The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-11-13 00:00:00

COUNCIL OF DISCIPLINE OF THE NATIONAL

GUARD.

THE GRENADIER'S DINNER.

President.—You have been guilty of a grave infraction of
your duty, M. Serdat, in suffering packages to be carried
into the garden of the Tuileries.
Serdat.—lt was no package • it was only a cuising,re.
President.—She had something in her bands.
Serdat.—Yes, some plates.
President.—Just so; that is what you should not have
suffered to enter. It is distinctly against orders.
Serdat.—She had inn all the way from the Rue de Seine
to the gate in front of the Pont Royal. It was impossible to
prevent her from entering.

President. —Was there anything indispensable in what she
carried ?

Serdat.—Egad, there was ; it happened to be my dinner.
(Laughter.)
President.—You should have made her go round the gate.
Serdat (with impremment).—Bless your soul, my dinner
would have been cold.

President.—You did not profit in the least by your pre-
cipitancy. Your cook was stopped by one of the garden
keepers.
Serdat.—And my dinner too ! It was a flagrant shame.
President.—A National Guard should always show a good
example, and you did quite the contrary. You went directly
in the teeth of the countersign.

Serdat.—Pooh, pooh, I can understand no countersign
which is injurious to the well-being of my stomach. I was
hungry when they planted me at my post, and hungrier still,
you may guess, after three hours' mounting guard. I should
have eaten the countersign had I been kept much longer
without my dinner—perhaps even demolish my boots !
(Laughter.)
The refractory sentinel was then condemned to 12 hours'
imprisonment.
Set-lat.—The Government may do its best, but it shall
never compel me to commit an act so barbarous as that which
you prescribe.
President.—What is that?

Serdat.—Why, force a citizen, to be sure, to cross bayonets
against the admission of his own dinner, The bowels of a
Brutus would be unequal to such an act of patriotism !
(Much laughter.)

THE WINDOW DUTIES.

IMPORTANT APPEAL.

On Wednesday a general meeting of the Commissioners
of Assessed and Land Taxes for the division of St. Mary le-
bone took place at the Court-house, Marylebone-lane.—
Thomas I?ielden, Esq., in the chair.
In consequence of the new rating to the window duties
an extraordinary scene presented itself on the occasion.
The number of persons attending to appeal against this
species of rating not only completely occupied the spacious
vestry-room, but the waiting-rooms and lobbies of the
Court-house were literally blocked up by them. Some pre-
liminary business having been disposed of,
Mr. Hugh Biers, of No. 12, Dorset-place, one of the
commissioners, appealed against the increase in his window
duties (from 22 to 27 windows) under the 4th and sth of
William IV., cap. 54, sec. 7. This clause enacts that " all
persons who were duly assessed to or under composition for
window duties for the year ending the sth of April, 1835,
and who continued to reside In the same premises, are en-
titled to open, and keep open, free of duty, any, additional
number of windows in the premises so assessed or com-
pounded for." Under this section of the act Mr. Biers
contended that be was exempt from any charge beyond the
22 windows assessed in 1835, and, to show that he was duly
assessed, he wished to call the attention of the board to the
difference in the mode of assessing these taxes. The as-
sessed taxes on horses, carriages, servants, &c. were re-
turned by the parties to be assessed under a declaration,
and subject to a penalty for an improper return, but not so
with respect to window duties. The window duties were
assessed by the assessor, assisted by the crown officer, who
was empowered under the act to enter into, to count, and
to make a return of the number of windows rateable to
each respective house, with which return the party assessed
had nothing whatever to do, and was seldom present when
the survey was made. The number of windows taken by
the assessor was returned to the surveyor, subsequently by
the surveyor to the board of commissioners, who directed
the amount to be collected by their collectors, and another
return vi as then made to the board of taxes. Under these
circumstances, he (Mr. Biers) would maintain that after
five years' collection had been paid upon a charge made by
the parties themselves it was as unjust as illiberal to turn
round upon the ratepayers and say, "Notwithstanding it
was our own fault that in 1834 an aperture may have es-
caped our charge, yet the penalty shall be inflicted not only
for such windows as were then in existence, but also all
those that have been since opened upon the faith of that
act." He wished to impress upon the board the injustice
of this attempt, inasmuch as the assessors of 1834 might,
and no doubt did, exercise a discretion in taking the win-
dows, leaving out, perhaps, a lancet-light or loophole made
for the purpose of ventilating a water-closet or larder,
whilst the surveyors of 1840, having received from the Tax
Office the most stringent orders to keep up to the uttermost,
would count even a gimblet-hole in a door for the purpose
of increasing the duties. This, he contended, was not the
way in which the government intendgd that the taxpayers
should be treated ; but, even if so, he should still contend
that according to the definition of the word " duly," which
meant " properly," " regularly," he had been properly and
regularly assessed by the parties whose duty it was so to do ;
and also that they could not amerce any ratepayer for any
'aches of parties themselves. In fact, it would be most
unjust of the board of commissioners to amerce an appel-
lant by inflicting the additional charge of the whole of the
windows now found under the present squeezing system,
upon the ground that the surveyors of 1834 had either in-
advertently or liberally left out of the charge at that period
a pane of glass which they considered ought not to be
charged. He should, therefore, strenuously contend that
in 1834 he was duly assessed, and consequently not liable
to the additional charge now attempted to be enforced.
A long discussion upon the point raised ensued amongst
the hoard of commissioners, which was a very full one,
and the decision was ultimately postponed till the next
meeting.