The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

Impala! Varliaintnt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

On the motion that the Speaker should leave the chair, in
order that the house might resolve itself into committee on
the Income-tax Bill,
Mr. WALLACE renewed his objections to the measure,
and desired, in this stage of it, to know whether any and
what alterations were intended in the tariff. He wished Sir
R. Peel would take a year to consider whether, if the country
must have an income-tax, it might not be better to make it
a tax of 12 per cent. instead of 3, and abolish other more
injurious modes of taxation. Meanwhile he recommended
a temporary issue of Exchequer-bills. He was not, how-
ever, inclined to interpose objections for mere vexation or
delay.

Sir R. PEEL asked what would have been said to the go-
vernment, if, after taking five months' time to look at the
finances and resources of the country, they had ended with
proposing another year of temporary expedients. The mo-
ney market certainly was now in a healthy state, but that
state was the result of the vigorous effort in progress for the
restoration of public credit; and if that effort were to be re-
laxed, the money market would fall again into disorder. As
to the tariff, he adhered to all the leading principles which
he had announced respecting it ; and he would not object,
after the report on the Income-tax Bill, with which he pro-
posed proceeding from day to day, to discuss the general
outlines of that tariff. He hoped it would not be thought
necessary now to take another debate on the principle of the
Income-tax Bill.

Mr. HUME expressed his thanks to Sir R. Peel for the
mode in which he had grappled with commercial restriction.
He wished the government had done more ; but still it was
doing much. He particularly regretted that a greater im-
pression was not made upon the corn monopoly, the effect
of which was to give to the landed interests from the public
purse as much as they would have to pay for income-tax.
The house then went into committee.

Mr. B. WOOD inquired whether ;iindlord occupying one
of his farms, and losing by it, but letting another and re-
ceiving the rent for it, which two farms would then appear
in different schedules, would be permitted to set the loss on
the first against the gain of the second?
Mr. GOULBURN answered in the negative. _ _

Mr. HUME suggested that the bill, the blank in whose
preamble was proposed to be filled up with April 5, 1842,
ought not to take effect till the date at which the tariff was
to come into operation.
Dr. Bows ING coincided with Mr. Hume.
Sir R. PEEL said that the provision, being meant for the
financial service of the year, would be most conveniently
made to take effect at the time when the financial year
should begin.
As to the notion that the burden and the boon ought to
run together, Mr. GOULBURN observed that the burden was
to be only for three years ; but that the boon would be per-
manent.

Some further conversation then arose on Mr. B. Wood's
question, whether the tax-payers ought not to be allowed, in
his return, to set off the loss of each year against that year's
gain.
Sir GEORGE CLERK thought it unjust, that a man should
get rid of his liability for the proceeds of his fixed property,
by spending them in speculations, and then deducting the
loss from his general return. What he spent in speculation
was as properly a taxable expenditure as to what he spent in
amusement.

Sir R. PEEL explained that the acts were drawn upon the
old precedents, and that the different schedules were neces-
sary for the levy of the different sorts of income. Care must
be taken lest the legislature, in attempting to avoid indivi-
dual injustice, should admit extensive fraud.

Lord Hovitcx. admitted the propriety of retaining the
schedules, but thought a general clause providing for the sort
of adjustment now recommended might be added on the
same principle on which people with incomes under £l5O a-
year are to be allowed a drawback for income stopped on
account of dividends, or otherwise.
After a few sentences from Sir WALTER JAMES and Mr.
WALLACE, schedule A., imposing 7d. per pound upon the
income of landed property, was passed without a division.
On schedule B, imposing 34d. per pound on the profits of
farmers, taken at half the annual value, Lord Howicic ob-
jected that this test was a very inaccurate one. On large
farms well cultivated, there was a much larger surplus, in
the shape of rent, than on smaller and worse tilled farms;
and thus the tax imposed by this bill would fall the heaviest
on the best farming. He would advise the omission of this
separate schedule for the farmers; whom he would propose
to tax, as the hop farmers and nursery gardeners were in-
tended to be taxed, in the same schedule with traders.
Mr. GOULBURN vindicated this test on the score of general
convenience. The accounts of farmers were so mixed up

with the consumption on their farms, there was hardly a
possibility of estimating profits in all individual cases.

On s.cliedule C., relating to annuities and dividends paya•
ble out of public revenue.

Mr. BARING suggested the exemption of foreigners, on
the ground of public faith.

Sir R. PEEL declined to exempt foreigners.
Sir R. PEEL said he would bring forward the tariff before
he proposed the third reading of the income-tax bill.
(Cheers.)

Mr. WALLACE had understood that it was the intention of
the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) to make his communi-
cation to the house respecting the alteration in the tariff as
soon as the income-tax bill had gone through committee,
and before the report was brought up.
Sir R. PEEL said he had stated most distinctly that, after
the report on the income-tax bill had been brought up, he
would postpone any further proceedings with regard to that
measure until he had taken the sense of the house on the
new tariff.

The house then resumed, the Chairman reported progress
and obtained leave to sit again.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TIIESDAY

Mr. REDINGTON, the chairman of the Southampton elec-
tion committee, reported that a member of the house, Mr.
Fleming, (one of the members for Hampshire,) had refused
to answer certain questions, on reasons which the committee

had not considered valid. Mr. FLEMING, who was in his
place, gave a short explanation, in which he stated that he
had taken a leading part in collecting subscriptions to defray
the " strictly legal" expenses of the election ; but he de-
clined, as a man of honour and a gentleman, to violate con-
fidence reposed in him by giving particulars. Mr. Fleming
then withdrew from the house, and a discussion arose on the
motion that he be ordered to attend in his place, and be
informed by the Speaker that be must attend the committee
and answer the question. The motion was carried, and on
Mr. Fleming's return to his place, the Speaker read the reso-
lution to him, to which the hon. member bowed, and sat
down without observation.
Elizabeth Ann Cullen and the surgeon of Newgate were
examined at the bar, respecting the health of Obadiah Lucas,
imprisoned in Newgate for prevarication before the Ipswich
election committee—the female being the sister of the pri-
After some observations, Lucas was dismissed. _

Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. O'Connell,
said, that he expected the treaties entered into between this
country and the Texas would be ratified by next August.
_

Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice, that on Thursday the sth of
May, he intended bringing forward a bill for the renewal of
the poor law commission.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move for a committee to consider
and report upon the destitute condition of the Catholic sol-
diers in India and China, with regard to their spiritual wants.
At least one-third of our army in India were of the Catholic
faith, and their state, as to religious instruction and consola-
tion, was evinced by the numerous statements given to Mr.
O'Connell, and read by him to the house.
Mr. R. BARING said that sufficient provision was already
made for the spiritual instruction of those soldiers in India
who professed the Catholic faith. Any causes of complaint,
when brought under the notice of the proper authorities,
were promptly attended to, and he thought that if a com-
mittee was appointed, it would not elicit more information
on the subject than was already known.
After a few more observations from Mr. HOME, Sir H.
HARDINGE, and Sir R. INGLIS, it was withdrawn.

Mr. ELPHINSTONE rose to Move, " That it will be expe-
dient for this house, at an early period, to resolve itself into a
committee of the whole house, for the purpose of consider-
ing the act 55 Geo. 111., c. 184, with the view of imposing
legacy and probate duties on succession to real estates of the
same amount as are now imposed by the said act on succes-
sion to personal property." The hon. member, in support
of his motion, entered into a statistical comparison of the
produce of the stamp duties, and an estimate of the amount
likely to be raised by a tax such as the one he proposed, and
which, if the house assumed the rental of the country at 40
millions, and that once in 20 years landed property changed
hands, would bring in two millions annually.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was of opinion that
such a tax would only fall on that property which was not
under marriage and other settlements, which generally hap-
paned to be in the hands of smaller proprietors, and that it
would not bring in as much as was estimated.

Mr. HUME said the government administering the affairs
of the nation was bound to make some inquiry on the subject
before the passing of the obnoxious income tax, and thus let
the house see to what extent the land bore its share of the
burdens of the state.

Mr. EWART and Mr. WALLACE supported the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had brought forward a sound objection to the motion,
but at the same time thought that something like equality
might be introduced into the application of the taxes on real
and personal property. He could not at present support the
motion, as—seeing the house had decided on an income tax—
it would be going the length of proposing to lay additional
taxation on the country.

Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to the motion and dis•
cussiun now before the house, he could view it in no other
light than a renewal of the debate on the income tax and at,
obstruction to its progress—(Mr. Elphinstone interrupted
Sir Robert Peel to state that he brought forward the present
motion as a substitute for schedule D). Then, said Sir R.
Peel, you intend to tax the landed proprietor under schedule
A, and to lay a greater tax on him in the shape of a legacy
and probate duty. He (Sir Robert Peel) was of opinion that
a tax on income, objectionable as it was, was infinitely more
preferable to the proposition of the hon. member opposite.
He should, however, refrain from saying anything more on
the subject, as it might at a future period be a subject for the
consideration of the house ; but at the same time time, if
the house adopted the motion, it would have the effect of
overthrowing the decisions of the house on the financial
measures of the government. . . .

Mr. ELLICE -supported the motion in the hope that it
wo ul dolead e
real
lo
asa completeof rlevviitehwpe
rs theona
l wholeprop e
rty.
De
rnm Benwt t asystem of tax-
ation
a d proposed an
mshould
proposedtax
observations,
land
on
after
that
be taken as a substitute for some of the burdens which weigh
a theG'
effectmost heavily on the industry of the country.
afetwhe
Lord Howicx thought the inquiry could only be satisfac-
torily undertaken by a government. The business of an op-
position was to object to, and not propose taxes, and that of
all taxes a legacy duty was the most objectionable. He should
not, therefore, vote in favour of the motion.
On a division the motion was lost by 221 to 77.
Colonel Fox moved for copies or extracts from any recent
official information received by her Majesty's government
from the Cape of Good Hope respecting the present rela-
tions of the colony with the independent boors who esta-
blishedt themselves at Port Natal, together with any informa-
tion as to the treatment of the natives of South Africa by the
said boors. Also any instructions that may have been sent
to
the government of the Cape of Good Hope on these sub-
j s cLt so
Lord
dy
STAN
Nit eys tsyai sd government.that
theu j
s
subjectwas a singular and
interesting one. These boers, dissatisfied with the protec-
tion of the Cape authorities, had migrated, penetrated through
the Caffre country, a distance of 600 miles, and established
themselves at Port Natal as independent of the British au-
thorities. Her Majesty's government were, however, de-
termined not to suffer any infraction of the right of sove-
reignty posessed by this country over the colony of the Cape,
and therefore could neither assent to their independenceo
enter into treaties with any of the native tribes. He agreed
to the motion with the omission of the word " independent."
After some further discussion the motion was agreed to as
amended by Lord Stanley.
Mr. BURROUGHES vindicated the conduct of the magis-
trates and constabulary of Norfolk, implicated in a motion
err.T. Duncombe, made before Easter, relative to the
by
thatall BE contended his statements had
Mr. T. DUNCOM.
made out, and in conclusion
read a copy of a letter from
treatment of a poor mendicant.
been s decided dis-
approval Home-ac
of Superintendent Smith of the Nor-
of the conduct
e giving Sir James Graham
folk constabulary.
house adjourned.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the

Why may a murderer not be a bad man ?—Because we
have got a Good murderer at present.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-TUESDAY

FOUNTAIN V. BOODLE AND WIFE

Lord DENMAN delivered the judgment of the Court upon
an application for a new trial which had lately been made by
Mr. Kelly upon the part of the defendants. His lordship
observed, that in so important a case they were glad of an
opportunity of repeating the view of the law which had been
already presented. It was true that a character given bona
fide by a master to any servant of any description was a pri-
vileged communication, and that bona fide would be always
presumed in a case of that nature, wherever there were not
shown to be any facts or circumstances tending to produce
a contrary conclusion. In all such cases, therefore, the
master would be protected' even though the character were
false in fact, unless it were shown that the false bad character
had been given through malicious motives, which may be
proved in different ways. Of the various proofs by which it
may be established, one was the fact that the statement was
false to the knowledge of the party by whom it was made. He
(Lord Denman) had so stated the law to the jury at the trial,
and up to this point there was no objection made to the
charge. But it was contended upon the part of Mrs. Boodle,
that he was wrong in telling the jury that it was incumbent
upon her to produce some evidence to negative the pro-
bability of malice which resulted from the evidence which
had been given upon the part of the plaintiff. Upon this
subject it was said that the circumstances which tended
to show that Mrs. Boodle was not influenced by malicious
motives were principally, if not entirely, known to herself,
and that her privilege would be, therefore, quite illusory if it
were to depend upon the performance of a condition which it
was impossible for her to comply with in the circumstances
of the case. He, (Lord Denman,) however, dissented from
this view, and was of opinion that it would not be difficult
to produce direct evidence to show the state of her disposition
towards Miss Fountain ; but she might have given such evi-
dence as the nature of the case would admit of; as, for in-
stance, that she had on previous occasions made statements
of the same nature as those which were complained of in the
action; or that she had remonstrated with Miss Fountain
upon account of the faults which were attributed by her to
that lady in the character given of her by Mrs. Boodle to
Mrs. Nosworthy. This part of Lord Denman's charge was
objected to by Mr. Kelly and the Court had desired to bestow
some further consideration upon this part of the case ; but
the observation complained of was one of continual occur-
rence in cases of every kind, and was applicable to almost
every case were motives were to be established or dis-
proved. It was, therefore, clear that some evidence of the
description alluded to might, and ought, to have been
given upon the trial upon the part of the defendant, and
that in the absence of such evidence the jury, as well as
the Court, were justified in adopting the conclusion to
which they had arrived. The Court had taken time to
consider whether there existed any evidence to show that
the statements contained in the letter of Mrs. Boodle were
wilfully false. It was imputed by the plaintiff that they were
so, and in support of that allegation the plaintiff had proved
that she had served the defendant for a year without any
complaint whatever having been made against her for incom-
petency, bad temper, or unladylike deportment ; and that,
during the time of such service, the defendant had recom-
mended the plaintiff to two other situations of the same na-
ture as that which Miss Fountain occupied with Mrs. Boodle
herself. It had been said that the particular grounds of the
statement made by Mrs. Boodle, in the letter, might have
come to her knowledge after she had given Miss Fountain the
other two recommendations ; but the letter itself furnished
no reason whatever in support of such a supposition. The
injurious imputations made in the letter had respect entirely
to the subjects of temper, competency, and ladylike deport-
ment, upon all which subjects Mrs. Boodle must have pos-
sessed as much knowledge at the time when she recom-
mended Miss Fountain to the service of the other persons as
at the time when she dismissed her from her own. It had
been urged to the jury, upon the part of the defendant,
that, in consequence of Mrs. Boodle's illness, she had not the
same opportunities for observing Miss Fountain's conduct
which she might have otherwise possessed. But this consi-
deration was not entitled to much weight in this case, for the
question was not upon any deficiency in her means of form-
ing a satisfactory and just opinion in reference to the sub-
ject, but upon the truth and sincerity of the statement which
she has made. She alleged in the letter that she discharged
Miss Fountain for incompetency, ill-temper, and unladylike
deportment ; but the true cause of the dismissal was a short
illness of Miss Fountain, which had prevented her from
attending to her duties. It was moreover to be observed,
that the manner of the dismissal was extremely harsh in it-
self, and such as to afford evidence of upon her part
towards Miss Fountain ; and this evidence was considerably
strengthened by her having requested Mrs. Nosworthv to in-
form Miss Fountain that Mrs. Boodle would answer no-further
applications upon the subject, as she had answered two such
applications already. This passage would certainly be under-
stood to mean that she had twice already made the same sort
of representation that she then made to Mrs. Nosworthy;
whereas the evidence proved that in the two cases in which she
had previously spoken of Miss Fountain, the representations
were favourable. This appeared to the Court to constitute
evidence that the defendant was influenced in making the
last representation by some indirect and improper motive.
But it had been said that this was after all but slight evidence
of malice, and that if masters must be prepared to produce
direct testimony to negative malicious motives in answer to
charges of this kind so supported, the privilege which the law
professed to confer upon communications of this kind would
be perfectly illusory. But the Court was of opinion that it
would be much more illusory to decide that where the evi-
dence, to whatever extent it appeared, was all upon one side,
the jury were, nevertheless, obliged to find their verdict
upon the other. The question of malice was one upon which
the jury must come to the best conclusion which they could
upon the evidence before them. It was their duty, as well as
their exclusive province, to decide upon the whole of the case,
and the Court were of opinion in the present instance that
the decision of the jury was correct.

ADMIRALTY COURT-MONDAY, APRIL 25