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

of a petition, it scarcely followed that he should be tent
to Newgate.
Mr. BAILLIE said Mr. Edwards was in custody for
contempt, and they must take the report of their owe
Committee, and could have no other evidence. Hating
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 coerce 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 hart 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 bad
occurred, and technical objections had been taken—
_ otherwise he might have taken some means of calling on
2 the House to hear him. If be desired it, in common
;5 justice ho ought not to be sent to Newgate without
. having an opportunity of being heard. It he was not
tS 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 he 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 fiwie
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 Cummitue respecting the
cenduct of Mr. Edwards, and it was assumed that they
ought not to act upon that report, but should re-investi
gate the matter. If Mr. Edwards had had any grounds
to allege why he should not have been report, d 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 Cemmittee had taken the beat means of
a-certainiva the facts before reporting them to the
House.—(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstance, 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 course 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 u proper petition.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had carefully
looked through the precedeuts, and could assure the
House that if they were to commit this person at once
to Newgate without hearing him they would b pursuing
a most unusual course. There were two cases in par-
ticular to which he would refer. In the Dunfermliue
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 'eergeaut-at-Arms reported
that he was in custody, and thereupon he was brought
to the bar of the House in order to bear 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
before them, and, agreeing with its Committee, ordered
Trotter to be committed to Newgate. So in the
Grantham election case, in 1820, certain persons were
summoned 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 had to say, and having retired, a
motion wits 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 thou
committed to Newgate. But here was a case without
precedent. A petition was presented by a party not
confessing delinquency, but alleging entire innocence.
Of course it would not do to allow that person to bring
his witnesses, and enter upon 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 plan proposed by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government the beat—namely,
to postpone the discussion till to-morrow, (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 had 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 beard evidence which could not
leave a shadow of a doubt on the mind of any Hon.
Member as to the facts of the case.
Mr. V. SMITH reminded the House that they were
called on to decade upon the personal liberty of a British
subji ct; and when the decision of the Committee was
referred to, ho begged to recal to their recollection that
this gentleman had had no hearing whatever. No doubt
some witnesses who had been frightened out of their wits
had given strong evident l against him; but the Committee
bad never thought it advisable to examine him, though
they bat 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 motion for an adjournment.
Mr. R. PALMER thought it a great pity that they
should go into different lobbies when they were ail
agreed in the desire to vindicate the privileges of the
House. The Hun. 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
Majority ••• .••
ASSESSED TAXES ACT.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained that the effect of
the proposed legislation would be to levy a tax on pro-
perty which had never been subject to taxation before,
and would operate with peculiar hardship in 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 house-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 bad no objection,
however, to introduce a proviso to exempt market gar-
dens actually occupied fur the purpose of gaining a
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 61. 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 de
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, &0., and hoped the Hon.
Baronet would not, under the circumstances he had
stated, press his amendment.
Mr. HUME said there were so many exceptions in
the Bill that he objected to the measure altogether. They
were now actually laying on a house-tax for the purpose of
paying off a portion of the national debt, because it ap-
peared that, including the last sum of 640,000/. laid out
in the purchase of stock, no less than 2,330,0001. of debt
had been paid off within the last 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 money, which he
denied. He complained that from the mode in which
the question was brought forward they were prevented
from taking a division upon the question—(Hear, hear)
—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ingeni-
ously proposed to substitute a house-tax levied upon
value fur 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. He was prepared, if the proposition
was brought fairly before the House, to vote for a gra-
dual extinction of the national debt, bnc he was nut pre-
pared to impose burdens which would press severely
upon the springs of industry when there was no neces.

... 87
-21

say for such a tax.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE had understood from the Rlght
[lon. 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 hirnerto been exempt from the
window-tax, would be taxed by this new house-tax.
Take the case of farm-houses in the couttry—there
Were many farms the rent of which did not exceed 9001,
and which consequently paid no window tax, and yet
'
under this new proposition the farm },sores, if valued at
201., would be liable to the house-tax. It was with the
desire of protesting against any property being now as-
sessed that bad hitherto been exempted, that he should
support 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, and also under the window duty. He
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 Hon. 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 tux, because if the Right Hon.
Gentleman wanted money, why did be not lay a legacy -
duty upon real property? He hoped the question would
be alto ether reconsidered.
LordThUNCAN 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 most satisfactorily met by the Right i

-----------
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
had announced his intention to limit the extent of `i;s
dens to one acre. Taking the plan as a whole, he theld
the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan was the best thsteo
he introduced. 010
Mr. WAKLEY feared the Right Hon. Gentle ms"
could only give satisfaction by completely abolishivgat
taxation from houses. He thanked the
for having in so unqualified a manner repealed the wnre,
dow-tax. He complained, however, that hY,thenroi
sea arrangement, while the nobleman, who hau,ll.ldl
of 50 or 60 acres, escaped, the poor man, with his ,b 0
patch of garden ground, was taxed. He maintained
that was a most unjust principle. onfis
Mr. HENLEY suggested that the better e
00
would be to see the Bill as the Right Hon. Gel!tilei,
Goveren_ir
proposed to submit it to the House, more espeelei',l.
he had promised to introduce words which woue.oo,
ewpt market gardens. He treated, under the eircbU
stances, the Hon. Baronet would not Press
amendment. ti a
Mr. J. ELLIS did not see why because ce
descriptions of property bad hitherto escaped °tit
that it should always continue exempt if
ooheesl
subject for taxing. He bad had a g tfec"ltil
conversation with his own constituents on the 00 tore
the Right Hon. Gentleman's plan, and there was net
of them who had not expressed himself perfectly
sre
fied with the scheme. If we had cut down thee en'
and navy estimates we might be able to afford
ductions applied for ; but as we bad not lessened so
expenditure be did not think that the Chancellor be
Exchequer could make any fairer proposition the
had done. Get'
Lord DUNCAN wished to ask the Right Eleti'w I
tleman whether he could inform them of the no_111;00‘1
houses with gardens attached to them which wow
"-
under the operation of the proposed tax? 011
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQU°"„,ecest
not, say. He would take the property-tax seee'l,--86
by which houses and premises were assessed togetm
the guiding rule of his proposed valuation. lay d
Alderman SIDNEY thought that there was
evidence given as to the partial manner in which wrei
would operate. Noblemen with their hundred sc.otly,
parks or demesnes would be dealt with most le pfd
while the class of shopkeepers in large towns Weeti
made to suffer severely. He thought the Chnue° 0
her (4°o
the Exchequer had underrated the number °f boo
that would be taxed. There were at least 486,0nt
paying a rental of 20/. in this country. Thte—aidl
about 20,000 or 30,000 houses which at presto' „rnpor,
window-tax, but which would be liable to the 11;boaP
impost. He did not see why houses under 201. 55 be
be excluded from the operation of this meeeureeee' ger
knew that there were many independent pereoneAinfr
mg such houses. When an exception Wag res'ehottieh
your of warehowes, manufactories, and banking'
k-edel
he did not think it fair or reasonable that 813°P;ies
should be cemeelied to pay this tax upon the .8
their bust
WlLnes, premises. mod 16
Sir IL LOUGHBY said he did not in-
divide the Committee uu his proposition, veto
Mr. PACKE said, as the Hop. Baronet gt (
the .
he
for Marylebone had withdrawn his motion, -SO
Parke) would postpone his proposition tor e!e-eoese!
from the operation of the proposed tax owe „tee
under the value of lot until they were in Cowslip'
the Right lion. Gentleman's Bill. d
n 11)1A
Mr. MACGREGOR was of opinion that, tlereor,
circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequ'oter
not do better, unless the expenditure of 01(1-01
wee greatly reduced. He did not believe thieoool,
pert, anent measure, but feeling that the G°1,7:010,
rmust soon revise the whole system of taxation 1:7
the present support the Right Hon. Gen
proposition.
ft/
Sir B. HALL was glad that the Hon. xerbebe(P".,
Leicestersh; had - se

se. est.. are had withdrawn his amendment,
agate ;,
B. Hall) would have been compelled to vote nktolte
He wished to state the course he intended te,b• Pd:
regard to the house-tax. The Chancellor Of ' (SOY,
chequer having informed him that in case ile.i'hati;
Heil) succeeded in his proposition he should filhe(ll/.
his measure for the repeal of the window duties: loge!
Hon. Baronet) must decline for the preeent.l:o 010(
forward his amendment against the impoe“tdor,
house-tax. But as soon as he found the Cban'whlr,
the Exchequer's measure for the repeal of the bier
duties settled he (Sir B. Hall) would then maltesbe fie
not in the present session--at
favourable opportunity. The Right Hon. Gentle 80
played his cards well, for he had placed him, car'
supporters of his proposed amendment in a most
position. 110
sal
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQux'-atheriet
would do the Hon. Baronet the justice to ssact"belie
behaved with great fairness in this matter. Se lee
that there would be.other taxes much more deel'
repeal than the house-tax. d
Sir DE LACY EVANS, while he concuare bet
course pursued by the Hon. Baronet the gerthele.
Marylebone, wished to enter his protest *gains' position of a house. tax. sirA
Lord DUNCAN said that when the houseicle
regularly before them a number of questions would
particularly one in respect to its extension to e
tOt
which they would have to discuss. ,
Mr. HUME said at a future period he weo
the House whether the time had not come vir":haos,ep
could strike off, without danger, the soap °le ar
other duties which at that moment pressed he°
the people.
ofaav
Sir G. PECHELL reminded the Governmentcorn
great difficulty which stood in the way of the woe;
house-tax—namely, its assessment. The colint'ldist a
not understand how the proposition of the Chan% pa,
the Exchequer fur a house. tax could be allosveto of
so easily. Ho protested against the substitula-
house-tax for the window duties. eat) id
Mr. MOWATT said, inasmuch as it bad '7,•tei;
cided that the expenditure of the country Wee ihatt.r,
reduced, he believed there was no alternative-0,, t,
submit to a house-tax in place of the window-dl,"
deed, he preferred the house-tax to every other. 0, P"
tion of tax. He was in favour of direct oxen gee
he agreed in the principle laid down by the 1:102't hire
her fur Leominster (Mr. F. Peel) the other nig'is
terence to direct taxation. He regretted that 11.2.
sure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, o°,-,47,
being an extension of that admirable system in'"o6,",
by that most able financier the late Sir R. peel,
roe
the contrary, a retrograde move; for instead Peel,
1,100,0e01. by direct taxation, this measure wool 010,
only 700,0001. The difficulty would now u° /AP,I
greater of abolishing the Excise and other dutiestottor
were most injurious to the interests of the itcll/ ,
classes of the country. If we were to have I'l°oo
he thought it should be more generally applied' tit Mr. Mr. HEYWORTH said it was impossible toe"
could give full employment to the labouring e
the country so long as they laid a heavy iwP° 00 4
what they consumed. In order to increase Wel ao
of the nation they ought to strike off all Cusco of t).
Excise duties, and thus relieve the great mass
peThople. res°l
e CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read ;the
lution, but when he came to a certain part o,t tbe
interrupted by
400 Of
•
Mr. /110FFATT, who rose to move the his' tc°
some wore s, by which he proposed to give to efeso,l
where a manufacture was carried on the advatitTwee'
the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that me
give to shops in which any business was carried ota
The CHAIRMAN having put the questinnriegs ,ts
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQumatteefii
that if they adopted the Hon. Member's Ole; eitile
there was scarcely one house in any great tnwlenlai,
might not claim the advantage proposed to be a htaij
shops. Even the circumstance of an old women Ow
tiny, her stockings, or a person making matchee,ol;
o
be then sufficient to bring the houses in which 50 ohf Os
cupations were carried on within the operation oh
Hon. Member's amendment. If it were carried, he
as well give up the tax altogether.
0100 el
,4
Mr. SPOONER said he believed that matinit eir
were to be totally exempted from taxation, but 'to/ de
happened that a dwelling-house formed a Vol • Olt
same building; he wished to ask whether, in tueof
the assessment would be made upon the value
whole?
_sla
ster
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER lor
if the shop or warehouse be attached to the &go be
house, and formed a part thereof, the whole .0.1, t°.
liable to be assessed. If, however, the communicare,
cut off, the shop or warehouse would not be bah'
was difficult to give a more precise answer to the
tion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HUME remarked that there would nots be
sif°
many objections made to the house tax if the ta'
to the owner the franchise.
01°1$
In answer to questions from Mr. Moires, A 161j
SIDNEY, and others,
s fre
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ra::co;;
to the former Act under which the house-tax was 1f
lected, whilst he at the same time declined to me So':
exemption in favour of boarding. houses schoostner pe
and said that licensed victuallers would have
but sixpence.He pld
be obliged to n also mentioned that partiete itr
raY upon houses rated at their e Pre
nual value as they were at present assessed for the
perty tax.
The resolutions were then agreed to, and order. V
reported to-morrow.
COFFEE AND TIMBER DUTIES. of
A resoluti is was proposed by the CHANCElljdutiee
the EXCHEQUER, that instead of the existing woe
on raw coffee, it should be for the future chargedoe• 6d'
duty of 3d. a pound, and roasted and ground 00'
a pound.
e
Mr. T. BARING said he was not going to prod
any objection to the equalisation of duties nn„poee„
though he was of opinion that what was now rjeiii
would, ba injurious to their colonies, and wouluceylii
eh( ck the industry of the population, especially ins 00 0,
In the West Indies the cultivation of coffee bad 00800 e
from a want of cheap labour; whereas in Ceylon Ilia olt
had made very great progress.—(Hear.) It valaea 11;
nion that the equalising of the duty in this tolu" ociahin
would inflict injury upon their colonies, and lithe&
Ceylon, which relied upon the preference it bad olovi
possessed in this market. Ho must, however'ohjeo"
that there had not been much agitation on tbil4 6 rofier:
and if parties would compete with the foreign gdia ne:
he had no objection that they should do so. 11°;,,, for"
want protection when there was not a fair thi'S
differential duty; but then in this case he mot ei-fatf of
he thought it would be fairer if they imposed ea )
3d. on colonial and 4d. on foreign coffee °
should like also to know whether the opine A
cl,„vioe idtif
the present or the past governor of --e eveal
been taken as to the operation of this PrnP°seolear'sl
on the industry and capital of that colony
The amount of the duty, or the lowering Of eff4'
now proposed, he believed, would have 13°_,„,iog
in checking that adulteration of coffee that wasal°7 fair
on, and which was so injurious to the revenue, which
traders, and the consumers. That was a ground en seers
he thought the House ought to adopt some wei—so 01/
which might prevent the injury that was now doneo pCsi
classes of the community.—(tlear, hear.) It If