The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-16 00:00:00

the old system of imprisonment for debt, andorder that it was
right that such feelings should be generated, in
distress might be alleviated ; but that law must be bad, and
operate injuriously upon the whole community, which gave
an undue advantage to the debtor, and did not protect the
honest creditor from injury and fraud.—(Hear.) The Le-
gislature, in his opinion, had been rather precipitate with
respect to these laws, and the mercantile interests had not
been sufficiently consulted with respect to their operation. He
Men instanced the case of New York, in which the law, which
was similar to our own, was abolished about 20 years ago, but
three or four years after an attempt was made to renew it, as
it was found that the new enactments did not give the credi-
tor sufficient control over the property of the debtor; thus
showing, that in every commercial country it was highly in-
cumbent
that the creditor as well as the debtor should be
protected. He bad a perfect reliance in the opinions of those
by whom the report was prepared, and a knowledge
of his Honourable. Friend the Chairman, and his
Honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr.
Hawes), who had taken charge of the Bill, and he was
perfectly convinced of the necesssity of commercial men tak-
ing the matter into their own hands, and with the aid of the
learned profession, devising remedies for the existing laws.
He, therefore, begged" to move that this meeting approve of
the report, that it be printed aul circulated, and that the com-
mittee be empowered to take such measures as may be ex-
pedient to give practical effect to its recommendation, and
also .to raise subscriptions to defray the expenses incident

. -
caster and Carlisle, by a line from Auckland to Orton. The
length of the proposed lines will be about ninety-five miles,
and the estimated cost is 1,950,0001. The engineers are
Messrs. Rundell and Harris' and the Parliamentary agents
are Messrs. Burke, Pritt, and Co.
The standing orders were complied with.
LANCASHIRE AND NORTH YORKSHIRE.
The case of this Bill having been called on, the clerk to the
Committee stated that a petition had been presented against
the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that such being the case,
the Bill must go before another GOmmittce.
After some consultation, however, it was decided to call
the party to the petition against the Bill, that is the East
-Lancashire Railway Company.
It appeared that the petition had not been properly entered •
on the votes of the House, as it did not describe the proposed
Bill by its proper title. No one appeared on behalf
.of the
petitioners, and the Committee decided to proceed with the
Bill.
There was a second petition from a Mr. llarley, in refer-
ence to which we understood the Chairman to say that he.
Would not report on the consideration of the opposed parts of
the Bill in the absence of the petitioner.
The other particulars of the Bill were proceeded with. .
The object of the Bill is to unite the manufacturing dis-
tricts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Northumberland. The
prOjected termini are Elsiark and Scorten. The length of
the line, 47 miles 5 furlongs and 4 chains; with the Clitheroe
Branch of 13 miles. The cost of construction is estimated
at 1,45004. The engineers arc Messrs. Hawkshaw and
Gee, and st4e_ parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dorrington
and Co.
In the' cobise of the proceeding Mr. Dyson appeared on
behalf of Mailey's petition.
;.. The CatartotAN believed that the objections in the petition
applied only to the plans and sections. •
• - Mr. DYSON said that such was the case. •
The CHAIRMAN then decided that the Committee could
not go into objections of that nature.
'The remaining portions of the case were then gone into,
and the usual proofs were received; but the case lwas ulti-
mately adjourned till Thursday, to hear the opposition on the
'petition of the East Lancashire Company.
HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY PURCHASE.
The object of this Bill is to give power to sell the above-
named railway to the York and North Midland Company, to
whom it had been leased some time ago.
The standing orders were complied with.
The Committee then adjourned.

from Mr. Shirley ; but in fact the note Was not put into the
Lox until it came into the house. No doubt my daughter
put the note ;into the box merely to deceive me, and her
papa. She told me all this at the inn, after
went to pay for the bonnet. I cannot say if
the bonnet is paid for ; but I believe it is.
I went to Miss Wyman's shortly after this, and I may hive
said that I did not pass the door without saying how sorry
I was that this had occurred ; I won't swear that I did not
ask Miss Wyman's to say noting about this story until the'
trial was over; but I said some words to that effect. Pro-
bable I might have said that I wished the Misses Wyman
to understand how it was. I might have said to them that
Lord Farrers was to have sent my daughter a bonnet from
London, but that he had not done s e but had desired her to
order one at the shop, and that Mr. Shirley had told
my daughter to order it. lam not sure of this, but I might
have said it. I don't recollect saying to the Miss Wymans
that my daughter was at her grandfathers, and that her
father would not have her in the house. I am certain I did
not say that. I believe the paper now handed me to be in
my daughter's handwriting. The witness was handed a third
paper, which she said was not very like her daughter's hand-
writing. She was handed a fourth, which she said was her
daughter's writing. Shegave the same answer to a sth and 6th.
She then continued :—There were two handkerchiefs sent in
letters. I saw the beginnieg of one of these letters ; it be-
gan-with "Dearest Washington." This letter was posted at
Tamworth, as my daughter told me that it was the Earl's
particular wish that letters for him should not be posted at
Appleby. The envelope now handed me contained the two
handkerchiefs in question. There was a letter written by
Mr. Smith after the letter of Lord Ferrers of the 24th
of June. I put that letter in the office at Ashby
Myself. When I was at Sias Court, there was
a letter posted respecting the bills. This was before Mr.
Smith's letter. My daughter told me that Lord Ferrets
was visiting at the Deans. of Bangor and it was at a hotel
at Bangor we were to meet him We stopped at Stafford,
and as he did not meet us there, as my daughter said it was.
,ikely he would, we returned back, for I said I would not
ollow him. After we returned, my daughter wrote a letter
'rota Sias Court to Lord Ferrers, which I read. I posted that
etter at Tamworth. The letters my daughter got front
the Earl she told me had been put into her hand
by a man named Atkins and another named James.
I have spoken in the course of examinatioh of a Miss Neville.
1 do not recollect having shown her any of the letters pro-
duced in Court. I might have visited Mr. Neville in January,
1845, but Ido not recollect the precise date. The letteriot
Lord Ferrers were then talked about. I believe that Miss
Neville then remarked that the writing was very like Miss
Smith's, tut I do not remember having said that the family
had often been surprised at the similarity between
the writing of my daughter, and the letters of Lord
Ferrers. I do not remember having said that
the reason of the similarity arose from Miss Smith
when young, having had some writing of Lord Ferrers in
her possession *hid' she had tried to imitate. Before she
went to school I believe Lord Ferrers sent 'h4r a great
number of scraps, and pieces of poetry, but they were de-
stroyed afterwards. I saw the pieces of wilting myself. I
do not recollect having ever said that Lord Ferrers had had
my daughter's handwriting, and tried to imitate it. I might
have said when at Miss Neville's that the similarity arose
between the two handwritings from Miss Smith having
when young letters Of Lord Ferran' in her possession, and
that she tried to imitate the writing, but I do not recollect it.
I will not swear I never said so, but I have norecollection °fit.
I was ranch excited at the time, as Mr. Green, the attorney,
said we were all to be put in Warwick gaol. We were ac-
cused of being forgers, and I was too excited to think of a
trivial conversation. I say again, Ido not recollect the con-
versation. I am a truthful woman, andwish to speak nothing
but what lam sure of. The framiliy noticed in some cases
a little similarity, but were not surprised at it. 1
might have remarked it to Mr. Smith, but do
not recollect it. We noticed some slight similarity
in the letters, but not in the style of writing; still
we were satisfied the letters were of his Lordship's
writing. I would much rather believe that Lord Ferrers
had imitated my daughter's writing,' than that my daughter
had imitated that of Lord Ferrers. We certainly were *Ur-
prised at the similarity between the hand-writings, but the
only explanation we could give was that I have already given..
To Mr. Justice WlGirrmay—The correspondence did not
begin till 1844. I believe my daughter never wrote to Lord
Ferrers while he was elated. I csmot explain why it is
that the letters of Lord Ferrers were similar to those of my
daughters, seeing that my daughter had not written to hint
at that time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that pet haps this
would be the proper time to make an application, which waste
allow their witnessesto inspect the letters prior to their being
put into the box, so that they might the better give their
evidence the subject. The witnesses on the side of the
plaintiff had bad every opportunity of deteeti• g the writing
before being called ; and it was but right the witnesses on
the other side should have the seine opportunity.
- Mr. MONTAGU CHAMBERS objected to the application, as
unusual. Ile could not acquiesce. He was willing that the
witnesses, when put into the box, should have the letters
placed in their hands, and be allowed to say yes or no, as to
their belief regarding the band writing.
At the suggestion of his Lordship, it was arranged that
Counsel on each side should consult as to the course to be
taken in this respect. His Lordship, howeVer, thought the
best course would basthat the letters should be submitted
beforehand to such wit- nesses as were to be called. That
whatever parties were permitted to inspect the letters, should
'be put into the box and examined.
Reexamined—Mr. Neville is an attorney at Tamworth.
There were only some slight resemblances in the characters
.of the writing, but the style and composition bore no ee-.
semblance whatever. The first time I believe that my
daughter wrote to Lord .Ferrers was when she sent him a
note after lie had got his hand hurt. Regarding the scraps
and notes sent to my daughter.when she was young, I am
not aware that my daughter answered them, though she might
have done so. The letter to which I have referred was posted
at Derby, and was shortly after his Lordship returned from
abroad. • When the charge of forgeey was made, we then de-
termined to commence the action, to vindicate our characters,
as we were sure the letters were written by Lord Ferrers.
The Learned Counsel then read another extract, to the
effect that the defendant wrote to the plaintiff to prepare her
trousseau ; and that he did not like the plaintiff's cousin. •
The le-examination was then resun•ed—When Earl
Ferrers returned from abroad lie did not resume his position
as pupil, but be renewed his atter tims, after an absence of
two years. I believed him sincere in his attachment.
This witness was not allowed to go down until four o'cloCk,
John Lees was the next witness—He raid I am a farmer
and have been a long time a neighbour of Mr. Smith. I have
been in the habit of posting letters for him. I posted one in
the latter end of February, 1814, which Mrs. Smith gave me ;
that letter was addressed to Earl Ferran?, Chartly Castle.
Upon another occasion I posted a letter at Tamworth, I saw
A white handkerchief put into that le' ter, this was in March,
1844. There is a road near Mr. Smith's house which is
sunk below the level of the ground ; you might go along
this road without being observed.
Arronstny-GENEnan—That is if nobody was there to see
them. Just so.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Iloldgate-1 live near Liverpool. I was on a visit to
Mr. Smith in June, 1844. He showed me a letter he had
written to Lord Ferrers, and his Lordship's answer. Mr.
Smith's letter was to the effect that he gave his consent to
Lord Ferret's marrying his daughter.
• Eleanor Holdgate—l am wife of the last witness. I was
with him at Mr. Smith's, on a visit, in June, 1844.
saw Miss Smith write a letter, but 1 did not read it.
She put it in an envelope and gave it Me to post at Coventry,
but 1 had not time, cud I posted it at Leamington. I went
with Mrs. and Miss Smith to Ashby. Mrs. Smith posted a
letter on that occasion, but I did not see it.
Ann Smith, sister of the plaintiff; a very pretty-looking
young lady, was the next si i ness. She said I often saw
Lord Tamworth at church in the spring of 1843 ; on one occa-
sion I was going along a walk, epposite my father's drawing-
room window, and 1 saw Lord Ferrers leaning against the.
chimney-piece. There was nobody in the room then. I saw my
sister go into the room, and then I left. Upon another
occasion, on the 9th of Decenf.ser, I went into the drawing-
room, and Lord Ferrers was there playing on the piano. I
went cut again and met my sister, she had some cake and
wine. She did not give me any, but brought them to Lnrd
Ferrers.—(Laughter.) I was told I should be whipped if I
went there again.—(Laughter.) I knew Joseph Atkins. I
saw him near the house, when they had gone to Harrow-gate.
Cross-examined-1 was thirteen years old last November.
I did not lose sight of him. 1 always kept my eyes upon
him while at church.—(Laughter). Ile went away, and SVA
d
absent some time. It was my mania who said-I was not to
go into the drawing-room. She did not say why, but 1
guessed.—(Laughter.) She did tot tell me Lord Ferrera
was there, but I found out. I lett my little sister in one of
the gardens, and in passing the window I peeped in at the
corner.— (Laughter.) When I .saw my sister come into the
room I ran away. • .
Ile-examined--.Whentit church Lord Ferrers used to look
At my sister,L(Laughter.)
Susan Hopley, servant in Mr. Smith's family.—ln Septem-
ber, 1843, Miss Smith asked me to put a letter in the post for
her, which I did at Rugely.
Gross-examined—Mrs ..Smith asked tine,: about 12 months
after, if 1 could get some of Lord Ferret's hand-writing?
He came to me, and wanted eititer me or my husband to get
the writing. I didn't do so, but my husband had, and
couldn't get it, and then 1 wrote to Mrs. Smith.•
Ke-examined.—l don't think I heard of the action when
this application was made.
John Page, labourer, and Chelsea pensioner.—
I know Lord Ferrers and Miss Smith 'by si,ght.
I was in a field at the back of Mr. Smitn's_
house in July or August, 1843, and I saw Lord Ferrers and
Miss Smith in the field. They were walking side by side,
and'might be two or three yards apart.—(Laughter.) I was
not near enough to see that they were talking.
Cross-examined by the ATTORVEY-GENERAL-It is about
two years ago since I did anything as a bailiff's follower.
Re examined—l saw them a second time in the field.
They were then four or five yards apart.—(Laughter.)
Cuuar—This distance between them appears to have in-
creased.—(Laughter.)
Here Mr. CHAMBERS applied to the Court to adjourn, as
Mrs. Perry, who was ill, could not attend until to-morrow.
Mrs. lloldgate was recalled with a view to ask he to whom
the letters were directed, which she had posted for Mrs.
Smith, but the question was not pressed.
The Court then adjourned at half-past five.

thereon"
Sir GEORGE LARPENT seconded the motion. He
said there was a general opinion amongst the mercantile
classes that these laws required alteration, and that they
were willing to lend all their a.d to further that object.—
(Hear, hear.) It was very easy to be benevolent with other
people's means, and to ebtain a character for philantrophy
for relieving the imprisoned debtor, whilst the unfortunate
creditor might be suffering in obscurity. lie admitted that
a different mode of legislation . was necessary before the pre-
sent laws were passed, but the great and main object was not to
give an unfair ad-..ntage to either party,but to obtain an equal
distribution of the property of the debtor amongst his credit-
ors, and to compel them to give a guarantee for the payment
of a portion of their future proceeds to their creditors befJre
obtaining their final discharge. No little consideration was
given to creditors who might perhaps suffer from the altera-
tion of tariffs, which might reduce the value of articles in
which they had wisely speculated. They ought to give every
party the facility of coming forward and to devote as much of his
assets as possible to the benefit of his"creditors, and protect him
from the operation of vindictive or malicious feelings. These
laws should take especial care that the honest debtor was
dealt justly with, and that the dishonest debtor should be
punished.—(Hear, hear.) The language of the Learned
Commissioners of, Bankruptcy was even, stronger than the

Sub-Committee No. 6.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
BALLOCHNEY.
This was the petition of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail-
way Company, who are the proprietors of the Ballochney
Railway, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a railway about
three miles in length, for mineral traffic, from a point on the
Ballochney Railway, to the mineral fields near the Kirk of
Shotts. The line was laid out by Mr. A. J. Attie, who esti-
mated its cost at 33,0001.
..One of the witnesses being absent, the Committee, at the
request of the parties, deferred their decision.
BTONIELAND AND KIRN.INTILLOCH
(CHAPEIr-HAI.X. BRANCH). . ,

language they had used. - • '
Mr. Mt-min:ma M.P. expressed his entire concurrence in
the opinions which had' just been expressed by the previous
speakers. Ho would state an instance within his own ex-
perience. He had in one case been offered a composition of
2s; in the pound, which he had refused, because he thought
no honest man ought to offer so spell a composition. He had
caused the individual to be made a bankrupt, but the
result was, that instead of obtaining any assets, he had had
ti pay 301. towards the expenses. He thought the law of
debtor and creditor had not been sufficiently felt, and he
conceived that the measure of Lord Brougham had been
a crude, imperfect measure, worthy of its author. In his
opinion the commercial greatriess of this country was owing to
the good faith which was observed in its trading transactions.
He had seen something of the trade of France, and the con-
sequence of the bad faith observed in that country led to a
great restriction of the dealing there. He thought that
every one who became insolvent was bound to show how lie
became so, and in all cases of fraud that a power of punish-
ment should be placed in the hands of an impartial tribunal,
and he should therefore with great pleasure propose the fol-
lowing resolution :—" That the laws affecting the relations of
debtor and creditor are of vital importance to the well-being
of the mercantile community, and deserve the serious atten-
tion of the Legislature. That the present laws relating to
bankruptcy and insolvency in this country are unsatisfactory
and injurious, neither protecting the estate of the really un-
fortunate debtor from wasteful costs and unnecessary delays
nor affording prompt and efficient means of coercing the
reckless or fraudulent trader, whereby a most mischievous
influence is exercised over the commercial character of this
country."
Mr. B. HAWES, M.P., rose with great pleasure to second
the resolution as proposed by his Hon. Friend, the Member
for Bridport. When Lord Campbell, about ten years ago,
brought his Bill into Parliament to abolish arrest on meane
process, he had done him the honour to consult him on its
details, and to place his name on the back of the Bill, and he
could assure the meeting that it was never intended to de
prise the crediior of the power of punishing a fraudulent
debtor. Let it not be :aid that this was any attempt
to return to the old system of imprisonment for debt,
for it was nothing cf the kind. But their o'ojeet
was to remedy a great and acknowledged evil.
and that was to render the confidence between
the several members of a trading community as certain as
possible, for on what, in fact, was that confidence based ?
Why on this fact—that wherever credit was given, it was
only, in truth, the transfer of capital from the hands of the
.proprietor to the hands of another for the advantage of both
parties ; and were this confidence then broken down, there
would be a great impediment imposed upon that interchange.
Of commodities which was the very vitality of trade. .At
the close of the last session, a Bill had been brought into
the House of Commons, with the consent of the Minister, not
with any view to ca. ry it into a law, but with the intention
to circulate it through the country, and obtain the opinion of
mercantile men in different parts of the country, and he
might say that in all the numerous communications which
they had received they hail met with no objection from
practical men of any moment whatever. They had found
the most ready co-operation, and among other individuals
they had obtained the approbation of the Learned Solicitor-
General whose high legal authority was so well known, and
whose present high position gave additional weight to that
authority, and though he could not commit that high func-
tionary to any part of the Lill, but still he might say that
that gentleman had expressed his approval of the several
provisions of the Bill. Now.the object was to obtain the
sanction of the Legislature and-obtain a permanent Act, and
having these grounds to stand upon, he (Mr. Hawes) felt
assured that if the Hon. Chairman and himself were
empowered to carry the Bill into the House of Commons they
would experience little, if any, opposition in that assembly.
One of the chief objects of this Bill was to throw the onus
prolarndi upon the party who ought always to have borne it
—the debtor who failed to fulfil his engagements. It was
well known that, as at present constituted, there was the ut-
most difficulty of reaching a case of fraud. There might be
matter for suspicion nay, almost a certainty—that the
deepest villany bad been committed, and vet them was no
means whatever of ai riving at the truth. Por his own part,
he would be one of the last individuals in the world to visit
any man's misfortune with harshness, but he did feel that it
had become necessary to take some active steps for the
amendment of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and he
should, therefor., readily second the resolution which had
3ust been submitted to the meeting.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
Mr Emaarr, in proposing the third resolution, after some
observations respecting the necessity of supporting the good
frith of the trading community, asserted his opinion that,
without an efficient bankruptcy law, the middle classes of
the community must be destroyed. He had looked deeply
into the matter, and it was his decided opinion that the
injury imposed upon the solvent portion of the population by
those who failed in their engagements was equal to the
whole taxation of the country. Indeed, he was sure that
this loss was not less than 50,0001., and if they failed to carry
out this object, out of either carelessness or a false considera-
tion for the feelings of the debtor, they would only have to
carry their philanthrophy another step further, and
.legalise
the circulation of ibrged bills of exchange. With these impres-
sions he would gladly propose the resolution to the meeting:—
"That this meeting accept the provisions of the Bill intro-
duced into Parliament last session by Mr. Masterman, M.P.,
and Mr. Hawes, M.P., as an important amendment of the
present law, which it is desirable to obtain at once; but this
meeting is aware of the necessity of further legislative provi-
sions affecting credit and its protection ; and is of opinion
that a Government Commission, cotnpoted of practical and
experienced merchants and traders, to inquire into their pre-
sent condition and effects, would be attended with the most
beneficial results."
Mr. Geococas briefly seconded the resolution, which was
immediately carried without any dissent.
Mr. Ileywatus, in stating that the business of the meeting
was drawing to a close, expressed his complete concurrence
in the proceedings of the Committee. With great pleasure,
therefore, he would propose "the thanks of the meeting to the
gentleman who had so ably presided over them on the present
occasion, red that John Masterman, Esq., and B. Hawes,
Esq., M.P., be requested to introduce the Bill to the Legis-
lature, lature,
_and take charge of .it in the Hodge ofComMons."
Mr. NICHOLSON sscondett the resolution, which was unani-
moualy.adopted.
Mr. BIASTERHAN returned thanks; and, after several sub-
scriptions bad been handed in, towards defraying the necessary
expenses, the meeting separated.

This was the petition of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch
Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to makea mi-
neral branch from their Palace Cray branch to the Chapel-
Hall Iron Yorks. The cost of the line was estimated at
25,8001.
The usual formal process having been adduced, the stand-
ing orders were declared to have been complied with.

CALEDONIAN AND DUMBARTON
JUNCTION.

This was the petition of the Caledonian and Dunbarton-
shire Junction. Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill
.to make a line from Glasgow to Dumbarton and Loch Lo-
mond, with branches to lielensburgh, 31ilingavie, and other
places. The length of the line anti the branches together is
thirty-two miles, and the cost was estimated by Mr. Neil
Robson at 390,000/.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
Complied with.

*WILSONTOWN, MORNINGSIDE, AND
COLTNZI3S. _ . _

-
This was the petition of the Wilsontown, Morningside, and
Cultness-Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to
make a branch of five miles and three quarters in length,
from a poibt on the main line to Bathgate, the estimated cost
.of which is 61,000/.
The parties proved that they had complied with the stand-
ing orders.

---
QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
BREACH OF PROMISE.—MARY ELIZABETH SMITH V. WASHING

TON LORD FERRER&
The cross-examination of Mrs. Smith by the ArroR-
REV-GENERAL (continued from our Afternoon Edition)—
Amongst the articles mentioned as presents, there was a
pink silk bonnet, sent on the 29th of June, 1844. That was
after the time I was made aware that the other articles had
not been paid for. All the bills bad been paid at that
time. My daughter did not say where the bon-
net came from. I understood that it was sent
by Lord Ferrers, from London. My daughter did
not tell me about it until the bill came in on the following
Christmas. I went to Ashby and paid for it. Probably 1
did make some inquiry about it, as I did not. imagine it could
be owing for. It was when the bonnet came that my daughter
told me it was a present from Lord Feri crs.
To the COURT—She told me before the bonnet came that
she expected a bonnet from Lord Ferrers from London.
To the ArronNEr-Gx.:4ERAI.—My daughter knew she had
done wrong. She dial not explain to me particularly about
it. showed her the bill, and said, " How is this?" and
she made no reply. She did not say she had ordered the
bonnet when I showed her the bill. She did deny having
ordered it, or that it must be a mistake. She was conscious
she had done wrong, and said very little about it.
Did she deny having ordered it?—She did. When the
bill came I learned that the bonnet came from Ashby. When
the bill came I went wth Mr. Hammel, the attorney, to Ashby.
My daughter and 1 went to Miss Wyman's. This was about
January, 1845; I said to Miss Wyman, "You have sent me
a bra ft.r a bonnet that I knew nothing of." Miss Wyman
said Miss Smith had ordered it for herself; my
daughter instantly denied she had ordered it; she
said it must be a mistake, or " You must be mis
t -
aken the pereon." Miss Wyman probably
said,anything."
" Miss Smith, if you would say that, you would say
I do not, remember my daughter saying, if she
stood there for hours she would deny it. Ido not remember
Miss Wyman saying, "Oh, Miss Smith, I wonder Sou are
not afraid of being struck dead." She may have saidit.l
believe I did not say hi the presence of
if my daughter would owni yman, that
fytooutohrdeerle,odmeltbi' would forgive
h2r." I said, "my dear, the bonnet, say so."
She looked at me, but never said a word, and we walked out
of the shop. About this time I said my daughter had tre-
ceived a bonnet from a noble individual, and that there was
a note in the box. Miss Smith opened the box. I saw the
note, but. Ido not know-where it is now. it was a note pur-
port to he front Mr. Devoreux Shirley. That note was
handed to Mr. Hammel, the attorney.
The 4,-ToßNrs. GENF:RAI, asked for this letter, as it was
produced on Saturday, but it could not be found for a consider.
able time, and a goed veal olconfitsion followed. Having been
at length produced, it was handed to the witness, but she said
it was not the one that tale n
. in the box.
how that note came in the
Did your daughter x
box ?—She did; she said) that Earl
but Ferrers to
fold her
it he would
send her a bonnet from London ; he hadfound incon-
venient to do so, but wished her to purchase one at Ashby,
and she did so, as she had told her papa and
but at. mamma that
London hat she
she was to have one from
Mr. Devereux Shirley
refused to do so unless
would write a note stating that it had come from London. I
believed then that it had come from London. Mr. Shirley
gave Miss Saab, the note to enclose in, the box
noteis is what
my daughter told me, :and that she got the at Ashby

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
LEICESTER AND nEnroRD.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr, John Stapleton was called to prove that his property
was not correctly shown on the plans and sections.
Mr. (DATES admitted the allegation.
Several other allegations were sustained, after which
Mr. BuitkE proceeded with the petition of the Leicester
and Swanington Railway Company.
The first allegation was that there was no fixed point of
junction shown en the plan where the proposed line was to
gin the Leicester and Swannington Railway.
Several witnes es were called on both sides, and the Com-
mittee decided that nu fixed point had been shown. Standing
orders in this instance not complied with.

THE LONDON AND SOUTH ESSEX.
Mr. C. PARKES appeared for the promoters, and called the
witnesses to prove the deposit of the plans, sections, books of
reference, &c.
Mr. Burke appeared on a petition against the Bill, but, in
consequence of the absence of a material witness, the case
was adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.
THE RUGBY AND STAIVEPORD.

Mr. Venal,les appeared for the promoters.
The deposit of the plans, ana sections, and books of re-
ference having been proved, the further proceedings were
postponed till to-morrow.
The Committee adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

Sub-Committee No. 4.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
TORN AND CARLISLE.%

It is proposed by this Bill to connect the Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway with the Great North of England line, by
a line from Northallerton to Clifton, near Penrith ; also to
onnect-the NeWcastle and Darlington Railway with Las.

THE SUN, [MN DON, MONDAY_ EyENONG, FEBRUARY 16, 1846.2.

ports—he found twenty- four distinct rates enume-
rated; but the only classification of them was
this,—that to n were raised on the basis of
the poor-law; 8 raised in practice, theugh not in law;
and 6 rai!ed on other bases. The operation of the law
was, that they were raised from property and practice.
The distinction is hich he is ished to draw was this—that
he wistied to distinguish those which were only for local
purposes—which only interested those people for whom
they were raised, and those in the immediate vicinity.
Now he wished to make this distinction between those
taxes and those rates %Oriels were imposed for general
purposes, end those taxes and those rates which were im-
posed for peculiar purposes,—the one being borne for the
benefit of the whole community, and the other only for
the advantage of a particular district. The taxes which
he would o 9 for local purposes were the
drainage rates, the sewers rates, and the rote fur the rural
police, and he should no more thick o imposing the ex-
penditure for the purposes of these rates upon tee eom-
munity at large than he should think of imposing the
especial rates for towns upon the rural pope latiou ; as,
for instance, lie should no more think of imposing the
rate necessary for the improvement of the Marsh
lands in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire.
on the inhabitants of towns from the peculiar burdens
of the agricultural residents than he should think it ne-
cessary or just to impose the burdens which had
to be borne by the residents in cities for Teculiar
purposes, from which the rural population- de-
rive no advantage. The rates which he should
designate as the rates which were particularly imposed
on the inhabitants of towns were the paving rate, the
lighting rate, the water rate, and those other particular
burdens which were not all necessary for the mode of
life of the inhabitants of towns, these were
what he called the peculiar burdens of towns,
and he should no more think of impos-
ing them upon the inhabitants who were charged
with the cultivation and improvement of the marsh lands
of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire than ne should
think.of imposing upon them the expense of affording a
better supply of water to the inhabitants of Exeter. It
was usual for these rates to be imposed by the inha-
bitants of towns, through the agency of public
meet ngs, called by the inhabitants themselves, and
ratified by a special Act of those inhabitants.
Now the burdens imposed upon land for peculiar pur-
poses are the rate for drainage, the dyke rate, aad the
rate for the support of the rural police. These rates
were for particular acts, in which the rural
population were specially interested. But there
were other rates which were imposed for general
purposes, such as those for the maintenance
of the poor, public security, and the support of the ad-
ministration of justice ; and without protective duties
he would no more think of imposing them upon land
alone than he would think of imposing them upon the
fundholders or upon any other particular body in the State.
The maintenance of the pot). -rate was an object of pecu-
liar interest to all classes, whether manufacturing or
agricultural. He trusted that he had said enough to
convince their Lordships that the maintenance of the
poor was a national and general object. If the militia
were called out, it was not for the purpose of defending
the mere acres—it was not for the purpcse of defending
the capitalist—it was to defend the country generally,
and, therefore, all classes were eqUally interested
in paying the militia rate, which was made for the pro-
tection of every person, and not of peculiar individuals.
Thus, the rates for the maintenance of the poor, the de-
fence of the cauntry, and the administration of justice,
were common to all, and equally paid by all, and were
distinguished from other rates levied for less general
purposes. He wished to see how far the relation between
real property and every other kind of property extended,
and he wished to see the relative position of landed pro-
perty and property that consisted of houses
The poor rate was originally founded on the same basis
on which most other sates were founded. It was not
real property alone that was liable to be rated for by an
Act of Elizabeth. Every man was rated according to
his means and ability, whether his income was derived
from land, from trade, or from funded property. That
had since degenerated, and now, by the law of the
land only real property was liable to this tax. He
would wish to know the effect of this law
on the capitalist, whom embarked his money ie
trade, as distinguished from the effect it had on thn
agricultural community. If a person invested his
money in building a mill, he 'would be rated
according to the letable value of the mill.
He would have to hire the mill, and the mill would be
merely rated according to its rateeble value, and not at
its rack rent, as in some cases land was. It would only
be rated at two-thirds, or one-half, as in the county of
Westmoreland. There land was rack rented, end
houses were rated two-thirds, while mills were
only rated one-half: That was the way . this
great capitalist contributed to the pours'-rate, yet
he made vast sums of money, for he collected from the
entire neighbourhood far and near—from the agricul-
tural districts—ab!e, healthy labourers, capable of con-
tinued exertion ; and unless the manufacturer received
some cheek in his trade, his profit would go on in-
creasing. Then what did he do ? He dismissed
those persons by hundreds and thousands, and they
were thrown upon the agricultural districts, which were
obliged to support them. The capitalists derived the
profits of their manhood, and the agriculturists sup-
ported their age. Now let them contrast this with the
operation of the law upon the farmer. The farmer had
no choice whatever, he was bound to employ
those men or to increase the rates, and
many farmers he knew in his own district
employed a great many more labourers than the purely
economical working of the farm required. That was
the difference between himself and the capitalist, but let
a glut come on the trade of the towns of Leeds or
Manchester and the labourers would be obliged to re-
turn to the rural parishes, where the farmer was obliged
to contribute to their support, and where he could not
derive much benefit from their labour, because their pur-
suits had been confined to manufacture's, and these were,
therefore, fitted to cultivate the soil. This was the diffe-
rence ho drew between the eff'ect the taxes had
on the capitalist and the farmer. He would
now proceed to show it operated between land
and houses, or, rather, he would allude to some of
the deductions which had been made from figures,
which appeared in regard to difference of lands and
houses, as placed in the report of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners ; but he might, in a parenthesis, state that, in
his view of the case, the difference was not between
land and houses, but between the propictors of real
property and the rest of the community.
It seemed that in the year 1826 the land paid at the
rate of 69 per cent., while houses paid in the proportion of
26 per cent., whereas in the year 1841 the land paid
in proportion to 52 per cent., while houses paid in the
ratio of 37 per cent. In this statement it would appear
that the burdens on land had gradually been reduced,
while those imposed on houses had increased. But to this
he would answer, that those whose eyes were open would
see that there had been between the two periods referred
to a gradual increase of towns and villages, thus in-
creasing the number of houses and decreasing the quan-
tity of land. Every day the number of houses was in-
creasing, while the quantity of land was decreasing, the
latter being taken up by railroads and new towns.
They saw day by day that which was formerly field
ground used for the erection of houses, or used up for
other purposes, taken up for railroadsor objects of a
similar kind. This showed how it was that houses in-
creased and land diminished, and explained the ap-
parent descrepancy between the tiro returns. He tnigth
illustrate the point by one or two strong instances. At
Newcastle there was an extensive parish which formerly
was land, but now it was occupied by a new town.
He would also refer to Brighton, which formerly was
a fiehing village, whereas now the houses had so much
increased, that it had become a great town. There
was another point to which he would refer,
while speaking en this subject. It had been
said that houses were perishable property, and
that therefore they ought not to be rated so high as
landed property. lie was willing that this should be
so, and he would take care on a future occasion, if the
free-traders used it as an argument, to meet them with
their own weapons. If perishable property was to be fa-
vourably considered, what was more perishable than the
farmer's capital, that which depended upon the season,
which might perish from a decay in the seed or a blight
in the blossom, which a thunder-storm or any other
destructive operation of nature might annihilate.
He would say to them, do not use this argument, cr
ha would take good care that it should be made
to tell on behalf of the great question of protec-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The issue would show how it
would befriend the cause of agricultural industry. He
would further say, let them look at the oppression of the
oor-laws—he refeised to that part of the system re-
lating to settlement. To the old law of settlement
he had an utter objection, as it operated most in-
juriously to the agriculturists without doing any
real good to the manufacturer.—(Bear, hear.)
What happened when there was a sudden check in the
demand for manufactures? The labouring artisan re-
turned to the rural districts, and when the demand for
manufactures returned then the manufacturers could
with difficulty find men to work their mills, while the
rural districts were overcharged with paupers.
This had occurred lately in Manchester and in Nor-
wich. Their Lordships might rely upon it, that if
they adopted free trade in corn, they must apply the
same principle to_ the labour market, and the first step
towards that must be the abolition of the present law of
settlement. The law of settlement made the labourer a
bondsman to his parish, and it prevented him going into
the dearest market to dispose of his labour. To this
part of the poor-law system he trusted they were ap-
proaching an end. He bad alluded to this matter in
consequence of its halting been reported to be
the intention of the Government to offer
as a compensation to 'the agricultural interest
an alteration of the law of settlement. That alteration,
even if It should be carried out to the extent of Sir
James Graham's Bill of last year, would not be satisfac-
tory. But he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws
would be carried, and then the proposed alteration in the
law of settlement would fall to the ground.--(Hear.)
The present measure proposed by the Government was
most objectionable. He considered that making a resi-
dence of a few years the means of obtaining a settle-
ment would lead to very enormous results. The mea-
sure would have a tendency to force women likely to
give birth to children from one parish to another, in
order to get relieved from the burdens of the chil-
dren born there, and as to an industrial residence
of a certain number of years, as being the means
of obtaining a settlement, he considered that measure
to be impracticable ; it would be too heavy a burden
on the towns. He believed that in time of a sudden
check in trade, when hundreds were thrown out of
work, the towns were scarcely able to support them•
selves. He thought the measure wonld be no compensa-
tion whatever, the only remedy was to get rid alto-
gether of the law of settlement. His Lord-
ship then alluded to the highway rates. He
maintained that the highways were as much for the be.,-
nefit pf the town as for the country, through which the

road passes. Indeed there were cases where two towns
formed the termini of their being the only parties who
derived any benefit from it. 'fifty are of little use to
intervening co,ntry accommodati,n, and bridie roads a: e
used by the farmer ; he has little or no business on the
highway. lie had had an account taken at the several tolls
of the number of vehicles which passed through, and the
result had been that the majority belonged to the inhabi-
tants of the towns at the different extremit ivs. He would

allude incidentally to the question of tithes. lie did
nut, howev.r, consider the tithes were a burden on the
land.—(Elcar. hear.) He did not wi,h to be misunder-
stood upon this matter. Previous to the commutation
of tithes they were a burden upon the cultivators of the
land. They objected t') laying out their money upon land,
as they did not wish that the benefits of their labours
and enterprke should be applied to uth2r persons.
Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, tithes
did not intefete with dm cultivator of the land,

as by the prGvisions of the Act they were
constituted a certain debt upon the property

greeting the burdens, upon land. Ile differed with the r'ob'e
Lord in a considerable degree. He thought that the burdens
on land were not only greater in some respects than
he had represented them, but a:so there were
brd in some material particulars which had not
beuenens referred to—still, though admitting the greatness
of these burdens, he did not agree in the conclusions elrawn
by the Noble Lord, namely. the proposition that the proer
dputy
mode of compensation was by taxing corn by imposing
on the importation of foreign grain.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not anticipate the corn-law debate by snatching a debate on the
question before their Lordships. The question of the corn-ion
°
would be brought before them properly, timely, and regularly'
as soon as the measure came from the other House. He:
must say in the present inquiry he greatly lamented the lea! •
ing out of view, in his opinion, the greatest of all the exch..
sire burdens of land. What he referred to was the position
a
of 11:e landowners and farmers, which was different from all
other kind of employers. They had not the power of goinfi
into the labour market, and selecting the chepest labourers all
Workmen. The manufacturers had amongst them none lee
that patriarchial relationship which existed in t,.
agricultural district. 'I hey could turn off their wer:ir
men in a day, whet her they had been in th •
service a year or ten veers. They could turn them off at are
time if they (the manufacturers) were able to get
half better at;
cheaper workmen. It was not so Kith the farmers--,
08d
labourers they employed were employed ueon what he I'
iris
Brougham) called the patriarchial relation, and they often c
played a great number of workmen when they might procure
supply of labour at half the price. The °"Pe.t •
tions of the poor-law did alone impose this, but attse
arose from a feeling of attachment to those who had ate
been engaged in the services of the farmers in the cultivatil:
of the soil. No one felt stronger than he did the force of tr°
particular burden. When a Noble Lord died he veryfofteern,
left eighty thousand pounds or ninety thousand pounds 0 ,pist),,
sonal property, on all of which he paid probate and legacy
One word with respect to the stamp duties to which his r•°,,50
Friend had referred. There never was a greatest rror trace
supposing Gat the late improvements which had ken `la
in the law were not beneficial to the landed interest• bies,
did they think i f the abolition of fines and recoveries? fleeee 5 d
self, knew one landowner who had saved between 5,0v'," h 503
6,00 W. by the change, and he had known another friend skecabice
delayed his recoveries until after the Act of 11:32 passed by; the
he gained a large amount. Then there wa sthe changes' 0011
law respecting leases. instead of ten sheets for a leai ealf
half a sheet was now required, and instead of ten skins ()ploy
a skin was / required. There was no additional stator eel
upon that, on the contrary there was a large reductiTetber
this reduction it was which made many persons doubt change,°
„e
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose tb (jes
He did not, however think it is duty to do so. He tante
Brougham) certainlythought the landed interest had g rTsslie
complain of the stampduties, perhaps more than theother
at
seet
sive burdens. It was worse than the aleavala of spain. Thetesece
duties pressed most heavily upon mortgagers, for the woe' 'rose
might, at any time, say to the mortgager •' unless r°lool
your interest you shall change your securities, which
that b,
16,000/. or 12,000/." He (Lord Brougham) wished s'',,oo
would not live long before he saw the tax on the hns--
property replaced by a tax upon succession. t of his
Lord DACRE ( whose remarks in the opening Plit di/-
speech were inaudible in the gallery) stated that he cePreelsr
protection to be giving a certain advantage to sonic Ptradederet
application of capital, or giving some encouragement to.d.see
to some particular enterprise, so hich might be cans' tee?'
particular advantage to the country who granted this plat cniotP
To this protection it is that the agricultural interest ~ b
He consideree, from the great improvements which bad
made, the facilities of communication, and the increaldre
cation of the capital of this country, and from the 00, of pc'
turns which had been made to this House, that this k!° teed
tection should be removed from the agriculture of this ; serrice
(Hear, hear)—he considered also that protection write WV;
t., maintain the balance or equilibrium of the court-tVelece
from circumstances of taxation or some other cansfrest
of the application of capital had been destroyed• dier
has been destroyed by the protection which has be e° defeat;
to personal property beyond all bounds of reason or d °ploy
He would not enter into detail but would tako his erne eesatbs
broad brsis of the injustice which had been done to
0r n
by the imposition of a grinding property-tax imPose,d !te
country in the shape of a 'poor-law. Justice sbon' b eePis
to the farmer by the removal or equalisation of ,s°Gtest ire
of taxes.— ( Hear, hear. ) He felt convinced the 481.
agriculture of the country. He felt convinced that' „tee.
culture of the country was equal to compete with tb
ture of she world. if they were "ranted equal till' to II)
application of labour—( Hear, lieat)—and an
ear,
disposal of the products of that labour:—("evelfro
The Noble Lord then went into some statistical detalsm, thisti
to the valuation of real property, and proceeded t°,o-itrofen
great portion of taxation fell upon one-fourth of '.'eh Orel
of England, to the exclusion of other property, °111:"/
well entitled to be chrrged. Such was the position ewe, eO5
property of England. What he wanted, therefore, lopAe
taxation, and if that were carried out, and no and Pagfir to
of taxation placed upon real property, the 8511,,
rists of this country would be able not
00501;t1
contend with, but to overcome the foreign c°o`soloos
It was not from inadequacy, on the part of the owPoio e -
property, to meet the demands which were madepdecticlitir
abolition,undefl:cted theu
leb,oxuni tai ntdgheeel
map laws, se,nbst
sense
aotfwttihthheedyri
nasjwouiurnyggh
wt
htiheehi r
w.r-
01 d -000
a port
opl
0, so
taxes to which other portions of the col ti? 00
were subjected, whilst those peculiar to theme Thereso4
to other parties were continued.— (Hear, heareleodreto
another subject to which he wished to refer. nos
and thousands of persons had established thentsse‘thelreoo:
combination, and although he did not like to exPre-05tilstoest
he could not forbear saying that it wus an °ll3olio,
combination, and as an old friend of the privileges °, Ore, for
for half a century, he could not too strong'looto.Bo
the attempt which those persons were making t°, to obis for°,
liament—to control the freedom of election, anu.„olelesior°B
nomination of counties, and this, too, after the e°l-; per en'
which the laws relating to the election of Member riglfette
had undergone, and when they were aware that theted eeler'
their elective franchise were derived from that 00;00
When he saw all this he hoped they would resist a°,1•116,0 is
which were ;forced upon them by these persons. „ Oh",
Lead, during the whole of his address, was hard yd ,t 0 OJ
the gallery, but during this part only detach' tcolOosofiep
could ba caught.) Then with respect t° eielt
duty. There had been no consumption t
dsu
pared with the increased population, which these
was an argument in favour of a modification of .st 0014
Alalt was a commodity which the agriculturloletiBo
apply to the purposes which were most alit pslotolj
out the fiat of the Exciseman, and Withte,lede,
duty of 30 per cent. on what he had prodn''ets
If foreign timber was imported into this counta,gllooo,o
duty, it wonld be an unfair competition with fed taael,
the grower of which had been liable to increabseat, flot
consequence of it. So it was with English with te,ed
wheat would be brought in duty free to consP" for fro
duce of the English farmer, which had been ratedisele•Ast.'t,
tax and every other tax to which property °;a5L 0151740
not intended to trespass on the time of theirfet ant o'oo
length, nor did he intend to enter on the su")- seat fee
but he certainly thought that before protecti°° OOP ono
der( ett
all these points should be taken into eonahes 10
Noble Lord here made some remark referringeseateJoe' fry
stood) to a speech of his that had been neisrePrio tbel/Colo
spoke in so low a tone that it was quite inaudiblerej ate/,,0
He had there an extract of a speech deli Ass 00100,0
garden on the 18th of December. The extr efes ttlda
Times, and he (Lord Deere) had taken Meat)). le r9r,
eee'
whether or not it was correct. "e „silo tee 4
read the extract, which, as near as We T—bope 0080
the Noble Lord was searcel.o audible. ' „e toff
will bear how great a terror has been ere d,
name of 40s. freeholder, a power lately crea'ije das:0'),1";50I
eventually humble the proud aristocracy t° t the esiteLoei
ing said this, he would toe grieved to imaght,eo sepal?„tofF
oli
ter of that country would allow Parliament ',hi 040
passing some measure to restrict .."9 AO 4 001
with the Constitution. —( Hear, bean( 5,8 feriihiellllf:,
reforme, he recollected the creation of t"eitb
,40",..1e
freeholders of Ireland, and the repugnance lisuss-reo;
had passed that measure—necessity, howevee; to!ftlilpt'
tnem. He did not, however, wish i 8 anY "4,.lovllerese°:
right of voting, either in county or boroughs Plie be e0f,,,-tie
were conducted on constitutional principles' ern tog-
all dithulties would be removed if some arrang the r „10
are t tore
tered into to equalise taxation, and so see
OeV Tie
of the country. rne- hit
Lord MOUNTEAGLE rose to move a° s„nreeseeesBsiaBl
motion of his Noble Friend. That all-teerP.ssite 4
lieved, would not meet with any opposition 10 oes
hie Friend or any of the Noble Lords on L'',seeteroe!ereo'it
He begged here to say, he would be sorry t° tee. ;et10,010t;t
the doctrines which had been laid down hYpriciedoetOn
(Lord Beaumont). He did not wish a° a the esfg"
;09t Of be ?t.
of the inquiry, but he must protest aga• a rod w.,
laid down. His Noble Friend b°
House in a fair and candid manner' tbeite 0;4
made a series of admissions °winch oil,' Ole
There was one material point in, toe) ssisd e•
tained a similar doctrine to him (Lord Agnib $, hlere et/
ject of the commutation of tithes. if eSO ;poet/cid
depend on the same principles as rent. d peati e
be isoots
ground for its protection unless he (Le t for /4109,P010,)
tained that protection was due to it I,,e,(loeteite "et
the country at large but to uphold rent.
wee
sod ifir°o4o°
would like any Noble Lord, or any tc-1 Jer•firo ve 0011
show the difference between 25e. anaer'etb 61i 19 "I‘lll°
subject to tithes, and 20s. paid on land eree-tetie°,,t, :go
to the clergyman. The effect would ite t pro'; rev, +l,
and he could not see how they could tab' °,tion tetterle,„v.
unless it was to be considered asptherete- cosol
t 0 0
not for the benefit of the clergy, lar voade, noel /,
He denied that the commutation of tithes ;la seisi teeldef is
in the question ; the principle of protectiono`tioaesf
was precisely the same as before, and he earightsbeelq 101
ships of the great danger there was to theb had vellesl9 i(1-1
supporting any clamour against rent tchttes, prete'relert
connexion with this question Of "on into e'ooo,lor,
lings payable to the landlord s,td t, DE! Cop V(
same position as five shillings peon, ats.tioe rf,"
and in arguing the question of protect-1, to
et
the 8o
alike. if there was any inequality i° rti 1, le to °0
property beyond what was fair and itnPate:tton,,
that inequality, but do not give Pr°. otbe"
II to°
society or ;nterest at of
et '' lir
LORDS' SUgo• AN • eca 51 0
The LORD CHANCELLOR tOOl 1315
Woolsack at Five o'clock.fora d 40
repVeaalrieofutshepectoirteio..nieswweere presented.
The Earl of RADNOR moved for ea / 50'
the export of grain from Ireland• for e Ar
'2' Ov
encteceosfsitytheoofbfpaperbcgrouoat lthitienhactertoi.C°_,to,l itit if
hrr:driec et
e'0,110130::,fr
went
trodf
aßECA:TmemioilittTeethweitcornosseidteorthe tea
000
lso
liar burdens upon land, and esie tP
ler
in which the Excise diltie;wils by jar, "I
landed interest. He had a'
0s sicupon or/
the
ebj to ag to id
,ho so el
intimately connected that 11 bettj'
yeti tos°' of e
the other ought to be rem°
_craova
tot; .0 cwt
the
most continuance
economical
that the • ts. Id rte
could strike with was, cohat i aliT -1)) o'
son for this preference
n...iess en
_loptee
fav°tlr our
ll°
at
ts
ino(rnieep,eannddentenoafbhfil)aeree,wing;c:
witting their corn at a lower u"..,
any chtli' tios
,Fel; tri'lloe:ti
thought that they oaf
l 4
sid'e'd the removal °I of pin the oleo ,1
renl°'l les apPe
consequence of the
o__. obstacles - beev
not ae icquiry to ter 7
_coure• to till
ministerial .00
the passing of the i w coonibi
siva jtio oa
Such as e"ePr 01 le
, ~„st:,
rates, and po f mora, jowl-
thereptheer
treport3s eser emt vefarotihto.leLitichsePerom:;tratit;:vicwd.cre::: 70: 71'
ill fa'
should not thio}: retie loos!
TQ tile"
profited by them, Hone local elistriete, as
4_o thosiit g""

That was merely looking at the qua stiodin the light of
buying, selling, and baiter. The produce of the soil
was the same, and produced the same to the occupier as
if the tax did not exist at all. It merely reduced the
value of the fee simple. He looked upon the
land-tax and the tithe in the same point of view
as charges upon the land. He considered they were
merely charges upen the lane', but did not interfere
with the production of the agriculturist. He looked
upon the tax as he did upon indirect taxes. In
France, where land was sold under the in-
direct taxation, the loss sustained was borne
by the seller, but it did not fall upon the
farmer. This kind of tex diminished the value of the
land in both countries. He would pass over one or two
points ,shish he intended ,o refer to, as he did not wish
to trt spass on their attention much long, r, anti he would
come to the last point to which he wished to
call their attention —he meant the malt-tax.
It was said, that that tax was no burden on land, but
he believed that this was an erroneous statement. The
tax he admitted was equally paid by all, but that por-
tion paid by persons who wereconsumet s of beer, &c., fell
in the end upon the agriculturist. In addition to t, is, how-
ever, he would point out the direct amount of duty which
interfered with the agriculturist. It interfered with the
agriculturist to the extent of the barley to which
the tax amounted. If the tax, therefore, did not
exist, the barley would be increased to that amount, and
the agriculturist would be so much benefited. If any
proof of this were wanting he would refer to the circum-
stance that, notwithstanding the increase of population
or late years, the amount of duty did not keep pace with it,
That was the burden, but that was not the only hard-
, ship—that was the amount of the burden, but the hard-
ship went still further—and by not allowing him to use
his barley as lie likes for other purposes, they placed
him in the same position as they would a
manufacturer, if they were to say to him, " You
may manufacture cloth, but you must not wear a
coat made from it." They defied, they prevented him
from using the barley produced by his own soil. That
was a serious burden, in additios to the one he had
named, and he could give a great many authorities—
M•Cullochaand others--but he considered it unneces-
sary, because when the duty on printed cottons was re-
pealed, there was a great increase in the trade in that
article, and he held that a similar result would ensue if
the duty were taken off malt. There was another article
of Excise which he thought particularly heavy on the
owners of real property, and which, if it were not re-
quired for the purpose of creating a portion of the
revenue, would be a great advantage to the proprietors
of laud—he meant the article of hops; but if they
came again to the general taxation of the country, he
wished to know what portion of it the agricultural body
was exempt from? They were exempt from the Cus-
toms' duties as they coetributed as much to them as any
other body of the community ; they also consumed and
paid duty upon innumerable articles which paid cus-
toms' duty. From what taxes then were they exempt ?
They paid the Post-office and stamp ditties ;
the stamp duty for the transfer of property fell
pr culiarly heavy on them, and was so enormous that he
considered it one of the greatest hardships under e hich
any portion of the community laboured at the present
moment.—(Cheers.) And he must say this, that if
there was a subject which might obtain a moment's
attention Iron Lis Noble and Ie arm: d Friend
on the Woolsack it was this ; and if he would
suffer him for a moment, he would say if there Was a
department against which the ag:iculturists had reason
to complain to the Noble Lord, it was the enormous
duty which they were thus compelled to pay—(Cheers)
—and he had especial reason to complain, because in all
the reforms which had taken place in which the portions
of the community participated, care was taken to con-
tinue the burdens upon land.—(Hear.) And again, when
the law relating to the transfer of property was carried
by the Noble Lord, it was found of such a nature as to
be a difficult matter to get a conveyancer to adopt it,
and in thousands of cases it was impossible to transfer
property without being obliged tv pay fur six or seven
sheets to an ettorney. Then how long had they left the
question of the registration of des da unsettled? In
every other country conveniences for the purchase of land
were so great compared with those of this country, as to
cast a blot on this country, and to induce every one to do
all in his power to obtain some alteration in it.
tie would, before he concluded, refer to that which his
Hon. Friend intended to add as an amendment, and he
would wish to know what were the numerous exceptions
proposed in that amendment. The legacy duty was cer-
tainly a case in point, and he would allow it to be fair
that it should be exempted. Certain property belonging
to the agriculturists was exempt from insurance, The
farmer's property, such as stacks, &c., was Irons its nature
exposed to danger, and that property was not to Le se-
cured by insurance. lie was sorry to say the danger was
increased in consequence of the very violent language
sometimes addressed to the labouring people. The per-
sons who addressed it to them did not mean to do the
mischief they did—they were emissaries from others,
who were not aware or the high tone they adopted. tie,
for one, when he used to read the strong language matte
use of, used to remark :—" There will be some more
steek-hurning in tee district." Ho had no peculiar ob-
jection t ) strong language ; he thought that it
sometimes added to the interest of the debate,
and lie was perfectly indifferent to the hard names
which were heaped upon the agricultural body, of which
he was a member. At the name time, he felt that he
had not terms strong enough to use in condemnation of
the violent language which sometimes led to so much
mischief in the country. The Right llon. Baronet at
the head of the Government had brought forward certain
measures which he intended as a compensation for the
withdrawal of protection from land. lie would say
that these measures were no compensation, and if
they did give any. the difficulty of ascertaining
the benefit it would confer would be enormous, as they would
have to ascertain the precise loss which the withdrawal of pro-
tection would cause, and the precise gain which the diminution
of taxation would afford to the English farmer. He would
then turn to another question, and he thought that if it could
not be shown that the impositions on the protection of corn in
foreign countries were commensurate with the imposition on
real property in this country, they would fail to show that
British-grown corn was in a condition to compete with
foreign corn. tic had seen some attempts to render this
assertion a fact to the minds of the people, but he thought it
would be extremely improbable that any such attempt should
succeed. If they were to take the whole amount of the
taxes imposed upon towns, or what were properly called
civic rates, and would compare them with the communes
or department districts in France, they would find that
taxes imposed in that country stood as live to four with those
which were laid on the inhabitants of cities and towns here. This
was no fair comparison with the impositions in France, but
they would find that it was not quite so high as that in Eng-
land.—(llear, hear.) That was not the way to put the
case—they ought to take the amount of costs imposed for
realising the produce of one hundred acres of land in one
country and the amount of costs imposed for obtaining a
hundred acres in the other country, and if they could show the
amount was the same they would make out a good
ease. But by this mode of calculation they would
find that in England the cost was nearly double
that in France, that in the German States it was more than in
that proportion, and that in Turkey and some parts of Russia
it only bore the proportion of two in a hundred. It was even
notorious that Great Brituin was taxed in a far greater
degree than in any other foreign state, at least on
Europe. He had now come to his conclusion
and he felt compelled to say a few words with respect to him.
self. He had always conceived that the system of protection
was absolutely required by the peculiar burdens imposed upon
land ; yet if he found the continuance of thatimposition was con-
trary to the tendency of public opinion—that it was likely to
rase one class in opposition to another, he should feel it his
duty to retrain from further opposition to the measure, and
instead of wrapping himself up in a sulky humour, and aggra-
vating the evil of domestic schism, he would endeavour to
pacify the conflicting feelings, and he trusted his Noble
Friends would use their powerful influence in prevent-
ing that hostile disposition and unnecessary difference
which might arise between the manufacturer and farmer.
The Noble Lord then continued—My Lords, I have never
joined in the abuse of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
her Majesty's Government. I believe in the sincerity of his
convictions—l believe that he thinks lie is doing for the best in
the measure he proposes—l respect his courage. But this I will
say, that if in the present Parliament he carries this measure, it
will not be the triumph of opinion, but the triumph of par-
tiaanship—l say, not the triumph of opinion, because he will
have carried it against the opinion of the country, as declared
at the last election ; he will have carried it against
the opinion of the House of Commons, as declared
in various divisions ; he will have carried it against
the opinion of the House of Lords, as also delared on numerous
divisions ; but lastly, and above all, he will have carried it in
defiance of the opinion of a majority of the Cabinet.—(Great
cheering.) I :say, my Lotd,, that I shall submit to the
triumph of opinion. Let the Government look to that
point; let them appeal to the country; let
them ask what the opinions of the country are ;
let them follow that up by securing a majority of the
opinions in the House of Commons, and again in this House,
and I myself will no longer offer a factious opposition to the
.measure.—(Cheers.) I believe that then your Lordships will
no longer oppose it ; and if that shall be the
case, it will be in . the fullest sense a triumph of
opinion, but as it now stands it is merely an able mar. vivre of
party politics.--(Great cheering. )
Lord BROUGHAM rose to second the motion, but was
called to order by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who said
that in that House it was not necessary that any motion
should be seconded.
On the question being put,
Lord BROUG HAM said that he wished only to speak to
their Lordships a very few words, in answer to his Noble
Friend who had made mention of his name in connexion with
the opinions he had expressed in 1820. Far from differing
from the motion of his Noble Friend, he ( Lord Brougham)
considered that the burdens he had enumerated fell exclusively
upon the land, and he went even further, for he was very far
indeed from taking his views on the subject of the tithes or
land-tax. He did not admit, with the Noble Lord, that the
land-tax or the poor-rates were not peculiar burdens.
Ile did not wish to enter upon the subject to-night, there being
no opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. He would not
therefore follow that Noble Lord, or enter upon the discussion,
as the consequence would be to anticipate that which would be
brought under their Lordships' consideration in a short time. It
was not his desire to bring about a foregone conclusion in antici-
pation of the inquiry which must shortly takeplace. To enter upon
the discussion now would be to forejudge the labours of the
Committee. Ile would go into Committee, though Ise still
entertained the opinions which he held in Ib2o and 1522 re.