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

IRISH AGRICULTURE.

The Marquis of CLANRIC:CRDE presented a petition
from Galway, praying the House to afford protection to
Irish agriculture.

INCOME TAX.

Lord 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 Loan 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
a " 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 LY'rULETON presented a petition in favour of
the Severn Navigation Bill.

Lord SO.Nllt! presented several petitions from places
in the County of .Norfolk, against the proposed alteration
iu the Corn-laths,

•
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 Ileddington) at the head of the Admiralty, to the
state of the Royal Schoels in connexion with Greenwich
Hospital.

CHANCERY REFORM.

Lord CAMPBELL, in moving the Order of the Day
`ter the second reading of the Privy Council Appeals Bill,
,
eseed that he thought it would be convenient to discuss
etliose Bills which stood for second reading this evening
as parts of one measure. The object of the first was to
-:transfer the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council
to their Lordships' Housethat of the second was to
create a permanent Judge of Chancery—and of the third,
to allow their Lordships to sit upon appeals during thepe-
riod of the Parliainentary recess. To him it appeared that
the greatest inconvenience connected with the present
practice of the Court of Chancery arose from the cir-
cumstance of the Chief Judge being removable with
every change of Ministers. The number of appeals
bad greatly increased since the augmentation of
the Vice-Chancery Courts, and the augmenta-
Lion was going on at a very rapid rate. W hen
'the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
decided a case in the Court of Chancery, it' the parties
made an appeal to that House he would hear it in a
most fair and dispassionate manner, and he would be
ready at any time to reverse his decision. But what was
the feeling of the public upon it ? That feeling was
described by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who said it
ivas contrary to analogy, that prevailed in all the lower
establishments. This evil would continue unless they
eperated the functions of the Lord Chancellor sitting in
' the Court of Chancery and sitting in thellouse of Lords.
This was one of the principal alterations contemplated in
the In tie Irish Ecclesiastical Court, no man could
Sit to hear appeals if he were a Roman Catholic
'['hey could have no uniformity in decisions on the same.
"subject in England and in Ireland. That House might
decide that a Presbyterian mixed marriage was legal,
,but it would not be lick! so in Ireland. This question
would soon be argued at their Lordships' bar, and if the
marriages were decided to be valid it would subject
sininy persons to transportation. For this evil,
he knew no remedy but that which be had
the honour of proposing to their Lordships. The
very circumstance the fact of the contrary de-
eisions between the two tribunals ought, in his (Lord
Campbell's) humble opinion, to convince their Lordships
that there ought to be only one tribunal. The decisions
of the Judicial Committee were marked by good sense
and soundness of argument and doctrine, and their de-
cisions were now quoted quite as much as the
judgments of their Lordships, and yet their decisions
might be very different. Take the case of the making
a rate ; the Churchwardens might make a rate, and a
rate-payer appealing, their Lordships might decide
that the Churchwardens were not competent to the
making a rate, whilst the Judicial Committee
might decide that they were competent. In such
a case the parish must most unquestionably be placed
in a very unpleasant situation. In marriage cases
also, the same thing might result ; and he thought these
instances ought to convince their Lordships that there
should be only one tribunal ; it there were only one
tribunal there would be no fear but that the decisions
would be uniform ; and he thought that should induce
their Lordships to ..supprt the proposition which
he had the honour to make to then. - Formerly, Parlia-
ment met twice' or thrice a year, and on these occasions
the Privy Council used to be summoned to attend to
judicial business. It was not Until the reign of Henry
VII. that the' Privy Council 'assumed to itself the power
of deciding in appeals without the inter-
position of Parliament. .It . was in the reign
of Henry the Eigth, the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, called the Committee of the Star
Chamber, assumed to itself a power entirely indepen-
dent
of Parliament. The reason why the appeals from
the Channel Islands, Jersey, and Guernsey, were trans-
ferred to the Privy Council was, that during a long
period under the Tudors, Parliament was not
called together, and the Privy Council were
enabled to xert, independently, an authority which they
could only told legitimately under the sanction of their
Lordships ; and if their Lordships agreed to the mea-
sure which he proposed they would not introduce any
innovation, but only recur to the ancient practice
of the Administration, according to the consti-
tution in this country. The object of his
measure was to secure uniformity in the administration
of justice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not know whether he
ought to be heard at all upon this subject, as the object of
the Bill was to shut the doors of the Court of Chan-
cery against the Lord Chancellor. According to the
Bill the Queen would not have the power of placing
at the head of the Court the person to whom she con-
fided the Great Seal. His Noble and Learned Friend
near him (Lord Cottenham), whose fitness to fill the
high office had been the subject of so much
eulogy, could not be appointed if this Bill
were passed ; and if her Majesty were desirous
of pla,cing upon the bench his Noble and Learned Friend
(Lord Brougham) whose zeal and assiduity had despatched
is long' arrear of suits and appeals, this Bill would
stand in her way.—(Hear, hear.) Nay, If the
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Campbell] was
desirous of again serving his country in the ca-
pacity of' an Equity Jade,-e, he must again
go across the Channel, and take his seat upon the bench
which he so latelt, adorned. He (herd Campbell) di-
vided his measure into three Bills. Tt e first object of
that Bit: was to abolish the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council. It was but nine years since their Lord-
ships passed a Bill for the purpose of extending the
jurisdiction of the Privy Council and for the purpose of
enlarging their powers. 'That Bill was maturely con-
sidered/ at the time. It passed, and passed without
or'position either in that House or the other. House of
Parliament ; and it gave universal satisfaction. Must
they then retrace their steps ? Let them mark the his-
tory of- that tribunal. It disposed of all cases as they
came before it. For the last nine years 116 appeals had
been gut rid of. - He would mention one circumstance
deeisive of the character of that tribunal. In every case
of' importance the judgment was a written judgment,
delivered not hastily, but a judgment well considered, a
written judgment, to insure its being considered with
diligence, attention, and circumspection; and he (the
Lord Chancellor) appealed to those very reports to which
the'. Noble and Learned Lord appealed in confirmation
of diligeuce and the legal ability and the sound
jralOnaent nienifested in the decisions of that tribunal.
Thes. was the Court which this Bill sought to abolish.
The tribunal was admirably adapted to the business
which it had to perform.- There were questions
of civil and ecclesiastical law. Judges who had
been engaged in the Ecclesiastical Courts attended
in the Court, and formed part of it, for the pur-
pose of deciding the question. Again, there were ques-
tions of equity. There were Judges of the Equity
Courts who were members of the tribunal. When ques-
tions of this kind were discussed, their attendance was
rectitired to form part of that Court. Again, there were
questions of common law thatewere agitated and dis-
cussed, and on those occasions the Judges of the Com-
mon Law Courts formed part of the Court. Nay more,
there were questions of Hindoo law and Mahomedan
law. On these occasions there were gentlemen who had
been Judges in India, who attended to give their assist-
ance. questions of the utmost importance
were there discussed and decided. This was
the tribunal the Noble Lord sought to abolish.
He -was sure their Lordships would not assent to the
proposition of his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend said
he was not reforming, he was only restoring and he re-
ferred to what. was the practice in -the 'reign of King
Richard the Second. But the question was not what was
the practice in the time of Richard the Second but whatd
was' best to be done now. His Noble Friend
that'their Lordships should attend all the year rpo runic fore
the purpose of hearing appeals; that was one of his Noble
Friends innovations; their attendance, however, was to
be volUntary, and thus, while the Noble Lord might
be enjoying himself in Scotland, and another NOble
Lord waS regaling himself at his villa in the
South of France—(Laughter)—the Chancellor, who
sat on the Woolsack, would not have the opportunity of
leaving town. ' But what would be the advantage of
this? Suppose, now, the Noble Lord who - brought for-
ward this motion would attend, and another Noble and
Learned Lord who sat near him (Brougham) would also
attend, the tribunal would consist of the Chancellor and
his two Noble and Learned Friends.—(Hear, hear.) But
his Noble and Learned Friend complained that there
were two tribunals. Why, their jurisdictions were quite
distinct. The House of Lords decided all cases of equity
throughout the United Kingdom, and the Judicial Com-
mittee -of the Privy Council decided in cases of • equity
and common law in the colonies. This law had been in
operatisin now for 900 years, and there was no instance

INCOME TAX—RIGHT OF PETITION.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from an individual
residing in Gloucestershire, who stated that his property
was subject to heavy mortgage debts, and that the pro-
posed tax upon incomes would be his complete ruin.
The petitioner said that there was no necessity for
so ravaging a measure—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—
which would abridge the comforts of many, and involve
others, situated like himself, in entire ruin.—(Hear,
hear.) He moved that the petition be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER said if it was a petition against the
tax it could not be received.
Mr. WAKLEY replied that it was not a petition
against the tax, but only informing the House that the,
petitioner and others would be ruined by it.—(Laughter.)
The petition was then laid on the table.
Lord NEWRY presented a petition from Northampton
against the reduction of the duty on foreign manufac-
tured boots and shoes.
Sir R. BULK ELEY presented a petition from Bath,
against the proposed tariff:
Lord JOCELYN presented a petition from Norfolk,
against the proposed alteration of the timber duties.
Mr. MURPHY presented a petition from Cork, signed
by 13,500, against the parochial tax in Ireland, called
Ministers' Money.
PETITIONS AGAINST THE INCOME TAX.
The Order of the Day for the adjourned Debate on
receiving a petition was then read, and on the question
being put that the petition be brought up,
Sir H. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I canna acquiesce
11 the motion that this petition be brought up, because I
believe that the country generally is adverse to the pro-
posal.—(Hear.) I do not mean to say that a great
number of petitions might not be presented adverse to
the financial measure which I have proposed, but they
might also be presented at any time adverse to the im-
position of any impost. At the same time my objec-
tion to the motion of the Honourable Gentleman is
not gronnded on an apprehension that the country
generally will declare itself unfavourable to the mea-
sures which I have thought it my duty to propose.
My objection to the motion is founded upon the obliga-
tion which I think public consideration requires —to sup-
port that which has been the usage of the House for the
last 150 years. lam quite aware that the usage is con-
sistent with the Standing Orders of the House. It is
a.usage or rule almost universally adhered to—l believe,
I might say, universally adhered to, for the period which I
have mentioned, viz. 150 years. Sir, I am influenced not by
a reference to present convenience, but I am influenced
by consideration that the business of the country would
be injured, were it permitted that obstructions might be
offered to any tax necessary for the public service. And it
was the same apprehension which influenced the House in
maintaining this order. In 1808 this question was discussed,
but in that year, as on the former occasion, the question
was not so much whether or no the practice should be
departed from, but whether or no the petition which was
the subject of consideration was directed against the tax
then under consideration of the House. I think in 1808
the petition was directed against the Order in Council,
and those who contended most strenuously for the presen-
tation of the petition contended that the rule of the House
or the usage of the House did not apply to that case. Mr.
Tierney, who was then in opposition, and a high autho-
rity, expressly said—" If I thought that this was a peti-
tion directed against a tax, I should most decidedly vote
for the motion; because I believe that the presentation
of petitions against taxes necessary fur supplying
the year ought to be prevented, as every
person then would try to shift the burthen
from his own shoulders, and the consequence
would be such an obstruction to the public business as
would be most injurious." This was the opinion of Mr.
Tierney. He contended that the petition was not