The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-15 00:00:00

triverfai iiaun

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Earl of RIPON postponed the second reading of the
',ion Bill from Friday until Monday. The nOle
ostponed the second reading of the Merchants and
ors 13111 until Thursday.

—MoN

Corn Importat

,tPBELL moved t

s of the

consideration, the chief
pointment of a general

court of appeal, the tribunal to be the House of Lord;, with
power to her majesty to enable the house to sit as a court of
appeal out of session. This would supersede the necessity of
the Court of Privy Council sitting as a court of appeal. He
further proposed that there should be a permanent judge of
the Court of Chancery, who should nut preside over the
House of Lords; which would avoid the anomaly of having
appeals made from the decision of the Lord Chancellor in
one place, to the same Lord Chancellor sitting in another.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the second reading, and
said his noble and learned friend, finding some evils, instead
of endeavouring to cure the wound, went to work upon his
radical reform principles, and like au unskilful surgeon pro-
ceeded at once to amputate the limb. He contended at con-
siderable length against the arguments of Lord Campbell, and
said that the appeal from the Court of Chancery to the
House of Lords was not an appeal from the Lord Chancellor
in one place to the Lord Chancellor in another, because in
the House of Lords the Lord Chancellor had the assistance
of other noble and learned lords ; and in fact the great dan-
ger was that he might so far distrust his own judgment as to
cause him to have a leaning to the opposite side. Under all
the circumstances he should move that the bill should be read
a second time that day six months.

Lord BROUGHAM was also of opinion that the course pro-
posed was not the one which should be adopted to remedy
the evils of which his noble friend complained, and he should,
therefore, support the amendment of his noble friend on the
woolsack, that the bill should be read a second time that day
six months.

Lord CAMPBELL replied; after which the second reading
was negatived without a division.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNnay

The adjourned debate was resumed on Mr. DUNCOMBE'S
motion for the reception of a petition against the income tax.
Sir R. PEEL contended against the reception of the peti-
tion, on the ground that it might lead to great public incon-
venience hereafter, if they were to break down a rule which
had existed for 150 years.

Lord Howicx and Lord J. RUSSELL contended that as
the former practice of debating on petitions bad been abo-
lished, the rule against receiving petitions against a tax un-
der consideration of the house was the less necessary.
Sir J. GRAHAM and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER took the same view of the subject as had been previ-
ously taken by Sir R. Peel.
After some discussion, in which several hon. members took

a share,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE called upon the government to move
a standing order upon the subject, because as the question
now stood he might, night after night, bring on the subject
for discussion as long as he had a petition to present.
The house divided, and Mr. Duncombe's motion was ne-
gatived by a majority of 222 to 221.
The division was hailed with cheers by the opposition.
Mr. COWPER. gave notice that he would on Tuesday pre-
sent a similar petition against the income tax.
The adjourned debate on the income tax was then resumed
by . _

Dr. BowaING, who said he was opposed to the income
tax, but he still could not vote for Lord John's resolution
without some qualification. He hoped the right hon. baro-
net would be as fearless in attacking large monopolies as he
had shown himself in dealing with smaller ones.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT argued that the adoption of an in-
come tax was a bold proposition to meet a great emergency,
while its pressure would be relieved by the concession made
to the commercial and manufacturing classes by the altera-
tion in the tariff.

Dr. ELPH!NSTONE contended that the income tax would
press more heavily on the commercial than on the agricultu-
ral classes.

Sir W. JAMES supported the proposition for an income
tax, and regretted the delay occasioned to the consideration
of the tariff as being injurious to the commerce of the
country. •

Mr. WALLACE opposed the proposition for an income tax,
but at the same time admitted that a property tax could not
be laid on without making it an income tax also.

Mr. LIDDELL denied that any deception had been prac-
tised upon the farmers in the measures which had been pro-
posed by the government, and contended that there was
nothing to justify the apprehensions entertained by the agri-
cultural classes respecting the importation of foreign cattle.
lie strongly objected, however, to the proposed duty on the
exportation of coals. _ _

Mr. R. WASON thought the proposition of the govern-
ment ought to be a tax on real property, instead of an income
tax, which never should have been inflicted upon the country
for the mere purpose of trying experiments with the timber
duties.

Mr. C. WYNN supported the proposition of the govern-
ment, though he could have wished that an income tax had
been kept intact as a war tax.