration, vaccination, and maintenance of
lunatics and idiots in asylums, might be fairly con-
sidered of a national character, and should lie transfe:red
to the general taxes of the country. his lordship in the course
of his speech slid that the formation of county chambers
of agriculture was natural and wise. Regarding the
increase of the poor rate, be was convinced that at last it
must force itself on the attention of statesmen, whether
Whigs or Tories, in or out of office. It was also
his firm conviction, however unpopular it might be,
that there had been more honesty, economy,
and close adherence to the spirit of the law in dealing
with the funds expended by the magistrates than in the
management of the funds expended by the boards of
guardians. Tie thought the time had come when the
country must awaken to the conviction that, however
difficult the subject might be, it was grossly unfair that
because the land would not run away, and he who tilled it
was ever to be found with his stock and capital ever ready
to be taxed, he should be the most taxed of all people. lle
doubted whether they could get justice till the assessments
were made by independent men.

THE CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILIV AY
AND ITS SOLICITORS.

MESSRS. BAXTER, ROSE, AND NORTON.

Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton defend themselves in a
letter to the Times against the observations made by Vice-
Chancellor Stuart, in giving judgment on the case of the
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. They were called in
to act for the company, they say, when its embarrassments
compelled it to seek, the protection of the Court of Chancery,
and when its original sclicitors, Messrs. Freshfield and New-
man, felt a difficulty in continu.ng to be their advisers. They
were requested to undertake the task of obtaining Parlia-
mentary powors,and this they successfully carried through. A
member of the firm had been called upon by clients of ante-
rior connection, the General Credit, to represent them in P.
claim against the company before the Court of Chancery,
and in consequence Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton ceased
in that suit to advise the company. But a strong desire was
expressed that the firm should not on that account cease to
aid the company in the totally different court of Parliament.
Upon the pa ash, g of this Act the new directors transferred their
legal business to a law clerk, at the sime time expressing their
sorrow that, although they were under the greatest
obliga-
tions to Messrs. Baxter, yet the Act only authorised them to
pay those bills which were on account of the Arrangement
Act. "Having thus,we trust," the letter proceeds," discharged
our duty, and being roleaced with thanks—which perhaps
would have been more emphatic had they been accompanied
by the payment of our bills—we were certainly at liberty to
accept a retainer against the company. In the bill now be-
fore Parliament we are acting on behalf of independent
shareholders and mortgagees. However valuable may be
the privilege of resorting to the Court of Chancery, and how-
ever great the benefit which it had derived from the inter-
vention of that court, the litigation has become ton error
mous to be practically resolved there. and that it would be
better that the m hole of the difficulties of the company
should be remitted to the arbitration of tin Marquis of Salis-
bury and Lord Cairns."
THE EQUITY OF THE CASE.

The Solicitors' Journal criticises the judgment of Vice.
Chancellor Stuart lin another direction—that of the power
of Chancery over Parliament. It is well settled, it says,
that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to restrain an
application to Parliament. The Court, in imposing such
restraint, acts purely in personanz. It does not interfere
with the other tribunal, but restrains the individual. Sue.-
e,essive Lord Chancellors have, however, declined to define
the circumstances under which this jurisdiction should be
exercised. It has been settled that the Court will
not restrain an application to Parliament, even
at the instance of a person with whom the de-
fendant had expressly contracted not to apply to Par-
liament. Lord Cottenbam said that such an injunction
could not be granted on the ground that the act applied for
would interfere with existing rights. Vice-Chancellor
Stuart, however, has granted an injunction restraining the
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company from
further proceeding with the bill now before Parliament.
The bill in que:Tpn has passed the Commons, has gone
into the hands of the Parliament itself. Lord Cottenharn
decided the very point. lie declared that when either house
had entertained the bill " it became the act of the house and
not the act of the party." Vice-Chancellor Stuart's judg-
ment is quite counter to the principle laid down in all pre-
vious cases.

Respecting the dispute in the building trade in
Manchester, it is stated, on the authority of the master
masons, that they have now 130 men at work, and that with-
out any effort on the part of the masters the non-unionists
are " coming in" at the rate of ten every day. The em-
ployers have resolved to take active measures with a view
of securing the services of men not connected with the
union. It, is stated in a report issued by the Operative
Masons' Assotiation that. there aro now strikes pending
in six I toiy-Us' end lock-outs - mort 9r lee. partial in nip)
4thorN, •