The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-10 00:00:00

ATTORNIES' CERTIFICATE DUTY.

Lord R. GROSVFNOR then rose for leave to bring
in a bill to repeal the attornies' and solicitors' annual
eirctificate duty. Refore he went into the merits of the
ease he wished to brine, under the notice of the house
the position in which' the question was now placed.
For twenty years the attornies and solicitors of England
had never cetued to petition the house to be relieved
from this tax, and in 1849 he gave notice of his inten-
tion to move for the repeal of the tax. In 1849, how
ever, he was not able to bring the question before the
house, but in the following year, 1850. He then asked
for leave to bring in his bill ; and although he was op-
posed by the Government of the day, the house yet ac-
ceded to the propriety of his motion. He carried the
I,lol,4sthrough several stages with the assistance of the
horse, until the end of the session drew near, when,
71ag,etotnethese difficulties that were incidental to every
Private
fell
ixbuelr who attempted individual legislation, the
ttioeathe gelritsiln the following year, 1851, owing
s, and the debate on the Ecclesias-
' 1 Titles sill
he hsuecweas unable to bring his motion on,
but last
successful renewed his motion, and no
doubt, had his fries
formined in office, there would
elr troubling the h
have been no necessity
Thus stood the question 111 and were thepresent n
ouse now.
owot.

a new Parliamedt, which had not pronounced its opinion
upon the matter, he should have contented himself with
simply moving his Motion as it stood upon the paper.
The history of the certificate duty was very simple.
Towards the close of the last century Mr. Pitt was in
great distress for money, and he proposed this and seve-
ral other taxes—not as a part of any general scheme of
finance, but because they were more likely to obtain the
sanction of the house. From that time up to
the present the tax had been 'gradually augmented,
and it now amounted to 121. for metropolitan, and 81.
for provincial solicitors. The operation of the tax was
most unjust to the profession, for while the more
wealthy members of it only paid at the rate
of a quarter or a half per cent, on their profits, the
poorer members had to pay five, six, and sometimes
even seven (per cent. He did not see why attorneys
should be taxed any more than barristers, surgeons,
apothecaries, painters, or architects, In fact, they
might be more fairly taxed, as they had not
to contribute to the State at the outset of their ,
career so large a sum as solicitors. It was sometimes
said that attorneys were extortioners, blood-suckers, and
vampires ; indeed, a certain member of the house on
being asked what was the difference between an attorney
and a solicitor, said the difference between a crocodile
and an alligator. So far, however, from the attorneys
being extortioners, he thought the Executive deserved
that character, in retaining an unfair and unjust tax of
this kind. He had hoped that the Char cellor of the
Exchequer would have consented to its repeal, and thus
relieved him (Lord R. Grosvenor) from the necessity of
again addressing the house on the subject. If he ac-
ceded to his motion, it would only involve 120,0001.,
and he thought, even if there was not a suffi-
cient surplus to enable that sum to be repealed,
a case had notwithstanding been made out which war-
ranted the house in at once relieving the profession of
the burden which they had now to bear.
Mr. COWAN briefly seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
considered that no person holding his office could under
any circumstances consent to the repeal of a particular
tax until he had heard the arguments for its aboli-
tion in connection with the arguments for the abolition
of other taxes. (Hear, hear.) He entirely disagreed
in the opinion that the annual certificate duty was un-
just. Tha imposts which were borne by trades, and to
which they had been accustomed, were far from being
the worst description of duties. There were many others
which had a far stronger claim for abolition. (Hear,
hear.) He admitted, however, that when the proper
time arrived, the whole of the different duties which
pressed on attorneys would well deserve consider-
tion, such as the duty of 1251. on the admission
of attorneys, which was excluded from the noble lord's
motion, but which had 64 effect of making the
profession a monopoly by operating as a great burden
on young men who were about entering upon it. He
thought that it would be much better to diminish this
duty on admissions, in order to give the public the
benefit of freer competition in the profession, rather than
abolish the annual certificate duty. He protested against
the practice of dealing with isolated cases of taxation,
as if persevered in it would prove most destructive to
the finances of the country. If, however, the noble
lord thought there was such an exception as to require
particular discussion, the proper time to submit it to
the consideration of the house was after the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had laid his financial plans before
the house. He should on these grounds oppose the
motion of the noble lord.
Sir F. THESIGER considered that if the noble
lord consented to postpone his motion to an in-
definite period, as suggested by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer he would entirely fail in ever attaining his
object. He thought there was no better time than the
present to bring forward this subject, as it was desirable
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have an
opportunity of hearing the opinions of the house upon it,
before he prefiented his Budget. He saw no reason
whatever why the noble lord should not be allowed to
bring in a bill for the abolition of such a gross and
shameful tax.

Mr. FITZGERALD supported the motion.
Mr. HUME would give the noble lord his support if
he would propose the abolition of the imposts on all the
other thirty-five trades which were compelled to pay duty
to the state, but he could not think of relieving one class
while others were liable% similar burdens.

After a words in reply to Lord R. GROSVENOR,
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 219
Against it 167

Majority in favour of the 52
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.
OATHS.

Mr. PELLATT then rose to move the appointment
of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of Oaths,
and the operation of the Act 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 4, and
the Act 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 62, for the substitu-
tion of Declarations in hew of Oaths in the Customs,
Excise, Public Offices, and Corporations named in
the said acts, and the advantage of extending the
principle of those acts to the courts of law, and further
to inquire into the oaths now taken by members of
Parliament at the table of the house, with the view of
substituting one uniform declaration for members of all
religions persuasions, and to report thereon from time to
time, and was .

(LEFT SPBAKING.)

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DAY.)

( Continued from our First Edition.)
SOUTHAMPTON.
The committee were occupied during the afternoon in
hearing evidenoe to prove agency. Evidence was also
called to show that Mr. Andrews, the mayor, had acted
in a spirit of partiality and partisanship not befitting his
position as returning officer.

THE FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.—A meeting,
attended by several members of Parliament and other
gentlemen interested in the affairs of India was held on
Wednesday night at the St. Alban's Hotel, Charles-street,
when it was agreed that any precipitate legislation on
the subject of the future Government of India was to
be deprecated, and that another meeting should be held
on 'Saturday next, at which members of Parliament will
be Invited to attend, and an association will be formed
for the purpose of obtaining and disseminating complete
information respecting the administration of India, and
the mutual interests of that country and of England.

ELECTION COMMITTEES—March 9.

DERBY.

The room was then cleared, and on parties being re-
admitted the committee announced that they had come
to the following resolutions :
" That Michael Thomas Bass, Esq., is duly elected a
burgess to serve in this present Parlament for the bo-
rough of Derby.

"That Thoinas Berry Horsfall, Esq., is not duly
elected a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for
the borough of Derby.
" That Lawrence Heyworth, Esq., was duly elected,
and ought to have been returned, to serve as a burgess
in the present Parliament for the said borough.
" That the committee have altered the poll at the last
election for the said borough by striking therefrom, for
having received bribes, the names of William Harris,
William Morley, Thomas - Blake, Richard Walcop,
Francis Radford, John Taylor, Henry Needham, John
Swan, F. Staley, Charles Cockayne, Edwin Cockayne,
William Oliver, and H. Sharrack.
" That Thomas Berry Horsfall, Esq., was, by his
agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the said
borough ; but it has been proved to the satisfaction of
the committee that the bribery was committed without
the concurrence or privity of the said T. B. Horsfall,
Esq.

a That William Harris, Thomas Blake, Richard
Walcop, Francis Radford, John Taylor, Henry Need-
ham, John Swan, Francis Staley, Charles Cockayne,
Edwin Cockayne, and H. Sharrack were bribed by the
sum of 21. each ; that William Morley was bribed by
the payment of 21., with the supplementary payment
of 1/. in the month of October last, subsequent to the
election, and that William Oliver was bribed with the
payment of 1/. _ _

- That Thomas Morgan appears to have been the
person principally engaged in the above acts of bribery,
and that the funds for that purpose appear to have been
furnished to Morgan by the intervention of a man named
Lund.

"That George Clayton, John Ford, and Henry
Ackerman were also engaged in various act of bribery
and corruption.
" That it it has been proved to the committee, as to
•several of the above-named persons, that at former elec-
tions also they have received money for their votes, and
the committee have reason to believe that such corrupt
practices have been prevalent in the said borough, and
they desire to state their opinion that the parties reported
to the house as guilty of bribery should for the future
be disqualified from the exercise of the electoral franchise.
" That it appears to the committee that the petition
of Wm. Poole, so far as regards the return of Michael
S. Bass, Esq., was frivolous and vexatious."
The proceedings then terminated.

SUSPECTED MURDER IN GLASGOW.—There is good
reason to believe that a man of the name of Morrison
has come to his death by murderous violence, but few
particulars of the sad occurrence are yet known. So far
as we have been able to learn, Morrison, who is a painter
by trade, was to enter on Thursday last into employment
in a shop at the west end of the city, the men of which
were out on strike. This fact of the strike is worthy of
notice,
as it may possibly have connection with the melan-
tchheolmy
morning,
mOonrriontheed,ay referred to, about 7 o'clock in
who sleeps in a house in a back
court in Virg,inia-street, was necessitated from illness to
proceed to a convenience in the same court. His move-
ments must have been observed, for, when he was within
the closet, three men came upon him, while a fourth
kept watch, and, thrusting him between the door and the
wall, there subjeHow locted him to the whole crushing power
of their bodies. ng this agonising process lasted
cannot be said.; but Morrison, though suffering severely,
Las enabled to proceed to the house of his daughter in
lson-street, Tradeston. This is the statement of the
unfintunate man himself, no person having witnessed
gradually sank, and expired the same
Morrison received the surgical attendance
nece soary,
up to the present time,
The police, have ob-
tained ing.
the attackb
murderous out-
ut he
declared that he could not identify
rage, and Morrison
.
scarcely probable, however, wherein
them. It is
taine,cl no clue to the perpetrators of the
any oi
so many were concerned, that they will remain long
has /row gone to
murder has never been cam.
more ,cruel• and heartless .1. _
M
mitted; Glasgow.—Nor t
h,
his account to be strictly correct, a

ASSIZE INTEALIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, MARCH 9.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
ATTEMPT TO MURDER.

Frederick Lovell, 45, was indicted for the capital of-
fence of feloniously attempting to discharge a loaded
pistol at Sarah Smith, with intent to murder her.
Mr. Deedes, who appeared for the prosecution, stated
the facts of the case, which were of rather an extraordi-
nary character, and the following evidence was then
adduced :

Sarah Smith, the prosecutrix, a good looking young
woman, deposed that she had been for five years and a
half housemaid in the family of Mr. Wackerberth, a gen-
tleman residing at Sevenoaks. A woman, named Anne
Brown, was cook in the family, and the prisoner acted
as coachman and butler. In August last year, the
prisoner had the charge of the house during the ab-
sence of her master, and Mr. Wackerberth had pur-
chased him a revolving pistol with six barrels for the
purpose of his protection. About this time she had ob-
served that the prisoner was very strange in his conduct,
and that he appeared yery excitable and violent, and
she noticed it particularly on the 6th of August, the
day on which this occurrence happened. About ten
o'clock in the morning the prisoner went out upon the
lawn, and he then discharged all the barrels of his
pistol. At half-past one o'clock they all sat down
to dinner, but the prisoner did not eat anything, and
his appearance alarmed her so much that she left the
parlour and went up to her own room, and shortly after-
wards she heard the prisoner go to his room and take
the pistol out of the drawer in which it was kept, and
she then heard a noise which she thought was the report
of a pistol. In consequence of these proceedings of the
prisoner she and her fellow servant, Anne Brown, went
out and applied to the magistrate for a warrant against
the prisoner, and she accompanied the constable Hindley
to her master's house. She then saw the prisoner sit-
ting near the door, and on her going in he addressed
her, and said, " You have done this—it is all your fault."
He then pulled a letter out of his pocket, and asked her
if she had written it, and she told him she had. She
had written the letter the same morning and placed it in
an open desk, from whence the prisoner must have taken
it. The moment she told the prisoner that she had
written the letter he exclaimed, "Take that," and she
screamed and turned her head, and• at the same moment
she heard the click of a pistol, but there was no report.
The officers immediately upon this secured the prisoner.
On the following morning she found a percussion cap on
the floor which appeared to have been trodden on, and
when she threw it into the fire it exploded. She had
not had any quarrel with the prisoner before this took
place. A short time before August the prisoner was
very ill and kept his bed, and after this illness she noticed
a good deal of difference in his conduct.
The letter referred to by the prosecutrix was put in
and read. It was addressed to a female acquaintance,
and, among other matters, it contained a complaint of
the prisoner's conduct, and stated that Mr. Wackerberth
would be ready to discharge the prisoner if she and the
other servants desired it, but she was unwilling that this
step should be taken as the prisoner was a married man,
and she hoped he would mend.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Deedes, the pro-
secutrix said that the prisoner had never attempted any
improper familiarities with her.
Cross-examined —The prisoner had only been about a
year in the service of Mr. Wackerberth in the country at
at that time, but he had been in that gentleman's service
in London four or five years before. Up to the period
of his illness he always' behaved very well. He was at-
tacked with intermittent fever, and after he recovered he
frequently complained of his head. She was not aware
that he was out of his senses at any period of his illness,
but afterwards he was frequently very excited and quar-
relsome, and he frequently said that he was a much worse
man since his illness. It was after his illness that her
master procured him the pistol to protect his house and
property. She did not hear the prisoner say after the
transaction that if he had shot her he intended to have
shot himself She and the cook were alarmed at his con-
duct, and they wished to have him bound over to keep
the peace, but the prisoner was not aware of it being
their intention to make such an application against
him.

By the Court—The prisoner had frequently professed
an attachment for her. She did not consider it was love
but merely friendship. He never made any improper
overtures to her. She knew he was a married man, and
therefore paid very little attention to what he said. She
had no doubt that the prisoner entertained an affection
for her, and she did not discourage his advances so much
as she should have done, because she was afraid of him.
His excited manners and behaviour caused her to feel
great alarm on his account, and she was fearful that he
would do her some violence.

Anne Brown, the cook, doposed that on the day in
question, after prosecutrix had left the room, the prisoner
became very violent, and on her remonstrating with him
he made use of very bad language, and said he did not
care a curse for her or Sarah, or his master.

Cross-examined--Until the prisoner was ill he always
appeared to be a quiet, inoffensive man. She was not
aware that the prisoner had been drinking on this day.
Elizabeth Morris, the daughter of the gardener, proved
that after the two women had gone out to apply for the
warrant, the prisoner came to her father's cottage and
asked if Sarah was there, and on her telling him she was
not, he ran up stairs to look for her. He appeared in
such an excited state that her mother said to him, " Oh,
Lovell, what is the matter with you?" The prisoner
replied, "It is of no use ; I will have my revenge."
James Handley, the superintendent of the police at
Sevenoaks, spoke to the presentation of the pistol to the
first witness. After the prisoner was in custody he said
it was a good job that the pistol had missed fire, for if he
had killed the girl he intended to have also destroyed
himself.

Blackman, the other constable, corroborated the evi-
dence of Mr. Handley, and said that while he was
struggling with the prisoner, and the pistol was resting
upon his arm, he discharged four of the barrels.
Mr. Horn then addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and after observing upon the extraordinary nature of the
case, he submittal that the jury would be fully war-
ranted upon the evidence that had been adduced in
coming to the conclusion that at the time the prisoner
committed the desperate act with which he was charged
he was not in such a state of mind as to render him re-
sponsible for his actions.
Mr. Justice Coleridge having summed up, the jury
found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to be
transported for twenty years.