The Sun. — 1844-03-09 (London, England)

THE PROPOSED COAL TAX.—On Monday evening a meeting was held at the Town Hall, Hertford, for the purpose of taking into consideration the proposed addition to the tax on coals coming into London. The meeting was very respectably and numerously attended. The Mayor (J. Gilbertson, Esq.) having been called to the chair, said that the attention of the inhabitants of Hertford had been called to the proposed tax, because it was considered to be a very unjust impost. He, for one, could not conceive why the inhabitants of Hertford should be called upon to pay for the improvement and embellishment of the City of London. The City should tax itself for that purpose. Thousands of the people of Hertford would never see the banks of the Thames, and he could not see why they should be called upon to pay for its improvement. He objected to the tax on principle, and he hoped the meeting would petition the Legislature to refuse an impost so manifestly unfair. Mr. Crawley moved a resolution declaratory of the injustice of the tax, and of the determination of the meeting to oppose it. He said it would be about as reasonable to make the inhabitants of Bishopsgate-within pay the Hertford lighting and paving rate, as to make the inhabitants of Hertford pay for the improvement of the City of London. The resolution having been seconded, was unannously agreed to. A form of petition to the House of Commons was then agreed to, and resolutions passed, :calling on the borough and county Members to support it. Mr. Lawrence, an extensive coal merchant at Hertford, expressed his apprehension that, should the City tax on coals, which is already 13d. per ton, be further increased, the coal trade with London would be materially injured, as the inland navigation would be able to enter into competition by the river Lea, and sell coals cheaper than the present Hertford merchants could do. It appeared, also, from a statement made by the River Lea Navigation, that the amount of of coals brought by the Lea during the past Year was 93,558 tons, of which quantity 15,359 tons were for the consumption of Hertford, and 13,72.4 tons for Ware ; so that, should the result of an additional tax on coals be the closing of the trade with the port of London, the City itself would be a considerable loser, as it received on each of the 93,558 tons a duty of 13d. The following specimen of the " schoolmaster abroad" hangs in a conspicuous position in the High-street of our fashionable town :—" Lost 28th Day of Febuary neare Winehcombe st a small red merocker Box containg a gold Ring with Emmeral Set in Diamods. Whoever has found the same and will Bring it to the cryer's office will receive to gineas Reward."... Cheltenham chronicle, •  Joseph Murray, 22, Alfred Bevis, 22, and James Bevis, 25, were indicted for feloniously cutting and maiming Nathaniel Nevell, with intent to murder him, and in other counts the intent was laid to be to maim and disable the prosecutor. Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Ballantine defended James Bevis, and Mr. Wilde defended Murray. The circumstances of this case wi!l be fresh in the recollection of our readers from the full report that, appeared of the ,prisoners' examination at the police-office, and it will, therefore, be unnecessary to repeat them on the present occasion. The prosecutor is a boot and shoemaker, carrying on business in St. John's-street, and on the night of the 7th February, he was disturbed by hearing a noise in his shop, and on going there he saw three men, two of whom he identified as Alfred Bevis and Murray. They immediately attacked him, and one of them struck him with a life-preserver, and inflicted a very severe wound upon his head, and he was otherwise very much injured. Confirmatory evidence was adduced tending to show the guilt of the prisoners Murray and Alfred Bevis, but the evidence was very slight against James Bevis. The jury accordingly found the two first-mentioned prisoners Guilty, and acquitted the prisoner James Bevis. Mr. WILDE having taken a technical objection to the indictment, which would have required the postponement of the judgment, Mr. Justice PArrEsox expressed his opinion that it would be advisable to try the prisoners upon another indictment ' that had been preferred against them. The prisoners were accordingly arraigned upon that charge. The evidence was precisely the same, and the jury returned the same verdict, as in the former case. Mr. Justice PArrEsoN then sentenced Murray, against whom a previous conviction for felony was proved, to be transported for life, and Alfred Bevis for ten years.  CENTRAL CRI %lINAL