The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-03 00:00:00

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TAX BILLS

The report of this committee, with a record of
their proceedings, lists of bills, index, &c., occupies
98 pages. _ _

It appears that the committee held 11 sittings,
.he first taking place on the Ist of June. At the

second sitting- ft was resolved that a summary of
precedents should be prepared by the officers of the
house, under the direction of a chairman. At the

third sitting, on the 11th of June, this summary
was laid before the committee, who proceeded to
consider it. Two divisions took place relative to a
proposed omission from the collection of precedents
—Mr. S. Estcourt, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Henley, Sir
J. Pakington, and Mr. Bentinck voting in one sense,
and Mr. Bright, Col. Patten, Sir W. Heathcote,
Mr. Villiers, Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Sir G. Grey, and Lord Hotham in the
other. In the second division Sir J. Pakington
and Mr. Bentinck were alone.

Five sittings having been occupied in delibera-
tions upon the summary, at the next sitting, on
June 25, a draft report, proposed by Mr. Walpole,
the chairman, and another proposed by Mr. Bright,
were brought up and read. A division then took
place on the question whether the chairman's re-
port or Mr. Bright's should be read a second time,
and carried paragraph by paragraph. For the chair-
man's report there appeared 14 votes, viz., Lord
Palmerston, Col. Patten, Sir -W. Heathcote, Mr.
Bouverie, Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Bentinck, Mr. S. Est-
court, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Massey, Sir G. Grey, Sir
J. Pakington, Mr. Henley, Lord Hotham, and Mr.
Disraeli. For Mr. Bright's report there voted, be-
sides Mr. Bright himself, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and Lord J. Russell. Mr. More O'Ferrall
was absent,

Several amendments on paragraphs were nega
tived, and others adopted, without a division.
At the sitting of the 27th the following paragraph
was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer :
" No one of these bills, rejected or otherwise lost
in the House of Lords, appears to have had for its
object to repeal any tax constituting a large branch
of the re venue, or imposing a burden of sensible
amount. Of the acts which they repealed or altered,
some had the supply preamble, but it cannot be cer-
tainly averred that in any of these cases the repeal.
ing or amending bill reduced the charge laid upon
the nation. From the subjects and terms of the
bills, or from other sources, it is in most instances
plain that they were dealt with on legislative
grounds other than those of finance ; nor is there
any case which suggests a contrary conclusion."
Seven members of the committee voted for this
paragraph, viz., Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bright, Mr.
Bouverie, Mr. Collier, Sir G. Grey, the Chancellor
•f the Exchequer, and Lord J. Russell. Nine voted
against it, viz., Sir W. Heathcote, Mr. Bentinck,
Sir J. Graham, Mr. S. Esteourt, Sir 11. Cairns, Sir
J. Pakington, Mr. Henley, Lord Hotham, and Mr.
Disraeli.
The voting was the same on the following para-
graph, proposed by Lord J. Russell :—" For the
rejection by the Lords of a bill repealing a burden
of more than a million of pounds a year upon the
branch of industry, your committee can find no
precedent whatever." A paragraph was then
proposed by Mr. Bright :—" It does not appear
that the House of Lords has in any ease, before
the year 1860, rejected any bill, purely one
of taxation or repeal of taxation, materially
affecting or interfering with the quantum
of ways and means provided by the House of
Commons for the service of the years." The ayes
were 5, viz., Mr. Bright, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Collier
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord J. Rus-
sell. The noes, 11 in number, included Lord Palmer-
ston, Sir J. Graham, and Sir G. Grey. The follow-
ing paragraph was then proposed by Mr. Bright :
" It may be well to state some facts in the ordinary
practice of Parliament connected with bills impos-
ing or repealing taxes. The Crown speaks only to
the Commons at the opening and closing of each
session, or by message during the session, on the
subject of grants of money aid supply for the ser-
vice of the year. The Lords are not asked for money
and are not thanked by the Sovereign for thesums
granted ; and bills granting supplies are presented
by the Speaker of the House of Commons to the
Sovereign, and not as other bills, through the offi-
cers of the House of Lords. The Crown does not
order estimates of expenditure to be laid before the
Lords ; they are furnished oily to the Commons ;
and these estimates and any other documents relat-
ing to taxation and expenditure the Commons never
send to the Lords, even though the Lords should
ask to be furnished with them. The Lords, there-
fore, have no official notice of the necessities of the
Crown ; they cannot grant money ; they are never
consulted as to the expenditure for the year, and
hence they are not responsible for providing any
portion of the supplies." Seven members of the com-
mittee voted for this paragraph :—Lord Palmerston,
Mr. Bright, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Collier, Sir G. Grey,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord J. Rus-
sell. The noes were 10, including Sir J. Graham.
This was the last division.

COMMITTAL OF A MERCHANT CAPTAIN FOR
_INDECENCY IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE.

Edwin Courtenay, describing himself as a cap-
tain in the merchant service, and residing at No. 2,
Glenmohr-terrace, Blackheath, was charged at the
Greenwich Police-court, yesterday, before Mr.
Traill, with indecently assaulting Mrs. Jane Howi-
son, a married lady, while travelling in a carriage
on the North Kent Railway.
Mr. Lewis appeared for the accused; the case ex-
citing much interest in a crowded court.
The complainant, on being sworn, said—l am the
wife of Mr. James Howison, chief officer of the
serew steamer Agenoria, trading between London
and Riga. I was a passenger by the nine o'clock
train on Saturday evening, on the North Kent
Railway from London to Rochester. I was seated
second from the door, on the left-hand side ; my
husband sitting on my right and a female friend on
my left. I was sitting with my back towards the
engine, and the defendant was sitting opposite me.
It was a third class carriage, and the compartment
in which we were seated was full. As soon as I took
my seat the defendant rubbed his knees against my
dress, and I drew my feet under the carriage in
order to.give him more room. After the train started
the defendant again placed his knees against mine,
and then rubbed his feet against my legs. I got up
and said, " I will thank you not to do that, sir.'
When I made this observation he only looked at
me. This was just before entering the tunnel, near
the Lewisham station. As soon as the train entered
the tunnel the defendant bent forward, his face
being nearly level with mine, and placed his hands
under my 'dress. I got up on the train leaving the
tunnel (the tunnel in question is only a few yards
in length), and said, " What are you doing, sir P"
when he folded his arms and replied, " I have been
doing nothing—l have been sitting like this."
When the train arrived at the Lewisham station
my husband gave the defendant into custody.
Mr. Traill—lt was not quite dark at the time the
train entered the tunnel. There was no light in the car-
riage. My husband said to defendant, "You have been
insulting my wife, and I will give you in charge." The
defendant denied having done so, and tried to hold
my husband back by taking hold of his coat. At the
station defendant said something about holding a
respectable position, and after some little time he
said it must have been a man sitting on his right
hand who had acted in the manner described, as he
had had great difficulty in keeping the man's hands
off himself. There was a man sitting on each side
of defendant, but I am positive it was neither of
them who insulted me.

By Mr. Lewis—l have been living at No. 2, East-
lane, Bermondsey, for a fortnight, having previ-
ously come from Howden, Yorkshire, where I kept
a school seven years. When the defendant acted
as I have stated, and I first complained, the train
was about half way between London and Lewisham.
I did not complain to my husband then, not wishing
to make a confusion in the carriage, and thinking
we should soon get to a station ; but I spoke to my
female friend and told her defendant was annoying
me. When I first complained my husband was
talking to a friend on his right hand, and did not
hear it. Ido not recollect the train stopping at the
New-cross station. My husband heard me ask de-
fendant what he had been doing, and said to de-
fendant he had been noticing his conduct towards
me ; but he did not say the whole way down. I
heard nothing said to defendant at the station that
if he offered an apology no further notice would be
taken of it, and his refusing to do so.
Ann Clegg, a young woman, residing at King-
street, Rochester, who was in company with the
complainant, confirmed her statement.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Lewis the
witness said defendant first gathered complainant's
dress between his knees, and that they were pulled
away by the complainant with force.
Mr. James Howison said--I was passenger in the
train with my wife and the last witness. Just
previous to the train arriving at the bridges, and
before getting to the Lewisham tunnel, I observed
defendant peering into my wife's face, in conse-
quence of which I watched him. When the train
entered the tunnel I saw the defendant stoop,
and afterwards saw him let my wife's dress fall,
I heard my wife ask him what he was doing, and
defendant replied " nothing."
By Mr. Traill—There was not sufficient light
while in the tunnel to see defendant, but as we en-
tered the tunnel I saw him stoop. lam sure I am
not mistaken in seeing him stoop. When at the
station defendant said it must have been a person
sitting by his side. This was after the train had
left ; and he then took me aside, and said the per-
son of whom he had spoken had also actedinde-
cently towards him. Defendant then said lie had