The Sun. — London, England, 1848-02-25 00:00:00

TBE SUN, LONDON, seven windo ws . [S o th e N o bl e L or d, d ou btl ess from Inadvertence, said ; but the copy of the Asses , or's Warrant w ith which he favoured the reporters of this journal Mates (p. 14) that exemptions under pare _ No. 10 (the one in question) "do not ex en` to any ch am b er or apar t men t i n any of the inns of court or of Chancery, or to any college or hall of the Universities of Oxford or Cam bridge."l That was not the case with houses of a poorer class, and therefore in Scotland, to which country he himself belonged, if a man inhabited a floor of a h ouse , t h e floor was taken as part of the house, and the occupier paid window duty. A great grievanc e was , t h at no w i n d ow cou ld b e blocked up except with the kind of materials of which the walls of the house were built. For example, no window in IA brick house could be stopped up with wood, and some of hi s un f ortunate countrymen , i n i gn orance of any such p ro hibi t i on h a d susta i ne d muc h l os e. Mr. John Bold, of Frome, was obliged to pay for a win dow which he had etoppted up with mortar, because tbe walls were of stone. Mr. H. Evans had closed up a window with lath and plaister instead of atone, and after he had done so he was charged for it as a Wi ndow, and had also to pay. Indeed cases of this sort were i nnumerable. Another great gr i evance was , th a t t he Act of Parliament did not specify what a window was. Every hole through which light catne seemed to be regarded as a w i n d ow. M r. S c h o l e fi e ld, o f Cam • bridge, had to pay for a hole which he made in his c oel-eellar.— (Hear, hear.) If a person had eight, or nine windows in his house, and made a hole through `'hick air and the smallest portion of light might 'Penetrate, he hail to pay for it as an additional window. The Noble Lord here instanced several cases in which parties had been called on to pay for malcing such holes; one of which was that of a person who had to pay for two holes made in the roof of a washhouee. Indeed, if a brick should fall out of the gall of a house, so that the light came through, the esvner might he put down for an additional window. (Hear, hear.) This tax was collected in a very different manner from the other assessed taxes. In other cases a person set down how many servants, or carriages, or horses, he had, and for these he was charged ; but with regard to windows, he was not asked h ow many he h a d ; an d if h e h a d the misfortune to live at a time when a Chancellor of the Exchequer like Mr. Baring took it into his head to renew the assessment, he might find that he was called upon to Pay for more windows than he had even admitted he Possessed.—(llear.) Another grievance was, that all skylights, h owever cons tructed, were liable for pay ment ; and thus all sorts of things, double or triple windows, and openings of half an inch wide to those Of . any size, were included. He had heard of much 'stres s in this country, and he had a communication in his hand from the glass trade, complaining of the injury th ey susta i ne d from the infliction of this duty, and the evils which it caused to the community. His friend, Mr. Swinbourne, had informed him that he wished to put a glass top to a house, but was forced to give up the experiment on account of this odious and obnoxious tax.—(Hear, hear.) Then another complaint was, that all windows did not pay equally. It was pretended that, by the scale now adopted, the Poor were exempted from the tax, and, no doubt, all were exempted who had below eight windows in their houses; but from the number of eight windows till they reached 40 the payment gradually increased; while at 40 windows the scale began to descend, and descended regularly till it came to 180, when the tax was Is. 6d. a window; whereas a house with eight windows paid 2s. 31—(Hear, hear.) Yet they were told that, by the present sliding scale, the Poor were exempted, and the rich were compelled to Pay. He never was in favour of sliding scales, and he must say he thought they had gone out of fashion with the corn-laws ; but he did not, at all events, expect to hear a scale defended by which the pay ment increased till the number of 40 was reached, and then lessened till it came to 180. He now came to a part of his plan—if so he might call it —to which he asked the serious attention of the House, because it was that which he meant to propose as a substitute for this odious and obnoxious tax .on light and air. The House would recollect that the army, navy, and ordnance estimates, in 1825, amounted to 15,310,0001.; in 1835, to 11,600,000/. ; in 1845, 15,664,000/.; in 1846 ,16,864,0001.; and thebtlierkveniag they were told that these estimates for the coming year amounted to 18,957,000/. Now, if his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor o f th e Exchequer were to bring in , the amount of his estimates this year the same as in 1846, he would thereby save not less than 2,000,0001., Which would enable him to repeal the window-tax. But that was not the plan he proposed; and he only mentioned it to show that by such a course the win dow duties might be got rid of. He had listened the other evening most attentively to the statement of the Noble Lord, and he heard from him that he estitnated the whole amount of the revenue for the following year at 54,730,000/. The increase in the service estimates was—for the navy, 164,0001.; army, 43,0001. ; ordnance, 245,0001.; while for militia there was a sum of 150,0001. ; making in all an increase of 600,000/. Now, he should propose that his Right lion. Friend should take the tame estimates as last year, and thus there would fall to be deducted a sum of 600,000/. Next be would cut off the squadron employed on the African coast for the suppression of of the slave trade, and he found this expenditure amounted to 300,0001. ; so that with these two sums they had 900,000/. The next proposal he would Make was, that in place of the 5,000 additional Soldiers coming home from India, the Government Should furnish the metropolitan police force with muskets. He did not wish to make them soldiers, but he thought that in the event of the French coming over, it would be of great use to have such a large armed force in the metropolis, while the troops from India, on their arrival in their own country, should be allowed to repose on their laurels. In this Case, then, there would be a reduction of 100,0001., altogether making one million.—(Hear, hear.) He Would now come to an important part of the plan Which he recommended. lle had shown how they could raise 1,000,000/. by various modes of economy, and he would now point out how they could raise an additional 600,0001. his attention had lately been called to a report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and he must say that that documenthad struck him with uniningled astonishment.—(Hear, hear.) In what he was to propose to the House he felt it his duty at once to say that he would not include the royal palaces ; for, considering the gracious bearing of her Majesty on all occasions of public distress, and th e readiness with which her Majesty took her share of the public burdens, he would be the last man to make any proposition for interfering with the royal palaces.—(Hear, hear:) He would, however, direct their attention to that portion of the property under the charge of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests called the outlying property, and the greater Part of that he would dispose of. The property he was prepared to dispose of was the following :—New Forest, New Park, and Parkhurst Forest ; Dean Forest and High Meadow Woods ; Bere Forest, De lamer() Forest, Whittlewood Forest, Salcey Forest; Whychwood Forest ; Hainault or Waltham Forest ; Alice Holt and Woolmer Forests ; Eltham Woods ; • and Chopwell Woods—the last being a somewhat ominous name. When he came to see how these forests were managed, he must say he was struck with astonishment.—(Hear, hear.) He had in his hand a return relative to the New Forest, which might be taken as a specimen of all the others. These lands were all lying waste—complete deserts --without a single plough burning up an acre of land. There was a return ordered of the amount of timber supplied for the navy ; but from the year 1840 down to 1847 the return was uniformly nil.— (Hear, hear.) Then, when he looked at the income and expenditure, he found that the income in 1821 was 17,562/. 10s. 61, but that it had diminished in 1847 to 9,0261. In 1821 the expenditure was 8,1631., and in 1847 it had increased to 10,495/., being 1 ,0001. more than the income in that year.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was such a number of people to manage these forests--these luxuries so carefully preserved. There were for the New Forest one lord warden, 13 master keepers, including several Members of Parliament ; 4 verderers, 2 rangers, 1 bow hearer, 1 lord warden's steward, 1 deputy surveyor, 1 assistant-deputy, 11 regarded, 14 groomkeepers, &n•—(Hear.) Among other expenses, he found that a dinner, at the public expense, was provided for the verderers and other officers on the 14th of September of each year ; and that another dinner was given to about fifty other people connected with the forest. — (Hear.) Now, he asked if it was not contemptible to keep up such a state of things as thi s ?—("Hear," f rom Colonel Sibthorp.) He was glad to hear that cheer from his Gallant Friend, and he knew that he Would be prepared to do his duty, and to speak out Manfully, as he always did on this question. He hoped that there would be a searching inquiry into this matter ; but, for God's sake let them have no uoremissioners to discharge such a duty.—(Hear.) lie had no hesitation in saying that if a portion of these lands were brought into the market they would realise a sum not less than 500,000/., and if that were added to the sum of 1,000,0001., which he had already ehow n could be saved, they had a round sum of nearly l; 60 0,000/., the exact amount of the window-tax.— lle would call the attention of the Noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) to the miasma which prevailed in this great uncultivate l waste of land, which stretched like a cloaca maxima over the country, spreading disease and death among the people; and he thought that even in this point of view the subject was not u nworthy the attention of the Noble L ord.—(Rear, bar.) he recollected that when he first brought forward this subject he was met by the then Chan cellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) with the c l ue 'llon,.whether he was able to produce any sani tary report bearing upon the point. He had sanitary reports in his possession which bore strongly upon the questi on . I n a re p or t from North Shields, he found it stated that the number of windows was greatly diminished by the window-tax, -and that ar- rangements for ventilation were thereby interfered with. From Sunderland, also, it was reported that there had been a blocking up of numerous windows to escape the tax, and that this was a primary cause of sickness and mortality.—(Hear, hear.) Dr. Reid had given a strong opinion as to the effect of the tax in limiting the number of windows among the dwellings of the poor; and Mr. Mar tin, of North Shields, had also pointed out how much it interfered to keep out light and air from the houses of all classes by the blocking up of windows in that town. He, for one, could not be indifferent to the blocking up of windows that was going on in this manner in the northern parts of the kingdom, because he trusted he never should forget that it was an inhabitant of this very town (North Shields) who, when an ancestor of his had his colours shot away, mounted, and once more nailed them to the mast. In conclusion, he would exhort the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to recollect that retrench ment and economy had ever been the battle cry of the party to which he belonged, and ‘N hieh had placed him in power. He would appeal to all the Members of that House to relieve the working people of this country from an impost which was accompanied with many grievances and evils ; and, last of all, he would make his appeal to that Divine Providence which, by giving to man light and air, showed how necessary that blessing was to the maintenance of the human constitution.—(Hear.) " Ohl Lord of light and air, Oh, King! oh, Father! hear my humble prayer: Dispel this cloud; the light of heaven restore; Grant us to see, and England asks no more. If we must perish we'll thy will obey; But let us perish in the face of day." (Cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving the total repeal of the window duties. Mr. lIUME seconded the motion. There was a rule laid down by all political economists, that that tax which was subject to the greatest amount of ex ceptions was the worst that could be imposed. — (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), two sessions ago, proposed the abolition of the auction duties ; and he gave it as an admirable speci men of a law existing where the amount received was the exception to the amount collected. Only 201. out of every 1001. collected, he believed, reached the Ex chequer. Besides, lie showed that there were 18 dif ferent kinds of property exempted from this tax. What was the case of the window-tax? In the first place, Ireland paid no part of it.--(Hear, hear.) It was a tax upon England and Scotland alone, and whilst we had to pay additional taxes for the sup port of Ireland, was that country alone to be exempted from this one? That of itself ought to be a strong reason for its repeal. It appeared also that houses below a certain rate were exempted. He believed that about three-fourths of the houses were thus free from it. Did not that show that it must be a grievous tax to call for all these ex emptions? When the House interfered by their taxation with the health and comfort of the people, the result must necessarily be most disastrous. The time was come when there must be a reform in our system of taxation.—(Hear, hear.) He considered this to be one of the most mischievous of the number; and one of the grounds for his seconding the motion of the Noble Lord was that he might show the coun try, by the division which would take place upon it, who were, and who were not, friends of the poor. He wanted to see how those Hon. Members would vote who were usually loud in their desire for the im provement of the moral and religious character of the country, for he held that until you could place the mass of the people in an adequate state of phy sical comfort, a large portion of the expenditure for moral and religious purposes would be utterly lost.—(llear, hear.) lie agreed with the Noble Lord that the royal forests were a burden to this country, and ought to be sold. It was the duty of the House, when the trappings of royalty became expensive and pressed upon the wants of the community to take measures for abridging them. He felt very serious on this point, and he assured the House that these were not the times for trifling on such subjects. The House ought to look at the situation of the mass of the people, and try to reduce their burdens to art extent which would afford them real relief.—(Hear, hear.) Taking, off a trifle here and a trifle there would not answer the purpose. - The public expected greater relief and they looked to the Government to give it to them. It was the duty of the Government to originate such reforms. The House could only aid them in carrying them out. He hoped the division to-night would show that a large portion of the House was favourable to the re peal of the tax then under consideration. Colonel SIBTHORP had sincere gratification in supporting the motion of the Noble Lord, and he cor dially thanked him - for the manly course lie had taken in opposition to the Ministry. He fully agreed with the Noble Lord, that if they were to institute a searching inquiry into the abuses of their expenditure, retrenchment might be effected to an extent that would enable them to get rid cf this and many other taxes. But this would be attended with con siderable trouble and inconvenience, and the Govern ment would of course resist it. There was a total indifference on the part of Government as to what became of the people, so long as they filled their own pockets and enjoyed their own comfort.—(Laughter.) With respect to the window-tax, if it was to be main tained, it ought not to be put upon the dwellings of the poor, but upon the mansions; of the rich. The Government offices ought to he made pay. The gen tlemen who were revelling in Downing-street, whose houses were furnished, for aught he knew, out of the secret service fund—(Renewed laughter)—and who gave dinner after dinner to each other, ought to be made to pay. He would have this secret service fund examined into also. The very word " secret" carried with it a suspicion that something was going on that ought not to go on. He would not be sur prised to hear that some of it had gone to the case of Dr. Hampden.—(Continued laughter.) He repeated that he would cordially support the Noble Lord in his present motion, for he considered it as at present levied to be a disgraceful, dirty, shabby, and uncon stitutional mode of raising money. Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to say a few words in support of the present motion, for he felt it was unnecessary to do more after the able speech of the Noble Lord, not only then but on former occa sions; and more especially as the unjust and oppres sive nature of the tax was so self-evident. To this moment the justice of the tax remained unvindicated. IThe Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet risen, but he (Sir De Lacy Evans) had listened to his pre decessors on former occasions, and he had never heard from them anything approaching to vindication of the justice of this tax. He knew very well that it was often alleged, in a vague and general way, that there was no tax whatsoever but some particular grievance or objection might be brought against it. But he took leave to say that this did not apply to the present case—for whether they looked at it in dividually or generally it was absolutely indefeasible. The humbler classes wore made to pay at the rate of 20 or 30 per can?, while the opulent classes paid only 1, lk, 2k, or per 'cent. Could such a tax as that be defended ?—(Heir, hear.) He agreed with the Noble Lord regarding the royal forests. The country de rived no sort of advantage from them whatsoever. Some 800 or 500 years ago they were a luxury to the monarch ; but for some hundreds of years past they had been merely deserts, as the Noble Lord had said, except in regard to furnishing some snug berths for members of the aristocracy and the humbler sup porters of the Governments which had succeeded each other from time to time in this country.—(Hear, hear.) He did think that they might be very well disposed of. Among the items of expenditure brought forward by the Noble Lord to show the necessity of increased taxation were the expenses of the Kafir war; but it ought to be remembered that this item appeared only fur the present year, and was not likely to be repeated.—(Hear, hear.) He firmly believed that the people of this country, notwithstanding the temporary distress—for temporary he believed it to be—which pressed upon the community, and which at present threw a gloom urn the operations of com merce as well as other matters—he believed that not withstanding these circumstances the great body of the people were perfectly willing to contri bute to the necessary expenses of Government; and that they ware also capable of supplying the means for those expenses. It was not the amount of those expenses which created the annoyance and irritation on the mind of the public, so much as the unjust and unequal distribution of the taxes —(llear, hear.) Nothing had so much tended to produce the French revolution—he spoke of the first revolution, not of the present one---(Hear, hear)—as the convic tion on the part of the people that their fiscal burdens were unjustly and unequally distributed. He would suggest a small addition to the budget for the consi deration of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he meant the probate duty on real property.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was scarcely any item of taxation the omission of which had had ?. stronger effect on the feelings of the people than this. It was felt to be unjust that the hardly-earned produce of industry should repeatedly and constantly, and in the small amounts in which it was realised, be subjected to a heavy probate duty, while the transmission of the property of the great and wealthy had no tax of a similar nature whatever. He trusted that this snbject would receive the early aid serious attention of Government.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER—I do not know that the office which I have the honour —however unworthily—to fiil is at any time remark ably agreeable. It is certainly, however, as disagree able an office as any one can possibly occupy when the country is suffering distress, and when it is my painful duty—however reluctantly—to increase taxa• tion. On the present occasion I have another painful duty to discharge in resisting the remission of a tax which has been described to-night in no very mea sured terms as odious and vexatious. I confess that I think that the proposition to repeal the window-tax, or, indeed, any tax at present, was sufficiently answered by the speech of my Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) the ther night—(Hear, hear)—when my Noble Friend was called upon unwillingly to propose to the House additional taxation to the amount of 3,000,0001. I think it would be unwise if we were to part with the window tax. There is an old fable, that we can bear the bur dens we have been accustomed to more easily than we can bear the imposition of new burdens ; and surely those who are anxious to avoid fresh taxation can hardly ask us, in our present cipcumstances, to give up a tax which yields about 1,600,0001. or 1,700,000/. a year.—(Hear, hear.) When I look at the notice paper, I find various Hon. Members struggling for the revision of taxation ; but they are not all of them quite so kind as my Noble Friend in proposing a sub stitute. Bat I must say, when my Noble Friend accuses us of being spendthrifts, that his proposal of disposing of our capital (by the sale of the royal forests) is by no means the most thrifty mode of dealing with our property. I think it right also to state, that the offices in connexion with the royal forests, to which the Noble Lord referred, are mere honorary appointments. The House would naturally suppose, from the statement of the Noble Lord, that these great personages were a heavy charge upon the public revenue, whereas he might have told the House that the emolument, like the timber to which he referred, was—nil.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to timber for the royal navy, the Noble Lord supposes these forests are of no use whatever ; but the fact is, that at the present time, when the whole world is open to us, timber is imported from abroad. The chief expense incurred is in enclosing and protecting those plantations, which will hereafter, as in former days, insure a good supply for the navy when foreign timber may not be so accessible. This is the object for which the forests are kept up, not as the useless appendages of royalty, as the Noble Lord described them. The Noble Lord now proposes to repeal the window duties ; and the third motion, lower on the notice paper, to be brought forward to night by an Hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Evart), con templates the abolition of the Excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks, the duties on butter and cheese, and the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine. Now, really, Sir, in the present state of our finances, these propositions are not a little serious. I have taken the trouble to ascertain what is the produce of these various duties. The window duties and the excise on paper soap, and bricks, yield to the revenue in round numbers 4,000,000/, a year. The usual proposition for reducing the duty on tea is from 2s. 11d. to ls., on wine to 2s. 6d. per gallon, and on tobacco from 3s. to ls. per lb. The produce of these duties is upwards of 11,000,0001., and taking the proposed reduction to be about one-half, it would occasion a loss of revenue of more than 5,000,0001.; to which we must add the 4,000,000/. of loss from the repeal of the first-named duties, making in all a sacrifice of no less than 9,000,0001. I appeal to the common sense of Hon. Members whether, in the present state of our finances, the proposal now submitted, and that other about to be submitted by: my Hon. Friend, are practicable, or such as any Government could think of acceding to. My Honourable Friend the Member for Dum fries has, to be sure, a proposition to substitute for the duties he would reduce and repeal, a system of direct taxation on realised property; that is, on all property under schedules A and C, now producing about 3,000,000/.; the Honourable Gentleman would quadruple the present amount of taxation, a propo sition which even those most enamoured of a tax on realized property may well view with alarm.— (Hear, hear.) Objections have been urged to the mode in which the window duties are levied. Sir, when it is said that this is one of those taxes which exclusively press on the poor, I must take the liberty of altogether denying the state ment. We have been constantly told during the last four or five years by those who seek the repeal of duties most onerous to the humbler classes, and admit there is considerable truth in the argument, that the most advantageous mode of benefiting the poor is to take off the taxes on corn and the necessa ries of life, imposing instead direct taxation; and yet we have heard to-night Gentlemen who always advocated this course insist that the window duty, which comes nearer to a property-;ax than any other now existing 'in the country, should be remitted for the benefit of the poorer classes of the' community.--(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose objects to the tax, because there are so many exemptions. What are those exemptions ? They are invariably in favour of the lower orders. Speaking generally, of 3,500,000 houses, only 500,000 are subject to this window duty, 8,000,000 being exempt. What houses are exempt ? Not those of the nobility and gentry, but the smallest description of houses, occu pied from one end of the country to the 'other by the poorest classes. I don't mean to say there are not houses with fewer than eight windows inhabited by persons of property S it is impossible to deal with two or three exceptional cases. The lower class of houses, in which the poor reside, are exempt from this tax ; therefore, to call it a tax imposed by the wealthy on the poor is a most extraordinary perver sion of the real facts of the case. The exceptions are almost invariably in favour of persons who do not beneficially occupy the houses. My Honourable and Gallant Relative (Colonel Sibthorp) would put a tax on public offices ; but what would the public gain by that ? I should have to propose in the miscel laneous estimates a sum of money to !pay a tax on the windows of the Treasury, where the clerks sit at their duty ; we should thus be paying from one hand into another ; nothing could result from such a ceremony but inconvenience, and possibly some loss in the transfer. To suppose that the public would gain by the process is the most preposterous idea ever propounded by my Honourable and Gallant Relative.—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord talked of the exemption of agricultural housee ; but all buildings occupied for the purposes of trade and manufacture are also exempt from the window-tax. That, again, is an exemption in favour of the industrious classes. Those only pay who inhabit dwelling-houses. The Noble Lord also spoke of the extraordinary amount raised on the lower description and the small amount raised on the higher class of houses. Why is it so ? Because the lower class is greatly more numerous. — . (Hear, hear.) Of the 500,000 houses in the king dom subject to the tax there are 314,000 with 15 windows and under. If you mean to tax only the large houses of the: rich you will hare. no produce from your taxation. If it be necessary to raise a large amount of taxation, you may take it as an indisput able fact that you must render it payable by a large number of persons. If you confine your tax to a small number at the top of the tree the produce of it will be very small, even if you increase your impost to confis cation. The Noble Lord, speaking on the subject of the window duties, referred to the arguments urged in 1833 in favour of the repeal of the house tax, as if that pressed most heavily on the richer portion of the community. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the window tax, taking town and country together, bears most severely on the higher classes. Referring to-day to the returns connected with the inhabited house duty, I found that the houses of the !nobility and gentry paid much less than the window-duty. I myself paid 821. for window duty, whereas I used to pay to the house-tax 141. I should, therefore, have benefited twice as much if the window-tax had been removed as I now do by the remission of the house-tax. There is no doubt considerable objection to this tax, and if there were any other mode of raising the same amount of duty, I should be exceeding glad. I have been in communication with the Chairman of Stamps and Taxes and the officers of that Board, and we have had under consideration various schemes for improving the mode of rating to the window duty, and removing the objections which I admit there are to it; but my Noble Friend and the deputation that waited upon me some time ago said that to amend the scale, and to put an end to the inequalities that existed , would be of no use ; end although I did venture to ask whether they preferred the tax levied in. another way, I could not discover that they had any such proposition to make. Their only proposition, and the only one made in this House is the absolute repeal of the tax ; but that is one which, in the present state of the finances of the country, however painfrd it may be not to take off a tax to which so strong an ob jection is made, I feel it to be my duty to oppose. After a few words in explanation from Ear D. L. EVANS, Mr. R. PALMER felt it impossible, in the present state of the finances of the country, to give a vote in favour of this motion, though he looked upon the tax itself as the most objectionable of those which remained unrepealed.—(llear, hear.) lie was an advocate of direct taxation; but of such direct taxation as should interfere least with the industry of the country. The window-tax was one, which interfered directly with the employment of capital and labour, and he saw no reason why the same amount could not be raised in the way of an :tddition to the income-tax rather than by a windo w duty, which interfered with the manufacture of glass, and consequently the employment of labour. If the tax was to be supported on the principle of an income tax why not snake it one ?—(Hear, hear.) As show ing the gross inequality of the tax, he four.d, taking the twelve towns which contributed the gretatest pro portion of the tax, that Plymouth (which he repre sented) paid 11,3261. a year to the window -tax, while Leeds paid only 7,789/., though he would vunture to say that Leeds represented more than ten times the wealth of Plymouth. Another objection to the tax was that it interfered with the health of ilat class of people whom they ought most to consider — of mechanics and others who now dtislt in cellars and herded together in dark, confined, and us shealthy rooms, and for whom the Noble Lord (Ashlkay) and other benevolent persons, were endeavouring to pro vide more healthy habitations.—(Hear, hear.) The House, he thought, ought to make a determined stand against a tax which operated so unequally art a in a manner so injurious to the industrious classes. Mr. WAKLEY—The Hon. Member for Ply! pouth FRIDAY EVENING, had made an excellent speech against the window tax, and how he could have the firmness to resist the influence of his own arguments, and vote against the motion, he (Mr. Walsloy) could not understand. — (Hear, and a laugh.) The lion. Member had not only spoken generally against the tax, but had adduced a special case against it, and though he represented the injured people of Plymouth, they were to fled his vote recorded against the proposition. Of what use could representation be if this was the mode in which they acted ?—(Hear.) The declaration of the Hon. Member must, he thought, be very discouraging to those who sent him there, thought it must be very encouraging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And as that Right Hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by alluding to the unfortunate position of the person who filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped now, after the speech of the Hon. Member for Plymouth, and his declaration that he intended to support the Government against this m otion, that he felt himself more comfortable. A s trong dose of chloroform could scarcely make him more easy.—(A laugh.) The public, however, would after this feel no disappointment at the rejection of the motion. All hope of retrenchment from the present Ministry had gone by. lie was sorry to say it ; but that was his conviction, and that, too, was the im• pression of the public out of doors.—(Hear, hear.) The public had looked with great confidence to the present Government. He had never seen more public confidence exhibited for any Ministry than that of the Noble Lord. The public had entertained great respect for the present Ministry ; but that was all over now.—(Bear, hear.) He wished the Noble Lord would go down to the City, and see his com mittee there. He would be astonished at the recep tion he would meet with now in the turtle-soup eating quarter.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Wakley) regretted that there should he occasion for suck a change of feeling; but it had taken place, and not without reason.—(Hear, hear.) Still Ministers must have great hopes of the House of Commons after the speech of the Hon. Member for Plymouth. He hoped, however, that though this motion might fail, many others of the same kind would be made, and that the feeling of the llouse would be tested over and over again on the subject of reduction of taxation, and that the people might know who were and who were not fur re trenchment. But with regard to this window duty it was one of the most odious taxes ever imposed. It was only second to the income• tax in iniquity. It was injurious in a variety of ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was evidently mistaken in his view of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman believed— and, no doubt, sincerely believed—that this tax did not press unjustly upon the industrious classes. The Right Hon. Gentleman made use of the term " lower orders" more than once during his speech. He (Mr. Wakley) did not understand exactly where the lower orders were to be found a, amongst men, though he did as amongst animals. But the Right lion. Gentle man argued that the tax did not press upon the indus trious classes, because small houses were exempt ; but did not the Right lion. Gentleman know that in all large towns, where land was valuable, the object of the proprietors was to build high houses, and locate as many people in them as they could ? Did he not know that the great mass of the working classes were lodgers and not housekeepers ? How , many instances were there in which eight, ten, and even twelve persons were living together in one room with a single window ? That was the case not only in the metropolis, but in all large manufacturing towns throughout the kingdom. This tax operated therefore as a curse upon the labouring classes ; it was injurious to their health, destructive of their comfort, and highly prejudicial to their morals.— (Hear, hear.) They were told that this was the nearest approach to an income-tax. If so, that with him would be a sufficient reason for detesting the income-tax. Had the Right lion. Gentleman, who had resolved to maintain this tax, considered how it interfered with trade and industry ? Had he con sulted architects on the subject—and did he not know that it prevented all improvements in architecture, and in that way robbed the people of at least 100,0001. a year in the employment of labour ? On that ground, if there was no other, the tax ought to be repealed.—(Hear.) He' was aware that there was no hope of the repeal of this tax from the present Government. Ministers would however know in a few days that the people would not submit to any increase. of taxation for any purpose.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) still laboured under that hallucination by which lie had recently been possessed, as to the probability of war breaking out, common sense out of doors would soon restore his mind to perfect sanity.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The Noble Lord had denied that his speech, on intro ducing his financial statement, was intended as a war speech ; but, though he did not intend it to be a war speech, his language led people in that House and ou t of doors to bc..li,r c that wo wire approaching a period when this country would be liable to attacks from a foreign nation.—(Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said he had explained, yester day, what he had intended to say. Mr. WAK LEY was glad to hear the explanation But the people were informed that they must submit to increased taxation, and it was but natural for a thinking people to inquire for what purpose they were to be thus over-taxed. An ignorant people might submit to injustice, but an enlightened and thinking people would not submit to it long. The people of England considered the principle of taxation was un just, and that it was in favour of property and against the industry of the country.—(Bear, hear.) That was the general opinion out of doors, and he hoped there were many in that How e who concurred in it.— (Hear, hear.) Considering the great talent of the Government, the means they had of acquiring in formation, the many times subjects of finance had been considered by them, he did expect that they would have exercised retrenchment and have practised economy. Ile believed, however, that they had made no inquiry, but had come down recklessly and th o ughtlessly with their budget and their project for adding to the burdens of the people—a proposition which had created much excitement and discontent both in and out of the House, and which would increase unless the Noble Lord relaxed in his propositions. The equalisation of the land tax would produce almost two millions a year, but that the Government would not entertain. The legacy and probate duty on real property would also produce a large revenue. Could any man contend that personal property should be subject to the duty now imposed upon it, while real property escaped ?—(Hear, hear.) If one farthing; W, i 00 0 01. in manlan d l , e sftlool. successor to a paid a nota n I but faithful serva nt, he must pay 10/. to the Government before he c ould hav e the money. What could he more unjust? For y e ars past the principle of taxing in this country had been most unjust to the industrious c l asses , and the window d u t y was one o f th e m os t I unjust taxes of all. It commenced at a low scale, but when it touched the shopkeeper and the: trades man—the man who had to get his bread by the exercise of his industry and his intellect—the screw was put on to the highest point ; and, when, again, it reached the aristocracy, it was reduced to the lowest point.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would apply itself to the subject of finance and taxation, and resist every extravagant expendi ture on the part of the Minister—that they would investigate every item with the most strict scrutin. If they did t his, he b elieved they might greatly reduce the taxes, and then it would be for them to apportion what remained fairly over the surface of society. He hoped the Noble Lord (Duncan) would press his motion to a division, and he would support him.—(Hear.) Mr. A. STAFFORD remarked upon the differ ence of opinion between the advocates of free trade, some being in favour of direct taxation, and others against it—which difference had been foretold by the Protectionists. It was a fallacy to say y that the lower classes were benefited by the reduction of the duties on the necessaries of life ; and the more taxes were removed because they protected particular in terests, the more would the working classes suffer. He contended that the great aggregate of the taxes must be levied by indirect, and not by direct tax ation. Mr. MGREGOR would support the motion if it could be shown that the public service would not suffer if this tax were repealed. There was no more odious tax, not even the excise ; and if they could find the means of ought raising an equal amount of revenue by any other means, it to la, at once repealed. This tax was most oppressive upon the poorer classes, and ought at least to be equally distributed. He should much prefer a house tax, if deducted from the rent paid to the landlord, but not otherwise. Mr. F. O'CONNOR inferred, from the statement that while 500,000 houses only were . subject to the tax, 3,000,000 were not liable to it, that many of those 3,000,000 of houses had their windows shut up in order to avoid the tar, —(Hear, hear.) As the representative sof a popular constituency he would vote for its repeal. ced the ta x which • on the ground of Captain PECHELL opposed o the injustioe and grievances vt it gave rise to ; in proof of which he had only to refer to the fact, that out of 620 cases of assessed taxes deterrxined before the judges of appeal between 1840 and 1847, 26 of them were for windows. He opp?sed it also as an obstacle to the full carrying out of sanitary reform.—(Hear.) Lord ASHLEY, as Member for Bath, f e lt i t necessar y to explain the vote he s hould glve. Ile concurred in a great deal that had fallen from his Noble Colleague, from the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and indeed from all those lion. Members who had spoken of this tax as in jurious to and oppressive upon all clas ses , b ut part i cu lark upon the occupiers of small tenements and lodging houses ; and when be viewed it in a sanitary point of view he felt it was impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs that arose from it.- -(Hear, hoar.) He had no hesitation in saying; that without a total and absolute repeal of the window duties no sanitary measures would be effective, or place t he people in that physical condition which acted so directly upon their moral welfare. Ho told his constituents at a public meeting a few days ago, that if the Government were about to ' propose a large increase of taxation, as was then ex pected they would simultaneously with a reduction of taxation, this was the very first tax that ought to be effaced from the statute-book.—(Hear, hear.) But he coupled that opinion with this declaration, that he would not give a vote that might have the effect of impeding the, machines of government, or of endangering in the least degree the credit of the country. And he could not but feel, looking to the present state of the revenue, and to the announcement of the Prime Minister that there was a deficiency of 3,000,0001. which, compelled him to propose a large increase of taxation, that to call for a further reduction, by the repeal of this tax, of 1,600,0001., would be almost tantamount to proposing a species of national bankruptcy. lie could not, therefore, concur with his Noble Colleague in the proposition he now made to the House. It was extremely painful to him to net in opposition to the wishes of a constituency who had trusted him with such singular generosity, but he conceived that Members of that House laad duties to perform from which such a consideration should not in duce them to swerve. Mr. AGLIONBY fully agreed with the Noble Lord, that a Member of that House, even to please his consti tuents, ought not to give a vote which he considered would have the effect of impeding the machine of go vernment or endangering the public credit; but he (Mr. Aglionby), in voting for the repeal of the window-tax, while he acted in accordance with the feelings of his constituents, did not consider that he would incur either of the disasters pointed out by the Noble Lord. He believed, on the contrary, that such a reduction of the national expenditure might be made as would enable the Government to remove this odious tax without having recourse to any other in its stead.—(hear.) Mr. COWAN gave a hearty support to the motion, and took occasion to comment upon the hardships to which the paper manufacturers were subjected by the operation of the Excise, and to declare his determina tion to support every measure, come from what quarter it might, which should tend to diminish the burdens and consequently tho sufferings of the poor, or to promote the industry of the people. Mr. MO WATT likewise supported the motion, be lieving that the window-tax, both in principle and effect, was most unjust and unequal, and nothing more nor less than a blundering, circuitous, and demoralising income tax. Even the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor'of the Exchequer had admitted the evils of this tax, and that at the very same time that the Government were pro posing sanitary measures which would lose their very basis unless this proposition were carried out. He (Mr. Mowatt) contended that there existed other sources of revenue more likely to be less objectionable and injurious to tho public at large. Ho (Mr. Mowatt) protested against the argument of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those who opposed these window duties were bound to find a substitute to supply the de ficiency to the revenue which their repeal might create. That duty properly belonged to the Government of the country, and unless the Government discharged that duty he (Mr. Mowatt) held :that it failed in the fulfil ment of the functions which it had undertaken.—(hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had remarked that it would have a bad effect upon the public if on the present occasion all the argument should be in favour of the present proposition, and that the votes of the House should run in an opposite direction. Such, however, might be the case if any particular tax was discussed upon its own merits. He (Lord J. Russell) had yet never heard any Hon. Gentleman say that any tax was a positive good in itself—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he defied any Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove that of itself that tax was good, or that it ought to be kept up for the good of the community. The Hon. Member for the city of Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), who had just spoken, had declared that the excise duties upon the com modity (paper) which he manufactured were vexatious, and imposed an annoyance upon the subjects of the realm engaged in its manufacture. That allegation he (Lord John Russell) did not deny.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that all excise taxes were liable to that objection. Again, the Honourable Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) had announced his intention to move this day for the abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks, the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine, as well as for the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese—any loss of revenue which might thereby occur to be supplied by a direct taxation on realised property. These points might be discussed, but when the House came to the end of the discussion they would find themselves, by the adoption of the arguments by which each proposition had been supported, minus not 9,000,000/., but some 10,000,0001. or 11,000,0001 — (Hear, hear.) Then came the argument stated by the Hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), that the revenue could not spare the loss of tho resources derived from this quarter. But it was said that it be hoved the Government to lay down the system of taxa tion which they, as a Government, would adopt as a substitute for the loss sustained by the repeal of the impost arising from the window duties. The experience of former years, coupled with that which the events of the last few days fur nished him, did not convince him (Lord J. Russell) that the course recommended by the Noble Lord wise that which the Government ought to adopt. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that by indirect taxation much good might be done; but at the same time he was of opinion that if the window-tax was taken off, the country would find that there were limits beyond which direct taxation could not be carriod.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, in the course of the present debate some Hon. Gentlemen had expressed their regret that the Government should have adhered to the window duties—a tax, as they said, only less odious than the income-tax.—(Hear.) On the whole he was obliged to come to the conclusion, that although the window-tax was objectionable, still the Government had not the means to give it up; and though his Right lion. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been challenged to find a substitute, he (Lord J. Russell) could not recommend to the House the adoption of any such repeal or alteration as that which had been proposed. lie must also confess that, considering the merits of this particular tax—considec ing the obligations by which the country was bound to the public creditor--considering that those obligations were bound and secured by Acts of Parliament—he should certainly, and with a good conscience, vote against the motion of his Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. EWART supported the motion, and contended that it was the duty of the Government not merely to abandon the window duties, but to take a large and comprehensive view of the whole system of taxation; if not the people would demand a rigid and searching in vestigation in order to secure justice to the commerce, manufactures, and labour of the country.---(Hear, hear.) Dr. BOWRING supported the motion, and contended that a dimunition of the expenditure of the country would enable the Government to remove the obnoxious window duties. Since 1835, the expenditure of the country had increased from 14,100,0001., until, in 1847, it had reached 22,500,000/., being an increase within that com paratively short space of time of nearly 8,000,0001. Such was the real state of things, and though he sup ported the present motion, he was assured that no bene fit would accrue to the nation except from .a very conside rable reduction in its expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) Lord R. GROSVENOR, who spoke in so low a tone as scarcely to be audible, was understood to support the motion brought forward by his Noble Friend the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan). Sir R. PEEL said that he, for one, could not assent to the proposition that it was the duty of the Government, in the present state of the financial affairs of the country, to consent to any diminution of the window duties. — (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear from the Right llon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intended, and had it in his power, to effect some alteration in the anomalous manner in which the tax was levied, and which existed under the laws now in force and effect. He (Sir R. Peel) hoped that the Go vernment or the Right Hon. Gentleman would not be deterred from pursuing the course they had laid down, by the fact that some metropolitan deputations had waited -- upon them on the subject. He assured the Noble Lord at the head of the Government that no deputation, metropolitan or otherwise, would be able to reply to the question, " Will you find a substitute for the tax you seek to abolish?" On the contrary, if these deputations were asked to propose the substitu tion of another tax far that which they sought to get rid of, ho would advise the Noble Lord and the Government to throw overboard the adoption of suggestions and principles which, as regarded taxation of articles of con sumption, would prove to be futile and unavailing. He (Sir R. Peel) could bear full testimony that the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had exhi bited on this question a zeal and ability on the present occasion ; but he ought to have waited until the Chan cellor of the Exchequer promised a diminution of taxa tion, when the Noble Lord might put in his claim that the window tax should be inclnded in that diminution. Without going into the question of the demerits of all taxes, or to the question of the substitution of one tax for another, feeling that it would unpalatable in any shape, he should reserve himself until Monday next for the exposition promised. At present he could not Fire a silent vote, because in his opinion it was impossible, under the existing circumstances of the country, to dis pense with the tax upon which the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Bath had to-night made an attack. Mr. CABBELL expressed his entire concurrence in the motion, the object of which was to get rid of an impost which was not only severe but prejudicial to the health and best interests of the whole community. Lord DUNCAN briefly, replied, and the House divided, when there appeared— ,For the motion .•• ••• •.• 68 Against it ... ... 160-92 APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a power of appeal in criminal cases. He regretted the absence from the H ouse of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kel l y ) who had originally introduced a measure on this important subject; but as such a Bill had already been considered he would content himself with stating its leading features. By this Bill he (Mr. Ewell') proposed to grant an appeal in criminal cases in three forms—first, in the form of a new trial; secondly, in the form of a motion in arrest of judgment; and lastly, as at nisi prius by the process of entering after appeal heard a judgment for the prisoner. The Bill also gave power to the judge before whom a prisoner might be tried to assign him counsel and attorney, and contained also a proviso that the prisoner should be furnished with a copy of the indictment. The Bill also contained clauses providing for the pay ment of the costs incurred by the prosecutor and his witnesses in the case of an appeal. Such were the general provisions of the measure he sought to intro duce; but on the second reading, which ho would fix for some day in the ensuing week, he should be happy to hear, and, if possible, adopt any suggestion which might be made. He, however, now moved for leave to bring in the Bill. Lord NUGENT seconded the motion. Sir G. GREY said it was not the intention of the FEBRUARY 25, 1848. Government to offer any opposition to tho introduction of this Bill. But, in consenting to its introduction, he wished to be clearly understood that he by no means assented to the provisions which might be embodied in the measure. The subject was one of great importance, and he had not been able to collect from the Hon. Gentleman's statement what the provisions might be. It was, therefore, desirable that the Bill should be laid on the table of the House, and then they would be better able to discuss it. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not fix so early a day as he had named (Wednes day next) for the second reading. Much would depend on the machinery by which he proposed to carry the measure into effect ; he feared great difficulty would be found in carrying out the plan proposed. It was of great importance that the promptitude and certainty of punishment which attached to the conviction of guilty persons should be preserved. If the Hon. Gentleman proposed to assimilate criminal trials to civil proceedings, he would find that that plan would altogether fail ; for the verdicts were given in a way entirely different, and if a doubt existed in a criminal proceeding the prisoner had the benefit of that doubt. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER, SOAP, &c. Mr. EW ART said he should not persevere in his other motion, which stood next in the paper:—" To move the abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks; the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine ; and the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese ; any loss of revenue which may occur to be replaced by direct taxation on realised property." Ile would not press this motion for these reasons ; the subject of taxation had been under discussion all the evening, and it would be re-argued more fully and generally next Monday.— (Hear, hear.) He therefore thought it more desirable to wait and see whether a general committee on taxation was appointed, or what other measure was adopted. LL m l o N r G ed OF for Il e e a k v ß e E t S o . lie should postpone this motion until a future day. Mr. COLVILLEKI bring in a Bill " to enable all occupiers of land having a right to kill hares on that laud to do so, by themselves or persons authorised by them,without being required to take out a game certificate." Under the existing laws, he observed, farmers were subject to great inconveniences, particu larly those who occupied small holdings. He had spe cially guarded in the Bill against any abuses that might arise from the permission proposed to be given ; and he hoped the Government would not oppose the introduc tion of the Bill. Sir G. GREY said he thought the proposal a very reasonable one, and as he conceived it would not deduct a shilling from the revenue he should raise no objection to its introduction. Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to observe that the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who had a notice on the paper for a sill to repeal the game laws, was not in his lace. Sir Ca. GREY—He is not going to bring it on. Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to hear that, as the Honourable Member for Manchester was the person who had obtained the appointment of the Committee on the game-laws, and had taken up the question so as to make it his own ; otherwise he (Mr. Stafford) might have submitted a motion on the subject. However, he would now call public attention to the fact that the first movement on this subject did not come from a free-trader, but from a Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, and holding opinions in favour of protection.—(Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY, Colonel SIBTHORP alluded to the two bulky volumes of evidence which had been taken before the Committees on the game-laws, and said that the motion of the lion. Member for Manchester, like many other of his motions, appeared likely to end in smoke; there would be " much cry and little wool."—(Laughter.) Two volumes of evidence had been produced, and witnesses without end had been examined, at an enormous expense to the coun try.—[Here Mr. Bright entered the House, amidst loud cheering.] He was now glad to see that Hon. Gentle - MLA on his perch.--(Laughter.) It seemed that lion. Member had failed in eliciting any good result out of the numerous allegations that had been made; and had he (Colonel Sibtkorp) done so, ho should have ,consi dered himself called on to pay the expenses to which the country had been put by the inquiry.—(Laughter.) He hoped the House would" largely pause" before granting any more Committees on the motion of the Hon. Gen tleman.—(Bear.) Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of being ab sent when the lion. Member for South Derbyshire in troduced his motion ; nor had ho any intention of opposing that Bill. But he was sure the House would not consider it sufficient to meet the evils now known to exist in connexion with the preservation of game. The lion. Member for South Derbyshire must know extremely little of the working of the game-laws if he supposed that the placing of hares in the same category as rabbits would put a stop to the outrages which bad taken place throughout the country, and the thousands of convictions which every year occurred for offences under the game-laws. He had announced his intention, soon after the recess, of introducing a Bill to repeal these laws; he had not yet been able to bring it on, owing to other engagements, amongst which was the Committee on the growth of cotton in India. When that Committee had finished its labours, which he hoped would be in about a month, then lie proposed to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the entire and immediate repeal of the game-laws, in order that the law might no longer give any sanction to the practice of preserving game in a country so populous as this. The measure now proposed would not hinder him from bringing in tills Bill, which would go much further. Though considerable delay had taken place since the Committee on the game laws had reported, he did not think that the question had suffered in consequence. It would now come before the House with a much greater chance of a fair consi deration and of something real being done, for the public attention had been called to the evidence during the recess. lie had no intention of abandoning the question; and he hoped that when it was brought for ward he should have the support of the Hon. Member for North Northamptonshire.—(Cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said that if the game-laws were repealed, large districts of the country would remain unprotected, and it would be necessary to enact a law of trespass, which would bo more burdensome and onerous than the :present game-laws. He highly ap proved of the measure now proposed. Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to ask the Hon. Member for Manchester whether, in proposing the repeal of the game-laws, ho would substitute some adequate protec tion for the land? Mr. F. MAULE said he had endeavoured to intro duce a measure, two years ago, giving the tenant com pensation from the proprietor for the damage done by preserving game. A farmer had told him that 200 hares came in one day into a field of young grass. This proved the necessity of some such measure as that now proposed; he should therefore support it. But if it were proposed to do away with the game-laws altogether, the House would be bound to provide some adequate protection for the occupiers of land, whose fields would otherwise be run over and devastated without remedy. Mr. AGLIONBY, while admitting the evil of the game-laws, felt the necessity of giving landlords and farmers some protection, and, if possible, taking away the temptation to kill game. Whatever they did the rights of property must be maintained, Sir R. PEEL believed that the most effectual remedy for the evils attending the game-laws would be a strong impression, on the part of landed proprietors, that hares and rabbits in excessive quantities were very injurious to the productiveness of the soil. They would then be willing to consent to diminish that excessive quantity, and, by voluntary arrangement, would consent to the destruction of much of the game.—(Hear.) Ho could not help feeling that hares contributed very little to the enjoyment of real sportsmen. With regard to winged game the damage done was very little.—(Bear, hear.) He thought the Hon. Member for Manchester would find it a more difficult matter to deal with the genie laws than he seemed to apprehend. Did the Hon. gentleman mean to go so far as to prevent gentlemen from preserving game? lie did not suppose he meant to propose anything so arbitrary; if that were so, and if persons were allowed to traverse a gentleman's property for the purpose of killing game, they would have the country in a state of rural insurrection.—(Heela hear.) He had no objection to the motio n of the lion. Gentle man, but he should like to know what constructionh to he t was to put on the Sword .‘ occupier" having a rig kill hares. Mr. COLVILLE said that he did not mean that the word occupier • s hould extend to the case of a landlord who preserved hares himself, but only that the tenant to whom permission was given to kill hares by the land lord should be allowed to do so without a license. He meant to deal with hares as rabbits were dealt with. Mr. HUDSON was not aware that any objection could be made to the Bill of his Hon. Friend ; but he entirely disapproved of the measure which the Hon. Member for Manchester si g nified his intention ofintro ducing. It would be a gross violation of the rights of property to allow persons the right of coming on a man's land to kill game. He might as well enter the ware house of the lion. Gentleman and take out a piece of cotton. When the tenant took the land he took it sub ject to tho preservation of the game; the matter was a mere bargain between him and the landlord, and he had no right to complain of the injury done by the game. Mr. C. WOOD did not think the Hon. Member for Manchester intended to introduce any Bill which would interfere with the rights of property. With regard to the Bill before the House, the Hon. Gentleman had clearly explained what his object was, and it would have his cone arrence. Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of introdue ing any measure which would interfere with the rights of property. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. SHALL TENEMENTS. Mr. SCROPE, in introducing a Bill to exempt small tenements from local taxation, said that great hardship had been experienced front the operation of the law as it stood at present. The law had not clearly defined the line of exemption, and poor persons were obliged to prove before two tribunals before they could establish their right to be exempt. Mr. Rushton, the magistrate, of Liverpool, declared that he found the utmost diffi culty in deciding who ought to be exempt, and ho ought to pay rates. What be wished to effect, thwere fore, was to draw a clear line of distinction :between those two classes of persons, and for this purpose he proposed, that, in the rural districts, houses under the value of 51. should be exempt ; that in towns, which a population of between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, the exemption should extend to houses of the value of ; and in large towns, like Liverpool, that it should extend to houses of tho value of 101. lie considered that his measure would be a most beneficial auxiliary to the Sanitary Bill of the Noble Lord. Sir G. GREY did not object to the introduction of the measure, but be by no means undertook to support the Bill on its introduction. Ills objection to the prin. ciple of the measure remained unimpaired. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. GAME-LAWS. Mr. BRIGHT postponed his motion respecting tha game-laws till that day fortnight. LAW OF ENTAIL. The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of entail in Scotland. Mt considered that the evils of the present system were such as to call for an effectual remedy. The remedy he proposed had been long maturing; he was fully disposed to respect direct vested interests, but he thought it most desirable to remove the inconveniences now resulting from the more remote contingencies which attended entails in Scotland. He wished to give Scotch entails the same protection, and in the same way that was given to entails in England. He proposed to alter the age at which the heir to an entail should be legally qualified to act from twenty-one to twenty-five years. The Bill would give power to such heir t• disentail an estate—which was equivalent to what was styled in England "suffering a recovery," which should have been entailed after it had passed into a law, upon his reaching the age of 25 years. The Bill would also have a retrospective action, for he proposed to insert a provision whereby all entails already existing should be deemed as dating from the period of the passing of the Act, and the next successor to the estate born after the Act should be entitled to diaen• tail it on his attaining the age of 25 years. In oases where the consent of the next heir should be necessary for the :possessor of an estate to disentail it, he pro posed to give such power to the next immediate son, disregarding the claims of ulterior or collateral heirs. The Learned Lord entered into some further details respecting the measure, which were imperfectly com prehended in the reporter's gallery, and concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of entail in Scotland. Mr. C. BRUCE said that the Hon. and Learned Gen. tleman had rightly characterised the two principal laws of entail in Scotland, namely, the Montgomery Act and the Aberdeen Act, as being at the root of all the evils that prevailed in the system of land in that country. Ha had not in the least exaggerated the bad conse quences of those laws which, notwithstanding they had been framed for the express purpose of doing good, had rendered the position of landlords in Scotland quite in tolerable. He should defer all observations on the details of the Bill until he had enjoyed an opportunity of examining it and of understanding its details. the meantime he gave his cordial assent to the principle on which it was based. Mr. B. COCIIRANE concurred with the Hon. Mem ber who spoke last in his praise of the Bill, but thought it was deficient in not possessing a retrospective power over entails. Mr. SCOTT said, that in so far as the prospective operation of the Bill was concerned, it might do good in preventing the entailing of property at present unre stricted, but he feared that its retrospective provisions would find very little favour with the landed proprietors of Scotland. Mr. F. MACKENZIE saw many features in the Bill to which objection might be taken. He trusted that the Learned Lord would reconsider it previous to moving the second reading. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY would no i t commit himself to an opinion on the Bill until he hak,become acquainted with its details. All ho could say.was, that, as a pro fessional man, he should be glad to gite . tbe'Noble Lord every assistance in his power in oirrying it through the House. One feature of the Bill ,14,bsel heard described with great pleasure, namely, that• which gave it a re trospective as well as a prospective action. Nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the country than the present state of the law of entail in Scotland. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PASSENGERS BILL. Mr. LABOUCHERE moved the nomination of the Select Committee on the above Bill. Mr. WAKLEY asked whether it was intended t• make the superintendents of passenger-vessels medical men, or to make the employment of the latter compul sory? He could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman, that there would be no difficulty in finding a sufficient num ber of professional men for the duty. The Hon. Mem ber then read a letter from Mr. Carmichael, of Dublin, to the effect that that city alone could supply the neces sary number of fully qualified practitioners. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he hsd given the subject his best consideration, but could not think of rendering the employment of surgeons compulsory, in opposition to the advice of the Emigration Commissioners. Besides, he feared that medical men could not be got to fulfil the office of superintendent for the small remuneration of 204 and a free passage back. If qualified gentlemen would offer themselves on those terms, there was no doubt but that the Emigration Commissioners would give them the preference. Six hundred and twenty vessels had sailed with emigrants last year, and, notwithstanding what had been said by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he feared that there would be a difficulty in supplying such a number of vessels with surgeons. The Bill would be referred to a select Committee, where he would be happy to hear and to attend to any suggestions which the Hon. Member might offer. Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought that the best mode of pre serving the health of passengers would be to give the captaii,s of emigrant ships a bonus for each passenger they landed at the port of debarkation free from disease. The Committee wns then nominated:—Mr. Labou chere, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Herbert (Kerry), Mr. M. J. O'Con nell, Mr. Clements, Viscount Melgund, Col. Thompson, Mr. Forster, Mr. T. T. Hodges, Earl of Shelburne, Mr. W. Brown, and Mr. Monsell. LEASING OF MINES (IRELAND.) Sir W. SOMERVILLE, in moving for leave to bring in the above Bill, explained that its object was to remove certain restrictious which were at present imposed on the lessors of mines in Ireland.—Leave given. SLAVE TRADE. Mr. HUTT moved for the nomination of the following Select Committee on the Slave Trade :—Mr. Hutt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. E. Stanley, Mr. Hume, Earl of Lincoln, Mr. Cobden, Lord 11. Vane, Mr. Jackson, Sir H. H. Inglis, Colonel Thompson, Mr. E. Denison, Lord Cour tenay, Mr. Simeon, Mr. M. Milnes, and Lord J. Hay. Captain PECIIELL hoped the nomination would be postponed. He regretted to see that no Member of the Government was named. Mr. lIINDLEY asked why the name of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for South Essex, was not included in the Committee ? Mr. HUTT explained that the Hon. Baronet was en gaged on the West India Committee, which sat four times a week. For the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose avocations would prevent his attendance, he had substituted the name of the Hon. Member for Cheshire. Lord PALMERSTON was of opinion that the list was as fair a one as could hays been made. The Committee was appointel. PAPERS TO BE PRINTED. On the motion of Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, it was ordered that the petition of the electors of 'Walsall be printed with the votes. On the motion of Mr. GROGAN, it was ordered that the copy of the judgment pronounced by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, Ireland, in the case of " Dickson v. Pape," laid on the table of the House, Feb. 3, be printed. MR. ANSTEY'S MOTION. On the order of the day for the resumption of the de bate on this motion, deferred from Wednesday Mr. C. ANSTEY said he believed it devolved upon him to appoint the day for resuming this debate. The Noble Lord opposite, however, was in possession of the House, and he (Mr. Anstey) should be glad to consult his convenience on the subject. He would either sit there and hear his defence out now—(Great laughter, it being nearly one o'clock)—or he would name any day that would suit him.—(Cries of " Go on," followed by laughter and ironical cheering.) Viscount PALMERSTON was of eourso exceedingly anxious to proceed, but he really would not trouble the Hon. Gentleman " to sit there to hear him" to-night-- (A laugh)—for he feared if he did they should be very shortly p e rforming a duet together. — ( Much laughter.) The order had better stand for this day (Friday). The order was fixed accordingly. The House adjourned at Ten Minutes to One. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TRIIRSDAT, FEE. 24. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee:- 1. That in the case of the River Nene Improvement and Drainage petition, the standing erders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to pro cesd with their Bill, provided that the same be presented not later than three clear days after the presentation of this report. 2. That in the case of the Plymouth Great Western Dock Act Amendment petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be per mitted to proceed with their Bill. 3. Thr in the case of the Norwich and Yarmouth Navigation petition, the standing orders ought to be dis pensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the same be presented not later than three clear days after the presentation of this report. 4. That in the case of the Penzance Waterworks petition, the standing orders ought to be disSewnsiethci with:—That the parties be permitted to prq conoet later report. an ototno their Bill, provided that the same be presen tha s n . three cilneartheloayosaasofterotthtehparesie)enntzaat=o- his Waterworks petition, the standing orders o g be dispensed with. L ed on n d o o t n I Drainage aterthan oughtpGrree to be dispensed with s a e : petition, the e n s t t a h n e d i c n a g s case rp o dme f e e rtsh h i e e tted to proceed with their Bill, provided tha t the —That the parties be Great s h a t he case of the ast and est Looe Har bour after t e presEentationow,f , this report. 7 Bridge petitio n, the standin g orde rs ought to b t three r dispensed es Thatap e l el deaßr in ed with:—That the parties be permitted to w i t h their Bill, provided that the same be pre sentednot later than three clear days after the presen tationp r o e of ft in the hisreort. 8. e Thated case of the Merchant Traders Ship Loan and Insurance Company petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 9. That in the case of the Kilcullon Bridge Road petition, for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with. The Ist, 2d, 3d, 4th, Gth, and ith Resolutions agreed t0. , ---Report to lie on the table. The undernamed Railway Bill was ordered to be brought in:— Eastern Counties (Enlargement of London and Stratford Stations, and Amendment of Acts) Amendment of Act. CONFIRMATION OF iTHE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER. BURY ELECT.—The day named for oonfirming the elec• tion of Dr. Sumner as Archbishop of Canterbury, is Friday, the 10th of March next. The ceremony will take place as usual at 13 ow Church. `. s3 ~: d l 1