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

SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING) FEBRUARY 25, 1848.

or, indeed, any tax at present, was sufficiently
answered by the speech of my Noble Friend (Lord
John Russell) the ether night—(Hear, hear)—when
my Noble Friend was called upon unwillingly to
propose to the House additional taxation to the
amount of 3,000,000!. I think it would he
unwise if we were to part with the window-
tax. There is an old fable, that we can bear the bur-
dens we have been accustomed to more easily than we
can bear the imposition of new burdens ; and surely
those who are anxious to avoid fresh taxation can
hardly ask us, in our present cipcumstances, to give
up a tax which yields about 1,600,0001. or 1,700,000/.
a year.—(Hear, hear.) When I look at the notice
paper, I find various Hon. Members struggling for
the revision of taxation ; but they are not all of them
quite so kind as my Noble Friend in proposing a sub-
stitute. Bat I must say, when my Noble Friend
accuses us of being spendthrifts, that his proposal of
disposing of our capital (by the sale of the royal
forests) is by no means the most thrifty mode of
dealing with our property. I think it right also to
state, that the offices in connexion with the royal
forests, to which the Noble Lord referred, are mere
honorary appointments. The House would naturally
suppose, from the statement of the Noble Lord, that
these great personages were a heavy charge upon the
public revenue, whereas he might have told the House
that the emolument, like the timber to which he
referred, was—nil.—(Hear, hear.) With regard
to timber for the royal navy, the Noble
Lord supposes these forests are of no use whatever ;
but the fact is, that at the present time, when the
whole world is open to us, timber is imported from
abroad. The chief expense incurred is in enclosing
and protecting those plantations, which will hereafter,
as in former days, insure a good supply for the navy
when foreign timber may not be so accessible. This
is the object for which the forests are kept up, not as
the useless appendages of royalty, as the Noble Lord
described them. The Noble Lord now proposes to
repeal the window duties ; and the third motion,
lower on the notice paper, to be brought forward to-
night by an Hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Ewart), con-
templates the abolition of the Excise duties on paper,
soap, and bricks, the duties on butter and cheese, and
the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine.
Now, really, Sir, in the present state of our finances,
these propositions are not a little serious. I have taken
the trouble to ascertain what is the produce of these
various duties. The window duties and the excise on
paper soap, and bricks, yield to the revenue in round
numbers 4,000,000/ a year. The usual proposition for
reducing the duty on tea is from 2s. lid. to ls., on wine
to 2s. 6d. per gallon, and on tobacco from 3s. to Is.
per lb. The produce of these duties is upwards of
11,000,0001., and taking the proposed reduction to
be about one-half, it would occasion a loss of revenue
of more than 5,000,0001.; to which we must add the
4,000,000/. of loss from the repeal of the first-named
duties, making in all a sacrifice of no less than
9,000,0001. I appeal to the common sense of Hon.
Members whether, in the present state of our finances,
the proposal now submitted, and that other about to
be submitted by: my Hon. Friend, are practicable,
or such as any Government could think of acceding
to. My Honourable Friend the Member for Dum-
fries has, to be sure, a proposition to substitute for
the duties he would reduce and repeal, a system of
direct taxation on realised property ; that is, on all
property under schedules A and C, now producing
about 3,000,0001.; the Honourable Gentleman would
quadruple the present amount of taxation, a propo-
sition which even those most enamoured of a tax on
realized property may well view with alarm.—
(Hear, hear.) Objections have been urged to
the mode in which the window duties are
levied. Sir, when it is said that this is one of
these taxes which exclusively press on the poor, I
must take the liberty of altogether denying the state-
ment. 'We have been constantly told during the last
four or five years by those who seek the repeal of
duties most onerous to the humbler classes, and I
admit there is considerable truth in the argument,
that the most advantageous mode of benefiting the
poor is to take off the taxes on corn and the necessa-
ries of life, imposing instead direct taxation; and yet we
have heard to-night Gentlemen who always advocated
this course insist that the window duty, which comes
nearer to a property-tax than any other now existing
in the country, should be remitted for the benefit of
the poorer classes of the community.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for Montrose objects to the tax,
because there are so many exemptions. What are
those exemptions ? They are invariably in favour
of the lower orders. Speaking generally, of
3,500,000 houses, only 500,000 are subject to this
window duty, 8,000,000 being exempt. What
houses are exempt ? Not those of the nobility and
gentry, but the smallest description of houses, occu-
pied from one end of the country to the other by
the poorest classes. I don't mean to say there are
not houses with fewer than eight windows inhabited
by persons of property; it is impossible to deal with
two or three exceptional cases. The lower class of
houses, in which the poor reside, are exempt from
this tax ; therefore, to call it a tax imposed by the
wealthy on the poor is a most extraordinary perver-
sion of the real facts of the case. The exceptions are
almost invariably in favour of persons who do not
beneficially occupy the houses. My Honourable
and Gallant Relative (Colonel Sibthorp) would put a
tax on public offices ; but what would the public gain
by that? I should have to propose in the miscel-
laneous estimates a sum of money to !pay a tax on
the windows of the Treasury, where the clerks sit at
their duty ; we should thus be paying from one
hand into another ; nothing could result from such a
ceremony but inconvenience, and possibly some loss
in the transfer. To suppose that the public would
gain by the process is the most preposterous idea
ever propounded by my Honourable and Gallant
Relative.—(A. laugh.) The Noble Lord talked of the
exemption of agricultural houses ; but all buildings
occupied for the purposes of trade and manufacture
are also exempt from the window-tax. That, again,
is an exemption in favour of the industrious classes.
Those only pay who inhabit dwelling-houses. The
Noble Lord also spoke of the extraordinary amount
raised on the lower description and the small amount
raised on tha higher class of houses. Why is it so ?
Because the lower class is greatly more numerous.—
(Hear, hear.) Of the 500,000 houses in the king-
dom subject to the tax there are 314:000 with 15
windows and under. If you mean to tax only the
large houses of the rich you will have no produce
from your taxation. If it be necessary to raise a large
amount of taxation,;-you may take it as an indisput-
able fact that you must render it payable by a large
number of persons. If you confine your tax to a small
number at the top of the tree the produce of it will be
very small, even if you increase your impost to confis-
cation. The Noble Lord, speaking on the subject of the
window duties, referred to the arguments urged in 1833
in favour of the repeal of the house tax, as if that pressed
most heavily on the richer portion of the community.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that the window-
tax, taking town and country together, bears most
severely on the higher classes. Referring to-day to the
returns connected with the inhabited house duty, I
found that the houses of the mobility and gentry paid
much less than the window-duty. I myself paid 321.
for window. duty, whereas I used to pay to the
house-tax 14/. I should, therefore, have benefited
twice as much if the window-tax had been removed
as I now do by the remission of the house-tax. There
is no doubt considerable objection to this tax, and if
there were any other mode of raising the same amount
of duty, I should be exceeding glad. I have been
in communication with the Chairman of Stamps and
Taxes and the officers of that Board, and we have had
under consideration various schemes for improving
the mode of rating to the window duty, and removing
the objections which I admit there are to it; but
my Noble Friend and the deputation that waited
upon me some time ago said that to amend the
scale, and to put an end to the inequalities that existed,
would be of no use ; and although I did venture to
ask whether they preferred the tax levied in another
way, I could not discover that they had any such
proposition to make. Their only proposition, and the
only one made in this House, is the absolute repeal
of the tax ; but that is one which, in the present state
of the finances of the country, however painful it may
be not to take off a tax to which so strong an ob-
jection is made, I feel it to be my duty to oppose.
After a few words in explanation from Sir D. L.
EVANS,
Mr. R. PALMER felt it impossible, in the present
state of the finances of the country, to give a vote in
favour of this motion, though he looked upon the
tax itself as the most objectionable of those which
remained unrepealcd.—(Hear, hear.) He was an
advocate of direct taxation ; but of such direct
taxation as should interfere least with the industry
of the country. The window•tax was one which
interfered directly with the employment of capital
and labour, and he saw no reason why the same
amount could not be raised in the way of an addition
to the income-tax rather than by a window duty,
which interfered with the Imanufacture of glass, and
consequently the employment of labour. If the tax
was to be supported on the principle of an income-
tax why not make it one ?—(Hear, hear.) As show-
ing the gross inequality of the tax, he found, taking
the twelve towns which contributed the greatest pro-
portion of the tax, that Plymouth (which he repre•
sented) paid 11,3261. a year to the window-tax, while
Leeds paid only 7,789!., though he would venture to
say that Leeds represented more than ten times the
wealth of Plymouth. Another objection to the
tax was that it interfered with the health of that class
of people whom they ought most to consider—
of mechanics and others who now dwelt in cellars
and herded together in dark, confined, and unhealthy
rooms, and for whom the Noble Lord (Ashler) and
other benevolent persons, were endeavouring to pro-
vide more healthy habitations.—(Hear, hear.) The
House, he thought, ought to make a determined stand
against a tax which operated so unequally and in a
manner so injurious to the industrious classes.
Mr. WAKLEY—The Hon. Member for Plymouth

had made an excellent speech against the window-
tax, and how he could have the firmness to resist the
influence of his own arguments, and vote against the
motion, he (Mr. Wakley) could not understand.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) Tho Hon. Member had not
only spoken generally against the tax, but had adduced
a special case against it, and though he represented
the injured people of Plymouth, they were to find his
vote recorded against the proposition. Of what use
could representation be if this was the mode in which
they acted ?—(Hear.) The declaration of the Hon.
Member must, he thought, be very discouraging to
those who sent him there, thought it must be very
encouraging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And as that Right Hon. Gentleman had commenced
his speech by alluding to the unfortunate position of
the person who filled the office of Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he hoped now, after the speech of the
Hon. _Member fur Plymouth, and his declaration that
he intended to support the Government against this
motion, that he felt himself more comfortable. A
strong dose of chloroform could scarcely make him
more easy.---(!1 laugh.) The public, however, would
after this feel no disappointment at the rejection of the
motion. All hope of retrenchment from the present
Ministry had gone by. Ile was sorry to say it ; but
that was his conviction, and that, too, was tile itn•
pression of the public out of doors.—((Tear, hear.)
The public had looked with great confidence to the
present Government. Ile had never seen more public
confidence exhibited for any Ministry than that of
the Noble Lord. The public had entertained great
respect for the present Ministry ; but that was all
over now.—(Bear, hear.) He wished the Noble Lord
would go down to the City, and see his com-
mittee there. He would be astonished at the recep-
tion he would meet with now in the turtle-soup-
eating quarter.—(hear, end a laugh.) He (Mr.
Wakley) regretted that there should be occasion
for such a change of feeling; but it had taken
place, and not without reason.—(Hear, hear.)
Still Ministers must have great hopes of the House
of Commons after the speech of the Hon. Member
for Plymouth. He hoped, however, that though this
motion might fail, many others of the same kind
would be made, and that the feeling of the house
would be tested over and over again on the
subject of reduction of taxation, and that the people

might know who were and who were not for re-
trenchment. But with regard to this window duty it
was one of the most odious taxes ever imposed. It
was only second to the income•tax in iniquity. It
was injurious in a variety of ways. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer was evidently mistaken in his view
of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman believed—
and, no doubt, sincerely believed—that this tax did

not press unjustly upon the industrious classes. The
Right Hon. Gentleman made use of the term " lower
orders" more than once during his speech. He (Mr.
Walley) did not understand exactly where the lower
orders were to be found as amongst men, though he

did as amongst animals. But the Right Hon. Gentle-
man argued that the tax did not press upon the indus-
trious classes, because small houses were exempt ; but
did not the Right Hon. Gentleman know that in all
large towns, where land was valuable, the object
of the proprietors was to build high houses, and
locate as many people in them as they could ? Did
he not know that the great mass of the working
classes were lodgers and not housekeepers ? how
many instances were there in which eight, ten, and
even twelve persons were living together in one
room with a single window ? That was the case not
only in the metropolis, but in all large manufacturing
towns throughout the kingdom. This tax operated
therefore as a curse upon the labouring classes ; it
was injurious to their health, destructive of their
comfort, and highly prejudicial to their morals.—
(Hear, hear.) They were toll that this was the
nearest approach to an income-tax. If so, that with
him would be a sufficient reason for detesting the
income-tax. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman, who
had resolved to maintain this tax, considered how
it interfered with trade and industry? Had he con-
sulted architects on the subject--and did he not know
that it prevented all improvements in architecture,
and in that way robbed the people of at least
100,0001. a year in the employment of labour ? On
that ground, if there was no other, the tax
ought to be repealed.—(Hear.) He was aware that
there was no hope of the repeal of this tax from the
present Government. Ministers would however know
in a few days that the people would not submit to
any increase of taxation for any purpose.—(Hear,
hear.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) still laboured
under that hallucination by which he had recently been
possessed, as to the probability of war breaking out,
common sense out of doors would soon restore his

mind to perfect sanity.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The
Noble Lord had denied that his speech, on intro-
ducing his financial statement, was intended as a war
speech ; but, though he did not intend it to be a war
speech, his language led people in that House and
out of doors to believe that we were approaching a
period when this country would be liable to attacks
from a foreign nation.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had explained, yester-
day, what he had intended to say.
Mr. WAKLEY was glad to hear the explanation
But the people were informed that they must submit
to increased taxation, and it was hut natural for a
thinking people to inquire for what purpose they were
to be thus over-taxed. An ignorant people might
submit to injustice, but an enlightened and thinking
people would not submit to it long. The people of
England considered the principle of taxation was un-
just, and that it was in favour of property and against
the industry of the country.—(Hear, hear.) That
was the general opinion out of doors, and he hoped
there were many in that ROUES who concurred in it.—
(Hear, hear.) Considering the great talent of the
Government, the means they had of acquiring in-
formation, the many times subjects of finance had
been considered by them, he did expect that they
would have exercised retrenchment and have practised
economy. lie believed, however, that they had made
no inquiry, but had come down recklessly and
thoughtlessly with their budget and their project
for adding to the burdens of the people—ft
proposition which had created much excitement and
discontent both in and out of the House, and which
would increase unless the Noble Lord relaxed in his
propositions. The equalisation of the land tax would
millions a year, but that the
not entertain. The legacy and
produce
Government almost N
.0
u tiNdVO
probate duty on real property would also produce a
large revenue. Could any man contend that personal
property should be subject to the duty now imposed
upon it, while real property escaped ?—(Hear, hear.)
If a man died, leaving 100,0001. in land, his successor
paid not one farthing; but if a man left 1001. to a
faithful servant, he must pay 101. to the Government
before he could have the money. What could be more
unjcountryu
stFor years past the principle of taxing in
this had been most unjust to the industrious
classes, and the window duty was one of the most
unjust taxes of all. It commenced at a low scale,
but when it touched the shopkeeper and the; trades-
man—the man who had to get liii bread by the
exercise of his industry and his int: llect—the screw
highesttocr point ; and, when, again,
acy, it was reduced to
reachediwtthaes pl
ou
4.
lowest
snt t
theop o t a
i nh
te .
_ri(s
Hear,
hear.) He hoped the
House would apply itself to the subject of finance
and taxation, and resist every extravagant expendi-
ture on the part of the 11Iinister—that they would
investigate every item with the most strict scrutiny.
If they did this, he believed they might greatly
reduce the taxes, and then it would be for them to
apportion what remained fairly over the surface of
society, He hoped the Noble Lord (Duncan) would
press his motion to a division, and he would support
him.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD remarked upon the differ-
ence of opinion between the advocates of free trade,
some being in favour of direct taxation, and others
It WU a fallacy to say that the
lower classes were benefited by the reduction of the
duties on the necessaries of lite
againstprot Protectionists. It it—which difference had been foretold by the
; and the more taxes
were removed because they protected particular in-
terests,classes suffer.
aggregate of the taxes
must be levied by indirect, and not by direct tax-
ile
contendedt he
thatmore
the g r h i
e Forking
tax-
ation.
Mr. MiGREGOR would support the motion if it
would
the
t
could be shown that the public service would not
suffer if this tax were repealed. There was no more
odious tax, not even the excise ; and if they
could
find the means of raising
oughttob an equal amount of revenue
by any other means, it e at once repealed.
This tax was most oppressive upon the poorer classes,
and ought at least to be equally distributed. He
should much prefer a house tax, if deducted from the
rent paid to the landlord, but not otherwise.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR inferred, from the statement
that while 500,000 houses only were subject to the
tax, 3,000,000 were not liable to it, that many of
those 3,000,000 of houses had their windows shut up
in order to avoid the tax.—(hear, hear.) As the
representative of a popular constituency he would
vote for its repeal.
Captain PECIIELL opposed the tax
which on the ground of
the injustioe and grievances it gave rise to ; in
proof of which he had only to refer to the fact, that out
of 620 cases of assessed taxes determined before the
judges of appeal between 1840 and 1847, 268 of them
were for windows. H
He opposed it also as an obstacle
to the full carrying out of sanitary reform.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHLEY, as Member for Bath, felt it necessary
to explain the vote ho should gre: He concurred in a
great -deal that had fallen from his Noble Colleague, from
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and indeed from all
those flon. Members who had spoken of this tax as in-
jurious to and Oppressive upoiii all classes, but particu
larly upon the occupiers of goad tenements and lodging-
houses ; and when be viewed it in a sanitary point of
view he felt it was impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs
that arose from it.—(Hear, bear.) lie had no hesitation
in saying, that without a total and absolute repeal
of the window d!:ties no sanitary measures would
1
• be effective, or place the people in that physical
condition which acted so directly upon their moral
welfare. He told his constituents at a public
,meeting

a few days ago, that if the Government were about to
propose a large increase of taxation, as was then ex-
pewed they would simultaneously with a reductio❑ of
taxation, this was the very first tax that ought to be
efficed from the statute-book.—(Hear, hear.) But he
coupled that opinion with this declaration, that he would
not give a vote that might have the effect of impeding
the machines of government, or of endangering in the
least degree the credit of the country. And he could
not but feel, looking to the present state of the revenue,
anti to the announcement of the Prime Minister that
there was a deficiency of 3,000,0001. which, compelled
him to propose a large increase of taxation, that to call
for a further reduction, by the repeal of this tax, of
1,600,0001., would be almost tantamount to proposing a
species of nat'onal bankruptcy. He could not, therefore,
concur with his Nobl© Colleague in the proposition he
now made to the House. It was extremely painful to
him to act in opposition to the wishes of a constituency
who had trusted him with such singular generosity, but
he conceived that Members of that House had duties to
perform from which such a consideration should not in-
duce them to swerve.

Mr. AGLIONBY fully agreed with the Noble Lord,
that a Member of that House, even to please his consti•
merits, ought not to give a vote which he considered
would have the effect of impeding the machine of go-
vernincnt or endangering the public credit; but he (Mr.
Aglionby), in voting for the repeal of the window-tax,
while he acted in accordance with the feelings of his
constituents, did not consider that ho would incur either
of the disasters pointed out by the Noble Lord. He
believed, on the contrary, that such a reduction of the
national expenditure might be made as would enable
the Government to remove this odious tax without
having recourse to any other in its stead.—(Hear.)
Mr. COWAN gave a hearty support to the motion,
and took occasion to comment upon the hardships to
which the paper manufacturers were subjected by the
operation of the Excise, and to declare his determina-
tion to support every measure, come from what quarter
it might, e hich should tend to diminish the burdens and
consequently the sufferings of the poor, or to promote
the industry of the people.
Mr. MO WATT likewise supported the motion, be-
lieving that the window-tax, both in principle and effect,
was most unjust and unequal, and nothing more nor less
than a blundering, circuitous, and demoralising income-
tax. Even the Right Hon. G eatlemau the Chancellor'of the
Exchc quer had admitted the evils of this tax, and that
at the very same time that the Government were pro-
pcsing sanitary measures which would lose their very
basis unless this proposition were carried out. lie (Mr.
Mowatt) contended that there existed other sources of
revenue more likely to be less objectionable and injurious
to the public at large. He (Mr. Mowatt) protested
against the argument of the Right Hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that those who opposed these window
duties were bound to find a substitute to supply the de-
ficiency to the revenue which their repeal might create.
That duty properly belonged to the Government of the
country, and unless the Government discharged that
duty he (Mr. Mowatt) held ithat it failed in the fulfil-
ment of the functions which it had undertaken.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Hon. Friend the
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had remarked
that ii would have a bad effect upon the public if on the
present occasion all the argument should be in favour of
the present proposition, and that the votes of the House
should run in an opposite direction. Such, however,
might be the case if any particular tax was discussed
upon its own merits. He (Lord J. Russell) had yet
never heard any Hon. Gentleman say that any tax was
a positive good in Itself—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he
defied any Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove that of
itself that tax was good, or that it ought to be kept up
for the good of the community. The Hon. Member for
the city of Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), who had just spoken,
had declared that the excise duties upon the com-
modity (paper) which he manufactured were vexatious,
and imposed an annoyance upon the subjects of the
realm engaged in its manufacture. That allegation
he (Lord John Russell) did not deny.—(llear, hear.)
lie admitted that all excise taxes were liable to that
oljeetion. Again, the Honourable Member for Dumfries
(Mr. Divert) had announced his intention to move this
thy for the abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap,
and bricks, the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco,
i oerbfeedct
discussion
butterthereby
realised
fiah ntepl'oddricoict
property.
ehuer
resmteeyt
themselves,
ee camen,
be supplied
loss
These
bt
oyttphh oeei
points
of
tndsbdomypotirevenueifgaohtndhtcehuai
scrshgioundiscussed,
taxation
mmightehbnoeutynst
and wine, as well as for the repeal of the duties on
wwhouenld
by which each proposition had been supported, minus
not 9,000,000/, but some 10,0000001. or 1 I,Doomoi.
(Hear, hear.) Then came the argument stated by the
lion. Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and the
Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), that
the revenue, could cot spare the loss of the resources
derived from this quarter. But it was said that it be-
hoved the Government to lay down the system of taxa-
tion which they, as a Government, would adopt as a
substitute for the loss sustained by the repeal of
the impost arising from the window duties.
The experience of former years, coupled with
that which the events of the last few days fur-
nished him, did not convince him (Lord J. Ilussell)
that the course recommended by the Noble Lord was
that which the Government ought to adopt. He (Lord
J. Russell) thought that by indirect taxation mach good
might be done; but at the same time he was of opinion
that if the windowetax was taken off, the country would
find that there were limits beyond which direct taxation
could not be carried.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, in the
course of the present debate some lion. Gentlemen had
expressed their regret that the Government should have
adhered to the window duties—a tax, as they said, only
less odious than the income-tax.—(llear.) On the
whole he was obliged to come to the conclusion, that
although the window-tax was objectionable, still the
Government had not the means to give it up; and
though his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had been challenged to find a substitute, he
(Lord J. Russell) could not recommend to the House
the adoption of any such repeal or alteration as that
which had been proposed. He must also confess that,
considering the merits of this particular tax—consider-
ing the obligations by which the country was bound to
the public creditor—considering that those obligations
were bound and secured by Acts of Parliament—he
should certainly, and with a good conscience, vote against
the motion of his Noble Frioud.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. EWART supported the motion, and contended
that it was the duty of the Government not merely to
abandon the window duties, but to take a large and
comprehensive view of the whole system of taxation; if
not the people would demand a rigid and searching in-
vestigation in order to secure justice to the commerce,
manufactures, and labour of the country.—(Hear, hoar.)
Dr. BOWRING supported the motion, and contended
that a dimunition of the expenditure of the country would
enable the Government to remove the obnoxious window
dutiee. Since 1835, the expenditure of the country had
increased from 14,100,0001., until, in 1847, it had
reached 22,800,0001., being an increase within that com-
paratively short space of time of nearly 8,000,0001.
Such was the real state of things, and though he sup-
ported the present motion, he was assured that no bene-
fit would accrue to the nation except from a vcryconsido-
rable reduction in its expenditure.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR, who spoke in so low a ton.
as scarcely to be audible, was understood to support the
motion brought forward by his Noble Friend the Member
for Bath (Lord Duncan).
Sir R. PEEL said that he, for one, could not assent to
the proposition that it was the duty of the Government,
in the present state of the financial affairs of the country,
to consent to any diminution of the window duties.—
(Hear, hear.) Ho was glad to hear from the Right
lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
he intended, and had it in his power, to effect some
alteration in the anomalous manner in which the tax
was levied, and which existed under the laws now in
force and effect. He (Sir R. Peel) hoped that the Go-
vernment or the Right Hon. Gentleman would not be
deterred from pursuing the course they had laid down,
by the fact that some metropolitan deputations had
waited upon them on the subject. Ho assured the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government that no
deputation, metropolitan or otherwise, would be able
to reply to the question, " Will you find a substitute
for the tax you seek to abolish?" On the contrary,
if these deputations were asked to propose the substitu-
tion of another tax for that which they sought to get rid
of, he would advise the Noble Lord and the Government
to throw overboard the adoption of suggestions and
principles which, as regarded taxation of articles of con-
sumption, would prove to be futile and unavailing. He
(sir R. Peel) could bear full testimony that the Noble
Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had exhi-
bited on this question a zeal and ability on the present
occasion ; but he ought to have waited until the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer promised a diminution of taxa-
tion, when the Noble Lord might pat in his claim that
the window tax should be inclnded in that diminution.
Without going into the question of the demerits of all
taxes, or to the question of the substitution of one tax
for another, feeling that it would unpalatable in any
shape, he should reserve himself until Monday next for
the exposition promised. At present he could not Five
a silent vote, because in his opinion it was impossible,
under the existing circumstances of the country, to dis-
pense with the tax upon which the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Bath had to-night made an attack.
Mr. CAI3I3ELL expressed his entire concurrence in
the motion, the object of which was to get rid of an
impost which was not only severe but prejudicial to the
health and best interests of the whole community.
Lord DUNCAN briefly, replied, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 160-92
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
establish a power of appeal in criminal cases. He
regretted the absence from the House of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) who had originally
introduced a measure on this important subject; but as
such a Bill had already been considered he would
content himself with stating its leading features. By
this Bill lie (Mr. Evart) proposed to grant an appeal in
criminal cases in three forms—first, in the form of a new
trial; secondly, in the form of a motion in arrest of
judgment; and lastly, as at nisi prius by the process of
entering after appeal heard a judgment for the prisoner.
The Bill also gave power to the judge before whom a
prisoner might be tried to assign him counsel and
attorney, and contained also a proviso that the prisoner
should be furnished with a copy of the indictment.
The Bill also contained clauses providing for the pay-
ment of the costs incurred by tho prosecutor and his
witnesses in the case of an appeal. Such were the
general provisions of the measure he sought to intro-
duce; but on the second reading, which he would fix
for some day in the ensuing week, he should be happy
to hear, and, if possible, adopt any suggestion which
might be made. lie, however, now moved for leave to
bring in the Bill.
Lord NUGENT seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY said it was not the intention of the

Government to offer any opposition to the introduction
of this Bill. But, in consenting to its introduction, he
wished to be clearly understood that he by no means
assented to the provisions which might be embodied in
the measure. The subject was one of great importance,
and he had not been able to colket from the Hon.
Gentleman's statement what the provisions might be.
It was, therefore, desirable that the Bill should be laid
_ _

on the table of the House, and then they would be
better able to discuss it. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would not fix so early a day as he had named (Wednes-
day next) for the second reading. Much would depend
on the machinery by which he proposed to carry the
measure into effect ; he feared great difficulty would be
found in carrying out the plan proposed. It was of
great importance that the promptitude and certainty of
punishment which attached to the conviction of guilty
persons should be preserved. If the Hon. Gentleman
proposed to assimilate criminal trials to civil proceedings,
he would find that that plan would altogether fail ; for
the verdicts were given in a way entiraly different, and
if a doubt existed in a criminal proceeding the prisoner
had the benefit of that doubt.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER, SOAP, &c.
Mr. ENV ART said he should not persevere in his other
motion, which stood next in the paper:—" To move the
abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks;
the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine ;

and the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese ; any
loss of revenue which may occur to be replaced by direct
taxation on realised property." Ile would not press this
motion for these reasons ; the subject of taxation had
been under discussion all the evening, and it would be
re-argued more fully and generally next Monday.—
(Hear, hear.) lie therefore thought it more desirable
to wait and see whether a general committee on taxation
was appointed, or what other measure was adopted.
He should postpone this motion until a future day.
KILLING OF HARES.
Mr. COLVILLE moved for leave to bring in a Bill
" to enable all occupiers of land having a right to kill
hares on that land to do so, by themselves or persons
authorised by them, without being required to take out a
game certificate." Under the existing laws, he observed,
farmers were subject to great inconveniences, particu-
larly those who occupied small holdings. lie had spe-
cially guarded in the Bill against any abuses that might
arise from the permission proposed to be given ; and ho
hoped the Government would not oppose the introduc-
tion of the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said he thought the proposal a very
reasonable one, and as he conceived it would not deduct
a shilling from the revenue be should raise no objection
to its introduction. _ _

Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to observe that the Hon.
Member fur 'Manchester (Mr. Bright), who had a notice
on the paper for a Bill to repeal the game laws, was not

in his place.
Sir G. GREY—He is not going to bring it on.
Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to hear that, as the
Honourable Member for Manchester was the person
....

who had obtained the appointment of the Committee on
the game-laws, and had taken up the question so as to
make it his own ; otherwise he (Mr. Stafford) might
have submitted a motion on the subject. However,
ho would now call public attention to the fact that
the first movement on this subject did not come from
a free-trader, but from a Gentleman on the opposite
side of the House, and holding opinions in favour of
protection.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY,
Colonel SIBTHORP alluded to the two bulky volumes
of evidence which had been taken before the Committees
on the game-laws, and said that the motion of the lion.
ilember for Manchester, like many other of his motions,
appeared likely to end in smoke; there would be " much
cry and little wool."—(Laughter.) Two volumes of
evidence had been produced, and witnesses without end
had been examined, at an enormous expense to the coun-
try.—[Here Nit.. Bright entered the House, amidst loud
cheering.] lie was now glad to see that Hon. Gentle-
man on his perch.--(Laughter.) It seemed that lion.
Member had failed in eliciting any good result out of
the numerous allegations that had been made; and had
he (Colonel Sibthorp) done so, ho should have consi-
dered himself called on to pay the expenses to which the
country had been put by the inquiry.—(Laughter.) lie
hoped the House would" largely pause" before granting
any more Committees on the motion of the Hon. Gen-

tleman.—(llear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of being ab•
sent when the llon. Member for South Derbyshire in.
troduced his motion ; nor had he any intention (Y

opposing that Bill. But he was sure the House would
not consider it sufficient to meet the evils now known
to exist in connexion with the preservation of game.
The Hon. Member for South Derbyshire must know
extremely little of the worliing of the game-laws if he
supposed that the placing of hares in the same category
as rabbits would put a stop to the outrages which bad
taken place throughout the country, and the thousands
of convictions which every year occurred for offences
under the game-laws. He had announced his intention,
soon after the recess, of introducing a Bill to repeal
these laws; he had not yet been able to bring it en,
owing to other engagements, amongst which was the
Committee on the growth of cotton in India. When
that Committee had finished its labours, which he hoped
would be in about a month, then he proposed to ask

leave to introduce a Bill for the entire and immediate
repeal of the game-laws, in order that the law might no '
longer give any sanction to the practice of preserving
game in a country so populous as this. The measure now
proposed would not hinder him from bringing in this Bill,
which would go much further. Though considerable
delay had taken place since the Committee on the game-
laws had reported, he did not think that the question
had suffered in consequence. It would now come before
the House with a much greater chance of a fair consi-
deration and of something real being done, for the
public attention had been called to the evidence during
the recess. Ho had no intention of abandoning the
question; and he hoped that when it was brought for-
ward he should have the support of the Hon. Member
for North Northamptonshire.—(Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that if the game-laws were
repealed, large districts of the country would remain
unprotected, and it would bo necessary to enact a law
of trespass, which would be more burdensome and
onerous than the :present game-laws. He highly ap-
proved of the measure now proposed.
Mr. 11. BERKELEY wiz,hed to ask the Hon. Member
for Manchester whether, in proposing the repeal of the
game-laws, he would substitute some adequate protec-
tion for the land?