The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-13 00:00:00

m of tII the Rig ht ' eft h ref!' het'' to inF eri anti fie. uggest i l Lumber The 0 ° 1 ! tides bP done Fig II V" able- R ht 11 ._ t• had giTr'l f Giere rn i i brt sti Y i . nto 3°l iECtf~" „ij inn 'rip. cid* , on ~ ned g s ,A sl°,°l7'''. „. o n thO e ''' .he sso la ' anst. o4 A P, , ,! J`, rd' r pit; 0° o' $l, "of reitigating this great evil. There was also another the wilitberto they had spoken only of Election Committees, Ve rn . 'sued also to speek of parties to Private Bills ; before wotaoritte‘-1 on these Bills, Counsel acted in the same manner. iiips;...t three wreald come and go on with the business for some Cet tesei le ! ' they would gradually leave, and one of the junior to Ge,... Would get up and speak—not of the business that aught In tet ri'Y tlae C omm i ttee, b ut , as M em b ers of that House thes e b" 1 4 ', w es did, he speaks against time—Wear, hear)_ Isl )e asting the time of Hon. Member s w h o h a d no r i g h t 1 , 14 - •led on to do such additional duty. He contended that "If 14 barls t et ewere bound to declare that they would be present te, a, e St to l as t," an excee di ng l y proper declaration, if they Lleiirniged to attend in the Committee-room at a certain ls4Voa_yay there without quitting the room till the Spea'ter sm i '°P . Chair, was it fair that Gentlemen who were confoundedly 15e,, 14 ,4-s.-( Hear, hear, and laughter)—for wasting their efilllsilould not attend ? There really was a monstrous waste 1 14._'" on Private Bills, and it would be an immense benefit to tr e i e l . rt'es concerned in them, if both Counsel and Members o s.s.tha uoil t nd to stay in the room till they had se ttl e d th e b usi- to l i d t.. had called them together. He s h ou ld wis h if he P1y..," Prevent Counsel from s p ea ki ng a t a ll, an d pursue a tik...etinilar to that of quarter sessions, where evidence was of r and the o pi n i on o f t h e C ounse l asked as to po i nts Zif necessary. He believed that all Counsel before e‘zsttees of that House, whether for Private Bills or i th e "',),al, did nothing, but misrepresent the case on each side to siars itie t of th e i r ability.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that it t latighi r d ittY: es he was sure it was their practice, and he (L . , ~they wou ld . not b e f ee d unless t h ey adopted it.— tlis,'' r ms "ear. ) In a conflict between a wealthy body such as Ohl', rporatiou of London and a poorer interest, it was impos tspwjaY what c on f us i on might not be introduced by th e 5i 4 ,41 the p urse, b y employing three or font. Counsel ; the tsts,„ party Would be driven to the wall, or forc e d t o ma k e an Irk ' ar able compromise. That was done every day ; an d it "4 : ' 4 . PRetice of - which ' .c (instant complaints were made. H e Aty :re, however, that it was d i ffi cu lt t o come t o a satisfac- Irtluustment upon the question.. He co n f esse d th a t he did Sia IN arty se e hi s way i n the matter, b ut he was equally eer e74,ll t the Right Hou. Gentleman who had b roug ht th e sub ...!er the consideration of the House, deserved their best , 41 417 1 erigmeuts. There was now a ru l e i n f orce t o th e e ff ec t so ) ,:',° Counsel only should be heard before a Committee. t kipjt appeared to him that it would be desirable, whether sito;Me were continued or not, that two Counsel s h o uld b e tsirlled to remain in each C omm itt ee , an d no t b e a ll owe d to Ny 2 4 * place to place during the proceedings, in the same hies Lord Denman had prevented Counsel from runnin g Ile tc ‘ , o art to 'Jolla in Westminster Hall. He believed that by s ae his. Lordship had taken upon that subject had given 1% al s atisfaction. He hoped the House would take the . rlo k i ttestect of the proceedings before Committees into its 17se,O ie t 'ausideration ; and if any improvement were suggested what proposed by his Hon: and Learned Friend, he ILVI he would not refuse to it his support. - N STUART WORTLEY wished to- declare his I.,ths,li,tlatp,sviction that there was one method of diminishing 44 - before Committee far more effectual than any which 1 4 4*N. and Learned Gentleman had recommended. The !ltig it l - lithi c h he would suggest would be to establish a more 'se ry_and coeseetent tribunal —(Loud cries of " Hear, I stii ii ) i He had the greatest possible respect for th e a u th or i ty lisi Nt *pinions of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her ki._ -1 -'s' Government, and he should be disposed to look upon 1 14,7asure of which he was the author with the utmost par- NL_sbut -he should own that he saw reason to become more 4 4,7 e convinced every day that in the experiment he had ' tt li,e had failed in obtaining the object which he had in altar, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, with all his quid not perform impossibilities; and, for his pa r t, t,.. "" aontinced that it would be impossible, by any con ‘l4• 4 -at design, to establish a sufficiently competent tribe the trial of e l ec ti on petitions, so long as they con fi ne d Res entirely to the materials to be found in that House. ad, cries of " Hear, hear.") The Hon. Gentleman op had talked of the enormous expense of the proceedings to Committees, arising in an especial manner from icutraCted nature of the proceedings. Now he would un eto say th a t if a s c heme cou ld b e d ev i se d w hi c h wou ld We constitution of Election Committees upon a satis- S i t footing, and which would render l them competent ju ')g...ttibunals, they would diminish expense, not merely ling the proceedings, but by preventing the agi- IN i !, .the questions that came before them.—( Hear, hear.) "web would never have been brought before a really :, t al competent tribunal were brought before Electi o n Sl . :lesal: because parties thought it worth their while to lei chance; and those Committees, without any ade- IS tm e .gal knowledge, were called upon to act on the most 1 / 4 . 1 14;e. 0 t0ry decisions. He could not allow this discussion to Ilt l / 4 - `triut protesting against any attempt being made to tfd aP the present system, and he hoped the House would *is : the grievances complained of by remodelling the tribunal. ''.V'CONNELL felt called upon to take a part in this IL ` 01 4 as he had been himself alluded to in the course of 1 , 1 14 e begged that it should be mostidistinctly understood k it% blade no complaint of the able and Hon. Gentlemen l o l l : had engaged as his Counsel. He had engaged them i 4l,ti .._ full knowledge that he could not have the whol e o f dis ' 47 3 ,' canoudlctlha a t ffo h r e d must gi ustt v a e ke h h im is . chanceThereas thoadhowbeemnucah s ltiderstanding between him and them, and th ey Ns w a tthfully and honourably performed their p ar t. .' as an evil that was great in proportio n t o th e 1. '" e e of Counsel. As a member of the bar he repudiated that Air. Harrison could have made use of the excuse to him. His best excuse for not attending to th e for which he had been retained would have been that actually at the time employed elsewhere • but if he Ik leit t actually so e m ploy e d, th en h e was certainly without '°e his conduct. The Hon. Gentleman had talked of it & _se being lesiened by having junior Counsel to examine `'eSses. Now, it was well known that the most iris ill*t Patt of a case was the examination of witnesses. That toil however competent Hon. Gentlemen might be to ... a rnendments in the law, these were matters which ktr 4 e l nsively in the province of those who were Vi. attendance in the Courts.—(Hear, hear.) He toen Nr much afraid that the experiment of the Ri g ht eiCronet had totally failed. The question now asked wa s Zko is c : ' Were the politics of the Committee, but what we re N e m el of the Chairman. lie hoped the Hon. Gentleman l'rould not content himself with giving these excellent 01, t Would come forward with a plan for a different tri delegated au th or i ty was ' called the House ; but it 1 / 4 1 !10, k tbe House ; the public eye was not upon it. He 1 4 . ze plan was first to have a register of the voter, so old be clearly ascertained who had a right to L - i certain time, and let him vote at the en ion, ion, whatever became of him in the mean time. eet )l4 there should be a petition after the election, let i iw• before a tribunal, which from its knowledge of i L " 1 4 evidence, would bo competent to pronounce 1/41664 k t, ;st ro ribun i al f , the r members hof whiwere et ch ed w t o h u o ld be taken Judgesof hezo ll 'mod let them be paid according to the value of their This would do away with all the gambling and spe- Ashich at. recent characterised such proceedings. He the : Hon. Gentleman opposite would turn his 4i2to the subject, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would be k .4"xender him his assistance to remedy this enormous, iZt p l a lv lien. Friend had called it, this confounded mischief. vt i k; •0. STANLEY said he thought much of the ex vt 'nutted in these Committees arose from the deficient 1 / 4. Nai„.• r egistration, and a want of simplification in the right and he was of opinion that if the right of frau kN,;:oe Registration Courts were to be amended, the pro- Srs ',paid be much simplified. t,„NiLIONBY said he agreed with what had fallen S -1 4,0. Member who had just sat down, but he would sytstle:a t er back than the Hon. Member id, and aim lit kid 0.14,7 election.. The question which had been proposed Qlsli r i"• Member for Ipswich was one of great difficulty, ‘4 l ' l , e a :aot think they would find many Members in that 1 / 4 , ll s h tl iv - uAletent to do justice to its importance. He did not ILI try 'toll. Member would gain anything by dividing ; he ''sso l itgest that he should change his motion, and move for Ne e te e„. They were bound, as far as they could by law, 1 1,,: i , li tit jsae great expenses incurred in these peti. ' l / 41 ter i rse did not think that the plan of the Honourable si ts ti r Ipswich would have that effect. As long as ta- Qls e :Ppreci ate d, so l ong wou ld th ey h ave th e race run iekl„,tbe highest attainments, and he believed it would „. Num for that House to prevent such a proceeding. ,cs,olitilve be ee the h only e permitteede.o Why, d em orr nen Co t Committee, 1 / 4. vZ i etilate on the ' le e n s i; ( t j h ee t e o which Committees y might ex p„anuld exac t an enormous f ee f or th e i r a tt en d ance on O k rrillltees.—( Hear.) He thought if a Committee were !1.1 (.4. t ° investigate the subject before which Counsel and ISNJ be examined, that an intermediate course might be s lik tk alish would lessen the expense of the parties. He 144:1;.1t,Ivantages to the members of the bar were but . as He h e a h t 0 ptehde the interests M o e f m t h h e e r p w u o la u l l i d c I§` ~tae be e regarded.d and I 4 b Motion ' N and would ask for a Committee to investi- V,iect. is s 'ITZROY said, although he agreed with what had (4 1 the; Hon. Member fur the West Riding of York bri• S. Wortley), with respect to the hopeless lV,ection Committees being satisfactory to the House ; Ntblie s as long as they were composed of the materials t ' is 4 eY at present were ; yet he thought that the opinion N't: °use had been given so decidedly in favour \:ti resent mode of constructing those tribunals, IN;t t °n. klember, who would move in the present Par !A., of ° have the mode set aside, would have very little Se success . He considered a better mode of construct 10.iiietriblinals would be, by putting in the chair of each Vto e a man of distinguished ability at the bar. 'lwo o e ' u t would be particularly desirable from the adoption of N s itt ) ,'. 3 e. In the first place, Gentlemen who were placed te„".i'tees were not generally well aware of the eit'alence. Much evidence, attended with no practical Ityll 'll iat ~ giren before Committees, which would not be the l‘s,Naished lawyers presided. In the second place oh often mooted 40 often mooted by Counsel merely for the purpose N a , . . It ud it was well known that Counsel frequently i } gilt the frivolity of objections which they induced the 1 4, 4 ,,,ki r t . 0 entertain. If the Chairmen were eminent law. 10, q' , .,, objections would be entertained. ti . ,L a CCIAIERSET said that a fair trial had not been ktst Si t: fs h ,F p experiment of the Right Hon. Baronet . the s w) e , larnworth. He could not concur in the opinion Nittts e : Knight to be selected as the Chair men of Election i s tl *t.,; Men of ability and eminenee were not always t,ht h e ‹ t rticularly when there was a great number of Corn- OA he fe ared and should a junior Counsel be selected c , „ 6 , ,, 7,fe,ared the result would be that some of the older kii t 4 t: l l:t 4 : j u t; a n. 'e showingtpractised before their o junior b Committeesreth brethren, would d thustak e 1 / 4 1 10-e would be teris ' •able from j the plan s ' iewested. t t ic 01 1 : 1 the Hon. Gentleman's proposition would be most liNi t , i to the suitors, and he did not think that . 1 / 4 ,lii i ` st e „ .. a snore talent in the formation of the Committees. 1 / 4 `Wrll, r%?veinent would require the whole machinery to be k,.. 1 11 t % o .; he expense of Counsel was not the only heavy t t isNe tt l .. °, !, and if the Hon. Member meant to interfere Vli" , § t , 'r in which parties should eons not their suits, he ,I, l 4lSv e , l ,.eYond his present resolution, to which he must yt,'lt. "`: as he believed it would not be of advantage to . '44 llY4 l.Sc oes i vy fall ed .0 replied. He believed his resolution was It 6 1 tit f t qUate to the end he proposed. He thought it was S: re s : lii r . the Right Hon. Baronet to ask him if he would Ihlt e ,ftea e ,.;?ll by the result of his own Election Committee. (SS iI o L ,'N,, 4 Y admitted that the plan of the Right Hon. li t tic s ttobert Peel) had failed, and the question both VI% 6 and out of the House was now, What sort of a lik`l, til e r you got ? if he was against you, it was con t, ' k ,„ . :11 4r.. ' was all up ; if with you, that it was all liosthtia posse being three of the Committee on one SpOlh r :re on the other, it was well known that \NO. these of the Chairman would decide all difficult ques r:litieresult of the Committee would be just according, i k ,t 1, 4 ,,N %b.' . If the Noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) would e , i witqt iisto his consideration, he should be perfectly I,, ; ik,' 4, , Is .experience and ability.—(Lord G. Somerset ht,rl.l4l7abne the proposal. )—The Noble Lord shook his \N eti ki t t h u t ot accede ; he should, therefore, withdraw his I Vt it k b o , s hotild be guided by the views he might hear ' , a t it di sides of the House in deciding whether he kgt.kti s „ a gain under their corsideration or not. He ,t t i it, 1M ,nitt unless they put in the Chair a gentleman of V. tOtZ u.ie, they would never be enabled to have the pro.. Nile tliiraittees satisfactorily conducted. Lt 4114, t tA kise E, RS said, in his opinion the great evil was I:sttlisi,`„), s i ,', were much too clever for the Judees.- I,SsZess,"e opposing Counsel made different points,' Nlt l le l l e _or other the members of the Committee al si sas,s_ a ne4 . that point which favoured their own •nitr.) Sir 11. PEEL said that he certainly had been prepared, from the notice of the Hon. Member for Ipswich, for a discus sion upon the merits of Election Committees. He had felt surprised at some of the statements of Hon. Members. The Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him had seemed to ques t tion the impartiality of the decisions whieh had been come to in certain instances ; but there did not appear to be anything in the facts to justify that suspicion. He hoped . the House would not be governed by what the losing party said of the proceedings of those Committees. Whatever tribunals they appointed, he would venture to say the losers would corn_ ' plain. They would always be apt to impute some improper motive to those who had decided against them. With respect to the appointment of a Chairman, he begged leave to say tnat that was no part originally of his measure. It was a proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for London, to which he (Sir R. Peel) had acceded, merely from a wish that there should be as much unanimity as possible upon such a subject. lie confessed, however, that he had riot himself been satisfied that the arrangement would he a good one. He hoped, however, the House would nut lightly decide that lion. Members who tried those petitions were nut actuated by perfectly honourable mo tives. He was perfectly confident, from what had been stated by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Coin mittee of which he had been a member had decided impartially and to the best of their judgment. He attached the more im portance to the admissions of the lion. Gentleman from his respect for his private character. Mr. CHILDERS did not mean to impeach the impartiality of Members serving on Committees. He had only said that they were not qualified to decide the questions that came before them, and to sift the conflicting statements of Counsel. Sir It. PEEL said, that he was surprised to hear that Coun sel were allowed to take any unwarrantable liberty, and that Chairmen lead not the firmness to interfere in such CAWS. Mr. EWART said, he did not understand the Him Mem ber to attribute any partiality to the Committee, but to their inability to understand legal tines:ions. For his own past, he did riot think that with regard to private Bills and those Committees, they were as perfect as they should be, and that with respect to the latter, they sh:suld have three Judges who would control the Judges.—The motion was then withdrawn. DRAINAGE AND FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILLS. On the motion of Lord EaOT, the following Members were appointed to form Select Committees on these Bills: On the Drrinage Bill—Lord Eliot, Mr. Pigot, the Solicitor- General for Ireland, Mr. Young, Mr. Morgan John O'Cun. nell, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. More &Ferran, Colonel Darner, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Christmas, Mr. French, Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Caleb Powell, Viscount Newry, and Viscount Clements. On the Fisheries Bill—Lord Eliot, Mr. Slsiel, the Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. O'Connell, Sir Edmund Hayes, Sir William Somerville, Mr. Young, Sir Robert Ferguson, Captain Jones, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Viscount Courtenay, Mr. Alexander Murray, Viscount Adare, Mr. Pigot. FOREST OF DEAN. The Earl of LINCOLN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the relief of the Poor in the Forest of Dean, and other extra parochial places in and near the Hundred of St. Briavel's, in the county of Gloucester.—Agreed to. On the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN, leave was given to bring in a Bill to divide the Forest of Dean, in the county of Gloucester, into Ecclesiastical districts. ST. I3RIAVEL'S SMALL DEBTS BILL. The Earl of LINCOLN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Court of St. Briavel's, and fur the more easy and speedy recovery of small debts within the Hundred of St. Briavel's, in the county of Gloucester.—Agreed to. INCOME TAX.—PETITIONS TO HER MAJESTY. Mr. BROTHERTON moved that there be presented to her Majesty an Address for a return of the number of petitions, memorials, or addresses presented to her Majesty from public meetings, town councils, conferences, or other bodies, for the repeal of the Corn-laws, from the Ist day of January, 1841, to the present time ; specifying the places from which they were sent, the number of signatures, and the prayer of each petition.--Agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM said he was willing to give the Hon. Gen tleman all the information on the subject which his office would enable him to furnish. There was no record kept, however, of the number of signatures attached to each memorial ; but he would make inquiries on the subject, with a view to give the Hon. Gentleman every information in his power. INCOME TAX—ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the ad journed debate on Lord John Russell's resolutions, Mr. BROTHERTON rose and said, that he had moved the adjournment before Easter in order to give Hon. Members an opportunity of consulting their constituents on the subject of the income tax. The Noble Lord the Member for South Lan cashire had thought proper to denounce those who had been guilty of the presumption of asking for more time to consider that important subject, and as he (Mr. Brotherton) was one of those who had been guilty of such presumption, he hoped the Noble Lord would allow him to state in a very few words his view of the subject. In the first place, he would frankly own to the Right Honourable Baronet and to the House, that when he voted in the minority for the adjournment till after Easter, that he was fully im pressed with the opinion that the country was against the measure. He would, however, frankly acknowledge that he did not think that there was that opposition to the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet in Manchester ashe (Mr. Brotherton) had anticipated.—(Ministerial cheers.) He certainly did anticipate a different feeling to that which he met with. Here collected being at a large meeting in 1816, at which there was a most unanimous feeling against the tax, and he could not account for the present change ; perhaps it was because the present generation had no t f e l t te effects of the tax, and he believed they would not be convinced until they felt the hands of the Government in their pockets. Another reason might be that they sacrificed their own and their neigh bours' interest to party. The Noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton) had stated that he had a petition, signed by 24,000 persons. He ( Mr. Brotherton) was ready to admit that a great number of the names to that petition were of great respectability, but that petition had emanated frsm no public meeting. There had been a meeting of the Town Council, and they were una nimous in a resolution against the tax. Another reason, per haps was, that the persons could not distinguish between a property and an income tax.—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.) But there was, however, a divided feeling on the subject. Another reason for the want of opposition to the tax was, per haps, one which had been expressed by a friend of his, who said that the Right Hon. Baronet would allow them to compound for the three years, and if they did so, according to their profits of the last three years, they would get a good bargain, for they had gained nothing.—(Laughter.) The Noble Lord had stated that a great number of clergymen had signed his petition. He confessed front what be (Mr. Brotherton) knew of the Manchester clergymen, this circum stance had little weight with him. They were almost to a man for supporting the French war. They justified the procfedings at Peterloo, and when the case of Queen Caroline was before the country, there was scarcely a clergyman that was not op posed to her. They were always opposed to the Corn-laws too, and never supported any measure calculated to relieve the poor. With regard to himself, ha had but one opinion on the subject, and that was, he believed the tax to be unnecessary, and be lieving it to be unnecessary, he should not vote for it. lie conceived that if monopolising had been removed, the tax would have been uncalled for ; therefore it was monopoly that ren dered the tax necessary. He wished to have seen this expen diture reduced, but such was not proposed. With regard' to the war in India, he thought that it was unjust at the com mencement, and that it was unjust to carry it on. He did not partake of the feeling that the glory of the country consisted in her triumphs in war ; he considered her glory should be in the arts of peace. He thought no one could doubt the in justice of a man of real property being taxed in the same amount as the man whose only income was produced by his industry. His (Mr. Brotherton's) plan would be to tax all real property, not as a tenant tax in the poor rate. but as a landlord's tax ; and he would tax the funds and mortgages. He would exempt the farmer and the tradesman and the professional man. They might say it would be unjust to leave a tradesman untaxed, but the House must recollect that the tradesman and manufacturer paid 1,200,0001. of taxes on the raw material. In his plan he included all mills and manufactures as real property. He did not wish to pro pose, or volunteer a budget for the Right Honourable Baronet, but he must say that there was a broad distinction between a property and an income tax. He considered the proposed tax would engender great odium from its inquisitorial and vexatious process, and he had no doubt there would be soon an unani mous voice in favour of its repeal; but if the income tax were repealed he should be disposed to support a tax on real property. Colonel WOOD said that the Hon. Member who had just sat down had very good humouredly told them that the inha bitants of Manchester were not unfavourable to this tax. He (Col. Wood) hoped he should be able to show that the whole kingdom was of the same opinion. He would just lay a calculation before the House which he had made respect ing this tax. He found that the number of occupiers of land whose incomes were under 501. a year, and who slid not con tribute to the tax when last imposed in 1815, amounted to 1,114,778. The occupiers of land from 50/. to 1501. a year, which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to exempt, amounted to no less than 432,534, making a total of no less than 547,312 persons to be exempted from the tax. The nutnber of occu piers of land that would be called upon to contribute to the tax was only 42,062. He found that in trades and professions there were 100,000 under 501. a year, and 117,306 whose in comes were from 501. to 1501., making a total of 218,000 to be exempt from the operation of the tax. Tho total number of persons who contributed to the tax in 1815 was 77,682. That was in a population of 12,000,000 of persons. The po pulation was now increased to 18,500900, being an increase of one-third; was it then a fair calculation to add a third to each ?—( Hear, hear.) The number of persons, occupiers of land, of trades and professions, who contributed to the tax in 1815, and whose incomes were above 150/. a year, was 77,682, to this he added a third, which would make 103,578 souls who then contributed to this tax ; there then remained to be added the owners of land and others, and he made out the whole num ber of contributors to be 200,000 souls. Was it possible that out of a population of 18,500,000, the number that contri buted to this tax did not exceed 200,)00 souls? He believed that was the fact ; and it would not appear strange, when they considered that there were about 3,444,000 inhabited houses, and the presumption was that there would be about 3,soo,ooofamilies, of whom 2,500,000 were without income; and he firmly believed that this was a correct calculation, and that the number of persons called on to contribute to this tax would not exceed 200,000 souls ; and what a difference would that exhibit between direct and indirect taxation ? That return convinced him that an income tax was by far the most honest and most beneficial tax which could be proposed for the benefit of the people ; he thought it placed the tax on the shoulders of those who could bear it—those who had property —whilst it shifted it from the shoulders of the poor, who were unable to bear their share in the taxation of the country. The Noble Lord objected to this tax, because he said it was a war tax, and should not be resorted to in times of peace. Could it be said that we were now at peace ? He thought not. It was impossible to tell what might yet be the result of the war in India. We could not consider this great country at peace. But whether at peace or at war, if the tax were a good one, it was one which, in his opinion, ought to be imposed.—( Hear. ) Gentlemen on the other side had taunted them with the part they had taken on the Corn-laws, accusing them of having in that House acted in a manner inconsistent with the speeches which they had made on the hustings. He must express his astonishment at such taunts, because he thought that they had acted quite con sistently ; he told his constituents that he would never vote for a tax upon corn fur purposes of revenue.—( Hear, and laughter.) Gentlemen laughed, but he told them that, and he argued then, as ho did now, that the duty upon corn was not for purposes of revenue, but for the sake of protec'ion ; the fixed duty of Bs., as proposed by the Noble Lord, he thought would aggravate the evils under which the country at present laboured, and he should therefore give a decided nega tive to the Noble Lord's proposition, and in doing so he consi dered that he should be doing his duty to his constituents. Mr. MANGLES said that he had listened with great at tention to the remarks which had fallen from Gentlemen on the other side, but he had listened without conviction, and perhaps he might be allowed to express his opinion on the subject.— ( Hear, hear.) Every one must deeply regret the disasters which had lately occurred in Affghanistan, but still they were not called on to believe them to be the greatest disasters which had ever happened to this country ; they, no doubt, all felt deeply the disasters which had occurred there to our brave countrymen, and fair countrywomen, but that was no reason for the imposition of an income tax.—( Hear, hear.) He ad mitted that the disaster which had occurred in Affghanistan was great and grievous, but it did not appear to him that the Right Hon. Baronet had been borne out in the remarks which he had made relative to the disaster. The Right Hon. Baronet said the other night that the disasters which had occurred in Affghanistan had not been equalled in British history.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The disasters surely were not so 'great as were those which happened in the time of THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENI the American wars. He begged now briefly to compare the affairs of India under the administration of Lord Wellesley, with the present position of affairs there. He found that in 1797 the Indian debt was 17,059,000/. ' in 1805, the close of Lord We llesley's administration, it had increased to 31,638,0001. ( Hear, hear.) In 1805 and 1806 the charges alone exceeded the revenue by 157,000/. But then you must inquire at what rate he was obliged to borrow for the Government. In 1801 he paid 114 per cent. ; in 1802, 8 per cent. ; 1803, 8 per cent. ; 1804, 8 per cent.; and in 1805, 9 per cent. In 1805 the debt was about double the revenue. The whole debt in 1839 was 31,987/., or only a few millions more than in the administration of Lord Wellesley, whilst the revenue had increased from 15,000,0001. to 20,000,000/.—(Hear, hear.) But now the Indian Govern ment had a loan open, and they were borrowing at the rate of five per cent.—( Hear, hear.) He did not hesitate to tell the House that five per cent. in India was not so high as three per cent. in England; so that the Government of India, in this dreadful state of depression—so much depressed, indeed, that an income tax must be imposed on the people of England —can have a loan open at the rate of three per vent. There were two banks in Calcutta who were discounting, one at eight and the other at ten per cent., whilst the Indian Government could borrow at three per cent. That did not look as if the Indian finances were in so depressed a state. There was another cir cumstance which he might mention, which was, that during the time of Lord Wellesley's administration, the wages of the sepoys and sol tiers were often a year in arrears, and now he was happy to say there was not a servant of the Government who was not paid up regularly every month, and yet they were obliged to lay an income tax upon their own shoulders to relieve this Go vernment.—( Hear, hear.) He was aware that the expendi ture in India must exceed the revenue, otherwise there would be no occasion for a loan being open. But it happened now that the affairs of the Government were peculiarly favoerable. He had endeavoured to contrast the affairs of India under the administration of Lord Wellesley, with the present time; and he should now say a few words relative to the loss of life in Aff ghanistan ; and this he should observe was not more than had occurred on a former occasion, when the Government did not deem it necessary to interfere. He referred to the Burmese war, and he apprehended that in a financial point of view, it did not matter whether men died by the sword or by other means. —('‘ Oh, oh," from the Ministers.) He apprehended not in a financial point of view.—( Hear, hear.) From a report of Major Tullock's which he held in his hand, it would appear that during the first year of the Burmese war ninety-six men died in action, and 1,215 by famine and other causes; he thought, in fact, that the numerical loss of life during the two years of the Burmese war was greater than that which has occurred in Affghanistan ; yet the Government did not think it neceasary then to impose an income tax.--(Hear, hear.) In his (Mr. Mangles') humble opinion, the resources of India were such, that if well governed, it would be able amply to support itself.—( Hear, hear.) The saving which might be effected, if the interest which was at present paid on the debt of India were reduced, would be sufficient to support the army in India. Now, with regard to the regiments which were about to be sent to India. The Noble Lord said that there were six new regiments about to be sent to India ; of these, however, he must say that two regiment s were i n t h e place of tho se that were in China, and another was gone to replace those unfortunate men who had ceased to exist; so that, in fact, there were only three new regiments which they could be called on to consider as requiring additional funds. He thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman had over-rated the fears to be entertained from the Mahomedan Powers. tie should have recollected that their energies were broken before they assumed the reins of power, and that much was to be expected from the Hindoo population, who detested the Mahomedans from a recollection of their former cruelties. As he did not think any danger was to be apprehended from the Mahomedan empire, so neither did he think any fear could justly be entertained as to the efficiency of the "native army. Our empire in India, he believed, to be based on a sense of our truthfulness in the minds of the natives, and he believed that nothing could shake its stability.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) In 1816, an insurrection broke out in India, in a loca lity where the whole of the population was Mahommedan. Many murders of British subjects were committed ; yet, not withstanding the immense force which was opposed to them, the British forces repulsed the Mahomedans with immense loss. An insurrection in Benares was accompanied with very similar results. Under these circumstances, he did not think it necessary to raise so much money by such hateful means for the relief of India; all the information was not yet before the House, and until it was produced he could not consent to the levying of an income tax. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. VERNON HARCOURT said he should vote for the present measure, inasmuch as it did not rest in the least on the present position of India, though the Gallant Captain had only brought his statement down to 1809. The circumstances in which they stood were these. The Right Hon. Baronet proposed the income tax quite independently of the finances of India.—(Hear.) That must be evident to all who had listened to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet on that subject. With respect to India, he must say that from first to last he had viewed the recent extension of our empire in. India with horror and detestation.--( Hear, hear.) He thought they were led into the Affghan war by an insane idea of protecting Asia from Russian power ; whereas in fact, the Affghans them selves would have been a barrier against the advance of that power. So long as they remained on the other side of the Indus no disasters were likely to occur ; but the ease was far otherwise when we overstepped that frontier.—.(Hear, hear.) With respect to America, our position was entirely different. It would be necessary to maintain a strong force in Canada, because that country was riot equally pro tected—it was more open to the , attack of Russia.. If they attempted to carry on war in China and Asia, to colonise Australia, and send expeditions to Africa, they must expect to pay heavy bills on these accounts. With respect to the tariff and the income tax, it was evident that, even though no alteration had been made in the tariff, a large sum would be required for the service of the country. The question was, would an income tax, such as was proposed, be th e be s t means of meeting the deficiency ? and he thought that the Ho nourable Member for Bolton had, last night, proved that to take two millions of the people by means of indirect tax ation was not the same as taking the same amount by the mode proposed by the Government. He recollected that, in 1816, when he had but one constituent--(Laughter)—he was asked by the Duke of Newcastle to vote against the income tax, but being against his conscientious convictions to do so, he said that he would rather accept the Chiltern Hundreds. But the Duke of Newcastle told him that he had made the same request of all his Members—(Laughter) —and that he need be under no apprehension on the subject, because half of his Members—(Laughter)—were going to vote in favour of the tax, and half of them were going to vote against it.-- ( Continued l aug ht er .) H e now had the honour to re present a constituency of three thousand persons, who were as independent as any constituency in the kingdom, and h,- had not heard a word from them objecting to the tax. —( Hear, hear.) No tax was good in itself ; but he questioned whether the necessity of the tax being established, the same sum that was required to meet the necessities of the country could be raised by any means so efficiently and so conveniently as by the plan of an income tax. That tax would not be burdensome to those classes of the community who were least of all able to bear it. —(Hear, hear.) He would only say a few words more with respect to what had been so eloquently put forth by the Bight Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dun garvon, on the subject of the oath which was required of the parties paying the tax. He thought that if an affirmation in stead of an oath were required it would answer as well, and while the produce of the income tax would not be thereby di minished, the feelings of &respectable portion of the community would be consulted.—(Cheers.) He begged, in conclusion, to state that he would cordially support the measure of the Government with respect to the income tax.—(Cheers.) Mr. C. BULLER said he was extremely obliged to the House for the very long time they had allowed him to occupy its attention on the last occasion ; he should not trouble them by repeating any of the objections that he felt to the tax itself; he should only beg leave to remark that, from all that had oc curred since, those objections were forced on him even with greater strength than he had felt them before. In the first place they had since heard language from the Right Hon. Baronet which appeared to him peculiarly ominous as to the duration of this tax.—( Hear, hear.) When the Right Hon. Baronet first proposed this tax, he spoke of it as one which was to he unpopular for three years, and but barely hinted at the probability of its being continued for a longer period.— ( Hear, hear.) But a few nights ago the Right Hon. Baronet who really could not appreciate the force of his own manner so well as Gentlemen who heard him, spoke'of it not only as a tax to be imposed for three years, but spoke of five fears as the probable period of its duration ; and what had alarmed him still more, he did not say that the tax would be termi nated even at the end of five years.--( Hear, hear.) At the end of that time he intimated that the subject would be taken into the gravest consideration of her Majesty's Government, and according to the state of public feeling, and the feeling of her Majesty's Government, the tax would be dealt with. These were not the precise words, but such was the impres sion he had deriv e d f rom them. He must say, that in spate of all that Gentlemen on the other side had said about the unani- mite with which this tax would - be entertained,. that he (Mr. Buller) had received such communications as to the feeling existing in the country against it, that he was convinced when it came into operation the people would feel it to be as odious as it had been felt to be in former times. He was convinced that there would be a constant assault going on against this portion of the revenue, that there would be a constant agita tion kept up, which would not cease till it had been successful. He therefore repeated that it was with great alarm that he saw a step taken which, instead of giving security to the finances of the country, would place a large portion of the revenue in an uncertain position, and would therefore operate with danger to the public credit of the country. In entering on the arguments that had been brought forward on this sub ject, he knew that he was entering into that wide field in which the House had expatiated without much profit or advantage. He could not see the exact logical application of the arguments that had been so frequently used on the other side. Thus when we say that this tax is inquisitorial, you say, Oh ! are you not ping to war in Affghanistan ?—( Rear, hear.) When we say the tax is unjust, you say how can that be, when there is a great war in China ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) If we bay this is a bad time to put on such a tax, we are immediately saluted with a taunt of having taken off the post office tax.— (Hear, hear.) Whenever these arguments were used, however absurd or irrelevant they might be, Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always ready to cheer them—( Hear, hear)—on whatever grounds they might be offered. Now let them see how these arguments would tell the other way. Suppose it happens to be as you say—suppose there were really any sense in what you say—(Hear, hear, and laughter)— supposing these to he fair arguments, how would they bear on his particular case ? Suppose, individually, with regard to himself, it was wholly his fault that the country was brought into its present condition ; suppose it could he said that ho had taken away from the revenue of the country, that he had caused the increase of the expenditure, did it follow that, to repair the disaster, he ought to have recourse to moans that would injure the people, and put on a tax which he considered thoroughly bad and mischievous ? Such arguments could only tell in an assembly constituted like that House, where a great deal more weight was attached to party hits than to solid argu ments of justice or policy.—( Hear, hear.) Now after all these arguments and recriminations—were they such as Hon. Gentle men opposite had the peculiar right to use—wire they not such arguments as hit them, as well as those on this side of the House 2—( Hear, hear.) On the subject of the Chinese war they had a long debate two years ago, and those who defended the policy of the Government never heard of these difficulties. The matters in dispute were not attributable to party, but arose from the policy that had been pursued five years before, when, contrary to the judgment of many who warned them of the consequences, they had opened the China trade, when the same parties told them they would be compelled to come into the conditions required by the Chinese Government. Then they were told of their expenditure having been in creased by the affairs of Canada. He (Mr. Buller) might use this argument against either side, for he had voted against the policy of the Government with regard to Canada; but how did the arguments apply to Gentlemen on the other side ? What portion of the policy of the Government that brought on the disturbances was discussed, in which the votes of Gentlemen opposite did not help to swell the majority ? Did they not aid in carrying the measures of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who was then Secretary of the Colonies, and whose deportment towards Canada was so conciliatory, that one of the causes of the quarrel with the English Govern ment was the tone and language used by the Noble Lord in one of his despatches.—(Cheers.) Then there was an Hon. Gentleman last night—a facetious county Member—facetious after the manner of the county Members—(great laughter)— who said that one of the legacies left by the late Government to their successors, was the disputed boundary question with the United States of America. Why, he should have thought that Hon. Gentleman, if not from his information, at least from his respectable age, would have known that he was put. Ling the saddle on the wrong horse. Let him introduce him to a member of the Governmenf he supported, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him present to him in that Right Hon. Gentleman the disti ngu i s h e d negot i ator o f the, Treaty of Ghent,by whose negotiation, after a long contest with the negotiators on behalf of America, they did secure to this country the right of passage to British vessels through an impassable branch of the St. Lawrence.—( Hear, hear.) It was the wording of this treaty that had caused the whole of the disputes about the boundary question; it was that Right Hon. Gentleman to whose care the settlement of this dispute was then committed, who might, in 1816, before the territory was abandoned to any one, have settled the dispute easily, but whose carelessness or mistakes had en ! tailed on his successors and their successors the difficulties of the negotiation to which he (Mr. Buller) confessed he hardly saw the probability of a satisfactory result. The only prospect of a satisfactory result arose, he felt bound to say, from the interference of the Noble Lord to whom the negotiation was now entrusted, who he trusted would conduct it in such a spirit he hoped would prove successful, not only in this ques tion, but with regard to the other difficulties that had since arisen in their disputes with the United States. Then lion. Gentlemen opposite told them that it was all their fault that there was any bad blood between them and France. They were lavish in the approbation they bestowed on the condemnation the lion. Member for Bolton had thrown out on the Syrian expedition. But the Hon. Member for Bolton was consistent in his condemnation ; he had always disapproved of the policy of that expedition. But which of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite had disapproved of that policy ?—( Hear.) They knew also that it was the party press of the opposite side that had excited the people of France more than any other party. It was the press of the party opposite that bad the most unequivocally approved of the treaty of the 15th of June. —( Hear, hear.) Again, on the war in Affghanistan they had referred to the predictions of the Duke of Wellington, who, like Cassandra, had foretold that the war would only lead to danger and difficulty. He gave the Duke of Wellington credit for his sagacity, but those on the other side had not heeded the warnings of the Cassandra even of their own tide. —( Hear, hear.) Who were those who gave a deliberate no tice of a motion to inquire into this matter, and then, fright ened by the success of that war, h a d abandoned the motion, and by that silence gave more than approval to that policy ? ( Hear, hear.) Let any Gentleman say that he was now better informed, and that now the event had happened, they had said all along that it would happen, he should in that case compli ment them, as he had had occasion to compliment the Hon. Member for Pembroke on that retrospective foresight which enabled him to say they ought net to have done any thing that had afterwards turned out unfortunately. Some Hon. Gentlemen apposite deserved to be classed among those reasoners of whom it was said that events were their only masters. With respect to the charges brought against the late Government about reduction of taxation, during the, 11 years in which Hon. Gentlemen now on the Ministerial benches were in opposition, he (Mr. Buller) never heard but of two instances—one in the case of Prince Albert, in which they saved the country 20,0001. a year, and another in the matters of the scanty grant to Maynooth, which they voted against.—( Hear, hear.) These were the only matters in which Hon. Gentlemen opposite interfered with the estimates at all, except indeed that they used to come down when the Army Estimates were voted, and military man after military man used to hold forth on the necessity of increasing the grants to the army, In like manner, when the Navy Es timates were being voted, Tory naval officers used to declaim upon the disgraceful deficiency in the sums granted for the use of the • navy. Let them not take credit to themselves, then, for lessening the estimates, when, on the contrary, they always increased them. The charge against the late Government was, that they created the deficien c y i n th e revenue b y an undue reduction of taxation. Why, i n th e case o f t h e repeal of the house tax, when there was a m illi on an d a h a lf o f i ncome removed, the Right Hon. Boronet voted in favour of its removal. There was one point, on which he observed Gentlemen opposite made something more than a mere accusation. They said that the reduction of the Post-office revenue was a great blow to the late Ministry, yet they allowed the majorities, obtained by those then in power, to swell from 10 and 20 to 100. The pre sent Postmaster-General voted in favour of the re duction of that tax. He would only make one re mark more on this subject. Even if the charge could be brought against the late Government, that they had caused the deficit by the reduction of the revenue, after all it would be no very serious charge against them ; for, let them remember, if the accusation were just, the deficit was occasioned merely by the taking off of taxes. If those taxes were such as ought to be kept on, why Ministers might put them on again.—(Ministerial cries of " Oh, oh.") He did not understand that cry. They had the majority, and it was, therefore, in their power to do it, and they might as well put on the taxes he alluded to, as the taxes which Hon. Gentle men said they ought not to impose. Did they charge the late Government with crippling the trade of the country rendering it impoverished and unable to bear taxation ? Did they accuse them of having increased the expense of the country ? No. They accused them simply with taking off taxa tion, which they themselves could not summon up courage to put on. There was one topic introduced to these debates, upon which he would beg to trouble the House for a few moments, because of the tone taken by Members of the Go vernment on .this occasion, which he never remembered to have seen taken by the Members of au. former Government, but which he had often heard imputed to Members com posing the Opposition—he meant the system on the part of the Government of depreciating the resources of the country. Mush had been said about the disasters in Affghanistan ; more had been said on that subject than was decorous on an occasion like the present. It seemed to him, if they were agreed that this disaster was as great as they said, their great and serious sorrow would be rather more silent than it was, and it did not betoken much sympathy with the friends of the sufferers to come forward and talk of the matter in the House of Commons. If they had any respect for the bones of these brave men that now lay unburied on the mountains of India, it did not seem to be evinced in their using them as materials for party war fare.—(Hear, hear.) He knew the way in which Hon. Gentlemen on the other side misrepresented what was said on this occasion. On last night he saw with great pain the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies misstate what had been said by the Right Hon. the Member for Edinburgh. But it was at least satisfactory, that the Noble Lord, who was a man of honour and good feeling, amply and fully retracted it. But there was no retractation of the cheer by . which the misstatement had been accompanied —a cheer which was the most discreditable he had ever heard. He (Mr. B.) observed that the Right Hon. Baronet was very sensitive when they talk of the country having suffered greatly in the Walcheren expedi tion. The Right Hon. Baronet, indeed, seemed to take that expedition under his especial protection. In 1810 a motion was made condemning that expedition, mid amongst those who voted in favour of that ex pedit on, and contended that it was wisely conducted and managed, was the Right Honourable Baronet opposite. After having thus supported that expedition, the Right Hon. Baronet ought to be lenient in the case of Affghan istan. Another subject was touched upon by the Hon. Gen tleman who had just spoken. When the Right Hon. Baronet first brought forward this subject, he alluded to the deficiency in the Indian revenue. On Friday last the Right Hon. Baronet brought forward the subject much more prominently. The deficiency was assumed at five millions, and they con sidered that this country ought to make up the Indian defi ciency. The Right Honourable Baronet certainly said England was not to make up the Indian deficiency; if not, then what was the use of bringing it forward? If England was not to make up the Indian deficiency, let it be left out of the debate it had nothing to do with the income tax. When he heard the matter first alluded to, he thought from the manner in which it was brought forward by the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was a more forcible argument than it really was. In the country where people might not be ac quainted with Indian affairs, wh en they saw the statements made on this matter, they would exclaim— " a deficit in the revenue of India! Whoever he ar d of such a thing. How great must be the rapacity of those Whigs, that the wealth of India could not suffice for it.--( Hear, hear, and laughter. After this, they must cut off the head of little John." A deficiency in Indian finance had hitherto been the general rule. The expenses exceeding th e revenue, was a late and rare exception, owing to Lord William Bentinek, whom the party opposite always taunted for his economy. Had any Chan cellor of the Exchequer eeer dwelt before upon an Indian de ficit, as a ground for taxing the people of England ? The defi ciencies in the Indian revenue were, for the five years ending 1814, 104.000/. ; for those ending 1819, 107,0001. ; for the five ending in 1824, 27,000/. ; and, i n 1829, 2,878,0001. Now, it was a curious coincidence, that in the year 1830, when there was such an Indian deficit, the present Chancellor of the Ex chequer, then filling thesame office which he now held, consented to take off the beer tax, which brought in an income of 3,000,000/. He quitted this subject of alluding to the arguments previously used in that debate, because it seemed to him that there was a fair question to be discussed in the resolutions of the Noble Lord, the Member for London. He (the Noble Lord) has certainly deviated from the usual practice of opposition. He had deviated from the course adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet when in opposition last year, who, when the Noble Lord's budget was brought forward, opposed it, but brought forward none of his own; who explained what ought to be done, but refused to say what he would do. The Noble Lord took a less prudent course, but he (Mr. Buller) thought it a more satisfactory one to the country, because it was more manly and straightforward, and one which would redound more to party interest of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies had told them that there were some points on which they agreed. They were agreed in the opinion that there was a deficiency, which ought to be supplied by fresh taxation. They were agreed also, but it was a new discovery by Gen ' tlemen opposite, that the trade, commerce, and manufactures of this country were languishing, and required the intervention of the Legislature to rettoret hem. It was satisfactory to find that this was admitted by the Government, and that they were about to act upon it. Now they had two courses pro posed. The Right Hon. Baronet proposed to meet the de ficiency in the revenue by plans which imposed taxation, and which carried out the principles of free trade more or less. Both were taxing plans. The Right Hon. Baronet proposed to get his means for the expenditure of the country, and for his free trade experiment, by a very large amount of di rect taxation in its most oppressive form.--( Hear, hear.) He proposed to deal with th e great monopolies, bykeeping them up, and as a commencement, the Corn-law Bill had been sent to the House of Lords. He proposed in his tariff to deal very rigorously with all the minor and least protected monopo lies. Were all in the course proposed by the Noble Lord? To attack the great mo no p o li es , to get from th em rel i ef, and the means of meeting the e xigencies of the country—these 1 were the characteristics of the two clans, and he a s k e d w hi c h was superior? The Gallant Colonel, the Member for Brecon, had favoured them with a very marvellous, lucid, and arith- metic account of the persons upon whom the proposed tax would fall. He said the tax on sugar would fall in a greater degree than an income tax—he forgot to say that the tax on sugar, as- proposed by the Noble Lord, would diminish the price—he forgot tp mention th at w hil e the income tax would be borne by only 200,000 persons, it must materially injure the persons who depend e d on the capital employed by those 200,000 per sons . Th e Noble Lord's lean, instead of increasing the burdens, would have very sensibly diminished them. \Vas this plan, after all, likely to give relief to the manufactures and commerce of the country; Vhe relief of those who were consumers:? What were the changes proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet? The peo. ple of this country were not consumers of copper and tin eres, or the various other articles mentioned in his tariff ' • but every man consumed bread and sugar. The relief which the Noble Lord would have given on the articles of bread and sugar, would have come home to every man. It had been urged that the income tax would confer a great benefit on the working classes; but they must recollect that the object in taxing the middle classes was to keep up the worst taxes pressing on the working classes— taxes on bread, on sugar, and the common necessaries of life. —( Hear, hear.) The Gallant Member for Brecon told them in emphatic language of a pledge which he had given to his constituents. He would, he had told them, he never would consent to a tax on bread for the sake of public revenue. It would have been far better if lie had finished that sentence and have told the people of Brecon that he never could consent to a tax on bread for the revenue of other persons besides the State. If he (Mr. Buller) might he allowed to diverge into a rather curious question—( Laughter) —he merelywished to argue it for the benefit of Gentlemen opposite—he felt he was touching on delicate ground, hut he hoped the House would hear him to his conclusion—he would ask the representatives of the protective interest which of the two plans would protect their interests on the whole ? It appeared to him that the Right Hon. Baronet had done great injustice to the protective in terest. He (Mr. Buller) was not insensible to the arguments used on the other side of the House, that free trade was not G, APRIL 13, 1F42 entirely unaccompanied by disadvantages ; they could net err tainly change the old habit for free trade without doing harm to some one. But he did say that the protective interests had a right to demand that if they were injured by free trade, they should be relieved by free trade. Let them apply their free trade principles fully and justly. If they came to the corkcutter, the shoemaker, or the lion. Gentlemen's 01111 constituents, or to his (Mr. Buller) own constituency, who depended on copper, they came to them and called on those men to give up a little pro tection, which was, after all, their sole means of subsistence, they had: a :ight to turn round and say to Hon. Gentlemen in that House, " Let us all start fairly from the same point, and let you begin by abolishing all monopoly."—(hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet was very eloquent upon a subject on which he (Mr. Buller) agreed with him, and objected to an entirely free trade in cor n on account of the peculiar burdens upon land. But did he think of the peculiar burdens upon the manufac turing interest in this country ? Did lie recollect the peculiar burdens to which they were subject, of paying a large tax upon bread, for the benefit, not of the State, but fur the bene fit of the landlords? They ought, in his opinion, to start by bringing down the great monopolies which pressed upon the country. He would ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who be longed to the favoured interest—the age icultural intsrest—an interest which, however bad might be the opinion which they entertained of the Members on his side of the House, he could assure them he did no: wish to see stripped of any portion of its influence in the country—( Hear, hear)—he would ask them in what way would a sincere supporter of their interests go to work in introducing the principles of free trade ? It appeared to him (Mr. Buller) that he would have first taken from them that protection which was the most assailed; that protection which was the most odious to their country men, and against which the greatest force of public opinion had been brought to bear. Now, what was the protection against which the country most loudly cried? Why, unques tionably., the one great giant grievance was the protective duty that raised the price of the material of the bread which the people used. They might care about other things, but it was bread that animated the Anti-corn-law League ; it was bread that stimulated the cry of the Anti-corn-law League ; it was cheap bread they asked for, it was not cheap meat, and most certainly it was not cheap oats they asked for the country. 'I he Right Hon. Baronet had diminished the protection to the agricultural interest on those points in which public opinion did not assail them. He had diminished greatly, it had been complained, the protection to barley and oats; he had diminished the protection to butcher's meat; he had diminished the protection to British timber, and to other articles on which the agriculturists greatly deprecated any change. But he would put it to Right Hon. Gentlemen op posite, whether they thought that, by diminishing all that protec tion, the Right Hon. Baronet had at all diminished the feeling against the protection which remained untouched ; or whether it was likely that next year, or the year after, they would find the resistance to the Corn-laws at all diminished, or the anxiety decreased for their removal. He said that the fate of that monopoly would be decided in one way or another; and it seemed to him that the Right Hen. Baronet had not taken the best or most humane course upen the subject ; while he admitted that he had taken the most effectual means of ensuring a continued agitation of the question. He could also assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he should have his unfaltering support in all the improvements which he proposed in the tariff.— ( Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He was sorry to perceive that the Right Hon. Bart. did not take the offer of his support with that feeling of gratitude ho might have expected. But he would tell the Right Hon. Baronet that gra'itude was a feeling which grew with emergencies ; and he believed that after a few nights' debates upon the tariff, the Right lion. Baronet would see more reason to be grateful to the Members on his ( Mr. Buller's) aide of the house. There was one topic to Which he wished to call the attention of the House—a topic alluded to by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. The Noble Lord did not enter into minutia' with regard to the plan of his Noble Friend the Member for London, but dis posed of it at once by calling it a " scouted and condemned plan." The Noble Lord said that it had been condemned at the last General Election. He rejoiced at the Noble Lord's judicial phraseology—he rejoiced at his having used the word condemned," because it led him to ask by what means it had been condemned ; or by what fake evidence was innocence ever put to death ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it a fair trial that the budget of the late Government had at the hustings ? Did not Gentlemen exclaim against it, exaggerating all its defects, while tkey lauded to the skies the determination of the Right Hon. Baronet to resist to the death any alteration in the articles upon which it touched? The Noble Lord, to whom he did not mean any disrespect, would excuse him for saying that the budget of the late Govern ment had been condemned upon very suspic:ous evidence. The trial of the budget had taken place in Lancashire. (An Hon. Member on the Opposition hench was understood to say that it took place equally in other parts of the country. ) But it also took place in Lancashire. The Noble Lord had said that it took place at the General Election, and there was an election in Lancashire, as well as elsewhere. What was the evidence against the budget of the late Government brought forward in Lancashire ? The Noble Lord, whose statements were likely to attract the greatest attention from his rank, his character, and his station—the Noble Lord had come forward and told the elector; of Lancashire that he knew of a place called Tamboff, in Russia—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear,' and laughter in the Opposition benches)—and that in that country —he believed about half the size of Yorkshire—in that country called Tamboff, there were grown no less than 38,000,000 of quarters of wheat—(hear, hear)—a quantity twice as great as that consumed in the whole British islands.—( Hear, hear.) He told them that the wheat was excessively cheap in that wonderful country—that it could be sent to St. Petersburgh, and sold there for 13s. 4d. a quarter.—( Hear, hear.) When the Noble Lord had made that statement, the electors wham he addressed knew nothing of the subject, and felt no doubt that the Noble Lord should be better acquainted with the sub ject than they were. He believed, by the by, that the Noble Lord had taken his statement from the Right Hon. Baronet, who was the first person that mentioned the subject in that House.—( Hear, hear, and laughter ) If the Noble Lord could be taken in by that story of Tamboff, was it wonderful that the poor electors of Lancashire should be taken in by it ? He had no doubt, however, but the Noble Lord had been unintention ally led into the mistake. He believed that the evidence upon which the budget of the late Government had been con demned elsewhere was equally swpiciotts. Government after Government had told the farmers throughout the coun try that they, having been up in London, knew all that the Right Honourable Baronet was about to do. They said they knew he ( Sir R. Peel) would not alter one letter of the Corn-laws; if he did they would throw their weight in the scale and turn him out instantly.—( Laughter and Cheers.) Those Gentlemen now sat opposite, with their unredeomr d pledges, and cheered the assurance that the budget of the late Government was condemned at the late election. He (Mr. B.) did not mean anything personal against Lin coln ; but it had put itself forward, and when one panted to dignify the agricultural interest he must naturally refer to Lin coln.---( licar and laughter.) But look east, north, south, and west, and you would find the same promises producing the same results. But if the budget of the late Go vernment were to be tried let there be a full trial and ample evidence. Let us see now whether the farmer would, if he had a free choice, rather take the Bs. duty, or the tariff, income tax, and Corn-law of the present Govern ment. Let us wait also until the tariff has been fully dis- • cussed—until the Poor-law had been fully discussed—until they should see whether, notwithstanding all the promises of their supporters at the hustings, the Government would dis credit itself by abandoning the course it took in opposition-- a step of which he would do them the justice to say, especially the Right Honourable Member for Pembroke, they showed not the slightest indication. Let us see whether the supporters of the Government would be as pliant on the Poor-law as they had been on the Corn-law, not- ' withstanding all the execrations that were heard at the elec tions of the system that would shut up men in hostiles and separate them from their wives, surrendering the poor to the mercies of three Devil Kings. We should then have a better mode of dealing with Gentlemen who, while they said the Go vernment were condemned last. June, were yet willing to give conscientious votes against their convictions.—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. B.) wished to close with a few testa mentary words. The Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire en tertained the House with an account of the will of the late Ministry, but that was a spurious document he read from. The fact was, his ( Mr. B.'s) Noble and Right lion. Friends, find ing their Ministry about to close, thus spoke for the ei,untry— (" Hear," and laughter)—" We cannot do as much as we wish for you, but you must remember how much we have al ready done. To you, electors of England, we have given the elective franchise, which you have used against us.--( Cheers. ) To you, Roman Catholics of Ireland, and Dissenters of Eng land, we have given religious equality and freedom.—( Cheers. ) To you, negroes of the West Indies, we have given personal freedom (for surely it was through the triumph of the liberal party this measure was effected.) To you, inhabitants of every town in Great Britain, we have given the enjoyment of municipal privileges, and a freedom from the disgrace anti corruption of your own Boroughs. —(Cheers.) We now be queath you commercial freedom, and a cheapening of the neces saries of life. We may be reproached for not having effected this already, still we leave you the right and the means of en fot eing it. Faction and selfishness may oppose you, but truth and justice will carry you on. And for this our last will and testament, we appoint as executors our late implacable oppo nents.—(Cheers.) To those we leave the duty, when they shall have the power of grappling with prejudices. They will now proceed to carry out the plans they formerly obstructed, and above all, they will have to vindicate the characters and memories of those, whom in their ten years of oppo:it ion, they had unscrupulously and unsparingly delamed."—( Cheers. ) Mr. BORTH WICK proceeded to defend the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet. It was most important that British supremacy should be maintained in India. British force in that country ought to be indomitable, and British wisdom ought not to be out-manceuvred. What difference could it make, whether additional troops were re quired for China or for Affghanistan ? An income tax was necessary to make good the deficiencies which had been left by the late Government, and to maintain I our national superiority, and as the representative of an inde pendent constituency—( A laugh)—he should vote in support of the Govsrnment proporition.—( The lion. Member was here met with loud cries of " Divide," and " Adjourn," from both sides of the House.) After vainly attempting for some time to obtain a hearing, he concluded by Illoving, amidst great inter ruption, that the debate should then be adjourned. The question of the adjournment having then been put, strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no dir,sion took place. On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. BORTHWICK. on his legs. The Hon. Member said, no treatment which he ever had, or ever might meet with from that side of the House, would affect his vote. lie hoped that the experience of some years proved that his con duct was based on something more staple than their approba ttou, and as long as he had a seat in the House he should con- tinuc to prove that ; but Its would tell them that though his vote would not. be influenced in that house, yet his conduct would be in consequence of the manner in which he had been treated. With respect to the measure before the House, if, in the present state of affairs, instead of calling upon them for :3 per cent., the Right Hon. Baronet had called upon them for :30 per cent.—( Great laughter.) Hon. Gentleman might laugh, hut, he believed, there Was not any amount of sacrifice which this country was not prepared to submit to, when her honour called upon her to do so. Viewing the income tax iii connexion with the Corn-law, and the declaration made by the Right lion. Baronet, that he wished for a moderate Govern ment, he did not desire to see any Government in its stead, having in it any of the elements of the French Revolution of 1830. It was this revolution, and those which had taken place in other countries, which produced the commercial distress of the country. They paid 700,0001. on account of the tariff; they said that the Corn-law had produced all the distress. He could not help thinking that the agricultural interest was badly treated, when he saw 700,0001. or 800,0001. given them as a kir d of bonus for the alteration in the Corn-laws. Ile depre- cated all suppositions that because persons represented an agricultural constituency, they would on that ac count vote for the benefit of particular classes, and not for the general interests of the community. He did not fully approve of the propositions of the Right Hon. Baronet, because his sympathies were exclusively with agri culture, but because he believed that agriculture was the base on which rested the stability of the Throne and the Monarchy, and the prosperity of the manufacturing and commercial inte rests themselves. Ile looked with considerable jealousy on the measures of the Right lion. Baronet ; but they had the me rit, in their immedsdiate effects, of being calculated to remeav the evils that pressed on the country. All other measures that had been proposed had been deficient is this respect. In this stage of the measure he should give Isis vote for the Right Hon. Baronet. An Hot:. Alzatisrit. whose name we cculd not learn, moved the Adjournment of the Debate. I On the question being pnt, Sir R. PEEL said he could not help expressing his opinioi that the House was in a condition to pronounce an opinion on this question. There had been four nights' debate on the re ; solution, and three nights on the report, and he hoped the sub, ' jet had now been sufficiently debated to enable the House to ; come to a fair division to-morrow, and that leave would :be given to bring in the Bill. He hoped, as they should have to ' diicuss the t ar iff as we ll as th e i ncome t ax , an d th e rev i s i on of taxation on the raw materials and elements of manufactures, that the House would feel that he was justified in not ' making any p roposa l o f t h e tar iff ta ll some d ec i s i on was come to on the income tax. He hoped that the gentlemen who had given notices of motions for to-morrow evening would, from a sense of public necessity, permit the renewal of the debate at an early hour, so that the House might come to the conclusion of the debate to. morrow. AIrarIASTERMAN regretted that the debate had been ; adjourned, and no decision come to. There was a great stagnation in all branches of commerce. If Hon. Gentlemen around him were aware of the inconvenience, they would have I sat to a little later hour. It was most detrimental to the com ; mercial interest that the House should separate without a division. . . Sir W. JAMES coincided with the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for the City of London. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had wished that the debate should have been closed that evening. He was not aware of what was intended to be done by the Gentlemen who had _ given notice of resolutions, but with respect to his resolution lie had no doubt that the debate would close to-morrow. H e thought too that those Gentlemen who had Bills for considera. thin would not object to the debate taking place at an early part of the evening. Mr. MARK PHILIPS thought that the House ought to be afforded a m pl e ti me t o cons id er th e income tax, inasmuch as it had been a question that had only been recently proposed to the House, and that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken five months to consider the propriety of proposing it. Sir 11. PEEL did not object to the House taking ample time to discuss the question of the income tax, bet he thought that they ought to devote more than two hours and a half to it of a night. He (Sir Robert Peel) had moved the Order of the Day at eight o;clock, at which time there were not more than forty-eight Members present. He would do Hon. Members opposite the justice to admit that there were quite as many present of their party as of his own, but still the debate did not commence until two hours after the Order of the Day had been read. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that if Right Hon. Gentle men opposite would speak earlier in the evening, that would have a great effect in bringing . the debate to a close. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had acted on the principle propounded by the Noble Lord, inasmuch as he had spoken immediately after the Noble Lord had sat down in the early part of the evening. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at One o'Clock. ADJOURNED INQUEST AT ROE HAMPTON. The inquest en the supposed victim of Good was resumed yesterday before Mr. Carter, the Coroner, at the Angel Inn, Roehampton. The room was again crowded, and the greatest excitement prevailed. The first witness called was Sergeant Palmer, who stated—My name is Samuel Palmer; 1 am a police-constable, 6 V. On the night of Wednesday, the 6th inat., I was told, a little before 11 o'clock, by constable 192 V, that a murder had been committed. In consequence of the information I received I went to Mr. Shiers premises in Putney Park-lane. When I got there I found Mr. Houghton his son, and a young man named Speed. They showed me the trunk of a female in one of the stalls of the stable—the fourth stall. Mr. Bicknell came immediately afterwards, and we proceeded to search the stable for the remaining parts of the body, seeing that it had been mutilated. The first, place searched was the adjoining stall, in which 1 discovered a mattress and two blankets concealed under some straw. The mattress was very much stained, but apparently not with blood ; 1 think it must have been with urine. It appeared quite dry. I felt it to as certain. It was one entire stain right through, both sides being alike. Thought it had not been recently done. The next place I went to was the harness-room. From the stench I discovered there, I went towards the fire-place, and found seve ral small portions of bone among the cinders. There was nothing in the fire-place but the cinders and portions of bone. I now recollect that the fire was laid. There were two pieces of wood, some coals, and some straw, ready to be lighted. The ashes were under these materials. I searched the cinders, and found several small pieces of bone in a calcined state. ( They were here produced.) They have been broken in pieces since. They appeared to have been in a fire. I took them to the doctor's. CORONER—Was the stench very great? Witness—lt was quite enough to make me suspect that the missing portions of the body had been burnt. I then went up to Mr. Shiel's house, and searched the coachman's room there. The room was pointed out to me. There were two cupboards in the room, which I could not open at that time, and I did not find anything which concerned the present inquiry. I told the gentleman I would come next morning, and it I could not find the key I would break the doors open. Upon returning to the harness-room I saw some keys lying on a table, and thinking they most likely belonged to the coachman, and that one would tit the cupboard I took them, and proceeded to the house in company with Mr. Inspector Busain. None of the keys would fit, and we broke the cupboards open. They did not contain anything relating to this question. There were some coats and waist coats, which I examined carefully, but there were no marks or stains upon them. I remained in the stable, and the keys either fell out of my pocket, or 1 laid them on the corn bin. Some of them were tied together by the cord or watch guard (by which they all tied now), and some of them were loose on the table ; but all lay together. The keys have not been owned to my knowledge. By a Juror—When you found those keys did you examine them to ascertain whether there were any marks of blood upon them ? Palmer—No, Sir, I did not. Did you see any marks upon them?—No I did not. Are you sure some of them were loose?—To the best of my belief. Robert Tee, constable of the parish of Putney, was called. From information I received I went to the premises ot 111 r. Shiel, in Putney-park-lane. I saw the remains of a body, and since the inquiry on Friday, I have been in possession ot those remains, and I have had the key of the stable in my pos. session. I produce the bunch of keys (alluded to by the last witness). I found them on the corn bin on Friday evening last. They were as von see them now—all together. John Houghton and the little boy went in with me when 1 found them. 1 made a very diligent search of the premises. I have examined the cesspool, the water-tanks, and the manure heaps in the stable-yard. I have not found anything pertaining to this inquiry. I have not found any portion ot the body, nor anything in any way relating to this inquiry. CORONER—You searched the dung-heaps, in accordance with my directions, did you not ? Witness—l did, Sir. CORONER—What were you going to say about Houghton and the keys? Witness—lt was Houghton that directed my attention to them. Sergeant Palmer recalled—The keys produced are the same which I took from the harness-room, with which to try the cup board doors in the coachman's room. By the Jury—l had the keys from Thursday morning until Friday morning. lem sure the keys produced are the same which I found in the harness-roam. Hobert Tee recalled—Houghton might have seen the keys by looking through the window of the stable opposite that to which the remains lay. Josiah Tye, police constable 199 V.—On 'Wednesday even ing 1 was on reserve in the station-house, when a person came and said that a body was lying at Mr. Shiel's, in Putney Park. lane. I went there, and on arriving I found Constable Gardi ner there, and the remains of the body of a woman lying in one of the stalls of the stable, on Mr. Shiers premises. I took Mr. Shiel's pony and rode off to give information to Mr. Superin tendent Bicknell. When I got. to Wandsworth I found that Mr. Bicknell had gone, and I returned to Mr. Shiel's. I found Ithat in the harness-roam there was a disagreeable smell, nod on examining the grate I discovered two pieces of skull bone underneath the cinders. ( The pieces of bone were pro duced.) I did not know that they were skull-bones at first, but on finding them 1 took them to a medical gentleman, who said they were pieces of skull-bone. This morning I was in Mr. Shiel's yard at about half-past eight, and went toward the four-wheeled chaise in the coach-house, and upon opening the lid of the seat-box I discovered that there was a very strong stench. It came to my nose like a steam. On further exami nation, I observed a small piece of flesh on the edge of the out side of the lid : from this circumstance I suppose that the en. trails of the body have been taken away in this box. [The box smelt so strongly as to be quite offensive to tie jurors when it was placed near them.] The witness resumed—l said the other day to Houghton, " This is a shocking thing." Houghton said, " Yes, it is ; knew Good to be a very bad man, but I did not think he was quite so bad as that either." I replied, "If you knew that he was a bad man, why did you keep his company ?" He answered, " I had reasons for doing it." " What were they ?" I again asked; Houghton shrugged up his shoulders, and said, " It I had not kept in with him, he would have murdered me." The conclusion 1 draw from this conversation is, that he had some knowledge of the body being there. Mr. Inspector Husain next called—From information I re ceived I went to Mr. Shiel's about a quarter before 11 o'clock on Wednesday night, and was directed to make a diligent search. I saw the body ; I found a box in the harness-room, o hich was locked, and I broke it open ; in it I found a small quantity of black tea—rather more than an ounce—wrapped up in paper. There was no mark of blood on the paper. The other things in the box were some articles of wearing apparel and a few books. The wearing apparel con sisted of sonic linen and a waistcoat, which were all clear.. I then searched a drawer in the table underneath the window of the harness-room, and in that I found a knife, Wiich I now produce. It is a clasp, or " self-defence " knife. It appeared to have been recently sharpened, and on the handle are marks of what I believe to be blood. Standing in the chimney corner, on the right-hand side of the fire place, I found this axe ' the edge of which, and also the poll, are smeared with blood. The knife and the axe were handed round to the Jury. The knife, when opened was about nine inches long ; and the axe was a full-sized one. The marks alleged by the Inspector to be those of blood were very indistinct. CORONER—Can you undertake to say that these marks on the axe are the marks of blood ? Witness—l believe them to be marks of blood. Over a line which was hanging across the harness-room, I found the handkerchief which I now produce. On showing it to the woman in South-street, Manchester square, she identified it as having belonged to the woman Jane Jones. There arc marks of blood upon it. Over a saddle-hag I found two pieces of a woman's flannel petticoat, which had evidently formed part of the same garment, and had been torn asunder with violence. I also found two pieces apparently of an other garment, both are spattered with blood. ('I appeared to be portions of a calico chemise.) On oneportion are two holes, which had evidently been cut with a sharp instrument. In the fire place I found some calcined bones, which have been shown to a medical gentleman. I showed them to Mr. Shillito and also to Mr Ridge. I found the pint glass bottle, which 1 produce. It appeared to have contained milk. Assisted by Mr. Ridge, I found on the following day other portions of bone in the fire place. The keys were also found in the table-drawer. I ex amined the body after it had been washed—since the Jury saw it. It was brought out into a stronger light to be examined. I pressed up the skin of the neck near where the incision had been made, and in doing so I discovered, on the right side, a small mole not much larger titan a pin's head. By the COKONER—I have ordered a search to be made over the premises, but no portion of the bode has been dis covered, except the pieces of bone which have been produced. Mrs. Jane Brown was next called—l am a married woman, living at IS, South -street, Manchester-square, in the parish of Marylebone. My husband, John Brown, is a green -grocer. I knew a person named Good. I have heard him called Daniel Good. I knew him to be in service as coachman. I did not know the name of the gentleman until lately, but believed he lived in this neighbourhood. I knew Good as the husband of the female who took the h2dging . at my house. I was told that he was her husband. He used to come and see her, and she has passed as his wife latterly. She took the lodging in the name of Jane Jones, and passed by that name until she represented that she was married. She was in the lodgings six months or more before she told me that she was married to Good. He frequently came to see her; three or four times a week. lie drove up t o the house, but did not remain longer than a f ew minutes at a time. He latterly came in a phaeton. I have no knowledge of the female at the present ;ime. A little boy resided with her—his name was Daniel; •he passed the boy for her son-in-law; and I understood from Good himself, that the lad was his son. I last caw the female on Sunday, 3d April ; 1 heard her lock her door, come down, and go out at the private door. I saw her walk past the front of the house. I had a side view of her. She was in my sigl.t for aborit three minutes. I had an opportunity during that time of noticing her dress. She wore a blue silk bonnet, .a dark print gown, a dark shawl (the pattern a black ground with Rowers), and black boots. This was between the hours of two and three o'clock in the af,ernoon. She was then about leaving the house. Collo/sea—Have you any knowledge of the purpose for which she was leaving the house at that time? Witness—God knows, Sir ! I did not speak to her. CORONER—Was any one with her at the time ?—No one. Had yon seen Good on that day ?—No. Have you any reason to suppose that she has returned to your lodgings from that time to the present ?—I ha -e not. And whether she may be dead or alive von don't know ?—I do not. The little boy left the house before his mother, as I thought, to-go to school. He returned the following day, ac companied by his father, Daniel Good. I don't knot how it was that he did not come home on Sunday night. I don't know that the little boy was in the habit of visiting his fathet withcut the female. He was not in the habit of sleeping from home, at least to my knowledge, but lie slept out the previous Sunday. CORONER—How long had the female lived with you alto. gether ?—About three years last October, altogether. , Had she been in the habit of sleeping out ?—No, not to my knowledge. B u t on th e S un day previou s ly t o the. 3d April she went out, and was from home that night. She did not sleep from home on any night before that to my know ledge. On the morning of the Monday, before he came back with the boy, Good called at my house, and in answer to a question trom me, he told me the female was gone. I don't recollect whether he called her his wife, or whether in speaking of her lie designated her at all. I asked why she had gone without telling me ? He replied that she had gone to a place to keep a lodge at a gentleman's house, and weule not re. turn. He had told me a fortnight b; tore that she was going to keep a lodge, but did not tell me where. lie said he was himself going to a fresh place, but did not saw when. He said he had come for the purpose of taking away her things—the wangle and bed. She kept a mangle, and took in linen for the purpose of mangling it. I raid I was surprised at her leaving. He made me very little answer. I had no reason for disbelieving his story. He had paid the rent a fortnight previously, and told me he did not know how soon she might have occasion to go. I never had any conversation with the female on the subject after Good spoke to me about her leaving. I only saw her two or three times afterwards. She was not in the habit of talking much. I did not " dispute " the matter as she had said once on a former occasion that she wished to go into service. The bonnet now- produced I have seen before. It was shown me last Saturday. I have seen the neckerchief also. 1 could swear to them to the best of my knowledge. I have seen the bonnet worn. I think I have also se e n th e neckerchief, but could not so positively swear to that. have no doubt in my own mind that the bonnet produced is that which was worn by the woman Jane Jones when she last left my house on Sunday the 3d April. The neckerchief is also similar to one which I have seen her wear. The gown produced was shown me at the same time. 1 know it well; it belonged to Mrs. Good, or Jane Jones. She was called Mrs. Good by every one in the house after she told me she was married. She had a padlock fastening on her door. There was another lock on the door, but she generally used the padlock. I cannot identify either of the key. produced as belonging to her door; but 1 think I have seen tlat guard with which th e k e y s are t i e d together round her neck. 1. could swear that I have seen her wear one similar in make and colour. I could not say whether she had a watch or note but I have seen a key attached to it. Good told me hi had purchased a pair of boots for her, the day he paid rei the rent. That was last Monday fortnight. He was in tie. shop when he told me tha'. I cannot swear to or identify thd Loots. 1 have not seen the body of the female into whole' death we are now inquiring. There was no circumstasee which I could identity her particularly. She was a person ell very " close habits." I have no knowledge of her being prekt nant. She never said anything to me, or to any one else to mt knowledge, to induce me to believe that she was. CORONER—On what apparent terms did this man anti woman live? Witness—l had never heard any quarrel. CORONER—Did you ever see anything to lead you to believe that any animosity existed between them ? Witness—No ; oe the contrary he always appeared very kind to her. Have yore any knowledge that she ever bore a child ?—No, I have not. What aged woman was she?—l cannot say positively, but think she was about forty. She was a woman of middle stature, about five fe e t t wo i nc h es ; s h e was not s t ou t, s h e was a nea t little woman. I think her eyes were dark. Her skin was not dark, but not very fair. I never saw any mark on her body cie throat by which I could identify her. CORONER —When did you last see Good? Witness—On Tuesday night, when he said he had come to town with kis family to a ball, and he went to his wife's room, which wits on the kitchen floor. I don't know how long he remained there. CORONER—What did you say? Witness—l inquired how Mrs. Good was, and he told me he had not seen her that day, I did not inquire more particularly, for I was offended at her leaving without telling me. The mangle and bed are still is the room. Since Tuesday night I have not seen Mrs. Geed. Mary Anne Clarke, of No. 18, South-street, Manchester. square. My husband is a tailor. I lodge in Mr. Brown's house. I knew Mrs. Good. She resided in the front kitchen, where she worked a mangle, and occasionally took in washing. Daniel Good, a little boy, lived with her, as son-in-law, but he called her mother. I know the bonnet on the table, for it was made by me about a year and a half ago. lam not a bonnet-. maker, but 1 made this because Mrs. Good asked me. I have no doubt that it is Mrs. Good's bonnet. I have seen her wear a 0-own of exactly the same pattern as that on the table. ;own you ever seen any particular mark on het person ? Witness—l have not. I never saw her stripped, be I think I could identify her hair. I think, however, I have seen a mole on her neck, which I should know again. She used to wear a handkerchief on her neck in the morning of than same pattern as the piece now on the table. I saw her last about ten o'clock in the morning on Sunday week. She came into the back-yard for water; she appeared in goad health. f never saw anything in her appearance to make me think she walk pregnant ; but I have heard that she told another lodger, about Three months since, that she was pregnant. However, she afterwards contradicted it. She told me in the winter that she; had a bad face, which she attributed in some degree to her feelings on account of bad language which her busband had used to her. Sarah Young, of 99, Earl-street, an old woman, said that ow Sunday week Mrs. Good asked her to take the little boy home cr ith her to sleep for that night, fur that she was going to e.e her husband, and was afraid to take the child with her, as she dreaded Good might massacre her, because the boy called her mother. She said she hoped it might pour with rain to pre. vent her going out to her husband, as she did not know what he meant, or was up to. Witness took the boy home that night. Mrs. Good she had not seen since. Mrs. Elizabeth Christie—l lodge with Mrs. Brown. I knee, Mrs. Good and her little son-in-law. I,saw her last on Sunday the 3d of April, at 11.1 at noon. She stood at the door of keg room, and asked if I thought it world rain. I said we might hare showers. She then said she had been sent for to go out, but else was not to bring the little boy with her, and she was in distress where to put him. She put her hands together, and said, " I hope it will pour w ith r a i n th e w h o l e o f the aterno in." She did not saw where she was going, but I surmised she was going to see her husband. I can swear that the bonnet and shawl were her's., and the gown I believe to have been her's. I saw Good on the following Tuesday night, at about halt-past 10 o'clock, when he came into his wife's room. He said, My little boy is in the country with his mother; but he did not state the cause of her absence. In the beginning of March she said, I thought some time ago I was in the family way, but now I know for certain lam not. I thought she was too old to have a child, but I said nothing. Good seemed to be kind to her. On going away he used to say, Good bye, my dear; take care of yourself. Lavender Layton, a confectioner at Putney ; knows Daniel Good, and saw him last Sunday evening se'nnight near Ham mersmith-bridge, in company with a woman, whom he intro. duced as his sister. The female evidently desired not to be seen. Her bonnet was something like that now on the table. Mrs. Hester, of Peake's-bridge, near Putney. Knew Good. He brought a woman with him last Sundry week, whom he called his sister •in-law. They- stayee to tea. She had on a purple bonnet, though some might call it a blue bonnet. I then said something disagreeable has taken place between you and Susan Butcher; and, addressing his sister-in-law, I slid, " You know Susan Butcher ?" She said, "No ; who is she ?" I said, " She was living with her father at Woolwich, where he was a shipwright." The sister. ' in-law seemed very much hurt, and asked Good who this girl was. He said a friend of his. The stranger then ob served to me that she plainly saw Good wished to change the subject, and she said she had a great charge against him, on se count of his little boy. Good tiew into a s age, and hurried her off. I invited her to come and spend this day with me, and she promised. She seemed very much hurt about Susan Butcher. Ihe bonnet produced is that she had on. On Tuesday morn ing, Good came to my house with his little boy, and wanted me to take care of him. I said I could net, as 1 was going to London. I returned at half-past eight, and the little boy was there. I have not seen Good since. The boy slept in the house that night with my children. Mr. Browne, landlord of the Coach and Horses, Barnes, knew Good personally, and. served him and a female with gin and water on Sunday evening week. He said she was his sister; she said nothing but smiled. _ _ _ Constable 2:1 V, met a female with Good going towards Mr. Shiers, late on Sunday evening; they appeared to have been quarrelling. _ _ _ Mr: George Royal examined.—l am landlord of the King's Head, Roehampton. I knew a person named Daniel Good, who was coachman to Mr. Shiel, of Putney Park-lane. I last saw him on Monday the 4th of April, but I saw him on the previoui evening. On Sunday the 3d of April he entered my house with a female; he came into what I term my middle parlour, and he called for a glass of gin and water. There were not many versos% in my house when they came in, but several customers entered while they were sitting there, which was nearly half an hour. The female appeared to be about thirty, but I did not notice her dress. He appeared to be kind towards her, and no angry words passed between them while they were at my house. He pressed her to drink, but she seemed (a be reluctant to take it. After the other persons that I have spoken of came into my house, the female said she could not bear the tobacco smoke, and they removed into another room. They left my house together at about half-past eight o'clock. I have not seen the female since, that lam aware of. I have seen the remains, but I cannot say they are those of the female I saw with Gcod. Sergeant Parry, of the It d:vision, identified the bonnet, shawl, and other articles proved to have been worn by 31rs. Good, as having been given to him by Lydia Susannah Botcher, a young woman residing with her father at No. 13, Charlotte place, Woolwich. Witness got them from her on Thursday. Lydia Susannah Butcher exatnined.—Said she was generally a servant, but lived now with her father in Woolwich. lam a single woman. The article* on the table were given to me on Wednesday by Dlr. Good, as a gift. Ile came between three and four in the afternoon: We had been acquainted for some time. lie was very kind to me, and used to come to see tne as a suitor where I lived. When he brought the things, he wanted me to put the bonnet on and go with him to Greenwich. Ile had told me a considerable time before that he had to ,give me some things which belonged to his wife, who had died. I eon. sewed and went with him to Greenwich, taking with me my little sister, but she got out at the Hallway House to Green-. w i c b . I g ot out by the New Cross tur np ik e , an d we went i nto a public-house there. We had a l o an of gin and water; and his little boy, who also castle with him in the chaise, was there. After staying about half au hour we came out, and Go :d, with hi s boy, got into the chaise, and wished me "Good sight," and drove off. I then went home. The ConosEa.—Had yon any idea when he gave you those things to whom they belonged? Witness—No, had not the slightest. Never saw Good write, and do not think he coold write. I have received two letters from Good, one of which I know was written f or hi m . I h ave h ear d hi m sa y he could not write. Tilt` CORONER—It, is necestary That I shculd know how far your intimacy with this man has been carried. Witness—l have more than once called to see Good, and once stopped all night in the harness-room at Mr. Shell's stables. That was alter I left my service at Wimbledon, about a fort night since. I was to have met him on that night at Putney, bat missed him, and then suet him about eight o'clock in Putney Perk-lane. It was so late that I could not go home. I slept by myself. Good did not sleep with me. I slept on a mattress and a blanket. W4en laid