Debates an Wroctellings in Varliament.

THE INCOME-TAX.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Income-tax Bill, on Monday, Mr. WALLACE said, he apprehended that that was the proper time to devise some substitute for so odious an impost; and he suggested an issue of Exchequer Bills; Government and the country taking time to look about and consider whether, if an Income-tax were necessary, it would not be better to raise ten or twelve per cent in that way, in order to abandon other expensive modes of taxation. He had been in- formed that a loan could be raised on Government security at only two per cent interest. However, he would not press the amendment of which he had given notice, (for an issue of Exchequer Bills,) as he did not

E delayee production and discussion of the Tariff.

Ronal. PEEL observed, that Mr. Wallace recommended Govern- ment to take a year to look about ; but he recollected the objections which had been urged when he asked for only five months to prepare measures: what would have been said, if at the end of those five months he had asked ftti another year? True, the flourishing state of the Public Funds couli not have been foreseen ; but that arose from the very course which had been adopted for maintaining the public credit without recourse to loans. The [Conservative] amendment on the address of

last year, and Lord John Russell's resolution against the Income-tax, both repudiated the resort to fresh loans. In reply to some remarks wide which liffn Wallace concluded, Sir Robert said, he was aware that the defence of Ilse Income-tax must rest mainly on the adoption of the Tariff: when the Income-tax Bill should have passed through Com- mittee, he had no objection, before bringing up the report, to take into consideration the leading portions of the Tariff

Mr. RUNE [whose appearance in the House on Monday evening was hailed with much cheeringa_said, that seven years ago he recommended Ike Government and the Howe to discontinue loans and reduce the expenditure; and to their refusal to do so he attributed the present difficulty. He commended Sir Robert Peel for grappling with prohi- bitions and restrictions, but regretted that he did not go far enough, and especially that he did not grapple with the great monopolies of corn and sugar. However, a movement towards change of the Tariff having once commenced, it could not stop here. Next in importance were the Timber-duties, and the proposed change was a very large step. In place of an Income-tax, he recommended a reduction of expendi- ture. The public officers could give up part of their salaries. It was supposed that the Queen enjoys an income of 450,0001. a year ; whereas she only has 60,000/. ; and all the rest goes to the office of the Lord Steward, of the Lord Chamberlain, or of the Master of the Horse : he would strip off much of the useless glitter in which that money was lavished. The sum of 4,279,000/. expended in collecting the revenue might easily be reduced to 2,500,000/.

The House then went into Committee. On the first clause being moved, Mr. BENJAMIN Woon said, that as the bill now stood, a person who sustains a loss in respect of property under one schedule cannot set it against the profit which may accrue to him from property in an- other schedule ; a restriction manifestly unfair while a man who has several small incomes under different schedules, say 50/. in land, 501. in the Funds, and 50/. in trade, is obliged to put them all together and so make himself liable to the tax. Mr. Goirunsaw replied by putting another case : suppose a gentleman farmed his own land, and being a gentleman farmer, at a loss—would it be fair to set the loss of that speculation against the annual value of the land? Such a course would lead to abuses.

The point next debated was the filling up of the blank in the clause— whether it should come into operation on the 5th April 1842, or as Mr. HUME and others contended, simultaneously with the Tariff. Sir ROBERT PEEL pointed out the convenience of beginning with the ordinary financial year : the measure was to last for three years, and whether it began in April or July must be immaterial. The CHAN- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER added, that the Income-tax was only to last for three years, while the Tariff Bill would be permanent, and would take effect from the date of its passing. Eventually the blank was filled up so as to make the law begin on the 5th April 1842.

It was proposed to fill up the blank in Schedule A, imposing the tax on income arising from real property, so as to make the tax 7d. in the pound. Mr. BENJAMIN WOOD again raised the question as to whether the loss under one schedule should not be set off against profit under another ; and to bring the question to an issue, he moved that the schedule be omitted. Mr. GEORGE PALMER could not agree to tax more than bona fide income. Mr. GOULBURN would take the matter into consideration ; Mr. FRANCIS Twaarream BARING promising, that if the desired modification were not made, he should introduce a clause to do so, at a future stage. Mr. HAWES asked, what was the use of all these schedules ? why not simply ascertain each man's income, and tax it? Mr. GOULBURN said, they were necessary to prevent fraud. Sir ROBERT PEEL added, that different modes of levying were ob- viously necessary in the different circumstances of various incomes. He cautioned the House against making such modifications as would impair the efficiency of the tax, and set a precedent that would entail heavier loss if they had to recur to the tax again—in war-time for in- stance, and to impose it in a higher proportion. However, he wished Mr. Wood to put on paper the general terms of a proviso embodying his views, and he would assent to it if it did not open a door to fraud. The matter, after a long discussion, was left in the hands of Sir Robert Peel ; and the original proposition was affirmed.

In Schedule B, laying the tax on the incomes derived from the occu- pation of land, it was proposed in England to make it 3id. on the amount of the rent ; in Scotland 20. Lord HOWICH objected to the inaccuracy of the test selected : in his county farms are large, much capital is expended upon them, they are skilfully farmed, and they re- turn high rents ; while smaller farms would be exempt from the tax, and the result would be to impede the improvements of cultivation. It would be better to strike out the schedule, and take farmers along with traders. Lord WORSLEY declared that the farmers would rather sub- mit to the inequality than to the inquisition necessary to tax their real profits. Ultimately the blanks were filled up as was proposed. On Schedule C, imposing a tax of 7d. on profits of annuities or divi- .dends payable out of the public revenue, Mr. BARING asked whether foreigners holding property in our Funds would be taxed? Sir ROBERT PEEL said that they would. Mr. BARING thought the national faith involved. Mr. HUME declared the national faith to be violated by tax- ing the Funds at all. Mr. !linear* moved an amendment to exempt annuities for definite periods of time or limited terms of years, and to subject them to special scales, calculated upon their value in the market. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted last session that he had originated the plan of commuting permanent annuities for terminable, he said that the increase to the annual charge would effect a reduction of the capital : he regarded a terminable annuity therefore as a repay- ment of capital ; and how could he tax it as income? The CHANCELLOR of the Exciimensii quoted precedents against the distinction. The only possible objection arose from the temporary nature of the proposed tax : but the price of terminable annuities had recently risen in the market proportionately with other stock, so that the holders had the option of converting them if they pleased. The amendment was re- jected, by 253 to 117. At this point the Committee was adjourned till the next evening; then it was deferred till Thursday ; and then again till last night.

Tax ON SUCCESSION TO LANDED PROPERTY.

Mr. Ex.ramirrozia moved, on Tuesday, for a Committee of the whole House, at an early period, "for the purpose of considering the Act 55 Geo. IIL c. 184, with a 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 succession to personal property." Mr. Elphinstone ex- plained the present state of the law— If a person die possessed of any leasehold or personal property of any de- scription, a heavy ad valorem tax called a probate-duty is imposed; but if the person die possessed of freehold or copyhold property, no tax whatever is levied. In addition to this, a duty called a legacy-duty (which varies according to the degree of relationship of the parties receiving the property to the deceased) is imposed on leasehold and personal property, and also on charges on real estate. But if the testator chooses to make a bequest of the land itself; then no legacy- duty is chargeable on such land.

Mr. Elphinstone dwelt on the partiality and injustice of the law : he could not see why the tax should be imposed on leasehold land if eopyhold is exempt. He cited the case of a correspondent of his, who had been obliged to pay probate and legacy duty, at the same time that the Dutchess of Buccleach had left to her son, Lord John Scott, the parish of Beaulieu and another large estate, the whole worth about 600,0001., without any charge. During the financial year ending January 1842, the legacy and probate duties had produced upwards of two millions ; and Mr. Elphinstone calculated that the extension of the duties to real property would produce a revenue of one and a quarter or one and a half millions ; a result at which he arrived by various processes. Mr. Goulburn had shown in the debate on the Income-tax, that in the six years ending 1809 the legacy-duty extended to charges on land had produced a revenue of 8,900,0001.; but as the legacy-duty and probate-duty are in the proportion of one to one, Mr. Goulburn's own figures proved that a like sum had been lost to the revenue in consequence of the probate-duty not having been charged. Mr. Goulburn also said that land was subject to the tax of stamps on deeds, which produced no less than 1,665,2941. in the United Kingdom; but that tax includes every species of legal deed to which personal property is liable, and Mr. Elphinstone reckoned that landed property pays but 400,000/. of the charge. Lord Stanley had said that marriage- settlements were forgotten : if a landowner were to settle 20,000/. on his daughter, the charge for a deed-stamp and five skins would be 8/. ; if a fundholder made the like settlement, the charge would be 31/. 5&

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected, that Mr. Elphinstone's motion only professed to deal with property not under settlement : but the great bulk of the landed property of this country is under settle- ment, and would consequently be exempted from the proposed tax ; while the larger part of the unsettled property belongs to small pro- prietors. In the very case of Lord John Scott, which had been men- tioned, the property passed by settlement. Mr. Goulburn did not deny that there were inequalities in the Stamp-duties : he himself had been impeded in the attempt at a reform of them, as Lord Monteagle had been. He entered into an elaborate calculation, by which he showed, that if a man invested 5,000/. in the Funds, which he could do for no- thing, and twenty years afterwards bequeathed it to his son, the total charge would be 501.; but if he invested the same money in land, he would incur a total charge of 68/. at the time of purchase, which twenty years afterwards, had he retained it in his own hands, would have been doubled. Those who had the best opportunities of judging in a very obscure case, considered that of 1,700,000/. of stamp-duties, 1,100,0001. was paid in respect of charges on land. He did not deny that the Stamp-duties required amendment ; but it was difficult, and it required very careful examination ; and as the proposed tax would fall on the small proprietors, it would not be so productive as was expected.

Mr. HUME, who entered into a history of the Legacy and Probate duties which, he took as an instance of class-legislation, declared that Mr.

duties, had made out a case for the motion ; and he assumed

that Sir Robert Peel would not treat the landed interest with such par- tiality if he had not hard taskmasters over him. Mr. EWART contended that Mr. Goulburn, for the purpose of his argument, reckoned lease- hold property, which is a personal interest, as landed property ; and then he used the terms landed and real property as if they were convertible. Mr. WALLACE claimed relief for Scotland under the tax on personal property which was about to be imposed on her. Lord Joni( RUSSELL thought the objection that the tax would be unproductive on account of the exemption of settled property, and the recent repeated decision of the House in favour of an Income-tax in preference to others, fatal to the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that Mr. Hume returned to the House like "a giant refreshed"; and he went on to retaliate for the charge of subserviency to the landed interest, by accusing Mr. Hume of incon- sistency; since last year he recommended a tax on all property, real and personal, and now he denounced a tax on Funded property as a breach of national faith. Making some objections to the particular proposition, Sir Robert spoke thus on the general question— The subject was a most extensive and most complicated one. No just con- clusion could be come to without great research into the burdens affecting land ; and he trusted, if any modification of the system should be ultimately made, that there would be a Government sufficiently in possession of the con- fidence of the House to be intrusted with the review of the subject, rather than that it should be laid before any Select Committee. Such was the only method by which a satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at. But no modifica- tion of the probate and legag duties could be made without an adjustment of the hardens which bore in different manners upon different kinds of landed pro perty. He would not pronounce any opinion without mature deliberation upon a subject so extensive and so important, but he should vote in favour of the imposition of the Income-tax in preference to any alterations in the Probate and Legacy duties. He repeated, that it was unwise to pronounce upon the subject before the House, to give any positive pledge on a subject so com- plicated and difficult; but he would say, that in subjecting settled personal pro- perty to the probate-duty and the legacy-duty, they would find more difficultiq than they looked for.

Mr. ELzaeu would support the motion, simply as one step towards a revision of the duties affecting real property. Dr. BOWRING, in ac- cordance with Mr. Elphinstone's intention proposed as an amendment, to add to the resolution the words "as a substitute for those taxes which are the most oppressive upon the people." ViSCOUllr HOWICI{ considered the whole of the Legacy-duties most objectionable, and he thought that the proposed measure would only add to the existing anomalies. Dr. Bowitirm withdrew his amendment ; the House divided ;. and the original metien..wm-negatived, by 221 to 77.

SUPREME COURT OE SCOTLAND.

Mr. WALLACE drew attention, on Thursday, to the report of the Select Committee appointed in 1840 to consider the state of the Law in Scotland. He renewed the charge against the Scottish Judges, of inattention to the arguments of counsel ; and against the Supreme Court, of being expen- sive, and more dilatory than the Court of Chancery : it sits but for one hundred and three days in the year, and never for more than two hours in a day ; witnesses are not examined viva voce, and all the decisions are given on judge-made law. To corroborate the opinion that the

present number of Judges is more than sufficient, he read a number of letters; among them one from Lord John Russell, stating that Lord John had given up his intention of reducing the number of Judges in consequence of the remonstrances of those better acquainted with the subject than himself. And Mr. Wallace declared, that the division of the Supreme Court into two Courts of Review with coiirdi- nate jurisdiction produces mach inconvenience and the most conflicting decisions. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish one of those Courts, and to reduce the number of the Judges from thirteen to nine.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM cited the report of the Committee in opposition to Mr. Wallace's-motion : it was a remarkable feature in the proceed- ings of the Committee, that on no one occasion had any member of it agreed with the honourable Member for Greenock ; who, on the con- trary, in the twelve or thirteen divisions that took place, was invariably left in a minority of one. Sir James said that the criminal law of Scot- land is administered in a manner which he might almost describe as perfect ; and the late Lord-Advocate had declared that there must be some cessation of the changes in the judicature of Scotland.

Mr. RUTHERFORD declared Mr. Wallace's representations to be un- founded.

The motion was rejected, by 187 to 22.

THE DUTCH SETTLEMENT AT NATAL.

Colonel Fox moved, on Tuesday, for papers relative to the Dutch settlement at Natal, and its relations with the British Government and the aborigines— There could be no doubt as to our authority over the country thus occu- pied, as it had not only been made over to us at a very early period, but had been confirmed to us by treaty in 1814. The Government, with the intention of maintaining this territory', bad on two occcasions taken measures for the occupation of 'Port Natal; but at the present time he understood that the only force stationed in that part of the country was small detachment of about one hundred men, whose principal duty appeared to be the protection of the abori- gines. The points he desired principally to arrive at were—first, whether it was intended to recognize the independence of the Boers ; and secondly, whe- ther they would be permitted, as it was stated that they wished, to place them- selves under the authority of the Dutch or some other foreign European Go- vernment?

Lord STANLEY explained the circumstances under which the Dutch had emigrated from the Cape Colony, partly because they were not allowed to carry on a predatory warfare against the aborigines on the border, under the pretence of resisting aggression ; and their claim to an independent sovereignty— Public notice was at once given to the Boers that her Majesty's Government would not listen to any such claim, and further that they intended to protect from molestation all such tribes as might sign amicable treaties with the Cape authorities. By the last accounts, he understood that a force had been placed at a considerable distance from Port Natal, but still on the East side of the Caffre territory, which force would at once protect the Caffres against the Boers and the Boers against the Caffres. An occupation of Port Natal had also, he understood, been ordered ; but he should here state that he had no reason to think that there was any prospect of a collision between our forces and the Boers. Indeed, serious discords were said to have arisen among the Boers themselves; and it was hoped that it would be quite unnecessary to take violent measures, and that in a short time the Boers would themselves see that they had been wrong in occupying the Natal territory without licence ; and the more so as they i could only hope to be engaged n perpetual warfare with hostile tribes, and that too in the face of the proclaimed intention of the British Government to protect their native allies from any molestation. Looking at the position of the Cape colony, he did not think that the Boers could be permitted to enter into an alliance of such a kind with safety to the integrity of our dependencies on that part of the coast. He therefore should most distinctly say, that her Majesty's Government would not recognize, would not acknowledge, and would effectually resist any attempt on the part of the Boers to place themselves under a foreign protection. Lord Stanley held out no prospect that Natal would be made a British settlement— The fact was, that although, as had been correctly assumed, Port Natal was the only harbour on that part of the East coast of the Cape, it was, neverthe- less, by no means a good or commodious harbour, or one that was suited to purposes of commerce ; and the territory being so far as six hundred miles off from the Cape, no inducements were offered to found a second colony there; especially as our colonists at the Cape were already unfortunately too widely dispersed.

With some modification, Lord Stanley concurred in Colonel Fox's motion ; and it was affirmed.

MISCELLANEOUS.

THE SPIRIT DUTIES (IRELAND) BILL was read and passed by the Lords on Monday ; the Duke of WELLINGTON stating, that an in- equality of which Lord blonteagle had complained between the new Irish law and the Scotch law, in a drawback of the malt-duty allowed to the Scotch distillers for spirits exported to America or the Colonies, would be removed by another measure which had to be brought up from the House of Commons.

Tau COPYRIGHT Bus. was passed by the Commons on Tuesday.

PENTONVILLE PRISON. Sir JAMES GRAHAM introduced, on Tuesday, a bill to carry out Lord John Russell's intention of establishing a model- prison at Pentonville. It would appoint sixteen Commissioners to make rules for the prison and to report annually to Parliament. The cost of the works had fallen short of the- estimate 90,0001.; and means of confine- ment had been provided for 510 prisoners.

PARISH CONSTABLES. Sir JAMES GRAHAM also introduced a bill to allow the Magistrates of each county or Petit Sessions to hold a court annually, to appoint parish constables ; to be under the control of the

County Superintendent of Rural Police; option of adopting the act or not. leaving to the rate-payers the

Pocia-rAw. Sir James JAMES GR.i.HAM intends on the 5th of May to bring in a bill to continue the Poor-law Commission for a time to be

limited, and for the further amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England.

THE AFGHAN WAR. MT. II. J. BAILLIE has given notice, that shortly after Whitsuntide he will move for copies of correspondence between Sir Alexander Burnes and the Governor-General of India during the mission of the former to Cabal, in 1837 and 1838 ; also for the correspondence which passed, during the same period, between the Governor-General, the Board of Control, and the Secret Committee at the India House, on the subject of the expedition to Afghanistan, from the 1st September 1837 to the let October 1839.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION FOR ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS IN INDIA. Mr. O'CONNELL drew attention, on Tuesday, to the neglected state of the Roman Catholic soldiers in India and China. They share the same hardships, they are not backward in braving the same dangers as their Protestant comrades ; but, unlike them they are deprived of religious consolation in their last moments. Dir. O'Connell drew an effective picture of the devotion displayed by the Forty-fourth Regiment, com- posed chiefly of Irish, at Cabal, in defending and assisting Captain Start, the son-in-law of General Sale ; an officer who, until his death from wounds and fatigue, used superhuman exertions to resist the as- sailants of the British. Mr. O'Connell bore testimony to the humanity of the Protestant chaplains ; but they could not, of course, afford that religious consolation which to a Catholic, in the exigency of death, is of greater importance than to a Protestant. In Madras there are nineteen Church-of-England and Presbyterian stations, and but twelve Roman Catholic stations; while 22,000/. is expended on the Church-of-Eng- land stations, 2,0801. on the Presbyterian, and but 770/. on the Roman Catholic. He moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject.

Mr. SINK:Ham BARING pleaded difficulties in providing religious in- struction for soldiers dispersed over so wide a territory. Government, however, had not been inattentive to the wants of the Roman Catholic soldiers large sums had been spent in building and endowing chapels ; duties on building-materials and vestments for the ceremonies had been remitted; soldiers had been furnished with Bibles and Missals adapted to their faith. He thought that a Committee could throw no new light upon the subject ; and he assured Mr. O'Connell that every attention should be paid to the wants of the Roman Catholic soldiers in India, and that if any grievances existed that could be removed, no exertion should be spared to remedy the evil.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE explained, that it was not usual to send chap- lains of any faith with troops on expeditions ; and he gave some further account of the progress that had been made in supplying Roman Ca- tholic instruction.

Mr. O'Conwpaz wound up a short discussion by saying, "they had had some consolatory matters stated : the reply had been made in the spirit he expected ; he was grateful for it, and he would therefore with- draw his motion."

-TEXAN BRIBERY AND THE BRITISH MINISTER IN MEXICO. In reply to Mr. O'ConNELL, on Tuesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that the British Minister at Mexico was not aware of the contents of the letter which he conveyed to the President of the Mexican Republic for General Hamilton, offering sums of money to purchase the independence of Texas and to bribe the officers of the Mexican Government. As soon as he learned the nature of the communication, our Mexican Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressing his regret that he should have been made the medium of its transmission.

NEW ZEALAND MARITIME SURVEY. On the motion of Viscount INGESTRE, on Thursday, it was resolved to address the Crown for a ma- ritime survey of the coasts of New Zealand, when vessels can be spared for the purpose.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

On Tuesday, Mr. REDINGTON gave notice, for the 10th of May, of a bill to exclude the borough of Sudbury from sending burgesses to serve in Parliament.

The Ipswich Committee sent in the following report on Monday-

" That Rigby Wagon, Esq., and George Rennie, Esq., were not duly elected burgesses to represent the borough of Ipswich in the present Parliament. That the last election for the borough of Ipswich was a void election. That Rigby Wagon, Esq., and George Rennie Esq., were, by their agents, guilty of -bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich. That this Committee are of opinion, from the evidence given before them, that extensive bribery pre- vailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich; and that the issuing of a new writ for the said borough ought to be suspended until the said evi- dence shall have been taken into consideration by the House. That the Chair- man be requested to move that this report, together with the evidence taken before this Committee, be printed; and that the Speaker do not issue his war- rant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the said borough of Ipswich until the said evidence shall have been printed and submitted to the House."

It was ordered that the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee and of the evidence taken before it be laid betbre the House.

Obadiah Barwick Lucas, the witness who was committed to New- gate for prevarication before the Ipswich Committee, was ordered on Tuesday to be discharged; his sister and medical attendant having appeared at the bar of the House and deposed that his health is so bad, in cmsequence of a shock received from the suicide of a person with whom he was acquainted, as to affect his mind and memory. The contest against the return of Lord Alfred Paget, for Lichfield, was abandoned on Wednesday ; and the Committee declared him duly elected.

In the Blackburn Committee, on Wednesday, it was announced that Mr. Turner retired from the contest ; and the Committee decided that Mr. John Hornby, the sitting Member, was duly elected.

Before the Committee appointed to try the petition against the return of Lord Bruce and Mr. Marty!), for Southampton, a witness, John *Wren, refused last week to answer a question, on the ground that it would eriminate himself. On Monday, Mr. Runnscrow, the Chairman of the Committee, reported the case to the House ; and Wren was called to the bar. He declared his willingness to answer the question if it should be the opinion of the House that he ought to do so : but there was this difficulty—the House holds itself incompetent to inqnire, during the proceedings of an Election Committee, into any of the evi- dence which that Committee may have taken, and so it has no means of informing itself whether a particular question it Or Is not one which

a witness ought to answer. Sir ROBERT Pan. recommended that the witness should be remitted to the Committee, with a general admonition that the Committee must be the judges whether the question was a proper one to be insisted on. That was substantially the course which, after a great deal of discussion, the House adopted ; discharging him, however, from present custody. The Committee have since given him the benefit of the excuse.

Another witness before the same Committee, Mr. John Willis Fle- ming, the Member for South Hampshire, refused, on Monday, to state whether 5001. which appeared against his name on the ledger of Messrs. Maddison had been paid out of his own private funds. He said that he had collected a subscription among his most intimate friends to defray the legal expenses of the election, six weeks after it occurred; and he mast refuse to reveal the names of those friends, as it would be a breach of trust to do so. Mr. REDINGTON, the Chairman of the Committee, reported the case to the House on Tuesday. And, being interrogated by the Speaker, Mr. Fleming persisted in his refusal, repeating the ex- planation which he had given to the Committee, and observing, that as the payment was made six weeks after the election, it could not be for the purposes of corruption. He "was satisfied that the question was put from motives of curiosity, in order that they might have several honourable names to peek at." After a long conversation, the House affirmed the previous decision, by resolving that the Committee was the proper tribunal to determine as to the validity of his objection to the question. The Committee have waived the question. Another recusant witness was reported to the House on Thursday, William Rouse Mabson. The Speaker's summons required him to produce before the Committee all the papers connected with the last election which might be in his "custody, power, or possession ": he re- ceived that warrant on some day in September ; and three or four months afterwards, he sent all the papers, a check-book, and two or three little bills, to Captain Ward, the Chairman of the Conservative Election Committee. Mabson was called to the bar of the House, but he gave no better explanation. Captain Ward, he said, did not ask for the papers ; it was entirely the witness's "own idea." He did not re- member the name of the messenger by whom he sent them ; it was one of fifteen or sixteen persons in his employ as a tradesman.

Before the examination of this witness at the bar, Mr. RED/NGTON moved that the Speaker's warrant be issued for his committal to New- gate. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL raised an objection to the original summons, that it was issued in 1841, and he questioned its legality as applied to the session of 1842. The SPEAKER said, that he had already considered the point, and had taken the advice of the Law-officer ap- pointed to assist him and the warrant was held to be regular. In the broken discussions ;hat ensued, interrupted by examinations of the witness, the Opposition Members generally supeorted the severer course while the Ministetialists in the main supportid the Solicitor Generals vieiv. Mr. Redington's original motion haling been with- drawn in order to the examination of the witness, Mr. CHARLES WOOD suggested that he should be discharged, and that the further investiga- tion of the matter should be left to the Committee. Mr. REDINGTON, however, moved that he be detained in the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms do take him before the Committee as often as he shall be required. Mr. HODGSON HINDE moved as an amendment, that the debate be adjonined till that day week, Mr. Mal). son to go at large in the interval ; but the amendment was rejected, by 176 to 16. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the House must only judge the case as it appeared before them ; and he regarded Mabson's evi- dence at the bar as unsatisfactory ; and he therefore supported Mr. Redington's motion. Lord STANLEY Subsequently observed, that they were bound to act upon the assumption that the Speaker's warrant was valid; and even if it were not, a bill might be passed to give it an ex post facto validity, and to provide against such eases for the future. Some incidental discussion arose on the jurisdiction of Election Committees : Mr. CHRISTOPHER was more than ever convinced that the decision on election-petitions ought to be confided to another tribunal ; to a salaried judge, said Mr. O'CoNNELL; and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL pointed to the anomaly in the powers' of the Committees, that they were obliged to come to the House to enforce their views without laying before the House the materials for a judg- ment: it would be far better to give them the power of commitment. Mr. Redington's motion was carried, by 117 to 32.