The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-13 00:00:00

CORNWALL RAILWAY.

Sir J. Y. BULLER presented several petitions against the
Cornwall Railway Bill.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

Mr. S HEIL begged leave to present a petition from Signor
Palliotti, in reference to the transactions connected with
the Government opening of letters addressed to
foreigners resident in London. ;The petition was one
of some length, and the petitioners declared that they
had found it impossible to reconcile the treatment •f
the Bandieras with the declarations of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, for this reason—that the letters were opened in the Lon-
don Post-office, at a time, and under circumstanees totally at
variance with the statements of the Government. fhe
petitioners then went on to state that the Bandiera party
were in Corfu in April, 1844 ; that they were in Calabria on
the Bth of May, 1844, and from thence until the month of
July ; hut then, if the Government assertion be correct, it would
be difficult to understand how they could reconcile the opening of
those letters with the alleged fact that they were ignorant of this
meditated descent, and, therefore, of all participation in the mur-
der of the six persons who had been executed at Bologna. On
these grounds the petitioners argued that the English Go..
vernment were participators in this perfidious conduct, and
prayed that a law should be introduced on the subject.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT (IRELAND).
Mr. SHEIL also presented a petition from a parish in the
County of Down, against the Charitable Bequests Bill.
Mr. B. ROCHE presented a petition to the same effect
from the County of Sligo.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.
Mr. WAKLEY presented the following petition from the
Electors of the Borough of Finsbury :—" The humble petition
of the undersigned persons, appointed by the electors of the
Borough of Finsbury in public meeting assembled on Feb. 26,
1845, for the purpose of signing a petition in reference to
abuses alleged to have taken place at the London Post-office,
and which petition was presented to your Hon. House on
February 28th last by one of their representatives in Parliament,
"Snewrrn,—
" That your petitioners submitted to your Honourable House
an expression of the mortification and disgust they felt at the
existence of the abuses in the Post-office complained of, and
prayed your Honourable House to examine into all the matters
therein set forth, and that you would do full and substantial
justice, —first, to the public at large ; secondly, to their repre-
sentative, T. S. Duncombe, Esq. ; and thirdly, to the consti-
tuents of that gentleman; and your petitioners further prayed,
that your Honourable House would immediately adopt such
measures as would effectually prevent the continuance or the
recurrence of the abuses complained of.
"That your petitioners feel and know, that such abuses in-
volve the personal rights and liberties of every member of the
community, that they affect the general tone of morality
throughout the nation, injure its reputation in the estimation
of foreign countries, prevent the free communication between
a representative and his constituents, and, in particular, im-
plicate the character of T. S. Duncombe, Esq., which your
petitioners feel to be a great and grievous injury to that gen-
tleman, as well as to those whom he represents.
" That your petitioners cannot consent to matters of such
importance being neglected or glossed over by mere personal
apologies and official evasions, but feeling, as your petitioners
do, that a grievous public wrong has been done, they are of
opinion that a public inquiry, and an adequate remedy, are im-
mediately and imperatively called for.
" Your petitioners, therefore. pray that your honourable
House will forthwith institute such a full inquiry as shall
satisfy the public at large, and the electors of Finsbury
in particular, whether any, and what warrant existed for
the opening of Mr. Duncombe's letters, and whether
any suspicion justly attached to his character, so that they
may judge if that gentleman is any longer fitted to continue the
representative of a free and independent constituency, and that
you will enact a full and sufficient remeey, so as to prevent the
recurrence of such abuses as are now complained of.
" And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray,
(Signed)
" George Rogers, 58, High-street, St. Giles's.
" Edward Medley, 42, Brick-lane.
" Charles Tapperell, 14, Smith's-buildings, City-road.
" W. D. Cooper, 13, Bloomsbury-square.
" Richard Moore, 25, Hart-street.
" W. J. Linton, 85, Hatton-Garden.
" Charles H. Elt, 18, High-street, Islington.
" Thomas Savage, 213, Tottenham-court-road.
&c. &c. &e."
The Hox. Maxima then gave notice that he should, to-
morrow, move that the petition be printed, with the votes.
Lord J. Al ANN ER S presented a petition from several Spanish
officers who were resident in this country against their will.
They had taken refuge in France, but they had been seized
by the French authorities, and transported by those authorities
to this country against their will. When they were landed here
they were without money, and since their residence here they
had been supported entirely by charity. They prayed the
House to take their case in consideration, and either to supply
them with the means of subsistence, or with the means of
leaving the country.
Mr. W YSE presented a petition from the guardians of the
poor-law union of Nenagh, praying that they might be relieved
from the payment of the money due for the erection of poor-
house of that union.

Mr. HUNlEpresented a petition praying that no further
prosecutions might be instituted against persons for blasphemy.
fhe petitioners stated it as their opinion that truth did not re-
quire the intervention of laws fur its vindication.
RAILWAYS,
Sir G, CLERK presented certain papers from the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr, sum save notice that 140 51;ould1 on Tuesday next,

bring forward the motion of which he had given notice on
Tuesday last, on the subject of the opening of letters of foreign-
ers at the Post-office.

Mr. S. CRA WFORD gave notice that if the Govern-
ment did not propose any measure for the amendment of the
law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should himself, after
Easter, move for leave to bring in a Bill 0 enable the tenant,
if ejected, to recover compensation from his landlord for any
improvement he might have made upon the land, and also
to amend the laws regulating the value of property in Ireland.
Mr. WYSE gave notice that, after Easter, he should renew
the motion which he had made last session on the subject of
national education.

[-LEFT SITTING.]

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, :larch 12.
THE CROOME MURDER.

It was arranged last night that the trial of the poachers
for the murder at Croome should take place to- day. Accord-
ingly at twelve o'clock, after the disposal of some other Crown
business, the following prisoners were arraigned before Chief
Baron Pollock :--JosephiTurvey, 43, gardener; Francis Mny.
ley, 34, capenter ; Samuel Turvey, 37, labourer; George Brant,
18, boatman; Thomas Hooper, 19, labourer; John Cooke, 25,
labourer; Joseph Tandy, 42, gardener; Thomas Collins, 20,
gardener ; William Cosnett, 25, labourer ; and William Brom-
field, 19, labourer. George Lippett, 35, carpenter, was ad-
mitted approver.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Whitmore conducted the prosecution;
Mr. Godson, Q..C., and Mr. lluddleston defended the pri-
soners.

There were seven indictments against the prisoners. In
the first, second, and fifth, the prisoners were all charged
jointly with assaulting and beating Thomas Staite, and in-
dicting woundsof which he died ; with wounding Wm. Com-
pton, with intent to kill and murder him ; and with shooting
at John Frances, with the same murderous intent. The
third indictment charged one of the prisoners, Thomas Col-
lins, with shooting at George Baylis, and the others with
aiding and abetting; and the fourth indictment charged
Samuel Turvey, Thomas Hooper, and Joseph Tandy with
wounding Richard Compton and George Brant, John Cook,
Thomas Collins, ,and William Cosnett, with aiding and abet-
ting. There were two indictments which were not read,
but to the whole of those brought into Court the prisoners
pleaded Not Guilty. The whole of the prisoners having
been placed upon their trial on the first indictment, charging
them with the murder of Thomas Staite on the 19th of
December last, _ _ _

Mr. LEE prOceeded to state the facts of the case as they
have already been detailed in the newspapers, and called
•
witnesses.

The first witness examined was Mr. Boulter, the landlord
of the Plough Inn, Preston, in which town the whole of the
prisoners lived. He merely proved that ou the night in
question, Francis Dingley and Bromtigld applied to him for
the loan of a gun, which, however, Wdid not lend them.
The next witness, Thomas Kings, an inhabitant of Preston,
proved that the prisoners Bromfield, Cook, Dingley, Hooper,
and the two Turveys, were seen together on the same night.
The third witness was William Wheeler, who was at one
time in custody in connexion with this affair. His testi •
mony went to considerable length, and it appeared from his
statements that the whole body of poachers met by appoint-.
merit on the night of the fatal affray, at a place called the
Hollow-way. It would appear from Wheeler's testimony,
that he was to have accompanied the party, but that at the
last hour his heart failed him, and, instead of going himself,
he lent his gun to Cook and his smock frock to another of
the party. Next morning his gun was returned to him by
Dingley with the stock broken, as if by someviolent usage. The
party were afterwards seen by several other witnesses pro-
ceeding in the direction of the Croome covers. Two young
girls, named Mary Ann and Julia Ann White, saw the
poachers together as they were returning from I'erton School
(Groom), where they had been having a singing lesson.
The evidence of Richard Compton, one of the watchers on
the night of the 19th December, then detailed the particulars
of the attack upon them in similar terms to those employed
by him in his evidence before the coroner, which was pub-
lished at the time'

George Lippett, the approver, was then-called, and was
examined at considerable length, his testimony bearing out
that already detailed as having been given on the inquest.
His examination was closed shortly before eight o'clock this
evening, when au adjournment_ took place until to-morrow
morning.
It is fully expected that the trial.Will;occupy the whole of
to-morrow. The popular excitement increases every hour.

Lord William Lennox visited Captain Siborne's new
Waterloo model yesterday, his Lordship was the fourth
member of his family on this glorious field, accompany-
ing the late Duke of Richmond who was present, al-
though not a military man.
Smatort FISUING.—The present being the 10th of
March, our river opened for net and coble, agreeably to
Act of Parliament ; and though the active tenant, Mr.
Welsh, had only a half-day's work when we saw him, he
was not without a portion of good luck. One fresh run
salmon was taken, and two sea trout, which found a ready
market—the former at 2s. and the latter at Is. 6d. per lb.
Burn trout were also caught in considerable numbers, which
sell readily at 4d. per lb. About fifty liggers were taken in
all, and returned to the pools, until they have time to recruit
their health by a run to the Solway. Two salmon were taken
with the rod this afternoon below the Dock, one of which at
least was clean.—Dumfries courier.

EXTRAORDINARY- SURGICAL' OPERATION IN THE
GLASGOW ROYAL INFIRMARY.—We understand that one of
those brilliant operations which has crowned the labours of
modern surgery, and made it the instrument of its unspeak-
able value to the species, was performed in our Royal Infir-
mary on Monday last. A boy, labouring under cancer of the
lower jaw, which must inevitably have consigned him to his
grave in a few weeks, had that bone cut out of its joint at the
temple, and with the bone the cancer removed. The boy is
doing well, and we hare heard that sanguine hopes are en-
tertained of his recovery. Indeed he has not had a bad
symptom.— Glasgow National.
THE CURE AS BAD AS THE COMPLAINT.—The
versal inquiry is, where can all the base coin that is about
London have come from ? Surely it is not in consequence of
a dividend having been paid on the Pennsylvanian bonds last
week ?—Panch.

FEMALE SERVANTS' HOME SOCIETY.—Last even-
ing the anniversary meeting of this society, which is established far
the protection and religious and moral instruction of female ser-
vants out of place, was held at the Inquest-room, St. Andrew's.
court, Holborn—Alderman Sir James Duke, Knt., M.P., in the
chair. The report stated that during the past year fifty-four scr.
wants had been received as inmates, and two thousand two hundred
registered their names for situations in the metropolis alone. The
receipts amounted to 12SI. and the expenditure exceeded 180/.
The report was adopted, and several eloquent appeals in behalf of
the charity were made by the Rev. Mr. Brown, and other clergy.
men.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledges the
receipt of 40!., No. 55,301," from L. F. C., for the revenue of
the country."

I NIPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 12.
PR OPE RTY-T AX.

Mr. R. SPOONER (in continuation from our
Third Editicn) proceeded to say—The grievance of
which he complained was this :—he complained that
where the wife and the younger children of a trades-
man, or small manufacturer, were employed
principally in assisting in the conduct
of the business of such tradesman or
manufacturer, he was not entitled to make any de-
duction from his profits on account of their services.
This operated most unjustly, for where a person em-
ployed members of his own family in conducting his
business, he was not permitted to make any
deduction on account of their services,
whereas his neighbour employed in a similar
business, but who had no children, was entitled to
make a deduction from his profits for all persons ens-
ployed by him, and to whom he paid wages. It was
a great injustice that a man should be thus placed in
a better situation than his rival. They ought to con-
sider, not who did the labour, but what was the value
of the labour which was done. He proposed to give
the Commissioners power to allow persons so situated
to make such deductions as might be just and reason-
able. The present system created a great injury to
individuals, and a great objection in the public mind
against the inequality of the tax. lie was aware that
objections might be made to his proposal—he would
be met by the common-place objection that a door
would be open to fraud, but he would answer that by
another common-place question, and ask what was
the use of their expensive machinery, if they were not
enabled to do justice and prevent fraud ? Things were
not come to such a pass that the House of Commons
was obliged to commit injustice because there was
danger of fraud. What was the chance of fraud ?
On the one part they would have the appellant anxi-
ous to escape from the assessment—but speaking from
experience, he must say that there were very few
attempts made by tradesmen to escape from their
fair share of the tax—but on the other hand they had
the Government officers who had every means
in their power of making proper inquiries.
Then another check was that of the Commissioners.
They had local knowledge. Having local knowledge
they could come to the consideration of this subject
with full power to check all fraud. He thought that
if they took all these things into consideration, the
House would see that there was no danger of fraud
arising out of the clause which he had proposed. The
intention of the Act was that the tax should
be imposed in two different shapes. One was a tax
on profits arising from the use of capital, and
the other upon profits, the produce of the la-
bour of individuals. In order to tax labour the
individual must receive 1501. This tax was
now frequently imposed upon the labour of several
individuals, and if their labour were to be separated
it would be found that not one of them was subject
to the tax. One objection to the remedy which he
proposed was that it would open a door to innumer-
able applications, to which proper attention could
not be given. He thought there was nothing
in this objection. The House ought to be just.
If more time were required to consider this subject
Parliament ought to have been called together earlier.
He would pray of the House, then, to give this subject
that due and deliberate consideration which he con-
ceived it was entitled to receive at their hands, and
which the merits of it called for. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer need have no fear that any real or sub-
stantial inconvenience or injury would result by
the adoption of this proposition ; but all should
admit that the principle was erroneous which
went to the extent of asserting, that because a
man was in the receipt of 1501. a year, he
should therefore be compelled to pay this tax. In
conclusion, he would only say he hoped the House
would give him credit for not having brought forward
this subject without good and sufficient grounds for
so doing.—(Hear, hear.) He knew he had been sent
here by a large and respectable constituency,
and it was his duty to defend their interests to
the best of his judgment and ability, and
that he had not shown any feeling but that which he
had stated actuated him in bringing it forward.
Mr. MIJNTZ begged to assure the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite that this would be of the greatest
importance to email manufacturers, such as his con-

stituents, whose profits were so low that the confirm-
ation of this tax would leave them no profits at all.
On the question being put that the clause be
agreed to,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he gave the Honourable Member full credit
for the motive which had induced him to
bring this subject under consideration; and if he did
not agree to it, it would not be because there was not
time to do justice to all parties who bad claims
upon the Legislature. He agreed with the Hon.
Member also in thinking that they should lay the
burdens of the State on those who were able to bear
them. But he must resist this motion, because he
believed that, as the law stood, every relief was afforded
except such as would operate unjustly to other classes.
The maintenance of a family was supposed to be a
proper employment of income, and the income of
every man was taxed on the suppositicin that he de-
frayed out of it the expenses of his family. If
any person employed in trade employed a mem-
ber of his family, whom he paid for his services,
he would be entitled to claim exemption in that
respect. The Hon. Member said that nothing would
he easier than to carry out his proposal by the em-
ployment of public officers. Why, for a public officer
to interfere with the domestic arrangements of a
family would be a very serious 'and objectionable thing.
He would call the attention of the House to another
clause which the lion. Member had given notice of
bringing before them. 'lle alluded to that
in which the Hon. Member wished to
deduct from the tax, the amount of local and other
rates. He had no hesitation, whatever, in
saying, that local rates levied on that part of the
premises which was employed in trade, were
allowed to be deducted by the provisions of the Act
itself; therefore, if the allowance had not been made in
some particular cases, it was owing to the maladminis-
tration of the law, and nut to the law itself. With respect
to the other point urged by his Hon. Friend, he did
not think it would be just, or that it would contribute
in any way towards the easy collection of the tax,
that they should depart from the original principle.
Mr. SPOONER wished to explain. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had, he felt sure, unintentionally
misrepresented him. He did not say that the tax-
' gatherer ought to enter every man's house to ascer-
tain how his family was employed, nor did what he
said imply it. With respect to the second clause,
after the Right Hon. Gentleman's declaration, he
would not take up the time of the House in alluding
to it ; but this he would say, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman was mistaken in saying the maladminis-
tration of the law, in respect-to the allowance of local
rates, was only particular and partial ; it was general
if not universal, and several cases of the kind had
conic under his own immediate knowledge. He had
inquired in two or three different offices, one of them,
in the City, and he found it was the universal prac-
tice to allow rent, because rent was mentioned, and
to disallow poor rates and local rates, because the
mentioning of rent and not of rates did, inference,
exclude them.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause . ... 39
Against it
Majority against the clause —ll2
The clause was consequently lost.
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. SPOONER moved—" And be it further
enacted that from and after the passing of this Act it
shall be lawful for all persons chargeable under
schedules D and L, who may have effected, or may
hereafter effect any insurance or insurances on their
respective life or lives, to claim deduction for the
amount of the annual premium paid for such insu-
rance or insurances ; and whenever such deduction so
claimed shall reduce the net annual income below
the annual sum of 1501., the parties so claiming
shall be entitled to exemption from payment of duty."
His object in moving this resolution was, to allow
persons who insured their lives for the benefit of their
families, to deduct the premiums which they paid for
these insurances from the amount of their profits. It
was their duty to enable persons who_ had to depend
upon small salaries and incomes to make this provi-
sion for their families after death. The Right Hon.
Baronet, the other evening, said he excluded clergy-
men from the operation of this Act, but this was not
the case. The Right Hon. Baronet only excluded
those clergymen whose incomes or livings depended
upon tithes.—(Hear, hear.) It might be objected
that an insurance did not differ in the least degree
from any other investment, from which an immediate
interest was derived. He, however, did not admit
the justness of this reasoning, for, to a certain ex-
tent, paying premiums on an insurance was an
absolute loss ; while, on the other hand, in-
vestment in the shape of annuities, &c.,
brought in immediate returns. Again, it might
be objected that a man, to evade the income or
property-t9x, would invest all his profits in in-
surances. But the unprofitable nature of investment
—for to a certain extent it was unprofitable—would
effectually prevent tradesmen or professional men re-
sorting to this system of fraud.—(Hear, hear.) All
he asked for was, that, fr, m the incomes of profes-
sional gentlemen, clergymen, and annuitants, there
might be deducted the amount of insurance which
they paid upon their lives. They had already paid a
tax on the policy, which increased their claim. He
would not trouble the House at further length, and
thanked them for the patience with which they had
heard him.

Lord J. MANNERS seconded the motion,
cause he approved of the tax itself, and because he was
anxious to render it as equitable as possible. He con-
sidered that the class mentioned by the Hon. Member
was every way entitled to the benefits of such a
provision.
Mr. WARBURTON said that it appeared to him
that the principles of the proposition cf the Hon.
Member for Birmingham did not at all differ from
that proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford,
but that it came before the house in a different
shape.—(Hear, hear.) He had already stated one
objection to the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Oxford, which was this—they might suppose a long
annuity divided into two parts—one consisting of
income derived during the period for which the in-
come-tax was levied, and the other portion derived
from that time which elapsed subsequent to the ex-
piring of that period; if they levied a tax, not only
for the period during which the income-tax was im-
posed, but from the period subsequent to that time
when the tax expired ; to be consistent they must
levy it on the present value of deferred an-
nuities and reversionary interests. In 1841 an
income-tax for three years was proposed,
and it was now proposed to extend that period three
years longer—that was, im the whole, over a term of
six years. If they proceeded on the principle of the
Hon. Member, and converted terminable annuities into
capital, and determine, in the first instance, that the
period in which the income-tax should be levied shall
be three years and not six, having capitalised all
terminable annuities, the true principles on which it
ought to be arranged was this—that the period for
which all annuities should be chargeable ought to
be precisely of the same duration. To capitalise
income arising from three years' annuity, and to
capitalise income arising from perpetuities, the tax
should be imposed for three years, and all parties
pay a per tentage on the interest of capitalised
incomes for a period of three years. Let
them put aside, for a moment, the consideration
of interest. Take the income-tax of 1001. a year, pay-
able for a period over which the income-tax was levied,
say of a man who had a lease of three years' dura-
tion which gave him 100/. ; another man had an in-
come for the whole period of six years of 1001., there
was 300/. in the first instance, and 6001. in the second,
he meant the capitalised amount. In order to levy in
proportion to the capital for the whole period of six
years in both cases,the sum levied would be precisely
in proportion to the amount of capitalised income. It
was impossible to carry out the plan of the Hon.
Gentleman, and he should therefore oppose it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
contended that the proposition of his Hon. Friend,
however benevolently intended, could not he carried
out. Some, no doubt, would be benefited, but the
provision would open a door to fraud, and would ma-
terially interfere with the general principle of the
measure, 1,700,0001. of the income-tax was paid by
professional men, and those holding Government situ-
ations. 3,500,000/. was otherwise raised. It would
be impossible, without the greatest injustice, to make
any provision benefiting the former without allowing
cases which had quite as much merit in the latter class
to derive advantage from such a provision. If annu-
itants were to be excluded, persons would invest
sums of money in life-assurance offices for three
years, for the very purpose of evading the payment of
the tax, and just such sums as placed them without
its reach.—(Hear, hear.) He must call upon the
House not to adopt the proposal of the Honourable
Gentleman.

Mr. lIAWES said the argument of the Hon.
Member for Kendal fell to the ground because he sup-
posed the income-tax as limited, whereas it was to be
perpetual. The only way to make annuities amen-
able was to make the tax permanent, of which there
could be no doubt. It was nominally for three years
in 1841, so it was now, and so it would be nominally
in 1848. He was altogether opposed to arguments
drawn from the belief of the temporary nature of the
tax, which he believed had been and was now intended
as perpetual.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the arguments of the
Member for Kendal, or of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
had not been fairly met. A man might thus reduce
his income from 3001. to 150/. ; and thus, though he
did not realise in one way, he did in another, and
yet avoid the imposition of the income-tax alto-
gether. There was another point to which he would
refer. The Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes)
said that they might classify insurances, and it might
be said that a man might insure his life for 2,000/.,
and if he wished to desist from paying his premium,
on going to the office the Company would give him
the value of his policy. On those grounds,

~~

71 TA

then, though he must confess that he thought
there was much to be said in favour of the
motion of the Hon. Member for Birmingham, and
there was certainly much plausibility on the face of
it, yet he felt compelled to divide against him on the
present occasion.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. SPOONER said he would say but one word
in reply to what had fallen from the lion. Member for
Cockermouth. He must say that for the sake of
showing how fallacious was the supposition that if an
insurance were discontinued the office would return
the premium. The office would, it is true, return
something, but on most lives, and especially in young
lives, the whole amount returned would not be more
than two per cent. There was, therefore, nothing in
that. He thought that the House was bound to act
conscientiously, and if they could not do all the good
they desired, they at least might do some good. There
was a peculiarity about the income-tax. It interfered
with the whole arrangement of a man's expenditure.
He would suppose the case of a man enjoying a cer-
tain amount of income by which he ranged all his ex-
penses. Among other portions of his expenditure he
had insured his life; then comes the property-tax—this
was a charge which he could not avoid, and there was
the danger of losing, if not the actual loss, of the only
provision which he was able to make for his family,
and, therefore, he thought that a difference ought to
be made to meet the case.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment... 26

Against it
Majority against the Amendment. —6l
Mr. WAKLEY said, that in bringing forward the
motion of which he had given notice, he thought it
necessary to explain that his object was not to inter-
fere in any way with the collection of the tax upon
property and income. The Bill before the House
was entitled, " A Bill for Levying a Tax upon Pro-
perty and Income," but unless the clause of which
he had given notice was introduced, it might be
called " A Bill for levying a Tax on Losses. His
(Mr. Wakley's) object was to relieve those parties
who were assessed to the whole amount of their
nominal income, and who yet suffered serious losses
from the insolvency or bankruptcy of tenants, or, as
in many cases, from their absconding, and he thought
that he might, with great reason, ask the House to
remit the charge for income-tax on the amount of
those losses, when they had been fully proved be-
fore the oificial parties whose duty it was to make
the assessment. Many parties complained that this
tax was a great evil, and he (Mr. Wakley) was ready
to allow that it was so, but still he thought that any
evil was endurable which was to continue only a
limited period. And when two parties who were
complaining to him of its oppression, how peculiarly
it fell upon their cases, he was in the habit of telling
them that it would not hurt them much, as it was to
continue only for :three years. He would therefore
tell the Right Hon. Baronet that the public expected
this tax to cease at the end of three years. lie
had voted for the imposition of this tax, and under
the circumstances he thought that it was a wise pro
position, but he did not believe that tax could be con-
tinued in its present shape at the end of that time.
There was already great discontent out of doors in
consequence of it, and if the same disposition to reject
any modification of the tax remained that had already
been witnessed, he would say that it would be impos-
sible to continue the tax at the end of the time for
which it was now voted ; but he believed that the
amendment which he had to submit was necessary to
render the tax palatable. He was ready to grant that
they could not tax property without taxing income,
but he at the same time conceived that in order to
avoid the dishonest influence of the tax it was neces-
sary to introduce a clause te save the imposition upon
losses. He did not wish merely to avoid the tax
up•m assumed losses, but on those which were capable
of proof. He didjnot ask that the Commissioners
should have power—he did not say that they should
at once remit—but that they should have the power
of remitting the tax in all cases when it was proved
that losses had been incurred by the causes which he
had assigned. He would, therefore, beg to move that a
clause be inserted in the Bill to the following effect :
" And whereas doubts have arisen whether the
len Hord for the time being of premises charged antler
Schedule (A) is liable to the duty charged on the
i I premises under the said last-meetioned Schedule,
whether the said landlord shall or shall not have re •
seised the rent in respect of the said premises ; be i'
enacted, and it is hereby enacted, that it shall and
may be lawful for the Commissioners for General
Purposes, acting for the district in which the said
premises are situated, on appeal to them made for that
purpese by the said landlord or his agent, to dis-
charge the said assessment, or such portion thereof,
st the rate of seven pence in the pound, on such
amount of rent as the sail landlord shall prove to
their satisfaction he has wholly lost, and has not been
eble and is not likely to recover in respect of the sail
premises, and on which he would have been liable to
;ay the said duty, by way of deduction, in case the
( ccupier for the time being or any other person for
Lim had paid the said rent."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he ought to thank the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury for having so well answered the Hon. Member
for Cambrllge, but with respect to the amendment
which the Hon. Member had submitted to the House
he felt that he must be as hard upon that as he had
been on other cases. He felt that certainly there
was considerable reason, in a prirnd facie aspect, in
what had fallen from the Hon. Member. But there
was one objection which, in his opinion, was fatal
to it. It should be recollected that the landlord pos-
sessed peculiar powers over the tenant, and if he lost
his rent in the first instance he would very possibly
have the power of recovering it afterwards. It was
not to be supposed that if a tenant were in debt for
rent he could at once remove from the place that he
occupied; and if he did so it was not likely that
he could remove his goods along with him
(Hear, hear.) Were this amendment to he carried,
and were the Commissioners invested with the power
to allow the reduction of the tax, it would lead to
very great inconvenience. If a landlord were, indeed,
to suffer such a loss, which was not, as he before said,
very likely, he would have to blame his own folly in
not having made either a proper agreement with his
tenant, or a proper reference respecting his character.
He thought that under these circumstances the land-
lord should pay the tax in the first instance, and take
his chance of recovering the loss.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he felt the necessity
of this clause very strongly, and was very
sorry that the Act of the last three years,
had been without some such clause as
he had proposed—yet he would not divide
the House upon it, for after the bad success of the
attempts of the Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.
Spooner) he saw that it was fruitless to divide, unless
he had the sanction of the Government, and he was
unwilling to give unnecessary trouble. But he must
say that he bitterly regretted the opposition which
was given by her Majesty's Ministers to any
attempt to alter the income-tax for three years.
He felt bound to assert that, though this
tax was contrary to the prejudices and en-
tirely opposed to the feelings of the people of
England, they had borne its imposition with an
admirable patience, and they had exhibited a temper
under its infliction beyond all praise.—(Hear.) For
their sakes, therefore, he trusted that the same
opposition would not be continued to altering this
o•lious tax. Under the circumstances, and with the
example of the fate of the amendments of the Hon.
Member for Birmingham, he begged to withdraw his
motion.

Mr. CURTEIS said that he trusted that the notice
that had just been taken of the feelings of the people,
and of their dislike to this tar, would not be lost on
her Majesty's Government.
The motion was then withdrawn.

FOSTFI said that he had no hostility to the
tax himself, and, generally speaking, in his opinion
it was a good tax, and he believed that the opposition
was not to the tax itself so much as to its inquisitorial
nature. His amendment, if adopted, would tend to
remove tbis objection, and he therefore hoped the
Government would net oppose it. All who were
engaged in trade or manufactures were assessed in
Schedule D ; but if they wished to keep their
affairs private, they were at liberty, on appli-
cation, to make their returns under Schedule
C. His amendment was to this effect :
" And whereas all persons, corporations, and com-
panies carrying on any mines of lead, tin, coal, copper,
iron, or other undertakings of the like nature, are
now chargeable under schedule (A); be it enacted,
that from and after the passing of this Act the said
persons, corporations, or companies so chargeable in
respect of all such undertakings shall be assessed for
the same under schedule (D), in like manner, and
with the same option of privacy, as other perscns,
corporations, or companies chargeable under that
schedule." He could not understand on what grounds
any opposition could be offered to his amendment.
Large mining establishments were generally—he
must say always—situated in remote districts. In
towns a man was not so much under the supervision
of his neighbours, and his return was not so likely
to be canvassed by those about him. Now, for min-
ing establishments, the introduction of this amend-
ine would relieve the officers of the establishment
from a great inconvenience, foe at present they were
obliged to disclose the whole of their affairs to the
pubic around them. Those were tailors, shoemakers,
and people of a similar grade ; and was it right, he
would ask, that the affairs of companies of this mag-
nitude should be laid open to such investigation ?
Ills amendment was necessary to make the Bill con-
si,tent. The measure ought to be so in all and every
ore of its parts. As he had said before, he could
not understand the reasons, if there were any, for
of posing this amendment, and he therefore hoped he
sI ould not have a refusal from the Government to
wake the alteration he proposed.

The amendment was 'then put.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
his chief objection to the amendment was that, when

the Bill was introduced in 1842, the miners themselves
desired to be placed under schedule A, and the
same principle was adopted in all former
Bills. He was afraid, therefore, to swerve now from
this established rule, or he would have no objection
to accede to the amendment of the Hon. Member.
Mr. FOSTER said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
urged no argument against his proposition. He did
not wish to compel miners to claim under schedule
D, but to give them the option of doing so.
The clause was then read a second time.
Sir R. H. INGLIS did not call the attention of
her Majesty's Ministers to the motion he had upon
the paper with a view of obtaining their concession
now, but with a view to obtaining their sanction at
some future period to the principle he wished to lay
down. If the present were a time of war he would
not, for one moment, offer any obstacle to the con-
tinuation of the measure in its present form, but as
they were now at peace with n early all the world,
this objection could not be raised. Every day's ex-
perience convinced him that the tax was not to be
limited to three years ; but, on the contrary, it
was likely to be made perpetual, and under
such circumstances he was desirous to modify
the measure in such a way as to make it more en-
durable. If, therefore, he could not carry his amend-
ment, he wished to put on record, for the guidance
of their successors, an expression of opinion that some
at least of the present House of Commons were
favourable to his proposal. He believed he had stated,
on a former occasion, that numerous instances had
come to his knowledge where clerks and others, whose
incomes were 1501., had got their employers to reduce
their salaries, to enable them to a fade payment of the
income-tax. By this means a man, whose salary was
1501. was reduced to 1491., thus saved 31. 10s. a year,
He wished, therefore, to save his fellow-countrymen
from this temptation to commit fraud, as well as from
suffering actual distress, which had in some cases re-
sulted from the tax. They were told that the revenue
would suffer a loss of one million sterling, if the
House adopted his proposition. He conceived this
sum was considerably overstated, but in order to
meet this objection, he had thought it advisable
to modify the proWition of which he had
given notice, by limiting its operation to those
classes who were peculiarly affected by the pre-
sent tax. Instead, therefore, of the notice which
stood on the printed paper, he wished to substitute the
following:—" Provided always that the said rates
and duties shall not be assessed or taken upon any in-
come whatever, excepting with respect to the sum by
which such income shall exceed 1501." Now this
would meet many cases where the tax pressed with
severity. For instance, there were in this country
5,489 benefices, varying from 1501. to 500/., who
would derive considerable benefit front the introduc-
tion of such a provision.—(Hear, hear.) He knew
what the result of a division would be, but to avoid
being taunted by any future Chancellor of the Exche-
quer that the measure in its present form had been
fully sanctioned by the House, he felt called upon to
put it to the vote.—(Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER seconded the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the question involved a general principle which could
not be settled by the operation of the tax upon one
particular class. He thought he should be able to
show his Hon. Friend that his proposition was im-
practicable, and that it would not remove the present
facilities for evading the tax. His Hon. Friend said a
clerk who had 150/. a year could get his employer
to reduce his salary to 1491., and thus evade
the tax. But would his Honourable Friend's
amendment remove this objection? Could not
a man who had an income of 500/. reduce it to
499/. ?—(llear, hear.) Surely, then, the amendment
was objectionable in this particular. But his Hon.
Friend's proposition was open to other objections.
A man might have an income from land, amounting
to 500/. in one part of the country, and an interest
to the same amount in some railway company in
another part of the country, and thus he would have
an opportunity of availing himself of his Hon.
Friend's amendment in two instances. He might
claim to deduct 1501. from his 5001. arising out of
land in Yorkshire, and claim the same exemption on
his railway interest in Sussex.—(Hear.) Unless,
therefore, they introduced some system of combined
examination to meet these particular eases, the amend-
ment would produce no good, and for this reason it
was his duty to resist the proposition.
After a few words from Sir W. CLAY,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 25

...._ _
Against it
Majority against the amendment —34
On the re-admission of strangers to the gallery, we
found
Sir W. CLAY addressing the House. He said,
that in all direct taxation there was much rudeness,
roughness, and unpleasantness mixed up. Ile gave
the Right lion. Baronet credit for showing good rea-
sons against the several amendments that had been
proposed, inasmuch as they would all he attended with
hardship and inequality. But the Right Hon. Baro-
net's answers proved that hardship and inequality were
inseparable from the tax. There were many theore-
tical arguments in favour of direct taxation ; but
there was this advantage in indirect taxation, that it
left every man to a certain degree the master of his
taxation. All indirect taxation pressed upon expenses,
and many of the assessed taxes pressed wholly on
luxuries. But the income-tax was a tax upon
prudence ; and he did not agree with the saying that
the miser was the fittest person to be taxed. The
miser was the greatest benefactor of society.—(A
laugh.) It was the miser that carried out all your
great improvements.—(Oh, oh, and laughter.) The
man who kept a pack of fox hounds was no bene-
factor of the community. The man who benefited
society was he that did not spend his money in
luxury, but spared it, and applied his savings to
public improvementa. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and
" That is not a miser.") He (Mr. Clay) did not
wish the tax to be extended to Ireland, but all the
arguments against that extension applied to the im-
position of the tax in this country. lie would not
detain the House by offering unavailing opposition,
but he could not allow the Bill to pass without enter-
ing his protest against it.
Sir R. PEEL thanked the Hon. Gentleman for the
tone in which he had expressed his opinions, and for
not persisting in an unavailing opposition, although
the Hon. Gentleman had given the Bill his parting
malediction.—(A laugh.) He did not think it was
a proper time, at this stage of the Bill, to enter
into the question of direct and indirect taxa-
tion. He would only say that much must depend
upon the circumstances of the country to be taxed.
But he must say that if there were in any country
taxes which pressed upon industry, and at the same
time a palpable tendency to accumulate' then pro-
perty might be directly taxed.—(Hear, hear.) But
in a country like the United States, where there was
but little accumulation, he thought it might be well
to adhere to indirect taxation. He must know all the
circumstances of a country before he could give an
opinion. But of this he was convinced, that if a tax
on property were to be imposed, it should be on
income, and not upon accumulated capital. Nothing
could be more dangerous than to tax accumulated
capital.—(Hear, hear.) It would be a check to that
feeling which led men to endure present toil for the
sake of future serenity and enjoyment; and he be-
lieved there was great truth in what Dr. Johnson said,
that a man could not be raore innocently employed
than in accumulating money.—(A laugh.) Such a
tax would derange accumulation, and tend to transfer
capital to other countries. At the same time he
would confess that he thought the greatest check to
the improvident application of the income-tax was the
inequality of its operation.—(Hear, hear.) A tax
on accumulation would not easily be made
productive, as capital would be transferred to other
countries. He was not now going into the question
as to fixed incomes and floating incomes.—(Hear.)
Some Gentlemen had said that they could show how
he could raise three or four millions. Very well.
But let them be upon those (the Treasury) benches,
and let him see how they would propose their taxes—
(Laughter.) Other gentlemen asked why was not
the tax extended to Ireland ? But why not extend
other taxes to Ireland? Why not extend the soap-
tax, for the first time, to that part of the kingdom,
where it was most desirable to encourage the use of
soap.—(Laughter.) They were making a great, and,
he would say, a bold experiment in their fiscal
systein, and the fact was that the country
was of opinion that the present was a time
when the property of manufacturers, and the condi-
tion of the working-classes rendered the experiment
desirable and practicable.—(Hear, hear.) Those
upon whom the income-tax pressed were willing to
bear the burthen for the sake of an experiment, hav-
ing for its object to better the condition of those
below them, as it was the earnest desire of the
affluent classes to do.—Hear, hear.) Their objec-
tion to the tax was as great as could be, and the
reason of their acquiescence was an honour to them
and to the country. He (Sir Robert Peel) would
not contemplate the discussion which was likely to
arise when the renewal of the tax came again before
the House.—(A laugh.) The House would not ex-
pect him to say now what course he might take upon
that future occasion. He had stated already the pre-

partitions which were going on in the glass trade.—
(Hear.) Suppose, then, the thousands who were now
unemployed—and other thousands—should find em-
ployment ? Suppose the glass manufacture of this
country should come into competition with Belgium
and Bohemia—might not the couatrv, on the same
ground as it now acquiesced in the income-tax, he
inclined to try further the application of direct taxa-
tion, if not exactly in this shape Was it therefore
to be expected that he should now pledge himself to
the repeal of the tax in three years ?—and he said
this without seeking any reserve.—(Hear, hear.)
The affluent daises in this country willingly acqui-
esce:l in the tax, for the sake of an experiment which
had for its object the relief of those who most stood

E SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY E

in need of it—(Hear, hear)—and he could not say
what their feeling might be at the end of the term,
and upon the issue of the experiment.
Mr. HAWES did not deny the claims of the
poorer classes to be relieved ; but the Right Hon.
Baronet had not done anything to relieve them from
the burdens that were most felt by them. The Hon.
Baronet had not taken off the taxes upon consump-
tion, nor those which interrupted trade, and made
subsistence difficult. He was not obliged to vote
for the income-tax, because it rendered the Minister
to be independent of other sources of revenue, and able
to keep up the fiscal system thatsupported monopoly.
He thought that they ought not to submit to the in-
come-tax till the burdens on the industry of the
country were removed, and till the indirect taxation
was placed on a sound basis. With regard to the
administration of the tax he bad hears with great
pleasure what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel) and the Right lion. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on that subject, but believing that the
tax was unjust, he could not—though he would not
I divide the House again upon it—sit down without
joining his lion. Friend in giving it a parting male-
diction.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said that the argument of
the Hon. Member for Lambeth was, that he would
wish to see the Minister in difficulty that he might be
compelled to adopt certain measures, forgetting that
when a Minister was in difficulties he had recourse to
an increase, and not to a diminution of taxation. His
Right Hon. Friend had put the grounds of the tax on
a proper foundation. The people of the country had
not submitted to the tax so patiently from any pre-
ference of direct over indirect taxation, but because
they saw that it enabled the Right Hon. Baronet to
make a great experiment with regard to the taxes
levied on the people of the country, and afforded him
a prospect of lightening the burdens which fell on the
more indigent classes of the community.
Mr. HAWES explained.
Mr. WARD said it appeared to him rather sur-
prising that no person was going to divide the House,
notwithstanding all that had been urged against this
tax.—(Hear, hear.) Understanding that the lion.
Member for Lambeth intended to divide the House on
the present occasion, he came down to vote against
him, although he did not expect to see the tax done
away with, nor would he entertain any expectation of
the kind when his Hon. Friend became Chancellor of
the Exchequer.—(Cheers and laughter.) His Hon.
Friend talked of just taxation, but where were the
elements of just taxation to be found? He (Mr.
Ward) acted with a large body in the country, who
were known under the name of "Free-traders," and
he recognised a broad distinction between free trade
principles and those on which the Government
acted, but he could see nothing but a question of
degree and not of principle between the present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer and the would-be Chancellor.
—(Cheers and laughter.) He would vote with as
great cheerfulness as ever he did with his Hon.
Friend, if they recognised the principles which they
seemed to like but which they did not espouse.—
(Cheers.) lie did not think there was more to be
gained on one side than the other.—(Hear, hear.) It
was a question of e'egree between the present Go-
vernment and the future Government, but there was
this difference, that the Right Hon. Gentleman op-
posite (Sir Robert Peel) always did what he said,
but his lion. Friend near him said a great deal more
but did nothing.—(Ministerial cheers.) They had
plenty of pretty schemes from them, but they never
went beyond schemes.—Loud Cheers.) They found
, that the Right Hon Baronet was able to carry his
measures by a happy combination of circumstances,
and that was a happy circumstance for the country.
He had heard complaints in that House of the
budget of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he did not
think it was a fair criterion to apply to that measure
that a man gained but 3d. in his fustian or 21d. in
his sugar.—(Hear.) He looked to the immense em-
ployment it would give at home by increasing the ex-
port trade, and enabling them to compete with
foreigners in other countries.—(Cheers.) He believed
that their trade would be increased 25' millions in
consequence of taking off the duty on the raw mate-
rial.—(hear, and laughter.) And, notwithstanding
all the taunts that had been thrown against him and
those with whom he acted, he was not ashamed to ex-
press himself in favour of the measure of the Right
lion. Baronet, and he had come down to the House
that evening for the purpose of recording his vote in
favour of the income-tax.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CURTEIS said, that if he did not divide the
House on the present occasion, it was because having
recorded his opinion against the measure, and having
already divided the House twice upon it, he thought
it would be pertinacious o❑ his part, if he were to set
up his own opinion against the declared conviction of
the House.—(Hear, hear.) His objection to the tax
was not that it was a direct tax, but that it was an
inquisitorial tax. He was sorry to see that they had
made such a bad fight against the income-tax. The
Noble Lord the Member for London, under whose
leadership he had acted for many years, and
for whom he had thegreatest respect, had, he regretted
to say, only put one vote on record against the tax—
(Hear, hear)—on the motion of the Hon. Member for
Liskeard (Mr. Buller.) He was sorry the Noble
Lord had not made a better stand against it. For
himself, he gave every possible malediction that could
be given to the tax.—(Laughter.)
Mr. DARI3Y could not agree with the argument
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, for the lion. Gen-
tleman's argument was, that all the labouring capital
of the country should be displaced for the purpose of
rendering things cheap ; forgetting that if things were
cheap and labour displaced the people would not have
the means of buying those cheap things.
Sir C. NAPIER said he rose for the purpose of
remarking on one great injustice of the income-tax.
It appeared that while all the civil officers in Ireland,
who were well paid, were exempt from the income-
tax, the officers of the army and navy, who were most
inadequately paid, were obliged to pay the tax. Now
that was most unjust. lie knew the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
reply that their navy all over the world paid the tax,
but he begged to remind him that the Governors of
their colonies also paid it ; and if that were so, where
was the justice in exempting the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, and the other high civil functionaries there,
from the payment of the tax. He hoped the Right
Hon. Gentleman would give some explanation on that
head.
Mr. TRELAWNY supported the motion, and after
a short discussion, in which the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER joined, the Bill was then read a
third time and passed.
SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
The Sugar Duties Bill was read a second time,
after a short discussion, and ordered to be committed
on Friday.
The Customs Export Duties Bill was also read
a second time and ordered to be committed.
14
JUSTICES' CLERKS.
On the proposition that the Justices' Clerks and
Clerks of the Peace Bill be read a second time,
Mr. T. EGERTON objected to the Bill.
General JOHNSTONE' supported the Bill.
Mr. DARI3Y hoped, if the Bill passed, the ma-
chinery would be less complicated than that now pro-
posed. He was fearful that the expense to the public
would be increased by the Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the Bill.
After same observations from Mr. DICKENSON and
Mr. Ihmar,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had undertaken this
measure from a sincere desire to promote the better
administration of justice, and he was quite ready to
listen to any suggestions from Gentlemen possessing
practical experience on that subject. Many of the
objections to the measure applied rather to the details
than to the principle. The principle was that, upon
the whole, justice would be better administered by
public servants receiving salaries for the duties
which they performed ; the principle was that, with
reference to the whole body of the country, whose
interests were involved, salaries were preferable to
fees. He believed, also, that in the end economy
would be promoted by the measure under considera-
tion. The lion. Member for Cheshire said that
if the Bill passed, enormous salaries would be granted
by magistrates in quarter sessions.
Mr. T. EGERTON said his observation was, that
the magistrates would be obliged to pay large salaries
in order to obtain efficient officers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could conceive no trust
more sacred than that vested in magistrates by this
Bill, and he felt persuaded that no prodigal salaries
would be awarded. It was objected that magistrates'
clerks were unknown to the law. They were not un-
known to those who had to pay the fees.—(Hear.)
Many Hon. Members had said that clerks had no
power to prosecute ; he had thought it better that, on
the whole, the matter should be left open to discus-
sion. With respect to clerks of the peace now exist-
ing as such, he proposed to give them compensation
for any loss which they might sustain, calculated on
their receipt for the last twenty years. He had
no doubt but under this hill the services
of eminent persons would be obtained at comparatively
moderate salaries. He proposed to leave in the
hands of the magistrates power in certain cases to
remit the fees. One great object of the Bill was to
take precautions against the appointment of inferior
persons. He had known many cases in which per-
sons who were not qualified had held the office ; and
he wished to prevent a recurrence of that evil. With
respect to uniformity of fees, ho thought the interests
of those who sought justice, whether in the superior
or the inferior courts, required that for the same
judicial act in this couutry persons should
pay the same—and that a moderate price—
(Hear, hear)—and they could only secure uni-
formity in the mode proposed by this Bill.
On the present occasion he wished the House to con-
sent to the second reading, and the details of the
measure might be considered in Committee. The
Bill provided that proper legal assistance should be
given to prisoners, and that this assistance should be
professional ; that the salaries should be fixed by the

a ,
magistrates throughout England, and that this salary
should be sufficient to command this assistance. The
Secretary of State would be bound to fix an equal
rate of fees throughout England, and he believed the
fees so fixed would, with a moderate scale of salary,
command adequate assistance. He believed that the
measure, if permitted by the House to become law,
would have a salutary effect on the administra-
tion of justice throughout the country.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought it would not be
attended with any great expense ; and though the
county-rate might be a little increased—which, how-
ever, he did not anticipate—yet the inhabitants of
the districts who now paid the fees would be re-
lieved. Whatever might be the effect on the Govern-
ment, when an individual were'placed in the painful
and agonising position of being put on his trial,
though innocent, and if he should be acquitted, he
was bound to say that to exact fees from him did
appear to him a monstrous proceeding. Wherever
the charge might fall, it ought not to fall on the in-
nocent party who had just obtained an acquittal. What-
ever might be the differences of opinion in the House on
other pints, with respect to salaries or fees he ex-
pected entire concurrence on this subject. There
might be points which he had omitted, but he had
endeavcured to notice all the most prominent •nes
that had been brought forward. Some of the
objections made by Honourable Members applied
rather to details which were open to consideration in
Committee ; but the great point now to be considered
was the principle of the measure, one which he be-
lieved was incontestible, that justice would be better
administered by servants receiving a salary, than by
servants receiving fees.
After a few words from General JolucsTolvu and
Mr. TURNER,
Captain PECHELL saw nothing in the Bill with
which he could cordially agree. But he thought the
Right Hon. Baronet might have added a provision to
restrain magistrates' clerks from acting as political
agents ; in a small town it was very objectionable
that they should be entrusted with this power. He
thought, too, that petty sessions should always be
held in a public building. At present, in many
places, the sessions were held in a public-house,
where prisoners and witnesses were detained for
many hours to the profit of the landlord, who
charged nothing for the room in which the magis-
trates met ; it was plain, therefore, that he derived
some advantage from it.
Mr. ESCOTT thought most of the remarks that
had been made applied rather to the details than the
principle of the Bill. At the same time he had heard
enough to be perfectly convinced that his Hon.
Friends themselves who had made the objections were
not at all aware of the evils this measure would re-
move. Those evils were not equally diffused over the
country; there were counties in which the vigilance
of the magistrates and the better feelings of the officers
of the courts of justice, had, of themselves, put an end
to the most illegal and unjust part of the system, and
he believed Oxfordshire was one of those places. This
Bill established a system of payment of clerks
of the peace by salaries instead of fees. That
might be an excellent principle, but the Bill was not
the one he had asked the Right Hon. Baronet for, last
year. The measure for which he asked him was a
short declaratory Act, which should put an end to the
existing system of unjust and illegal fees. One clause
would have done this; by the concurrence of all who
had spoken on both sides of the House, there could
have been no objection to such a Bill. But he was
far from saying the Right Hon. Baronet was not right
in going farther than this ; it was enough for him to
know that the Bill, as it was introduced, would
abolish these unjust and illegal fees. He was sure
many Hon. Gentleman were not precisely aware of
what the system really was. Three officers were
affected by this Bill, clerks of the peace, clerks of assize,
and clerks of the magistrates. Each of these
officers in different counties, to different amounts
took these unjust fees on different pretences. The
clerk of assize took them under the sanction of the
most extraordinary Act of Parliament which ever
was passed, or had ever disgraced the statute-book of
the country, and which he did not hesitate to declare
was a fraud on Parliament and the country. This
was the 55th of Geo. 111., chap. 50. By this sec-
tion acquittal fees were abolished in the case of pri-
soners,but, by a subsequent section,a compensation was
given from the county-rates for "all such fees," and
under these fees that compensation was unjustly re-
ceived. But strange to say, the clerk of the peace did not
take fees, or was not entitled to them, under this Act.
The fees were granted under different Acts. The
duty of the justices was to make out a table of the,
fees that ought to be paid, which was to he submitted
to the judges for their sanction, and if they should
approve of it, then they were paid. But under the
present system was it not too bad that fees should he
taken from defendants while there was no authority
whatever in the Act for doing so ?—(Hear.) Yet it
was a well-known fact that there were certain sums
put down in the list as fees to be paid by defendants,
and that had gone on for years without being
exposed. He did not seek to attach blame to any
body for permitting this practice to continue, because
what was everybody's business was nobody's, except
that he did think the parties oughti ohave looked after
these matters before. Besides this,the clerks of thejustices
also took fees from defendants, and that, too,
too there was
no Act of Parliament to authorise. But it was
done in this way : A bill of costs was made out, in
which was included certain sums alleged to be the
fees to be paid by defendants, and they had to pay
them. Surely this should not be allowed to con-
tinue, for if there was no authority 1 r it Ire Act of
Parliament, what authority was there ? Was there
any man who, standing in the capacity of a defen-
dant, should be asked to pay fees ? He had had an op-
portunity of pleading " Not guilty," and taking his
trial ?—(Hear, hear.) He knew he was now speak-
ing in the hearing of many Hon. Members learned in
the law, and they well knew that there was no law
to sanction such a course as that of taking fees from
a defendant by a Queen's officer, ever since the time
of the laws of Edward the First. He had heard of
instances where the fees taken from defendants
amounted to such a thing as 31. and 41., before a man
in the position of a defendant was afforded
an opportunity of pleading " Not guilty," even
upon a charge of a trifling assault.—(Hear.)
\Vas it not too bad that such a practice should be
permitted, and yet it was no uncommon occurrence
that such a thing was. done to one party by another
from mere spite ; and the defendant often happened to
be a poor man, who had to beg a loan of 51. before he
could be in a position to defend himself from such a
truckling charge.—(Hear, hear.) He would not
troulale the House further on this subject, but he
trusted that the Bill now before the House would
have the effect of remedying and removing these il-
legal abuses.
Mr. MILES concurred in the principle of the Bill,
but he differed from the provisions of many of the
clauses, and hoped the abuses complained of would
not be permitted any longer to exist.
Mr. HAWES approved of the Bill, and hoped it
would be passed, as nothing could be a greater abuse
than to have the fees exacted in the manner stated by
the Hon. Member opposite.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was afraid the
answer which he had to give to his Hon. Friend the
Mfiamber: for Somersetshire would not be very satis-
factory to his Hon. Friend. If the fees were settled
by Act of Parliament, most unquestionably it would
be perfectly legal to take those fees. His Hon.
Friend had, however, imposed a much more difficult
task upon him, as his Hon. Friend had celled upon
him to state the law and the facts of the case. Now,
if his Hon. Friend had stated what were the facts, he
(the Solicitor-General) would, to the best of his
ability, have stated what the law was. There was a
wide: difference of opinion between his Hon. Friend
the Member for Winchester, and his Hon. Friend the
Member for Somersetshire, as to the facts of this case.
This matter was now pending in the Courts. He
would have in another place to argue this question.
The facts would be there ascertained, and judgment
would be given. He must, therefore, decline to give
an opinion on the law of this case, and leave the facts
doubtful for the preserti.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WA KLEY sincerely hoped the fee system
would be pursued to the highest Courts. He did not
think the lion. Solicitor-General had answered the
other question of the Hon. Member for Winchester,
compensation in res
question. There
that i t dii
The partiesSOLlClTOß-
iwnhegetahlefreesw ere Waf.:ateo had taken illegal fees, and which
-t of those fees. .
p'ertwards abolished, were entitled to
not require a lawyer to un-
could be no doubt that such persons were not entitled
to compensation.
The Bill was then re ed a second time,. and ordered
to be committed on the 14th of April.
G.
EN:wEeltr tAhLat
BAST! t RDY BILL.
The House then wet it into Committee on this Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM s tad the object of the Bill was
merely to correct matte ,re of form.
Mr. COLLETT tl ought the words " putative
father," were very indi; mtinct, and he therefore moved
that they be left out.— -(Laughter.)
After a few word. ; from the SOLICITOR-
GENERAL, the cla use was passed without a
division.
The remaining clause aof the Bill were then gone
through as also the sch, idule without any opposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM ti ten moved the following ad-
ditional clauses :
" And be it Enacted, that t when an order made under
the provision of the said Ac t shall, prior to the passing
of this Act, have been cos shed for any defect therein,
and not upon the merits, i tt shall be lawful for the mo-
ther of the bastard child, 3i i whose favour such order
shall have been made, tct• take proceedings for the ob-
taining of another order, ; is cording to the provisions of
the said Act, at any time within the space of three
calendar months after tint passing of this Act, although
the period limited for her a oplication to the justice under
the said Act shall have ex p ired.
" And whereas power is . given by the said Act to the
putative father to appeal ',against.an order made upon
him by the justices in Pett ;) Session assembled, giving