The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-17 00:00:00

THE LONt)ON; THURSDAY MORNING, AIARCEI 17, 1842

SHIPWRECK.
The Jasper, of St. Andrews, Greig, bound from
Leith to Liverpool, with gunpowder, herrings, &c.,
drove from her anchors in Leith Roads, during a
heavy gale from the W.S.W. on Friday afternoon,
and was run ashore at half-past six P.M., a short dis-
tance east from Cockenzie Harbour. It being then
nearly low water, she took the ground about
150 yards from the rocks. To save the vessel
was impossible ; the only consideration was how
to rescue the crew from almost inevitable
destruction. At first even the stout-hearted
fishermen considered any attempt to board the ship en-
tirely out of the question. In a short time, however,
Alexander Ross offered the use of his boat (on being
assured that any damage done to it would be made
good) ; and he, John Thomson, and eight other men, gal-
lantly volunteered to endeavour to save the people on
board. The boat was soon at the water's edge ; but here
the risk and danger commenced. For above an hour
and a half the united strength of between 40 and 50
men could not launch the boat through the surf;
at last she was got afloat, amidst the cheers of a
large multitude, and in a few minutes was along-
side of the Jasper. The crew, consisting of Captain
Greig, Thomas Lamb, mate, George Wemyss,
and Robert -Stenton, seamen, leaped into the boat ;
also the Captain's wife and son; their youngest
child, about thirteen months old, was thrown from
the deck into the arms of a fisherman, and the
anxious mother was not aware of its preservation
until she reached the shore. All were landed safely.
A dog left on board was drowned. When the tide
flowed, the vessel drifted upon the rocks, and
went to pieces during the night. At daylight on
Saturday morning, the beach on both sides of
Portseton was strewed with the wreck and cargo.
A great many barrels of gunpowder have been
saved, and placed above high water mark, like-
wise some barrels of herrings ; a few of the latter
were plundered. A cask of wine, on reaching the
shore, was stove in, and the contents carried off in
cans, &c. Some loose powder was exploded by the
recklessness of a fisherman smoking his pipe near
it. A great part of the rigging, sails, and spars have
been saved, Before leaving Leith Roads the Jasper
had a signal of distress flying, but no assistance came.
—Edinburgh Evening Courant
DISTRESSING ACCIDENT.—FOUR LIVES LOST.—
We feel deep regret at having this week to record
an accident which has been attended with loss of
life to the steward and—three of the seamen
belonging to her Majesty's revenue cutter, Mer-
maid, Captain Rymer, R.N., Commander. The
vessel lay at the North Queensferry, and on Tues-
day last, about noon, a six-oared boat, with the
same number of men, besides the steward, was sent
ashore to bring coals aboard. The boat was on its
return to the vessel, and at only a short distance
from the shore, when it shipped a sea, and im-
mediately filled and went down. Three of the men
were saved by means of boats from the shore,
and were conveyed on board in a very exhausted
state. The remaining four were unfortunately
drowned. Their names were Abraham Mar-
shall, the steward, a person, we understand, much
03teemed by his commander, as well as by all who
knew him, a native of Berwick, and married, but
without a family, aged 32. The other three were
young men about the age of 19 or 20, and did not
belong to Berwick. They were named respectively,
Thomas Hinckley, Gasson, and Alfred Stokes.
—Berwick Warder.

TILE TORY INCOME TAN.
1'R034 tiik 'MORNING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
TIMES.—We observe that the expected debate in the
House of Lords, on Lord Brougham's resolutions, has not taken
place, owing to the non-attendance of certain Peers whose
presence was thought necessary. We confess we looked with
some anxiety to the result of that motion ; we were anxious
to know whether that noble body would perceive where the
shoe pinched, though at the same time we must acknowlenge
we were not very sanguine in our hopes of their doing so ; for
their Lordships, we must be allowed to say, whatever may be
their individual and collective sagacity, dignity, and integrity,
are not real and experimental judges of the painful effects of
a tax upon trade and professions—that is to say, upon human
industry, in its countless and varying applications. Still less
can they appreciate the odious inquisition by which such a tax
on industry will be accompanied. To say nothing of certain
other advantages, which the Members of that House already-pos-
sess, a Peer's income is easily got at ; his estate is known ; its
rent is known ; and the duty on the mortgage, wherever
such exists, may be at once deducted by his own agent from the
interest payable. He has to dread no expo ure—to produce no
ledger— to um ergo no cross-examination—and can hardly be
supposed to understand the annoyance, and even danger, which
will arise to others from such vexatious interferences with the
course of their business. In compliance with the request made
to us by several correspondents, who, though strongly attached
to the Conservative Ministry, are yet jealous of a tax which is
expected to press heavily upon incomes acquired by industry,
we republish to-day some extracts from our journal of six-and•
twenty years ago; which may, perhaps, be some proof to those
who tax us with versalitity, that though we change our support
of men, we are invariably firm in principles. No satisfactory
answer can be given to what we republish ; and if the same
feeling existed now as prevailed at the time when those articles
were first written, no Minister would have ever thought of
the revival of an income tax under any form whatsover,
and to whatever extent modified, otherwise than as a
hopeless impossibility. We retain the same opinion as that
which we have already expressed, that Sir Robert Peel's finan-
cial statement is that of a great and capacious mind ; and that
he is pre-eminently qualified to relieve the embarrassments of
the country, p educed latterly by the wretched Government he
has succeeded. But perhaps that single circumstance, of his
contemplating one grand system, has rendered him less ob-
servant of the details. We are indeed ready to allow, that
however he and his colleagues may have pledged them-
selves by former declarations never to revive a pro-
perty tax except in time of war, yet evidently that
pledge rested upon an implied supposition, the falsifica-
tion of which wholly absolves them from a breach of en-
gagement ; for who could have contemplated that the
finances of the country should have been so mismanaged,
that we should have been continually running into more
debt in a time of peace? Such a prodigious fact as this
fully and plainly exonerates them from their pledge.
The possessors of property which,will now become liable should
have looked more sharply to the public concerns when these
debts were contracted, which it will now be incumbent on
them to pay off. They have all wed successive Ministries to
have their swing, and now they must smart for it. Look, for
instance, at the famous Exchequer-bill hand and folly. Look
at the sums which have been advanced under pretence of as-
sisting the public works. We will venture to say, that of one
million and a half sterling advanced in two cases—for the
English tnnnel and the Irish workhouses—on securities the most
glaringly fictitious, not one farthing, principal or interest, will
ever be repaid. These promising concerns are the produce of
Mr. Spring Rice's skill and integrity—qualities on the score
of which he has contrived to obtain a greater sum of rewards
for himself and his family than perhaps any other man in the
kingdom. It must not be supposed that we disapprove, under
the present necessity, of a property tax. We do not; but we
must put in a strong petition that every other possibility which
the science of finance suggests be exhausted, before industry be
taxed. We can assure the Government, that there are thou-
sands of persons deriving large returns from trade and in-
dustry, who would be most glad to contribute liberally to the
public exigencies, but who look with horror at the inquisito
rial character of an income tax, which would empower a board
of Commissioners to overhaul their accounts, and to interfere
with the daily operations of their trade or profession.
HERALD.—Lord Brougham may contend that his resolu-
tions are not condemnatory of the income tax ; and he has
doubtless introduced language into the third resolution which
will verbally support such a view ; but if these resolutions,
taken as a whole, do not mean opposition, then is the majority
of them mere declaratory verbiage. If the Noble and Learned
Lord be not hostile to the Government proposal, but merely
seek to amend it, by limiting its operation to income derived
from capital, and by greatly relieving income the result of
I labour, it was surety unnecessary to overwhelm a resolution,
affirming so whole some a proposition with an abstract dictum
on the general inexpediency of resorting to an income tax.
While we can anticipate no benefit fiom the House of Lords
being thrust into a premature discussion of the income tag,
before the details—more especially the important portion which
relates to the mode of collection—have been iubmitted to the
House of Commons; and while we think Sir Robert Peel
acted most prudently in declining to reply to Mr. Baring's
questions last night—still we trust that Government will not
refuse to make all such substantial_improvements in the plan,
which on Friday will be laid before the House of Commons, as
may be suggested, and that without reference to the quarter
whence they proceed. The people are willing to make the
sacrifice asked by Government; but we protest against that
willingness befit g make the instrument of inflicting unnecessary
hardships. Simplicity will be purchased too dearly at the cost
of domestic suffering.
ADVERTISER.—If the smallest income be to bear its
proportion of the burden of the state, it must also have its fair
proportion in the representation. % e contend that the larger
incomes, under existing circumstances, ought to bear a greater
propor ion of the tax than the smaller, in ttie lame manner as
incomes derived from landed or funded proftrty ought to bear
a greater proportion than those accruing from professional or
industrial effort, and hereditary incomes greater than those ter-
minating with the life of the individual. If Sir Robert Peel
had admitted these provisions in his scheme, it wou'd have
come with far stronger recommendations to the public. It
is not too late for the House of Commons, " such as it
is," to enforce them on his attention. The turgid rentals
and capitals of the country, so urgent in their claims for
legislative pro.ection, ought undoubtedly be made to pay
extra for that extra security of which they profess to
stand in so much need. tin this point of the question we are
gratified to quote the opinion of an opponent; the Standard,
who, expressing itself with a different intent, remarks--" Taxa-
tion, to be just and equal, must carefully guard against dis-
placing any man from his position, and it is obvi tug that the
payment of 4/. 10s. by the possessor of 150/. is more likely to
displace him from his position than the payment of 61. by the
possessor of 2001. a year. Yes, and our Contemporary
might have added, the payment of 6/. is more likely to displace
from his position the possessor of 2001., than 6001. would the
possessor of 10,000/. Of the inquisitorial tendeney of the tax
we must reserve our commentary, which, however, must ne-
cessarily be reserved until the Prem er announces his scheme
of assessment, in which, if most scrupulous care and attention
be not given to the position of merchants, manufacturers, and
traders, the whole scheme, so plausible in the outset, must fall
to the ground midst the general execration.
CHRONICLE. —A tax on property vested in land, or the
funds, and returning a certain income to the possessor, may be
assessed with fairness, and collected without vexation. It is
when you attempt to reach the income arising from trade or
professions; when you interrogate men as to their own gains,
or endeavour to collect the information from their neighbours,
that the odiousness and oppressiveness of the tax begins. And
certainly it is a monstrous injustice that the estate in fee and the.
estate for life should be compelled to contribute the same
amount; and still more that you should take the same pro-
portion of the income arising from a fixed property and that
resulting from the uncertain and transient source of
a man's labour or business. The incomes do not represent the
same capital. An income of 1,000/. a year in fee, in the finds
or land, would sell for about 30,0004 For a life-interest of
1,000/. a year, from the same sources, no one could get half
as much, even in the prime of health and youth ; and a
finhcf:ov,ircasinetktruw,ceynthhenaorinitdeelyhevaiorthdtlrrcii
IffolofieeveemiritpFebehionloeesentsvfiemefrsaorssaemi
ytrernahesomtnyohthcflpeaoninrojinyaeostursue,msl:,dsetow.oat
andl
:nshifh aomhientti get more for it than a four
or five years' purchase, or sometimes even less. But an
income arising from a man's yearly gains represents even a
It ss capital. A momentary decline of profit from ill-health,
from the success of a competitor, or from a cessation of ge-
neral demand for a particular commodity, or a particular
greatlyspecies
reduce, service,
or evenm 3y
annihilateeve n d u ri noilsaoddrlgitpvures.oeittaul,tollsthdgewtaouTlheeanoceechahyfyrr.lves,yimomettideutwmoeheoht
out of
oni
iepramsoi
money-making.
dfthieeul
oeofaedt.rmo;hiehefratneeysbetht
nc-hyysetsemaheor
ni:twmmeaah,osi
kveeesspwei
ahenp,ni
mustmf
ngnaei
te spend
his
; and of these two, the profes-
sional a portitomohrnermtiooe;rte,oitiahrfleehmtir receipts
pe-
riod largeriioo nd a
orl or
arr,
noc
opo
SPI

RIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAYERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—It is very remarkable that not one of
the Ministerial organs of the press now ventures to
say,, a word in favour of Sir Robert Peel's Income
Tax. That some temporary recourse to property has be-
come necessary, is the utmost they assert ; but that this
measure is a fair and just appeal of the kind, they dare
not now asseverate. And the Times, fearful (it would
appear) lest some d—d good-natured friend should
take it into his head to contrast the tameness of its pre-
sent lucubrations with its famous Income Tax philip-
pics of 1816, reprints the latter, and proudly points to
them—" That's my thunder—as good as new !" These
are bad omens for the future idolatry- of Sir Ro-
bert's Juggernaut car of Finance. "When the most
devout find they are to be crushed by its wheels their
fervour lessens. It is the fate of the present Prime
Minister on this, as on former occasions, to dis,-
gust 'adherents equally by what is good and by what
is bad in his measures. The Examiner said of
him long ago, " In the political world Mr. Peel
h double is to be resembled to that unhappy creation in the
animal kingdom, the flying fish, whose
capa-
city subjects it to double enemies, and whose
changes of element are but changes of persecu-
tion. He has his good points and tendencies, urge
his apologists, and we do not deny them ; but
we will frankly confess our suspicion that those
partial good points are even causes of the peculiar
acharnement we feel towards him, for they are
sufficient to constitute provoking in,consisten-
cies, and make the man one disarpozatment., If the
late Ministry had offered to reimpose the most ob-
noxious of war-taxes, can it be doubted for a moment
how the partisans of the present would have scouted
it ? Yet the late Ministry could have pointed to great
and essential measures for food and commerce.
They could have pointed to measures effectually aimed
to remove that pressure on the national resources, which
was mainly caused by dearth and dearness of ne-
cessaries. Sir Robert Peel's multifarious med-
dlings with the tariff are very small change for
these. They resemble the rubbish of washed metal
of all sorts of denominations which an English-
mani
receives with bewildermentn his first con..
tinental travels. The feeling of being cheated is only
silenced by the impossibility of reckoning what may
really be the value of so many minute coins. But
about the Income Tax there is no mistake. It is
justly observed by a Morning Contemporary, that the
.temporary nature assigned to it only aggravates
its injustice. "He lays it on for three years
only, as he says.man with a three years'
lease of an estate of one thousand pounds a year will,
therefore, on the whole, contribute just as much
as a man with an estate in fee of the same amount.
The estate of the first will expire at the end of three
yea's ; the estate of the latter will last for ever after
him ; but the demand on it will expire at the same
moment be
as on the former, cause the tax will,
according to Sir Robert Peel, cease at the end of the
three years."
STANDARD.—It impossible, said Mr.

turte, to tax and please, as to love and be wife. All
taxes are odious, but taxes must be imposed if society
is to be held together. It seems, therefore, a duty on
the part of every good citizen to support the minister
who imposes ;taxes which are not glaringly unneces-
sary or unjust; and this without respect to party
interests. But no moral anomaly can be imagined
more ross than the offering resistance to a minister
of one s own party proposing
.taxes admitted on all
sides to be necessary, and in their form as just as any
taxes can be made. We must again put the question
fairly 'as it stands. The question is not, whether
any new taxes shall be imposed, but what new
taxes ?—not whether we. can go on adding three
or four millions annually to the public debt, but how
are we to raise three or four millions a year most
justly, and after, but long after, ascertaining the
justice of the distribution of the impost, with most
attention to the public convenience? This is, we
suppose, the fair state of thesuestion, and yet many
persons seem to misunderstand it. Otherwise we
should not hear, as we do, of complaints from this man
and the other ; of the hard bearing of an. Income Tax
upon him, because of the largeness of his family. One
gentleman writes to say, that his family numbers 14
persons, and that it is cruel to impose a tax of nine
pounds upon the 3001. a year upon which these 14
persons must be supported. It is hard ; but we chal-
lenge the substitution, of any other efficient and im-
partial tax, which must be a tax upon necessaries,
that would not bear more hardly upon him. It
is not as a good, far 'from it, that an Income Tax
is to be received, but as the least possible evil.
We believe, however, that the majority of reclama-
tions against an Income Tax do not proceed from
persons in the condition of the correspondent whom
we have quoted, but from those to whom the tax
will apply most justly and most lightly—the very
rich ; at least we see the organs of the money power
—consistent in upholding their idol, if in nothing
else, agreeing in this, though opposed upon all other
subjects—the most forward in endeavouring to preju-
dice the Ministerial plan. When we see this we
cannot help thinking that the money power is the
party ,waging the battle, though the ground chosen
is the interest of the industrious. Lord Brougham
has reverted to his arguments against the Income Tax
26 years ago ; others have done the same.:—we have
carefully examined all these reproduced arguments,
and we have been surprised to see how few of them
apply to the present time. Putting aside hard words,
such as odious tax, detested tax, inquisition, &c. &c. &c.
—putting aside, we say, hard words, which never
prove anything, these arguments are reduced to com-
plaints of a breach of engagement, that the tax should
cease with the termination of the war; and to the
expression of a fear -that the Government having too
much money at its disposal, would make an ill use of
it. The force of the pledges has, however, we pre-
sume, expired with the ministries and statesmen by
whom these pledges were given, who have been long
at rest, and surely had no power to bind posterity
through all time.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Illareh 16.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OE STA MFORD.
The Court was engaged up to its rising in the further hear-
ing of this part-heard case.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' Co UR 7', March 16.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
His Hortoua was engaged during the morning in hearing
the case of Carter v. Nelson, a petition by order, in his private
room.

(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE )
The cases which came before his HONOUR to-day were of a
technical and uninteresting character.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
SHARP V TAYLOR.
His HONOUR pronounced judgment in this case, the hear-
ing having been brought to a conclusion yesterday. 7he bill
prayed that it might be declared that the plaintiff was entitled
to an equal share in a vessel called the Victoria, and also to a
moiety of his earnings in four voyages between Liverpool and
Charleston since she was purchased. It also prayed an account
of the dealings of the parties in respect of such vessel. His
Honour said, that considering the course taken by the defendant
he did not feel called upon to pronounce any opinion as to the
illegality of the transactions mentioned in the bill, the defen-
dant having acknowledged the truth of the agreement alleged
to have been entered ►nto between the parties, and consented
to abide by it. The defendant having submitted to abide by
the agreement mentioned in the answer, namely, that all ,
profits which should arise or accrue from freights to be carried
by the ship Victoria, should be for the joint and equal benefit
of the plaintiff and the defendant, he would refer it to the
Master to inquire and state what monies had bean received in
respect of such freights.

CONSISTOI?Y COUII7, March 16.
SNOW V. SNOW.
_

This was a suit for separation promoted by Mrs. Georgiana
Snow against her husband, on the ground of cruelty. The
facts as stated on the hearing of the case have already appeared
in The Sun.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON in delivering his judgment as to the ad-
missibility of the articles in the libel, said that the parties in
this case were married in January, 1832, and lived together
till the 25th of November, 1841, when Mr. Snow quitted
Paris, where he had been residing, and came to England. The
cessation of cohabitation, expressly pleaded at the end of the
39th article, took place on the Bth of December, 1841, the
day Mrs. Snow reached Lor don, but the facts showed
that cohabitation really ceased on the 26th of No-,
vember. Mrs. Snow pleaded certain charges of cruelty,
which she alleged had been committed against her by
her husband; the ti uth or falsehood of these charges were not
the subject of the present inquiry ; it was not necessary to con-
sider these charges, but there could be no doubt that the per-
sonal ill-usage in this case had been of the grossest character,
so much so as to affect her bodily safety, and even to endanger
her life. Such conduct, if proved by evidence, and not barred
by any legal objection, would entitle her to the separation she
prayed for. There was only one real question to decide,
which was, whether the conduct of Mrs. Snow, as described
by herself, did not form a legal bar to the progre,s
of her suit ; in other words, whether that which was
technically called "condonation," had not taker, place. Where
condonation was founded on evidence only,. without facts on
either side, he took the result to be that the Court would not
be satisfied to act on it, unless it was established by conclusive
testimony. But this reasoning could not apply where the
alleged condonation was founded on the libel alone. The
decision of Lord Stowell in the case of Popkin v. Popkin
showed that he had taken the whole of the facts into
consideration. He therefore felt bound to pronounce
his opinion, whether the circumstances pleaded in the
libel did or did not form a complete condonation.
Condonation, although a technical term, involved in it the for-
giveness of an offence, and consisted of two kinds ; the first,
words t f forgiveness and the act of reconciliation ; the second,
an admissio tac.ta. After a consideration of all the cases bear-
ing on this suit, there were still many points left for conside-
ration, doubtless because preceding Judges had not thought it
necessary to give an opinion 'as to such forgiveness. The
course he proposed to take in the present case was to ascer-
tain what had been actually decided in former cases
on this point, and apply the same principles to
the present ease. First, he apprehended as a re-
sult of other cases, it had been determined that a return of
the husband and wife to the marriage bed was, under all the
circumstances, a presumption of connubial intercourse; and
secondly, that if the return to cohabitation was compulsory, no
such inference could be drawn. For instance, there could be
no condonation where the act of adultery was unknown to the
parties aggrieved, and it had also been laid down by the autho-
rities on this subject, that in respect of condonation between
the husband and wife, much would be considered culpable in
the husband which would be praiseworthy in the wife.
It had also been equally admitted, that when once condonation
had taken place, the complaint of the wife, on the grounds of
previous adultery and cruelty, was gone. In the present case,
there was no allegation of a revival of the acts of cruelty after
the return to cohabitation had taken place, and the question
was, whether that return, under all the circumstances, did
constitute a condonation.. In this case some difficulty arose,
from the application of hat he had termed the third rule.
Had this been a ease turn of a husband to cohabita-
tion with an adulterou he should say that the condona-
tion was legal and complete. The case of Timmins v. immins
was a strong authority for this view of the subject. Vut the
line of distinction with respect to other kinds of conduct, had
not been perfectly observed. The wife might so completely
forgive adultery in the husband as to bar herself of her remedy,
but in such a case the endurance of the wife was not always to
be construed into insensibility. But there was no charge of
adultery in this case, and in cases of condonation, the two
offences of adultery and cruelty were of so distinct a nature,
that the same considerations could not be equally appli-
cable to them. With respect to a condonation of cruelty,
by cohabitation, he did not think that.it would always amount
to a legal condonation : the question then, was, could the pre-
sumption of cohabitation working a condonation, be rebutted by
other circumstances? He had been anxious to find some autho-
rity on this point, but he believed none could be found. In the
ease of Lord and Lady Westmeath the condonation by cohabita-
tion was admitted, awl the only question was whether the an-
tecedent cruelty was renewed by subsequent acts of the same
nature. The judgment of Sir J. Nichol, in the case of" D'Agui-
lar v. D'Aguilar," had rather a closer bearing on the present
case. The doctrine laid down by Lord Stowell was, that the
extent of endurance of cruelty by the wife, was not only not to
bar her of her remedy by pursuing her suit, but raises no pre-
sumption against the truth of her complaint. In the case he
had just cited there was an extorted return to cohabitation, as
far as a dwelling together in the same house, but not attended
by connubial intercourse, and therefore was not in the usual
sense of the term, a complete forgiveness. Yet Lord Stowell
thought it necessary to show that the cruelty committed
prior to the return to cohabitation was renewed
by the acts of cruelty subseriuently committed. The
case of Popkins v. Popkins was of still more im-
portance, as in that case a con tinuance of the cohabita•
tion after the acts of cruelty was not;, decreed fatal to the wife's
suit. Lord Stowell expressed his opinion that it was not ne-
cessary for the wife to withdraw from cohabitation on account
of the first acts of cruelty, and thalt her endurance was rather
praiseworthy in her than otherwise. But here, in the case last cited, the 3luelty was tarried down to the latest period
of the cohabitation; and being al so cruelty of a peculiar nature,
it was held to be sufficient. In eases of great cruelty
therefore the Court could not deprive the wife of her remedy
on account of her having retur aed to cohabitation; it must
depend on all the circumstances of each particular case. He
was aware of the danger of abanexining general principles, and
he had therefore carefully considered the case: he was aware
also of the difficulty of defining tb e cases that might consti-
tute exceptions, and hove much doubt and uncertainty
might arise with respect to the= ; but he was conscienti-
ously convinced, from the peculiar nature of the bond
that united the husband to the -wife, and the extraordinary
eases that might occur of continues I intercourse under circum-
stances which no one could aotich .ate, from the power which
the husband, in eases of cruelty bad over the wife, and, in many
instances, the helplessness of hereon, dition, that the evils which
might attend a relaxation of the proces 'dings, would be less than
the mischiefs resulting from a rigorou,; enforcement of them.
The Court would now proceed to the facie. of the
present case.
The cruelty charged commenced almost - from the periodoe.d
of
the marriage • and, if the charges were tr cc, the violence and
inhumanity of Mr. Snow could scarcely be
surpassed. ItNov. _ was
alleged that those acts of cruelty continued to the 21st of
last. It appeared there had been a partial
ex ihabitationsubse •
been
quently, commencing the 22d Nov. After lega. advice had
resorted to ; after Mr. Vance had been in for'
wed of the facto,
tsf
r
and after Mr. Snow bad promised to abstain. frt. 'm -u
ac,
vio-
lence, with a view of avoiding further scan, Jal,
This
cohabi-
tation lasted but three days, and during tl sat th. here had
been a written confession of. facts charged ,Against Air' Snow,
,;,:ad ceased
which confession he had signed. The col ebitation

the `;sth of November, and Mrs. Snow had been brought home
by her brother, dud proteedings had been commenced at the
earliest presible period, namely on the 18th e December fol-
loss mg. Under those cit.( emstanct ait appeared to the Court
that Mr. Snow had not given proof that he meant permanently
to reform his conduct; considering that and the shortness of the
latter cohabitation ; also the nature of the ch-rges, and
the fact of the rapid commencement of legal pro-
ceedings ; but more especially considering that the
Court was not sufficiently judicially satisfied that Mrs.
Snow's return to the house of her husband would not lead to the
renewal, on his part, of the alleged outrages towards her. Con-
sidering all those circumstances, the Court was of opinion that
no bar existed to Mrs. Snow's pursuing her suit. Before pro-
ceeding to the articles of the libel, one observation seemed ne-
cessary, which had no reference to the practitioners in that
Court, but to the public. It was not to be considered that the
Court, in the remarks which it applied to Mr. Snow, had any
opinion as to the truth or falsehood of the charges ontained in
the libel. They were ex parte charges, and the Court was
bound to consider them as true in the present stage of the pro-
ceedings; but it would be unjust to -Mr. Snow if they were
taken as true, except for the purpose of see-
ing if they were sufficient to form legal ground
of complaint. Now, with respect to one particular
article, one of the objections raised is a general objection to
separate. It was said that a charge at common law could not
be preferred in cases of this description. But the Court en-
tertained considerable doubt how far that objection, even con-
sidering it feu, ded in fact, with reference to the contents of
this article, ought to prevail. When charges came on inci-
dentally, the Court ought to admit them, for the purpose of
their being ultimately decided on, when the Court came to
hear evidence on the matter. Looking at every article in this
libel it did not appear that the charges were preferred with a
view to accuse Mr. Snow criminally as at any part of hisconduct.
The Court, therefore, would not admit those objections. As to the
particular object ions, it appeared thatthe objection to the 6th ar-
ticle was wed-founded, as that article merely referred to a few
harsh words from Mr. Snow to hissei:J. The 7th article was not
objected to. The Bth article also onlfraf erred to words, and the
objection to it must be allowedas v Aid. The objection to the
9th article admitted of some observation. In that article it
was stated that Mr. Snow, on leaving his wife on one occasion,
used words to the effect of expressing a wish to find Mrs. Snow
and her boy laid out—meaning thereby a desire to find them
dead. That article he considered as admissible. The 10th
article referred to offensive language on the part of
Mr. Snow, when he told his wife that he married
but to pet into her circle of society, &c. In a suit
at law, instituted on account of cruelty alone; it did
not appear to the Court that such chaiges had any bearing on
the case, and that article should therefore be struck out. Ar-
ticles 11, 12, 13, and 14 were not objected to. The 15th
article was bjected to, but the otjection must be rejected.
The 16th was not objected to. With respect to the 17th arti-
cle, to which objection had been made, the latter part of it
appeared unnecessary, and must therefore be struck out. The
18th article was admissible. The 19th article, referring to
coarse and insulting messages sent by Mr. Snow to his wile, in
April,lB39, and his refusal to grant her those necessary comforts
which she required, when she fell intoa state of illness in consee
quence of those messages; all thosepassages must be expunged.
The 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d articles were not objected to.
The 24th was generally objected to, but it may remain. The
25th and 26th were not objected to. The 27th required some
consideration. In the month of May, 1841, Mr. and Mrs.
Snow went to reside at Twickenham, in Middlesex, accom-
panied by their family, consisting of two girls and two boys.
both the girls and one of the boys being in delicate health. It
appeared that one of the girls was•labnuring under a flow of
blood to the head, for which she had been bled in the jugular
vein, and that, contrary to the representations of Mrs. Sr ow,
he took the girl in a boat and plunged her into the river. The
article must undergo reformation with respect to all
these pats ; and by leaving out these facts, the
general delicate health of the children may be pleaded,
and also that one of them had become seriously
ill, and also the declaration of the husband on that occasion
with respect to the probable death of his child, because that
declaration being made in the presence of Mrs. Snow, consti-
tuted a charge of a legal nature. But the rest of the article
must be expunged. The 28th article, as to the death of the
children, was competent to be pleaded, because, as in conse-
quence the health and spirits of Mrs. Snow became affected.
The article was impartial in this point of view, that any future
cruelty on the part of Mr. Snow would produce worse effects
in consequence of this state of health of Mrs. Snow. The 29th
article was of a general nature also. The 30th article was not
objected to. To the 31st there was a very slight objection.
The 32d, 33d, and 34th articles were not objected to The
35th article he had carefully considered. That was the article
which pleaded the long conversation ; and looking to the
whole of it, he thought he was bound to admit it.
The purpose for which it was pleaded was to obtain
something like an admission from Mr. Snow as to the acts of
cruelty alleged to have been committed by him. He should
leave that article as it was, as the result would be to show, as
it now stood, the very qualified admission of misconduct on the
part of Mr. Snow. The 36th article was that which gave
rise to the judgn:ent he had already pronounced on the merits
of the case. It was objected to only on general principles,
and not as to the words ; and here he would take the oppor-
tunity to observe, that in the opinion he delivered as to the ad-
missibility of the libel, he did, as was suggested by the Learned
Counsel, feel himself bound to take in consideration the words
of .Ir. Snow, in which he expressed deep regret for his
cruel treatment of his wife, and in which he proposed
to control his temper. It undoubtedly appeared to him
that the language was well worthy of consideration,
because it made a distinction between the present ease, and
the ordinary case of continued cohabitation. He had already
pronounced an opinion on the libel as it stood, but if any other
evidence appeared different from that pleaded in the Ebel, the-
Court would not be precluded from reconsidering the libel.
With regard to the 37th and 38th articles, he had before sug-
gestid what was to be done with them.

Dr. HAGGARD said the only thing he wished to know was
whether the whole of the last part of the 19th article was to
be struck out.

Dr. LUSHINGITON read the passage in the article which he
intended should be struck out.

The Court then proceeded to hear some cases.

1 A' SOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 16.
The Court Was occupied during the entire morning in hearing
bail cases; of which there was an nnusually large number
upon the list, and applications, in which there was not the
slightest feature of general interest.

MRS. CLOVER,•'PIIE• ACTRE6S.
Mrs. Juliana Glover, the well-known actress, of Covent-
garden and the Haymarket -theatres, applied this morning to
be discharged on sureties until her hearing in April.
Mr. Commissioner HA KRIS, to the insolvent—What are you?
Insolvent—An actress, Sir.

The Court inquired into the two judgments against her.
There was but one detainer on which she was in prison.
The bail was then examined respecting their sufficiency,
with which the learned Commissioner was satisfied. The in-
solvent was ordered to be discharged until her hearing, the
latter end of April.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION- HOUSE.
The Justice-room was yesterday attended by a great number
of commercial men and others, who expected that some of the
details connected with the case introduced by Sir Peter Laurie
to the notice of the Lord Mayor on the prece-iing day, on the
subject of an alleged forgery of the signature of a deceased per-
son to a promissory note, would be exposed to the public. The
statement, made public at the suggestion of Sir Peter Laurie,
had evidently excited the greatest curiosity.
The case is briefly as follows :—Mr. King and Mr. Tisdell,
the executors to the will of Mrs. Ann 'Waldron, represented
that Mr. Melton, a solicitor, had, after the death of Mrs. Wal-
dron, applied to them for payment of a promissory note, of
which the following is a copy:—
" £39 4s. " London, 15th May, 1841.
" Eight months after date, I promise to pay to Mr. William
Pidding, or order, the sum of thirty-nine pounds four shillings,
for value received. " ANN WALDRON.
" Payable No. 7, Hebbus-heath terrace, Limehouse.
" Endorsed W. Pidding, J. Sharpe, G. Howell."
The executors having re,isted the demand, in the confident
belief that the instrument was a. forgery, proceedings were
taken by Mr. Melton, who informed them that he was em-
ployed by Mr. Thompson to recover the amount, and the venue
was laid in Lewes.
A long conversation ensued between the Magistrates and the
parties interested, but it possessed no public interest, and the
inquiry was postponed till a future day.
BO W-STHEE T.
A sturdy-looking man, named Rowett, whose appearance was
decidedly foreign, was charged with the following assault:—
Thomas Helbourne, the complainant, a young man, who bore
evident marks of ill-usage on his face and person, commenced—
" I was a going through the court and I meets Mr. Rowett—
" Stop, stop," said Mr. TWYPORD, " tell us first who you
are, and what court you are alluding to ?" Complainant—l'm
a labouring man, Sir, 20 years of age ; Rowett's a shoemaker
its the court where he and me lives, Angel-court; well, es I
was going up the court I meets Mr. Rowett, he comes up to
me and axes me what I had to do with his daughter, I told h;m
if his daughter bothered me I'd kick her • he ups with his
fist, knocks me down, and jumps on my belly, and bi.es a hole
in my breast, which (unbuttoning his waistcoat, and exposing
a broad hairy chest) I've got it here to show.
Mr. TWYFORD—WeII, but have you had anything to say to
his daughter ? Complainant—Why, about a fortnight ago I was
a going through the street, and whenever I goes thro' the street
this here gal calls arter me wherever I goes, and says,
" There goes Irish Tom," rich I arnt no Irish at all, 'I he
gal she's about fourteen years of age. I told her, if she did
not take care, I'd kick her.
'1 he prisoner, who, we learnt from his speech was a Welsh.
man, and had formerly been in the F division of police, said,
" Tat is te trut ; I meet him last night, and I say what tat 'tween
you and my daughter tat 3ou say you kick her. He say,
Yes, and I'll do to you te same.' He then struck me, and I hit
him again in my own defence, and peing te strongest man, I
knock him down, but not kick him a pite—pou my word and
hon-nare.
Mrs Mary. Anne Sales, a comfortable-looking matron, " fst,
fair, and forty-five," said she had gone to call upon Mrs.
Gibbons, the lady where the poor young wan lodged. She was
up stairs in the first pair back, a partakin' of a very nice cup o'
green tea and a muffin, with nice salt butter on it, when they
heard screams and cries of " murder" proceeding from down
below. Mrs. Gibbons says, " I suppose that's Rowett a beatin'
his wife again ;" so we went down into the court, and there we
see him, his two daughters, and leis wife, all a ill-using the
poor fellow, and his hair was standing all on end, " like quills
upon the fretful porcupine." They call him Irish Tom, be.
cause he lodges with Irish people • but he arnt no Irish, he's a
west of England lad. It's a dreadful thing, Sir, and wary
cruel for the father of a family of children, to hit a young man
of twenty years of age, and bite his chest. I'm the mother of
a family myself, and I should not like to ace one of my children
used in that way, poor things.
Mr. HALL imagining, we suppose, that Mrs. Sales had gone
on quite long enough, here somewhat abruptly interrupted her
by a..kiag the prisoner if he had anything more to say ? The
gk more, only that the last
Fitnessprisonerwsaasicnloht in a
ecouplldacesaayt
anloittionow nothing about it. Ifn
g the Magistrate would look over it this time, such a thing
should not occur again.
Mr. Twvroen—You did not fight like an Englishman, in a
fair way, but you must throw the complainant down, kick him,
and kneel on his belly. I should have committed you for as-
saulting him in a brutal manner, if you had not expressed some
penitence at the circumstance; as it is, I shall fine you 75., eir
commit you for seven days.— The fine was immediately paid.
MARLBORO UG S TR.EE 7.
Mr. Alexander Pooley, a builder in a very extensive way
of business, was charged with committing a most violent and
unprovoked assault on Mr. Thomas Burrows, of Castle-street,
Leicester-square, plumber and glazier. 'f he complainant stated
that yesterday evening, as he was passing through Sidney's-
alley, Leicester-square, he met the defendant, who, with-
out a word passing between them, flew at him, and struck him
a heavy blow on the right ride of the head, and then another
on the left. Complainant did not offer to return the blows,
but kept his arms down, and told the defendant he would riot
fight, as he should take the law of him. The defendant then
struck him twice more, and on his getting into Princes street,
hit him four times very heavily about the head, and was about
following up his attack, when a polic-constable came up and
secured him.
Mr. MALTBY asked if Mr. Burrows had
knowledge of the complainant?—Complainant said he tta dfor-
merly been engaged in some building speculations with
defen-
dant's father, and that disagreements had arisen through some
any - previous
money transaction.