The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

Right AMITO. e Hon. ion, he ing the s- at an .t 1 eV• s Hoe• 150 he pn that ne-taXr urabl mea— ;l atsh). 31ble. rbat sition 'Aber ins ider n co aim 41. " fie e of or: , : sr t hat. if the: icier t:ve f rtY bto thco oss is iona l to -a). , 2- 1 9 ho' i go 1 / 4 4 Ysician the lawyer, the banker to escape, in his opinion they 'ald be ' doing the greatest injustice.-(Hear," heir.) If trade 1L : 1 11d be unsuccessful the tax to be received would not be so rat ; if during the last three years the employment of capital f ad been accompanied with no returns, an exemption to the 41 ameunt would be &lowed, for the imposition was to be l'un the rate of orofit derived for the three preceding years. ite crwances were made in the case of trade where there was f t :corresponding allowance with respect to landed property. i, a case of a professional man, in the case of a physician earn -o[l two. ur three, or fciur thousand pounds a year ; in the ease ! .°4 %, surely they had as great an interest in the takintenincc of tranquillity and in the support of ,l'ublic ' credit as many of those who would be sub -4" to this tax .; so the trader had as •great an inte 'est in - the maintenance of quiet as a naval or military n . er, or other classes who were included in this . tax. lie, therefore, contended that the Hon. Gentleman was . no! Al'eptioi that broad pri nc ipl e w hi c h ought to, be adopted. The - t "Posal of tb e Hon. and Learned Gentleman mer,,ly selected t to classes, the trade r an d the professional r....an; and said that !'eY should only pay one half. He did no think such a propo tion would. be founded on a broad principle. If they were to t " an Inaame=tax at all, it did appear to him that it was ' t anifestly just that all classes of income should be subject i ': it; en?, whether it were in time of war or peace it made no d s tinctirm. If the professional income, cr the income in trade, relit - f o contribute less to the State than the income derived ," 11 ?-nd, why should not that rule be as good in the time of IL ° e's in peace? and if they permitted that exemption now. ~"eY 'were about to establish a principle which they must admit l , tt . , t , ae time of war.—(Hear, hear.) They must admit that l'f'e• that of the assessed tax in 1803 and 1806 was unjust. :tided property to 12 per cent., and on professional income to ' ; and if that were not enough in the time of war, they might raise the duty on landed property 20 per cent., and on profes real income 10 or 12. Th e p r i nc i p l e th ey e s t a bli s h e d now xv 73' must maintain in time of war. He could rather show o PY . such a distinction should be made i n ti me 2 war than in peace.. The tendency of war . was to i ncrease t h e va l ue of l an d e d property, ' an d to d epress :5 4 emercial enterprise. And it it were just to make this dis :llll:time in the time of peace, it appeared to him equally just, and it might be argued a fortiori, that the same distinction u h ught to exist, in time of war. They were not diseus,ing a p r inciple that, was good for all times, mid he must say, that it t v, PPeated to, , hi m t h at the 'propotition of the Hon. Gentleman as liable, to very great objections.—( Hear, hear.) When he s "lered the whole circumstances of this case, he thought then "effect of the commercial tariff would be. to benefit those . ~e arned their incomes from trade.—( Hear, hear.) 'lhere ...‘,,czkld be no person, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion, .70 would derive more advantage from the commercial tariff a 4 . those who were confined to a residence in ' ' , is country, and who had not the opportunity which the man gof wealth had. He hoped that the professional man; in the diminished cost of living from the general reduction of the tariff, with respect to the cost of the manufactures both of ether countries and our own, would make an ample eompensatiou, for a great part of the burden im- Posed upon him by asking him to pay FL per annum * tat of an income of 300 t. a year. On these grounds he must rhere to the proposition which he originally made. He be loved it to be mush more just than the amendment which the 11 ° 11 - and Learned Gentleman had proposed ; and he was not deterred, by any fear of responsibility, from adhering to that Which appeared to, be most consonant with justice, and best cal culated for the public advantage. • 1 , Mr. 14HOUCHERE explained what he had stated as to the .time at which the Income-tax 'was imposed, and which the Right Hera, Baronet seemed to have slightly misunderstood. K'. l perfec t ly a greed with the Right Hon. Gentleman; that no r i re distinction could be made as to the resources of income Ilkag a time of war, than during peace. -.Lord HOWICK said, with all the ability which the Hon. esitleman had brought to bear on the question, still he t hettg.. ht he had rested his case on an argument ZPech the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had answered sy l 7-44ticipation. The clear result of his argument seemed to 0 111 to be that there would still remain many aes of injustice 4 r n i the application of the tax. He had certainly been success -44.-in showing the House that this would be the case. The lean having only a life estate, and another holding the fee ' 4 4.1 e, the circumstances under which they held their property ),,reire so utterly at variance that it would be impossible for the awye to deal with these cases according to the real value . e.,. ‘ f the res p ec ti ve i ncom es. In proving this to be the case, the night Hon. Getnleman had certainly strengthened him (Lord uowick) in the opinion he had always held, that the Income ttlA was essentially a bad and an unjust tax.—(Hear, hear. ) the whole result of the debate had been to bring back more . orcibly to his mind the conclusion, that do what they would, the tax must remain an unjust one, and he was corn- Felled to differ with the Right Honourable Gentleman, ,lo his opinion that a tax on income would fall, on the whole, i tess unjustly than any other. The Chancellor of tbe Exchequer nad urged a similar argument; he had said, that if this tax Pressed unequally, those that could alone be substituted kr it Would press quite as unequally, and that rages on coniumption would fall heavy on particular 'Persons, and not on others. Now, he did not believe that this was the effect of their system of taxation taken Altogether. He believed that the effect of their present system of - taxation was to make it fall on the available income of each different person, because it. taxed necessaries, it taxed luxuries, aid in whatever proportion the articles assessed were eon turned, the tax-gatherer stepped in andtook his share. The tenor al system of taxation, therefore, that they had hitherto Adopted, had been to levy a tax upon what each person torisidered his available income. It left each individual as determine what he . would spend, for himself. hat he considered his available income, upon that he paid his proportion ; that was the effect of their existing system taken altogether. What was the consequence? Why, that the profeitienal man; whose income, though large, was un certain at the best, and could not be of long continuance, con sidered that income as only a small one, and spent part and and saved part. The man of a more permanent income, 'spent a larger proportion ; precisely as each man found he could prudently expend a large or small proportion of his , resources, in that proportion he contributed to the wants of the State. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that this was not 'the case, hut that other taxes would fall on the professional b lau, while other persons could go and live abroad. He (Lord Howick) believed, that if they arranged ' their ‘ltation in a proper manner, not unnecessarily increasing the burdens of the people, and giving up those taxes, in -the shape of protective duties, which produced nothing to the llTreasury —if they could so arrange their taxes, he was firmly Isersuaded that there was no country in Europe in which, en the Whop,, a person could live more advantageously than in Eng le:4-e( Hear.) • He, therefore, could not believe that this tax ,seas such a just one as the Right Hon. Baronet supposed it to 51 .. e. It was perfectly true that this was a point which the ,louse bad decided, and he certainly did not intend to argue it . More than was necessary in noticing the observations that had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was willing to assume that the tax was to be imposed, a tax which he contend ed was inherently unjust, and one that, attempt' whatever 'the' would, they could never .make apply with fairness 4 -re all , classes of the community. But though it could not be 'ieade entirely just, the House had decided on imposing it, and he considered that they should be best discha:ging their duty in endeavouring to get rid of the objections to which it was liable—( Hear hear)—and to make it fall with the least pos a,itile amount Of injustice on the classes that were subjected to Lt. Clearly, the question they had to consider was, not whether mere would be many cases of injustice, hut whether, upon the 'lchole, and taking the broad results, there would be less injus lice, or a smaller degree of hardship, under one system than blister the other. If they took professional incomes in tha hiass, and the incomes derived from real property and fixed capital also in the mass, which was the most certain, the most durable, and the best able to bear taxation ? Pe could point out individual cases of persons deriv mg income from land, which could only continue a !inset time, on whom it would be hard and unjust to impose the same amount of tax as that laid on persons of incomes of a !nose durable kind. In the ease of a dowager of a great age, It might be cruel indeed to impose the same tax as on income f rom land in perpetuity. It was perfectly true that the Hon. G entleman might point to these cases of injustice ; but taking tile whole amount of professional incomes, and the whole lteOunt of income from more permanent sources, let them ask ,as it not fair to make a difference in favour of those whose I ncomes were derived from their own labours and exertions, the industry of the men themselves, and not from re ' Idised propertry. But this argument had already been - ably , stated by the Honourable and Learned Member for = bath, that it would be unnecessary for him to dwell farther on it. But there was another point, to which he must ta.ll the attention of the House for a few moments. The Right Hon. Baronet said if they did not apply the tax to professional incomes, there were many other cases to which they would be bound to extend the same rule. lie had pointed out the cases of farmers who might be dispossessed of their estates by a short !notice; but notwithstanding this uncertain tenure, they im posed on him taxes, even to a larger amount than on other • sAftla ssos . But the Right Hon. Baronet had not quite perfectly represented the case of the firmer,. He apprehended that a farmer did not quite lose his income if he was dispossessed of his farm ; his income was derived from his capital, and I t, th oug h di s p o ssessed of his estate, he might find other means of applying it. But further than that would say that if the rule was to hold good in a future stage of the Bill, the case of the farmers would have an indisputable tight to be considered, because he could nut apply one rule to trade and another to the farmer. With respect to incomes de rived from mines and other sources, it might be said to be t.„ ( illy uncertain. determine riot yet come to that part of the 13, 1 l when they were to whether those sources of in :. come wereto be included in the schedule or not; that ques ' s .tice might arise on different clauses of the Bill. With re g ard to the pay of the army and navy, and all those sources of in - come, they might deal with them hereafter as they thought prop er ; but before they did so, they must see that there was a leariifest difference between such means and those derived from Personal exertion. The exercise of a masi's own labour, in dustry, and talents in those various professions, which were the modes of obtaining income which were necessarily uncer lain, depended not merely on the duration of life, but a man's health, his popularity, and a thou s- sand other causes of uncertainty, which, applied to these Causes, and not to others. A professional man, having an in ;l. come subject to all these causes of uncertainty, he thought, with respect to the uncertainty, that it was only fair and just to make a deduction from his rate of taxation. It was not pro s 4 posed to exempt income entirely; it was perfectly just that all Incomes should be subjected to it. But with respect to in s. comes of this particular nature, it was fair and just to subject .„* . .:-th eos to a diminished rate of taxation. There' was another description of intermediate taxation—the salaries of officers in air th e public service; and to these they ought, in the future pros f . Vess of the Bill, to apply intermediate rates of taxation. The .:night Hon. Gentleman observed that by adopting the amend- Trent they would still retain the inquisition of the tax, and Would retain it for the purpose of raising a smaller amount. Re considered the argument an objection to the whole mea sure. The opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet in 1 833 had great weight with him ( Lord Howick). He had said that for a sum of three or four millions it was not worth while to 'repose an income tax. That was the opinion he had obtained from him, and he had not changed it. Why not meet this - objection by carrying a well regulated Income-tax from them, and relieve the community of other taxes which still press, rnore heavily ? It had been said that the principle laid down Pas equally applicable in peace and war, and it was because he s ' could not help thinking that the Income-tsx would last longer ,than had :been expected that he was extremely anxious it .should be very carefully considered; and that they should endea ,'4 your to make it as just as theypossibly could. The Right Hon. taronet urged, as a strong presumption in favour of this tax , that it had before been adopted, and he believed there was ss complaint against it. The Right Hon. Baronet also said that its alleged injustice was greater if possible in the time of ''; War than in the time of peace, because the circumstances of War tend to raise the value of landed property. But there . Were circumstances which account for its not being FO Jectionable in time of peace. They had a currency always be s coining more depreciated, there was a continual accumula s tion of debt, for the country was thus anticipating its resources kt ~and living on posterity. While this process was going on there was a kind of artificial prosperity which prevented any 4, Particular class from feeling the evil of that tax as much as they otherwise would. Then the demands of the war, and ;the necessity of supplying the army and nave, carried away a treat 'number of persons, so that during tie war there wan; hot' that over crowded state of all professions, nor the difficulty of finding employment in every rank' of business and pursuit of lifcs nnw Tlys tr.te i . f things i s rsseo s s d t h e - thc: s tax - being felt. But fill this wils, now altered. 14 1 ,, z:N0 man could look around him without perceiving the great - t• z, pressure and competition that prevailed in every trade and em ployment. And it wai at that- moment that they were suffer ing under that competition, with a diminished rate of profit, in every business, that the people were to . be subjeetetl to the un fair and cruel pressure of a tax levied itt Hl's manner. tierorb he concluded, he would only obserVe, thgt . if the Hoii36 WO prepared to adopt the principle ef his Honokirb.ble rrlenil the Member for Bath, that the detAils Were cipa.ble of being subsequently modified, he th'clAgilt. it well de serving of their consider:4ton 4 .l."Aner, in applying this diminished rate of taxatimu 02;4 could not niake some distinc tion bet Ween the meta profits on capital, and that which arises from industry and personal exertions. The principle for which A the House should genera ll y conten d was, t h at t h ey oug ht to apply the diminish on capital as rate of taxation not so much to the profiis own in: t jusry, '4,13 the income raised by the application of a man's the personal reward of his personal ser v'....-es.' 'He perfectly agreed with the Right Honourable Baronet that the amendment, in the shape proposed, would not carry out these views. But it embodied their principle, and if it should appear by that division that the House was in favour of the principle, they could modify the details so as to carry into effect what was intended by it. It was for the prin ciple only that he should now vote in giving his support to the proposition of the Hon and Learned Gentleman. Mr. E. BULLER rose amidst cries of Divide." He said if he believed that the amendment wou!d mitigate the injustice of the tax he would vote for it ; but so far from mitigating it, it only aggravated its injustice by increasing the inequalities that already existed, and he should feel it his duty to oppose it. He could not- support the proposal of the Hon. Member for Bath. Although voting agens taint, he begged it to be under st•e.l that he did not, in the slightest degree; show any dimi nution, in his opinion against a tax which he considered im moral and unjust. Mr. WALLACE rose to address the House amid cries of "Oh, oh," and "divide, divide." He had littened with great attention to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Bath, and he must confess, that he had not heard one word that in any way controverted his statements. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet, and those v, ho had spoken from the other side of the House, had totally failed to upset any of the arguments of his Honourable and Learned Friend. He wished to know from • the Right Honourable Baronet on what ground he required the mercantile interests to pay the tax upon the calculation of their income for three years, instead of one ? . - For his Dorn part he could not see why they should not pay upon the last year as. well as other people. He thought that those sho had a fixed income ought to be placed in a different satia tion to those adverted to by the Honourable Member for Bath. He did not belie ,, e it was justice to exact from the trading in terest a tax based upon any other principle than the last year's income, and he should put a notice on the paper to that effect. He should most cheerfully vote in favour of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bath, and when he had done that, he would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale. Mr. JANIES thought it great injustice to tax premiums on insurances. He thought, upon consideration, that the Right Honourable Gentleman would exempt such parties from the operation of the Act. If he did not, he thought he would commit a most gross injustice. He would give his vote to the Honourable Member for Bath. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax would be upon the profit or gains, and not upon the premiums. Mr. LEADER had listened to the speeches made in favour of his Friend's motion and aga nst it, and he must say, though he was afraid the majority would be against them, the weight of the argument was on his side of the House. The arguments of his Hon. Friend had not been met or answered. As to the course pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman lately in the Government, and by the Member fcr Stafford, he believed they had adopted that course for the purpose of rendering the Bill unpopular ; they cotsidered the tax odious, and likely to make the Government unpopula-, and there fore they would not be a party to any course that was calculated to improve it. In the speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the present session, her Ma jesty stated, that she viewed, with great concern, the distress of the manufacturing districts. Now, for his own part, he could not conceive any thine. more calculated to prove a dis couragement to trade than this schedule in the Income-tax Bill. There was a feeling abroad, that the dominant party in that House, being the representatives of the agricultural interest, favoured that interest, and acted unjustly towards the commercial and trading classes.—(Cries of " No, no.") The Hon. Member f o r K nares borough might say "No," but he (Mr. L.) kne kv that such an impression prevailed in the country ; and an instance of the truth was given the other day, in the way in which the Honourable Member for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone's) motion on the probate and legacy duties was disposed. On the present occasion, too, they would no doubt give another proof of how willing they were to do anything to remove the burden from their own shoulders. Lord J. RUSSELL could not reconcile it to himself to give a silent vote on this question. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward the question had stated with his usual clearness the arguments in its favour, and had endeavoured to answer that which was the ,chief argument which the Right Hon. Gentleman had used on a former occa sion, and which he had again used to-night. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that if they adopted a principle of this kind, they ought to see that they applied it in all similar cases of in come, whether they were persons deriving that income from land, or whether they were officers in the army or navy, or clerks in the public offices, so as they had an income for life or for a less term, no distinction aught to be made in one case without its being made in the others. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to that argu ment, that it was worthy an answer—that if they did not do perfect justice, that was no reason that they ought to do complete injustice. He (Lent J. Russell) thought, if they adopted the present proposition, they would create more injustice than effect any remedy. There were many classes of persons with life incomes, for whom no alleviation was sought. "lhey would have a just right of complaining to this House, and any person who should bring forward a case of that kind, would have a right to claim the votes of all those who voted in favour of the present pro'position—claiMing an equal exemption to the amount of half their income as that which the Hon. Gentleman proposed. If that was the Hon. Gentleman's principles, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that the Hon. Gentleman was bound not only to propose this particular proposition, but to bring forward a whole series of propositions for carrying into effect the principle which he had propounded. With respect to distinctions between incomes durableand temporary, he (Lord J. Russell) felt himself unable to carry such distinctions into •effect throughout their full extent. He did not say that the proposition was impracticable, but having neither from the Government nor from the Hon. Gentleman who made the amendment, any scheme which proposed to carry into effect a principle by which the law could be made more just, he (Lord J. Russell) avowed that he could not vote in favour of the particular amendment now before the Committee. There was still another answer, namely, that although the distinction existed, that persons enjoying income from land, and the funds, had permanent incomes, and those from trades and professions, only temporary incomes, yet let them take the case of an in dividual (for it was not just to take classes merely)— let them take the case of an individual who had WO/. a year fiom land or out of the funds for life, and whose portion would go at death to some distant relation, with whom he had had little or no connexion, if that person were to instance to them the case of a rich banker having a large income of b.OOO/. or 10,0001. a year, and only charged on that income aid. in the pound while he was charged id., what answer wou l d it be to that person to say that it was true that his income was only for life, but that he belonged to a class which had generally a permanent income, and that though he had not that advantage, yet that as he belonged to a class which was put in Schedule A., he mutt be taxed to the amount of 7d. in the 11., though the other persons who possessed many advantages over him were only charged 3id: They must also take into considera tion what had been done on former occasions respecting this tax. He was not now speaking of the question of emergency, nor that the 'former emergency was war. The House had de- cided for the present, as far as the second reading of the Bill was concerned, that there was an emergency which called for the tax now proposed; and therefore he oust take the case to be so, whatever might be his opinron in that respect. What then had been the manner in which this tax had been proposed? It had been proposed by Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Fox was in opposition, afterwards by Mr. Addington, and subse quently by Lords Grenville and Lansdowne, when Mr. Can ning and Lord Castlereagh were in opposition. On all those different occasions the Income-tax had been debated, and per sons had proposed a different rate for the members of the Bench and professions, but at no time had any of the chief authorities on the subject--neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. Fox, nor Lords Grenville and Lansdowne, nor Alr. Canning nor Lord Castlereagh, who had taken the lead in the debates on the subject, 'ever come forward as the advocates of a principle by which there should be some certain classes only taxed half the amount that other classes were. He (Lord J. Russell), then, could not but come to the conclusion that they had beets unable to remedy these discrepancies, and he did not see the remedy in this particular instance. At the same time he did not say that a remedy was impossible, but that there might be a tax on property and income, which was more just than the one now proposed, and which, with the greatest nicety of calculation, would apply to different incomes, a rule more in accordance with justice than that which the present Bill applied. All he could say was, that he had seen no such scheme—that no such scheme was before him, and therefore he supposed that such a scheme could not be pro posed. There was one case, respecting which he was not in possession of all the facts, and in which he was for further explanation. He believed veleen Mr. Pitt had introduced this subject, he exempted some profession: with respect to the insurance of lives. He certainly wished to have some further explanatoin on that point, but having those opinions, he could not vote in favour of the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He did not speak thus, of course,• from any m o ti ve as t o t hi s tax b eing more uupo;i ar by imposing the same amount upon all classes. be cause he believed that the House would not, as it had been expressed by an Honourable Gentleman, disentangle itself from the labyrinth by any proceeding of this kind. It they began by taking off a certain amount in the present case, then they should listen to another case, and then to a case similar to that one; and, again, when they refused to admit the principle, they were more likely, by such means, to render the tax unpopular, than by pressing cases one after another to a pitch of absurdity. It was from no wish of making the tax more unjust and impracticable than it at present stood, that he voted against the Honourable Gentleman's proposition; but the House having resolved to go into Committee on this question, they had only to discuss the details, and not the principle of the measure. He felt himself borind to vote against the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. MITCHELL considered that the measure proposed by Ministers was more just than any system of indirect taxation, still he conceived that the clause as it now stood ought to be pressed warmly on the consideration of the Right Hon. Baronet. Air. ROEBUCK replied. He would not trespass at any great length on the attention of the House, but there were one or two observations which he could not refrain from making. The Noble Lord bad seemed to think that he (Mr. Roebuck) had assumed to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer : as though, because he had not brought forward a plan of finance in opposition to :he Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not to be allowed to state his views on a single point. He could not at ell understand that principle. Now the Right Hon. BGli there is not oy ntlernan'ssrgumentsihad proceeded on this basis. .1 In this one glaring irjustiee, but sche dule A, schedule B, and schedule C. are equally un just ; and )ou never pointed out the injustice of those schedules, but waited for schedule D." Did not the Right Honourable Baronet recollect that schedule C was opposed ?—( Hi-ar, hear.) The objection was entirely futile. It a mcasure were before the House for abolishing capital punishment in all cases, and he had descanted upon its injus tice in the case of forgery, the same objection might be urged in that case as in the present, but he conceived that in each ease it was inapplicable.—(Hear, hear.) He could safely say that there had been no case of difficulty friade out, that no one had prayed that his proposition was an impracticable one. Could one say after the speeches which had been made that it easy mpracticable ?—( Hear, hear. ) Ihe country would say that be had shown the imposition to be unjust, and that the only answer which had been attempted was that the Bill was so bad in all respects, that if they set about remedying one defect they would be called upon to semedv a dozen.—( Hear. ) He put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would in flicttshi t e u a c t o i u o n n t; country. The Right Hon. Baronet of his party ; lie.was the party, and he (Mr. Roebuck) wished occup th ie is d a inj r u e s s t p i o c n e si o b n le he was the maker, the creator to make him responsible. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared— . ... 112 .Against Alajority against the motion !rs-146 TIIE SUN, LON DON, SATURDAY MORNrING, APRIL 30, 1842. Mr S. CRAWFORD then rose "to move the omission of the words in Schedule D, which impose a tax on industrial income." The Hon: Nlembet• said he - tvou!d divide the House bit the motion, but would not occupy its time atter the discus si4 that had talteti . jdace. ME HUME, bongidering the whole Bill a mass of injustice, *citild vote for the motion —(Loud crirs of " Divide.") The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment . Against it... Majority The c'ause was then agreed to. The Committee next went into Schedule E. Sir C. NAPIER said naval and military officers, captains, and commanders in the navy, and officers of similar rank in the army, would be very severely dealt with by the Right Hon. Baronet's measure. Almost all those officers had seen .. 259 --209 much service, and had families, and their miserable pit tances ought not to be fleeced. The Gallant Com modore concluded tbv moving that the class of officers he had alluded to should be exempt from the payment of the duty. Captain CARNEGIE opposed the proposal of the Hon. and Gallant Commodore. He should be ashamed to claim for a particular service an exemption from a public burden at a time of national difficulty. Lord WORSLEY thought that the proposal was one which ought to be acceded to. Captain PECHELL said that the officers of the navy were not all favourable to the proposal of an Income-tax; but many of them disapproved of it under any circumstances. He should vote in favour • of the amendment of the Gallant Commodore.. Captain PLUMUDGE also spoke in favour of the amend ment. Sir R. PEEL said that no one had a higher respect for the class for whom the exemption was claimed than he entertained. No one could feel deeper gratitude to them for the services they had rendered ; and, he was persuaded that, if they were called upon hereafter, they would emulate the fame they had acquired at every period when their services were required. He c-uld also assure the Gallant Commodore, that no one . . could feel more unwillingness than he should feel to diminish the comforts of such a class. But he should say that if an im post were to be imposed upon all the incomes exceeding 1501. a year, he did not think it would be just to exempt any parti cular class from the operation of the measure. He should also say that the Gallant Officer behind him (Capt. Carnegie) bad repelled such a proposal with a spirit worthy of the p,o fesession to which he belonged ; and it was his belief that the army and navy did not wish to be relieved from a burden which was to fall upon all other classes. The question was not, then, whether it was wise to impose an Inzome-tax•at all ; but after the House had sanctioned its adoption, they were to determine whether a particular body should be exempt from its operation. He did not think the House would approve of such a propoition. Sir C. NAPIER said, that he thought the arguments of the Gallatt Officer opposite (Captain Carnegie) — were very far from good. He could tell the Gallant Officer and the Right Hon. Baronet, that many a poor officer would feel severely the pressure of the tax. If the Gallant Officer were himself a man of family, with an income of lbOl a year, he would not perhaps feel so satisfied with the proposal of the Government. Lord INGESTRIE said he believed that if the naval ser vice were • polled out, there would'be a majority opposed to the proposal of the Gallant Commodore. He therefore disap proved of the amendment. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit. tee divided, when there appeared— For Sir Charles Nap . ier's motion 32 Against it Majority against the motion —l73 • On the motion of Capt. PECHELL, The CHAIRMAN reported progress and obtained leave to s:t again. Mr. BLEWITT rose, amidst laud cries of " Oh, oh,''and ironical cheers. He begged to state that the Chairman had not yet put the Ist clause.—(Laughter and ironical cheers.) GREAT MARLOW ELECTION--..THE PRISONER After a few words from Mr. HODSON, Sir C. NAPIER said, that as the Attorney-General had given his opinion that the Speaker's warrant was illegal, he thought he ought to vote for the immediate discharge of the person in custody, and he should therefore move that the bringav ne dATr grave freoßa S a rvrßi P env E aoeordn A dTe K tGF:h beeElinu discussion t att t having heTmeo advnidos pan p i old : ntt opposite h t stA h eea the motion, ochu m Awej o har t yy. i o . Tnt understoodh,h eysi gev prisoner be discharged forthwith. t. y e.eqr r t u)e h e a sti t t , e h pr n i e r au d o sn n t wa o . o that the warrant was bad. He should therefore vote for the adjournment to Monday. Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said that after the opinion which had been given by the Attorney-General and the Hon. and Learned Member for Woodstock, he did not see how they could detain the prisoner for one moment.—( Cheers. ) 'lie question was, were they now exceeding their power in confining this indi vidual? It had been said that the lawyers would be put to great inconvenience in being taken from the Courts of Law, but he thought that the duties of a representative of the people were paramount to every other. He thought that this individual was illegally detained, and if the Hon. and Gallant Commodore pressed his motion to a division, he should vote for it. What would be the consequence ? All witnesses sum moned under the Speaker'? warrant need not attend. He did not see the end of the inconvenience that would arise. He should therefore vote for the motion. Mr. THESIGER felt indebted to the Honourable and Gallant Commodore for having brought the matter so dis tinctly before the )-louse; and the House would perceive that his own motion being grounded on the strength of his convic tion that the warrant . was invalid, that the matter and the question should be brought before the House, he should not hesitate to vote for the amendment of the Hoc. and Gallant Member. It had been suggested that the effeot of the decision would be to destroy every other warrant issued under similar circumstances. But he apprehended there was no grounds for coming to such an opinion. He could not see any great inconvenience from coining to a de cision as to the validity of the warrant. The effect would be that if a warrant granted for the attendance of witnesses during the last session was invalid, the witnesses ought to be brought before the Election Com mittee by a fresh warrant or a summons of a Judge. It appeared to him that the Southampton Committee had not pursued a' regular course ; and he for one did not approve of the doctrine that the proceedings before a Committee were en tirely beyond the control of the House. It astonished him that they should have been so often called on by the Southamp ton Committee to interfere in their proceedings with witnesses. The Courts of Law adjudicating on the greatest questions were seldom or never driven to the necessity of dealing with severity with witnesses for the evidence they might give; and yet the Southamie on Committee, which had sat but for a kw days, had called on the House, on three different times, to interfere in the cases of witnesses examined before them. He was strongly of opinion, that the warrant of the Speaker in the first instance was illegal. He came to that conclusion, be cause it was laid down by the highest authorities that a proro gation put an end to all proceedings in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Under these circumstances he could not think the witness was bound to obey the warrant. He could not have been required to produce any documents. All he could have been required to do would be t i answer the questions put to him. Under these circumstances, and feeling strongly that the warrant was illegal, he had come to the con clusion that the witness was not guilty of any contempt, and that they would destroy their character with the country if they were to refuse for one moment to discharge this indivi dual.—(Cheers.) Sir W. SOIIIERVILLE consideredtheHon. and Learned Ge n had taken an unfair advantage of the House in bring ing forward this motion; common courtesy ought to have induced the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have given notice to the Chairman of that Committee of his intention to reflect upon the conduct of that Committee. He also considered the re marks of the Right. Hon. Member for Knaresborough highly unbeccming. He did not object to the House meeting this day, but he could not vote for the motion of the Gallant Commodore. He felt convinced, notwithstanding all that had been said about the liberty of the subject, and the opinion of the people, that the people would know how to distinguish be tween attacks upon the liberty of the subject and attempts to stifle inquiry. Mr. bCAR LET T supported the motion. Lord WORSLEY hoped the House would not agree to the motion of the Gallant Commodore. He thought it most im portant that the House should not consent either to the motion of the Gallant Commodore, or to that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Woodstock. Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was a new question, and if they decided upon it it would be quite without parallel. The proposal was not to discharge the prisoner on the ground of a doubt of the illegality of the warrant ; but on a great consti tutional question to come forward without notice, to reverse a decision to which the House of Commons had come to the night before, he must say that, from his expe rience, he considered the course without a parallel. He must say that, after the decision of the night before of four or five to one, it was establishing a most dangerous precedent. Had a notice been given, it would have been their own fault if they were not present. Had a notice been given at 5 o'clock of a motion to be made in the course of the evening for the dis charge of the prisoner, it would have been a different case ; but on the contrary, no notice whatever was given, but a motion was made to discharge the prisoner without notice. Sir T. D. ACLAND opposed the motion. Mr. JERVIS asked the Hon. Member for Woodstock, whe ther the effect of his motion would not be to originate great inconveniencies? He hoped, therefore, that his Hon. 1 , riends near him would come forward, as they were bound to do, and oppose so inconvenient a precedent as this would lead to. Sir J. TYRREL said that if there were any doubt as to the legality of this question, they had a right to give the benefit of that doubt to the prisoner. Capt. I3ERNAL said that he thought the prisoner had been unfairly treated by both parties. He hoped the Gallant Commodore would press to a division, because every hour they kept the•prisoner in custody they were doing him injustice. Mr. BORTHWICK said that if the Commodore opposite did press to a division, he hoped that he would not only con sider the honour, dignity, and convenience of the House, but also the conventeece of the person whom this motion eon cerned.—(Laughter. ) Mr. ATTW OOD said, the arguments against the illegality of the warrant not having been disputed, he believed that the warrant itself was invalid. In voting for the discharge of the prisoner, be should disregard all that had been alleged about the inconvenience of the proceeding. Mr. GODSON could not permit the division to take place, without expressing his opinion, as a Member of the Committee, that the prisoner never ought to have been committed. Sir C. NAPIER replied. If the Right Hon. Baronet would consent to let the House meet at two o'clock (this day), he would withdraw his motion ; if not, he should press it. Mr. BLEWIrf could not submit to the authority of the Attorney and Solicitor •Generals without having an opportunity of forming his own opinion. —(Divide, divide. ) The House then divided, when there appeared— . For. Sir C. Napier's amendment l4 Against ... .................................... 67 Majority against the discharge,,,... —53 m The e till H Monday,ou s e then when divided there r o e n a the ppe originalappeared--. d - For the motion Against it ............... 42 Majority in:favour of the House sitting this day The SPEAKER then said, as the House had decided to meet to.day, he wished to ascertain at what hour he should take the Chair. Several Hon. Members having mentioned various hours, Mr. BORTHWICK moved that the Speaker take the chair this day at two o'clock.—Agreed to. The House then Adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'Clock to 'lwo o'Clock this day. RICHARD GIBBONS. Richard Gibbons, who had been committed to Newgate, was called to the bar and addressed by The SPEAKER, who said—Richard Gibbons, the Election Committee appointed to determine the merits of the Great Marlow Election, have recommended you to the merciful con sideration of this House. Yours was a very serious and grave offence. It appears that it was not accidental, but that you deliberately and whilst upon your oath gave evidence before that Committee, which was subsequently contradicted in the. most positive manner. It is very painful to find a per son of your respectability, and who has been respected by your fellow -townsmen, and hitherto lived with credit to yourself, in'so disgraceful a position as that which you now occupy. It you are in any way alive to a sense of honour, that disgrace is in itself a sufficient punishment. Thy House, therefore, con sidering the imprisonment you have already suffered, and considering the deep regret expressed in your petition for your misconduct, is willing to hope that that regret is sincere, and has consented to your being,relieved.from further confinement, and let me hope that this lenity may not be misconstrued by others, but that it may act as a warning to them, otherwise it will be my duty to deal with them with the utmost severity; for the House has deter mined, under all the circumstances, to vindicate that privi lege which you have so shamelessly abused. I have now to inform you that you are discharged, on payment of your fees. The prisoner was then removed from the bar. Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I move that what you . have now said may be entered in the journals of the House.— ( Loud cheers. ) On the. question being put, Mr. T. IJUNCOMBE rose and said, he had not the slightest objection to the words being entered on the journals of the House. It was quite right that it should be, but of all the severe reprimands he had ever heard made upon any individual in that House, he must say that the censure passed upon this individual waa perhaps the most severe that ever was delivered in the house of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) felt, to a certain extent, compelled not to resist the, motion, , as it was necessary to the vindication of the privileges 'of . the House; but be before stated, that he believed, and he still believed, that this individual, whom the Speaker had stated to have shamelessly abused the privilege of the House, was not guilty of that which had been attributed to him. He (Mr. Duncombe) believed that the individual— and he was not alone—be believed that Mr. Gibbons did not wilfully perjure himself before the Committee. If he had, there was no punishment sufficient for the offence ; and if that individual had wilfully given false evidence before the Com mittee of that House, he (Mr. Duncombe ) said it was the duty of the House not to release him, but it was their duty to in- struct the Law Officers of the Crown to indict that individual for perjury. It was only a few days since that they had had before them another individual of the name of Wrenn. Mr. Wrenn was called to the bar, having refused to give testimony before the Committee of the House ap pointed to try the merits of the Southampton Election Petition. lie was called to the bar ; he was asked, "Do Sou intend to persist in refusing to give the evidence re quired before this Committee?" Mr. Wrenn answered, " Yes, I do, because it may criminate myself; became I believe such . . testimony will crim.nate myself; but if it is the desire of this House that 1 should give this evidence, I will bow to that de cision." What happened on the following day? Another in dividual, a Member of that House, Mr. Fleming, was called upon in that House to explain why he had refused to give before that Committee evidence that was considered of im portance, but which was liable to criminate. In answer to the question, why he had refused to give this evidence, lie said, " I did, as a man of honour, refuse to answer that question." He said it was no perjury—the man had net perjured himself at all.—(" Oh, oh.") These were individuals ; and every per son connected with that individual who had just left the bar were ready to come forward and say that he was as incapable of giving false testimony us any Gentleman in that House. On their authority he (Mr. Duncombe) brought forward his peti tion on a former occasion—now a fortnight since —and the evidence had been pt inted. He should like to know how many Hon. Aiembeis had read the evidence, for if they had read it he was sure they would not believe him guilty of perjury. His friends would not believe the charge, and would not care for the reprimand of the House. But it might affect him in the eyes of the public, although they must see that he had not been treated as an Hon. Member of the House. He had been taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and had been conveyed away to Newgate without being allowed to say one word in his own defence. He (Mr. Duncombe) said that he left that House without one stain upon his character.—(oll, oh. ) S.r R. PEEL said that he had heard with great regret the observations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury —( Hear, hear) — in reference to the reprimand made by the Speaker in pur suance with the motion of that House.—(Year, hear. ) Of the individual case in question, he (Sir R. Peel) knew nothing, he only followed the usual custom, and moved that whatthe Speaker had said be entered on the Journals of the House. It was entered on the Journals that Sir J. Y. Buller reported from the Committee appointed to try the Great Marlow Elec tion, that they had determined first, that Richard Gib bons had been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, and the House determined that Richard Gibbons for the same offence be committed to her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that Air. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. To-day the motion was "Ordered that Richard Gibbons, now in her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, be brought to the bar of the House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. Or dered that the same Richard Gibbons be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, and discha-ged." The Speaker therefore of the House of Commons had acted merely ministerially ; if he had acted otherwise, he wouldhave neglected his duty—as it was, he had acted in the most fitting and becoming manner.—(Hear, hear.) He did not quarrel - with the Hon. Gentleman for dis senting from the resolution of the Committee of which he was a Aleniber ; what he regretted was, that he should have made those remarks, which he he had made with reference to the chief authority of the House. Air. JERVIS said he merely rose to deprecate discussions of this kind. If it were true, and he thought that would appear from the evidence, that the individual gave false evidence, in his (Mr. Jervis's) opinion no censure could be too severe.—( Hear, hear.) He did think this was a very ill-judged objection. Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he thought it would appear from the evidence that the Committee had not acted rashly in this case.—( Hear.) Mr. DUNCOMBE said if he had uttered a single word which could give the slightest pain to the Speaker, he was ex tremely sorry for it. he party whose conduct he intended to impugn, was the House itself, in reference to this subject. He contended that the individual who had just left the bar had not been fairly treated.—(Question, question.) The SPEAKER stated that the Honourable Gentleman must confine himself strictly to an explanation. Mr. DUNCOMBE had said that he did not intend to impugn the conduct of the Speaker; he had acted in obedience to the order of the House, and could not do otherwise. It was the conduct of the House that he wished to blame; and when the House ordered this reprimand to be entered on the Journals of the House, then was the time to make his observations. He had not had the opportunity.--(Order. ) Now could anything be more unjust than this ? He would sit down and leave the country to judge of the question. The resolution for inserting the reprimand on the Journals was then put by the Speaker and carried. The Orders of the Day were then disposed of; on the question that the House on its rising do adjourn till Monday, Mr. THESIGER said he must move as an amendment that the House do adjourn till twelve o'clock to-day.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On the discussion of the resolution committing one of the witnesses before the Southampton Committee (Mr. Mabson) to custody, he had ventured to express a very strong opinion of the illegality of the warrant of committal for the alleged contempt. Certainly at that time he did not maturely consider that warrant, so as to render the opinion he expressed of very great weight. He was reproved by the Hon. Alember for Sheffield, whom he did not now see in his place, for having converted a doubt expressed by his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Solicitor- General) into an assertion. But he had since care fully considered the subject of the warrant, and he had been more confirmed in the strong opinion he expressed last night. The forms of the House did not permit him to move the immediate discharge of that individual from custody, but if the House consented to the adjournment, this person, whom he believed to be illegally and unjustly confined, must re main in custody the whale of to-morrow, the whole of Sunday, and tho greater part of Monday. He was quite sure it was not the desire of the House to permit so gr., ss an injustice. If he could satisfy them that the war rant was bad, and no contempt committed, they would feel the most earnest wish to repair \the injustice committed. He hoped,• under these circumstances, that the House at its rising would adjourn to twelve o'clock that day, in order that they might have an opportunity of eonsidering'this most important question—a question in which the liberty of the subject was 1 involved. Colintrn's New Monthly Magazine for May keeps up its character as one of the most entertaining of the peri odicals. Thorns Hood, the Editor, furnishes his quota of amusement in a paper entitled " ;Mr. Wakley and the Poets." Mrs. Trollope is again on her favourite ground in the chapters here given of her " Barnabys in America,. , and the picture they convey of life and manners at .NeW Orlean s must always rank with her most characteristic sketches of A mer ic an society. The " Recreations in Natural History" are cont i nue d with the ability so prominent throughout this int eres ti n g series. " Female Arithmeticians," by Laman Blanchard, Esq., i° an illustration of Cocker, as novel as it is ingenious. " Con fessions of an Avaricious Man," by the late H. D. Inglis, Esq., are concluded, and with very striking effect. "In French Cooks and French Cookery," a most attractive subject is most attractively disposed of. " Graduates and Under-Graduates , " by the author of Peter Priggins," affords an able illustration of the result of talents misapplied. " The late Andrew Ducrow" has due justice done to his abilities by the writer of an article with this title, and " Phineas Quiddy" i s a ll owe d by his amusing author, Mr. Poole, to continue his career of sheer industry, without any diminution of interest. " The Poetry of the Law, and the Law of Poetry," and Horace Smith's Short Rides in an Author's Omnibus," will filinish the reader with much amusement ; and the editor, i t , hii whispering Gallery," is as libero ever vf44 his apothegms and p3lns• Mr. MACKENZIE seconded the motion. Mr. DARBY concurred in the propriety of the motion. (slum THE EVENING PILFERS OF YESTERDAY.) . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,said,,that after _great con- : es. have recently occurred in {! SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. i GLOBE.—Two. cases. sideration, he had come to the opinion that the warrant was Ireland, which bad; but notwithstanding that, he trusted his Hon, : and Government a that Learned Friend, the Member for Woodatock, would not per- able degree the. spirit in which the severe in his amendment, but would allow the House to ad- eosin appear to illustrate in a very try 'is at present parried on; and it easily journ till Monday, as he felt convinced the House could not de- I be seen how far the Irish administration is entitled to !ermine the question;without great discusiiion and consideration. 1 the praises which the Conservative press occasicmally It was impossible to expect that, having sat now tip td, one Inch ventures to bestow on it. In the first case to W . o'clock, the Members should be in their places this day at , • may remark remark- 1 for a thirti twelve. Nor would they have had time enough to consider so .we alludet a man named Hugnes, whom two Juiles important a question—a question, perhaps, involving the neces - had refused to cond-amn, was arraigned . sity of ireroduciog an Act of Parliament; and therefore, he trusted the House would not act so precipitately as his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member farWoodstoek required them to do. -.- time' on a chdrge of murder ; when, in order to l The Mr. THESIGER refused delay. They did not require de- Jury consisting exclusively of ensure conviction, care wag t a ke r n ro t t o esti p ul r t o s c . ure a lay to imprison this individual—(Cheers)—and they ought not man was found guilty and L'uged i 1 . now to fear precipitation in releasing him. been tried, as Lord Lyndhurst must au..Tult , py„a Mr. •G. BANKS concurred with the Hon. and Learned ha i ving dozen " aliens" in religion ; though twice, vvii.7 ll ms Member for Woodstock. judges did not consist wholly of men belonging to Mr. FERRAND thought that no time should be lost in dis different from own, a creed . his his prosecutors failed charging a man who had refused to obey a warrant which the Attorney-General had declared to be an illegal document. in convicting him. But this zeal to obtain a condem- Mr. C. BULLER concurred with his Honourable and natory verdict arose, of course, from a desire on the Learned Friend, that there was no just ground for the part of the Government to bring to justice one whom motion of the Honourablo and Learned Gentleman opposite they knew to be a murderer, though two juries had (Mr. Thesiger). When notice of that motion was given there . refused to pronounce him one. To condemn an in was no intimation made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he desired discussion on the subject, and should dividual in one's own mind on the appearances against the House meet to-day, Hon. Gentlemen would come him, before he is brought to trial, is a common error unprepared for that discusssion ; besides they wanted opportunity among the mass of the public ; but such pre judgment to look for precedents to ascertain the nature of the objections is dangerous indeed when people in authority not entertained on the question. Hon. Gentlemen who so con- . only form it, but use every means in their power fidently expressed their opinions on the suhj ect were not aware of the grounds on which the Attorney- Cieneral had founded to act on it. The Irish Government is assumed by its his opinions. He (Mr. C. Buller) concurred in that opinion, friends to have had a moral conviction of the guilt of and would support the original motion of adjourning the House Hughes—but no conclusion on the subject could or to Monday. ought to have been founded on anything but the evi- Sir R. PEEL said he had every reason for voting for the dence adduced at the trial, and of this the Jurymen ameadment, seeing, as he did, that if their decision was postponed till Monday, it would occupy that time which he who heard it were the best, and assuredly the only would desire to see devoted to tha Income-rag.—(Hear, hear.) lawful, judges. . Two Juries failed to see in this evi- He thought they ought to put out of their consideration deuce sufficient to convict the accused; but the Go altogether the conduct of the witness.—( Hear.) He hoped vernment, having made up its own mind of his guilt, that the doubts with respect to it would be cleared up. The determined to refer the matter to a third tribunal, only question sea=, whether they were justkOed in detaining " consisting exclusively of him under the warrant. He thought the presumption was in aliens" in creed to the un favour of the legality of the warrant, the Speaker having acted fortunate prisoner. Ha difference in religious opinions under the best legal advice that could be obtained. Cog- was believed to be the reason for a verdict not having sidering, however, that it was then a quarter past I been' come to, why' should it have been presumed one, and the short notice which would be given, that the Catholics, rather than the Protestants, were the it appeared to him impossible that they could decide on the matter at twelve o'clock to-morrow. For himself, he must men who put a wrong interpretation on the evidence ? say that he could not form a satisfactory opinion in so short a It may be replied, that the majority were for finding time. He thought, therefore, that it would be much better for him guilty : and as the majority consisted of Protest his Hon. Friend to give notice that he would, on. Monday next, ants, it was thought unanimity would be obtained by move for the discharge of the witness, on account of the illega lity of the warrant. making the jury entirely Protestant. But was unan- Mr. ATT WOOD said, he hoped the Honourable Member imity to he purchased at the price of justice ? and for Woodstock would persevere in his motion, or else what right has any Government to impute murder to move that the witness should be at once discharged. It a human being upon grounds which the law and con appeared that the highest legal authorities doubted the legality stitution do not recognise as sufficient for doing so"! of the warrant ; therefore they had no proof that the witness • A . ,• , of guilty was not justified in his disobedienee. • vercuct il must unanimous in order to be Lord EBRINGTON concurred that it was impossible for effective ; ,and life and death are not to be disposed of the House to make up their minds on the question between by mere majorities; though our Contemporary, the that hour and twelve o'clock, and he must therefore oppose Post, seems disposed to think it ought to be otherwise. the adjournment. So much for the first case to which we have to allude, and which may be regarded as an example of the stern and uncompromising principle which actuates the present Irish Government in criminal affairs ; but the second instance is a specimen of its milder qualities. A Mr. Biddulph, a magistrate, advises certain prisoners to run away ; and after having done his best to defeat the ends of justice, and thus encourage parties to violate the law, he is re tained among the list of those who are employed in enforcing it. As the Marquis of Normanby is to call attention to this subject in his place in Parliament, it may be as well to say no more sn this subject, until some explanation of the cir cumstances attending it has been given ; but the looseness exhibited in one case seems to contrast strongly and strangely with the eagerness shown in the other instance to subject a suspected person to capital punishment. The scale of justice cannot be kept even by violently jerking it from side to side, now throwing in a degree of rigour that looks like vindictiveness, and then casting on the balance an amount of tbrbearance that has all the appearance of weakness. It is not thus that the scale can be duly peised, but by the even and uniform employment of justice and of mercy, neither of which should ever be used in their extremes of ill-judged lenity on the one hand, or harshness on the other. STANDARD. -- The zeal of the Southamp ton Committee gave occasion for a debate which occu pied the House of Commons last night during much the greater part of its sitting. Zeal is a good thing, but when zeal carries men beyond the limits of law and moderation, it becomes an evil; and we fear that the zeal of the Southampton Committee is carrying its members beyond these limits. The documents required from Mr. Mabson last night were remains of a cheque-book, possessing the counterfoils, and two or three trifling accounts admitted to be of no importance ; and Mr. Mabson's account of his conduct was as follows :—He had, on the 13th of September received the Speaker's warrant, requiring him to attend the House, with all the papers connected with the late Southampton election. These papers he retained in his possession until about three months ago, when he sent them to Mr. Ward, Chairman of the Conservative Committee in Southampton. The only paper that could be of any importance was the remnant of the cheque-book, containing the csiinterfoils, and it was understood that the cheques themselves were in the hands of the Com mittee. This delivering of the papers to Capt. Wani is the act of disobedience to the Speaker's warrant — is the offence complained of—and for this the Com mittee reported Mr. Mabson to the House, without waiting to inquire whether the papers may not be forthcoming in Captain Ward's hands. Surely this was premature. Mr. Mabson, it appeared, had re• tamed the papers in his hands for several months after the service of the Speaker's warrant, including the -whole of the last session of Parliament; and one can easily suppose many innocent reasons for his sending them to the gentleman who had the principal share in managing the election (say the settlement of accounts, among others, at the end of six months from the election)—all of which might be explained satisfactorily by that gentleman's evidence, had the Committee wanted to examine him. What evil could have followed an ex ercise of patience, which might have even placed the desired documents in the hands of the Committee ? This, however, is not all. The Solicitor-General (and who will question either the legal learning, or the honourable candour and impartiality of Sir William Follett ?) avowed that he had grave doubts of the validity of the Speaker's warrant after the termination of the session for which it was issued. Nay, the Speaker confessed that he had himself enter tained such doubts until they had been removed by the opinion of his legal adviser. Now,• where the facile princeps of living I:4liglish common lawyers has doubts—where the appointed oracle of Parliamentary law has doubted—it surely is excusable in gentlemen engaged in trade, as Mr. Mabson is, to have come to an erroneous conclusion. Nothing could be more natural than for a gentleman so circumstanced to reason in this way : I have been summoned for the Session of 1841—the Session of 1841 is at an end ; I will, therefore, rid myself of the trouble and responsibility of this affair by sending all the election papers to the Chairman of the Committee, who is the proper party to give an account to Parliament if one shall be required. This is the way in which most men would reason in such a case ; few of us are so in genious as to assume, that a summons for one session means a summons for an indefinite number of s ucc essive sessions and, as the Speaker acknow ledged, this extraordinary fiction had not, in Sep tember, nor has it yet, received the sanction of legal authority. Let men surmise as they may of Mr. Mabson' s motives, every one is entitled to have his motives construed favourably if they will admit of a favourable construction ; and in this case an innocent motive for getting rid of the papers is quite obvious in the wish which a man, extensively engaged in business, must have to relieve himself frcan the trouble and the loss incidental to a pro tracted attendance before an Election Committee—a prospect uninviting enough without a bullying law yer, or excessively zealous Committee, with the Ser geant-at-Arms and Newgate in the background. COURIER.—There is a Society, called the Colo nial Society, whose locale may be found in St. James's-square. It presents, in fact, a fair repre sentation of colonial opinion and interests, and, if well conducted, must rise, as it has risen, into more im portance every day. Entertaining a sincere regard for its meritorious objects, as well as a personal re spect for many of its members, we cannot but regret the very deplorable and inefficient man ner in which, when taking, as justly entitled, the lead in paying a public compliment and offering a public welcome to a noble citizen, of whom not Canada alone but the whole empire may be justly proud, the Society, as represented by its Committee, fulfilled its important mission. On the occasion of Sir Allan M'Nab's visit to this country, it was very properly resolved by the Committee to of fer him something in the shape of a public entertain ment, as a mark of respect and admiration for the sig nal, services rendered by that distinguished man to his country and to Cana - da, in a season of imminent peril and perplexity. And what was the course pur sued to give the greatest effect to this very praise worthy determination ? Why, instead of taking the customary means to give the greatest pub licity possible to an intention which would have been hailed and responded to throughout the whole extent of this great metropolis by men of all parties, the dinner was just left to be talked about among the members of the Society, and within the walls 'of their club house, and so when the great de monstration came off the consequence naturally was that fifty persons only were found to assist at a banquet which • was to represent to Ca nada the magnificent reception and hospitality of Erig land to one of her noblest sons. . BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, APRIL 27.--,--Part of the cargo of the Eling, from Trinidad, sold on Saturday, at full rates, since which we have been entirely destitute of samples.— Bristol Gracile. Mr. Pocock of Shaw, in this county, has no less than 99 children and grandchildren; and a more respectable family (says a correspondent) the kingdom does not produce-- all living near Devizes„ Ten of his sops occupy ten good farms. —.Devizes Gasetic. LAW INTELLIGENCE. , MOUSE OF LORDS, April 28. The Hout sat to-day to hear appeal 4. The Peers present were the Lol 'd Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Ca mph ell. CH ARTER V. SIR J. TREVELYAN. The argue ent: sin this part-heard appeal, which have already occup;ed then ' n•dships several days, were resumed this morn ing, anal . nGt ha ring concluded when their Lordships rose at four o'cl.lek, t. further consideration of the case was postpoted APRIL 29. _ _ _ The Ho,lse sat to-day to hear appeals; the Peers present were the Lo.rd Cb ancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Campbell, ho Earl of Charlemont, and the Bishop of Bipou. CSC .I.IITMIt V. Sift J. TREVELYAN. The arguments /Ist having concluded at four o'clock, the furt h cousiderat ion of the case was postponed to Friday next. The arjuments h ave already occupied seven days. rico...l:thin ti g e ir being l engagedn, mott Rt ) LLS' COURT, A pr il 98 . on day, som e f ew t h at were set d own f ur were ea u on at the s i t ti ng o f the C ourt, b ut t h e t being present, his Lordship proceeded to bear , 4 lie part:heard cause of sTtit CKLAND V. STRICKLAND. APRIL 29. STRIA CKLAND V. STRICKLAND. Thi, , resin ned to-day, and en gage d t h e C ourt to the its Oroag y rising. s L cls.hiO s case MCi)i V ICE- CIM - ^ELL OR 8' COURT, Ap r il 2 8. His flonout the Vice' -Chancellor of E ng l an d too k motions A T ssessed any points of i n t eres t, except . to-day, note of which po. to the parties concerned. engaged t i m ing the morning in dispo s i ng (3efore Vice - L'lancellor BirucE.) His Horton R. was of motions, none of which were t.'r sufficient; importance to justify a report. 1... he Court rose at tquarter-past twelve. Aram 29. The Vice-Chancelk‘r of England was ocenri.ed the whole morning with hearing 3 ,tlort causes and unopposed- petitions. (Before Vic,'-Chancellor WIGRAW.) SEAS'. El V. KEN VON. The hearing of tins taus e, which came before the Court on further directions, was conchs ded this morning. The case was referred back to the Master, to inquire as to the term of the marriage settlement. CO UR T OF (4 4 :TEEN'S BENCH, April 28. (Shtit. e.s in Banco.) The Court this morning eavi arguments in cases in the New Trial Paper, none of whit.Vwere of any public interest. APRIL 29. n The Court was occupied in he:ring arguments cn cases i - the Special Paper. The points arg6 led were of a purely tech nical nature. BAIL COURT, Aprit 29 - itig motions, (Mr. Justine COLERIDGE preside.` . ) The Court was occupied to-day in hear which, except to the parties immediately comserned, were wholly uninteresting. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April' TUCKER V. This, which in substance was an application for a prohibition to stop proceedings instituted by the defendant in the Eeclesi astical Court, came before the Court by way of action. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, to set aside which a rule was obtained by Mr. Sergeant itlanning, for the purpose of bringing the case, which is altogether one of law, before the full Court. Mr. Sergeant Channel this day showed cause against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant Manning replied. The circumstances out of which it - occurred were these :—A lady, named Sarah Inman, dying in her husband's lifetime, made a will, in which she appointed him her executer. The husband dying also, the defendants applied to the Ecclesiastical Court to prevent the plaintiff- (the surviving executor) from administering, on the ground that the will was invalid, being made by a femme co:merle. The. answer to this was that she had the consent of her husband, and so the Jury found. The defendant ob • tained the present rule on the ground that such amount was not sufficient. The arguments occupied the Court from its sitting to a late hour, when their Lordships took time to consider. Aram 29. BRADBURY V. CHRIST'S HOSPITA!.. This was an action against the Governess, &c., of Christ's Hospital, to recover compensation in damages for injury done to the business, goods, and premises of the plaintiff, through the illegal stopping up of the footway leading to his shop, by a " hoard ;' and through the regligence, carelessness, and un skilfulness of their agents and servants, in taking down a eel-- tain house, in doing which several bricks were thrown through the skylights of plaintiff's warehouse, and goods to the amount of 700/. were damaged. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and subsequently a rule for a new trial was obtained for the defendant, and on Monday last the Court was occupied the whole day in hearing the arguments thereon, which, by agreement, came on again this dav, upon a cross rule, and, after hearing Mr. Peacock for the defendant, and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Addison for the plaintiff, the Court took time to consider its judgment. The points at issue are merely technical, and depend upon a variance in the wording of the licenses from the Lord Mayor and the parish surveyor, and also upon the terms of the declara tion. They will be best understood from a report of the judgment of the Court. Co UI?T OF EXCHEQUER, April 23. The Court was occupied during the morning with hearing the part-heard case of Bain v. Cooper. The points raised were of a purely technical character, and presented no question of general Interest. APRIL 29. IN RE AN ATTORNEY. Sergeant. LUDLOW applied to the Court to know in what manner he should frame an application to bring under the notice of the Court the conduct of an attorney who had ap peared fur the defendant in a horse case, which had been tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge at the Gloucester Assizes. A witness had been subpoenaed en the part of the plaintiff, for the purpose of proving the hand-writing of the defendant. 'I ha witness, however, had absconded on the night before the trial. The plaintiff then subpcened the attorney for the de fendant, with a view either to prove the hand-writing or to have some light thrown upon the absence of the witness. After this proceeding had been talo=n the hand-writing of the de.. fendant was admitted; the attorney was not therefore, examined, and a verdict was found fur the plaintiff. Suspicion had, in the mean time, been excited th.t the witness had been im properly tampered with. It was found that, on the evening before the trial. he had been in company with the de fendant's attorney, and some friends of his, and that he had afterwards travelled home wills them. An affidavit from the witness himself was now produced, in which he stated, that the attorney for the defendant, ard another party, had prevailed on him not to make his appearance on the trial. They urged on him that he ought not to give evidence against the defendant who had been a former friend of his; and the defendant's attorney gave the deponent a written security that he should be indemnified for any inconvenience he might incur by absenting himself. The security in question was produced, and was to the effect, " that the attorney for the defendant undertook to indemnify the witness for any damage he might sustain by reason of his going away from Gloucester, as he was not a material witness." The Learned Counsel having stated that he felt somewhat at a loss to determine what was the particular nature of the application which be should make under those circumstances, some discussion took place upon the subject. It was finally arranged that he should take a rule to show cause why the at torney should not be struck off the rolls.—Rule accordingly. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. April 29. IN RE WILLIAMS AND MOTTRAM. The further consideration of this case came on to-day per. scant to adjournment, and the Court was densely crowded during the examination of the bankrupts. Mr. Maynard attended for the assignees, and Mr. Wright (the barrister) for the banks upts. Mr. Charles Mottram was then sworn and examined. You have put in your joint and separate balance sheets, and do you now desire to pass upon them ?—Yes, I do ; but subject to such explanations as the questions put to me may require. You take credit for goods, French goods, which were lost, to the amount of 615/. Were these goods paid for ?—I bad nothing to do with the purchase of those goods, or the sale of them. lam sure of the loss, and equally sure that the goods were paid for. Did you enter in any book your purchases?--I did not, but a purchase book 4 as kept. You put down 5,7521. as your profits ; bow do you account for that ? From the profits in each department, arrived at in the best manner we could, namely, looking to purchases and sales in the whole concern. We cannot distinguish the par ticular pieces of goods upon which there was either a profit or r loss though the result would be the same in the whole of ouf dealing. I believe there was a loss (if we can get at it) o nearly 16,0001. Mr. Commissioner EVANS—How, then, do you take stock? —lire did not take stock. Our whole profits were, as I have before stated, 5,7521. 15s. 6d., and our lopes 10,0861., and upon the whole of our trading nearly 400,000/. I believe my statements to be correct, but Idid not keep the books, and pur chases might not have been entered, although they were plaid for. I cannot tell whether the goods, for which the 615/. is taken credit for as a loss, were entered in the purchase book or not at the time they were lost. Your private balance-sheet commences in January, 1840, and ends Dec. 18, 1841. Do you mean that to represent the whole state of your affairs within those respective periods ?—I do so, and I mean to rely upon it. Do you mean to say you bad no money on the 18th Dec., 1841 ?—I mean to say that 1 have accounted for whatever I had. I may have had some money for my wife, or for my own expenses, or paid some to parties to whom I owed money. Is it a true entry that 1971. was paid on the 3d Nov. for dra pery ?—The entry is not true, as appears by the cash-book ; but let me explain. We have acknowledged, by Mr. Williams and myself, that we had taken out sums from one date to another, as specified by him. We each took down our private debts, which we paid out of the moneys received by us in the manner already stated; and I admit that the moneys received from Messrs. Cowper, and Messrs. Martin, Abbot, and Co., were divided between Mr. Williams and myself in the gross, for the purpose of paying our separate creditors, and pro viding something for our families. The cash-book shows (not correctly, however) how it was drawn cut, not how the money was received, but it does show that we had the amount as put. down. Was the money divided on the same day you received it. from Cowper and Son ?—I cannot say. Now, show me where that money so received was disbursed ? —We put them in different items. Mr. Commissioner Evaxs—ln fictitious items ; then that account will not do. You must state your accounts correctly? The bankrupt—l will, your Honour, as far as I can; but I hope you will not ask me to do an utter impossibility. I will swear most decidedly that when Cowper's money was divided between us I was not aware, nor did I foresee, that we must step payment. So you foresaw it when you divided the money received from Martin, Abbot, and Co. ?—Yes. I then thought we must stop payment. That was on the 4th of November, I believe, but lam not quite sure. I believe that Mottram and Moore had goods from us after that day. Was Mr. Turner at your house on the Sunday before you stopped payment ?--I swear distinctly that he was not at my house. Williams never suggested that we should stop the French goods from coming over, but he was most anxious to have them in, and said, when he received and sold them, that he was sorry they were not for ten times the sun, and, as we were obliged to stop payment, he added he was very sorry he was in such a predicament in having se small a sum, and he should have liked to have let that d—d Gore in for 10,0001. and the Frenchman as much (this was on the evening of the 3d of November). Does your joint balance-sheet show what bills, for which you may be liable, were accommodation bills ?—I believe so, for 9,4391. for overdrawn aeceunts. You made a great many payments for salaries about that time to persons in your employ — now, I wish to know if these sums were actually so paid?—Every one of them, and all at the usual rate, except one, Mr. Withers. Do you know anything of the salary book as mentioned by Mr. Williams ?—Yes, I do, and I have it in Court. So much for the false statement made at the last examination, that it was burned by Mr. Jonas. Every one of my young men is pre pared to swear to what salary he has been paid. The official assignee said the book now produced was not a salary book, and Mr. Williams said it was not the book he re ferred to, for a part of it was now out. He was alto ready to l wear that Jonas told him the book was burned. )leasant alt erca ti on as The bankrupts h ere en t ere d i n t o an uni to the books ; a n d a f ter some f urt h er quest 'ons, Mr. Commissione r Eva r•ts said, I shall m , t rema r k upon your conduct (addressing hi mse lf to M ottram ) ; but you must d o a l l you can to satisfy your creditors. You must give a better ac count of the moneys you hare drawn out, at, d of their specific application, and if you think you can b e rea d y ' with these ex. planations by this day week, you can come bofore the Coutt again. _ _ - The bankrupt's accountant, Mr. Banks, said ;be would pre pare the explanations as required by the Court ; and the case in all its main features may be said to have terminated, r NSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, April 28. RE SAMUEL GILES. The insolvent's petition to be discharged was opposed in ilk. ground of vexatious defence to an action. It appeared in evidence that he hadjOined a person named George, who subsequently became bankrupt, in a bill of ex change, for whieh he (Giles) received no consideration what ever, and an action being brought for the recovery of its amount against bo h parties, George defended it, wh'lst the insolvent consented to a Judge's order being taken by the plaintiff to some legal expenses, and tendered a portion of the amount of the order. The Co U itT deemed that there was nothing in the ease:calling for a remand, and ordered the insolvent to be discharged forth with. Several unopposed petitions were disposed of during the morning, and the applicants disc-barged. APRIL '29. IN RE STEPHEN TURNER. The insolvent's petition to be discharged was opposed in person by a creditor, named Egan. It appeared that he carried on business as a corn-dealer in the Harrow-road, and about eighteen months ago bought a. horse from the opposing creditor for 501. Some altercation having arisen between them about the warrantry of the horse, the insolvent refused to pay a balance (251.) remaining due of the price, when au action was brought for its recovery, and a verdict given for the plaintiff, and the insolvent soon afterwards taken in execution. The ground of opposition was, that the insolvent had taux atinusly defend e d t h e act i on, and thereby put the opposing creditor to unnece ssary expense. After several witnesses had been examined in support of the petition, the insolvent was ordered to be discharged forthwith. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANS.IO.N-HOUSE. Robert Pearn, Captain of the sloop Charlotte Ann, front 'Rotterdam, appeared upon an information charging him, wader the 48th section of the 3rd and 4th of William IV.,cap. 53, with having had concealed on board that vessel a certain quantity of tobacco and of spirits, called Geneva,. upon which duty had not been paid. It appeared, from intelligence inci dentally communicated after the decision of the Magistrate, that in the same vessel nearly 12,000 pounds weight of snuff had been found, which was imported as provisions; but the latter article is to be adjudicated upon by the Commissionera, and that the sloop is under seizure. Thg Lord Mayor and Alderman Thomas Wood presided. TKe Solicitor for the Customs appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Jlobler, jun., attended on the part of the defendant. !avid S. Harding, Tide-surveyor to Her 111a,;esty. stated that on the afternoon of the 26th inst. upon rummaging the Charlotte: Ann, then lying at Brewers'-quay, he found secreted in the master's state-room,' And in other parts of the cabin, occupied by the master or captain, 141bs of manufac tured tobacco, two gallons and six thirty-two's of Geneva, and other contraband articles, such as coil-be, tea, sugar-candy, liquorice, manufactured tea-caddies, &c. &c. Part of title tobacco was secreted between the Master's bad, and the vessel, part was found upon the removal of the bulk,-head of the state room behind a board, which witness was occupied ten minutes in removing by force, so completely was it fastened with nails; and other contraband articles were found in the bread-locker under a false bottom. The captain was not on board when Witness proceeded to rummage ; but upon appearing, be denied. that. he knew anything of the articles at all. Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Ilobler, jun., the witness said the mate had access to all parts of the vessel in which the concealment had . taken place ; but it was impossible that the contraband goads could be there without the knowledge of the captain. .Mr. Ilobler, jun., endeavoured, by some ingenious observa tions, to get his client partly out of the difficulty. Alderman Tnoaras Wool) said that all the circumstances showed great design and effort at concealment, which cer tainly would not have occurred if the regular legitimate course. had been adopted. The Tide-surveyor said that the vessel had scarcely arrived when lie went on board, and :nmmaged her. • The LORD MAYOR—It is very well that these vessels are so well watched, for to my knowledge an unusually heavy trade in smuggling is carried on in them. He pronounced him guilty,. and sentenced him to pay the penalty of 1001. The mate was also convicted on a similar penalty, but the- Bench‘recommended, that, as he probably acted under the in fluence of the captain, the Board of Customs would order hint to be discharged. BOW-STREET. We are happy in being able to state that there were only five cases brought before Mr. Hall, the sitting Magistrate, yesterday morning ; of these two were cases of drunkenness, and the par— ties were ordered to pay, one a fine of five shillings, and the other, two shillings and sixpence. The other charges were against. three unfortunate females, whose means of support depend upon prostitution, for annoying gentlemen. As these appeared to be the first offences of each of them, they were severally dis missed with a caution. MAIL BORO UGH- S TREE T. Fanny Thomas, a good-looking female, about IS years of age, and very respectably dressed, was placed at the bar on the following charge ; Mr. John .Harrell, of No. 28, Sherrard-street, Golden square, stated that about two yesterday morning, on his re turning home he found a young; gentleman, a lodger of his, who had come up from the country for " two months improvement in 'Louden," just entering the house; and as he was proceeding up stairs, witness heard a noise on the landing above, and knowing that the rest of • the inmates had long previously retired to rest, he suspected that something was going forward in his establishment that was not "correct," nnd, on promeditig up stairs, discovered the young woman crouching on the stairs, and, as the young gentleman denied any knowledge of her, and she herself not attempting to ex plain how she came there, witness called the police, and gave her iu charge. The Magis:rate asked the young woman what account she was inclined to give of herself there. The young woman, who seemed to be really ashamed of her situation, reluctantly acknowledged that she had been intro duced into the hour by the "young gentleman" spoken of;, in fact, she had visited him there before, as he was her sweet- heart. The Mae ter ItATE asked Mr. Barren if he had reason to be lieve that there was any truth in this statement ? Mr. Harrell said he had, for ater the young woman had been taken to the station-house, the young gentleman confessed that he had brought her home with him. The MAGISTRATE said that Mr. Barrell's lodger was to blame and not the young woman • he should therefore discharge h er , and also advise Mr. Barrel( to get rid of his "young gentleman lodger," who had " come up to London for improvement." Mr. Barrel! said be should immediately do so, and the young woman was allowed to depart, at which she appeared exceed ingly rejoiced. George Emerson, a stalwart, powerful young man, son of Mrs.'Emerson, late andlaciy of the Waterford Arms Tavern, in the Haymarket, was placed at the bar, charged on suspicion. of being concerned in the following robbery. A solicitor attended on behalf of the accused. Mr. Evan Thomas, the landlord of the Phmnix public-house, in Stacey-street, Soho-square, stated that between four and five on Thursday afternoon the prisoner and anether man came to his house, and having entered his parlour, where there was a bagatelle-board, called tor some refreshment, which on being served with, the prisoner's companion, as a ruse to lull suspi cion, made inquiry after a respectable tradesman who fre quented the house, but whom there is no doubt be well knew was not likely to be there at that hour, which he followed up by requesting that the prisoner and himself might be allowed to play a game or two at the board, to which witness, not then having the slightest suspicion but that they were respectable persons, assented, and brought them in the set of balls (9 ivory ones) of the value of between Its. and 14s. They played for about a quarter of an hour, and then suddenly came to the bar, and paying their score, left the house together. From their manner witness was induced to suspect that all was not right.. and on going into the parlour found the set of balls missing. Ho instantly followed after the prisoner and his companion, and saw them turning the corner of a street at about fifty yards distance, and on running in that direction came up with the prieoner, but his companion had made off. On the prisoner being searched at the station-house, the missing property was found in his possession. The prisoner protested that he knew nothing of the robbery ; the man was quite a stranger, and had merely met him in the street 'and asked him to play a game of bagatelle with him. Mr. MALTBY said the case was a very clear one, and he shoulo certainly commit the prisoner for trial. The Solicitor said that his client ought to have the benefit of his previous good character, and this being the first s time of his having been charged with any offence. Inspector Beresford, of the C division, said that the prisoner had long been known to the police as leading a very dissolute and irregular life, and from information that he (the inspector) had received he had no doubt but that charges of a more serious nature would be brought against him. The prosecutor said that he had no doubt but that the pri soner's companion, who was known, would be shortly appre hended. Mr. MALTBY said that, under those circumstances, he should remand the prisoner until Wednesday next. WORSHIP-STREET. A stout hearty looking young man, who gave the name of John Smith, was placed at the bar upon a charge of soliciting alms. It appeared that as Mr. Bingham, the Magistrate, was proceeding yesterday morning towards the Court, lie observed the prisoner crouching down in a supplicating attitude in Chiswell-street, and the words—" lam starving," were written in chalk on the flag-stone, in front of him. Mr. Bing ham directed the attention of a policeman towards the prisoner, on perceiving which, the latter instantly started up and walked off, with a degree of celerity that was truly remarkable in a starving man, but after a hard chase, he as secured by a civilian, and givan into custody. The prisoner said that he was a journeyman book-binder, but he load been out of work for some time. Mr. Busorra al said that the cireunrstance of his running away impressed him with an opinion that the prisoner was an impostor, and he should remand him in order that inquiries might be made respecting him. CHARGE OF RAPE. Winiani .Hol maker, was placed at the bar, ,o n a the person of a married woman , nam ed Rebecca Powell. id, charge a of ourneyman clog maker, having violated The prosecutrix stated that between 12 and 1 on Thursday night, she was proceeding along Christoph e r -street, Bethnal green, when she was suddenly assailed by the p risoner and ano ther man, the former of whom caught her up in his arms, and carried her into one of the houses. She struggled to extri cate herself from his grasp, but the prisoner succeeded in forcing her into a room on the ground-floor, where he threw her down and completed his infamous purpose. The other man was afterwards about to proceed to a similar act of violence, but he was prevented by the entrance of a policeman. Police constable 11, 74, seated that he was passing the house when he heard the noise of a violent struggle inside, and on making his way into the room whence it proceeded, he found the prosecutrix, who was much agitated and exhausted, and who charged the prisoner with having committed a rape upon her. Another man was present, who effected his escape, but he secured the prisoner atter a violent resistance. The prisoner (who stated that the woman was a c onsenting party) was committed for trial. CLERKEN WELL. Sarah Dryden was charged by Patrick Savage, the P r° P rie* tor of a tailoring establishment, in Newry, Ireland, who came to London a few days ago to learn the n ewest method of cutting out. It would appear that he was t aught it completely. Being intoxicated on Monday night, he rect the prisoner, who took him to Church-laue, St. Giles's, where he was robbed of every farthing he powssed, Poli w ho `onstable hedged having been an acc omplice in the robbery. 41. of the as well as a number of recent Restaux arrested the prisoner on Wednet.day, acknow. money was found on her person, Purchases. Savage, to identify however, was most unw illing gher. He lodged at 3fr. Thorpe's Hotel, in Holborn, who lent. em some articles of dress on Thursday, that he might attend at the police- o ffice, and further the ends of justice. Mr. Sa vage, h owe ver, thought otherwise, and walked off, leaving Mr. ) Thorpe minus 31. for board, Egc., and his dress. The prisoner Ras remanded. •