Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Report Of The Proceedings Of The British Parliament.
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT .
THE SECOND SESSION OF TIIE EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT .
HOUSE OF LORDS . TUESDAY , JUNE 5 , I- ^ g S . TAX OH ARMORIAL BEARINGS . LORD Kinnoul said it was with concern he saw a measure like the present ' brought forwardwhich went to lessen those honourable distinctions
, that were ' so necessary in society , and would tend to create the greatest confusion in the official authorities that existed in England and in Scotland , the latter of which he had some connection with . He did not mean then to offer any clause to the bill ; but he thought it necessary to say , that he would reserve to himself the right of delivering his sentiments on the bill at some future period . Lord Grenvil . e agreed with the noble Lord in the propriety of keeping tip
al ! the distinctions of rank . - But he could not conceive how any alteration in the present bill , which did not attack those distinctions , could be necessary ; and the noble Lord must perceive that it was foreign to the rules of that House to introduce any regulation into a tax-bill . The bill then went through the Committee .
REDUCTION O ? HOLIDAYS . On the second reading of the bill for the Reduction o £ Holidays in the Custom-house , & c . The Bishop of Rochester said , if the personal attendance of persons holding offices could not be enforced without an act of parliament , he would certainl y support such an aft . But the present bill was of a different kind , and not , at all so innocent as some persons had imagined . Holidays were of two
kinds ; those established by the statute of Edw . VI . and those which existed by usage , such as the festivals in honour of the birth-days of the Royal Family . " On those principles he would , in the Committee , oppose the present bill . The Lord Chancellor said , it did not appear to him that the framers of the bill had attended sufficiently to the statute of Edward VI . which did not establish those holidays as a matter of temporary institution , but settled such as had existed before ; rejecting at the same time ali those that had been in-,
troduced by the corruption of the Romish church . The mode of introducing this bill was rash and inconsiderate . The framers of it must have perceived that manv persons in those offices , where holidays were proposed to be abolished , had taken their situations on the principle , that no more than a certain portion of their time was to be spent in doing the duty of that situation . The House would , however , see whether the bill might not be rendered less obnoxious in the Committee . The bill was then ordered to be committed for a future day .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Report Of The Proceedings Of The British Parliament.
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT .
THE SECOND SESSION OF TIIE EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT .
HOUSE OF LORDS . TUESDAY , JUNE 5 , I- ^ g S . TAX OH ARMORIAL BEARINGS . LORD Kinnoul said it was with concern he saw a measure like the present ' brought forwardwhich went to lessen those honourable distinctions
, that were ' so necessary in society , and would tend to create the greatest confusion in the official authorities that existed in England and in Scotland , the latter of which he had some connection with . He did not mean then to offer any clause to the bill ; but he thought it necessary to say , that he would reserve to himself the right of delivering his sentiments on the bill at some future period . Lord Grenvil . e agreed with the noble Lord in the propriety of keeping tip
al ! the distinctions of rank . - But he could not conceive how any alteration in the present bill , which did not attack those distinctions , could be necessary ; and the noble Lord must perceive that it was foreign to the rules of that House to introduce any regulation into a tax-bill . The bill then went through the Committee .
REDUCTION O ? HOLIDAYS . On the second reading of the bill for the Reduction o £ Holidays in the Custom-house , & c . The Bishop of Rochester said , if the personal attendance of persons holding offices could not be enforced without an act of parliament , he would certainl y support such an aft . But the present bill was of a different kind , and not , at all so innocent as some persons had imagined . Holidays were of two
kinds ; those established by the statute of Edw . VI . and those which existed by usage , such as the festivals in honour of the birth-days of the Royal Family . " On those principles he would , in the Committee , oppose the present bill . The Lord Chancellor said , it did not appear to him that the framers of the bill had attended sufficiently to the statute of Edward VI . which did not establish those holidays as a matter of temporary institution , but settled such as had existed before ; rejecting at the same time ali those that had been in-,
troduced by the corruption of the Romish church . The mode of introducing this bill was rash and inconsiderate . The framers of it must have perceived that manv persons in those offices , where holidays were proposed to be abolished , had taken their situations on the principle , that no more than a certain portion of their time was to be spent in doing the duty of that situation . The House would , however , see whether the bill might not be rendered less obnoxious in the Committee . The bill was then ordered to be committed for a future day .