The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-02 00:00:00

EVENING, APRIL 2, 1851.

•B
way or the other, .01'%010 VAS the reason for her language,
he did not ketow ; tAilOrk* being no evidencs of Lord
Shrewsbury ever havinef laced this young lady in the can-
vent, as a postulant, he saw no reason to impute to him any
such conduct. In the absence of Dr. Winter, and from the
nature of Dr. Hendren's communication, he defied any one
to reconcile the statements that had been made. That the
young lady was called a postulant was clear; but that she
did not adopt the dress was equally clear. Why, then, was
she called a postulant? and, being so called, why was she
not dealt with in a manner corresponding with that charac-
ter ? It might be supposed that she was a favourite in the
convent, and that she was received out of favour to Ledy
Shrewsbury; but he (the Lord Chancellor) did not the less
disapprove of her being there, whether as a boarder or a pos-
tulant. Because she was in a different position from what
she was in when she was a pupil in the school, she was not
more connected with general society, except of those ladies
who were there as nuns, and that, too, at an
age when the mind was likely to be materially in-
fluenced by the impressions it received. Therefore,
whether as a postulant or as a boarder, it was not the place
where sho ought to have been in. How came it, then? He
thought Dr. Doyle had given credit to Lady Shrewsbury's
statement. He thought it probable that Ur. Doyle might
know, that dthough not consistent with the rules of the
convent, she had been received, and under what circum-
stances the rule might be dispensed with • and in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, he felt bound to give Dr.
toyhs credit fbr believing that the lady was there as a
boarder; but he thought Dr. Doyle was remiss in a proper
discharge of his duty. Dr. Doyle was the testamentary
guardian. He stood in the place of the lady's father, the
man selected by the parents of the child; and the Court
never removed such persOns except on grounds made out toits
satisfaction to be such as rendered it the interest of the ward
that the guardian should be removed. What he (the Lord
Chancellor) now looked to, therefore, was this—the young
la fy was in London, she was under the care of a lady, and he
apprehended would never again be out of the power of the
Court until she attained her majority. What remained for
Dr. Doyle probably was not of very much importance ; but
at the same time, as having had the confidence of her parents,
as a gentleman to whom, although he considered him remiss
in his duty, he could impute no bad motives, he (the Ie rd
Chancellor), although he felt bound judicially to express the
opinion he had stated, did not think the interests of the ward
required that he should be removed. The bar had one and
all agreed in that ; but he could not fail to say that a very
high contempt of the authority of that Court would have
been committed by allowing a ward of that Court either
to become a postulant, or to take any other step calcu-
lated to bind its future life to any particular course. He
believed that ever since the statute of Westminster it bad
been a very high offence to make a ward of Court take the
veil—an offence liable to indictment, heavy forfeiture, and
imprisonment. That statute continued. If a marriage were
contracted without the approbation of the Court, it was a
contempt of the Come ; A fortiori, much more so was it to
make persons devote themselves to a religious life; because
marriage was consistent with persons retaining their ordi-
nary position in life; but taking the veil was eo serious
a change, that to allow a person not arrived at the age of
maturity to bind its future life, not probably by actual
vows, but by some influence or other more cogent than
physical force, was a much greater offence, and he (the Lord
Chancellor) declared that he should have no hesitation, and
should feel it his duty, to commit bishops, priests, go-
vernesses, clergy men, or any one else who should be con-
nected with such a transaction, and, in so doing, he should
be acting in strict conformity with the practice of the Court
and his duty. He would be doing the greatest injury to de-
prive the children of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects of
the protection of that Court, equally with that of every
other class; nor should it be supposed that it was any part
of the duty of that Court to interfere with the religious sen-
timents of a ward, and to make any attempt to withdraw the
ward from that faith in which the parent desired it should be
brought up. The effect of such a course would be to deprive
Catholic children of the protection of that Court. It was
equally part of the duty of that Court to prevent persons in-
terfering with the religious faith of its wards; and it would
equally deprive Catholic children of the protection of that
Court if these children were permitted to take the veil, or to
bind themselves directly or indirectly to do so. Now, he was
asked by this petition, not in the particular prayer, but under
the prayer for general relief, that Mr. Berkeley might at-
tend the Master while prosecuting the order under Dr.
Doyle's petition ; he was asked also that Mr. Berkeley might
have access to the ward; also to suspend Dr. Doyle from his
office of guardian and that Mr. Berkeley might have his
costs. If he decided it on this petition alone, and on the
answer it had received, he should say the petition ought to
be dismissed with costs. There was no evidence to support
it; it contained matter highly and deeply reflective on other
parties and he (the Lord Chancellor) was satisfied, un-
founded in fact. But he repeated it had been the means of
rendering a worthy service to the Court and to the ward.
He therefore did not feel that he ought to make Mr. Berke-
ley pay the costs of having elicited an inquiry which he
thought was attended with so much benefit. With respe&,
therefore, to Mr. Berkeley's costs, he only regretted the case
bad been encumbered with much matter not properly be-
longing to it. He thought, therefore, he ought to allow Mr.
Berkeley his costs. As to Mr. Berkeley's attending the
Master, he saw no necessity for that. Mr. Berkeley's
situation and circumstances were not those of a gentle-
man possessing any peculiar knowledge which would tend
to the advantage of the proceedings. On the contrary,
he thought from all that had passed that Mr. Berkeley's
attendance there would lead to contests in the Master's
office not tending to the benefit of the ward, and it, there-
fore, did not appear to him that Mr. Berkeley should be
allowe Ito attend in the prosecution of that order. He
thought he could rely that Dr. Doyle was not likely to
present any scheme inconsistent with the benefit of the ward.
He thought that, notwithstanding what had occurred, he
might safely and properly rely on his not doing that; and
he (the Lord Chancellor) would also have the protection of
the Master, and would have to form his own judgment of
the case. With re4pect to the access of Mr. Berkeley to the
ward, he did not think a young lady approaching 20 years
of age was to be treated as a child, and as he did not suppose
that she was likely to receive any particular instructions
from Mr. Berkeley, so as to make his approach beneficial in
any other sense than as a gentleman taking an interest in
her welfare, he (the Lord Chancellor) should be governed by
the young lady's own inclination. She would be in a situ-
ation in which, if any person wished to have access to her,
upon a reasonable application, she could assent to see such
person if agreeable to her. That was a matter soon settled ;
but the young lady must herself be consulted. The order
would be in the following terms :—Mr. Berkeley's petition
dismissed; then, order on Dr. Doyle's petition—costs of
both to be paid out of the estate. Reference to the Master
to approve of a scheme for the future residence of the young
lady. His Lordship, in conclusion, said that although the
order might not be consistent with all parts of the case, it
was the best, under the circumstances, he could make.

I am quite innocent."
Levi Harwood, again speaking, and shaking his head
earnestly, said—" The jury have not looked strictly into this
matter."
Mr. Baron PARaE, assuming the black cap, and in a low
tone of voice, which was freqently inaudible from the emo-
tion which Le felt, passed sentence of death upon the two
prisoners found guilty. He said—James Jones and Levi
Harwood, you have been convicted, after a long and careful
investigation, of the crime of wilful murder. Though neither
of you fired the fatal shot, both have been found guilty of
the intention that it should be fired in case of resistance. I
have told the jury, as I was bound in point of law to do,
that the offence of which they have convicted you amounted
to murder; and not only law, but reason, indicates the
soundness of that conclusion. It is my duty, and a painful
duty it is, to pronounce upon you two young men the sen
tence that, for the crime which has been proved against you,
you suffer death on the scaffold. Your death will be a
warning to others never to engage in such wicked acts as
those by which, in this instance, an unoffending clergyman
has lost his life. You will be allowed by the humanity of
the law time for repentance, and in the meantime I exhort
you to employ the portion of life left to you in endeavouring
to make your peace with your God. You will be assisted in
your efforts to bring about true repentance, and I beseech
you to avail yourselves of that aid. The Learned Judge then
pronounced upon the prisoners the awful sentence of death,
which they listened to in silence, after which they were at
once removed from the dock.
Samuel Harwood, on being discharged from custody, was
at once arrested on the charge of being concerned in a bur-
glary committed in Sussex, the chief evidence in which case
will, it is said, be given by an approver.
Hiram Smith remains in custody awaiting her Majesty's
pleasure with regard to him.

MEETING OF THE MIDDLESEX LAND-
TAX COMMISSIONERS.
On Friday a general meeting of the Land-tax Commis-
sioners for the County of Middlesex was held at the
Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, to determine in what man-
ner the land-tax should be levied within the county for
the ensuing year. There were about 70 Commis-

sioners present.
Mr. POWNALL, chairman of the county bench of magis-
trates, moved that Mr. Offer, the chairman of the Tower
division, should take the chair in the absence, through
illness, of Mr. Mann. Agreed to.
And on the motion of Mr. W. PAYNE, the City Coro-
ner, Mr. Burchell, the Under-Sheriff of the County, was

appointed to act as clerk.
The CHAIRMAN said he regretted for two reasons
that he had been called upon to take the chair; the
first, that their friend Mr. Mann, who was so well versed
in the great variety of Acts of Parliament relating to
land-tax, and the peculiar nature of the subject they
were about to consider was unable, in consequence of

illness, to attend and take the chair as he did at the
meeting last year ; and the second, that Mr.
Pownall, the Chairman of the Sessions, had de-

clined to preside, on the ground that it was more
fitting that the chair should be taken by the
chairman of a division of the county contribnting the
largest quota to the land-tax. At the meeting held last
year a committee was appointed to inquire and consider
in what way the Commissioners could carry out the duty
assigned to them by Act of Parliament, and that com-
mittee had found it necessary to form themselves into a
deputation to wait upon the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, in reference to the objects for which they were ap-
pointed, and the answers received to that deputation
would be laid before the present meeting. The Commis-
sioners were aware that until 1798 there was no fixed
quota of land-tax upon the county, and when a quota
was fixed, it was the sum of 107,6021., which the Commis-
sioners were instructed to raise by equal apportionment

or a proportionate pound rate. Row the Coinmissioners
had to decide what was the meaning of the term
proportion," used as it was in the Act of Parlia-
ment. But since the subject was last under the con-
sideration of the Commissioners, a very important
case bearing directly upon this subject, had been de-
cided by the highest legal authority in the king-
dom—the Court of Queen's Bench. In that case a
particular parish, thinking itself aggrieved by being
assessed at a higher rate than another parish in
the same division, called upon the Court of Queen's
Bench to grant a mandamus directing the Commis-
sioners to raise the quota upon the division by a fair and
equal pound rate, and the Court was decidedly of opinion
that in the divisions of a county, the tax ought to be
equally and proportionately levied, so there was now no
doubt that each division should have the tax equally
distributed over it by a pound rate. It would, no doubt,
be with pain that some of the Commissioners would see
the assessments upon some parishes more than doubled,
whilst the assessment upon others were considerably re-
duced; but the law was that the tax should be raised by
equal and equitable assessment.—(Hear.) And if it was
right that assessments should be fair and equal as re-
garded divisions, in his opinion it was equally right that
the assessment upon counties should in the same man-
ner be fairly and equally apportioned on the divisions;
in other words, that an equal pound rate should prevail
throughout a county. After a few other remarks, Mr.
Offer concluded by desiring the minutes of the proceed-
ings of the committee, the answers received by them from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a petition pre-
sented to the House of Commons by the committee, ask-
ing for an Act explanatory of the existing Land Tax
Act, should be read.
These were read accordingly, as also was the seventh
section of the Act 38 Geo. 3, c. 5.
Mr. COPPOCK said that was but the second time the
Commissioners had held a general meeting since the Act,
a clause of which had just been read, was passed in
1798, although they were directed by that Act to bold
meetings every year.
A. COMMISSIONER—There were meetings in 1801—

THE FRIMLEY MURDER.

RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL OF LEVI HARWOOD,
SAMUEL HARWOOD, AND JAMES JONES.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BALLAITINE proceeded to address the jury. He said
that whatever opinion the jury might at present en-
tertain with reference to the evidence which had been
submitted. they would readily admit that he had
a most difficult duty to perform. In a case like this, which
had been so fully canvassed, and which had created so great
a sensation throughout the country, they no doubt had fre-
quently made remarks upon it, not knowing that they would
be called upon to discharge the painful duty they had to
perform. He should now proceed to direct their atten-
tion to details, and he felt convinced that he should satisfy
them that Levi Harwood, for whom he appeared,
was not guilty of that crime which would call upon them
to hand him over to execution. He should show in the
first place generally how the evidence stood independently
of that given by the accomplice, and then would show how
that evidence added to the facts of the case. It was clear
that on the night in question Mr. Hollest's house was
broken into, and that the burglars cruelly and barbarously
murdered Mr. Holiest. He contended that Mrs. Hellest's
statement that Levi Harwood was the man who attacked
her, and held the pistol to her head, was open to
objection, inasmuch as he might have murdered
her if he had pleased; but instead of that he ran
away. Having gone into the details of the evidence
as far as related to Levi Harwood, and contended that it was
entire insufficient to convict him, the Learned Counsel said
he had no doubt of being able to prove that the approver
Smith was the real murderer, and that he had com-
mitted perjury in the case now before them. He pro-
ceeded to contend that Smith's evidence was a tissue of
falsehoods, and went through a lengthened and careful
analysis of it, comparing one portion with another, and com-
paring his evidence with that of the other witnesses. It
would be a fearful thing to save that man and to let loose so
great a criminal upon the world, while punishing men who
bad been the unhappy victims of his suggestions. He de-
nied that Levi Harwood was at the place at all, and even if
he ware there, that he wee not the murderer of Mr. Holiest.
Mr. CHARNoCK addressed the jury on the part of the
prisoner Jones. He contended that his client had
not been fairly treated by the magistrates, who,
during the preliminary investigation, had been de-
prived of the advantage of legal advice. Ho questioned
whether it was right to offer rewards, which made men
overstep the bounds of prudence and justice. He drew atten-
tion to the circumstances which weighed against
Jones, dwelling particularly on the fact of the
penny token being found in his possession. On
this point he did not think the evidence was sufficiently
strong to commit the prisoner, the coin being a very common
one, and the witnesses being unable to speak positively as
to its identity. (The Learned Counsel had a large number
of similar tokens on the table, but was prevented from
handing them to the jury for inspection, inasmuch as if he
had done so he would have conceded to the counsel for the
prosecution a right of reply.)
Mr. WooLLErr also addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner Samuel Harwood, contending that there was no real
evidence against him.
Mr. Baron PARKE then proceeded to charge the jury,
which he did at great length, but in a tone of voice so low
and indistinct, that little of what he said was audible where
the reporters sat. Even the jurors had, for a considerablet
portion of the time, to stand up and stretch forward to cic
_
his sentences. He said that the painful inquiry in whicham
D :
t
they had been engaged now drew to a close, and it became
the duty of the jury to pronounce their verdict uponethewtnicilh
was t
or innocence of the
risoners at the bar. The question
they had to decide one deely interesting to the prisoners
and also to the country at large, which it closely co. nhcerned
unpunis ed. If
that great offences should not be allowed togaos
verdict to entertain
careless
however, they were satisfied in this case,
doubt, they would have to pronounce theirrO
consequences. If they had a givedoubttbheeyhiswbousulidnessto lay
the
benefit of it to the prisoners. It would
before them the facts which had been proved, and theirs to
decide upon the value of them. He need not repeat to
them what had been already so properly explained in the
temperate and able speech of the Learned Gentleman who
addressed them for the prosecution, as to the state of the
law in such cases. Ha called on them to dismiss all
previous impressions from their mindsr in considering what
verdict they should pronounce. the three prisoners were
charged with the murder of Mr. Holiest on the 28th of
September last. To convict them it was not necessary
that the jury should be satisfied that one or all of them
had discharged the pistol by which the fatal wound was
given. It was sufficient to con titute the offence, that several
persons, acting together for a felonious putTo3e, should agree
to carry out their felony by violence dangerous to human
life. if resistance were offered. Under such circumstances,
if life was sacrificed, all were equally responsible for it. If,
therefore, they came to the conclusion that the prisoners at
the bar went to commit the burglary armed, and prepared
to use those arms in case of opposition, and if they found
that death followed in consequence, they were each guilty
of murder. Now, this was sought to be established by two
kinds of evidence ; by circumstantial evidence, and by
the direct evidence of an accomplice. With reference to
the first, it had been admitted by the Learned Counsel for
the prosecution, that that testimony alone could scarcely be
considered sufficient to convict with regard to two of the
prisoners. The Learned Judge then entered into an ela-
borate and lengthened analysis of the circumstantial proofs
adduced, showing its bearing upon each of the accused,
pointing out that the prisoner Jones was moat strongly iDa-

6-25.—( A laugh.) _
Mr. COPPOCK—Conceding that this was but the second

meeting since 1825, and when it was seen that the Act
required the Commissioners to perform an imperative
duty, which duty had been neglected for such a number
of years, was it to be wondered at that not only that Act,
but the other Acts relating to the land-tax, were misun-
derstood, and misinterpreted; or was it to be wondered
at that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refuse
to embroil himself in their interpretation? There was
no lawyer who could dispute that where au Act of Par-
liament directed the performance of a particular duty by
a body of Commissioners, if the first and preliminary
step were not taken, every subsequent act performed by
these Commissioners under that statute was illegal and
if any of the Commissioners of Land-tax for Middlesex
signed a warrant of distraint until last year his so dg
was illegal, and they were responsible for that action.m
By the application of a few of the principles of common
sense to the matter, much of the difficulty by
wnicb it
had been surrounded would be avoided. There were
three points of consideration, the first as regarded the
imposition of the tax on parishes within a division;
the second as regarded division and division; and
the third as regarded county and county; the last not
being a matter of local, but national importance, con-
cerning, as it did, every county in the kingdom; and the
counties of England might be relieved to the extent of
half a million a year, if the assessment of the land-tax
were properly effected.—(Hear,
hear.) The Court of
Queen's Bench decided on the 30th of January last that
what he had in vain urged upon the Commissioners last
year was right. (The speaker then read from the short-
hand writer's notes the decision of
Lord Campbell and
the other judges of the Court of
case of " The Queen V.
the Commissioners of Land-tax"
for the division of Bradley
Haverstoe, Lincolnshire.) In
that case a parish in the division of
Bradley Haverstoe
was assessed at Is. 2d.
in the pound, whilst another parish
in the same
were unanimously of opinion that the Commissioners
ought to have made an equal pound rate over the whole
division, and bold indeed would be the Commissioners
who would set at nought the dictum thus laid down.
He admitted that they could not alter the quota upon
the county, but they had authority, under the Acts of
Parliament, under which they acted, to raise that quota
by a fair and equal pound rate throughout the county,
and if they required high judicial authority for equalis-
ing the tax, they had it in the case of Bradley Haverstoe.
Mr. Coppock referred in detail to the several Acts of
Parliament, and in conclusion moved the following re-
solution:—
" That the unredeemed portion of the land-tax payable
by that portion of the county of Middlesex, which, by
the Act of Parliament made and passed in the 38th year
of King George the Third, c. 5, is charged with the sum
of 107,602/. lie. 7d., be assessed by an equal pound rate
upon all property liable to the tax, within every hun-
dred, lathe, rape, wapentako, ward, or other division,
witbiu that part of the said county."
Mr. OVENDON seconded the motion.
Mr. GRANGE opposed the motion. tie agreed with
the principle of equa!ising the tax in divisions and pa-
rishes, but he did sect think it would be just or lair for
the Commissioners to include in the Holborn division the
parish of Marylebone, which, though originally a portion
of that division, had long been a division of itself. Tt
separation had taken place with the assent of the Hol-
born division' and now that a great portion cf the tax iu
Marylebone had been redeemed, it was attempted to
again include that parish in the Holborn division, and
the reason urged was that ono was rich and the other

poor—
The CHAIRMAN called the speaker to order. The sub-
ject before the meeting had no reference to individual
puriihes.
Mr. GRANGE continued—They required a direct Act
of Parliament to equalise, and if they carried the motion

Harwood
by the penny token found on his person; that Levi the low taxed parishes would resist as much as the/
Harwood was chidly ali cted by the statement of Mrs. Hol- could.—(Laughter.)
liugton ; and that against Samuel Harwood, apart from the Mr. PAYNE (the coroner) would admit that an equal
statement of Smith the approver, there existed no sufficient division and apportionment of the tax was desirable and
case. He then pointed out to the jury those facts which necessary • but the question was, could the Commiseion-
might enable them to form a correct opinion as to the cre-
merely
the authority they at present possessed,
dibility of Smith's evidence, and in doing so he intimated the era, with
grave doubts entertained by himself as to whether it was legally equalise the tax? His friend Mr. Coppock
not the approver's own hand that had fired the fa'al shot. thought the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in
He concluded an elaborate charge by calling upon the jury to the case he had quoted, was conclusive upon the point.
hold the balance fairly between the country and the accused. He thought differently; for that decision was at variance
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 7 o'clock, and with dicta laid down by Lord Mansfield, Lord Kenyon,
were absent till nearly 9 During the greater portion of and the Lord Chief Baron, in cases analogous to the
this interval the prisoners remained in the dock, their eyes present. (He here referred to the cases, and to various
intently fixed upon the door at which the arbitrators of Acts of Parliament.) Could the Commissioners throw
their fate were momentarily expected to appear. The overboard those authorities, and those Acts of Perlis-
crowded audience in the court appeared to have forgotten
during that pause the solemn issue of life and death pond- merit, because Lord Campbell threw out an opinion that
ing. The hum of general conversation rose high, end only an alteration ought to take piece? An alteration was,
died away as the jury returned to the box. lights had been no doubt, desirable, but the Commissioners, in undoing
brought in in the meantime, which hardly illuminated the what had bsen done by their ancestors—and they were
gloom of the court-room, but served to bring out with strik- not fools—by carrying this motion would get themselves
ing effect the last scene of this remarkable trial. into hot water. They wanted further powers to enable
The jury were asked if they had agreed upon their verdict, them to effect the equalisation.
and Mr. NEATE contended that what had been quoted as a
The Foreman replied, that they were; that they found decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was, in fact, no
Levi Harwood Guilty; Samuel Harwood Not Guilty; James . .
aleerston, but merely an expression of opinion by Lord
Jones Guilty. He also announced that the jury were una.
C
nimously of opinion that neither of the prisoners founddampbell, when the essential points of the question were
Guilty had fired the shot by which Mr. Holiest lost his lite. pot before him. The Hon. Commissioner was proceed-
On being asked if he had anything to say why sentence lug to give a version of what passed between the Chan-
of death should not be passed upon him, cellos. of the Exchequer and the deputation, when
Levi Harwood, his body stretched forward over the dock, Mr. PowzraLL said he recollected nothing of the kind,
said—" lam as innocent of the murder of which I stand in- and
dieted as any man in this court. lam as innocent as this Mr. Corpoex said the speaker was stating what was
man (pointing to some person who stood near), or even as passing in his own mind, and not what actually took
your Lordship, both of the burglary and of the murder." place at the interview.
Joces also said—" lam innocent of the charge against me. Dlr. NEATE, after a few further observations, urging

that the Commissioners could not depart frcm- the pre-
sent mode of assessment, moved as an amendment:—
"That
at part chargeable for the year 1851,
ent relating to the land-tax for
f
Middlesex, described in the
undertht
ht oe
(„
Acts
raisect
thes ocounty therar samtn
of
said Acts as the test of the county of Middlesex,' the
sums charged upon every hundred and division be in
proportion to the sums which were assessed on the same
hundreds or divisions respectively, b..
an Act passed in
the 4th year of William and Mary; and that the sums
and proportions payable by each division be es est.
lows:—Tower division, 34,0411.125. lod.; St. Giles's,
12,2731. Os. 4d.; Duchy Liberty, 6,4761. 10s. 6d.; Mary-
lebone, 564/. ss. ld.—(A laugh)—Holborn division,
11,6281. 2s. Bd,; Kensington, 7,6421. Os. Id.; Edmonton,
4,856/. 12s. id.; Brentford. 3,4551. 7s. 3d.; Staines,
3,0231. 19s. 31.; Uxbridge. 4,010/. 12s. 10d.; Finsbury.
11,4271. 19s. 9d.; Gore Hundred, 5,1411. 3s. 2d.; Eats
Liberty, 3,062/. ss. Bd."
Mr. METCALF seconded the amendment.
Mr. POWNALL said he was not prepared to support
the amendment, nor did he think that anything had
been shown to justify them in continuing year after year
the one cuckoo cry, " the same, the same, the same. --
(Hear, hear.) Ho had great respect for their ancestors,
but they were men, and liable 'to err, and ho could not
subscribe to the doctrine that those who had public and
official duties to perform, were to shrink from the per-
formance of those duties, and not to do justice to those
over whom they had jurisdiction, on account of respect
for ancestors. He respected them, but he respected his
own conscience and duty more.—(Loud cheers.)
Thero ought to be an equal rate throughout the county,
and those who had said so much about injustice were
those who were striving to continue what had been
wrong and unjust from the first.—(Hear, , hear.)
The land-tax was raised in a way never contem-
plated by the Legislature when it enacted the laws upon
the matter. It was unjust and unequal, and had been
bitterly complained of; and it was said, that because it
had been wrong from the first, it was to be continued so.
Were the Commissioners to be deterred from doing what,
in their consciences they believed to be right and their
duty—(Hear, hear)—because a wrong had been com-
mitted by those who had gone before them.—(Applause.)
The Hon. Commissioner proceeded to urge that there was
nothing in any Act of Parliament which authorised Mary-
lebone to constitute itself an independent division, paying
a quarter of a farthing in the pound whilst other parishes
had to pay from 6d. to 2s. in the pound. He called upon
the Commissioners present to exercise their own free and
enlightened intelligence, and to make a fair rate, and if
they did wrong the full question would be brought before
the tribunals of the country. If the decision were adverse
to them, they would then have a good case to go to Par-
liament with, and to say, " You have given us certain
powers, as commissioners, which the efficient ad-
ministrators of the law say we have no power to
exercise fairly and justly, therefore pass an Act author-
ising us to so exercise those powers." (Applause.)
In the present day they were to read the Acts for them-
selves, they were not to be guided by those who lived in
the days of Queen Anne, and the early part of George
the Third's reign, and he certainly did hope that the
Commissioners would not any longer permit one rich
parish to be comparatively free from the tax, whilst
another and a poorer one had to bear a very considerable
share of the burden.—(Hear.)
Mr. OXENDON thought no Commissioner could lay his
hand on his heart, and in voting for the amendment, say
conscientiously, that he was not making an unfair and
an unjust rate.
Several Commissioners spoke to the same effect.
Mr. SIMPKIN supported the amendment. He believed
the houses on the Duke of Bedford's estate in Covent-gar-
den paid about 101. a year land-tax, whilst those on the
Duke of Portland's paid about a farthing in the pound.
Now, if the tax were equalised, instead of paying 10/., the
Duke of Bedford's tenant would pay 5/., and the Duke
of Portland 5/.; and, whilst the Duke of Bedford would
increase his rents 51. a year, syhen the leases fell in, the
Duke of Portland would havelo reduce his to the same
extent.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Would that be fair
or just?
The CHAIRMAN said, if he rightly understood Mr.
Simpkin, his argument was, that if one Noble Duke had,
for a long time paid too much, and another Noble Duke
too little, it would be a greater convenience to make them
pay equal.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. WOODWARD thought a change desirable, but could
not vote for the motion.
Mr. Comex then shortly replied. He said it had
been intimated that if the conduct of the Commission-
ers, in equalising the tax were brought before the
Court of Queen's Bench, they would be supporied by the
Board of Inland Revenue. He hoped a crying injustice
would not be tolerated, and that the Commissioners would
not perpetuate what on all hands was admitted to be a
grievance.
The amendment was then put. There were 24 hands
held up for it, and 39 against it. The original motion
was put and carried amid cheers.
Mr. NEATE begged to enter a protest against the adop-
tion of the motion.
The CHAIRMAN refused to receive the protest.
It was then moved by Mr. Coretex, and being duly
seconded, was resolved—" That too several divisionsar
the county be re-arranged, and that such divisions
shall contain the same places and be comprised within
the same bounds as in the year 1693, according to the
duplicates brought into the Remembrancer's office for
that year."
Some routine matters were then disposed of, and
thanks having been voted to the chairman and to
adjournedM t
Mr. . Lush, the
to
theBth of
clerk t o the
Aprilto e
committee,iece receive the
lie returns o
meetingwas
f
rentals.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD
REFORM ASSOCIATION.
(EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.)
Sir,—On Monday the 3185, was (tau usual amount of
resistance on the question of Suppl y. As stated in my
last, it appears proper and right to maintain a salutary
resistance to act as ballast; but when the system is ex-
tended to making an opposition which can have no ten-
the propriety
in a Protectionist Ministry,
an honest man I am bound to have
appears to be the other
„y. I will not go for a Protectionist M. •
iwdnehi
which
hh
is what
e
Ministry,—till
the people of Bradford give it •
me under their hands that
they desire it.
On Tuesday
leave was given to bring in a Bill to ex•
tend the provisions of the Private
Money Drainage Act
of
tion and repair of farm buildings on lands in Great
Britain and Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
intimated that he should ultimately oppose, though he
would not oppose bringing in the Bill. Time was, that
the question would have excited interest among the Free-
Traders in the House; but all feud on such subjects
seems by the actual conflict of political events to be for
1 the present set at rest.
A motion relating to Patent, brought out from the
Goverment the declaration that they intend to introdaee
the subject of the Patent Laws in the other House.
I will take this apportunity to mention a subject not
exactly coming within the limits of myParliamentary
report; at the same time not counting much upon the
dispersion of the information, as having had frequent ex-
perience of the extent to which a secret will be kept by
publishing it in a newspaper. Possibly the principle
which operates, resembles that on which Bonaparte
when First Consul, formed an army at Dijon with the
avowed purpose of crossing the Alps; for which very
reason nobody attended to it.
I believe many of the commercial community feel
:ta it
the sources, I could lay before any so happens, that without stopping
in
concerned in the progress of friendly communications
with China.
place to
Nclo
friend my individual- reasons for being persuaded, that
the story of the hostility of the Chinese people to amicable
relations with Europeans is a mere tradition of what the
Edinburgh Reviewers called the Twankay-Twaddle in-
terest- It will be maintained, for the same reasons that
it was begun; besides which, the army and navy will
always have a claim to be allowed every now and then
to cut down a few hundreds of your customers, and be
paid by you for it afterwards. But to give up your
practicable operations in China because you have no
moans of hindering this, would be as unwise as for Euclid
to have waited for the demonstration of the Theory
of Parallels. Men in a future age will laugh
at the idea of warlike establishments being CO
employed and so paid for. But as YOU cannot
be the men of a future ago for wishing, you must be
content to do what is permitted to you EOW. The
shepherd in the East does not forswear the care of sheep,
although he is every now and then obliged to allow a
troop of predatory horse to eat his mutton, and pay them
•` at terwards for doing it. You cannot o
without such estatilishmcnts. You have paid for them
in Borneo; you must Cape; why
pay for them at the _
should you distress yourselves if you have to pay tor
them in China elso?
I am, Sir, yours veAry sincerely,
-Isl OLD REFORMER.
London, 2d April, 1851.

THE TiAMEson Futz.—The eccentric but
talented Dr. Crofts, of Coventry, intends at the coming Ex.
hibition to set the Thames on fire in reality. It appears that
he has invented a composition to make water blaze on the
application of flame, and will experimentalise on a portion
of the Thames, and at the same time explain his inytntiou
fo. the benefit or amugenient of the public.