The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

..~ r of or id, prL t r s agsur affirms ns frog rch Eau' if CO' Lrqu , g °f g, Pit e lay' , petition Coin' >. .ora the cottage! inste p )n frca' thatitt-.0 ace ~ rp osite owe'. br ' )uld be test and oing o illation thet for w" cit n to 0! oa r . II Thursday move for a COPY of the prqt,Yollon by bre °et, with all te exper...ses• to tt`w, country incurred thereb y ; and also for. n Cl:tmimittee to inquire into proceedingn of ti_kt V.:ommissioners of the Natiuna ebt, appoin wafer the 9th Geo. IV., for the invest aZlL e>f ruonirs in the Saving s ' B an k s , an d t h e purc h ase II E public O sale of tsccurities, connected with the exigencies of service ; and their communications tAith the 'e 4 alicenoia of the Exchequer since 1815.--(Hear.) TURKISII TREATY. Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he would, to c',,orrovv, move for a copy of the correspondence relating -J!;tlhe Turkish treaty. wfir. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would move i t copy of the evidence bet:.ffe the Longford Com . TEXAS. ;:r he HON. "‘.iltunEa also gave notice that he would, to prrow, pc .c a question to the Right li on . B arone t a t th e of j .ier Majesty's Government, touching Texas, in eo nseq.rmee of the alleged conduct of the British Mi /lister qiere. VOTE BY BALLOT. Orr, - SHIEL crave notice that he would, after the itsuntide holidays, move that the votes of persons to tect Members to serve i n P ar li amen t, b e t a k en b y bal t•-•,-(Cheers.) DUTY ON 1. - !IITGAR. 'a Xi.. LABOUCHERE gave notice of a motion respect ' ,the alterations of the dirty on sugar. '' -• COURTS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND). Mr. WALLACE moved for a return, showing, in El-Anions, the number of causes which were standing en , - Vicd . for debate before each Lord Ordinary, ir the li)urt of Session in Scotland, on the first a t . June, 1 a keA.. 0; and which h a d no t b een debated at at date ; a similar return of flail causes en %txl for debate b e f ore suc h Lord Callinary, between 5 41 p, said first day of June, 1840, ;and the present time, Kivhich are still unclebated, allowing the date of the cartilment, the date when debated, PA that of the deci -4A of each of the said causes before each Lord Ordi ..,,ci ; and a l so t h ose causes w hi ch had been debated '' l4 al remained undecided up to this dates—Agreed to. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION. 'Mr. REDDINGTO.N informed the House, as Chair lita of the Suuthana pton El ect i on C omm i ttee, that he - d given John Rann into the custody of the Sergeant-at las, for refir; ing to give evidence before the Committee. is ',,l' he 110- .4. 'MEMBER then moved that John Renn be .t . '"tkd . .o the bar of th e H ouse , t o k now if h e st ill perse ered in refusing to give evidence, The motion having been put, Mr. BUCK said, that its a Member of the Committee I tho voted against the committal of the individual in luestion, he thou g ht it hi s duty to apply to the ause that the evidenc e g i ven before the Committee IT produ ce d b e f ore ! the House ; and he thought that th e 'loose would be satisfied that the individual, if he had itiaitted any offence, had been sufficiently punished in 7tg given into the hands of the Sergeant-at 'Ares. He would not have been placed in his present 1111aation were it not for a misconception of I t resolution Of the Committee, and so strongly / Pere the Committee of that opinion that they /111 4,_ e-, to . a division as t o wh et h er hi s ev id ence should bo erased. He believed the person was guilty of ;:c offence, because a person' was not bound to give evi line which would criminate himself. '' .1 11 . . GODSON said that ho, as a Member of that 11, 151 1Thaittee, was of opinio n th a t R enn s h ou ld not h ave Zen eau - emitted at all ; the law was that a man ,_ 3 ' not bound, to criminate himself', and if the ' 4 "'.l would Criminate himself by answering the nurse th e C omm itt ee were n o t j us tified in the nurse they had adopted. If he could do nothing else, he 40 uld give a dir e ct n e gative to the p ro p os iti on , i n order tat the time might run out, and then the witness would can of custody. The House, if it allowed this course, ‘ ,7'lle 'adopted would be establishing a most dangerous r ectedent. .•;-fir T. WILDE apprehended that the proper course l tould be to ascertain whether the witness made any ttelt objection. He thought the House was not at pre nt in a condition to decide the question. -,..,'`'one SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that the ro t per course would be to have the witnesses called to 4 le bar. The witness, John Renn, was then called to the bar d examined by the Speaker as follows— 'LlVere you examined as a witness before the South '4 pton Election Committee ?—I was. •''`All:' the course of the examination were there any ItitiLions put to you which you refused to answer ? , . ere were. i t Why ?—Because I thought it would criminate myself altlgnswered it, and would no me great injury hereafter. Fill you still persist in not answering that question ? i f amwilling to bow to the decision of the Hous e , an d We. House decide that I am to answer that qu es ti on , I 7. Willing to do so.—(Hear, hear.) 'llr REDINGTON could assure the House that h e It : himself placed in a most delicate position. Th e n ittee had been selected by the blouse to try the ~ ' crits of the election. They h a d b een sworn a t t h e ;n l 6 to act conscientiously, and they were de nnained to do so. The Committee were of Anion that, the excuse given by the witness „Wan excuse that was not justifiable, and that Corn ‘ittee came to the resolution that he must answer that t tli estion, which he refused to do. 'Mr. THESIGER thought that the witness ought to be tied back to the bar, in order that he might inf o r m th e tise what the question was which he refused to ansa er. 'Mir THOMAS WILDE said he thought th e w it ness t'.d conducted himself wfth perfect propriety (as we lclerstood). He had professed himself willing k . answer, if it were decided by the House that j 5 must• do so. He (Sir Thomas Wilde) • move d 4 1 1,t the witness be further examined, and th en t o b e t%charged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arm s , much as the House could not learn the facts 'Pon which alone the case could be disposed t r The House was placed in some difficulty, and la (Sir T. Wilde) submitted, that us die witness had ZAhifested a disposition to answer the questions, the ZIY way the House could be relieved from that diffiAilty . I ' 4 , by the witness being further examined. it THESIGER said he apprehended that it was zee scary fur the House to inquire under what Zcunistanees the supposed contempt arose. He ierefore submitted that the regular course was not t o t6nd the witness back before the Committee, in order CliS being further examined, but that the House ought decide, and he therefore thought the House ought '`her to examine the witness. The SPEAKER then put the question that i k e witness, having expressed his readiness to iti tWer any question the House should think •Ipar to put, should be discharged from the cus- Vth of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and be further ex a.ed before the Committee. he ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the wit was wiling to submit himself to the decision of . House, 'that he ought to answer the questions Acfler they might criminate him, or not. He Fi bi .e : Attorney-General) thought it ought to be Cvniitted to the Committee to give some directions 1710 whether the question ought to be answered. The Zport of • the Committee was simply that the tMess refused to answer the question. The on of the Honourable Member the Ch a i rman o f . Committee involved in it the necessity the witness being committed for contempt. Now i(the Attorney-General) must say that it occurred him that a witness refusing, either before Committee of the House of Commons, or other properly constituted Court, to answer any t ,tion, tending to criminate himself, was ' thrttialteYorfnecourßseeP. Report t He of could ~ :.better support the doctrine he had expressed , 1 ; 1 1- by reading a passage from a judgment given wasof aconotelomtptetr. the late Lord Eldon. (The Hon. and Learned Gen t i an an then read a passage from the judgment in pies ! TPI, mhich laid down the rule that not only was 1 05 , 1 )6. justified in asking a witness a question, 11 1,a; to criminate himself, but no one could ask him a ~, e sticisi that might be a link in a chain of evidence that IN criminate him.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Attorney t 7t6ral) therefore thought that, if the witness in ques i ti, t refused to answer the question, that House could not 'i'lltnit him to Nevvgate. ,''After a few words from Mr. REDINGTON, i t kiorel HOWICK said, he thought the Hou s e o u g ht 1 to make itself a tribunal of appeal from , ....,:Lion Committees. The House therefore ought not to ire how far an ElectionCommitteee was right or wrong. f-tir as he understood the matter, the answer given to the h"eStion 'was that he refused to answer it, on the -04nd that it tended to criminate himself. The ‘7tilittee had come to the decision that the intil law did not apply in this case. The t s tcolittee on that point must judge without appeal. Icerefore, as the witness stated his readiness to si..W to the decision of the Hr'use, he thought it kt l 6di en t that the Speaker should inform the witness %I t ! it was true he was not bound to answer a question V might criminate himself', but that it was f or ',''. Committee to judge whether th a t excuse 11,• made with propriety or not.—(H ear , h ear .) 00 1 .Witness had stated that he would b ow t o th e deci of the blouse ; and he (Lord Howick) hoped that C'')l he was made acquainted with the wish es o f th e as se he would assent to their decision. , LaaraBERNAL said that there could be no doubt b ut IV What his Learned Friend the Attorney Gene ra l h a d sp il down .upon the subject was the law. lie remem ed a case which had occurred in an investigation at the Bar lize. - .H.., into a charge of bribery and corruption, in the NiF uf a Cornish borough many years ago. A solicitor, on that 1 4 , t .tion, declined to betray the professional confidence reposed Vby a client, pleading the privilege allowed before Courts .- 4 ;%a But he was told that, before the House, ho could not .airnself of such a privilege ; and he was accordingly com- N'Eaf to the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms. He alluded to ets° of the Tregony Committee. Th e H ouse was now L , ). kver, placed is circumstances of great em b arrassment. k11;1 not the means of pronouncing a decisi on o f t h e % h o l e and the evidence taken before th e C omm i ttee was not -I, itt. k w * them. Whether the Committee had acted justly or un e'stlieir acts were the acts of the H ouse , an d as such must rid' i ng . I'd JOHN RUSSELL agreed with his Honourable WM, .who had just spoken, that, generally speaking, Vanient had maintained, and that House especially 14,,,ePeatedly maintained, that a w it ness s h ou ld not kv, 'to answer a qu e sti on b ecause i t m i g h t cr i m i - Ornaelf. That, he considered, w as p ar t o f t h e parlia bietitary power of the House. He did not consider that it Zat all necessary to argue the matter, because he did not Itiri -the general parliamentary power wa s th e ques ti on k. respect to these Committees ; nor did h e thi n k t h at i t was i4slion immediately at i ssue . Th e H ouse h a d the power, ~.idered it necess a ry on some s p ec i a l occas i ons, to de. Its.. ibli c i fraud, and, if the qu es ti on c a me t o b e argued, he R id anot be preparedto surrender it. He thou g ht t h e H on . k;Tean opposite was mistaken in supposing that when N i zebosed Abe ' indemnity should be given to wit under those circumstances he thereby admitted that 1 / 4 nWcr was questionable. That stood upon quite aroGier r,.,.• - -The power of Committees rested upo n a spec i a l •, '''' Parliament. Th e y were a j u di c i a l tr ib una l selected ''''''' l , o House; lout they were no less a tribuniii when they were invested with the 'sewer nk tryiiii;; ajLretttjift than the Judge of the Queeit'e Bnt iti4 a lord Cif ies'elve men. Then it ;swirl be taid. that tf. teildttiar so constiruted might guide themselvea by the. rules established in Cour s of Justice-. tint th'ee came the question that the Learned Attateelseeeteneral had put, that where a witness refused to enewer a question which had a tendency to eliminate hirneelf, he was protected in the refusal ; but that if he eii:dea6lilred to shelter himself under that plea wh'elii lir4erly app'y, 'he was not t o he osoleletede t'. 4 l 'lion. Chairman had told them that the Upon which the question was argued tea ! , thet tat qnestion would nut in fact criminate the witness, end he must take the majority in this instance to have the same power of deciding the question as a Court of Justice; It was impnssible to go into the merits of the tpleetien, because in order to tlo ste, he Would be obliged to ask not only whet th qiiestiOn itself was, but also what the previous Tiestiens Were; tend What the circumstances under which it seat desirdut to as that question. The only mode in which he could trace it to any satisfactory conclusion was his com plying with the authority of the Committee. He had heard nothing to Seduce him to believe that that ought not to be taken as the ground of their decision. There might be cases where they %light feel distrust, but such eases would be special and single eases. He had scent doubt whether his Hon. Friend's motion would ahseter the purpose. He thought the proper course for the House to pursue, would be to inform the witness that he Must go before the Committee and answer the question. Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, and several ether Members here rose together to address the Hose, Mr. flume, however, called out Mr. Speaker, in a loud voice, and was greatly cheered from all parts. The o: her Honourable Members gave way, and Mr, fIUME then addressed the Hare. He thought the ttearse that ought to be pursued perfectly plain; the House had committed its power to the Committee, and he thought, therefore, the right course would be for the House to have the witness called to the bar, and informed that he must go before the Committee and answer the question. Mr. O'CONNELL did not doubt that the law Lild down by the Attorney -General was correct. But he though. the wit ness, having told part, ought to go on and tell the entire. A Bill had at one period passed this House on the subject, but Lord Brougham struck out the most important clauses in the House of Lords. He never did anything more mischievous; it was a time when he could get the House of Lords to concur with him. Would it not become a Government, strong in the House of Lords, to bring in a similar Bill which they would c wry ? He apprehended that they had nothing to do with the Com mittee, as its decisions were w ith ou t appea l. R Sir R. PEEL said ht. agreed with the Noble Lord, the Member fur London, that there was a very great distinction between the extreme powers possessed by the House of Com mons, as the great inquest of the nation, by an inquiry at the bar, and the powers possessed by a certain portion of the House as a tribunal under a special Act of Parliament. It did not at all necessarily follow, that the powers and privileges of the tribunal being defended by statute, were joined with an inherent right to exercise all the powers i ossessed by the House of Commons itself. Upon the whole, he thought it the safest course for the House to pursue was to remit the witness to the Committee. They ought not to interfere with the powers of the Committee. He thought it would be dangerous to examine the witness at the bar of the House, with the view of forming an opinion as to his answers. He was afraid that the witness might form an erroneous opinion of the decision of the House. He had said that he would submit to the authority of the House—( Hear, hear)—that if the House said that he was bound to answer, without reference to consequences he was ready to submit. He ( Sir R. Peel) did not think that their answer ought to he given on any such terms. He was not prepared to say, you are bound to answer, even if the answer should criminate yourself. He had gone as far as any One in defending the rights of that House, and he should do so again, but he was not prepared to say witnesses were bound to answer before a Committee any question whatever. They might estabhsh a precedent. which might be most dangerous to their own inquisitorial power. He inferred, that the Committee did not claim for itself a power to compel this witness to answer, but they did claim a power of deciding whether the witness was acting bona fide, on the ground of criminating himself, or whether he was using it merely for the purpose of withholding evidence. It appeared a nice question for any tribunal to determine, when it compelled a witness to answer a question, whether the answer would criminate the witness or not. He did not think that a witness was to be allowed to entertain any vague opinion as to what would criminate himself.—(Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, it was difficult to determine whether or no the answer to any given question would crimi nate himself. That was a discretion which must rest with every tribunal ; and he was sure that the tribunal appointed in the present case would act with due consideration and justice. —( Hear, hear.) The course which was to be pursued must he left to the discretion of that tribunal, ar:d it was to deter mine whether an answer ought to be given or not._( Hear.) air. WAKLEY begged to refer the House to what had taken place within the last two years, on the trial of a Peer be fore the House of Lords. Dare a witness refuse to answer the questions which were put to him, on the ground that the an swer would criminate himseh ?—( Hear, hear.) That occurred within the last two years, before the highest authority in the land, and had excited great public attention, but the trial was put an en d to , i n consequence of t h e refusal of a wit ness to answer questions that might criminate himself. He was not required to state the answer in order that the Judge might determine whether the answer would criminate himself or no ; but he was allowed to exercise his own judgment. He hoped some of the Learned persons engaged in the trial, would state the circumstances of the case to the House, as he did not think it could be that this House and the other House of Parliament should be at issue on so important a subject. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he apprehended the duty of a tribunal to be this—whether the individual refused to answer under a bona fide conviction that the answer would criminate himself, or whether it was only for the purpose of evading justice, he refused to do so. The rule of law that obtained before an Election Committee was the same as that observed in every other tribunal. No witness was bound to answer any question which would tend to eriminate himself. It appeared to him (Sir W. Follett) that the best, course was to send back this man before the Corn, mittee to exercise their judgment as to whether he persisted in refusing to answer a bona fide question. Mr. C. WOOD said he was sure the Committee claimed no authority which might not be claimed by any other legal tribunal. All that the House knew of the ease was that the witness had refused to answer a certain ques tion, which they thought he ought to answer. If, however, they merely sent back the witness before the Com mittee, the result would possibly be that the present difficulty would again arise, and they would again have to go over the subject to-morrow. He apprehended that the best course would be that a general intimation should be given from the Chair, that it was the opinion of the House, that the witness should only refuse to answer any question which might criminate himself, and that the Committee should decide whether such a question had been put. The Com mittee had proceeded in the usual way, and he therefore thought that they had a right to presume that the Committee would exercise that power which was vested in them. Mr. GODSON said, that this discussion would have one good result. He had learned, with some surprise, the opinion of the Learned and Hon.Attorney-General on this subject,viz., that the witness might refuse to answer any question tending to crimi nate himself. This was certainly the practice in the Courts of Law. No lawyer would deny that a Court of Law had the power to decide whether the witness was dealing hone stly with them. What was the demeanour of the witness before the Committee? When it was decided that he must answer the question, he immediately bowed and said he threw himself on the Committee. The Honourable Member for Halifax had told the House that several times the witness had answered questions under the compulsion of the Committee, but in none of those answers did he criminate himself, except in the be ginning, and then he did cr i m i nate h i mself.—( Cries of "Or der, order," " Chair, chair.") Then with respect to the qua lification laid down by the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork—( The rest of the sentence was lost in cries of " Order, order.") One good result would come from this discussion. Committees would henceforth know how they were to proceed. They would know the nature of the oath they had to take. They had to try the question. How try it. ?—(" Order, order.") They had to try it by the law of the land, inde pendent of the opinions which Hon. Gentlemen might forni. They had to try the question by the law of the land as they had heard that day, and he bound by the rules of law.— " Order, order.") Then they had to do justice as in a Court of Justice—they were to decide whether or not the witness was dealing fairly and honestly in refusing to answer a question on the ground that it would tend to criminate himself, and if the Committee should decide that he was not dealing fairly and honestly, then he must answer the question. If this was con veyed to the minds of the Committee, he thought the House would not be troubled again on the subject. Having this con veyed to their minds, they would know what their duty was. Then with respect to the witness going back to the Committee; he wished to seek information on this point. Ile thought the ends of justice would be answered if the witness were allowed to go where he pleased. Sir T. WILDE said, he could not agree with his Hon. Friend as to the law. If it were sufficien; for a witness to re fuse to answer, because by answering he would criminate him self, the Committee would have very little to do.— ( Hear, hear.) The rule, as acted upon according to his experience for the last forty years, had been this, that the witness had been required to show not that it would criminate him, but to satisfy the Judge that it might criminate him. He would give an instance. A witness was asked, "Did you ever see the* paper ?" a bill of exchange being put into his hand. He said, " I decline to answer that question, because it may crimate me." " Huw ?" said the Judge. " Because it has been imputed to me that I have committed usury with respect to that bill." That objection was allowed. He quite agreed with his Hon. Friend, that they were required, as judges, to act with great caution ; but he could not admit that a witness should be allowed to escape merely by answering that the question would criminate himself. If that were the case, it would be impossible for the Committee to proceed. '[he SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained. Mr. HARDY, who spoke amidst much interruption, and loud cries of " Oh, oh," insisted that the individual to whom the question was put, was the best judge whether he could answer the question or not without criminating himself. The SPEAKER said the question which he had to put was, that John Renn be called to the bar, and informed that a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to try the merits of art election petition was a legal tribunal, consti tuted by an Act of Parliament, and having power to enforce answers to its questions, and that he be then discharged. After a few words from Mr. WATsON and the SOLICITOR GENERAL for Ireland, Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether, if such a motion were carried, the House would have security for the attendance of the witnes ? He thought the House ought to be sure that they had a guarantee for the attendance of the witness. Mr. C. WOOD thought the witness should be remitted from his contempt, 'after being advised as to his future conduct by the Speaker. The SPEAKER thought there could be no doubt, if the prisoner was discharged, the House had the power to compel his attendance. In the conversation that followed, after a few words from Lord HOWICK, Mr. GODSON said the Committee had thought, the wit ness having been placed in the custody of the ~ : ergeant-at Arms, that they hod no further power over him, as he was in the custody of the House. Sir G. CLERK thought some words ought to be added to the resolution, or the witness might think that he was bound to answer the question. Mr. LA W thought it would be only fair that the Speaker should inform the witness that if he had any abjection to answer the question, he should urge his reasons for refusing to answer before the Committee, and that the Committee was the proper tribunal for deciding. Any course short of that would be thought to he unfair to the witness, and, therefore, he should propose that the Speaker do make that intimation t o the witness. Sir THOMAS WILDE thought that under all the circum stances, perhaps the best course would be t o di sc h arge t h e par t y . Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," " Question, question." He thought, as a point of order and form, that the course usually pursued should not be de viated from in the present instance. Speaking, from his own experience, he must declare he had no high opinion of the in fallibility of the judgment of Election Committees.—( Laughter, and Hear, hear.) He understood in the present case, from the Right Hon. Baronet, that the individual hi mse lf had accepted the tribunal. He was, therefore, of opinion that the witness should be recalled and asked if he persevered in refusing obe dience to this Committe , and if he said he was u nw illi ng t o answer the question that he be discharged. The Hon. Mem ber then moved the witness be recalled for that purpose. After a few words from Mr. Jznvls and Lord J. RusszLL, TNT. SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 26, 1842. he ptit the tniestion on the original motion I Which was negatived without a division. Mr. Law's amen& Merit was then put and agreed to: Mr..C. OOD then moved that John Reitn having bi-; pressed his readines s to su b r tiit t o th e aiith or it y ,tif thisotise; be ~now disthiried; and be ordered to attend the Committee to-morrow. The SOLICITOR- GENERAL moved that the witness be discharged immediately. The question was put, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the witness was the same as any oth. r witness, aril was subject to the authority of the Committee, and a summons of that Comtnitttie would bring thet witness to the bar of that House.—(No, no.) The House had no more authority to command the attendance of a witness at the bar of the House than a private individual. The power was fixed by law in the Chairman, and he alone had any control over the case. Mr. C. WOOD said that what he had intended to move WAS very similar to what the Solicitor-General had suggested. (He Mr. Wood) thought that some reason should ho given and put on record as to why the witness was discharged. He therefore wished to move that., the witness having expressed his readi ness to submit himself to the authority of the House, he be ilbehaiged, and ordered to attend the Committee sitting on the Southampton Election Petition, at its meeting to-morrow meriting (this day). The amendments of the Solicitor-Gereral and Mr. C. Wood having been put in succession, Mr. H UviE said that it appeared to him they were about to interfere with the powers of the Committee. Either the Committee had power or they had not. In his opinion the moment they discharged the individual the power of the Com mittee ceased. If they chose to take upon themselves to inter fere in the present instance, they might interfere in any other matter which might come before the Committee.—( Hear, hoar.) If they interfered in this ease, they would not know where the matter might end.—( Hear, hear.) As, however, the individual bad stated his determination to bow to the deci sion of the House, there would perhaps be no harm in the Speaker's intimating that the Committee had the potvers of the House delegated to it. The amendment of the Solicitor-General was then put and negatived. The amendment of Mr. Wood having next been put, Sit R. 11. INGLIS repeated that all the powers of the House in the case were delegated, by an Act of the whole Le gislature, to the Committee, who alone should deal with the matter. He did not think, therefore, it would be advisable that the House should interfere with the proceedings of the Committee. Sir IL PEEL said that two. questions arose upon the proposal made by his Right Hon. Friend. The first was whether the summons originally issued by the Committee had been vitiated or not by the subsequent proceeding. If it had not, if the original summons, notwithstanding the discharge of the wit net.s by the authority of the House, remained in force, then clearly it was not necessary to interpose any authority on the pat t of the House; and such interposition, because unneces sary, ought to he avoided. But the point taken was that the Chairman of the Committee had a power to renew the sum mons by act of his own. That he doubted , and therefore supposing it rested upon the single authority of the Chairman, he doubted whether it was not necessary for the House to interfere.—( Hear, hear.) The words of the Act were, " That every such Select Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records." Under all ordinary circum stances, the Chairman of the Committee was supposed to be their representative, Ira when the Committee were not sitting, it could not be said that he could by his own authority detain a witness. Therefore he thought the s.le question was. did the original summons now remain in force. If it did, the House ought not to interfere. if the original summons were vitiated, the Chairman ought not, in his individual capacity, to assume an authority which belonged to him only as the organ of the Committee. Mr. MURPHY said he would put this analogy to the Learned Attorney-General. He would assume that a witness in a Court of law was asked a question shich had a tendency to criminate himself. The question would then be resolved into a question of bona fides. If it should appear to the Judge that the question was not bona fide, and he was committed for con tempt, the question would then arise whether he was willing to withdraw his refusal and comply with the request made to him by the Court. Was it not quite plain that the original sub pcena would still be valid? He begged to submit that case for the consideration of the Learned Attorney-General. Tun ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the adoption of the course proposed would not form a bad precedent. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition. The SPEAKER then put the question, which, being carried, the witness, John Renn, was ordered to be called to the Bar. On the witness being replaced at the Bar, The SPEAKER said—John Henn, in answer to my ques tion, you answered that you were wilting to bow to the decision of this House. If the House decided that you should answer the question put to you by the Southampton Committee, are you killing to do so? Renn—l am, Sir. . . The SPEAKER—Now, I am directed to tell you, that the Southampton Election Committee is a tribunal constituted by law, and you are bound to answer any questions put to you. You have, indeed, the right to state your objection to any question, leaving it to the Committee to say whether your objection is well founded. Upon their com mand, it is your bounden duty to answer. lam now to in torm you, that you are to attend the Committee to-morrow. You may now withdraw. [ Several Members said, " discharged, discharged ;" but the Speaker remained silent, and Rents withdrew in custody of the Sergeant. EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN. Mr. BRWitlETtiolbegged to ask, whether the Com mission appointed to inquire respecting the children employed in coal mines, had made their Report ; and if so, when it would be laid on the table? Sir J. GRAHAM said, that he had received a Report on Friday or Saturday, but he had not yet had time to look into it ; and, therefore, he was not at once prepared to answer the latter part of the question. REVENUE.—REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE. Mr. HUME having understood that a Commission had been appointed to make inquiries respecting the revenue, and the means of effecting reductions in the civil expenditure of the country, wished to know if there was any objection to lay on the table a copy of the Commission, that the House might be able to see what the precise object of the Commission was. Sir R. PEEL had not the least objection to lay the Commis sion before the House. The object of the Commission was to inquire respecting the revenue. PE'l ITION OF MR. WILMOT. Mr. I%IUNDAV moved that the petition of H. Sacheverell Wilmot, of Cheddesden, in the county of Derby, presented on the 2d of April, be printed with the Votes. He gave notice that, on the 3d of May, he should call the attention of the Hout , e to the subject matter of the petition. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND. Sir V. BLAKE asked the Solicitor. General for Ireland whether a practice did not prevail of parties accused of crimi nal charges being obliged to pay for a license to be defended by Queen's Counsel. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said that there had been such a practice. Mr. O'CONNELL said he believed the charge had been much reduced. When he recollected how he had been urged not to' take so much time for the deliberation of his plans, he - could fancy easily whet the disappointment of the Howe of Commons timuld be, if, dui' a lapse of ilve months, he had brought for ward such a pioposition as that suggested by the Hon. Member opposite. The Hon. Member refereed to the state of the money market It appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) that so far from the state of the money market being an en couragement to engage in fresh loins, it pointed out the course which he had adopted to equalise the revenue with the expenses of the country by direct taxation. The Noble Lord opposite had last year expressly declared himself opposed to the system of loans. —( Hear.) With respect to the tariff he had already stated on the part of the Govern ment what was the principle upon which it was founded, and he believed that what he had stated had given general confidence on the subject.. He had stated that one of his main reasons for imposing she Income-t ax was to m a ke th a t temporary reduction of the duties which are included in the tariff. He proposed to make a sacrifice of 1,200,000/. They could not seek to maintain the Income-tax unless th . s measure of commercial relief was simultaneously accorded with it. When the Income. tae Bill had passed the Committee, and he had reason to believe that the measure respecting the tariff was aiso about to proceed, he had no objection to interpose some slight delay between the report on the Income-tax and the consideration of the leading portion of the tariff. Considering that the tariff included 1,100 arti cles, each of which it was impossible could become subject to d , scussion, he hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would give notice of those portions of the tariff which were likely to become subject of discussion. It was desirable that they should pro ceed as rapidly as possible with the general principle of the tariff. He did not speak merely of details, and he gave an assurance that it was not intended by Government to pass the Income-tax Bill and then disregard the me , sure respecting the tariff. Some alterations had been made respecting articles, the duties on which he lowered still further, at the su2gestion of parties who had brought the matter under the notice of Go vernment ; but no alarm need be felt that it was intended, in any essential thing, to vary the general proposal of the Go vernment respecting the commercial system of the country. Mr. lIUME said, as this was the first opportunity that he had had of addressing the House on the Bill under considera tion, he was anxious to make a few observations. Though he was opposed to many of the propositions of the Right Hon. Baronet, he was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the situa tion in which he was pl iced as the Minister of this country. The Right Hon. Baronet had undertaken a most arduous task, and one which he (Mr. Hume) had little expected to see him undertake. Opposing, as he had done, all the principles which he (Mr. Hume) had maintained in reference to free trade, he had not expected to see him take part in advancing those principles. He was bound to state his approbation of the manner in which the Right Honourable Baronet had grappled with the prohibitions and restrictions which fettered the commerce of the country. —( Hear.) If he understood the Right lion. Baronet rightly, what he pro posed was, that no prohibition on commerce would any longer exist. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet to declare that he would apply to commerce the same principle which in 1826 had been applied by Mr. liuskisson to manufactures, and he could not but cordially approve of such a course. He regretted Theths thatffct ofin consequence allowing os" theirstem that the Right H on . B arone t h a d not grappled with that giant tor e monopoly, in ain in f theCorn-laws.orcewoil be gain by the monopoly in corn, the agricultutists would not pay one farthing to the revenue. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed determined to proceed yet further in the reform of the tariff; it was quite evident that having eommeneed the work it would be impossible for him to stop until the whole system had undergone a thorough change. He could not but regret that the Right Hon. Baronet had left tea and sugar untouched; he thought, however, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not received sufficient cre.lit for his proposed alteration in the timber duties; and he thought if he could altogether do away with discriminating duties on foreign timber, it would be of great advantage. No one could read Mr. Lane's account of Norway, without perceiving the im mense importance that an alteration in the timber duties would be to the country. He must say, that as a landed proprietor, he expected to save a large proportion of what he should have to pay for the Property-tax in the reduced price of timber to be used in farm buildings.—(Cheers.) He thought great credit was due to the Right Hon. Baronet for the reduction which he had effected of the various heads heads of the tariff from 1,100 or 1,200 to 220 or 230 ; and he hoped that a still further reduction would he effected. In the tariff of the Rhenish Union all the articles named in our tariff were classed under 78 heads. He thought it would have been better if the Right Hon. Baronet h a d brought the tariff forward first. It had been calculated that 1,200,0001. would be lost in consequence of the proposed alterations in the tariff; now, if it could be shown that such would not be the case, a question might arise as to whether there was any necessity for an Income-tax at all. There had been some difference of opinion as to whether direct taxation was better than indirect; for his part, he should prefer raising the whole of the revenue by direct taxation, if it could be done.—(Cheers.) Let any man trace an indirect tax from the time it was levied at the Custom-House, and it would be found that it had nearly doubled in amount by the time it was paid by the consumer. The system of indirect taxation was the one of all others most calculated to encourage a waste ful expenditure. In the present distressed state of the coun try, he thought they were called on to reduce the public estab lishments before they had recourse to the imposition of fresh taxes. The taxes raised during the last year amounted to 52,000,000/. In 1836, 1837, and 1838, the amount raised by taxes was 48,000,0001,, 49,000,0004, and 50,000,000/. All that time the profits upon capital were from 10 to 15 per cent., and now the profits upon capital were not more than 5 per cent., it was proposed to raise taxes to the amount of 57,000,0004 , which would be as burdensome as a taxa tion of 72,000,00e4 would have) been four years ago, in consequence of the diminished profits on capital. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the Right Hon. Baronet to introduce a rigid economy into every department of the public service, from the highest to th e l owest . L et hi m begin with th e ivil List. It was supposed that the Queen had the whole of the income voted by Parliament. It was no such thing. The Queen's own income was about 60,000/. a-year, all the rest was absorbed by the Civil List, by the Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain, and squandered away upon lords and ladies, and Court finery, and all kinds of ex travagance. When he beard of the distress of Paisley, Bolton, and Stockport—he could scarcely believe the evil spread so far as was represented ; but there were tens of thousands steeped in the greatest misery —families who were working from 6 o'clock in the morning till 8 at night, and could not even thns obtain an adequate provision —was it possible that the country could be contented to remain in such a state, while the Court was rioting in extravagance, and public officers were enjoying the money of the people ?—( Hear, hear.) He would not propose that the incom e of her Majesty should be taxed, because he did not think that what she received was too much to support her station.—( Hear, hear.) But a great deal might be saved out of the salaries of public officers. Her Majesty had only 60,000/. b• w hi being deducted from 335,000/. would leave 325,000/. one half of which might be saved to the country. He was sure her Majesty, who had shown so much anxiety for the welfare of her people, would rather give up the gilding and gaudy appearance of a Court which rivalled that of Louis XIV_( Laughter.) Hon. Mem bers might laugh, but if one of the courtiers of that time were to appear, he would say the frippery and gold laceof the Court ex ceeded that of Louis XlV.—(Laughe ee .) Before the country was called on to pay an Income-tax, those large salaries ought to be reduced. The people were already burdened with taxation to the amount of 52 0 0 0,0004, and if 4,000.000/. ad ditional were levied, the burden would fall on those who were already suffering.—( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that a part of the ezpenditure of the country consisted of 4,200,0001. w hi ch „." paid to officers for collecting a part of the revenue which might be easily reduced to half, by consolidating the present system of collection, and doing away with those persons who were appointed to keep up the present system of absurd restrictions. He had no doubt of the good intentions of the Right Hon. Baronet, and lie admired the boldness with which he met the extreme opposition of the agriculturists and monopo lists, and he hoped he would continue to follow in the same track. They ought to make a reduction in the expenditure, before any vote for an Income-tax was taken. lie (Mr. Hume) would venture to make more reductions in the establishment of the country, than would be gained from the Income-tax. The Right /ion. Baronet would obtain but a small amount after all ; but what an oppression it would be on the people, for nothing could be more terrible to the country than the inflic tion of snch an inquisition as that attendant upon an Income - tax. He (Mr. Hume) considered that every man employed in making money ought to be unfettered. The tax ought to be on land and houses, and if the Right Hon. Baronet would do this, he (Mr. Hume) was not only prepared to vote for a Prop rty-tax, but also for the reduction of seven or eight mil lions of indirect taxation, to be made up by a dir ec t t ax . Th ere was 7,000,000/. employed in the collection of the revenue, the civil list, and pensions. Why not reduce these? The parties build ing them were more interested in the welfare of the State, than the working in n. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would take all these circumstances into his consideration. Then the Right Hon. Baronet ought to:tax real property by descent, espe cially as the Right Hon. Baronet tallied about protecting no particular interest. He (Mr. llume) had been hammering at this principle for'ten years—(Laughter)--but he was afraid it had been with very little effect. When the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was in office, and proposed to increase the re venue five millions, he (Mr. Hume) told him that with respect to his mode of taxation, two and two did not make four. He (Mr. Hume) was aware that only 30 Members voted for the proposition he had submitted, but the Noble Lord (John Rus sell) was at last convinced of its policy, and if he came into office to-morrow he would be obliged to adopt it immediately. He ( Mr. Hume) objected to this Income-tax, but so far as he could, he would support the Right Hon. Baronet. There were good points in the proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet, but why not have the good without the bad? Why not have a Property, and nit an Income-tax ? Let them reduce the expenditure. The expenditure up to the 21st July, was 2.200,000/. Why not then reduce this expenditure in the Civil List, and then liy a tax on real property, which would realise about 500,000/. a year, taxed in the same proportion as real property ? Could any man deny that this was practicable? Let them have recourse to this, and there would be no necessity for an Income-tax.—( Hear, hear.) It was on these grounds that he considered the Right Hon. Ge n tl e man w a s bringing on himself troubles, and adding distress and misery to the people. Every million of taxation deprived a number of industrious men of employment, and thus accumulated misery H and wretchedness. He (Mr.ume) wa s sure that if t h e Right Hon. Baronet saw this in the light that he (Mr. Hume) did—( Loud laughter)—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had no doubt the Right Hon. Baronet was labouring under a delusion—(Hear)—no doubt the Honourable Gentlemen .urrounding the Right Hon. Baronet, prevented him doing as he liked.—( Laughter.) H e was confident that if the Right Hon. Baronet had adopted the course suggested by Hon. Members on his (Mr. Flame's) side of the House, there would have been no need of the Income-tax. If the Right Hon. Baronet had admitted sugar at the duty proposed last session— if lie had admitted corn at a fixed duty, as an article of revenue —although he considered it would be a fixed injustice on the country, still it would be a better mode-of providing for the de ficiency in the finances of the country—the Right Hon. Bart. would have perceived the moral effect such a step would have produced upon the rest of the world. But now they would not think the Right Hon. Baronet was sincere. Take Ame rica as an example. They were adding all in their power to the duties on British articles, and why ? The Right Hon. Baronet would not consent to remove our Corn-laws. He knew that taxation fell immediately on the working men more than any other class, those who were suffering so much from the effect of taxation. He had stated his views to the House ; they might, in the opinion of Honourable Gentlemen op posite be erroneous ; but he could assure them they were sincere. He was aware that much time had been occupied on this subject ; but he considered it to be h.s duty to state his opinions to the House. He could +sauce the Right Hon. Baronet that, although he generally dif fered from him, lie should give his best assistance in forw ar di n g the tariff, and he wished he could say he could give him a vote for the Income-tax. Toe question having been put, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Income-tax Bill. The Bill was ordered to be read paragraph by paragraph. On Clause 1 being proposed, 111 r. WOOD rose and said, he wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet. He wished to `know whether the Right Han, Baronet intended to set the lots sustained under one schedule against the profit derived from another. Sup-. posing he gained a profit under Schedule A, and sustained loss under. Schedule B, would he be allowed to strike the balance? Suppo ,, ing a farmer gained money by his farm, and at the same time, being engaged in trade, lost money under that de partment, wan it fair that he should be bound to pay the - hiixithe-tat under ' that schedule - in - which he hap- I !boned to make a profit ? Again, take any persons nolditip,- landed property, he might gain I,oou/. a-year by his landed property, and lose 2,0001. a-year by trade, he then, f,re lost 1,0001. a-year, still he was chargeable for the profit made upon the land. Many other ins'ances might be riven. With regard to incomes of 1501. a-year, under which sure no person was to be chargeable ; suppose a person made 201. by land, 201. by dividends, 301. by trade, and something by profession, they would take all those different amounts for the purpose of making up the 150/. a-year. They would not allow the 201. in dividends to be deducted from the whole income, but every item would be taken to make up the 1501., let it be from hatever source it might ; and although that per son might lose by trade, he would have to pay the Income tax on the 15(7. IT, therefore wished to know whether the Right lion. Baronet intended to provide a clause whereby a person mio - ht be allowed to set the profit under one schedule against the lo:s under another ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the pro per time for putting the question was when the Bill was under discussion. The Hen. Gentleman wished the profit of one trade set against the loss of another. The Hon. Gentleman had adverted to property as being one of the hardships to which he had referred. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would put to the Hon. Gentleman, supposing a gentleman owned an estate, and farmed it himself. as many genlemen did, and he lost hi farming what he would have gained had he let his estate, could the Hon. Gentleman wish that person to be exempt from the tax? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must in tem the Hon. Gentleman that a clause of the nature the Hon. Member had referred to, was not intended to he intro duced into the Hill. With respect to the incomes of 1501. of course the whole income would be brought together, and charged with the Income-tax, and in that ease a loss would not be set against a profit. Mr. 13. WOOD could not at all agree with the Right lion. gentleman with respect to a man farming his own land, if he lost upon that it ought to be set against any other pi ofit. Mr. WARD made some remarks, whirls were inaudible in the gallery. Sir. WOOD said, the Hon. Member might say it was non ,ense, for it was nonsense to him, who, perhaps, was a good farm r ; but he (Mr. B. Wood) must say, that if a man lost money in consequence of farming his own land, although if it had been let to en industrious and skilful farmer it might have produced a profit, still that man ought not to be taxed on his loss. So in the ease of ship-owners. They might possess ships, and navigate them themselves, but they could not ilo it so well as a skillful seamen, and loss would be the result. They would not charge the Income-tax upon the profit that ought to have been made. So with the man who farmed his own land, if he sus tained a loss, he ought not to be made chargable to the Income-tax There could be no right to charge a man with a tax upon in come, from a property which yields him none whatever. He once knew a man who in one year gained 25,000/., but the next year he lost 40,0001., and that year, he (Mr. Wood) had to pay the 2,500/. Income-tax for him. If the tax was an Income-tax what necessity was there for schedules? Were they not most unjust? The CHAIRMAN said that the question before else House was whether the words—from the sth of April, 1842—should stand part of the Bill. Mr. 13LEWITT could see no reason why the tax should commence from the sth of April, 1842—( Hear, hear, and a laugh)—and he saw no reason either why the question should not he debated upon that clause. Sir. lIUME asked when was it intended to take off the duty upon imported cattle and the other articles in the tariff? The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said, that the Income-tax was to last only for three years, and it was indifferent whether it commenced from the sth of April or the 10th of May. The tariff was to be a permanent impo.t, and it would not commence until after the passing of the Bill. Dr. 130 WRING thought the tariff and the Income-tax mglit to be brought into operation at the same time. After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. WARD, the question was put, and the blank was filled up as proposed, and the preamble as amended was agreed to. On the question that in Schedule A, which was " For all lands, tenements, and hereditament. or heritages, in Great Britain, there shall be charged yearly, in respect of the property thereof, for every 20s. of the annual value thereof," the blank should be filled up with the words, " the sum of 7d." Mr. 13. WOOD said, as he had not received an answer to his question, he would move as an amendment that this Sche dule be rejected, and he would divide the House upon it. Mr. GEORGE PALMER did not yet understand wkether it was the intention of the Government that any man should be taxed more than 3} per cent. upon his real income ?—( Hear, hear.) If it was not, then no man ought to be taxed upon nominal income.—( Hear. ) Mr. F. BARING thought the question of the Hon. Gen tleman ( Mr. Wcod) most. reasonable, and one that ought to be answered. It ought to be known how his losses in one sche dule were to be set off against his profits in another. If this were not provided for the greatest injustice would be done, and a man really not receiving 1001. of clear income might be taxed upon 3001.—( Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN said that, in the present measure, there was a great relaxation of the provisions of the former Income-tax, under which no kind of income or property, how ever small, was exempted. Here no Income-tax was intended under 150/., anti, except upon public officers, fundholders, and some others, who received their incomes quarterly, the tax could not be collected before October, whilst the tariff would come into operation as soon as possible after the passing of that measure. Mr. ROEBUCK had thought the object of the Act was to tseertain what each man's real income was, and to tax him ac cordingly ; but a man who had 500/. in land might show that he was engaged in trade by which he lost 300/. a year, so that his actual income was no more than 200/. Was it just—was it honest—to tax him for the whole of the 5001. a-year, which he derived from one source, and to allow no deduction for his losses in another ?—(Hear, hear.) The object was said to be to ascertain what be really received from all his occupations, and he ought to be allowed to show where the gain from one was diminished by the loss from another. Sir GEORGE CLERK understood that every man deriving ISO!. a-year from land, or from the funds, or other income, was to he taxed. If a man possessing that income chose to engage in losing speculations, he did not think that would be a ground fir deduction. For instance, if a gentleman possessed of 10,0001. a year, chose to gamble away a large part of his in come at Newmarket, was that to be admitted as a ground for exempting him from the payment of the tax?—(Oh, oh, ) Lord 1 - lOWICK wished to convince the House of the irre sistible justice of the claim set up on that (the Opposition I side of the House. The principle was, that every man should pay upon his income. But if a man derived from some fixed source, an income not sufficient for the wants of his family, and engaged in trade to make up the deficiency, was it just to charge him upon his losses as if they were actual income ? lie would not trifle with the House by arguing upon the manifest injustice of comparing such a man to the gentleman who lost his 10,000/., or any other affluent fortune, by gambling at Newmarket, or elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) It was upon a man's available income he was to be taxed, and all should be put together and balanced, to see upon what amount he was in justice to be charged.—( Hear, hear.) Of the Bill itself, he must here say that it was unusually unintelligible, even for an Act of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) An Act like this, so voluminous and complicated in its provisions, ought to have appended to it an abstract which would lay its main provisions clearly before those who had occasion to consult it, but neither time nor ability to wade through all its details. The CHANG ri.:LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had done all in his power to make the Act intelligible, and he was ready to give the Noble Lord, or any other Gentleman, any as sistencc to enable them to understand its provisions satisfactorily. lle would not say that he approved altogether of the suggestion made to the House. The subject had its difficulties, but the Government would take the matter into its further considera tion. Mr. HAWES said, that the object of the Bill was to tax income ; and it would be contrary to that principle to tax property from which no income was derived. Why should not there be a general provision that each man should return the net amount of his income, from whatever source it might come ? That would be the fair way of carrying out the Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his apprehension was, that if they took a statement of the net, amount of each individual's income, without inquiring into the sources from which it was derived, they would be opening the door to fraud, and defeating to a certain extent the object of the measure. . _ Mr. ROEBUCK insisted on the practical injustice of taxing incomes which, in reality, were never received. Sir R. PEEL said that the House would bear in mind that the Act was drawn up on the general principles of the Act of 1806. The Act divided property, as had been the case with the former Act, under five different heads, into five different schedules. He apprehended such a course was rendered neces sary, by the fact that the duties upon different descriptions of property were levied in different modes. Landed property, for instance, was made payable by the owners of land, and was taken from the tenant. A tenant's property was estimated at one-half of the rent; and funded property was taxed by stop ping the duty upon the payment of the dividends. He appre hended they would find it absolutely necessary to retain the schedules. He earnestly hoped the House would bear in mind that they were not only levying a tax for , three years, but that they were probably now determining the principles which, speaking generally, they shonld adhere to, in case it should be necessary to have recourse to such a system of tax ation for a larger period.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) What he meant was, that they should estimate not only the inconvenience of a three per tentage upon property enduring for three years, but that they should bear in mind that it was possible that this being an instrument re sorted to in time of war, they should consider not only the temporary inconvenience but the precedent they might esta blish. He admitted that the proposal of the Hon. Member far Southwark carried with it a great appearance of justice, and that it seemed but fair that a man should set off his losses in one quarter, against his gains in another. But at the same time- they should consider whether by attempting to remedy this partial inconvenience they might not open the doors to frauds and evasions which would defeat to a certain extent the purposes of the Bill. He thought the matter de serve 1 further consideration, and that consideiation was all that he could promise on the part of the Government. It appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Southwark should himself take charge of the matter; but in any case he hoped they would reserve their decision for another time. Lord HOWICK agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that it would not be convenient to come to an immediate decision upon a matter involving so many difficulties and so many con siderations. He hoped the subject would hereafter be maturely considered, and that some clause would be devised which, while it did not interfere with the efficiency of the measure, would prevent a great practical injustice. He did not think the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Southwark. should be called upon to frame a clause upon the subject, but that the Govern ment should themselves fairly take up the matter. Sir R. PEEL said, that he only wished that the Hon. Member for Southwark should give the Government some notice of his opinioni . as to the course which he would think it advisable to take; and the Government would afterwards, if they . should approve of his views, take upon themselves the framing of the clause. Mr. B. WOOD said, that he would be glad to find the matter taken up by the Government. His only object was that income should be taped fairly, according to its amount, no matter from what source it might be derived ; and that the various schedules of the Bill should be so framed, that the receipts of individuals from different sources might be taken into account. The very importance of the result of the resolution which they might come to, and the probability that they were legislating not only for the present but that they were forming precc:ients for future times, should make them more cautious as to the course which thy ought to pursue. He believed he could leave the matter to the Government. He collected from the manner still more than from the language of the Right Hon. Baronet, that it would be safe in his hands ; and lie ( Mr. Wood) should therefore withdraw his amendment for the present. Sir R. PEEL begged to state that be had never said the tax was to last more than three years.; he had neither ex pressed nor implied any opinion that the tax would extend beyond that period. If he made any engagements, ho always intended to fulfil them, and he was therefore very cautious in his statements. The Hon. Gentleman could. not expect him to say more than that the alterations in' the Act from the prin ciples of that of 1806, had been carefully considered, and wherever justice could be done in individual eases, without giving an opportunity to evasions and frauds, and injustice to those who paid the tax. If it was _possible to devise any clause that would meet the objection of the ikon. Gentleman, he would give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of its general .t inita: ions. -- Sir. WALTER JAMES wished to ask if the Government intended to make any deduction on ono schedule for the loss an individual might have sustained in property classed under another schedule. Ile illustratki his ohjoctto' nby referring to the case of a schoolmaster, Also erigagert in trade, and suffering. serious loss on his property em.,faged 'in commerce, being obliged to pay the tax on the whole of his income from the mo,ety of his income derived from hi; school. If the Go vernment could not en the length of the ItigLt Honourable Gentleman, yet. th ey m i g ht t a k e care th a t part i es nu tt e . ..:.9g loss under one schedule, should have an indulgence granted the 2 on property they might possess in another. On pi inciples of abstract justice it was impossible not to agree with Hon. Gen tlemen opposite, but there would he great difficulty in carry ing Rut their propositi on . Mr. WALLACE could not understand why men should pay for more than their income. \Vas It to be said that they were to pay for more than they really got in a year ? If it was not., he hoped some member of the Government would get up and say that it was not the case. There were a great number of averages in the Bill—then why should they not have averages of income ? Persons ought not to be debarred from showing that they had a loss on one schedule, and that the loss should be set off against the gain on another. Schedule A was then put, and agreed to without a division. On the motion that schedule B stand part of the Bill, Nit-. ROEBUCK said, that this schedule enacted that all Luny, tenements, and heredity rents in England, should be charged yearly in respect of their occupation 3. , .(1. for every 20s. of their annual value. This included every house in London, and he wi,hed to know why the words of the reso lution were not found here. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax was expected to be le.ied under the provisions of the old Act, and referred the Hors. Gentleman to the clause specifying the nature of the occupation. Lord HOWICK said that the schedule taxed tenants on the amount of profit derived from their occupation, but very arbi trarily assumes! that the farmer's profit was one half the amumd of his rent. This was very arbitrarily laid down. It did not even approach the truth, and in a great number of cases it was not only not true, but was very wide of it. He hoped that Gentlemen from Scotland and the North of Eng lind in particular, would make a stand on this point, for this reason, that the rent the tenant pays was the profit derived from the land after the expense of cultivation. When land was occupied in large farms, a much larger surplus was made in proportion to the rent than where the land was farmed in an inferior manner. In the county which he repre sented, the farms were large, and cultivated with skill and in telligence, and any gentleman acquainted with the North of Englmd, would be aware that many farmers paid a larger rent than that amount. On a farm of this size the surplus would be greater to the landlord than on three farms in the South of England of 3001. a year each, yet, in both cases, the profit of . . . , . .. . the tenant was supposed to be 450/. That would have atendency to throw farms of this description out of cultivation, and he thought would subject the agricultural interest to great in justice. He thought that injustice would be completely removed by s4iking out the clause altogether, and including the farmer among all other traders. —( Hear, hear.) Odious as the inqui sition was, he believed the farmers would rather submit to it than be taxed under this arbitrary rule. To a eertsin extent, they had introduced the principle with respect to the growing of hops. On referring to page 44 of the Act, No. 8, they would find that the hop farmer was considered a trader, and as sessed according to the profits he made . In the other cases the taxes were levied not from the profits received but from the rent paid. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the provisions of the Act had been copied from the former Bill, and it had been thought to class farmers as trailers would have been a great grievance. The tax might not act with perfect equality, but of all parts of the old Income-tax, the least complained of was the mode in which farming property was as,essed. Lord WOll SLEY agreed very much with what had been stated by his Noble Friend, but he would prefer taking the amount out of the rental, instead of the inquisitorial system pro posed. Mr. HUME thought the system proposed was fraught with injustice. Mr. B. DENNISON would support the schedule in its pre sent form. Mr. WALLACE agreed with the Noble Lord, that the far mers of Scotland would rather prefer the scrutiny than that the tax should be taken on the round sum. Lord HOWICK thought that the manner in which this ob jection was made, was a proof of the injustice of the measure. The blank was then filled up as proposed. The CHAIRMAN then proposed that the blank in the re maining clause in the schedule should ho filled up with the words •• twopence.halfpenny," the effect of which was that for all tint's, tenements, and heritages in Scotland there should be charged yearly, in respect of the occupation thereof, the sum of twopence-halfpenny. After a few observations from Mr. FOX MAIILE it. was agreed to fill up the blank as proposed. On the question that Schedule B stand part of the Bill, Mr. BARING wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whe ther foreigners holding English stock were to be exempted from the tax? Sir R. PEEL said he did not mean to make any such ex ception. Air. MIME said, that in taxing the fundholders, they were violating the public faith which had been pledged to the receivers of dividends, who were as much entitled to be free from taxation as any Hon. Gentleman in that House was to enjoy the revenue arising from his land. Colonel SIBTIIO RP thought, that not only every foreigner possessing money in our funds should be taxed, but every gentleman having a foreign servant, should be subject to the tax. The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and Schedule Ili was agreed to. On Schedule C being proposed, Mr. RICARDO objected to the tax being imposed on terminable annuities.—(Hear, hear.) It was equally un fair in its operation as regarded life annuities.—( Hear.) lie denounced this assessment of the terminable annuities as a positive breach of contract, justifiable by no precedent, defensi ble by no argument, and only dependent upon an arbitrary will, backed by a large majority.—( Cheers.) The Ho nourable Member then moved that the following words be inserted : " Except all such annuities as are payable out of the public revenues, which are granted, ur may be granted for a definite period of time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he could not admit that this was a breach of a contract which had been entered into with the annuitants. The Honourable Gentleman had said that the case was entirely without pre cedent. There undoubtedly he was wrong; for upon all the occasions on which an Income-tax or a Property-tax had been previously proposed, there had been ne distinction made be tween the holder of a public annuity which was to endure for ever, and the holder of a public annuity to endure for the shortest period. The course which the lion. gentleman had submitted to the House was submitted in the first discussion of an Income-tax, and in no case had the distinction contended for been allowed. The apparent force of the argu nicht arose from the circumstance that the tax which they proposed to impose was for a limited period. The lion. Gen tleman could not deny that if the Income-tax were to be per petual there would be no injustice in taking the same amount from the annuitant for a term of years as from the man who had a permanent income. The annuitant receiving 10 per cent. for three years would not, in fact, receive so much as the annuitant receiving 3 per cent for fifty years.—( Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to the alleged fall in the value of these an nuities, he had made inquiries as to what had been the effect upon the market price, and he found that the rise in the annui ties had been equivalent to the rise which had taken place in other descriptions of funded property.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that was a sufficient proof that this species of property had experienced no serious injury. The Honourabel Gentleman must be aware that some of the most skilful men in the monetary concerns of this cout.try had, within the last few days, made large purchases of these very annuities.— (Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend had, on a previous oc casion stated the extreme difficulty of attempting to make dis tinctions of this nature. It appeared to him, as he had already stated, that the great objection rested upon the temporary na• tura of the tax, and he thought that that objection had been satisfactorily answered. Mr. RICARDO said the Right lion. Gentleman had omitted to mention one point, namely, that the price of an nuities in the market was equal to something under 701. Consols. . _ . _ Mr. GOULBURN said the price of annuities was always something under the comparative price of the funds. It would be found that the rise at the present time in the price of annuities had not fallen in comparison► with the rise of other funds. Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the knowledge displayed by the Hon. Member who made the present motion, showed that he was worthy of the distinguished name he bore.— ( Hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, to his sur prise, was obliged to apologise to the House for net being prepared because he did not expect the motion ; but if he looked at the reso:utions, he would find that the Hon. Member would, in Schedule C, make such a motion. The Right Honourable Gentleman had only told them throughout his argument that he was not prepared, and met every question with the argument that this was the old Bill that existed before. —(hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman adopted the argument of the Right Hun. Baronet in admitting that this was an injustice, but that there were also other cases of injus tice, and because he could not remedy all he would not remedy this. The Right Hon. Gentleman instanced the case of a life estate in land. That was an hardship, undoubtedly, but it was no reason why they should not remedy the injustice pointed out in the present case. There was no doubt, whatever may be the technical or legal distinction, that these terminable annuities would be subject to a greater tax than permanent annuities, and nothing could be more unjust, considering the circumstances under which the holders of those annuities were induced to change them. It was also an objection that the tax was only to continue for 3 years, and to be paid by those whose annuities would only continue for that length of time. It appeared to him that the case was monstrously unjust, and he hoped the Hon. Member would take the sense of the House on it.—( Hear. ) Lord HO WICK said that he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was impossible to satisfy the expectations of all parties when the tax was to be imposed, but he still thought that the maker of a motion had succeeded in showing that there were special grounds in the present case to take it out of that principle. He considered it contrary to their sense of justice, that the holders of terminable annuities should be turned round upon, as they were in the present instance. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit tee divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Ricardo's amendment ... ll7 Against it Majority against it On our re-admission to the gallery the House was in con siderable confusion, in which it was impossible to gather any thing connected of a conversation which was carried on be tween Mr. Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Roebuck. At length, amidst loud cries of " Adjourn," " Order," " Go on," Sir 11. PEEL said, that he thought the measure was of so great importance, that he would lose no opportunity of going on with it.—( Hear. ) Mr. LEADER thought that the proposition of his Hon. and Learned Friend, wholasked for an adjournment, was not at all unreasonable, and if it was pressed to a moti o n h e w ou ld second it. The Hon. Member for Sheffield had a motion for to-ncorrow night, and they ought not to go on with the very next schedule " ll," until that motion was disposed of. Sir R. PEEL was then understood to say that he would agree to the adjournment, believing that it was the general consent of the House that he should be allowed to go ox in the Committee on the Income-tax at an early hour to-morrow. Mr. HUM E then asked whether it was intended to go on with the tariff before he proceeded to the third reading of the Income-tax Bill ? Sir R. PEEL was understood to answer in the affirmative. In reply to a question from Mr. WALLACE, Sir R. PEEL repeated that he should suspend the third reading of the Income-tax Bill until he had taken the sense . of the House on thegeneral principle of the tariff. The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow (this day). Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means. The Report was received. The Dublin Police Bill went through Committee. Report to-morrow.(this day). MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. The Municipal Corporations Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday_.' PUNISHMENT OF DEATH (IRELAND). The Punishment of Death (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. The Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. CIVIL DECREES (IRELAND) BILL. The Civil Decrees (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Excise Duties Compounding Bill went tht ough Corn• mittee, and ordered to be reported to-morrow. On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON it was ordered that Henr y Fisk, an d Eli za b e th Ann Cullen (wh o had! petitioned the House for th e di sc h ar ge of Obadiah Burnwick I`..ucas), and the furgeun o f h er Majesty's gaol of Newgate, should attend the House to-morrow. The other orders of the day were then disposed of; .aixi the !louse adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock. SPORTING INTELLGENCE. NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING- _ The only additigra to the list for this meeting as published by us on Sa urday week, are a match for Monday between Lord Albemarle's Buffalo, SA 71b, and Col. Peel's Hawk's eve, Bst 21b. Ab. M. 50 ; and one for Thursday bets, een Mr. Higgins's Vigo, Bst 71b; and Mr. Clarke's f, by Sir Hier cities, out of Octina, Bst 41b. D. M. 100. Moat of tve horses engaged in the course of the week are in training, hal several are not likely to run; amongst them may be enume-. rated —*Miss Van Amburgh, af, by Camel, out of Albania.,, Robin, Dorothy, Rover, *Miniature colt, Brother to Phosnix, Wild Dnek colt, e, out, of Zany's dam, Lucullus, "Amadon colt., Marinello colt, 'The Witch of \\Thorley Hill, *Brigand, Utopia, Envoy, 'March of Intellect, *Oh Don't, *Lituania, The Whiagig filly, Valance, *l, out of Sister to Portrait, Adelgund, i;ozelle, The Layde of Silverkeld Nell, - *Lass of . ',gator, *Christopher, Reversion, Albion, *St. James's, *Brother to Vulture, Hookwith, Mona colt, Johnny Fart, The Puneher, *Bennington (paid), and panto eolt.—( Those with the -* prefixed are not at Newmarket. )—The following were expected on Saturday:—Wiseacre, Eleus, Palladium, Pas sion, Barrier, Proof Print, and two or three others be longing to Lord G. Bentinck, Mr. Gregory, and John Day. BETTING IN LONDON UP TO SATURDA% AIORNIN G. • DER to 1 agst Frederica c (t), 9 to 1 agst Attila (I ), 12 to I agit Jack (t), 16 to 1 agst Auckland, 17 to I agst Canadian, 22 to 1 agst Robert de Gorham (t), 33 to 1 apt The Lord of Holderness, 50 to 1 agst the Agreeable c (t), 50 to I agst Palinurus, 1,000 to 15 agst Eleus. 1,000 to lo agst. Tripoli, 1,000 to 15 agst Belcceur (t). OAKS.—Topsail has been backed once or twice at 10 to 1. NEWMARKET, SUN DAY NIGHT. Several arrivals, but no betting. The following -..re the entries for to-morrow : 13. C. Plate—Currycomb, 5 yrs ; Fiambeau, 6 yrs ; E. 0., 4 yrs ; and Florence, 4 yrs. I). M. Sweepstakes—Flambrau, 6 yrs ; Eringo, 4 yrs; and Ballet, 3 yrs. 10 Sovs. Sweepstakes—C out of Zany's dam; fby Buzzard. out of Emma ; Balance f; MarEhal 13iron ; Patchwork ; Astro nomer ; c by Emilius, out of Benefit's dam ; and Rabin. T. Y. C. Ilandicap—Menalippe, 5 yrs, 9st 41b; The Moun tain Sylph, ft yrs, Bst 7th ; 11...a'5-eye, 4 yrs, 7st 9Th ; Mi naret, 4 yrs, Bst '211 , ; Astronomer, 3 yrs, 6st 71b; Rover, 3 yis,list Jib; Mulatto c, 3 yrs, (ist ; and c by Retainer, dam by St. Patrick. 3 vrs. fist. NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING. MONDAY. The races commenced this afternoon, at half-past twelve, none of the drawbacks that told so seriously against its predecessor—the Craven. The weather is not fine alone, but delightfully mild and seasonable. The list is full of promise, and tie company numerous and aristocratic ; in all the essen tials, therefore, we see every reason to antieipatea good week. A ring was formed in front of the rooms about eleven o'clock, but the only bets laid were 500 to 400 on the Lord of Holder nes against The Devil among the Tailors for the Derby, and 3 to 1 against Misdeal, and 4 to 1 against Meteor for the 2,000 Guineas Stakes (he is much out of favour). Lord G. lientinck has struck out Tedworth and Firebrand for this race, and declared that Peloponnesus will not run if Misdeal keeps well. Timoleon does not run for it. The races began with The Handicap Sweepstakes, 20 sovs. each, h ft, if declared, for 3 vrs old, &c. T.Y.C. (8 Subs ) Colonel Peel's ilawk's•eye, 4 yrs, ist 91b (Chapple) 1 Mr. Uoulman's Rover, 3 yrs, Est 7lb Captain Daintree's cby Mulatto, dby Middleton, 3 yrs, Est 3 The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr. Thornhill's Menalippe, 5 yrs, 9st 41b ; Mr. Osbaldliston's The Mountain Sylph, 5 yrs, Bst 71b ; Captain Colquitt's Astronomer, 3 yrs, Est 71b ; and Lord Kelburne's c by Retainer, dam by St. Patrick, 3 yrs, Est. Betting.-10 to 6 agst Hawk's-eye, and 5 to 1 each agst Menalippe and Rover. The three horses placed laid in front all the way, Rover making pla y at a strong pace till close to the chair , when hawk's-eye made a rush and won by a head. The Mountain Sylph was a respectable fourth. Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, for 3 yrs-old fillies, Bst 71b each. T. Y. C. (6 Subs. ) Mr. Bowes's The Ladye of Silverkeld (Scott) 1 Mr. Thornhill's Eusebia - Fulwer Craven's Don't-say-no Betting -6 to 4 agst Ensebia, 7to 4 agst Don't-say-no, and to 2 agst the winner. Don't-say-no cut out the work to the cords and then ran out; the other two went on and made a close race home, The Ladye winning by half a length. Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, for three yrs old colts, Sat 71b, and fillies tzst -11 b, T. Y. C. The winner to be sold for 2001. (8 Subs. ) Mr. 11. Greene's e by Wiseacre, out of Zany's dam....... ...... 1 Lord Albemarle's Robin ••• Mr. Price's Marshal Biron The following also started, but were not placed :—Lord Exeter's Patchwork; Mr. Crockford's f by Buzzard out of Emma; Mr. Goodman's f by Ishmael, out of Balance ; Cap tain Colquitt's Astronomer, and Mr. Barne's br c by Emilius, out of Benefit's dam. Betting.-3 to I agst the Wiseacre colt ;3to I agst Emma colt ; 7 to 2 agst Patchwork ; and 4 to 1 apt Robin. Tlie Wiseacre colt, against the will of his jockey, made nearly all the running to the cords, where Robin headed bins, but was caught again near the chair, and beaten by a neck ; Marshal Biros) and Patchwork were nearly abreast at the finish. Match, 200 sous., h ft, T. Y.C., Duke of Bedford's Oakley, ist 10Ib (C. Edwards) beat Mr. Byng's Garry Owen Bst 61b. 2 to 1 on Oakley, wh.a won easy by two lengths. Match, 200 sovs., h ft, R. M., Bst 71b each :—puke of Port land's f by Dr. Syntax out of Ruth (.(.Day) beat Lord Chester. field's ml. filly by Aluley Moloch out of Carew's dam, 3 to 1 on Ruth filly. Won by half a length. Sweepstakes of 20 SAWS. each, for 3 yrs-old 7st, 4 yrs Bst 91b, 5 yrs Oat 21b, 6 vrs and aged Oat 41b, p. M. (3 Subs. ) Duke of Rutland's Flambeau, 6 yrs (Robinson) 1 Mr. Ford's Ballet, 3 yrs 2 to 1 or, Flambeau, who took the lead, kept it, and won easy by a length and a half. Sweepstakes of 50 sous. each for colts Sat 71b, and fillies fist 31b, A.F. Corabe's Rosalind, by Touchstone (allowed 31b) Mr. lliggs' Eleus, by Elis (do.) Mr. Goodman's 1, by Ishmael out of Balance .. 3 Betting 6 to 4 on Eleus, 2 to I agst Rosalind, a n d ti t o I agst the Balance filly. The Balance filly made running nearly half a mile, and was then passed by Eleus, who went on at a wretched pace to the bushes, where Rosalind collared him, and won after a short-struggle by a head. Match, 200, h ft; A. F.—Lord Albernarle's Ralph, Bst 101 b (Robinson), heat Lord G. Bentinck's Proof Print, Est 41b. 5t04 on Ralph. Won cleverly. The Plate was not run when our express left. Horses Arrived.—Peloponnesus, Misdeal, Wiseacre, Eleus, and Gazelle. Passion and Palladium are expected; Horses Scratched.—Brother to Phoenix, Firebrand, and Tedworth, for the 2,000 Guinea stakes; Barrier for the 100 sov. stakes on Wednesday ; :Era, for the 50 Sol,' stakes on Wednesday ; and Brother to Vulture and Bennington, for the Newmarket stakes. Those who fancy that their journey to Newmarket will be "accelerated" by "railing" half the distance, will frequently find themselves disappointed, as nothing is more probable than a loss of twenty minutes, and sometimes half as much more, on the advertised time from Shoreditch to Spelbrook. The ar rangements on this line are disgraceful. INCOME TAX BILL On the order of the day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Income Tax Bill being read, Mr. WALLACE rose and said that his object was to endea vour to suggest to the House some plan by which the adoption of the proposal of an income tax might be obviated. It was the general opinion out of doors that the Right Hon. Baronet, if he had been aware of the present plentiful state of the money market, would never have submitted this proposition to the House. Now that the Corn-law question had been disposed of, and that the tariff had not yet been proposed, he thought the time had come for him to propose some measure by which the necessity for an Income-tax might be obviated. rhe Bill had only recently been placed in their bands. He had thought it his duty to go through the Bill with all the atten tion in his power, and he could not have believed it possible that. any enactment containing clauses so repugnant to the feelings of the inhabitants of Great Britain could have been proposed by any set of men whatever. It had been said thatthese enactments were founded on the Acts of 1798 and of 1806, but he was also aware that at that pe ri d there had not been such a rigid construction placed upon the enactment of laws of this description. The Assessed-tax laws had been administered in a more mild manner than they had been since. Since that period the Assessed-tax acts had in England and Scotland been year after year enforced in a more rigid manner, and it was only last year the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated to the House that he expected to raise a considerable additional sum under the head of Assessed taxes, not only by the proposition of an in crease in the taxes themselves, but by a more stringent enforce ment of the enactments of the existing laws. That was stated by him not for the purpose of extending them in any new way, but to make them more stringent, and they were made sn stringent that they were not much less odious than the Bill which he now held in his hand. There was a strong opinion prevailing out of doors that at this stage they were entitled to receive communications from the Right Hon. Bart. and the Government as to their intentions with respect to the tariff, and there was an opinion that his own supporteis were so op posed to the Bill that it could not be in his power to support it. Therefore it became apparent that a means of stopping the Income-tax should be brought before the country. Various means had been suggested, arid he would not say what might be done in the way of reducing the expenditure of the country. He thought that, by means of temporary advances, by loans on Exchequer bills, or some other way, they could obtain a year to look about them, and that, if it was necessary, the Right Hon. Baronet should take a higher amount than 3 percent. and give them freedom from more taxes. If it were necessary it would be the bounden duty of the Right Hon. Baronet to take ten or twelve per cent. by an Income-tax, that he might be the better able to relieve them from other taxes, and take another step in the right direction, as he was now ding. The Right Hon. Baronet might take a year to consider that. Such a preposition would be listened to with satisfaction by the country, if it believed that a larger amount of taxation would be removed, as the timber duties and others, which had been mentioned in the tariff. Whether that was a right application of the money to be raised by the Income tax was a question, but his own conviction was, that an issue of Exchequer bills to the amount of 4,000,0001., the sum proposed to be raised by an Income-tax, would not be refused by the country, and he was satisfied, from what he endeavoured to ascertain in the City, that such was the plenty of money. that even this very day it could be procured at two per cent. If that were true, and it was the opinion of well-informed men that the sum required could be procured for between two and three per cent. interest, he considered, and his opinion was con firmed by the judgment of others well acquainted with the sub ject, that it would be a vast deal better to get the money by Exchequer bills, rather than to inflict on the country the machinery of the present Bill. He could not find a word to apply to the nature of the Bill, it was in its provisions so horrid. Crimes of the deepest dye were guarded in the most careful manner in the Bill. Was it, he would ask, fair, at the end of four yews of continual distress, to ask the tradesmen of the country to disclose their affairs? He believed that the tariff was a proceeding in the right di rection, but it was equally clear that there were other means of raising the money necessary to meet the deficiency in the revenue without resorting to Exchequer bills, or direct taxa tion. There had been a strong expression of ft eling that the course he had proposed before would be his wisest course that night. He had given notice that he would bring the subject of the tariff before the House. but in consequence of an accident, that notice was not on the table of the House He would not to-night hinger the resolution which was on the paper of that evening, because he would be strongly pressed by several par ties not to do so. He should, however, take another opportu nity of bringing the subject forward. Sir R. PEEL said, that after the long discussion that bad taken place upon this subject, he was surprised and almost alarmed at seeing the notice placed in the paper by the Hon. Member opposite, which was calculated to renew the debate that had taken place upon the principle of the Bill. He was in bores that they would have been enabled to go into Com mittee ; yet, still, at the same time, the assurance given by the Hon. Member that' he would not resort to any improper course to delay the proceeding on the Bill, was some consolation to him. The Honourable Member proposed that, instead of resorting to any vigorous measures, the Government should have recourses° a loan. Now, consider ing the commercial state of the country, what, he asked. would have been its opinion, and that of the House, if after the period given him by the House to consider what measures he should propose, he had brought forward such a proposition as that suggested by the Hon.. Dletuber, DESTRUCTIVE FIRE. One of the most alarming and destructive fires that have occurred in this town for many years broke out yesterday morning in a store situated at the corner of Lombard-street, occupied by Mr. Reed, and filled with all kinds of marine stores—tar, hemp, oakum, rope, Re. The flames were seen first to burst forth from the store about a quarter before two o'clock, and soon after spread with such irresistible fury as speedily to communicate to the adjoining houses, one of which, the Shipwrights' Arms public-house, is entirely destroyed, the Custom house Tavern public-house nearly so, and a stable in Oyster-street completely gutted. The escape of Mr. Bachelor's house, in Lombard-street, which adjoined the store on the other side, from total destruction, is almost miraculous; the fire had communicated to it, lint through the greatest exertions was got under ;, it has sustained considerable damage, and is partly unroofed. From the first appearance of the flames great consternation among the inhabitants prevailed, for had there been much wind at the time of this calamity, the whole of Lombard-street would have been in jeopardy. So rapidly, after the fire was discovered, did it extend to the Shipwrights' Arms, that in ten minutes the roof of that house fell in, and if the policeman, B. Homer, had not alarmed the .imates the moment he saw the flames issuing from the store, and exerted himself praiseworthily in assisting in their removal, in all probability Mrs. Lovatt, the land lady, and her daughter and servant, would have perished. As soon as possible after the alarm was given, the police with the town engines, and the engines of the Royal Ar tillery and Royal Marines, were on the spot ; and these were quickly followed by the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir H. Pakenham, and the 32d and 34th regiments, and Lieutenant Cheere, and the seamen of the St. Vincent,. and the officers and seamen of the other ships of war, who landed with buckets and tackle, and all exerted themselves to the utmost to subdue the flames, which were not, however, entirely got under until nine o'clock, owing to the scarcity of water, the only supply to be had being from two or three pumps of the adjoining streets, handed by buckets from street to street, by the soldiers. The extent of damage is as follows : —The whole of Mr. Reed's store and stock is entirely consumed, he being only partially insured. The whole of the premises occu pied by Mrs. Lovatt, as also her stock, are entirely de stroyed, and Mrs. Lovatt and her daughter had only time to escape in their night clothes. She is insured only for half the value of her property; and the next house, the Custom-house Tavern, kept by Mrs. Beale, is much damaged, and the furniture and stock destroyed. Some stables also in the occupation of Mr. Payne are partly pulled down, and a house occupie d b y M r. Pushman, as also the back of the Globe Inn, both caught fire, but were fortunately extinguished before much damage was effected. —Hurapshire Telegraph. SUPPOSED 11II:RDF,R 01' Two INLANT CHILDREN AT WOLSTANTON, STAFFORDSHIRE.--Some excitement has been caused in Wolstanton and the neighbourhood by the dis coveryof the remains of two infant children in a pit of water, in a field at the Bratiwell Farm, in the parish of Wolstanton. It seems that on Tuesday morning several men went to the pit, a short distance from the turnpike-road, with a view of ge tting water-eresses, when their attention was directed to an unusual substance floating on the top of the water. near the side of the pit, which, on being got out, provdd to be the leg and thigh of a child. The pit was afterwards emptied, and other human remains found, some of them imbedded in the mud. The remains were subsequently examined by tao medical gentlemen, and proved to be that. they those of have .tsso beenchil- Oren. One of th e m, a child from eig y. hte , e t n een m m oh i s h t s o two years old ; the other quite an in'ant. From the very decom posed state of the bodies, it. is not unlikely. at immersed in the water from tw elve to eighteen and probably longer. On the remains of the eldest child two stains of blood were found, and from the general appearance of what remained of she body it is believed to have been in healthy state up to the time of its death. There is little doubt but, there has been some foul play in this transaction, but to whamgu.lt attaches remains a.t present shrouded .in the great est mystery. At the Coroner'sinquest which was belch on the day fol'oing nothing was adduced tending to throw any light on the occurrence. The jury' returned a verdict—" That the bodies were found submersed in the pit, but how, or by vliat memo they came there no evidence appeared to the jury.' d rod' • oftio )rte Pti 6l dill t° tAke