The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'Clock.
CORN-LAWS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
certain owners and occupiers of land, praying their
Lordships not to consent to the proposed Ministerial al-
teration n the Corn-laws, unless a higher duty were
imposed on beans, peas, barley, and oats.
PRESBYTERIAN MIXED MARRIAGES.

The NOBLE DUKE then presented a petition from
some place in the county of Donegal, praying for the
legalization of Presbyterian mixed marriages.
The Earl of YARBOROUGH presented petitions
from Leinster and other places against the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition
from the minister and parishioners of a place in the
county of Down, praying that Parliament would extend
its support to the Church Education Society in Ireland.
The Noble Marquis presented other petitions from
places in the same county, for an alteration of the law
affecting the marriages of Presbyterians in Ireland.
A messenger from the Commons brought up the Bris-
tol Boundary Bill.
Earl FORTESCUE wished to put one or
twa questions to the Noble Duke opposite.
An impression had 'gone forth to the public,
that great and fundamental changes were about
to be made in the Poor-laws, and although
what had passed in another place tended to remove the
expectation, still, parties were found who were induced
by it to dispute the authority of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. Ile wished to ask the Noble Duke first, whe-
ther, in any measure which would be introduced by. G-
overnment, they would adhere to the general principles
and leading provisions of the present Poor-law; and, se-
condly, whether they roposed to continue the adminis-
tration of the law in langland and Ireland under the di-
rection of the Poor-law Commissioners.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, it had certainly
been announced by his Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, that it was the inten-
tion of Government to propose to Parliament a measure
for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission. But
as the Bill would be introduced at the earliest convenient
opportunity, he thought no advantage could be derived
from a premature discussion on the subject.
THE INCOME TAX.
RESOLUTIONS OF LORD BROUGHAM.

Lord BROUGHAM rose and addressed the House as
follows:—My Lords, in rising to introduce the subject—
the important subject—of the resolutions which I took-
leave to lay upon the table of the House on a former
evening, I hardly know whether I would be justi-
fied in this House, certainly I feel that I am not called
upon before yoUr Lordships to vindicate the course
which I have thought it my duty to pursue—none
but the most superficial and ignorant persons—
none but persons most superficially acquainted—if ac-
quaintance it can be called—with the history of Parlia-
mentary proceedings, and with the undoubted privileges
of your Lordships' House can entertain the shadow of a
doubt of the entire competency. of your Lordships to
consider this question, and of the regularity of this
proceeding. It is a vain imagination to suppose that
the Upper House of Parliament is, by the constitution
of this country, excluded from the consideration of such
a subject as the present, or that it should leave
the discussion of financial measures solely to the other
and lower House of Parliament. It is a mere imagina-
tion, to fancy that we have not the same right
which they have to entertain all questions touching the
revenue, touching taxation, as well as questions touching
the other interests of the subject. It is a right
which we have constantly exercised—it is a right which
we have never abandoned—it is a right which, when we
are pleased not to insist upon exercising, we volun-
tarily abstain from insisting on ; but the right
is ours undeniably, by the law of the land. My Lords,
this is, no doubt, incapable of dispute or controversy ;
but it may be said that in practice we have seldom
availed ourselves of it. In general, we wait
until measures have been elsewhere matured, or
brought up to us in the form of Bills. We, gene-
rally speaking, give that precedence to the other
House of Parliament. But, nevertheless, the right un-
questionably exists, an-1 we are habitually called upon
both by speeches from the Throne and by Royal messages,
to consider subjects of grants of money, and to consider
them at the same time that the other House of Parlia •
went is called upon to take them into consideration.
There never was an instance in which a message has
been sent to one House of Parliament, in which it has
lint been accompanied by a message to the other
House, calling on Parliament to make provision
for certain branches of the public service. So,!
lately even as the beginning of this session, in the
simech from the Throne at the opening of our assembly
in the commencement of last month, not merely the Com-
mons, but both Lords and Commons are alike and in the
same words informed of a deficiency in the public revenue,
and called on speedily to take into their considera-
tion, the best means of supplying it. My Lords, I fear
this course has been taken more or less formally—more
er less substantially in the best of times, and by the best
of Statesmen; by those most experienced in the practised
forms, and most tenacious of those forms too, of both

Houses of Parliament. My Lord, when I name the
late Lord Grenville, I pronounce the name of one, who
to all his great qualities added this, that a more
accurate student of the Constitution in all its
branches, • anti a more careful observer of all their
forms never appeared in either House of Parliament.
Having sat for some time in the Chair of the House of
Commons before he ceased to be one of its most distin-
guished Members, and afterwards having given the most
unremitting attention to the forms of proceeding in this
House when he became one of its brightest ornaments.
I find Lord Grenville again and again bringing forward
questions of finance and questions relating to the revenue
or taxation before this House, independently of any pro-
ceedings that might have taken place in the other House
of Parliament. On one occasion, proceeding on what,
strictly speaking, he had a right to go by, and not
confining himself merely .to what appeared on the votes
of the House of Commons, I recollect that,

just thirty years ago, in the spring of 1812,
when a late Right Hon. Person then at the head of the
G..vernment had made a financial statement in that
House, Lord Grenville complained of that statement,
though it had not appeared on any paper, much
leis in the form of a Bill. He complained of the

inaccuracy of • the statement, and charged that

Minhiter with having deceived himself, and being a party
to deluding the country by his statement. In order to
show the truth of that proposition, and sup-
port the charge, he moved for the produc-
tion of certain accounts, which he afterwards made

the subject of an elaborate discussion in your Lordships'
House. And as if he had anticipated the objection that
might be brought against such a course ; and as if he
was determined, by his great authority, that those
objections should be precluded—for even the time
he chose to bring forward the financial discussion was on
the papers he had moved for—and not when
the bill should have reached that House from the
House of Commons, when some might say, he
might have more regularly and more usually have
introduced the discussion—Lord Grenville pre-
ferred taking the discussion on the papers moved
for, and before the Bill came up. The conse-
quence of this was, that the debate was taken the
very same night before the debate was taken in the
other House. Nor was it only when Lord Grenville
was in opposition that he hold such opinions, for
he held the very same when he was in office ;
and in the early part of 1807, when that great plan
of finance, which had been digested by him and my
Noble Friend near me (the Marquis of Lansdowne)

then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was introduced in the
other House of Parliament, and when my Noble Friend
near me introduced a plan as a substitute to the plan of
my Noble Friend; and that of Lord Grenville, he (Lord
Grenville) did not make any objection to the appointment
of a Committee on that occasion, but considering that the
plan was not embodied in any resolution, and that there
were no papers, upon that ground, and that ground
alone, he objected to the motion. He did not refuse
discussion ; on the contrary, he entered largely into
discussion, and met the objections made to his own
plan of finance. He objected to the motion which
was made, on the ground to which I , have
alluded, but upon the competency of the proceeding, or
upon the ground of its being a motion of an unusual na-
ture, or upon that of its being an irregular proceeding
from the beginning to the end, he uttered not one word.
But there is more authority for what I say. There was
another person whose loss, because it was more recent,
makes a reference to him more painful—l.mean the late
Lord Holland, of whom it is not in the language of mere
friendship that I say, that a man more amiable
in private life, more wonderful for the ex-
tent of his information and capacity, or one
more revered and respected for his true, genuine, and
honest patriotism and devotion to the interests of his
country—(Hear, hear)—never has been, among all the
great public losses we have sustained, taken
away from the public service. My Lords, he was a
careful observer of the oilers of your Lordships' House,
in which, perhaps, he was more skilled and more prac-
tised than almost any man of his day, and to which
he was more prone than any other to call the attention
of those who most wish to deviate from those orders. I
find him in the year 1810, bringing forward a motion.
for an address to the Crown, to appoint a Commission
to value the tithes and tenths and first fruits
of Ecclesiastical benefices, to subject them to a new
valuation, for the purpose of inquiring into the funds
vaned Queen Anne's bounty, for maintaining the poorer
clergy, and upon this occasion he brought forward motion.
Lord- Holland brought forward that motion in conse-
quence of a vote announ&-d-in the other House of Par-
hair. t_ but not passed—for the payment of
100,0‘..a from the Consolidated Fund, to aid Queen
Anne's Bounty. On 11th May Lord Holland mace that
motion in this House for an Ai-dre3s to find st-ne substitute
for that vote in the IlLase of Commons, that is to. say,
to make an assessment of ecclesiastical benefices' and it
was not until three weeks afterwards—mot until the 2d
June, that the return in question passed the Committee