The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

VIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APPJL P 2, 1842

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11. .
VA
Tl RD CHAIAILLOR took his seat on the Wool-
:smelt - ly before Five o'Clock.
- I:CHANT AND FACTORS BILL.
Earl RIPON gate notice that he should move the
.second reading of this Bill on Thursday next.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Lord BANDON presented a petition from a place in
Ireland, against the present system of national educa-
tion in Ireland.
SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL.

The Bishop of, GLOUCESTER presented a petition
against this Bill.

EXCHEQUER BILLS COMMISSION BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice that he
should move the second reading of this Bill to-morrow.
Lord BROUGHAM said he would give the Noble
Duke ample notice of any amendment that he might have
to propose on the Bill.
IRISH AGRICULTURE. _ .

The Marquisoia i:ANKICARDE presented a petition
'rom Galway, praying the House to afford protection to
[rich agriculture.

INCOME TAX.

Lotd BROUGHAM presented a petition from the cor-
poration of writers of Dundee, against this tax, praying
that the House would not sanction any Act which did
not afford to the petitioners protection and relief.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The NOBLE LORD then presented a petition from the
inmates of the Queen's Bench Prison against imprison-
ment for debt ; and another petition from another class
of prisoners against the abolition of an indulgence called
is " day rule.'
SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the
fishermen on the Severn, praying that in the Bill, provi-
sion might be made to enable their boats to pass the locks
and weirs on the Severn.
—Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition in favour of
the Severn Navigation Bill.
Lord SONDES presented several petitions from places
in the County of Norfolk, against the proposed alteration
in the Corn-laws.
The Severn Navigation Bill was read a second time
and ordered to be committed on Thursday.
THE GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOLS.

Lord DUNCANNON gave notice that on Thursday
next, he would call the attention of his Noble Friend
(Lord Heddington) at the head of the Admiralty, to the
state of the Royal Schoels in connexion with Greenwich
Hospital.

in which the decisions of the two tribunals had
diff,,red, nor could his Noble and Learned Friend
point out one instance in which such a
thing had occurred. Suppose this measure were passed,
the infallible result would be that there might be a
Chancellor who had never been in a Court of Equity in
his life—would an appeal under such circumstances be
satisfactory ? an appeal from a Judge accustomed to
equity all his life, high i❑ talent, and sound in judg-
ment ? The appeal under such circumstances must be
most unsatisfactory.--(Hear, hear.) Such were the ob-
servations he had to make on this measure ; he thought
it ,:nwise in the extreme, and though he .had heard many
strange propositions for amending various laws and cus-
toms of that House, he must say that he thought the
proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend was more
extravagant, and more objectionable, than any that had
hitherto come under the attention of their Lordships.
He moved, therefore, that this Bill be read a second time
this day six months.
Lord BROUGHAM did not think it necessary on this
occasion to add any thing to what he had said in
the course of previous discussions on the Bill. But on
' referring to some cases in which there had been a vari-
ance between the Committee of the Privy Council and
the Courts below, he believed it would be found that the
judgments of the House of Lords and the Privy Council
did not conflict so much as his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Campbell) supposed. He (Lord Brougham)
had once proposed a measure at the end of the session of
1834, which had been referred to by his Noble and
Learned Friend. who had stated that that Bill wasfor the
purrose of transferring the business of that House to the
Judicial Committee. This was not a correct representation.
It was not to transfer the appellate jurisdiction at all
from that House, but it was for the purpose of enabling
that House to avail itself of the help of the Judicial Com-
mittee auxiliary to the decision of the House. His ob-
jection to the plan of his Noble and Learned Friend
was that it excluded any Judge, unless he were a Peer
of Parliament. He should certainly oppose the measure,
for he did not think it was at all calculated to improve
the Court to which it referred. •

Lord CAMPBELL was not in the slightest degree
changed in the opinion he had formed, and; in conse-
quence of which he bad introduced this measure.
The evils complained of, he was convinced, could
only he remedied in the manner he had proposed.
His Noble Friend must have been aware that the clause
which he had introduced was solely in order to prevent
the multiplication of Judges. But his Noble Friend said
that he had brought a charge against the Judicial
Committee, who had clone their duty in a most exem-
plary manner. No ; he did not mean to find any fault
with the members of that Committee, personally or in-
dividually ; but he did say, that as a body, they were not
competent to the duties which they had to perform.
His Noble and Learned Friend had not been able to
show the necessity for two tribunals, or that there would
be any disadiantage in coalescing these tribunals. Though
he could crush these Bills. by a majority, he had not de-
feated the principle, and he (Lord Campbell) hoped that
the measure would at another time meet with a
better fate.—(Hear, hear.) It was a well-known
anecdote that the best speeches for and against the
Prisoner's Counsel Bill were made by his Noble and
Learned Friend ; his Noble and Learned Friend had
also exerted his powers of eloquence in favour of and
against various other Bills which had at last been
carried, mainly owing to his efforts; he (Lord Camp-
bell) hoped that such would he the case at some future
time with this measure. He begged to withdraw his
motion.

After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The Duke of WELLINGTON called the attention
of the House to the important functions belonging to
the office of the Lord Chancellor of this great empire •,
besides that of presiding in the Court of Chancery ; and
he trusted that in any Bill which should be brought in,
in a future Session, there should be a clause to secure
that the person selected to sit on the Woolsack in their
Lordships' House should be a barrister of at least fifteen
years' standing.
Lord CAMPBELL said that there was not at present
any law to require that the person selected to fill the
office of Lord Chancellor should be a barrister at all.
For centuries the office had been filled by ecclesiastical
individuios, down to the time of Queen Elizabeth, when
Sir Thomas Moore was appointed—the first lay Lord
Chancellor for several reigns.
The Amendment of the Lord Chancellor that the Bill
be read a second time this day six months, was carried
withouWa division, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 11.
The SPEAKER took the chair.
WIGAN ELECTION.

Mr. HAWES brought up the Report of the Wigar
Election Committee, which declared that Mr. Greenhill
was duly elected, that Mr. Cross was not duly elected
and that Mr. Charles Standish ought to have been ra•
turned.

against the tax, but nothitig dotild be more distinctly
expressed than his opinion, that if it had been, he tilt
have considered it his duty to have resisted the petition.
Now, Sir, the only two days out of the seven, which
her Majesty Government has for the consideration of
those measures which are brought forward are Mon-
day and Friday. These are days supposed to be set
apart for the co: venience of her Majesty's Government,
but in point of faCt it is fur the convenit nee of the
public. It is a matter of perfect indifferer ce, I need
scarcely tell the House, in what mode I occupy the
eight hours—this is to me a matter of pc rfect indiffe-
rence. But the two days which are devoted
to the business- of the Government are not
days set apart for the private convenience of
her Majesty's Ministers ; they are days only on which
her Majesty's Government can take precedence for their
measures. It is well known that upon Tuesday, Wed-
nesday, and Thursday, other business may be inter-
posed between the business of the Government, accord-
in.. to the discretion of individual Members. I know
the Members of the House of Commons may,
at any time, prolong the proceedings of the House by
moving adjournments ; yet still I have that confidence in
the disposition of the House of Lords, and in the
desire of individual Members to consult the public
interest, that I believe no unfair use will be made
of this privilege for the purpose of obstructing the pro-
gress of business in the House. Yet it is quite clear
that if petitions may be presented with respect to taxes
under the consideration of the House, and if these peti-
tions may be debated—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches)—in that case it would be quite impos-
sible—to proceed with 66 public business. A most
material obstruction might be offered. lam not speak-
ing of the present time, but you may conceive cases of
imminent wars, in which it would be absolutely necessary

to raise immediate supplies for the public service—you
may conceive such cases as that referred to by Mr. Hat-
sell ; similar events might again occur, and the
public business might be most seriously affected
under such circumstances by the presentation of a vast
number of petitions. But it is said that we have lately
departed from ancient practice, and that Members are
now excluded from debating petitions. That restriction,
however, is not the consequence of a resolution which
would at all times be binding on the House. The
resolution that petitions are not to be debated, is not
binding, I apprehend, beyond the Session in which it
is passed. In cases of Standing Orders, it would, no
doubt be competent to the Speaker to interfere at any time,
to prevent debates in violation of a Standing Order. But
in the case of a mere resolution—the resolution I repeat

has no force beyond the existing session. Consequently
I apprehend the prevention of debates rests very much
on the same footing with the refusal to receive petitions.
It it founded on a sense of public convenience,
and is fortified by usage. Now, in the one
case, I find a usage of one hundred and fifty years,
and in the other case I find a usage of five years. The
one case rests not upon the Standing Orders, but on
what is called a rule founded on practice; while the other
regulation, I apprehend, rests upon a different autho-
rity. slt is certainly in the power of the House
to repeal any rule or resolution of the House. I am quite
aware of the position in which I stand in the present in-
stance. Ido not at all deny that I have reason to believe
that my opinions upon this subject are not. those which
universally prevail. I at once admit that it is very unpopular
to oppose the presentation of petitions. It appears to be
unpopular. As I said before, I have no personal interest
in the matter ; but, at the same time, I know not how
a man can properly discharge his duty if he abstain
from pressing on this House what he believes to be
most consonant, on the whole, with the public interest.
I think it my duty to submit my opinions fairly to the
House of Commons, and to take their decision upon the
subject, and not at once to assume that a practice
of 150 years' standing, should be unhesitatingly repealed.
'I must, herefore persevere in resisting this attempt. The
House on the last occasion determined that they would
not depart from the usual practice, and their refusal to
receive petitions against taxes rested precisely on the
same footing as the present motion. Finding myself in
one case fortified by the usage of 150 years, in another
case fortified only by the usage of five, I feel strongly
the inconvenience of now establishing a precedent which
in times of greater difficulty. might be appealed
to for the purpose of embarrassing the public service ;
and I must, in compliance with what I feel to be a sense
of duty, conttnue to offer my resistance to the motion of
the Hon. Gentleman. In doing that Ido not conceal
from myself the power which -he and others possess of
offering petitions and provoking debate, and that, no
doubt, is a power which may subject the House to greater
inconvenience than would follow from receiving the
petitions.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Oppo-
sition benches.) But feeling myself right in the objection
which I take, must look to ultimate results, leave
them to exercise their power. I dailildt consent to give
up that which has been the practice of the House for 80
long a period, end I must therefore offer my opposition
to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Lord HOWICK said he could assure the Right Hon.
Baronet that he agreed with him in hit respect for the
forms and usages of the House, but he did not think
their admiration for those forms and usages—admirable in
general, as experience had shown them to .be—ought
to be a blind and unreasonable one. He thought they
were bound in all cases to see whether the reason upon
which the existing practice and usage was founded, still
existed, and still applied.—(Hear, hear.) If that reason
did exist, if the grounds on which the practice was
originally established were not removed, then he be-
lieved it would generally be found to be the soundest
wisdom to adhere to it.—(Hear; hear.) But if circum-
stances were changed, if the reasons upon which the
usage originally rested no longer applied, then he
thought they would act much more wisely in making that
usage conform to the change of circumstances which had
taken place since it was first established.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, he thought it was shown most clearly on a former
evening, by his two Right Hon. Friends, the Members
for Edinburgh and Devonport, that the grounds upon
which this practice was originally established no longer
existed ; that the change which had taken place in the
mode of receiving petitions had removed those grounds;
and .that since the new mode had been adopted it was im-
possible that any conceivable number of petitions could
interfere with the progress of public business.—(l,lear.)
And here he could not help saying that lie entirely con-
curred with the Right lion. Baronet in attaching the
gr,atest importance to the preservation of the nee and
practice of the House, by which the hours of public
business on Monday and on Friday were reserved for
the business which was under the charge of her Majesty's
Government, because, after all, that was the business of
the country; and, as the Right Hon. Baronet had truly
stated, it was not for the convenience of her Majesty's
Government so much as it was for the general advantage
of the country, that consideration should be given to
those great questions of general policy which the
Government might bring under their notice.—(Hear.)
It was to him demonstrated beyond all form of doubt,
that the reception of those petitions could in no re-
spect tend to interfere with the rule of speaking oft
petitions. On the contrary the maintenance of that rule,
as his Right Hon. Friend had cl.early shown, would hare
an opposite effect. It was the maintenance of the rule,
and not its change, which would prevent the time of
the House being taken up. That would be the case, and
what they were now debating showed that, it would be
so.—(Hear, hear.) They were going to divide on the
motion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, on
bringing up a petition ; but supposing his motion was
negatived, he could bring up to-morrow another petition
and make a similar motion—(Hear)—and every Hon.
Member might take the same course, and they might
do so as his Right Hon. Friend had shown when the.
House went into a Committee of Supply, or upon a mea-
sure regarding taxation. In every question of proceed-
ing with the Orders of the Day, and on questions of supply,
or taxation every Hon. Member entrusted with a petition
might get up and state its substance, the number of per-
sons who signed it, and the opinions expressed by the
petitioners; and he asked any lion. Gentleman who had
a short experience of the mode of doing busi-
ness in the House, whether that practice would
not interfere much more with the transaction
of public. business, than a change of the old rule
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the receipt of peti-
tions. would interfere with the imposition of a tax, even
in cases where it was most necessary, if allowed to be
debated, and that the present rule presses on the same
ground, and existed 150 years, but if he (Lord Howick)
was not mistaken, no direct and formal resolution of the
house on the subject of not receiving petitions referring
to taxation showed any rule with respect to the prevent-
ing of debates. The distinction between them, was, that
the one rule of the House was obviously essential to the
due conducting of the public business, and the other was
not. The rule which prevented debates on the presenting
of petitions, which were so numerous that the public
business could not be got through, if allowed to be de-
bated, -would, he believed, be considered necessary by
nine-tenths of the House, While the other rule was, in
their opinion, unnecessary, and therefore that the one
rule ought to be maintained, while the other ought not.
But when he found that after having considered the sub-
ject for two days—after the adjournment of the question
from Friday last, for the purpose of enabling the Right..
Hon. Baronet and the Government to determine on the
course they might deem it expedient to adopt—when
after such a delay he found that the Right
Honourable Baronet, with all his experience, and
with all his power of stating most forcibly to
the House the arguments by which ho had been led
to recommend the adoption of any particular course—
(Cheers)—when he found that the Right Hon. Baronet
had no one reason to allege against the change which
had been proposed, except that it was a change—(Cheers)
—he (Lord Howick) could have no hesitation whatever
as to the vote which he ought to give.—(Cheers.) He felt
that the Right lion. Baronet had stated the case to
the House temperately anal fairly—(Cheers)--at the
same time he regretted exceedingly the course which the
Right Hon. Baronet had thought it his duty to adopt:
Mr. M. MILNES rose amidst loud cries of " Ques-
tion, question." The Hon. Gentleman said that it was
only by considering questions of privilege as distinct from
party questions, that their privileges could be maintained.
It had only been by so considering the question of pri-
vilege, that they had been enabled to come to an adjust-
me,nt of the question of privilege two years since. If
he regarded this question solely as a question of the pri-
vileges of Parliament, he might vote tbr the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, did he not anticipate
that by acceding to the motion he might run the risk of
bringing into disrespect the petitions of the country. He
knew that generally speaking questions regarding tax-
ation passed unanimously—(Loud laughter)—except
on particular occasions.—(Continued laughter.) It
was not generally considered fair or just to denyqu
money when the necessities of the country reired
ant,
except under peculiar circumstances.—(Clieers
laughter.) Now if they received these peti
tionsthey
would run the risk of the people of this country getting
into the habit of petitioning against taxation.—(Roars
of laughter.) There was no doubt but that such a habit
might be easily got into—(Continued lasghter)—and
case might Well occur in which the House having Unani-
mously voted a tax, an enormous body of petitions from