GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, May 18. BANKRUPTS. ROBERT WATLING SEXTON, Norwich, builder, May 31 at half-past 12, and June 28 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sols. Bailey, Norwich; Hudson, 23, Bucklersbury, London.-Pet. f. May 7. THOMAS COATES, Bridge-road, Lambeth, Surrey, linendraper, May 31 at 11, and June 29 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Sole & Co., 68, Aldermanbury.-Pet. f. May 15. 26 Alcester, Warwickshire, seed merchant, June 13 at 11, Birmingham, aud. ac. and div.-Philip Ezekiel, Manchester, general dealer, June 14 at 12, Manchester, div.-Joseph Kershaw and Wm. George Kershaw, Wakefield, Yorkshire, stonemasons, June 8 at 11, Leeds, div. joint est., and div. sep. est. of Joseph Kershaw.-Thomas Pickworth and Robt. Walker, Sheffield, Yorkshire, builders, June 9 at 10, Sheffield, div. sep. est. of Robt. Walker.-John Lyons, Sheffield, Yorkshire, steel manufacturer, June 9 at 10, Sheffield, div. James Camp, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, boot maker, June 9 at 10, Sheffield, div. CERTIFICATES. before the Day of Meeting. HENRY HARVEY, Hatton-garden, Holborn, Middlesex, MARK WARREN, Shoreditch, Middlesex, haberdasher, GEORGE SMITH, Wittlesey, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, David Cahn, Leadenhall-street, City, dealer and chap man, June 8 at 1, London.-Peter Taylor, Saffron Walden, Essex, licensed victualler, June 8 at half-past 1, London.John D. Ayres, Nottingham, merchant, June 12 at 1, London.-Miles Beale, Gray-street, Poplar, Middlesex, brassfounder, June 8 at 11, London.-John Lough Moreland, Lydford and Keinton, Somersetshire, grocer, June 18 at 11, Bristol.-Roger D. M'Manus, St. Austel, Cornwall, apothe cary, June 15 at 1, Exeter. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Wm. Mullett, Brookland, near Romney, Kent, grocer.Japheth Barton, Landport, Portsea, brewer.-Thomas Marshall, Plymouth, Devonshire, builder. Samuel Russell, West Hartlepool, Durham, builder.-John R. Williams, CHARLES BRAY, Alfred-terrace, Queen's-road, Bayswater, Sandbach, Cheshire, ironmonger.-Jonathan Brignall, ManMiddlesex, ironmonger, May 29 at half-past 2, and June chester, dyer.-James Howarth, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lan26 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sols. Mackeson & Gold-cashire, linendraper.-Charles Marson the elder, Leomin ring, 59, Lincoln's-inn-fields.-Pet. f. May 16. GEORGE JERVIS, THOMAS LEESE, and WILLIAM HENRY BRADBURY, Longton, Staffordshire, china manufacturers, June 1 and 22 at 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Young, Longton; Hodgson & Allen, Birmingham.-Pet. d. May 15. EDWARD SMITH, Birmingham, printer, May 30 and June WILLIAM WRIGHT, Fulshaw, Cheshire, cattle dealer, MEETINGS. Wm. Sharp the younger, New Broad-street, City, underwriter, May 30 at 1, London, ch. ass.-Thomas Allen, Newport, Monmouthshire, cornfactor, May 25, Bristol, last ex.-James Elgar, Flelton, Huntingdonshire, wholesale grocer, May 31 at 2, London, aud. ac.-C. W. Broughton, Southampton-street, Covent-garden, Middlesex, tailor, May 31 at 11, London, aud. ac.; June 8 at half-past 11, div.-Isaac Bensaud, South-street, Finsbury, Middlesex, merchant, May 31 at 11, London, aud. ac.; June 8 at 11, div.-W. Craven, Birkenhead and Poulton-cum-Spital, Cheshire, road maker, May 31 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-S. H. Napier and John Hewitson, Liverpool, ship chandlers, May 31 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-John Webster, Wavertree, near Liverpool, joiner, May 31 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-J. L. Moreland, Lydford and Keinton, Somersetshire, grocer, June 7 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.; June 21 at 11, div.-Richard A. Hollis, Judd-street, New-road; Chapel-street, Somers-town; and Sidmouth-street, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex, grocer, June 8 at 11, London, div.-Wm. Burrows, Park-street, Islington, Middlesex, surgeon, June 8 at half-past 11, London, div.Alexander Jacobson, Tysoe-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, dealer in watches, June 8 at 12, London, div.-Wm. H. J. Keal and Daniel J. Roberts, Rood-lane, London, and Prince Edward's Island, British North America, merchants, June 8 at 1, London, div.-Robert Worley, Newgate-street, City, provision merchant, June 11 at 12, London, div.-H. Vos and J. C. Essers, New-court, Crutched-friars, City, merchants, June 11 at half-past 11, London, div.-James Brown, ster, Herefordshire, innkeeper.-Henry Binning and George SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. agent. TUESDAY, May 22. WILLIAM BOUND the younger, Hanworthy, Poole, corn THOMAS HOLLAND, late of Godalming, Surrey, now of PAUL SAMPSON, Hythe, Kent, bootmaker, June 8 at 12, JOHN STRETTON FERGUSON, Nottingham, builder, THE JURIST. LONDON, MAY 26, 1860. By W. M. BEST, Barrister at Law. Eyre v. Waller.-(Cheque on bank—18 § 19 Vict. c. 67) CROWN CASES RESERVEd. By G. FRANCIS, Barrister at Law. Reg. v. Lorse. (Larceny-Friendly society-Misappropriation of monies by trustee-18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, s. 18) 512 513 491 Reg. v. Halliday.-(Evidence-Husband and wife— Count charging conspiracy with wife-Admissibility of husband's evidence) 514 493 Reg. v. Hind.-(Evidence-Dying declaration) 514 Ir is conceded that the Lords in Parliament once possessed, and still may possess, the legal and technical right of placing their absolute veto upon a money bill; but it is said by some that they have not exercised this right since the revolution of 1688; that it has therefore fallen into desuetude, is now opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and ought no longer to be exercised. It is also conceded, on the other hand, that all money bills must originate in the House of Commons*, and that they will not be received back by them from the Lords in an altered or amended form. Lord Lyndhurst, on the occasion of the recent debate in the House of Lords on the repeal of the paper duty, gave some interesting illustrations of these constitutional doctrines. He quoted a resolution of the House of Commons in 1671, that "in all aids given to the King by the Commons the rate or tax ought not to be altered;" and in 1678, that "all aids and supplies and aids to his Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all bills for the granting of any such aids or supplies ought to begin with the Com A money act is peculiar in its form, and treats the supply as the gift of the Commons alone:-" Most gracious Sovereign, we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to your Majesty in this session of Parliament, have resolved to grant unto your Majesty the sum hereafter mentioned, and do therefore most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted, by and with the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal," &c. + May 21, 1860. mons, and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought In 1639, which Lord Lyndhurst described as one of the not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords." bill. The Commons disagreed, and desired a conference, best periods in our history, the Lords amended a money and in their reasons given for desiring it is the following important statement:-"All money aids and taxes to be raised or charged upon the subjects in Parliament and are, and always have been, and ought to be, by are the gift and grant of the Commons in Parliament, the constitution and ancient course and laws of Parliament, and by the ancient and undoubted rights of the Commons of England, the sole and entire gift, and to be laid, rated, raised, and paid for the public grant, and present of the Commons in Parliament, service and use of the Government as the Commons shall direct, limit, and appoint, and modify the same. And the Lords are not to alter such gift, grant, limitation, appointment, or modification of the Commons in any part or circumstance, or otherwise to interpose in such bills than to pass or reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or amendment, though in ease of the subjects. As the Kings and Queens, by the laws and constitution of Parliament, are to take all or to leave all in such gifts, grants, and presents from the Commons, and cannot take part and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or reject all, without diminution or alteration." The noble and learned Lord then adverted to the question of usage, and, with reference to his own observations upon the Life Peerage Bill, said, "It was stated that 400 years ago the Government had created a life peerage, but no instance had occurred since that time. The argument I made use of was, that everything in this country depends on long usage and prescription; when, therefore, no such right has been exercised for 400 years, and no claim has been put forward during that period, it ought not to be acted on, and cannot be considered as part of the law and constitution of the country, particularly after the many changes, including a revolution and a restoration, which have taken place." Lord Lyndhurst, however, asserts that money bills have been rejected by the Lords on several occasions within a recent period. Among the more modern instances, he cited one of 1809, when a bill from the Commons for continuing and granting certain duties on malt was rejected; one of 1789, when a bill for imposing duties on cocoa-nuts was rejected; and a similar instance occurred in 1790. And not only bills for imposing, but for granting relief from taxation, were shewn to have been thus rejected. In 1790, a bill to relieve the coasting trade of Great Britain, by removing stamps on certain documents, and abolishing stamps respecting the Isle of Man; in 1805, a bill for abolishing certain fees payable to custom-house officers in England; in 1807, a like measure with regard to Ireland; in 1808, a bill for repealing duties on coals carried coastwise in Wales; and in 1811, a bill to suspend for one year the duties on corn, and to permit the distillation of spirits from molasses, were rejected by the House of Lords. We cannot better state the objections which are urged to these precedents, and to several of a like character quoted by Lord Monteagle, and their applicability to the question before the House, than by extracting a portion of Lord Cranworth's speech in answer to Lord Lyndhurst. His Lordship observed "I venture to say, with as much confidence as one can speak of a negative proposition, that this is a course that has never been before taken by the House. The course your Lordships are now asked to take is, if not absolutely unconstitutional, at least so thinly separated that to ordinary minds the difference is unintelligible. What did my noble and learned friend say? He said that we had the power to do that which we were now asked to do-that an existing tax could not be repealed without an act of Parliament, and that such act could not pass without your Lordships' concurrence. But that is a truism which never has been disputed. My noble and learned friend quoted examples in the year 1689, but he did not at all advance his argument thereby. No doubt this House cannot alter a money bill without the consent of the House of Commons. All you can do is to reject a bill, whether it be for relief or burthen. But I say, up to this hour, no such step has been taken by this House as to refuse to concur in the repeal of a tax under circumstances such as now exist. I will deal with the meagre precedents quoted by my noble and learned friend presently. What is it we are asked to do now? The Crown has communicated to the House of Commons what are the wants of the State. Those wants have been discussed, modified, and approved, and, in the exercise of their constitutional functions, they have found ways and means for those wants, and have come to the conclusion that this particular tax is not necessary for the wants of the State. I say that a bill founded upon such considerations being brought here, there never has been since the Revolution an instance of this House rejecting such a bill. My noble and learned friend said he had several precedents, and until he stated them I was under the belief that my search, although laborious, had been imperfect; but when he told us what those precedents were, I found that I was justified in my opinion that there were no precedents to justify such a course as we are now asked to take. The first instance given was in 1790, when this House rejected a bill to relieve the coasting trade by removing stamps from certain documents. I do not mean to say that there are not instances where, upon collateral grounds, the repeal of some tax has been thought undesirable, and the Lords have exercised their right of refusing their assent to the repeal. But in this case there is a most important distinction, which your Lordships must not think is the quibble of a lawyer. My noble and learned friend, in referring to the precedent on which he relied, omittedno doubt inadvertently-one little word, which made all the difference in the world. He described the act as one to relieve the coasting trade by removing certain stamp duties. But the act had several objects. It was to relieve the coasting trade, to remove stamp duties, and to abolish bonds. Now, it is matter of AB C, that if anything is tacked to a money bill, this House has a right to reject the whole. The instance cited by my noble and learned friend is open also to another observation. This House was moved to go into committee on the bill on Tuesday, the 8th June. They determined not to do so, and the prorogation came the next day but one. Now, the Lords might very well think that was not the way to treat them. The measure probably came before them at a time when there were not many in attendance; and this of itself would furnish sufficient grounds for rejecting it. Well, then, the two next cases quoted by my noble and learned friend seemed to me not to touch the question. In two consecutive years, it appears, the House of Commons passed bills to abolish the fees payable to certain custom-house officers. This House rejected them. Did those bills affect the annual revenue of the country? Technically it may be that the Lords on those occa sions refused to repeal a tax, but in substance they did not; and in these matters it is the substance, and not a mere technical analogy, to which we should look. The only precedent which seemed to possess any weight wa that of 1811-I mean the bill respecting molasses. But even that precedent was a good deal strained. In 1811 the price of wheat was enormous, averaging, I think, from 111s. to 120s.; and of course barley was dear in proportion. For the purpose of relieving the pressure occasioned by these high prices, the House of Commons introduced a bill to reduce the duty on molasses, in order that a distillation might go on mainly from sugar, and not from corn. That bill came up here on the 6th May. Now, the important point in the case is, that the financial statement of the Government that year was not made till the 20th May. No doubt, therefore, the Government wanted to know, before introducing the budget, whether the bill would be approved by the great landowners of this House; and in the debate the Earl of Suffolk, who led the opposition to the bill, gave a clue to the whole case when he said he was happy to find that the motion was not to be made a party ques tion. The Government were, no doubt, sounding both Houses, to see whether they would or would not adopt this measure as part of their financial scheme. The House, very likely thinking it was a covert way of interfering with the agriculturists for the benefit of the West Indian interest, refused to pass the bill, and a budget was afterwards framed in accordance with that refusal. The case differed entirely from the one now before us, and the course of the Government was open to objection upon totally different grounds. It furnishes no precedent for the course which you are now asked to pursue. Here the budget has been introduced and has been confirmed, one of its provisions being the repeal of a certain tax which is declared to be not wanted for the public service; and you are asked to say, "Though the tax is not wanted, it shall still be levied.' These were the precedents of my noble and learned friend. My noble friend (Lord Mont eagle) alluded to two others, one of which occurred a century ago. From the nature of the tax, it was evidently one which this House rejected, not upon reign. Had I been aware that my opinion was supported by such high authority (although the counsel for the defendant would not take the objection) I should have nonsuited the plaintiff. On further consideration, I think that my opinion at the trial was right, and on that ground we ought not to grant a new trial." EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Errors will be taken from the Court of Common Pleas on the 13th June; Court of Queen's Bench on the 14th, 15th, and 16th June; and from the Court of Exchequer on the 18th and 19th June. any financial grounds, but because it was an interference with one interest in favour of another. In 1758 there seem to have been bills to allow the importation of cattle from Ireland, and there was also the tallow bill. These were two measures having relation to Irish and English produce, and, for some reason or other, this House thought they ought not to pass. In any case they would only furnish a technical, and not a substantial, precedent. Then, again, in 1816 this House rejected a bill for taking off the duty on stone bottles. At that time the duty on stone bottles was a complicated one; there was one duty on bottles introduced from Ireland, and another on bottles manufactured in England, the general duty being one of 2s. 6d. per cwt. All we know is, that a bill for repealing the EQUITY CAUSE LISTS, TRINITY TERM, 1860. duty passed the House of Commons, and that, five days ***The following abbreviations have been adopted to before the prorogation, this entry occurs in the jour- abridge the space the Cause Papers would otherwise have nals:- Present so and so-Order of the day for going occupied :-A. Abated-Adj. Adjourned-A. T. After Term into the stone bottle bill put off for six months.' The Ap. Appeal-C. D. Cause Day-Cl. Claim-C. CostsGovernment appear to have been misled into proposing D. Demurrer-E. Exceptions-F. C. Further Consideration something which ought not to have been proposed.-F. D. Further Directions-M. Motion-M. D. Motion for In the next session they introduced a bill, not for Decree-P. C. Pro Confesso-Pl. Plea-Ptn. Petitiontaking off the duty, but for doubling it; and the duty R. Rehearing-S. O. Stand Over-Sh. Short. accordingly became 5s. instead of 2s. 6d. These pre- Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and the LORDS JUStices. cedents are equally invalid as regards the substance Plumstead, Woolwich, and of the present bill. I cannot conclude Charlton Consumers' Pure without expressing a hope that your Lordships will Water Co., and Plumstead, not, on this occasion, take a step sanctioned by no Woolwich, & Charlton Consubstantial precedent since the Revolution. I do sumers' Pure Water Co. think, that by attempting to make such a precedent (Limited) v. Davis (R., in the case of a tax which has been more than April 23) once disapproved on principle by the other House of Walters v. Morgan (W., April Parliament, and which affects a most influential class 30) of the community, you will be taking a step which will very materially endanger the high position which I am persuaded you hold in the estimation of the country, and which you will continue to hold so long as the country sees that you neither actually interfere with the constitutional rights of the other House, nor do that which is not to be distinguished from such an interference-namely, refrain from imposing, but refuse to repeal, a tax." SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THE SICILIANS. In the recent debate on this subject in the House of Commons (May 18) a case was referred to as having been decided in 1824 by Best, C. J., and as having a material bearing upon the question. The case is that of De Wütz v. Headricks, (2 Bing. 314). The plaintiff there had proposed to raise a loan for the Greeks in arms against the government of the Porte. For this purpose he had lodged with the defendant an instrument, which was alleged to be a power of attorney, signed abroad by the Exarch of Ravenna, but which turned out to have been fabricated in London. The plaintiff sued in trover for this paper, and a verdict having been found against him, upon the ground that the whole transaction was a fraud on his part, the Court refused a new trial, Best, C. J., saying "It occurred to me at the trial that it was contrary to the law of nations (which, in all cases of international law, is adopted into the municipal code of every civilised country) for persons in England to enter into engagements to raise money to support the subjects of a government in amity with our own, in hostilities against their government, and that no right of action could arise out of such a transaction. In consequence of what I said, a note has since been sent me of a case that occurred lately in Chancery, in which the Lord Chancellor is reported to have said that English courts of justice will afford no assistance to persons who set about to raise loans for subjects of the King of Spain, to enable them to prosecute a war against that sove APPEALS. Gray v. Falconer (R., Jan. 28, Hancock v. Bewley (W., Mar. Wood v. Farthing (R., Mar. Perry v. Holl (S., Mar. 22) brigge 12) Reid v. Stearn (S., April 18) Bradstock v. Whatley (R., Morton v. Puzey (K., May 2) May 5) Watson v. Baker (M D) In re Martin's Estate (FC) Seccombe v. Edwards Harbin v. Darby (F C, Sum-Ion v. Ashton (F C) Atchley v. Oakman (F C) Atkinson v. Hicks (M D) } Ingle v. Richards (F C, 2 Nightingale v. Rushton (F C) | Kendall v. Hill (M D) }(FC) Taylor v. Miles (Sp. case) Hornby v. Wilks (F C) Townsend v. Early (F C) end) certif.) Stansfeld v. Wyatt (F C) Tomkyns v. Blaine (M D) Trezevant v. Broughton (FC) Randall v. Elford (F C) Rowland v. Roupell (Cause) Edwards v. Mitcheson (FC, Summons to vary certif.) Barker v. Barker v. Wolley} (F C) Newman v. Austen (M D) Steward v. Brightwell (F C) Crosbie v. Guion (F C) Parkins v. Davies (F C, Sum mons to vary certificate) Hedges v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (M D) May 22 Sparks v. Nuth (M D) Stoor v. Wilson (F C) Pearce v. Spencer (F C, 2 Sums. to vary certificate) Fox v. Taylor (F C) Davies v. Davies (F C) Swift v. Swift (FC) Leigh v. Mosley (M D, Ptn) Pease v. Cheesbrough (FC) Proby v. Landor (M D) Lupton v. Wood (M D) Frogley v. Phillips (FC) Mellersh v. Keen (F C, Sum mons to vary certificate) Steele v. Waller (M D) Wadeer v. East India Co. (M D) Matthews v. Williams (M D) Maughan v. Glennan (MD) Wood blame. Rowley} (F C) Perry v. Howells (F C). Before the Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD T. KINDERSLEY. CAUSES, &c. Parkinson v. Hanbury (Cau., (F 5. J. Smith v. F. Smith} C Austin v. Curling (Cl) ((FC, SumGuillon v. Rotch mons, adj. Rotch v. Guillon from chambers) Horner v. Johnson (M D) Baner v. Mitford (F C) (F C) Clarke v. Clarke (Cau.) May 24 Jenner and Wife v. Morris (Cause) Sellon v. Watts (M D) Towle v. National Guardian Findlay v. Sewell (F C, part heard) Chesshyre v. Biss (Cause) Bennett v. Bennett (F C, Summons) Bates v. Cock (FC) Bright v. Sidney (M D) Before the Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. WOOD. Jaques v. Jaques (M D, part Lewin v. Allen (M D) Goldsmid v. Haswell Di Sora v. Borghese (Ca.) May 28 Wicks v. Scrivens (Cause) Swainson v. Dobson (F C) Moffat v. Money (Cause) Gover v. Mathews (M D) Hodder v. Tarte (Cause) Spencer v. Locke (F C, Sum mons to vary certificate) Watkins v. Smith (Cause) Monkhouse v. Hebden (FC) Curwen v. Jameson (M D) Kelly v. Wightman (M D) Williams v. Lewis (Cause) Walker v. Willan (F C) Glover v. Baker (M D) Jackson v. Calvert (Cause) Dean v. Handley (M D) White v. Brown (Cause) Price v. Newton (M D) Newby v. Chaytor (Cause) Standen v. Hutchings (F C) Edwards v. Williams (Cause) May 23 Woodcock v. Rowbotham (M Harrison v. Barton (M D) Perkins v. Cooke (M D) Warren v. Cutts (Cause) Walker v. Page (FC) Windsor v. Cross (F C, Ptn) Herenc v. Brown (M D) Clarke v. Franklin (F C) Vaughan v. South Metropoli tan Cemetery Co. (Cause) Cottam v. Eastern Counties Railway Co. (Cause) Scott v. Miller (Cause) Footner v. Jolliffe (M D) Lovegrove. Davis (FC) Coston v. Gardner (Cause) |