The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

bPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. PROM THE EVENINO PAPERS or YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—Each of the three Conservative journals of this morning devotes a leading article to Mr. Roe buck's motion, which was negatived on Friday last, for a tax on the reduction of incomes derived from pro fessions or trades. Though we cannot impute a want of harmony to the Premier's organs, their agreement is unfortunately on the wrong side ; for they all concur in condemning or regretting the conduct of the Minister. The Post is the most reserved in its expressions on the subject alluded to ; but, if it is not strong in its animadversions, it is at least faint in its praise, and founds its cold approbation of Sir Robert Peel's course upon " the great sagacity " of the man, rather than on the intrinsic merit of his measure. It attempts to satisfy any doubt of the soundness of his Income-tax policy by observing that the Minister himself of course knows best—a phrase which is usually applied when it is seen that an individual is obstinately resolved on a course which appears to be particularly injudicious. The Herald, in a bold spirit of prophecy, undertakes to say what Sir Robert Peel will do two years hence. Though it is a difficult matter to calculate on any thing so uncertain as the Right Honourable Baronet's future- acts or opinions, we are disposed to put faith - for once in our Contemporary's prediction. " Sir R. Peel," we are told, " will two years hence regret the opposition he gave on Friday night to Mr. Roebuck's proposed amendment of Schedule D ;" and we think it very likely that such will be the case. We need hardly say that if there is probable ground for the future lamentations of the Premier in the re jection of the proposition made by the Hon. Member for Bath, there must be in the same event some cause for congratulation among the friends of Liberal Go vernment. Perhaps the most efficient enemies of in justice are those who suffer it to be felt in its fullest force ; and it is probable that to apply the process of tinkering to the black measure of the Income tax would only tend to prolong its existence, .as well as to ward off the odium that will de servedly attach to the party that has resolved on im p osing it. "Rough justice" may be very well in its ay ; but when millions are about to be wronged, the partial exemption of a few from the contem plated injury adds greatly to the injustice done to the many. We agree with the Times, that "if we are to draw a line of exemption in the wrong place, it will continually become a question whether it w suld not have been even more just to leave it un drawn altogether." The whole plan of the Income tax is so oppressive, that it may be pronounced "past mending" even at the present early stage of its ex istence. It is a piece of legislation which, like an inferior article, will never be worth the trouble and expense of repairs, but it had better be left in its original state for the public to discover its worse than svoithle sness. STANDARD.—The proceedings at the extraordi sits ry sitting of the House on Saturday will, we are s tt:e, go far to justify to our readers the attention we ,ave given to the progress of the Southampton Elec t ion Committee. From these proceedings it is mini -, est that the Committee has been acting illegally, though in perfect innocence of designed illegality; and that the law is at present in a very defective state as regards the administration of justice by such tribUnals. All who, with ourselves, are anxious to put an end to the practice of corruption, must regret this, and earnestly desire to see the Committee armed with effective legal power, and to see them cordially supported in the exer ,cise of such power. This is the proper course for putting an end to the evil, though it may not be the popular one at the moment. The House of Commons, always impressed with the truth of the maxim laid down b 7 law writers, that to " define power is to limit it,' has uniformly preferred the exercise of an ar bitrary authority to the exercise of power borrowed from the law ; and though the consequence of this poor jealousy has been to leave the House with less power than for the common good it ought to have, there appears tobe a strong disposition still to adhere to its indul gence. Undefined power is, however, tyranny, and the tyranny of a collective body is always less tole rable than the tyranny of individuals. There have been illustrations enough of this truth in the history of the House of Commons, even within the last half century ; but the cases have been generally insulated and casual, so as to leave less impression of danger to public liberty than a constant exercise of arbitrary power must necessarily produce ; but when the House is entrusted with judicial functions there is manifest reason for fear, should it allow its arbitrary temper to extend to the exercise of these functions. Courts of justice must be bound by strict, inva riable, and well-known rules, or they cease to be suited to a free people. If rules are to be proclaimed at the will of an individual, or of an assembly like the House of Commons, they will be neither strict nor invariable, nor well known ; they will be loosely in terpreted, often departed from in obedience to the feeling of the day, and, when inconvenient, " a breath unmakes them as a breath has made." In a word, if this country is to remain free, the House of Commons must either abandon its judicial functions alto gether—which would be, perhaps, the wiser and better course—or submit to allow the exercise of these functions to be strictly defined and regulated by law. HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. On Friday last, the first of a course of lectures on Chemistry, in connection with the growth of plants, was delivered by Mr Edward Solly, jun., F. L. S., &c,, at the Society's Rooms, in Regent-street, and was attended by many of the leading horti - culturists, and others devoted to agricultural and scientific pursuits, amongst whom we noticed Sir J. Sebright. Sir Charles Lemon, Sir 0. Mosely, Sir James South, Mr. lilabbne, Dr. Rostock, Sir E. Ryan, Mr. Pepys, and several others. We copy the following from the Gardener': Chronicle of Saturday last, on this subject:..-- Yesterday Mr. Solly delivered his first lecture to the Fel lows of the Horticultural Society and their friends, upon the connexion between chemistry and the arts of cultivation. We cannot speak too highly of the manner in which the very diffi cult task of compressing much matter into a small space, and of selecting those topics only which have a direct con nexion with the subject, was executed; nor, indeed, of the whole management of the discourse. From the attention with which the lecture was received, it.was evident that those who were present entertained the same opinion as ourselves. We confess it gives us great satisfaction to find that the Horti cultural Society should be the first of the great bodies of Lon don to take a decided step towards connecting chemical science with the practical operations of the gardener, by means of public lectures, at the present day. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. DEAL, APRIL 30.—Wind N.N.E.—Arrd. from the River and sailed, Simon Taylor, West Australia ; Mermaid and Port Royal, Madras; Elizabeth, Jamaica; Orbit, Quebec; and several others. OFF DOVER, APRIL 28.—Cuba, Degn, Havannah; Pat mot, Domingo, for Hamburgh. PORTSMOUTH, APRIL 30.—Wind E. E. N. E. Sid.. Switzerland, New York. Cowan, AIAY I.—Arrd. Carinan, Arriandiaga, Havannah. So wr Hamrrort,May I.—Arrd. Liverpool steamer, Gibraltar, left April 21st, Cadiz April 22d, Lisbon April 25th, Oporto April 26th, and Vigo April 27th. Sld. Montrose steamer, Gibraltar; Oriental steamer, Alexandria. MAY I.—Wind Du BLIN, Aram 29.—Sid. /Era, New York; Onyx, Quebec. KINGSTON, APRIL 30.—Sid. Chester, New York. Coax, APRIL 28.—Arrd. Xarifa, Tucker, Barbadoes, sld. 28th ult. Arrd. off, Albert, Keith, Demerara, sld. 19th Ult. BELFAST, APRIL 28.—SId. Cordelia, St. John's. SCARBOROUGH, APRIL 29.—S1d. Trade, Quebec. FALSIOUTH, APRIL 30. Wind E. S.E. to E.—Arrd. Adams. Mills, Calcutta. Sld. Albion, Newfoundland. Arrd. if, Greyhound, China; Paragon, Cumming, Calcutta; Swal low, Cape ; Belina, Belicarto. JEaszy, APAIL 26.—S1d. Canopus, Charles, Janus, Rollo, Nameless, Laurel, Concord, Harriet, Flora, and Pelican, .Labrador. OFF HasTlNcs, APRIL 30. —Harmonie, Rio, Lr Ham lurgh, and supplied with provisions. OFF DUNGEYESS, MAY I.—Emelie and Helena, Cuba, for Bremen ; Danzic, Havannah, for Hamburgh ; Nornen, Han. ten, Messina. OFF SALCOMBE, APRIL 23.—Sarah, Crisp, Mauritius; Ilary Huckton, Bogfor, Virginia; Terpsichore, Bahia; Cri terion, New York. Orr TORBAY, APRIL 29.—Stork, scott, China. DAs.vmou•rst, APRIL 2 9.--Arrd. Gloria, Meeson, Messina, bar St. Petersbergh, short of provisions, &c. Arrd. off, Ge -tiers) Kyd, China. IN THE CHANNEL.--EaSypelleS, Calcutta; Active, New Zealand ; John, China; Diligent, Bos, Batavia, for Amster dam ; Polo, ditto, for Bremen. LIVERPOOL, APRIL 30.--Wind S.E., moderate.—Arrd. Rapid, Alexander, Texas; Franconia, Davis, .New Orleans ; Jane, Walker, and Great Britain, Prout, Mobile ; Minerva, White, Savannah ; Jane, Slater, Charleston; Ellen, YaPP , Calcutta ; Bella Portena, Buenos Ayres • Courier, Pernam buco ; Nelson, Wood, Maranharn ; packet Jane, Laguna ; Matson, Pearce, Savanilla. ADMIRALTY, MAY 1. The Admirals at Devonport and Portsmouth have been directed to send any vessels under thei r orders, that twe fit for duty, to convey provisions and water to the erztrance of the Channel, to affbrd relief to ' vessels de - tained.there and in distress owing to the continuance of ;the easterly wind. EAST INDIA SHIPPING. Arrivals.—Greyhound and Hutchinson, from China, eiff Falmouth, sailed 2d October ; Singapore, Ist Nov ; St. Helena, 6th Feb. Adams, Mills, from Bengal, off Falmouth, sa iled 30th August ; Penang. 24 th Oct. ; Cape, 2d Feb. Dale Park, Snell, from Bengal, off Pen zance, sailed 31st Oct. ; Cape, 23d 'January. Paragon, Cumming, from Bengal, off Falmouth ; sailed /5 th Nov.; Cape, 4th Feb. Swallow, Biggar, from Maurj tius, off Falmouth, sailed 29th Dec. ; Cape, 4th Feh. A chilies, •Trivett, from Ceylon, off Penzance, sailed 26t1 i Dec.; 'Cape; 19th Feb. General Kyd, Jones, from Ch ;tut, oft Dartmouth. sailed 23d Dec.; St. Helena, 3d 1 larch. Eliza, Le Mesurier, from the Mauritius, o ff Plyn , outh, sailed 22d J anuary. S tork, Scott, from China, off Tor bay • sailed 15th Dec. ; St. Helen a , 7 t h M arc h. AC% I've. Brooks, from the South Seas, off Torbay, sailed fn " 2 St. Helena, 2d March. Ellen, Nore, from Bengal, ‘ t at Liverpool, s a il e d 23d D ecem b er- St. Helena, sth Marc' ARE AT COLCHESTER.—Allalarminfire broke out at quarter past twelv e o ' c l oc k yesterday morning, at Mr. Wallace's, ironm onger , i n t h e High-street, Colchester within one house of th e Corn Exchange. I n l ess than one l o ur the houses of Mr. Wallace, the Rev. S. Carr, ;Ir. Knight , seeds man, .adjoining Carr' s , were i n one complete blaze, ith Mr. Shuttleworth's, a private house. The adjoining has se, be longing to Mr. Rouse, baker, and Mr. White, shoernake r, was gulled 4cm nto prevent the fire spreading. All the how 'es are Insured, .Mr. Alfred Brathwaite, brother of the engine, 'r-in ehief of t l ee Eastrn Countie s R a il way, rendered most eft cient service dux 1•13 g the conflagration. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2. Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock. THE TARIFF. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the boot and shoemakers of Norwich, against the reduction in the duty on foreign boots and shoes. The Duke of RUTLAND presented petitions from Leicester against the importation of live ands dead stock; also a petition from the guardians of a parish in Leices ter, praying for an increase in the power of granting out-ef-do or relief. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 3, 1842. present session they could not find time to reply.— (Hear, and a laugh.) He did not think that the message which his Noble Friend proposed would be at all bene ficial, nor did he think, if even a favourable answer to his message were received, that he would find he had ad vanced one Single step iii the progress of the under - taking, which he (Lord C.) rejoiced to hear that he had commenced. Further, he was sure his Noble and Learned Friend would concur with him, that id a matter of so great importance it would be better that the two Houses should go together. The House of Commons was very jealous of anything that should touch its pri vileges as to the constitution of its own body, and he was sure they ought to do all they could to carry the House of Commons with them in so great and beneficial a measure. He should deeply regret that any step should be taken which would break up the cordiality between the two Houses. For these reasons he was very much relieved in hearing that it was the intention of his Noble and Learned Friend not to press his motion on the House. Lord BROUGHAM certainly heard with the greatest respect the observations of his Noble Friend who had so long filled the chair of the other House, and whose opinions he knew intimately coincided iNith his own on this subject ; but his Noble Friend did not agree with him that the Committees of the House of Commons acted, as legislative bodies. Why, in one of the cases to which he had referred, the Committee, called on the House to disfranchise a borough! Was not that legislation? How ever, it was not his intention to press the motion, and with their Lordships' leave he would withdraw it. The motion was withdrawn accordingly. SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION (CATHOLICS). Lord CLIFFORD presented six petitions from Roman Catholics, complaining of want of religious instruction amongst the poor of their persuasion, and especially of the want of relig religious assistance in w or kh ouses a nd gaols, and in her Majesty's army abroad. The Noble Lord took that opportanity to refer to the motion made by the Noble and Learned Lord with reference to bribery at election's, stating that he thought the Noble and Learned Lord, by bringing the subject forward, had conferred a benefit on the country, almost great enough to compen sate for the loss of his Parliamentary services. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2. The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four o'Clock. NATIONAL EDUCATION. _ _ Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented a petition from Cavan, Ireland, against the National System of education. READING ELECTION. Mr. HOGG brought up the Report of the Reading Election Committee, declaring Mr. C. Russell and Vis counrChelsea to have been duly elected. • INCOME TAX. Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition against tax ing English funds held by foreigners. THE NATIONAL PETITION Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose and said-Sir, the im portance of this petition, an importance derived not only from the matter which it contains, but from the great numbers who have signed it, would, I am quite satis fied, be sufficient to induce the House to relax those rules which have been laid down with regard to the pre-. sentation of petitions, and to grant me its indul gence; but, as I have given notice of a motion for to morrow, that this petition shall be taken into the serious consideration of the House, and that those who have signed it shill be heard by their counsel and agents at the bar of the House in support of the allegations it con tains, I shall not ask the House to grant me this indul gence, but shall keep myself within those limits which the House has prescribed with regard to the presenta tion of petitions; and therefore I beg to offer to the ac ceptance of this House a petition signed by 3,315,752 of the industrious classes of the country. The petition proceeds from those upon whose toil and industry, upon whose affection, and upon whose attachment, I may say, every institution, every law, the Government of this country, and not only the Government but the whole property and commerce of this country depends, and they now most respectfully come before you to state 'the manifold grievances under which they suffer. These grievances they state, and I need not go over them, be • cause I intend to ask the Clerk of the House to read what those principal grievances are, which they have en dured for a long time, and which they attribute to class legislation, and to the misrepresentation of their interests in this House. They state that for a considerable length of time their interests have been grossly neglected, and that no interests, beyond your own have ever been considered of, within those walls.-(Hear, hear.) Sir, they are ready to prove the allegations of their petition at the bar of your Honourable House. They pray to be heard there, for within the limits of a petition they cannot set forth a tithe of the grievances of which they complain ; but if you will grant them a hearing they state that they shall be able to set forth such a tale of the unmerited sufferings endured by the working classes in England and in Ireland, as can be scarcely credited. Their wants are most urgent, and they attribute all their grievances to class legislation. The petition is signed by 3,315,752 of the industrious classes of the country. I would wish to analyse the signatures attached to it, but I will con tent myself with stating the names only of those cities, hamlets, and towns, in which more than 10,000 sig natures have been attached. The following is the statement of the signatures attached to the petition :- Manchester, 99,680 ; Newcastle and districts, 92,000 ; Glasgow and Lanarkshire, 78,062 ; Halifax, 36,400 ; Nottinghamshire, 40,000 ; Leeds, 41,000 ; Birmingham, 43,000 ; Norwich, 21,560 ; Bolton 18,500 ; Leicester, 18,000 ; Rochdale, 19,600 ; Loughborough and dis tricts, 10,000 ; Salford, 19,600 ; East Riding, York shire, agricultural, districts, 14,840 ; Worcester, 10,000 ; Merthyr Tydvil and districts, 3,900 ; Aberdeen, 17,600 ; Keithly, 11,000 ; Brighton, 12,700 ; Bristol, 12,800 ; Huddersfield, 23,180 ; Shef fierd; 27,200 ; Scotland, West Midland districts, 18,000 ; Dunfermline, 16,000 ; Cheltenham, 10,400 ; Liver pool, 23,000•; Staley bridge and districts, 10,000 ; Stockport, 14,000 ; Macclesfield and suburbs, 10,000 ; North Lancashire, 52,000 ; Oldham, 15,000 ; Ashton, 14,200 ; Bradford and district, Yorkshire, 45,100 ; 13urnlev and district, 14,000; Preston and district, 24,000; Wigan, 10,000 ; London and suburbs, 200,000 ; from 371 other towns, villages, &c. 2 ,134,897-total, 3,315,752. I believe that every one of these signatures are bona fide signatures. The petitioners suggest that the proper remedy for their grievances would be that they should have a voice in the election of Representatives to this House. They complain that they are totally and entirely unrepresented ; and if they are permitted to be heard, they state that they shall be able to adduce satisfactory arguments to prove that the document, usually called the People's Charter, ought to be passed into a law. That document prays for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, no Property Qualification, Payment of Members, and Equal Electoral Districts. This petition is signed by 3,315,752 of the industrious classes ; and I now press it on the attention of this Hon. House. Sir, I move that the petition be read by the Clerk at the table. The SPEAKER—PIease to bring it up.—(A laugh from the Ministerial benches.) The petition was then read by the Clerk at the table. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved that the petition be printed with the Votes, for the purpose of bringing the subject of it under the consideration of the House. Agreed to. Mr. C. WOOD presented a petition from the solicitors of Halifax against the annual certificate tax. DUDLEY ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a comminication, stating that the petition com plaining of an undue return for the borough of Dudley would not be proceeded with. Mr. LINDSEY presented a petition in favour of the Income-tax. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented a petition from the Queen's County against the system of National Education in Ireland. BOLIVIA. Sir R. PEEL brought up papers, by command of her Majesty, with reference to the recent negotiations with the Republic of Bolivia. Mr. POWELL presented a petition from certain parties of the Metropolis, in favour of opening South wark, Waterloo, and Vauxhall Bridges. NOTICES OF MOTIONS.—ELECTION TRI BUNALS. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would to-morrow move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act for the Regulation of Controverted Elections, and to substitute the Judges of the Superior Courts for the Chairman's panel.—(Hear, hear.) BANKRUPTCY LAW. Mr. W. ELLICE gave notice that he would to morrow put a question to the Secretary for the Home Department, respecting the law of bankrupts. WEST INDIA PACKET STATION. Mr. WALLACE said, that seeing the Hon. Secretary for the Admiralty,in his place, he wished to inquire whe ther it was the intention of the Admiralty to make any change in the West India line of packet station. Con siderable disappointment had taken place with respect to the delivery of letters from the % est Indies, and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to take this question into con sideration, and whether, if any change were 4nade, Southampton would be one of the new stations. Mr. S. HERBERT was understood to say, that some inconvenience had been experienced, and that it was the intention of the Admiralty to take the question into con sideration.. A recommendation had been made of certain towns to be made packet stations, and Southampton was one. CHURCH EXTENSION. Mr. lIAWES wished to put a question to the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. He wished to renew the question he had more than once put, as to whether it was the intention of the Hon. Baronet,. at an early period, to bring under the notice of the House the subject of Church extension?—(Laughter and cheers.) Sir R. H. INGLIS said, that in reply to the question of the Hun. Member, and in reply to the cheer with which that ques ti o n had been received, he would repeat the answer which he had given on a former occasion, that he retained his intention with respect to bringing the subject forward this session, and he would give ample notice to the Ron. Gentleman, and the House, of the time at which he intended to bring it forward. POOR LAWS. Lord FEVERSHAM presented a petition against the abolition of Gilbert unions. _ _ _ The Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. BAPTIST AFFIRMATION BILL. Lord DENMAN said he had intended to move the second reading of the Bill he had introduced, enabling persons who entertained the opinion that the practice of making oath was unlawful, to make affirmation instead; but since he had introduced it, he had found that strong objections existed in various quarters to giving the pri vilege to any particular sect alone. The question had been asked, why should it be granted to Baptists and not to other sects who had the same objections. He there fore begged to state, that in a few days he intended to bring in a more general measure on the subject. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. • Lord BROUGHAM rose to move their Lordships to send a message to the other House of Parliament, re questing • the communication of the Reports of the three Committees appointed to try the merits of three contested elections. He felt it more neces sary to call their Lordships' attention' to the subject of those :Reports in consequence of the notice which he gave last session, and which he believed met with the concurrence of that House, that he should move this session for the appointment of a Committee to consider the Bribery-laws and practices which had lately taken place, and to decide what measures should be adopted to enforce those laws. He had been frequently asked why, in redemption of that pledge, he had not called their Lordships' attention to it ; his answer was that he stated when he gave notice that until progress had been made in the election petitions, it appeared to him to be inexpedient to enter into any in quiry in that House. Great progress had been made now in those inquiries, and, in some cases, the Com mittees had reported generally against the places where the election was held. In the borough of Ipswich there was a general report of bribery. In Sudbury there was, 'not only a general report of bribery, but a strong and unanimous recommendation that they should proceed to disfranchise the borough on account of the grossness of the bribery. He must call their Lordships' attention to the great importance of such questions as these. It was in contemplation to discuss the disfranchise ment of a borough, in consequence of the prevalence of the practice of bribery. He must remind their Lord ships of a remarkable occurrence which took place in that House in the session of 1834, when a Bill reached them from the other House of Parliament, laying down a general course of procedure in all such cases,and constitut ing a form according to which Parliament should proceed, when bribery was charged, with a view to the disfran chisement of a borough. The course of Parliament had generally been, that whilst their Lordships had little or no legislative business to transact during the first part of the session, towards the end of the session there came from the other House an overwhelming mass of measures of the greatest possible importance, the discussion of which was of necessity crowded into a space of not many days. When he saw, therefore, from the Votes, that such measures as the disfranchisement of places on account of bribery were about to be discussed, and when he knew that they would come up late in the session, on the eve of their being prorogued, he hoped he had said enough to call their attention to this subject, one of great general interest, and to prove that it would be better for the country, and that their Lordships would better discharge their legislative duties, if they consi dered this question. But to return to 1834. The Com mons sent up a Bill, which had been passed apparently without any attention to the details or the inevitable consequences of passing it, for it amounted to this much, that if a charge of general bribery should be made before that House, and a Committee should be appointed which should examine and report to that House that they were of opinion that the charge had been proved, then, not by Bill, but by two votes, one of one House and another of another the dis franchisement of a borough should at once be effected. It was a Bill by which the party in power, though by the smallest majority, could disfranchise any borough in the kingdom. His Noble Friend, who . now was Governor-General of India, concurred with him at the time in thinking that such would be the effect of the Bill as it came up from the Com mons, and the Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) did him (Lord B.) the honour of asking him to embody in fresh clauses, by way of amendment, some suggestions of the highest importance. He (Lord B.) accordingly applied himself to those alterations and framed the clauses. He could claim no merit whatever for these amendments, although they were of great value. When they were framed they were referred to a Select Committee up stairs, which sat day after day discussing these clauses, and some material alterations were made in them in the Committee before they were ultimately agreed to ; and they were agreed to with a unanimity singular on a subject like that, upon which such difference of opinion was to be expected. They were agreed to with a unanimity, singular in its degree ; for he believed that every one of the clauses was adopted by the Select Committee without a division, and every one of the clauses was afterwards agreed to by the House without a division. The Bill thus amended was returned to the House of Commons. It was indeed another Bill, different in principle, different in its enactments from that which had been sent up from the Commons ; but it was an amended Bill, and it was, therefore, exposed to the objection which he had made to the Bill as it originally came up to their Lordships. The consideration of the Bill was, therefore, postponed in the Commons, on the ground that it was a new mea sure. But no objection was at that time taken to the plan suggested by his Noble Friend, framed by their Lordships' Committee, and adopted by the House. No objection was made to the plan in itself, but the con sideration of the measure was postponed on the ground that it was altogether different from that which the House of Commons bad originally pursued. He (Lord Brougham) deeply regretted- that the postpone ment was continued up to the present time.— (Hear, hear.) He would fain hope that some such measure would now occupy the attention of the ether Hoiis? of Parliament. in which it most properly might originate. It was certainly a measure of great novelty, but he was convinced that it was founded upon the soundest principles, and that its adoption would work great and important improvements. 'The principle was that when a char ge o f corrupt i on was b rought against a body, there should be appointed a joint Committee, selected from both Houses of Parliament, consisting of twelve Members, seven from the House of Commons and five of their Lordships. This was not all. This Jury was to sit and try the cases under the presidency of a Judge—that Judge being one of the Judges of England, and not a Member of either House of Parlia ment ; and to that remedy, in his (Lord Brougham's) clear and firm opinion, Parliament in the end would have to come, after two or three more expe riments on the part of the House of Commons, to carry on those inquiries in their own body. It was provided that they should be under the presi dency of a Judge, that Judge to decide all questions of law, and dispose of all questions of evidence sub ject to no appeal, but to the Judges in West minster Hall, affirming or reversing the decision ; that then a special verdict should be found by that Court, constituted by a Judge and mixed Jury, and that verdict setting forth all the facts should be • returned or recorded to both Houses of Parliament, and made conclusive both in that House and the other, of all the facts of the case in whatever proceedings either House might institute in respect to the change under consideration. That Bill was to be brought in—that Bill was to run the course of all other Acts—to be read a third time, to be committed, reported, and passed. All safeguards were to exist with respect to that particular Bill, as to all other Bills ; but the facts of the case were to be con cluded by the return of the Judge and the Parliamentary Jury, and upon those facts the act of legislation was to be made. After once more expressing his opinion upon this most valuable measure, he had then to proceed to state why, in another point of view, it was necessary for their Lordships then to at tend to this matter. They had been called upon themselves several times in the last three years to take into further consideration that most important Bill sent up from the other House of Parliament for regu lating the proceedings in Committees upon controverted elections. That Bill more nearly affected the other House than their Lordships, or the other estate of the kingdom. The Crown and the Peers had a less immediate, and less near, and less direct in terest in the matter than the House of Commons. Much discussion bad taken place upon the passing of that Act, and his Noble and Learned Friend, when heintrn duced the measure into their Lordships' House, with his usual ability and distinctness, and with the force with which he always stated his case, brought the whole matter be fore their Lordships and obtained their unanimous concur rence. Upon the grounds stated for the change—the very great change which was then deemed desirable in legislating in the other House of Parliament, he (Lprd Brougham) urged the subject then upon their Lordships. In 1839 or 1840 some alterations were made in the Bill, which were thought to be a great improvement, and it was natural that their Lordships who had passed the Bill, should be anxious to see how it had worked, and to ascertain whether the fault was in the Bill itself, or in those who had had the working of it. In the last session another measure was passed, from a conviction that the existing law was not sufficient for the suppression of bribery. That Bill contained four several sections, three of which were so objectionable, so contrary to the rights of the subject, and so at variance with the sacred rul es on w hi c h the admi nistration of justice was founded, that he had found no difficulty in The on th e i r L or d - ships t o reject them. The fourth stood on diffe rent grounds, appeared well contrived, and formed a complete contrast to the merits, or rather the demerits of the others. That measure was passed, and it was also natural that they should be anxious to ' see how that bad worked, and how the other House of Parliament had acted under it. • p thought it would be in vain to deny, looking ' at the Votes and proceedings of the other House, that both these measures had been unfortunate in their fate in the other House of Parliament ; they had had no chance of producing any considerable good, or that amount of good that had been expected from th em . His Lordship them detailed the plan of the measure of last session, and the way the House of C om - ' m ons had acted under it, alluding to the strong party f e elings that were shown by the printed lists of votes, in which certain Members were s always found voting together ; it was from these that the Committees were chosen, and the Chair man named by the Committee of Selection. This Committee of Selection showed the different Committees, and he found from the votes of each t Committee that, every one consisted of three Ministerial - and three Opposition Members, they having been chosen in the same way as the Committes themselves. The twelve Chairmen were selected, and they were appointed on the same principle—six Mini sterial, and six. Opposition. So each Committee, consisting of four of one party and three of the other, was con stituted a Court of Justice—a court of judication of the highest sort, appointed to consider questions of the greatest importance—of interests compared to which 999 cases out of every 1,000 which were disposed of by Judges and Jury by the common law of the land sunk into utter insignificance, whether they considered' the gravity of the case or the vehement excitement: of the parties concerned. A court of judicature ! Four judges of one party, and three of the other, were so lemnly sworn,, well and truly, upon their solemn oaths, to try the merits of the petition before them. He could not help regarding this as a most insulting course, for was it more or less than saying that they suspected men of being influenced by pkrty motives. It must be suspicion, and nothing but suspicion, which must account for a se lection such as this. If they believed those gentlemen capa ble of the offence—if they blasted their characters as suspicious persons, they went a great way to wards verifying that suspicion, for when a man was suspectd, it was very likely that he would earn the wages for such suspicion. He thought it would be much better that the Chairmen of these Committees should be lawyers. Yet he could not find one Chairman whose name was ever known in Westminster Hall. It appeared from the different Reports of the Committees—that there were ten cases in which Members had been unseated by Committees. He (Lord Brougham) would rather be heard by one adversary than by three or four such.; As matters now stood, if he had a political adversary in the Chairman ' he knew that he had three others, and if the Chairman decided against him he would be op posed by the others, whereas if he sat alone he would more fully and impartially consider the question. He (Lord Brougham) merely threw this out as a suggestion, and he would say that it was an opinion entertained in Westminster Hall. In how many of these cases had the decision been according to, and in how many cases had it been contrary to, the party politics of the Chairman, and a majority of the Committee ? Ten being the number of cases, in nine of which the decision had been not contrary to, but according to the politics of the party forming the majority of the Committee ! He had no manner of doubt that in all these cases the Committee decided conscientiously. He did not for an instant suspect that the politics of the party constituting the • majority, had any influence—even the slightest—apon their decision. For' ought ;he knew, there might have been a perfect unani mity on all these cases in the Committee. but it had too often been said, and it could not too often be repeated, that justice ought not only to be pure but unsuspected. But each of those courts of judicature were formed studiously with a view to parties, and looking to the re sults iu nine out of ten cases, the decision had been according to the politics of the majority of the Committee in each instance. Would any man, look ing at these results, which the recorded votes of the House of Commons proved would any man say, that a judicature thus constituted, and judges thus deciding, could create any thing but, he would not say doubt, but at the least hesitation as to the fairness of such tribunals? Another thing were that those Committees, time out of mind, was used to deliberate with closed doors: He did not object to that, but the Committee went a step further. They gave their decisions publicly, but no man could tell whether those decisions were given unanimously, or by the narrowest majority of four to three. The Judges of this country did not deem it inconsistent with their duty or below their dignity to let their coun trymen know how they gave judgment in any case When they were agreed, one delivered the judgment—when they differed, each delivered their judgment. The Judges did not consider it inconsistent with their duty or below their dignity to assign a reason for their judgment. In proportion as the question was im portant, and in proportion as the matter was difficult, the more they considered it to be their duty, and the best foundation of their dignity, to give a reason for their opinion, because on reason they desired the authority of their judgment to rest. These Committees were not impartially chosen, except a Committee could be called impartial, constituted by three party men on one side and three equally party men on the other, with a party chairman over the other six. These judges, so ap pointed, so selected, sitting on a party qUestion, in every which question that could by possibility come before them they were of necessity parties interested—wrapped in themselves—never gave their opinions in public, and never gave one atom of reason for the delivery of the judgment to which they had come. He had no manner of doubt that this system could not possibly last. These questions should be decided upon judicial authority by persons unconnected with the party, not as it now ex isted, where the judge in the case was a party in the cause, and from whom no appeal could be made. So long as they allowed the judge to be a Member of the other House of Parliament, so long as that continued, they had of absolute necessity this anomaly, this monster in judicial proceedings, a Court without appeal, in which one way or the other, more or less, the parties in the cause were those who had to decide the question. He had no hesitation in saying that sooner or later this would be the result of all experiments on the question. To the question of whether the House of Commons could part with its jurisdiction, his answer was that it would have been consistent had it been urged before the passing of the Grenville Act of 1770, by which the House had parted with its jurisdiction to a statutory tribunal, acting on statute law, the only difference being that the members of the Court must be Members of the House of Commons. All these experiments and their failure, in the hands of men of ability and integrity, it must be admitted was a striking proof of the absolute necessity of a great change in the system. He had deemed it his duty, at as early a period as possible, to draw their Lordship's atten tion both to the working of the former acts, and the ne cessity of a change. There was an important oversight in the Act of last session, which they had passed exactly as it came from the House of Commons, with the excep tion of the three first clauses, which they had struck out altogether. This Act made it imperative on the Com mittees to report not only whether the sitting Members were duly elected or not, but also to report if the fact of bribery had been proved, If there were any doubts whether it vs as intended that they should give the detail of all the special facts on which the charges were founded, he was willing to give them the benefit of it ; but they were certainly called on to report whether the sitting Members or the candidates had known or con sented to the bribery charged against them. There had been two or three cases at least in which bri bery has been proved against boroughs, and in two of the cases the sitting Members were unseated on the ground of bribery by their agents, but there was no knowledge of, or consent to, that bribery brought home to the sitting Member, and yet the extent of the statute I was that that finding should be final. Nothing could be more important than the constitution of those tribu nals. He would not now detain their Lordships, having last session brought the question before them, and called for a Committee for a more thorough investigation of the statute. All they had suspected of them, and all that, upon partial investigation , they had believed, was now demonstrated by the late proceedings before these Com mittees to have existed, in a greater measure, and in a worse shape, and in a more painful substance, than they suspected at the close of the general elections ; and it would become the bounden duty of their Lordships, as guardians of the law—as guardians of the morals of the country—as guardians of the purity of Parliment, aye, and as protectors of the very existence of the mixed and popular Constitution itself—it would become their abso lutely bounden duty further to prosecute this inquiry and investigate the details of the corruption and bribery— ,the profligate bribery and corruption which had pre vailed. With this view on the one hand, and on the 'other with the intent of enabling the House to ascertain the working and the, defects of the two or three Bills which had already passed in relation to this subject, he now moved that a message be sent to the House of Commons to communicate the Reports of the Sudbury, Ipswich, and Marlow Election Committees, and which they have ordered to be specially reported.—(Cheers,) The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made inquiry on the subject of his Noble and Learned Friend's motion, and, without being more explicit, he would ask his Noble and Learned Friend whether he would perse vere in his motion? Lord BROUGHAM said he perfectly well understood what his Noble and Learned Friend alluded to; but in 1837 a message: was sent to the other House of Parlia ment for a report made upon the practice that prevailed in respect to petitions and improper votes, with a view of ascertaining whether the Reform Bill had been de feated by this practice. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made inquiries, but had received no answer at present to his message. The EARL of WICKLOW said he could not under stand how, when any Bill came to that House, it could be set aside without that information which the House of Commons was in possession of, and he hoped that when any future Bill came before them for the purpose of amending the law on this point the Noble and Learned Lord would bring forward his motion, and that such evidence would be communicated to them as would en able their Lordships to give due consideration to the subject. Lord CANTERBURY said that the Noble and Learned Lord opposite referred to the Report of the Committee in 1837, asked for by this House with regard to the fictitious votes, but that Committee was appointed by the other House, for the express purpose of providing in formation on the subject. Ili's Noble and Learned Friend said that the House of Commons could not interfere at all with the Election Committees by way of suggestion or instruction, and in that he (Lord C.) agreed with him. If the House of Commons proceeded to disfranchise, or to act in any way with respect to a corrupt borough, they could only do so by a legislative measure, and that measure must necessarily come before their Lordship's House ; and it was precisely the same with reference to the report of fictitious votes. His Noble and Learned Friend said, that he thought it would be a useful check on the proceedings of these Committees, if their minutes were always brought up and laid before the other House. He (Lord Canterbury) did not deny that it might be so, but to effect that there must be an alteration in the Act of Parliament. The House of Commons had always felt very jealous f, its own constitution and privileges, and if hi s Noble and Learned Fri en d w ere to send a message of the kind he proposed to the House of Com mons, that House would send an answer by a message of its own, to the effect, probably, That in the limits of the INCOME-TAX BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House then resolved itself into Com mittee on the Income-tax Bill. On clause 3 being proposed, Mr. HUME objected to the power which this clause would give to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, as being excessive and inquisitorial. After a few words in reply from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, which were not audible in the gallery, the clause was agreed to. On clause 4 being put, Mr. HUME expressed his disapprobation of the prin ciple of allowing the Commicsioners of Land-tax to ap point Commissioners for the purposes of the Act. He would rather leave those appointwnt, in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I he ok,Li then have some further securiv against objectionable ap pointments„ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Member proposed to throw too onerous a burden upon him. - Mr. HUME said that the Chancellor of the Exche querdwould, as a Member of the Government, be re sponsible for the appointments he might make ; but the Commissioners of Land-tax might be considered as vir tually irresponsible for the exercise of their powers If the Right Hon. Gentleman had looked as narrowly into this subject as he (Mr. Hume) had done in 1822, he would find that many crying evils existed in regard to those appointments. It was infinitely better that the power of making these appointments should be vested in the head of the Board of Taxes. If it were left as it was proposed to be left by the Bill, scarcely any but political partisans would be appointed. It was not his • intention to make any motion upon the subject, because he felt that it would be of little use to do so if the Govern ment had made up their minds that the Bill should pass in its present shape. The hardship had been pointed out, and it Has for the Right Hon. Baronet to remedy it if he thought proper. He (Mr. Hume) would not make any motion on the subject, because the opinion of the House had so frequently been expressed that he felt it would be useless to do so, and he did not wish to occasion any delay, so as to prevent the House from proceeding with all pos sible dispatch to the consideration of the tariff. The commercial and manufacturing interests of the country were paralysed in consequence of the delay which had taken place, and bad as the affairs of the country had be fore been, delay in the consideration of the tariff made them worse. Sir ROBERT PEEL heard with great satisfaction the opinion which the Hon. Gentleman had expressed, as to the advantage to be derived from being enabled at as early a period as possible to proceed with the considera tion of the tariff. He admitted that it was of the utmost importance that the great measures which had been pro posed for the improvement of the finances of the coun try should undergo the most serious consideration ; and with the exception of the motions for adjournment made before the recess, he had never complained of any delay. But at the same time it was of the utmost importance to settle as soon as possible the commercial state of the country. The uncertainty in respect to the system of manufactures and commerce was operatinglprejudicially, and he trusted when the uncertainty was removed, there would be some improvement in the demand for labour. He heard with great satisfaction what had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman, and he hoped that, as the principle' of the Bill was determined upon, as little delay as possible would take place with respect to its machinery, and the carrying it into opera tion. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that if the principle of local authority was good, it ought to be extended, It would be good for the Assessed Taxes, as well as the tax on property. The course they had taken was to keep the Land-tax Commissioners as they found them. When the tax was to be collected, a scrutiny was made by the local authorities, and their power was left untouched ; but as it was said that parties would object to such a scrutiny ; they gave them the means of doing so at their own discretion, by Govern ment officers, who were responsible to the Go vernment. Therefore, there were local tribunals and Government tribunals, and the party had a power of making an option between both. It was more constitutional that they should leave the local tri bunals in the hands of local authorities, and the Govern ment authorities in the hands of Government. But with regard to the Land-tax Commissioners, it was a subject for general consideration, and he would re serve his opinion on the point; but he could not ac quiesce in the amendment that was proposed. Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed very much with what the Right lion. Gentleman had stated, but he could not admit that there was much misrepresentation, either in that House or out of doors with respect to the operation of the commercial tariff That tariff was not yet on the table of the House, and it, there fore, could not be said that the discussion that had taken place on the Income-tax had prevented its being brought forward. If the Right Hon. Bart. opposite thought it of importance to discuss the tariff, he ought to have brought that forward before going .into Com mittee on the Income-tax ; but if he thought it more important that the Income-tax should be taken first, he ought not to blame Hon. Members for discuss ing that subject. While he was upon his legs he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he knew or had any idea of what the expenses of the machinery of the Income-tax might be? Perhaps he might not be enabled to answer the question at the present moment ; but it was desirable that the House should know what the expenses would be before the third reading. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not able at the present moment, but he had no doubt he should be enabled to do so before the time stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Sir R. PEEL repeated what he had before said as to the advantage to be derived from enabling them to come as early as possible to the consideration of the tariff. At present the tariff was so far complete that they would be enabled to enter upon the discussion of it as soon as they had disposed of the Income-tax. It was a great advantage, and of the utmost importance, that some time had been suffered to elapse since the proposal of the change in the tariff, as it enabled several parties interested in the subject to communicate with the Go vernment upon it. Mr. HUME asked why should not the tariff be brought under the consideration of the House to-morrow? Mr. BLE WITT said that there had been nothing in his conduct dishonourable or otherkise, when he had proposed the first adjourment of the debate. He did so, from the belief that the subject required further consi deration, and that, in point of constitutional practice, the tariff ought to be considered before the income-tax. Having made that observation, he hoped he would be considered as having made his peace with the House. Sir R. PEEL said that he did not mean to make any complaint relative to the course which had been taken in former discussions. He was sure that the Hon. Mem ber had acted solely from his sense of public duty. Mr. B. WOOD wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether the Governmenthad taken into their considera tion the proposition which he had made on a former evening, that a party should be allowed to set off his losses under one schedule, against his gains under another. He thought it would be better that the subject should be taken up by the Government than by any individual Member. Sir R. PEEL said, that the subject might again be brought under the consideration of the House. He had only to say, for his part, that he had given it his fullest consideration, and he was bound to say that he had found such objections to the proposal of the Hon. Gen tleman, that it would be exceedingly difficult for him (Sir Robert Peel) to give to it his sanction. The Government were of opinion, after maturely considering the matter, that the proposal would give a great opportunity for frauds, and it was for the purpose of guarding against that inconvenience that they had in troduced the Bill in its present shape. Mr. WARD said that he wished to know in what stage of the proceedings the discussion of the subject might be expected to take place. The point was one clearly entitled to the consideration of the House. The question in his opinion was simply this, whether a man should pay a tax upon that income which he had, or upon that income which he had not. Sir R. PEEL said, that he should 'give the Hon. Gentleman a fair opportunity of submitting his propo sal to the House in case the Government should de cline to adopt it. Mr. B. WOOD did hot see how the proposal he had made could lead to the commission of frauds. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that the best course which the Hon. Gentleman could take would be to bring up a clause after the Bill had been gone through in Committee. Clauses 4,5, 6,7, 8,9, 10, 11, and 12 were agreed to with some verbal amendments. Clauses 13 to 22 were agreed to. On clause 23 being proposed, Mr. ROEBUCK suggested some alterations in this clause. Sir R. PEEL was inclined to think the proposal he had made was more in accordance with strict justice than that made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK, The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 to 26 were agreed to. On clause 27 being proposed, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in answer to questions from Mr. Hawes, Mr. Baring, and other llon. Members, that, in the majority of cases, per- sons would have no return to make of the amount of their incomes at all—that in the case of the landowner the tax would be deducted from the rent—in the cases of the holders of mortgages, from the interest paid on the mortgage—in the case of the fundholders rm= the interest betore it was paid them, and that parties would only have to make a return of that part of their property from which the tax had nut been stopped in the first instance. Clause 28 was agreed to without any alteration. Clause 29 was agreed to with a few verbal amend ments. Clauses 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 were agreed to without any amendments. Clause 38 was agreed to, after a few observations from Mr. HAWES. Clause 39 was agreed to with a few verbal amendments. Clauses 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 were agreed to without any amendments. . _ Clause 52 was proposed, - and, after a few words from 11r. S. O'BRIEN, agreed to. Clauses 53 up . to 59 were then severally put, and agreed to without any amendments. Clause 60, and schedule (A) which lays down the general rules for estimating lands, tenements, and here ditaments, were then proposed. Rule No. 1, schedule A, was agreed to, after a short conversation, in the course of which The CHA :YCE LLOR of the EXCIIEQT.TER said that if there had been a lease of lands executed during the seven years preceding, the amount stated in the lease should be taken as the value of the profits. If no lease had been executed the poor-rate should be taken as the basis for the calculation by the value of the property. Rule No. 2 was agreed to. On Rule No. 3, for estimates, the value of mines, &c., being proposed. Mr. GILL said that he never could consent that in dustry should be taxed in the same manner as fixed pro perty, and, therefore, he proposed to substitnte for the words of the section, as it at present stood, words to the effect that the value should be computed at the rate of five per cent., on every 1001. capital of such property du ring the year preceding the assessment, and that for the purposes of this Act the product should be taken as the amount of property to be assessed. This tax was a tax that never could be received with satisfaction by the country, and one which would be MIMI) az p•••,s;b , 2 it ~ H s s Oi based on equity, there would be no difficulty in its col lection, and all inquisitorial powers of the tax might be laid aside. It was most important that this tax should be as palatable as possible, and the only way to make it so was to make it a tax upon real property. He thought his amendment would have the effect of making the tax palatable, and he hoped it would meet with the sanction of the House. . The amendment having been put from the Chair, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it would be far more difficult to raise the duty on the principle contaiLed in the amendment of the Hun. Member, than the one laid down as the rule. Rule 4 was agreed to. Rule 5, relative to particular deductions from Schedule A, was also agreed to. On Rule 6 being put, relative to allowances to be made in respect of the duties in Schedule A. Mr. G. W. WOOD said that he thought it unfair that Mechanics' Institutions and other places for the educa tion of the middle and lower classes should be taxed, while the Colleges and Halls of the Universities, which were for the education of the aristocracy, were to be ex empted.—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think the places adverted to by the Hon. Member could in a strict sense be considered as devoted to the purposes of education. Mr. GILL thought if any class of schools were to be exempted, the exemption ought to be extended to all. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. LA - BOUC HERE said, the question was one of importance, but if the large Universities were exempted from the tax, he thought it would be but justice to the humbler schools that they should likewise be exempted. —(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the CXCHEQUER said, the exemptions in the present Bill were limited in the same degree as the assessed taxes. Mr. G.W. WOOD said, that as the poorer schools were not aided by powerful funds like the Universities, he thought they ought not be subjected to the tax. Mr. S. O'BRIEN regretted the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, on this occasion. And, as the subject was one of much importance, he hoped it would be postponed. He felt so strongly on the subject, that if any one would support him, he should divide the House on the question of the postponment of the Rule. 11fr. ESCOTT reminded the House that in many of those public schools the children of the poorer daises received a gratuitous education. Mr. P. HOWARD said that there should be no ex emption except in favour of almshouses and hospitals, and he woulii take the sense of the House upon the question. Mr. F. MAULE asked whether Harrow, Christ's Hospital, and other schools of Royal foundation were included ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not prepared to answer the question definitively, but he would take the earliest opportunity of informing the House. Mr. HUME wished, before the question was put, to bring the attention of the House to the great number of oaths required to be taken under this Bill, when for the last ten or twelve years so much had been done to reduce the frequency of oaths. The Rule was then agreed to. Clauses 61 and 62 were then agreed to. Rules No. 7 and 8 were next agreed to. After a short discussion, Rules 9 and 10 were agreed to, without alteration. Clause 63 was also passed without discussion, as were clauses 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69. Clauses 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81, were ordered to stand part of the Bill. On clause 82 being put, which provides for the relief to be granted to occupiers and owners, for any loss that should be sustained by flood or tempest. Mr. HAWES moved, as an amendment in the 35th line, to insert after the words " for any year," the fol lowing words, " or any property which shall be liable to assessment under this Act." That would have the effect of bringing any other species of property with in the clause. He could not see why one spe cies of property should have this exemption, and another should not. His object in moving this amendment was to give the same exemp tion and allowance, on account of injury done by floods and tempests, to other species of property - which the clause provided for with regard to landed property. Mr. BORTHWICK objected to the amendment. Dr. BOWRING supported the amendment. Mr. DARBY must, as a matter of strict justice give his support to the clause. Mr. E. BULLER supported the amendment. Mr. HAWES withdrew his amendment, and the clause was agreed to. After a short conversation clauses 83 to 86 were agreed to. - Upon clause 87, containing the rules for assessing and charging the duties on the profits arising from an nuities, dividends, and shares of annuities, being put, Mr. HUME proposed an amendment, to the effect that upon all such annuities, dividends, &c., paid half yearly, the amount chargeable should be only upon so much of them as had accrued after the sth of April, 1842. The Hon. Member also moved that the same rule should apply to the rents of lands. The Committee divided, when there appeared— 'For Mr. Hume's amendment., B4 Against it Majority against the amendment —75 On the reading of Rule 2, Mr. F. MAULE moved an amendment to the effect that all chapels and places of religious worship should , be exempted. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the amendment. Mr. LABOUCHERE supported it. After a short conversation, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex pressed his readiness to postpone the rule. Mr. F. MAULE had no objection to the postpone ment of the rule, with the understanding that if the Government did tot hereafter consent to amend it, he should take the sense of the House on the subject. The rule was then postponed. Mr. BARING moved the following addition to the rules for assessingand charging the duties under schedule C; that " the annuities, dividends, and shares, bona fide belonging to any person not being a subject of her Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain, or else where within the dominions of her Majesty, during such time as the same shall continue the property of such per son, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as aforesaid ; provided that such annuities, dividends, or shares shall have been bona fide the property of such persons on the 22d day of April 1842, and shall be duly claimediand ascertained in the manner hereinafter men tioned." The Hon. Gentleman stated, that the whole amount which he believed would be raised under this schedule, would be 10,0001. a-year. In 1836, the subject was brought under disscussion, and the whole amount raised on the charges under ten per cent., was 50,0001. a-year, and if they took the present three per cent., and made allowance for other circumstances, it would reduce the amount to 10,0001. He went into a description of the former occasions in which the Income-tax had been imposed, and quoted from the discussions that then took place, with Regard to the foreign holder of English funds. The foreign holder was exempted by Mr. Pitt on the first introduction of the Income-tax ; the exemption was continued till the peace of Amiens, when it was repealed. When the tax was imposed by Mr. Addington, the exemption was still made. In 1806 a farther addition was made to the tax, and on that occasion there was an express agree ment on this point. Mr. Fox termed the imposition of the tax on the foreign holder as a flagrant injustice, and in this opinion Lord Henry Petty concurred. The ex emption was continued down till 1816, when the tax was repealed. They had, therefore, the au thority, for the exemption, of Mr. Pitt on the first introduction of the tax, of Lord Henry Petty on Its renewal, of Lord Granville, of Mr. Percival, and Lord Liverpool, down to the last moment of the existence of the tax ; and all these authorities went on the ground that the exemption was ne cessary for the maintenance of the public faith. It was, therefore , well worth the consid era ti on of the House, how ar they were at liberty tochange that opinion. If they differed from all these authorities, there was yet another party to be considered, the foreign holder himself, who had advanced his money under the implied contract that had arisen from the constant prac tice of twenty years of war, and from the successive de claration of Ministers of the Crown.—(Hear. hear.) With regard to the future foreign holder, they might change the practice, but with regard to those who had invested their money on the faith of these declarations, it would be most un wise if they were to deal- with them as if the case were entirely new. Having been so constantly exempted, the foreigner had a fair right to expect that if they re turned to anything like an income-tax, they would not think of committing that which Fox declared would be a breach Of public faith, without giving the foreigner the opportunity of a full notice of the intention. The case must have been extremely strong which made them, during twenty years of war, abstain from taxing the foreigner, and why should they now do in time of peace what was not done in time of war ? The foreigner had a right to suppose that they would have acted on those principles which actuated every Minister of the Crown heretofore. How ex traordinary would it be now, when we were on friendly relations with all the world, to discontinue that practice towards foreigners, of inducing them to invest in our funds, which had been adopted towards them for twenty years of war ; and moreover not only would this be done without notice, but it would be contrary to all notice and inducements hitherto held out to foreigners with regard to investments in our funds. He was afraid he had detained the House too king, but he could not allow this question to pass without expressing his opinion upon the matter ; but he would put it to the House whether it would not be much better ra her to let the scale fall on the side of faith, if he might use the ex pression, than to doubt and hesitate upon it, even if they were entitled to this sum. Who were the parties con cerned in this matter ? On the one side they had those who were represented in that. House, the general c l ass of the people of Engl an d ; an d on the other side there was a small class altogether unrepresented, wholly power less in that House, and with no means of bringing their case under the consideration of the House. Would the foreign fundholder be the only person who had not re ceived some benefit from this measure, and would they then place their hands, on him, powerless as he was, for a sum so small as that, which he believed he might state as being not larger than 10,0001. ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could assure the House, after the exhausting process of de fending the details of the Bill, that it was not his inten tion to make any.lengthened; reply but this he must say, that if he thought there was any breach of faith in the . • . 1 .•• • _ 1 • • •Li is I a wo.h goo.' (;!lilt to make a flaeigarr pay a to x for the property he had in this country tha t he stood up in its defence. The obligatio was clearly upon all. He thought the Hon. Gentleman 's motion clearly showed that he had some doubt as to tloe extent of good faith. He could agree with the propo sition that it would be an injustice to the foreigner o charge him more than the English fundholder. But its the foreigner derived as much protection for his property as the Englishnan, there could be no injustice in re quiring him to contribute in the same proportion to itia security. Mr. 'LABOUCHERE said, this was the first time when a Financial Minister of Great Britain -asserted that there was no injustice in taxing foreigners under sada circumstances as led to this Bill. Mr. Pitt had no i +c casion to introduce into his speeches an express declaration that foreigners should not be taxed, because his Bill spoke for itself: He con Id not fear the results of adopting the principle which Gentlemen opposite advocated; The ifght Ho n. Gentleman opposite appeared to mistake the fa. ts. for l le said that foreigners residing in the colonies w, uld be is much surprised as any others. •But the case of f ,reignei residing in this country was different, becausie they en joyed all the advantages of the British Government. Be - fore he sat down, he could not but allude to a petition tha t had been presented by one of the Members for London signed by some of the most respectable houses in th, City and two of its Members. That petition stated tha it would be a violation of the national faith to impost t this tax.—(Hear, hear.) He would only say that it was not for the interest of this country that those novel . maxims should be introduced. Recent experience, too, had . shown, that the feeling abroad was not what it ought to be.. Under these circumstances, he would press upon the First Lord of the Treasury to consider how far he would consult his own honour and reputation, and the interest of the country, in persisting in the course which he had adopted. Sir ROBERT PEEL was ready to take the ad vice of the Right Honourable Gentleman, and consider maturely whether he was consulting; his own character, and the character of the House. ; and the interests of the country generally, in proposing to exempt the foreigner from those burdens which were to be imposed upon the subjects of this realm. It was clear, that he would not be justifi e d i n t h e course he had adopted, if ther e was a departure from public faith in it. Nothing could justify them in a violation of public faith, when so small a sum as 10,0001. or 20,0001. was only to be gained. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labou chere) and the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chan cellor of the Exchequer, had relied on the former practice of Parliament and on the dicta of Mr. Fox,who said though they could not tax the foreigner, because they could not grant a benevolence to her Majestyto bepaid by a foreigner. If a foreigner was a mortgagee in this country, did he: not pay the tax on account of the interest of the mortgage? If he held shares in Railway Companies, or in any other mercantile firm, would he not be subject to the tax? But because, forsooth, he held property in the funds, he was to be exempt. So far as acts of Parliament were concerned, the position of the foreigner was recognised the same as that, of the British subject. Did not every man who chose, avail himself of the security which the, British funds afforded wherein to vest his capital. It was a fact, that since the Income-tax had been proposed,, the funds had risen four per cent. The foreigner had thus had an opportunity of relieving himself of property in the funds and that too at an advantage. It was not consistent with justice that the foreigner should benefit by the rise in the funds in this country which followed a national sacrifice, and should not at the same time share in the public burdens. He could not help thinking that the exception made by Mr. Pitt in, favour of the foreigner was grounded more upon pruden tial considerations than upon principles of abstract justice, This country was at the time at war with revolutionary.. France ; and Mr. Pitt might be supposed to have been, desirous of encouraging the wish, on the part of the' French emigrants, to invest whatever remained to thews of their fortunes in the English funds. On the whole, he saw no reason why the, foreigner, who benefited by the public credit, should not share in the public burdens. Mr. HUME said, whatever vote the Committee might come to, it was right they should understand the grounds of it. He differed from both the Hon. Gentlemen no reason had been shown why the foreigner should be taxed ; the exemption of property in the funds; from ell tax in transfers, as an inducement to invest . moneyin the funds, thi s was v i o l ate d in the time of war, , but the fitndholders consented to it from the influence of terror. If the tax were laid on the funds at all, it ought to be laid both on the Englishman and the foreigner alike. There was no emergency to call for the tax ; to impose it on the funds would be a bad example to foreign nations, and he should certainly Vote against it." Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the motion as being in accordance with all past experience. Mr. INIASTERMAN said, as considerable stress had been laid upon a petition that he had presented from the- City of London, he must state that, though most re spectably signed, it was far from representing the, whole proportion of opinion in the City. He wag, aware of a considerable number of parties who had rose fused to sign it. When requested to present it, he hurl; • accompanied his consent with a statement that he could not support it. He did not think there was either fraud: or injustice in taxing the foreign fundholder equably • with their fellow-subjects. Mr. HAWES said there was a great distinction be tween the foreigner holding shares in a railway and money in the funds ; in the first case be was a proprietor, and shared the profits ; in the other he was a pal l ilec. ea ditor. The foreigner was not in the light of a British subject. He had lent money to the British Government. on the faith of former Acts of Parliament. He himself thought that this would meet one argument of the Right lion. Gentleman's.—(Divide.) Mr. BARING replied. He said that he was of opi nion with Mr. Fox, that it was a breach of public faith to tax the foreign fundholder of " Divide, divide.") The -Right Hon. Gentleman had asked hi Ur with regard to evidence; why he would prove it in the same way as it had been proved when argued under former Acts of Parliament, and it would be just as easy to ,prove evidence in this instance as it was in the case of the Irish landlords resident in this country. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the' I Committee divided,- when there appeared— - - For the clause - 203 For Mr. Baring's amendment 4O Majority for the clause ----163 The clause was then agreed to ; the Chairman re ported progress, and obtlined leave to sit again. Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for a statement of the differences in the resolutions cf Customs Duties, .i l2 ' • tended to be proposed by Sir R. Peel, and laid on the table of this House on the 11th of March last ; also re solutionson the same subject, laid on the table on the 11th of April last." After a few words from Sir R. PEEL, Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that he thought what the Right Hon. Baronet proposed would be sufficient, and withdrew his motion. ELECTION COMMITTEES. The SOLICITOR -GENERAL moved for "A Select Committee, to inquire i n t o th e pract i ce o f t hi s House , with regard to the summoning of witnesses to attend; Election Committees, and to report whether any and what alteration in the law upon thie subject is required —Mr. Solicitor-General. Lord Granville Somerset; Mr Thesiger, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Attorney-General, Viscount Mahon, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Pemberton, Sir George Grey, Viscount 1 - lowick, Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. David. Dundas, Mr. Jervis, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Roebuck. —Agreed to. Mr. GIBSON gave notice that he should move that! the Solicitors be exempted from the certificate dutjt: : ,! while they were subject to the Income•tax. ,•• The other orders of the day were then disposed of, avoig .- the House adjourned at Two o'clock. The last of the London May-poles was in front of St. Mary-le-Strand Church, just opposite Drury-court; leading from the Strand into Drury-lane. FATAL ACCIDENT ON THE RIVER.—,..., Q ...;n 4 lti unuay - shortly before eight o'clock, a youth, name at present unknoe! was playing, with several other lads, upon some logs of tinsow" lying in the water near Waterloo-bridge, when he war aratisiail himself by kicking a knot in the wood, in so doing he stumbled forward, and fell head foremost into the river 4.nd was drowned. Upwards of an hour elapsed before the body was founiP..s A sheet was immediately procured, and the body given into charge of Mr. Brown, the beadle, who had it conveyed to tl 2 a bone-house under St. John's church, Waterloo road. I ).;*"‘' youth was diessed in cerderoy trowsers and jacket, black st'Zi ings, new boots, and wore a white pinafore and blue Cap, "" had a brass latch key in his pocket. SERIOUS ACCIDENT.-The remnant •of May 1 mummeries—the Jack-in-the-green—led to a very severe dent yesterdaimorning, at ten o'clock. Mr. Le Maire, blio" 'manufacturer, Worship street, a n d M r. H oopenham, of HadP: ton Wick, were driving a spirited horse past Walcnt phi c c ' Kennington-road, when some sweeps, accompanied wth drums and fifes, startled the horse, which, plunging desperatelybe' came wholly unmanageable, and in a few second', dashqd, the vehicle against the iron corner pest, conipletely`smashing The two gentlemen came with great violence to the Omuta- Mr. Le Allure was taken up insensible, and carried La,to the Three Stags Tavern, Lambeth-road. A surgeon was promptly in attendance, when it was found that he had receiveii a very extensive and severe wound in the head, and his conkpaskion also f was much injured. BIRTHS. In Upper Harley-street, the lady of James Morrisom, Esq.' M.P., of a son. On the 22d tilt., at the Rectory, Stoke Hamond, Buckiv the . Lady Julia Bouwens, of a son. On the 25th ult., in Doughty-street, Mrs. Ferguson C.41,23' roux, of a daughter. On the 25 , h ult., at Leatherbead, the lady of Visillian 3 Llewellyn Nash, Esq., of a daughter. On the 26th u lt., at B romley, in Kent, the wife of the Refr .4 Edward Stewart, of a daughter. On the 22d Llt., at St. John-street-road, Mrs. Alfred W. Hare, of a daughter, still born. On the 25th tilt., at Hanover-terrace, Regent's-park, MO; John Alozon, of a son. MARRIED. On the 26th ult., at St. Pancras, Edward Browne, Esq., 0 ! Mark-lane, to Marianne, fourth daughter of the late Thorax'? Cotton, Ekq., of Chase Lodge, Enfield, Middlesex. On the 25th ult., at York-street Chapel, Wa'w or dy, Joh n Gray, Esq., sol.citor, South Lincolnshire, to Mary Armes .1(10 6 daughter of W. Hemming, Esq., of Walworth. DIED. yP 4, 0, On the 28th ultimo, at his house, 111orningt on -crescen Hampstead-road, at an advanced age, Simon Gray, E s q., for' merly of the War-office, and author of various literary Po' ductiuns. On the 26th ult., in Trinity-square, Nevrinvton, Tho=sit the infant son of T. Loughborough, Esq. • On 'he 23d ult.. Mr. William Barton, of Clc.utlesley-terra ce, Islington, aged .59. On the 26th ult., at Clapham, Elizabeth. Caroline, younges t daughter of the late L. Hare, M.D., of Upper Gower-street London Printed and Published lsv Ai r : RD YOUNJ• No. 112, Stran... at The Su Office., No 112, Strand. the County of 11/iddlesei, Tuesday, May 3, 1842. to lett ofl obt Op! t: th e the vest as s spei "rot Pan the' and and /Sae of tj.;, —___ Ti at T CEI For Abo , Abo 15 !°, yule) ) glow susta a ton zero b. Is. u Wax 2 s. 4 Slott ket ; Phor, sPer Fo St. Ant hhira