appealed from; and sometimes his decision was given
without reading the case, wliich had to be set forth at
length in writing. Sometimes the papers were not even
read by the sheriff, a fact which had been tested by
inserting rose leaves in a brief, and when the papers came
back to the country the rose leaves were undisturbed.
In another case, when a brief was sent up in a box,
called the avizandum box, the latter, on its return to
the country, was found to contain a brace of grouse
instead of the brief. The hon. member then proceeded to
detail the reforms which his bill proposed, amongst
which were, the abolition of the system of double sheriffs,
and reducing of appeals to questions of law, and the
partial introduction of juries.—Mr. COWEN moved, as an
amendment, that the bill be read a second time that
day six months.—A discussion ensued, in which Messrs.
Ewart, C. Bruce, Hastie, Blair, Macgregor, and other
Scotch members took part—The LORD ADVOCATE
contended that the bill would only augment the expenses
and increase the delays of litigation. On dividing the
numbers were—for the second reading, 58; against it,
184. The bill was therefore lost.

The house went into committee on the County Rates
and Expenditure Bill.—Mr. MILES moved the following
amendment in line 17 of clause 4: After the word "of,"
to omit all the words to the end of the clause, and
insert, "Justices of the Peace selected at the general
quarter sessions of the peace in every county of England
and Wales, not in number more than the unions which
exist in a county formed either under the provisions of
the Act 4th and 5th William IV., chap. 76, or the Act
22nd George III., chap. 83, or any single parish or
united parishes acting under any local act, to which
aforesaid Justices of the Peace one person annually
elected from each of the aforesaid unions, parish or
parishes respectively, shall be added." Considering
how small the amount of the county rates was, he really
thought that the machinery of the bill was most
cumbrous, and that it was like racking a principle to death.
—Captain SCOBELL proposed that the magistrates should
be elected at quarter sessions, instead of being only
selected. After some conversation, the chairman
reported progress, and the house resumed, Thursday, the
19th May, being fixed for the next committal of the
bill.

On Thursday, May 12, the Alleged Contract of the
Opposition to the Late Government with the Irish
Members became the subject of another long altercation.
Captain MAGAN, Mr. Maurice O'CONNELL, Mr.
Fitzstephen FRENCH, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. Vincent
SCULLY, explained on the one side; Mr. HAYTER and
Sir Charles WOOD on the other. The facts elicited
seem to be these. The Irish members held meetings
to determine their course on the Budget, while the
debate was in progress. Coming from one of these, Mr.
French met Mr. Hayter in the house, and asked him
whether it was likely the Whigs would introduce the
income tax into Ireland if they came into office. Mr.
Hayter replied, that it was not the intention of the
leading Whigs to depart from the policy they had
formerly pursued. On the steps of the Reform Club,
Mr. Maurice O'Connell casually met Mr. Hayter, who
asked him how he was likely to vote on the budget.
"My answer was," said Mr. O'Connell, "that I had
never given a Tory vote since I had a seat in this
house, and that I never intended to do so." He then
asked what were the feelings of the Irish members.
Mr. O'Connell replied, that if they had the assurance
that the income–tax would not be extended to Ireland,
"that would awaken them." Mr. Hayter referred
him to the speeches of Sir Charles Wood in 1851.
When the next meeting of Irish members was held,
Mr. O'Connell related this; and, it was said, "would
Sir Charles Wood restate his opinions in the house?"
And Sir Charles Wood did restate them.—Mr. HAYTER
could not remember these hurried communications, but
he had no doubt they were perfectly true in substance;
but he denied that he had said he was "authorised"
to make them.—Sir Charles WOOD said his share was
recorded in Hansard. Under the then circumstances,
he thought Mr. Disraeli's proposal could not be
maintained; but the present budget relieves Ireland of heavy
charges, and he thought it not inconsistent to vote for
the extension of the tax to Ireland. There was a great
disputing among the Irish members as to whether Mr.
O'Connell had told the meeting he was "authorised"
to state that the income tax would not be extended to
Ireland.—Mr. O'CONNELL said he had not.—Mr.
BOWYER did not remember that any statement at all
was made; but Mr. LUCAS and Colonel GREVILLE
remembered hearing the word. In the course of the
altercation, Mr. MALINS called Captain Magan to
account for having described Mr. Hayter as an
"accredited agent;" and for putting forward erroneous
statements.—Captain Magan cried out—"I have a
right to consider any member in whatever light I think
proper." He further characterised the speech of Mr.
Malins as "malicious and untrue"—The SPEAKER
told him he must not use those words; on which
Captain MAGAN withdrew them, amid a peal of
laughter.—The dispute seemed likely to continue all
the evening, but Sir Robert INGLIS suggested the
propriety of returning to the public business.

The discussion on the Budget Resolutions was then
resumed in committee of Ways and Means. Mr.
VANSITTART moved that the words "one–third," instead of
the word "moiety," of the annual value of lands,
tenements, and hereditaments under occupation should be
inserted, as the basis of assessment for occupants. Sir
Robert Peel reduced the assessment of the farmers from
three–quarters to one–half; and the causes of that
reduction now exist in a greater degree. Practically,
a farmer cannot go into schedule D, as he seldom keeps
accounts; and his profits are now less than formerly.
Mr. Gladstone spoke in behalf of the "yeoman" in
December, and justice was expected from him.—
Mr. GLADSTONE complimented Mr. Vansittart
personally, but did not like his case. Farmers stand on
a more favourable footing than the rest of the community.
The "yeoman" is not asked to pay house–tax,
and the income–tax does not extend to incomes below
£100 a year. If he cannot go into schedule D, a fair
means of assessment is allowed him, and he can appeal
to the local commissioners. If profits have fallen more
than rents, that is only a useful suggestion to the
landlords to let rents fall a little more quickly. But profits
are not so small as they are represented. Upon an
assessment of £33,000, the amount of relief claimed was
£5000 or £6OOD, of which only £3419 was allowed.—
A very dull debate ensued, sustained on behalf of the
amendment by Sir Fitzroy KELLY, Mr. BANKES, and
others; while against it were Mr. BRIGHT and Sir John
SHELLEY. In the course of the debate, it was asserted,
and not denied, that farming is now more profitable
than any trade in the country,—The committee divided
—For the amendment, 60; against it, 120; the original
resolution was then put and agreed to.

When the Resolution on the Legacy Duties was about
to be read from the chair, Mr. Gladstone explained
the plan; previously reading the resolution, as follows;
—"That, towards raising the supply granted to her
Majesty, the stamp–duties payable by law on or for, or
in respect of legacies, shall be granted or made payable
upon and for every succession to the benefical enjoyment
of any real or personal estate, or to the receipt of any
portion or additional portion of the income or profits
thereof that may take place upon, or in consequence of,
the death of any person, under whatever title, whether
existing or future, such succession may be derived."
In explaining this resolution, Mr. Gladstone particularly
urged the house to give a close and undivided attention
to the principle of the measure, keeping the detailed
arrangements out of sight for the present. It is an error
to suppose that the sole reason for the extension of the
tax is its countervailing the unequal pressure of the
income–tax on intelligence and skill; for as the full
operation of the new tax on succession will not take
effect until 1858, and the income–tax will terminate in
1860, the new tax would be one of very short duration.
The countervailing effect is one reason, but there are
others,—the providing a means by which the income–tax
can be dispensed with; the providing a fund to carry out
extended measures for remitting indirect taxation; and
the permanent settlement of an anomaly in taxation
which is unjust and galling to the public feeling. Since
the time when Mr. Pitt made his proposal, seventy years