^* rose to bring forward his Motion for the repeal of the window duty; and in doing so he said that he was well aware of the objections and difficulties that might be thrown in the way of this or any other reduction of taxation at any time, but more especially at a crisis like the present. He had hoped, however, to have been anticipated, either by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the notice which he had placed on the Paper, because he had expected that, as the budget which had been lately laid before the House had (in the thirty-third year of peace in Europe) contained an augmentation of the property-tax, of not less than two per cent, that increase of taxation would have been substituted for certain other taxes, which he was prepared to prove pressed most grievously and most heavily on the middle and working classes of the people of this country.

^*From a corrected report published by Ridgway.

No doubt he would be told that this was not the time to bring forward this Motion; but that did not shake his opinion as to the expediency of doing so, because he observed that time was the invariable pretext used by all Ministers opposed in their hearts to any troublesome Motion, but who had not the courage to say so openly. The last time he brought this subject forward, he moved for a Committee of Inquiry; but, unfortunately for him, at that time Committees of Inquiry into the finances of the country were not so popular with the then occupants of the Treasury benches as they were now. On that occasion he was defeated, and, therefore, finding that inquiry was as much objected to as usual in similar cases, he had been emboldened now to bring forward a Motion for a full and complete repeal of the window-tax. He fairly owned that he threw himself upon the indulgence of the House in performing the task which he had undertaken. And he trusted the House would remember that a humble Member like himself, had not the same means of reviewing the resources of this country as were possessed by his hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, on looking over the taxes of this country, he thought he could find a substitute in the place of the window-tax, and he was ready to propose it for the consideration of Gentlemen on all sides of the House. It had been boasted that out of 3,500,000 houses in Great Britain, only 500,000 paid the window-tax. He was astonished that such a boast should be made, because the reason why so many houses were exempted was, partly that many houses belonging to wealthy parties had been exempted under various pretexts by various Ministers; partly that in a very great number of houses the number of windows in each had been reduced to seven, on account of the extreme pressure of the window-tax. He had lately received a letter from Dr. Southwood Smith, a high authority on the subject; and in that letter the writer said, he did not believe that sanitary reform could be complete until the window-tax was abolished. He had received another letter from Mr. Byers, the president of the Carpenters' Society in London, and who had built a great number of houses, which were occupied by persons in the middle classes; and he stated that in houses of that description it often happened that washhouses, and privies, and other outbuildings, were erected without the proper means of ventilation. On account of the operation of the window-tax, Mr. Byers further stated that he had been employed upon nearly every house in Compton-street, Soho, to reduce the number of windows. The history of the house-duty and window-tax, was worth the attention of the House. It was the history of a long series of struggles between the people of Great Britain, and their rulers, in which, he was sorry to say, the health of the people, and the architecture and ventilation of houses in Great Britain, had grievously suffered. The window-tax was one of a class of taxes particularly dangerous. It was so easy for a Minister to add a little from time to time to the window duties, almost imperceptibly, until by constant additions, the tax had become altogether oppressive and intolerable in the minds of a civilised people, and until the cup was filled to the brim, no one had been aware of the bitterness of the draught. The first Act for levying duties on inhabited houses was passed in 1695, in the time of William III. This Act, like some of modern times, was only to continue for three years. The tax was 2s., on each house, except a cottage; 4s. additional upon houses with ten windows; and 8s. additional upon houses with twenty windows. This Act was augmented in Queen. Anne's reign, and again in that of George I., windows being taken as the criterion of the value of a house. In 1747, Pelham passed an Act imposing a tax of 2s. per house. In the same Act a duty was levied of 6d. per window on houses with ten to fourteen windows; 9d. per window from fifteen to nineteen windows; 1s. per window on twenty windows and upwards. The preamble of this Act stated, "whereas the duty on houses has for some years greatly decreased, and the same appears still likely to diminish, owing to the attempts made to evade the tax;" and the next Act, in the year 1766, passed by Dowdeswell, again stated, "whereas said house and window duties have been greatly evaded." In 1785, an Act was passed to prevent smuggling in tea, and in consequence of a report of the Committee on illicit trade, Mr. Pitt proposed low ad valorem duties on tea, and to make up the deficiency in the revenue by substituting a heavier window-tax. Mr. Pitt introduced his Commutation Bill, and earned it, in defiance of the arguments of Mr. Fox, "that in spite of the absurd calculations of the Committee in respect to the saving that the taking off the duty on tea, and the laying a tax upon air and light would be to the poor, he trusted that the House would reflect that a window was a necessity, and tea a luxury, and that tea and windows had no more to do with one another than bricks with horses or hats." Belsham said, "Owners both in town and country began to disfigure their houses immediately after the passing of this Act, by blocking up their windows." In 1797, came the Triple Assessment Act. Mr. Fox, who had absented himself from Parliament, was specially sent down to oppose this Act, but in vain. The Act passed, even Mr. Pitt regretting that it was necessary to proceed to such extreme financial measures, owing to the war; and thousands of windows were blocked up next day, and "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Pitt!" was chalked upon the vacant spaces. In 1802 and 1808 two more Acts were passed, augmenting the mischief. After these, there was a lull till 1822, when the present Sir John Hobhouse, then Member for Westminster, was defeated in a Motion for the repeal of the window duties. In spite of this, Mr. Robinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1823, finding the heavy window-tax could no longer be sustained in public opinion, had to take off half the amount of the tax. Then came the Act of Lord Althorp in 1834, taking off the house-tax; and in that Act there was a clause which specifically stated, that persons who had been duly assessed, should have the power to open as many windows as they pleased, free of duty; and many people took advantage of that Act by opening a great number of windows. But, unfortunately, in 1841, there was, as there is now, a deficiency in the revenue; and Mr. Baring, after putting 10 per cent upon the assessed taxes, had recourse to a re-assessment, in violation of Lord Althorp's Act.

seconded the Motion. It was a rule laid down by all political economists, that that tax which was subject to the greatest amount of exceptions was the worst that could be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), two Sessions ago, proposed the abolition of the auction duties; mentioning as a specimen of the law, that the amount received was the exception to the amount collected. Only 20l. out of 100l. collected, he believed, reached the Exchequer. The right hon. Baronet showed that there were eighteen different kinds of property exempted from this tax. What was the case of the window-tax? In the first place, Ireland paid no part of it. It was a tax upon England and Scotland alone, and whilst we had to pay additional taxes for the support of Ireland, that country was exempted from this tax. That of itself ought to be a strong reason for its repeal. It appeared also that houses below a certain rate were exempted. He believed that about three-fourths of the houses were free. Did not that show that it must be a grievous tax to call for all these exemptions? When the House interfered by their taxation with the health and comfort of the people, the result must necessarily be disastrous. The time was come when there must be a reform in our system of taxation. He considered this to be one of the most mischievous of taxes; and one of the grounds for his seconding the Motion of the noble Lord was that he might show the country, by the division which would take place upon it, who were, and who were not, friends of the poor. He wanted to see how those hon. Members would vote who were usually loud in their desire for the improvement of the moral and religious character of the country, for he held that until you could place the mass of the people in an adequate state of physical comfort, a large portion of the expenditure for moral and religious purposes would be utterly lost. He agreed with the noble Lord that the Royal forests were a burden to this country, and ought to be sold. It was the duty of the House, when the trappings of Royalty became expensive and pressed upon the wants of the community, to take measures for abridging them. He felt very serious on this point; and he assured the House that these were not the times for trifling on such subjects. The House ought to look at the situation of the mass of the people, and try to reduce their burdens to an extent which would afford them real relief. Taking off a trifle here and a trifle there, would not answer the purpose. The public expected greater relief, and they looked to the Government to give it to them. He hoped the division to-night would show that a large portion of the House was favourable to the repeal of the tax then under consideration.

had sincere gratification in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, and he cordially thanked him for the manly course he had taken in opposition to the Ministry. He fully agreed with the noble Lord, that if they were to institute a searching inquiry into the abuses of their expenditure, retrenchments might be effected to an extent that would enable them to get rid of this and many other taxes. But this would be attended with considerable trouble and inconvenience, and the Government would of course resist it. There was a total indifference on the part of Government as to what became of the people, so long as they filled their own pockets and enjoyed their own comfort. With respect to the window-tax, if it was to be maintained, it ought not to be put upon the dwellings of the poor, but upon the mansions of the rich. The Govern- ment offices ought to be made to pay. The gentlemen who were revelling in Downing-street, whose houses were furnished, for aught he knew, out of the secret service fund, and who gave dinner after dinner to each other, ought to be made to pay. He would have this secret service fund examined into also. The very word "secret" carried with it a suspicion that something was going on that ought not to go on. He should not be surprised to hear that some of it had gone to the case of Dr. Hampden. He repeated that he would cordially support the noble Lord in his present Motion, for he considered it as at present levied to be a disgraceful, dirty, shabby, and unconstitutional mode of raising money.

wished to say a very few words in support of the present Motion, for he felt it was unnecessary to do more after the able speeches made by the noble Lord on this subject, not only then but on former occasions; and more especially as the unjust and oppressive nature of the tax was so self-evident. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet risen; but he (Sir De Lacy Evans) had listened to his predecessors on former occasions, and he had never heard from them anything approaching to vindication of the justice of this tax. He knew very well that it was often alleged, in a vague and general way, that there was no tax whatsoever but some particular grievance or objection might be brought against it. But he took leave to say that this did not apply to the present case—for whether they looked at it individually or generally, it was absolutely indefensible. The humbler classes were made to pay at the rate of 20 or 30 per cent, while the opulent classes paid only 1, 1½, 2½, or 3 per cent. Could such a tax as that be defended? He agreed with the noble Lord regarding the Royal forests. The country derived no sort of advantage from them whatsoever. Some 800 or 500 years ago they were a luxury to the Monarch; but for hundreds of years they had been merely deserts, as the noble Lord had said, except in regard to furnishing some snug berths for members of the aristocracy and the humbler supporters of the Governments which had succeeded each other from time to time in this country. Among the items of expenditure brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to show the necessity of increased taxation, were the expenses of the Caffre war; but it ought to be remembered that this item appeared only for the present year, and was not likely to be repeated. He firmly believed that the people of this country, notwithstanding the temporary distress—for temporary he believed it to he—which pressed upon the community, and which at present threw a gloom upon the operations of commerce as well as other matters—he believed that notwithstanding these circumstances the great body of the people were perfectly willing to contribute to the necessary expenses of Government; and that they were also capable of supplying the means of those expenses. It was not the amount of these expenses which created the annoyance and irritation on the mind of the public, so much as the unjust and unequal distribution of the taxes. Nothing had so much tended to produce the French revolution—he spoke of the first revolution, not of the present one—as the conviction on the part of the people that their fiscal burdens were unjustly and unequally distributed. He would suggest a small addition to the budget for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he meant the probate duty on real property. There was scarcely any item of taxation, the omission of which had had a stronger effect on the feelings of the people than this. It was felt to be unjust that the hardly-earned produce of industry should repeatedly and constantly, and in the small amounts in which it was realised, be subjected to a heavy probate duty, while the transmission of the property of the great and wealthy paid no tax of a similar nature. He trusted that this subject would receive the early and serious attention of Government.

I don't know that the office which I have the honour—however unworthily—to fill, is at any time remarkably agreeable. It is certainly, however, as disagreeable an office as any one can possibly occupy when the country is suffering distress, and when it is my painful duty—however reluctantly—to increase taxation. On the present occasion I have another painful duty to discharge in resisting the remission of a tax which has been described to-night in no very measured terms as odious and vexatious. I confess that I think that the proposition to repeal the window-tax, or, indeed, any tax at present, was sufficiently answered by the speech of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) the other night. When my noble Friend was called upon unwillingly to propose to the House additional taxation to the amount of 3,000,000l., I think it would be unwise ii we were to part with the window-tax. There is an old fable, that we can bear the burdens we have been accustomed to more easily than we can bear the imposition of new burdens; and surely those who are anxious to avoid fresh taxation can hardly ask us, in our present circumstances, to give up a tax which yields about 1,600,000l. or 1,700,000l. a year. When I look at the Notice-paper, I find various hon. Members struggling for the revision of taxation; but they are not all of them quite so kind as my noble Friend in proposing a substitute. But I must say, when my noble Friend accuses us of being spendthrifts, that his proposal of disposing of our capital (by the sale of the Royal forests) is by no means the most thrifty mode of dealing with our property. I think it right also to state, that the offices in connexion with the Royal forests to which the noble Lord referred, are mere honorary appointments. The House would naturally suppose, from the statement of the noble Lord, that these great personages were a heavy charge upon the public revenue; whereas he might have told the House that the return of their emoluments, like the timber to which he referred, was—nil. With regard to timber for the Royal Navy, the noble Lord supposes these forests are of no use whatever; but the fact is, that at the present time, when the whole world is open to us, timber is imported from abroad. The chief expense incurred is in enclosing and protecting those plantations, which will hereafter, as in former days, insure a good supply for the Navy when foreign timber may not be so accessible. This is the object for which the forests are kept up, not to be useless appendages of Royalty, as the noble Lord described them. The noble Lord now proposes to repeal the window duties; and the third Motion, lower on the Notice-paper, to be brought forward tonight by an hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Ewart), contemplates the abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks, and of the duties on butter and cheese, and the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine. Now, really, Sir, in the present state of our finances, these propositions are not a little serious. I must mention the produce of these various duties. The window duties and those on paper, soap, bricks, butter and cheese, yield to the revenue in round numbers 4,000,000l. a year. The usual proposition for reducing the duty on tea is from 2s. 1½d. to 1s., on wine to 2s. 6d. per gallon, and on tobacco from 3s. to 1s. per pound. The produce of these duties is upwards of 11,000,000l., and taking the proposed reduction to be about one-half, it would occasion a loss of revenue of more than. 5,000,000l.; to which we must add the 4,000,000l. of loss from the repeal of the first-named duties, making in all a sacrifice of no less than 9,000,000l., I appeal to the common sense of hon. Members whether in the present state of our finances, the proposal now submitted, and the others about to be submitted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart), are practicable, or such as any Government could think of acceeding to? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has, to be sure, a proposition to substitute for the duties he would reduce and repeal, a system of direct taxation on realised property; that is, on all property under schedules A and C, now producing about 3,000,000l. In order, therefore, to obtain an amount equal to what it is proposed to give up, the hon. Gentleman must quadruple the present amount of taxation on these two schedules—a proposition which even those most enamoured of a tax on realised property may well view with alarm. Objections have been urged to the mode in which the window duties are levied. Sir, when it is said that this is one of those taxes which exclusively press on the poor, I must take the liberty of altogether denying the statement. We have been constantly told during the last four or five years by those who seek the repeal of duties most onerous to the humbler classes, and I admit there is considerable truth in the argument, that the most advantageous mode of benefiting the poor is to take off the taxes on corn and the necessaries of life, and to impose direct taxation, which is conceived to press more on the richer classes; and yet we have heard to-night Gentlemen who have always advocated this course insist that the window duty, which comes nearer to a property-tax than any other now existing in the country, should be remitted for the benefit of the poorer classes of the community. The hon. Member for Montrose objects to the tax because there are so many exemptions. What are those exemptions? They are invariably in favour of the poorer orders. Speaking generally, of 3,500,000 houses, only 500,000 are subject to the window duty; 3,000,000 being exempt. What houses are exempt? Not those of the nobility and gentry, but the smallest description of houses occupied from one end of the country to the other by the poorest classes. I don't mean to say that there are not houses with fewer than eight windows inhabited by persons of property; it is impossible to deal with two or three exceptional cases. The lower class of houses, in which the poor reside, are exempt from this tax; therefore, to call it a tax imposed by the wealthy on the poor is a most extraordinary perversion of the real facts of the case. The exceptions are almost invariably in favour of persons who do not beneficially occupy the houses. My hon. and gallant relative (Col. Sibthorp) would put the window-tax on public offices; but what would the public gain by that? I should have to propose, in the Miscellaneous Estimates, a sum of money to pay a tax on the windows of the Treasury, where the clerks sit at their duty; we should thus be paying from one hand to another; nothing could result from such a ceremony but inconvenience, and possibly some loss in the transfer. To suppose that the public would gain by the process, is the most preposterous idea ever propounded by my hon. and gallant relative. The noble Lord talked of the exemption of agricultural houses; but all buildings occupied for the purposes of trade and manufacture are also exempt from the window-tax. That, again, is an exemption in favour of the industrious classes: those only pay who inhabit dwelling-houses with eight windows or upwards. The noble Lord also spoke of the extraordinary amount raised on the lower description and the small amount raised on the higher class of houses. Why is it so? Because the lower class is greatly more numerous. Of the 500,000 houses in the kingdom subject to the tax, there are 314,000 with fifteen windows and under. If you mean to tax only the large houses of the rich, you will have very little produce from your taxation. If it be necessary to raise a large amount of taxation, you must levy it on a large number of persons. If you confine your tax to a small number at the top of the tree, the produce of it will be very small, even if you increase your impost to confiscation. The noble Lord, speaking on the subject of the window duties, referred to the arguments urged in 1833 in favour of the repeal of the house-tax, as if that pressed most heavily on the richer portion of the community. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the window-tax, taking town and country together, bears most severely on the higher classes. Referring to-day to the returns connected with the inhabited house duty, I find that the houses of the nobility and gentry paid much less in house-tax than in the window-duty. The house in which I myself live in the country pays 32l. for window-duty, whereas the house-tax was only 14l. I should, therefore, have benefited twice as much if the window-tax had been removed, as I benefit by the remission of the house-tax. There is, no doubt, considerable objection to this tax; and if there were any other mode of raising the same amount of duty, I should be exceedingly glad. I have been in communication with the Chairman of Stamps and Taxes and the officers of that Board, and we have had under consideration various schemes for improving the mode of rating to the window-duty, and removing the objections which I admit there are to it; but my noble Friend and the deputation that waited upon me some time ago said, that to amend the scale, and to put an end to the inequalities that existed, would be of no use; and although I did venture to ask whether they preferred the tax levied in another way, I could not discover that they had any such proposition to make. Their only proposition, and the only one made in this House, is the absolute repeal of the tax; but that is one which, in the present state of the finances of the country, however painful it may be not to take off a tax to which so strong an objection is made, I feel it to be my duty to oppose.

said, it was absolutely impossible in the present state of the revenue of the country, and after the alarming statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he could vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord; but at the same time he had no hesitation in saying that if the Motion of the noble Lord had assumed a different form, and a resolution had been submitted to the House, that it was desirable in the opinion of the House that this tax should be repealed at the earliest opportunity, he should have felt it his duty to vote for that proposition. He wished also to express the feeling that he very strongly entertained, in common-with many of those with whom he had communicated on this subject, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, this tax was the most objectionable of all taxes remaining unrepealed. He was one of those who wished to see the taxation levied on articles of universal consumption repealed or reduced, or, if possible, replaced by direct taxation. But what he understood by that was, that it should be replaced by such direct taxation as approached as nearly as any taxation could to an ad valorem tax on the property of the country; of which they had at present one example in the case of the income-tax, though that was not so perfect as it might be made if pains were taken to make it so. He had no hesitation in saying that he very much preferred continuing, if necessary, the inconvenience of the income-tax, which did not immediately fall upon the great body of the people, to levying a large revenue by taxes on articles of universal consumption. But that was no reason why they should adhere to the old, fallacious, clumsy, most unsatisfactory habit of levying a number of quasi income-taxes, which were not, in fact, income-taxes— which were not levied on any principle of equality or justice—and which were felt by those who had also to pay the income-tax to be a great aggravation of the burden of that tax. While he was in favour of the principle of an income-tax, he was in favour of its being so levied as to interfere as little as possible with the natural courses of the labour and industry of the country. When they levied a tax which was intended to be a species of income-tax, whether upon windows, or other things of the same nature, which involved the application of capital to the employment of labour, it appeared to him that they fell into a great error. If their real object was to lay an ad valorem tax on property, would it not be better to do it directly, than by a mode which interfered extensively with the manufacture of glass and the mode of building houses? It seemed plain, that if they imposed this duty on the principle of an income-tax, they ought to make it so exclusively; if it were upon any other principle, let them know what it was. And then as to its gross inequality—it totally failed of anything like an approximation to an ad valorem duty. He held in his hand a return moved for last Session of the towns paying the largest amount to the window duty, and he found that Plymouth paid 11,326l., whilst Leeds paid only 7,789l.; and yet he would venture to say that Leeds had much more than ten times the wealth of Plymouth. Again, it might be reasonable, in laying on the income-tax, to make retired officers, and gentlemen of small incomes who resided in such a place as Plymouth, hear their fair proportion; but it was preposterous to make them pay one-third more for a window-tax in the nature of an income-tax than the rich manufacturers who resided in Leeds. He found, that of all the towns in the kingdom, Plymouth stood seventh in the return. The window-tax was not only open to all the objections to which an indirect attempt at approximation to an income-tax was liable; but there was also this special objection to it, that it interfered with the health of people of just the class whom they ought most to consider—those who inhabited not the very worst species of houses, but the next class above them. It tended to induce artisans and persons of that class to live in miserable places where their health was sacrificed, instead of going to reside in the improved kind of houses for which the noble Lord the Member for Bath was so useful and honourable an instrument in endeavouring to promote a taste amongst the people of this country. In proportion to the exertions to improve the dwellings of the labouring classes, and in connexion with the measures of sanitary reform proposed by the Government, they ought to be desirous that this tax should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very excellent speech against the window-tax; and how that hon. and learned Gentleman can have the firmness to resist the influence of his own arguments, and vote against the Motion of the noble Lord, I am at a loss to understand. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated a special case. Many Members of this House are influenced by the general principle involved in the question; but the hon. and learned Gentleman finds, from a return laid on the table of the House, that his town pays 12,000l. to the window-tax, whereas Leeds pays only 7,000l.; and yet Leeds has ten times the wealth of Plymouth. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the representative of the oppressed and injured people; and yet the unfortunate electors of Plymouth are to find the vote of their representative recorded against the Motion of the noble Lord. It puzzles me to know of what use representatives can be, if this is to be the mode in which they act. It is very discouraging to those who send Members to this House, but it is peculiarly encouraging to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by speaking of the unfortunate and unhappy office he held. I hope now he is more comfortable. He certainly ought to be relieved from a great deal of his difficulty on finding the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is remarkable for the power of his intellect and his acuteness of perception, get up and make an admirable speech against the window duty; and when he is about to sit down, declare that he is going to vote against the Motion for the repeal. A strong dose of chloroform could not have made the Chancellor more easy. I do not know how the electors in Plymouth will feel, but the public tomorrow will feel no disappointment at the rejection of the noble Lord's Motion. All hope of retrenchment from the present Administration is gone. I am sorry to say it, but my conviction is that there will be no retrenchment from them. The public were looking with great pleasure and satisfaction upon the Government of the noble Lord. I never saw the community exhibit more good-will and forbearance towards any Government than towards the present Administration. I do not know how it has happened, but the public had a great respect for the Ministry; they scorn to have bad the most perfect reliance on the noble Lord, and to have been fully convinced that the noble Lord would relieve them of every possible burden. But I wish the noble Lord could go into the City now, and see his committee. He would be perfectly astonished at his reception in the turtle-soup-eating ward. I regret that there should be this change, but it has occurred; and, I regret being compelled to say it, not without reason. The Government must have great hope of what this House will do, after the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth; but I hope many Motions of this kind will be made, and that the feeling of the House on the subject of a reduction of taxation will be tested, so that the people may know who are and who are not for retrenchment. One hardly knows how to designate this tax; it is one of the most odious and unbearable ever imposed; it is second in iniquity only to the income-tax. It is injurious in an immense variety of ways. I conceive that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite mistaken in his view of the case. The right hon. Gentleman says he believes, and he sincerely believes, other- wise he would not say so, that this tax does not press upon the industrious classes. The right hon. Gentleman may, I believe, have used the term "lower classes;" but for my part I don't know where the lower classes are to be found among men, although I have heard of them among animals. But the right hon. Gentleman says it does not press upon these classes, because small houses are excepted. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in large towns, where land is of great value, the object of proprietors is to run up houses as high as possible, and to locate in them as great a number of people as possible? Does he not know that the great mass of the industrious classes are lodgers, not householders, and that the landlords squeeze out of them every farthing for rent that they can possibly pay? Does he not know that as many as eight, ten, twelve, and more persons live in a single room, and that room with a single window? That is the case in all our large towns. Consequently, this tax operates like a curse upon the labouring population, and is destructive to their health, destructive to their comfort, and destructive to their morals. It environs them with foul air; it plunges them into darkness. And then you tell us that this is the nearest in operation to an income-tax. If that were so, it would be a very admirable and valid reason for detesting it all the more. It is injurious in every point of view. Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted architects on the subject of this tax? Does he know the extent of the discouragement and robbery it inflicts upon the man of genius, as well as upon the labourer, and how it prevents those improvements in architecture which otherwise would be made? Why, it literally robs the people of hundreds of thousands a year. In every respect, therefore, I say it is a tax which ought to be repealed. But no matter for that; the noble Lord might as well whistle before the rocks of Gibraltar as talk the best of reason on the subject of taxation after such a budget as we have heard from the Government. Some hon. Member behind me suggests that the matter might be referred to a Committee upstairs. Why, Sir, everything is going upstairs, and you will be presently left here in an empty house. Well, there is no chance of this tax being repealed by the present Administration; but of this I am sure, that the Government will know in the course of a few days that the people of this country will not submit to increased taxa- tion for any purpose that has been stated. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government be labouring under a hallucination about foreign war, perhaps the common sense which prevails on that subject out of doors will have the effect of restoring the mind of the noble Lord to a state of sanity. But the noble Lord has made a war speech—I know the noble Lord disclaims it, and I acknowledge he may not have intended to do so, but I assure him that his language has had the effect of inducing the people to believe that the noble Lord thinks we are approaching the period when this country is open to an attack from other nations. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I said just the reverse.] I was merely stating the unfortunate impression that prevails. But the people are beginning to think on this subject of taxation, and when the public think, it is time for the ruling Powers to consider what they are about. An ignorant multitude may submit to injustice, but an intelligent people will not for any long period. The people of this country are now impressed with the notion that the taxation imposed upon them by this House is unjust, unequal, and in favour of property as against industry. That is the impression which prevails out of doors, and I trust many Members of this House concur with me in that opinion. Considering how much talent there is in the Government, and the means at their disposal of acquiring information—considering how repeatedly the subject of finance has been discussed in this House, it was most assuredly in the power of Ministers to have discovered some of the departments of State in which retrenchment might be made, and a stricter economy practised. But I repeat my conviction, that the Government made no sufficient inquiry into this matter, but came down to make their proposition heedlessly and thoughtlessly. That proposition has created out of doors a great deal of excitement, and within this House it has produced among Members a certain amount of discontent. That discontent will increase, and the excitement out of doors will increase, unless the noble Lord relaxes. Why, the equalisation of the land-tax would itself have produced nearly 2,000,000l. a year. Then look at the legacy and probate duty upon real property. Can anybody pretend that personal property should be subject to the duties now imposed, and real property escape altogether? If a man die and leave 100,000l. in land to his successors, the party coming in pays not one farthing to the Government; but if another man die, and leave 100l. to an old and faithful servant who has been in his service twenty years—has been his greatest comfort, and has rendered him the most important services—that servant, before he can touch his legacy, has the sum of 10l. extracted from it in the shape of duty. Is not all this monstrous as well as false and absurd in principle? Why, there is a principle of very confiscation and spoliation running-through the whole system which ought to be repudiated by any intelligent assembly desiring to do justice to the people. Observe how this window-tax operates. It commences at a low point; but when it comes to press upon the middle classes, the industrious classes, the working classes, it is screwed to the highest pitch. When it begins to touch the mansions of the aristocracy, then it begins to decline, and when it arrives at a gorgeous palace, with, say, 180 windows, the tax dwindles to an exceedingly small sum indeed, as if it then became impolitic to raise it higher. Do you wonder the people are discontented? I do trust, now that the subject has been mooted, that the House will apply itself to the subject of finance and taxation; that they will resist with honest firmness every extravagant expenditure on the part of the Executive Government; and that they will resolve to investigate with the most searching scrutiny into the expenditure now going on for State purposes; and I think it will be found that, instead of its being necessary to increase taxation, it will be practicable to reduce it, while what remains may be spread so evenly and justly over the face of society that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of mourning over his unhappy position, might congratulate himself upon being the financier of a contented and prosperous people. I trust the noble Lord will not allow any person to induce him to withdraw his Motion; and I assure him, however small the number voting with him, he will find me among them.

was anxious that the House should see the exact position in which the hon. Member for Plymouth stood in relation to his constituency. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roundell Palmer) had stated that the tax was one of much inconvenience and injustice, and admitted that there were many arguments against it; but he said that, considering the time at which the present Motion was brought forward, and considering, also, the state of the public finances, he was not inclined to place the Government of the country in financial difficulties by at present voting for its repeal. Which of those two arguments weighed the heaviest with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), it was not for him (Mr. Stafford) to say; but certainly, if he were an elector of Plymouth, and found his representative stating fairly in that House the reasons pro and con with reference to the tax in question, and arriving at the conclusion that it would be better to continue the tax for one year than to risk the public credit, then he as elector of Plymouth would rest perfectly satisfied, and be prepared again to record his vote for the hon. Gentleman at a future election. But, certainly, after pressing the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, the hon. Member for Finsbury gave him very little encouragement in his speech, for he said, "No matter what my friends or I may say, after the budget introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, it is in vain for us to attempt the repeal of any tax whatever." Therefore, a part of the blame which the hon. Member for Finsbury cast upon the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was to be attributed to his noble Friend (Lord Duncan) on account of the period at which he had brought forward his Motion. When he hoard the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had been appealed to as one of those consistent political economists who were in favour of direct taxation, state that the window-tax was so iniquitous that it could only be equalled in iniquity by the income-tax—then he must say that he looked with some astonishment at the inconsistencies of the hon. Gentlemen behind and around the hon. Member. He and those who acted with him had hitherto held a consistent course, and maintained, upon the whole, not the prohibition of direct taxation, but the extreme importance, also, of using indirect taxation as a means of raising the revenues of the country; and they must be permitted, from time to time, as these questions were discussed, to force upon the House the recollection of the inconsistencies of those hon. Gentlemen, and the dilemma in which the advocates of free trade were left upon the question. Whilst he did not deny the benefit of some direct taxation, they might depend upon it that the great bulk of the revenue must still continue to be raised by indirect taxation; and if they went so far as to fear to levy duties and continue the system of indirect taxation, because they thereby, directly or indirectly, protected particular interests, they would make their taxation press the more heavily on the poor; they would separate the rich from the poor, and make our financial difficulties, not to mention our commercial and political ones, of such magnitude, that Government after Government would resign, even upon the question of the budget and taxation, and the Government that might follow them would be unable to combat the difficulties they would have to encounter.

said, it was his intention to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath. But he would do so conditionally, and the condition was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be crippled in the means of maintaining the national integrity. He denied that it was the intention of the present, or that it had been of the late, Government to arrive at a system of direct taxation. Whilst they derived a revenue of 45,000,000l. annually by the levy of taxes on articles of commerce and consumption, it was not likely they would think of attempting to raise the entire revenue by direct taxation. But he wished for a general review of the whole system of taxation; and he thought the time had arrived when they might undertake it, notwithstanding the present extraordinary claims upon the Exchequer; but he would vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, because he thought no more odious tax existed than the window-tax. The budget speech of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had been most ungraciously met both in that House and out of doors. Perhaps the speech might have been somewhat more comprehensive, and taken a more general view of the system of taxation; for he believed that the time had arrived when the whole subject of taxation could be taken up, and that under circumstances favourable to the Government, notwithstanding the extraordinary and, to a great extent, the unlooked-for drains upon the Exchequer. The time had arrived when Members of that House must expect to be required by their constituents to do that for which they had been sent to Parliament, namely, to take care of the people's money. He recollected that a noble Lord in another place had said in the year 1839, that if that House neglected to look after the interests of the people, and to regulate the taxation, the other House of Parliament should take up the business and do it. The people had cause to complain very generally of the unequal system of taxation now prevailing in England and Scotland; and they would expect the House to revise it, and to extend every one of the taxes paid in England and Scotland to Ireland. He could see no objection to the extension of the property-tax to Ireland; and if the window-tax were to be continued, he thought that it also should be extended to that country. He was, however, strongly opposed to the continuance of such an impost. He considered the deprivation of light and air in houses not subject to the tax as great an injury as if the occupiers had to pay the tax. By being obliged to build up their windows from inability to pay the duties, the inhabitants of the poorer description of houses were deprived of the light of heaven. With regard to a house-tax, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded, he believed that tax would be far preferable to a window-tax, provided the amount was deducted from the rent paid to the landlord; but if it were to fall on all tenants, from the poorest to the richest, he thought it would be a most objectionable source of revenue.

said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would, in his mind, excuse the hon. Member from voting against the Committee proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it also bore out to the fullest the feeling which prevailed out of doors against the speech of the noble Lord, which the hon. Gentleman had properly described as not altogether intelligible. In advocating the extension of the window-tax to Ireland, if it were to be continued in this country, the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the smallest amount of duty might often prove an entire prohibition. He seemed to forget the fact that an Engligh window and an Irish window were very different things. In England, the window was intended to let the light in; but in Ireland the use of a window was to let the smoke out. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), in dwelling on the comparatively small number of houses subject to the window-tax, seemed to overlook one consideration altogether. If there were 3,000,000 of houses not subject to the window duties, while only 500,000 paid the duty, the result which he (Mr. O'Connor) drew from this was, that a great number of these 3,000,000 of houses were shut up in darkness, and would have windows but for this tax. This proved that taxes upon some articles acted nearly as a prohibition. When the proper time arrived, he should show that an income-tax of 2,000,000l. taken from the shopkeepers and the middle classes, was really an indirect tax amounting to 8,000,000l. upon the industry of the country. These classes were placed under the odious alternative of either paying the tax out of their capital, or deducting it from the payment of wages to the working-classes. There was a disposition on the part of the English landlords and the Irish Members, it appeared, to support the imposition of the income-tax. He regretted to see that such was the case, because he warned the landlords that the tax would ultimately fall upon themselves. The Irish Members, too, when they were obliged to come to the middle classes of this country for assistance on the next occurrence of famine would be told, "You voted to take 2,000,000l. out of our pockets by the income-tax, and we can't assist you on the present occasion." He held that the effects of the income-tax would fall severely upon the working classes. The subject would, however, better come before the House on another occasion, and when that time arrived he should be able to show to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire that the evils of which he complained arose, not from adopting the principles of free trade, but from, at the same time, not adopting those prudent regulations to which the noble alluded in his celebrated Edinburgh missive. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury, that they were now obliged to legislate for a thinking people. As to the increase of the Army and Navy, the noble Lord said that he did not make a warlike speech. But if he did not, what did 150,000l. for a militia mean? what did the increase of the marines and of the Army and Navy Estimates mean? Were not these warlike matters to introduce in a time of profound peace? He agreed in the adage that the best way to maintain peace was to be prepared for war; but he thought that the proper way to be prepared for war was to pay attention, not to the maritime defences, but to the wants and feelings of the classes on whom they should have to depend for assistance if war should come. The noble Lord ought to look also to the peaceful feelings of the people of this country; but at the same time he might rely on their support in the hour of danger. Though he was stigmatised as a fire- brand and a destructive and a revolutionist, he would be ready to go farther than the right hon. Baronet, in telling the noble Lord that even the cripple would shoulder his crutch rather than have a foreigner to interfere in the affairs of this country; and for his own part, he was ready to become a volunteer, though he would not serve as a mercenary, in resisting foreign aggression. Let not the noble Lord think that the feelings of this country were to be judged of by the present quiescent state of the people. The public mind was strongly alive to the course taken by the noble Lord; and it was only necessary for some artful and designing demagogue to apply a match to their feelings in order to rouse the people into the most determined opposition. The people were, in fact, determined to look after the matter of retrenchment in the public expenditure. They were resolved that their sweat should not be poured out and their labour increased in order that others might live in luxury on the fruit of their sweat and industry. He would vote against this tax, because he regarded the question as one of principle; and because, as the representative of a popular constituency, he wished to show that the people were ready to return good for evil. When he went before thorn again, he hoped to justify his vote; but he would much rather return to his own insignificancy, than hold a seat in that House by adopting a course which his own feelings did not tell him were just. The noble Lord knew that the name of his party had been made odious to the public. The noble Lord knew that the name of Whig stunk in the nostrils of the country. He believed that he spoke the feelings of the working classes of this country as much as any man, and he would venture in their name to tell the noble Lord that all former differences would be forgotten, and all bygone battles be sunk in oblivion, if the noble Lord would now take up their cause; but that they would not suffer themselves to starve, in order that others might live in luxury on their toil. Though they were now at peace, the horizon was not unclouded; and God only knew what their discussion might be on Monday night next. A great opportunity was now in the hands of the noble Lord. Let him take care that the people should not be sacrificed, and if he had a difficulty to meet, he might then throw himself on the shoulders of the working classes of this country.

begged to remind the hon. Member for Northamptonshire that in 1835, now thirteen years ago, this very question had been before the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day told them, in very much the same language as had been used by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening, to be patient until they saw what would turn up in the next Session of Parliament. On that occasion the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir S. Whalley) was asked to withdraw his Motion, and the whole of the Liberal party joined in endeavouring to persuade him to do so; but he was forced to a division by the hon. Member for Dover, and he walked into the lobby with only sixteen Members to support him. On that occasion, as well as whenever the question had come before the House subsequently, he (Captain Pechell) had advocated the removal of these duties, not only on the ground of their injustice, but because he regarded them as most injurious to the public health. He also felt interested in the subject because his constituency were large contributors to the tax. He had to complain that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor any of the other advocates of the tax, attempted to deny its injustice. His noble Friend had gone into some of the injurious effects of this tax; but if the public had the means of knowing how these assessed taxes, of which the window tax formed so considerable a portion, were levied, there would, he believed, be a much stronger feeling against their continuance. Between 1830 and 1847, there were 620 cases of assessed taxes returned before the judges on appeals, and of these 268 were for window tax; and it should be recollected that one case decided before a judge generally ruled twenty or thirty others. In Scotland, the extent to which this tax was felt to be a grievance was quite extraordinary; and how a Member from the northern part of the kingdom could vote for its continuance was to him most strange. In 1840 there were in Scotland no less than 115 cases of appeal from the assessed taxes, and of these 68 were on account of window-tax. He was surprised, too, that those who called themselves the farmer's friends in that House, did not look to the operation of the window-tax upon the agriculturists, for the blue books abounded in instances of its partial and unjust operation in farmhouses. In 1791 a Roman Catholic priest was as- sessed for a vestry room that opened into his chapel, on the ground that it was not used as a place of religious worship; and in the Established Church there were cases equally oppressive. As to deputations on the subject, he was tired of attending them. It was no doubt gratifying to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-street; but so far from getting any assurance of relief from him, they might as well have a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer. In both cases the language held out to them was precisely the same. Under these circumstances he should cordially give his support to the Motion of his noble Friend; and he should do all in his power to prevent the reimposition of the tax.

said, that perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words on the subject before them. He should have been much better pleased to remain silent on the occasion; but the relation in which he stood towards the city of Bath, where the grievance was most seriously felt, and his position with regard to his noble Colleague, rendered some explanation necessary on the vote which he intended to give on this question. He concurred in a very great deal of what had fallen from his noble Friend, and from the hon. Member for Finsbury, and from all those who had spoken of this tax as being injurious and oppressive in the extreme. He felt that it pressed with great inequality on all classes, but particularly on the working classes, on the occupiers of small dwellings, and of the weekly tenements. He felt that in a sanitary point of view, it was impossible to exaggerate the mischief which it occasioned; and he did not hesitate to say that without a total repeal of the window-tax no sanitary measure would place the people of this country in that physical condition which acted so directly and so tremendously on their moral welfare. These were no new opinions of his, because long before he had become connected with the city of Bath he had entertained them; and in fact he was the party who prepared the first report on this subject, showing the injurious effect of these duties on the moral and physical condition of the people. He had the honour, the other day, of attending a meeting of his constituents, at which this subject was taken into consideration. He then told them, that this was, perhaps, the very first tax the Government ought to repeal; and that if they were about to pro- pose—as it was then the general impression that they would—a large increase of taxation simultaneously with a great reduction of other taxes, he was of opinion that the window-tax ought to be the very first to be wiped off. But at the same time he most emphatically said that he would not give any vote on this subject that would impede the machinery of the Government, or in the least degree endanger the credit of the country. And when he looked at the state of the revenue—when he saw it announced by the First Minister of the Crown that the revenue of the country had decreased to the extent of 3,000,000l., and that it was necessary to propose a large increase of taxation, he could not but think that to call for a reduction at such a time of taxes to the extent of 1,600,000l. was almost tantamount to a proposal for a species of national bankruptcy. That being his view, he could not, he regretted to say, concur with his noble Colleague in the proposition which he made. It was most painful to him to find himself at variance with a constituency that had treated him with such singular generosity; but, at the same time, he thought that a Member had some other duties to perform than to gratify a constituency, however lively his gratitude to them might be.

said, it was strange that hon. Members who spoke strongest against the tax should be found voting with the Government in favour of its continuance. He agreed fully in all that the noble Lord who just sat down had said against the tax; and he would be as unwilling as the noble Lord expressed himself to be, to give any vote that would impede the machinery of Government, or destroy the credit of the country; and it was because he had satisfied himself that the repeal of the window-tax need do neither, that he was prepared to vote for the present Motion. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), that no hon. Member ought to vote against his own conscience; but he thought it would have been much more consistent for the noble Lord to tell his constituents that he would no longer seek to remain their representative when they could have a man in his place who could represent their wishes, and be prepared to vote in accordance with their views. For his own part, he would vote for the repeal of this tax, and in doing so, he knew that his views were in accordance with those of his constituents; and he had no doubt but that the deficiency in the revenue could be made up from less objectionable sources. As to the Government, they were no doubt bound to make up any deficiency in the revenue; but they were at the same time bound to reduce the public expenditure as far as possible. The position of the Government was, no doubt, a very difficult one; but he was prepared to support them in laying on a property-tax. On these grounds, while he held himself perfectly free to vote for reducing the expenditure, he was at the same time ready to support any measure that would be found necessary to meet the exigencies of the case. He preferred a system of direct taxation, which, in his opinion, ought to be principally laid upon property. There was not the slightest chance of the noble Lord having a majority; but if the Motion were carried, he should be the better prepared to vote for a continuance of the income-tax.

requested the indulgence of the House on addressing it for the first time. He stood there as the representative of the chief city of the northern kingdom, which, he was afraid, was now looked upon merely as a province, and he had the honour to enjoy the confidence of a constituency which used to be distinguished for intelligence, but which, he apprehended, had lost something of that character in his neighbourhood. He had been engaged for some years in an attempt to reduce, in one particular direction, for the relief of a certain class of manufacturers, of whom he was one, the burdens of the Excise. He had again and again, as a member of different deputations, remonstrated against the injustice of the impost; and the invariable answer had been, "We cannot afford to part with it." Such an argument as that would not, in his opinion, warrant a fixed injustice. Unless they could use something like a moral compulsion on the Government, there was no chance of their obtaining justice in such matters. He looked upon the tax upon windows as unjust in its nature, and injurious in its consequences. There was an intimate connexion between suffering and sin, and they ought to do all in their power to avert the one by preventing the other. The window-tax was a direct hindrance to cleanliness among the people, and, as having that effect, ought to be repealed. He believed they would be enabled to meet all the requirements of the State if they endeavoured to do their duty in a spirit of justice. Their whole system of taxation was at present full of the most discreditable anomalies; and un- less these were done away with, they could not hope to possess the confidence of their constituents. It had been asserted by an hon. Gentleman that he was only sent to the House for the purpose of enlightening the Legislature with respect to the particular manufacture in which he was engaged. He had not entered Parliament on any such narrow grounds, though he did not deny that he stood opposed to certain of the excise duties which occupied some attention in the north, and which, he regretted to say, had been entirely blinked in the budget. The hon. Member to whom he referred had spoken of the disgrace which, on a recent occasion, had attached itself to the constituencies of two of the metropolitan boroughs and of the city of Edinburgh. He could only say that he was glad that his first vote in that House should have been for an act of justice towards London in receiving as its representative a Gentleman who, though belonging to a body hitherto excluded, was fully entitled to receive from them a full share of their political privileges, in accordance with the spirit of the religion they professed. He would do all in his power while he possessed a seat in that House to diminish the existing amount of human suffering in these kingdoms; and he hoped that if they went forward in the right direction they would secure to themselves the blessing of God, without which all was vain.

said, that however small might be the body which should follow the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) into the lobby on this question, he should have great pleasure in making myself one of his adherents on the occasion, for he considered this tax was most unequal, and therefore unjust, besides being in the highest degree alike injurious to the comfort and morals of the people. It was nothing less, in short, than a blundering circuitous species of income-tax. And the country expected of them that they would now bring it to a close. Even those hon. Gentlemen who opposed its removal at the present time, all concurred in the character which he had taken upon himself to give it, and in its pernicious effects on the great mass of the people. It was a most unequal tax, for it had been proved that it took a greater amount of money from the inhabitants of Plymouth than it did from those of Leeds, although the wealth of the latter town was ten times greater than that of the former. But the suffering that the tax produced, and its demoralising effects, had been already so strongly shown from many quarters of the House, that it was useless and unnecessary for him to dwell upon its odious qualities. The right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed himself to be struck with the anomalous position in which the Government was placed by defending this tax, viz., that while proposing sanitary measures on the one hand, it was opposing on the other that which was the basis and foundation of all sanitary reform—the free admission of light and air. The right hon. Gentleman had said, indeed, that there was no resisting the arguments that had been brought against the tax; and yet he added that he could not consent to remove it, on the ground that he could not do without it; and other hon. Gentlemen had attempted to vindicate the votes they were about to give for its continuance, in opposition to their own judgment, by the same sort of argument. He (Mr. Mowatt) did not admit the force of that argument, for other and more legitimate sources of revenue were undoubtedly to be found, as had been demonstrated by the noble Lord who introduced this proposal. He would not, however, go into that part of the question now. It would arise more naturally in a succeeding debate. He desired them merely to notice and protest against a doctrine attempted to be laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it was incumbent on all Members, when objecting to and denouncing a tax, to point out or substitute a better. He denied that that was a well-founded argument. It was the province of the Government, and not of individual Members, to find out the least oppressive and the best mode of raising the revenue; and when it could be shown that the revenue was not raised in the most fitting and the best manner, he contended that the Government had to that extent failed in its functions.

said: My hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), in the very manly speech he made to the House, said that it would have a very bad effect with the public if it should appear that all the argument was in favour of the one side, and yet that when we came to the division, the vote of the House should be in the opposite direction. Why, Sir, this I imagine must be the case, if we are to discuss any tax simply upon its merits. I never heard any Gentleman get up and say, "I should like to have a tax upon a particular article as a positive good in itself." Every one must agree that every tax is in itself an evil; if you point out any particular tax, and state your objections to it, I will defy any Chancellor of the Exchequer, however ingenious he may be, to show that that tax is in itself a good, and ought to be kept up for the welfare of the community. Why, we have had a specimen just now in the instances given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan). He says that the excise upon paper and the excise upon soap are very vexatious, and that all excise taxes impose great restrictions upon the public, and lead to an unpleasant investigation and supervision of private concerns. I cannot for a moment deny the hon. Member's allegation. I think all excise taxes are liable to this objection. Then the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) is going to bring forward a Motion with regard to the taxation upon tea, and upon tobacco, and upon butter and cheese, and various other articles. Why, if we are to discuss the tax upon tea on its own merits, nobody can deny that it is a tax greater in proportion to the value of the article than you would wish a tax of that kind to be. The tax upon tobacco still more sins in that respect; it is excessive in proportion to the value of the article. But when we have come to the end of our discussions upon the subject, and have decided that none of these taxes can be defended, we shall find ourselves, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, minus some 9,000,000l. of revenue, and, with the addition of the taxes of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh complains, some 10,000,000l. or 11,000,000l. And then there comes the argument, which has been stated I think so conclusively by my Friend the Member for Plymouth, and by the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), who spoke against this Motion, that the revenue cannot spare the loss of these taxes, and therefore the House would feel it to be its duty to refuse the Motion. I heard from the hon. Member who spoke last that if there are objectionable taxes, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to point out others which are less objectionable. Why, certainly that is an easy axiom to lay down; but I cannot say that the experience I have had in former years, or that which I have had within the last few days in particular, shows me exactly what those taxes are to which no very strong objections can be raised. I quite agree with those who say that an enormous amount of indirect taxation is very objectionable; and I think great good has been done of late years under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in very much diminishing those indirect taxes; but, at the same time, when I am told that if we took off the window-tax, we might add to the property and income-tax, I must say that there are limits beyond which you cannot well carry your direct taxation. And, indeed, an hon. Member in the course of this debate, who expressed his very great regret that the Government should become unpopular on this subject, stated that the window-tax is only a little loss odious than the income-tax; so that I fear, if we were to consent to a very large diminution of indirect taxation in the present state of the revenue, in the hope of making ourselves popular by a great increase of the direct taxation, we should fail in our calculations, and that a much larger increase than that which we have ventured to propose would meet with the greatest opposition in the House and in the country. I am, therefore, obliged to come to the conclusion, that, although the window-tax is very objectionable, yet there are not at present the means of providing a substitute for that tax, to which other objections as grave may not apply. My right hon. Friend has said most truly, that he has been engaged during great part of the autumn with this subject; and I know that he made inquiries with respect to modes of diminishing the pressure of the window-tax, or finding substitutes for it. I cannot say that we can at present recommend to this House any alteration, or any such substitute. And although I must confess, frankly and fully confess, that if we come to the merits of this particular tax, or any other, those who object have very much the best of the argument, yet, upon the whole, considering that we are bound to public creditors who lent their money for wars formerly carried on, and are bound by Acts of Parliament to certain other obligations, and that we are bound to keep up a certain amount of establishment, I shall certainly vote with a very good conscience for the maintenance of this tax.

contended that the window duties were a practical burden upon commerce which the Government ought not to continue, seeing that our indirect taxation was greater than that of any other country in Europe. The doctrine of direct taxation was in accordance with the views of Adam Smith, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson, who, in almost the last speech he made in the House of Commons, strongly advocated it. The window duties, however, were a direct tax under an indirect aspect; and in proving their impolicy, he denied that hon. Members were bound to provide the Government with a substitute. It was sufficient if they demontrated the tax to he had in itself. Had Her Majesty's Ministers, at an early period of their career, taken a comprehensive review of our system of taxation, they might have obviated much of the present difficulty; they had not, and the time was now come when the people would force the subject upon their attention.

believed that every one must sympathise with the noble Lord in his difficulties; it was very difficult to maintain the taxation which now pressed upon the people, and still more difficult to augment it. But surely diminution of expenditure rather than augmentation of taxation was now the paramount duty of the Government. The burdens of the people had been augmented from year to year: since 1835 the charge for the armaments of the country had risen from less than 12,000,000l. to more than 17,000,000l.; and the miscellaneous charges had also increased within these few years by 3,000,000l.; the result being an addition to of above 8,000,000l. a year to our expenditure; and we were now asked to increase a tax intolerable in its present form. He (Dr. Bowring) had been lately in the manufacturing districts, and had received multitudes of communications from persons well able to judge of the state of public opinion, and he believed that there was in the country the greatest possible apprehension of the consequences of the endeavour to augment the taxation to the extent of 3,500,000l., and an universal desire that, instead of this, our expenses might be greatly diminished.

entirely concurred with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that the House was bound to make good its public engagements and to maintain those services which were necessary for the protection of our honour and our commerce. He regretted to find, from what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, there was no prospect of the window-tax being abolished; but believing its existence was most prejudicial to the population of England, he was compelled, however reluctantly, to vote in favour of the Motion of his noble Friend opposite.

I intend to make the shortest speech in this debate. I intend to take my share of the unpopularity of declaring that, in my opinion, it is not consistent with the duty of Her Majesty's Government, in the present state of the revenue and the expenditure of the country, to consent to a remission of this tax. I heard with satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman that he has had under his consideration the means of removing some of the anomalies of this tax, and the possibility of providing a substitute for it in some other way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred from consideration by the fact of a metropolitan deputation making objections to finding a substitute. I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman puts it in this way—" Will you consent that some other tax should be imposed in the place of this? "—the certain answer will be "No. What we want is the repeal of this tax, and we will be no parties to the substitution of another." I therefore venture to advise the light hon. Gentleman to throw over-hoard altogether the opinions of the metropolitan deputation, and of every other deputation which gives a similar answer to a similar question; and to address himself fairly and freely to the consideration of a substitute less open to objection. I have had an opportunity of conferring with the noble Lord near me (Lord Duncan), and I will do him the justice of acknowledging the zeal and the very great ability with which he has brought the subject before us. I think, however, if upon Monday next the noble Lord opposite had intimated he had some reduction of taxation to propose, it would then have been perfectly competent for the noble Lord (Lord Duncan) to put in a claim for the remission of the window-tax. But even in that case I should not pledge myself to vote for him, for I wish to reserve the comparative demerits—for there are demerits—of all taxes for consideration. And as to whether there is to be an increase of taxation, I think it is only natural that the noble Lord should wait to see what is the manner in which the increase is received before he adds to the difficulty by removing this tax. I beg the House to bear in mind that, however objectionable a particular tax may be, there are others equally objectionable. One tax may be in principle preferable to another, if you had to deal with it from the beginning; but when a tax has been long endured, it does not necessarily follow that those which are least objectionable in principle can be easily substituted. But Monday next will be a better opportunity for entering into a consideration of the principle of general taxation; in the meantime I could not reconcile it to myself to give a silent vote, when, in my opinion, it is impossible to consent to a remission of the window-tax.

said, he should vote for the Motion, on the ground that the window-tax imposed a restriction upon the light and air of heaven.

replied, and remarked, that of five speeches delivered against his Motion two only really opposed it—those of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and that of his Colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had observed that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman invariably acted the part of the Siamese twins; they mutually supported each other; and when they happened to be at a loss, whatever the one said the other was ready to swear to. He regretted that he was not to count upon the support of his noble Friend and Colleague (Lord Ashley). He thanked him, however, for his speech, in which he had borne out the statement that he (Lord Duncan) had made, for no man knew better than his noble Friend how unequally and unjustly that tax pressed upon the poorer classes. He stood there not the advocate of national bankruptcy, but the advocate of economy. He wished to see each man paying taxes in proportion to his means—he wished to see taxes made certain, but not arbitrary—and he wished to see them collected in such a way as to be least obnoxious to the country at large. He also thanked the noble Lord opposite, who took such a prominent part in sanitary reforms (Lord R. Grosvenor), for his speech, and rejoiced that he might reckon upon his vote.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a power of appeal in criminal cases. Experience had shown the necessity for granting such appeal. Within the last two months, even, criminal cases to the number of ten, at least, had occurred, which, in the circumstances attending them, proved the necessity for the introduction of the power of appeal. The Bill which he desired to introduce would give a power to grant appeals generally as regarded points of law and matters of fact. One species of crime was necessarily excluded from the operation of the measure—that of treason and misprision of treason. Those crimes were already provided for by the Statutes of Anne, William, and Mary, George III., and Queen Victoria. With that exception, the Bill was intended to apply to all criminal cases. The Bill would confer upon a criminal court the power of granting appeal in three ways: first, by a new trial; secondly, by arrest of judgment; and, thirdly, by entering a verdict for the prisoner. The judge before whom the appeal should come to be heard, would have power to assign counsel and attorney to the prisoner; and the judge on the original trial would be empowered to order that the prisoner should be fur- nished with a copy of the indictment. One clause of the Bill fixed the time within which appeals could be claimed; another enforced the attendance of the witnesses and prosecutor at the appeal; and a third provided for their payment upon the same scale as at the original trial. It might be urged as an objection to his measure, that it gave the power of appeal to the prisoner, and not to the prosecutor. In reply, he must say that he sought only to remedy an acknowledged evil. Many difficulties were connected with a double right of appeal; and, therefore, his Bill was restricted to cases in which the prisoner might want to appeal. At the same time, if the House should think proper to extend the right of appeal to prosecutors, he would not object to such a provision being engrafted upon the Bill. The introduction of the power of appeal would be attended with difficulties, owing to the want of a functionary established in other countries and in a division of Great Britain, Scotland, namely, a public prosecutor. The time would come when a demand for a public prosecutor would arise in this country. Another impediment in the way of the introduction of the system of appeal was to be found in the want of a record of the evidence given on the trial, and of the decision pronounced by the judge. At present the only admitted record was the judge's notes, which were usually insufficient, and it might therefore frequently be difficult to obtain the materials whereon to base an appeal for a new trial. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish the power of appeal in criminal cases.

said, that it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not pledge himself to approve of all the provisions which might be embodied in the measure. It was far from his intention to intimate that the subject was not of great importance, and deserving of the serious consideration of Parliament; but when the Bill should be printed he would be better able to discuss its provisions, which, at present, he was not certain that he distinctly understood from the hon. Member's statement. Great difficulty would be experienced in carrying into effect the details of any measure on the subject; and it was apparent, from the hon. Member's remarks, that he was aware of some of the difficulties which he would have to encounter. He begged the hon. Member would not appoint a very early day for the second reading of the Bill. He thought that any attempt to assimilate criminal proceedings to the proceedings in civil cases must altogether fail. In criminal cases the prisoner always had the benefit of any doubt that might exist; but there was no parallel circumstance in a trial of a cause between two litigant parties.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable all occupiers of land, having a right to kill hares on that land, to do so by themselves, or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate. It was well known that many persons occupied small plots of land lying contiguous to the game preserves of great men, and that before such persons were at liberty to protect their property, by killing the animals that were constantly coming upon their land and destroying the crops, they were obliged to pay a heavy tax by taking out a certificate. He had so prepared the Bill he wished to introduce that he believed the revenue would by no means suffer from it; he therefore hoped the Government would not oppose its being brought in.

thought the proposal which the hon. Gentleman made a very reasonable one, and he saw no ground for opposing the introduction of the Bill.

complained of the conduct of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who, having in 1845 and 1846 taken upon himself the task of legislating upon the subject of the game laws, had since suffered the matter wholly to rest. He (Mr. Stafford) had been requested by his constituents to bring forward a measure on the subject; but he told them that the question was in the hands of the hon. Member for Manchester, and that he should not like to poach upon the hon. Member's manor. That hon. Member had, however, suffered the report of his own Committee to pass by without any notice whatever; and so little did he appear to be interested in the question, that he even permitted the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Colvile) to bring forward a Motion on the subject without thinking it necessary to be present. Let it be observed, therefore, that this measure for mitigating the rigour of the game laws did not emanate from a free-trader, but from an hon. Gentleman who belonged to the agricultural class.

had nothing to say in opposition to the present Bill. It was impossible a majority of the House, after all that had been stated and was known in connexion with the practice of the game laws, could consider such a measure sufficient to cure the evils that attended the existing system. However, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire knew extremely little of the practical working of those laws if he supposed that placing hares in the same category with rabbits would have any serious effect in putting a stop to the thousands of convictions that every year occurred in consequence of the infractions of the game law. It was, therefore, fully his intention, notwithstanding any measure of this limited nature, as soon as possible to introduce a Bill for the purpose of repealing the game laws altogether. He had, however, had his time occupied by other matters, particularly by the subject of the growth of cotton in the East Indies. But so soon as the Committee on that subject should close its labours, which he hoped would be within one month, he should then ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the laws concerning game. He should endeavour to establish this principle—that the law should not give any sanction or encouragement to the practice of preserving game in this country. Although there had been great delay since the report of the Committee on this subject, yet he did not believe the question had lost anything by that circumstance. The attention, both of the House and the country, had been more fully called to it, and it would now come forward for discussion with a much greater chance of success than if it had been brought forward in the last or preceding Session.

was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Manchester did not intend to oppose the introduction of the present Bill. With reference to the wider subject which the hon. Member had mentioned—namely, a total repeal of the game laws—he trusted the hon. Gentleman would fully consider this fact, that if he were to repeal the game laws many large districts in this country would remain unprotected. The game laws assisted very materially the rural police; and his conviction was, that if the game laws were repealed, large woodland districts especially would be left so unprotected as to make it absolutely necessary to enact a law on the subject of trespass infinitely more vexatious and onerous to the people of this country than the game laws. He thanked the hon. Member for South Derbyshire for introducing this Bill, which he believed would remove a great practical evil—the destruction of crops by game.

would certainly object to any proposal for the repeal of the game laws which deprived the owners or occupiers of property of protection against trespass; but if the hon. Member for Manchester, in proposing the repeal of the game laws, would afford some remedy to the owners of property against lawless trespassers, he would most gladly give the hon. Gentleman his aid. If, however, the hon. Gentleman intended to repeal the game laws, and thereby to expose the landed property of the country to the ravages of an armed and lawless mob, he would oppose him to the utmost of his power.

observed, that some years ago he had, in two successive Sessions, brought forward measures on this subject. One of those Bills, which passed the second reading, was intended to protect tenants from the very evils of which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Colvile) complained. The House, however, did not think fit to adopt the proposition he made, which was simply to give the tenant a right to obtain, from those who preserved game, particularly hares, compensation for any injury they might occasion to his crops. He had been told by a farmer that, upon a field of young grass in his occupation, 200 hares daily depastured, and that he reckoned that ten hares eat as much as one sheep. The House would see, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary, especially where hares were preserved, that some compensation should be given to farmers for the destruction they occasioned. He was most anxious to see a good feeling existing between landlords and tenants on this subject; and he was satisfied that the fair sport of a country gentleman, which might induce him to reside on his estate, would not cause any dissatisfaction on the part of his tenantry. He would support this measure, because he thought it would provide for the protection of the tenant, without disturbing the good understanding which ought to exist between the tenant and his landlord; but if the hon. Member for Manchester proposed the entire repeal of the game laws, without protecting the country gentleman by some law of trespass which would prevent persons from intruding upon his property and destroying his crops, he must say that he thought such a measure would be much more objectionable than the game laws themselves.

considered that the Bill of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire would operate beneficially, and he hoped it would be sanctioned by the House. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had said that when he brought forward his measure for the total repeal of the game laws, he expected to receive the general support of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, founded upon the evidence adduced before the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject in the last Parliament. He doubted very much whether the hon. Gentleman would find a strong feeling in his favour; but he was prepared to say that when the hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill he would give it his most attentive consideration, with a view to place the relations of landlord and tenant on a more satisfactory footing, and to remove some of those temptations which caused many of the poorer classes to become inmates of gaols. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that he thought there ought to be no game laws in so densely populated a country as this. He trusted the hon. Gentleman was not averse to maintaining the rights of property, and that he was not prepared to assert that persons ought to be authorised to trespass upon the land of their neighbours without restriction.

believed that the most effectual remedy for the evils attending the game laws would be a strong impression on the part of the landed proprietors that hares and rabbits in excessive quantities were very injurious to the produce of the soil, and a disposition to consent to some arrangement which would tend to diminish the excessive quantity of this description of game. He considered that such voluntary arrangements, made by the proprietors themselves, would lead to the preservation of other descriptions of game, with regard to which the same objections were not entertained. The true sportsman must feel that hares could give very little real amusement, and that they were chiefly kept for the amusement of metropolitan sportsmen, who found it difficult to kill anything else. With respect to the winged kinds of game, he apprehended the damage they did to the crops was very slight. He certainly thought the hon. Member for Manchester would find it a difficult matter to deal with the game laws, if he contemplated any infringe- ment of the rights of property. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman would not propose to carry his interference so far as to prevent persons from preserving game; but if the hon. Member meant that all persons should be entitled to traverse the property of their neighbours in order to kill game, they would have the country in a state of rural insurrection. He considered, however, that it was quite premature to discuss the general object of the game laws on this occasion. He had not the slightest objection to the Bill which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire proposed to introduce, and which he believed would afford greater facilities than now existed for the amusement of coursing. If he understood the Bill aright, it would not give any pecuniary remedy to the tenant for any damage his crops might sustain; its object was merely to enable occupiers of land, having a right to kill hares on that land, to do so, by themselves, or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate. He wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, what was the construction to be put upon the words "having a right to kill hares?"

said, it was well known that the right of game was with the occupier; but in many cases the landlord reserved to himself that right, and the occupier could then only kill game by permission. What he proposed was, that when the landlord gave his tenants permission to kill hares, they might do so without a certificate.

observed, that the owner of 1,000 acres of land might farm his own property, and would then be the occupier. Would he have the right to kill hares without a certificate?

replied in the affirmative. His object was to place the law with regard to hares precisely on the same footing with the law respecting rabbits.

thought it was perfectly fair that an individual occupying a small farm adjoining the estate of a gentleman who preserved game, should have the privilege of destroying the game if it became a nuisance to him. He did not, however, concur in the free-trade principles of the hon. Member for Manchester, who, as he understood, contended that any person should have a right to go upon any estate he pleased, and shoot what game he thought proper. Why, he (Mr. Hudson) might just as well enter the warehouse of the hon. Member for Manchester, and take away a piece of cotton. That would be just as equitable a proceeding. He (Mr. Hudson) concurred in the complaint which had been made with regard to the expense entailed upon the country for printing blue books containing the evidence taken before the Committee which had been appointed some time since, to inquire into this subject, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. He considered that such an expenditure was altogether unjustifiable; for he believed that no general feeling against the game laws existed in the country. He could answer that there was no such feeling in Yorkshire. When a person entered upon a farm, he took it on certain conditions, and one of those conditions might be that the game should be preserved. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had stated that hares committed great destruction. He (Mr. Hudson) could only say that in Yorkshire they were a very desirable thing at table, and he would be very sorry to see them extirpated. The tenants in his part of the country made no complaints of the injury to crops occasioned by game. The fact was that that House was fond of meddling with everything—there was no subject too trifling or too minute to engage its attention; and he would recommend the hon. Member for Manchester to leave the landlords and tenants to manage their own affairs, which they could do without the busy meddling interference of Parliament.

thought they could not do better than follow the advice which had been given not to discuss a Bill which was not before the House. He certainly did not understand that the hon. proposer of the present Bill contemplated any interference with the rights of property.

then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt small tenements from local taxation. He hoped that, notwithstanding the proposals already made that evening for the reduction of taxation, he should not be considered as trespassing on the domain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he brought forward a humble proposal, not for the purpose of reducing taxation to any great extent, but of doing away with an inconvenient mode of taxa- tion, and substituting a more direct and beneficial mode. The poor, if unable, on account of poverty, to pay rates for their habitations, were exempted from doing so; and in some rural parishes the exemption extended to one in twenty or one in twenty-three on the number of houses; while in populous towns, Liverpool, for instance, the exemption extended actually to one-third of the aggregate amount of rateable property in the parish. In Liverpool, out of 40,000 houses forming the town, the occupiers of no less than 32,000 were excused on account of poverty, from contributions to the poor-rate. It was right and fair that exemptions should continue; but the present plan of determining the exemptions was most inconvenient, occasioning trouble to magistrates, expense to overseers, and loss of time and labour to the poor man in attending the petty sessions. It was far better that the exemptions should take place in a regular systematic mode, and that a line should be drawn according to the value of the houses occupied. He therefore proposed that, in rural districts, houses under the value of 5l. should be exempted from the rates; in towns of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, the limit should be 8l.; and in cities like Liverpool the exemption should extend to houses of 10l. value. His proposal had a bearing on the moral and sanitary condition of the poor; and it was from that consideration that he advocated it. The consequence of the present state of things was, that the poor were driven to live in dwellings which were most prejudicial to their health. His Bill would assist in carrying out the sanitary views of the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, as he proposed that the exemption which his Bill would provide should not extend to houses which were reported to be not in a sanitary state.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of entail in Scotland. Notwithstanding the late hour of the evening (half-past 11 o'clock), he thought it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the measure which he was about to ask leave to introduce; but he would endeavour, in doing so, to trespass upon the time and attention of the House as shortly as possible. If he were addressing the Members from Scotland only, he could not imagine its being considered at all necessary that he should say anything respecting the evils that flowed from the present law of entail in Scotland, or to dwell even for one moment on the great amount of national grievance which that law inflicted. He would only say to them that the absolute necessity of some such measure as he was about to propose, was proved by the universality of the complaints which in Scotland were heard on all hands on this subject; but he trusted that he would be allowed very shortly to explain for the general information of the House some of the evils arising out of the present law. The Act of 1685, regulated for a long series of years the system of entail in Scotland; and by that, proprietors were enabled to carry the rights of property to a most extravagant and absurd extent, enabling them not only to point out by whom in all time coming a particular estate, whatever its value, might be held, but preventing any one of these from at any time altering the order of succession or the particular destination of the entail. So far, indeed, did the principle of restriction go, that no party holding such an estate, except when it was otherwise laid down in the provisions of the entail, could make any provision in favour of a widow or a child out of the fruits of the property; and it was even competent, under the Act, for the settler of an estate, not only to proceed upon the general principle laid down in it against the alienation of the estate, but even to render it impossible, on the part of any future holder, to alter so much as the arms upon his carriage, or the button upon his servant's livery, even though it should be for a period of 500 years. Under such a system no encouragement was given to the improvement of property; for it was not to be expected that a landlord would expend the means of improvement upon an estate which he had not the full power of realising for himself, and of which one individual only, his successor, got the entire benefit, while he had no liberty to provide for the wants even of his own widow and younger children—all improvements being for the sole advantage of the heir of entail. In order to remove some of the more glaring evils of this system, the 10th of George III., commonly called the "Montgomery Act," was passed. That Act provided for certain improvements, such as building mansions, and taking steps favourable to the better cultivation of the land, leaving a portion of the expense thus incurred to be liquidated after the death of the holder, by succeeding heirs of entail. A Bill introduced by Lord Aberdeen, afterwards, entitled proprietors to settle upon their widows a certain amount out of the proceeds of the property. The result had been, that between these two Acts the entailed proprietors of Scotland were most of them embarrassed; and he had little hesitation in saying, that matters would, as regarded those entailed proprietors, gradually become worse and worse. The system was such, that even with respect to large estates, it had almost become intolerable; and as regarded small properties, there was no end to the absurdity of the system. These deeds of entail were employed for the perpetuation, not merely of estates of large extent—those owned by the great landed aristocracy of the country—but, from the great desire which, in his country, every man had to perpetuate his land, and to make it go down to a long line of descendants, of which they could see no end, there had frequently been entails executed of very small estates, even of houses situated in towns and villages. The consequence of this had been to take away the very capacity for improvement which otherwise would have existed, and to lower the character and position of the holder of the land. He would now endeavour, as briefly as possible, to state the nature of the measure he was about to propose. This was a task attended with a great deal of difficulty, and one that had been under the consideration of many able and experienced lawyers, who had for years considered the matter with a view to legislation. By the Act of 1685, there had been created a great variety of legal vested interests, and it was necessary to deal with those interests in any measure that might be introduced; and as regarded the principal evils which prevailed, he thought, after all the reflection which he had been able to give to the matter, that they could best be cured by amputation to a large extent. Those interests that were in themselves important, and which had a well-founded claim to protection, it would be his object to preserve and protect from infringement; but in those cases where a great number of persons stood in such relation to an estate as that they could scarcely expect ever to derive benefit from it—whose interests were shadowy and unsubstantial, and such as could not be felt—in respect of interests such as those they must be prepared to cut them off entirely if they meant to apply anything like a remedy. If that was not conceded in a liberal spirit, he should despair of making any effectual improvement in the law of entail in Scotland. In the proposed measure he would begin, in the first instance, with regulating future entails. It should be remembered, that though in regulating future entails something considerable could be done, yet they would by no means deal with the principal part of the evil, as the greater portion of the land in Scotland was now in entail. With respect to future entails, however, he proposed to make them in Scotland such as that they should be in all important details affecting the interests of the parties, and as to duration of time, the same as in England. He proposed that future entails should be created in the same manner as was at present in use. The deeds of that class should be in the usual form; and he did not propose, so far as it might appear on the face of the instruments executed, to make any change in the mode of protecting perpetuities; but he should enable certain specified parties, under certain circumstances, to execute a deed relieving their estates from the effects of the entail, and creating their title into a fee simple. He should allow entails to continue throughout a certain number of lives, and from the termination of those lives for a certain number of years; but he would not enable parties under the age of 25 to rid their estates of the effect and operation of entails. He would suppose that an entail was created by deed bearing date the 1st day of March, 1848; suppose, also, that a person born after that day became heir to that estate, then he would enable such person—assuming that he was not in possession, but was next in succession to some person who did hold the estate—he would by the Act enable such heir, jointly with the man in possession, to execute a deed disentailing the estate; but he would by other clauses in the Bill make provision for the due protection of the interests of other parties who might be entitled to take after the holder and the next heir. The House would observe, that he did not merely propose that a man should be what was called of full ago, but that he should not be entitled to disentail his estate till he acquired that additional experience and discretion which he might be expected to possess when he reached the age of 25. Those were the provisions which he intended to submit to the House as regarded the matter of future entails. Upon these points he had consulted many eminent English conveyancers; and though there was great risk of producing confusion by any attempt to assimilate the law of real property in one country to the rules which prevailed under a different system, yet he hoped to be able to adapt the one to the other more nearly than had been accomplished by any previous attempts made for that purpose. He should now proceed to consider the subject of existing entails, and he feared that he should not find it easy to make the subject plain to the House. He would propose, in the first place, to date the origin of all existing entails from the passing of the Act, at least he meant that for the purpose of disentailing estates the law would take that view of them; the result would be that a party born after the passing of the Act would be able, if next in remainder to an estate, to join with the holder (and the rights of other parties being protected) to disentail the estate—always, of course, providing that the heir and the person in possession should be of the age of 25 years. This plan would, as he conceived, have the effect of assimilating the laws of both countries, for its operation would be quite analogous to levying a fine and suffering a recovery. Of course he hoped to make this mode of disentailing estates sufficient to establish for purchasers a clear title, for otherwise the Act would produce no beneficial results. For the sake of illustration, he would assume that there was no necessity for carrying protection further than twelve successive heirs. He merely meant that as an illustration; he saw no necessity whatever for carrying it so far. But suppose that twelve were in existence, and that the law had to deal with the interests of minors—he would suppose that there was a father of twelve children, possessing an estate entailed upon every one of his children successively; he and his eldest son, the latter being 25 years of age, desired to disentail the estate; he would not allow them to do so without the consent of one who should be a curator to the younger children, that curator being appointed with the sanction of the Court of Session, whose duty it would be to make a bargain on behalf of the younger children with the other parties concerned; he would not allow the holder to consent on behalf of his own minor children, for he might be a party deeply interested, because he might be an improvident father, and deeply in debt. Now, as regarded all beyond those twelve children and their possible issue, he would disentail the estate by the joint act of the holder of the estate, his eldest son, and the curator appointed by the Court of Session; and that was the mode with which he proposed to deal with existing entails. The next point he had to deal with was the provision for children. He proposed they should remain a real charge on the estate, with a power to sell portions of such estate, in order to pay them off. At present they were not a real charge, but they might be perpetuated as a charge on the rent. He thought the provision of the Bill would be a great advantage, both to the owner of the estate and the children. If they got rid of the absurd system of perpetuity, there could be very little objection to this course; but under that system of perpetuity it would have been absurd, to all portions of the estate to be sold, to pay off such charges as provisions for children, for it would have brought down many a large estate to a very trifling value. But if the parties were allowed to break the entail, the change might be made with advantage. The only other part of the Bill he wished to advert to was that respecting improvements. This was a great feature of the measure. Suppose a person at present laid out 20,000l., he could not recover it from the estate; he could not even give good security for raising the money; he could only charge three-fourths of the amount, or 15,000l., on the estate, against the next holder. He thought the capital necessary for improvements might be raised in another way, by taking the analogy of the recent Drainage Act. The sum might be made a charge on the estate for twenty-five or twenty-seven years; the holder could then go into the market and raise the money on this security. If he lived long enough, he paid off the debt; if not, the next holder was saddled with it; he thought this arrangement was fair and advantageous for all parties. Though he had not introduced it into his Bill, he should be very glad, if he was encouraged, to insert a provision respecting some other kinds of permanent improvements that might also be made a rent-charge. He thought money might very properly be laid out in buildings, or farmsteads, such as they had in Scotland, if built substantially, like those of the Duke of Buccleuch. Improvements so permanent as these might fairly be made a charge on the rent, for the next holder received the estate by so much increased in value; in fact, rendered far more valuable than if the owner had sat with his hands across, and made no improvement at all. He should not refer to any more of the details of the measure, which might be better discussed at a future stage. Its whole object was to get rid of an absurd and preposterous system, which had been a curse to the country for 160 years: something must be sacrificed to accomplish this purpose; but he thought no sacrifice too great to effect it. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.