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

FRIDAY EVENING,

had made an excellent speech against the window-
tax, and how he could have the firmness to resist the
influence of his own arguments, and vote against the
motion, he (Mr. Walsloy) could not understand.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) The lion. Member had not
only spoken generally against the tax, but had adduced
a special case against it, and though he represented
the injured people of Plymouth, they were to fled his
vote recorded against the proposition. Of what use
could representation be if this was the mode in which
they acted ?—(Hear.) The declaration of the Hon.
Member must, he thought, be very discouraging to
those who sent him there, thought it must be very
encouraging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And as that Right Hon. Gentleman had commenced
his speech by alluding to the unfortunate position of
the person who filled the office of Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he hoped now, after the speech of the
Hon. Member for Plymouth, and his declaration that
he intended to support the Government against this
motion, that he felt himself more comfortable. A
strong dose of chloroform could scarcely make him
more easy.—(A laugh.) The public, however, would
after this feel no disappointment at the rejection of the
motion. All hope of retrenchment from the present
Ministry had gone by. lie was sorry to say it ; but
that was his conviction, and that, too, was the im•
pression of the public out of doors.—(Hear, hear.)
The public had looked with great confidence to the
present Government. He had never seen more public
confidence exhibited for any Ministry than that of
the Noble Lord. The public had entertained great
respect for the present Ministry ; but that was all
over now.—(Bear, hear.) He wished the Noble Lord
would go down to the City, and see his com-
mittee there. He would be astonished at the recep-
tion he would meet with now in the turtle-soup-
eating quarter.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr.
Wakley) regretted that there should he occasion
for suck a change of feeling; but it had taken
place, and not without reason.—(Hear, hear.)
Still Ministers must have great hopes of the House
of Commons after the speech of the Hon. Member
for Plymouth. He hoped, however, that though this
motion might fail, many others of the same kind
would be made, and that the feeling of the llouse
would be tested over and over again on the
subject of reduction of taxation, and that the people
might know who were and who were not fur re-
trenchment. But with regard to this window duty it
was one of the most odious taxes ever imposed. It
was only second to the income• tax in iniquity. It
was injurious in a variety of ways. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer was evidently mistaken in his view
of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman believed—
and, no doubt, sincerely believed—that this tax did
not press unjustly upon the industrious classes. The
Right Hon. Gentleman made use of the term " lower
orders" more than once during his speech. He (Mr.
Wakley) did not understand exactly where the lower
orders were to be found a, amongst men, though he
did as amongst animals. But the Right lion. Gentle-
man argued that the tax did not press upon the indus-
trious classes, because small houses were exempt ; but
did not the Right lion. Gentleman know that in all
large towns, where land was valuable, the object
of the proprietors was to build high houses, and
locate as many people in them as they could ? Did
he not know that the great mass of the working
classes were lodgers and not housekeepers ? How
, many instances were there in which eight, ten, and
even twelve persons were living together in one
room with a single window ? That was the case not
only in the metropolis, but in all large manufacturing
towns throughout the kingdom. This tax operated
therefore as a curse upon the labouring classes ; it
was injurious to their health, destructive of their
comfort, and highly prejudicial to their morals.—
(Hear, hear.) They were told that this was the
nearest approach to an income-tax. If so, that with
him would be a sufficient reason for detesting the
income-tax. Had the Right lion. Gentleman, who
had resolved to maintain this tax, considered how
it interfered with trade and industry ? Had he con-
sulted architects on the subject—and did he not know
that it prevented all improvements in architecture,
and in that way robbed the people of at least
100,0001. a year in the employment of labour ? On
that ground, if there was no other, the tax
ought to be repealed.—(Hear.) He' was aware that
there was no hope of the repeal of this tax from the
present Government. Ministers would however know
in a few days that the people would not submit to
any increase. of taxation for any purpose.—(Hear,
hear.) If the Noble Lord (J. Russell) still laboured
under that hallucination by which lie had recently been
possessed, as to the probability of war breaking out,
common sense out of doors would soon restore his
mind to perfect sanity.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The
Noble Lord had denied that his speech, on intro-
ducing his financial statement, was intended as a war
speech ; but, though he did not intend it to be a war
speech, his language led people in that House and
out of doors to bc..li,r c that wo wire approaching a
period when this country would be liable to attacks
from a foreign nation.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had explained, yester-
day, what he had intended to say.
Mr. WAK LEY was glad to hear the explanation
But the people were informed that they must submit
to increased taxation, and it was but natural for a
thinking people to inquire for what purpose they were
to be thus over-taxed. An ignorant people might
submit to injustice, but an enlightened and thinking
people would not submit to it long. The people of
England considered the principle of taxation was un-
just, and that it was in favour of property and against
the industry of the country.—(Bear, hear.) That
was the general opinion out of doors, and he hoped
there were many in that How e who concurred in it.—
(Hear, hear.) Considering the great talent of the
Government, the means they had of acquiring in-
formation, the many times subjects of finance had
been considered by them, he did expect that they
would have exercised retrenchment and have practised
economy. Ile believed, however, that they had made
no inquiry, but had come down recklessly and
thoughtlessly with their budget and their project
for adding to the burdens of the people—a
proposition which had created much excitement and
discontent both in and out of the House, and which
would increase unless the Noble Lord relaxed in his
propositions. The equalisation of the land tax would
produce almost two millions a year, but that the
Government would not entertain. The legacy and
probate duty on real property would also produce a
large revenue. Could any man contend that personal
property should be subject to the duty now imposed
upon it, while real property escaped ?—(Hear, hear.)
If
one
farthing; W, i
00
001. in
manlan dl,e sftlool. successorto
a
paida nota n
Ibut
faithful servant, he must pay 10/. to the Government
before he could have the money. What could he more
unjust? For years past the principle of taxing in
this country had been most unjust to the industrious
classes, and the window duty was one of the most
I
unjust taxes of all. It commenced at a low scale,
but when it touched the shopkeeper and the: trades-
man—the man who had to get his bread by the
exercise of his industry and his intellect—the screw
was put on to the highest point ; and, when, again,
it reached the aristocracy, it was reduced to
the lowest point.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the
House would apply itself to the subject of finance
and taxation, and resist every extravagant expendi-
ture on the part of the Minister—that they would
investigate every item with the most strict scrutin.
If they did 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
against it—which difference had been foretold by the
Protectionists. It was a fallacy to say y that the
lower classes were benefited by the reduction of the
duties on the necessaries of life ; and
the more taxes
were removed because they protected particular in-
terests, the more would the working classes suffer.
He contended that the great aggregate of the taxes
must be levied by indirect, and not by direct tax-
ation.
Mr. MGREGOR would support the motion if it
could be shown that the public service would not
suffer if this tax were repealed. There was no more
odious tax, not even the excise ; and if they could
find the means of
ought raising an equal amount of revenue
by any other means, it to la, at once repealed.
This tax was most oppressive upon the poorer classes,
and ought at least to be equally distributed. He
should much prefer a house tax, if deducted from the
rent paid to the landlord, but not otherwise.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR inferred, from the statement
that while 500,000 houses only were.subject to the
tax, 3,000,000 were not liable to it, that many of
those 3,000,000 of houses had their windows shut up
in order to avoid the tar, —(Hear, hear.) As the
representative sof a popular constituency he would
vote for its repeal.
ced the tax
which • on the ground of
Captain PECHELL opposed
o
the injustioe and grievances vt it gave rise to ; in
proof of which he had only to refer to the fact, that out
of 620 cases of assessed taxes deterrxined before the
judges of appeal between 1840 and 1847, 26
of them
were for windows. He opp?sed it also as an obstacle
to the full carrying out of sanitary reform.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHLEY, as Member for Bath, felt it necessary
to explain the vote he should glve. Ile concurred in a
great deal that had fallen from his Noble Colleague, from
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and indeed from all
those lion. Members who had spoken of this tax as in-
jurious to and oppressive upon all classes, but particu
lark upon the occupiers of small tenements and lodging-
houses ; and when be viewed it in a sanitary point of
view he felt it was impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs
that arose from it.- -(Hear, hoar.) He had no hesitation
in saying; that without a total and absolute repeal
of the window duties no sanitary measures would
be effective, or place the people in that physical
condition which acted so directly upon their moral
welfare. Ho told his constituents at a public meeting

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

Mr. AGLIONBY fully agreed with the Noble Lord,
that a Member of that House, even to please his consti-
tuents, ought not to give a vote which he considered
would have the effect of impeding the machine of go-
vernment or endangering the public credit; but he (Mr.
Aglionby), in voting for the repeal of the window-tax,
while he acted in accordance with the feelings of his
constituents, did not consider that he would incur either
of the disasters pointed out by the Noble Lord. He
believed, on the contrary, that such a reduction of the
national expenditure might be made as would enable
the Government to remove this odious tax without
having recourse to any other in its stead.—(hear.)
Mr. COWAN gave a hearty support to the motion,
and took occasion to comment upon the hardships to
which the paper manufacturers were subjected by the
operation of the Excise, and to declare his determina-
tion to support every measure, come from what quarter
it might, which should tend to diminish the burdens and
consequently tho sufferings of the poor, or to promote
the industry of the people.
Mr. MO WATT likewise supported the motion, be-
lieving that the window-tax, both in principle and effect,
was most unjust and unequal, and nothing more nor less
than a blundering, circuitous, and demoralising income-
tax. Even the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor'of the
Exchequer had admitted the evils of this tax, and that
at the very same time that the Government were pro-
posing sanitary measures which would lose their very
basis unless this proposition were carried out. He (Mr.
Mowatt) contended that there existed other sources of
revenue more likely to be less objectionable and injurious
to tho public at large. Ho (Mr. Mowatt) protested
against the argument of the Right Hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that those who opposed these window
duties were bound to find a substitute to supply the de-
ficiency to the revenue which their repeal might create.
That duty properly belonged to the Government of the
country, and unless the Government discharged that
duty he (Mr. Mowatt) held :that it failed in the fulfil-
ment of the functions which it had undertaken.—(hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Hon. Friend the
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had remarked
that it would have a bad effect upon the public if on the
present occasion all the argument should be in favour of
the present proposition, and that the votes of the House
should run in an opposite direction. Such, however,
might be the case if any particular tax was discussed
upon its own merits. He (Lord J. Russell) had yet
never heard any Hon. Gentleman say that any tax was
a positive good in itself—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he
defied any Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove that of
itself that tax was good, or that it ought to be kept up
for the good of the community. The Hon. Member for
the city of Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), who had just spoken,
had declared that the excise duties upon the com-
modity (paper) which he manufactured were vexatious,
and imposed an annoyance upon the subjects of the
realm engaged in its manufacture. That allegation
he (Lord John Russell) did not deny.—(Hear, hear.)
He admitted that all excise taxes were liable to that
objection. Again, the Honourable Member for Dumfries
(Mr. Ewart) had announced his intention to move this
day for the abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap,
and bricks, the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco,
and wine, as well as for the repeal of the duties on
butter and cheese—any loss of revenue which might
thereby occur to be supplied by a direct taxation on
realised property. These points might be discussed, but
when the House came to the end of the discussion they
would find themselves, by the adoption of the arguments
by which each proposition had been supported, minus
not 9,000,000/., but some 10,000,0001. or 11,000,0001—
(Hear, hear.) Then came the argument stated by the
Hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and the
Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), that
the revenue could not spare the loss of tho resources
derived from this quarter. But it was said that it be-
hoved the Government to lay down the system of taxa-
tion which they, as a Government, would adopt as a
substitute for the loss sustained by the repeal of
the impost arising from the window duties.
The experience of former years, coupled with
that which the events of the last few days fur-
nished him, did not convince him (Lord J. Russell)
that the course recommended by the Noble Lord wise
that which the Government ought to adopt. He (Lord
J. Russell) thought that by indirect taxation much good
might be done; but at the same time he was of opinion
that if the window-tax was taken off, the country would
find that there were limits beyond which direct taxation
could not be carriod.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, in the
course of the present debate some Hon. Gentlemen had
expressed their regret that the Government should have
adhered to the window duties—a tax, as they said, only
less odious than the income-tax.—(Hear.) On the
whole he was obliged to come to the conclusion, that
although the window-tax was objectionable, still the
Government had not the means to give it up; and
though his Right lion. Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had been challenged to find a substitute, he
(Lord J. Russell) could not recommend to the House
the adoption of any such repeal or alteration as that
which had been proposed. lie must also confess that,
considering the merits of this particular tax—considec-
ing the obligations by which the country was bound to
the public creditor--considering that those obligations
were bound and secured by Acts of Parliament—he
should certainly, and with a good conscience, vote against
the motion of his Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. EWART supported the motion, and contended
that it was the duty of the Government not merely to
abandon the window duties, but to take a large and
comprehensive view of the whole system of taxation; if
not the people would demand a rigid and searching in-
vestigation in order to secure justice to the commerce,
manufactures, and labour of the country.---(Hear, hear.)
Dr. BOWRING supported the motion, and contended
that a dimunition of the expenditure of the country would
enable the Government to remove the obnoxious window
duties. Since 1835, the expenditure of the country had
increased from 14,100,0001., until, in 1847, it had
reached 22,500,000/., being an increase within that com-
paratively short space of time of nearly 8,000,0001.
Such was the real state of things, and though he sup-
ported the present motion, he was assured that no bene-
fit would accrue to the nation except from .a very conside-
rable reduction in its expenditure.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR, who spoke in so low a tone
as scarcely to be audible, was understood to support the
motion brought forward by his Noble Friend the Member
for Bath (Lord Duncan).
Sir R. PEEL said that he, for one, could not assent to
the proposition that it was the duty of the Government,
in the present state of the financial affairs of the country,
to consent to any diminution of the window duties.—
(Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear from the Right
llon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
he intended, and had it in his power, to effect some
alteration in the anomalous manner in which the tax
was levied, and which existed under the laws now in
force and effect. He (Sir R. Peel) hoped that the Go-
vernment or the Right Hon. Gentleman would not be
deterred from pursuing the course they had laid down,
by the fact that some metropolitan deputations had
waited-- upon them on the subject. He assured the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government that no
deputation, metropolitan or otherwise, would be able
to reply to the question, " Will you find a substitute
for the tax you seek to abolish?" On the contrary,
if these deputations were asked to propose the substitu-
tion of another tax far that which they sought to get rid
of, ho would advise the Noble Lord and the Government
to throw overboard the adoption of suggestions and
principles which, as regarded taxation of articles of con-
sumption, would prove to be futile and unavailing. He
(Sir R. Peel) could bear full testimony that the Noble
Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had exhi-
bited on this question a zeal and ability on the present
occasion ; but he ought to have waited until the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer promised a diminution of taxa-
tion, when the Noble Lord might put in his claim that
the window tax should be inclnded in that diminution.
Without going into the question of the demerits of all
taxes, or to the question of the substitution of one tax
for another, feeling that it would unpalatable in any
shape, he should reserve himself until Monday next for
the exposition promised. At present he could not Fire
a silent vote, because in his opinion it was impossible,
under the existing circumstances of the country, to dis-
pense with the tax upon which the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Bath had to-night made an attack.
Mr. CABBELL expressed his entire concurrence in
the motion, the object of which was to get rid of an
impost which was not only severe but prejudicial to the
health and best interests of the whole community.
Lord DUNCAN briefly, replied, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
,For the motion .•• ••• •.• 68
Against it ... ... 160-92
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
establish a power of appeal in criminal cases. He
regretted the absence from the 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 he (Mr. Ewell') proposed to grant an appeal in
criminal cases in three forms—first, in the form of a new
trial; secondly, in the form of a motion in arrest of
judgment; and lastly, as at nisi prius by the process of
entering after appeal heard a judgment for the prisoner.
The Bill also gave power to the judge before whom a
prisoner might be tried to assign him counsel and
attorney, and contained also a proviso that the prisoner
should be furnished with a copy of the indictment.
The Bill also contained clauses providing for the pay-
ment of the costs incurred by the prosecutor and his
witnesses in the case of an appeal. Such were the
general provisions of the measure he sought to intro-
duce; but on the second reading, which ho would fix
for some day in the ensuing week, he should be happy
to hear, and, if possible, adopt any suggestion which
might be made. He, however, now moved for leave to
bring in the Bill.
Lord NUGENT seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY said it was not the intention of the