Page images
PDF
EPUB

answer.

1023. And it will be wise to make the change Court of Chancery ?-It has so happened. But at this moment?—That is a difficult question to may observe that when I was first appointed Master

of the Rolls I found that this course had been adopted 1084. Chairman.] You observe that the Govern- under Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act; a judgment ere. ment Bill abolishes the operation of judgments pro- ditor by his own solicitor obtained an order for a spectively ?-Yes.

receiver against Black-acre; another judgment cre. 1085. Do not you apprehend that there would be ditor presented a petition, without saying one word some confusion as to the point at which the new law about the receiver appointed over Black-acre, and would come into operation, from the system of con- got a receiver over White-acre; another creditor tinuing judgments by means of revivors ?- There is would get a receiver appointed over Green-acre in no doubt it would be inconvenient to have a class of the same way. That appeared to me to be a monsjudgments before a certain date assignable, and a trous abuse; because, in the first place, the expense class of judgments after a certain date unassignable ; of appointing a receiver is considerably greater than but I think that the law would be shortly understood; the expense of extending a receiver, and in the next and the fact is this, that there is only at this moment place you have the unfortunate debtor subject to a certain class of judgments assignable ; you cannot three receivers' accounts, and you multiply costs assign every judgment; that point was brought enormously by that plan. I require now, and have under the consideration of an English court in the for a long time past required it, that the solicitor case of O’Callaghan v. Marchioness Thomond, (in shall state, which appears upon the order, that there 3rd Taunton's Reports.) The assignee of an Irish has been no receiver appointed over any part of the judgment sued in the Common Pleas in England estate, either in the Court of Chancery or in the upon the judgment, and the question was raised Court of Exchequer; because I do not think you before the Judges in that Court, as to whether the onght under the Judgment Acts to have a separate Act of Parliament authorised the assignment of receiver even in both courts, and that is the opinion judgments generally, or only the assignment of a I have acted upon. But the case that Mr. Osborne particular class of judgments; and it was decided, has referred to is a case where the proceeding is by and the reasous for that appear very satisfactory, a plenary suit in Chancery, where there is a receiver that it did not authorise the assigment of judgments appointed by the Court of Exchequer under the generally, but that the Act applied only to the case Sheriff's act. When a creditor files a bill for the of a conusor and conusee, not to the case of reco- general administration of an estate in the Court of veror and recoveree; that a judgment was assign- Chancery, it is the practice to appoint a receiver able where it was a common assurance, but that an over the estate, because more extensive relief can ordinary judgment recovered in an adverse suit is be given in Chancery; but the order directs that it not assignable. Therefore there are at present two shall not be acted upon till the Court of Exchequer classes of judgments as to which the law varies, and discharge their receiver. The party then who obI do not know that it would be productive of any tains the order produces that order of the Court of great inconvenience.

Chancery in the Court of Exchequer, and dischar1086. A law drawing a distinction between dif- ges the receiver, and then you have one receiver in ferent classes of judgments, would not in your opi- Chancery for the benefit of all the creditors

. nion embarrass the proceedings or be productive of 1090. Might not the equitable jurisdiction of the inconvenience ?—It might; but I think the object Court of Exchequer be abolished, and would not to be attained is to prevent judgments being con- that diminish expense ? - Considering the quantity tinued as the common assurance; I should drive a of business in the Master's Office, and that I make party to have a mortgage; I think he will hesitate at present 1,700 more orders in the year than were before he signs a mortgage, but he will not hesitate made 10 years ago, if you were to give the Lord before he signs a warrant of attorney.

Chancellor and myself the whole of the equity busi1087. You think it would be wise to make the ness, I much doubt whether the business would not security of judgments unpopular ?-Yes ; I should get into arrear. like to have a judgment in Ireland a security that 1096. What, according to your knowledge

, is was sought to be recovered as quickly as one could, the present class of receivers ?-I cannot perhaps and not a security to remain outstanding for ever. answer that question positively; but I must say, I may mention a case which has occurred within the from the cases which have come before myself that last twelve months in the Court of Chancery, and I do not think that proper persons have been apat the Rolls Court, which will exemplify the incon- pointed ; I have found, for example, in different venience of judgments remaining outstanding. A cases that have come before me, that solicitors party has obtained a decision of bad title in his fa- have been appointed receivers, and I highly disapvour which I was obliged to pronounce, and which prove of solicitors being appointed receivers

. the Lord Chancellor has confirmed, in consequence 1098. Sir Edward Sugden stated to the Comof the existence of a judgment of the year 1738, mittee that there was an absolute rule of court prowhich has remained outstanding on the estate ever hibiting the appointment of solicitors as receivers since; that is 110 years ago, and upon which in- -Sir Edward Sugden was under a misapprehension terest has been paid.

upon that point. It has been decided that a solici1088. Mr. R. Osborne.) You stated that there tor, if he be a party in the cause, cannot be ap. were cases where two receivers were placed over pointed receiver, but a solicitor unconnected with different parts of a debtor's estate, the one appointed the cause may be appointed receiver, as far as any by the Court of Exchequer, and the other by the order or rule of court is concerned. I have stated

qualification.

my opinion often, that a solicitor ought not to be solicitors in terms would not render it perfect, what appointed receiver ; but I think it right to state in your opinion would be an adequate precaution to that my opinion has not had much effect, because adopt?-One which would take from every solicione of the Masters has pronounced a very elabo- tor or party connected with the cause, any interferate judgment in favour of appointing solicitors rence, directly or indirectly, with the nomination of receivers, and it is a common practice to appoint a the receiver. solicitor to be a receiver.

1110. Are you aware that Sir Edward Sugden's 1099. Mr. R. B. Osborne.] Then the rule go- order, prohibiting the appointment of clerks of soverning the Court is not the same in all cases ? - licitors as receivers, has been evaded ?— I have not No. Some of the Masters do not think it a dis- heard of it since 1844; but I should not have the

slightest hesitation, if a case of that kind came before 1101. Then there is no order against an attorney me, in punishing the solicitor severely by fixing being appointed a receiver ?-None that I am aware the costs upon him personally; and I think it sinof

. I may observe that the Court of Exchequer, after gular if it has occurred. Sir Edward Sugden's order, adopted an order very 1111 When you say that there has been a system nearly in the words of this order; the present of trafficking in receivers, what do you mean by Lord Chancellor having been Lord Chief Baron that?--That system existed at the time Sir at the time ; but they had inserted the additional Edward Sugden made this order, as appears by words : “ no solicitor for any party in the cause ;" the judgment I have just referred to, and I think the and impliedly it was to be inferred from that, that practice continues, as a case occurred before me in a solicitor who was not solicitor for a party in the which it came to light, that when the receiver was cause, was not a disqualified person.

appointed by the solicitor in the cause, there was 1105. Sir J. Graham.] Is there anything want. an agreement that the solicitor should not only ing in that order of Sir Edward Sugden with re- have his own costs of the application for the spect to receivers if it were only made quite clear receiver and the further costs in the matter, but that no solicitor should be appointed a receiver ? should pocket a certain portion of the pound-I think there is nothing whatever ; it might be age, and in point of fact he did pocket a certain worth while for the Members of the Committee to portion of the poundage. I made an order that read the judgment of Sir E. Sugden which arose on he should disgorge the whole of that and pay it into that very order in the case in re Stokes, in 1st Jones court, with six per cent. interest; but though no and Latouche's Reports, p. 175; so anxious were the other cases of that kind occurred before me, I have solicitors to put a narrow construction upon this reason to believe that such cases exist. order, that one of the solicitors got the clerk of an 1115. You would not say, from your experience, attorney

, who was not his own clerk, appointed re- that an attorney was a person qualified to manage ceiver, and there being an application to Sir landed property ? _ I should say most decidedly not. Edward Sugden to set aside the appointment of That is not merely my own opinion, but I can refer to this clerk, there were actually three counsel em- a high authority in a case reported in 15th Vesey, ployed before Sir Edward Sugden, one of whom junior. An application was inade to Lord Eldon happens to be a member of this Committee, Mr. that a person who was appointed a receiver, he beKeogh, Serjeant Warren, and some other gentle- ing a practising barrister and a Member of the man, to insist that this order disqualified only the House of Commons, should be removed. The powclerk of the particular solicitor ; but Sir Edward er of the Court in making the master review his reSugden had no difficulty in expressing an opinion, port in respect to the appointment of a receiver, is and he pronounced an excellent judgment, as all very slowly exercised. But Lord Eldon expressed his judgments are, pointing out the evil that this a strong opinion that the duties of a Member of Parorder was intended to remedy, and that it applied liament and a practising barrister were inconsistent to the system which had existed of trafficking in with his devoting proper time, independently of receiverships and actually selling the office; and anything else, to the management of an estate; and this general order he held to apply to the clerks of without deciding that a Member of Parliament or all receivers.

a practising barrister was necessarily disqualified, 1106. I asked you if the addition of the prohi- he made an order directing the Master to reconbition of attorneys would make that order perfect, sider bis report. and you, as I understood you, said it would not; 1116. Iu your opinion ought not the receiver to what is the other addition ?-_I do not think any ad- reside upon the estate, if it is of any magnitude ?dition will make it absolutely perfect; there will I have no doubt that he ought to reside upon the always be a determination to evade it.

estate, and to be in the habit of seeing every pro1107. Then you would say that the appointment perty upon the estate every week of his life. of receivers was an incurable evil?-I do not see 1120. Sir J. Graham.] Sir Edward Sugden was that that necessarily follows; but so long as you asked two questions, which I will read to you (Nos. leave the appointment of receivers to the nomination 495 and 496): “But for property which, after you of any solicitor in the cause, you will, I think, have shall have abated the quantity of it by your legislaa bad class of receivers appointed.

tive interference,” (that was according to the plan 1108. If receivers are to be appointed under any which he had sketched to the Committee),” shall circumstances by judgment creditors, what is the still be under the managment of the Court, you do plan which you think, with your experience, would not think that anything can be done, with respect be less open to abuse; you being of opinion that to the appointment of receivers?" Sir Edward's that order is imperfect, and that the prohibition of answer was, “ Not by legislation; I think the head of the Court can do a great deal in correcting abuses

IN CHANCERY. where he discovers them, and providing against Executors of Price, and others,

Plaintiffs, them by proper rules.” The next question asked

in this cause, bearing date the Ple Hall and others, Defendants,

day of June, 1549, I hereby require all was, “ There is no alteration in the law with regard

persons claiming to be creditors of Nicholas Price, late of Saintfield in the to receivers that you would recommened?” and Sir County of Down, Esquire, deceased, the testator in the pleading in this

cause named, to come in before me at my Chambers on the Inns Quay, in Edward's answer was, “ No, I think not; I would the City of Dublin, on or before the First day of Octotuer next, and prone

their respective demands, other wise they will be precluded from all benefit prevent the appointment of so many receivers. Sup;

under the said decree.

Dated thi+ 30th day of July, 1819. posing it were an inevitable evil that they should

E, LITTON. now have £1,700,000 of property under the Court William Nevin Wallace, Solicitor for the plaintiffs,

30, North Great George's Street, Dublin. (which I think it is not, and I should be very much disinclined to appoint receivers over such a large

JUST PUBLISHED, amount of property, and I would take care that such an amount of property should not come under

ADDISON ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS the management of the Court); but supposing it A TREATISE on the Law of .CONTRACTS, and Rights were inevitable under the law as it stands and is

Inner Temple, Barrister.at. Law, Second Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. Fire El Ban administered, that there should be that amount of

RUSSELL ON ARBITRATION. property under the Court, it might be

very

desirable TREATISE on the Power and Duty of an ARBL to have something in the nature of a Master, who TRATOR, and the Law of Submissions and Awards; with a should have his whole time and attention directed Arendins of Esime and of the Statutes relating to Arbitrationen

FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., , I rol

£1 6s. to the management of receivers."

Do you agree

BAYLEY ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE. with Sir Edward Sugden in considering that it is not possible for legislation to deal effectually and ad

of ,

and Promissory Notes. By SIR JOHN BAYLEY, Knt. Sira vantageously with the appointment of receivers ? — Edition, by G. W. DOWDES WELL, Barrister-at-Law. I val. We

£1 2s, I cannot say that I agree in that; it may be difficult

BURGE ON THE LAW OF SURETYSHIP. to point out an adequate remedy, but of this I am quite clear, that you will never have estates properly the Rights and Obligations of the parties thereto. By WILLIAX managed under the Court of Chancery, so long as BURGE, Esq. & C. M.A.&c. I vol. 8vo. 18. you have the present system existing of the solicitor STANFIELD'S PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING. for the plaintiff or the petitioner in the cause nomi- A IN

CONVEYANCING, arranged for general and ordinary uk, l. nating the receiver, because Master Murphy has gether with Introductory Treatises upon the various transactices and

occurrences incident to Estates of customary tenure, &c, By JOHN F. informed me that in the majority of cases nobody STANFIELD, Esq. I vol. 8vo. 125. attends before him except the solicitor for the peti

UESTIONS FOR LAW STUDENTS on the Second tioner. The Master cannot appoint any body of his

. own motion without having some person named, and

of England. By JAMES STEPHEN, Esq. of the Middle Temple, Bar.

rister at-Law. I vol. 8vo, cloth boards, price 106d. the only person who attends to name the receiver is a person deeply interested in having the estate ill

.

By W. HAYES and T. JARMAN. 4th Edition, cloth bds. 156. managed, because if it is well managed it will dimipish the costs.

on the Law of Husband and Wife as respects Property, partly founded 1121. Though Sir Edward Sugden in his answer upon Roper's Treatise, and comprising Jacobs' Notes and Addition thereto,

By J. E.' WRIGHT, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Lay. | rolk. rejected legislation, he points to rules of Court royal 8vo. £2 10s boards, ineeting the evils as they shall arise, and he suggests

A

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF LEGACIES. By the appointment of a Master, whose exclusive duty the late R. S. DONNISON ROPER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

Grays-inn; and by H. H. WHITE, Esq., Barrister.at. Law, of the Wil it shall be to look after the appointment of receivers dle Temple Fourth Edition. 2 vols, royal 8vo, £3 38. boards. and the conduct of receivers ?-I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with Sir Edward Sugden in

TREATISE ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, as A

administered in England and Ireland; with Illustrations from the the propriety of having an officer in Dublin who

American and other Foreign Laws By JOHN PITT TAYLOR, EA.

of the Middle Temple, Barrister.at. Law. 2 vols. royal 8vo. £210, should have nothing whatsoever to do but to attend to the general superintendence of Chancery pro- A SELECTION OF LEADING CASES IN Various

Branches of the Law, with Notes. By JOHN WILLIAM SMITH, perty. That has always been my view.

Esg.: of the Inner Temple, Barrister.at.Law. Third Edition. Ry HS

KEATING Esg, and JAMES S. WILLES, Esq., of the loner Temple (To be continued.)

Barristers at. Law. 2 vols, royal 8vo. £2 128, 6d.
EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, LAW BOOKSELLER AND

PUBLISHER, 15, COLLEGE GREEN, DUBLIN.
IN CHANCERY, IRELAND,
Robert Edward Gibbings,

Plaintiff. WH
THEREAS it has been re-

All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed

presented to me, that several to the Editor, with the Pablisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE The Right Honorable Henry John of the Creditors on the Estates of GREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Adress, as the

Reuben, Earl of Portarlington, the late Right Honorable John, columns of the paper cannot be occupied with answers to Adonymous and others, Defendants. Earl of Portarlington, deceased, the Communications --nor will the Editor be accountable for the retun

Testator in the pleadings named, Manuscripts, &c. have neglected or omitted to come in and file charges on foot of their respective demands and incumbrances, pursuant to the decree of the 9th day of February, 1847, and that the time limited by and for the said pur. Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COL pose has expired, and that it is expedient to extend said period : Now I require all Creditors and Legatees of the late Right Honorable John, Earl

LEGE GREEN, or by letter (post.paid), will ensure its punctual delivery of Portarlington, deceased, the Testator in the pleadings named, and

in Dublin, or its being forwarded to the Country, by Post, on the day at also all persons having Charges or Incumbrapces affecting the real and free.

publication,
hold Estates of the said late Earl of Portarlington, to come in before me Terms of SUBSCRIPTION-(payable in advance):
at my Chambers on the Inns Quay, in the city of Dublin, on or before
Tuesday, the 20th day of November next, and proceed to prove and

Yearly, 30s. Half-yearly, 178. Quarterly, 9s.
claim the same, otherwise they will be precluded the benefit of said
Decree.
Dated this 30th day of June, 1819.

Printed by THOMAS ISAAC WHITE, at his Printing Ofice, No. 1,
E. LITTON.

FLEET.STREET, in the Parish of St. Andrew, and published at !! John Warnock, Plaintiff's Solicitor,

COLLEGE OREEN, in same Parish, by EDWARD JOHNSTON 30, North Great George's Street, Dublin.

MILLIKEN, residing at the same place, all being in the County of the
City of Dublin. Saturday, August 25, 1714

PEL

Erish Jurist

No. 44.-Vol. I.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1849.

PRICE

Per Annum, £1 10s.

Single Number, od The Names of the Gentlemen who favour The IRISH JURIST with Reports in the several Courts of

Law and Equity in Ireland, are as follows :-
ROBERT LONG, Esq.,

Joan BLACKHAN, Esq., and

Court of Exchequer Court of Chancery, in. and

A. HICKEY, Esq., Barristers-at

Chamber....... cluding Baukruptcy Joan Pitt KENNEDY, Esq., Bar

Law. Appeals ..... risters-at-Law.

Queen's Bench, includ-S FLORENCE MCARTHY, Esq., and WIULIAM BURKE, Esq., and ing Civil Bill and Re- } SAMUELV. DEET, Esq., Rolls Court...... WILLIAM JOHN DUNDAS, Esq., Barristers-at-Law. Exchequer of Pleas, in: Chas. H. HEMPRILL,

Esq., and CHARLES HARE HEMPHILL, Esq.

WILLIAM

and Registry Appeals. risters-at-Law. Equity Exchequer...

WILLIAM HICKSON, Esq., Bar-
risters-at Law.

Common Pleas........ { DIALNET, Esq. Barristers-at-law.
S ROBERT GRIFFIN, Esq. and W.G.
Bankrupt Court....... {

Admiralty Court...... { COALINE , Esq. Barristers-at-law. CHANNEY,

Esq. Barristers-at-law.

{

and

DUBLIN, SEPTEMBER 1, 1849. ful who bas not the power to carry in their integrity

the measures which he introduces. It is to us almost

incomprehensible how an objection could be perThe course pursued by Her Majesty's Government sisted in and allowed to a change in the law so just with reference to the Irish Poor Law has been mark- as that which proposed to make rent-chargers liable ed with precipitancy at the commencement, and to poor-rate. infirmity of purpose at the close. Lord John Rus. We have shown to demonstration in previous sell appointed a Poor Law Committee, and before numbers the glaring injustice of allowing the life a single witness was examined carried a resolution proprietor to pay the whole landlord's rate, whilst in favour of a rate in aid. He subsequently made the life rentcharger pays nothing; and this is strikthat resolution law. His Committee examined a ingly exemplified in the case, which is probably not very large number of witnesses, and undertook a of unfrequent occurrence-of the owner settling a very laborious and vast enquiry, but before they had rent charge upon one son for life, with remainder reported to the House, the Poor Law bill was intro- to trustees for the use of that son's issue, and then duced. This was disrespectful to the Committee. En- settling the corpus of the estate upon another son quiry was either necessary or it was not; if necessary, for life remainder to his issue. The first son conthe result of that enquiry should have been made tributes nothing in aid of the poverty of that proknown before legislation were attempted; if unne- perty from which he draws the first fruits, whilst the cessary, no Committee nominated by the Govern- whole burden of supporting its pauperism, and conment should have been appointed.

tributing to a costly poor-law establishment is thrown Assuming, however, that there was no intention upon the next son, who may be left with a miserable to cast a slur upon the Coinmittee, we can arrive remnant to support the position and respectability at no other couclusion than that the Government had of the family. seen and heard enough to prepare them for legisla- In both cases the quality of estate is equal, there tion, and that their minds were made up to introduce should be an equality likewise in payment of a tax a bill on their own responsibility.

which has hitherto been, and ought always to be, Accordingly, Lord John Russell, on the 26th of payable out of the annual proceeds of the land subApril

, deliberately laid his plan for an amended Poor ject to it. Law on the table of the House. It was short, but The only arguments which can be stated in supproposed two important alterations in the law, which port of the present law are: First, that by dividing were received with very general satisfaction;-one

the amount of rate payable by the proprietor in posby which jointures and rent-charges for life were session, the stimulus to give employment and lessen made liable to deduction for poor-rate, and the other the pauperism of the estate would be diminished, which adopted the principle of a maximum rate. and that an incumbrancer would be taxed who has

The Act has passed, without the clauses embody- no control over the estate and its management. ing these two changes. The sections were struck And, secondly, that his case should form no es. out by the House of Lords, and the alterations were ception to that of other incumbrancers. submitted to by Lord John Russell.

We cannot admit the cogency of these arguments. The position of the Minister must be indeed pain- The first assumes that a proprietor in all cases re

quires a money-stimulus for the proper management injury inflicted by the sudden calling in of a rentof his estate. Suppose this necessity not to exist, charge, the annual amount comprehends the liability as in a vast pumber of cases we feel satisfied it does of the proprietor, not like interest money, (the prenot—is it just to punish the benevolent landlord mium of forbearance,) the transfer of the land to because there may be bad landlords upon whom it a new proprietor will not divest it from the charge. is necessary to place the screw tightly. Is it just Whilst thus great benefits can be conferred upon to punish the hard-working, struggling landlord who the proprietor, by taxing the rent-charger, no cola does all in his power to make every one upon his lateral injury can arise. property comfortable, and to burden him with a The change originally proposed in the law was fixed impost

, for rent of which he is the mere re- just to the present proprietor, and it was politic in ceiver, and never can be the beneficial owner, be- the event of a sale of his interest towards a future cause there

may be cases in which inhuman landlords owner--who might be induced to purchase, from may be induced to clear their estates—from a convic. the conviction that he would have but his equitable tion of self interest, rendered more intense by legis- proportion of rate to bear. lative injustice ? Above all, is it humane-when the We very much regret that the House of Comdeath of each pauper is a positive gain to the pro- mons were obliged to acquiesce in the expunction prietor—to give an increased interest to the unmer- of a clause which was calculated to reinore one ciful man to rid his estate of paupers, by imposing glaring anomaly in a poor law, where the pressure upon him, during their existence, the entire land- of liability is so unequally adjusted. lord's proportion of rate?

The manner in which the House of Lords dealt It is repugnant to common sense and common with the maximum clause bas some justification, justice to allow one man who gives no return what though, on the whole, we regret its loss. ever for the income he derives from the estate to The Premier refused to state from what sources escape untaxed, and to impose the whole rate upon the funds necessary, after payment of the maximum, the hardworking, benevolent, resident proprietor, were to be supplied, and whilst this important or the idle, avaricious absentee - as the case may blank was left unfilled, we are not surprised at the be,—in order to induce the latter class to lessen the erasure of the clause. If from the solvent unions

, pauperism upon their estates.

the imposition of this impost, which would be, in If there were no other reply to the first argument point of fact, a rate in aid-would be inconsistent it would be sufficiently answered by the fact that with the plan of diminishing the area of electoral the good and the bad proprietor are dealt with on divisions, and individualising responsibility. the same principle, that neither the one who neg- The loss of this clause is, however, more prolects, nor the other who fulfils every duty that de- perly chargeable upon the Minister, than upon the volves

upon him, can ever shake off this burden. The House of Lords; and upon him also we charge a proprietor in possession of the best managed estate grave omission in not providing some remedy for in Ireland, who has reduced the poor-rate to its the injustice under which tithe rent-charge owners narrowest limits—the amount necessary for the sup- labour by the operation of the poor law. No unport of the aged and impotent-must still pay a biassed mind can come to any other conclusion, per-centage upon an income which goes to another than that it is grossly inequitable to impose a double person.

deduction upon this species of property, more espe. The second branch of the arguinent is also unsus- cially when its application is not for the benefit of tainable.

the pauper, but in ease of the landlord. Now that On grounds of public policy,—derived from the the ad valorem scale of payment is, as between consideration of the present encumbered state of landlord and tenant, repealed, it was very simple, the landed property of this country,—it may have and certainly very just, to have extended the new been considered inexpedient to tax a class of incum- principle to landlord and tithe owner-a moiety of brancers, who would, from the diminished income rate to be deducted from each pound of rent-charge

. derivable from their security, so long as it remained The great inconsistency in the same code is no. outstanding, at once demand payment, and by selling where more strikingly shewn, than by exempting a for non-payment, add to the glut in the land-market. lay life rent-charger altogether, and doubly taxing Measures sufficiently stringent for the gradual con- the clerical life rent-charger, nay, more than fiscation of encumbered properties were adopted doubly, for he is charged on his gross income, whilst without resorting to one that would cause the pre- every other rate payer is assessed upon his net

. cipitate extinction of the rights of their owners. In A dozen lay lords were sufficiently powerful to the abstract it is unjust to tax the income derived make the measure deficient, and where it was defrom land as the sole fund for the support of pau- ficient, inequitable—and not a voice was raised perism, except that pauperism be altogether rural, from the bench of bishops for the insertion of a more unjust to tax a portion of that income, and clause, which would have been as clearly just

, as that portion the least able to bear it, but having the other was unjust. The House of Commons regard to the particular circumstances of the period acquiesced in the one instance—it is not too much we can understand it being sound policy not to tax to say they would have done so in the other. income derivable from redeemable incumbrances, We have shown what the act does not contain; except in common with every other species of income. its contents will form ample subject for another

But the reasoning fails when we have to deal article. with unredeemable charges, their burden and their duration are alike determined ; there can be no

« EelmineJätka »