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

BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.

William genderson;najaMels Henry Vaysey, chemist,
o ortialds, Gloucestershire.

BANKRUPTS.
William Williams, victualler, High-street, St. Gileo's, to
surrender March 31 and May 5, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook-court,
Basingliall-street ; Futvoye, John-street, Bedford-row.
Henry Hester, tallow chandler, Ratcliffe-terrace, Goswell-
road, March 31 and May 5, at half past eleven, at the Court
nr' Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, .Iderinald
young, Vallings, and Young, St. Mildred's-court Y ; ,Poultry.
Tliurnas Clegg, coal merchant, Tann'ers, hill, Deptford.
March 31 at one, and May 6, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, S b kam roo -court,
Basinghall-street ; Jones, Mincing-lane.
Frederick Sharman, bootmaker, West-square, Southwark,
April 1, at one, and 29, at twelve, at the Court of
Bank-
ruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old
Jewry; King, St. Mary. axe.
George William Stocks, linendraper, Norwich, April 2, at
half past two, and 30, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings; Clowes,
Wedlake, and Clowes, King's Bench- walk, Temple.
Charles Douglas Hope, wine-merchant, Manchester,
-.March 27 and April 17, at eleven, at the Manchester Dis-
trict
Jew Crt. Hobson, official assignee, Manchester. ; Adams
et,
Old ou
am ry-chbers, London ; Moseley, Back King-strt,
ALmchester.
IrViilliam Daniel, cabinet maker, Manchester, March 28
and A pill 18, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court.
Pott, c tlicial assignee, Manchester; Soles and Turner, Alder-
inanbury,. London; Atkinson and Saunders, Manchester.
William. pulley, tailor, Derby. April 1 and 28, at twelve,
at the Man chester District Court. Fraser, official assignee,
Manchester ;• Tattersall, Great James-street, London; Broad•
bent, Sheffiel,l; Todd, Manchester.

Thomas O'Rooke and William Birks, commission agents,
Manchester, April 2 and 28, at twelve, at the Manchester
District Court. Holt, official assignee, Manchester ; Chilton
and Acland, Chancery-lane, London; Slaney, Birmingham;
Foster, Birmingham.
Henry Woodgate, horse-dealer, Kingston, Dorsetshire,
March 28 and April 25, at two, at the Exeter District Court.
Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter; Parr and Son, Poole;
Holme and Co., New Inn, London ; Warren, Exeter.
William Ibbotson, merchant, Sheffield, April 2 and 29, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman, official as-
signee ; Moss, Cloak-lane, London ; Branson, Sheffield.
Richard Brown, joiner, Kingston-upon-Hull, March 31
and April 18, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope,
official assignee, Leeds; Hicks and Marris, Gray's Inn, Lon-
don; Galloway and Bell, Hull; Payne, Eddison, and Ford,
Leeds.
William Granger, paper manufacturer, Relly-mill, Dur-
ham, March 28, at half-past eleven, and May 7, at one, at
the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official
assigneee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; Harle, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne ; Smith, Durham ; Chisholme, Hall, and Gibson, Lin-
coln's Inn-fields, London.
John Price, draper, Oaken Gates, Shropshire, March 29
and April 28, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
Whitmore, official assignee, Birmingham ; Garbett, Welling-
ton, Shropshire ; Harrison and Smith, Birmingham.
DIVIDENDS DECLARED.
R. Roberts, linen draper, Blackman-street, Southwark—
first div. of 3s. 10d. in the pound, any Wednesday, at the
office of Mr. Whitmore, Basinghall-street.
A. Lett, timber merchant, Commercial-road, Lambeth—
first div. of 4s. 10d. in the pound, any Wednesday, at the
office of Mr. Whitmore, Basinghall-street.
J. T. Milner and C. Bedford, confectioners, Hull—final div.
of 2s. 914 d. in the pound, March 18, or any subsequent Tues •
day, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds.
J. T. Milner, confectioner, Hull—first and final div. of 20s.
in the pound, March 18, or any subsequent Tuesday, at the
office of Mr. Hope, Leeds.
C. Bedford, confectioner, Hall—second div. of 4s. in the
pound, March 18, or any subsequent Tuesday, at the office of
Mr. Hope, Leeds.
C. S. Masterman, grocer, Croydon—first div. of 2s. 3d. in the
pound, March 22, and two following Saturdays, at the office
of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane.
T. Fisher, linen draper, Selby, Yorkshire—div. of ss. in the
pound, March 19, or any subsequent Wednesday, at the office
of Mr. Freeman, Leeds.
G. Harriott, beer brewer, Ormskirk, Lancashire—second
div. of Is. 71,4 d. in the pound. March 26, or any subsequent
Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Morgan, Liverpool.
R. Smith, attorney, Worcester—third div. of 6d. in the
pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Christie, Birmingham.
W. H. Bates, factor, Birmingham—second div. of 6d. in the
pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Christie, Birmingham.
S. Sedgley, grocer, Dudley—first div. of ls. 10d. in the
pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy, Birmingham.
J. C. Lister, wine merchant, Wolverhampton—first div. of
ls. 6d. in the pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy,
Birmingham.
J. N. Sargent, grocer, Nottingham—first div. of ss. Gd. in
the pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy, Bir-
mingham.
J. Glazebrook, carpenter, Birmingham—first div. of 6d. in
the pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy,
Birmingham.
T. Dobson, sen., J. Dobson, and T. Del.pon, jun.—first div.
of 3s. 4d. in the pound, and second div. of 2d. in the pound,
any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy, Birmingham.
J. Goren, scrivener, Orchard-street, Portman-square—se-
cond div. of 44. in the pound, March 22, and any subsequent
Saturday, at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place,
Old Jewry.
J. Peaten, ironmonger, Paddington. street, Marylebone—
first div. of Is. 6d. in the pound, March 22, and any subse-
quent Saturday, at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-
place, Old Jewry.
C. Newton and C. Worssam, engineers, Kingsland-basin.
Kingsland-road—first div. of 4s. 6d. in the pound, March 22,
and any subsequent Saturday, at the office of Mr. Edwards,
Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.
T. Miller, baker, Green. street, Leicester-square—first dir.
of Is. 4d. in the pound, March 22, and any subsequent Satur-
day, at the office of Mr. Edwards, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
G. Francis and T. Francis, jun, corn merchants, Cambridge,
April 15, at eleven—G. E. White, tailor, Reading, April 9, at
one—R. Marshall, stone mason, Deptford, April 8, at twelve
—l'. Johnson, son., W. Johnson, and C. Mann, bankers, Rom
ford, April 7, at eleven—C. Mann, banker, Romford, April 7,
at eleven—G. B. nudge, japan-leather manufacturer, Glou-
cester-street, Shoreditch, April 10, at eleven—F. Dudley,
builder, Rochford, Essex, April 9, at one—J. Gale, sen., and
J. Gale. jun., rope makers, Love-lane, Shadwell, April 10, at
eleven—J. Lorden and N. Hadley, builders, Herne Bay,
April 8, at eleven—N. Hadley, builder, Herne Bay, April 8,
at eleven.
In the Country.
B. Fountain, wine merchant Derby, April 10, at eleven, at
the Birmingham District Court—T. Kearsley and T. Watt,
bone merchants, Runcorn, Cheshire, April 9, at twelve, at the
Manchester District Court—T. Daniell, copper smelter, Bou-
logne, April 10, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court—G.
StaawaY, confectioner, Stoke upon-Trent, April 11, at eleven,
at the Birmingham District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
A. Wehnert, tailor, Leicester-square, April B—J. Moutrie,
music seller, Bristol. April B—J. Argent, victualler, Golden-
lane, Barbican, April B—T. Cooper, coffeehouse-keeper, Ald-
gate High street, April B—T. R. Withers, merchant, Riau-
bridge, Southamptonshire, April 15—G. E. White, tailor,
Reading, April 15—J. and D. Hepworth, cotton warp dyers,
Raistrick, 1 orkshire, April IS—J. Staples, plumber, Cotten-
ham, Cambridge, April 9—W. Clarke, builder, Sheffield, April
10—II. Craven, corn miller, Wakefield, April 18—E. L. Ro-
binson, fellmonger, Moulton, Lincolnshire, April 11-31. Tom-
kinson, linen draper, Kidderminster, April 14—T. and J.
Jones, tallow chandlers, Liverpool, April B—E. Scott, miller,
Hillborough, Norfolk, Apr 1 B—W. Richardson, glass mann-•
facturer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April B—P. J. Meugens,
broker, Dunster-court, Mincing-lane, April B—W. Jackson,
paper hanger, Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, April B—A.
Seed, licensed victualler, Liverpool, April B—R. Blockley,
linen draper, Crewe, Cheshire, April B—J. Ward, engineer,
Manchester, April B—B. Creigh, cartwright, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, April 8.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

11. Wooßright and J. Pearson, linen drapers, Canterbury
—P. and J. Broad, inciters, Brighton—T. E. Greenhow and.
R. E. Huntley, ship brokers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—J. Haw-
kins, J. Cooper, and W. Fieldhouse, china manufacturers,
Foley, Stoke-upon-Trent (so far as regards J. Cooper)—G.
Freeman and T. B. Beesley, nail factors, Birmingham—G.
and S. Reynold, corn dealers, Salisbur3r-street, Lisson-grove
—W. Townley, R. Townley, and W. H. Cartwright, cotton
spinners, Blackburn—J. Knapp, W. Bray, and 11. Edmonds,
clothiers, Bradford—J. L. Butler and W. Paton, coal mer-
chants, Liverpool—W. H. Austin and G. W. Tinkler, com-
mercial agents, Harp lane, Lower Thames-street—T. Sander-
son and H. J. Cook, coal merchants, Liverpool—J. Dyer and
H. Culliford, drapers, Banwell, Somersetshire—E. Phillips
and A. G. Favenc, wine merchants, Lower Thames-street—
T. W. Dean and E. Law, artists, Nicholas-lane, Lombard-
street—G. and J. Blindley, haberdashers, Coventry—C. R.
Wessel and F. Stapleton, music publishers, Frith-street, Soho
—W. Reed and R. Taylor, linen drapers, Brunswick-parade, Is-
lington—J. Cowing and A. Peacock, silk men, Spital-square
—J. Dobson and C. Nixon, marble dealers, Dent, Yorkshire
—C. C. Eyre and F. J. Burge, surgeons, Hammersmith—A.
Toft and I. Austin, engravers, Tinkersclough, Shelton Pot-
teries—J. Pritchard, B. A. Pritchard, and J. Railton, timber
dealers, Liverpool (so far as regards J. Railton)—J. Darby,
J. Higgs, and T. Pickering, coal masters, Kingswinford,
Staffordshire.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
James Semple and Co., grocers, Cambuslang, Glasgow,
March 21 and April 12, at twelve, at the chambers of H.
Smeaton, Glasgow.
Alexander Kay, merchant, Dundee, March 24 and April
15, at two, at the Royal Hotel, Dundee.

3s Bd, middling and good middling of the various vintages
2s 8d to 3s Bd, low 2s 6d to 2s 7d, and Bordeaux 2s 6d to 2s
7d per gallon. Geneva is is 9d to is 10d for common export
sort, and fine fit for duty 2s 4d to 3s per gallon, but there has
been little business done. English Corn Spirits readily com-
mand lOs 2d per gallon cash.
SPICES.—To-day Nutmegs met with little attention at a
decline of Id to 2d per lb. Penang, fine bold brown selling
at 3s 6d to 3s 9d, good 38 6d to 3s 7d, good mid 3s 2d to 3s 3d,
middling 2s lid to 3s Id, ord small 2s 8d to 2s 10d, mouldy is
1 Id to 3s 4d, worm-eaten is to is 7d, Singapore, fine bold 3s Bd,
mid 3s 2d, mouldy 3s, and worm-eaten is 3d : Mace went at
a decline of 2d—Penang good at 2s 4d to 2s 6d, mid 2s 2d to
2s 3d, inferior 2s, Singapore 2s : 3 chests Penang Cloves sold
at 2s 3d for fine, and is 10d per lb. for good.
INDIGO.—The market has still a firm appearance, and pur-
chases to a fair extent have been made by shippers and the
home trade in Bengal, Madras, Oude, and Kurpah, at an ad-
vance of 2d to 4d per lb. The market is scantily supplied.
OlLs.—Linseed Oil purchased with caution, sales on the
spot having been made at 24s 3d to 24s 6d ; for delivery at
24s 9d to 255, and for the last six months of the year at 25s
3d to 25s 6d per cwt. In Rape little passing, pale fetching
36s 6d to 375, and brown 35s 6d to 36s per cwt. Palm has
a good demand, fine fetching 26s 6d to 26s 9d, good 25s to
265, and low to middling 23s to 24s 6d per cwt ;
in Olive n good deal doing ; Gallipoli 411 lOs to 421 in bend,
Spanish 40l 103 to 411, Scilly and Barbary 39l to 401, Lucca
in jars 5110 s to 6/, and Florence in half-chests 18s to 245.
Holders of common descriptions of Fish Oils manifest firm-
ness, pale Seal 311 to 311 10s, yellow and straw 271 lOs to
30/, brown 26/ to 271, Cod 291 lOs to 301, and Southern low to
fine 261 to 291 lOs per tun. Of Sperm several purchaseshave
been made at firm rates, British 83l to 851, American 80/ to
821 per tun. Cocoa Nut Oil dull of sale. Ceylon at 28s 6d,
and from Sydney at 24s to 25s 6d per cwt.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1845.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 18.
ROYAL ASSENT.
Their Lordships met at Four o'clock, for the purpose
of giving the Royal Assent, by Commission, to certain
Bills.
The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the
Duke of Buccleuch, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.
The following were the Bills to which the Royal
Assent was given:—The Consolidated Funds Bill; the
Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill, and the Constables
(Scotland) Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
The Customs Duties Repeal Bill was read a first time.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS—SCOTLAND.

Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from Perth,
praying for an increase of the salaries of parochial
schoolmasters in Scotland.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several petitions
to the same effect; and also a petition for legislative in-
terference to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors on
the Sabbath.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petititions from places
in Scotland, complaining of the low salaries of the pa-
rochial schoolmasters. His Lordship took that oppor-
tunity of explaining that in the observations which he
made last night he cast no imputation upon the character
of Captain Reynolds.
CATHOLIC EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition, signed
by two thousand persons, amongst whom were two
Catholic bishops, praying for the establishment of pro-
vincial colleges in Ireland for the education of the middle
classes.
COAL-MINE EXPLOSIONS.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was very desirous
of asking his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) a
question, which he conceived of great importance. The
question was, whether he might now move, or should
move at a future time, fort a copy of the report of the
commission sent down by her Majesty to inquire into
the state of the mines in the North of England,
as regarded precautions against explosion. He con-
sidered this report of the utmost importance, for he
thought that some means should be taken, if it were
within the present reach of science, to prevent the
terrible consequences of these explosions. It was felt to
be of great importance in that part of the eountry with
which he was connected, and of the commercial body of
which he was a humble member, that these reports should
be published as soon as possible. He trusted, therefore,
that the Noble Duke would have no objection to grant
the papers for which he moved.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he felt that
this was a matter which nearly concerned the in-
terests of the north of England. He had no objection to
give the reports which his Noble Friend had asked, and
believed they were of a very highly interesting charac-
ter. Her Majesty's Government were anxious that the
statements made in those reports should be as satisfactory
and complete as possible. There was some slight dif-
ference in the reports of the several parties employed by
Government to investigate these affairs, and a little de-
lay therefore was necessary in order to give the in-
formation which these reports contained, in a form
which would be advantageous to the public.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that the re-
ply of the Noble and Gallant Duke was so satisfactory
that he was bound to comply with the suggestions which
had been made. The trade with which he was connec-
ted had grievously suffered during the last seven months,
but he believed that the report of the di-Ainguished
scientific men who had been engaged by G3vernm( nt
would tend largely to do away wish the evil.
SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKING SYSTEMS.

... -......— -......„-___
The Earl of ROSSLYN begged to ask the Noble and
Gallant Duke, whether any measures were in contem-
plation with respect to the banks in Ireland and
Scotland ? Great anxiety had been felt, in conse•
quence of the intimation contained in the speech from
the Throne of some intention to change the banking system
of Scotland, and this, combined with the intimation in
the speech of a Right Hoe. Baronet last session, had
led the p.trties interested to fear that some alteration was
intended which would materially alfeet their interests.
The people of Scotland looked with natural anxiety for
informatien on the subject of this paragraph, because
their interests of every description depended almost
entirely upon the banking system, which had
been so long and so successfully established
in that country. The people of Scotland apprehended
benefitile contd d see
a
that great difficulties and evils would ensue by injudi-
cious interference with their system of banking; and it
therefore could not be said that he had taken an improper
liberty in soliciting the attention of the House to this
most important subject, and in putting the que,tion
which he ventured to put to the Noble Duke, as to
whether he was at present in a condition to state the
general nature of the alterations which the Government
proposed to make in the banking system of Scotland?
And if the Noble Duke was not prepared to answer that
question, perhaps he would have the goodness to state
when the measure was likely to be proposed?
The Duke of WELLINGTON was not at all sur-
prised to hear that so much anxiety was felt in Scotland
on this subject, but it was really not in his power to give
the Noble Lord any definite or precise information upon
the paragraph which appeared in her Majesty's speech.
He might, however, remind the Noble Lord that the Right
Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a
question put to him the other evening in another place,
stated that he would take the earliest opportunity after
Easter of laying the whole of his plan before Parliament
and the country.—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of MINTO did not concur in the views taken
by his Noble Friend on the subject
al
bear 1
vi apl ,
otn aentnarna
toadpghtrre oaieweoohpn I
s.
which
allcoirhnn
peo-
pletwht
propor-
tion
aohedny(
b)oftehrEebankingetrnlh peoplegienlcabunusrdyrrdseioertdienf mftstothlroea which ft
limotheScotland.iohoi
t,ficountrydtthbeie
shouldr
inng
da
thrownnotcould
o f Great
forefathersd
the inhabitants of the United Kingdom
Bri-
tain and Ireland.

The Earl of ROSSLYN hoped that when the mea
sure was brought forward sufficient time woulJ be
allowed for the people of Scotland to examine into it.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was not aware of the
state of public business in the other House to enable him
to give the Noble Lord a precise and definite answer to
his question ; but there could be no doubt that the
Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury
would use every exertion to bring the measure forward
at an early period.—The subject then dropped.
THE PROPERTY-TAX.
The Property and Income-Tax Bill passed through
Committee, and the report was received.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the Bill be read
a third time on Friday, the 4th of April.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
Lords were ordered to be summoned for that day.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOL MASTERS—SCOTL A ND.
On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, the
Lords' members of the Committee to inquire respecting
the salaries and emoluments of the parochial schoolmasters
in Scotland, were named. Amongst the names were
those of the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Suther-
land, the Marquis of Bute, and Lord Campbell.
Lord CAMPBELL was very glad of the appoint
ment of the Committee, but he wished to be excused
front attending it, as his other avocations would render
that additional duty inconvenient.
The Noble Lord was, after a short conversation, ex-
cused from attending on the Committee.
The Duke of BUCCLEUGH then presented a great
number of petitions from places in Scotland, complain-
ing of the insufficient salaries of the parochial school-
masters, and praying for an augmentation by legislative
interference.
The Report upon the Companies Clauses Bill was
brought up and received.
Their Lordships then adjourned till Thursday, the
3d of April.

from the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Depart-
ment on the subject; but he had no doubt the correspon-
dence and the other papers would be laid on the table
without any objection.
POST-OFFICE.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 18.
The SPBABER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
Mr. MACKENZIE presented a petition in favour of
the London and York Railway.
An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition to the like
effect.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black
Rod, appeared at the bar, and summoned the House to
the House of Lords to hear the royal assent given by
commission to certain Bills (for which see Lords'
report).
The. Speaker and several lion. Members then re-
tired. After some short time the Speaker returned.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. STRUTT then moVe4‘:lThat in the case of every
petition for a private Bill on which the Committee on
Petitions shall not have reported previously to the ad-
journment of the House for the Easter recess, the time
for reading such private Bill the first time be extended
till Friday, the 11th day of April next."
The motion was agreed to without discussion.
Several petitions were presented in tavourlog,the Lon-
,
don and York Railway. '
Mr. G. BANKES presented a petition from the county
of Dorset, against the railway projects in that county.
M AYNOOTIL
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition frohi.Bath,
praying the House not to sanction any ndditional grant
to Maynooth College ; and another petition from Essex,
against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Colonel PENNANT presented a petition from North
Wales to the like effect.
RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
_ _ .

Mr. EWART wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite. Since the penny postage
system had been established, a custom had sprung up of
sending small parcels through the Post-office. Latterly
these parcels had been opened at the Post-office. He
wished to know if this was sanctioned by the Govern-
ment? He wished to call the attention of the Hon.
Gentleman to another subject connected with the Post-
office. If a newspaper, with the sender's name upon it,
were sent from one place to another in the metropolis it
was charged upwards of 35., but if he sent a newspaper
with his name upon it to the country it went free.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not aware that any such charge as that mentioned
by the Hon. Member existed against any department of
the Post-office ; and it certainly was not the intention
of her Majesty's Government to have issued any orders
to the Post-office authorities to do that of which the
honourable Member complained ; therefore with re-
gard to the opening of the packet complained of by
the Hon. Member, he presumed there must be some
error. But perhaps it would be well to mention, that in
consequence of the abuse of the facilities afforded by the
cheap rate of postage, some orders were obliged to be
issued. For instance, such articles as knives and
scissors had frequently been sent ; and upon one
occasion it had been discovered that part of a human
body had been transmitted to a surgeon.—(A laugh.)
In consequence of this, it had become necessary to make
an order prohibiting the transmission of flesh and fish—
(A laugh)—und such ether articles, or of knives or scis-
sors, &c.; but if any other packet had been opened, it
was against the orders ; and, indeed, he had heard of
but one such complaint, and that had been ordered to be
investigated.
WINDOW-TAX. _ _

On the motionofScrll.if. INGLIS, leave was given
to the Select Committees on Railway Petitions to report
to the llouve from time to time.
Mr. COLQUHOUN presented a petition from NQw-
castle-under-Lyne against any additional grant to May-
nooth.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from Limerick
praying the House to extend any measure they might
adopt for improving the sanitary condition of the people
of England to Ireland.
Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that, soon after Easter, he
should present a petition from a barrister of long stand-
ing in the county of Devon, praying the House to
redress divers abuses and corruptions in the criminal
courts.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the
mayor and corporation of Bath, praying the House to
improve the present system of interments in large and
ppulous towns. As he intended to make a motion on
the same subject, he moved that the petition be printed
with the votes.

Lord DUNCAN said, that in rising to address
the House upon this subject, he felt no small
degree of embarrassment when he looked around
and saw so many others who were much better
stualified than he was to deal with the question,
and under those circumstances he begged to
say he would occupy the House but a very short time.
Nor would he now intrude this question upon the notice
of the House, but that he felt bound to do so, for this
reason, that he was the representative of a constituency
who, except the cities of London and Liverpool, paid the
largest amount of window-tax of any town in the kingdom.
and therefore he felt bound to bring the hardships under
which they laboured, by reason of the levy of
this tax, before the notice of this Howe, to
the best of his ability. He begged to assure
the House that he did not bring it forward
with any view to the embarrassment of the
Government, for it was no party or political question, but
he did bring it forward because of the injustice and
impolicy of the tax ; and if no other result should
attend it, it would at all events have been brought
before the public, and public attention would have been
called to it, and then it would be seen whether or not
the people had just cause of complaint.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") The Right Honourable Baronet
opposite had said, in his financial statement, that there
were three millions of houses in the metropolis that did
not pay this tax, and that, therefore, if these houses re-
quired glass, great benefit would be conferred by the
removal of the glass duty. But he (Lord D.)
would ask why had these houses been exempted ? He
would explain it. They had been exempted because
many of them were the property of wealthy persons,
who had tenants who paid them 2001. a year,
others were exempted because they were
the offices and stores of wealthy merchants ; and others
again had evaded the tax because the houses were old, and
cccupied by poor people, who filled up the windows.
The Noble Lord then produced letters which he had
received from various persons, cotnplaining that the report
of the Committee on the Health of Towns had omitted to
mention the state in which many houses in large towns were
owing 'to the number of families crowded into them,
and who yet could not have sufficient light,
owing to the great amount of the window-tax.
He could not see how the removal of the duty on glass
would benefit houses already built ; it might serve those
now building or about to be built. The tax which he
was most anxious to remove was of much older date
than that upon glass. and was as old as the days of " the
hearth money" itself. The duty on hearths had been
taken away. Fourteen different Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer had passed 14 different Acts on the subject.
In 1808 Mr. Percival, the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, introduced a measure, which was passed into a
law, under which the assessed taxes were collected.
Since the passing of the Act of 1812 the window duty
had been consented to. The result of all these Acts
was that a sliding-scale was established—( Hear, hear)—
by which houses which had eight windows, and
from eight windows to 500 were exactly taxed in the
inverse ratio of the means of payment. To show
the inequality in the working of the tax, he would take
the house of Sir Robert Peel in Whitehall-gardens,: St.
Margaret's parish, in which the number of windows was 72,
and the tax was 6s. 9td. per window, being about 31 per
cent. on the valuation of the house, as rated for the
property-tax, which was 7001. per year. He
would contrast that with the case of a person
named Coombes, a cabinet-maker, residing at
the corner of Abbey-street, in Bath. There were
thirty-three windows in his house, and he paid 7s. 4,1 d.
per window, being upwards of 30 per cent. as rated to the
property-tax. Apsley House, in St. George's parish,
had 129 windows, which paid ss. 11d. per window, or
2 and 3-Bths per cent. under the rating to the pro-
perty-tax, which was 2.0001. a-year. Montague
house which, had 132 windows, paid but ss. 10Id. per
window, -being about 3/. per cent. to the rating of the
House under the property tax, about 1,320/. Whilst
those great houses pay so small an amount of window-
tax, the smaller houses were taxed at 9s. 4d. per window.
So much -with regard to the inequality of the tax. Now,
with regard to its injustice, he would state the result of
some ieturns which were made that morning. One of
those returns moved for by the Hon. Member.for, Mon-
trose stated that the amount of window duty, in 1841,
was 1,830,457/, and it was stated in the same return that
in 1844 the amount of window duty was 1,743,400/.,
being a decrease of 87,200/. In the other return to which
he begged to call the attention of the Honourable and
Gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell), it was
stated that in 1841 the amount of duty was 1,774,6381.,
whereas in 1844 it was 1,786,514/, being an increase in
1844, as compared with 1841, of 11,876/. Now, the one
return made a decrease in 1841, as compared with 1841,
of 87,0001., and the other return made an increase in
the year 1844, as compared with the year 1841, of
11,876/. Now,' when he found such a difference in the
two returns, he thought that circumstance alone ought to
induce the House to grant him a Committee. On look-
ing to the bottom of the return he found the amount of
duty paid by twelve of the large "towns in England. In
the town of Bath, he found the window duty had dimi
nished to from 22,4081. in 1841, down to 21,551/in 1844,
and he found the same thing had happened in the towns
of Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, and Norwich. Having
found this discrepancy between the two reports, he ap-
plied to Mr. Porter, and, on referring to his tables he
found a different account. He found that in 1839,
before the new survey, the window-tax was
1,298,622/ In the second year of the new survey lie
found that it rose 365,0001, but that ever since, in 1842
and 1843, it was said to be annually diminishing, not-
withstanding that the population had increased from
18,000,000 in 1839, to 20,000.000 in 1843. In one point,
however, all the returns agreed, and that was, that in
the year of the re-survey, a large addition was made to
the tax. In 1834 there was an Act brought forward by
Lord Althorp, which was stated to be for the relief of
such persons as were duly assessed at the passing of the
Act. It was stated that all persons assessed would be
entitled to keep open, free of duty, as many. windows as
they pleased. That Act lay dormant for six years, till
1840, and at that time, when it was found that the ex-
penditure of the country exceeded the income, very great
activity prevailed amongst the Commissioners of Stamps
and Taxes. Communications oassed between them and Mr.
Baring, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it
was determined that they should have a re-survey made
of all the windows in the kingdom. The consequence
was this, that a number of persons who had opened their
windows on the faith of this Act of Parliament, sud-
denly found themselves in the arms of a hungry Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer.—(Laughter.; The very first
person who was attacked was William Cotton, a solici-
tor, who ought to have known the laws of England. It
appeared that Mr. Cotton had, between the years 1834
and 1841, opened a few windows. He stated that he be-
lieved himself to have been duly assessed. The sur-
veyor required that Mr. Cotton should prove that
he . was duly assessed, and Mr. Cotton, though
a solicitor, could not do any such thing. The
judges declared he was liable for every window he
had opened under the Act of Parliament. Another case
was that of Mr. Edwards, of Wigan, who was sur-
charged for every window, though he thought he had
been assessed in 1834. In this case there was an aggra-
vating feature ; Mr. Edwards had used, to seal some of
his letters, the device of a thistle, with the motto
" Dinna forget "—(Laughter)—and for using this seal
he was charged 21. Bs. in addition to the sum of 5/. which
he had been surcharged on the windows.—(Hear, hear.)
He was charged 2/. Bs. because he sealed his letters with
a pencil-case. It might appear ridiculous to the House,
but it was an instance of great legal oppression. Were
he not afraid of wearying the House, he could adduce
two thousand similar cases. A Mr. Lewis, who had
opened two holes in his warehouse, was declared to be
liable for a window. The case of Mr. Richard Jones was
ofa similar kind, and Professor Scholefield, of Cambridge,
was declared to have been properly surcharged for a
window, because he had opened a hole in his eoal-cellar
for shooting the coals through. These cases might
appear trivial and ridiculous ; but there was a strong
feeling on the subject out of doors, which was increasing
every day. The people were determined to be no
longer treated in this ridiculous manner. In
another case, that of Mr. Boone of Frome,
it was declared he had been legally surcharged
although he had stopped up the aperture, be-
cause he had not used any mortar with the stones em-
ployed for that purpose, and the Commissioners said
light was admitted between them. The reason why he
wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer particularly to this point, was that at one time
Le seemed to have thought that perforated plates of
zinc placed in walls would not be charged. Many par-
ties had applied to Mr. Pressley, the Chairman of
Stamps and Taxes, on the subject, and he had stated
that they might put up as many plates of zinc as they
liked, but they would be charged for every hole in that
zinc, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had borne
that gentleman ouf. by a letter he had written to some of
these parties. He thought people ought to be allowed
to ventilate their houses.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Cubitt
had given it as his opinion that darkness in their abodes
was prjudicial to the working classes, and - Mr.
Bradshaw had stated that the sun's light and
air was necessary to the sustaining of life.

MALTA CURRENCY-
Dr. BO WRING, seeing the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies in his place, and as it was his intention to put
a question to him with respect to the currency of Malta,
he thought he might as well do it then ; he wished t.)
inquire whether the Government would allow the
proclamation and correspondence connected with the
alterations of the currency in the island of Malta to be
laid on the table?
Mr. G. W. HOPE had received no communication

Dr. Southwood Smith had stated it as his opinion that
dirt and darkness planted the Reeds of eeirne. Ard
should they in that House, the representatives of the
English people, suffer such a state of things to exist fer
a longer period ? They, the representatives of the most
useful and the most enlightened people on the face of the
globe, would they forget what it was that depressed the
manly spirit of the working classes of England ? That
people enabled the Government to wage a great com-
mercial war with all parts of the globe, for in this hos-
tile tariff England maintained her wonted spirit. France
might borrow their machinery, she might borrow their
capital, but in order to. compete with them she must
also borrow the manly spirit of their workmen.—(Hear,
hear.) Would they, the representatives of that people,
retain a tax of 9s. 4d. and of 9s. ld. upon every aper-
ture that gave ventilation to their dwellings. He ap-
pealed to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government—he appealed to him in behalf of the work-
ing classes of the town he reprepresented—he besought
him not to be indifferent to their health and to their
comfort. He appealed to the Right Honourable
Gentleman who had issued the Sanatory Commission
to attend to the report of that Commission. He had
granted a charter to a society for the purpose of im-
proving the dwellings of the working classes in this me-
tropolis. Let him carry that principle yet a little fur-
ther. He appealed also to the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to tell
the people of England by a sort of side-wind to ventilate
their dwellings. All he wished of him was to grant a
Committee to inquire why it was, that the houses in
England which had less than twenty windows, paid
836,0001. out of the one million and a half of which the
window duty consisted ? Why it was, that the houses
which had less thatforty windows paid 1,340,000/, leaving
the insignificant sum of 250,0001. as the amount paid by
the houses which had more than that number ? He
knew that a million and a half was a large sum,'"and he
only asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to consent to an
inquiry whether there might not be some less vexatious
mode of collecting this tax. The people of England had
never shrunk from paying necessary taxes; but they
desired to see every man paying taxes in proportion to
his means. In conclusion, he begged to assure
the Right Honourable Gentleman that this tax, in
its present shape, would never be paid willingly
by the constituents whom he had the honour
to represent, while they saw so many towns which had
trebled their wealth and doubled their population, pay-
ing in a much less proportion. The Hon. Member con-
chided by moving a Select Committee, to inquire into
the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting
the window duties in Great Britain, and to report their
opinion thereupon to the House.
Captain RODS said, in rising to second the motion,
he could assure the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord
of the Treasury that he had no wish to embarrass her
Majesty's Government in their plans with respect to the
financial condition of the country. He was aware that
a tax of 1,700,000/. could not very easily be remitted ;
but at the same time, when so many thousand artisans
in the metropolis and the large towns of the country
were suffering from this cause, he -thought it was the
bounden duty of their representatives to make known
their grievances, in order that, if possible, they might
be redressed. And he had the satisfaction of thinking
that when he appealed to his Right Hon. Friend, he
appealed to a statesman whose public life was
a guarantee that he should not plead in vain
provided a case were made out. This tax
was imposed by Mr. Pitt as a war-tax, with
the assurance that it would not be continued in a time
of peace. From the year 1815, up to the present
time, almost every Chancellor of the Exchequer had
Promised to revise this tax, and the only revision that
had taken place was—a revision with a vengeance, for it,
was an addition of ten per cent. imposed by the late Ad-
ministration. This tax was peculiarly oppressive to
persons residing in the lower parts of Westminster.
It appeared, that holes made for admitting light into
cellars and dark staircases, were taxed as windows, and
those persons who had but six or seven windows be-
came rated to the tax, although the Act of Parliament
never contemplated that they should be subjected to it.
The parish of St. Anne's was formerly the place of the
residences of the aristocracy, but now no person of in-
dependent means lived there. In that parish the tax
was most oppressive. In that parish the tax was 163-
' per cent. upon the rental, while in Regent-street, and
the neighbourhood of the Reform Club, it was not more
than 2i- per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was a painful and disagreeable task to have to defend
taxes which Hon. Gentlemen might consider odious and
oppressive. It was impossible to deny that any tax,
however wisely conceived, or however ably car-
ried into effect, was necessarily in itself an evil.
Those feelings were necessarily stronger in cases of
direct taxation when, in addition to the evil and incon-
venience produced by the operation of the tax itself,
there was the irritating circumstance of an open and
direct demand for money from the person who was called
upon to pay it. And therefore he felt that, in stating to
the House the reasons why he declined acceding to the
proposition of the Noble Lord, he must request the House
to consider that taxes were in themselves evils, but they
were necessary evils. The House should not suffer itself
to be carried away by every mere detail of the hardship
arising from one particular case, but ought to consider
the general necessities of the country, and that it was
requisite that a certain amount should be raised fel- the
maintenance of the public revenue. The Noble Lord
opposite had detailed to them many evils resulting from
the operation of this particular tax. He did not doubt
but there were cases in which the tax subjected the
payer to considerable inconvenience ; and other cases in
which the law was not understood, and hardships sus-
tained, the infliction of which was never contemplated
by the Legislature. He could only say the Government
was most willing to interpose and prevent the recurrence
of these evils. When inconveniences and oppressions
were stated to the House, it did not follow that these
statements were not either untrue or exaggerated ; for
although he would by no means impeach the veracity of
the Noble Mover, or the Hon. and Gallant Officer who
seconded him, still he thought theymeight have been mis-
led by erroneous information. In consequence of what
had passed on a former occasion, he had felt it his duty
to inquire into some statements made regarding parti-
cular houses in Bath, to which the Noble Lord
had adverted. The Noble Lord then said that in
the house. 10, Galway-street, Bath, twenty win-
dows had been shut up recently, in consequence of
this tax, and that a large number of windows had been
shut up in the adjoining houses from the same cause.
That statement was not correct. In 1843 the window-
tax was assessed on a person, named Fisher, for thirty-
four windows, and in 1844 the tax was assessed on the
same house, on a person named Fisher, for thirty-
five windows, showing an increase rather than a diminu-
tion. With respect to No. 9, he had ascertained that there
were reasons why the windows should be stopped, be-
side the inconvenience of paying the window-tax, for he
believed it was pretty well ascertained that No. 9 was a
house of ill fame. In other cases to which the Noble
Lord had referred, he felt compelled to refer to the state-
ment of a Noble Lord, his predecessor in the office
which he had the honour to fill, and he would follow
that Noble Lord in the as- ertion that those houses,
which were unfurnished and unoccupied, and which
were only opened for the sake of ventilation, were not
liable to taxation. The character of that Noble Lord
was too well established to suppose that he was at all
likely to commit a breach of faith.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not wish to impute to the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London, or to his Honourable
Friend near him, any error in the statement which
those Gentlemen had made. The Noble Lord his
predecessor had stated, in 1834, that it was not the inten-
tion of Government to prevent any person from enjoying
the benefit of additional windows in their houses, if they
opened an additional window beyond the number at which
they were assessed. In 1834, when the proposition was
made to impose the assessed taxes for five years, there
was this express reservation, that the window-tax should
be levied according to the previous assessment, and per-
sons who were desirous of entering into a composition
of five per cent., were enabled, by the act of 1834, to do so on
the whole amount of their assessment. But the Noble Lord
asked, " Why put additional taxes on houses once rated to the
occupier at a certain number of windows, when new windows
should have been made in them ? " Why, surely, it was never
intended that those occupiers should have a perpetuity of those
houses if they should improve them by additional windows.—
( Hear, hear.) If that were so, it would be a manifest injus-
tice to others who should build new houses.—( Hear, hear. )
With respect to the motion of the Noble Lord, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) could not feel it would be consistent
in him to consent to this Committee, for he knew what the
feeling was with respect to those Committees ; it was, in fact,
nothing more nor less than to call upon the House to ex-
press an opinion, to the effect that the window-tax should be
removed. This tax amounted to a million and a half—and he
would ask, was the Noble Lord in a position to state what he
proposed to substitute for it? or to say it could be removed
without a substitute in the present state of the finances of the
country ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose,
however, intended to suggest that it should be left for the con-
sideration of the Committee, whether it would not be better
that a house-tax should be substituted for the window-tax.
Now the House had already had this question before them ; and
the House, ten years ago, having before them the two taxes,
did, upon deliberate consideration, determine that the house-
tax should be abolished, and the window-tax preserved. Whe-
ther right or wrong, was foreign to the present question to de-
termine that; if they were to raise a million and a half upon a
tax derived from windows, it was not desirable to encourage an
opinion that they were about to make a change in the mode in
which they at present levied it. The Noble Lord had stated
that the number of houses was 4,000,000, but that only 450,000
of them were subject to the tax. The residences of
the labouring classes, and buildings used for manufac-
turing or agricultural purposes, were mostly exempted.
In fact, the tax in its present state was placed only upon one-
eleventh of the whole number of house-occupiers in the coun-
try. When, however, the house. tax was in force, it operated
upon one-seventh of the house-occupiers of the country. If
they substituted one tax for the other, it would naturally bring
under assessment a large body of persons —he believed no less
than 270,000 in number, who at the present time were subject
to the income-tax. He should be surprised if the remission
of one-half of the window-tax on these houses occasioned any
reduction of the rent to the tenants. That rent did not so much
depend on the taxes on these particular houses as on the demand
for them for dwellings of the poor. Labouring men, rather
than reside at a distance from their employment, and encounter
the toil of walking to and from it at the beginning and end of
their work, would pay an enhanced rent for a dwelling in the
neighbourhood of their avocations. He did not see any par-
ticular advantage to be gained by going into this Committee.
He fully admitted to the Noble Lord it was the duty of the
Government to inquire into these branches of taxation, and to
see whether the abuses in them could not be remedied,
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But to grant a Committee on
this subject would only excite expectations that could not be
realised, and would lead people to believe that the window-duty
was about to be abolished, without any other tax being im-
posed instead of it. He therefore felt bound to resist the in-
quiry moved for by the Noble Lord. It had been said, that
the tax prevented healthy ventilation ; but he believed what
the poor man most looked for in his dwelling was warmth. He
was sure, if the Noble Lord entered into the dwellings of the
poor, he would see so far from their being anxious to allow the
air into their dwellings, there was not a single hole that was
not filled up for the purpose of securing warmth, and what they
considered comfort. As to the window-tax being the cause of
ill health, he was not prepared to admit it, and there was not a 1