The Sun. — London, England, 1846-02-16 00:00:00

Cbtrbf Wbition SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock• TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING. CHESTER CUT. 20 to 1 apt Best Bower 22 to 1 apt Whinstone 22 to 1 apt Sweetmeat 25 to 1 apt The Baron 25 to 1 agst Mermaid—taken 30 to 1 apt Mickey Free 35 to 1 apt Cataract 35 to 1 apt Fitzallan 40 to 1 apt Hope 40 to 1 apt Arthur 40 to 1 apt Inheritress DERBY. 5 to 1 apt Sting 15 to 1 apt Brocardo 20 to 1 agst lago 30 to 1 agst Malcolm 33 to 1 apt Tibthorpe--taken. OAKS. 8 to 1 agst Forth's lot 11 to 1 agst Vanish 20 to 1 agst Mendicant Su o'CLocK. FEMALE SERVANTS' HOME SOCIETY.—(THIS DAY). A public meeting of this Society was held at the Hanover square Rooms this day, Lord ASHLEY took the chair at two o'clock, and called on the Rev. Mr. Keane to open the proceedings with prayer. Lord ASHLEY said he thought it would be unnecessary for him to trespass long on their time, as all of those present must be aware of the importance of that Institution. From the report he had read he was deeply impressed that it was of the greatest importance to the peace, the welfare, and the honour of every family in the kingdom. In that he was borne out by a letter from Chel tenham, sent him by a gentleman connected with an institution for the same object, which had existed seven years in that place, with the very best results. He (Lord Ash ley) was aware that young women were exposed to great dangers in coming up to the metropolis in search of situa tions, and were exposed to dangers and difficulties not only when in that condition, but after they had actually obtained places, since, from harsh treatment and extreme exactions, they might in a moment of excitement throw up their situa tions and leave themselves friendless in the midst of society. The police reports gave them too many instances of the bad results which often issued out of these casualties. Thei own comfort depended intimately on the welfare of that class of society. After their wives and children, their comfort depended on no class so much as on their domestie servants. Great fraud was used in intro ducing bad characters into their families. An individual of respectable appearance would take a lodging at some hotel, and there would furnish characters suited to the highest situations, or merely adapted to the humblest menial ser vice. It had been found out that so much as a guinea was the charge for the most common character, but, for those ascending to the higher flights, the amount exceeded any thing they could imagine, so that vast sums of money were amassed by these means. At a time when they were review ing their whole social system (and for which he thanked God) he hoped that a larger share of consideration would be given to that class of society for whose interests the Society existed. His Lordship, after some more remarks, called en The Rev. June BROWN, secretary, to read the report of the Institution. It appears that 2,000 female servants had used the advantage of the Society's homes, 4,714 had been regis tered free, and 1,580 applications had been made to the So ciety for servants. J. PAYNE, Esq., moved that the report read should be adopted. He shortly remarked 'on the evil effects of the hasty dismission of servants from situations coming within his own sphere of observation in corroboration of what had fallen from the Chairman. The motion was seconded by the Rev. Mr. DIBDIN. It was moved by the Rev. Mr. KEANE, and seconded by the Rev. Mr. PIZEY, that gratitude and praise to God should be recorded by the meeting for his blessing on the Society. The thanks of the meeting were moved to Lord Ashley, the chairman, by the Rev. S. JONES, which was seconded and called unanimously. His LORDSHIP, in replying, referred the supporters of the Society to the happy effect which had followed his efforts. Twelve years ago, he said, out of the thousands of childrenlfrom six to eight-years old, working from twelve to fifteen hours a dav, not one hundred had hadone hour's in struction, but now thirty thousand of them wrought but six hours a day, and had three hours of good education.—(Hear, hear.) He would give them his own rule—first, they ought to consider whether the cause they took up was good, and if so to stand by it, though alone, till they grew grey beaded, and they would have the happiness to hear, if it were on their death-bed, of the good resulting from their labours.—The meeting then separated. THE BANKRUPT and INSOLVENT LAWS.—(THIS DAY.) A large public meeting of merchants, bankers, and traders in the City of London, was held, at one o'clock this day, at the London Tavern, liishopsgate-street, to receive a report of the proceedings of the - Committee, appointed on the 27th of May last, to consider the Small Debts Act and the Act for the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insol vency, brought into the House of Commons at the close of last session ; and to detk rmine on the measures to be adopted with respect thereto. On the motion of T. BARING, Esq., M.P., It. J. MASTER maw, Esq., M.P., was called to the chair, who briefly stated that he had been requested to preside, as he had the honour to represent the City of London in Parliament. The Secretary, Mr. MAYERS, read letters from Lord Ash burton and Commissioners Goulburn and Fane, regretting their inability to attend the meeting, and expressive of their opinion that the present laws were defective, inasmuch as they afforded the dishonest debtors the means of preventing their property from being divided amongst their creditors, and did not afford them sufficient protection, and suggesting various remedies. Lord Ashburton stated that it had been his fate to sit on many Committees respecting these laws with several great lawyers, who appeared to him much more occupied with views connected with their profession than those which had reference to the great material and moral interests of those over whom these laws were practically des tined to operate. The report, after pointing out the hardships to which creditors were exposed under existing Acts, proceeded to point out the remedial measures contained in the Act introduced into the House of Commons last session under the auspices of Mr. Hawes and Mr. Masterman. The object of this Bill is to perfect and extend the Bank ruptcy Amendment Act of 1842, the object being to afford greater facility for bringing insolvent persons into the Court of Bankruptcy; to obtain additional security against their property being . dishonestly made away with; and to render exposure and just punishinent more certain for those whose improper conduct shall have deserved them. To accomplish these objects, improvements are proposed in the first steps in Bankruptcy, relative to the summons of the debtor, and for the protection of his, or, rather, of his creditor's property, during the period which now properly elapses between the day of a pp e arance before the Court upon the summons and the completion of the Act of Bankruptcy, and the taking possession of the property by the messenger under the fiat. The Committee, aware of the extreme im portance of providing against the possibility of abuse of this power, had endeavoured so to frame the provision as to preclude reasonable complaint on the part of the honest debtor. The Bill would also empower the Court of Bankruptcy at any time in its discretion to withdraw or suspend its protection from bankrupts and insolvents, and to make the withdrawal of such protection compulsory, when ever the bankrupt or insolvent shall fail to satisfy the Court that his bankruptcy or insolvency shall have arisen otherwise than from fraud, wilful mis conduct, extravagance, or gambling, as well as in all those cases now punishable as felonies or misdemeanours; thus put ting the proof of honesty upon the debtor, not throwing the proof of fraud upon the creditor; the creditor being, by the failure of his debtor, the injured party, and the impossibility of proving fraud being to well known to require expla nation. It proposed to give to the assignees, as well as to individual creditors upon the admission of their claims, the rights of judgment creditors against the person of the bankrupt or insolvent, which might be enforced immediately upon the protection being withdrawn; thus making the withdrawal of protection a previous step to punishment at the discretion, not of the Court, but of the creditor, who then, and then only, may seise his debtor's person. The Bill provided security also to creditors against the wasting and loss of the effects of deceased traders, in default of the appointment of executors or administrators, and for the distribution thereof by means of the Court of Bankruptcy after the lapse of a certain period. It rendered securities by bills of sale, and mortgages of goods, anti personal chattels and effects, in operative against creditors unless filed within '2l days after execution. The Committee were strongly opposed to the proposition for uniting the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts. They consider that a very different course should be pursued in the dealing with the insolvency of' traders and non-traders, under which latter description they include that numerous class of persons who, whether traders whose debts are under !Ca, or non-traders, avail themselves of the protection granted them by the Court of Bankruptcy by the Acts of 1842 and 1844, as it must be borne in mind that the object of the creditor in making his debtor bank rupt is the distribution of his estate among his creditors; that of the insolvent petitioner, his own relief and protection. Previously to the passing of the former of these Acts, the effects of traders only were administered by the Couq of Bank rup t cy . Th e I nso l ven t D o btors' Court dealt chiefly with the other class. 'l'lle effect of these two statutes is to bring into the Bankruptcy Court a multitude of appli cations from persons whose debts are less than 304. '1 hese cases are nearly all of a petty and trivial nature, involving or dinarily few or no questions o f importance; the effe s of the debtors being nil, and t he ir ct creditors being, individually, for trifling amounts, and without the slightest hope of a divi dend. From their number alone ~ou they occupy a very large portion o f t h e time of the b unissioners, and o ffi c i a l assignees ; and, from th ere no avail able assets, they of course contribute nothing are, to wards the expens e s of the Cou rt , which a wholly borne by t he creditors of the bank rupt tra ders . therefore, The petitions of these sma ll debtors for p rotecti on might be dis posed of quite as efficiently for them in the Insolvent Court, and the Court of Ban kru p tc y reserved for bankru p tc y cases alone. The accounts showed but a small balance iii the hands of the Treasurer. Tnostas Banns°, Esq., in moving the first resolution, stated that he could bring no arguments from practical ex perience to bear upon the question which they had met to discuss, for it was well known that bankers and general merchants had not that every-day experience of the opera tion of the bankrupt and insolvent law which was obtained by those moving in a different sphere of commerce. They were not certainly free from the disagreeable misfortune of bad debts, but the application of those bad debt did not come so frequently before theta as those engaged in other brandies of trade.—(llear, hear. ) He had stated this because—although lie agreed with the sentiments contained in the report—he did not wish to•pledge himself as to the course he should pursue with respect to hese laws until he had had a further elucidation of their effect upon the public, and of the sentiments of the Legisla ture with respect to them. He was saved from entering at length into the whole bearings of the question by the very able and comprehensive letters which they had heard read from those whose experience and official position entitled their opinions to the greatest respect.—(Hear.) Although the banker and merchant had not so many opportunities of ob serving the effect of those laws as the general trader, yet he wa s, nevertheless, as deeply interested in the issue, for every thin & which rendered one portion of the trade of the country unsafe must endanger the other post: also .—(Cheers.) So that that question affected the merclle classes more than they were inclined to believe. It was a mistaken notion to believe that creditors had any wish to oppress thei r debtors, as justice could he obtai n e d without im p o sing unnecessary hardships. - • - He must say , however , that there s w ar i s is morbid sensibility created in the minds o f the public, for the hardship which occurred under ' the old system of imprisonment for debt, and it was right that such feelings should be generated, in order that distress might be alleviated ; but that law must be had, and operate injuriously upon the whole community, which gave an undue advantage to the debtor, and did not protect the honest creditor from injury and fraud.—(Hear.) . The Le gislature, In his opinion, had been rather precipitate with respect to these laws, and the mercantile interests had not been sufficiently consulted with respect to their operation. He then instanced the case of New York, in which the law, which was similar to our own, was abolished about 20 years ago, but three or four years after an attempt was made to renew it, as it was found that the new enactments did not give the credi tor sufficient control over the property of the debtor; thus showing, that in every commercial country it was highly in cumbent that the creditor as well as the debtor should be protected. He had a perfect reliance in the opinions of those hy whom the report was prepared, and a knowledge of his Honourable Friend the Chairman, and his Honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), who had taken charge of the Bill, and he was perfectly convinced of the uecesssity of commercial Temtak mg the matter into their own hands, and with the aid of the learned profession, devising remedies for t he existing laws. He, therefore, begged to move that this meeting approve of the report, that it be printed and circulated, and that the com mittee be empowered to take such measures as may be ex pedient to give practical effect to its recommendation, and also to raise subscriptions to defray the expenses incident thereon." Sir GEORGE LARPENT seconded the motion. He said there was a general opinion amongst the mercantile classes that these laws required alteration, and that they were willing to lend all their aid to further that object.— (Hear, hear.) It was very easy to be benevolent with other people's means, and to obtain a character for philantrophy for r e lieving the imprisoned debtor, whilst the unfortunate creditor might be suffering in obscurity. He admitted that a different mode of legislation was necessary before the pre sent laws were passed, but the great and main object was not to give . an unfair advantage to either party,but to obtain an equal distribution of the property of the debtor amongst his credit ors, and to compel them to give a guarantee for the payment of a portion of their future proceeds to their creditors before obtaining their final discharge. No little consideration was given to creditors who might perhaps suffer from the altera tion of tariffs, which might reduce the value of articles in which they had wisely speculated. They ought to give every party the facility of coming forward and to devote as much of his assets as possible to the benefit of his creditors, and protect him from the operation of vindictive or malicious feelings. These laws should take especial care that the honest debtor was dealt justly with, and that the dishonest debtor should be punished.—(Hear, hear.) The language of the Learned Commissioners of Bankruptcy was even stronger than the language they had used. Mr. MITCHELL, M.P., expressed his entire concurrence in the opinions which had just been expressed by the previous speakers. He would state an instance within his own ex perience. He had in one case been offered a composition of 2s. in the pound, which he had refused, because he thought no honest man ought to offer so small a composition. He had caused the individual to be made a bankrupt, but the result was, that instead of obtaining any assets, he had had to pay 301. towards the expenses. He thought the law of debtor and creditor had not been sufficiently felt, and he conceived that the measure of Lord Brougham had been a crude, imperfect measure, worthy of its author. In his opinion the commercial greatness of this country was owing to the good faith which was observed in its trading transactions. He had seen something of the trade of France, and the con sequence of the bad faith observed in that country led to a great restriction of the dealing there. He thought that every one who became insolvent was bound to show how he became so, and in all cases of fraud that it power of punish ment should be placed in the hands of an impartial tribunal, and he should therefore with great pleasure propose the fol lowing resolution :—" That the laws affecting the relations of debtor and creditor are of vital importance to the well-being of the mercantile community, and deserve the serious atten tion of the Legislature. That the present laws relating to bankruptcy and insolvency in this country are unsatisfactory and injurious, neither protecting the estate of the really un fortunate debtor from wasteful costs and unnecessary delays nor affording prompt and efficient means of coercing the Feckless or fraudulent trader, whereby a most mischievous influence is exercised over the commercial character of this country." Mr. B. lIAWEs, M.F., rose with great pleasure to second the resolution as proposed by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport. When Lord Campbell, about ten years ago, brought his Bill into Parliament to abolish arrest on mesne process, he had done him the honour to consult him on its details, and to place his name on the back of the Bill, and he could assure the meeting that it was never intended to de• prive the crediior of the power of punishing a fraudulent debtor. Let it not be said that this was any attempt to return to the old system of imprisonment for debt, for it was nothing of the kind. But their object was to remedy a great and acknowledged evil. and that was to render the confidence between the several members of a trading community as certain as possible, for on what, in fact, was that confidence based ? Why on this fact—that wherever credit was given, it was only, in truth, the transfer of capital from the hands of the proprietor to the hands of another for the advantage of both parties ; and were this confidence then broken down, there would be a great impediment imposed upon that interchange of commodities which was the very vitality of trade. At the close of the last session, a Bill had been brought into the House of Commons, with the consent of the Minister, not with any view to carry it into a law, but with the intention to circulate it through the country, and obtain the opinion of mercantile men in different parts of the country, and he might say that in all the numerous communications which they had received they had met with no objection from practical men of any moment whatever. They had found the most ready co-operation, and among other individuals they had obtained the approbation of the Learned Solicitor- General whose high legal authority was so well known, and whose present high position gave additional weight to that authority, and though he could not commit that high func tionary to any part of the Bill, but still he might say that that gentleman had expressed his approval of the several provisions of the Bill. Now the object was to obtain the sanction of the Legislature and obtain a permanent Act, and having these grounds to stand upon, he (Mr. Hawes) felt assured that if the Hon. Chairman and himself were empowered to carry the Bill into the House of Commons they would experience little, if any, opposition in that assembly. One of the chief objects of this Bill was to throw the onus probandi upon the party who ought always to have borne it —the debtor who failed to fulfil his engagements. It was well known that, as at present constituted, there was the ut most difficulty of reaching a case of fraud. There might be matter for suspicion nay, almost a certainty—that the deepest villany had been committed, and yet there was no means whatever of arriving at the truth. For his own part, he would be one of the last. individuals in the world to visit any man's misfortune with harshness, but he did feel that it had become necessary to take some active steps for the amendment of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and he should, therefore, readily second the resolution which had just been submitted to the meeting. The resolution was carried unanimously. Mr. EL L lOTT, in proposing the third resolution, after some observations respecting the necessity of supportin& the good faith of the trading community, asserted his opinion that, without an efficient bankruptcy law, the middle classes of the community must be destroyed. He had looked deeply into the matter, and it was his decided opinion that the injury imposed upon the solvent portion of the population by those who failed in their engagements was equal to the whole taxation of the country. Indeed, he was sure that this loss was not less than 50,0007., and if they failed to carry out this object, out of either carelessness or a false considera tion for the feelings of the debtor, they would only have to carry their philanthrophy another step further, and legalise the circulation of forgedbills of exchange. With these impres sions he would gladly propose the resolution to the meeting : " That this meeting accept the provisions of the Bill intro duced into Parliament last session by Mr. Masterman, M.P., and Mr. Hawes, M.P., as an important amendment of the present law, which it is desirable to obtain at once; but this meeting is aware of the necessity of further legislative provi sions affecting credit and its protection ; and is of opinion that a Government Commission, composed of practical and exi.erioiced merchants and traders, to inquire into their pre suit eo..dition and effects, would be attended with the most beneficial results." Mr. Gltoceci; briefly seconded the resolution, which was i►nniediately carried without any dissent. Mr. IlAYwAito, in stating that the business of the meetir b , was drawing to a close, expressed his complete concurrence in the proceedings of the Committee. With great pleasure , therefore, he would propose "the thanks of the meeting to the gentleman who had so ably presided over them on the present occasion, :aid that John Masterman, Esq., and B. Hawes, Esq., M.P., be requested to introduce the Bill to the Legis lature, and take charge of it in the Howse of Commons." Mr. NICHOLSON seconded the resolution, which was unani mously adopted. Mr. MASTERMAN returned thanks; and, after several sub scriptions had been handed in, towards defraying the necessary expense!, the meeting separated. QUEEN'S BENCII.—(THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.) BREACH OF PROMISE.—MARY ELIZABETH SMITH V. WASHING TON LORD FERRER& The - cross-examination of Mrs. Smith by the Arrort- NEY-GENERAL (continued from our Afternoon Edition) — Amongst the articles mentioned as presents, there was a pink silk bonnet, sent on the '29th of June, 1844. That was after the time I was made aware that the other articles had not been paid for. All the bills bad been paid at that time. My daughter did not say where the bon • net came from. I understood that it was sent by Lord Ferrers, from London. My daughter did not tell me about it until the bill came in on the following Christmas. I went to Ashby and paid for it. Probably 1 did make some inquiry about it, as 1 did not imagine it could be owing for. It was when the bonnet came that my daughter told me it was a present from Lord Fellers. To the Cotner—She told me before the bonnet tame that she expected a bonnet from Lord Ferrers from London. To the Arromixv-GENBRAL—My daughter knew she had done wrong. She did not explain to me particularly about it. 1 showed her the bill, and said, " How is this ?" and she made no reply. She did not say she had ordered the bonnet when I showed her the bill. She did deny having ordered it, or that it. must be a mistake. She was conscious she had done wrong, and said very little about it. Did she deny having ordered it?—She did. When the bill came I learned that the bonnet came from Ashby. When the bill came I went wth Mr. Hammel, the attorney, to Ashby. My daughter and I went to Miss Wyman's. This was about January, 1845; I said to Miss Wyman, "You have sent me e bill ti,r a bonnet that I knew nothing of." Miss Wyman said Miss Smith had ordered it for herself; my daughter instantly denied she had ordered it; she said it must be a mistake, or " Yoa must be mis taken in the person. " Miss Wyman robably said, " Miss Smith, if you would say that, you would say anything." I do not r emem b er m y daughter saying, if she stood there for hours she would deny it. I do not remember Miss Wyman saying, 1, bliss Smith, I wonder you are 01 not afraid of Lein' , ' struck dead." She ma y h ave sa id i t. I believe I did not say in tile presence of Alias Nrvinan ' that " if my datirliter would own to the b onne t I would forgive her." I said, " dear, if you ordered th e b onnet, say so." She looked at me, but never said a word, and we walked out of the shop. About this time I said my daughter had re ceived a bonnet from a noble individual, and that there was a note in the box. Miss Smith opened the box. I saw the note, but I do not know where it is now. It was a note pur eortlllf‘ to be florin Mr. Dcworeux Shirley. That note was handed to Mr. Hammel, the attorney. The ATTORNEY. GENERAL asked fur this letter, as it was produced on Saturday, but it could not be found for a consider able time, and a good dea l of confusion followed. Having been at length produced, it was handed to the witness, but she said it was not the one that came in the box. Did your daughter explain how that note came in the box ?—She did ; she said that E ar e l F rrers told her he would send her a bonnet from London ; but he had found it incon venient to do so, but wished her to purchase one at Ashby, and she did so, as she had told her papa and mam h ma t that she was to have one from Lon don ; but t a s refused to do so unless Mr. Devereux Shirley would write a note stating that it had come from London. I believed then that it bad come from London. Mr. Shirley gave Miss Smith the note to enclose in the box; this is what my daughter told me, :and that she got the note at Ashby from Mr. Shirley; but in fact the dote was not put into the box until it came into the house. Nu doubt my daughter put the note :into the box merely to deceive me and her papa. She told me all this at the inn, after I went to pay for the bonnet. I cannot say if the bonnet is paid for ; but I believe it is. I went to Miss Wyman's shortly alter this, and I may have said that I did not pass the door without saying how sorry I was that this had occurred • I won't swear that I did not ask Miss Wyman's to say nothing about this story until the trial was over ; but I said some words to that effect. Pro bably I might have said that I wished the Misses Wyman to understand how it was. I might have said to them that Lord Ferrers was to have sent my daughter a bonnet from London, but that he had not done so, but had desired her to order one at the shop, and that Mr. Shirley had told my daughter to order it. lam not sure of this, but I might have said it. I don't recollect saying to the Miss Wymans that my daughter was at her grandfather's, and that her father would not have her in the house. I am certain I did not say that. I believe the paper now handed me to be in my daughter's handwriting. The witness was handed a third paper, which she said was not very like her daughter's hand writing. She was handed a fourth, which she said was her daughter's writing. Shegave thesame answer to a sth and 6th. She then continued :—There were two handkerchiefs sent in letters. I saw the beginr.iug of one of these letters; it be gan with "Dearest Washington." This letter was posted at Tamworth, as my daughter told me that. it was the Earl's particular wish that letters for him should not be posted at Appleby. The envelope now handed me contained the two handkerchiefs in question. There was a letter written by Mr. Smith after the letter of Lord Ferrers of the 24th of June. I put that letter in the office at Ashby myself. When I was at Sias Court, there was a letter posted respecting the bills. This was before Mr. Smith's letter. My daughter told me that Lord Ferrers was visiting at the Deans. of Bangor and it was at a hotel at Bangor we were to meet him We stopped at Stafford, and as lie did not meet us there, as my daughter said it was likely lie would, we returned back, for I said I would not follow him. After we returned, my daughter wrote a letter from Sias Court to Lord Ferrers, which I read. I posted that letter at Tamworth. The letters my daughter got from the Earl she told me had been put into her hand by a man named Atkins and another named James. I have spoken in the course of examinatioh of a Miss Neville. 1 do not recollect having shown her any of the letters pro duced in Court. I might have visited Mr. Neville in January, 1845, but Ido not recollect the precise date. The letters of Lord Ferrers were then talked about. I believe that Miss Neville then remarked that the writing was very like Miss Smith's, but I do not remember having said that the family had often been surprised at the similarity between the writing of my daughter and the letters of Lord Ferrers. I do not remember having said that the reason of the similarity arose from Miss Smith when young, having had some writing of Lord Ferrers in her possession which she had tried to imitate. Before sbe went to school I believe Lord Ferrers sent her a great number of scraps, and pieces of poetry, but they were de stroyed afterwards. I saw the pieces of writing myself. 1 do not recollect having ever said that Lord Ferrers had had my daughter's handwriting, and tried to imitate it. I might have said when at Miss Neville's that the similarity arose between the two handwritings from Miss Smith having when young letters of Lord Ferrara' in her possession, and that she tried to imitate the writing, but I do not recollect it. I will not swear I never said so, but I have norecollection ofit. I was much excited at the time, as Mr. Green, the attorney, said we were all to be put in Warwick gaol. We were ac cused of being forgers, and I was too excited to think of a trivial conversation. I say again, Ido not recollect the con versation. I am a truthful woman, andwish to speak nothing but what lam sure of. The familiy noticed in some cases a little similarity, but were not surprised at it. I might have remarked it to Mr. Smith, but do ' not recollect it. We noticed some slight similarity in the letters, but not in the style of writing; still we were satisfied the letters were of his Lordship's writing. I would much rather believe that Lord Ferrers had imitated my daughter's writing, than that my daughter had imitated that of Lord Ferrers. We certainly were sur prised at the similar} between the hand-writings, but the only explanation we could give was that I have already given. To Mr. Justice WicarritAx—The correspondence did not begin till 1844. I believe my daughter never wrote to Lord Ferrers while he was abroad. I cannot explain why it is that the letters of Lord Ferrers were similar to those of my daughters, seeing that my daughter had not written to him at that time. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that perhaps this would be the proper time to make an application,which was to allow their witnessesto inspect the lettersprior to their being put into the box, so that they might the better give their evidence on the subject. The witnesses on the side of the plaintiff had had every opportunity of detecting the writing before being called ; and it was but right the witnesses on the other side should have the same opportunity. Mr. /41ONTAGU CHAMBERS objected to the application, as unusual. He could not acquiesce. He was willing that the witnesses, when put into the box, should have the letters placed in their hands, and be allowed to say yes or no, as to their belief regarding the hand writing. At the suggestion of his Lordship, it was arranged that Counsel on each side should consult as to the course to be taken in this respect. His Lordship, however, thought the best course would ba that the letters should be submitted beforehand to such wit- nesses as were to be called. That whatever parties were permitted to inspect the letters, should be put into the box and examined. Re-examined—Mr. Neville is an attorney at Tamworth. ' There were only some slight resemblances in the characters of the writing, but the style and composition bore no re semblance whatever. The first time I believe that my daughter wrote to Lord Ferrers was when she sent him a note after he had got his hand hurt. Regarding the scraps and notes sent to my daughter when she was young, I am not aware that my daughter answered them, though she might have done so. The letter to which I hare referred was posted at Derby, and was shortly after his Lordship returned from abroad. When the eharge of forgery was made, we then de termined to commence the action, to vindicate our characters, as we were sure the letters were written by Lord Ferrers. The Learned Counsel then read another extract, to the effect that the defendant wrote to the plaintiff to prepare her trousseau ; and that he did not like the plaintiff's cousin. The re-examination was then resumed—When Earl Ferrers returned from abroad he did not resume his position as pupil, but he renewed his attentions, after an absence of two years. I believed him sincere in his attachment. This witness was not allowed to go down until four o'clock. John Lees was the next witness—He said I am a farmer and have been a long time a neighbour of Mr. Smith. I have been in the habit of posting- letters for him. I posted one in the latter end of February, 1844, which Mrs. Smith gave me ; that letter was addressed to Earl Ferrars, Chartly Castle. Upon another occasion I posted a letter at Tamworth, I saw a white handkerchief put into that letter, this was in March, 1844. There is a road near Mr. Smith's house which is sunk below the level of the ground ; you might go along this road without being observed. Arrommy-GENERAL—That is if nobody was there to see them. Just so.—(Laughter.) Mr. Holdgate-1. live near Liverpool. I was on a visit to Mr. Smith in June, 1844. He showed me a letter he had written to Lord Ferrers, and his Lordship's answer. Mr. Smith's letter was to the effect that he gave his consent to Lord Ferrer's marrying his daughter. Eleanor Holdgate-1 am wife of the last witness. I was with him at Mr. Smith's, on a visit, in June, 1844. I saw Miss Smith write a letter, but I did not read it. She put it in an envelope and gave it me to post at Coventry, but I had not time, and I posted it at Leamington. I went with Mrs. and Miss Smith to Ashby. Mrs. Smith posted a letter on that occasion, but I did not see it. Ann Smith, sister of the plaintiff, a very pretty-looking young lady, was the next vi ness. She said I often saw - Lord Tamworth at church in the spring of 1843 ; on one occa sion I was going along a walk, epposite my father's drawing room: window, and 1 saw Lord Ferrers leaning against the chimney-piece. There was nobody in the room then. I saw my sister go into the room, and then I left. Upon another occasion, on the 9th of December, I went into the drawing room, and Lord Ferrers was there playing on the piano. I went out again and met my sister, she had some cake and wine. She did not give me any, but brought them to Lord Ferrers.---(Laughter.) I was told I should be whipped if 1 went there again.— (Laughter.) I knew Joseph Atkins. I saw him near the honse when they had gone to Harrowgate. Cross-examined—l was thirteen years old last November. I did not lose sight of him. I always kept my eyes upon him while at church.—(Laughter). He went away, and was absent some time. It was my mama who said I was not to go into the drawing-room. She did not say why, but I guessed.—(Laughter.) She did not tell me Lord Ferrers was there, but I found out. I left my little sister in one of the gardens, and in passing the window I peeped in at the corner.—(Laughter.): When I saw my sister come into the room I ran away. Re-examined—When at church Lord Ferrers used to look at my sister.—(Laughter.) Susan Hopley, servant in Mr. Smith's family—ln Septem ber, 1843, Miss Smith asked me to put a letter in the post for her, which I eid at Hugely. Cross-examined—Mrs.aSmith asked Irne,: about 12months after, if I could get some of Lord Ferres's hand-writing? Ile came to me, and wanted eitger me or my husband to get the writing. I didn't do so, but my husband bad, and couldn't get it, and then I wrote to Mrs. Smith. Re-examined.—l don't think I heard of the action when this application was made. John Page, labourer, and Chelsea pensioner.— I know Lord Ferrers and Miss Smith by sight.. I was in a field at the back of Mr. Smirn's house in July or August, 1843, and I saw Lord Ferrers and Miss Smith in the field. They were walking side by side, and might be two or three yards apart.—(Laughter.) I was not near enough to see that they were talking. Cross-examined by the ATTORIEY-GENERAL-It is about two years ago since I did anything as a bailiff's follower. Re-examined—l saw them a second time in the field. They were then four or five yards apart.—(Laughter.) Couwr—This distance between them appears to have in creased.—(Laughter.) Here Mr. CHAMBERS applied to the Court to adjourn, as Mrs. Perry, who was ill, could not attend until to-morrow. Mrs. Iloldgate was recalled with a view to ask he to whom the letters were directed, which she had posted for Mrs. Smith, but the question was not pressed. The Court then adjourned at half-past fire. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. (THIS DAY.) Sub-Committee No. 1. LEICESTER AND BEDFORD. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) Mr. John Stapleton was called to prove that his property was not correctly shown on the plans and sections. Mr. COATES admitted the allegation. Several other allegations were sustained, after which Mr. BURKE proceeded with the petition of the Leicester and Swanington Railway Company. Tha first allegation was that there was no fixed point of junction shown on the plan where the proposed line was to oin the Leicester and Swannington Railway. . _ _ Several witnes es were called on both sides, and the Com mittee decided that no fixed point had been shown. Standing orders in this instance not complied with. Trig SUN, LOTION, MONDAY IiVENT NG, FEBRUARY 16, 1846.° THE LONDON AND SOUTH ESSEX. Mr. C. PARKES appeared for the promoters, and called the witnesses to prove the deposit of the plans, sections, books of reference, &c. Mr. Burke appeared on a petition against the Bill, but, in consequence of the absence of a material witness, the case was adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. THE RUGBY AND STANFORD. Mr. Venables appeared for the promoters. The deposit of the plans, and sections, and books of re ference having been proved, the further proceedings were postponed till to-morrow. The Committee adjourned at half-past three o'clock. Sub-Committee No. 4. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) YORIE AND CARLISLE. It is proposed by this Bill to connect the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway with the Great North of England line, by a line from Northallerton to Clifton, near Penrith ; also to connect the Newcastle and Darlington Railway with Lam- caster and Carlisle, by a line from Auckland to Orton. The length of the proposed lines will be about ninety-live miles, and the estimated cost is 1,950,0001. The engineers are Messrs. Rundell and Harris, and the Parliamentary agents are Messrs. Burke, Pritt, and Co. The standing orders were complied with. LANCASHIRE AND NORTH YORKSHIRE. The case of this Bill having been called on, the clerk to the Committee stated that a petition had been presented against the Bill. . . The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that such being the case, the Bill must go before another Gommittee. After some consultation, however, it was decided to call the party to the petition against the Bill, that is the East Lancashire Railway Company. It appeared that the petition had not been properly entered on the votes of the House, as it did not describe the proposed Bill by its proper title. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and the Committee decided to proceed with the Bill. There was a second petition from a Mr. Marley, in refer ence to which we understood the Chairman to say that he would not report on the consideration of the opposed parts of the Bill in the absence of the petitioner. The other particulars of the Bill were proceeded with. The object of the Bill is to unite the manufacturing dis tricts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Northumberland. The projected termini are Elslark and Scorton. The length of the line, 47 miles 5 furlongs and 4 chains, with the Clitheroe Branch of 13 miles. The cost of construction is estimated at 1,450,000/. The engineers are Messrs. llawkshaw and Gee, and the parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dorrington and Co. _ . In the course of the proceeding Mr. Dyson appeared on behalf of Marley's petition. The CHAIRMAN believed that the objections in the petition applied only to the plans and sections. Mr. DYSON said that such was the cane. The CHAIRMAN then decided that the Committee could not go into objections of that nature. The remaining portions of the case were then gone into, and the usual proofs were received; but the case was ulti mately adjourned till Thursday, to hear the opposition on the petition of the East Lancashire Company. HULL AND SEERY RAILWAY PURCHASE. The object of this Bill is to give power to sell the above named railway to the York and North Midland Company, to whom it had been leased some time ago. The standing orders were complied with. The Committee then adjourned. Sub-Committee No. 6. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) BALIOCHNEY. This was the petition of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail way Company, who are the proprietors of the Ballochney Railway, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a railway about three miles in length, for mineral traffic, from a point on the Ballochney Railway, to the mineral fields near the Kirk of Shotts. The line was laid out by Mr. A. J. Adie, who esti mated its cost at 33,000/. One of the witnesses being absent, the Committee, at the request of the parties, deferred their decision. MONK LAND AND ICIRXXNTILLOCH (CHAPEL-HALL BRANCH). This was the petition of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a mi neral branch from their Palace Cray branch to the Chapel- Hall Iron Works. The cost of the line was estimated at 25,80C1. The usual formal process having been adduced, the stand ing orders were declared to have been complied with. CALEDONIAN AND DUMBARTON =NOTION. This was the petition of the Caledonian and Dunbarton shire Junction Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a line from Glasgow to Dumbarton and Loch Lo mond, with branches to Helensburgh, Milingavie, and other places. The length of the line and the branches together is thirty-two miles, and the cost was estimated by Mr. Neil Robson at 590,0001. The Committee decided that the standing orders had been complied with. WILSONTOWN. MONNINOSIDE, AND COLTNESS. This was the petition of the Wilsontown, Morningside, and Coltness Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a branch of five miles and three quarters in length, from a point on the main line to Bathgate, the estimated cost of which is 51,0001. The parties proved that they had complied with the stand ing orders. CALEDONIAN JUNCTION. This was another petition of the Wilsontown, Morning side, and Coltness Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a branch to connect their line with the Edinburgh branch of the Caledonian Railway, the esti mated coat of which was 123,3741. The Committee postponed the case, to admit of the attend , ante of an important witness. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock. THE EXPRESS EDITION• SUN-OFFICE, Half-past Eight. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the Woolsack shortly after five o'clock. THE CORN-LAWS. Lord CLARENDON presented a petition from the Borough of Musselburgh, in Scotland, praying for a repeal of the corn-laws. Lord RADNOR presented a great number of pe:i tions from different parts of the country to the same effect. MILITIA. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition nume rously signed from Leeds, praying the Parliament would not at this period sanction the calling out of the militia. _ _ IMPORTS FROM IRELAND. The NOBLE LORD, before sitting down, begged leave to give notice of his intention to move for certain returns, to which he expected the House would have no objec tion. They were as to the amountof the imports of grain into this country from Ireland. I ROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE. The Duke of RICHMOND presented upwards of 200 petitions from various parts of the country against the repeal of the present protection to agriculture, and praying that the House of Commons be dissolved before any attempt was made to decide the question. The peti tions were from the counties of Wilts, Kent, Becks, an d gs in favour of ag r i cu l tura l protect i on ford, in E-sex ; a l so petit i ons from fSirl eIY Stockbridge, a ockbhrleiadlrdggeei,nm Chelmsford, in places in Wicklow, Berk shire, and Yorkshire ; also a petition from distillers in the south-east district of Scotland, from farmers and others in the county of Somerset, and. Lincoln, all pray ing that their Lordships would not alter the present ex and also praying that the m easures pro place (House of Comm ons ), w hi c h were i p s c t , i s n e g d c i n o r a n n - l o s t w h e s r , calculated to cause so much damage to the agricultural and other great interests of the country, should not receive the sanction of their Lordships, in the event of the Bill being passed by the House of Commons. The Earl of STRADBROKE presented a number of petitions from different places (the names of which we could not catch) to the same effect. PECULIAR BURDENS ON LAND. Lord BEAUMONT rose to submit to their Lordships the motion to which he had given notice to enquire into the peculiar burdens on land, the impediments which existed to the improvement on agriculture as well as to enquire into the present system of Excise duties. Although he understood that it was not the intention of the Government to oppose that motion, their Lordships might probably expect that he would enter into the reasons why he submitted so important a motion to their consideration, and why also those with whom he had hitherto in general acted, refused to comply with a similar motion when moved by other persons. He had ever upheld that peculiar burdens on land, and protection t) agriculture, were matters very Josely connected. They must regard both subjects from the same point of view. Either they mnst remove the peculiar burdens on land if they attempted to re .nove the protection which agriculture enjoyed, or they must, in common justice, continue protection if they permitted those bnrdens to remain. He found that be was fortitltd in this opinion by men whose authority was of considerable weight. He found that Mr. M'Cul loch, Mr. M‘Gregor, and if he mistook not, his Noble Friend on his left (Lord Brougham) were all of _ opinion that there were peculiar burdens on land. The object of his motion was to inquire what those peculiar burdens were. If it were submitted to his choice whether the burdens of land and protection to _ . agriculture should be removed or both allowed to con :inue, he would have no hesitation in selecting the con tinuance of the burdens and the continuance Of protec. tion rather than the Wmoval of both, and be influenced in coming to such a determination by national con• siderations, by economical considerations, and by motives of a sense of justice to the colonies. He believed that the continuation of protection would be the most economical bargain that the country at large could xtrike with the agriculturists. It they granted a sum of money for general purposes, in which it was their desire that all classes should equally participate. He believed it was for the advantage of the country at large, that they should make an agreement with owners of real property to pay this large sum of money for these purposes, in considera tion that they should he allowed a duty Oil the importa tion on foreign corn. The motive on which he preferred this choice of the two was because he believed it would tend to make this country independent of f oreign na tion., and at the same time encourage industry at home. He further believed that the adoption of that system had one great advantage, inasmuch as it would enable them to give certain other advantages to our colonies, and enable them to admit their corn at a lower duty than that imposed on the corn imported from other countries. But there seemed to be no longer a chance lof having such a proposition as this submitted to them, and he spoke rather in anticipation of the possibility of protection being entirely done away with ; because, had he not an ticipated such a possibility, he never should have thought of submitting such a mo ti o n to their Lordships. He might here as well state that the object he had in view was not to delay th e cons id era tion of the question of protection, because from what he bad already stated he thought their Lordships would see that he considered the investigation. of th e pecu li ar b u rdens with the inten tion of equalising of all duties th ere , as a measure by itself. Having them ,as the consequence of the repeal thus, he trusted, explained the motive and reasons why he selected that moment for submitting his motion, and by implicati on s h own t h e mot i ves which induced those with whom he was associated for refusing to grant it on a former occasion, he would proceed with as much brevity as he could, to consider the peculiar questions which be thought the Committee must take into their considera tion. In speaking of those taxes which ware raised from real property, he wished to draw a wide distinction be- • tween the two classes, into which he intended to arrange them. He found in the Poor-law Commissioners re- ports—he found twenty-four distinct rates enume rated; but the only classification of them was this,—that ten were raised on the basis of the poor-law; 8 raised in practice, though not in law; and 6 raised on other bases. The operation of the law was, that they were raised from property and practice. The distinction which he wished to draw was this—that he wisqed to distinguish those which were only for local purposes—which only interested those people for whom they were raised, and those in the immediate vicinity. Now he wished to make this distinction between those taxes and those rates which were imposed for general purposes, and those taxes and those rates which were im posed for peculiar purposes,—the one being borne for the benefit of the whole community, and the other only for the advantage of a particular district. The taxes which he wouid designate for local purposes were the drainage rates, the sewers rates, and the rate for the rural police, and he should no more think of imposing the ex penditure for the purposes of these rates upon the com munity at large than he should think of imposing the especial rates for towns upon the rural population ; as, for instance, he should no more think of imposing the rate necessary for the improvement of the Marsh lands in the East aud West Ridings of Yorkshire. on the inhabitants of towns from the peculiar burdens of the agricultural residents than he should think it ne cessary or just to impose the burdens which had to be borne by the residents in cities for peculiar purposes, from which the rural population de rive no advantage. The rates which he should designate as the rates which were particularly imposed on the inhabitants of towns were the paving rate, the lighting rate, the water rate, and those other particular burdens which were not all necessary for the mode of life of the inhabitants of towns, these were what he called the peculiar burdens of towns, and he should no more think of impos ing them upon the inhabitants who were charged with the cultivation and improvement of the marsh lands of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire than he should think of imposing upon them the expense of affording a better supply of water to the inhabitants of Exeter. It was usual for these rates to be imposed by the inha bitants of towns, through the agency of public meet ngs, called by the inhabitants themselves, and ratified by a special Act of those inhabitants. Now the burdens imposed upon land for peculiar pur poses are the rate for drainage, the dyke rate, and the rate for the support of the rural police. These rates were for particular acts, in which the rural population were specially interested. But there were other rates which were imposed for general purposes, such as those for the maintenance of the poor, public security, and the support of the ad ministration of justice ; and without protective duties he would no more think of imposing them upon land alone than he would think of imposing them upon the fundholders or upon any o ther particular body in the State. The maintenance of the poos-rate was an object of pecu liar interest to all classes, whether manufacturing or agricultural. He trusted that he had said enough to convince their Lordships that the maintenance of the poor was a national and general object. If the militia were called out, it was not for the purpose of defending the mere acres—it was not for the purpcse of defending the capitalist—it was to defend the country generally, and, therefore, all classes were equally interested in paying the militia rate, which was made for the pro tection of every person, and not of peculiar individuals. Thus, the rates for the maintenance of the poor, the de fence of the country, and the administration of justice, were common to all, and equally paid by all, aud were distinguished from other rates levied for less general purposes. He wished to see how far the relation between real property and every other kind of property extended, and he wished to see the relative position of landed pro perty and property that consisted of houses The poor-rate was originally founded on the same basis on which most other sates were founded. It was not real property alone that was liable to be rated for by an Act of Elisabeth. Every man was rated according to his means and ability, whether his income was derived from land, from trade, or froth funded property. That had since degenerated, and now, by the law of the land only real property was liable to this tax. He would wish to know the effect of this law on the capitalist, whom embarked his money ie trade, as distinguished from the effect it had on thn agricultural community. If a person invested his money in building a mill, he would be rated according to the letable value of the mill. He would have to hire the mill, and the mill would be merely rated according to its rateable value, and not at its rack rent, as in some cases land was. It would only be rated at two-thirds, or one-half, as in the county of Westmoreland. There land was rack-rented, and houses were rated two-thirds, while mills were only rated one-half. That was the way this great capitalist contributed to the poors'-rate, yet he made vast sums of money, for he collected from the entire neighbourhood far and near—from the agricul tural districts—able, healthy labourers, capable of con tinued exertion ; and unless the manufacturer received some cheek in his trade, his profit would go on in creasing. Then what did he do ? He dismissed those persons by hundreds and thousands, and they were thrown upon the agricultural districts, which were obliged to support them. The capitalists derived the profits of their manhood, and the agriculturists sup . ported their age. Now let them contrast this with the operation of the law upon the farmer. The farmer had no choice whatever, he was bound to employ those men or to increase the rates, and many farmers he knew in his own district employed a great many more labourers than the purely economical working of the farm required. That was the difference between himself and the capitalist, but let a glut come on the trade of the towns of Leeds or Manchester and the labourers would be obliged to re turn to the rural parishes, where the farmer was obliged to contribute to their support, and where he cbuld not derive much benefit from their labour, because their pur suits had been confined to manufactures, and these were, therefore, fitted to cultivate the soil. This was the diffe rence he drew between the effect the taxes had on the capitalist and the farmer. He would now proceed to show it operated between • land and houses, or, rather, he would allude to some of the deductions which had been made from figures, which appeared in regard to difference of lands and houses, as placed in the report of the Poor-law Commis sioners ; but be might, in a parenthesis, state that, in his view of the case, the difference was not between land and houses, but between the propietors of real property and the rest of the community. It seemed that in the year 1826 the land paid at the rate of 69 per cent., while houses paid in the proportion of 26 per cent., whereas in the year 1841 the land paid in proportion to 52 per cent., while houses paid in the ratio of 37 per cent. In this statement it would appear that the burdens on land had gradually been reduced, while those imposed on houses had increased. But to this he would answer, that those whose eyes were open would see that there had been between the two periods referred to a gradual increase of towns and villages, thus in creasing the number of houses and decreasing the quan tity of land. Every day the number of houses was in creasing, while the quantity of land was decreasing, the latter being taken up by railroads and new towns. ' They saw day by day that which was formally field ground used for the erection of houses, or used up for other purposes, taken up for railroadsor objects of a similar kind. This showed how it was that houses in creased and land diminished, and explained the ap parent descrepancy between the two returns. He migth illustrate the point by one or two strong instances. At Newcastle there was an extensive parish which formerly was land, but now it was occupied by a new town. He would also refer to Brighton, which formerly was a fishing village, whereas now the houses had so much increased, that it had become a great town. There was another point to which he would refer, while speaking on this subject. It had been said that houses were perishable property, and that therefore they ought not to be rated so high as landed property. He was willing that this should be so, and he would take care on a future occasion, if the free-traders used it as an argument, to meet them with their own weapons. If perishable property was to be fa vourably considered, what was more perishable than the farmer's capital, that which depended upon the season, which might perish from a decay in the seed or a blight in the blossom, which a thunder-storm or any other destructive operation of nature might annihilate. He would say to them, do not use this argument, c r lie would tyke good care that it should be made to tell on behalf of the great question of protec tion.—(Hear, hear.) The 'seas!, would show how it would befriend the cause of agricultural industry. Ile would further say, let them look at the oppression of the poor-laws—he leferned to that part of the system re lating to settlement. To the old law of settlement he had an utter objection, as it operated most in juriously to the agriculturists without doing any real good to the manufacturer.—(Hear, hear.) What happened when there was a sudden check in the demand for manufactures? The labouring artisan re turned to the rural districts, and when the demand for manufactures returned then the manufacturers could with difficulty find men to work their mills, while the rural district s were overc h arged with paupers. This had occurred lately in Manchester and in Nor wich. Their Lordships might rely upon it, that if they adopted free trade in corn, they must apply the same principle to the labour market, and the first step towards that must be the abolition of the present law of settlement. The law of settlement made the labourer a bondsman to his parish, and it prevented him going into the dearest market to dispose of his labour. To this part of the poor-law system he trusted they were ap proaching an end. He had alluded to this matter in consequence of its having been reported to be the intention of the Government to offer as a compensation to the agricultural interest an alteration of the law of settlement. That alteration, even if it should be carried out to the extent of Sir James Graham's Bill of last year, would not be satisfac tory. But he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws very onor ou u that results. making The a to resi dence would be curried, and th en th e proposed alteration in the law of settlement wo u ld f a ll to t h e ground.—(Hear.) ewould ol The present measure pr o p ose d b y t h e Government was most . objectionable.to m Heconsidered of a few ye ars th e means of obtaining a settle mu td u leadsure would have a tendency to force women likely to give birth to children from one parish to another, in order to get relieved from the burdens of the chil dren born there, and as to an industrial residence of a certain number of years, as being the means of obtaining a settlement, he considered that measure to be impracticable ; it would be too heavy a burden on the towns. He believed that in time of a sudden check in trade, when hundreds were thrown out of work, the towns were scarcely able to support them• selves. He thought the measure would be no compensa tion whatever, the only remedy was to get rid alto gether of the law of settlement. His Lord ship then alluded to the highway rates. He maintained that the highways were as much fer the be nefit of the town as for the country, through which the road passes. Indeed there were cases where two towns formed the termini of their being the only parties who derived any benefit from it. They are of little use to intervening country accommodation, and bridle roads a: e used by the farmer ; he has little or no business on the highway. He had had an account taken at the several tolls of the number of vehicles which passed through, and the result had been that the majority belonged to the inhabi tants of the towns at the different extremities. He would allude incidentally to the question of tithes. lie did not, howevr, consider the tithes were a burden on the land.—(Hear, hear.) lie did not wi,ll to be misunder stood upon this matter. Previous to the commutation of tithes they were a burden upon the cultivators of the land. They objected to laying out their money u p on l an d, as they did not wish that th benefits of their labours and enterprise should be applied to other persons. Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, tithes did not intefere with the cultivator of the land, as by the provisions of the Act they were constituted a certain debt upon the property itself. That was merely looking at the question in the light of buying, selling, and barter. The produce of the soil was the same, and produced the same to the occupier as if the tax did not exist at all. It merely reduced the value of the fee simple. He looked upon the land-tax and the tithe in the same point of view as charges upon the land. •He considered they were merely charges upon the land, but did not interfere with the production of the agriculturist. lie looked upon the tax as he did upon indirect taxes. In France, where land was sold under the in direct taxation, the loss sustained was borne by the seller, but it did not fall upon the farmer. This kind of tax diminished the value of the land in both countries. He would pass over one or two points which he intended to refer to, as he did not wish to trespass on their attention much longer, and he would come to the last point to which he wished to call their attention —he meant the malt-tax. It was said, that that tax was no burden on land, but he believed that this was an erroneous statement. The tax he admitted was equally paid by all, but that por tion paid by persons who were consumers of beer, &c., fell in the end upon the agriculturist. In addition to tt'is, how ever, he would point out the direct amount of duty which interfered with the agriculturist. It interfered with the agriculturist to the extent of the barley to which the tax amounted. If the tax, therefore, did not exist, the barley would be increased to that amount, and the agriculturist would be so much benefited. If any proof of this were wanting he would refer to the circum stance that, notwithstanding the increase of population of late years, the amount of duty did not keep pace with it, That was the burden, but that was not the only hard ship—that was the amount of the burden, but the-hard ship went still further—and by not allowing him to use his barley as he likes for other purposes, they placed him in the same position as they would a manufacturer, if they were to say to him, " You may manufacture cloth, but you must not wear a coat made from it." They defied, they prevented him from using the barley produced by his own soil. That was a serious burden, in addition to the one he had named, and he could give a great many authorities— M'CullochAand others—but he considered it unneces sary, because when the duty on printed cottons was re pealed, there was a great increase in the trade in that article, and he held that a similar result would ensue if the duty were taken off malt. There was another article of Excise which he thought particularly heavy on the owners of real property, and which, if it were not re quired for the purpose of creating a portion of the revenue, would be a great advantage to the proprietors of land—he meant the article of hops; but if they came again to the general taxation of the country, he wished to know what portion of it the agricultural body was exempt from? They were exempt from the Cus toms' duties as they contributed as much to them as any other body of the community ; they also consumed and paid duty upon innumerable articles which paid cus toms' duty. From what taxes then were they exempt ? They paid the Post-office and stamp dnties ; the stamp duty for the transfer of property fell peculiarly heavy on them, and was so enormous that he considered it one of the greatest hardships under which any portion of the community laboured at the present moment.—(Cheers.) And he must say this, that if there was a subject which might obtain a moment's attention from his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack it was this ; and if he would suffer him for a moment, he would say if there was a department against which the agi iculturists had reason to complain to the Noble Lord, it was the enormous duty which they were thus compelled to pay—(Clieers) —and he had especial reason to complain, because in all the reforms which had taken place in which the portions of the community participated, care was taken to con tinue the burdens upon land.—(Hear.) And again, when the law relating to the transfer of property was carried by the Noble Lord, it was found of such a nature as to be a difficult matter to get a conveyancer to adopt it, and in thousands of cases it was impossible to transfer property without being obliged to pay for six or seven sheets to an attorney. Then how long had they left the question of the registration of der ds unsettled? In every other country conveniences for the purchase of land were so great compared with those of this country, as to cast a blot on this country, and to induce every one to do all in his power to obtain some alteration in it. He would, before he concluded, refer to that which his Hon. Friend intended to add as an amendment, and he would wish to know what were the numerous exceptions proposed in that amendment. The legacy duty was cer tainly a case in point, and he would allow it to be fair that it should be exempted. Certain property belonging to the agriculturists was exempt from insurance_ The farmer's property, such as stacks, &c., was from its nature exposed to danger, and that property was not to be se cured by insurance. He was sorry to say the danger was increased in consequence of the very violent language sometimes addressed to the labouring people. The per sons who addressed it to them did not mean to do the mischief they did—they were emissaries from others, who were not aware of the high tone they adopted. He, for one, when he used to read the strong language made use of, used to remark:—" There will be some more stasek-burning in the district." He bad no peculiar ob jection to strong language ; he thought that it sometimes added to the interest of the debate, and he was perfectly indifferent to the hard names which were heaped upon the agricultural body, of which he was a member. At the same time, he felt that he had not terms strong enough to use in condemnation of the violent language which sometimes led to so much mischief in the country. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had brought forward certain measures which he intended as a compensation for the withdrawal of protection from land. He would say thut these measures were no compensation, and if they did give any, the difficulty of ascertaining the benefit it would confer would be enormous, as they would have to ascertain the precise loss which the withdrawal of pro tection would cause, and the precise gain which the diminution of taxation would afford to the English farmer. He would then turn to another question, and he thought that if it could not be shown that the impositions on the protection of corn in foreign countries were commensurate with the imposition on real property in this country, they would fail to show that British-grown corn was in a condition to compete with foreign corn. He had seen some attempts to render this assertion a fact to the minds of the people, but he thought it would be extremely improbable that any such attempt should succeed. If they were to take the whole amount of the taxes imposed upon towns, or what were properly called civic rates, and would compare them with the communes or department districts in France, they would find that taxes imposed in that country stood as five to four with those which were laid on the inhabitants of cities and towns here. This was no fair comparison with the impositions in France, but they would find that it was not quite so high as that in Eng land.—(Hear, hear.) That was not the way to put the case—they ought to take the amount of costs imposed for realising the produce of one hundred acres of land in one country and the amount of costs imposed for obtaining a hundred acres in the other country, and if they could show the amount was the same they would make out a good ease. But by this mode of calculation they would find that in England the cost was nearly double that in France, that in the German States it was more than in that proportion, and that in Turkey and some parts of Russia it only bore the proportion of two in a hundred. It was even notorious that Great Brituin was taxed in a far greater degree than in any other foreign state, at least on Europe. He had now come to his conclusion and he felt compelled to say a few words with respect to him self. He had always conceived that the system of protection was absolutely required by the peculiar burdens imposed upon land ; yet if he found the c•intinuance of that imposition was con trary to the tendency of public opinion—that it was likely to raise one class in opposition to another, he should feel it his duty to refrain from further opposition to the measure, and instead of wrapping himself up in a sulky humour, and aggra vating the evil of domestic sehisna, he would endeavour to pacify the conflicting feelings, and he trusted his Noble Friends would use their powerful influence in prevent ing that hostile disposition and unnecessary difference which might arise between the manufacturer and farmer. The Noble Lord then continued—My Lords, I have never joined in the abuse of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. I believe in the sincerity of his convictions—l believe that he thinks he is doing for the best in the measure he proposes-_I respect his courage. But this I will say, that if in the present Parliament he carries this measure, it will not be the triumph of opinion, but the triumph of par tizanship—l say, not the triumph of opinion, because he will have carried it against the opinion of the country, as declared at the last election ; he will have carried it against the opinion of the House of Commons, as declared in various divisions ; he will have earned it against the opinion of the House o f L or d s, as a l so deleted on numerous divisions ; but lastly, and above all, he will have carried it in defiance of the opinion of a majority of the Cabinet.—( Great cheering.) I :say, my Lords, that I shall submit to the triumph of opinion. Let the Government look to that point; let them appeal to the country; let them ask what the opinions of the country are ; let them follow that up by securing a majority of the opinions in the House of Commons, and again in this House, and I myself will no longer offer a factious opposition to the measure.—(Cheers.) I believe that then your Lordships will no longer oppose it ; and if that shall be the case, it will be in the fullest sense a triumph of opinion, but as it now stands it is merely an able manoeuvre of party politics.--( Great cheering. ) Lord BROUGHAM rose to second the motion, but was called to order by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who said that in that House it was not necessary that any motion should be seconded. On the question being put, Lord BROUGHAM said that he wished only to speak to their Lordships a very few words, in answer to his Noble Friend who had made mention of his name in connexion with the opinions he had expressed in 1820. Far from differing from the motion of his Noble Friend, he ( Lord Brougham) considered that the burdens he had enumerated fell exclusively upon the land, and he went even further, for he was very f ar indeed from taking his views on the subject of the tithes or land-tax. He did not admit, with the Noble Lord, that the land-tax or the poor-rates were not peculiar b ur d ens. He did not wish to enter upon the subject to-night, there being no opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. He would not therefore follow that Noble Lord, or enter upon the discussion, as the consequence would be to anticipate that which would be brought under their Lordships' consideration in a short time. It was not his desire to bring about a foregone conclusion in antici pation of the inquiry which must shortly take place. To enter upon the discussion now would be to forejudge the labours of the Committee. He would go into Committee, though he still entertained the opinions which he held in 1820 and 1822 re specting the burdens upon land. He differed with the Nt?litil Lord in a considerable degree. He thought that the btlen! on land were not only greater in some respects were he had represented them, but also there burdens in some material particulars which bad . ne t , been referred to—still, though admitting the g rea of these burdens, he did not agree in the conclusi ons dr% o s r by the Noble Lord, namely, the proposition that the Pr P,uer, mode of compensation was by taxing corn by imposing on the importation of foreign grain.—( Hear, hear.) H° s ' the il not anticipate the corn-law debate by snatching a debate on question before their Lordships. The question of t he coru :11:1 would be brought before them properly, timely, an d regular ; 3 o as soon as the measure came from the other Hous%,est must say in the present inquiry he greatly lament ed ing out of view, in his opinion, the greatest of all the sive burdens of land. What he referred to was the Posi"sit of the landowners and farmers, which was different fro ping other kind of erupt()) ers. They had not the power of ! s o into the labour market, and selecting the chepest labourer s o f workmen. The manufacturers had amongst them n° l ' t i e that patriarchial relationship which existed ni_ or k. agricultural district. They could turn off their w ooly men in a day, whether they had been in . t „ o f ery lee a year or ten years. They could tarn thereo f • 5 ,3 time if they (the manufacturers) were able to get (tilt aper workmen. It was not so with the farrners- --he ( L o rd labourers they employed were employed upon what l e , eta' Brougham) called the patriarchial relation, and tbeyo core s ployed a great number of workmen when they tnight supply 'of labour at half the price. his' buolt tiona of the poor-law did alone impose olid arose from a feeling of attachment to those sch Rit° been engaged in the services of the farmers in the cu 4 00 be half the of the soil. No one felt stronger than he did the force 0 0 , 0 rsarticular burden. When a Noble Lord died he e A eri dpet' ' left eighty thousand pounds or ninety thousand ponc"ivaatf sonal property, on all of which he paid probate and lee e lsoble One word with respect to the stamp duties to which bts thin Friend had referred. There never was a greater error 00 supposing that the late improvements which had taken WO in the law were not beneficial to the landed interest; fe, bar did they think of the abolition of fines and'recoveries? 11 001. sod self, knew one landowner who had saved between 5 ' A 6.000/. by the change, and he had known another frien7bobir" delayed his recoveries until after the Act of 1832 plow ''a the he gained a large amount. Then there wasthe changes; esII, law respecting leases. Instead of te n sheets f o r ale lyb al belle sheet was now required, and instead of ten skins :pall a skin was required. There was no additional 0 so d upon that, on the contrary there was a large redacnobetaer this reduction it was which mad e man y persons den bt a ba c i the Chancellor of the Exche quer wou ld no t oppose O gr e s (I,ors Ile did not, however think it i s d u ty to do so. " r i g ht ° Brougham) certainlythought the la n d e d interest had e e reSc le ; complain of the stamp duties, perhaps more than theta atalr sive burdens. It was worse than the aleavala of lain' OM duties pressed most heavily upon mortgagers, for the t s o , tss might, at any time, say to the mortgager u nless i l i a cs ss 4. your interest you shall change your securities, wh, i ,,, t e that v i t 16,000/. or-12,000/." He (Lord Brougham) wis u r; ro ati° would not live long before he saw the t a x on the s" fis t property replaced by a tax upon succession. n ate et i Lord DACRE (whose remarks in the opening cosi' speech were inaudible in the gallery) stated that he " r eclit i r protection to be giving a certain advantage to soln, e ,,rtrsael pf application of capital, or giving some encouragerne c ` — s idar, to some particular enterprise, which might be c 0 rot particular advantage to the country who granted this JO; 'To this protection it is that the agricultural interest l ea He consideree, from the great improvements whic h ola i r,,, made, the facilities of communication, and the in cr , e t istict... cation of the capital of this country, and from the 9 ,. 4 „d of I', turns which had been made to this House, that this kin tection tection should be removed from the agriculture of this dice (Hear, hear)—he considered also that protection wss try s ebr re i to maintain the balance or equilib r iuxi of the e °° , ll „ 00, 4 0 1 from circumstances of taxation or s ome other ean'",pat.isA 0 0 of the application of capital had b e en destroyed- , aft , has been destroyed by the protectio n w hich has b ee ; aenbs to personal property beyond all bounds of reason o n . ov gi He would not enter into detail but wou ld tako his li:1, 8 00o" broad brsis of the injustice which h a d been-done to the by the imposition of a grinding property-tax ir a ria be country in the shape of a poor-l a w. Justice 9 ( S I As P oo to the farmer by the removal or equalisation of sir - that • • d of taxes.—( Hear, hear.) He f e lt convince t he , agriculture of the country. He felt convinced the, " gi r o culture of the country was equal to compete wit h th, a fro tore of she world. if they were granted equal °l n stil application of labour—( Hear, h ear )—and an „et - be': o disposal of the products of that labour:—( lle ig'ret ti t i The Noble Lord then went into some statistical de cay to the valuation of real property, and proceeded tonoperto great portion of taxation fell upon one-fourth of tr b r fO r d of England, to the exclusion of other property , ` c f th. 01 well entitled to be chrrged. Such was the position ° 101 e4. 0 property of England. What he wanted, therefore, retitt, taxation, and if that were carried out, and no und ue P e el is of taxation placed upon real property, the op ly riots of this country would be able o ' 4 oto petl i t si whichpo r"donto;seisoll contend with, but to overcome the foreign c 0 1 ,0 It was not from inadequacy, on the part of the 0 11 1 tr s property, to meet the demands which were rag le e ljoetis e ie under the existing laws, that they sought thei r ., r a ld 110 abolition, but a deep sense of the injury Meted upon them, by withdrawing a taxes to which other portions of the c od te ars were subjected, whilst those peculiar to the m ,' to other parties were continued.—( Hear, hear- f l o at-o' a I another subject to which he wi s hed to refer. s' ire s is f o and thousands of persons had established thew' t ber'ol ' combination, and although he did not like to express eitotis.it he could not forbear saying that it wus an n o* L or re combination, and as an old friend of the privileges of r oa l r,. for half a century, he could not too stronei kt ol 'ss the attempt which those persons were making to c° - h tsta rg a liament—to control the freedom of election, and t° l ° ,, t err,ot nomination of counties, and this, too, after the con l P O ''' sr asis - 0 0 which the laws relating to the election of Members 0 ! .. ` igbt o ,,a had undergone, and when they were aware that their tat rd elective franchise were derived from that lel Or o bit When he saw all this he hoped they would resist 9°4 0 1 j. which were jforced upon them by these persons• — : d i ;tr,! Lord, during the whole of his address, was ha'A l os% for the gallery, but during this part - only detache d the could ba caught.) 'Then with respect to sit t- e r o l duty. There had been no consumption of hs tg e ore i t ise pared with the increased population, whisk " easel es t was an argument in favour of a modification of t, co al. Malt was a commodity which the agriculturiobik's I apply to the purposes which were most 0 16 , 11 p add out the fiat of the Exciseman, and with" - es; duty of 30 per cent. on what he had produced-0 s ha y, If foreign timber was imported into this counts ti l .°, a is duty, it wonld be an unfair competition with DO t oisn" - 40 the grower of which had been liable to increased role consequence of it. So it was with English whe s !, t 'h the?' wheat would be brought i n d u t y f ree t o c ompete lei fo r is od duce of the English farmer, which had beet' rated, 11%4 tax and every other tax to which property was lieb Alies e lyr' not intended to tresass on the time of their Lori for o ci length, nor did hey ntend to enter on the subject an. 11.00000 but he certainly th oug ht th at b e f ore pro tection ez id o , t o pe all these points s h ou ld b e ta k en i nto co nsidera t ' ° o e Noble Lord here made some rem ar k referring ( s ' u" et 'Of stood) to a speech of hi s th a t h a d b een misrepres e ha g spoke in so low a tone that it was quite inaudible in t Cemo t e , He had there an extract of a speech d e livered ai, froie t oo garden on the 18th of De cem b er . The extract ' e t so 4f oro Times, and he (Lord Dacre) h a d t a ken measures Lo rd ~„0 whether or not it was correct. [The No ble hear, r o d, . read the extract, which, as near as we could t he rod, the Noble Lord was scarcelS audible. I hope,,, to will bear how great a terror has been createe - Mob s name of 40s. freeholder, a power lately eventually humble the proud aristocracy to the d°9 oo. l t ao t leg said this, he would be grieved to imagine that ate 01,,,n0r ter of that country wotld allow Parliament to sePar ot erfer'olit passing some measure to restrict this 4 : snood with the Constitution.--(Hear, hear.( 'ay sw tbs e l reforme, he recollected the creation of t h e .0. 0 013 jj freeholders of Ireland, and the repugnance with d 0 0 5 th e had passed that measure—necessity, however, bad t ot ereatrd, t. tam. He did not, however, wish i 8 any waYided tt" ths i right of voting, either in county or borough, Pr f t"belie - „,eie were conducted on constitutional principles. ts e ' n eriti all diftiulties would be removed if some arrangent -- „ pr° 4 tered into to equalise taxation, and so secure to - ot y of the country. din e° t p ir Lord MOUNTEAGLE rose to move an alne ° „, t , 11 e ir motion of his Noble Friend. That amendf ce f r ont ° ids) lieved, would not meet with any opposition eith er osi te 9 u• ble Friend or any of the Noble Lords on the oPP p f oal e d Ile begged here to say, he would be sorry to tak e Noble_AO the doctrines which had bee n l a id d ow n by th e to the ( Lord Beaumont). He did not wish to an ticipa ioot oe t he of the inquiry, but he must p ro t es t ag ainst th e d r esse d ba d laid down. His N o bl e F r i en d bad a d d be ' a rt' House in a fair and candid manner , r h n o oe made a series of admissions on L: h t— be „ f lub; There was one material point in which p° t " - rel ir tamed a similar doctrine to him (Lord Monteagl, ao ject of the commutation of tithes. Tithes , "f he re sl7 g ,io_ t • depend on the same principles as rent. If s° 'moot) "et groend for its protection unless he (Lord Bea u ", bei 3e ...gle) tamed that protection was due to it not for th olo ntr-. the country at large but to uphold rent. Ile (L °r ol ine nce jse d would like any Noble Lord, or any writer oi e d f r yts show the difference between 255. an acre derive s sled ", subject to tithes, and 20e. paid on land with hs- 5 the th e to the clergyman. The effect would be precise Y ou to so t and he could not see how they could talk of Preto 0 04 de. • to t lare ra unless it was to be considered as protectio tr y a r o nut for the benefit of the clergy, or the con° foes lie denied that the commutation of tithes Ina de . 4 t i j ort t° :ord' in the question ; the principle of protection in re° e d thei r I 'l i ll was precisely the sam e as b e f ore , an d he caution f „opera iq ships of the great da nger t h ere was to the righ ts rep esise,bile supporting any clamour against rent which had tra connexion with this question of tithes. reiselYooo., Begs payable t o th e landlord stood in P r iergl Ao te same position as five shillings paid to t f n e be o soot . „'",ted and . in arguing the question of protection , tion ° °lP- t eos e r like. If there was any inequality in a the is let th eft I. o e ' property beyond what was fair and importationlett° one that inequality, but do not give Pr society or interest at th e e xpense of all the others. .1.5 The LORD W l, o , o a l r s i a o e aiCvl:o o, ll cl D oc S k ' . SUMMARY. repeal of the I A a N w C s E . LL 0 R took his seat uP °ll W. jot 0 t s he pe c t o i r t n io:ns were presentad for and itgil- The Earl of RADNOR moved for returns relatO t i • the export o f grain from Ireland.—Agreed to• - c iat• Lad BE,I meat of • UMONT then rose to move for thellePPnecir ai a Committee to consider the nature or 0 man ! t i t - burdens upon land, and also as to the 1:01-tbe l i and7il lich inte t r h e e st. the Excise H duties _presste.c_lid oP t r at the the subj e l e i t c c e u s f s it y o f protection peculiar habdutroduelauwgsarYi c su u p l so were umtullerle,ign-cl' and intimately ' connected that if the one WAS to be rettl w i e r . the the continuance ought to be removed also. He should Preh,, most of both to the removal of bot , 14 / 1 , go could bargain that the community "res. son , I, strike with the agriculturists. lii'.4 re e t .. '''r this preference was, that it Wor;l d , /33 . t ry is indrpendent of foreigu countries, cncourr,ge ittuticd railt boon, and enable us to favour our ceionies by " ~t ; ittulg their corn at a lower duty. lie, however, S, s. thought that they had no longer any chance, and be C- he e 'l o tiert'd the removal of these duti es . t ` 9 t oil „o l t i" pas : i e n n: of the removal of protection, tiof w.; an irquiry to throw obstacles in the ledvali to the of the Ministerial measure. ne e bat the r yport o f the Poor-law Cominissioners to SO.. t ere v. ere various rates h vied exclusively on real Pro" Perty—some of them, such as sewers' rates, droll: rate. and police rates, were Merely lo cal. e sho , 4ld not think of removing those to I.- - lieve local As he ' thong s tleliootiugalbt t profited by districts, ythemiiets' these. iti:e3reesotatois alsoteve kid ik t teal to kp, 444