The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

INCOME-TAX BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House then resolved itself into Com-
mittee on the Income-tax Bill.

On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. HUME objected to the power which this clause
would give to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes,
as being excessive and inquisitorial.
After a few words in reply from the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER, which were not audible in the
gallery, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 4 being put,
Mr. HUME expressed his disapprobation of the prin-
ciple of allowing the Commicsioners of Land-tax to ap-

point Commissioners for the purposes of the Act. He
would rather leave those appointwnt, in the hands of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I he ok,Li then
have some further securiv against objectionable ap-
pointments„

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. Member proposed to throw too onerous a burden
upon him.

-Mr. HUME said that the Chancellor of the Exche-
querdwould, as a Member of the Government, be re-
sponsible for the appointments he might make ; but the
Commissioners of Land-tax might be considered as vir-
tually irresponsible for the exercise of their powers
If the Right Hon. Gentleman had looked as narrowly
into this subject as he (Mr. Hume) had done in 1822,
he would find that many crying evils existed in
regard to those appointments. It was infinitely better
that the power of making these appointments should be
vested in the head of the Board of Taxes. If it
were left as it was proposed to be left by
the Bill, scarcely any but political partisans
would be appointed. It was not his • intention to make
any motion upon the subject, because he felt that
it would be of little use to do so if the Govern
ment had made up their minds that the Bill should
pass in its present shape. The hardship had been
pointed out, and it Has for the Right Hon. Baronet to
remedy it if he thought proper. He (Mr. Hume) would
not make any motion on the subject, because
the opinion of the House had so frequently been
expressed that he felt it would be useless to do so, and
he did not wish to occasion any delay, so as to
prevent the House from proceeding with all pos-
sible dispatch to the consideration of the tariff. The
commercial and manufacturing interests of the country
were paralysed in consequence of the delay which had
taken place, and bad as the affairs of the country had be-
fore been, delay in the consideration of the tariff made
them worse.

Sir ROBERT PEEL heard with great satisfaction
the opinion which the Hon. Gentleman had expressed,
as to the advantage to be derived from being enabled at
as early a period as possible to proceed with the considera-
tion of the tariff. He admitted that it was of the utmost
importance that the great measures which had been pro-
posed for the improvement of the finances of the coun-
try should undergo the most serious consideration ; and
with the exception of the motions for adjournment made
before the recess, he had never complained of any delay.
But at the same time it was of the utmost importance
to settle as soon as possible the commercial state of the
country. The uncertainty in respect to the system
of manufactures and commerce was operatinglprejudicially,
and he trusted when the uncertainty was removed,
there would be some improvement in the demand
for labour. He heard with great satisfaction what
had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman, and he
hoped that, as the principle' of the Bill was determined
upon, as little delay as possible would take place with
respect to its machinery, and the carrying it into opera-
tion. The Hon. Gentleman must recollect that if the
principle of local authority was good, it ought to be
extended, It would be good for the Assessed Taxes,
as well as the tax on property. The course they had
taken was to keep the Land-tax Commissioners as they
found them. When the tax was to be collected, a scrutiny
was made by the local authorities, and their power was
left untouched ; but as it was said that parties would
object to such a scrutiny ; they gave them the means
of doing so at their own discretion, by Govern-
ment officers, who were responsible to the Go-
vernment. Therefore, there were local tribunals
and Government tribunals, and the party had
a power of making an option between both. It was
more constitutional that they should leave the local tri-
bunals in the hands of local authorities, and the Govern-
ment authorities in the hands of Government. But
with regard to the Land-tax Commissioners, it was a
subject for general consideration, and he would re-
serve his opinion on the point; but he could not ac-
quiesce in the amendment that was proposed.
Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed very much with what
the Right lion. Gentleman had stated, but he could not
admit that there was much misrepresentation, either in
that House or out of doors with respect to the operation
of the commercial tariff That tariff was not yet
on the table of the House, and it, there-
fore, could not be said that the discussion that had
taken place on the Income-tax had prevented its being
brought forward. If the Right Hon. Bart. opposite
thought it of importance to discuss the tariff, he ought
to have brought that forward before going .into Com-
mittee on the Income-tax ; but if he thought
it more important that the Income-tax should be taken
first, he ought not to blame Hon. Members for discuss-
ing that subject. While he was upon his legs he
wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he
knew or had any idea of what the expenses of the
machinery of the Income-tax might be? Perhaps
he might not be enabled to answer the question at the
present moment ; but it was desirable that the House
should know what the expenses would be before the third
reading.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
not able at the present moment, but he had no doubt he
should be enabled to do so before the time stated by the
Right Hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. PEEL repeated what he had before said as to
the advantage to be derived from enabling them to come
as early as possible to the consideration of the tariff. At
present the tariff was so far complete that they would be
enabled to enter upon the discussion of it as soon
as they had disposed of the Income-tax. It was a
great advantage, and of the utmost importance, that
some time had been suffered to elapse since the proposal
of the change in the tariff, as it enabled several parties
interested in the subject to communicate with the Go-
vernment upon it.

Mr. HUME asked why should not the tariff be brought
under the consideration of the House to-morrow?

Mr. BLE WITT said that there had been nothing in
his conduct dishonourable or otherkise, when he had
proposed the first adjourment of the debate. He did so,
from the belief that the subject required further consi-
deration, and that, in point of constitutional practice,
the tariff ought to be considered before the income-tax.
Having made that observation, he hoped he would be
considered as having made his peace with the House.
Sir R. PEEL said that he did not mean to make any
complaint relative to the course which had been taken in
former discussions. He was sure that the Hon. Mem-
ber had acted solely from his sense of public duty.
Mr. B. WOOD wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
whether the Governmenthad taken into their considera-
tion the proposition which he had made on a former
evening, that a party should be allowed to set
off his losses under one schedule, against his gains
under another. He thought it would be better that the
subject should be taken up by the Government than by
any individual Member.
Sir R. PEEL said, that the subject might again be
brought under the consideration of the House. He had
only to say, for his part, that he had given it his fullest
consideration, and he was bound to say that he had
found such objections to the proposal of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, that it would be exceedingly difficult for him
(Sir Robert Peel) to give to it his sanction.
The Government were of opinion, after maturely
considering the matter, that the proposal would give a
great opportunity for frauds, and it was for the purpose
of guarding against that inconvenience that they had in-
troduced the Bill in its present shape.
Mr. WARD said that he wished to know in what
stage of the proceedings the discussion of the subject
might be expected to take place. The point was one
clearly entitled to the consideration of the House.
The question in his opinion was simply this,
whether a man should pay a tax upon that income which
he had, or upon that income which he had not.
Sir R. PEEL said, that he should 'give the Hon.
Gentleman a fair opportunity of submitting his propo-
sal to the House in case the Government should de-
cline to adopt it.
Mr. B. WOOD did hot see how the proposal he had
made could lead to the commission of frauds.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the best course which the Hon. Gentleman could
take would be to bring up a clause after the Bill had
been gone through in Committee.
Clauses 4,5, 6,7, 8,9, 10, 11, and 12 were agreed to
with some verbal amendments.

Clauses 13 to 22 were agreed to.
On clause 23 being proposed,
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested some alterations in this
clause.

Sir R. PEEL was inclined to think the proposal he
had made was more in accordance with strict justice than
that made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath.
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24 to 26 were agreed to.
On clause 27 being proposed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated,
in answer to questions from Mr. Hawes, Mr. Baring, and
other llon. Members, that, in the majority of cases, per-
sons would have no return to make of the amount of their
incomes at all—that in the case of the landowner the
tax would be deducted from the rent—in the cases
of the holders of mortgages, from the interest paid
on the mortgage—in the case of the fundholders rm=
the interest betore it was paid them, and that parties
would only have to make a return of that part of their
property from which the tax had nut been stopped in the
first instance.

Clause 28 was agreed to without any alteration.
Clause 29 was agreed to with a few verbal amend-
ments.

Clauses 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 were agreed
to without any amendments.
Clause 38 was agreed to, after a few observations from
Mr. HAWES.

Clause 39 was agreed to with a few verbal amendments.
Clauses 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51
were agreed to without any amendments. . _

Clause 52 was proposed,- and, after a few words from
11r. S. O'BRIEN, agreed to.

Clauses 53 up. to 59 were then severally put, and
agreed to without any amendments.
Clause 60, and schedule (A) which lays down the
general rules for estimating lands, tenements, and here
ditaments, were then proposed.
Rule No. 1, schedule A, was agreed to, after a short
conversation, in the course of which

The CHA :YCE LLOR of the EXCIIEQT.TER said that
if there had been a lease of lands executed during the
seven years preceding, the amount stated in the lease
should be taken as the value of the profits. If no lease
had been executed the poor-rate should be taken as the
basis for the calculation by the value of the property.
Rule No. 2 was agreed to.
On Rule No. 3, for estimates, the value of mines, &c.,
being proposed.
Mr. GILL said that he never could consent that in-
dustry should be taxed in the same manner as fixed pro-
perty, and, therefore, he proposed to substitnte for the
words of the section, as it at present stood, words to the
effect that the value should be computed at the rate of
five per cent., on every 1001. capital of such property du-
ring the year preceding the assessment, and that
for the purposes of this Act the product should
be taken as the amount of property to be assessed.
This tax was a tax that never could be received with

satisfaction by the country, and one which would be
MIMI) az p•••,s;b,2 it ~Hs
s Oi
based on equity, there would be no difficulty in its col-
lection, and all inquisitorial powers of the tax might be
laid aside. It was most important that this tax should
be as palatable as possible, and the only way to make it
so was to make it a tax upon real property. He thought
his amendment would have the effect of making the tax
palatable, and he hoped it would meet with the sanction
of the House. .

The amendment having been put from the Chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
it would be far more difficult to raise the duty on the
principle contaiLed in the amendment of the Hun.
Member, than the one laid down as the rule.
Rule 4 was agreed to.
Rule 5, relative to particular deductions from
Schedule A, was also agreed to.
On Rule 6 being put, relative to allowances to be
made in respect of the duties in Schedule A.
Mr. G. W. WOOD said that he thought it unfair that
Mechanics' Institutions and other places for the educa-
tion of the middle and lower classes should be taxed,
while the Colleges and Halls of the Universities, which
were for the education of the aristocracy, were to be ex-
empted.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think the places adverted to by the Hon. Member could
in a strict sense be considered as devoted to the purposes
of education.

Mr. GILL thought if any class of schools were to
be exempted, the exemption ought to be extended to all.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER,

Mr. LA-BOUC HERE said, the question was one of
importance, but if the large Universities were exempted
from the tax, he thought it would be but justice to the
humbler schools that they should likewise be exempted.
—(Hear, hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the CXCHEQUER said, the
exemptions in the present Bill were limited in the same
degree as the assessed taxes.

Mr. G.W. WOOD said, that as the poorer schools
were not aided by powerful funds like the Universities,
he thought they ought not be subjected to the tax.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN regretted the absence of the Right
Hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government,
on this occasion. And, as the subject was one of much
importance, he hoped it would be postponed. He felt so
strongly on the subject, that if any one would support
him, he should divide the House on the question of the
postponment of the Rule.

11fr. ESCOTT reminded the House that in many of
those public schools the children of the poorer daises
received a gratuitous education.
Mr. P. HOWARD said that there should be no ex-
emption except in favour of almshouses and hospitals,
and he woulii take the sense of the House upon the
question.

Mr. F. MAULE asked whether Harrow, Christ's
Hospital, and other schools of Royal foundation were
included ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
prepared to answer the question definitively, but he
would take the earliest opportunity of informing the
House.

Mr. HUME wished, before the question was put, to
bring the attention of the House to the great number of
oaths required to be taken under this Bill, when for the
last ten or twelve years so much had been done to reduce
the frequency of oaths.
The Rule was then agreed to.
Clauses 61 and 62 were then agreed to.
Rules No. 7 and 8 were next agreed to.
After a short discussion, Rules 9 and 10 were agreed
to, without alteration.
Clause 63 was also passed without discussion, as were
clauses 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69.
Clauses 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and
81, were ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 82 being put, which provides for the relief
to be granted to occupiers and owners, for any loss that
should be sustained by flood or tempest.
Mr. HAWES moved, as an amendment in the 35th
line, to insert after the words " for any year," the fol-
lowing words, " or any property which shall be liable to
assessment under this Act." That would have the
effect of bringing any other species of property with-
in the clause. He could not see why one spe-
cies of property should have this exemption,
and another should not. His object in moving
this amendment was to give the same exemp-
tion and allowance, on account of injury done by floods
and tempests, to other species of property - which the
clause provided for with regard to landed property.
Mr. BORTHWICK objected to the amendment.
Dr. BOWRING supported the amendment.
Mr. DARBY must, as a matter of strict justice give
his support to the clause.
Mr. E. BULLER supported the amendment.
Mr. HAWES withdrew his amendment, and the
clause was agreed to.
After a short conversation clauses 83 to 86 were
agreed to.

-Upon clause 87, containing the rules for assessing
and charging the duties on the profits arising from an-
nuities, dividends, and shares of annuities, being put,
Mr. HUME proposed an amendment, to the effect
that upon all such annuities, dividends, &c., paid half-
yearly, the amount chargeable should be only upon so
much of them as had accrued after the sth of April,
1842. The Hon. Member also moved that the same rule
should apply to the rents of lands.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
'For Mr. Hume's amendment., B4
Against it
Majority against the amendment —75
On the reading of Rule 2,
Mr. F. MAULE moved an amendment to the effect
that all chapels and places of religious worship should
, be exempted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE supported it.
After a short conversation,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
pressed his readiness to postpone the rule.
Mr. F. MAULE had no objection to the postpone-
ment of the rule, with the understanding that if the
Government did tot hereafter consent to amend it, he
should take the sense of the House on the subject.
The rule was then postponed.
Mr. BARING moved the following addition to the
rules for assessingand charging the duties under schedule
C; that " the annuities, dividends, and shares, bona fide
belonging to any person not being a subject of her
Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain, or else-
where within the dominions of her Majesty, during such
time as the same shall continue the property of such per-
son, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain,
or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as
aforesaid ; provided that such annuities, dividends, or
shares shall have been bona fide the property of such
persons on the 22d day of April 1842, and shall be duly
claimediand ascertained in the manner hereinafter men-
tioned." The Hon. Gentleman stated, that the whole
amount which he believed would be raised under this
schedule, would be 10,0001. a-year. In 1836, the
subject was brought under disscussion, and the
whole amount raised on the charges under ten
per cent., was 50,0001. a-year, and if they took the
present three per cent., and made allowance for other
circumstances, it would reduce the amount to 10,0001.
He went into a description of the former occasions in
which the Income-tax had been imposed, and quoted
from the discussions that then took place, with Regard to
the foreign holder of English funds. The foreign holder
was exempted by Mr. Pitt on the first introduction of
the Income-tax ; the exemption was continued till the
peace of Amiens, when it was repealed. When the
tax was imposed by Mr. Addington, the exemption was
still made. In 1806 a farther addition was made to the
tax, and on that occasion there was an express agree-
ment on this point. Mr. Fox termed the imposition of
the tax on the foreign holder as a flagrant injustice, and
in this opinion Lord Henry Petty concurred. The ex-
emption was continued down till 1816, when the
tax was repealed. They had, therefore, the au-
thority, for the exemption, of Mr. Pitt on the
first introduction of the tax, of Lord Henry Petty on
Its renewal, of Lord Granville, of Mr. Percival, and
Lord Liverpool, down to the last moment of the
existence of the tax ; and all these authorities
went on the ground that the exemption was ne-
cessary for the maintenance of the public faith.
It was, therefore, well worth the consideration
of the House, how ar they were at liberty tochange that
opinion. If they differed from all these authorities, there
was yet another party to be considered, the foreign
holder himself, who had advanced his money under the
implied contract that had arisen from the constant prac-
tice of twenty years of war, and from the successive de-
claration of Ministers of the Crown.—(Hear. hear.)
With regard to the future foreign holder, they
might change the practice, but with regard
to those who had invested their money on the
faith of these declarations, it would be most un-
wise if they were to deal- with them as if the case were
entirely new. Having been so constantly exempted,
the foreigner had a fair right to expect that if they re-
turned to anything like an income-tax, they would not
think of committing that which Fox declared would be
a breach Of public faith, without giving the foreigner the
opportunity of a full notice of the intention.
The case must have been extremely strong which made
them, during twenty years of war, abstain from taxing
the foreigner, and why should they now do in time of
peace what was not done in time of war ? The
foreigner had a right to suppose that they would
have acted on those principles which actuated every
Minister of the Crown heretofore. How ex-
traordinary would it be now, when we were on
friendly relations with all the world, to discontinue that
practice towards foreigners, of inducing them to invest
in our funds, which had been adopted towards them for
twenty years of war ; and moreover not only would this
be done without notice, but it would be contrary to all
notice and inducements hitherto held out to foreigners
with regard to investments in our funds. He was afraid
he had detained the House too king, but he could not
allow this question to pass without expressing his opinion
upon the matter ; but he would put it to the House
whether it would not be much better ra her to let the
scale fall on the side of faith, if he might use the ex-
pression, than to doubt and hesitate upon it, even if they
were entitled to this sum. Who were the parties con-
cerned in this matter ? On the one side they had those
who were represented in that. House, the general class
of the people of England ; and on the other side there
was a small class altogether unrepresented, wholly power-
less in that House, and with no means of bringing their
case under the consideration of the House. Would the
foreign fundholder be the only person who had not re-
ceived some benefit from this measure, and would they
then place their hands, on him, powerless as he was, for a
sum so small as that, which he believed he might state
as being not larger than 10,0001. ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
assure the House, after the exhausting process of de-
fending the details of the Bill, that it was not his inten-
tion to make any.lengthened; reply but this he must say,

that if he thought there was any breach of faith in the
. • .

1

.•• • _1 • • •Li is I a
wo.h goo.' (;!lilt to make a flaeigarr pay a to x
for the property he had in this country tha t
he stood up in its defence. The obligatio
was clearly upon all. He thought the Hon. Gentleman 's
motion clearly showed that he had some doubt as to tloe
extent of good faith. He could agree with the propo-
sition that it would be an injustice to the foreigner o
charge him more than the English fundholder. But its
the foreigner derived as much protection for his property
as the Englishnan, there could be no injustice in re-
quiring him to contribute in the same proportion to itia
security.

Mr. 'LABOUCHERE said, this was the first time
when a Financial Minister of Great Britain-asserted that
there was no injustice in taxing foreigners under sada
circumstances as led to this Bill. Mr. Pitt had no i +c-
casion to introduce into his speeches an express
declaration that foreigners should not be taxed,
because his Bill spoke for itself: He con Id
not fear the results of adopting the principle
which Gentlemen opposite advocated; The ifght Ho n.
Gentleman opposite appeared to mistake the fa. ts. for l le
said that foreigners residing in the colonies w, uld be is
much surprised as any others. •But the case of f ,reignei
residing in this country was different, becausie they en-
joyed all the advantages of the British Government. Be -
fore he sat down, he could not but allude to a petition tha t
had been presented by one of the Members for London
signed by some of the most respectable houses in th,
City and two of its Members. That petition stated tha
it would be a violation of the national faith to impost t
this tax.—(Hear, hear.) He would only say that it was
not for the interest of this country that those novel .
maxims should be introduced. Recent experience, too, had .
shown, that the feeling abroad was not what it ought to be..
Under these circumstances, he would press upon the
First Lord of the Treasury to consider how far he would
consult his own honour and reputation, and the interest
of the country, in persisting in the course which he
had adopted.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was ready to take the ad-
vice of the Right Honourable Gentleman, and
consider maturely whether he was consulting;
his own character, and the character of the House.;
and the interests of the country generally, in proposing
to exempt the foreigner from those burdens which were
to be imposed upon the subjects of this realm. It was
clear, that he would not be justified in the course he had
adopted, if there was a departure from public faith in it.
Nothing could justify them in a violation of public faith,
when so small a sum as 10,0001. or 20,0001. was only to
be gained. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labou-
chere) and the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, had relied on the former practice
of Parliament and on the dicta of Mr. Fox,who said though
they could not tax the foreigner, because they could not
grant a benevolence to her Majestyto bepaid by a foreigner.
If a foreigner was a mortgagee in this country, did he:
not pay the tax on account of the interest of the mortgage?
If he held shares in Railway Companies, or in any
other mercantile firm, would he not be subject to the tax?
But because, forsooth, he held property in the funds, he
was to be exempt. So far as acts of Parliament were
concerned, the position of the foreigner was recognised
the same as that, of the British subject. Did not every
man who chose, avail himself of the security which the,
British funds afforded wherein to vest his capital. It
was a fact, that since the Income-tax had been proposed,,
the funds had risen four per cent. The foreigner
had thus had an opportunity of relieving himself of
property in the funds and that too at an advantage.
It was not consistent with justice that the foreigner
should benefit by the rise in the funds in this country
which followed a national sacrifice, and should not at
the same time share in the public burdens. He could not
help thinking that the exception made by Mr. Pitt in,
favour of the foreigner was grounded more upon pruden-
tial considerations than upon principles of abstract justice,
This country was at the time at war with revolutionary..
France ; and Mr. Pitt might be supposed to have been,
desirous of encouraging the wish, on the part of the'
French emigrants, to invest whatever remained to thews
of their fortunes in the English funds. On the whole,
he saw no reason why the, foreigner, who benefited by
the public credit, should not share in the public burdens.
Mr. HUME said, whatever vote the Committee might
come to, it was right they should understand the grounds
of it. He differed from both the Hon. Gentlemen no
reason had been shown why the foreigner should be
taxed ; the exemption of property in the funds; from ell-
tax in transfers, as an inducement to invest . moneyin the funds, this was violated in the time of-
war, , but the fitndholders consented to it from the
influence of terror. If the tax were laid on the funds at
all, it ought to be laid both on the Englishman and the
foreigner alike. There was no emergency to call for the
tax ; to impose it on the funds would be a bad example
to foreign nations, and he should certainly Vote against it."
Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the motion as being in-
accordance with all past experience.
Mr. INIASTERMAN said, as considerable stress had
been laid upon a petition that he had presented from the-
City of London, he must state that, though most re-
spectably signed, it was far from representing the,
whole proportion of opinion in the City. He wag,
aware of a considerable number of parties who had rose
fused to sign it. When requested to present it, he hurl; •
accompanied his consent with a statement that he could
not support it. He did not think there was either fraud:
or injustice in taxing the foreign fundholder equably
•
with their fellow-subjects.
Mr. HAWES said there was a great distinction be-
tween the foreigner holding shares in a railway and
money in the funds ; in the first case be was a proprietor,
and shared the profits ; in the other he was a pallilec.eaditor.
The foreigner was not in the light of a British subject.
He had lent money to the British Government. on the
faith of former Acts of Parliament. He himself thought
that this would meet one argument of the Right lion.
Gentleman's.—(Divide.)
Mr. BARING replied. He said that he was of opi-
nion with Mr. Fox, that it was a breach of public faith
to tax the foreign fundholder of " Divide,
divide.") The -Right Hon. Gentleman had asked hi Ur
with regard to evidence; why he would prove it in the
same way as it had been proved when argued under
former Acts of Parliament, and it would be just as easy to
,prove evidence in this instance as it was in the case of
the Irish landlords resident in this country.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the'
I Committee divided,- when there appeared— - -
For the clause - 203
For Mr. Baring's amendment 4O
Majority for the clause ----163
The clause was then agreed to ; the Chairman re-
ported progress, and obtlined leave to sit again.
Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for a statement of the
differences in the resolutions cf Customs Duties, .il2' •
tended to be proposed by Sir R. Peel, and laid on the
table of this House on the 11th of March last ; also re
solutionson the same subject, laid on the table on the
11th of April last."
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that he thought what the
Right Hon. Baronet proposed would be sufficient, and
withdrew his motion.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for "A Select Committee, to inquire into the practice of this House ,
with regard to the summoning of witnesses to attend;
Election Committees, and to report whether any and
what alteration in the law upon thie subject is required
—Mr. Solicitor-General. Lord Granville Somerset; Mr
Thesiger, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Attorney-General, Viscount
Mahon, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Pemberton, Sir George
Grey, Viscount 1-lowick, Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. David.
Dundas, Mr. Jervis, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Roebuck.
—Agreed to.

Mr. GIBSON gave notice that he should move that!
the Solicitors be exempted from the certificate dutjt::,!
while they were subject to the Income•tax. ,••
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, avoig.-
the House adjourned at Two o'clock.

The last of the London May-poles was in front of
St. Mary-le-Strand Church, just opposite Drury-court; leading
from the Strand into Drury-lane.
FATAL ACCIDENT ON THE RIVER.—,...,Q ...;n4lti
unuay -
shortly before eight o'clock, a youth, name at present unknoe!
was playing, with several other lads, upon some logs of tinsow"
lying in the water near Waterloo-bridge, when he war aratisiail
himself by kicking a knot in the wood, in so doing he stumbled
forward, and fell head foremost into the river 4.nd was drowned.
Upwards of an hour elapsed before the body was founiP..s
A sheet was immediately procured, and the body given into
charge of Mr. Brown, the beadle, who had it conveyed to tl2a
bone-house under St. John's church, Waterloo road. I).;*"‘'
youth was diessed in cerderoy trowsers and jacket, black st'Zi
ings, new boots, and wore a white pinafore and blue Cap, ""
had a brass latch key in his pocket.
SERIOUS ACCIDENT.-The remnant •of May 1
mummeries—the Jack-in-the-green—led to a very severe
dent yesterdaimorning, at ten o'clock. Mr. Le Maire, blio"
'manufacturer, Worship street, and Mr. Hoopenham, of HadP:
ton Wick, were driving a spirited horse past Walcnt phi cc'
Kennington-road, when some sweeps, accompanied wth drums
and fifes, startled the horse, which, plunging desperatelybe'
came wholly unmanageable, and in a few second', dashqd, the
vehicle against the iron corner pest, conipletely`smashing
The two gentlemen came with great violence to the Omuta-
Mr. Le Allure was taken up insensible, and carried La,to the
Three Stags Tavern, Lambeth-road. A surgeon was promptly
in attendance, when it was found that he had receiveii a very
extensive and severe wound in the head, and his conkpaskion also f
was much injured.

BIRTHS.
In Upper Harley-street, the lady of James Morrisom, Esq.'
M.P., of a son.
On the 22d tilt., at the Rectory, Stoke Hamond, Buckiv the.
Lady Julia Bouwens, of a son.
On the 25th ult., in Doughty-street, Mrs. Ferguson C.41,23'
roux, of a daughter.
On the 25,h ult., at Leatherbead, the lady of Visillian3
Llewellyn Nash, Esq., of a daughter. On the 26th ult., at Bromley, in Kent, the wife of the Refr .4
Edward Stewart, of a daughter.
On the 22d Llt., at St. John-street-road, Mrs. Alfred W.
Hare, of a daughter, still born.
On the 25th tilt., at Hanover-terrace, Regent's-park, MO;
John Alozon, of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 26th ult., at St. Pancras, Edward Browne, Esq., 0!
Mark-lane, to Marianne, fourth daughter of the late Thorax'?
Cotton, Ekq., of Chase Lodge, Enfield, Middlesex.
On the 25th ult., at York-street Chapel, Wa'wordy, John
Gray, Esq., sol.citor, South Lincolnshire, to Mary Armes .1(106
daughter of W. Hemming, Esq., of Walworth.

DIED. yP
4,
0,
On the 28th ultimo, at his house, 111ornington-crescen
Hampstead-road, at an advanced age, Simon Gray, Esq., for'
merly of the War-office, and author of various literary Po'
ductiuns.
On the 26th ult., in Trinity-square, Nevrinvton, Tho=sit
the infant son of T. Loughborough, Esq. •
On 'he 23d ult.. Mr. William Barton, of Clc.utlesley-terrace,
Islington, aged .59.
On the 26th ult., at Clapham, Elizabeth. Caroline, youngest
daughter of the late L. Hare, M.D., of Upper Gower-street
London Printed and Published lsv Air: RD YOUNJ•
No. 112, Stran... at The Su Office., No 112, Strand.
the County of 11/iddlesei, Tuesday, May 3, 1842.

he
in-
he
re-