The Sun. — London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

sasses. - of 55., per cent. to escape a duty of 21., or Si ., or 41. per cent. I apprehend also that, according to the doctrine of the law, the stamp upon the settlement is the. proper correlative of the stamp upon proba tes. The probate i s strictly a stamp duty to ascertaiisand..validate &document, the settlement is strictly a stamp duty, and has precisely the same effect ; but besides that, legitimate effect of set, tlements they have been applied to an illegitimate pur pose, and all sorts of forms of settlement have been invented and used with the object of. escaping the legacy duty. What, I ask, can be more mo nstrous than the exemption of settled personalty? When we dis Cuss the ease of realty —whether settled or unsettled—it is very obvious, and I think it is very fair to call attention to the fact,that c _ real property is subject to many charges from t whi a ja , invisible personalty, so to speak, is quite ex . e t m ; therefore, that it is a justification, as far t to the goes,_ p . for the exemption of realty. But that does not air men . personality which is the subject of these !,‘F! , tle ts able Funded property, free from every possible an ts, e; abled to charge is, by means of these legal arrangem pass scot free, when other property is calledin to pa the first y heavy toll. With regard, then, to rea lit y , instance, and much more with reference to settled person alty, I think it is impossible to defend the present state of the law. But there is another case far more fl g t than either of these—that is the case of unsettled property, not real, but visible, immovable, and therefore sibject to the burden of rates and local taxation. Let us briefly look at the position of property of that kind under the present law. Take, for instance, leasehold property in houses. (Hear, hear.) Contrast the condition of such property with that of settled personalty on the one hand, and realty on the other. There are two sets of charges which are sup posed—and which it is sometimes contended ought to be considered—as full equivalents for one another. On the one side you have the probate and legacy duty, and on the other the land-tax, a greater cost of stamps for transfer, heavier taxation under schedule A of the income tax, and exclusive burdens of local taxation. It is pleaded that on account of this last description of charges real property ought to be exempt from the first. Now, I do not say they exactly countervail ofle another. On the one hand you have the probate and legacy duties falling upon personalty in general ; on the other hand you have the local charges . falling upon realty ; but here is leasehold property sub jected to both—subjected to the cost of stamps upon trans fer, to all the extra burdens of taxation for the income tax under schedule A, to the land-tax—(hear)—to the full undivided burden of local taxation, and yet subjected likewise both to the legacy and probate duties. (Hear.) Now, how can any Parliament suppose that, when once public attention is fairly concentrated upon such a ques tion as this, it possible to maintain a state of the law so wholly devoid of foundation and of warrant in truth or reason. (Cheers.) This is the first proposition that lam most anxious to impress upon the minds of the committee. I refer with no invidious intention to the course taken on this subject by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). He and the Government of Lord Derby were impressed with the belief that it was impossible to main- , tain the law as it now stands a nd in consequence .they gave a general pl e d ge w hi c h I understood to mean that there must be some equalization of the pre sent system by means of a general tax upon succes sions. (Hear.) If, then, it be impossible to maintain the present state of the law, will you part with that law altogether ? Will you say, "Yes ; equality ought to be established by exempting from the tax the property that now pays it, and not by subjecting to the tax property which is now exempted ?" This is a course which the minds of many persons might incline them to take. Many political economists are of opinion that a tax upon neces saries is in its nature an illegitimate description of tax. Many persons think that, as a tax upon property, it ought to be absolutely proscribed. I don't mean to say that that it is my opinion, but I refer to it as an opinion by no means destitute of great authorities in its support. I must confess, for my own part, that it appears to me that tax es upon property raise a ques tion of vast importance, but one which, like other ques tions of taxation, cannot be disposed of altogether upon abstract grounds. I should say it it is straining the matter too far to main lain that no tax upon property, as distinguished from income, is a legitimate tax. The ob jection to taxes upon property appears to me to be drawn from practical considerations—from the great difficulty that attends the adjustment of such taxes, from their lia bility to become the subject of continual contests between class and class, from their setting one portion of society ap parently in a state of hostility and conflict with others. These are, I think great objections to taxes upon property ; but Ido not consider that they are so likely to attach to a tax neon succession, occuring once in a generation, as they would if you were to attempt to lay a tax upon property which was to recur again and again upon the same property from year to year. I won't say that I look to the practice of antiquity, and especially of remote antiquity, as of very great authority in fiscal matters, or that the extreme antiquity of this tax upon successions is its main VCOM mentiation in my eyes, but the committee must bear in mind that it is no innovation of modern times—that it is rather a revival, in a modified form, of what was originally among the main resources of tlut revenue of the State, namely, a tax upon successions to property, supported by a regular legal process of inquisition into its value. (Hear, and cheers.) It is, therefore, no mere innovation that we are now recommending, but is it al injustice ? Of course, it is unjust if you levy an unnecessary tax, a tax you don't want, or a tax to support ova-teful and profligate expenditure. Such a fax is en un just it on what you will ; but I am now assuming that the purpos<T, to which we apply the resources of the State aro in the main re,psonable. If, then, ire want a given sum, is it nuiu,t to raise a puraon of it by a tax upon successions: I should say n It se ;vltoi to too that the passing or carrying of pro per,: in pc.•leo. y,scuzity over the gre-tt banger which death Once between man and man in the hilihost achievement — the most signal uroof of the power of civilised institutions. (Roar, hear.) 1 think that ability to determine the future , re , pe^t to property, and to tix its course from man to man and from life to lee—passing over one contingency and auotlr.r, ard (rztonding the private, personal will of au intlividu: , l into a .I%stant future—limited, no doubt, and wisely 'ff law—is an instance so signal of the great benefit concerted by law and by civil institution s upon mankind, and of the immense enlargement that comes to natural libarty through the medium of law, that I can conceive nothing more natural than that if taxes are to be raised at all, in the midst of these arrangements the State should step in and take a just portion for its neeevitie3. I will now look to considerations more practical than these. I am now endeavouring to put before the committee one possible alternative—namely, that of equalising by aban donment. If you are prepared to do that you must be prepared to give up the legacy duty and the great bulk of the pre bate duty, now producing something over 2,500,0001.; and, assuming that you retain a small stamp on probates corresponding to the stamp on settlements , as a mere validification of the document, you still would have to give up 2,500,0001. of the fixed income of the State. I think no one who bears me will be prepared to give up that amount ; and assuming, then, that you are not pre pared to give up the principle and practice of making death, and the passing of property on death from the predecessor to the successor the occasion of your stepping in to levy what you require for public purposes, then we come to the point that you cannot maintain the tax as it now stands. What then is to be done ? I hope the committee will arrive at the conclusion at which the Government have arrived, viz., that this tax ought, on principles of equity and jus tice, to be made a general tax freed from its present gross and crying anomalies. I appeal in this instance to a sense of justice. I know it is said that this proposal is conceived in a spirit of hostility to land. (Hear, from the Opposition.) That is (said the right hen. gentleman addressing the Oppo sition benches) I have no doubt your conscientious opinion. Allow me respectfully to disclaim any such motive. (Oh ! oh !) lam as much entitled to disclaim as you to impute it. (Hear, hear.) I wish without any offence to appeal to the sense of justice, which from actual experience and knowledge I am convinced does, and will influence many gentlemen, in despite of what they think their own per sonal interests, to vote for this tax. The ancient fable ran, that when justice V 72.11 banished from other quarters on earth, she still for a wkdie was to be found among agri culturists. (Laughter.) " Extrema per illos Justitia excedons terns vestigia Mt." Whether that fable were wisely conceived or not, I may appeal, I believe, to your sense of justice, and I request you to consider whether, before the tribun al of justice, the proposition of the Government is one that ought to be entertained. It appears to us, that as you cannot maintain , or justify the present state of the law, and as you cannot abandon this source of taa ation, the wise course is to make the tax general in its application. (Hear, hear.) It ought to be an equal charge without exception, though with adaptation, made on all descriptions of property. A ques tion may occur to the minds of gentlemen, whether they could not maintain some exemption—whether they could not, for instance, exempt real property? Upon what grounds would you do the .t ?—would it be because it pays local taxation, the land-t ax, and pays under the income tax more heavily than personal property? Every one of these considerations also applies to leasehold property; would you then be prepa red to extend the exemption to that species of property ? I must confess that I should think such a coarse very - thnwise, and if you adopted it you would find your exemptd ons grow so enormous that you must raise what would I,a an intolerable rate and burden of taxation on all descriptions of property left to pay the tax. Though I cannot altogether admit that it ap pears fair to urge tb ese burdens borne by land, yet there is some ex aggeration on that question. Take the case of tr; I.l3sfers. Very long ago it might be true that personal property might be trans fared for the most part without expense, and land could not. But since thc.se days great masses and classes of personal property have g town up, which were not known before, which, under law at this moment, are subject to every expense of transfer like real property. Take the railway shares, and you h eve at once a mass of property amounting to 300,000,0004 (Here some hon. member on the Opposition benches ref erred to the subject of the sim plieration of titles.) Notl ling would give me greater satis faction than to see some ref )asure passed. through Parliament. which would effectually pi •ovide for the reduction of those costly and cumbrous forms: now in use. Before I conclude I shall take the liberty of s uggesting to the committee, and those connected with the landed interest, that really wo quarrel about comparativ' e trifles, and leave the greater matters untouched. The question now about to be con tested respecting 1 per cent. to fall on one generation on the descent of real propriety is an insignificant question compared with the questilon referred to by the hon. gen tleman opposite, namely--the simplification of title, and relievin g the r el • • of land from those enormous expenses which, from want of it the land is now subject to. (Hear,. hear.) The fact tha.t , better ParliamerT ilway 1 woperty at present enjoys a be a most illegiti ma t e titlo than landed property would taxation, though rlit9,4c.: rnason to urge for exceptional to landed property as s a a excellent reason for giving railway property has. , U(1 a Parliamentary title as a :ar, hear.) I put it, there fore, to the committee, are really supposing our selvesgagel in t(l7lueetyserieus consideration of to b© en the question of the legace put without d in the reconstruc tion of the law—(hear),--I y, safely, fear to the com mittee, that you cannot v Ise], or justly propose t o give real property a total exemption m the (ation of the legacy duty for this, if for no othe; :c r eason , that such for other exemption would necessarily entail an exemption very large classes of property, and would m! ) ,lc l a o s n u in your meaeire that the rut:, yon would be obli:ed Zo h la ol y e upon other descriptions of property would be intolerable. (Hear, hear.) I assume, then, that you cannot exempt land, landed settlements, or settlements of personalty from the tax. Perhaps you might think that settled land de serves a separate considera Lion from unsettled land, but Government have not beam able to find grounds for any such distinction, for the reasons I have adverted t o . The law of settlement is a great question, and had its advantages atil disadvantages. With respect to the tax in the she of stamps, that is more than compen sated by the probate duty, which you escape by settle ment. But the law of settlement itself is a great question apart from all matters of taxation. I repeat, it is attended with great advantages, and likewise with considerable drawbacks. The fixing anti tying uof land constitut e, no doubt, impediments to its free use ; but, on the other hand, eeeeeeneeeee the giving to family arrangem ents and to the possession of land a certain stability, though that ought not to be pushed too far, yet was an ancient part of our policy, and I am not prepared to say that it is one I would wish to see aban doned. It would be going, however, too far to say not only that you should escape the probate duty, but that you should likewise escape every , description of tax which the State may levy from other kinds of property on successions. (Hear, hear.) It does not appear t o m e that that distinction can be maintained with respect to settlements in general, including land. Perhaps you might say that there ought to be some consideration for settlements in existence, but such a provision would impair the provisions of your act for more than half a century. If the provision were demanded by justice, this considera tion ought to form no- bar to its enactment ; but in my view it is not demanded by justice, and therefore there exists in the consideration I have adverted to a strong reason against the suggested provision. At the present moment we do no not ask the committee to vote upon anything except the mere principle contained in the resolution. We have adopted a form of proceeding as nearly analogous as possible to that adopted by Mr. Pitt in a corresponding case—namely, in the first instance, we submit the subject in very general terms, reserving for after consideration a number of important and collateral questions. No doubt there are many such questions. There is the question of the scale of consanguinity, which gives rise to a great difference of opinion, and which is a fair subject for difference of opinion. (Hear.) It is known probably to the majority of the committee that the scale of consanguinity, as now fixed, is immensely in favour of direct succession ; which is subject to 1 per cent. duty ; while, upon the succession of strangers (and with them are ranked extremely remote degrees of consanguinity) the tax is 10 per cent. ; and there are, besides, various intermediate rates, which it is not ne cessary now for me to dwell on. This tax of 10 per cent. is a material item in the consideration of the whole question, for it falls on a limited portion of the property which passes by death. (Hear.) Yet the produce of this tax of 10 per cent. forms a considerable portion of the whole amount of the legacy duties received by the Exche quer. (Hear, hear.) It appears, by a return lately pre sented to the house, that while the rate of 1 per cent. levied in Great Britain on direct succession upon the larger amount of property yielded last year 238,0001. of legacy duty, the rate of 10 per cent, levied upon a much smaller amount of property yielded 490,0001. Since 1797, while the 1 per cent. duty levied on an enormously great mass of property yielded 8,322,0001., the 10 per cent. yielded in the same time 17,583,0001. (Hear, hear.) Two important questions arise with respect to the scale of con sanguinity. Is it equitable that a very great difference should be made between the tax on direct succession and the tax on the succession of strangers or persons of remote consanguinity ? I think the difference neither inequitable nor impolitic ? Generally speaking those who receive property by direct succession, are educated in ex pectations founded on that succession ; they are trained, and have their habits and thoughts formed in relation to the property they are to enjoy. (Hear.) Therefore, it would be a great hardship to them to step iu and take away any material part of that property which they had been taught to expect they would receive, But the successions of strangers are successions which are commonly of an un expected character, and are unconnected with any question of training or expectation. Therefore it appears reasonable that a scale founded on this principle of consanguinity might be maintained. I will point out to the committee that they must make their option between two things. They may maintain the present scale of consanguinity, but if they determine to lower materially the rate of 10 per cent., reducing it to 5 or 6 per cent., they must raise the rate of 1 per cent.; or else lose the money now received by the Exchequer. That I think is a vital consideration. Though at this period I do not desire to enter into a very full discussion upon the question to which I adverted more than once in the course of tbe re marks,—the question, whether even though you may think that there is no ground for maintaining any absolute exemp tion of any ereat mass of property, yet there may be good and sufficient reasons for adopting a different machinery, and practically, if not nominally, a different rate of tax with respect to certain classes of property, yet it appears to me that the present law is not only wrong in drawing too broad a distinction—that is to say, the distinction between taxation on the one side, and no taxation on the other—but is especially wrong in the way in which it strikes that distinction. We mean, there fore, to make a change, which, though not precisely de scribed in the words of the resolution, and though the committee will not at present be asked to give an opinion on it, is so important and vital a portion of the plan of the Government that it would be wrong in me to omit notic ing it. We propose, instead of distinguishing, as the pre sent law distinguishes, in favour of settled and real pro perty against unsettled personalty, to abolish that distinc tion altogether and to draw a new distinction between property, which may be well described, not in legal phra seology, but in language more popular and intelligible, as rateable property whether real or personal on the one side, and non-rateable property on the other. An advantage will be given to rateable_ property, whether real, leasehold, copyhold, or by whatever technical description it may be known, and the full burden of the tax will fall on invisible and non-rateable property. Without referring to transfers, the considerable burden borne in other respects by rateable property ought fairly to be taken into view when fixing a legacy duty for these descriVions of property. The pro p.;:al we shall make with respect to rateable property is this. We do not propose to establish a different rite of duty ; but we propose that the person succeeding to that kind of property should never be charged with the duty on any interest in the property higher than his life interest. Von. may ask what will be the effect of this as compared with charging libu on tho perpetuity ? That is matter of Computation, and admitting of some latitude of opini on ; bo.t you will ' not be very far from the mark if you say that the effect of that distinction with the collateral distinc tions we propose to draw will be, that rateable property would have only to pay about one-half, as compared with the amount paid by property not falling within the de scription of rateable property—invisible or non-rateable property—would not be in all cases charged on the perpe tuity. A person would pay where he acquired the absolute dominion over the property, but where he succeeded to a lesser interest he would only be charged on that. It may be asked, why should rateable property be favoured in this form ? It is on account of the other charges to which it is subject, and not borne by the property to which we propose to apply the full rate. But it is an object not only to give something as countervailing the burdens borne by real property, but to take care that you so adjust your taxes as not to allow it to become an engine for forcing or perpetuating charges of succession. These are our reasons for freeing rateable property. But I may be asked—and this is a most important question—why we think that it ought to bear a less share of the tax. Hon. gentlemen may ask if we use this particular form for conferring that advantage—viz., the form that the person succeeding to the possession of rateable prope rt y shall not be charged on anything more than the life interest —why we do not charge him on the property to which lie has suc ceeded in the perpetuity, but at a lower rate. I wish to state that question, and to bring it fully before the notice of the committee. It is a question of very great difficulty, requiring very impartial and very careful deliberation, and in the discussion of which I trust every collateral considera tion connected with the fate of parties, of Ministers, and of Government, may on all sides be excluded, in order that the alteration of an arrangement so intimately connected with the social system of this country may not be frustrated from want of care and prudence in the adjustment. I fully admit it is by no means decided, when you have deter mined that real property is entitled to some favour of this kind, that then you ought to give this favour in the form of charging the tax on the life interest only. But I think the objection to charging on the life interest that will be made is this, that it takes away from the life interest the advantage that you propose to confer on that class of pro perty as compared with all others, because the person suc ceeding to real or to leasehold estate would, under that plan, be liable to pay as much as if he were succeeding to personalty ; and therefore it must fail, so far, Lin giving effect to the principles laid down. But, when we take a comprehensive survey of the mode in which the different classes of property are dealt with under the laws which touch upon points of this kind, I think we shall find that there are much greater objections to the other mode of proceeding viz., that of charging the suc cessor to real or rateable property upon the perpetuity if he gets it. It is quite obvious, if we adopt this method of proceeding — i f we charge the life renter of the estate on his life interest, and the person who comes into possession on the death on the perpetuity—that we at once establish a system of law which will work in favour of the large and against the small proprietor--(hear)—and which will create a division and conflict of interests among different descriptions of landed proprietors, which, I think, it will be most undesir able, to say the least, to introduce. (Hear, hear.) It would be legislating in a most invidious sense. Those gen tlemen who appear here are generally connected with the settled property of the country, and it would be in vidious, indeed, if we were to adopt proceedings in a matter of this kind which would advantage the large at the expense or to the disadvantage of the smaller landed proprietors. (Cheers.) I am sorry to detain the com mittee, for I know from experience that although it is re lieved by its importance, the subject is one of the dryest kind ; but I must confess, I think when you look closely into this matter that you will find that the relation be tween the life renter of realty and the absolute possessor of realty is not at all analogous to that which exists between the possessor of money in the funds and the absolute pos sessor of mere personalty. The possessors of entailed estates in this country acquire great social and great politi cal influence ; gives them a commanding station in the paths to the professions, and to Parliament, and to the various offices which lead to distinction and power. The position of an English nobleman and English gentleman is, on the 'whole, one of the most desirable the world can show ; but there is no distinguishing line which can be drawn between the possessors of entailed estates and the holders of small properties that can justify a distinction in the tax. Such are the main principles of the course we propose to pursue. The other course would, indubitably, have a dangerous tendency to shake the present laws of entail and settlement in the country in a manner I should not wish to see, to jeopardise them, and to put them to the risk of being considered not in their characte r of a general, but in that of a class ' interest. (Hear, hear.) These are, I think, the principal reasons, first of all, why we should propose to draw a distinction, not as the law now draws it, but on the more just principle of taxing the successor to rateable property on his life interest in it, Another point of importance in the consideration of this , question, in connexion with its social bearing —(hear, lear)—was the case of fully encumbered estates, (Hear, hoar.) Upon the principle of charging upon the life interest in the case of a succession to an encumbered estate, the mode of proceeding would be. this. In the first place, we should ascertain the age of the proprietors, and, having his age, we should have the number ofth years ale ' p the ur chase that we ought to charge. We should en t gross rental of the property, and from that we should have to makes the deductions necessary to arrive at the net rent, because there is no reason such as prevails in respect to ors rental the inc4)me tax, to compel to go upon the gr in the case I have been considering. In this case the net rental s.nd the net interests are to be charged. Having as certainod the net rental we muot also deduct the amount of the encumbrances, and it will, I am afraid, frequently happon that the net rental remaining will beextremely small hi amount, and yet at the same time--ant that is precisetr the conjuncture to which I wish to call attention —there .might be in the property a large accession of cat& tal vab ue For if we take an estate that will sell in the market r for 50,0001., th e n we shall get a gross rental of from l a i i ), ( 9oo/.. to 16,0:;01., and a net rental of 13,000 1 . or 14 , 0001 . , o l i mo th i e . „:si-iyetearrentetalt,h"andnotl if if a suppose that the property is mortgaged to the amount. of 303,000/ these mortgages must absorb 12,0001. eave more than 1,20 or annual v sane of his life proprietor, which will represent the to char upon the capital value, Now, I think if we were taxed e perpetuity, p t i ,h a at value, which we should do if we the tai : which must iave would be a way of putting on prietor . It might be wlse, I the eaffeett of displacing the pro under E tch circumstances to disiliaceolicili,mfso:ifthenie)arorpflietor There a 3 ust be many such cases in the country. ( The TeeegTi.s)- lature has recommended a proceeding of ,this _kind.in Ire land, and hasemade Wision for facilitating its progress. There may be a time—lhope it is not come, and that it may yet be very distant , ---when you may have to introduce a similar measure for England. What we have to consider, then, is to frame a tax in a way that will not have the effect of forcing the proprietor to part with his estate. Ido not believe that you could find any tax to put upon the capital value of an estate such as that I have been describing, which, if it passed into its possessor's hands in a direct line, would not have the effect of compelling him to bring his estate into the market. The proposition we propose to make is this, that a person succeeding to such a property shall be charged on his net life interest only according to his age, and the number of years' purchase his life may Le worth. If the proprietor of his own free will chooses to bring his estate into the market, and it realises 500,0001., then, instead of charging him on the 1,1001. or 1,2001. a-year net rental, as he has become a wealthy man, he is to be charged on the value of his succession. Anything less than that will not be full justice to the claims of the exchequer and claims of other classes. (Hear, hear.) In the event of the subsequent voluntary alienation of the property the claim of the ex chequer will arise, but when the successor to the property , continues to hold it the charge will only be on the net life interest. I hope hon. gentlemen will look upon this me thod of proceeding as a very powerful reason for adopt ing the principle of the Government proposal. (An honourable member made an inquiry as to the duration of the claim of the exchequer under this head.) The claim of the excnequer will revive in the event of alienation at any period during the holder's lifetime. At his death there must be a new succession, but, if the alienation of the property takes place at any period during his life, the claim of the Crown will revive against the actual possessor for the difference between the amount of legacy duty which he may have paid upon his life interest and the amount of legacy duty due upon the value, after allowing for the encumbrances. I believethere are other more legal, more technical considerations con nected with the tenure of land that will be affected by the course I am now proposing, and I believe I am correct in stating that the plan of the legacy duty as proposed by Mr. Pitt was of a similar description, and withtne acknowledged purpose of charging the duty upon the life interest. These are the main points to which I think it necessary to call the attention of the committee at the present moment. But I think it is necessary I should say a few words with regard to the probable proceeds of the tax, because I see in various quarters anticipations of proceeds which I cannot follow or comprehend. Some are sanguine, others very ridiculous and extravagant, and unable to stand a mo ment's examination. With regard to Ireland, I have heard it stated in this committee that the amount of legacy duty which we shall derive from Ireland, will be about 300,0001. I myself believe that its amount will be somewhere between 60,0001. and 80,0001. (A laugh.) This, I am afraid, is calculated to take the colour, and the life, and hope out of the pictures that have been drawn, and to bring them down to very homely and mean pro portions— (hear, and a laugh)—but at the same time, as the computations I have mentioned are the best which I have been able to obtain with the aid of that experience and. ability I can bring to bear upon it, I will not enter at length into the question of the computation of amount; but I think I ought to call the attention of the house, and especially of hon. gentlemen opposite, to one common source of error. Ono hon. gentleman said, with regard to this matter, I had stated that this legacy duty would raise a revenue of two millions. Such an idea never passed my mind, and such words never passed my lip ; yet it was stated that I intended to levy ten millions on the land. The right hon. gentleman opposite seems to deny having this impression. I do not doubt he avoided such a mistake, but not only in newspapers and out of doors, but in this house, it has been distinctly stated. The source of the fallacy I think is this :—The landed class in this country hold the first place in regard to influence, station, and power, and I hope they will long occupy it. (Hear, hear.) I have said they occupy the first place, and, if they do not, they hold at least a foremost place in the country. They have an immense influence, station, and power in the country, but the income of the landed class, as a class, is not at all in proportion to the influence and power which they possess. (Hear.) A great many such cases as I have already adverted to of extremely reduced incomes exist, but their position still leaves them great social power, and undoubtedly great political power. It is for that reason that there is a strong disposition to exaggerate the amount of landed income in the country. Now, the amount of landed property, when compared with the rest of the income of the country, and all the mass of income that will be sub ject to legacy duty, is comparatively trifling. lam almost afraid to say how far I anticipate that the proceeds of this tax will be from mere land. On a former occasion I ven tured to state that it appeared to me the land paid 9d. in the pound or thereabouts of income tax, while other classes paid 7d. (Hear, hear.) It was deemed that I had proved too much, and we had to pay for it in a long debate ending with a division. Perhaps a similar result will at tend the calcalations I take the liberty to make on this occasion. I must say, however, lam afraid that of the 2,000,000 1 . but a very small propordon can be expected to proceed from the land, and that for two reasons—not only because we say the land should bear the lower rate. but because the land will always show a small produce that is subject to the tax. The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Belfast the other night, when I was absent from indisposition, made an able speech, in which he discussed this question, and by the light of his experience as a professional man gave an opinion to the effect that the amount of revenue to proceed from settled personalty under a tax of this kind would be very large indeed. That is, no doubt, what we teckon upon. We reckon upon a large revenue from land, and when I speak of land it must be remembered that there are two important kinds of property connected with land, but which are not land. There is, first, the income that is derived from mortgages ; and, secondly, incomes proceeding to persons ou., of settlements fixed on the land, but which are not' really property in land. I do not think it is possible to draw any dis tinction in favour of personalty settled on the land, as compared with any other personalty. Such incomes are no more liable to local burdens than the money of mer chants or of bill-brokers, or any other purely undeniable personalty, or than moncy in Vie funds. That description of property, therefore, which is related to land, though not land, must take its chance with other personalty, and bear with it the full burden of the tax. So far as I can com pute, the proceeds of the tax from property of that descrip tion—the settled personaltyonland—wili be about 200,0001. As to the proceeds of landed property, proper, I will not venture into details, but I must say that I do not think the proceeds of that landed property, which I distinguish from houses and other messuages, can be rationally estimated to pass 400,0001. Now, I have not heard anything stated that has been nearly so low as that ; but I will tell the house tho mode in which I have proceeded in making this esti mate. I have stated distinctly that I have separated and struck off from this item the house property and all other messuages, and I am now speaking of what are strictly called territorial or agriculture estates. I sated the other night that there are no secret sources of information on this subject—there is nothing on this question that is not open to every gentleman in this house. (Hear, hear.) Under schedule A you find the gross amount of landed property charged with income tax. It is about 49,000,0001. a year, but there are deductions to come off that. The deduc tions, if I take them roughly at 16 per cent. will reduce it to 41,000,0001. Then I have to make the addition of Ire land. The value of the whole rateable property of Ireland is 11,200,000/. in round numbers. I have next to estimate that portion which is not landed property, but which con sista of houses and other messuages, and that I put at from 7,000,000/. to 8,003,030/. This will give me a net income from land in the three kingdoms of 48,000,0001. From that 48,000,000/. I have to deduct the interest on mort gages and other encumbrances, which every successor to land will be allowed to deduct before he is charged with the tax. What this may be we are all alike able to judge; we are all upon an equality in that respect, and may guess at our pleasure ; but I take the interest on mortga g es, and o ther encumbrances on ;the laud at 25 per cent. That leaves 36,030,0031. of annual income—that 36,030,000/. re presenting a capital value of 30 times as much. But then comes the question, how often will the succession come ? It seems to me not an irrational calculation to say, once in 30 years. (Cries of " Oh, oh.") I may be wrong. At any rate it is open to gentlemen to take another standard of calculation. I can only say, I go as near the truth as I can. (Mr. Disraeli—You make your estimate on the income tax returns, but you don't deduct the sums under 1501. a year.) That is true. You will have to make an addition for that, but the addition will be very moderate. We know what these sums are, for the income tax returns give them ; and now I am afraid I have taken the incomes to which the right hon. gentleman refers. The 49,000,0001., unless I mistake, which I have taken, is the gross assess ment under schedule A, irrespective of returns. lam afraid, therefore, there is no addition to be looked for under this source. (Hear, heat.) But the question is, how often does the succession come ? I take an average of 30 years. If it is on an average of 30 years, and if landed property may be assumed to be worth 30 years' purchase, you will have 36,000,0001. of landed propel ty on which to lay the tax. (Hear, hear.) The next step is to ask, ac what rate will that land pay duties ? The legacy duty at present is levied on an average rate of 2 4-sths per cent.; but it is quite plain that it will fall on landed property at a much lighter rate ; and for this reason,—first, because no interest higher than a life interest will be charged, which will re duce the rate of the tax one moiety ; secondly, because landed property runs more in the direct line than per sonalty, for property descending to strangers is obviously more out of the 'direct line than realty, and is charge able at a higher rate. If that is the case, and if the present rate of -duty only averages 2 4-sths per cent., it is quite plain that the rate of duty on the landed property cannot average so much as one moiety of that sum, or 1 2-sths per cent., producing a sum of 500,000/. ; but when I make that charge, I feel convinced you must make considerably further reductions still, and that you cannot estimate the proceeds which will be rea lised from landed property at materially more than 400,0001. I have stated briefly the grounds on which I have arrived at that conclusion, and I have done so deliberately, in order that the committee may be able to follow and thoroughly understand them. The estimates—indeed, I can hardly call them estimates—the dreams in which — I was going to say wiseacres, but t as that term may be offensive I will not use it—but the dreams in which some persons have indulged have tended to propagate most dan gerous delusions on this subject, and have had the effect of exhibiting me in the light of a person of monstrous capacity, who was about to• raise fabulous sums from the land by this tax. (Hear , hear.) If it can be demonstrated that more will be raised from land than I have anticipated, nobody will lend a more willing ear to such a demonstra tion than myself. Only let us see what are the real ant borne f ide grounds on which we are to base our expecta tions that the revenue will be larger, and I shall sincerely rejoice at so satisfactory a result. (Hear, hear.) I will not go into the question of personalty. There, again, we have to trust to the income-tax returns ; and I may state that as with regard to realty, so with regard to personalty, there is a large portion of income that will not come under the tax at all. I will not go into the question, but I ven ture to state that from realty and personalty of all kinds the produce will within a period of 5 years about 2,000,0001. Ono other point I should explain as to the payment of the tax on succes ties sions to real property, and that is the time at which the par succeeding may be expected to pay. Generally speaking, where the successor is not also the residuary legatee, the rents accruing will not be long to him on the first rent-day, but on the second rent day they may be expected t o be paid to him. We there fore propose that he should not be liable to payment of the tax till 12 months after he has succeeded to the property. (Hear, hear.) We then propose that he shall be liable to pay the tax in eight equal half-yearly instalments. In the case of direct succession that arrangement would make the tax easily payable, and so it would be even in the case of the nearly indirect successors. In the case of 10 per cent. successions the duty of 10 per cent., even on the life inte rest, would take up in four years a considerable share of the income. So far as the State is concerned, it might be open to consideration ta.make a further prolongation of t he t ime, but I doubt generally the policy of that course. It would tend to bring about an accumulation of encumbrances—it would, therefore, be better toleave it to the discretion of the executive Government to provide, by extension of time, for cases of that necessity. Generally speaking, therefore, the THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAT 13, 185 3. basis of the tax; with respect both to real and rateable property, will be to charge in no case higher than on the life interest ; and in that and all other such cases to allow a period of one year to elapse before any demand is made for the tax, and then it will be levied in eight equal half yearly instalments. I hope I have now submitted an ex planation of this subject which will be satisfactory to the house. I venture to express a hope that the statement I have delivered will show that the Government, in framing this proposition, have not been influenced by the motives imputed to them ; but that they have endeavoured to adapt the conditions of the measure to those permanent principles of equity and fair dealing, by which they desire all their proceedings to be governed, as well as the proceedings of any set of men who may, from time to time, be en trusted with the care of the interests of this great em pire. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT understood that the right hon. gentleman intended to draw a new line between rateable and non rateable property, and he wished to know on which side of the line he intended to put railway property ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the point referred to was one of considerable difficulty. He had not entirely made up his mind on the matter, and, perhaps, it would be better to take time to look into it further than to give an answer on the sudden. Sir J. PASINGTON wished to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer at once, but, looking to the hour, he was compelled to move that the Chairman should report progress. Mr. FRESHFIELD suggested that when the committee next sat he should be allowed to propose the amendment of which he had given notice, and that the debate might then proceed upon it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complained that, what with preliminary discussions at the commence ment of the evening, and motions for reporting progress at the end, but little time was left for considering the Go vernment propositions in committee. It would be ex tremely inconvenient to postpone a decision on this ques tion until after the recess, and, therefore, he hoped the committee would come to a vote upon it to-morrow even ing. (Hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that the part of the right hon. gentleman's statement relative to consanguinity re quired some explanation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that what he had intended to say was, that he could not represent the maintenance of the present scale of consan guinity as absolutely vital to the measure • but it was vital to the measure that the committ ee s h ou ld either maintain the existing scale or reduce the rates chargeable on the suc cession of strangers ; but in the latter case they must be prepared to increase the tax on direct succession. The opinion of the Government was decidedly in favour of maintaining the scale of consanguinity. (Hear.) Mr. HUME wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman was prepared to lay upon the table a schedule explanatory of the various ways in which it was proposed to assess property ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the bill to be founded on the resolution was nearly completed, and it would explain itself. Mr. HUME said, that in that case the sooner the resolu tion was agreed to the better. Mr. MAIINS observed that the succession to property was dependent on many other events than death. For in stance, a man settled property on his widow as long as she remained unmarried. In the event of her contracting a fresh marriage, would the person to whom the property would pass be called on to pay the duty ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under stood to reply in the negative. Mr. GIBSON wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce a provision for the compulsory registration of settlements? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that the Government did not intend to engraft on their finan cial scheme the principle of the Compulsory Registration of Assurances Bill. That measure must be considered and decided on its own merits. AGLIONBY wanted to know whether the Govern- went intended to devise some measure for the more equit able assessment of property for local purposes, especially for the maintenance of the poor ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not authorised, on the part of the, Government, to make any declaration on the important subject referred to by the hon. member. Sir W. JOLLIFFE remarked, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad not explained the manner in which the appraisement and valuation of landed estates were to be made. These were items of heavy expense at present. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was desirous of not entering into any detailed explanation on this point until the bill should be before the house. In the mean time, he might say that the present Legacy Duty Act of necessity involved a valuation, and it was not improbable that the machinery employed in that case might be found applicable to the present. However, no question about valuation, properly so called, would arise. In the present case no capital values would come into consideration. HEATHCOTE was desirous of knowing whether an account of rental was to be given in by the heir, or how it was to be estimated ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in answer, that the person coining into possession would be called upon to give in a statement of the gross rental, toge ther with the deduction to be made from it, and he would t. then be.taxed on'the net rental. The house then resumed. Mr. HUME said it was extremel.desirable that it should b known whether the house would proceed with the reso lutions the first thing to-morrow. • The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER thought it was quite understood that the committee would decide on the resolutions to-morrow. COPYHOLDS BILL. On the motion of Mr. AGLIONBY the house went into committee on this bill. Some amendments were added, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed. RYE WRIT. On the motion that the adjourned debate on the ques tion of the issue of a writ for the borough of Rye be resumed, - Sir C. BURRELL moved that no writ be issued till this day fortnight. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that as the question was one between the issue of the writ and the disfranchisement of the borough, he should vote for the issue of the writ, for there were many hundred electors in the borough as free from corruption as any constituency in the country. Mr. BASS, as mover of the adjournment of the debate, entered into a short statement of the corruption practised in the borough by the money influence exercised by Mr. Jeremiah Smith, in the shape of political loans to a certain class of the electors, and expressed his opinion that the writ for the borough ought not to issue. Sir J. PAKINGTON protested against so many ques tions affecting the rights of electors coming on at so late an hour in the evening. Mr. SPOONER moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. TUFNELL said, that the argument of the hon. member for Derby went to prove that the borough ought tube disfranchised, which was not the conclusion he had arrived at after a careful perusal of the evidence. Lord PALMERSTON consented to the adjournment of the debate until this day (Friday), when he trusted his noble friend (Lord J. Russell) would be sufficiently re covered to attend. . . After a few words from Mr. FREWEN, the debate was adjourned accordingly. Mr. FREWEN moved, that it was the opinion of that house that it was very desirable that the post-office at the House of Commons should be made a money-order office, for the purpose of grantit money-orders on the country post-offices to the members and officers of the house. There were 6,003 letters posted every week at the members' post office, and he hoped that the Government would not oppose the motion. _ . Mr.WILSON had received a letter from the Postmaster- General, stating that a money-order office could be esta blished in the House of Commons without any additional cost to the public. The motion was then agreed to. Mr. LUCAS moved for a return showing the distribu tion of the sum of 18,5C3/., voted for the army services of the years 1852 and 18Z 4 3, under the head Divine ser vice ;" stating the religious denomination to which each clergyman belonged ; the office, title, and service in virtue of which such allowance was made ; the date of his ap pointment or of the commencement of his allowance, if an annual one ; and the names and distribution of the reli gious books paid for out of the same vote. Mr. HASTIE (Paisley) moved that the following words be added at the end of Mr. Lucas's motion :—" And that a copy of each book be laid on the table of the house." Mr. S. HERBERT had been told by the hon. gentle man some of the works were of a very objectionable nature, and he could not be held responsible for them. It must be recollected that you must either establish a system of proselytism, or leave the prisoners without any sort of religions education whatever. As to laying copies on the table, it was a very unusual course, but he would order them to be left at the War-office for any hon. member who chose to , call and look over them. He hoped the amend ment would not be pressed, and that the hon. member would not ask for a library to be laid on the table of the house. After some further discussion, Mr. HASTIE withdrew his motion, and the previous motion of Mr. Lucas was agreed to. INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES BILL. This bill was brought up, and read a first time. Mr. IL O'CONNELL hoped full notice would be given before the bill was read a second time. It was most im portant there should be time given , seeing that the state of feelitg in Ireland would be ve ry intense on the subject. The remaining orders were then disposed of ; and The louse adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. PAIRS ON MR. VANSITTART'S AMENDMENT. FOR. AGAINST. Mr. Waddington (Suffolk) Mr. Elliot Sir Lytton Bulwer Mr. R. Currie Lord Claude Hamilton Mr. Phinn Mr. Coles Lord Jermyn Colonel North Mr. Valentine Browne Major Beresford Mr• Mostyn Mr. Heathcote Mr. Jackson Mr. Bunbury Mr. Win. Brown Mr. Henley Mr. Higgins Mr. Alderman Thompson Mr. Warner Mr. Dias Mr. Thicknesse Hon. Francis Baring Colonel Tynte Lord Henry Lennox Mr. Lawley. [AnvransEmENTJ---Holloway's Ointment and Pills a Certain Cure for Eruptions and all Diseases of the Skin. —Extract of a letter from Mr. J. Hird, draper, Keady, dated Feb. 14, 1852, to Professor Holloway My child, when three months old, was afflicted with a severe eruption all over her body. I sought every aid and the advice of surgeons and physicians, by all of whom the case was considered hopeless. I then tried your Ointment and Pills, and without exaggeration the effect was miraculous, for in a short time she was restore d to perfect health, and so remains. Mr. Bowden, book.- seller, Gainsborough, and myself, would be happy to satisfy any inquiries as to the truth of this statement." Sold by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's Este blishment„244, Strand, London. How TO DEFY ONE'S WIFE.—One of our American contemporaries observes that a man who can whistie may, to any extent, defy his wife. "What, under the dome of heaven, is more vexatious to her than to hear an irreverent whistle while F e is intent on vocally es timating the moral deficiencies of her husband. Not alone does it close the summary, but it vanquishes the summarian. Husbands I try it ! You'll hear a curtain lecture never more. That whistling was contemplated by a benignant Nature in the soberest of moods is apparent from the fact, that it is unequally distributed. It is a gift ; an endowment; an afterthought ; a kind of codicil added by the dame after she had made her general be quests," THE LATE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY. The committee re-assembled this morning at 12 o'clock. Lord Seymour in the chair. Mr. Stafford was re-examined at considerable length, and in answer to questions from the chairman, he per sisted in stating that he had only cancelled the circular of 1849 for the purpose of preventing the appointments , in the dockyards being still in the hands of his political opponents. Although by the circular of 1849 the Whigs professed to abandon patronage, yet by the appointment of the Whig surveyor of the navy, he would have the patronage in his hands for four years after they had re tired. He had nothing to say against the superintend ents of the yards, and he must say that his suspicions of what was going on were very much exaggerated. Mr. Beare was then examined, and said he had taken part as election agent on the Conservative side ever since the borough of Devonport was enfran chised in 1832. He then went into details of the several elections that had taken place there, but no Govern ment patronage appeared to have been used there until Sir Edward Codrington became a candidate for the re presentation of the borough, when it appeared to be launched forth in full force. When Mr. Dawson was a candidate, holding office under Sir R. Peel, he saw every elector personally, and had a large majority of pledged votes ; yet notwithstanding that he lost his election, and was most decidedly defeated by the dockyard influence. I have no doubt that since 1847 the Government in fluence had been so marked that every man who gained promotion was almost invariably a Whig. He then gave a long list of officers holding principal situations, who were put in by the Whigs and voted for them. In the last five years the promotions for leading men were as follows :—Conservatives, 4 ; men with no votes, 2 ; and Whigs, 36. From March to December no promotions were made by Lord Derby's Govern ment. When the Whigs went out of office they left several vacancies, and when the next Government came in the supporters of that party wished for a share of that patronage, and he (witness) was indignant that they did not get it. He thought every one in the dock yards, whether officers or men, ought not to have votes. The price of a vote in the dockyard, if it was a ship wright, was 201., and if it was a sawyer, 101. He had heard of promotions for money amongst officers in the dockyard, and of situations being obtained there for persons for money. When Mr. Tufnell came to Devon port he was introduced by Admiral Dundas to the house of the Admiral Superintendent, who took a very active part in his election. At the last election the master ship wright of the dockyard was one of the first persons who appeared on the hustings, and, of course, could see how every man voted. He thoughtlhat it would be to the advantage of the men of the dockyard amongst the 2,400 voters for Devonport if they were placed in schedule A, as he had seen so much mischief arising from the posses sion of them. Whatever occurs in the dockyards is im mediately known to their political partisans outside. He made no representations to the Admiralty or to Mr. Stafford of what was going on in the dockyard, though he had to other parties. He was then questioned as to the influence of persons in the dockyard, and he parti cularly alluded to the case of Sir J. Foote, who obtained appointments for his sons. He was present at a dinner given by Mr. Stafford that had been before alluded to in this committee. He had never heard of Mr. Stafford going round the dockyard just previously to the last election in company with the Conservative candidate for Devonport. At the dinner given at Moorshead's Hotel by Mr. Stafford, consisting chiefly of officers in the navy, he could safely say that from the time he went in to the time he came out, not a syllable was breathed about the Devonport election in any shape whatever. Dr. Butter, Mr. Triscott, and several other persons were there but not Mr. Churchward. Sir Francis Baring was next examined. He said he succeeded to the Admiralty in 1849. The ap plications for appointments were sent through the Secre tary previous to the issue of the circular of 1849. The circumstances that led to its issue about that time were —Sir B. Walker mentioned to the board that the re commendations that had been transmitted by the super intendents of the yard had not reached him ; and the consequence was that some vacancies had not been filled up. The Treasury minute respecting applications for promotions, and which required that they should be sent, in the first instance, to the Surveyor of the Navy, was discussed by the board, and although he (Sir F. Baring) only signed it, yet it had been agreed to, and was issued with their knowledge and sanction. The intention of the minute was to secure that all these ap plications should go through the surveyor, but there was no idea whatever that any patronage should rest with him. There were no direct complaints against the surveyor, but there were com plaints of either A or B being promoted, instead of some one who ought to have been promoted. In one case he wag written to, and after making inquiry, and finding that what had been stated was true, and that a mistake had been made, he cancelled the appointment. He had received an anonymous communication that places and promotions were given at Devonport for money, but as the letter contained only general charges he did not, in stitute an inquiry. ,He sent Sir B. Walker to try if he could make out sufficient for a case ; but he could ob tain no information, but merely rumours that had been told from one to another. Sir F. Baring's evidence occu pied nearly all the rest of the day, but it involved no particular point of interest, excepting that it had been brought to his knowledge by Sir B. Walker, that he could obtain a larger amount of work from a smaller number of men, in consequence of _the fair eh&noo that was held out to them of promotion if their merits justi fied. them in expecting that it would take place. After some documents had been put in, the committee adjourned at four o'clock until to-morrow. THE LEGACY DUTIES. TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN. Sni,—ln The Sun of this evening, you state that the greater part of personal property is not exonerated from the legacy duty. I believe that you are in error. It seems, from what was stated by Mr. Gladstone, that at least 400,000,0001. of the national debt are settled pro perty. Of the 300,000,003:. of English, Irish, and Scotch mortgages, more than two-thirds are settled. We may imagine, by r?,rity of reasoning, that more than half of the 260,000,0001. invested in railroads are settled; and it is not to be doubted that a very large portion of canal shares and leaseholds are settled. It may fairly be calculated, therefore, that from 700,000,000/. to 800,000,0001. of personalty are exempt from the legacy duty. This constitutes a strong argument for support ing Mr. Freshfield's motion for converting the tax upon successions into a legacy duty upon land devised by wills. The landowners pay no inconsiderable portion of the present legacy duty. Their plate, furniture, horses, carriages, the capital invested in their private farms, arrears of rent, and tie balances at their bankers pay to the legacy tax ; frequently 30,0001., 40,0001., 50,0001., are thus comprehended in that impost.—Your obedient servant, A CONSTANT READER. Tuesday, May 10, 1853. THE INCOME TAX. TO THE EDITOR OF THE tmN. SIR,—In general I agree with the political principles advocated in your journal, but mu.u,t acknowledge that I dissent entirely from the opinior a expressed by you on the renewal of the property wad income tax. Your rea soning on the inequalities c:,l the tax appears to me fal lacious, inasmuch as you seem entirely to overlook the arguments of the CbD.ncellor of the Exchequer in bring ing forward the budget, where he shows most conclu sively, that incomes derived from professions are not taxed in the same degree as incomes derived from pro perty. It is shown very clearly that incomes derived from professions are taxed according to the value as stated by the parties themselves—whereas, incomes derived from property are taxed according to the value of the assessor. Nothing, therefore, can be clearer than this, that in comes derived from professions have a very great ad vantage over those derived from property. It is my opinion that not more than half the incomes derived from professions pay income tax, of which the Chan cellor of the Exchequer gave some startling proofs, where parties with incomes of more than 40,0001. per annum were put down at 9,0001. Taking the income tax as a whole, I am surprised at the opposition which it has received from some reformers. If we want to establish the principle of direct taxation, the property and income tax is the last tax we should think of dis turbing. From the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exche quer, the tax cannot be established upon a more satis factory basis. If you attempt to undo it and construct it afresh upon the principle contended for, it cannot be done without creating a most expensive and a much more vexatious machinery, requiring " schedules for al most every letter in the alphabet." If this would be the case under the small proportion of the taxation of the country derived from the present income tax, what would it be were a much greater portion of the revenue raised from direct taxation, which all financial reformers are at present contending for ? My opinion, therefore, is, that the present income tax is the most rational and proper tax that exists ; and it is most proper that it should be extended to incomes in Ireland. An income of 1001. in Ireland is equal to an income of 1501. in England. Instead, therefore, of throwing opposition in the way of the Government, and. preventing them proceeding with other beneficial and important measures, you would serve the country better by giving the Government your support, seeing that no other Government can be formed so capable of forwarding the business of the nation as that which at present exists. It is a pity that reformers should put obstacles in the way of a reform Government.—l am, yours respectfully, ALEX. INNES. Egremont, Cheshire, 9th May, 1853. [ADVERTISEMENT.]- Officers of the Army and Navy, Missionaries, Emigrants, &c., will find Parr's Life Pills an invaluable appendage to their medicine chests, as a preventive of the attacks of those prevalent diseases so fatal in our colonies ; and in all affections and disorders especially incident to the tropics, they will be found in valuable. It is the best medicine ever used in scurvy, and every variety of scorbutic affections, making it very desirable to take to sea. is eagerly sought after in all our colonies, especially Australia, where a small box recently sold for ten shillings. In America, the West Indies, India, and China also, its fame is known and its virtues duly appreciated, causing an immense demand for it ; and there is no country or port in the world where it will not speedily become an article of extensive traffic, profit, and general utility, as it may be had re course to in all cases of sickness, with confidence in its simplicity and in its power to proci,uce relief.—T. Roberts and Co., sole proprietors, Crune-court, Fleet-street, London. Sold in boxes at is. lid., 2s. 9d., and ils. each, by all respectable chemists and medicine vendors in town and country. SPURTING INTELLIGENCE. NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING. SUFFOLK STAKES. — WEDNESDAY.—After the dead heat Nutshell walked over, and Lord H. G. Lennox re ceived 100 sovs. out of the stakes, which amounted to 340 sovs. All bets respecting the two horses must be put together and divided in the same proportion. JOCKEY CLUB PLATE.—IIex walked over and received 25 sovs., being half the amount of the plate. THE WHlP.—After our parcel was dispatched yester day, Teddington was added to the number of challengers. The whip is now in the possession of Sir R. Pigot, who must accept the challenge or resign the whip by the end of this week. To be run for on the Tuesday in the Second October,Meeting, 8.C., lOst, and to stake 200 SOTS. each, p.p. THURSDAY'S RACES. HANDICAP SWEEPSTAKES of 20 sovs. each, and only 5 ft, if declared, &c., to go to the owner of the second horse, for 3-yr-olds and upwards. T.Y.C. (5 subs., 2 of whom pay 5 sovs. ft. The highest weight accepting being 7st 21b, it was raised to Bst 71b, and the others accepting in proportion.) Mr. W. Hughes's Sophistry by Theon, 4 yrs, 7st 71b (Charlton) 1 Mr. Harris's Ada, 3 yrs, Est 91b (Harding) 2 Mr. Rogers's Leybourne, 5 yrs, Bst 71b (Rogers) 3 The following pay 5 sovs. ft, the weights being those at which they were originally handicapped : Ephesus and Conmore. Betting-5 to 4 agst Ada, 6to 4 agst Leybourne. A very fine close race up the cords. Won by a head, and a head only between the second and third. SWEEPSTAKES of 10 sous. each ; 2-yr-olds, Est 121 b ; three, Bst 121 b ; fillies and geldings allowed 31b. First half of Ab. M. The winner to be sold for 80 sous. if demanded, etc. (6 subs.) Lord Clifden's Oleastsr by Footstool, 2 yrs, Est 121 b (Toovey) 1 Captain Lane's Cyrus, 2 yrs, Est 121 b .....,...(Rook) 2 Duke of Bedford's Jovial, 2 yrs, Est 121 b ...(Ealing) 3 The following also ran :— Cintra, Nightshade, Otranto. Betting---2 to 1 agst Otranto, sto 2 agst Nightshade. On drawing up to start, Oleaster bolted, and ran nearly half-a-mile over the ploughed lands before he was stopped. A good race in with the three placed, Oleas ter beating Cyrus when close on the post by a head. A neck between second and third. SWEEPSTAKES of 10 sovs. each, with 50 added by the Jockey Club, for 2-yr-olds ; colts, Bst 71b ; and fillies, Bst 41b ; winners extra. T.Y.C. (22 subs.) Captain D. Lane's Alas, by Melbourne, Bst 41b (Bartholmew) 1 Lord Bruce's f by The Libel out of Splitvote, Bst 41b (Harding) 2 Lord Clifden's Nightshade, Bst 41b (Flatman) 3 The following also ran :—Rally, the Marquis of Se vi,gne Macduff, Margaretta, Adeline, Mary, Dianne, Sheffield, Red Rose. MATCH-Bst. 71b. each. Last half of Ab.M, 100, h ft. Captain Little's m by Counsellor out of Miss Lucy, 5 yrs (Rogers), walked over and received forfeit from Mr. W. E. Hughes Sophistry, 4 yrs, for which Charlton weighed, but did not go to the post. HANDICAP PLATE of 501. for three-yr-olds and upwards. A. F. Mr. Cooper's Desdemona, by lago, 3 yrs, 6st 101 b (J. Steggles) 1 Mr. Wigram's Peacock, 4 yrs, 7st 21b (Charlton) 2 Mr. Batson's Beauclerk, aged, Bst (Sly) 3 The following also ran :—Poodle, g by Dromedary out of Apricot, Anvil. Betting-6 to 4 agst Desdemona, 3to 1 agst Apricot gelding, sto 1 each agst Beauclerk and Peacock. An excellent race from the Abingdon Mile bottom with the first two. Desdemona, although a good deal hung upon by Peacock, achieving the victory by a head. Two lengths between second and third. With favourable weather and some remarkably fine close racing the meeting terminated. In point of sport it was decidedly the best Second Spring Meeting we ever remember ; but in point of betting unquestionably the very worst. Although almost within the shadow of the great event at Epsom, scarcely a bet was laid on Tuesday night, and not one worth quoting on Wednesday night. LATEST BETTING, THURSDAY. DERBY. ." 3to 1 agst West Australian 9to 1 agst Sittingbourne (taken). 9to 1 agst Honeywood (taken). 11 to 1 agst Orestes (t 12 to 1). 12 to 1 agst Umbriel (t 14 to 1) 17 to 1 agst Ninnyhammer (t 18 to 1) 30 to 1 agst Jerry Kent (taken) 40,000 to 1,000 was laid agst Jerry Kent in one bet. In the morning 15 to 1 was taken to some money about Umbriel. NORTHUMBERLAND PLATE.—Newminster pays forfe, DONCASTER RACES.—On the recommendation of the stewards and the Town Council Mr. J. F. Clarke is appointed judge for the Autumn Meeting. SHREWSBURY RACES, YESTERDAY. SALOPIAN STAKES of 10 sovs. each, with 20 added ; colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 41b. About a mile and a quarter. Duke of Richmond's f by Touchstone—Cuckoo (Whitehouse) 1 Mr. Copeland's Little Blossom (Marlow) 2 HERBERT STAKES (Handicap) of 5 sous, each, 2 ft. About three quarters of a mile. Mr. Robt. Burton nd Whalebone, 3 yrs, sst_lolb (Wells) 1 Mr. T. C. Eyton nd Eccentricity, 3 yrs, sst, carried sst 21b (Carroll) 2 The following also raft :—Sweetness, Evening Star, Dressmaker, and The Innkeeper. LONUNER STAKES of 5 sovs. each, with 50 added ; for 2-yr-olds, colts, Bst 51b ; fillies, Bst 21b ; winners extra ; second horse to save his stake. T.Y.C. Mr. Osborne's Brown - brandy by Sweetmeat (Osborne) 1 Mr. G. Taylor's Czarina (Ashman) 2 The following also ran : Sampson, Pope Joan, fby California out of Truth's dam, Spicey, f by Little Known out of Madame St. Clair, Daphne, and Pasquine. GREAT CLEVELAND HANDICAP of 10 sovs. each ; 2 ft. Cleveland course. About two miles and a quarter. Mr. Parker's Audubon, 3 yrs, sst llb (Carroll) 1 Mr. Dawson's Red Lion, 4 yrs, 6st 9lb (Aldcroft) 2 The following also ran : Le Juif, Bardolph, Harp, Black Doctor, Merry Bird, Father Thames, and Fare: w ell Betting-5 to 2 agst Audubon, 3to 1 agst Red Lion, 4 to 1 each agst Le Ju;f and Black Doctor, 10 to 1 agst Harp. Won easily by a length and a half ; a length between 2nd and 3rd ; Harp, not placed, was 3rd, Le Juif 4th, Father Thames sth, Bardolph 6th, Merry Bird 7th, Black Doctor Bth. Farewell pulled up half a mile from home. QUEEN'S PLATE of 100 guineas ; three-yr-olds, 7st 21b ; four, 9st 21b ; five, 9st 121 b ; six and aged, lOst 21b. Thrice round. About three miles. Mr. Palmer's Goldfinder, 5 yrs (Marlow) 1 Mr. G. Taylor's c by Knight of the Whistle, dam by Don John, 3 yrs (Ashman) 2 Mr. Cotton's Sugar Candy, 4 yrs (W. Sharpe) 3 SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. CUSTOM-HOUSE, MAY 12. ENTERED INWARDS.—The Oscar, from Rostock ; Themis, Stettin ; Eugene and Pauline, Nantes ; Resolution, Aal borg ; Harvest Home and Heather Bell, Mauritius ;_ Jane Grey, Constantinople ; Zwantze Elizabeth, St. Übes ; Lady Alexandria and John Bartlett, Shanghai ; Royal. Sovereign, Charente; Credenda, Callao ; Margaret, or Martha, do. ; Roger Stuart, Trinidad ; Dos Hermanos, Tarragona ; Jonge Rintje, Worcum ; Aurora, Tarsus ; Alessandro, Odessa ; Citizen, Bremen; Eendraght, Wor cum ; San Jose, Malaga ; Amphitrite, Marans ; Dorcas, Penang ; Leo, Buenos Ayres ; Tre Fratelle, Kertch ; Pa tience, Alexandria ; Herefordshire Bombay ; Spectator, Colombo ; Charlotte, Palermo ; Alfonso, Maria, Barletta ; Venus, Mayaguez and Porto Rico ; Queen, Callao • Fa tima, Gibraltar ; Cressy, Calcutta and Demerara ; Juliana, Demerara ; Rob Rob, do. ; Treaty, Port Cabello ; Eros, Alexandria ; Good Intent, Garrucha ; the Seventeenth of May ; Alexandria ; Severn, Ibrail ; Margaretha, Sines ; Superior, Cadiz ; Avon, Odessa ; Pandora, Ibrail. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING.—The Johanna, for Altona ; Adolph, Aalborg ; Queen, Sydney ; Tugend, Stettin ; Juliana St. Vincent ; Bell, Cape of Good Hope • Johanna Hendrika, Geelong ; James Cruikshank, Hob ar t Town ; Palm, Demerara ; Soubandar, Calcutta ; Wieders kumft, Marstrand ; Eclipse, Mauritius ; Wapkel, Hoz burgh ; Circassian,. Gibraltar and Cadiz. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO.—The William, for Malta ; Dalmato, Constantinople ; Concordia, Elsinore ; Countess of Seafield, Shanghai. LIVERPOOL, MAY 12. The Herald, Liverpool to Quebec, was spoken April 29, lat. 46 N., long. 25 W. The Aurora, Hull to New York, was spoken May 3, lat. 50 N., long. 12 W. The Ann Holzberg, Liverpool to Adelaide, was spoken May 6, Cork. The Meneies, with loss of topgallant masts, was spoken May 10, off Bardsey. The Clansman, bound west, was spoken May 5, lat. 48 N., long. 39 W. - - The Freeman, Liverpool to Jamaica, was spoken Mai 6, off Cork. The Lucy Thompson, bound west, was spoken May 5, lat. 49 N., long. 38 W. The Mary Jane, from Valparaiso, 16 miles W.S. W. off Holyhead. was spoken May 11, VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. The Chance, of Liverpool, from Melbourne, Jan. 8, off the Island of San Lorenzo. The Thomas and Joseph Crisp, from London to Van Diemen's Land, March 8, lat. 23 S., long. 29 W. The Princess Sophia, from New South Wales, April 25, lat. 44, long. 11 W. The Top Smit, from London to Australia, May 2, lat. 49 N., long. 8 W. The Bermuda, from London to the Cape of Good Hope, March 17, lat. 3 S., long. 19 W. The Mogul, for Panama, 22d, on the line, long. 20 W. The Thetis, of and from London to W., same day. The British Queen, May 5, lat. 48 N., long. 8 W. Royal Mail Steamer, bound west, 9th, lat. 51 N., long. 11 W. The Sheridan, from New York to Liverpool, Ap ril 28, 93 miles E.S.E. , of Sandy Hook. The Westpoint, bound west, April 30, lat. 44 N., long. 51 W. The Henry Porcher, bound west, May 3, lat. 49 N., long. 38 W. The Lady Shelburn, from Liverpool to Callao,, 28, lat. 16 S., long. 30 W. The Sylph, from Shields to New York, April 12, lat. 43 N., long. 0 W., with loss of topgallant masts, and all ezcept jib and spanker. 777 - NAVAL INTELLIGENCE• • -PO RTSMOUTI4, MAY The Odin, 16, paddle, Captain Francis Scott, In. repaired damages in the machinery department, ha out of the steam-basin, • and is laid alongside tb' depot to take in her supply, after which she p Spithead. The Cyclops, 6, paddle, under the command of Seccombe, having landed the boilers for the E.- left here this morning for Devonport, having sol!II chinery on board for the Algiers, 90, at that port. The Neptune, 120, Captain Edward H. Scott ; wages to-day. The Medea, 6, paddle, Commander J. C. the Havannah. We hear of very ugly accounts ing this vessel, which we trust, for the honour British service, will be inquired into most strictly. first lieutenant is under arrest, the chief engn under arrest, and the rest of the officers with the company are in such a state as will cause the instant return to England. We regret to state that during the exercising! squadron yesterday at Spithead several casualtit. curred, one of which terminated fatally, on board London. An A.B. was knocked off the whilst shifting topsails, and the poor fellow fell deck and was killed. Many had narrow escal board the Imperieuse, in letting boats go by th , besides sundry other accidents to the ships of the dron, which we will make every allowance fo: young and many . inexperienced hands. We sii hope that the forthcoming statement of the better ning the navy will induce more A. B's to wit Majesty's service, or we shall have but little cr laughing at any misfortune that may happen l want of discipline to our neighbours across the DEVONPORT, MAT The Agamemnon, 91, Captain Sir Thomas hove-to off this port a short time on Tuesday and then proceeded down Channel. The Vulture, steamer, with the Leander in tow from the Sound on Tuesday evening. Commodore Seymour returned to Devonport day evening, and rehoisted his broad pendant o the St. George on Wednesday morning, and his duty in the dockyard. The Cygnet, Commander White, was paid Commodore Seymour on Wednesday. Sinbad, lighter, Follett master, arrived on afternoon, with stores, from Woolwich. ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE. The following gentlemen passed their exaraill' i the presence of the Commander in Chief Sir John Cochrane, the Admiral Superintendent Fanshawe, and Captain. Chads, C.B. of the Excellens:ien , Mates for Lieutenants—Messrs. Goold, Brett, and Whitshed. t. Naval Cadets—Messrs. Hunt, WDougal, Pag e- ' Berg, Price, and Lord Charles Scott. Masters' Assistants—Messrs. Baker and Christie. alla Clerks' Assistants—Messrs. Shapcote, 'Packer' Bernard. I ..s. i 1 \ ',. i, VIAT 12. , , . tt, nav4 - mt, Intuit , ..4 ‘ ,.,., e the coal: woceeds tb. N a of Lieut.. Encounter, . sove 1119- port. ..; 3cott, pa ls. ' Bailey, off :ei i L s o c t unibt u t s tmnahviho r gy r ie: ret e n. o si oseestustAPfiseb:: engineer ie: c .: h pb :11, : l e ctiee : : . 11 I fell on tbe escapes by the ril ~. )f the squ.r. :e for vnt)i 'e sincerely better wan' ) enter her credit $ 1 e ere i, )en througa he Cha lzel. MAT ii ; -0 s g a itla 4 . y aftern ° 1 tOW, Sqi or t on V I m a int 0 3 1 ) 0 , 4 1 paid Of f ' ' - :l Tr il l iunin'n.:VedinrtriacliTe'';'ll:llw--":"::..1',$1°'11.: 4 COUNTRY MARKETS. DERBY SMITHFIELD MAT JAL A decided improvement in the supply of fat stock bu iti The attendance of purchasers large. The qua s lit 7° o3 animals generally good, most of which were sold. „tift of sheep and lambs large. Fat and store calves r e - „ s and a brisk demand. Fat pigs scarce. Prices wls e lows :—Beef, 6d to bid ; mutton, 53d to 6d ; len 4s l sid per lb. ; pigs, 95 to 9s 6d. per score ; rough 1 : 1 1 to per 141 b. ; hides, 22d to 3d per lb ; ; ca lf-skins, n` per lb. EDINBURGH GRAIN-MAT 11. We had a good supply of grain in to-day's ADS Sales dull, and prices down. Wheat on the top 2 0 vu a the and the average is. Barley on the t o p 6d down, 411 , 1 0 0 average 9d. Oats on the top 8d down, and the ,a two 3d. Beans on the top 6d up, an d th e a verage is l u Ad Top of Wheat 64i lb 500 v fid . ........ 8ar1ey............ r6' lb 35s - Oats Beans t. Total Supply and Sales. 782 qrs sold 7- 14 g r r : 255 qrs sold 250 q 672 qrs sold 60g ; ...... 212 qrs sold 164 " AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. ~ gths Average of wheat £2 6 5 10-. 11 , Ditto of Barley ,' Ditto of Oats Ditto of Beans Wheat Barley Oats .., Beans, BOSTON—MAY 11. e t, fi e 1, At to-day's market we had a, short supply of to I S demand for which ruled inactive, at a decline of 1300 per qr. Oats dull of sale, and somewhat cheaper. in request at an improvement of is per qr. Of bar.aot, peas few samples. Prices nominally the gam°. ,1 0 red, 36s to 455, white, 45s to 475, extra, 4 95 ; bas'eig, to 31s ; oats, 14s to 19s ; beans, 32s to 39s ; Pe a ' s ' 35s per qr. NEWARK—MAY 11. god' At the Corn•exchange to-day wo had only a tliill- vir l'— h o , 4 ance of farmers. Prices similar to last week, : 2tig white, 52s to 565, red 46 s t o s) s ; barley, gTin aln s 0 0 30s, malting 32s to 35a ; oats, seed 24s to 265, fee" to 6 0 ' 00a ; beans, 38s to 42s ; peas, 34s to 36s ; malt, 660 DUBLIN—MAY 10. c)2 s4 j White wheat, 26s Od to 30 s Od ; re d ditt o 25s Od tese.-; barley, 13s Od to 16s 6d ; oats, 10 s Od t o 12s Od; 2) s Od to 23s per brl ; oatmeal, lls Od. to 12s Od ; - 33s flour, 14s Od to 18s Od per cwt; Indian corn, 30s Od " per 480 lbs. Brls. Curre o li n e/ 0 . 0 0 White wheat...oos Od to 00s Od On Od---#" CORK-MAY 11. Di tto Redw O d OOs O heat 00s d to OOs 03}00s Od to 00s 01 O do. ---- Ditto 00s Od to 00a Od 22 Barley l2s 6d to 13s Od) /6 Jo. Ditto OGs Od to OOs Od 000 Oa' Ditto 00s Od to OOs Od Bere 00s Od to 00s Od Or 04 121 Oats lOs Od to lls 7d} 4 ..... (I° ' .- Ditto OOs Od to 00s Oct lls '*" Ditto 00s 03 to 00s 01 ' r Ot t ' -- Pigs .. ....... oos Od to 00s Od 00s Od Pe , Quantity sold at the highest prices :--" b ee, 1 00 barrels white wheat ; 9 red ; 0 barley ; I, oats ; 0 pigs. .., , Week • Quantity of grain and numbe r o f p i gs so ld last I,s/r, Wheat, 51. Barley, '.;41. Bere, 00. 4:36 ' - ' Pigs, 00. Return of cattle sold for week ending gal: :-.. Pigs, 204. Sheep, 341. Cows, '' •ntr' „ a gp-. 4 0 PORTABLE HOMES.—To a casual observer t ree l ' I ' 4 or down the river, the Isle of Dogs has at P, ot er° 11 OD aspect of a newly discovered gold region. ar ise temporary erections of galvanised tinned iron d gr o ei day and are the next unbolted, unscrewed, °3l o in the smallest possible spice for the colonie s ' for that the mother country should provide hom es e r eets/ 0 4 emigrant from her shores ! From what Nr..,o la Lfoti cl ,„ seen through the courtesy of Messrs. -m - 1. — , i 01f 4- 4 1f, Rogers, of the Steel-yard, Thames-street, not ..,"" ith e; ?f , small abed or the dwelling of 2to 12 rooms', o or"'„olf appliance of English comfort, to be had . 0 but warehouses, factories, and even foundries i c o 0 1 , 00 subject to a tariff of so much per foot. ,:l ee t, ce„ e r latter—a foundry for Australia:, of 150 by 3 ° simplest geometrical principles of strength a l ee tion, was in the course Of erection during ou r ii d itsLter while we write, it may be on its voyage a fibt supplied by others, as w e are informed, ° ' f- magnitude.—Morning Herald. [ADVERTISEMENT.I—EPSOM A ND ASC--, l tco ote . : 4 ot , The Royal Exhibiti on Small Glass for the so ls yivi rle'" a ltr at S. and B. Solom ons ', op ti c i ans , 39, AjYti.-- 4 • s tc o , Piccadilly—observe, opp os it e th e York „, ," able, newly-invented, very small power L7l l roll" , pocket glass, the si re o f a walnut, p ower dis t tte can be seen and known one mile and e u , s e, of, they answer every purp ose o n the race ° G lee"' (lee r opera-houses, country scenery, and ships are lloo tieg e , ep el at 12 to 14 miles. They are invaluable fo r s stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, '7,,trao such e' iec e ' tY and tourists. Telescopes possessing en i _, e ye-P , powers that some, 33 inches, with an en . " 7, r ing, r. 4 show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Sature'be See rl ,„ i a double stars ; with the same telescope et. ° di s tan t ' V otl 3e o son's countenance three miles and a Inw - . .. e d0 eve r i o d object from 16 to 20 miles. They stlP e `i brger ra c ; o c kind for the waistcoat pocket, an er," Ope — biect ble sizes, with increasing powers according ly bio ta ° course glasses with wonderful power; Ie be clearly seen, from 10 to 12 miles al, s the y ar e d 41 0 . A, newly-invented spectacles , immediatell jo ist r " 13 03 0,0 before extremely imperfect' vision, tbs.% once ness which appears before the eyes IS so w on tllP) every object appears clear and distinu to its most aged defective sight is brought .„- resf Pis s 0„1, natural, and original state. Deafness-InovverfgAiffor* The Organic Vibrator, an extraorclin°o'e r ii tirel that t'l l a rewly-invented instrument, for deafnesNhe inß °cod from all others, to surpass anythinq i c ' ee d. n e it eivi 0 .4 been, or probably ever can be Pmi tl on tible ja same coloar as the skin, is not per ruoistO' deaf persons to hear distinc4 at ell ure f - e ingieg t he *7OOl semblies ; the unpleasant sensation affords all / the ears are entirely removed ; an d .a nd 13 ., 00 ,di1 1 f . ance that possibly could be d e sired. rlo - s treat , /twists and Opticians, 39, Albem a Observe, opposite the York Hotel. BIRTHS. OF A SON• ton-lodge, iciugstool' On the 10th inst., at We llin g wife of the Rev. W. Stsepoole, n th 10th inst., csavt teaDmAiljortoTEß;l!eewice i l f ire rl • °Pci°ll Cle O ment, e Esq., of Snareston-lodge,n, Lewstes MARRIED. V , t ate' ije On the 11th inst., at St. Georges, Attiftevlveotoir Vicar, R. Walmialey, Esq., to Augusta!,,- o f D ' daughter of the late Per Lewis, X-Aq'' house, Radnorshire. 1 allg literc" DIED• s econ d d On the 9th inst., at Brighton, -Wl' il if S il° l/ Rear-Admiral Sir James Stirling, age" - • the ..--°''.sq. 't On the 9th inst., at 37, Grosvenor-pbte,ea, woll, lit o Hall Cornwall, widow of the late John (- , .?1, a ong Hendon, in the county of Middlesex, "' ~aP • Admiral Alan Lord Gardner. ~.r o i s ll- 131 , On the 10th inst. at Preston " Vert - 1 -.,, i c e, 1 3 - ham, Margaret, relict of Major Robert k-d 11,0 pi 0* 0 , LONDON : Printed and Published 2 3 ,1, ;;01008P nuti of No. 112, Strand, the the 0 0 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoys Middlesex, Friday, Me 1 3 , 1803'