The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

f i ;ter dlY 0 lorEe l4 _2 13° 1("'s taken 0 f CO Ord rr f o ar at wo J3esebe' e 01 T b: e i eta . all ipt Lb e ce o f 4 fore' ul 13n er ie e d 11, 1100 DOW is Of E 0 10 . 1 1 ' 5 li g g /s tt - 1 111 ,:ir iCi. 1 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 18. ROYAL ASSENT. cf . l h iv Pi nr Lordship s met at Four o'clock, for the purpos e s l o, l. g the Royal Assent, by Commission, to certain Tr, link 04)remissiinpn were the Lord Chancellor, the Buo•leuch. and the Earl of Shaftesbury. s conowing were tle Bills to which the Royal N ' . !_at w as , given: —The Consolidated Funds Bill; the ( ' - (- 13 • 1-) ;ktis Assimilation Bill, and the Constable, ka),.,titatitl) Bill. 4,ir Lordships then adjourned during pleasure. T l , re •umeil at Five o'clack. ?,‘lttt Laistorr, „ Duties Rep al Bill was r: ad a first time. Li w Cle ,"IAL SC HOOLM STERS—SCOTLAN D. Prayi r ," i 411,NNAII:D presenfeti a petition from Perth, kh o ,lg for iacrease of the salaries of parochial I.4 l T a 'kers in Se , aland. tit he, WIi AItNCLIFFE presented several petitions " t r'e elf, cwt; and also a petition for lagislative in- Ill s Plea to Prevent ' the - ale of intoxicating liquors on Abath sard 14 , • S ( , , G IIA.•I presented petititions from places Ittlii r t a fid, complaining of the low salaries of the pa 111114' sch oolmasters. His Lordship took that oppor tiaide/,q explaining that in the observations which he qO ar l s t, night he cast no imputation upon the character r,„ 14 Reynold,. it,,,r(hHOLIC EDUCATION IN IRELAND . . tw o "LIONTEAGLE presented a petition, signed , t '?° l • l sand persons, amongst whom were two knahops, praying for the establishnint of clis,ekcolleges in Ireland for the education of the middle 11 1 , COAL-MINE EXPLOSIONS. tf4 alarquis of LONDONDERRY was very desirous te sti in g his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) a ttttit'h, which he conceived of great importance. The ° . ll w as, whether he might now move, or should t t„rs iz e " a future time, for! a copy of the report of the kkt st ss icn sent down by her Majesty to inquire into ttoi s a r t d e n pf the mines in . the North of England, 'ettd ', pecautions against explosion. He con etilt thi s t importance, for he tal a report of the utmost ) 1 1 1, 1 that some means should be taken, if it were nrila th e Present reach of science, to prevent the or consequences of these explosions. It was felt to liiehß,l•cat importance in that part of the country with Ihichr Was Connected, and of the commercial body of t7Pitla,-%vas as umble member, that these reports should Zit th''''a4 soon as possible. He trusted, therefore, ' 4 % noble Duke would have no objection to grant for which he moved. th i k e l ,, b uhe of WELLINGTON said that he felt that Zett . ,' ll3 , a matter which nearly concerned the in- Ckt t he north of England. He had no objection to t4ietilkrit'ports which his Noble Friend had asked, and ,ucY were of a very highly interesting. Majesty'charac • Government were anxious that the kat k cnt. ,s made in those reports should be as satisfactory Cte~ - ", l) 'ete as possible. There was some slight dif 4,.tserQkr,,irt_ the reports of he several . p . arties employed by f, 4 the r ' r .'nt to investigate these afiairs, and . a little d . e- Nt' it 're was neces ry sa in rder t give the in which these reports contained, in a form be a dvant ageous to the public. th l cir l 'i,'"qu i ofI,NDONDERRY said that the re- Noble and Gallant Duke was so satisfactory "as bound to comply with the suggestions which 4111 ati L e. The trade with which he was connec 't h g rl yousl • suffered daring the last seven months, e believed 3 s: r tl4, keyed that the report of the distinuished k kltl t.4 ,,Ten who had been engages! by Government ` largely to do away with the evil. t' b aTofA R ND I/SS IR LI IS N H B beg A g N ed K t!, N a G sk S th Y e S N T o R b •N Ie IS a . At lt k and ti u k tti ,„. u, whether any measures were in contem -lam mkh respect to the banks in Ireland and 411 4'! Great anxiety had been felt, in couse 11,°' the i nt i mat i on conta i ne d i n th e s p eec h f rom k,,--, 4 : 1 1 / 1 " .I:l ek'f some inteatt4n to change the Itanking system th e li tnl, of an a d this, combinea with the intimation in Right Hon. Baronet last sessin, had interested to fe.ir that some alteration was la' Pt( i „Which w ou ld mater i a lly a ff e ct th e ir interests. t4 l 'lta . kna t u ral t r i :e of Sc o tl an d l oo k e d with anxiety for 11i " the subject or this paragraph, because , t , i 1413,4 rt 'eresta of every description depended almost UPon the banking system, which had I "ng and so successfully established ti ty The people of Scotland apprehended Ikkii„`Ak diffi • and l would ensue by injudi k, aes evils la„tkr s Illerice with their system of banking; and it tty could not be said that he had taken an improper e j k i rs 4 s oliciting the attention of the House to this qlch hPortant subject, and in pitting the question a:th 1 . h:entured to ut to the Noble Duke, as to laZt:l lia , was at present in a condition to state the , 1 4 r'sea •, - "urk? of the alterations which the Government 1 4 , 1 4 th'c i naake in the banking system of Scotland? ykion e h a'kuble Duke was not prepared to answer that tl4 Perhaps he would have the goodness to state k T he b T e asure was likely to be proposed? ' 1. 44," of WELLINGTON was not at all sur tLlis bear th at so much anx i ety was f e l t i n S cot l an d O bi ti o u r J e tt, but it was really not in his power to give rd any definite or precise information upon 11,„Nt i rt,ph which appeared in her Majesty's speech. li k r- ; 4 •8 11 , ' unwever, remind the Noble Lord that the Right lt u.. 4 tio a c 'net the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a th a . P t u L t to him the other evening in another place, klai7ofj; te , would take the earliest opportunity after layers would the whole of his plan before Parliament 'L. he i°untry.—( Hear, hear.) 4 11 ,is MINTO did not concur in the views taken kOtil c f,u'e Friend on the subject of any alteration in tt'' the ;fs' 7stern of Scotland. He could see no reason 'm h ot tic -e Pte of th a t coun t r y s hould not bear a propor har 441 dens which had been thrown upon the peo- V 4 til'„ 44(l in the time of their forefathers, and which ' i i ti ltaikb.4t el arred for the joint benefit and advantage of all 'N ° jr t s 4n of the United Kingdom of Great Bri- qt,,„+.l ROSSLYN hoped that when the mea gifor.",T4ght forward sufficient time would be ,As" e „Peuple of Scotland to examine into it. "N t h - , of WELLINGTON was not aware of the th,"%te business in the other House to enable him ' ll , ll tht* 6 - „"° 1 )10 Lord a precise and definite answer to 11, ) 1 4 - ' but there could be no doubt that the as, ' Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury 411 ."ellY exertion to bring the measure forward Period. —The subject then dropped. e 'til b ., % .t l re,, THE PRuPERTY-TAX. ,I. t ," l tke t J er V and Income-Tax Bill passed through W 4 4" the report was received. kina' s l4 R Na• CLIFFE moved that the Bill be read `td t th 0 4 Friday, the 4th of April. ttyFrenotion o f the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the 4 l tt per., rdered to be summoned for that day. 41 'II AL SCI :'.l: ta ,, lOOLMASTERS—SCOTLAND. I, t nel la k„ - "°' l of the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, the O t ,'Ne 3a — 'ls of the Committee to inquire respecting Sf,a,atleak em_olumeats of dip parochial schoolmasters 1„ - ` th' ,were named. Amongst the names were 'Juke of Richmond, the Duke of Suther- N 4 v t.;Z r( lu irs is of Bute, and Lord Campbell. . the r:" 6 ELL was very glad of the appoint- At A lttai kt i.'ntlinaittee, but he wished to be excused titi, n in g, it, as his other avocations would render , N ob i-a , duty inconvenient. 'e Lord was, after a short conversation, ex ,litik!bilkattendirtg on the Committee. 11 1 ' of: BUCCLEUGH then presented a great the lkitions from places in Scotland, compiaiii ,N,A4,4sufficient salaries of the parochial school praying for an augmentation by legislative 41 rt:''• rt- upon the Companies Clauses Bill was t y p and received. 4 1 1 rij rds hiPa then adjourned till Thursday, the 1 11,, 4 0 ty ti ~ 4E A .,"E OF COMMONS, March 18. -- `txt took the Chair shortly before Four I.ON, IC ~IA, uO N AND YORK RAILWAY. t 0 1 41 (1e 11 - "•NEIE presented a petition m favour of i tt ll, N. and York Railway. M E 5 113 rat presente d a petition to the like V'tt. , SS AGE FROM THE LORDS. •'4l l / I )ea te l ti s Cliffo r d the Usher of the Black 1111, ',Us eoi 'at the b ar, and summone d t h e H ouse to Lor ds to hear the royal assent given by to certain Bills (for which see Lords' dt ,'Peak , Aft e and eeveral Hon. Members then re , 44 , rso s ome sh ort t i me the Spea k er returne d . NOT4/.7-lIIVATE BILLS. f o then moved, " That in the case of every 01 , 4 t1% 0 1. 1 a Private Bill on which the Committee on o 4 p li net have reported previously to the ad inrc-; t he House for the Easter recess, the time • s ` d ` l ay, t linh private Bill the first time be extended "° Ilth day of April next." % N w, as agreed to without discussion. el i‘ t, c Yo r i t c ti nns were presented in favour of the Lon- Railw • '' l ra • 11 AXX a Y* , ES presented a petition from the county qtrtsionst the railway projects in that county. 1 . MAYNOOTII. kLl . I ‘ A' ipkiLlS presented a petition from Bath, at hleons"-nuse not to sanction any additional grant "" I tie d ~l 'l ,) un Coll ege ; and another petition from Essex, N NT I ° I3, of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. the "l i j \T ANT presented a petition from North 1 ., -e effect, I:101e 410AILWAY COMMITTEES. t he 11 1 Co ef Sir R. H INGLIS, leave was given s e fro nmitteea n Railway Petitions to report `lt litl ie "I4q r W;tne to time. 1 ,11, mt Li ., , . presented a petition from Now- Ng:A j"e against any additional grant to May -44,314? f•, i t ne "-vpresented a petition from Limerick ,rouseitt i u se to extend any measure they might ° k l tl h ' • •of t i ,,g t e sanitary condition the people i 4 4410e 0 , 1 , renind, ~t 1 iq Dres en , T gave notice that, soon after Easter, he 4 tN t11(1 C, . a Petition from a barrister of long stand j4Pt- (liv e lu ng of Devon, praying the House to ' uhuses and corruptions in the criminal iqri t t er, e oi . ' I NGN presented a petition from the ihTll%.. ,rperation of Bath. praying the House to tieitliti;l4ltbArnsent system of interments in large and 4 th e 81,1 4 L . 4. As he i nten l cd to make a mot i on on vot,'' s. L, he moved that the petition be printed tlt't;illi,:).WßlN)'l,-;kI4TA CURRENCY. Vteliti his , seein g t h e U nder-Secretary for the , 54 In h; and as it was hi s intention to put },,, n'n.with respect to the currency of Malta, ‘vheti,_nlrht w.-ll do it then ;he wished t 1.;71, 4 7Eit i ,,„ '"'L• the Governmeht would allow the "14 ti ",, and to connected with the t ` the currency th - c, island of . Malta to be ? l IOPE had received no commukation I THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 19 1845. Dr. Southwood Smith had stated it as his opinion that dirt and darkness planted the seeds of crime. And should they in that House, the representatives of the English people, suffer such a state of things to exist for a longer period ? They, the representatives of the most useful and the most enlightened people on the face of the globe, would they forget what it was that depressed the many• spirit of the working classes of England ? That people enabled the Government to wage a great com mercial war with all parts of the globe, for in this hos tile tariff England maintained her wonted spirit. France might borrow their machinery, she might borrow their capital, but in order to' compete with them she must also borrow the manly spirit of their workmen.--(Hear, hear.) Would they, the representatives of that people, retain a tax of 9s. 4d. and of 9s. 10. upon every aper ture that gave ventilation to their dwellings. He ap pealed to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government—he appealed to him in behalf of the work ing classes of the town he reprepresented—he besought him not to be indifferent to their health and to their comfort. He appealed to the Right Honourable Gentleman who had issued the Sanat( ry Commission to attend to the report of that Commission. He had granted a charter to a society for the purpose of im proving the dwellings of the working classes in this me tropolis. Let him carry that principle yet a little fur ther. He appealed also to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to tell the people of England by a sort of side-wind to ventilate their dwellings. All he wished of him was to grant a Committee to inquire why it was, that the houses in England which had less than twenty windows, paid 836,0001. out of the one million and a half of which the window duty consisted ? Why it was, that the houses which had less that forty windows paid 1,340,0001, leaving the insignificant sum of 250,0001. as the amount paid by the houses which had more than that number ? He knew that a million and a half was a large sam, and he only asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to consent to an inquiry whether there might not be some less vexatious mode of collecting this tax. The people of England had never shrunk from paying necessary taxes; but they desired to see every man paying taxes in proportion to his means. In conclusion, he begged to assure the Right Honourable Gentleman that this tax, in its present shape, would never be paid willingly by the constituents whom he had the honour to represent, while they saw so many towns which had trebled their wealth and doubled their population, pay ing in a much less proportion. The Hon. Member con cluded by moving a Select Committee, to inquire into the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting the window duties in Great Britain, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House. Captain RODS said, in rising to second the motion, he could assure the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury that he had no wish to embarrass her Majesty's Government in their plans with respect to the financial condition of the country. He was aware that a tax of 1,700,000/. could not very easily be remitted ; but at the same time, when so many thousand artisans in the, metropolis and the large towns of the country were suffering from this cause, he thought it was the bounden duty of their representatives to make known their grievances, in order that, if possible, they might be redressed. And he had the satisfaction of thinking that when he appealed to his Right Hon. Friend, he appealed to a statesman whose public life was a guarantee that he should not plead in vain provided a case were made out. This tax was imposed by Mr. Pitt as a war-tax, w ith the assurance that it would not be continued in a time of peace. From the year 1815, up to the present time, almost every Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to revise this tax, and the only revision that had taken place was—a revision with a vengeance, for it was an addition of ten per cent. imposed by the late Ad ministration. This tax was peculiarly oppressive to persons residing in the lower parts of Westminster. It appeared, that holes made for admitting light into cellars and dark staircases, were taxed as windows, and those persons who had but six or seven windows be came rated to the tax, although the Act of Parliament never contemplated that they should be subjected to it. The parish of St. Anne's was formerly the place of the residences of the aristocracy, but now no person of in dependent means lived there. In that parish the tax was most oppressive. In that parish the tax was 161 per cent. upon the rental, while in Regent-street, and the neighbourhood of the Reform Club, it was not more than '2l per cent. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was a painful and disagreeable task to have to defend taxes which Hon. Gentlemen might consider odious and oppressive. It was impossible to deny that any tax, however wisely conceived, or however ably car ried into effect, was necessarily in itself an evil. Those feelings were necessarily stronger in cases of direct taxation when, in addition to the evil and incon venience produced by the operation of the tax itself, there was the irritating circumstance of an open and direct demand for money from the person who was called upon to pay it. And therefore he felt that, in stating to the House the reasons why lie declined acceding to the proposition of the Noble Lord, he must request the House to consider that taxes were in themselves evils, but they were necessary evils. The House should not suffer itself' to be carried away by every mere detail of the hardship arising from one particular case, but ought to consider the general necessities of the country, and that it was requisite that a certain amount should be raised for the maintenance of the public revenue. The Noble Lord opposite had detailed to them many evils resulting from the operation of this particular tax. He did not doubt but there were cases in which the tax subjected the payer to considerable inconvenience ; and other cases in which the law was not understood, and hardships sus tained, the infliction of which was never contemplated by the Legislature. He could only say the Government was most willing to interpose and prevent the recurrence of these evils. When inconveniences and oppressions were stated to the House, it did not, follow that these statements were not either untrue or exaggerated ; for although he would by no means impeach the veracity of the Noble Mover, or the llon. and Gallant Officer who seconded him, still he thought they might have been mis led by erroneous information. In consequence of what had passed on a former occasion, he had felt it his duty to inquire into some statements made regarding parti cular houses in Bath, to which the Noble Lord had adverted. The Noble Lord then said that in the house, 10, Galway -street, Bath, twenty win dows had been shut up recently, in consequence of this tax, and that a large number of windows had been shut up in the adjoining houses from the same cause. That statement was not correct. In 1843 the window- tax was assessed on a person, named Fisher, for thirty four windows, and in 1814 the tax was assessed on the same house, on a person named Fisher, for thirty five windows, showing an increase rather than a diminu tion. With respect to No. 9, he had ascertained that there were reasons why the windows should be stopped, be side the inconvenience of paying the window-tax, for he believed it was pretty well ascertained that No. 9 was a house of all fame. In other cases to which the Noble Lord had referred, he felt compelled to refer to the state ment of a Noble Lord, his predecessor in the office which he had the ho: our to fill, and he would follow that Noble Lord in the as , c rtion that those houses, which were unfurnished and unoccupied, and which were only opened for the sake of ventilation, were not liable to taxation. The character of that Noble Lord was too well established to suppose that he was at all likely to commit a breach of faith.—(Hear, hear.) He did not wish to impute to the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, or to his Honourable Friend near him, any error in the statement which those Gentlemen had made. The Noble Lord his predecessor had stated, in 1834, that it was not the inten tion of Government to prevent any person from enjoying the benefit of additional windows in their houses, if they opened an additional window beyond the number at which they were assessed. In 1834, when the proposition was made to impose the assessed taxes for five years, there was this express reservation, that the window-tax should be levied according to the previous assessment, and per- sons who were desirous of entering into a composition of five per cent., were enabled, by the act of 1834, to do so on the whole amount of their assessment. But the Noble Lord asked, " Why put additional taxes on houses once rated to the occupier at a certain number of windows, when new windows should have been made in them ? " Why, surely, it was never intended that those occupiers should have a perpetuity of those houses if they should improve them by additional windows.— ( Hear, hear.) If that were so, it would be a manifest injus tice to others who should build new houses.—( Hear, bear. ) With respect to the motion of the Noble Lord, he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) could not feel it would be consistent in him to consent to this Committee, for he knew what the feeling was with respect to those Committees ; it was, in fact, nothing more nor less than to call upon the House to ex press an opinion, to the effect that the window-tax should be removed. This tax amounted to a million and a half—and he would ask, was the Noble Lord in a position to state what he proposed to substitute for it? or to say it could be removed without a substitute in the present state of the finances of the country ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose, however, intended to suggest that it should be left for the con sideration of the Committee, whether it would not be better that a house-tax should be substituted for the window-tax. Now the House had already had this question before them ; and the House, ten years ago, having before them the two taxes, did, upon deliberate consideration, determine that the house tax should be abolished, and the window-tax preserved. Whe ther right or wrong, was foreign to the present question to de termine that; if they were to raise a million and a half upon a tax derived from windows, it was not desirable to encourage an opinion that they were about to make a change in the mode in which they at present levied it. The Noble Lord had stated that the number of houses was 4,000,000, but that only 450,000 of them were subject to the tax. The residences of the labouring classes, and buildings used for manufac turing or agricultural purposes, were mostly exempted. In fact, the tax in its present state was placed only upon one eleventh of the whole number of house-occupiers in the coun try. When, however, the house tax was in force, it operated upon one-seventh of the house-occupiers of the country. If they substituted one tax for the other, it would naturally bring under assessment a large body of persons—he believed no less than 270,000 in number, who at the present time were subject to the income-tax. He should be surprised if the remission of one-half of the window-tax on these houses occasioned any reduction of the rent to the tenants. That rent did not so much depend on the taxes on these particular houses as on the demand for them for dwellings of the poor. Labouring men, rather than reside at a distance from their employment, and encounter the toil of walking to and from it at the beginning and end of their work, would pay an enhanced rent for a dwelling in the neighbourhood of their avocations. He did not see any par ticular advantage to be gained by going into this Committee. He fully admitted to the Noble Lord it was the duty of the Government to inquire into these branches of taxation, and to see whether the abuses in them could not be remedied. —( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But to grant a Committee on this subject would only excite expectations that could not be realised, and would lead people to believe that the window-duty was about to be abolished, without any other tax being im posed instead of it. He therefore felt bound to resist the in quiry moved for by the Noble Lord. It had been said, that the tax prevented healthy ventilation ; but he believed what the poor man most looked for in his dwelling was warmth. He was sure, if the Noble Lord entered into the dwellings of the poor, he would see so far from th e i r b e i ng anx i ous to a ll ow th e airinto their dwellings, there was not a single hole that was not filled up for the purpose of securing warmth, and what they considered comfort. As to the window-tax being the cause of ill health, he was not prepared to admit it, and there was not a single line in the report that had been alluded to that bore out such a supposition, but it was to be inferred from it that ill health was attributable to the state of the sewers, and the way in which houses were built. He admitted, that if by the re moval of the taz, health could be secured, it would be desirable that there should be some alteration in it. He tre-tt d that the House would not take upon itself that which was the duty of the Executive, and go into a Committee for the purpose of discussing the removal of a tax which they could not effect. To repeal the window-tax tnder the present circumstances of the country would be im possible; and although, therefore, he admitted that it was the duty of Government to take the subject into their own consi deration, he must resist the motion for a Committee to inquire into the subject. —( Hear.) Captain ROUS explained. Captain PECHELL said a mere convincing speech than that of the Noble Lord who introduced this motion he hard never heard, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wholly abstained from grappling with the arguments whieh that speech contained.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would just show the House the number of cases of appeal against the window duty since the imposition of the additional ten per cent. in 1839—0 r rather, the number of cases that had been decided by the judges, for it was impossible to as certain the number of eases of appeal. In England and Wales, the number of cases with respect to the window-tax decided by the judges was 506. In Scotland the number was 211 , 3, making together, 738. In one case in Wales, the decision was made to apply to forty-seven others, so that it was really impossible to know even the number of cases decided by the judges. He thought this was sufficient ground for a Com mittee of inquiry. From 1831 to 1844, out of 1,138 cases of appeals from the decisions of the Commissioners regarding assessed taxes, 412 related to window- du'y. In Bath and Bristol there was a considerable falling off in the number of windows, which must either result from cheating the Chancellor of the Exch quer, or from a decline in the condition of the inhabitants. And the very same thing might be said of the condition of most of the principal towns in England, —Liverpool, Leeds, and Hull among the number. ( Bear, hear.) In Scotland, lodging-houses were charged with window duty, and the landlord was obliged to pay it, as in the case of Mr. Dunlop, of Ayr, quoted in the Blue book, who was brought under the 48th of George HI.-444,183 persons were assessed with window duty in 1843, and the increased charges of this description over the preceding year was 7,087. Several appeals had been made from the decisions of the Commissioners, but, in most cases, these appeals were wholly unsuccessful. Two hundred and sixteen persons had been imprisoned last year for assessed taxes, some of them for an amount of tax not exceeding 4s. 4d. Many of those persons were imprisoned fifteen months for this small sum, which was still worse than the game-laws ; while the imprisonment could not exceed three months, unless he was punished under the Stamp Act. In nine eases out of ten he thought houses were not fairly assessed. He called upon the " farmers' friends " to support the motion. In one case a farmer was taxed for the window of an out-house, because his wife washed her clothes in it. In 1844 a farmer was charged for a window in his dairy, because he now and then used it as a larder. Another farmer, whose rent and tithe and land-tax amounted to barely 2001., was taxed under this Act ; and there was a further instance of a farmer being charged for a servant because a boy was found cleaning his master's boots. This tax could no longer be continued—the writing was upon the wall, and it must share the fate of those odious burdens which were now on the verge of abolition. Sir CHARLES NAPIER would not take any part in the debate, but that he represented a large constituency, who felt strongly on the subject. The Noble Lord had made out a strong case, and one which deserved the fullest consideration,' and he showed that the poorer classes were oppressed by it. He had got a few figures from a source which might be relied on, and which he would read to the House. In Budd-street, Marylebone, a house with fifteen windows paid 4s. Bd. a window, being ten per cent. upon the rental. In Henrietta-street, a house with eighteen windows paid ss. 3d. a window, being ten and a half per cent. upon the rental. In Bulstrode-mews a house paid ten and three eighths per cent. upon the rental, whilst the mansion of the Duke of Newcastle, which had sixty-two windows, paid only two and seven-eighths per cent, upon the rental, and that of Hertford House, rented at 2,0001. a year, paid only one and a half per cent. on the rental. The buildings which were most affected by this tax were precisely those which he thought ought to be most especially exempted from it. He would take the case of the window-tax as applied to small dwellings, and he found that houses with less than eight win dows were free from this tax, but if they had more windows, if the occupiers were desirous of increasing the comfort of their habitations by the admission of more light and air, and were to add another window to their houses, they must do this at an expense of 16s. 6d. per annum. The opinions of Dr. Arnott, Dr. Guy, and Mr. Dolby, had all been most explicitly given in favour of some measure by which the healthiness of the habitations of the poor might be increased. The want of those necessaries of life, as he might call them, created an im mense mass of disease and suffering, and he should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would conceive that this was a point far above any fiscal considerations. Those able scientific men had stated that the habitations of the poor were particularly unhealthy from the crevices which ad mitted both the cold and rain. These were inconveniences which care might remedy, but what was to be done in the time of summer, when the necessity for air and light was largely increased, and still more, when sickness over took them, when that worst of all calamities for the poor, broken health, rendered their close and confined dwellings still more insalubrious, when it was absolutely necessary that free air should pass as freely through their dwellings as it did in the open air. He was anxious to provide for futurity, and he did not understand how the subject could be lightly or heedlessly left. Mr. E. ELLICE said that he felt the serious grievances to which the poor were exposed, but one of the cases which he particularly wished to bring under the notice of the House was that of the hand-loom linen-weavers of Scotland. Most of these individuals occupied houses which had eight windows, if not less. At the end of their dwelling-houses they had a room or shop, which, like their dwelling-houses, were exempt from duty. These shops were almost always on the ground floor, and had a communication with their dwelling-houses. In order to render these shops or warehouses snore convenient, they had generally made in them a communication with the highway ; but the dust from the road and other inconveniences of a similar kind almost obliged them to destroy their com munication with the dwelling- houses ; but this alteration had the effect of bringing them under the tax. It was necessary for this business, which required much light, that there should he a window for every loom; and he trusted therefore that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this case, and grant a remission of this tax to men whose whole livelihood depended on the light of their dwelling-houses. He had ven tured to say these few words, because he felt that the subject was one of importance, and that it affected a class who were little able to help themselves.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said that he was sorry to see the inattention with which the House treated this question. To him it appeared most important, and he f lt that a debt of gratitude was due to the Hon. Gentleman for bringing 'this subject forward. To him, it appeared, it had been brought forward at a most oppor tune period. The time, indeed, was particularly fitting. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was in troducing a change in the system of taxation. He was quite aware that there must be a certain amount of taxation raised, and the Right Hon. Baronet appeared to be desirous of impel ling those great sources of national wealth, which the manufac turers of the country provided. Yet, though he was aware that this amount must be raised, yet he thought the less it was the better. The question mooted by the Noble Lord had elicited information which had shown the oppressive and unequal nature of this tax. In the admirable design which the Right Hon. Baronet had brought before the House for relieving the trade of the country from many heavy fiscal regu lations, there was much for which gratitude was due. But he hoped in those alterations that it would not be forgotten, that it was in the purity of the air in his dwelling-place, and upon the consequent state of his health, that the working man de• pended. He (Mr. Hume) had been instrumental in removing one part of the tax, and he should be glad if the present dis cussion led to any arrangement whereby the poor man's small means were saved from still further reduction. He trusted the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department would take this matter into account when he brought forward his measure for the health of towns, which was founded upon the report of the gentlemen commissioned to make that inquiry. It appeared from that inquiry that, in many cases, according to the evidence of medical men, that many families lived together in one apartment on the ground floor. The consequence was that, in the contaminated air which they were obliged to inhale after they went to bed, they rose in the morning weaker rather than stronger, and with the aspects of ghosts. There was no opportunity fur recreation — no chance of an alleviation of toil, and he was therefore asto nished at the quietude and patience and contentment with which these evils were borne. He thought that the Noble Lord had introduced this question at a most opportune period, and he trusted that her Majesty's Government would be willing to grant the inquiry which he requested. 1 here was every evi dence of the necessity for the inquiry. They already possessed large information, and there were others ready to give informa tion if the House required it. They had the evidence of Dr. Arnott, Dr. Guy, and Mr. Dolby, and by this it ap peared that the artizans of England were pallid, feeble and emaciated beings, hardly worthy of the name of Englishmen. He, therefore, thought that this inquiry, which largely affected all the inhabitants of towns, but especially those termed artizans, was of singular importance. It was necessary for them not only for the sake of enjoyment, but also for health, that they should have as much light and air in their dwelling places as possible. Money would go a long way, but even money would not provide for the poor man those enjoyments which were absolutely necessary. He (Mr. Hume) had, during the last ten or twelve years, endeavoured annually to rid the country of this unfair and iniquitous tax. He was quite satis fied that in the alterations which were anticipated by the Right Hon. Baronet at the bead of the Government, it would be but a wise portion of his plan to remove the imposts from those articles which were of the least value, and to provide the peo ple with food and clothing. He was willing to give instances of the unequal nature of this tax. In his own parish, Mary lebone, there was one house with 'thirty-five windows, in Poland-street, on the rent of which the window-tax amounted to 16i per cent. There was another house in Regent-street, on which the window-tax amounted only to 11 per cent., and on the Reform and Carlton Club-houses . he believed the per centage was much lower than this. There was a house in Cross-street, the rental of which was 45/. a-year, and the window-tax upon it amounted to 101. 6s. 9d.— a per centage which was so glaringly unjust, that it alone was a sufficient evi dence of the oppressive and unequal nature of the tax. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern ment had a complete apparatus for the alteration of indirect taxation, and he thought that a good opportunity was offered for the remission of this tax.. He had had a quarrel with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had earnestly striven for the removal of this tax; but that Right Hon. Gentleman had had no money to spare. He had expended all the surplus i cash in Syria—he had thrown it away n Syria on shots and shells, so that perhaps there was good reason for his deprecating the removal of the window-tax. By the session paper No. 102, dated the 7th of Alasch, it appeared that the whole amount of rental on which the tax was levied amounted in England to 35,500,000/., and in Scotland to 3,000,0001., making a total of 38,500,000/. ; on which there was raised a duty of 1,950,000/. Last year lie believed it pro duced 1,600,000/., and this year it was estimated at 1,700,000/. And he thought that if the Right Hon. Gentleman would remit this duty, and impose a tax on property to the amount of 10d. in the pound, which was equal to above 4 per cent., it would sed so much to rejoice. duty, but also prevent any not defi only iien ab cy en int l i e ,esu him to remitrplus mwhich h t ic his hheseemed By this tax a premium was offered to builders to construct houses with as little means of comfort and health as possible. Im munity from taxation was to be the reward of their ability. Now the whole of that evidence went to show, and he begged the Right Hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind, that light and air produced the most beneficial effects upon the humble classes, and it was, therefore, a matter of the first importance that both should be liberally supplied to them. They were now living in a time of change, and this alteration of the window-tax would be a change of the most important character. It would produce a most salutary effect on the health of mil lions—an effect which he (Mr. Hume) believed the remission , of no other tax would bestow. The continuance of this tax was opposed to all the pledges of the late Government. He (Mr. Hume) remembered, and the late Chancellor of 1 the Exchequer might also remember, Lord Althorp stating in that House that he was as sensible as any man of the 1 uneqtral pressure of this tax, and he conceived that it was the intention of Government to considerably amend it. He did not blame the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for breaking these pledges, but he did certainly blame his Right Hon. Friend near him (Mr. Baring).—( Hear, hear.) Chancellors of the Exchequer were all hard-hearted.—(Laughter.) It was but an effect of the system that they should be so.—( Con tinued laughter.) They had plenty to do with their money, and therefore he (Mr. Hume) would make every allowance for them. He would read the House an extract from a suggestion made by himself to Lord Althorp in reference to this very circumstance. He then hoped that there was no occasion to remind the Noble Lot d the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the pledge which he had given some time ago to do away with that duty, and he suggested the propriety, at least, of allowing every man who had paid the window-tax for one year to open additional windows, without any increased duty, and that of itself he considered would be a very great relief. On the 30th of July, 1834, certain clauses were brought up upon the subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thou said that his (Mr. Hume's) recommendation would occasion no loss to 'the revenue, as its only effect would be to prevent an increase in the houses already taxed. Agreeably to that pledge the clauses were introduced into the Bill. NI , hat was the consequence? Why this, that those who bad shut np their windows to the utter exclusion of fresh air, as soon as they un derstood that although the tax should be continued, yet that those who had paid the tax for one year might be allowed to open additional windows without an increased expense, they did so, and allowed fresh air to be admitted throughout their houses. A few years afterwards, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered it to be his duty to re-assess all those houses. And what was then the consequence? The tax, which had beers 1,200,0001., was raised to 1,700,0011. The windows were again shut up, and many houses were altogether closed, and the tax again fell in consequence of that pre-sure. On those grounds he thought this one of those taxes which called for immediate correction by the House ; and he thought that if any plan were submitted to the House for a more equal exaction of this tax, that plan ought to be a general and an equal charge upon the rental of the houses. He would not have an opportunity of making an amend ment if the Government refused an inquiry, but he hoped that his Noble Friend would receive some assurance from the Right Hon. Baronet that this subject would be taken under the immediate consideration of the Government with the view of modifying the tax. Mr. BARING said he should be obliged to trouble the House with a few observations, in consequence of the remarks and the imputations of the Hon. Member for Montrose, in re ference to himself, and to the office which he had the honour of holding under the late Government. The Hon. Member had admitted that that office was a most difficult one, but he should not accept of that admission. His notion of the duty of a public servant was this—to conform to the Acts which had been passed by that House; but he did not think that any course of getting money would be satisfactory to the Government or to the - country, if the pledges of the Government were violated by it. In this case, he denied that the Government had pledged itself in the man ner stated by the Non. Member for Montrose. The House had heard the Hon. Member read his own speech to Lord Althorp, but they had not heard the answer which Lord Al thorp had returned to him. He (Mr. Baring) perfectly re collected the Hon. Member bringing the question before the House, but he did not remember, and he would not say, that the Noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had concurred in those pro positions -- Mr. HUME—Read the 30th of July. Mr. BARING was perfectly aware that the Noble Lord's intentions were fully carried out by those appointed to do so. The Hon. Member for Montrose seemed to think that the No ble Lord had been deceived by the officers of the Stamps and Taxes ; but no one was less likely to be deceived than the Noble Lord. The lion. Member for Montrose had also said that he (Mr. Baring), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had wanted money, and had acted upon the instructions in the clauses of the Bill in a manner never acted on before. That was not the case—that clause was acted on in the same way in 1835 and in 1841. He admitted, indeed, that an additional survey— (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) What was the construc tion put upon those clauses by the Hon. Member for Mon trose himself? His construction was this—that by the clause a right was given to open windows without any additional tax. But supposing that parties had opened windows under these clauses, and supposing these parties had never originally returned the proper number of windows—supposing that their houses had twenty windows and they had only returned fifteen, how would the construction put upon the clauses by the Hon. Member for Montrore act upon that case ? Were they to open any more windows—were they to cheat the revenue—he would not call it cheat—he would say evade the proper payment of the tax ; and was it to be said that proper measures should not be taken to enforce the proper amount which they ought to pay to the revenue? He was sure that that reading of the Act had never been contemplated by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had never had any intentions like those constantly re ferred to by the Hon. Member for Montrose. It was stated thatin 1840 he (Mr. Baring) was anxious for an increased tax, and that he had caused a survey for that purpose. That was perfectly correct. He found that it would be necessary to increase the amount of the window-tax ; but he thought it was his duty, in the first instance, to see that all parties paid the tax fairly, before he should levy any additional duty upon other parties, and for that purpose he had caused the survey to be proceeded with. Bet his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon trose was mistaken in supposing that the survey had then been made for the first time. The survey had been going on long before. He (Mr. Baring) had been informed that whole streets evaded the payment of the tax, and he did not see that parties living in those streets should be exempt—especially when they were going to make an additional charge upon other parties. With regard to the grievances of the tax, they all knew per fectly well that there was no tax existing which had not its grievances. The Hon. Member referred to particular cases of grievances, but it was impossible for him to answer individual cases, brought forward by Hon Members. They had heard of the advantages 'of direct over indirect taxation, and yet, as in this case, the Hon. Member for Montrose was the very first to complain of the unequal pressure of direct taxation. Mr. HUME—Not if you tax the rental. Mr. BARING—Oh, the Hon. Member said " tax the rental." He happened . to know that the tHon. Member for Montrose had complained in no set terms of the injustice of the houseatax. He had known some of the largest houses in England which were taxed scarcely anything; and it was equally well known that many gentlemen's seats did not pay so much to the tax as the village inn beside them. He did not say there was injustice ir, this, but he must admit that this fact had produced an impression on the public mind which the Hon. Member for Montrose was not slow to take advantage of.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume, and laughter.) That House considered it so unfair that it was done away with in preference to the window-tax. If, however. that house-tax were again enforced and the window-tax abolished every oue who knew anything of the circumstances must know that the poorer classes would pay more in that case than they did at present. With regard to the Committee on this question he did not think it would be of that utility which the Noble Lord supposed it would, and if, as he thought, the Noble Lord's intention was to take the sense of the House upon the propriety of repealing the tax altogether he (Mr. Baring) for one would not, in the present state of the revenue, be prepared to assist him. If they went into Committee on this subject, it would be but a waste of the public time, and would lead to no useful result. But if the Government instead were to consult their officers, with the view of mitigating the grievances of this tax, he thought it would be the preferable plan. Under those circumstances he could not think of voting with the Noble Lord. Mr. WAKLEY rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." The Hon. Member, after the lapse of a few minutes, obtained a hearing. He wished to know if the tax was abandoned by the Government ?—(Laughter. ) The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had certainly made one of the most lame defences which he (Mr. Wakley) had ever heard in that House. This tax was universally condemned. Everybody said it was a most unequal one, and pressed heavily upon the lower classes of society. ( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) It was admitted by all that the tax was injurious to health, and pregnant with mischief. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that there was no hope of getting rid of it at present ; and from all the admissions of the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was induced to hope that the remission of this tax would be comprehended in their next scheme.— ( Hear, and a laugh.) He would recommend it to the electors in the meanwhile to bestir themselves—he would recommend them to form an " Anti-Window-tax Association"—( Hear, and a laugh)—for there was no tax which operated more inju riously upon the health and morals of the people. It was the parent of disease and vice.—( Cheers.) He himself had recently a case in the parish of Marylebone. In a large house he had to ascend to the highest story, where there was no window at all. He found there a human being without any covering lying upon the floor. It was the body of a female, 78 years of age, and, as he was informed, the widow of a captain in the Royal Navy.—( Hear, hear.) She could not have been allowed to die in that state of utter destitution, if her neighbours were acquainted with her situation. He be lieved that the want of light in the upper part of the house was one of the causes of her remaining alone, and not inquired after. If the Noble Lord persevered in dividing the House he (Mr. Wakley) would vote with him. But he would prefer that the Government would hold out some hopes of the remission of the tax.—( Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL said that before he went into a consideration of the window-tat he should state, that the Government had taken a careful and comprehensive review of all the taxation of the country before they submitted their financial measures to the House, and that the window-tax had not been left out of their review. —(Hear, hear.) They thought that the taxes which they had repealed were those the remission of which would be most advantageous to the country. He admitted that there were inequalities and inconveniences in the appli cation of the window-tax ; but all the arguments for its repeal might just as forcibly be alleged in favour of a remission of the soap-tax.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think it his duty, in answer to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to give a specific pledge for the repeal of this tax or of that—( Hear)—at the same time, he did not deny the great inconvenience of the window tax—( Hear.) It had been recommended by the Hon. Member for Montrose, in the course of this debate, that there should be an assessment of tenpence in the pound upon all houses in the United Kingdom. But the Hon. Member overlooked that the return which he made the basis of his calculation included every cottage of the value of 21. per annum.—( Hear.) There were other burdens on the people quite as onerous and as objec tionable as the window-tax ; and it would be the business of the Government to consider how these and other burdens could be relieved.—( Hear hear.) He gave the Noble Lord (Lord Duncan) credit for the manner in which he had pro posed his motion, but he hoped the Noble Lord would not press it to a division, Mr. HAWES said that if he thought the motion of the Noble Lord implied a pledge of the House for the repeal of the window-tax, he would not vote for it. As it was, however, only for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the tax, he would vote for it. Colonel SIBTHORP could look upon the motion only as one for the repeal of the window-tax.—( Hear, and laughter. ) He had heard with astonishment and regret the statement of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he thought the Hon. Gentleman ought, in his official capacity, to follow up the in quiry further.—(Hear.) There had been a great deal of con descension upon the part of the Government as to the remis sion of duties upon cinnamon and copaiba—(Laughter)—but nothing for the remission of duties affecting the comforts of the people.—( Hear, and laughter.) He would not vote for the motion, because he thought it would be of no use. Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said, that on the ground which Mi nisters had stated he would not vote for the motion, for he did not think that anything could be got by inquiry.—(Hear.) His constituents wanted no inquiry. They had already had sufficient experience in that way; and when he heard that this motion had a tendency to prevent the repeal of the tax, it was an additional reason for his voting against it. Mr. B. WILLIAMS thought a sufficient case would be made out to justify the repeal of the tax if a Committee were granted. Lord DUNCAN then replied. The Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to tell him that ho represented a pauper constituency. Now, he was not aware that either Plymouth or Portsmouth was in a state of pauperism; but the Right Hon. Gentleman's statement was an argument in favour of his motion. If his constituents were paupers, why did the House subject them to this tax ?—( Hear, hear.) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion .. ...... 47 Against it Majority against the motion —46 On our return to the gallery, Mr. HOPE was requesting Mr. Mackinnon, whose motion stood next or, the paper, to withdraw it, because . it was of im portance that no delay should take place removing the imputation which had been thrown upon his Noble Friend, the Secretary of the Colonies. Dlr. DIACKINNON would accede to this appeal, if those Hon. Members who had motions on the paper before him would do so too. In the first place, the Hon. Member for Bolton had a motion relating to Colonial Accounts. Dr. BOWRING informed the Hon. Member that he had po:tponed his motion for a fortnight. Mr. MACKINNON said, the Hon. Member for Li-keard had also a motion before him. Would the Hon. Member consent to withdraw it ? Mr. C. BULLER replied in the affirmative. Mr. 111ACKINNON under those circumstances begced, to Easter recess. his motion till the first Tuesd a y a ft er th e aster recess. from the Noble Lord 9t the head of the Colonial Depart ment on the subject; but he had no doubt the correspon dence and the other papers would be laid on the table without any cbjection. POST-OFFICE. Mr. EWART wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. Since the penny postage system had been established, a custom hail sprung up ,X sending smsll parcels through the Post-office. Latterly these parcels head been opened at the Post-offiee. He w , ikh,d to know if this was sanctioned by the Govern ment? He wished to call the attention of the Hen. Gentleman to another subject connected with the Post office. If a newspaper, with the sender's name upon it, were sent from one place to another in the metropolis it was charged upward, of 3a.. but if he sent a newspaper with his re , me upon it to the country it went free. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was net aware that any such charge as that mentioned by the Hon. Member existed against any department of the Post-office ; and it certainly was not the intentn , n of her Majesty's Government to have issued any orders to the Post-office authori ies to do that of which the Honourable Member complained ; therefore with re gard to the opening of the packet complained of by the Hon. Member, he presumed there must be some error. But perhaps it would be well to mention, that in consequence of the abuse of the facilities afforded by the cheap rate of postage, some orders were obliged to be issued. For instance, such articles as knives and scissors hail frequently been sent ; and upon one occasion it had been discovered that part of a human body had been transmitted to a surgeon.—(A laugh.) In consequence of this, it had become necessary to make an order prohibiting the transmission of flesh and fish— (A laugh)—end such ether articles, or of knives or scis sors, &c.; but if any other packet had been opened, it was against the orders ; and, indeed, he had heard of but one such complaint, and that had been ordered to he investigated. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN said, that in rising to address the House upon this subject, he felt no small degree of embarrassment when he looked around and saw so many others who were much better qualified than he was to deal with the question, and under those circumstances he begged to say he would occupy the House but a very short time. Nor would he now intrude this question upon the notice of the House, but that he felt bound to do so, for this reason, that he was the representative of a constituency who, except the cities of London and Liverpool, paid the largest amount of window-tax of any town in the kingdom. and therefore he felt bound to bring the hardships under which they laboured, by reason of the levy of this tax, before the notice of this House, to the best of his ability. He begged to assure the House that he did not bring it forward with any view to the embarrassment of the Government, for it was no party or political question, but he did bring it forward because of the injustice and impolicy of the tax ; and if no other result should attend it, it would at all events have been brought before the public, and public attention would have been called to it, and then it would be seen whether or not the people had just cause of complaint.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Honourable Baronet opposite had said, in his financial stab. ment, that there were three millions of houses in the metropolis that did not pay this tax, and that, therefore, if these houses re quired glass, great benefit would be conferred by the removal of the glass duty. But he (Lord D.) would ask why had these houses been exempted i He would explain it. They had been exempted because many of them were the property of wealthy persons, who had tenants who paid them 2001 a year, ethers were exempted because they were the offices and stores of wealthy merchants ; and others again had eve led the tax because the houses were old, and secupied by poor people, who filled up the windows. The Noble Lord then produced letters which he had r. ceivecl from various persons, complaining that the report of the Committee on the Health of Towns had omitted to mention the state in which many houses in large towns were awing the number of families crowded into them, and who yet could not have sufficient light, owing to the great amount of the window-tax. He could not, see how the removal of the duty on glass would benefit houses already built ; it might serve those now building or about to be built. The tax which he was most anxious to remove was of much older date than that upon glass. and was as old as the days of " the hearth money " itself. The duty on hearths had been taken away. Fourteen different Chancellors of the Ex chequer had passed 14 different Acts on the subject. In 1808 Mr. Percival, the then Chancellor of the Ex cheque,, introduced a measure, which was passed into a law, under which the assessed taxes were collected. Since the passing of the Act of 1812 the window duty had been consented to. The result of all these Acts was that a sliding-scale was established—(Hear, hear) — by which houses which had eight windows, and from eight windows to 500 were exactly taxed in the inverse ratio of the means of payment. To show the inequality in the working of the tax, he would take the house of Sir Robert Peel in Whitehall-gardens, St. Margaret's parish, in which the number of windows was 72, and the tax was 6s. 91d. per window, being about 3+ per cent. on the valuation of the house, as rated for the property-tax, which was 7001. per year. He would contrast that with the case of a person named Coombes, a cabinet-maker, residing at the corner of Abbey-street, in Bath. There were thirty-three windows in his house, and he paid 7s. 4d. per window, being upwards of 30 per cent. as rated to the property-tax. Apsley House, in St. George's parish, had 129 windows, which paid ss. lid. per window, or 2 and 3-Bths per cent. under the rating to the pro perty-tax, which was 2,0001 a-year, Montague house which, had 132 windows, paid but ss. 101 d. per window, being about 31. per cent. to the rating of the House under the property-tax, about 1,3201. Whilst those great houses pay so small an amount of window tax, the smaller houses were taxed at 9s. 4d. per window. So much with regard to the inequality of the tax. Now, with regard to its injustice, he would state the result of some returns which were made that morning. One of those returns moved for by the Hon. Member for Mon trose stated that the amount of window duty, in 1841, was 1,830,4571., and it was stated in, the same return that in 1844 the amount of window duty was 1,743,4001., being a decrease of 87,2001. In the other return to which he begged to call the attention of the Honourable and Gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell), it was stated that in 1841 the amount of duty was 1,774,638/., whereas in 1844 it was 1,786,5141, being an increase in 1844, as compared with 1841, of 11,876/. Now. the one return made a decrease in 1841, as compared with 1841, of 87,0001, and the other return made an increase iu the year 1844, as compared with the year 1841, of 11.876/ Now, - when he found such a difference in the two returns, he thought that circumstance alone ought to induce the House to grant him a Committee. On look ing to the bottom of the return he found the amount of duty paid by twelve of the large towns in England. In the town of Bath, he found the window duty had ditni nished to from 22.408/. in 1841, down to 21,551 L in 1844, and he found the same thing had happened in the towns of Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, and Norwich. Having found this discrepancy between the two reports, he ap plied to Mr. Porter, and, on referring to his tables he found a different account. He found that in 1839, before the new survey, the window-tax was 1,298,622/ In the second year of the new survey he found that it rose 365,0001, but that ever since in 1842 end 1843, it was said to be annually diminishing, not withstar ding that the population had increased from 18,000,000 in 1839, to 20,000.000 in 1843. In one point, however, all the returns agreed, and that was, that in the year of the re-survey, a large addition was made to the tax. In 1834 there was an Act brought forward by Lord Althorp, which was stated to be for the relief of such persons as were duly assessed at the passing of the Act. It was stated that all persons assessed would be entitled to keep open, free of duty, as many windows as they pleased. That Act lay dormant for six years, till 1840, and at that time, when it was found that the ex penditure of the country exceeded the income, very great activity prevailed amongst the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes. Communications :pass , d between them and Mr. Baring, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was determined that they should have a re-survey made of all th• windows in the kingdOm. The consequence was this, that a number of persons who had opened their windows on the faith of this Act of Parliament, sud denly found themselves in the arms of a hungry Chan cellor of the Exchequer.—(Laughter. , The very first person who was attacked was William Cotton, a solici tor, who ought to have known the laws of England. It appeared that Mr. Cotton had, between the years 1834 and 1841, opened a few windows. He stated that he be lieved himself to have been duly assessed. The sur veyor required that Mr. Cotton should prove that he was duly assessed, and Mr. Cotton, though a solicitor, could not do any such thing. The judges declared he was liable for every window he had opened under the Act of Parliament. Another case was that of Mr. Edwards, of Wigan, who was sur charged for every window, though he thought he had been assessed in 1834. In this case there was an aggra vating feature ; Mr. Edwards had used, to seal some of his letters, the device of a thistle, with the motto " Dinna forget "--(Laughter)—and for using this seal he was charged I/ Bs. in addition to the sum of Si. which he had been surcharged on the windows.—(Hear, hear.) He was charged 2/. Bs. because he sealed his letters with a pencil-case. It might appear ridiculous to the House, but it was an instance of great legal oppression. Were he not afraid of wearying the House, he could adduce two thousand similar cases. A Mr. Lewis, who had opened two holes in his warehouse, was declared to be liable for a window. The case of Mr. Richard Jones was ofa similar kind, and Professor Scholefield, of Cambridge, was declared to have been properly surcharged for a window, because he had opened a hole in his coal-cellar for shooting the coals through. These cases might appear trivial and ridiculous ; but there was a strong feeling on the subject out of doors, which was increasing every day. The people were determined to be no longer treated in this ridiculous manner. In another case, that of Mr. Boone of Frome, it was declared he had been legally surcharged although he had stopped up the aperture, be cause he had not used any mortar with the stones em ployed for that purpose, and the Commissioners said light was admitted between them. The reason why he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer particularly to this point, was that at one time be seemed to have thought that perforated plates of zinc placed in walls would not be charged. Many pr.- ties had applied to Mr. Pressley, the. Chairman of Stamps and Taxes, on the subject, and he had stated that they might put up as many plates of zinc as they liked, but they would be charged for every hole in that zinc, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had borne that gentleman out by a letter he had written to some of these parties. He thought people ought to be allowed to ventilate their houses.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Cubitt hal given it as his opinion that darkness in their abodes was pt., judicial to the norki.: -, g classk s, and Mr. Bradshaw had stated that the sun's light and air was necessary to the sustaining of life. NEW ZEALAND AND LORD STANLEY. Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from the City of London, praying the House to make some reparation to the New Zealand Company for the injury they had sustained in that colony: The petition, on the motion of an HON. MEMBER, was ordered to be printed. Mr. G. W. HOPE then rose to move for certain papers re lating to New Zealand, and to answer the charge which had been made by the New Zealand Company against the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He commenced by stating that he believed it was fully understood the other night that the general question relating to the affairs of New Zealand should be left untouched until after Easter, and he therefore proposed to abstain from taking up that past of the subject, and he could not but hope that Hon. Members who followed him would follow his example. lie made no a p o l og y f or t r espassing upon the time of the House, because he felt it to be his duty to give, and the House to hear any explanation he might be en abled to make to the personal charge which had been made against his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. He had felt anxious to open this part of the New Zealand question, fot, when he last addressed the House on the subject, he did so with some degree of warmth, which could not be deemed ex traordinary, because improper conduct had been imputed to a Noble Friend, who, he was sure, was quite incapable of it. He had no doubt he should now be able to give such an explana tion of the matter as would not only satisfy the House but the Honourable Member for Cockermouth himself. Now, the charge that had been made against his Noble Friend at the head of the Colon'es, if he understood it rightly, was this, that he had come to an arrangement with the New Zea land Company in Slay, 1843, and that having undertaken to give certain instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, he had given those that were inconsistent with them ; and that, in short, he had given one set of instructions to the New Zealand Company, and another to the Governor. Now he felt satisfied that he should be able to show that those charges were totally unfounded, and that the Noble Lord had acted in the only way he could do towards the Com pany, consistent with his duty. It was not his wish to go into personal communications or discussions, but he would refer at once to the letters that had passed upon the subject. The first letter was written on the Bth of Slay, after a communication and interview with the Noble Lord. That letter referred to a proposal on the part of the Company to purchase land at Auckland, to the appointment of a judge, and to the formation of a Government on the island, and then it referred to the Company's title to land. The arrangement at first proposed a conditional title should be granted on the Company purchasing the land, and in case the Company should ask for greater rights, and they could net be given, or that the Company had to make compensation, th a t the n the C rown was to assist the Company in making any bargain. The Noble Lord at once assented to the proposal for the purchase of land at Auckland, as would be seen by the letter he would read. The Hon. Gentleman then read the letter, showing that the proposal had been made and agreed to. The ar rangement proposed referred to those three points he had al luded to only ; and thus matters stood at the time of the death of Captain Hobson. On the 15th of June, 1843, a letter was written to Lord Stanley by Captain Fitzroy, containing five questions; three of those questions referred to the arrangements he had previously noticed, the other two related to different subjects. Now, what was the course Lord Stanley had pursued? Why, with respect to the three first points, Captain Fitzroy was referred to the correspondence ; and with respect to the others, he was told that they referred to an in complete arrangement. A 3 to the correspondence which the Noble Lord had been charged with keeping back, it had been made confidential, in consequence of the proposal being re tailed, which was the substance of the letters, after Captain Fitzroy had sailed. No instructions had been shown to the New :Zealand Company, except those to which he had referred, and those instructions had been given without reserve. He wished to avoid every irritating topic. The question was, how ever, whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial office had been guilty of an intentional decep tion, in keeping back this correspondence? The New Zealand Company having received the correspondence, on the 12th of February, said, in reply, on the 29th, that they regretted that Lord Stanley appeared to have understood the agreement in a different sense from that which they had at tached to it. Now, he must direct the attention of Hon. Members to a letter written before that period. In that letter he found a passage in which the New Zealand Company stated that they had the greatest reliance on Captain Fitzroy's inten tions ; and, as regarded the Noble Lord, so far from stating that this was an act of gross deception, the letter concluded by stating that they left the matter in his Lordship's hands, with entire reliance on his good faith. He hoped that the effect of a calm and temperate consideration of the subject would be to induce Gentlemen to withdraw the charges made against the Noble Lord, for the first time in his life; for let that Noble Lord's faults and failings be what they might, until now no man ever charged him with duplicity.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. C. BULLER said he could assure the House that he rose with the greatest pain to make any remarks in reference to the conduct of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley), but the statements of the New Zealand Company had been publicly made, and by those statements, if he had any regard for his character, he must publicly stand.—( Hear. ) He was nut there to ask for any vote of censure with regard to the Noble Lord's conduct, but to defend certain statements made by the New Zealand Company, complaining of substantial wrong done to them by the Noble Lord, with respect to the matter to which the motion referred. Those statements had been before the public a whole year; and though the Noble Lord was in that House when it was first made, he had not brought the matter before the House. It was not their fault that the matter had been brought before the House. It was elicited by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) reading a letter of the New Zealand Company, which he had endeavoured to turn against them ; and he should be extremely glad if the discussion that evening should clear a public question from those bitter and acrimonious allusions with which it had been mixed up. He had felt that the Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department was placed in a very difficult position ; and in order that he might have the fullest advan tage in reply, he should close by moving, as an amendment, for all correspondence which had passed between Lord John Rus sell and the New Zealand Company. Now the complaint which he had to make on that occasion was that by the transactions to which the Honourable Gentleman had adverted the New Zealand Company had suffered substantial wrong. In order to juvify this complaint, it would be necessary for him to call attention to the agreement of the 12th of May, 1843, and to point out the differcn'te between that agreement, and the agreement for which it was substituted with the Noble Lord the member for the City of London. The agreement between Lord John Russell and the New Zealand Company was to this effect:—Having acquired a little land, by certain purchases, which they said they had made from the natives of New Zealand, prior to the assertion of her Majesty's authority in the island, it became necessary that the Company should make some arrangement with respect to those claims. There never was any dispute as to the way , in which those claims were to be adjusted; but it was agreed that an amount should be taken proportioned to the expenditure which had been incurred. Now the difference which arose was this— They imagined that the agreement with Lord John Russell made their claims dependent only on one inquiry—namely, an inquiry before an accountant ; whereas Lord Stanley said that there was a court established in which their claims must be in quired into, and that they must go there to determine the validity of their purchases from the natives. A long, and, he was sorry to add, a warm controversy took place on the subject; and, while it lasted, the operations of the Company were totally suspended, and, their title being discredited, no land could be sold. Of 14,000 inhabitants of the colony, 10,000 derived their title under the New Zealand Company, and depended on them for their secure possession. Lord Stanley made them twe offers, neither of which did they accept. On the death of Captain Hobson, the Governor of the colony, when a new Governor had to be sent out, it was proposed that a fresh ar rangement should be made, and negotiations for that purpose were entered into. On the Bth of May a letter was trans mitted by Mr. Sorties to Lord Stanley, containing the pro posals of the New Zealand Company. This document was prepared by both parties—it reduced their views to writing. On the 12th of May an answer was received from the Hon. Gentleman opposite; and if all the rest of the correspondence had been conducted in the same spirit, the negotiation would have hada very different result. What he complained of was, that from that hour the spirit of the letter to which he had referred was deviated from.—( Hear, hear.) The spirit in which the Government acted was everything in a matter of this kind. Lord Stanley stated that he was prepared to issue instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, founded on the proposal of the Company themselves. They were naturally anxious to know what those instructions were ; and 'on the part of the New Zealand Company he went to the Under Secretary for the Colonies. A letter of the 19th of May, enclosed two letters, which he called the agreement as to the instructions. The first letter was dated the Ist February, and the second the 26th of June, 1843. It was a painful and a difficult task to occupy the attention of the House with such a matter, but he was desirous not to make accusations, but to state specifically what were the faults they found with the Colonial Secretary, and to place before the House how the second instructions of February, 1843, differed in spirit and in letter from the first. The first objection they entertained was against the proceed ings of the Government as to the land at Auckland ; they looked en them as having been a distinct violation of the letter of the agreement. The two great objects of the Company in taking land in the neighbourhood of Auckland were, first, that they might be on good terms with the Governor; and, secondly, that, in obtaining it through the Government, they should get rid of any further trouble with respect to proving their title. The Company never intended to make any purchase of it of the natives in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Their letter to Lord Stanley was worded entirely in accordance with that view ; they said the Company would abandon their claim to &0,000/. worth of the land they had already purchased, if credit were given them for an equal amount of land in the neighbourhood of Auckland. The Company were ready to abandon their claim, not to sell it ; they aban doned their claim not to any specific fifty thousand acres of land, but to 50,0001. worth of the whole quantity they had purchased elsewhere, and to the whole of which they were en titled. There had never been any dispute as to the quantity of land to which they were entitled. Therefore, the terms of the agreement fully bore out their meaning, which was, sup posing the claim of the Company amounted to one million of acres, they would only claim 930,000 acres, as they were to get the other fifty thousand in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Instead of the Company selecting its land in a certain district to the southward, it, for the purposes of the Government itself, suggested by Lord Stanley himself, asked to be allowed to select a portion of it in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Now, they contended that this claim had been specifically set aside by Lord Stanley's instructions of February, in which he directed the Go vernor to ascertain if the title to the land to be granted to the Company could be satisfactorily proved by them. The Com pany charged this as a distinct violation of the agree ment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was entitled to a certain quantity of land in the south ; they abandoned the claim to that land, for fifty thousand acres i n the north, and then they were required, for these fifty thousand acres, to go i before the Commissioners and es t a blish th e ir title to t Another resolution was one much more at variance with the spirit of the agreement. It was of the greatest importance to the Company that the Gove rn m ent should interfere itself to put an end to all the disputes with the natives. As long as the natives imagined that the Company (which they knew was in disfavour with the Government) was the party they had to contend with, the Company knew that the d eman d s o f t h e n atives would be raised to a very great am oun t, an d t h a t t h ey should have all kinds of difficulties in making arrangements with them. The Company, therefore, wished the Government to make the arrangement with the natives, that their claims might be extinguished for a reasonable sum. They asked the Govern ment to do its best to aid the agents of the Company in effect ing these arrangements with the natives; and what they meant v..as, that the Government should act for the Company as it would have acted for itself.—( Hear, hear.) And what was Lord Stanley's answer ? It was a most frank and cordial ac ceptance of the proposal, and his letter stated his readiness to give instructions to the Governor to settle with the natives the title to lands in the colony. But afterwards it seemed doubts arose ; he did not know Who expressed those doubts, but the Governor applied to Lord Stanley for further explanations. Those explanations were given, but they conveyed a great qua lification of the readiness with which he had accepted the first proposal, and it was a very different answer to a man, asking another to do his beet for him, when he said, he would do his best, or when he said he would do it "so far as it could be done with propriety." The qualifi cation he added to his second instructions completely nullified the premise he had given by the first. It was exactly the sort of qualification attached to a promise there was no inclination to keep ; the spirit of the promise to do his best was totally altered and vitiated. He now came to the third point, and that the most important one, with regard to the title to the lands. Captain Fiterov wrote on the subject to Lord Stanley, in terms which showed that he ( Captain Fitzroy) had totally misconceived his original instructions; and he must say it was exceedingly hard that the New Zealand Company, which in this matter was obliged to trust to the honour of the Government, and the settee and spirit of its officer, should not have been informed of these misconceptions on the part of the Governor. The Govern ment was bound to have told the Company that the Governor had found some ambiguity in their instructions, which had led to a total misconception of the arrangement between them ; that they had done their best to correct that misconcepth n, and that they wished the Company to see if they had com pletely settled it. That was the course a Colonial Secretary, anxious for the good of the colony, and anxious to fulfil his engagements with those who trusted him, should have pursued. He should have told the Governor, in terms as gentle as he pleased, that he did not understand the matter, and that he (Lord Stanley) would set him right. Substantially he (Mr. Buller) granted that Lord Stanley did set the Governor right, but he did it in such a manner that he could attribute it to nothing but that the instructions had never been acted on.—( Hear, hear.) His Lordship referred the Governor to his original correspondence, which the Governor must already have seen fifty times, and which it was evident he had already totally misunderstcod. Lord Stanley's explanation of his instructions opened the whole question of the validity of the purchases; it at least implied a doubt on the subject ; and as Lord Stanley must have known he was dealing with a man capable of misunderstanding a great deal, he ought to have made his instruc tions as clear and intelligible as he possibly could. But, then, what was to be thought of the words that had been used by the party of whom he had been speaking, in the let ters to which he had been referring ? If anything could con‘ firm the fact that he was right in his construction of these ob servations, it was the words he had quoted ; but then the same letter added, " I confess that I concur in the view taken by you." Now, what was he (Mr. B.) to infer from these words, but that the view taken by the Governor on this ques tion was a wrong view ?—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, if Lord Stanley had thought proper to consult the New Zealand Com pany, a very different result would have followed. Therefore, what the Company complained of was, that without any notice to them as to what was to be the proceeding in their regard, rules had been adopted which gave the Company reason to complain of a want of an observance of good faith towards them. —( Hear, hear.) Therefore the Company complained of a want of observance of good faith towards them, and alleged that this agreement of Lord Stanley's was nothing more than so much waste paper, and that the Company had not not got their title to their grant. An Hoe. MEMBER—Aye, not an acre.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. I3ULLER—WeII, the result of all this was, that the Company were placed in the position of plaintiffs instead of de fendants.—( Hear, hear.) Ins'ead of the Company having got even a conditional title to this land, and let those who ob jected to them establish their claim, it was the Company who were compelled to prove their claims.—( Hear, hear.) He would not now particularly allude to the affair of the Wel lington district, though the Company had been told that they would be aided in asserting their rights to it, though a title could not be promised to them.—(Hear, bear.) The Company had tried to make a purchase of that district from the natives, and they had been told that they were entitled to do so, and therefore entered into the necessary contracts, yet, strange to say, they never could get it.—( Hear, hear.) He would not now feel inclined to allude to the Nelson country, but that he had almost forgotten that the Hon. Gentleman opposite was now more than three months and a half behind him (Mr. Buller) in information upon this subject.—( Laughter. ) Well, then, passin g from that, the next assertion was that the Govern ment could make no grant of land until they had heard from their agents : but although that difficulty was interposed still there could be no question as to the title of the Company.— ( Hear.) Vet, notwithstanding all that, and that their title was clear, the Commissioners still refused to make any arrange ment, for some reason or other.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds, then, he (Mr. Buller) was warranted in saying that Lord Stanley's letters did not convey to that House the infor mation required.—( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he wished to make allusion, and it was the last he would trouble the House with. He had , said that the complaint of the Company was, not as to the extent of land to which they were entitled, but as to the fact itself.—( Hear, hear.) He had before him one of the letters of Lord Stanley, in which that Noble Lord said "he was ready to fulfil all the conditions promised by him, provided that the other conditions were complied with." That letter was dated the 12th of May, and by it, it appeared that Lord Stanley ad mitted the rights of the Company. But what was the result of all those negotiations? Why, this, that notwithstanding aU the instructions that had been issued to Captain Fitzroy, nine months had been suffered to elapse, and yet those conditions had been allowed to remain unfulfilled.—(Bear, hear.) He had spoken upon this subject the other night, and he had made use of the same words, namely, whose fault was it that this question had been raised ? Was it not Lord Stanley's ? ( Hear, hear.) Well, then, he had endeavoured to find out what step the Government would take on the subject, and be presumed he was to look for his answer to the letter of the 9th of May.—( Hear.) But if so, there again arose another dill crilty ; and who then was to decide upon this question of the moral rights that should exist between man and man, if the Go vernment did not interpose and protect the rights of the Company? Why dial they resort to that means of intercommunication? Obviously because the matter was important. If, then, it was important, why did they not consider other parties to the agreement? Why did they not communicate with the New Zea land Company ? By not making this communication they had seriously impaired the spirit and efficacy of the original agree ment. The Noble Lord had rendered himself liable to the charge of having rendered that agreement totally void and in efficacious. Nine months ago the whole dispute ought to have been for ever settled. He (Mr. Buller) trusted that he had stated this matter to the House without any exaggeration. He felt that he was on his own defence, having agreed to the report of the New Zealand Company.—( Hear, hear.) He felt that they bad been unhandsomely treated in the matter ; and he thought that he had made out to the satisfaction of the house that there was sufficient irregularity in this transaction to warrant the course he had taken. He would not affect to disregard his position on that occasion—he would not affect to say that he would not feel great satisfactiop should this charge not be sustained, but he feared that tie Noble Secretary for the Colonies had acted in such a manner as to forget both his duty to others and himself. The Hon. Gen tleman concluded by moving as an amendment for the produc tion of all correspondence that had taken place between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. Mr. G. W. HOPE trusted the House would not expect the Government to give any later dispatch than that which had been laid before them. He regretted that the Hon. Gentleman had not followed the course which he (Mr. Hope) had done— of cenfiiiing himself altogether to the question before the House. The Hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to refer to the original agreement, and the Hon. Gentleman had made re flectionsas to the course pursued by Lord Stanley. Now the House would recollect what were the circumstances of the set tlement of New Zealand, and in what condition the people were placed at the time Lord Stanley undertook the affairs of his office. New Zealand was settled contrary to the wishes and intentions of the Government. The New Zealand Company, in 1839, sent out an agent for the purpose of acquiring land by purchase, and concurrently with that, they sent out a large body of settlers to take possession of that island. In conse quence of that expedition having sailed, the Noble Lord, then at the head of the Colonial Department (the Marquis of Normanby), determined upon sending out persons to treat with the chiefs for the sovereignty of the Island, upon this understanding that if they obtained the sovereignty of the Island they would recognise no titles previously acquired by Europeans. The difficulty, therefore, which the Noble Lord had to contend with, in respect to the New Zea land Company, arose out of that arrangement. He now came at once to the principal points alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. He had never, until he heard it from the Hon. Gentleman, understood that it was to be made a ground of objection to the Government by the New Zealand Com pany, that the land taken in exchange for the 50,0001. was land which ought to have been retained by the Company. Now, he had always understood that it was expected that the Government was to receive something in return. The Hon. Gentleman said he had applied to see the instructions which had been sent out, and they were shown to him. Those instruc tions were directed to one point only, and the main instructions were directed to the Governor. The Hon. Gentleman then dwelt (and this he made the gravgpnen of his charge) on the point that the demands made by the Company had been refused. Now, there seemed to be some misunderstanding and misapprehension on this head. He admitted that the information upon it was imperfect, but be could only state that, as far as the information in his posses sion went, he did not find any demand made by the agent of the Company from Captain Fitsroy which was refused by him, or that there was any misunderstanding as to how it was to he carried out. Now, whatever observations might be made respecting Captain Fiteroy, his strict honour and the truth of his reports were never called in question. On the 29th of January he wrote to Lord Stanley, stating that he had had an interview with the principal agent of the New Zealand Company, and that there was every prospect of ad justing the claims of the Company. There was no demand made which was refused—there was no difference as to the con struction of the arrangement, or as to the instructions which had been given. He did not think that a more complete answer could be given to the Hon. Member. Then as to the question of dereption—he admitted that the Noble Lord was as liable to err as other persons ' • but the question was as to the inten tion to deceive. The Hon. Member said that the Noble Lord ought to have been explicit in his instructions ; but they were given by referring to the correspondence itself. It was impossible to give more precise or direct instructions as to what was the understanding of them. But then it was said, why were they not communicated to the Company ? Why there was a doubt, and if that doubt was not solved in favour of the Company, they might be referred to them ; but as it was solved in their favour, where was the use in referring them? lf, as was admitted by the Hon. Member himself, there was en evident desire to correct the error of Captain Fitzroy, and hav ing (as he thought he had) proved this, lie (Mr. Hope) did not think he was called upon to do more than to show that there was no ground for charging his Noble Friend within o tentional breach of fa ith, or a wish to deceive.— ( Year, hear. Mr. R. TREVOR said that his real object in rising was simply this—that as the Hon. Member for Liskeard had volun teered to explain an expression which he had used on a former debate, a communication to that effect was made to him by a mutual friend, and he was aware of the answer which had been sent to him on the occasion, on the part of Captain Fitzroy's friend, arid he was happy of having an opportunity of acknow ledging his courtesy that evening ; and he might say, at the same time, that he congratulated the Honourable Gentleman opposite, and the House, on the improved tone in which the debate was carried on that night. Mr. SHEIL--With regard to Captain Fitzroy, I do think that the reflections which have been cast on him will not in the slightest degree affect him, as a gentleman of Captain Fitz roy's head seems to me to be a very fit representative of the Colonial Secretary.—(Laughter.) With regard to the inten tions of Lord Stanley, my Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Buller) has abstained from dragging them into that debate, but it must be remembered that, with the possession of the best intentions unfitness for a particular department may unhappily be associated.—(Laughter.) The whole case lay within a very narrow point. In Lord John Russell's letter of May 1840 it is stated " the result of Mr. Pennington's investigation you will perceive is that undersuch arrangements the Company are entitled to receive 531,924 acres of land." "Entitled to receive," mark that, and that " hereafter they w ill be entitled to a further portion of between vo,ono and 500,000 acres." Now this fact must be borne in mind by the House that the Company were already admitted to be entitled to 500s000 acres. This must be borne in mind when you come to the letter of the B'h of May, which contains the proposition of the Government. The Company proposed to accept 50,0001. in lieu of 50,000 acres of land, to which they were already :entitled__ that was their claim. It was emphatically and most expressively worded, and was full of significance. It was that upon which his Hon. and Learned Friend relied, but to which the Under Secretary of State did not advert. The Company were to relinquish their claim to 50,000 acres of land. That was the I I. od v •0, 1 I