The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

TNT. SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 26, 1842.

he ptit the tniestion on the original motion
I Which was negatived without a division. Mr. Law's amen&
Merit was then put and agreed to:
Mr..C. OOD then moved that John Reitn having bi-;
pressed his readiness to subrtiit to the aiithority,tif thisotise;
be
~now disthiried; and be ordered to attend the Committee
to-morrow.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL moved that the witness be
discharged immediately.
The question was put, and
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the witness was the same as
any oth. r witness, aril was subject to the authority of the
Committee, and a summons of that Comtnitttie would bring
thet witness to the bar of that House.—(No, no.) The
House had no more authority to command the attendance of
a witness at the bar of the House than a private individual.
The power was fixed by law in the Chairman, and he alone
had any control over the case.
Mr. C. WOOD said that what he had intended to move WAS
very similar to what the Solicitor-General had suggested. (He
Mr. Wood) thought that some reason should ho given and put on
record as to why the witness was discharged. He therefore
wished to move that., the witness having expressed his readi-
ness to submit himself to the authority of the House, he be
ilbehaiged, and ordered to attend the Committee sitting on
the Southampton Election Petition, at its meeting to-morrow
meriting (this day).
The amendments of the Solicitor-Gereral and Mr. C.
Wood having been put in succession,
Mr. H UviE said that it appeared to him they were about
to interfere with the powers of the Committee. Either the
Committee had power or they had not. In his opinion the
moment they discharged the individual the power of the Com-
mittee ceased. If they chose to take upon themselves to inter-
fere in the present instance, they might interfere in any other
matter which might come before the Committee.—( Hear,
hoar.) If they interfered in this ease, they would not know
where the matter might end.—( Hear, hear.) As, however,
the individual bad stated his determination to bow to the deci-
sion of the House, there would perhaps be no harm in the
Speaker's intimating that the Committee had the potvers of
the House delegated to it.
The amendment of the Solicitor-General was then put and
negatived.
The amendment of Mr. Wood having next been put,
Sit R. 11. INGLIS repeated that all the powers of the
House in the case were delegated, by an Act of the whole Le-
gislature, to the Committee, who alone should deal with the
matter. He did not think, therefore, it would be advisable
that the House should interfere with the proceedings of the
Committee.

Sir IL PEEL said that two. questions arose upon the proposal
made by his Right Hon. Friend. The first was whether the
summons originally issued by the Committee had been vitiated
or not by the subsequent proceeding. If it had not, if the
original summons, notwithstanding the discharge of the wit-
net.s by the authority of the House, remained in force, then
clearly it was not necessary to interpose any authority on the
pat t of the House; and such interposition, because unneces-
sary, ought to he avoided. But the point taken was that the
Chairman of the Committee had a power to renew the sum-
mons by act of his own. That he doubted , and therefore
supposing it rested upon the single authority of the Chairman,
he doubted whether it was not necessary for the House
to interfere.—( Hear, hear.) The words of the Act were,
" That every such Select Committee shall have power to send
for persons, papers, and records." Under all ordinary circum-
stances, the Chairman of the Committee was supposed to be
their representative, Ira when the Committee were not sitting,
it could not be said that he could by his own authority detain a
witness. Therefore he thought the s.le question was. did the
original summons now remain in force. If it did, the House
ought not to interfere. if the original summons were vitiated,
the Chairman ought not, in his individual capacity, to assume
an authority which belonged to him only as the organ of the
Committee.

Mr. MURPHY said he would put this analogy to the
Learned Attorney-General. He would assume that a witness in
a Court of law was asked a question shich had a tendency to
criminate himself. The question would then be resolved into a
question of bona fides. If it should appear to the Judge that
the question was not bona fide, and he was committed for con-
tempt, the question would then arise whether he was willing to
withdraw his refusal and comply with the request made to him
by the Court. Was it not quite plain that the original sub-
pcena would still be valid? He begged to submit that case for
the consideration of the Learned Attorney-General.
Tun ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the adoption of
the course proposed would not form a bad precedent. He
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition.
The SPEAKER then put the question, which, being
carried, the witness, John Renn, was ordered to be called to
the Bar.

On the witness being replaced at the Bar,
The SPEAKER said—John Henn, in answer to my ques-
tion, you answered that you were wilting to bow to the decision
of this House. If the House decided that you should answer
the question put to you by the Southampton Committee, are
you killing to do so?
Renn—l am, Sir. . .

The SPEAKER—Now, I am directed to tell you, that the
Southampton Election Committee is a tribunal constituted by
law, and you are bound to answer any questions put to you.
You have, indeed, the right to state your objection
to any question, leaving it to the Committee to say
whether your objection is well founded. Upon their com-
mand, it is your bounden duty to answer. lam now to in-
torm you, that you are to attend the Committee to-morrow.
You may now withdraw.
[ Several Members said, " discharged, discharged ;" but the
Speaker remained silent, and Rents withdrew in custody of
the Sergeant.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.

Mr. BRWitlETtiolbegged to ask, whether the Com-
mission appointed to inquire respecting the children employed
in coal mines, had made their Report ; and if so, when it would
be laid on the table?

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that he had received a Report on
Friday or Saturday, but he had not yet had time to look into
it ; and, therefore, he was not at once prepared to answer the
latter part of the question.
REVENUE.—REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE.
Mr. HUME having understood that a Commission had been
appointed to make inquiries respecting the revenue, and the
means of effecting reductions in the civil expenditure of the
country, wished to know if there was any objection to lay
on the table a copy of the Commission, that the House might
be able to see what the precise object of the Commission was.
Sir R. PEEL had not the least objection to lay the Commis-
sion before the House. The object of the Commission was to
inquire respecting the revenue.
PE'l ITION OF MR. WILMOT.

Mr. I%IUNDAV moved that the petition of H. Sacheverell
Wilmot, of Cheddesden, in the county of Derby, presented
on the 2d of April, be printed with the Votes. He gave
notice that, on the 3d of May, he should call the attention
of the Hout,e to the subject matter of the petition.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.
Sir V. BLAKE asked the Solicitor. General for Ireland
whether a practice did not prevail of parties accused of crimi-
nal charges being obliged to pay for a license to be defended by
Queen's Counsel.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said that there had been such a
practice.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he believed the charge had been
much reduced.

When he recollected how he had been urged not to' take so
much time for the deliberation of his plans, he - could fancy
easily whet the disappointment of the Howe of Commons
timuld be, if, dui' a lapse of ilve months, he had brought for-
ward such a pioposition as that suggested by the Hon.
Member opposite. The Hon. Member refereed to the state
of the money market It appeared to him (Sir R. Peel)
that so far from the state of the money market being an en-
couragement to engage in fresh loins, it pointed out the
course which he had adopted to equalise the revenue with the
expenses of the country by direct taxation. The Noble Lord
opposite had last year expressly declared himself opposed to
the system of loans. —( Hear.) With respect to the tariff
he had already stated on the part of the Govern-
ment what was the principle upon which it was
founded, and he believed that what he had stated had given
general confidence on the subject.. He had stated that one of
his main reasons for imposing she Income-tax was to make that
temporary reduction of the duties which are included in the
tariff. He proposed to make a sacrifice of 1,200,000/. They
could not seek to maintain the Income-tax unless th.s measure
of commercial relief was simultaneously accorded with it.
When the Income. tae Bill had passed the Committee, and he
had reason to believe that the measure respecting the tariff was
aiso about to proceed, he had no objection to interpose some
slight delay between the report on the Income-tax
and the consideration of the leading portion of the
tariff. Considering that the tariff included 1,100 arti-
cles, each of which it was impossible could become subject to
d,scussion, he hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would give notice
of those portions of the tariff which were likely to become
subject of discussion. It was desirable that they should pro-
ceed as rapidly as possible with the general principle of the
tariff. He did not speak merely of details, and he gave an
assurance that it was not intended by Government to pass the
Income-tax Bill and then disregard the me,sure respecting the
tariff. Some alterations had been made respecting articles, the
duties on which he lowered still further, at the su2gestion of
parties who had brought the matter under the notice of Go-
vernment ; but no alarm need be felt that it was intended, in
any essential thing, to vary the general proposal of the Go-
vernment respecting the commercial system of the country.
Mr. lIUME said, as this was the first opportunity that he
had had of addressing the House on the Bill under considera-
tion, he was anxious to make a few observations. Though he
was opposed to many of the propositions of the Right Hon.
Baronet, he was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the situa-
tion in which he was pl iced as the Minister of this country.
The Right Hon. Baronet had undertaken a most arduous task,
and one which he (Mr. Hume) had little expected to see him
undertake. Opposing, as he had done, all the principles
which he (Mr. Hume) had maintained in reference to free
trade, he had not expected to see him take part in advancing
those principles. He was bound to state his approbation of
the manner in which the Right Honourable Baronet
had grappled with the prohibitions and restrictions
which fettered the commerce of the country. —( Hear.) If
he understood the Right lion. Baronet rightly, what he pro-
posed was, that no prohibition on commerce would any longer
exist. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet to declare that
he would apply to commerce the same principle which in 1826
had been applied by Mr. liuskisson to manufactures, and he
could not but cordially approve of such a course. He regretted
Theths
thatffct ofin
consequence allowing
os"
theirstem
that the Right Hon. Baronet had not grappled with that giant
tor e
monopoly,in ain in f
theCorn-laws.orcewoil
be
gain by the monopoly in corn, the agricultutists would not pay
one farthing to the revenue. The Right Hon. Baronet
seemed determined to proceed yet further in the reform
of the tariff; it was quite evident that having eommeneed
the work it would be impossible for him to stop until
the whole system had undergone a thorough change.
He could not but regret that the Right Hon. Baronet had left
tea and sugar untouched; he thought, however, that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not received sufficient cre.lit for
his proposed alteration in the timber duties; and he thought if
he could altogether do away with discriminating duties on foreign
timber, it would be of great advantage. No one could read
Mr. Lane's account of Norway, without perceiving the im-
mense importance that an alteration in the timber duties would
be to the country. He must say, that as a landed proprietor,
he expected to save a large proportion of what he should have
to pay for the Property-tax in the reduced price of timber to
be used in farm buildings.—(Cheers.) He thought great
credit was due to the Right Hon. Baronet for the reduction
which he had effected of the various heads heads of the tariff
from 1,100 or 1,200 to 220 or 230 ; and he hoped that a still
further reduction would he effected. In the tariff of the
Rhenish Union all the articles named in our tariff were classed
under 78 heads. He thought it would have been better if the
Right Hon. Baronet had brought the tariff forward first. It had
been calculated that 1,200,0001. would be lost in consequence
of the proposed alterations in the tariff; now, if it could be
shown that such would not be the case, a question might arise
as to whether there was any necessity for an Income-tax at all.
There had been some difference of opinion as to whether
direct taxation was better than indirect; for his part, he should
prefer raising the whole of the revenue by direct taxation, if it
could be done.—(Cheers.) Let any man trace an indirect tax
from the time it was levied at the Custom-House, and it would
be found that it had nearly doubled in amount by the time it
was paid by the consumer. The system of indirect taxation
was the one of all others most calculated to encourage a waste-
ful expenditure. In the present distressed state of the coun-
try, he thought they were called on to reduce the public estab-
lishments before they had recourse to the imposition of fresh
taxes. The taxes raised during the last year amounted to
52,000,000/. In 1836, 1837, and 1838, the amount raised by
taxes was 48,000,0001,, 49,000,0004, and 50,000,000/. All that
time the profits upon capital were from 10 to 15 per cent., and
now the profits upon capital were not more than 5 per cent., it
was proposed to raise taxes to the amount of
57,000,0004 , which would be as burdensome as a taxa-
tion of 72,000,00e4 would have) been four years ago,
in consequence of the diminished profits on capital.
Under these circumstances it was the duty of the Right Hon.
Baronet to introduce a rigid economy into every department of
the public service, from the highest to the lowest. Let him
begin with the ivil List. It was supposed that the Queen
had the whole of the income voted by Parliament. It was
no such thing. The Queen's own income was about 60,000/.
a-year, all the rest was absorbed by the Civil List, by the
Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain, and squandered away
upon lords and ladies, and Court finery, and all kinds of ex
travagance. When he beard of the distress of Paisley, Bolton,
and Stockport—he could scarcely believe the evil spread so far
as was represented ; but there were tens of thousands steeped
in the greatest misery—families who were working from 6
o'clock in the morning till 8 at night, and could not even
thns obtain an adequate provision—was it possible
that the country could be contented to remain in such a state,
while the Court was rioting in extravagance, and public officers
were enjoying the money of the people ?—( Hear, hear.) He
would not propose that the income of her Majesty should be
taxed, because he did not think that what she received was too
much to support her station.—( Hear, hear.) But a great
deal might be saved out of the salaries of public officers. Her
Majesty had only 60,000/. b•
whi being deducted from
335,000/. would leave 325,000/. one half of which might be
saved to the country. He was sure her Majesty, who had
shown so much anxiety for the welfare of her people, would
rather give up the gilding and gaudy appearance of a Court
which rivalled that of Louis XIV_( Laughter.) Hon. Mem-
bers might laugh, but if one of the courtiers of that time were to
appear, he would say the frippery and gold laceof the Court ex-
ceeded that of Louis XlV.—(Laugheee.) Before the country
was called on to pay an Income-tax, those large salaries
ought to be reduced. The people were already burdened with
taxation to the amount of 52000,0004, and if 4,000.000/. ad-
ditional were levied, the burden would fall on those who were
already suffering.—( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that
a part of the ezpenditure of the country consisted of 4,200,0001.
which „." paid to officers for collecting a part of the revenue
which might be easily reduced to half, by consolidating the
present system of collection, and doing away with those persons
who were appointed to keep up the present system of absurd
restrictions. He had no doubt of the good intentions of the
Right Hon. Baronet, and lie admired the boldness with which
he met the extreme opposition of the agriculturists and monopo-
lists, and he hoped he would continue to follow in the same track.
They ought to make a reduction in the expenditure, before any
vote for an Income-tax was taken. lie (Mr. Hume) would
venture to make more reductions in the establishment of the
country, than would be gained from the Income-tax. The
Right /ion. Baronet would obtain but a small amount after
all ; but what an oppression it would be on the people, for
nothing could be more terrible to the country than the inflic-
tion of snch an inquisition as that attendant upon an Income -
tax. He (Mr. Hume) considered that every man employed in
making money ought to be unfettered. The tax ought to be
on land and houses, and if the Right Hon. Baronet would do
this, he (Mr. Hume) was not only prepared to vote for a
Prop rty-tax, but also for the reduction of seven or eight mil-
lions of indirect taxation, to be made up by a direct tax. There
was 7,000,000/. employed in the collection of the revenue, the
civil list, and pensions. Why not reduce these? The parties build-
ing them were more interested in the welfare of the State, than
the working in n. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would
take all these circumstances into his consideration. Then the
Right Hon. Baronet ought to:tax real property by descent, espe-
cially as the Right Hon. Baronet tallied about protecting no
particular interest. He (Mr. llume) had been hammering at
this principle for'ten years—(Laughter)--but he was afraid it
had been with very little effect. When the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer was in office, and proposed to increase the re-
venue five millions, he (Mr. Hume) told him that with respect
to his mode of taxation, two and two did not make four. He
(Mr. Hume) was aware that only 30 Members voted for the
proposition he had submitted, but the Noble Lord (John Rus-
sell) was at last convinced of its policy, and if he came into
office to-morrow he would be obliged to adopt it immediately.
He ( Mr. Hume) objected to this Income-tax, but so far as he
could, he would support the Right Hon. Baronet. There were
good points in the proposal of the Right Hon. Baronet, but why
not have the good without the bad? Why not have a Property,
and nit an Income-tax ? Let them reduce the expenditure.
The expenditure up to the 21st July, was 2.200,000/. Why
not then reduce this expenditure in the Civil List, and then liy
a tax on real property, which would realise about 500,000/. a
year, taxed in the same proportion as real property ? Could
any man deny that this was practicable? Let them have
recourse to this, and there would be no necessity
for an Income-tax.—( Hear, hear.) It was on these
grounds that he considered the Right Hon. Gentleman was
bringing on himself troubles, and adding distress and misery
to the people. Every million of taxation deprived a number
of industrious men of employment, and thus accumulated misery
H
and wretchedness. He (Mr.ume) was sure that if the
Right Hon. Baronet saw this in the light that he (Mr. Hume)
did—( Loud laughter)—Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he
had no doubt the Right Hon. Baronet was labouring under a
delusion—(Hear)—no doubt the Honourable Gentlemen
.urrounding the Right Hon. Baronet, prevented him doing as
he liked.—( Laughter.) He was confident that if the Right
Hon. Baronet had adopted the course suggested by Hon.
Members on his (Mr. Flame's) side of the House, there would
have been no need of the Income-tax. If the Right Hon.
Baronet had admitted sugar at the duty proposed last session—
if lie had admitted corn at a fixed duty, as an article of revenue
—although he considered it would be a fixed injustice on the
country, still it would be a better mode-of providing for the de-
ficiency in the finances of the country—the Right Hon. Bart.
would have perceived the moral effect such a step would have
produced upon the rest of the world. But now they would
not think the Right Hon. Baronet was sincere. Take Ame-
rica as an example. They were adding all in their power
to the duties on British articles, and why ? The Right Hon.
Baronet would not consent to remove our Corn-laws. He
knew that taxation fell immediately on the working men more
than any other class, those who were suffering so much from
the effect of taxation. He had stated his views to the House ;
they might, in the opinion of Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite be erroneous ; but he could assure them they
were sincere. He was aware that much time had
been occupied on this subject ; but he considered it to
be h.s duty to state his opinions to the House. He could
+sauce the Right Hon. Baronet that, although he generally dif-
fered from him, lie should give his best assistance in forwarding
the tariff, and he wished he could say he could give him a
vote for the Income-tax.
Toe question having been put, the House resolved itself
into a Committee on the Income-tax Bill.

The Bill was ordered to be read paragraph by paragraph.
On Clause 1 being proposed,
111 r. WOOD rose and said, he wished to put a question to
the Right Hon. Baronet. He wished to `know whether the
Right Han, Baronet intended to set the lots sustained under
one schedule against the profit derived from another. Sup-.
posing he gained a profit under Schedule A, and sustained loss
under. Schedule B, would he be allowed to strike the balance?
Suppo,,ing a farmer gained money by his farm, and at the
same time, being engaged in trade, lost money under that de-
partment, wan it fair that he should be bound to pay
the - hiixithe-tat under ' that schedule -in- which he hap-

I !boned to make a profit ? Again, take any persons
nolditip,- landed property, he might gain I,oou/. a-year
by his landed property, and lose 2,0001. a-year by trade, he
then, f,re lost 1,0001. a-year, still he was chargeable for the
profit made upon the land. Many other ins'ances might be
riven. With regard to incomes of 1501. a-year, under which
sure no person was to be chargeable ; suppose a person made
201. by land, 201. by dividends, 301. by trade, and something
by profession, they would take all those different amounts for
the purpose of making up the 150/. a-year. They would not
allow the 201. in dividends to be deducted from the whole
income, but every item would be taken to make up the 1501.,
let it be from hatever source it might ; and although that per-
son might lose by trade, he would have to pay the Income-
tax on the 15(7. IT, therefore wished to know whether the
Right lion. Baronet intended to provide a clause whereby a
person mio-ht be allowed to set the profit under one schedule
against the lo:s under another ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the pro-
per time for putting the question was when the Bill was under
discussion. The Hen. Gentleman wished the profit of one trade
set against the loss of another. The Hon. Gentleman had
adverted to property as being one of the hardships to which
he had referred. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
put to the Hon. Gentleman, supposing a gentleman owned an
estate, and farmed it himself. as many genlemen did, and he
lost hi farming what he would have gained had he let his estate,
could the Hon. Gentleman wish that person to be exempt
from the tax? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must in-
tem the Hon. Gentleman that a clause of the nature the
Hon. Member had referred to, was not intended to he intro-
duced into the Hill. With respect to the incomes of 1501. of
course the whole income would be brought together, and
charged with the Income-tax, and in that ease a loss would
not be set against a profit.
Mr. 13. WOOD could not at all agree with the Right lion.
gentleman with respect to a man farming his own land, if he
lost upon that it ought to be set against any other pi ofit.
Mr. WARD made some remarks, whirls were inaudible in
the gallery.
Sir. WOOD said, the Hon. Member might say it was non-
,ense, for it was nonsense to him, who, perhaps, was a good
farm r ; but he (Mr. B. Wood) must say, that if a man lost
money in consequence of farming his own land, although if it
had been let to en industrious and skilful farmer it might
have produced a profit, still that man ought not to be taxed on his
loss. So in the ease of ship-owners. They might possess
ships, and navigate them themselves, but they could not ilo it
so well as a skillful seamen, and loss would be the result. They
would not charge the Income-tax upon the profit that ought to have
been made. So with the man who farmed his own land, if he sus-
tained a loss, he ought not to be made chargable to the Income-tax
There could be no right to charge a man with a tax upon in-
come, from a property which yields him none whatever. He
once knew a man who in one year gained 25,000/., but the
next year he lost 40,0001., and that year, he (Mr. Wood)
had to pay the 2,500/. Income-tax for him. If the tax was an
Income-tax what necessity was there for schedules? Were
they not most unjust?
The CHAIRMAN said that the question before else House
was whether the words—from the sth of April, 1842—should
stand part of the Bill.
Mr. 13LEWITT could see no reason why the tax should
commence from the sth of April, 1842—( Hear, hear, and a
laugh)—and he saw no reason either why the question
should not he debated upon that clause.
Sir. lIUME asked when was it intended to take off the duty
upon imported cattle and the other articles in the tariff?
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said, that

the Income-tax was to last only for three years, and it was
indifferent whether it commenced from the sth of April or
the 10th of May. The tariff was to be a permanent impo.t,
and it would not commence until after the passing of the Bill.
Dr. 130 WRING thought the tariff and the Income-tax
mglit to be brought into operation at the same time.
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. WARD,
the question was put, and the blank was filled up as proposed,
and the preamble as amended was agreed to.
On the question that in Schedule A, which was " For all

lands, tenements, and hereditament. or heritages, in Great
Britain, there shall be charged yearly, in respect of the
property thereof, for every 20s. of the annual value thereof,"
the blank should be filled up with the words, " the sum of 7d."
Mr. 13. WOOD said, as he had not received an answer to
his question, he would move as an amendment that this Sche-
dule be rejected, and he would divide the House upon it.
Mr. GEORGE PALMER did not yet understand wkether
it was the intention of the Government that any man should be
taxed more than 3} per cent. upon his real income ?—( Hear,
hear.) If it was not, then no man ought to be taxed upon
nominal income.—( Hear. )
Mr. F. BARING thought the question of the Hon. Gen-
tleman ( Mr. Wcod) most. reasonable, and one that ought to be
answered. It ought to be known how his losses in one sche-
dule were to be set off against his profits in another. If this
were not provided for the greatest injustice would be done, and
a man really not receiving 1001. of clear income might be taxed
upon 3001.—( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that, in the present measure,
there was a great relaxation of the provisions of the former
Income-tax, under which no kind of income or property, how-
ever small, was exempted. Here no Income-tax was intended
under 150/., anti, except upon public officers, fundholders, and
some others, who received their incomes quarterly, the tax
could not be collected before October, whilst the tariff would
come into operation as soon as possible after the passing of that
measure.

Mr. ROEBUCK had thought the object of the Act was to
tseertain what each man's real income was, and to tax him ac-
cordingly ; but a man who had 500/. in land might show that
he was engaged in trade by which he lost 300/. a year, so that
his actual income was no more than 200/. Was it just—was
it honest—to tax him for the whole of the 5001. a-year, which
he derived from one source, and to allow no deduction for his
losses in another ?—(Hear, hear.) The object was said to be
to ascertain what be really received from all his occupations,
and he ought to be allowed to show where the gain from one
was diminished by the loss from another.
Sir GEORGE CLERK understood that every man deriving
ISO!. a-year from land, or from the funds, or other income, was
to he taxed. If a man possessing that income chose to engage
in losing speculations, he did not think that would be a ground
fir deduction. For instance, if a gentleman possessed of
10,0001. a year, chose to gamble away a large part of his in-
come at Newmarket, was that to be admitted as a ground for
exempting him from the payment of the tax?—(Oh, oh, )
Lord 1-lOWICK wished to convince the House of the irre-
sistible justice of the claim set up on that (the Opposition I
side of the House. The principle was, that every man should
pay upon his income. But if a man derived from some fixed
source, an income not sufficient for the wants of his family,
and engaged in trade to make up the deficiency, was it just to
charge him upon his losses as if they were actual income ? lie
would not trifle with the House by arguing upon the manifest
injustice of comparing such a man to the gentleman who lost
his 10,000/., or any other affluent fortune, by gambling at
Newmarket, or elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) It was upon a
man's available income he was to be taxed, and all should be
put together and balanced, to see upon what amount he was in
justice to be charged.—( Hear, hear.) Of the Bill itself, he
must here say that it was unusually unintelligible, even for an
Act of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) An Act like this, so
voluminous and complicated in its provisions, ought to have
appended to it an abstract which would lay its main provisions
clearly before those who had occasion to consult it, but neither

time nor ability to wade through all its details.
The CHANG ri.:LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had
done all in his power to make the Act intelligible, and he was
ready to give the Noble Lord, or any other Gentleman, any as-
sistencc to enable them to understand its provisions satisfactorily.
lle would not say that he approved altogether of the suggestion
made to the House. The subject had its difficulties, but the
Government would take the matter into its further considera-
tion.

Mr. HAWES said, that the object of the Bill was to tax
income ; and it would be contrary to that principle to tax
property from which no income was derived. Why should not
there be a general provision that each man should return the
net amount of his income, from whatever source it might
come ? That would be the fair way of carrying out the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his
apprehension was, that if they took a statement of the net,
amount of each individual's income, without inquiring into the
sources from which it was derived, they would be opening the
door to fraud, and defeating to a certain extent the object of the
measure. . _

Mr. ROEBUCK insisted on the practical injustice of taxing
incomes which, in reality, were never received.
Sir R. PEEL said that the House would bear in mind that
the Act was drawn up on the general principles of the Act of
1806. The Act divided property, as had been the case with
the former Act, under five different heads, into five different
schedules. He apprehended such a course was rendered neces-
sary, by the fact that the duties upon different descriptions of
property were levied in different modes. Landed property, for
instance, was made payable by the owners of land, and was
taken from the tenant. A tenant's property was estimated at
one-half of the rent; and funded property was taxed by stop-
ping the duty upon the payment of the dividends. He appre-
hended they would find it absolutely necessary to retain the
schedules. He earnestly hoped the House would bear in mind
that they were not only levying a tax for, three years, but
that they were probably now determining the principles
which, speaking generally, they shonld adhere to, in case it
should be necessary to have recourse to such a system of tax-
ation for a larger period.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," from the
Opposition benches.) What he meant was, that they should
estimate not only the inconvenience of a three per tentage upon
property enduring for three years, but that they should bear in
mind that it was possible that this being an instrument re-
sorted to in time of war, they should consider not only the
temporary inconvenience but the precedent they might esta-
blish. He admitted that the proposal of the Hon. Member
far Southwark carried with it a great appearance of justice,
and that it seemed but fair that a man should set off his losses
in one quarter, against his gains in another. But at the
same time- they should consider whether by attempting to
remedy this partial inconvenience they might not open the
doors to frauds and evasions which would defeat to a certain
extent the purposes of the Bill. He thought the matter de-
serve 1 further consideration, and that consideiation was all
that he could promise on the part of the Government. It
appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Southwark should
himself take charge of the matter; but in any case he hoped
they would reserve their decision for another time.
Lord HOWICK agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that
it would not be convenient to come to an immediate decision
upon a matter involving so many difficulties and so many con-
siderations. He hoped the subject would hereafter be maturely
considered, and that some clause would be devised which, while
it did not interfere with the efficiency of the measure, would
prevent a great practical injustice. He did not think the
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Southwark. should be called
upon to frame a clause upon the subject, but that the Govern-
ment should themselves fairly take up the matter.
Sir R. PEEL said, that he only wished that the Hon.
Member for Southwark should give the Government some
notice of his opinioni.as to the course which he would think it
advisable to take; and the Government would afterwards, if
they
.should approve of his views, take upon themselves the
framing of the clause.
Mr. B. WOOD said, that he would be glad to find the
matter taken up by the Government. His only object was that
income should be taped fairly, according to its amount, no
matter from what source it might be derived ; and that the
various schedules of the Bill should be so framed, that the
receipts of individuals from different sources might be taken into
account. The very importance of the result of the resolution
which they might come to, and the probability that they were
legislating not only for the present but that they were forming
precc:ients for future times, should make them more cautious
as to the course which thy ought to pursue. He believed
he could leave the matter to the Government. He collected
from the manner still more than from the language of the Right
Hon. Baronet, that it would be safe in his hands ; and lie
( Mr. Wood) should therefore withdraw his amendment for the
present.
Sir R. PEEL begged to state that be had never said the
tax was to last more than three years.; he had neither ex-
pressed nor implied any opinion that the tax would extend
beyond that period. If he made any engagements, ho always
intended to fulfil them, and he was therefore very cautious in
his statements. The Hon. Gentleman could. not expect him
to say more than that the alterations in' the Act from the prin-
ciples of that of 1806, had been carefully considered, and
wherever justice could be done in individual eases, without
giving an opportunity to evasions and frauds, and injustice to
those who paid the tax. If it was _possible to devise any clause
that would meet the objection of the ikon. Gentleman, he
would give the Hon. Gentleman due notice of its general
.t inita: ions.

--Sir. WALTER JAMES wished to ask if the Government
intended to make any deduction on ono schedule for the loss
an individual might have sustained in property classed under

another schedule. Ile illustratki his ohjoctto' nby referring
to the case of a schoolmaster, Also erigagert in trade, and
suffering. serious loss on his property em.,faged 'in commerce,
being obliged to pay the tax on the whole of his income from the
mo,ety of his income derived from hi; school. If the Go-
vernment could not en the length of the ItigLt
Honourable
Gentleman, yet. they might take care that parties nutte...:.9g loss
under one schedule, should have an indulgence granted the 2
on property they might possess in another. On pi inciples of
abstract justice it was impossible not to agree with Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, but there would he great difficulty in carry-
ing Rut their proposition.
Mr. WALLACE could not understand why men should
pay for more than their income. \Vas It to be said that they
were to pay for more than they really got in a year ? If
it was not., he hoped some member of the Government would
get up and say that it was not the case. There were a great
number of averages in the Bill—then why should they not
have averages of income ? Persons ought not to be debarred
from showing that they had a loss on one schedule, and that
the loss should be set off against the gain on another.

Schedule A was then put, and agreed to without a division.
On the motion that schedule B stand part of the Bill,
Nit-. ROEBUCK said, that this schedule enacted that all
Luny, tenements, and heredity rents in England, should

be charged yearly in respect of their occupation 3.,.(1. for
every 20s. of their annual value. This included every house
in London, and he wi,hed to know why the words of the reso-
lution were not found here.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax

was expected to be le.ied under the provisions of the old Act,
and referred the Hors. Gentleman to the clause specifying the
nature of the occupation.
Lord HOWICK said that the schedule taxed tenants on the
amount of profit derived from their occupation, but very arbi-
trarily assumes! that the farmer's profit was one half the
amumd of his rent. This was very arbitrarily laid down. It
did not even approach the truth, and in a great number of
cases it was not only not true, but was very wide of it. He
hoped that Gentlemen from Scotland and the North of Eng-
lind in particular, would make a stand on this point, for
this reason, that the rent the tenant pays was
the profit derived from the land after the expense of cultivation.
When land was occupied in large farms, a much larger surplus
was made in proportion to the rent than where the land was
farmed in an inferior manner. In the county which he repre-
sented, the farms were large, and cultivated with skill and in-
telligence, and any gentleman acquainted with the North of
Englmd, would be aware that many farmers paid a larger rent
than that amount. On a farm of this size the surplus would be
greater to the landlord than on three farms in the South of
England of 3001. a year each, yet, in both cases, the profit of

. . . , . .. .
the tenant was supposed to be 450/. That would have atendency
to throw farms of this description out of cultivation, and he
thought would subject the agricultural interest to great in-
justice. He thought that injustice would be completely removed
by s4iking out the clause altogether, and including the farmer
among all other traders. —( Hear, hear.) Odious as the inqui-
sition was, he believed the farmers would rather submit to it

than be taxed under this arbitrary rule. To a eertsin extent,
they had introduced the principle with respect to the growing
of hops. On referring to page 44 of the Act, No. 8, they
would find that the hop farmer was considered a trader, and as-
sessed according to the profits he made . In the other cases
the taxes were levied not from the profits received but from the
rent paid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
provisions of the Act had been copied from the former Bill, and
it had been thought to class farmers as trailers would have been
a great grievance. The tax might not act with perfect
equality, but of all parts of the old Income-tax, the least
complained of was the mode in which farming property was
as,essed.
Lord WOll SLEY agreed very much with what had been
stated by his Noble Friend, but he would prefer taking the
amount out of the rental, instead of the inquisitorial system pro-
posed.
Mr. HUME thought the system proposed was fraught with
injustice.
Mr. B. DENNISON would support the schedule in its pre-
sent form.
Mr. WALLACE agreed with the Noble Lord, that the far-
mers of Scotland would rather prefer the scrutiny than that the
tax should be taken on the round sum.

Lord HOWICK thought that the manner in which this ob-
jection was made, was a proof of the injustice of the measure.
The blank was then filled up as proposed.
The CHAIRMAN then proposed that the blank in the re-
maining clause in the schedule should ho filled up with the
words •• twopence.halfpenny," the effect of which was that for
all tint's, tenements, and heritages in Scotland there should be
charged yearly, in respect of the occupation thereof, the sum
of twopence-halfpenny.
After a few observations from Mr. FOX MAIILE it. was
agreed to fill up the blank as proposed.
On the question that Schedule B stand part of the Bill,
Mr. BARING wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whe-
ther foreigners holding English stock were to be exempted
from the tax?

Sir R. PEEL said he did not mean to make any such ex-
ception.
Air. MIME said, that in taxing the fundholders, they
were violating the public faith which had been pledged to the
receivers of dividends, who were as much entitled to be free
from taxation as any Hon. Gentleman in that House was to
enjoy the revenue arising from his land.
Colonel SIBTIIO RP thought, that not only every foreigner
possessing money in our funds should be taxed, but every
gentleman having a foreign servant, should be subject to the
tax.

The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and Schedule Ili
was agreed to.
On Schedule C being proposed,
Mr. RICARDO objected to the tax being imposed on
terminable annuities.—(Hear, hear.) It was equally un-
fair in its operation as regarded life annuities.—( Hear.)
lie denounced this assessment of the terminable annuities as a
positive breach of contract, justifiable by no precedent, defensi-
ble by no argument, and only dependent upon an arbitrary
will, backed by a large majority.—( Cheers.) The Ho-
nourable Member then moved that the following words be
inserted : " Except all such annuities as are payable out
of the public revenues, which are granted, ur may be granted
for a definite period of time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not admit that this was a breach of a contract which
had been entered into with the annuitants. The Honourable
Gentleman had said that the case was entirely without pre-
cedent. There undoubtedly he was wrong; for upon all the
occasions on which an Income-tax or a Property-tax had been
previously proposed, there had been ne distinction made be-
tween the holder of a public annuity which was to
endure for ever, and the holder of a public annuity to
endure for the shortest period. The course which the lion.
gentleman had submitted to the House was submitted in the first
discussion of an Income-tax, and in no case had the distinction
contended for been allowed. The apparent force of the argu-
nicht arose from the circumstance that the tax which they
proposed to impose was for a limited period. The lion. Gen-
tleman could not deny that if the Income-tax were to be per-
petual there would be no injustice in taking the same amount
from the annuitant for a term of years as from the man who
had a permanent income. The annuitant receiving 10 per
cent. for three years would not, in fact, receive so much as the
annuitant receiving 3 per cent for fifty years.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, with respect to the alleged fall in the value of these an-
nuities, he had made inquiries as to what had been the effect
upon the market price, and he found that the rise in the annui-
ties had been equivalent to the rise which had taken place in
other descriptions of funded property.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought that was a sufficient proof that this species of property
had experienced no serious injury. The Honourabel Gentleman
must be aware that some of the most skilful men in the
monetary concerns of this cout.try had, within the
last few days, made large purchases of these very annuities.—
(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend had, on a previous oc-
casion stated the extreme difficulty of attempting to make dis-
tinctions of this nature. It appeared to him, as he had already
stated, that the great objection rested upon the temporary na•
tura of the tax, and he thought that that objection had been
satisfactorily answered.
Mr. RICARDO said the Right lion. Gentleman had
omitted to mention one point, namely, that the price of an-
nuities in the market was equal to something under 701.
Consols. . _ .

_
Mr. GOULBURN said the price of annuities was always
something under the comparative price of the funds. It
would be found that the rise at the present time in the price of
annuities had not fallen in comparison► with the rise of other
funds.

Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the knowledge displayed
by the Hon. Member who made the present motion, showed
that he was worthy of the distinguished name he bore.—
( Hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, to his sur-
prise, was obliged to apologise to the House for net being
prepared because he did not expect the motion ; but if he
looked at the reso:utions, he would find that the Hon. Member
would, in Schedule C, make such a motion. The Right
Honourable Gentleman had only told them throughout
his argument that he was not prepared, and met every question
with the argument that this was the old Bill that existed before.
—(hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman adopted the
argument of the Right Hun. Baronet in admitting that this
was an injustice, but that there were also other cases of injus-
tice, and because he could not remedy all he would not remedy
this. The Right Hon. Gentleman instanced the case of a life
estate in land. That was an hardship, undoubtedly, but it was
no reason why they should not remedy the injustice pointed out
in the present case. There was no doubt, whatever may be
the technical or legal distinction, that these terminable annuities
would be subject to a greater tax than permanent annuities, and
nothing could be more unjust, considering the circumstances
under which the holders of those annuities were induced to
change them. It was also an objection that the tax was only to
continue for 3 years, and to be paid by those whose annuities
would only continue for that length of time. It appeared to
him that the case was monstrously unjust, and he hoped the
Hon. Member would take the sense of the House on it.—( Hear. )
Lord HO WICK said that he agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet, that it was impossible to satisfy the expectations of
all parties when the tax was to be imposed, but he still thought
that the maker of a motion had succeeded in showing that
there were special grounds in the present case to take it out
of that principle. He considered it contrary to their sense of
justice, that the holders of terminable annuities should be
turned round upon, as they were in the present instance.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Commit-
tee divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Ricardo's amendment ... ll7
Against it
Majority against it
On our re-admission to the gallery the House was in con-
siderable confusion, in which it was impossible to gather any-
thing connected of a conversation which was carried on be-
tween Mr. Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Roebuck. At length, amidst loud cries of " Adjourn,"
" Order," " Go on,"
Sir 11. PEEL said, that he thought the measure was of
so great importance, that he would lose no opportunity of
going on with it.—( Hear. )
Mr. LEADER thought that the proposition of his Hon.
and Learned Friend, wholasked for an adjournment, was not
at all unreasonable, and if it was pressed to a motion he would
second it. The Hon. Member for Sheffield had a motion for
to-ncorrow night, and they ought not to go on with the very
next schedule " ll," until that motion was disposed of.
Sir R. PEEL was then understood to say that he would
agree to the adjournment, believing that it was the general
consent of the House that he should be allowed to go ox in the
Committee on the Income-tax at an early hour to-morrow.
Mr. HUM E then asked whether it was intended to go on
with the tariff before he proceeded to the third reading of the
Income-tax Bill ?
Sir R. PEEL was understood to answer in the affirmative.
In reply to a question from Mr. WALLACE,
Sir R. PEEL repeated that he should suspend the third
reading of the Income-tax Bill until he had taken the sense. of
the House on thegeneral principle of the tariff.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress,
and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow (this day).
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee of
Ways and Means. The Report was received.
The Dublin Police Bill went through Committee. Report
to-morrow.(this day).
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
The Municipal Corporations Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday_.'
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH (IRELAND).
The Punishment of Death (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time.

TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
CIVIL DECREES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Civil Decrees (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.

The Excise Duties Compounding Bill went tht ough Corn•
mittee, and ordered to be reported to-morrow.
On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON it was ordered that
Henry Fisk, and Elizabeth Ann Cullen (who had! petitioned
the House for the discharge of Obadiah Burnwick I`..ucas), and
the furgeun of her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, should attend
the House to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of; .aixi the
!louse adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock.

SPORTING INTELLGENCE.

NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING-

_
The only additigra to the list for this meeting as published
by us on Sa urday week, are a match for Monday between
Lord Albemarle's Buffalo, SA 71b, and Col. Peel's Hawk's-
eve, Bst 21b. Ab. M. 50 ; and one for Thursday bets, een
Mr. Higgins's Vigo, Bst 71b; and Mr. Clarke's f, by Sir Hier-
cities, out of Octina, Bst 41b. D. M. 100. Moat of tve
horses engaged in the course of the week are in training, hal
several are not likely to run; amongst them may be enume-.
rated —*Miss Van Amburgh, af, by Camel, out of Albania.,,
Robin, Dorothy, Rover, *Miniature colt, Brother to Phosnix,
Wild Dnek colt, e, out, of Zany's dam, Lucullus, "Amadon
colt., Marinello colt, 'The Witch of \\Thorley Hill, *Brigand,
Utopia, Envoy, 'March of Intellect, *Oh Don't, *Lituania,
The Whiagig filly, Valance, *l, out of Sister to Portrait,
Adelgund, i;ozelle, The Layde of Silverkeld Nell, -*Lass of.
',gator, *Christopher, Reversion, Albion, *St. James's,
*Brother to Vulture, Hookwith, Mona colt, Johnny Fart, The
Puneher, *Bennington (paid), and panto eolt.—( Those with
the -* prefixed are not at Newmarket. )—The following were
expected on Saturday:—Wiseacre, Eleus, Palladium, Pas-
sion, Barrier, Proof Print, and two or three others be-
longing to Lord G. Bentinck, Mr. Gregory, and John Day.
BETTING IN LONDON UP TO SATURDA%

AIORNIN G. •
DER to 1 agst Frederica c (t), 9 to 1 agst Attila (I ),
12 to I agit Jack (t), 16 to 1 agst Auckland, 17 to I agst
Canadian, 22 to 1 agst Robert de Gorham (t), 33 to 1 apt
The Lord of Holderness, 50 to 1 agst the Agreeable c (t),
50 to I agst Palinurus, 1,000 to 15 agst Eleus. 1,000 to lo
agst. Tripoli, 1,000 to 15 agst Belcceur (t).
OAKS.—Topsail has been backed once or twice at 10 to 1.
NEWMARKET, SUNDAY NIGHT.
Several arrivals, but no betting. The following -..re the
entries for to-morrow :

13. C. Plate—Currycomb, 5 yrs ; Fiambeau, 6 yrs ; E. 0.,
4 yrs ; and Florence, 4 yrs.
I). M. Sweepstakes—Flambrau, 6 yrs ; Eringo, 4 yrs; and
Ballet, 3 yrs.
10 Sovs. Sweepstakes—C out of Zany's dam; fby Buzzard.
out of Emma ; Balance f; MarEhal 13iron ; Patchwork ; Astro-
nomer ; c by Emilius, out of Benefit's dam ; and Rabin.
T. Y. C. Ilandicap—Menalippe, 5 yrs, 9st 41b; The Moun-
tain Sylph, ft yrs, Bst 7th ; 11...a'5-eye, 4 yrs, 7st 9Th ; Mi-
naret, 4 yrs, Bst '211,; Astronomer, 3 yrs, 6st 71b; Rover, 3
yis,list Jib; Mulatto c, 3 yrs, (ist ; and c by Retainer, dam by
St. Patrick. 3 vrs. fist.
NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING.
MONDAY.

The races commenced this afternoon, at half-past twelve,
none of the drawbacks that told so seriously against its
predecessor—the Craven. The weather is not fine alone, but
delightfully mild and seasonable. The list is full of promise,
and tie company numerous and aristocratic ; in all the essen-
tials, therefore, we see every reason to antieipatea good week.
A ring was formed in front of the rooms about eleven o'clock,
but the only bets laid were 500 to 400 on the Lord of Holder-
nes against The Devil among the Tailors for the Derby, and
3 to 1 against Misdeal, and 4 to 1 against Meteor for the 2,000
Guineas Stakes (he is much out of favour). Lord G.
lientinck has struck out Tedworth and Firebrand for this race,
and declared that Peloponnesus will not run if Misdeal keeps
well. Timoleon does not run for it.

The races began with
The Handicap Sweepstakes, 20 sovs. each, h ft, if declared, for
3 vrs old, &c. T.Y.C. (8 Subs )
Colonel Peel's ilawk's•eye, 4 yrs, ist 91b (Chapple) 1
Mr. Uoulman's Rover, 3 yrs, Est 7lb
Captain Daintree's cby Mulatto, dby Middleton, 3 yrs, Est 3
The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr.
Thornhill's Menalippe, 5 yrs, 9st 41b ; Mr. Osbaldliston's The
Mountain Sylph, 5 yrs, Bst 71b ; Captain Colquitt's Astronomer,
3 yrs, Est 71b ; and Lord Kelburne's c by Retainer, dam by
St. Patrick, 3 yrs, Est.
Betting.-10 to 6 agst Hawk's-eye, and 5 to 1 each agst
Menalippe and Rover.
The three horses placed laid in front all the way, Rover
making play at a strong pace till close to the chair, when
hawk's-eye made a rush and won by a head. The Mountain
Sylph was a respectable fourth.
Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, for 3 yrs-old fillies, Bst 71b each.
T. Y. C. (6 Subs. )
Mr. Bowes's The Ladye of Silverkeld (Scott) 1
Mr. Thornhill's Eusebia -
Fulwer Craven's Don't-say-no
Betting-6 to 4 agst Ensebia, 7to 4 agst Don't-say-no, and
to 2 agst the winner. Don't-say-no cut out the work to the
cords and then ran out; the other two went on and made a
close race home, The Ladye winning by half a length.
Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, for three yrs old colts, Sat 71b,
and fillies tzst -11 b, T. Y. C. The winner to be sold for 2001.
(8 Subs. )
Mr. 11. Greene's e by Wiseacre, out of Zany's dam....... ...... 1
Lord Albemarle's Robin •••
Mr. Price's Marshal Biron

The following also started, but were not placed :—Lord
Exeter's Patchwork; Mr. Crockford's f by Buzzard out of
Emma; Mr. Goodman's f by Ishmael, out of Balance ; Cap-
tain Colquitt's Astronomer, and Mr. Barne's br c by Emilius,
out of Benefit's dam.

Betting.-3 to I agst the Wiseacre colt ;3to I agst Emma
colt ; 7 to 2 agst Patchwork ; and 4 to 1 apt Robin.
Tlie Wiseacre colt, against the will of his jockey, made
nearly all the running to the cords, where Robin headed
bins, but was caught again near the chair, and beaten by
a neck ; Marshal Biros) and Patchwork were nearly abreast at
the finish.

Match, 200 sous., h ft, T. Y.C., Duke of Bedford's Oakley,
ist 10Ib (C. Edwards) beat Mr. Byng's Garry Owen Bst 61b.
2 to 1 on Oakley, wh.a won easy by two lengths.
Match, 200 sovs., h ft, R. M., Bst 71b each :—puke of Port-
land's f by Dr. Syntax out of Ruth (.(.Day) beat Lord Chester.
field's ml. filly by Aluley Moloch out of Carew's dam, 3 to 1 on
Ruth filly. Won by half a length.
Sweepstakes of 20 SAWS. each, for 3 yrs-old 7st, 4 yrs Bst 91b,
5 yrs Oat 21b, 6 vrs and aged Oat 41b, p. M. (3 Subs. )
Duke of Rutland's Flambeau, 6 yrs (Robinson) 1
Mr. Ford's Ballet, 3 yrs
2 to 1 or, Flambeau, who took the lead, kept it, and won easy
by a length and a half.
Sweepstakes of 50 sous. each for colts Sat 71b, and fillies

fist 31b, A.F.
Corabe's Rosalind, by Touchstone (allowed 31b)
Mr. lliggs' Eleus, by Elis (do.)
Mr. Goodman's 1, by Ishmael out of Balance .. 3
Betting 6 to 4 on Eleus, 2 to I agst Rosalind, and ti to I agst
the Balance filly. The Balance filly made running nearly half
a mile, and was then passed by Eleus, who went on at a
wretched pace to the bushes, where Rosalind collared him, and
won after a short-struggle by a head.
Match, 200, h ft; A. F.—Lord Albernarle's Ralph, Bst 101 b
(Robinson), heat Lord G. Bentinck's Proof Print, Est 41b.
5t04 on Ralph. Won cleverly.
The Plate was not run when our express left.
Horses Arrived.—Peloponnesus, Misdeal, Wiseacre, Eleus,
and Gazelle. Passion and Palladium are expected;
Horses Scratched.—Brother to Phoenix, Firebrand, and
Tedworth, for the 2,000 Guinea stakes; Barrier for the 100
sov. stakes on Wednesday ; :Era, for the 50 Sol,' stakes on
Wednesday ; and Brother to Vulture and Bennington, for the
Newmarket stakes.

Those who fancy that their journey to Newmarket will be
"accelerated" by "railing" half the distance, will frequently
find themselves disappointed, as nothing is more probable than
a loss of twenty minutes, and sometimes half as much more, on
the advertised time from Shoreditch to Spelbrook. The ar-
rangements on this line are disgraceful.