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

it- .se - -• t i le Tll6- 7SPFAICE, - theii — the question th at - t Witness, having expressed his readiness to ~- 1184)e r any question the House should think iA lPer• to put, should be discharged from the ens- N of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and be further ex -41,,,,t1101 before the Committee. . 1- ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the wit -was willing to submit himself to the decision of wit tie 'Rouse, that he ought to answer the questions ( neth er t h ey m i g ht cr i m i na t e him or n o t. He Attorney-General) thought it ought to be '4oHaitted to the Committee to give some directions I to wh e th er the question ought to be answered. The Re port of the Committee was simply that the (Thiess,, refused to answer the question. The Otion of the Honourable Member the Chairman of 0 7 'Committee involved in it ' the necessity tho witness 'being committed for contempt. Now ha, (the Attorney-General) must say that it occurred tf (i " „ ut him that a witness refusing, either before ommittee. of the -- House of Commons, or h it nY - other properly constituted Court, to answer any c lie stien tending to criminate himself, was ,iL guilty of contempt. The Report of the e' n rilmittee. was a matter of course. He could 11° t better :'support the doctrine he had expressed h art „ i„ by reading a passave from a judgment given i i ) e lti late Lord Eldon. (The Hon. and Learned Gen ii ' , La then read a passage from the judgment in qnes 4, which laid down the rule that not only was Poo justified in asking a witness a question, to'criminate himself, but no one could ask him tt• Inestion that might be a link in a chain of evidence that t7l,l,l criminate him.--e-(Hear, hear.) He (the Attorney lleral) therefore thought that, if the witness in ques-: tie cnt refused to answer the question, that House could not e4 rottlit him•tO Newgate. after a few words from Mr. REDINGTON, • Lord HOWICK said, he thought the House ought tc)it' Committees.to make itself a tribunal of • appeal from i eetion Comittees. The House therefore ought not to a •- A quire how far an Election Com mitteee was right or wrong. s far as he understood the matter, the answer given to the r r"stion was th a t he refused to answer it, on the 014 1 , 1 that it tended to criminate himself. . The e ( 'lttinitte e had come •to the decision that the law did net apply in this case. The 1 1. 41 Mittee on that point must judge without appeal. C'erefore, as the witness . stated--his readiness to to the decision of the 'Reuse, he thought it i•Pedient that the Speaker should _inform the witness 'at it was true he was not bound to answer a question that e might criminate. himself, but that it was for was Committee to judge whether that excuse made with propriety •or not.—(Hear, hear.) Th e witness had stated that he would bow to the dcci t. Of the House ; and he (Lord Howick) hoped that he Was made acquainted with the • wishes of the Q uo he would assent to their decision. ;Ir. BERNAL said that there could be no doubt but ant what his Learned Friend the Attorney General had down upon the subject was the law. He remem-. 'r s ed a vitae which had occurred in an investigation at the Bar a toe House, i nto a c h a rge of bribery and corruption, in the . `" e ()f asCornish borough many years ago. A solicitor, on that ° t e e,agion, cleaned to betray, the professional confidence reposed 4 4 ' 1 by . pleading the privilege allowed before Courts aw. But he was told that, before the House, ho could not i l li thimself of such a privilege ;- and he was accordingly corn titted to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. e alue to 4 Case. of . the Tregony Committee. The Hous H e was d no d w, ever, placed in circumstances of great embarrassment. t ry had not the means of pronouncing a decision of the whole u se, and the evidence taken before the Committee was not a -° , r e.them. Whether the Committee had acted justly or un- C e t % their acts were the acts of the House, and as such must ;)indi rte . P,,!'"rd JOAN RUSSELL agreed with his Honourable who had just spoken, that, generally speaking, Ilailliament had maintained, and that House especially e f reveatedly maintained, that a witness should not to answer a question because it might critni himself.. That, he considered, was part of the parlia s'netttary . power of the House. He did not consider that it h a . B at all necessary to argue the matter, because he did not s i t tl ii k.. the , geocral. parliamentary power was the question a, respect to these Committees ; nor did he think that it was iquestion immediately at issue. The House had the power, a„ considered it necessary on some special. occasions, to de. et public fraud, and; if the question came to be argued, he 4, (1n0t be prepared to surrender it. He thought the Hon. \ t eutlem a n opposite was mistaken in supposing that when tru e posed that indemnity should be given to wit at'es-i:,under those circumstances he the admitted that aa,Pwsver was questionable. That stood upon quite anotoer, - cud. : The power of Committees rested upon a special of Parliament. They :were a judicial tribunal selected the House ; but they were no less a tribunal 1 4. - 7: 1 they werei uvested with the power of trying elections la the Judge the Queen's Bench 'and a jury of twelve Then it would be said that a tribunal so constituted . 1 4. t guide themselves by the rules established in Courts of 4t e ' l ee But then came the question that the Learned Vtney-General had put, that where a witness refused to 4 14 r a question which had a tendency to criminate himself, tlej,!% protected in the refusal ; but that if he endeavoured to 4:r-himself under that plea when it did not properly app'y, liaas.not to be protected. The Hon. Chairman had told that - the ground upon which the question was argued t ki athat the question would rut in fact criminate the witness, l 's hi ne must. take the majority in this instance to have the same R ev of deciding the question as a Court of Justice. d a , w att impossible to go into the merits of the question, 11, a ,' 41- Ise in order to do so, he would be obliged at'kaiot only what the question itself was, but also what the th i v inus questions were, and what the circumstances under ti l .' l l it was desirous to ask that question. The only mode in 1 , , h he could trace it to any satisfactory conclusion was his com t:tN with the authority of the Committee. He' had heard t a ',!lug to induce him to believe that that ought not to be taken a:Qe - ground of their decision. Tnere might be cases where tiO' weight feel distrust, but such cases would be special and able casen Ile had some doubt whether his Hon. Friend's ,;')rt would answer the purpose. He thought the proper 'c,e for the House to pursue„ would be to inform the witness lie m ust go before the Committee and answer the question. tt, i , r• Hume,•Mr. I.?Conne!l, and several ether Members here yi L together to address the House, Mr. Hume, however, hj't out Mr. Speaker, in a loud voice, and was greatly eered from all parts. The other Honourable Members gave and r. HUME then addressed the House. He thought the 10te that ought to be pursued perfectly plain; the House th t committed its power to the Committee, and he thought, si a t etsre, the right cou rs e would be for the House to have the li a 'ecs called to the bar, and informed that he must go before - keenamittee and answer the question. A C ' O'CONNELL did not doubt that the law laid down by qttorney- General was correct. But he thought the' wit ili,havit4 told part, ought to go on and tell the entire. A. k 4 e' ad at one period passed this House on the subject, but in 03ro ug ham struck out the most important clauses k'sZ House of Lords. He never did anything more • - " t tV one; it was a time when he could get the House Otis to concur with him. Would it not become bti:vernment, strong in the House of Lords, to in a - similar Bill which they Would, carry? Ho kie e eetided that they had nothing to do with the Com , kee, as its decisions were without appeal. , 4 , l jt• PEEL said ht. ngreed with the Noble Lord, the Lttt,,,.'er for London, that there was a very great distinction 4 4 the extreme powers possessed by the House of Com tar al the great inquest of the nation, by an inquiry at the 4.4 d the powers possessed by a certain portion of the ' - 'e as a tribunal under a special Act of Parliament. It did 4 t all necessarily follow, that the powers and privileges of V t diuual heitsg defended by statute, were joined with an ill 'eat right to exercise all the powers aossessed by the kt ei a , e of Commons itself. Upon the whole, he thought it the 1 4i Course for the House to pursue was to remit the witness tte,,, u4 Committee. 'fhey ought not to interfere with the triers of the Committee. He thought it would be dangerous tf f lainine the witness at the bar of the House, with the view 1 4 C uring an opinion as to his answers. He was afraid that w itness might form .an erroneous opinion of the decision of +ttt io r r iouse. He had said that he would submit to the k L iti i tY of the House-4 Hear, hear)—that if the House that he was bound to answer, without reference ' 4 4 Sequences he was ready to submit. He (Sir R. Peel) I ,,Zet think that their answer ought to he given on any such Ne s : He was not prepared to sao are bound to answer, the answer should criminate y , y y our u self. He had gone as t a d a q one in defending the rights of that House, and he Zt'ia a cto so again, but he was not prepared to say witnesses ba t uound to answer before a Committee any question ,laittttt ler. They might establish a precedent which might be t he to their own inquisitorial power. He inferred, '44 `, 4 e Committee did not claim for itself a power to - compel th e h o tness to answer, but they did claim a rower of deciding "S loe er the witness was acting bona fide, on the ground of I ' l ll l Ming himself, or whether he was using it merely for the ‘,4y OP of withholding evidence. lrappeared a nice question for k ‘ta,: m etinal to determine, when it compelled a witness to answer N, i 'len, whether the answer would criminate the witness or not. ➢ 1 , - ‘' not think that a witness was to be allowed to . entertain :err k g 'le opinion as to what would criminate himself.—(Hear, '4tl s t. But, on the other hand, it was difficult to determine ltt ror no the answer to any given question would crimi k)7tre'Utnself. That was a discretion which must-rest. with t ribunal ; and he was sure that the tribunal appointed in • jaunt.case would act with due consideration and justice. liglQf hear. ) The course which was to be pursued must t to the discretion of that. tribunal, and it was to deter- Itt, l thet her an answer ought to be given or not.—( Hear ) ;kk t , ll ' WAKLEY pegged to refer the House to what had ttOlace within the last two years, on the trial of a Peer be- L ' t 4 t % i.s'Houso of Lords. Dare a witness refuse to answer the. er r 'os which were put to him, on the ground that the an would criminate himself?--( Hear, hear.) That occurred bt4:`, the last two years, before the highest authority ; `s w as and had excited great public attention , but t h e ;ks Put an end to, in consequence of the refusal of a wit kt 1 , 1 " answer questions that might criminate himself. He nth °t required to state the answer in order that the Judge hdeteernine whether the answer would criminate himself or V °aed was 4 t he allowed to exercise his own judgment. He Sortie of the Learned persons engaged in the trial, State the circumstances of the ease to the House, as he pq think it could be that this House and the other House 01 1 4 : l iatnent should be at issue on so important a subject. 6 4t y „ .3 041CITOR-GENERAL said, he apprehended the tribunal to be this—whether the individual refused to under a bona fide conviction that the answer would i tlat . • • it e himself, or whether it was only for the ti:6, of evading justice, he refused to .do so. th -li e le of law that obtained before an Election Committee O s Same as that observed in every other tribunal. No a lisa,' was bound to answer any question which would tend to L:ate himself. It appea-ed to him (Sir W. Follett) that ) it s ,l 4l . course was to send back tins man before the Corn 'ftte` to exercise their judgment as to whether he persisted in Oa:, to answer a bona fi de question. t i 'kte ea C. WOOD sail he was 'sure the Committee no authority which might not be ,claimed by j , , , e,, p • ( ''her legal tribunal. All that the House knew of the wes.that the witness had refused to answer a certain ques tk.Y li teh they thought he ought to answer. If, however, a a 4 t 4 t aerely sent back the witness before the Coin tr)%eif the result would possibly be that the present llio t Y would again arise, and they would again have i lt, e , ver the subject to-morrow. He apprehended that ° ii i Course would be that a general intimation should be th 'ont the Chair, that it was the opinion of the House, Eiehe witness should only refuse to answer any question id E might criminate himself, and that the Committee should Whether such a question had been put. The Corn aßli 'lad proceeded in the usual way, and he therefore 414 t that they had a right to presume that the Committee ia E xercise " that power which was vested in them. OD SON said, that this discussion would have one gond ,He ad learned, with some surrise, the oinion of the and lion. A ttorney- General on this subject,v p iz., that the to I,".'eight refuse to answer any question tending to crimi -0 41 )self * This was certainly the practice in the Courts of llN ' t: N e lawyer would deny that a: Court of Law had the 'tta ` 0 decide whether the witness was dealing honestly with 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 toil 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 be did criminate himself.—(Cries of " Or der, order," " Chair, chair.") Then with re ipect to the qua lifi:ation laid down by the Hon. and Learned Member. for Cork—(The rest of the sentence was lost in criis 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 thmi cath they had to take. They had to try the question. Hew try it ?—(" Order, order.") They had to try it by the law of the land, inde pendent of the opinions whi c h H on . G en tl en re n m i g ht forM. They had to try the question by the law of the lanil as they bad heard that day, and he bound. by etc rules of law.— " Circler, order.") 'Thou 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. It this was con veyed to the minds of the Committee. he thought the House would not be troubled again on the subject. Haviag this con veyed to their minds, they would know what their duty wLs. Then with respect to the witness going back to the Committee ; he wished to seek information on this point. He thought the ends of justice would be answered if the witness were mimed to go where he pleased. Sir T. WILLIE slid, 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, thst the witness had been required to show not that it would criminate him, hut to satisfy the Judge that it might criminate! him. He would give an instance. A witness was asked, " Did you ever see that paper ?" a bill of exchange being put into his hand. He said, " I decline to answer that question, because it may crimate me." " How ?" said the Judge. "Because it has been imputed to ma 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. The SOLICITOR-GENEIIAL 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 an 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 he 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 witness? He thought the House ought to be-sure that they had a guarantee for the attendance of the witnese.- 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 d6ubt, 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 lIONVICK, Mr. GODSON said the Committee had thought, the wit ness having been paced in the custody of the sergeant-at- Arms, that they had no further power over him, as he was in the custody of the House. Sir G. k.'3..ERK thought some words ought to be added to the resolution, or the witness might think that he was bound to answer the question. Mr. LAW thought it would be only fair that the Speaker should inform the witness that if he had any objection 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 be unfair to the witness, and, therefore, he should propose that the Speaker do make that intimation to the witness. Sir THOMAS WILDE thought that under all the circum stances, perhaps the best cou rse wou ld b e to di sc h arge t h e par ty. 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'ot the in, fallibility of the judgment of Election Committees. —( LaugW er, and Hear, hear.) He understood in the present case, from the Right Hon. Baronet, that the individual himself had accented 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 unwilling to answer the question that h e be discharged. The Hon. Mem ber then moved the witness be recalled fur that purpme. After a few words from Mr. Jr am and Lord J. RussEtt, The SPEAKE tt put the question on the original motion which was negatived without a division. Mr. Law's amend ment was then put and agreed to. Mr. C. WOOD then moved that John Renn having ex pressed his readiness to submit to the authority of this House, be now discharged, 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 HOBERT INGLIS said the witness was the same as any other witness, and was subject to the authority of the Committee, and a summons of that Committee would bring that 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 be given and put on record as to why the witness was discharged. He therefore wished to move that, the witness having expressed his resdi ness to submit himself to the authority o: the House, he be discharged, and ordered to attend the Committee silting on the Southampton Election Petition, at its meeting to-morrow morning (this day). The amendments of the Solicitor-General and Mr. C. Wood havin g been put in succession, Mr. HU.tiE said that it appeared to him they were about to interfere with the potrers of the Committee. Either the Committee bad 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 interiere in any other matter which might come before the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) If they interfered in this case, they would not know where the matter might end.—( Hear, hear.) As, however, the individual had 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 powers of the House delegated to it. • The amendment of the Solicitor-General was then put and negatived. The a:nendment of Mr. Wood having next bean put, Sir It. H. 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 R. PEEL said that two questions arase 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. ff it had not, if the original summons, notwithstanding the discharge of the wit ness by the authority of the House, remained in force, then clearly it was not necessary to interpose any authority on the part of the House; and such interposition, because unneces sary, ought to be 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 fiir - the House to interfere.—( Hear, hear.) The words of the Act were, That every such Select Committee she)] 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, kit 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 sle 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 vihich hal 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 coinmitted for con tempt, the question would then arise whether he was willing to withdraw his refusal and comply with the request mado to him by the Court. Was it not quite plain that the original sub pcena would still be valid? He begged co submit that ease for the consideration of the Learned Attorney• General. The 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 Reno, was ordered to be called to the Bar. Ou the witness being replaced at the Bar, The SPEAKER said—John Renn, in answer to my ques tion, you answered that you were willing 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 willing to do so? Renn—l am, Sir. The SPEAKER—Now, I am directed to tell you, that the Southampton Electioc 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• mend, it is your bounden duty to answer. lam now to in form you, that you are to attend the Committee to-morrow. You may now withdraw. [ Several Members said, "discharged, dischargid ;" but the Speaker remained silent, and Renn withdrew in custody of the Sergeant.] EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN. Mr. BROTHERTON begged 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 sa . d, that he had rtrieived 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 exprzuLture 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 peck° object of the Commission was. Sir R. PEEL had net the least objection to lay the Commis sion before the House. The object of the Commisiion was to inquire respecting the revenue. PETITION OF MR. Immo'''. Mr. MUNDAY moved that the petition of H. Sacheverell Wilmot., of Cheddesden, in the county of Derby, presented on the 2d of April, be printed w ith t h e V otes . He gave notice that, on the 3d al May, he should call the attention of the House to the subject matter of the itetli ion. 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 he defended by Queen's Counsel. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said that there had beets such a practice. Mr. O'CONNELL said he believed the charge had been much reduced. _ _ INCOME TAX BILL. On the order of the day for the House resolving itself ihtc Cormadahee on the Income Tax BM being read, LONDON, TUESDAYA EVENING-. APRIL 26, 1842. Mr. WALLACE rose and said that his object was to endea vour to suggest to the House some plan by whiclsehe - adoptien of the pi oposal of an income tax might be obviated. _lt was the gensral opinion out of doers that the Right Hon. Baronet, of, if h a e n ! d i a that a been h the twaari ff }I re of a t l d i e noty present et b plentiful oi la s t e e d o , f h t e h et iithought u g money ht market, would never have submitted this proposition to the House. Now that the Corn-law question had been disposed the time had come for him to propose some measure by which the necessity for an Income-tax might be obviated. The Bill had only recently been placed in their hands. He had thought it hie 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 hadbeen said that these enactments were founded on the Acts of 1793 and of 1806, but he was also aware that at that pe el 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 neld manner than they had been since. Since that period the Assessed-tax acts had in Eugland and Scotland been year after year enforced in a more rigid manner, and it was only last year the Right Hon. the Chaucellor of the Exchequer had intimated to the House that he expected to raise a considerable addi'ional sum under the head ut Assessed taxes, not only by the proposition of an in crease in the taxes themselves, but by e 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 so stringent that they were not much less odious than the Bill which he now held in his ha'rel. There was a strong opinion prevailing out of doors that at this stage they were entitled to receive communications from the Rtght lion. Bart. and the Government as to their intentions with respect to the tariff, and there was an opinion that his own supporters 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, and lie 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 lion. Baronet should take a higher amount than 3 per cent. 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, arid take another step in the right direction, as he was now Being. The Right Hon. B ironet might take a year to consider that. Such a proposition 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 4,000,000/., 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 fur 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 dial 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 Yeats 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 feeling 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 hineler the resolution which was on the paper of that evening, because lie 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 Re PEEL said, that after the long discussion that had 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 haillaken place upon the principle of the Bill. He was in hopes 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 B 11, was some consolation to him. The Honourable Member proposed that, instead of resorting to any vigorous measures, the Government should have recourse to a loan. Now, consider tug 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 th e H ouse t o consider what measures he should propose, he had brought fcrward such a proposition as that su g gested by the Hoe. Member. When he recollected how he had been urged not to take so much time for the deliberation of his plans, he could fancy easily what the disappointment of the House of Co:melons would be, if, after a lapse of five months, he had brought for ward such a proposition as that suggested by the Hon. Member opposite. The Hon. Member referred to the state of the money market It appeared to him (Sir 11. Peel) that so far from the state of the money market being an en couragement to engage in fresh loans, 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 be had stated had given general confidence on the subject. lie had stated that one of his main reasons for imposing the Income-tax was to make that • 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 unle's th s measure of commercial relief was simultaneously accorded - with it. When the Income. tax Bill had pasSed the Committee, and he hid reason to believe that the measure respecting the tariff was assn 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 discussion, he hoped that lion. 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 derails, and he gave an assurance that it was not intended by Government to pass this 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 susgestion of parteee 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. HUMli' 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 pieced as the Minister of this country. The Right lion. Baronet had undertaken a most arduous task, and one which he (Mr. Hume) had little expected to sae 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 p: inciples. He was bound to state his approbation of die 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 Hon. Baronet rightly, what he pro posed wa= g that no prohibition on commerce would any longer exist. He understood the Right lion. Baronet to declare that he would apply to commerce the same principle which in 1826 had been applied by Mr. If uskisson to manufactures, and he could not but cordially approve of such a course. He regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had not grappled with that giant monopoly, the Corn-laws. The effect of allowing the system to remain in force would be this, that in consequence of their gain by the monopoly in corn, the agricultutists would not pay one farthing to the revenue. The Right Hen. Baronet seemed determined to proceed yet further in the reform of the tariff; .it was quite evident that having commenced 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 lion. Gentleman had not received sufficient cre.lit for his proposed alteration in the timber duties; and he thought if he could a'together 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 alteraeion 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 wore classed under 78 heads. He thought it would have been better if the Hight Ilan. Baronet had brought the tariff forward first. It had been calculated that 1;200,000/. would be lost in consequence of the proposed alterations in the tariff; now, if it could be shown that such would not be the ease, a question might arise tes to whether there was any necessity for an Income-tax at all. There hail 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 tin 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 ealcglated to enceerage a, waste, ful expenditure. In the ereeent distressed state of the anon, 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 52,000,0001. In 1836, 1837, and 1838, the amount raised by taxes was 48,000,0001., 49,000,000/., and 50,000,0001. All that time the profits upon capital were front 10 to 15 per cent., and now the profits upon capital were not more than 5 per cent., it was propusee to raise taxes to the amount of 57,000.0001., which would be as burdensome as a taxa tion of 72,000,00.1. would have] been four years ago, in consequence of the diminished profits dm capital. Under theses circumstances it was the duty of the Right lion. Baronet to introduce a rigid economy into every department of the public service, from the highest to the lowest. Let him begin With the Civil List. It was supposed that the Queen had the whole of the income voted by Parliameot. 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 Chambeeleire god sgueridered away upon lords and ladies, and Court finery, and all Binds qf ex travagance. Whets he heard 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 snorpieg till 8 at night, and could not even thns obtain an adeheete promieze-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 income 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 60,004 which being' deducted from 335,0001. would leave 12,000/. one half tiif which might be saved to the country. Ile was stiff het! MajOey, who had shown so much anxiety for the welfare of her people, would rather give up the gilding and gandy 'appearaece of a Court which rivalled that of Louis XI V.—(Laughter. ) Hon. Mem bers might laugh, bht if one qf the courtiers qf than time 'were to appal . , he would say the frippery and gold laceof thetourt ex ceeded that of Louis XI V.—(Laughter.) Before the country was called on to pay an Income-tax, these large salaries ought to be reduced. The people were already burdened with • taxation to the amount of 52,000,00J1., and if 4,000.0001. ad ditional were levied, the burden would fall on those who were already suffering.---L( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that a part of :he yependiture of the country consisted of 4,200,000/. which was paid to officers for collecting a part of the revenue which might be essily reduced to half, by consolidating the present system of collection, and doing away with those persona who were appointed to kee,. up the present system of absurd restrictions. Ile had no doubt of the good Intentions of the Right Hon. Baronet, and he admired the boldness with which he met the extreme opposition of the ae,riceltu-ists and monepo • lists, and he hoped he would cont Mire to folow in the same track. They ought to make a reduction in the expenditure, before any vote for an Income-tax was takers. He (Mr. flume) would venture to make more reductions in the establishment. of the country, than would be gained from the Income-tax. The Right Ron. Baronet would nbtain 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 oa land and houses, and if the Right Hon. Baronet would do this, he (Mr. Hume) was not, only prepared to vote for Prop rty-tax, but also for the reduction of sevea or eight mil lions of indirect taxation, to be mule up by a direct tax. Ther e av•s 7,030,000/. employed in the collection of the revenue, the ' civil Hsi, and pensions. Why not reduce these? The parties build ing them were more interested in the welfare of the Sia!e, than the working in n. Re hoped, the Right Hon. Baronet would take all these, circumstances into his consideration. Then the Right Hon. B aronet ought to.tax real property by descent, espe cially as the Right Hon. Baronet talked about protecting no particular interest. He (%Ir. Hume) 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 inerease the re venue five millions. he (Mr. Hume) told him that with respect to his mode of taxation, two end two did not make four. He (Mr. Hume) was aware that only 39 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 lie 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 Rieht Finn. 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 not an Income.tax ? Let them reduce the expenditure. The expenditure up to the 21s: July, was 2,200,0001. Why not then reduce this expenditure in the Civil List, and then I.y a tax on real property, which would realise about b 00,090/. a year, taxed in the same proportion as rea l proper ty ? C ou ld any man deny that this was practicable? Let them have recourse to this, and there would be no necessity for an Income-tax.—( N ear, hear.) It was on these grounds that he considered the Right Hon. Gentleman was 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 was sure that if the a ß n i d ot w u re o t n ch . e ß d a n r e o s n s. et s H aw e t H he um lig e h ) t this in that he (Mr. Hume) did—(Loud laughter)—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had no doubt the Right Hon.. Baronet was labnuring under a delusion—( Hear )—no doubt the Honourable Gentlemen surrounding the Right Hon. Baronet, prevented him doing as he liked.—( Laughter.) He was confide* that if the Right Hon. Baronet had adopted the course suggested by :Hon. Members on his (Mr. Humes) 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 he had admitted corn at a fixed duty, as an article of revenue —although he considered it would be a fixed injustice on the ceuntry, 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 Rigl.t Hon. Baronet was sincere. Take Ame rica as an example. They were adding all in th e i r power to the duties on Britis t i 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 mare 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. i ncere. He was aware that much time had been occupied on this subject ; but he considered it to be his duty to state his opinions to the House. He could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that, elthough liegenemlly dif fered froin him, he should give his best assistance in forwarding the tariff, and he wished he could say he could give him a vote for the Income-tax. The 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, Mr. WOOD rose and sail, he wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet. He wished to know whether the Right lion. Baronet intended to set the lees sustained under one schedule against the profit derived from another. Sup posing he gained a profit under Schedule A, and sustained loss undo.- Schedule B, would he be allowed to strike the balance ? Suppo ing a farmer gained money by lii4.fartn, and at the same time, being engaged in trade, lost money under that de partment, vas it fair that he should be bound to pay the Income-tax under that schedule in which he hap pened to make a profit? Again, take any person holding landed property, he might gain 1,000/ a-year by his landed property, and lose 2,000/. a-year by trade, he therefore lost 1,0001. a-year, still he was chargeable for the profit made upon the land. Many other ins' ances might be giv'n. With regard to incomes of 150/ a-year, under which sum no person was to be chargeable ; suppose a person made 20/. by land, 201. by dividends, 30/. 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 150/. , let it be from whatever source it might ; and although that per son might lose by trade, he would have to pay the Income tax on the 1501. He therefore wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet intended to provide a clause whereby a person might be allowed to set the profit under one schedule against the loss under another ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the pro per time for petting the question was when the Bill was under discussion. The 11,m. Gentleman wished the profit of one trade set. against the loss of another. The Hon. Gentleman had adverted to property as he'ng now 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 gentlemen did. and he lost in farming what he would have gained had he let his estate, woul.l the Hon. Gentleman wish that person to be exempt from the tax ? He (the Chancellor of the Fre:Wegner) must in fern the Hon. Gentleman that a clause of the na'ure the, Hon. Member had referred to, was not intended to be intro duced into the Bill. With respect to the incomes of 150/. of course the whole income would be brought. together, and charged with the Income-tax, and in that case a less would not be set against a profit. Mr. B. WOOD could not at all agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman with respect to a man farming his own land, if he lost upon that it ought to be set azairist any other plat. Mr. WARD made some remarks, which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. WOOD said, the Hon. Member might say it was non sense, for it was nonsense to him, who, perhaps, was a good fWood) must say , th a t if a man l os t money 3 r in but h eonse e l q ( u consequence B. farming his own land, although if it had been let to an industrious and skilful farmer it might have produced a profit, still that man ought not to be taxed on his loss. So in the case Gf ship-owners. They might, possess strip!, and navigate them themselves, but they. could not do it so well as a skillful se mien, and loss would be t:,3 result. They would not c harge the Income.. tax upon the profit that ought to have been made. So with the man who famed his nwn 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 ga i ne d 25,0001., but the next year he lost 49,0001., and th at year, he (air. Wood) had to pay the '2,500/. Income-tax for him. If th e t ax was an 'the CHAIRMAN said that the q ues ti on b e f ore the House was whether the words—from the sth o f A p r il , 1842—should tllniecs Income-tax not e-tax most w h u a rij t e necessityst? was there f or sc h e d u l es ? Were stand part of the Hill. Mr. I3LEWIT 1' could see no reason why the tax should commence from the sth of April, 1842-4 flear, hear, and a laugh)—and he saw no reason either why the question should not he debated upon that clause. Mr. HUME asked When was it intendedto 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. BOWIUNG thought the tariff and the Income-tax ought 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 wat agreed to. On the question that in Schedule A, which was " For all lands, tenements, and hereditanaents or heritages, in Great oinwl.andwasaltyaiattr:t;hvi:i: Britain, there shall bo 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. B. WOOD said, as he had not received an answer tee hi s question, he would move as an amendment that this Sche dule be rejected, and he. would divide the House upon it. Mr, GEORG 4 PA I,AI ER did not yet understand whether it was the intention of the Government that any man should be taxed more than 3i per cent, upon his . real income ?—( Hear, II tar. ) 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 (allr. Wool) most reasonable, and on, that ought. to be answered. It. ought to be known how hi s l ams i n one sche dule were to be set eff against his profits in another. If this were not provided for the greatest injustice would be done, and a man really not receiving 100/, of clear interheiuight be taxed upon 30/.—( Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN said that, in the present measure, tih n e c r o e m w e- a t s a a x, gr il e l e d t er relr ic a li tio n r o t k o i f ndo t )t h loeo e foaT n fli --. -v- ' 4ll 's of the former Ih n i ot n e c lhi ' ,oe ' i m nb i jso e ewo o dt, r o4l.l la c r a o s p s e a r i t d y , thoowb be small, was exempted, Here no Income- tax was intended under 1301., and, except upon public officers, fundholders, and some others, who received their incomes quarterly, the tax comeee u l d i n n o t6 t b o e p c er o a ll t e io e n te a d s b s e o f o o n re a s O ph e ot t st b ii ib e ei r e , oa :v fjt h ee i ci l . ts the or t hthee passingt measure, ' b tsh y r(le w Ual2 h„,h be lost 300/ a Year, income was, and to tax him mightac ' ta t Aa i s n rh n i ti ffosiww f r o wa r osttt hhhu h taaal i od s ttt hisco rdaientgulayl; income n b c u o t m a e I m , l a s n n w e h m o o h r a e d tl l7 2 . ascertainh e illr a . s e rt n Ow g a Eh g aß e t d U"C i ne ROEBUCK trade mb aahad gain from one losses oi t es h sde o es n r e ii fly s t ea — dn to trho t em a r x ?o h l i e t ( n st c ) O ue r arcr t e, h; ,ao w anrd h . to ascertain what • he really received from all his occupations, another.sli show _ where d h i e m o i u n g is h h t e d t o b b y e th a e ll olows,sedfrotmo it ) at trimuno chase to engage did ncl . tbink that would be a ground os o s f es h se i , s l i f r rr oa d m er e i , v w in a g s tloso S il i .e r at G iyx E eea o dr. l r G olmf g al C anin L a : R opro K sf sr u eos n ra.s d i n o i r gh s e t o f o u thati ml s, or r every ot he of . the . tax ?—( Oh, oh.) ron ell , la V instance, l gainb le it aw a ay g a el a tl r e g m e I ., n ir lo ,i s e iri d g ii a p n ar P t 10,005/. a year, chose to come at Newmarket, was that to be admitted as a ground for exempting him from the payment Lord HOWICK wished to convince the House of the irro., sistible justice of the claim set ep on tiv,t (the GAiii;sition ) side of the Hoye. The pi-.inc.iplil was, that every man should pay upon hls income. But if a man derived from some fixed source, an income not sufficient fur 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 inc ome ? H e would not trifle with the Houie by arguing upon the manifest injustice of comparing such a man to the istlez. an mho. Cost his 10,000/., or an y o th er a i rfiuent fortnne; bY gambling at Nevfnorkett, or el;ewhere.-4Hear, hear.) it was upon a =Ws available income he was to be taxed, and all should be iiiii tOgethet and balanced, to see upon what amount he was in justice to be charged.—( Hear, hear.) Of the B i ll it se lf , 1 4 innst here say that it was un usually inntelligible, el ow k ik/ Act of Parliament.--( Hear, hear 1 Au . 4:0 like 44, as IT,Nrtilno4 fin k ; tomplicMkt'd in iis provisions, o ug ht to h ave appenclid to it an abstract which w . onld lay its m a i n prov i s i ons clearly wrote-those wh o had (Tome's to consult it, but neither time nor ability to wade thi ough all its details. The CHANC.MLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he bad 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 sisteace to enable them to understand its provisions satisfactorily. lie would not say that he approved altogether of the sugsest len made to the House. The subject had its difficulties, but the Government would take the matter into its further considera tion. I 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 wes 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 bean the ca.o 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 this 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 princip:es which, speaking generally, they, should adhere to, in case it stiould 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 centage 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 consideration 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 HO WICK 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 gre a t p rac ti ca l i n j ust i ce . H e di d 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 ti the matter. Sir R. PEEL said, that be only wished that the Hon. Member for Southwark should give the Government some notice of his opinions 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 taxed 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 legisliting not only for the present but that they were forming precedents for future times, should make them more cautious as to the course which till , ought to pursue. He believed lie 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 he (l%lr. Wood) should therefore withdraw his amendment for the present. Sir R. PEEL begged to state that he had never said the tax was to last more titan three years; he had neither ex pressed nor implied any opinion that the tax would extend beyond that period. If he made any engagements, he always intended to fulfil them, and he 'was therefore very cautious in his statements. The Hon. Gentleman could not expect hint to say more than that the alterations in the Act from the prin ciples of that of 1806, hail been carefully considered, and wherever justice could be done in individual cases, without giving an opportunity to evasions and frauds, and injustice to those who paid the t ix. If it was possible to devise any clause that would meet the 'objection of the Hon. Gentleman, he mooed give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of its general imitations. Sir WALTER JAMES wished to ask if the Government intended to make any deduction on one schedule for the loss au individual might have sustained in property classed under another schedule. He illustrated his objection by referring to the case of a schoolmaster, alSo engaged in trade,' and suffering serious loss on his property engaged in commerce, being obliged to pay the tax on the whole o f a hi s i ncome f rom th e moiety of his income derived from his school. If the Go vernment could not go the length .of the Right Honourable Gentleman, yet they might take care that parties suffering loss under one schedule, should have an indulgence granted them 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 'be great difficulty in carry ing out their proposition. Mr. WALLACE could not understand why men should pay for more than their income. Was it to be said that they were to pay for more than they really got in a year ? If it was net, he hoped some member of the Government would , getup and say that it was not the case.. There were a great number of averages in the Bill—then why should they not have aye ages 01 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, Mr. ROEBUCK said, that this schedule enacted that all laude, tenements, and hereditaments in England, should be charged yearly in respect of their occupation 31d. for every 20s. of their annual value. This included every house in London, and he wished 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 lei led under the provisions of the 41 stet, and referred the Hon. Gentleman to the 014114 speoilying 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 assumed that the farmer's profit was one half the amount of his rent. This was very arbitrarily laid down % lit: did not even approach the truth, and in a groat 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 land in particular, would make a stand on this point, for this reason, that the vent the tenant pays was the profit derived from the land after the expense of cultivation. W hen 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 lie repre sented, the farms were large, and cultivated with skill and in telligence, and any gentleman acquainted with the North of England, 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 300/. a year each, yet, in both cases, the profit of the tenant was supposed to be 450/. That would have a tendency 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 striking 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 certain 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 traders 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 assessed. lord WORSLEY 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. HU3IE 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 meter the scrutiny than that the tax shoOd be taken on the round sum. Lord HOWICK thought that the manner in which this ob jection was made, , Nas 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 be filled up with the words " twopenee-halfpenny," the effect of which was that for all lands, 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 MAULE 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. Mr. HUME said, that in taxing the fundholders, they were violating th e p u bli c f a i t h 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 atisine , from his land. Colonel SlBTHORP'thought, that not only every foreigner possessing money hi our fluids should be taxed, but every gentleman having a foreign servant, should be subject to the The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and Schedule Bi was agr eed 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. ) He denounced this assessment of the terminable annuities as a positive breach of contract, justifiable by no precedent, defensi -I,le 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 arc granted, or may be granted for a definite period of time. The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said he paid 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 ox a Property-tax had been Previously proposed, there Lad. been no distinction made be tween the hol t dc.r of a public annuity which was to erchAre ;or , aver, and the holder of a public annuity to en'dure for the shortest period. The course which the lion. ~entleman 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 meht arose from, the circumstance. that the tax which they proposed to imposre was for a limited period. The Hon. Gen. tlen3an 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 h a d 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 h 4.4 Made iNoiries 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 rite 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 con .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 extrema 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 - tur.r of the tax, and he thought that that objection had been satisfactorily answered. Mr. RICARDO said the Right •Hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention one point, name'y, that the price of an nuities in the market was equal to something under 701. Conssk Mr. GOULBURN said the price of annuities was always something under the comparative price of the funds. It would be faund that the rise at the pre.ient time in the price o: annuities had not fallen in comparison with the rise of other funds. Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the knowledge d:splayed 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 obiiged to apologise to the House for not being prepared because he did not expect the motion ; but if he looked at the resolutions, he would find that the Hon. M em b er 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 lion. Gentleman adopted the argument of the Right Hon. 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 mad 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 :vas 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 b e 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 136 On our re-admission to the gallery the House was in con siderable contusion,•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," &c., Sir R. 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, who asked for an adjournment, was not at all unreasonable, and if it was pressed t o a m o ti on h e wou ld second it. The Hon. Member for Sheffield had a motion for to-morrow night, and they ought not to go on with the very next schedule "D," until that motion was disposed of. Sir R. PEEL was then understood to say that he would agree to the adjournment, believirr , that it was the general consent of the House that he should be allowed to go on in the Committee on the Income-tax at an early hour to-morrow. Mr. HUME 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 u n til h e h a d t a k en t h e sense o f thefflouse 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 (th.1:.4.(19!). MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. .The Municipal Corporations Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. PUNISHMENT OF DEATiI (IRELAND). The Punishment of Death (Irelind) 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 Rill went through 07 0 m. mittee, and ordered to be reported to-morrow. On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON it w Henry Fisk, and Eli za b e th Ann Cull (7. en ordered that .10 had petitioned the House for the discharge of 06491 :1 - Burnwick Lucas), and Fr:fa of Newgate, should attend the surgeon of her Maje t ty' s the House to-morrow, The other orders oi the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half -put Twelve o'Clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. INURE OF LORDS, April 25. Tho How sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord 13rougham, Lord Campbell, Viscount 31aprartl, and Lord St. Germain. • CHARTER. v. SIR J. 114.1NE1.YA N. The further arguments in this part-heard case were resumed to-day, and had not concluded when the Lord Chancellor rose to attend a Committee., The arguments appear likely to oc cupy several days. VIOE ~ -CIIANCELLORS' COURT„lpril 2i. His Honour the 'Vice-Chancellor of Englaad was occupied the whole day with cause petition% of no general interest. COURT OF Q UNEN'S BENCH, April 23. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND BURCESNES OF MACCLES FIELD V. WALKER. This was an action for selling meat in a private bhop in Mac clesfleid, contrary, as was alleged, to the tights of the corpora tion, who possessed the privilege of compelling all butchers in that place to sell their meat in the markk of the corporation, arid in no other place, upon two days in the week. The Base having wane on for trial in the country a considerable time ago, the Jury found a verdict for the defendant, and therefore nega tived the custom which was alleged in support of the monopoly. Upon a former occasion a rule had been obtained for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and the rule was now made absolute. The argument upon the present occasion was in no other way important except that it was stated from the bar that the population who were made subject to so extraordinary a monopoly amounted to more than than moo, persons. nOBERTS V. JONES. This was an action for penalties for three offences committed against the Reform Bill by the defendant, who is the overseer of a parish in Wales. The offences imputed to the defendant were—first, that he inserted in the list of claimants of the Par liamentary franchise some names which ought not to be there; senuadlv, that the list which he caused to be affixed to the church door was different from that which he presented to the Revising Barrister ; and thirdly, that he omitted from the Barrister's list some objections which had been made to the admission of some of the parties therein mentioned. The case was tried at Carnarvon before Mr. Justice Williams, and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that his conduct, though irregular and illegal, yet was the conse quence of his ignorance and incapacity, and that he was not at all influenced by any corrupt or malicious motives. A rule nisi was afterwards obtained for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence, and upon the present occasion Lord DENMAN said, that there were in the conduct of the defendant some facts of a very suspicious nature ' • and espe cially that o f hi s h av i ng suppresse d before the Barrister all notice of the true list of objections which had been made ; nor was there anything satisfactory in the attempt which he had made to excuse lus conduct upon the ground of his having acted by deputy. In the present instance, the Court did not consider that the ,evidence of misconduct with respect to either the defendant or the Jury was such as to induce their Lordships to break in upon the rule of practice ; but his Lordship wasof opinion that he ought to tak e th at o c cas i on o f intimating that he should not consider his hands to be tied up from rendering redress whenever a fit case should arise, without reference to the rule of practice which had so long prevailed upon the subject. The other members of the Court expressed their assent to the judgment of Lord Denman, and the rule. for a new trial was therefore discharged. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 25. JUDGMENT.—DELY V. TIIO3InON. Mr. Baron PARKE gave judgment in this case, which was a special action against the defendant, as the Secretary of the Anti-Dry Rot Company, for not registering the plaintiff, who claimed to be a registered proprietor of certain shares in that Company. The list of shares being full, the defendant refused to register the plaintiff, and at the trial it appeared that a great number of shares had been fraudulently re-issued by the late Soeretary and managing Director, the consequence of which was that the affairs of the Company were involved in almost inextricable confusion, as many parties who had bought these shares so re-issued claimed to be registered, Lord Abinger being of opinion that the plaintiff could not compel the Secretary to register the plaintiff, inasmuch as the register was already completed: but the Court, after argument. had conic to a deci sion opposed to that of the Learned Chief Baron, and now laid it down that the Company could not rely on the mere fact of the register being full, for if it was improperly filled up by their servant. A bonafide holder of shares had a right to compel them to register his shares. There ought, therefore, to be a new trial; but the plaintiff would do well to make out his title to these shares from the original subscribers, otherwise it would by no means follow that lie could compel the Company to register him. Under these circumstances the rule for a new trial must be made absolute.—Rule absolute accordingly. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 25. BURT V. MASON. This was an action brought to recover the sum of 200 guineas under the following circumstances. Mr. Serjeant Boinpas and Mr. Currie were for the plaintiff. Mr. James conducted the defence. It appeared that the plaintiff sent a horse, called the " Gres fir, " to be sold by the defendant, a horse commission•ag,ent and a celebrated rider of steeple-chases, and the son-in-law of Mr. Elmore, the livery -stable keeper in Piccadilly, where the horse was sent to. On the part of the plaintiff it was alleged, that the horse was bona fide sold to the defendant, who on his part denied that he had purchased the horse, but had sold him on commission to Lord Edward Russell; but on his transmission he was claimed by the assignees of a bankrupt. There was much conflicting testimony on the case; And the Jury, after half an hour's consideration, fuund a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. AD 31 II? ALT y COUN T, April 25. THE DIANA. The Court directed in this case, on motion, that the costs of an appearance fur the owners of the cargo should be paid to them. The principal caue, was decided sometime ago. ELIZABETII-WAGES. This was a suit fur the subtraction of wages, brought by a mariner, for 24/. Is. The Court pronounced in favour of the prayer of the pro tnoter. THE DRUID—COLLISION.-IeOC3IENT. The arguments in this case were heard in the first session of the present term, when the Learned Judge took time to consi der his decision, there being some peculiarities in the facts, which have been already, however, fully reported—the party pro ceeding against the Druid, a steam-tug belonging to a Liverpool Steam-towing Company, for damage done to a Danish vessel, the Sophie, belonging to a Dane, named Gustavus. Capt. Newton, while in Comm aid of the Druid, and, as alleged, to enforce a payment of five guineas, due from the Danish Captain for towage, maliciously and wantonly ran into the Sophie, took her in tow to prevent her proceeding on her homeward voyage, thus causing much damage and delay. The owners of the steam tug repudiated the acts of Captain Newton, and pleaded that, if the Danish Captain sought to recover, he ought to have g3ne against the Captain, and not against the Company to which the Druid belonged. Dr. LUSHINc.TON, after recapitulating the facts, said the Court was under the necessity of dismissing the owners of the Druid from the suit. He (Dr. Lushington) could not, how ever; leave this case without expressing his deep regret that, in British waters, and within British jurisdiction, a foreigu owner should be subject to such injury, loss, and almost total ruin, w'Aliout having any redress against the party who had acted so wantonly and maliciously. If the master go without putiishment an d the ow ner w i t h out re d ress , i t would work a serious injuryto the maritime interests of the country, and prove discreditable to British hospitality and justice. THE EARS. GI:ET—SALVAGE. This ship, on the 19th of November laity got on the Map land Sand near high water. The valve of the vessel, the cargo, and freight, was agreed M nearly 3,000/. Eight smacks, with forty-five hands ors board, tendered assistance, which was accepted, and the ship was got off without damage in about twenty-fours hours. A tender of 150/. had been made and refused. After hearing civilians on both sides, The CouILT thought the tender insufficient, eqiceially con sidering the season of the year the vessel got on the sand, and added 100/. snore to it, with costs. THE ATHOL-COLLISION. This case was heard last court-day. The Athol, a troop ship, ran down the Bullfinch in the Channel at night, and a monition scar prayed against the Lords of the Admiralty to direct t heir proctor to a,,pear, and defend the suit. The Court then expressed its opinion that the Lords of the Admiralty ought not to be judges in their own= case, and directed the mat ter to stand over, at the same time refusing to issue the mo nition. On the case being called on, the Queen's Advocate said he had no further instructions in the case. Dr. LUSHINGTON said he had no wish to interfere with pub• lie boards, and thought the regular way would be that the appli cation to the Court should be intimated through the registry. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION -HO USE. 11Iisserman, the German, who was on Saturday week charged upon suspicion of having assisted another man in robbing Mr. Middleton, the silversmith, of four gold watches. anti appendages, worth 641., by substituting tor the box in which they were deposited a box precisely similar, was brought up for re-examination. Another German named Laurmare. who was apprehended as the person who went out of the shop with the property, leaving on the counter the box contai . ein.,e a few foreign copper coin s , w as a l so b roug h t up, and placed at the bar by the side of Wa sserman . A great numb' rof trades men were present during the investigation. 't he shopman of Mr. Middletoa having dete.ilcd the circum stances of the robbery in a minute inkuner, stated that Lawrence was the man who first enterethhe shop, and selected the watches and chains, and that Wasserman, while Laurence appeared to be engaged in tying up the watches, walked in fur the purpose of buying the article of the lowest price in the hou-e, giving to the accomplice the opportunity of performing the trick effectually. Alderman Gums—Did the prisoners seem to know ernqa other? Shopman--Not at all. When I cut open the box left upon the coun t er , an d f ound that there was nothinz in it except copper coi ns , I ran a f ter the prisoners, but eueee,ed in cat chin; only Wasserman. The other was subsequently ap prehended by a policeman. Alderman GIBBS.—AN Nem certain of Laurence's identity? Shopman.—l have not the least doubt of it. Frederick Lyas, coffee and chop-house keeper in Old Comp ton street, stated, that he knew both prisoners and Wasserman was a lodger of his. They were acquainted with each other, and to witness's knowledge Laurence had called to inquire for the prisoner twice before and twice after the robbery took place, and appeared to be particularly anxious to know whetisor the prisoner had returned home on the day of the robbery, Alderman GIBES.— Do you know of what trade or profee,sion the prisoner is? Witness. —He has represented to me that he was a me:reheat, and tame occasionally from abroad to purchase goods. Laurence then said—" I confess that I am gui'.ty of the offence, but I assure you that Wasserman is quite innocent and km.ws nothing at all about it." A policeman stated that Lawrence had mentitmed to hint that he (Laurence) had sold the watches for 1 204, at auction. rooms near Covent-garden Market. Alderman GIBBS—I commit both prisoners for trial. The policeman said that sonic expenses had been incurseid by the prisoners in the Compter, and requested to be informed w hailer those expenses were to be defrayed out of the money found upon Laurence ?. Alderman GIBES replied, that the money found upon Lau rence must certainly be the produce of the robbery, and could not be applied to such a purpose. The policeman said that he had been obliged. himself to pa y cab-hire, as the prisoners refused to walk. Court Alderman Gina;.- .. .;0u must apply foe y our expenses to the , The P , i s "7,ers we re th en comm it te d for trial. A want; woman, named Catherine Boyd, was charged by him Nathan, wholesale clothier, of Ebenezer-square, under the remarkable circumstances detailed in the following evidenc,e:— Mr. Nathan stated that he and bis family had been for a considerable time subjected to the must alarming and dan gerous annoyances, arising, as was ascertained, within a couple uf days from: the conduct of the defendant, who resided in Angel-court, in the immediate neighbourheod of his house. and amused herself by flinging stones, brickbats, and coals, in at is windows. After much difficulty, and after the whole of the public in that vicinity were in a. state of ex citement at the repeated smashings which had taken place, she w as detected after having flung a large brickbat through one of the windows, and a lump of coal through another. Buctt (a policeman), stated, that having beer, di r e c t e d t o watch the complainant' s p rem i ses, an d the hours from which it was suspected the missiles were thrown, he • - paid particular attention to the matter, hut without effect fer a long time, although he went about in disguise. At las., it ()centred to him to mark a brickbat, and drop it into the area of ?Li. 4, Angel-eeurt, where the mistress of the dafer.dant resided, and from which Mr. Nathan suspected the formidable attacks were male upon his windows. Soon afterwards he found the idemic.l brickbat he had marked in Mr. Nathan's yard; and Mr. Nathan. told him it had been thrown in by Catherine Boyd, whom her suspected to be the offender. He then watched and saw the , defendant heave a stone through another pane of glass in the house, and instantly afterwards begin to iron an apron nueor, cernedly at her window. A basket full of the stones thus thug into the house was then produced. Mr. Nathan said that having ascertained from what pla, the missiles Caine, he watched from a spot which wn.mauded view of the defendant's position, and he observed her, after having cautiously looked round, dash a piece of coal at his withlow, and then resume her ironing job as if she bad done nothing. Another witness confirmed the accusation beyond the shadow of a doubt. Alderman thetas (to Mr. Nathan)—Pray what do you know of the woman ? Mr. Nathan—She has 'been very trou blesome, and acted in a way I cannot speak of. She was for bidden my house, but I have nothing to say against her cha racter. In fact, she came and said that her sister who bad lived in my house, was dead, and s'ne wanted money to bury her. There was ne truth in her statement. The prisoner said that the window hid never been broken by her ; but the fact was, Mr. Nathan, 'had a 'spite against her on account of her sister, who had lives a servant in his family, and who was now in the hall, with that gentleman's child us her arms. Mr. Nathan said he had letterr. in his possession to prove that the charge of being the father of the defendant's sister's child tais utterly false, Alberman Giass—Let t.},e young woman he called in. Elizabeth Boyd Mimed; ately made her appear ance upon being called, with a fine child in her arms; she appealed to be ita great affliction, and cried bitterly. Alderman GlBBS—Wtose child is that? Elizabeth Boyd— Alr. Nathan's. Alderman Glues- —Oh, it is? Elizabeth Boyd—lt is his, upon my oath, and ',se knows it well. Alderman Grar.s—Does he support it? Elizabeth Boyd— Not at all ; my brother supports it. Alderman Gans —Have any steps been taken against him by the parish ; Elizabeth Boyd—Not, to my knowledge. Mr. Natha n solemnly declared that there was not a word of truth in ttt,e accusation, and that be had a complete answer to all she alleged against him. lie begged that the Alderman smuld ask her what his character was. Elizabeth Boyd —I have to say of you that you took me innocent and young, and you know it. Mr. Nathan—This is totally irrelevant and unw , arthy of Any notice. There is no truth whatever in her state' cent. It is a charge which a vindictive person can easily intake against any one. She has a sweetheart as I can easily . prove, and I have documents to show that the accusation is, altogether groundless ; but the whole is unworthy of my noti se. Alderman Gases—The offence of which the, lefendant has been guilty, is one of a most dangerous natures, from which loss of might have arisen, and I shall inflic ,t a very heavy fine upon her. The question as to her sister ha i nothing to do with this, and if the girl has any complaint t a snake against you, she must apply to the parish officers of Whitechapel, iu the workhouse of which the child was born. I tine the defen dant 3/. or three months' confinement for thei damage she has done, and she mtwt also find bail to keep the pea ce. The Defendant—l hope. the Almighty will'infliet a heavier fine upon him. Mr. Nathan said he was ready to answer- .any charge 'that might be made against him. The defendant, was then committed to prisr 03 . IrORSHIP.STREE Daniel Brown, a ragged and wretched looking man, who appeared in a starving condition, was charged with having stolen a pewter pot, the property of Mr. Cosson, landlord of the Blue La,t public house, Curtain-road, Shoredit, The offence was clearly proved by one of ti a! prosecutor's servants, who stopped the prisoner as he was leas• bag the house, and found the pot concealed inside of Isis hat. The prisoner said that he was a journeyman sl toemaker, bat had been nearly a month out of work, and w is impelled to commit the robbery to procure means of appeasin g the craviags of hunger. Ile had sold everything he possessed, even to the coat off his back, before he resorted to such a Lep, and num bers of his fellow. workmen were in the same destitute condi tion as himself. Grove the gaoler said, that the export. trade lin c shoes was at present in a s t a t e o f comp l ete stagnation, i n e cr a set ,uence t h e of ur propos e d reduction of duty on the importation. of x ianulacted leather, and h un d re d s o f j onrnevinen s h oe makers had to his certain knowl e d ge b een t h rown out o f employ-mentt and reduced to the utmost distress and privation. Mr. Baden tyros said, that he could not allow tl ye plea of die. tress to be used as an excuse for dishonesty . , b. n instead of sending the prisoner for trial, he should convict h bat of having been found on the premises with a felonious lute: it, and com mit him for a month to the House of • Correction. STEA LING A Tis.L.--Two young men, na used Joseph Conwau and John Elva, were charged with has ring stolen a till, containingabout U. 17s. in silver and co p per money, the property of Arr. Brinsden, landlord of the Bridpor t, Arms public house, New North-road, Hoxton. It appeared that about 10 o'clock yesterday mot n ing the pro litoth e tap-room, sad o n re t urn i ng b ac k after, he misseal Isis 1 , ccontaining'ti s r t e o uattbohorev'ebv.aamr3, a ecnatlfeiloe'nvi minutesed sum. The pris suers wsr,s in the act of leaving the house in company with another man, sand observing that. Conway was carrying so met hi ng u oder his aim, the prose cutor pursued them, raisin g t h e cry of, "stop thi ef," upon whi ch the prisoner Conway th rew the till iuto the :road and ran off with his companion, b ut, after a short cha ter the prisoners were secured a nd g i ven i nto custody. The prisoners, w were fully ho asserted their innoce acs, committed. ----- , The Gen era l Steam Navigation Coin pay ly's English steam-ship Soho, Captain Thomas Whitco Abe, arrived this morning (Monday) f rom Antwerp, in ninet eta :hours, having on board Lora Chichester, and the Hon. B. t o ‘ t , n . (its. Wimp.—The celebrated IV i.... i . Wood, who was declared by the German composer, Vc 4 Weber, to be the first vocalist in Europe, is about to retire fi Al' her professional labours. We understand that previously . O. 0 the withdrawal of this highly gifted lady, it is her intentio , principal theatres in the provinces, and Vest Birmingham has she been selected ai the first in which to vi9it each of the will a ppear on her final tcur.—Leeds Mercury. had rying L,scut, oble puta llis more )tice. from iered foa -1 by :eraj 3ept 1 a .1 as dui& the Iced 14 ) .Y last for ?nee era' .h en for ill ; alth ?v.e- AU' ry Ld. ger n )05 .he r 1,0 ve (4- in to 1- II \