The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-16 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 16, lEtll.

found en his person, by which it appeared that sums
of money had been dividel into three parts, and the
names of Sraden and Broome were written on them,
and the name of Hamp was on them. There was no-
thing found on Broome at ail connected with the
transaction.

Thomas llayter Chase, chief officer of police, stated
that he apprehended the prisoner Staden at his house
in St. James's. street, ani on taking him to the
Town-ball he asked prisoner for his pocket-book.
The latter said he had not got it with him. The
witness said that unless he produced his pocket-book,
in which he suspected he had the bills of exchange,
he should be under the necessity of searching his
house. Staden went with him and gave him the bills
produced, with the prosecutor's name as the acceptor.
It was proved by the electric telegraph clerks that
a telegraphic communieaticn was sent down early on
Monday mor►,ing from Broome to Staden, at Brigh-
ton, and the message was " Come up by the first
train—important."
This closed the case for be prosecution.
Mr. Lewis then addressed the bench at great
length fur the prisoners, contending that, if any fraud
were intended, they had ample opportunities in
London of doing so; and was it likely that they
would come to Brighton and bring down Hamp s
friends as witnesses against them ?
The magistrates, having consulted a short time,
committed the prisoners for trial for conspiracy and
fraud, but consented to take bail, each in 2001., and
two sureties in 1001. each. The case lasted till
four o'clock.

THE RECENT COLLIERY ACCIDENT
AT BEDMINSTER.
BRISTOL, AUGUST 15.—The adjourned inquest on the
bodies of the fire men who were killed on Saturday last
in the accident at the Malago pit, was resumed to-day at
the Red Cow Inn, and excited considerable interest.
The first evidence called wag in reference to the qua-
lity of the rope used at the pit, and the breaking of
which had led to the deaths. Upon this subject the evi-
dence was to some extent conflicting.
A witness named Goldsworthy., who bad been for
many years a twine spinner, but had never made col-
liery ropes, gave it as his opinion that the rope pro-
duced to him was not fit for the work, although with
one of the pieces, the largest produced, he could not find
fault.
Thomas Simms, a rope-maker, considered that the
material used in the rope was good, but there was an
error of judgment in the mode of construction. If there
bad bee❑ six or eight ropes in the width of the flat, in-
stead of four ropes, it would have been twice as strong,
and would have lasted double the time. The hemp
seemed;of good quality, and it was well twisted, but was
made on a wrong principle. The deeper the pit was, the
wider should be the rope. For a pit of 150 fathoms the
rope should be one of six ropes to the flat. The rope in
question was worth 421. or 441. per ton.
By Mr. &van—A proper rope for a pit of 245 fa-
thoms depth ought to last two years. A rope on the
principle of that produced would not, if constantly used,
last more than six months.
Mr. D. Reynolds, one of the proprietors of the col-
liery, was called to prove that Mr. Stewart was the agent
or manager of the pit, and that Pillitzer and another
" overman" were iu authority under him. Stuart had
full powers without referring to the proprietors to
remedy anything that he thought amiss in the ropes or
machinery. Considered him accountable for their effi-
ciency. Was not aware that he had made to the
proprietors any representation as to the state of the rope.
Joseph Godwin, a workman in the employ of Messrs.
Ditoore and Hewitt, by whom the rope was made, ex-
pressed his belief that it had not been broken by fair
play. It was a four-rope plat, and was made of good,
clean, out,hot Petersburg hemp. There was no East India
hemp used in it.

John Squires, a collier, who was at work in the pit
when the accident happened, heard the rush of wind
down the shaft, There was at fhe bottom of the shaft a
pond into which the water, which ran down the sides of
the shafts, drained, it was about five feet deep, and
when witness descended the pit it was full of water.
After the' accident witness looked into the pond and
saw the rope there. The cart was in the pond standing
on its bottom, and all the bodies were iu it except that
of the boy Webster, which was lying in the pond. The
bodies of Moffatt and Pring were lying against the side
of the cart with the" bonnet', pressing upon them. The
rope was on the bonnet, and there were some timbers
which had fallen from the trunks of the shaft. About
ten o'clock in the morning some men came down the
shaft to assist with hatchets and tools, and they got all
the rope they could out of the pond and got it into the
branch, cutting it into as convenient lengths as they
could. Never mentioned his suspicions about the rope
to the proprietors or agent of the colliery, or the
banksman,

George Hassell deposed, that he assisted to cut up
the rope. They cut the new rope because it was more
ravelled in some parts than another, and was easier to
cut at those prints. Pillinger did not say anything to
him about cutting off th© ravelled parts.
A miner, named Selfe, who bad worked at the col-
liery, stated that before the accident he saw the rope
turn, and had reason to suspect its safety, but he never
said anything about it, because he himself worked in the
top vein, and never descended so low that the part
which he considered unsafe would come into play. D he
had been requested to go to the bottom vein he should
have refaseu, and gone home.

. „
The CORONER censured the witness for not making
known his suspicions about the rope, to the proper
parties.
James Haddock, another miner, also stated, that he
had had fears of the rope, but the part which he mis-
trusted was the old part at the bottom, and not the new
part at the top of the pit, in which the separation took

place.
Some other evidence of a similar character was ad-
duced, and Mr. Smart, a surgeon, was examined, and
stated that Moffatt died from drowning; and that, al-
though he had received injuries from the fall, they were
not of a fatal nature, and ho might have recovered from
them.

The inquiry was then again adjourned till this day.

ATTEMPTED MURD eR at CHESTERFIELD
A few days ago an attempt was made near Chester-
field to murder Jelin Barber, a brother of Joseph Barber,
for whose murder his wife Sarah is now under sentence
of death at Nottingham. Barber, who had been to a
distant fair, called at the house of John Unwin, Boy-
thorpe-lane, and asked Unwin'a wife to go home to Pits-
' ley, near Claycross, to see her mother, who was dan-
gerously ill, saying he would accompany her. She
agreed, and they set forth; but instead of going to Pits-
ley they stayed all night at Wingerworth. They were
next seen at 6 o'clock the following morning, when they
were observed to turn up Longedge-lane, having come in
the direction of the Llunloke Arms Inn. After ascend-
ing the lane a distance of about 150 yards, they climbed
up the embankment and lay down in a hollow between it
and the hedge, at a point where they would be entirely
hid from public observation by thick overhanging brush-
wood. Shortly before twelve o'clock, Barber, who had
fallen asleep, and who had previously placed his hand-
kerchief over his face to keep the flies off, awoke, and
found his throat cut, and blood flowing profusely from
the wound. Barber went down the lane, and meeting
with assistance, gained admission into a farm-house.
The woman, who had previously attempted to stanch the
blood, and whose dress bore many marks of blood, fol-
lowed in about five minutes afterwards, and was detained
in custody until Watts, captain of the night watch at
Chesterfield, came up and took her in charge. The
wound in Barber's throat extends nearly from ear to ear
across the neck; there is also a deep cut, two or three
inches long, extending across the chin; the second finger
on the right hand is cut to the bone, and on the two last
fingers on the right hand there are similar gashes, from
each of which wounds blood flowed in great profusion,
and dyed the pathway as the unfortunate man pro.
ceeded to the farm-house. Soon afterwards he was re-
moved to the Ilunloke Arms Inn, where every attention
is paid to him, and there are strong grounds upon
which to hope for his recovery. Barber bad in his pos-
session 651. in notes, and 261. in gold. The woman is
20 years of age, and has only been married to her hus-
band six months.

INFANTICIDE.—At a special sessions at Downham,
Norfolk, on Thursday, Mary Taylor was charged with
having murdered her new-born child. It appeared that the
accused resided with her father at Suthrey, and that she was
suspected to be in a state of pregnacy. She is only about
fifteen years of age; and, doubtless from a desire to cover
her shame, she used' every means to hush suspicion. One of
her neighbours called on her one morning about seven o'clock,
and found her in bed; in an hour afterwards the accused
dressed herself, and went out, and having returned to her
own dwelling, delivered herself of a female child, which was
subsequently found concealed under the bed, with a deadly
wound across the front of the throat, extending from ear to
ear. Immediately after the perpetration of the deed the
prisoner went down stairs, her hands being observed covered
with blood, and holding the knife with which she had ac-
complished the murder.. After the. examination of the wit-
nesses, the prisoner was fully committed to take her trial at
the next Norwich Assizes.
HORN C ASTLE GREAT HORSE FAIR.--This, the
most important horse fair in England, which commenced on
Monday last, and continues for 11 days, has from the com-
mencement up to yesterday been most extensively supplied, and
the at'endance of English dealers and jobmasters, as well as
a great many dealers on the continent, was very numerous.
The horses exhibited for sale upon this occasion were ani-
mals, both trained and untrained, of the moat splendid de-
scription, consisting of hunters, carriage horses, brood mares,
and well-bred horses for military and other purposes, the
most valuable in point of breed and symmetry being the
first selected. Huntas were in great demand, selling freely
at 80 to 100 guineas each, Messrs. Quartermann and I.leaz-
ley, of Oxford, being very extensive buyers. Young horses
suitable for carriage work, exhibiting fine breeding and well
matched, made from 160 to 200 guineas, and in some in-
stances 220 guineas, the pair. Good roadsters of all de-
scriptions, sound and young, suitable for military and other
purposes, sold in rapid succession each day of the fair, at high
prices, Messrs. Collins, Davis, and East, and other London
dealers, being very extensive buyers. The best cart horses
made 60 guineas each ; cart colts, from 20 to 30 guineas. So
great was the demand for young valuable horses, that by 9
o'clock each morning the trade was in earnest, and it was
soon apparent that the holders knew their position, they
sturdily maintained it, and the result is, the present fair of
Horncastle, up to yesterday, has turned out the best for the
sellers that has occurred for many years; the dealers in
many instances turning a considerable profit by reselling.
DEAN AND CHAPTER OF WINDSOR.--The following
is a :return of all sums of money paid to the Dean and
Chapter of Windsor, since the let day of January, 1830, on
the occasion of any burials of members of the Royal Family:
—lB3O, fees paid on the burial of King George IV., 2281.
14s. ; 1834, ditto of his Royal Highness the Duke of Glou-
cester, zlB/. Os. Bd. ; 1837, ditto of King William IV.,
2241. 14s. ; 1840, ditto of her Royal Highness the Princess
Augusta, 1251. Os. Bd. ; 1844, ditto of her Royal Highness the
Princess Sophia Matilda, 218/. Os. Bd.; igo, auto pf
Adelaide, the queen Dovager, 2204 Oa.

THE INCOME-TAX COMMITTEE.
(Continued from The Sun of Thursday.)
In continuation of our report of the evidence given
before the above Committee we subjoin the examina-
tion of Messrs. Timm and Fuller :
josEPH Timm, ESQ., EXAMINED.
CHAIRMAN—How long have you been solicitor to
the Board of Inland Revenue ? I was appointed so•
licitor to the Board of Stamps in January, 1829, and
subsequently solicitor of stamps and taxes.
Have you since continued solicitor of Inland
venue ?—I have.
Have you had any opportunity of ascertaining
or judging whether there are many frauds committed
by individuals in not paying the tax, or many occa-
sions where they resort to means of evading it ?—I
have not had much practical experience of that under
the income-tax, inasmuch as that tax is principally
carried out by the surveyors and the local Commis-
sioners.

The out-door officers ?—The out-door officers

does not give rise to many cases for prosecution in the
Court of Exchequer, on account of the difficulty of
obtaining evidence to support those prosecutions.
In what way do the frauds or evasions come to
your notice ?—ln cases where parties wholly
omit to make returns, principally under Schedules
(A) and (B), or claim false exemptions, and in some
cases where they omit to make returns under Schedule
(D).
How are they brought to your notice ?—By re-
ports to the board, who refer the cases to me for
prosecution.
Have you any return as to the number of those
cases P—l have ; I have a statement made out in a
tabular form; it is a return showing the number of
cases in which prosecutions have been instituted for
recovery of penalties under the Property and Income-
tax Acts from April 1842 to April 1851, distinguish-
ing the number in each year, the schedule or section
of the Act under whieh the case arose, the enactment
giving the penalty, and the result.
That is simply the number prosecuted ?—Yes.
Have you any idea of the number of evasions that
come before the board and that are not prosecuted ?
No; I have not.
Will that return give any correct idea of the extent
and number either of the frauds or the evasions ?—I
think it will not. I think this is but a very small por-
tion indeed of the number of evasions and frauds under
the Property and Income-tax Acts.
Is there any other mode by which an accurate idea
of the number of evasions and frauds can be ascer-
tained P—l think that could be obtained only from an
examination of the surveyors.
Those who are practically conversant with the
matter ?—Yes.
Do you think that they keep regular details, and
can give an accurate account of all these attempts at
evasion ?--I think they do. I think such accounts
may be obtained from them.
And you would refer to them for the information ?
—I should so.
Mr. HENLEY—You have stated that that is a return
of parties who omitted to make returns ?—The num-
ber of cases under Schedules (A) and (B) for omit-
ting to make returns have been very few ; only six in
the whole ; and for making false returns, 50.
In which prosecutions have been instituted ?—Yes ;
those would be of course against the occupiers, not
against the owners. Under Schedule (D), for de-
fault of return, 25 cases ; for false returns, 11. Under
Schedule (E) for default of return, 1 ; under the same
schedule for false return, none ; under claims for ex-
emption, section 166, for false returns, 103 ; for omis-
sions to state in such claims the duty which the party
is entitled to deduct on paying over interest money or
other payments to other parties, five ; prosecutions
for refusing to allow the property-tax in deduction of
interest or annuities paid to parties, 13.
Mr. J. WILSON—WouId not the person who had
to pay the money retain it in his hand ?—lf I have a
mortgage on my estate the land is charged with the
property-tax, and when I pay the interest money I
am entitled to deduct the tax ; there is a penalty in
the Act for the party refusing to allow that deduction
to be made.
How can he refuse to allow that deduction to be
made if the party who has to make it retains it in
his possession ; if be tenders the amoant of his in-
terest less the income-tax that he has paid, does not
the onus of refusing it rest with the person who
who has to receive it ?—I think as the Act is framed
it would be very doubtful whether the tender would
be good, because the Legislature has imposed a
penalty for that very offence ; the penalty is treble
the amount of the principal. Section 103 is, "If any
person shall refuse to allow any deduction autho-
rised to be made by this Act out of any payment of
annual interest of money lent or other debt bearing
annual interest, whether the same be secured by
mortgage or otherwise, he shall forfeit for every
such offence treble the value of such principal
money or debt ; and if any person shall refuse to
allow any deduction, authorised to be made by this
Act out of any rent, or other annual payment men-
tioned in the 9th and 10th rules of No. 4, Schedule
(A), or out of any annuity or annual payment men-
tioned in Schedule (C) or (E), or in the next pre-
ceding clause, save such annual interest aforesaid,
every such person shall forfeit the sum of 501. ; and
all contracts, covenants, agreements made or entered
into for payment of any interest, rent, or other
annual payment aforesaid, in full without allowing
such deduction as aforesaid, shall be utterly void."
Then in the event of an allowance of that kind
being refused, does it become the duty cf a public de-
partment to prosecute on behalf of a private indivi-
dual ?—No other person than the solicitor to the
board can prosecute for any penalties under this Act;
they can only be recovered in the name of the At-
torney-General,
who is put in motion by the solicitor
to the board.

Is the solicitor to the board employed by a private
individual, who has a claim to make, or is he em-
ployed through the board ?—Through the board;
the board consider it their duty to enforce the Act.
Mr. SOTHERON—The person who is unable to ob•
tain this allowance makes his complaint to the board?
—Yes.

Is the number that you have given to us the total
number of persons who have made such complaints ?
—No ; these are cases in which prosecutions have
been instituted.

Mr. DISRAELI—Are there many cases in which
prosecutions are not commenced after applications
have been made ?—I do not think there are many of
that description. Then there are prosecutions for
other frauds incidental to this Act. Penalty on
clerks to the Commissioners, under the Act 5 and 6
Will. IV., c. 30, for receiving money from the col-
lectors and retaining it in their bands ; three of that
description. On collectors for neglecting to pay over
the money, eighteen cases. Against a surveyor for
receiving mone,y one. For obstructions under 43
George 111., c. 99, three.
CHAIRMAN—Are surveyors precluded from taking
any money ?—They are ; they are liable to a penalty
and this is a prosecution for that offence.
The collectors alone being the parties ?—The col-
lectors alone.

Mr. HENLEY—Does that return show how many
convictions followed those prosecutions ?—Yes.
And what is the aggregate number of prosecutions ?
—239.

And what were the convictions ?—Of those, 41
were dropped for insufficient evidence, or some expla-
nation which induced the board to stay the proceed-
ings. None of them went the entire length; merely
an Exchequer writ was issued for the recovery of the
penalty. Ido not think that any of them went much
farther than that ; eight were stayed on the parties
amending or making returns. In 13 cases the pro-
ceedings were stayed on payment of costs only ; 171
on payment of mitigated penalty, and duty on costs ;
three on payment of full penalties, and three are
now pending.
In point of fact not one went to trial ?—Not one
went to trial.

Mr. J. WlLsox—Has the full penalty been im-
posed in any instance where the allowance of in-
terest had been refused to which you have referred ?
—That I cannot speak to without searching through
this list.

Mr. DISRAELI—Have you ever instituted prosecu-
tions with regard to returns not having been made by
persons interested in property in Ireland, but resident
in England ?—Yes, there was one case of that de-
scription I recollect.
Lord H. VANE—Do you mean that there has only
been one case ?—I recollect only one case of that de-
scription.
CHAIRMAN—What is the nature of that case ?
For omitting to make a return of the amount of pro-
perty remitted from Ireland to this country; it is
only in that case that it could be liable, and you will
see from the nature of the case that it would not be
possible to get evidence in many cases such as that.
What is the nature of that case ?—lt was the case
of a nobleman who was in default of return of profits
arising from possessions in Ireland from 1842,
1843, 1844, 1845, 184 G, and 1847, the proceedings
being stayed on the returns being made and the
duty paid.
What would the penalty have been ?—Sia penalties
of 501. each.

Do not the Treasury, in many cases, when ap-
pealed to, order a discharge as regards property in
Ireland P—l am not aware of it.

Do you ever refer questions where charges for pro-
perty in Ireland are disputed to the Treasury, or do
your own board decide them ?—With regard to the
law, the board would of course refer it to me in case
of dispute, and I should advise whether, in point of
law, the parties were chargeable or not ; I am not
aware that the board have ever asked the opinion of
the Treasury as to whether they should charge a
party under such circumstances.
Mr. J. WiLson—What is the length of residence
in Ireland in order to make property in Ireland ex-
empt; bow long must run live in Ireland in each

year ?--Irish property is not chargeable unless the
proceeds are remitted to England; the duty does not
attach.
Is not the law this, that if a person has an income
from land in Ireland, and ha lives a certain period of
the year in Ireland, that is considered to be a residence
in Ireland, exempting him from the tax upon his pros
perty ?—The property is not chargeable at all, unless
the rent is remitted to England.
CHAIRMAN—Are we to understand you to say, that
if the income of an Irish estate is paid into a bank,:r's,
there you have no power of interfering ?—lt was not
chargeable by law.
Therefore, unless you can trace its remittance to
the proprietor in England you have no power of
meddling with it ?—None whatever.
Lord H. VANE—A proprietor, for instance, living
in Paris, and receiving his income from Ireland direct
to Paris, pays no income-tax ?—None is chargeable.
Mr. VESEY—But if a proprietor is living in Paris,
and his income is paid to a hanker in London, how
have you means of ascertaining that that is paid to
the London banker ?—We have no means generally
of ascertaining that fact. The case to which I allude
I think was under similar circumstances. The noble-
man was resident at Paris at the time, and it was only
by some accidental circumstances brought to our
knowledge that we had the means of proving the case,
which caused this prosecution to be instituted.
Is that proprietor liable to be prosecuted for not re•
turning the amount paid to the London banker even
though he may not be assessed upon it ?—y„ ; the
prosecution was instituted against him for the reco-
very of six penalties of 501. each.
And no notice was sent to him previously
I am not aware of any.
Mr. J. WILSON—Then is the only thing which
makes that property chargeable the fact of its passing
through a London banker to the proprietor in Paris,
instead of its passing direct from the banker in Dub-
lin to the banker in Paris ?—The fact of its having
been remitted to England.
But if it had been remitted direct to the banker
in Paris, instead of coming through London, it would
not have paid anything P—lt would not have paid
anything.
Mr. HENLEY—In this charge made upon a noble-
man, stated by you, was he himself during any por-
tion of that time resident in England, so as to be
called upon to make a return P—l believe he was ;
and I think that there was some dispute with the
agents as to the ground of the liability, on account of
his not having been resident in England ; they sub-
mitted to make a return, and pay the duty, and it
being probably a doubtful case, the board did not
follow it out.
In point of fact, if he had never been in England,
he would not have been liable ?—Yes ; his banker or
agent would have been liable.
Would a party deriving income from Ireland, not
being within the kingdom of England but living
abroad, be liable to pay income-tax solely because his
money was remitted through a London banker ?
No ; it does require a residence in England, and in
this case, in fact, there was a dispute whether he was
resident here or not; we assess on the ground of his
having a furnished house here.
It was his domicile here that made him assessable ?
—Yes.
Supposing an Irish proprietor domiciled in Eng-
land was to pay his tradespeople by his cheques upon
a Dublin banker, would he be chargeable ?—No ;
he would not be chargeable for his Irish property.
Because that money never would be remitted ?
—No.
Mr. VESEY—IS it possible that any large amount
of property can he transmitted to a London banker
from Ireland without coming under the knowledge
of the Board of Commissioners ?—I think it is very
possible, because we have no direct means of ascer-
taining the fact ; it rests entirely with the party whe-
ther or not he will return the property. Ido not
mean to say legally whether he will or not, but if he
does not return it we have no means of ascertaining
whether he has property or not.
In fact, as I understand your last answer, it is pos-
sible that there may be a large amount of Irish pro-
perty now liable to the income-tax which does not
pay?—lt is.
Mr. HENLEY—Probable, perhaps, as well as possi-
ble ?—I think so.
CHAIRMAN—Were you employed at all in drawing
out the Act 5 and 6 Vict., c. 45 ?—I was.
Do you know on what ground Sir Robert Peel es-
timated the amount of property under 1501. a year at
one-fourth ?—I do not ; I never heard the question
mooted.
With regard to the amount of penalties, can you
state what is the largest penalty which you have ever
levied on account of a breach of the law ?—Twenty
pounds duty and costs, for false claim of exemption.
There is a case here of 501., but it was against a col-
lector, for altering a duplicate.
CHAIRMAN—Have you a return respecting penal-
ties imposed, for evasion of property and income-tax
in the year 1840 P—l have. I produce a return of
the cases in which proceedings for penalties were
taken in the year 1848, ended sth April, 1849, for
evasion of duties under the Property and Income-tax
Acts, with the amount of the penalties imposed.
There appears to be eight cases only. Is that the
whole in the year ending sth April, 1849 ?—lt is in
which penalties were imposed.
That is to say, in which proceedings were insti-
tuted against the parties ?—Yes, I produce a similar
return with respect to the prosecutions under the As
sessed Taxes Acts.

Are we to understand that eleven cases are all the
prosecutions that have been instituted by the board
for evasion of duties of assessed taxes ?—ln which
penalties were imposed.
Were there many other prosecutions where penal-
ties were not imposed ?—There were not many, but
lam not prepared to say how many. I think there
were only sixteen cases of prosecution under the
Assessed Taxes Act in that year, and twenty-eight
under the Property and Income-tax Act.
Mr. lionsmaN.—You said that the cases of prose-
cution were extremely few, because of the difficulty
of getting evidence ?—Yes.
So that, in reality, that gives us no indication at all
of the extent to which evasions are attempted, or the
extent to which they have been successful ?—No ; it
cannot be taken as a criterion of the extent of fraud
and evasion under the Property and Income-tax
Act ; I should say, especially with respect to
Schedule (D), for during the whole period that the
property-tax has existed, there have been but eleven
prosecutions for false returns under that schedule,
under the Property-tax Act.
CHAIRMAN—Do you mean since 1842 ?—Since
1842 ; from April 1842 to April 1851. There have
been twenty-five prosecutions under the same schedule
for default of return, for making no return at all ; but
only eleven for false returns.
Mr. HORSISIAN—Then do you mean that there are
an immense number of evasions, in your opinion,
which are not only not prosecuted in the Court of
Exchequer, but which there is no attempt in any
manner to meet by any species of penalty ?—I am of
opinion that there are. Those cases can be met only
before the local Commissioners by surcharges being
made. If a man makes a return of his profit, under
Schedule (D), of a trade or profession, it is almost
impossible to get evidence to prosecute him for a
false return : the amount of his profits is known only
to himself.
And that difficulty was equally great before the
local Commissioners ?—Except that a party may be
surcharged before the local Commissioners.
Mr. T. BARING—To return to the question of Irish
income; can you shortly state to the Committee,
what description of income in Ireland is liable by the
present Act to the timposition of income-tax
come arising from landed property only.
What persons who derive
income-tax?—The
from Irish pro-
perty are liable to pay the pro-
prietors only, and them only, in the case the profits
being remitted to this country, they being resident
here at the time.

CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--IS not all income
arising from Ireland, from whatever source, provided
it is transmitted to the proprietor resident in England,
liable to the tax ? No ; not income arising from any
trade or profession ; only from possessions in Ireland.
From any property in Ireland, canal shares or any-
thing of that sort, would be equally liable ?—Yes.
Lord H. VANE—Mortgages, for instance, received
here would be equally liable to pay income-tax ?---yes,
Mr. T. BARING—Then residence in Ireland ex-
empts all persons receiving income from property
from any payment of income-tax ?—From property
elsewhere than in Great Britain, because property in
Great Britain would be liable wherever the proprietor
might be.
Can you shortly state what constitutes residence in
Ireland, or what parties who reside in England are
exempt ?—Persons who reside in England for a pe-
riod of six months in the year are liable in respect of
profits of Irish property remitted to England.
Is not there a further exemption in favour of Mein-
hers of Parliament?--All Irish Members of the two
Houses of Parliament are not liable to the tax on the
profits of their property in Ireland unless they reside
in England for a longer period than during the session
and forty days before and forty days after.
If I understood you rightly, the last time you were
before the Committee you stated that the produce of
rental in Ireland, if remitted to a foreign place and
afterwards transmitted to England, would not be li-
able to the income-tax or could not be reached by
the income-tax ?—I do not recollect that case was
put to me on the first occasion, because I think it
would be liable, however circuitous the route might
be by which it arrived in England, if it were actually
remitted.
The person receiving it ought to make a return of
it ?--Yes.
But in case he makes no return of it are there ,
means of detecting him P—No, any
not that I am aware of ;
if he were in England he might
be surcharged before
the Commissioner
:, by the surveyor; that would be