Clippings.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 319, 23 March 1878, Page 6

Clippings.

THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL UN ENGLAND. The Examiner says :—The opinion of Mr. Robert Gilfin, of tlie Board of Trade, and formerly of the Economist, on the question whether the country is growing richer, is of course well worth listening to, and, so far as it goes, it is highly reassuring. The national capital, as indicated by the income-tax returns, shows an increase of 44 per cent, during ten years, and he thinks that the community has acquired in that period three times the amount of the National Debt. We confess that we look with some distrust on these plausible calculations. They are a little too much of that imaginative character which used to mark the quaint arithmetical romances of the late Mr. Dudley Baxter. They are guesses at best, and we receive them with some respect only because they are made by a sound political economist. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin’s figures, if accurate, do not go beyond 1375. They leave off at the time when they would be most interesting. They say nothing of the period in which commercial depression lias been chiefly felt. They do not satisfactorily explain whether the enormous difference between our exports and imports is ascribable to the efficiency of our capital and labor, or to the fact that we are virtually liviug on our accumulated capital. It is poor comfort to know that, the growth of our wealth between 1565 and 187 5 was unprecedentedly rapid, if this onward movement has ceased. At a time when the Queen’s speech expresses a hope that the “ liberality ” of Parliament will supply a loan or vote fresh taxes, it is highly expedient to scrutinise with some jealousy comfortable statements about the large “margin of taxation.” THE DIMSDALE FORGERIES. (From the London Law Times.) Barely have frauds been committed on a more gigantic scale than those of Dimsdale and his fellow-prisoners, Moore, Tate, and Drake. From the evidence there could be no doubt that a sum exceeding £'300,000 had been obtained by these frauds. The evidence was so clear that the counsel for the prisoners felt it would be hopeless to struggle against it, and took the somewhat unusual course of objecting that the law as laid down by the prosecution was not correct, before the close of the case for the prosecution. The frauds were perpetrated by meaas of documents which purported to be leases relating to property at Croydon and other places, drawn in regular form, to which propei'ty the prisoners had no legal right whatever. The prisoners had signed their own names to these documents. The Attorney-General, in stating the law applicable to tlie ease, said “that the legal offence of forgery did not consist, as was popularly supposed, only in signing the name of another person ; but, if an insti’ument of the kind which the prosecution suggested had been, used in this case was uttered and made use of for the purposes of fraud, although the parties signed their own names to the instrument, the act amounted to forgery, and the parties concerned were amenable to the charge of that crime.” The learned Judge agreed with this statement of the law, and the prisoners thereupon, by their counsel’s advice, withdrew their pleas of “ not guilty and the learned Judge sentenced Dimsdale to penal servitude for life, Moore to seven years’ penal servitude, and Tate and Drake each to one year’s imprisonment with hard labor. There can be no doubt of the accuracy of the statement of the law made by the AttorneyGeneral. In Keg. v. Ritson (L. Rep. 1 C. C. R.) the authorities relatiug to the definition of forgery were carefully examined, and it was held that every instrument which fraudently purports to be that which it is not is a forgery. The sentence awarded to Dimsdale may seem severe, but when the circumstances of the ease are considered, it will not be found too much so. In early times the crime of forgery was of rare occurrence, and the crime was at common law a misdemeanour only. As writing became more common and commerce increased, the importance of the crime, and the injuries resulting from it increased, and a heavier punishment was attached to it. By 5 Eliz. c. 14, the crime was raised to the degree of felony without benefit of clergy, in the case of a second conviction for forging deeds, wills, court-rolls, &c. So many statutes were afterwards passed that Sir William Blackstone in liis “ Commentaries ” said :—“ I believe,

through the number of these general and special provisions there is now hardly a case to be conceived wherein forgery that tends to defraud, whether in the name of a real or fictitious person, is not made a capital crime.” Subsequently, by 7 Will. 4 and 1 Vic. c. 84, the punishment of death in cases of forgery was abolished, and the maximum punishment now is penal servitude for life. If ever there was a case of forgery in which a judge was justified in passing, to the full extent of his discretion, a severe punishment, this undoubtedly is one.

PERMANENT AND FLUCTUATING SOURCES OF THE ENGLISH REVENUE. (From tlie World.) It is not pleasant to commence the year with the prospect or only the apprehension of a deficit. It is plain, however, from the revenue returns for the three quarters of the fiscal year ended 31st tilt., that Sir Stafford Nortlicote must be more fortunate in tlie last quarter than he was even in the corresponding period of the preceding year, if that is to be avoided. Dull times, stagnant trade, reduced wages, and slack work among our working population have had their inevitable effects upon the spending powers of all classes. This is notable in tlie decrease in tlie yield of customs and excise, which—with the exception of a couple of weeks early in the first three months of tho financial year, when the fear of increased spirit-duties led to an exceptional clearance of spirits fron bond—have steadily dropped away during the nine moths. The result is that, notwithstanding unusually favorable returns under most other heads, and the abundant yield of the income-tax, the net increase on the three quarters is only £115,518, whereas tlie Chancellor of the Exchequer counted upon an increase of £455,000 on the year. It is not impossible, of course, that the last quarter of tlie fiscal year may see a turn in the tide, and that instead of further declension there may be advance ; and when we remember wliat. occurred in the fourth quarter of 1876-77, we are little inclined to dogmatize on the point. It is eminently improbable, however, that this will be tlie case, and much more likely that customs and excise will further fall away. The question of immediate importance, then, is, is the expansion under the other heads of the returns likely to be so great as to counterbalance the falling away of the customs and excise ? Modesty dictates absence of dogmatism here also. It will be observed that the large decrease of £303,000 on the nine months, under miscellaneous, is due to the postponement of some Indian repayments which, presumably, will come into the current quarter’s accounts. This itself brings up the Chancellor’s increase to very nearly the figure at which he estimated it. It is not certain therefore that we may not see such continuous increases under stamps, income-tax, post office, and other items as will go far to redress the adverse balance ; and until we know what the expenditure has been it would be well to refrain from rash prophecies, such as were so conspicuously falsified last year. No surer sign of the magnitude of England’s wealth could be rendered' than is furnished by the increase of nearly half a million under property and income-tax during the three quarters of tlie financial twelve months in a time of stagnant trade. Sir Stafford Nortlicote will, nevertheless, be able to account himself a lucky Cliauuellor if he escapes a deficit. One point which must strike the critical observer in examining these revenue returns is the evidence they supply of the growth of a tendency to increase under certain fixed heads which are not directly dependent on the fluctuations of trade. The national revenue is not wholly provided by taxes. Besides the money received from that source, the Government secures considerable profits by rendering services to the public- which could not, perhaps, be so well rendered through private competition. Tlie post office, the telegraph service, and interest on advances are the three chief items of this character. By keeping in its hands the conveyance of the letters and telegrams of tlie public, tlie State realises a handsome profit, which is now further increased through the services it renders as a public banker. The advance of money to local authorities is a growingly profitable business ; for on tlie nine months the increase over the corresponding period of the previous year was as much as £160,000. It requires no very lively imagination to suppose such a growth in the profits derived from sources wholly apart from taxation as will go far to counterbalance fluctuating customs and excise. These permanent sources of revenue will then have a steadying effect on the general income, so that even though the “ elasticity” which a premature generalisation a few years ago male a “law” of national progress be not recovered, there may be no serious fluctuations in the total revenue. Sir Stafford Nortlicote lias more than once given signs that be is alive to tlie importance of these facts. In the meantime his habitual cheerfulness has not, it may be, even yet deserted him when lie contemplates the revenue returns.

THE ENGLISH GAME LAWS. The Daily News (Jan. 23) reports that the highest criminal court in the realm has just declared that a gamekeeper may make free with liis master’s game very much at pleasure. Stealing will not be stealing, embezzling will not be embezzling, in liis case, and his defrauded master can do nothing more than discharge him. Such is in substance the purport of the astonishing decision at which the Court for Crown Cases Reserved has arrived. A gamekeeper had, without any authority from his master, caught and killed eighteen wild rabbits, and agreed to sell them. He was tried for stealing or embezzling bis master’s property ; there was no doubt as to the facts, and lie was found guilty of embezzlement. But- owing to the glorious uncertainty of the law, especially with reference to larceny and embezzlement, he liz.s been released.

Rabbits and game running wild are not property at all in the eye of the common law, and cannot be stolen. When dead, they however become the property of the owner of the land on which they we killed ; and a poacher or trespasser who found a dead hare and put it into his bag could probably be punished as a thief. But, by a refined process of reasoning which does not recommend itself at first or even second thought, the Court came to the

conclusion that this was not a case of stealing, seeing the killing and taking away formed one continuous act ; neither was it embezzlement, because tlie gamekeeper had never received posse si on of the rabbits “for on account of” his master. In other words, the deliberate intention of the gamekeeper from first to last to cheat virtually saved him from conviction. Had the killing and selling of the rabbits been an after-thought lie would probably have been punished. “Cases of this kind,” says Sir James Stephen, very truly, with reference to miscarriages of justice arising from tho highly artificial character of many of the rules on which questions of liberty of the subject are determined, “ disgrace the law, and lead those who accidentally become aware of them to suppose that such cases are far more common than they really are, and to overlook the real merits of the system.” The Game Laws no doubt require revision and amendment ; but this mode of dealing with them scarcely commends itself to reason and common sense.

THE DIARY OF A SIEGE. One of the most remarkable episodes of the present war, which, however, has not yet received all the attention it deserves, is the defence of the fort of Bayazid, in Armenia, by a Russian garrison 3000 strong, against a Turkish army numbering 20,000 men. Tlie Moscow Gazette gives the following interesting extracts from the private journals of one of the officers of the garrison :—“ 10th June. —The enemy has blockaded us on all sides, and intercepted tlie aqueducts. Oue cistern aud a few bags of biscuits is all we ’nave to live on. At night, by the light of the burning town beneath us, we saw tlie atrocities perpetrated by tlie Kurds on the helpless inhabitants. It was horrible beyond description. Women and children were thrust alive into tlie flames, and carried about the streets on lances, horribly mutilated and shrieking with anguish. The sight was so sickening that one of our officers was quite overcome by it and had an attack of brain fever that night. 18th June. —General assault of the Turkish forces, which we succeeded in repulsing towards nightfall. Our rations have been reduced to half a pound of biscuit and one glass of water per diem. 20th June.— A parliamentary came with a summons for us to surrender. Our commander answered that, being so much stronger, the Turks could well try to take the citadel by storm. . . . 26th June.—Our ration lias been further diminished to a quarter of a pound of biscuit and two spoonsful of stagnant, rotten water. We suffer terribly from hunger and thirst. After a day’s hard fighting I am utterly prostrate, and scarcely able to write these few words. 28th June.—For two days and two nights we have been exposed to a terrific cannonade. One tlie 29th a general assault, which we repulsed, followed by repeated injunctions to surrender, to which our answer was tlie same as before. Ist July.—Our ration to-day is one-eigbtli pound of biscuit and one spoonful of water. Starvation is approaching rapidly. I have seen some of our men cut out slices of flesh from the half-purified carcase of ahorse and eat them. 4th July. —Again a summons to render, this time written in Russian by a Pole in the Turkish service, Colonel Kamaroff Of course our answer remained unaltered. 7th July.—We have repulsed one more assault. It is the last one. We cannot hold out much longer. Mines were laid out to blow up the citadel aud the garrison. It is better so than to starve. 10th July.—The cannon ! Never lias any music ever sounded so sweet to our ears. It is General Tergukasoff, who comes to save us. I am so weak that I feel utterly unable to write or move a finger. But we are saved.” After the siege bad been raised there remained of tlie garrison about two thousand men, who were mostly so utterly worn out that they had to be carried out of the citadel. The name of the gallant commander of this equally gallant garrison is Captain Stockvlich.

PUBLIC WORKS IN INDIA. (From the Daily TcleyrapJi, January 23.) Considering her famines, and the cost of mit’gating their severity, it is not wonderful that India should have supplied a topic for debate thus early in the session. Last night Lord George Hamilton obtained tlie assent of the House to the appointment of a select committee “ to inquire into and report upon the expediency of constructing public works in India with moDey raised on loan, both as regards financial results and the prevention of famine.” If thoroughly carried out, the inquiry should serve to dispel the mist of popular errors which has settled over the subject. The extension of public works in India is a question of money. The notion that either railways or canals can be constructed on a magnificent scale until the land blossoms like the rose, rests on the fallacy thac tlie capital can be had without increasing tnxation to a degree which would make English rule a curse, and that, when all had been done, the investment would pay, aud famine be banished from the Empire. Mr. Bright compared the efforts of Manchester relatively with those of the Indian Government, just as even Sir Henry Durand contrasted disdainfully the American expenditure on railways with that sanctioned at Calcutta ; and both comparlsions are absolutely unfair. If tlie natives were like the men of Lancashire aud Ameriea, the taunts would be reasonable. Then they would or might supply the capital and execute the works. But in India the outlay on the smallest undertaking comes out of the public exchequer. If it is borrowed, the interest must be furnished by the taxpayer ; if it is not raised

on loan, then it goes direct from the proceeds of taxes to the contractors. As we cannot indefinitely extend taxation, in order to dig canals or build railways, tlie quantity of work done must be proportioned to the means available, and have some reference to revenue returns, as well as to the indispeuable demands on them for security and order. Tlie real enemy of the Indian people is lie who advocates expenditure on enterprises which it is not demonstrably certain will pay a profit large enough to cover the interest, and yield a sinking fund Mr. Bright, carried away by humane feelings, and a sort of general hostility to all Governments, is always, though not intentionally, unjust and unstatesmanlike. The Viceroy and his councillors do not constitute an earthly Providence; and if all Mr. Bright’s Indian nostrums could be put in fi zee he would, with the most charitable desire to do good, find that lie had rendered English rule in India impossible, because he would have erected a benevolent but intolerable oppression. It is high time, however, that the relations between taxation and expenditure-—the true question in regard to .public works—were exhaustively overhauled. We suspect it will be discovered that, unless England is prepared, to guarantee tlie interest on the debts created by the realisation of magnificent ideas, they will bo found entirely incompatible with the amount of imposts which the Indian public will bear. The resources of India, relatively to its extent, are very scanty; and if, in pursuit- of improvement, the taxing aud borrowing mania proceeds much further, the finances of the Empire will not escape a catastrophe. Let the committee now appointed throw a clear light on the exact situation, and it will have done an inestimable service.

THE OCCUPATION OF SOFIA. (European. Mail). Sofia has been occupied by the Russians without opposition, for the small number of wounded mentioned in the Russian despatch was evidently the result of a skirmish with some detachment, probably of irregulars, who had missed their way in making their retreat, and were encountered by tlie Russians in their march on Sofia. According to the Russian official account, the troops entered Sofia on January 3, the band playing and singing at their head. There were general rejoicings among the Christian population, and immediately after General Gourko’s entry a solemn service was celebrated at the Cathedral. This is the first time since 143 4 that a Christian army has entered Sofia. Up to tlie present the following are the details received :—On the 2nd General Gonrko personally carried out a reconnaisance, whereby he ascertained that Sofia was only fortified on the eastern side, while on the north there were no fortifications, nor had any measure of precaution been taken. Consequently be sent forward twelve battalions under General Weliaminoff against tlie village of Kumauitza, on the Isker, in order to make the chief attack from the north-west. The Turks perceiving this movement withdrew from Sofia during the night without awaiting tlie attack, and retired in a southwesterly direction towards Kistendelo.' They took the well-to-do and influential Bulgarian inhabitants with them, but left their sick and wounded behind. At daybaealc on the 3rd the withdrawal of tlie Turks was discovered, aud the Ru-sian forces at once entered Sofia, a vanguard being sent forward on the Kistendelo road towards Balamefendi. A detachment was also sent to join hands with the Servians marching on Sofia from Pirot. The 3rd division of Infantry of the Guard, which is pursuing the Turks who retired from Arabonak, Schandornik, and Tasclikiseua, lias already occupied Patritsehew, and Russian cavalry have advanced tovvarda Kalofer, Ofclulcioi, lchschimion, and Somokowo. Particulars respecting the pursuit are not yet to hand. A skirmish was fought on January 2 with" the Turkish rear-guard near Mirkove, on which occasion General Kata lei, commander of the 3rd Infantry of the Guard, was killed, and General Philosophoff, commander of the Ist Brigade, was wounded. The same day the detachments commanded by General Dandeville and Brock occupied Slatitza, the Turks retiring from it in an easterly direction. A portion of General Dandeville’s troops -were sent in pursuit of the Turks, and occupied Laschen. On January 2 Patritsehew was occupied by the Russians, tlie Turks evacuating the place, and falling back along the plain of Tepolnitza, in the direc ion of Poibren and Tatar Bazavdjik. The Russian troops, who continued the pursuit, advanced as far as Poibren, which is still held by the Turks. Only direct pursuit is possible, on account of there being no side roads by which an outflanking movement might be effected. According to the statements of scouts there are still considerable forces of Turkish cavalry in front of Samakowo and Ichtiman. In the rear of Iclitiman, and in the front of Trajan’s Gate at Kaputschek, an infantry force is stationed, which is actively entrenching itself. A despatch from the head-quarters of the Czarewitcli reports that unimportant skirmishes have occurred near Solenik, Ivonstauzn, Sadina, Gagowa, and Cliaidarkioi, on aud near the Osman Bazar road. The Russian losses in these skirmishes together were three men killed and eleven wounded. At Omurkioi the Russians captured 170 horses and several head of cattle.

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE. Au action, in which the main question was whether £I2OO a year should be paid to Madame Megret, or to her husband, Monsieur Louis Nicolas Adolplie Megret, was concluded recently in England. The Vice-Chancellor said this was a most extraovdi ary case, and was brought forward in an inconveuient form. It was the suit of au infant, Mr. T. M. Davis, to carry into execution the trusts of the settlement of his father, dated 1556. There were two funds—one to the separate use of his wife, the other not. After the death the whole was to go to the plaintiff, who lias also other property of great value. There was no reason for Mr. Davis to bring this action, as the funds

were quite safe. The real question was between the two defendants, Monsieur and Madame Megret, each of whom claimed £I2OO a year. The circumstances of the case were most remarkable :—The lady was a Jewess, the widow of Mr. Davis, a Jew, by whom she had an only son They were persons of considerable wealth. On the 3/th of April, 1862, Mrs. Davis married Monsieur Megret, a Frenchman residing in England, a sculptor by profession, who for the purpose of this marrsage renounced the Roman Catholic religion, and became a Jew. Trie promised liis wife to remain in England, and was in all respects an Englishman, so that any claim in respect of the French law was, in his lordship s opinion, excluded. He at length, however, induced his wife to go to France, and there she was confined. Her confinement brought on puerperal mania, a form, however, of madness which Dr. Turke and Dr. 1 Incknill had said was not likely to result in any other form of madness. In 18/0, at her own request, she was placed in an establishment at Ivry, near Paris, under the care Dr. Luys. Upon the evidence he was of opinion tnat within one year the lady had recovered and ought to have been discharged, but in France there was no visitor to asylums, and she remained there from 1870 to 1876. Between that time she wrote entreating to be let out, but her husband neither answered her letters nor came to visit her. Her letters were those of a clear-headed business-like woman. Meantime an order had been obtained in this Court to pay £I2OO per annum to M. Megret, on the ground that his wife could not manage her affairs. For four years, therefore, Madame Megret, being sane, fretted in a lunatic asylum, than which one could not conceive anything more horrible. In 1875 lier solicitor went to France, saw her there, and on application to the French Court obtained her release in January, 1876. Madame Megret then came to England, but in August, 1876, she applied for a judicial separation from her husband in Paris. lue French practice is first to exhort the couple to live together again, and she was persuaded to live again with Monsieur Megret. He, however, treated her in an extraordinary way, locking her in when he went out, and on the 14tli September, 1876, on the pretence of taking her out for a drive, lodged her (though perfectly sane, and though she prayed him on her knees not to do so) in the public lunatic asylum at Charenton. ilie evidence all went to prove that she was perfectly sane, aud thus to lodge a sane person in an asylum was a most cruel, wanton, unjustifiable act. Upon application to the French Court, she was once more released, and came to England. The facts being these, upon two gronuds his lordship decided that. Madame Megret was entitled to her whole income of £I2OO a-year—first, because M. Megret had lived upon her, sold her things, deserted her, broken his promise by returning to the Roman Catholic religion, aud having his children baptised, while he never contributed towards their support ; secondly, because, under the settlement of 1862, made on the second marriage, a clause was inserted settling this in • come upon Madame Megret to her especial use. The £I2OO a-year, therefore, must be paid to Madame Megret, together with any arrears that had accrued.