The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-24 00:00:00

certainly should not give him into custody without
the evidence of some credible witness to corroborate
the statement made with respect to him by the pri-

soner,

The wife of the prisoner stated that she had seen
Stoven that morning, and that he had admitted to
her that he had given the bills to her husband.

Mr. MuHens observed that the wife was not in
law competent to give evidence in this case, and re-
peated that he was ready to give anybody in custody,
anybody of whom he had reasonable evidence that
they were implicated in this transaction. He knew
a great deal more of this matter than it would be
expedient for him to state at present.
The Lord Mayor was of opinion that Mr. Simp-
son could prodhce Stoven, who he had no doubt
was one of the staff, if he thought proper. The best
course would be to remand the case till Friday week,
to give time to find Stoven, if possible.
The prisoner was accordingly remanded to Friday
(this day) week, bail being refused.
Mr. T. Beard said he was instructed to remind

[e court that on a former occasion Mr. Simpson

had stated in his evidence that he knew Mr. Parker,
of Lower Thames-street (whose acceptance had been
forged to one of these bills), very well, and that
Parker would give his name for half-a-crown as ac-
ceptor to any bill. Mr. Parker instructed him to
deny this assertion, and to state that he was a total
stranger to Simpson, who knew nothing about him.
The statement made by Simpson appeared in the
newspaper reports of this case, and hence his client
(Mr. Parker) was anxicus to take this opportunity
of denying it.
The Lord Mayor said that the reports in the
newspapers were correct, for Simpson had made the
statement alluded to.

The proceedings then terminated ; but just as the
business of the justice-room was about to close for
the day Mrs. Goldstein hurriedly entered the court,
and addressing Mr. Gore, the assistant clerk, stated
that the man Stoven was now in custody at the
Bow-lane station, and would be brought up to-
morrow (this day). She added that after the pro-
ceedings of the day had closed in her husband's case,
she had traced Stoven to'a public-house in Worm-
wood-street, when she gave him into the custody of
a police-constable, whom she called in for that pur-
pose. The lady then left to communicate the intel-
ligence to Mr. Mullet's, the solicitor for the prose-
cution.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLICS JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer made
his expected statement yesterday afternoon, and,
later in the evening, he placed on the table the
clauses by which he hopes. to dispose of the com-
pound householder. He proposed, on behalf of
his colleagues, that next week morning sittings
should commence, to be devoted to the Reform
Bill, and that they should be held on Tuesdays and
Fridays. This of itself would facilitate the
despatch of business ; but Mr. Disraeli made
another and a better suggestion. Hitherto morning
sittings have begun at an hour too early for the
habits of modern life, and have been suspended just
at the time when the House is fullest and tho-
roughly settled down to its work. There has thus
been a waste at both ends. Members are vainly
summoned to meet at twelve o'clock, and are dis-
missed when two good working hours are before
them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests
that the existing practice shall be changed, at all
events temporarily, and that the early sittings of
this session shall begin at two and be continued
until seven, when there will be an interval of two
hours, coincident with the hours which are now
most slack of work. The House will thus sit

when. members can attend and are disposed for
business, and will adjourn at a time when they
cannot be kept together. The alteration will be
formally submitted to the House of Commons on
Monday, and, judging from the temper shown yes-
terday, there ca❑ be little doubt that. it will receive

a ready approval. This re-arrangement of the
hours of business is recommended as an acceptable

economy of time, and we shall feel increased regret
if it should appear that the advantage thus gained
is to be dissipated by fresh demands upon the time
of Parliament. Such, however, may, we fear,
prove to be the ease. Simultaneously with the pro-
posal for increasing the efficiency of morning sit-

tings came the clauses relating to the Comp-ound
Householder which we publish this morning. A

first glance suggests some apprehension, which we
shall be glad to find removed by a fuller explana-
tion, that these clauses may prove the fruitful source
of renewed and interminable discussions. We all
understand the proposal made by Mr. Hodgkinson
last week, to the principle of which the Govern-
ment assented. It was neither more nor less than

Oat after the passing of the bill before Parliament
the practice of compound householding in Parlia-
mentary boroughs should cease, and that the custom

of ratitig occupiers as prescribed by the Common
Law should be restored. Mr. Hodgkinson's
proviso said as much almost in so many words,
and Mr. Henley recommended the Government
to adopt it as it stood, or with the fewest pos-
sible alterations, leaving anything more that
might be found necessary to be added hereafter.
we cannot help thinking that it would have been
well to follow Mr. Henley's advice. It would
have been desirable to provide for the adjustment
of existing contracts with the new order of things,

but it is doubtful whether anything more was needed.
rho Government, however, for some reason which
will probably be explained on Monday, did not adopt
this ample course. The clauses the Chancellor of
the Exchequer laid last night on the table of the
House of Commons are more ambitious, and, it may
be added, more intricate, more likely to produce
fresh complications, more certain to beget discus-
sion. They declare that where at the time of pass-
ing the bill before Parliament the owner may be
rated, instead of the occupier, in respect of a tene-
ment in a borough, his liability shall cease, and Cer-
tain other enactments shall take effect with respect
to rating in all boroughs. The interpretation clause
at the end of the bill restricts to Parliana?ntary
boroughs a declaration which, from the awkward and
unnecessary use of the word " all," might otherwise
be supposed to apply to every municipality. The
enactments which follow are four in number, with
three sub-provisoes. The first and second provide
that henceforth, instead of the owner, the occupier
shall be rated and shall pay the full rates incident
on occupation, in all cases except as afterwards men-
tioned. The third enactment explains the meaning
of this exception. It provides that if the owner and
occupier jointly agree for that purpose, and give
notice of their mutual agreement in a prescribed
form, the overseers shall continue to rate the owner
instead of the occupier, and may compound with
the owner in the same way as they do at present,
and that in such case the occupier shall not be en-
titled to be registered as a voter. In other and
simpler words, if the landlord and tenant agree,•
" Compounding " shall remain in full force, and
the Compound Householder shall not be en-
franchised. It is even provided that this Franken-
stein of modern civilization may be multiplied. The
practice of composition on the part of landlords
may, with such assent as before, not only remain in
force in the parishes where it is at present followed,
but it may be introduced into any other parish
where the Small Tenements Act may hereafter be
adopted by the Vestry. It is thus evident that the
draughtsman of the clauses put on the table last
night contemplates an active vitality in Compound-
ing. Instead of dying away, he looks to its increase.
He believes the practice will be so maintained that
Vestries will adopt the Small Tenements Act, on the
chance that landlords and tenants may afterwards
agree that the former shall be rated and the
latter disqualified from voting. It is true the
fourth enactment provides 'that the arrangement
between landlords and tenants shall only be valid
for a twelvemonth at a time ; but it goes on to say
that it may be renewed every year, so that com-
pounding may practically be preserved without a
break. The effect of the new clauses submitted by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would thus be that,
whereas under his- former proposals any tenant
might, in parishes. where compounding prevailed,
withdraw his name from the order of compounders,
and insist on being personally rated, now all
tenants must, as a rule, he rated, but whenever
landlords and tenants agree for that purpose the
tenant may cease to be rated, and cease to be a
voter. It is plain that, whether these clauses for
disposing of the compound householder dispose of
him or not, they will not meet the objections raised
against the machinery they are designed to super-
sede. We have never admitted the force of these
objections, but that consideration cannot diminish
our regret that the last proposals of the Ministry
should prove ineffectual to dissipate them. We
fear, indeed, the new clauses will satisfy no
one. Those who object, like Mr. Hodgkiuson,
Mr. Bass, and many others, to the practice of
compounding on moral and social grounds, will
complain that it will be permitted to continue
and to flourish. Those who dilated on the vari-
bility of enfranchisement offered by the Govern-
ment Bill, those who vowed that the tenant would
be bound hand and foot to his landlord, —will be
enfranchised or disfranchised according to the votes
of Vestries or the whims of the owners of small
houses—will renew their invectives and protesta-
tions. We do not gay that these complaints are