The Sun. — London, England, 1848-03-07 00:00:00

ADHESION OF THE FRENCH RE SIDENTS IN LONDON TO THE PROVI SIONAL GOVERNMENT. A meeting of French residents in London was held yes terday afternoon, at the office of L'Observuteur Francais, in the Strand, for the purpose of proceeding in a body to the French Embassy, to deposit a manifesto of their adhesion to the Provisional Government. There were about 200 present. M. CAPLIN, who was stated to be a Royalist, pre sided. The following is a translation of the address " We, French citizens residing in London, salute with unanimous acclamation' the French Republic prod limed by the people of Paris, and accepted by the French nation. We give our full and entire adhesion to the Provisional Government, and we assure it of our un bounded devotedness. All our efforts will tend to con solidate the good harmony which from this day reigns between the people of France and England—that har mony which is indispensable to peace and the pro gress of civilization. Everywhere the children of France repeat with us, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" Long live the Republic!' " (Here followed a number of signatures.) It was then proposed that a demonstration should be made, and proceeding in a body to the French Embassy, by wearing tri-coloured flowers in the button-holes of their coats. This was, however, negatived, on it being stated that the French Ambassador, and French Consul, had sent in their resignation, and might possibly dis card the manifesto, and throw it aside if it were sent to them. Several speakers stated that it would not be advisable to make any public demonstration in this country since they had received here so much hospitality, and might by doing so give offence to the British Government. It was then suggested that the manifesto should be sent through the post to the Pro visional Government; but two gentlemen, M. Caplin and M. Massol, having agreed to take it to France and pre sent it at their own expense, a resolution authorising them to do so was unanimously agreed to, and other French residents in London were invited to accompany them. Just before the conclusion of the proceedings, Citizen Camion, who had just arrived from F rance , and who had taken an active part in t he revolutionary movement, was presented to the meeting by the Chairman, and loudly cheere d. On the suggestion of M. BARBLET, it was agreed that a banquet of Frenchmen should shortly take place to commemorate the revolutionary movement in France. The meeting then separated. A number of tri-coloured flowers were distributed in the room. ELECTION COMMITTEES. BEWDLEY. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Charles Phillips, a diminutive creature, who stated that he was eighteen years of age, proved that he voted at the last election for Mr. Ireland. His mother lived near to Bewdley, and he had promised to vote for Sir Thomas Winnington, but he was carried away with others to an inn at Bewdley, and locked up to prevent " the Whigs getting at 'em." They played at cards, sang, and had plenty to drink. He was told that if ho voted for the Tories he would never want anything ; and some of Mr. Ireland's friends presented him with a knife. Another witness gave similar testimony; after which The Committee adjourned till eleven o'clock to-mor row morning. CARLISLE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) The room was then cleared, and after a short con sultation, strangers were re-admitted, when The CriAinstsx announced that the Committee had come to the resolution that Mr. Hodgson was not duly elected for th,. city of Carlisle—that the election was a void one, it having been proved that Dir. llodgson's agents had been guilty of treating; but that there was no evidence to show that it was at the expense of Mr. Hodgson. Mr. ALEXANDER. said there was another petition against the return of Mr. Dixon, but as that gentle man did not appear to defend his seat, it was only necessary for him to put in a formal proof to show that the Honourable Gentleman was not duly qualifiel to retain his seat. A witness was then called to prove that Mr. Dixon, at the time of his election, was a partner i i a coal com pany that had contracted to supply the Carlisle Barracks with coal. The Committee, upon the faith of this evid 3nce, passed a resoluticn declaring the election of Mr. Dixon to be void on the ground that he was a Government contractor at the time it took place. This closed the labours of the Committee. LYME REGIS. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) When the Committee resumed its sitting a number of votes were struck off Sir Fitzroy Kely's list, on the ground that the parties who gave them had been influenced in some way by Mr. Attwooi. On the vote of a man named Cooke being objected t , ‘, Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAm said he should resit that ♦ote being struck off the list. The CHAIRMAN—CIear the room then. Mr. Sergeant WRA.NGIIA3I—But will y )ur Lordship hear me first? The CHA,IRMAN—Of course, the Committee cannot object to sit and hear you if you have anything to say. Mr. Sergeant WRANGUAM protested that the Noblt. Chairman appeared to him too much excited. He vva , not aware that he had done anything to justify it, and he must therefore insist that it was unfair that th ,, Com mittee should simply listen to what ho had to say is a matter of form, without allowing their judgment to bt influenced in any way by what he might have to urge on behalf of his client. The CHAIRMAN, with some warmth, told the Learned Sergeant that he did not think it was the province 0: counsel to lecture the Committee in this way. Mr. Sergeal:t WRANoitA3t said he did not complain till the Noble Chairman ordered the room to be cleared before he had time to state his objection. Mr. HILL said it would, perhaps, save time if he stated that it was his intention to call Mr. Attwood to prove the illegality of this vote. Eventually the Committee aiijourned till tomorrow at eleven o'clock, when it was promised that Mr. Att wood should be in attendance. The votes struck oil' the list placed Mr. Abdy in a majority of 7. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD co a . , 7'. (Before the RECORDER.) Michael ilaggarty, an Irishman, aged 23, was indicted for feloniously wounding Ellen Kale, with intent to murder her; another count of the indictment charged the prisoner with grievicusly wounding, with intent to do serious bodily harm. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner had made a most savage and brutal assault on the prosecu trix, having inflicted no less than twenty-two wounds or her person, and finally only desisted from his murderou• attack upon a sailor presenting himself at the door with a poker in his hand. The knife wits. which the prisoner committed V• 43 wounds ha( beets broken in several pieces 1 y the violene, of the blows inflicted. The several broken Vcc..s of the instrument had been secreted by the prisoner, wlm, upon being apprehended, denied that he had committed the off9nce imputed to him. The jury found the priioner Guilty upon Vie scc.ind count of the indictment. Sentenced to be transported fir ten years. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. 11l AN SION- HOUSE. Mary Jones, alias ITlrs. Johnson, was brought be fore the Lord Mayor charged with having stolen a quantity of silk, the property of the assignees of a bankrupt. Mr. Gale, solicitor to the assignee of a woollen draper, who had become a bankrupt, and whose ware house was at No. 5, Queen-street, Cheapside, appeared for the prosecution, and stated that the messenger of the Court of Bankruptcy had put two men in posses sion some weeks ago, one of whom had let the pri soner into the house on the preceding night to assist the other ; the lady had availed herself of the oppor tunity thus afforded her of visiting the cellar in which the silks were deposited, and winding a considerable quantity of that valuable manufacture round her body. She was, however, observed by a City police sergeant, who soon decreased her size by removing from her person some of the goods of the assignees, with the marks of the broker upon them, so that there could be no mistake as to their identity. Sergeant Sheppard, No. 96, of the City police, said, between two and three o'clock in the morning saw the prisoner coming from the house No. 5, in Queen-street, Cheapside, and observing that she ap peered to be very bulky, I stopped her, and asked what she had been doing at that place at such an hour. She replied that she had been to see a friend. I told her I was not satisfied with her statement, and perceivinT, that something was hanging down from under her clothes, I turned my lamp to the officer on the adjoining beat, as a signal for assistance, and he, by my direction, took from under her petticoats up wards of twenty yards of black silk. I then sent him to the house in Queen-street to make inquiries about her there, and as she and I walked towards the station-house I saw something banging from her per son, and I pulled from her several yards of primrose coloured silk. At the station-house she said that her name was Mary Jones, and that she resided at 12, Watling-street. I knew that name and address to be incorrect, and that her real name and address were, Mrs. Johnson, York-street, Blackfriars. Mr. Wontner, who appeared for the prisoner, asked the witness whether he had seen any one let the pri soner out of the house ? The witness said he could not see whether such was the case. The office r, vcho acted under the directions of the sergeant, said—Upon going to the house, I asked who the woman was, and a man there told me she was one of the broker's wives. I heard one of the men in the /Anise xay, " We must keep this dark ; we must not know the woman." Cross examined—l cou ld no t see w h o i t was t h at spoke of k eep i ng it da r k, b u t t h ere were three men . together the house when I went to inquire. The silk was tied round her with a string in front. Mr. Gale stated the men had been six weeks in possession for the messenger. Mr. R. J. Merrell, assistant to 111 r. Davis, broker to the Bankruptcy Court, stated that he took as in, ventory of the stock of the bankrupt under a fiat of bankriiiirey; about three weeks ago. The pieces of silk pliauceck,auktolen property had marks upon them which ahadpul'On, and they were part of the estate. The prisoner was remanded. John Hatfield, Frederick Smith, and James Heild, who are all well known to the leading members of the police as the constant associates of thieves, were brought up, charged upon suspicion of having robbed a captain of a ship of a considerable sum of money. Joseph Bedington (No. 20 of the City force) said that, on Saturday, Feb. 26, the City police received information that Captain Marsh, of the brig Elvira, lying in Woolwich Docks, had been robbed of 601. in bank notes, and 101. in sovereigns; and he believed, from the description of the thieves, that he should be able to produce evidence that they were concerned in the robbery. Upon Smith he found sir counterfeit sovereigns or medals, which were called jacks, and two half medals, sixpence, and a halfpenny, and a pack of cards, longs and shorts. One of the prisoners declar d that it was the height of injustice to take them into custody upon such a vague suspicion. There was not one of them who knew anything about the robbery. The LORD MAYOR (to the officer)—Do you know these men to be the associates of convicted thieves 1 1 — Hedington—l do; of thieves who are in the habit of robbing with cards and thimbles, and other modes of trickery of this description. Captain Marsh was robbed by some of the gang, who pretended to be lenling him 1001., when they were stripping him of his money. John Foulgel, No. 89 of the City force, said he assisted Hedington on the occasion, and found upon Hatfield some jacks, a thimble, and a teetotum. The prisoners said the captain ought to be pro duced at once, as prison was a very inconvenient place to abide in. They were remanded. Mr. H. Bowser, of 97, Minories, hosier, produced a forged note for 51., purporting to be of the Bank of England, and stated to the Lord Mayor that he had taken it on Saturday morning, in his shop, of a man who looked like the captain of a ship, in payment of some goods. He did not like the paper, but a neigh bour said there was no doubt of the genuineness. It was dated 16th of February, 18.16, Manchester, and signed H. Hogban, and the execution was very skil ful. At the Bank he was told that there were num bers of notes of the plate in circulation, and that the specimen was of a very dangerous kind. The LORD MAYOR returned thanks for the infor mation, and said the public should receive a hint upon the subject. GUILDHALL. George Webber, a costermonger, who hawks fish about the City, was brought before Alderman Moon, charged with wilfully damaging, to the extent of 801., the shop-front of Messrs. Behrens and Co., im porters of French fancy goods, on the south side of St. Paul's Churchyard. _ _ Mr. Lloyd, a solicitor, attended on behalf of Mr. Behrens, and stated that a very serious amount of mischief had been done by a man who was clearly unable to make compensation, and for whose adequate punishment the law had yet made no provi sion, much as the grievance had been complained of. In this instance the actual damage was 801., but he could, he believed, only claim 51. William Allen, a police-constable, No. 378, stated that he was' on duty about half-past eleven o'clock that forenoon, in St. Paul's Church-yard, when he heard a great crash, followed instantly by a like noise. He then saw the prisoner throw something at the window of Messrs. Behrerte, and a third crash of glass fol lowed. He immediately seized the prisoner, who said, " Now lam revenged, I am satisfied." Three very large squares of glass had been broken, and some property within the shop. The stones used were as large as a man's fist. On the way to the station the prisoner accounted for what he had done by saying he had summoned Messrs. Behrens for some fish, acid the Court had decided against his claim ; and subsequently he said he was sure he had done enough mischief to pay the interest, and when he was released he would have tne principal. He produced one of the stones. The prisoner made no answer to the charge. Mr. Alderman MOON said an unusual amount of mischief had been wilfully committed, in a manner which might have cost the life of any one standing within the range of the stony. Such a recklessness of consequences, such a degree of malignity, ought not to be dealt with in the ordinary way, and he should remand the case to have evidence as to where the stones fell, and how near to any person, and to consider whether he ought not to punish the prisoner in a different manner, and with more severity, than the ordinary cases. BOW-STREET. Towards the close of the afternoon the chief ma gistrate, Mr. Hall, after being occupied all day with. out intermission with the night charges and other eases of a trifling character, had to enter upon the examination of a great number of prisoners for disorderly con luct, pocket-picking, &c., in Trafalgar square, during the disturbance caused at the public meeting. Several young men were committed fur trial for picking gentlemen's pockets of snuff-boxes, pocket handkerchiefs, &c.; and others were fined or cum !flitted to pri-on for assaulting the police in the execu tion of their duty. A tailor, named James illarchant, was charged with throwing stones at the police, and aiding the disturbance by exclaiming " Do xn with the police," "No national guard," " Vive la Republique," for which offence he was fined 205., and committed in default of payment. Some of the defendants appeared to have sustained some injuries themselves, broken heads, bruises, &c., said to have been caused by the police. These cases kept his Worship on the bench long after the usual time for closing the court. MARYLEBONE. James Finch was charged with having stolen a quart pewter pot frosn the house of Mr. Cook, land lord of the King and Queen, Paddington-green. The prisoner was observed to quit the house with the article alluded to, and, on his being pursued and captured, it was found concealed in his trousers. The prisoner, who :mid that some one must, while he was asleep, have put the pot unknown to him in the pace it was discovered, was committed for trial. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. The Hon. and Rev. Augustus Cavendish was brought to this court, and charged, before Mr. ilardwick, with having obtained fraudulently 601. worth of diamond brooches, the property of Messrs. [Lunt and Ruske'', jewellers and silversmiths, New 134nd-street. The defendant was met with in Argyll-street on Saturday afternoon, by an assistant to Messrs. Hunt awl Co., named Broadhurst, who, after some conver sation with the accused, caused him to be taken into custody, and brought to this court. Joseph Broadhurst stated, that on the 4th of Sep tember last the prisoner called at Messrs. Hunt and Co.'s warehouse, and stated that he had been com missioned by a lady to select a diamond brooch for her; but being a bad judge of such articles, he wished to be allowed to take some brooches away on approbation, in order that he might have the lady's opinion before he concluded the purchase. The pri soner was allowed to take away six diamond brooches, value 604 ' on the promise that he would bring them back the following day. Nothing was seen of the prisoner until Saturday, when witness met with him in Argyll-street, and spoke to him on the subject. Defendant said he had been told that if he gave up the brooches it would be all right. The witness Broadhurst knew who he was when he obtained the brooches, from the fact of his having perfututed the ceremony when he was married. Mr. llrtanwicK considered that the offence took the character of a constructive larceny, and remanded the prisoner until Wednesday, with an intimation that if good bail was produced he would accept it. The prisoner had not procured bail when the police van came round for the prisoners, and he was accord ingly sent to prison. WORSHIP-STREET. Mr. William Broom, a tea broker in Fen-court, Fenchurch street, appeared before Mr. Arnold, in pursuance of his recognizances, to answer an ad journed charge of having unlawfully refused to deliver up his ticket, as a passenger by one of the trains upon the Eastern Counties Railway, and also with obstructing and assaulting the officers of the company in the execution of their duty. It was proved at the former examination that the defendant arrived at the Stratford station in a second class carriage of the Bury train, upon the evening of Tuesday last, and having positively refused to deliver up his ticket, when required so to do by the officer appointed to collect such tickets, he was ultimately ejected from the carriage, after a strenuous resistance, in the course of which it was alleged, that he made a violent attack upon one of the inspectors, and was therefore given into custody. After hearing the evidence in support of the charge and the counter allegetion on the part of the defen dant, who justified his refusal to surrender his ticket on the ground that the seats of the carriage were in such a damp and filthy condition it was impossible to use them, and that he wished, therefore, to detain it to enable him to lodge a complaint at the terminus, The 'MAGISTRATE expressed considerable doubt as to the legality of the defendant's arrest, and post poned his decision for a more perfect exposition of the grounds upon which the company proceeded. Mr. Duncan, the solicitor to the railway, now at tencled, and directed the magistrate's attention, first, to the sth bye-law, by which it was enacted that any person wilfully obstructing the officers of the company In the discharge of their duties might be forthwith removed from the premises, and, besides forfeiting the amount of his fare, should be liable to the penalty of 40s. for such obstruction ; and, 'secondly, to the 16th section of the Act for the General Regulation of Railways, which authorised the officer so ob structed to seize and detain such offender and convey him before a magistrate, who was empowered to impose any penalty not exceeding five pounds for that offence. In this instance it had been clearly proved that the. inspector was acting in the execution of his duty in requiring the defendant to deliver up his ticket, and that having refused to do so he was legally expelled from the carriage, in order that the train might proceed on its journey. His arrest was, under these circumstances, the natural and proper consequence of the resistance he offered to the fulfilment of this duty, and the assault he subse quently committed upon the officer was clearly a sub ject for the summary adjudication of the Magistrate. Mr. Parry, the barrister, who appeared for the de fendant, was about to reply, but was stopped by Mr. ARNOLD, who intimated that he had arrived at a clear opinion upon the question, without troubling him with any observations. The solicitor of the com pany rested the case entirely upon the construction of their sth by-law, which authorised the removal of any person from the carriages who should obstruct or impede an officer in the execution of his duty ; and he contended that a refusal to give up a ticket amounted to such an obstruction. He (the magistrate), however, decidedly entertained a contrary opinion, as he considered, first, that the obstruction contemplated must mean some act committed by a person, and not a mere omission to perform an act; and, secondly, because the consequences of the non-delivery of ticket had been expressly provided for by the first by-law, in which it had been held, in the case of " Chilton v. the Brighton Railway," that such a refusal would not justify the arrest of a passenger, although he might be required to pay the whole amount of fare from the place whence the train originally started. He felt satisfied that neither of the clauses warranted the removal from the carriage or subse quent apprehension of the defendant for assault which sprung out of that removal, and, without expressing any opinion as to the propriety of his conduct, he felt it his duty to order him to be discharged. T liE SUN, LON I)ON,'T UESDAY _EVENING, MARCH 7, 1848. first been seen, as wcll as from a building on the ad joining premises. The prisoner, who offered nothing in defence, was fully committed on both charges. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LOR 1)S, _March 6. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. The Marquis of SALISBURY presented several petition fona members of Odd Fellows Societies, praying that they might be placed upon the same footing as other benefit societies. The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition from York in favour of the adoption of sanitary measures. The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition from the officers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, praying for compensation on account of the emolu ments of which they would be deprived by the En cumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill becoming the law of the land. NEW ZEALAND BILL. The New Zealand Bill was read a third time and passed. IRELAND. The Marquis of LAN SDOWNE laid on the table an immense mass of documents relating to Ireland. Their Lordships then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Mwch 6. The SPEAKER took the Chair at ten minutes before Four o'clock. Mr. H. DRUMMOND took the oaths and his seat for Perthshire. SOUTHWARK. Robert Douglas appeared upon his recognizances before Mr. Cottingham for re-examination, charged with stealing a quantity of plate, linen, a horse, and dog cart, the property of Captain Caron Smith, and also a saddle and bridle belonging to a Mr. Chew, a horse-dealer in the City. Mr. Parry, the barrister, attended on behalf of the prisoner. Previously to the above charges being entered into, Captain Smith, one of the prosecutors, was charged with stealing several documents having reference to the cases. A young man, named Kirby, an attorney's clerk, stated, that while he was in attendance that morning, in the hall of the Court, with a bundle of documents respecting the above charges, Captain Smith came behind him, struck him on the side of the head with one hand, while with the other he snatched the papers from him. He (complainant) however, called a po liceman, and gave his assailant into custody. The witness, however, admitted that the Judge before whom the proceedings to which the papers had re ference took place, said that Captain Smith was en• titled to them, when he paid the costs of the action. He,.however, had not since paid the costs, and the documents still remained in the possession of wit ness's employer. In reply to the charge, Captain Smith said, that he had no intention of committing a felony, with which he was charged, but that he only wanted to regain possession of documents which he was fairly entitled to. Mr. COTTINGHAM said he should acquit the ac cused of the charge of felony, but should either punish him for the assault, or hold him to bail. Mr. Roberts said, that it was the wish of his client to take the case to the sessions, and Captain Smith was therefore held to bail. The charges against Mr. Douglas were then gone into, and Mr. Chew, from whom he had the saddle and bridle, gave similar evidence to that which he gave on the former occasion, and added, that since that transaction, which occurred on the 10th of January, 1844, he had not seen the prisoner, until the newspapers gave him information that he was in custody at that Court, en the alleged charge of rob bery under a bill of sale. He added, that a Mr. Wells, a solicitor, of George-street, City, was the person to whom the prisoner referred as to his cha racter, and that that individual gave such a favour able one, that he (witness) was induced to part with his three horses to him ; the bridle and saddle were taken by the prisoner, who promised to send them back the following day, but had not done so. Mr. Parry here produced an account between the complainant and prisoner, by which it appeared that they had a transaction subsequently to the date at hich it was. alleged the saddle and bridle w ere stolen, a circumstance which was remarked upon by the Magistrate, who said that Mr. Chew had then an opportunity of giving the accused into custody if he thought proper. Mr. Chew, however, now said that he had not seen the prisoneion the occasion alluded to, but it was the referee of the latter who had come forward to settle the account. The MAGISTRATE, addressing Captain Smith, asked him if Mr. Garbut was in attendance, to prove his signature to the bill of sale, which was given to him when he advanced the prisoner the 1501. ? The reply was that that gentleman had promised to be in attendance, but was not then in Court. Captain Smith was then cross-examined by Mr. Parry, and he said that he gave the 1501. to a Mrs. Twogood, on account of the prisoner, who handed him the bill of sale on his property in the country as security for the money. Mrs. Tvt•ogood was now at Boulogne. Mr. Parry—Will you swear that Mrs. Twogood is not now in the Queen's Bench Prison, and that she is not the same person who is now plaintiff in an action pending against Mr. Douglas ? Captain Smith replied that the lady he had given the 1501. for the prisoner was in the place he had al ready described. Mr. Parry said that it would be proved that the Mrs. Twogood adverted to was a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, and that Captain Smith was frequently in the habit of seeing her there. The Learned Counsel then called two of the turnkeys of the above prison, who proved that a Mrs. Elizabeth Twogood was an inmate, and that Captain Smith was fre quently with her there. Captain Smith still declared that the Mrs. Two good he paid the money to was at Boulogne, for he had seen her there a short time since, and that the female in the prison was quite a different person, and went by the name of Nelson. Mr. COTTINGHAIL said that if it was proved to his satisfaction that the female in the prison was the per son represented by the counsel for the defence, it would put an end to Captain Smith's case, for no jury would convict ; indeed, it was quite certain that his evidence would be discredited. The Magistrate then inquired if there were any other persons in court whe had charges to prefer against the prisoner.—Two tradesmen stepped forward, from whom it was alleged he had had goods to a considerable amount ; but upon a representation of their respective cases, the magistrate was of opinion, although the pro perty had been obtained, yet that they were not the subject for a criminal but a civil proceeding against him. Mr. COTTINGITAM said he had received innume rable letters on the subject of the prisoner's apprehen sion, from persons of whom he had obtained goods of various descriptions, and some of them, he regretted to say, from foreigners, who had complained of the scandalous manner in which they had been swin dlPri not of their pr“pPrty by o'lo nrotic...4 Thnt th• conduct of the accused in these transactions tarnished the name of an Englishman, and that it was high time some member of the Legislature should bring forward a motion on the subject, in order that an Act might be passed for the purpose of awarding punishment to persons who obtained goods with no intention of paying for them, which was evidently the case in many instances in which the prisoner was engaged. The Magistrate added, that as Captain Smith hal in his possession the document already al luded to, and had sworn the articles enumerated in the bill of sale had been stolen by the prisoner, he shoull, therefore, hold him to bail, himself in 2001., and two sureties of 1001. each, to appear there prior to the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and the magistrate desired Captain Smith to be pre pared with his evidence on that occasion. ;LAMBETH. Thomas Evans was placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott on a charge of being found on the premises of Messrs. Walker and Co., shot-manufacturers, Belvi dere-road, Lambeth, with intent to commit a felony. From the evidence, it appeared that on Saturday night, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock, the watchman on the premises of Messrs. Walker and Co. heard a noise on the roof of one of the build. , ings, and on ascending the building saw the prisoner on the roof. On observing the watchman the prisoner instantly jumped from off the roof to a pile of timber on the adjoining wharf, and was instantly followed by the watchman, who grappled with him. The top of the pile where the struggle took place was only four feet square, while the height was nearly 40 feet, so that it was almost a miracle that one or both had not tilted over. The watchman, who behaved with the most heroic determination, drew out a pistol and told the prisoner he must return with him on the roof of the premises he had jumped off. This he complied with, but in returning both ran a considerable risk for had they not succeeded in effecting a landing on the roof one r or the other must have been dashed to pieces. The prisoner upon being secured, was recognised as a person who had been dismissed from the service of Messrs. Walker and Co., in October last for dis honesty, and since that time various petty robberies have been committed on the premises. It was also found that a quantity of lead had been removed from the_gutter of the building on which the prisoners lad CARLISLE ELECTION. Mr. DIVETT brought up the report of the Com mittee appointed to try the merits of the election for Carlisle, reporting that Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Dixon were not duly elected as Members to serve in Parlia ment for Carlisle, and that the last election was a void election. On the motion of Mr. DIVETT, a new writ was issued for the election of two Members to sit in Par liament for Carlisle. SECOND READINGS. The East and West Looe Harbour and Bridge Bill, the Great Yarmouth Coal Duties Bill, and the Norwich and Yarmouth Navigation Bill, were read a second time, and ordered to be committed. PENZANCE WATER-WORKS. _ _ On the motion that this Bill be read a second time, Sir C. LEMON opposed the second reading, and moved that it be read that day six months. After some discussion the second reading was post poned to Friday next. The River Nene Improvement and Drainage Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. SEVERN NAVIGATION. On the motion that the Severn Navigation Im provement Commission Bill be read a second time. Captain BERKELEY moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. HOPE seconded the motion. Mr. R. SPOONER supported the second reading of the Bill. _ _ _ Mr. SLANEY opposed the second reading of the Bill, and trusted that the House would throw it out. Lord INGESTIVE thought it would be a great injustice to the country not to allow the Bill to go into Committee. Mr. LAI3OUCHERE supported the second read ing of the Bill on public grounds, in order that its merits might be inquired into. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the second reading .. 91 Against it - Majority —l3 The Bill was accordingly lost. Mr. COBDEN presented several petitions against the income-tax. Lord 11. VANE presented a petition against any alteration in the navigation laws. Lord BRACKLEY presented a petition in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. _ _ _ Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Falmouth against the income-tax. NOTICES OF MOTION. _ _ Mr. GRANTIEIBERKELEY gave notice that on an early day he should move that all standing orders relating to the House be rescinded, being vain, impossible, and of no utility whatever. TnE CASE OF ANNETTE MEYERS. Mr. ENVART wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Depart ment whether it was the intention of the Government to carry into execution the sentence recently passed upon Annette Meyers for the murder of a soldier in S. James's Park ? Sir G. GREY said that he could give no other answer than that the only official communication he had received upon the subject was from a letter ad dressed to him by the Lord Chief Baron, stating the verdict of the jury, and that it was accompanied with a strong recommendation to mercy. STATE OF THE FLEET AT MALTA. Lord INGESTRE wished to know from the Hon. Member for the West Riding whether the report of his speech at a meeting at Manchester, with respect to the fleet at Malta, was substantially correct. Mr. COBDEN said that when the naval estimates came before the House he should be very happy to justify every word which he had said on the subject, and probably the Noble Lord would upon that occa sion be; prepared to refute the facts which he had stated, and which were in the main correctly given in the report which appeared in the Manchester Guardian. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the fleet had been withdrawn from the Tagus ? Lord PALMERSTON said that Admiral Napier had received orders to return home. WAR WITH MEXICO. Mr. ROBINSON wished to know from the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government were in possession of any official intelli gence announcing the cessation of hostilities in Mexico ? Lord PALMERSTON said that he had reason to believe that when the last accounts left Mexico nego tiations for peace were going on, but he could not state whether an actual cessation of hostilities had taken place. WAYS AND MEANS. The CHAN . CEL L OR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order of the day for going into Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. URQUHART rose for the purpose of making some explanations on a matter personal to himself. He stated that on Wednesday last the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had attributed to him corrupt motives in making the statements which he made on a former occasion with re spect to the conduct of the Noble Lord in the Foreign Office the motive was this, that he (Mr. Urquhart), upon being removed from office, had made these charges, and continued to make them. In reply to that charge, he begged to state, first, that he had been in conflict with the Noble Lord from the first moment in which they came into contact, upon all matters connected with foreign affairs, and, from the year 1834 the Noble Lord had not ceased to use " underhand " means of injuring him—(Order, order)—and, secondly, that all those charges which he had made against the Noble Lord he had made previous to the year of his appointment to office ; and further, that he had never made it any ground of complaint that he had been removed from office, but that, on the contrary, he expressed to the Noble Lord his gratitude for being removed from the duties of his office. His course had been consistent from the beginning to the end, and he therefore called upon the Noble Lord, if he did not retract the words he used on Wednesday, to lay the correspondence he had alluded to on the table of the House. Lord PALMERSTON said that he could not re tract opinions that were settled on his mind.—(Hear, hear.) He had no objection to lay the correspondence on the table of the House which had been published in all the newspapers.—(Hear, hear.) If his views and those of the Hon. Member were at variance, he must confess his only surprise was that the Hon. Member should have accepted an appointment under a person with whose opinions he differed.-- (Hear, hear,) As to the statement that his ob ject was to undermine the Honourable Member, he could assure him that he had no such intention, and, as a proof of that, he might state that altho ug h he was told that he had done an injudicious act in ap pointing the Hon. Member, having done so he was determined to maintain it, and the Hon. Member went out. A great number of petitions were then presented against the renewal of the income-tax. WAYS AND MEANS. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. HUME said that he felt considerable diffi culty in consequence of the course that had been adopted by the Government. It was usual before any new tax was imposed for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to the House his expected receipts and expenditure, and if there was a deficiency, to state how it was intended by the Government to make it up. Now the Noble Lord at the head of the Government stated the other night that according to the calcula tions he had made the income of the country would amount to 51,250,0001., while the expenditure would be 54,596,0001., making a deficiency of 3,500,0001., which, with the deficiency of last year, would make a to tal of nearly 5,000,0001. Now the Noble Lord, in order to make up that deficiency, proposed to add two per cent. upon incomes, which he calculated would produce 5,464,0001. The Government had subsequently withdrawn the proposition for increasing the tax upon income, and they now proposed to continue the - tax of three per cent. only. Now he wanted to 'cow hew the deficiency was to be made up. He had never known an instance, where the expenditure exceeded the income, of the house going into a Committee of Ways and Means in order to adopt a certain tax without its being first informed by the Government how they proposed to make up the deficiency; he wished therefore to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposed to make up the deficiency. They ought to be told whether the proposed increased expenditure was abandoned or not, because supposing the expenditure of the present year was no more than that of last, there would still be a deficiency of a million of money, and he wanted to know how that deficiency was to be made up. He appealed to the Right Honourable Baronet the Member tor Tam wor th whether he knew any instance where such a course was adopted as that Government was now pur6iiing ? Sir lt. PEEL said it had not been the practice of his own Administration to require votes cf money before making a statement of ways and means, but he was acquainted with several instances where such a course was adopted before he came into office. The House then went into Committee, and On the vote for the continuance of the income-tax being Mr.'IIUME said he must repeat his question, and he hoped if the Right lion. the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not deaf he would answer his question. There were two important points which tie wished to have explained. The first was the deficiency—he wanted to know how it was to be made up; and in the next place he was anxious to be informed whether Government were then prepared to meet the increase of the estimates.—Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was perfectly ready to answer the questions of the Honourable Member, but he must first assure the Hon. Member that had he paid attention to what was stated the . other night he would have had no occasion to put them.—(Hear, hear.) He stated then that Government did not propose to make any reduction in the army and navy estimates, and he, therefore,, proposed the appointment of the Committees, with the view of assisting the House in its determination upon that question. The miscellaneous estimates, however, they were anxious to have reduced, and if, after making these reductions and abandoning the additional income-tax, there still remained a deficiency, Government proposed to make it up out of the balances in the .Exchequer.—(Hear.) Mr. HERRIES said the answer was alto gether unsatisfactory, and could in no way be treated as a reply to the questions put by the lion. Member for Montrose. This was the second budget they had received. The first budget contained a revision of the revenue and a pro position to increase the income-tax, which was afterwards very properly abandoned. By the second budget the deficiencies were proposed to be made up out of the balanceslin:the Exchequer, which certainly appeared to him to be a most unconstitutional course for Government to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) He called the attention of the House to the impro priety of that course . if the balances in the Ex chequer were diminished they must throw themselves on the 13ank in just the same proportion as they diminished their balances of cash.—(Hear, hear.) And was it right with the present Bank Act ie operation to have resort to such a course ?—(Hear, hear.) Unless some more correct provision were made, he thought that the House ought not to accede to the motion. Mr. HUME thought that the present was the case of a man who acted as trustee for another holding a balance in hand, and out of that balance takes a certain sum and appropriates it to other purposes, hoping at some time or other to make it up. It was not for him to say what evil results had many times followed such a course of con duct. The difficulties ought fully and fairly to he met. The public had decided that they would not have increased taxation ; there was only one other course left, and that was to reduce the expenditure.—(Dear. hear.) He was most anxious to maintain the public credit, but he thought that if the Government were allowed to go on blindfolded in this way they would bring themselves to the very verge of bankruptcy. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.) If the balances were to be appropriated there would of necessity be required a large amount of " deficiency bills," and it was just possible that when these bills were issued the Bank would not be able to assist them.—(Hear, hear.) The present proposal was a mere attempt to bridge over the difficulty instead of meeting the case boldly at once. He trusted that the House would not agree to the tax for more than one year, in order to afford time for the Committee to turn itself round and con sider what retrenchments it would be advisable to make. He was most happy to see that there was no falling off' in the revenue, notwith standing the large amount of indirect taxation which had been taken off by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel.) It was their duty at once to tell her Majesty's Government that they ought to do as other persons in difficulties would do, viz., endeavour to keep the expenditure within their income. lie proposed therefore that the income-tax should be granted for a period of one year only. Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion. i The question having been put, Mr. HUME again rose for a moment, and said that it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on his proposition.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose and said, that from some of the observations of the Hon. Gentleman he derived this comfort, at all events, viz , to find that he had stated that he wished to pre serve the credit of the country. Now, it was precisely with a view to the maintenance of public credit as well as the character of that House, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) called upon them to sustain the proposition of her Majesty's Government, and to reject that of the Hon. Member for Montrose. The words in the resolution certainly specified a limited period, with reference to the duration of the tax pro• posed; but he had stated on a former occasion, and he now repeated, that, at the proper time, the Government would propose that that limited term should be a period of three years; so that he trusted that the House would, in reference to the present proposal, clearly under stand that the question before them for decision was, whether the present income-tax should now be voted for a period of three years, or for a period of one year.— (Hear, hear.) He had already stated that when they (the Government) had to consider the financial proposals for the year, they did consider themselves bound to make, if possible, the proposed income for the year equal to the proposed expenditure. They had proposed to do that by a continuation of the existing income-tax for a limited period, accompanied by a proposal to add an ad ditional two per cent, to it fur a period of two years, thinking that, by the addition of that amount for two years, they should be enabled, at the end of that term, to part without difficulty with that increase in the tax. On that point the House had, however, almost unani mously said that they could not agree to the proposal made to them, and even the lion. Member for Montrose admitted that it was on good grounds that they had abandoned that part of their financial policy. Of course it was for the Government to consider whether it was advisable to propose some other tax to supply the place of the portion they had abandoned; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that the increase in the expenditure was temporary, sad therefore ought to be met by a temporary tax, and he did not think that it would be advisable to add a per centage on the indirect taxation of the country—on the assessed taxes, or on the window duties; and lie still re mained of opinion that the best course, and the one that would have been likely to have, less than any other, interfered with their trade and commerce, would have been to'have submitted to an additional two per cent. income-tax for a limited time. The first subject, how ever, to which, after the refusal of that proposition, they had turned their attention was the consideration of the state of the balances in the Exchequer. Now, he had stated, on a former occasion, what were the balances in the Exchequer for a term of years past, and that in April nest the amount of those balances would be about 7,000,0001.; supposing, therefore, that they should be reduced by 1.500,0001., they would still amount to 5,500,0001. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that it was an extraordinary thing not to provide income within the year for the expenditure for the eaMe year; in the budget of 1842, however, there was announced a probable d e fi c i enc y Of I.3oo,oool—though the actual deficiency turned out to be not more than 2,000,0001.—and by the means of the income-tax proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) the income, in the course, not of that year, but of two years, exceeded the expenditure. But it was impossible to do this within a given period of one year. He did believe, however, that—looking at the probable increase in their income, and looking at that reduction of expenditure which it was possible might be effected in the course of two or three years—it was very possible that the average income of the next three years would equal the ave;age expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) But this he would say, that if that House, hav ing refused the proposition offered with a view to make the income equal the expenditure within the year, should refuse also that which was proposed with the ob ject of doing it within the time for which the present tax was asked of the House, then that House itself would have taken the first step towards repudiation, and towards the injury of the credit of the country.— (Hear, hear.) Suffering as the country had done under the infliction of a great calamity, and smarting, as it had been, under severe commercial distress, he was not surprised that it should have refused to sub mit to an additional impost, even for a time—though, he confessed, he still thought the country was wrong in such refusal—yet, he must say, that they (the House of Commons) were bound to provide the existing revenue for an adequate period, to make up for any deficiency that existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite true that the Members at the present moment holding seats in that House might not be the same who had voted the income tax on two occasions already; but surely they all owed something to the character of this House, and lie did think that, independently of other considerations of equal importance, that they could not look at the pre sent state of affairs around them, or consider the course which a large majority of the House had on former occasions adopted, without coming to the conclusion that it would not be consistent on the part of that House to refuse to agree to the present proposal.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (who spoke throughout amidst much noise on the part of the House) then referred to the speech of the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Zunwortb, on introducing a the income-tax in 1842, to show that it heti ntot been brought forward, to fled eileged, stdely to meet a de:icit, but also to etieb'e 1 he Government of the day to remeee other taxes which pretsed upon the industry and commerce of the country. If that was not the case with regard to its imposition in 1842, how was the case in 1845 ?—(Hear, hear.) In that year there was no larger a deficit, but a surplus ; and yet the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) came down and proposed to the House the renewal of the income-tax for a turther term of three years. Neither had the House been deluded—but, on the contrary, fully warned—as to the mode in which the tax ought to be levied, and that there would be no distinction between the schedules for those three years, at all events. Mr. Roebuck, on the occasion of the renewal of the tax, moved to omit professional incomes from the same ope ration of the tax as those from property, and fifty-five gentlemen only supported his views ; whilst, on a sub sequent occasion, when the House divided on the main question of the proposal of the tax, the majority against the motion was no more than thirty.—(Hear, hear.) Ile thought, then, that he was justified in hi s pre. sent proposition. He would not argue now the charge that this was to be a permanent sub stitution fur other taxation ; but what he did say that Parliament was pledged to was this—to give all opportunity for other sources of taxation to he con sidered, with a view to the equalisation of the income and expenditure of the country, and for that purpose Parliament was pledged to the inaintenence of this tax for a limited time. He thought in had taken the shortest possible term in which to accomplish that object, and he did claim some character for consistency ex that House, and he called upon them to continue this tax for the time which it was proposed.—(llear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then expressed his regret that some Hon. Gentlemen should have altogether falsified the principles on which this experiment had originally been made—(Hear, hear)—and, referring to the state of commercial matters, observed that he could not say that he saw an early prospect of their revival, for, in addi tion to existing causes, the state of affairs abroad might have some effect on the interests of commerce for a time ; but that, he might be p e r m i t t e d t o remar k, afiored a still stronger reason for the continuance of this tax for three years longer rather than for one. The Honourable Member for Montrose had remarked that it was very desirable that all their taxes should be proposed for one year, but he (Sir C. Wood) very well remembered, in reference to their annual debates upon the sugar duties, that the trade that was interested therein had always said that nothing in the world was so prejudicial to their interests as bringing their case before Parliament every year.—(Bear, hear.) He must say he always thought that they were right in that opinion; and he was convinced that a proposal to make all duties annual duties would be the greatest blow that could be given to the trade and commerce of this country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to a general re vision of taxation, too, he must say, that to propose that such revision should be undertaken at once appeared to be impracticable. He could only say that he was as anxious as any man could be to reduce expenditure when such reduction could be safely effected; and the only case in respect of which they (the Government) were anxious to resist any reduction—at least any undue re duction—was that of those establishments which they thought necessary for the protection and the honour of the country. The Right Honourable Gentleman con cluded by expressing a hope that the reasons he had ventured to state to the Manse would induce them to assent to the proposal of the Government. Mr. SPOONER would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose because of his anxiety to uphold the honour and credit of the country, and because he was opposed to the reduction of tho , c esta blishments which were necessary fur its protection. He conceived that there was nothing so dangerous to both as a tax which was not only unjust in its principle, end unpopular in its provisions, but it was rendered still more unpopular by the way in which those provisions were carried out by the Commissioners in various aarM of the country. He would also vote for the metion, because after the division of Friday night it was clear that the Government intended to press the tax upon the House without any modification, and he tleeight the sooner the industrious classes were released from its ine quality and injustice the better. He was of opinion, too, that Ireland ought not to be excepted from it. He was aware that other taxes were at the time proposed as equivalents, but they had not proved to be equiett'ents. Ho thought it unjust that the owner of property in Ire land, if resident abroad, should riot be subjeet to that tax. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche querhad observed that this ttax, was imposeil partly to make up a deficiency, and partly to try a great ex',:erinient which was greatly to benefit trade and commerce, but which was not yet fully carried out, and, that, there. fore, the tax ought to be continued. But had that expe riment been successful ? He maintained that it had not. The industry of the country was completely broken down, and the small capital of the small tradesman destroyed. Those who were in point of fact the strength of the nation—the middling classes—were paralysed. That has been the experience of the past, and he warned the House before it took suer a stop as that proposed by her Majesty's Government. The House was nut aware of the extent of the injury it would be inflicting. The people of all classes were opposed to the measure, and nothing could be so dangerous as to permit the neces sary expenditure of the nation to depend upon a plan which was rejected and disapproved of in all directions, and which was thoroughly revolting to the majority of the people of the country. A spirit of justice should he not only displayed but adopted, and if the Government wished to make the tax in any degree well received, it should not be for more than one year. If thy had wisily made such a proposition as that, they would have dune much more to support the credit of the country than by the measure they now submitted. They had twice granted an income-tax for three years, and upon both occasions, hopes had been expressed, ptotnises had been made, that before the termination of either of these periods, the revenue of the country would be so eree tly improved, that the further continuance of the impost would be unnecessary. The measures recently pritteis(d showed how those promises had been kept—how those hopes had been realised. One of the causes assigned for the continuing the tax was the bad harvest of last year. The next would in all human probability be better ; the Government could lose nothing by trying for one year, but if the tax was imposed for three years, it would be considered a permanent one, and would con sequently he much more objectionable. Ile was as anxious as the Ilan. Member fir Montrose himself to curtail the expenditure of the country, but he was also desirous to sustain its credit, and he looked upon the present measure as more calculated than any other to shake that credit, and render the people discontented. He believed the experiments of 1842 and 1845 were wrong in principle. The real just principle upon which taxation should be conducted, wee to confine it to the importation of all foreign articles by foreigners. Their free-trade policy had had the effect, even already, of turning the balance of trade against them, and the failure of the harvests aggravated the calamity. He, however, went further back than the experiments of 1842 and 1345, with respect to which, as well as our monetary and free trade systems, ho had the misfortune to differ very widely with those for whose judgment and wisdom, upon other subjects, he always entertained the deepest respect. He considered our' present free-trade and mone tary systems the fundamental sources of a'most all the evils by which this country was afflicted. Hew was i: that during the war, when our commerce was cripplt d by all the regulations which Bonapurte could impose, we could raise 120,000,0001. with far less di:lL:laity than we could now borrow so many thousands. We had no free-trade system at that time, and when an incttme. tax of 10 per cent. was proposed the answer now made was'not then given—" that the poverty of the people was so great they could not afford it." The Honour able Gentleman commented upon the various etattoes passed from 1810 to 1844, regulating our monetary sys tem, and expressed his disapproval of the celebrated Bank Act of the latter year. He was not for a paper currency without a due limit, but he affirmed that the point of convertibility which bad been adopted by the Act of 1844 was an unjust one, end could never be main tained. That error (it was understood) was in a great measure the cause of all the fluctuations between pros perity anti adversity which were recently witnessed in this country, and those fluctuations would continue until this subject was thoroughly grappled with, and all the injustice removed. Considering the condition in which the country was, he was unwilling to object to the income-tax for one year; but if the Government pressed it unmodified, and for three years, he should think it his duty to offer the measure his most strenuous opposition —(lean) Captain TOWNSEND said, as that was the first time he addressed the House he was not about to make a cur rency speech; but he would express a few sterling words—( A laugh)—upon the subject under consideration. He regretted extremely that the Goveroment had pro posed such a measure, for he always thought an income tax the most odious and inquisitorial of the taxes intro duced into this country. It was unequal and in every respect objectionable; but when proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite it was received as a good and a fair tax. In 1842 there were no meetings or demonstrA tions against it. Then it was represented that it would last only for three years. On its expiration iu 1845 it 1 ; was renewed, and then there were neither meetings nor any public expression of disgust or opposition. No gen tleman in or out of that House was more opposed to the income-tax than he; but, as their constituet.cies had not spoken out upon the subject, he thought they were served quite right in being saddled with it.--(Laughter.) And he for one should give the measure his sup port. He thought the country should suffer for its stupidity, and he hoped they would.—(Laughter.) Objections had been m . ajle to the improvement of our national defences, and also to what had been termed " the warlike speech" of the Noble Lord (J. Russell) ; but he quite disagreed with the Hon. Gentlemen who had taken those objections, for a more pacific speech, or one expressive of more kind and friendly feelings to wards the French people, could not have been delivered. Aa to our national defences, our standieg army was not more than was required. As brig as we havneoloides we must hold them in a great measure by military occu pation. It could not be expected that we were to have no disturbances at home requiring the aid of the military. Free trade would disappoint many weo expec:ed it would operate as a panacea for all evils. Whelk there were so many demagogues, as in Irclan I, screwing the last penny out of the poorest of the mast miserable and destitute people, it was not to be sill posed that we do not need a strong military Puree always prepared for any emergency.—(hear,hear.) H e did not suppose for a moment that the French would attempt anything so rash as an invasion of this country, i t wa s possible, and we should h e but, at the same time, ready to receive them. The expanses of our naval and military establishments were objected to; but what, he would ask, was to he done in case of war? He ‘uppas d the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Br:ght) weeld recommend that the guns fit for present use should be removed, and sham ones, or Takers, placed in their a sved.—(Lroi sD ghter.) T!te Gallant Captain then rea d extract from a spyeeh of Mr. Cobden, who cola:matte" with much scverity on the idleness and dernoralies ol on board our m,ri -or- war, and as en instance of the former. stated, " that they we r e on cer t a i n occas ions mention ed afraid to go to sea because it was rough." That cos' tinned Captain TownAhend) was the greatest 4 1 .1 ( ; 8tic6 —the most unwarrantable libel upon the naval set. vice of this country that any man could have bees guilty of.—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry the Hondae• ably Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), who represented th l opinions of, anti had such influence over so sal of his fellow•countrymen, so'far committed himself' but he hoped that Honourable Gentleman had alresui discovered his error, and that he would have the coral? s decency to correct it.---(Laughter.) The fact was pe t had represented not what he had himself seen, but this , bud been told him by en American Consul. '— Honourable Giutleman had beers on board any of our mat-of-war, he would have soon dis c overed the or der and perfect discipline observed. Our gunnery eri1 .. .. 1 1 n so much improved, that if the Honourable Geots7 4 ,l opposite (Mr. Muntz, who was seated on the OpPotin„ - i b‘ir.ches with a large stick in his hand, put up his 61 7:f" as a mark, he (Captain Townshend) would bet his 1 6 it would be shot down before the Honourable Ges„,, r . man had time to shave himself.—(Laughter.) Memb.ir reiterated his disapproval of the rae r sure, but said he felt it his duty to support the Goie rn went, as the several constituencies throughout this " country hsd not cried out against the measure: ~ Mr. G. J. TURNER entertained no objection n a y ever to the general proposition of an income-tax, ellu o it was imposed justL, and equitably, it would have, to most cordial and hearty support. It was nature' expect that the constituencies would judge of the" Members by the votes they gave. He, therefore, se l f; ported the general proposition for an inconse.tax. doubt the estimates were large, but he thought o _7 larger than the exigencies of the country requir e' Should any mischance befal, the responsibility eel; on the Government ; and they must be supposed possess the best information us to what was likely occur. He was no advocate for reposing a blind e en i i fidence in any Minister ; but every Member she l l. consider what circumstances might exist, unks o .7 to himself, hut present to the consideration of Nl', nisters, which might require higher estimates t hs e he thought necessary. If he was convinced 0 01 ,, were none such, the straightforward course voca l be to propose a vote of want of confidence in Minist er , , The arguments in support of the amendment appeare d to him most defective. One Hon. Gentleman recent' mended teat we should disarm; but where was the le' nividual, even the greatest tax-payer in the countrlo who would like to see this nation compelled to sue Of mercy at the foot of a foreign power ? He did 1 10 ' think the army estimates at all too large, looking at the increased facilities of steam transit which now existed.; still lie was determined not to support Ministers on this occasion, on the ground of the injustice of the income' tax as at present existing. All income was of thre_ ° kinds—from realised property, from trades, and professions. The first was unconnected with any labouu whatever ; the second arose from capital and labou r combined ; the last was wholly derived from labou r' Could that be a just principle of taxation which Ol r . eo i d the same burden on labour, and on labour and cnr t o combined, as on that income which had no conceal° with labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He would sot el; crept the two latter classes from all burd en v whatever ; but it was most unjust to subject ' thee" the same tax as the income derived from realised P perty. A man who had 10,0001. a year from the Ist° source paid the tax without touching his actual Pr: ; petty while, in the other cases, it was so much ducted from the yearly earnings of the tradesman or pre fessional man, who was thus compelled to labour tel l days in every year solely to pay the tax, without de' riving any benefit to himself. The Right Hon. Genii; man below him (Mr. Goulburn) had said there was compensation for this inequality in the ether charges which realised property was subject. But it could „ be contended that one injustice should sanction snaps' —that two wrongs made a right. Then, it had bel l said that a breach of faith towards the public credito r would be committed by taxing the fundholders in . higher rate than_ other individuals. Still there r insined the injustice of taxing labour in the same rat i o as capital and realised property. The effect of Weil come-tex on the fundholder, or a holder of long ant ties, for instance, was in fact a tax upon hi s capital whiff he was yearly receiving back, and the case was the esa le with the holder of leasehold or copyhold property' (Hear, hear.) In all these cases the net e n. nual value of the income ought to be W et. turned, according to the table' of the insurance o ffice! and why might not the same be done with the incomei from professions and trade ? The Chancellor 7 ., the Exchequer might allege that this would materielq reduce the revenue. Be it so: but why should not th ° possessors of an assured income be taxed at a high. er rate—why should not there be a graduation of the come-tax? Mr. Pitt had introduced tbe principle ° A gradation; and the only objection that had been rale" to it was that of an eminent writer—that, if carried t o an extreme, it might exhaust the income which it was meant to tax. This was by no means a necessary cow sequence; the gradation might be so arranged as not to incur any such danger. Be considered that Minister s had exercised a wise discretion in continuing the ely emption to Ireland. The burden which that coastal was sustaining from the new poor-law was such as I ,° require it; it had created a crisis in the sister islarle' A similar crisis had overtaken the trade of this comsat. and it was, therefore, entitled to the same cone siduration. Ile should give his vote on this occasion* alter the most mature deliberation, in favour of tbe amendment, believing that if the tax were only granted for one year Ministers would be afforded an oppoetu nity of rendering it less obnoxious and unjust.—(Hear.) Sir W. CLAY said the speech of the Hon. Gentle:well who had just sat down would have been much more AP' propriate on Friday last. The tax might be unequal ; he admitteti it was so; but the question now was whether it should be imposed for one year or three. Let the House well consider what would be the effect of the amendment. They had been informed that the expel' diture of the financial year, commencing next month , would be about 54.596,5001. ; and the income about 51,250,000/. ; making certain deduction,, the net daft' cieney would probably amount to two millions. Should. then, the income-tax, which produced between five and six millions, be disnontinued at the end of one year, a deficiency would arise in 1849 of between seven and eight millions. Without entering into the question of the estimates which had been referred to Committees, he might observe that it was desirable that the discussion on the estimates should always precede the discussion of the ways and means. The departure from this rule in the present instance had led to much inconvenience. Several Hon. Members had, on Friday evening, intro duced subjects entirely foreign to the question before the House. Ho would ask, was there any probability that the estimates could be so far reduced as to enable them to dispense with the income-tax at the end'of the year ? Mr. HUME—Why not go back to the expenditure of 1832?—(Hear.) Sir W. CLAY observed there were many items Of expenditure which could not possibly be reduced to that scale; nor did he think a deficiency of upwards of seven miLions could be avoided, in the event of the income-tax terminating at the end of the year. Such being the case. the House would not be justified in keeping up the agi tation anti excitement which would arise from the tau being only voted for one year. But how did the Hon. Member for ;Monti ose reckon on making up the defi ciency? The Howe would never consent to reimpose the taxes on provisions, in lieu of which the income' tax had been atlop ed. Was it proposed to call in aid so'ne great fiscal reform, which might carry the On' ciple of direct taxation still further ? He much doubted whether any Government would be bold enough to extend that principle further at present. The events of the last fortnight had shown that that kys tom ('f taxation was not one that ought to be much relied on in times of peace ; and he doubted whether it could prudently be carried further at present. Direct taxation necessarily involved the inquisitorial visits of the tax collector, which were viewed with such justifi able repugnance that he thought it would be impossible to extend the system. In the ease of indirect taxation a man might economise by abstaining from taxed arti cles; but there was no means, of evading the income tax. While indirect taxation limited enjoyment, direct taxation prevented economy and saving; a worse evil could not be inflicted on the nation. The surplus in come of individuals was in reality the wealth of the na tion; it had given rise to all our great public works; and to diminish the amount of this fund was to strike at the root of national welfare and progress. As the deficiency from the repeal of the income• tax could not be made good, either by decreasing the expenditure, by re-im posing indirect taxes, or by extending direct taxation, he thought it would be most unwise and unfair to create expectations which could not be realised, and to shake the faith of the public in the continuance of the present system. Tills would be neither honest or manly. He. therefore, felt compelled to vote for this tax, and he could not vote for it for a single year only. If it were voted for three years, it would give time for the re sources of the country to recruit themselves. In the meantime, many sources of expenditure would terminate by the completion of the dockyards and other public works. Though sensible of the high honour which was due to the Hon. Member for Montrose, for his efforts is the cause of economy, he could not support him in his present proposal. Mr. G. ROBINSON was convinced that there was every disposition out. of doors to support the national credit, and to give Ministers the means of supplying the exigencies of the State. All that he desired was that the taxation should be equal—in the words of Adam Smith, " that those who lived under the protection of the State should pay for that protection in proportion to the means which they enjoyed."—(Hear, hear.) The in' come -tax, it was admitted, was likely to be a permanent burthai ; and, therefore, there did not now exist the same excuse for its inequality as might have been urged when it was first imposed by the Right 11011. Baronet the Member for Tarnworth. He was in favour of limiting the income-tax to a year, because he was desirous of forcing the Government to bring forward some plan for the revision of their anomalous system of taxation. Be believed that a large portion of their revenue had been unnecessarily thrown away by the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir li. Peel) Ile would implore of the Government to look manfully at the financial position of the country.. He hoped that they would reduce the establishments of the nation to the lowest point without injury to the public interests. He begged of them to equalise the burdens f the country as much tl3 possible. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he would not go into the question respecting the renewal of the inc ome-tax, even those who on principle most objected to such a tax admitted that in the present circumstances of t e country it was desirable that it should be renewed. He had opposed the income-tax on a former oeeesie . e , and the experieuoi of lite yeas bald Rat =le WI