The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-15 00:00:00

REPEAL OF TETE WINDOW-TAX.

Oa a suggestio❑ from Mr. DUNCOMBE,
Sir B. HALL agreed to bring on his motion for the
unconditional repeal of the window-tax when the Bill
respecting the house-tax was before the House.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.

On the order of the day being read for the considera-
tion of the minutes of evidence of the St. Alban's Elec-
tion Committee,

Mr. AGLIONBY said, as the final report had been
received, and as that report recommended that a
Commission should be appointed to make a
searching inquiry into the iniquities and
corruption which prevailed at St. Alban's,
thought it was unnecessary, and would answer no good
end, keeping the warrants of the Speaker in force
against the four persons who had absconded, and vexing
the officers of the House in trying to put them
into execution, he would, therefore, move that
the warrants against these persons be discharged, and
that Henry Edwards should be discharged from custody
without payment of costs.
Mr. BANKES considered that the question before the
House was, whether Edwards should be brought to the
bar. He did not agree with the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman that the warrants as regarded the other
four persons should be discharged, as he understood
the Committee to say in their report that their inquiry
had been defeated in consequence of important witnesses
having beets kept out of the reach of the officers of the
House. He thought that a Commission to inquire into
the delinquencies of the borough would be no compen-
sation to the petitioner at all, and in the present instance
would by no means satisfy the ends of justice.
The ATTORNEY-GENER AL said that if it were
the intention of the House to discharge Edwards from
custody he could see no reason why he should be sum-
moned to the bar of the House at all except for the pur-
pose of being reprimanded.
Mr. CHRIS I'OPH.ER objected to Edwards being dis-
charged, at ell events, without payment of fees.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER could not see why
the man should be discharged at all. The clear
course to pursue would be to summon him to the
bar of the House, and at any rate not to discharge
him unless he could show that he was not guilty of
what had been laid to his charge. The two reports
which had been presented to the House showed that
not only had this individual been guilty of contempt of
the authority of the House by inducing witnesses to
abscond, but even still further, that this contempt had
been successful, and had prevented the Committee from
fully discharging the duty for which they had been ap-
pointed. It appeared from the decisions of Lord Campbell
and all the other eminent authorities of the House that
this man's commitment was just and legally enforced.
He thought therefore that it would be inconsistent with
the dignity of that House if they were to allow this
man to bo discharged without having been brought to the
bar of the House and subjected to the questions of those
Members who bad been engaged upon the Committee.
At least he certainly would not consent to his discharge
without some such process being gone through as that
which he had described.—(Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he perfectly
agreed with the Member for Plymouth in the great im-
portance of this question, and he had, like him, made
himself perfectly acquainted with the whole facts of
the case. The circumstances were almost precisely
similar, it was true, hut the matter which they had to
di cuss was not the existence of an authority which had
always been exercised in that House, and which no one
elsewhere ever presumed to question, but whether that
authority had been properly used. As in the instance
of the Ipswich election, and in that of the celebrated one
of the Sheriffs of London, no one had attempted to question
the endorsement on the back of the warrant. Tne diffi-
culty still remained as to whether the Committee
bad been rightly constituted or not, and whether
they had the power to issue those warrants.
It appeared to him that as there was a question of
doubt the prisoner ought to be discharged upon payment
of costs; but, of course, if Mr. Edwards were anxious
to prove his innocence, he ought to be heard at
the bar, and discharged without payment of the
fees in the event of his succeeding. In the case of
Frost, Williams, and Jones, who were tried for the Mon-
mouthshire riots, a technical objection was raised to their
conviction, but that was overruled, though it gave rise

to some doubt on the point, and the prisoners
were, therefore, transported for life instead of being
executed. He thought, acting upon the same principle,
they ought to pursue the same middle coarse in this case.
Sir F. THESIGER hoped the House would be cau-
tious how it proceeded, because this case might hereafter
become a precedent on their books. He had no doubt
whatever that Mr. Edwards had been tampering with
justice, and he therefore could not concur in the course
suggested by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General.
Why were they to discharge a man who had been guilty
of a breach of the privileges of the House, and ac-
complished the object which he had in view by
stifling a most important inquiry ?—(Hear, hear.)
He, for one, would object to his discharge until he made
some submission to the House, or presented a petition,
or gave some explanations on the subject, considering
that be had clearly defeated the ends of justice.
Sir G. GREY considered that Edwards ought no longer
to be kept in the custody of the Sereeaut-at-Arms,
as the proceedings of the Committee had now termi-
nated, but ought to be sent as a prisoner to Newgate.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he wished to state that he had
been told that Mr. Edwards had never been an attorney,
nor any attorney's clerk, but that he had been a banker's
clerk, and that he was at present a farmer.
Mr. A NSTEY said the question for the House to
consider was, not whether they could compel Edwards
to do anything to further the administration of
justice, but whether he had or had not been'
guilty of a high offence against the privileges of Parlia-
ment, and whether being guilty it was fit for the House
to dismiss him without punishment?
The MASTER of the ROLLS considered that the
prisoner ought either to be committed to Newgate or
be discharged. It was very clear that the evidence
which he had been the means of suppressing was of a
very important character, but he had neither explained
his conduct nor expressed his contrition, nor evinced a
desire to show that he was not guilty of a breach of the
privileges of the House.
Mr. S. WOR I'LEY agreed with the Master of the
Rolls, that the prisoner ought to be committed to New-
gate. He was inclined to think that there might be
a further question for the consideration of that
House, viz., whether the Attorney-General should not
be directed to prosecute Edwards.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the House could do nothing
better than commit the prisoner to Newgate to-night.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the question they had then
to consider was what they should do with Mr. Edwards.
It was evident that he could not be left in the custody
of the Sergeant-at-Arms for the purpose for which he
had first been sent there, because the Committee had
already been dissolved, and that purpose was at an end.
They should, therefore, either discharge him or Fend
him to Newgate. Under all th© circumstances of the
case it appeared to him to be desirable that they should
take the course recommended by his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Master of the Rolls, and that they should ad-
journ their final decision on the question until to-morrow
(this day). Mr. Edwards would have an opportunity of
coming forward in the meantime, and either expressing
contrition for his offence, or stating that he wished to be
examined at the bar or beard by his counsel, fcr the
purpose of proving his innocence. In order to carry
out that view of the matter, he (Lord J. Russell) should
move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow
(this day).
Mr. HUME said he thought that any further ad-
journment of that question would only be trieng with
the House.—(Hear, hear.) If ever an individual de-
served censure and punishment from that House it was
the party implicated in that case, who appeared to have
so greatly contributed to frustrate the inquiries of jus-
tice. In his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, they ought to send
that person to Newgate until he should have presented a
proper petition to the House.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the House could not take
the unto% Orli statement of Mr. Edwards in oppositio❑ to
the sworn evidence of two witnesses and the report of a
Committee. If that parson were to express his contri
tion the House might extend to him its mercy; but
without such an expression of contrition he (Sir R. H.
Inglis) would not be disposed to allow him to be dis-
charged.
Sir J. GRAHAM said there appeared to be some
doubt about the facts of that case. He wished to know
whether Mr. Edwards bad been committed for a con-
tempt of that House, or for the purpose cf obtaining
from him further evidence. If he had been committed
for contempt he (Sir J. Graham) could not see that he
had done anything to purge himself of that contempt.
It was quite clear that he was not in a position as yet to
ask any lenity on the part of the House. He thought
both the original motion and the amendment ought to
be withdrawn, and that Mr. Edwards ought to be com-
mitted to Newgate. Let him present a petition to•mor-
row, and if it should be couched in proper terms, he had
no doubt the House would listen to it.—(Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY (who rose among cries of " Spoke,")
said he was about to speak on the question of adjourn-
ment, and was therefore in order. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had expressed great indignation, as though the
offence charged had been proved; but he denied that it
had been proved before the House. There was no tri-
bunal in the country which would commit a man to
Newgate without giving him an opportunity of defend-
ing himself. A man brought before a magistrate had an
opportunity of hearing the evidence brought against him,
and of being asked if he had anything to say in his di-
fence.

An Tiox. MEMBER—He might be taken to the station•
house first.
Mr. AGLIONBY denied that there was any ptsralle

- _
between the two cases, for here they proposed to commit
by way of punishment. What right had they to call on
a man to express his contrition when he denied the
charge brought against him? He stated in his petition
that it was totally false and untrue that he had prevented
the attendance of Waggett, and that he had never com-
mitted a breach of the privileges of the House, and he
prayed, therefore, that he might not be condemned 1113.
heard. He had communicated with the gentleman who
had put that petition into his hands, and asked whether
he wished to be called to the bar of the House; and the
answer was, that he expected to be discharged withdut
being culled to the bar. but that be desired and was per-
fectly ready to be called to the bar at any time, and he
was willing to attend that moment and answer any ques-
tions which they might think fit to ask. If they required
that he ahould approach them by the more Pawa 1 1110 d e

of a petition, it scarcely followed that he should be sent
toNewgate.

Mr. 'AILLIE said Mr. Edwards was in custody for
contempt, and they must take the report of their owa
Committee, and could have no other evidence. Having
committed him for contempt, it would be preposterous
to have him up at the bar and waste their time for days
in investigating a matter of this kind. They could have
no other proof than they had already, though it would
of course be quite a different thing as to what extent
the House might choose to exercise its mercy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not think that
the House would commit a man without giving him an
opportunity of defending himself. He had petitioned to
be heard at the bar.—(No, no.) It would certainly be
very hard to say a man should be sent to Newgate with-
out being heard. The other day a motion was made by
the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst, that Mr.
Edwards should be brought to the bar, and the responsi-
bility rested with the Hon. Member for Cockermouth,
who said such was not his desire. These proceedings
had taken a somewhat complicated course—delay had
occurred, and technical objections had been taken—
otherwise he might have taken some means of calling on
the House to hear him. If he desired it, in common
justice he ought not to be sent to Newgate without
having an opportunity of being heard. If he was not
desirous of being heard, or if he had nothing to allege
against the report of the Committee, no one who read
that report, or the evidence on which it rested, would
shrink from agreeing that a gross and outrageous viola-
tion of the privileges of the House had been committed;
and if ho should not succeed in purging himself from his
contempt, no one would shrink from committing him to
Newgate.
Sir F. THESIGER said they would be compelled,
if they adopted the advice of the Attorney-General, to
try Mr. Edwards at the bar of the House, not upon any
mere statement of his contradicting the allegations of
the Committee, but to examine witnesses on both sides,
without the security of an oath, and try the whole ques-
tion afresh.—(Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly a prima facie
case of hardship was raised when Hon. Members talked
of condemning a man unheard; but there was a little
misapprehension in this respect. No precedent could be
found for calling a person charged with contempt or
breach of the privileges of the House to the bar, and
trying the question whether he had been guilty or not.
They had the report of the Committee respecting the
conduct of Mr. Edwards, and it was assumed that they
ought not to act upon that report, but should re-investi-
gate the matter. It Mr. Edwards had had any grounds
to allege why he should not have been reported guilty of
a breach of privilege, he might have asked the Committee
to investigate the matter, and the House was bound to
assume that the Committee had taken the best means of
ascertaining the facts before reporting them to the
House.—(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he
was not at all disposed to accede to the proposed delay,
because he did not think Mr. Edwards entitled to ask
any indulgence. He had presented no petition requiring
investigation, or making any submission for his offence,
and he therefore thought the best courso would be to
dispose of these two motions, the original motion and
amendment, and leave Mr. Edwards to bring himself be-
fore the House by a proper petition.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had carefully

looked through the precedents, and could assure the
House that if they were to commit this person at once
to Newgate without hearing him they would be pursuing
a most unusual course. There were two cases i❑ par-
ticular to which he would refer. In the Dunfermline
election case in 1803, an individual named Trotter was
reported to the House as having absconded for the pur-
pose of avoiding giving evidence, and upon that report
an order was made for his committal to the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Sergeant-at-Arms reported
that he was in custody, and thereupon he was brought
to the bar of the House in order to hear what he had to
say, and the journals stated that the report of the Com-
mittee was read to him, and he was asked to say what
he had to observe upon that report; he was then ordered
to retire; the House ordered the minutes to be laid
bs fore them, and, agreeing with its Committee, ordered
Trotter to be committed to Newgate. So in the
Grantham election case, in 1820, certain persons were
suwmoned to attend at the bar of the House, not in
custody; but then, again, as in the case of Trotter, the
report of the Committee was read out to them, and they
were asked what they bad to say, and having retired, a
motion was made to commit them to Newgate. In the
Ipswich case, in 1835, certain persons were first of all
ordered to be taken into custody, upon the report of the
Committee. They then presented a petition confessing
their delinquency every one of them, and were then
committed to Newgate. But here was a case without
precedent. A petition was presented by a party not
confessing delinquency, but alleging entire innocence.
Ot course it would not do to allow that person to bring
his witnesses, and enter upo❑ an investigation at the bar
of the House; but could it be said that such a man
ought to be placed in a worse condition than such a
person as Trotter, or the witnesses in the Granthau case?
He. therefore, thought the pla❑ proposed by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government the best—namely,
to postpone the discussion till to-motrow, (this day), for
the purpose of affording this party an opportunity,
if he should think fit, of presenting a petition confess-
ing his guilt, and asking mercy, or to have him brought
to the bar, as in cases to which he bad referred, to
hear the report of the Committee and make any state-
ment which he might wish to offer for the consideration
of the House.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said Mr. Edwards ought to
have asked to be heard before the Committee; that
Committee should have heard evidence which could not
leave a shadow of a doubt on the mind of any lion.
Member as to the facts of the case.

Mr. V. SMITH reminded the House that they were
called on to decide upon the Lersonal liberty of a British
subj-ct; and when the decision of the Committee was
reterred to, he begged to recal to their recollection that
this gentleman had had no ht-wring whatever. No doubt
some witnesses who had b.?en frightened out of their wits
had given strong evidenc4 against him; but the Committee
had never thought it advisable to exitanne him, though
they ha l the opportunity. He was very jealous of seeing
the power of committing for contempt pushed to an ar-
bitrary and tyrannical extent, and hoped the Noble
Lord would press his motio❑ for an adjournment.
Mr. H. PALMER thought it a great pity that they
should go into different lobbies when they were ail
agreed in the desire to vindicate the privil ges of the
[louse. The Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General had,
in his opinion, suggested a course which the House
might adopt without the risk of compromising their pri-
vileges or dignity.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment 108
Against it 87
Majority
ASSESSED TAXES ACT.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.

Sir U. WILLOUGHBY complained that th© efftct of
the proposed legislation would be to levy a tax on pro-
perty which had never been subject io taxati n betore,
and would operate with peculiar hardship i❑ cases where
the assessment was made on property, a great part of
which consisted of garden ground.
Sir G. PECHELL had hoped to get rid of the win-
dow-tax without substituting any other in its place. He
objected to the house tax, more particularly as it was
intended to form of it the nucleus of a still larger amount
of taxation hereafter.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that he had adopted the words of the old tiouse-tax, be-
cause it was difficult to distinguish in the country be-
tween houses and the houses, gardens, and appurtenances
which were usually let together. He had no objection,
however, to introduce a proviso to exempt market gar-
dens actually occupied fur the purpose of gaining
livelihood by the sale of produce. If the suggestion of
the Hon. Baronet was adopted the house might be no•
minally let for 181. per annum, and the garden leading
to it at 6/. per annum, and in that case he would get no
produce from the tax.—(A laugh.) He trusted no at-
tempt would be made to introduce these innumerable ex-
emptions, which were highly objectionable. If the
amount of the tax was frittered away in that manner the
whole object would be defeated. According to the old
tax only one acre of land was allowed to go with the
house, all the rest being excluded. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then enumerated the various descriptions of
buildings exempted, viz., coach-houses, stables, wash-
houses, laundries, wood houses, &c., aod hoped the Hon.
Baronet would not, under the circumstances he had
stated, press his amendment.

NIL HUME said there were so many exceptions in
tho Bill that he objected to the measure altogether. They
were now ise.ually laying on a ouuse-tax fur the purpose of
paying off a portion of the national dent, because it ap-
peared that, including the last sum of 640,0001. laid out
in the purchase of stock, no less than 2,300,00/. of debt
had been paid off within the lust year or so. He ad-
mitted that a house-tax would be a very good tax per se
if there was any necessity for raising mono, which be
denied. He complained that from the mode in which
the question was brought forward they were prevented
from taking a division upon the question—(H.er, near)
—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ingeni-
ously proposed to suhstitute a house-tax levied upon
value for what he callgd a house tax previously levied upon
windows. He objected to fresh taxes being laid on in
order to carry out the financial schemes of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. Ho was prepared, it the proposition
was brought fairly before the House, to vote for a gra-
dual extinction of the national debt, but he was not pre-
pared to impose burdens which would press severely
upon the springs of industry when there was no neces-
sity for such a tax.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE had understood from the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
they were about to repeal instead of impose taxes. Now,
however, it would appear that property both in town
and country, which had hitherto been exempt from the
window-tax, would be taxed by this new house-tax.
Take the case of farm-houses in the country—there
ntly paid no window tax, and yet
were many farms the rent of which did nut exceed 2001.,
2u
(V: under tohuiladnbeew
liafslepro proposition t thme
hthe u
sf Let
and which consequently
-tax. vwaliuthedth%t
desire of protesting against any property being now as-
sessed that had hitherto been txem t. d, that he should
supp >rt the amendment of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said
the tax was unjust in prin-
ciple, because houses were the only species of property
doubly taxed at present; houses being assessed under
the property -tax, ax, and also under the window duty. Ho
knew of a very large class of houses which had been re-
cently constructed in the metropolis so as to avoid pay-
ing the window-tax, and under the Right lion. Gentle-
man's new financial scheme they would be liable to duty.
He contended, besides, that there was no necessity for
the imposition of a new tax, because if the Right Hon.
Gentleman wanted money, why did he not lay a legacy
duty upon real property ? He hoped the question would
be altogether reconsidered.
Lord DUNCAN thought they were indebted to the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) for having
brought this question before the Committee, and the
matter had been moat satisfactorily met by the Bight

eht
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
had announced his intention to limit the extent of 6'4
dens to one acre. Taking the plan us a whole, be tholJr,a
the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan was the best thste°'
tie introduced.
Mr. WAKLEY feared the Right Hon. Gentle°lll
could only give satisfaction by corapletely OA," le
taxation from houses. He thanked the G°verl:ll:°e'-•
for having in so unqualified a manner repealed thes"l',
dow-tax. He compleined, however, that LI ,tbe ntil' ark
sent arrangement, while the nobleman, who bal.:B:011
6o or 60 acres, escaped, the poor man, with 12,800
patch of garden ground, was taxed. He maintains
that was a most unjust principle.
Mr. HENLEY suggested that the
would be to see the Bill as the Right Hon. eat 119 better °if:
proposed to submit it to the House, more Wee"
he had promised to introduce words which would
50,
ampt market gardens. He trusted, under the eire
tit! t
stances, the Hon. Baronet would not Press
amendment.
Mr. J. ELLIS did not see why , ,aestios,
descrip
tions of property had hitherto escapee 'eeeeet
that it should always continue exempt if it le's!"1
subject for taxing. He had had a good deal
conversation with his own constituents on the Win' coe
the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan, and there vissu",eie
of them who had n • f 00"
not expressed himself per e
sr
fled with the scheme. If we had cut down the 0,
because cert°
and navy estimates we might be able to afford coed
ductions applied for ; but as we had not lesseres,oo
expenditure he did not think that the Chancellor or
tit
Exchequer could make any fairer proposition th3A
had done. ee Ger,
Lord DUNCAN wished to ask the Right liacln'herOf
tleman whether he could inform them of the nesl:l3; eel
houses with gardens attached to them which Ow' •
ee COil'
R under the operation of the proposed tax?
The CHANCELLOR of , the EX.CHEQUP'opeet;
not say. He would take the property-tax es9e- °
by which houses and premises were assessed togelee ,
the guiding rule of his proposed valuation.
was pleeetit:st
Alderman SIDNEY thought that there
evidence given as to the partial manner in whinb °roe!
would operate. Noblemen with their hundred sc•eptlfi
parks or demesnes would be dealt with most leelo
while the class of shopkeepers in large towns ,11or
made to suffer severely. He thought the Cidan';botel
c'
the Exchequer had underrated the number a' boa;
that would be taxed. There were at least 486,000;01
paying a rental of 201. in this country. Paid
about 20,000 or 30,000 houses which at presea' roryo,ll
window-tax, but which would be liable to the P, ow,
impost. He did not see why houses under 20' IP
he excluded from the operation of this niessureeoc' tlfr
knew that there were many independent persoes,noto'
ing such houses. When an exception leaser° fielositel'
your of warehouses, manufactories, and bar"ensi'oeN
he did not think it fair or reasonable that stu4,.
should be compelled to pay this tax upon the
di°
their businessWlL premises. t inroad
divide H. LOUGHBY said he did DO
divide the Committee on his proposition.Huu Olt
Mr. PACKE sail, as the Baronet the I°olf'
for Marylebone had withdrawn his motion, 110;1
Packe) would postpone his proposition for ete hot,'
from the operation of the proposed tax 011'J Res',
under the value of 101 until they were in Ca°.
°
the Right Hon. Gentleman's Bill. JOIII
Mr. MACGREGOR was of opinion that, %fop;
circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequ'oo-10
not do better, unless the expenditure of tli!;, 05,1,
was greatly reduced. He did not believe tu'e 110 jr
permanent measure, but feeling that the Glervi°`"ti
must soon revise the whole system of taxatie°Detlets°
for the present support the Right Hon. tie' fof
proposition. biti3e
Sir B. HALL was glad that the Hoe. '''":l3b
e'
Leicestershire had withdrawn his amendalegt,":ol6l:
B. Hall) would have been compelled to vote 3,11$10“.
He wished to state the course he intended toe3te
regard to the house-tax. The Chancellor of
chequer having informed him that in casedbei
Halt) succeeded in his proposition ho shout. (igr"
his measure for the repeal of the window dutie:.riellge.ig
Hon. Baronet) must decline for the preseneibet
forward his amendment against the impo',..ellor„
house-tax. But as soon as he found the Chan' isvf
the Exchequer's measure for the repeal of grAlibiqrloi.
duties settled he (Sir B. Hall) would then may ht,l
position—if not in the present session-escd: tiro
favourable opportunity. The Right Hon. Gene'fiefidd
played his cards well, for he had placed hi"; dill!
supporters of his proposed amendmet in a °3°-t
position. egg
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQu'''i be
would do the Hon. Baronet the justice to ssla-beribteliio
behaved with great fairness in this matter. de4sirsl)'e
that there would be-other taxes much more .
repeal than the house-tax. t. is
Sir DE LACY EVANS, while he conetlf ealberd.
course pursued by the Hon. Baronet the et the
Marylebone,
wished to enter his protest again-
COI
position of a house• tax. to
Lord DUNCAN said that when the hoille,.'111011:01
regularly before them a number of questions 1,-111
particularly one in respect to its extension
which they weuld have to discus
Mr. FIUME said at a future
period 11° d-cPbtlet)
the House whether the time had not come 'est fol
could strike off, without danger, the so 9 n„;:illii
other duties which at that moment pressed '
the people. j
Sir G. PECHELL reminded the Govereeic"e fOrroji
great difficulty which stood in the way ef '"y 11')
nothuu suendtael.s—namely,
ittbseapasrkespsomseitniotn. ofThthe con
e,9l):jct° oil
the Exchequer for a house- tax could be ally,,
otioo
so easily,. He protested against' the eubstil dr
house-tax for the window duties. A gel V
Mr. MO WATT said, inasmuch as it ha' si°
tided that the expenditure of the country Wtsi:boll:
1
reduced, he believed there was no alternslieePA
submit to a house-tax in place of the windaw'us-Ots4l
deed, he preferred the house-tax to every othe'tior,p
lion of tax. He was in favour of direct tet/51100.,„tr
he agreed in the principle laid down by the •'-',-et,"te,
tier fur Leominster (Mr. F. Peel) the other !VI,
Terence to direct taxation. lie regretted that 'otifoeil'
sure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sfieroyl
being an extension of that admirable system 'el tria!
by that must able financier the late Sir 11. Ye frie,
the contrary, a retrograde move; for instes. eolude
1,100,060/. by direct taxation, this measure/lbe lie!
greater, The difficulty would DI eest
g of abolishing the Excise and other utii;ool9
were most injurious to the interests Of the 01 ,
classes of the country. If we were to hav°,l'd
he thought it should be more generally apPlt; '
Mr. HEY W ORTH said it was impessie-
could give tull employment to the ileild
the country so lung as they laid a heavy
what they consumed. In order to increaerle,-5 00 tba
'i 01
of the nation they ought to strike off all 't I '
Excise duties, and thus relieve the great 'l6
h,°oi
se
people.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read
t
lution, but when he came to a certain part reap
Jiolt;
interrupted by i
Mr. nIOFFATT, who rose to move the -Pfed'aoic
segue words, by which he proposed to give t°„et ee;
where a manutacture was carried on the OW:10')
the Chancellor of the Exch, quer stated tile-cl OP
give to shops in which any
The CHAIR \IAN having put the qi?..5,,t1,1`.-11P2.;
business was eel!,l-,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCUP:
that if they adopted the Hon. Mee ber's -,113000:e;
there was scarcely one house in anyi gres,! 'es g':W
might not claim the advantage proposed tue,oteio°'
shops. Even the circumstance of an old 7)eli.
ut
ting her stockings, or a person making 111%.
be then sufficient to bring the houses in if-aie t'ool.6'
cupations were carried on within the operre 1 10"
Hon. Member's amendment. If it were anrrcb
n lid
as well give up the tax altogether
Mr. SVOONER said he believe.d that Oft
were to bo totally exempted from taxation, "Atift°,..,
happened that a dwelling-house formed 0;1/,;-tbiefir
building;
whnenwl.dishbeednitoadeasukpewnhettbheer,o'itle
ti)
samete assessment d sallied
whole?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQII,}; c 1,4 v
if the shop or warehouse be attached to avt•ldvf
house, and formed a part thereof, the ;
liable to be assessed. however, the cotan3-ettleciti'
cut off, the shop or warehouse would not bce
was difficult to give a more precise answer g be tt
tion of the Hon. Gentleman. el, 0
Mr. HUME remarked that there scotillor,lttv
many objections made to the house tax if !dorm
In answer to questions from Mr. —lloo°l' rr
A
to the owner the franchise.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ°!;fec:I
SIDNEY, and others,
to the former Act under which the house-t,i3o-osll‘e
whi:sint he at
vaotutrh
,_beutn!ixpence,
exemptionleered,
and said that
licensed
eeodsf
eoetaurtaidmi boarding
victuallers
declinedusel de,
Ile also mentioned that P,51,4 pres ll 7
be obliged to pay upon houses rated at tee'r toe
v Ina as they were assess; ordered at present assess IJ
PerTthyetarxeolutions were then agreed to, and
reported to-morrow.
irr v5;.,1,6
COFFEE AND TIMBER Du:NloE'', do.:1
A resoluti n was proposed by the Cll,'''.;, lot •i;'4
the EXCHEQUER, that instead of the elct eo;
on raw coffee, it should be for the future
,eliatilleo- e 3
duty of 3d. a pound, and toasted and gru Fr'r

a poundT. , to
Mr. . BARING said he was not g0i,13: oti :,ve,
any objection to the equalisation of clat'e-t0 Pr7dr*
though he was of opinion that what W.,11,9/ yitl°ol,lnciCi'effllii.
would be injurious to their colonies, o,—; tiVrAlle')
check the industry of the population, especiai to tvetvi
In the West Indies the cultivation fCO ibi,' ,er4
from a want of cheap labour; whereas in Cei't °,o9;el°T.lli
had made very great progress.—(Hear.) ,_""L adv-eticir;
nion that the equalising of the duty in tw-A6 ediori;
would inflict injury upon their ce-10-niest
~/..I)b"sci fiiol,,c{
Ceylon, which relied upon the preferenca,,; .efe:',ll4
possessed in this market. He must, Pfbis ',-t0",,,i1
that there had not been much agitation oP lip IV,
hanedhiafdpnaortoieb
jsecwiniounldthcete with
atlideci fej;ll:ier
ci:i0:1:101(
they shout
want protection when there was not a ..,LiP ectitY
differential duty; but then in this case "Led a,' 01
he thought it would be fairer if they i°3P-0010,',.'000J
3d. on colonial and 4d. on foreign cdfeerbi I'o'ol itCl,
should like also to know whether , co cl ~
the present or the past governor c' eoPi°eil;ol.4l
been taken as to the operation of Oa P" .'"1/4 J.:4'
on the industry and capital of that col°r*ori ibetl,l
The amount of the duty or the lowering 11%°°`4:
;
now proposed, ho bel;eved would bac°, of f
,
in checking that adulteration of coffee that `q:erlae' ioio
on, and which was so injurious to the °au. ad °,.,n°,1
traders, and the consumers. That was a gr" no ' to
he thought the House ought to adopt °,, joy 00
which might prevent the injury that Was I° It II
clams of the eonareunity,—(Hear, bogy i