The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-25 00:00:00

DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.

WHEAT. I BARLEY. 1 OATS. 1 RTE. I BEANS. I PEAS.
103 Od 2s Gd 4s 0,1 2s Gd 2s Gd 2s Gd

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(TIIIS DAY.)
(Sitting g in ainco.)
SMITH V. THE QUEEN IN ERROR.

Mr. HODGES was heard in reply to the argu-
runts advanced by Mr. Welsby, who appeared for the
Crown. The question involved is whether prisoners
could be tried at the ordinary quarter sessions whilst
the courts of assize are sitting, the Learned Counsel
contending, on the part of the plaintiff, who was con-
victed at the Quarter Sessions at Manchester, in April
last, and sentenced to ten years' transportation, when
the higher court was sitting, that the c,nviction was bad.
Ile held that at such a time the jurisdiction of the lower
Court was suspended.
Lord DENMAN intimated that the Court would take
time to consider the points raised for its consideration.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LEECH V. FOSEROOK.

Mr. COWLING applied to the Court for a rule nisi
alling upon the defendant in this action, an attorney.
nt-law, to show cause why a writ of privilege, which he
had caused to be sued out, should not be set aside. The
,action had been instituted in the Lancaster County
Court to recover a debt, but the defendant contended
that he ought to have been sued in a superior court, and
the case had been stopped by a writ of privilege.
Mr. Justice ERLE held that an attorney might sue in
''is ow❑ court in the capacity- of a plaintiff, but as a
'defendant he was liable to be sued in any court.
Rule nisi accordingly.
ROBINSON V. NICHOL.

Mr. OGLE moved for a rule to show cause why a writ
of prohibition should not issue directed to the Judge of
the County Court of Hertford, to restrain him from
'taking any further proceedings in this ease on the ground
that he bad no jurisdiction. The plaintiff was a cattle
tlealer, and the defendant a farmer, in Hertfordshire.
"Lorne time ago the plaintiff had a quantity of sheep
grazing on the land of a person named Lip•combe, whose
Areunds adjoir.ed those of the defendant, and the fences
1, sparatiug the two properties which ought to have been
kept in order by Lipscomb° helm, in a very defer he
state the sheep strayed on to the trefendants land where
they were distrained and driven to the pound. The sheep
!en:Ai:tied in the pound for several days, an? the de-
Jendaait neglected to supply the sheep with food as pro-
Vided by the sth and 6th of William the Fourth, cap. 59,
I'vbereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty of
a day, recoverable by summons before a
irlegishrate. Eventually the sheep were released
uponthe plaintiff paying the defendant 1/. for
the
damage they had done to his land, and then the
Vaintiff commenced the present action in the County
Court, to recover the penalty, together with damages,
frcirn the defendant, for his refusal to deliver up the
!ueeP when the 1/. was first tendered. At the trial of
"e cause it was contended that the penalties were not
l'ecoverable in a County Court, but only before a ma-
gistrate, while the defendant lost all control over the
sheep Nvhen they were impounded, and the only party
wQO could legally authorise their delivery was the lord
of the manor. Nevertheless, the Court found for the
I")laintifi, notwithstanding the-matter was not within the
Jurisdiction
of a County Court.
Mr. Justice ERLE said it appeared to him that the
Court had jurisdiction, but the judgment ought to have
13,4ssed for the defendant. Before, however, he granted
rufi2, he would take time to look into the authori-
'les ben ring on the case.

11IERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Undersheriff BURCHELL.)
WAVELL V. ROWBOTTA3I.
The plaintiff in this action sought to recover the sum
for
470/. 14s. 3d., for money paid on account of the de-
fendant.
There was no defence to the action—evidence was
adduced to show that the money had been advanced by
13Vreents of debt and costs in different actions brought
Against defendant.
A verdict was given for the amount.
ATTWOOD AND OTHERS V. WINNE.
The plaintiffs are bankers in the City, and the action
has brought to recover the sum of 2761. 10s. 4d.
Iv An admission of the debt was put in, and a verdict
as given for the amount.

PARKER V. CLARK AND DADKIN.
n The plaintiff is an attorney, and the action was brought
i— recover 3/. 10s. 6d. for work and labour done.
The defendant Clarke suffered judgment to go by de-
Ault, but Badkin pleaded that he was not indebted.
th Mr. CROUCH called the plaintiff's clerk who proved
at he had seen both defendants at the plaintiff's office
;)other and had directed a lettor to him, " C. Badkin,
4(1.) 9, Foster-lane, City." It was the custom for him to
!c‘9l)Y the letters in the book and to post all the letters so
Tila 4tered, but made no entry, but made one when he de-
ercd them—he had no doubt of having posted it, but
4,2,41c1 not swear. The Learned Counsel then tendered a
TY of the letter written to Mr. Badkin.
1 Mr. PRENTIS objected that it was not shown that
,feedant lived at the above addresF, or that he had
ie in Consequence of any letter.
b„'4 The UNDER-SHERI FF thought the letter admissable,
would take a note ot the objection. The witness,
howeverßadkin,
not being able to prove any conver,ation with
the Learned Under-Sheriff said there was no
evidence to go to the jury as to Badkin.
Mr. CROUCH said he would be nonsuited.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it must be a verdict for the
eennd defendant, or the writ must be withdrawn without
tnY damages.
Mr. CROUCH then tonic a verdict against Clarke only.
11,

•'EFRESENTATION OF Sou ru STAFFORDSHIRE.—
'4II3IINGTIAM, WEDNESDAY.—Nu candidate has yet been
announced in opposition to the return of Lord Lewis-
It is said that his Lordship delayed offering him-
:elf as a candidate until he was assured that gentlemen
:he it was presumed had prior claims upon the confi-
dence of the manufacturing intercs:s of the division de-
t'ieecl caning forward.
ta. COST OF THE PASSAGE TO CALIFORNIA.—The co=t
1; getting to S:ri Franck,co by the Chagres route, using
lLe Mail steamers, is about 375 dolls.; say, 150 dolls. to
e "agres, 20 dolls. across the Isthmus, and 200 from Pa-
zrtlEt to San Francisco. By taking second-cabin pas-
s tgcles,, however, the cost will be roduccd about 80 dolls;
ehn bY taking sailing vesse instead of steamer to
No;gee, the passage may be made for 250 dolls. The
'410g9 via Vera Cruz and Acapulco may probably be
~ict.e.)in rather less time, but not cheaper. The passage
Yuri will probably average 35 days from. New
411:4 • The distance from Panama to San. Francisco is
tztutot 3,300 miles. The prices of passage in the United
114%0d .., ships from Panama to the ports respectively
en the Pacific coast are as follow: _

State-rooms.
.9, 6 4
.9125

Miles.
13ananaa to Realejo 7OO
ditto Acapulco 1,500
ditto San Bias
ditto Mazatlan
ditto San Diego
1-'„s ditto San Francisco 3,500 $250
frothag,,e in the lower cabin at a reduction of one- fifth.
troth- ~,`"e above rates. Passage in the forward cabin,
(101 F. a•-anarna to either of the above-named ports, 100
Pay in advance in all cases.— Washington Union.
R(it,ItILI-TRE OF TWO BANKS IN WREXHAIII.--.The
41Iounja inhabitants of Wrexham have been quite
ded
by the stoppage of the two old banks—those
Itti,,f•,-,Cendrick and of Mr. Lloyd. The bank of Mr.
l'ecii-tr'ek Was flr:`, closed, and an offer was made to his
th era of 14% in the pound. After several meetings
bo creditors, it was ascertained that 14e. 6d. might
d, and accordingly the creditors have gt nerally
)let ;-cd their acceptance of that dividend. Mr. Kend-
:)F 413„1:iabilities are under 22,000/. The astonishment
-114 inhabitants was beyond all bounds when they were
gte°a- tillE d that the bank of Mr. R. M. Lloyd was closed. So
14pulwas the belief in his solvency that many persons
to
Thenot believe there was a stoppage until they
went
bank!otAiet and ascertained the fact themselves.
w`t% t( 'tce reposed in Mr. Lloyd was unbounded •,
he
tongr,,,eti4urer and banker for nearly all the clubs in the
t4' 5 finr," neighbourhood. One club alone had upwards
48,06;,`(1/, with him. His liabilities are upwards of
that l'fi• and his assets are very trifling ; it is estimatedi
kt,,,,t21s estate will not realize 2s. 6d. in the pound. The
d depression exists in the town and neighbour-
rootle
.48 Many persons were wholly dependent upon the
;) thpoAted in his bank. Both gentlemen were
ic,4o.nstra
for the county oi: Denbigh,—North Wales

A BUDGET FOR THE MILLION,
:60110Luii

FROM RIGBY WASON, ESQ.

Gentlemen,—A grateful remembrance of the kind-
ness I have always experienced at your h;nds, for a
period of fifteen years, induces me to Isy More you
a new-year's offering. Like all other gifts its value
will depend far more on those who receive it than upon
its intrinsic worth : if you esteem it, you lave the
power of imparting to it that life which wilt secure
for the industrious people of these realms that to which
they have a right—of which they have been robbed
by the rapacity of an oligarchy.
Let me in the first place a!kk you to bsnr in mind
the difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy.
The former yf;it will often find surrendering their
opinions and their interests to the desire of the people;
the latter never, until compelled. Take Sir Robert
Peel as the beau ideal of an oligarch, Lord Stanley
as that of an aristocrat—both lately belonging to the
same party, nay to the same Cabinet, and you could
not find two more apposite examples of an aristocrat
and of an oligarch.
_ _ _

In the constant struggle in which aristocrats and
oligarchs are continually engaged with the people ;
the former, whether victorious or otherwise, are
often objects of personal respect—the latter of senti-
ments of a very different character. That which I
am about to offer to you will be violently opposed by
the oligarchy ; it would not surprise me if it was to
be favourably received by the aristocracy.
My offering consists of a plan to emancipate the
industrious classes in this country from that excessive
taxation, which has been, as I will prove to you, most
unjustly imposed upon them by thuse who have made
the laws. Ido not condescend to say, that I propose
to keep faith with the national creditor. Quis vitu-
peravit ? was the proper reply to an uncalled-for
eulogium on a heathen god; and to any shout that
may be raised in favour of national honesty, the pro-
per answer is, who entertains a contrary opinion?
It is clear that, unless we are prepared to operate
upon the National Debt, it is rot possible for the in•
dustry of the country to be effectually relieved from
excessive taxation ; the best proof of which is, that in
the plans now before the public Mr. Cobden proposes
to repeal only one•fifth of the burthen, or ten millions,
while I\lr. Macgregor does not believe it practicable
to strike off more than one-tenth or five millions.

Suppose it possible
to adopt Mr. Cobden's more
extreme views, the unjust income-tax would be left
in all its hideous deformity. The assessed taxes, de-
priving of employment many an industrious artizan,
would still remain—tobacco, the luxury, if not the
necessary, of the poor man, loaded with an impost
enormously greater than on wine, the luxury of the
rich—then the stamp-duties only too notorious for
their unjust inequality : these and many, many
others, would still remain.
This brief enumeration which you are all capable of
extending, from articles used in your morning's
meal to those of your evening repast, will I hope
satisfy you and all sincere reformers, that a national
struggle for relieving the industrious classes from the
taxes which bear heavily and unjustly upon them,
,oust be far more extensive than those based merely
upon economical reductions ; and you will not fail to
remember that I have taken the most extensive re-
duction which has been proposed. If Mr. Mac-
egor's estimate should prove to be more correct,
which I fear must be the case, then you must add
other taxes to those I have mentioned, to the extent
of five millions.

I am not one of those who would diminish to a very
great extent our naval end military force; economise
it us much as you possibly can—alter its constitution,
so as to give greater facilities for the promotion of
deserving subalterns ; but as few think of attacking
the powerful, so a well-appointed force is, I believe,
the best possible guarantee for peace.
I will, therefore, take Mr. Macgregor's and not
Mr. Cubden's plan of reduction of expenditure ;
and he calculates that the naval, army, and ordnance
expenditure miOit be maintained with full efficiency
for 14,250,000/., and he adds about 7,000,000/. for
civil expenses. Well, be it so. This sum of
21,250,000/. I would propose should be raised from
the articles enumerated in the following table, and it
will be for yuu and the people of England to say
whether the industrious classes would not be be-
nefited, beyond the most sanguinary expectations,
if the following were the only taxes levied in these
realms :

Spirits, both Customs and Excise (pro-
duced last year) ... ... £7,500,000
Tobacco, one quarter the present duty
(which produced last year,4,253,762/.) 1,500,000
Tea, at Is. the pound (Mr. Macgregor's
estimate) .. 3,000,000
Sugar, half the present amount (pro-
duced last year, 4 404,8371.) .. 3,000,000
Wines, at lowest duty, compatible with
highest revenue (Mr. Macgregor's
estimate) 2,000,000
Legacy duty, or personal property (pro-
duced last year) 2,000,000
Legacy duty, extended to all other pro-
perty (Mr. Cobden's estimate) ... 1,500,000
Unredeemed land tax .. 1,200,000
Stamps—striking off, as Mr. Macgregor
proposes, from the sum produced last
year, those on marine and fire in-
surances, and on stage carriages,
1,587,668/.—would leave 6,083,755/.:
but these should be equalised and re-
duced one-half, or 3,000,000
Post-office—not a proper subject for

revenue—its revenue-. should be ex-
pended in increasing accommodation
at home and abroad, instead of nar-
rowing it, which is now often the
case.

£24,700,000

My offering to you consists of a plan for paying
off, in an honest manner, the National Debt— to begin
this year, and to be completed—as far as taxes are
concerned—before its close. Pay off the National
Debt ? I hear some of you exclaim, "It is im-
possible ! ! "
Now that word impossible ought to be banished
from our language. Everything that is just and
proper to be done can be accomplished, if people are
determined that it shall be done ; and I propose to
prove to you three propositions, each of which will
perhaps excite nearly as much surprise as the pro-
posal to pay off the National Debt.
While you are reading this letter, it will be useful
to bear in mind two facts which are passed :-
Ist. That if a measure similar to that which I pro-
pose had been adopted, as it honestly ought to have
been, after the termination of the war, or previous to
Robert Peel's Bill of 1819, every property which
thou contributed to the payment of the debt, would
be far more valuable than it is at present.
2d. That we have paid, since the termination of
the war, in interest, a sum more than sufficient to
have paid off the National Debt.
I will now prove to you,—
First—That it is discreditably dishonest not to pay
off the National Debt.

Second—That it would be very easy to pay it off.
Third—That it would be profitable to pay it off.
IST. That it is discreditably dishonest not to pay off
the National Debt.

The first question which naturally arises is,—For
what purpose was the National Debt incurred ? I
do not ask the question with the intention of telling
you that if it was borrowed for an unjust purpose it-
ought not to be paid ; for it is a dishonest act not to
pay a debt which has been incurred, merely because
the money has been improperly spent.
Neither will I take the answer from those who
were always opposed to borrowing the money, and
who said, that it was a mean trick of a borough-
mongering oligarchy, to prevent the spread of reform
principles to this ciuntry.
No ; I will take the answer of those who proposed
that the money sh(,uld he borrowed. It was this—
" That the money was borrowed to carry on a war
on the Continent, which was the best means of pre-
venting the invasion of this country." Am I not
correct in saying that this was the answer given by
those who borrowed the money at the time they bor-
rowed it ?

And this, you will remember, repeatedly said, not
by obscure persons in low places, but in both Houses
of Parliament—from the Throne, and the National
Church : there can be then no honest doubt who
borrowed the money, and for what purpose it was
borrowed.

And the desired end was obtained—the country
was not invaded; and the next question comes,—
Who should pay the expenses which were incurred ?
The answer which every honest man whether peer or
peasant would give, must be—Those who reaped the
benefit from the successful eflbrt to prevent the in-
vasion.
And who did reap the benefit ?—the industrious
portion of the people, the skilled artizan, the agricul-
tural labourer, or the bricklayer's hodman ? Will
any oligarch, or their servile press, point out what
would be the difference to these parties were Louis
Napoleon now King of England, having succeeded to
his father ?
Would their daily toil be more severe ?—their pay
less ?—their homes less comfortable ?—their families
worse clothed or fed ?—Truth replies—lt would be
impossible ! 1 Would the professional man who alle-
viates the sickness of a French peer, receive a less
reward than he does for attending an English baron ?
Would those who, by their mental toil, now add to
the comfort and happiness, or alleviate the sorrows of
English society, be less richly rewarded then if their
powers were exerted with a foreigner on the throne ?
Again Truth replies,—No.
Turn then to the owners of property of every de-
scription, and let Truth say what would have been
their lot had the efforts to prevent invasion been
unsuccessful. Lock at their position in classes—
whether landowners, fundholders, owners of houses