Sitting of 9 April 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Securities for Advances (Ireland).
2° Charitable Trusts.
3° Brick Duties.

DUNDEE AND PERTH AND ABERDEEN RAILWAY JUNCTION, DUNDEE AND ARBROATH, AND DUNDEE AND NEWTYLE RAILWAYS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. SPOONERopposed the Bill, and cautioned the House how it interfered in a matter that should be made subject of investigation in a court of equity. He was not going to enter into the details of the measure, but his attention being called to it, he found it his duty to oppose the further progress of the Bill; and he therefore begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he had no connexion with the Bill; but he thought no bargain could be fair that was founded on gross injustice.
MR. DUNCANsaid, that in February, 1847, the leasing powers were taken, though the seal of the company was not attached to the agreement until the month of October following, after full investigation. The second agreement entered into was with the Dundee and Arbroath line, and which agreement was sanctioned by the proprietors. As to the matter being a good or bad bargain he knew not, as he had not a shilling interest in the line; yet he could not but think the House would pause before allowing a Bill to be thrown out without full investigation.
MR. T. EGERTONconsidered that House was not the place where agreements between railway or other companies should be entertained. If the agreement were good, a court of law was the place to decide the question. He, therefore, trusted the House would not establish a precedent by entertaining the present question.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, repudiation was an awkward sound, and he was not aware that the House was obliged to support parties because they had repudiated. Another point he must resist, was the doctrine that the House ought not to interfere in railway proceedings. On the contrary, he believed, that not a sparrow fell to the ground in railway matters, for which this House was not held responsible whether for good or evil. It was clear that time was wanted for further knowledge,
68
and therefore it would be better not to reject the Bill in its present stage.
MR. ANSTEYthought the House already over-wrought with questions of the kind; and they, therefore, should be careful of assuming a power that did not belong to them. A court of law was the proper tribunal before which to bring the matter; and he would, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. CHRISTOPERsuggested that the Bill be referred to the consideration of the railway department of the Board of Trade.
MR. HUMEthought a Committee upstairs the most fitting tribunal to investigate the matter.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 79: Majority 40.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill to be read 2° on this day six months.

WINDOW TAX.
VISCOUNT DUNCAN,after presenting several petitions praying for the repeal of the window tax, said, he did not think it was necessary to make any long apology for having again brought this subject before the House. The first time he brought it forward was in 1845, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was at the head of the Government, when he moved for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the window tax, before which, had it been granted, a great exposure would have taken place. He, however, had no reason to regret having brought forward the subject, as the right hon. Baronet said that he might, perhaps, be prepared to take the matter into consideration at some future time. The second time he brought the subject forward was in 1848, which was a season of great depression. At that time the noble Lord the Member for the city of London was the First Minister of the Crown, and he did not regret having made his Motion on that occasion, as the noble Lord admitted that, so as far as any argument could be adduced, it was all in favour of the Motion, and that he only regretted that the deficiency in the finances of the country would not at that time permit the relief he (Viscount Duncan) was anxious to obtain. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had, previous to his (Viscount Duncan) making his Motion in 1848, brought forward a measure to increase the income tax

69
to five per cent, but that proposition was not carried in that House; if it had been carried, there would evidently now have been a very great surplus in the revenue of the country; and if the repeal of the window tax had then taken place, it appeared that the country might with safety have even at that time been relieved from this burden. At present there was no proposition for a five per cent property tax, nor was there any expectation of a foreign invasion; on the contrary, they were assured in the Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty continued "in peace and amity with all foreign rowers." But there was another passage in the same Speech to which he wished more immediately to call the attention of the House. He regretted that the task was left to him of calling the attention of the House to those passages, for he had hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bad been prepared to act upon the suggestions contained in the Speech from the Throne. The other paragraph to which be referred was as follows:—
"Her Majesty has learnt with satisfaction that the measures which have been already passed for the promotion of the public health, are in a course of gradual adoption; and Her Majesty trusts that both in the metropolis, and in various parts of the United Kingdom, you will be enabled to make further progress, in the removal of evils which affect the health and well-being of Her subjects."
Encouraged by the gracious promises set forth so prominently in this Speech of Her Majesty, he regretted that it should fall to his lot to bring forward this Motion; but he did so with the full conviction that the repeal of the window tax was one of the most favourable measures that could be adopted for the promotion of sanitary reform. He was further encouraged to bring it forward at the present time, so far as the condition of the finances was concerned, which was most flourishing, more especially considering that there had been a reduction in the estimates to the amount of nearly a million, as compared with those of last year. He was also encouraged to do so by the tone of the discussion on the reduction of the duty on bricks. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to remove the duty on bricks, and to reduce the stamp duties. Now, he did not wish to depreciate the measures of his right hon. Friend; but if the Chancellor of the
70
Exchequer was rich enough to reduce the duties on bricks and stamps, which were taxes on articles of luxury, he was surely rich enough, at least to reduce, if he could not entirely take off, the present tax on air and light which are articles of prime necessity. He believed that there was great prosperity in all the branches of our manufacturing interests, with one ex-ception, and that was the glass trade—in which the depression, he conceived, was mainly attributable to the window duties. He had received on this subject communications from two most respectable persons connected with this trade: one of them, Mr. Swinburne, of South Shields, a gentleman of no small authority on the subject, bad written to say that—
"The repeal of the window tax would be a very great boon to the window-glass trade, which is at present in a state of severe and unexampled depression. The oldest house in the trade, lately carried on by Sir Matthew White Ridley and his partners, has been closed for two years."
And again—
"It is understood in the trade that no house has escaped a very large loss of capital for two years past."
Mr. Hartley, who was also a great authority in the glass trade, was of a similar opinion, and in the glass trade circular of the Window Glass Works, he found the following statement by him:—
"The supply has greatly exceeded the demand, and consequently largo stocks have accumulated, with the almost impossibility of effecting sales in the usual manner. This increased supply has arisen from very exaggerated notions having gained credence as to the effect of the repeal of the duty; from the speculative joint-stock mania of 1845–6; and, in no small degree, from the 'poetry' of Sir Robert Feel, who sought to persuade the public that, the duty being once repealed, everything would be made of glass. What was the result? Previous to the repeal of the duty there were 13 window-glass (crown and sheet) manufactories in the united kingdom, all working short time. On that measure taking effect, these were placed on full time, and also considerably enlarged; in addition to which, 11 other manufactories were established, making a total of 24—increasing the supply 300 per cent, while the increased demand did not exceed 25 per cent, except for a very limited time, until parties had replaced their stocks. Glass has consequently gone down to the cost price at the most economical manufactories, at which rates 11 have been suspended at an estimated loss of 250,000 l."
He believed that it would be a great boon to the glass trade to adopt his Motion. But in looking at this subject, they were bound, in the first place, to consider the policy of levying a duty on windows at all; and he trusted, when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor

71
of the Exchequer rose to defend his case, that he would explain to the House the reasons for adhering to the scale under which the window duties were levied. At present, when there were less than eight windows in a house, no duty was paid. Above this number the charge was 18 s. 1d., at one jump making a house with eight windows pay for every opening in it made to admit air and light; then the charge mounted gradually up, until it came to the number of thirty-nine, when the charge per annum for a house with that number of windows was about 14 s. 16 s. 2d., or about 7s. 7d. per window. The scale then gradually began to descend from forty to forty-four, then to forty-nine, and so on, until they came to houses with a very large number of windows, when the charge was only 5s. each, and it continued to fall very rapidly on each increase in the number of windows. He did not think this could be satisfactorily explained. If the window tax of Great Britain was to be retained, it would be better and wiser to levy the same amount fairly and impartially on every window in the kingdom, instead of by the present sliding scale, which pressed most unequally on the occupiers of the lower classes of houses. He held in his hand a list of certain houses in the metropolis on which the various charges were made for this tax under the present scale, and he was sure no one could look at it without being struck with the statements contained in it. In the smaller houses in the metropolis, for instance in Baker-street, the window tax amounted to not less than from 29 to 30 per cent upon the rental. In many other streets which were composed of smaller houses, the window tax was found to press most unequally, to the extent sometimes of 30 or 40, and occasionally even of 50 per cent on the rentals as ascertained by the rate book. When they came to Oxford-street, however, in which there were very large houses, the window tax, instead of being 29 per cent, did not amount, in many instances, to more than 5 per cent on the rental. If this tax on air and light was to be persevered in, steps should be taken to make it press more equally on different classes of houses. In 1708 there were no less than 508,516 houses chargeable to the window tax; in 1784 the number had declined to 495,400; and in 1849 it had further decreased to 473,000. Comparing the present time with 1708, and considering the immense increase which
72
has taken place in the population, he could not help being struck with the small number of houses now chargeable to the window tax. Although the number of houses in Great Britain had increased from 1,000,000 to 3,600,000, the number of houses chargeable to the window tax had actually diminished. How was this to be accounted for? It was partly accounted for by the unfortunate inhabitants of houses being obliged to build up their windows to evade the tax. Another reason to which he wished particularly to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the number of exemptions which were allowed. The list of exemptions to this tax was perfectly frightful, and each succeeding Chancellor of the Exchequer had apparently made a new one. The first exemption to this tax was Ireland. He found that the Irish Members of Parliament in 1823 came down and pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day that Ireland was too poor any longer to pay the window tax. The public offices were also exempt. Then they came to farmhouses of less than 200 l. a year rent. Why should this be allowed? He could not see any reason why a farmer paying 200 l. a year rent should be any more exempt from this tax than the inhabitant of a town paying less than 200 l. a year rent for his house. The next exemption was churches and other places of religious worship. Then the windows in factories were exempt from duty. He thought this was most unjust. When a manufactory was carried on on a large scale, the owner of it was exempt from this tax; but a poor man who worked at home, and obtained light in a small room at the top of a house, was obliged to pay the tax. Thus, a poor man working on his own account might have to pay to the extent of upwards of seven shillings for each window, and he could not see why the holders of large property in factories should be exempted. Again, shop windows and counting houses were also exempt; in short, there was no end to the exemptions under the operation of this tax. Surely the reason for exempting one, held good for exempting all; but if his right hon. Friend would persist in keeping up the window tax, he should remove all these exemptions and make all occupiers of houses pay. With regard to the window tax, however, he must remark that it was so vicious in principle, that no modification could possibly make it supportable or even tolerable. The window

73
tax had been condemned by many of those writers on financial reform who justly had the greatest weight and authority in that House. Adam Smith said of it—
"The principal objection to such taxes is their inequality—an inequality of the worst kind—as they must frequently fall much heavier upon the poor than upon the rich. A house of 10 l. rent in the country may have more windows than a house of 500 l. rent in London, and though the inhabitant of the former is likely to be much poorer than that of the latter, yet so far as his contribution to the State is regulated by the window tax, he must contribute more than the former. These taxes militate against the great principle, that every man should be made to contribute to the wants of the State as nearly as possible in proportion to his means."
Mr. Hume—he did not mean his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—also condemned this tax. He said—
"In general all poll taxes, even when they are not arbitrary, which they generally are, may be esteemed dangerous, because it is so easy for the Minister to add a gradual percentage to the sum chargeable, until the taxes become altogether oppressive and intolerable."
The window tax, when first laid on, was not intended as a window tax, but as a property tax, as a house was considered a safe criterion of the value of a man's property, and the windows were only assumed as the index of the value of the houses. Iu 1696, when the tax was first imposed, it was laid on in the shape of a house tax—2s. on each house, 4s. additional on houses with 10 windows, and 20 s. on houses with 20 windows. Such was the origin of the tax. In 1710 complaints arose from a slight addition having been made to this tax, on which occasion Mr. Henry Reid, a comptroller of the Tax Office, noted for his great diligence and attentive accuracy, reported to the Treasury that "it became an universal practice to stop up lights;" and for some years both the old and the new duties suffered much from that cause, as there was no penalty at that time for stopping up windows. In 1747 the tax was again gradually augmented; Mr. Reid again remonstrated with the Treasury as to the operation of the window tax, owing to the increasing practice of stopping up windows to evade the duty. In consequence, the 20th Geo. II., c. 3, was passed, which recites—
"That whereas it has been found from experience, that the duties granted by former Acts of Parliament have been greatly lessened by means of persons frequently stopping up windows in their dwelling houses, in order to evade payment."
In the 20th Geo. II., c. 3, penalties still in force were inserted regulating the block-
74
ing of windows by Act of Parliament. Shortly afterwards an explanatory Act passed, which for a time made a partial increase in the tax; but other modes of evading the window tax were soon found out, and the duties decreased year after year. In 1784, Mr. Pitt brought forward a measure for the increase of the window tax, and stated that he did so with the view of commuting the tax upon tea. In 1797, and again in 1802, Mr. Pitt augmented the window tax, under the plea of its being necessary to diminish the income tax, They now came to later times. In consequence of the unpopularity of this tax at the close of the war, it was found necessary to reduce it one-half in 1825. In 1834, Lord Althorp being Chancellor of the Exchequer, and having a surplus revenue, was much pressed by parties out of doors to do something with respect to the house and window tax. Lord Althorp acting with precipitation on that occasion made a great financial blunder, for he took the house tax off, and left the duty on windows, totally forgetting, in his haste, that the number of windows in a house was originally only taken as the index of the value of the property. At that time his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, if he recollected right, pressed Lord Althorp to give some relief to those who paid the tax on windows, which he promised to do. Lord Althorp in the following week brought in a Bill to enable persons to open any number of windows in houses without any additional charge. In the course of its going through Committee, it was suggested by some hon. Member that the words "being duly assessed" should be inserted, which suggestion was in an evil hour agreed to. In the period which immediately followed, persons availed themselves of this supposed privilege, and nothing was heard in the shape of complaint. But in 1841, when the right hon. Baronet the present First Lord of the Admiralty was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he found himself involved in great financial difficulties, and brought forward a measure which, however, did not fulfil the object he had in view, to add ten per cent to the assessed taxes. It was then found out at Somerset House, that those who had availed themselves of Lord Althorp's Bill were not duly assessed, and the result was great activity on the part of the officers in a reassessment, and a great number of persons who had opened additional windows under the promises of Lord Althorp found them-

75
selves in the grasp of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. Nothing appeared to him to be a greater violation of public faith than the adoption of this reassessment. With regard to cases of individual oppression, hon. Members would find in the library upstairs four folio volumes containing a vast number of cases of the kind; which showed that although parties had been duly assessed, they could not escape oppression when the screw was put on for the purpose of augmenting the amount of this tax. To prove this, he would state that the window tax in 1840 was 1,350,900 l., while in 1841 it amounted to 1,613,308 l., showing an increase of nearly 300,000 l. in one year. On comparing the amount paid for this tax in 1842, with that paid in 1848, he found in the former year the amount was 1,664,053 l., while that in the latter was 1,663,824 l.; thus showing that this tax had remained nearly stationary, notwithstanding that buildings have been rapidly increasing in London and elsewhere since the former period. The truth was that builders now erected houses in such a way as to evade the operation of the tax. Every hole in a wall was or might be charged as a window, and he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to inform the public what a window really was. One gentleman was charged with the window duty, who made a hole through which his coals were shot; another who made a hole, for the purpose of ventilation, had in consequence to pay an additional percentage on every window in his house. If a man took a brick out of the wall of his house, he would occasion an increased assessment in every window in his house. If any one compared the state of the houses in Great Britain with those in foreign towns, he must be struck at the great number of windows in them over those to be found in houses in England. Those hon. Members who had visited the Continent must be fully aware of the great value of additional light and air in the habitations of the poorer classes, and he called upon them therefore to support his Motion. It was an old observation that every Englishman's house was his castle. He did not understand how it could be so, for he had no right to prevent the window peepers, as they were called, invading his dwelling at all times and seasons, when they were sent to prevent him from increasing the number of windows in his house. The true cause of comparison, he supposed, was, that the English houses
76
were built like the castles of old, namely, dark habitations, with as few windows as possible. The reassessment ordered in 1841 had not been without its fruits. It was said that it had brought many things to light; and this was certainly true, even to the extent of showing the natural deformity and moral turpitude of the tax. It was a remarkable coincidence that in 1842, the very year after the reassessment, great agitation arose as to sanitary reform. In that year the Marquess of Normanby, now the English Ambassador in Paris, stated in the House of Lords that the number of deaths in London from want of sanitary regulations amounted to from 100 to 125 a day, and he urged the Government to bring in a Bill to remedy the evils of which he complained, and he especially called attention to the evils of defective ventilation. On that occasion he observed—
"Leave to the air its free and unrestrained course—put no impediment upon its buoyant natural action; but, on the other hand, guide and direct on scientific principles, and by mechanical aid, the course of water. And by such means and in such proportion will you mitigate 'those ills which flesh is heir to.'"
In another part of his speech the noble Marquess said, the negro huts in the West Indies were superior to many of the houses in the neighbourhood in which they were then assembled. That was the time when sanitary reform began first to make its way in Parliament. Shortly afterwards, a number of parties were sent down as commissioners to the various towns in England to investigate the condition of the habitations of the poorer classes. At that time there were no sanitary proceedings before the Legislature; but all the evidence then taken, including that of Mr. Hickson, Mr. Mills, and Dr. Southwood Smith, tended to establish the fact that the effect of the window tax was to render the abodes of the people dangerous to health, and that the blocking up of numerous windows to avoid the tax had been the primary cause of much sickness and mortality. Now, he should have expected that after these gentlemen had discovered that the effect of bad legislation had been to introduce cholera and fever into many of the towns of England, some recommendation about the window tax would have been found in some of the voluminous reports emanating from Gwydyr House. But the Commissioners for Inquiring into the State of Large Towns and

77
Populous Districts had preserved a most religious silence on that head in the reports appended to the evidence; and the cause of sanitary reform in their hands, owing to their having abstained from making any reference to that important item, had, he feared, become somewhat unpopular. It appeared that, although those commissioners in 1844 were aware that the evils which afflicted the large towns and populous districts were attributable to the legislation of that House, they were anxious to escape from bringing this particular question forward for discussion. However, in 1846 an association was formed by Royal Charter, for improving the dwellings of the working classes in the metropolis. The Marquess of Normanby was not the only one who took up the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Plymouth—who had lately been very much occupied with sewerage reform, in connexion with a body of which it might be said that they had been more active in raising expectation than in anything else—delivered a lecture to his constituents, on the 10th of December, 1845. The noble Lord published his lecture; he (Viscount Duncan) was much indebted to him for having sent him a copy of it, and he had been much pleased to find that the noble Lord took the same view of the subject as he did himself. The noble Lord, on that occasion, spoke as follows:—
"Before I leave this part of the subject, I will just mention that light, which plays an important part with regard to animal and vegetable life—for plants, we know, die or lose their colour in the dark, and tadpoles remain tadpoles all their lives, without changing into frogs—has also an effect, though not as marked a one, on mankind. Dr. Wylie says that there is a difference of three to one between the sickness among the soldiers on the light and dark sides of the barracks of St. Petersburg; and Mr. Toynbee, Dupuytren, Dr. Edwardes, Mr. Ward, and Dr. Arnott, distinctly assert that living in darkness acts very disadvantageously on health, especially in the case of children. I could multiply medical evidence and statistical proof about the cause predisposing to disease, and favouring its extension, if not generating it, to an indefinite extent. The reports of the Health of Towns Commissioners, the works of the able and benevolent Mr. Chadwick, those of Mr. Combe, Mr. Quetelet, Professor Alison, and the Journal of the Statistical Society, abound with them."
And the noble Lord went even further than that, for he recommended to them a remedy adopted by himself. The noble Lord said—
"I will mention one plan which I have adopted myself in building cottages on the estate which I
78
have the management of—namely, the introduction of some air from the outside, through a pipe taken into an iron box at the back of the kitchen fire, whence it is conducted by another tube, carried up the corner of the chimney, into the bedroom above. In this manner a constant supply of warmed fresh air is furnished to the sleeping-room through a screen of wire gauze, which diffuses it without a draught."
And in another place he approves of—
"the practice of ventilation at all seasons of the year, by opening the doors and windows the first thing in the morning, and thoroughly airing the bedclothes for a short time before retiring to rest—the introduction into the windows of a perforated zinc plate, or other cheap and effectual means of admitting fresh air, without occasioning too much draft—and leaving the chimney open."
Such was the advice given by the noble Lord to his constituents in a lecture. But what had this recommendation led to? An unfortunate gentleman of the name of Williams, in an evil hour, was induced to follow the noble Lord's advice. What was the consequence? Mr. Williams shortly after appeared as defendant appealing against the surcharge of 6l. 17 s. 2d. which had been made upon him by the assessor of the district, for having opened some extra windows; and it was determined by the Judges of the land that these plates of perforated zinc were windows, and this unfortunate gentleman had to pay for twenty-five windows instead of twenty-one. That had been a lesson to the rest of the inhabitants of the country, and to the constituents of the noble Lord himself, and every prudent man would be cautious in future how he endeavoured to admit extra air into his house, through perforated plates of zinc. There had been a correspondence between the Carpenters' Society of the city of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who was at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which a proposal had been made, but which had been peremptorily rejected, to exempt from taxation, on sanitary grounds, all unglazed openings in basement stories and closets to admit light and air; and the president of the society was told that if a hole could be made that would admit air without admitting light, that hole would not be chargeable as a window. He must beg leave to trouble the House with an extract from the correspondence between the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, and the president of the Master Carpenters' Society:—
"At an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in May, 1844, relative to a modification of the window duties, it was intimated to the

79
deputation from the Metropolitan Improvement Society, and the Master Carpenters' Society, that 'a frame or frames filled in with perforated zinc panels, although fixed in an external wall, would not be chargeable with the window duties.' The secretary to the Carpenters' Company afterwards addressed a letter to the Chairman of Stamps for the purpose of ascertaining whether such was the case; whereupon he received an answer, stating 'that perforated plates of zinc, or any other material, if so perforated as to afford "light," are chargeable; but not if so perforated as to afford "ventilation only."
In reply to this letter from the Chairman of Stamps a further letter was addressed to that hoard by Mr. Biers, requesting to be informed whether, as any perforation in any material
—"must let in a portion of light, and if so, will such apertures he chargeable to the window duties; and whether, therefore, lights of whatever construction, glazed or not glazed, placed in privies or water-closets, are free of window duties; and whether apertures, such as lancet light, to ventilate cellars, larders, &c., if protected by perforators, but not glazed, are permitted, without being chargeable to the window duties? "
Mr. Biers was informed by the secretary, in reply to these queries, first—
"That windows or lights are not exempt if the privies or water-closets form part of or communicate with the dwelling-house; secondly, respecting apertures giving light to cellars or larders, &c., they are exempt from duty. The secretary stated he was directed to say that the board declined giving any definite answer to so general a statement; but the Commissioners beg to observe the exemption much depends on the merits of each case."
This was an instance of the way in which people had been treated, when they had taken any step against this monstrously unjust imposition. He was glad that anything he might have wished to say to the House on this matter, had been so much better and more eloquently expressed by many Gentlemen he now saw in the House, that he had only to read to them their own words, in order to substantiate a claim upon their votes in favour of his Motion that evening. In the heat of the excitement for sanitary reform, a Health of Towns Association was formed, and in consequence of the representations urged upon the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, who was then Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, that noble Lord brought in a Bill. The gentlemen composing the Association when the Bill was introduced, took it into their mature consideration. At the head of that Association was the Marquess of Normandy. One of the most influential members was the noble Earl, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancas-
80
ter. There was also the hon. Member for Hertford, now a Lord of the Admiralty; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. In juxtaposition with these sat the right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint, and the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, by whom, perhaps, the report had been partially drawn up, and a very able report it was. The Committee of that Association thought, in considering remedial measures for the sanitary condition of the country, they could not better promote the object than by a careful consideration of the Earl of Lincoln's Bill, and the Committee stated—
"That there was one measure so intimately connected with sanitary improvement that no sanitary measure could be tolerably complete without it, but which formed no part of the measure of the Earl of Lincoln, inasmuch as it omitted any modification in the mode of assessment of window duties, although a principle of assessment had been pointed out by the adoption of which the revenue would lose nothing, while great facilities would be afforded for the better construction of dwelling-houses, and for the freer admission to them of light and air."
And in another page of the report the Committee state their opinion that—
"The window duties are a tax upon light and air—a tax more vicious in principle and more injurious in practical consequences than a tax upon food."
Further, the Committee said that it was not for the Legislature to
"step in between God and the people, and, by laying a tax upon the light of Heaven and the breath of life, to render them absolutely unattainable by large classes of the population."
He would only occupy the time of the House for a short period by reading small portions of the report of the Committee of the Health of Towns Association. It was most ably drawn up, and expressed the principles he was now advocating with so much more eloquence than he could command, that he trusted some of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had concurred in the drawing up of that report would now gratify the House by reiterating and declaring their adhesion to the sentiments contained in it. The Committee, in one part of their report, said, that—
"In proportion, then, as the window duties exclude light from human dwellings, they tend to deteriorate the population; they interpose a positive and definite obstacle to the full development of the physical constitution, and consequently of the physical strength and vigour of the people."
The Committee went on to show the un-

81
equal pressure of the window tax upon the poor and the rich, and that the effects of it had been to make the poor pay quadruple the amount paid by the rich; and they referred to the case of chambers in the inns of court or in the universities, where the total duty was only 3l. 17 s. per annum, or 7s. 8½d. for each set of four rooms, in a building having the same number of windows, which would render a dwelling-house chargeable with a rate of 15 l. 15 s. 7d., or 1l.11 s. 9d. for each family occupying the same number of four rooms in that house. Surely those gentlemen who had so generously interested themselves in the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes had been most cruelly used by the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes. He could not avoid commenting upon the inconsistency of hon. Gentlemen, who had sanctioned and approved such sentiments as he had quoted from the report of the Committee of the Health of Towns Association, of which they were members, supporting the continuance of the window tax, which was in direct contradiction to their recorded opinions. He trusted that some of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who concurred in the drawing up of that report would be induced to reiterate those sentiments to which he had listened with such pleasure when they were seated on the Opposition benches. They then proved to mathematical demonstration that, in proportion as the Legislature excluded light and air in the habitation of the people, they deteriorated the population, and prevented the full development of their physical condition. With the strong facts of the case before him he felt that the sanitary reform movement was a pretence and a delusion if this question of the window tax was kept out of it, and if the tax was to be maintained in its operation. As for the salaries of the Sanitary Commissioners he would hand them over to the mercies of the hon. Member for Montrose. But it did appear most strikingly contradictory that on the one hand money should be raised from the people to pay large salaries to sanitary commissioners, by a taxation upon the health of the very class for whose sanitary benefit the commissioners were to act, and which taxation had the direct effect of impeding sanitary proceedings, and the improvement of the houses in which those unfortunate people dwelt. The sum of 100,000 l. would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do away with taxation upon all houses having fewer
82
than ten windows, and even that would be better than paying the salaries of gentlemen who could do comparatively little towards earning them till the window fax was repealed. The other day a report had been published by Mr. Simon upon the sanitary condition of the city of London. Mr. Simon divided his subject under five heads, one of which was devoted to the number of houses in the City which were permanently unfit for human habitation, and he said—
"I have to report that there are houses and localities within the City which are irremediably had—places which the uninterrupted presence of epidemic disease has stamped as absolutely unfit for human habitation: places where drainage and water-supply, indeed, are defective, but where the perfection of these necessaries might exist, in all probability, without giving healthiness to the inhabitants. The prominent evil in the localities referred to is their thorough impossibility of ventilation."
He then went on to say—
"The inhabitants of open streets can hardly conceive the complicated turnings, the narrow inlets, the close parallels of houses, and the high barriers of light and air, which are the common characteristics of our courts and alleys, and which give an additional noxiousness even to their cesspools and their filth. There are very few who, without personal verification, would credit an account that might be given of the worst of such dwelling places."
In another place he observed—
"And in most of these localities, in addition to other sanitary errors, there predominates that particular one to which I am now inviting your attention—the absence, namely, of sufficient ventilation."
And he proceeded to remark—
"As a palliative measure, applicable in many of the least aggravated instances, I may suggest the removal of unnecessary walls which intercept the current of air from place to place; the formation of counter-openings in various blind courts; and, not least, in regard of many houses thus situated, the admission of light and air by additional windows. I cannot pass this portion of the subject without recording my opinion that the operation of the window tax is in direct opposition to the sanitary interests of the people; and I must venture to express my hope that some different method of assessment may presently be adopted, in place of one which presses on the occupier in proportion to the healthiness of his tenement."
Mr. Simon, he believed, had laid that report before the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London, and had stated his opinion that one great cause which lay at the bottom of the evil was, that tax upon light and air, which he (Viscount Duncan) now asked the House to abolish, and the City commissioners unanimously agreed to a report in which they recorded their opinion in these words:—

83
"We cannot pass this subject, however, without recording our opinion that the operation of the window tax is directly opposed to the sanitary interests of the population of the City, and that its continuance must in a great degree neutralise the effect of those exertions which your honourable court is making for the purposes of sanitary improvement. We find that it affords inducements to the construction of houses with defective supply of light and air, that it opposes great obstacles to the improvement of such houses as have already been constructed on a faulty principle, and that these circumstances tend to aggravate the frequency and malignity of epidemic diseases, and to increase the mortality of the population."
What, he would ask, was the use of putting a paragraph in the Queen's Speech about sanitary reform if the very tax which stood most in the way of sanitary improvement was to be kept up and maintained? He held in his hand the report of the medical officers of the West London and East London Poor-Law Unions—men who could not be influenced by any political motives, and they called the attention of the honourable Court of Common Council to the subject in a memorial which they presented on hearing that that court was about to discuss the propriety of petitioning Parliament for the abolition of the window tax, and which tax the memorialists pronounced to be most injurious to the health, welfare, property, and industry of the poor, and of the community at large. He would, with the permission of the House, read the following extracts:—
"We beg most respectfully to call the attention of your honourable court to the following extract from a letter sent by the medical officers of the West London union to their hoard of guardians, November 10, 1848, which letter was afterwards adopted by the whole of us:—'As respects ventilation and light, this curious inquiry cannot come under our hands, but we may be permitted to remark on the strange anomaly that Government should appoint boards of health, and deprive by taxation this first necessary and natural element to its production.' In alluding to the above paragraph, we beg most earnestly to assure your honourable court that in the exercise of our official duties we find daily cause to lament its truth. We can only regard this as a sanitary question, and we believe that we need not occupy much of the valuable time and attention of the court in demonstrating the baneful effects of this tax on the Almighty's first gift for the benefit of his creatures. We find in ancient houses where windows were, and when our ancestors deemed light and ventilation necessary to health, and even existence, bricks supply the place, both to rich and poor; we see also that in the more modern house the proprietor builds with the view to avoid the window tax. In a sanitary point of view, what is, what must be, the result, more especially to the objects of our official duties, in the production of fever, of dysentery, and of diarrhœa, and during
84
the period of cholera, in situations where scanty light and ventilation adds to the already distressing effects of poverty and destitution?…… Experience clearly proves the common truth, that want of light and impurity of air not only produce disease, but aggravate it, and cause death, even where the original mischief had been otherwise produced……The late investigation during the prevalence of cholera into cause and effect needs no word from us in confirmation of the facts above described, for all is resolved by the simple question, 'How can health and longevity be promoted when their natural elements can only be obtained at a cost beyond the power of poverty to discharge?' Prior to the actual appearance of the late epidemic amongst us, the Government sent round to all the workhouses to ascertain that light, air, cleanliness, and comfort were sufficiently secured to the inmates, but it seems to have forgotten the distressing fact that light, air, cleanliness, and comfort are as needful to the health and sanitary condition of all classes on the outside of the workhouse as to the infirm, aged, and destitute within……We, therefore, earnestly memoralise your honourable court that in a sanitary point of view the court will give this question its most grave consideration, and adopt such measures as the court may in its wisdom think fit."
He challenged hon. Gentlemen to stand forward now, in their places in Parliament, and state truly whether this subject of the window tax had or had not thwarted the exertions they had been making to better the habitations of the people of this country. It would be strange, when so much philanthropy was expressed in the House with respect to the abodes of the poor, if the report of a debate should go forth out of doors by which it should appear that the finances of this great country were at that pass that we could not get on without levying taxes upon light and air. The only way in which this case could be met by the Government and the upholders of the tax was this: he should be told that he was an impracticable person who persisted in calling upon the House to do that which would endanger the payment of the interest on the national debt—or some old argument of that sort. But he was indifferent to such imputations; and if he referred to the proceedings of Government in former years, he thought he could induce the House to concur with him that the shorter they could keep his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the head the better. What had been the effect of the broad hint that was given to that right hon. Gentleman, that they would not agree to a five per cent property tax? The effect had been that this very year they had had the pleasure of seeing him come to that House and declare that he was in possession of a large surplus, but at the same time they

85
heard that so much economy had been introduced into every department of the State that it could be curried no further. This same statement about economy, it would be remembered, was made last year; and yet the House had had the pleasure of seeing the estimates for this year 1,000,000 l. below those of last year. The fact was, that so far as words went, they were all in favour of economy; but the moment some really saving measure was proposed it reminded him of the Council of Beasts:—
"When saving measures were professed,
A lamb's head was the wolf's request;
The fox submitted, if to touch
A gosling would be deemed too much?"
Each succeeding year down came some Member of each succeeding Government to propose or defend some pet project of extravagance. Only look at the manner in which the taxation was expended. There was the million for the African squadron, for an example; and right hon. Gentlemen had been actually found to tell the House that it was impossible to maintain the national honour without it. But let the House and the country at large thoroughly understand the present expenditure, that if they did not vote that million for that squadron, there would be no necessity for taxing houses having fewer than twenty windows, and that added to the million surplus already in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would repeal the whole window tax, and enable the people to enjoy light and air in their houses. When he was told that economy had been practised as far as it possibly could be carried, he remembered that be had been told precisely the same thing in 1848, when he had made a Motion on this very subject. Since then he had had the good fortune, or the misfortune, to be Chairman of the Committee upon the Woods and Forests, an establishment which, instead of paying in its whole surplus revenue into the Exchequer, first deducted its own expenses and the cost of collection, paying in only the balance. He would not go into a discussion upon the Woods and Forests, but he could state, without the possibility of contradiction, that out of their income, about 370,000 l. a year, 210,000 l. never found its way into the Exchequer at all, but was deducted for collection and all sorts of purposes. If the same system prevailed in other departments similarly circumstanced, he thought that there was room for economy in them instead of resorting to a window tax;
86
and if his hon. Friend Dr. Bowring, who was now consul at Canton, were present, he could show to the Chancellor of the Exchequer good reasons why he was bound to explain how it was that a sum of public money amounting altogether to about five millions a year never found its way into the public Exchequer. Why were the Lords of the Treasury better trustees of the public purse of England than the natural guardians of it—the Commons of England? He held in his hand a report, printed in 1831, to which the highest authority was; attached—that was the report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts, among whom were men of the highest reputation in the House, who, after long consideration of the subject reported that—
"To accomplish with perfect security and efficiency those objects of safe custody, legal appropriation, and record, it is obviously necessary that all public money whatever, should, in the first instance, be paid into the Exchequer. But it appeal's from the accounts laid before Parliament that the whole amount of public income is not so paid, but that the amounts derived from divers sources of revenue are received and disbursed without the intervention of this institution, or being in any way submitted to its control. It is also certain that considerable sums arising from taxes and other matters are deducted from the gross receipts, and retained and expended by several departments, which only account to the Exchequer for the net amount after such deductions. We think this practice ought to be discontinued, and we recommend the gross receipt of the Crown property under Woods and Forests and other offices should be placed, without deduction, in the Exchequer, and be accounted for to Parliament, whose authority should be necessary for the appropriation of the whole. We feel this principle to be one of paramount importance, a principle which we believe to be a necessary preliminary to all satisfactory financial reform."
He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the House what steps had been taken to carry out the recommendations of that Committee. On the 31st May, 1848, a resolution was proposed by Dr. Bowring, and carried by a majority of 56 to 51, that—
"This House cannot be the effectual guardian of the revenues of the State, unless the whole amount of the taxes, and of various other sources of income received for the public account, be either paid in or accounted for to the Exchequer. That no department of revenue ought to be allowed to stop any portion of its gross receipts in their progress to the Exchequer without the previous authority of Parliament. That no department of expenditure should be permitted to appropriate to the public service any other sums than those sanctioned by previous votes of Parliament, and that all receipts from sales of stores, or other sources, should be paid into the Exchequer. That whereas the expenditure of many departments escape Parliamentary control, either wholly or in part, in

87
consequence of paying their expenses out of fees or other resources, and of accounting to the Exchequer only for the balances of such receipts; and in other cases of applying to Parliament for grants to make up the deficiency of such fees or other resources, it is necessary, as a check upon abuse, and a security for the proper appropriation of the public moneys, that such receipts should be paid into the Exchequer, and not be disposed of without the preliminary sanction of Parliament. That the amounts thus removed from the direct authority and previous control of Parliament, and which were not paid into the Exchequer, average nearly 7,000,000 l. sterling per annum, and that nearly one-eighth of the gross revenues of the nation are disposed of without the interference of Parliament to sanction their application. That such a state of things is most unsatisfactory, and requires the earliest attention of the House of Commons."
He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he insisted on the absolute necessity of resorting to window taxes, would be able to explain this matter satisfactorily to the House; he was sure there was no intention to conceal anything from the knowledge of the House. He did not deny, however, that he should be much better satisfied on this subject of economy if he saw his hon. Friends proposing that every shilling of the public money should be paid into the Exchequer, not merely placing the public expenditure under the control of the Treasury, but under that of the House of Commons. He had now to thank the House for the kindness and patience with which they had heard him. He trusted that those hon. Gentlemen who had listened to him, before giving their votes, would consider whether economy had been carried to its fullest extent before they consented to raising a revenue on light and air, those elements which had been granted by Divine Providence to the inhabitants of this earth in unlimited abundance, and which he did not think ought to be the province of any Government to endeavour to limit by human enactment. It was their bounden duty, out of deference to the dispensations of One far wiser than they were, to remove restrictions as far as they could upon light and air. Of this he was satisfied, that neither this House nor any House of Commons would allow the public creditor to suffer. If taxes were necessary, those taxes would be raised and willingly voted by hon. Gentlemen hereafter as they had been heretofore; and therefore, with the permission of the House, he begged leave to lay his Resolution on the table. The noble Lord concluded with moving his Resolution.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That whereas the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting Taxes on air and light in England and Scotland interferes most prejudicially with the health and sanitary condition of the inhabitants of Great Britain, therefore it is expedient that the Window Tax should be repealed."
SIR DE L. EVANSseconded the Motion, and was glad to think that the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Bath had been so comprehensive, so able, and so unanswerable. The noble Lord had pointed out a remarkable circumstance as to this tax, that there had scarcely been any augmentation of the revenue—that several exemptions had been made, but that these exemptions did not by any means increase the revenue. There was no means of solving the circumstance except by the fact that hundreds and thousands of houses had been deprived of a portion of light which they would otherwise have enjoyed, and many houses were subsequently built entirely with a view to evade this tax. It was clear that these houses had been limited and restricted in the light they enjoyed in consequence of this tax. Whenever the allowance for these sanitary Commissioners came before the House, he should vote against it. He would not attempt to restrict the amount of taxation to maintain the credit and establishments of the country. He was willing to agree that a substitute should be found, particularly that which had often been mentioned—the probate duty upon real property. Why not put the probate duty upon real property? There would be two objects accomplished in doing so. It would render the duty upon property more equal and more just. There were three distinct objections to the present tax—its inequality, its partiality, and its detriment to the public health. Its inequality—and, he might add, its partiality—was marked: because all farmers throughout the country paying rent under 200 l. a year were totally exempt. If this tax were a property tax, it was an unequal and unfair property tax. In the poorer districts, particularly the districts of this metropolis, it fell in a ratio of 20 and 30 per cent on lodging-houses. There could be no more obnoxious tax, particularly as regarded the metropolis, and he trusted, that in seeking its repeal they should have the assistance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich, who was an old supporter of the principle, and who twenty years ago resigned his scat in consequence of his op-

89
position to this tax. If a substitute should be found necessary, the public were prepared to submit to it; and if the tax could not be repealed altogether, they expected, at least, a more extended minimum as regarded the number of windows rateable.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his noble Friend, as he was always accustomed to do, had made a very able speech in favour of the window taxes being repealed, but he had not advanced any new arguments in favour of the proposition. He would not follow his noble I Friend into the other topics to which he had referred, for, in discussing the question of repealing the window tax, it certainly would not advance the discussion to refer to the management of the Woods and Forests, or to take into consideration the circumstances which interfered with the general revenue in its passage into the Exchequer. His noble Friend had said, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated two or three years ago that economy in the public service could be carried no further, and yet that since that period considerable reductions had been effected. This statement was founded upon a misapprehension. What he had said on the occasion referred to was, that great reductions could not be effected immediately, and that in order to be executed with due regard to the wants of the service, and to real economy, they must be gradual. He was very far from having alleged that no further reductions could be made; but he repeated that, having due regard to the interests of the country, they must be made gradually. He would, however, say no more upon these extraneous topics. One of the main objections taken to the window tax by his noble Friend appeared to be founded upon the exemptions that were allowed; and he seemed to suppose that the exemptions were actually an aggravation of the burden, because the parties upon whom it pressed unequally had been relieved. But who, he would ask, were the parties relieved? Why, those who carried on the operations of agriculture, manufacture, and trade. Farmhouses, factories, and shops were exempt. It followed, then, that the exemptions were in favour of those who carried on the pursuits of productive industry. His noble Friend, however, complaining of exemptions altogether, had made one proposition which would have the effect of carrying the exemption still further. At present all houses with fewer
90
than eight windows were exempt: his noble Friend suggested that the exemption should extend to all houses with less than twelve windows. This was not removing the exemption of which he complained, but only carrying the principle a little further, without assigning any grounds for the selection of such a number; for if twelve were fixed upon, why should not any other number be equally suitable? Such a proposition would be of no benefit with respect to the description of houses as to which the principal complaint was made, such as the large lodging-houses, many of which had recently been built for the accommodation of the poorer classes. In Scotland, this was the case; also as regarded houses let in parts. His noble Friend was quite wrong in supposing that the amount of loss to the revenue, from an extension to the exemption to houses with less than twelve windows, would amount to only 100,000 l. Instead of 100,000 l., it would be about 250,000 l. His noble Friend was also mistaken in supposing that this was a tax which fell exclusively upon the poor. The houses which were exempt from the tax, belonged wholly to the poorer classes. There were about 3,500,0000 l. houses in this country; and of this number 3,000,000 were exempt from the window tax. It was, therefore, rather a strong assertion, when 3,000,000 of houses inhabited by poor people were exempt, and the tax was paid by a half million inhabited by the richer classes, to say that this was a tax imposed upon the poor for the benefit of the rich. His noble Friend referred, in the next place, to the exemption of Ireland from the tax. He wished the House to remember the character of the dwellings in Ireland. Was his noble Friend prepared to assert that, in consequence of the exemption of Ireland from the window tax, the dwellings of the poor there were superior to those in which our own poor lived? If his noble Friend would venture to say that, he would certainly have an argument which it might be found difficult to answer in support of the alleged effects of the window tax in reducing the accommodations of the poor; but he was afraid it would be found not so much the window tax as the general poverty of the poor which interfered with their comforts. In the country, as his noble Friend knew, no window tax was paid upon any houses which, under ordinary circumstances, were the dwellings of poor persons. A cottage, with six windows, was a remarkably good

91
cottage. ["Hear!"] He repeated the statement. A cottage in the country of two rooms down stairs and three up stairs, with six windows, was better than 99 out of 100 cottage houses in England, very few of which had six windows; and even in country towns he found that the general class of houses built for the accommodation of the artisans, did not contain more than six windows. All such dwellings were totally exempt from the window tax; and on this ground he must observe that it was not correct to say the tax bore upon the poor, whilst the rich were exempt. With regard to the metropolis, he was prepared to admit that a reduction of the tax might for a time be of benefit to occupiers; but he believed that in the end it would mainly increase rents, and benefit the owners of house property. At the same time, so far as the case rested upon sanitary considerations, he was willing to believe there was some weight in his noble Friend's argument. But it must be obvious, after the financial statement which he had had the honour of making to the House before the holidays, that it was utterly impossible for the Government to consent to a repeal of this tax without a substitute being found for it. His noble Friend and the hon. and gallant Officer who seconded the Motion, had expressed an opinion that the House would be found ready to vote such a substitute. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to say he did not feel quite the same confidence in the alacrity of the House to impose new taxes; and therefore he was unwilling to yield the window duty until he had reason to feel a little more security as to its substitute. His noble Friend had expressed some dissatisfaction with the policy of the late Lord Althorp in having removed the house tax rather than the window duty. But his noble Friend must remember that when the question was under discussion, the House preferred retaining the window tax, on the ground that it pressed more on the richer classes, and because large houses paid a small amount of house tax in comparison with the amount of the window tax, which they paid, large country houses paying four or five times as much in window tax as they paid in house tax. He did not agree with his noble Friend in thinking that house property had a claim for exemption from taxation more than any other property, nor did he know that recent legislation had pressed unduly on that de-
92
scription of property. He would also remind his noble Friend that the Sanitary Commission had reported as much against the brick duty as the window tax, although his noble Friend had, on a former day, expressed a wish that that duty might be retained, in order to make room for the remission of the other. The window tax produced about 1,800,000 l. net annually, and after the remission already conceded this year, it was quite impossible that it could be given up, and therefore he must resist the Motion of his noble Friend.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, that as this question deeply interested that portion of the metropolis which he represented, and as he had presented petitions against the tax signed by 5,000 ratepayers, he was anxious to say a few words before the House went to a division. He believed that there was no tax looked upon with more disfavour by the people of this country than the window tax. It had lasted some years, and its collection had always been attended with clamour and discontent. He thought that his noble Friend who had brought forward this question again and again had done himself infinite honour, and had endeared himself to the people of this country; and, on the other hand, he believed that the Government, in resisting it, would earn their lasting resentment. The last time his noble Friend brought forward the subject was when the noble Lord at the head of the Government introduced his financial statement. The noble Lord entreated the House to accept his budget on account of the then existing distress, promising that if they agreed to raise the income tax to five per cent, distress would be relieved, and in two years or so prosperity would return. It appeared that the noble Lord was perfectly right in his prophecy, for now, at the end of two years there was a considerable surplus, and they wanted to know what taxes were to be removed. The House did not answer to the noble Lord's appeal, they did not vote the budget, but still none of the calamities occurred which the noble Lord had prophesied. The interest on the national debt continued to be paid, and although no increase had been permitted to the income tax, prosperity had returned, and the country now had a surplus. The House was determined not to permit any increase in the income tax, and the result showed that when the House was determined on any point, the Minister contrived to get on without those taxes which he

93
had before deemed so indispensable. In the same way, at the present moment, if the House were determined not to vote this window tax, the Government would Boon find some way of getting on as well or better without it. They had now a surplus of one and a half millions, and he wanted to know what taxes were to be remitted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to remit the duty on bricks, which although a good reduction in itself, would not relieve the country to the same extent as the remission of the window tax. Then there was a proposal about the stamp duties, which he (Lord D. Stuart) believed would be no remission at all; and although the probable loss was fixed at 300,000 l., he believed that there would be no loss but an actual increase to the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given to their application the common answer of persons in his situation to all applications for reduction of taxation—namely, that want of money prevented his acceding to the proposition. He remembered that on one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if it could be shown that this tax interfered with the health of the people, that would be a good reason for its remission, but that for his part he could not think it had any such operation. Let the right hon. Gentleman look at all the reports on the sanitary question—let him consult all those best able to give an opinion on the subject, and they would one and all say that this tax interfered most injuriously with the health of the people by excluding the amount of light and air-necessary for its sustentation. Really to talk of introducing any sanitary measures, to pretend to feel an interest in the health of the people, while a tax of this kind was maintained after it had been proved to be so injurious to the public health, was, in his opinion nothing better than hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that the revenue could not boar it; but he (Lord D. Stuart) wanted to know who was to enforce an impost after it had been found that the people at large had declared against it. He did not think that they ought to be called on to pay it, and he gave his vote to his noble Friend the Member for Bath in the firm persuasion that, although he might be unsuccessful now, the question would be renewed again and again, until Government should be at last obliged to accede to a demand from the great masses of the people.
SIR G. PECHELLmentioned, that in 1835 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster, if he would withdraw a Motion which he then brought forward upon the window duties, the subject should be taken into consideration. It was high time the subject was taken into consideration, for a more oppressive burden could not be found in the whole catalogue of taxation. He complained that under the provisions of the law, the power of surcharging was a monstrous evil; whilst, according to returns produced in 1846, a considerable number of persons were imprisoned for non-payment of assessed taxes, of which the window duties formed a considerable proportion. Another evil arose from the requirement that no person should be allowed the privilege of a vote in the election of Members for that House who had not paid assessed taxes. This provision, according to the same return, actually disfranchised no less than 694 persons in the parishes of St. George's, Hanover-square, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. In whatever light the window duties were viewed, they were an enormous injustice. No Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet been found bold enough to tell the House what a window was; nor was it possible, for the surveyors and the Judges themselves had given very different decisions upon this very nice question. Under such circumstances no person could tell whether he was safe or not. If he made a hole in the wall, he might, or he might not, be liable to duty. Many persons had relied upon Lord Althorp's Act for protection in this respect; but there was not a single person that had opened a window under this Act who had not been surcharged, He contended that the repeal of the duty would have some effect upon the argument for a reduction in the amount of judicial salaries, inasmuch as the amount of judicial labour would, to some extent, he lessened. Twice a year the Judges held courts, at chambers, to decide appeals upon questions relative to assessed taxes. Take away this labour, and of course they would be less worked. Hon. Gentlemen upon the protectionist benches should look at the evils produced by the assessed taxes. In one case which came before the Judges, a party was charged with window duty who rented a farm under 200 l. a year. The occupier had no other income. The farmer's sister resided with him, and paid

95
her share of the household expenses; and it was held that in consequence of the accommodation afforded to his sister, the farmer's house could not be deemed a farm house. The "farmers' friends" had, therefore, good cause to support the noble Lord's Motion. The borough he had the honour to represent paid 18,000 l. per annum in window duties. If the tax were removed, the owners of those houses would be able to give their lodgers more light and air; but under existing circumstances they found ths tax a source of great annoyance and vexation, and he could only say that it interfered greatly with sanitary regulations.
SIR B. HALLdid not mean to detain the House long from the division for which Gentlemen opposite were so impatient, but he wished to make a few observations on the question before the House; and he would submit it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether the constituencies of the great towns, who were deeply interested in this question, would think it respectful to them that a division should be so impatiently called for when their interests were under discussion. With respect to the question before the House, one of the papers had that morning pointedly described the position of an individual Member who had to propose the remission of a tax in that House. If he brought it forward early in the Session, he was told to wait for the financial statement; and if he waited until that statement had been made, he was flatly told that the subject was not included, and, therefore, could not he considered. That was precisely the case with his noble Friend; but, although not likely to succeed on the present occasion, he trusted his noble Friend would take an early opportunity to bring it forward again. Allusion had been made to the Sanitary Commissioners, and their opinions as to the best means of promoting the health of the metropolis and other large towns; but it was perfectly idle to suppose that any essential benefits could be derived from the appointment of such commissions until all such taxes as the present were abolished. His noble Friend the Member for Bath had said, that it was hard upon the inhabitants of Great Britain that they should be subjected to this tax, from which the people of Ireland were exempt; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the condition of the houses in Ireland, as showing that the absence of the window tax did not neces-
96
sarily tend to the improvement of the character of the dwellings of the people; but there was no reason why the same rule should not apply to both countries alike, or that the shopkeeper of Sackville-street, Dublin, should be free from the window duty, while the householder of Sackville-street, London, was compelled to pay it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that a very large number of houses inhabited by the poor were not now liable to this duty, the number of windows not being sufficient to bring them within the operations of the Act; but that proved that the effect of the tax was, as had been stated, to render the dwellings of the poor unwholesome—the light and air necessary to health being excluded by the desire to avoid the liability. It was his opinion—an opinion fortified by medical authority—that the late visitation of the cholera would have been much less fatal in its results had the window tax not existed. During the twenty years that he had held a seat in that House, he had, on every occasion on which the question was brought forward, given his vote in favour of the repeal of this impost; and though the present Motion might possibly be defeated, he hoped his noble Friend would not relax in his efforts, but remember that without steady perseverance Ministers never consented to remove or reduce any tax whatsoever.
MR. HUMErose amid impatient calls for a division. He hoped hon. Gentlemen who were so anxious for a division would have a little patience. It appeared to him that some explanation was necessary to put the question on a proper footing before hon. Gentlemen proceeded to vote upon it. The question was, whether, supposing the House determined on maintaining the present amount of expenditure, which he was not, this tax ought not to be abolished nevertheless, and a substitute found from some other source? He, however, was one of those who considered the tax might be removed, and the amount met by economy in the public expenditure. Ten years ago the income of the country was 51,000,000 l. or 52,000,000 l. a year. It had since been increased by the imposition of the income tax from 57,000,000 l. to 58,000,000 l. a year, as he believed unnecessarily, for if the House had refused to increase the taxes, the Government would have found the means of bringing the expenditure within the income. The great point which that House ought to enforce

97
on every Government was the reduction of the total amount of taxation, for until they did so, they would never effect a reduction in the expenditure. The only reason why they had had some reduction in the useless expenditure of the country lately—and it was to this extent only that he desired reduction to go—was that the House had refused to give the Government the means of continuing their extravagance. No thanks were due to Ministers for this. They were obliged to economise in order to keep their places. And if the House now resolved to take 1,600,000 l. or 1,800,000 l., whichever was the correct estimate of the net produce of this tax, from the means of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, depend upon it the right hon. Gentleman would find the way still further to cut down the expenditure so as to make both ends meet. It was clearly, therefore, in the power of the House to benefit the people to that extent. There would be little difficulty in discovering where reduction might be made. The African squadron would have been put down by a vote of the House a few days ago but for the fear of turning out the Government. Let those hon. Gentlemen who were favourable to the abolition of that squadron, as an unwise and useless expenditure, now vote for this Motion, and they would find Ministers coming down in a few days with amended estimates, bringing the expenditure within the revenue. By reducing the African squadron, or putting a stop to those unnecessary works in the Channel Islands, where they were doing little else but throwing gold into the sea, Government would have the means in their hands for affording the relief now asked, and it was the duty of that House to check useless and absurd expenditure by reducing the taxes and keeping the revenue down to the actual requirements of the several public departments. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in saying that there was no new point in this question since it was last discussed, for we had had since then the visitation of the cholera, and the House was called upon to spend the public money for sanitary reform; and was it not a question, under such circumstances, deserving of consideration, whether they ought to continue a tax which went to deprive the people of that light and air which were absolutely necessary to their health, and prevented the accomplishment of any effective system of sanitary improvement? A petition had been laid on the table of that House from
98
a large portion of the medical practitioners of London, showing the deleterious effects of this tax on the health of the people, and stating that its abolition would tend, by keeping the working classes in health, to lessen the burden of the poor-rates, and add materially to the comforts and happiness of the poor. They had also the evidence of the Sanitary Commissioners as to the injurious tendency of the tax. No sufficient reason for continuing this tax had been stated either on the present or previous occasions. If it was absolutely necessary to maintain the same amount of revenue, each house might be charged, as a house tax, the same amount it now paid for window duty, but leaving the proprietor at liberty to open as many windows as he pleased. But seeing that under proper regulations, by abolishing the African squadron, and practising proper economy in the Ordnance and other public departments, the surplus of 700,000 l., which the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated upon, might be increased to 2,000,000 l., he contended there would be no risk in abrogating the tax altogether.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, that as the House was desirous of going at once to a division, he should detain them only with one or two remarks. He could not, however, go to a vote without expressing his determination to support his noble Friend the Member for Bath whenever he brought this proposition for the repeal of the window duty forward. He must say, after the pretensions of sanitary reform under which his right hon. Friends below him came into office, and their appointing a commission in furtherance of that object, which had strongly recommended the abrogation of this tax, as being absolutely necessary to any effective system of sanitary improvement, their present refusal to mitigate or moderate it in any way, must result in a great loss of character to them. He had received communications from several supporters of the Government, expressing their surprise that, after their professions in favour of sanitary improvement, they should still insist on continuing the tax upon light and air without any alteration or mitigation.
VISCOUNT DUNCAN, in reply, expressed his regret at the silence of the numerous advocates of sanitary reform, now this question, upon which so much depended in regard to the health of the people, was under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said

99
that nothing new had been advanced in favour of the Motion, seemed to forget that he had given no answer to the statement he (Viscount Duncan) had made in bringing forward his Motion last year, and which he should bring forward again and again until he succeeded. He must also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the manufacturers, who he said had been benefited by the change which had taken place, were not the poor who were suffering from impure air and want of light in their dwellings. Ministers might depend upon it that the course they were now taking would create distrust in the public mind as to the sincerity of their professions in favour of sanitary reform, and he warned them that when the question of the salaries for the Sanitary Commissioners came before the House, their vote of that evening would not be forgotten.
Question put,
The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 80: Majority 3.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Humphery, Ald.

Baillie, H. J.

Keating, R.

Baldwin, C. B.

Kershaw, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Lacy, H. C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Langston, J. H.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Lewisham, Visct.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Loveden, P.

Bremridge, R.

Lushington, C.

Bright, J.

Meagher, T.

Cabbell, B. B.

Moffatt, G.

Chatterton, Col.

Morris, D.

Clay, J.

Mowatt, F.

Clifford, H. M.

Muntz, G. F.

Cobden, R.

Pearson, C.

Codrington, Sir W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Coles, H. B.

Perfect, R.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Pigott, F.

Dick, Q.

Plumptre, J. P.

Divett, E.

Raphael, A.

Duff, J.

Rufford, F.

Duncan, G.

Salwey, Col.

Ellis, J.

Sandars, G.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Scholefield, W.

Evans, J.

Sidney, Ald.

Ewart, W.

Smith, J. B.

Fergus, J.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Fordyce, A. D.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fox, W. J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Gibson rt. hon. T. M.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Greenall, G.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Grenfell, C. P.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Verner, Sir W.

Hall, Sir B.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Heald, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Henry, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Hervey, Lord A.

Wood, W P.

Heyworth, L.

TELLERS.

Hildyard, R. C.

Duncan, Visct.

Horsman, E.

Hume, J.

100

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Lockhart, W.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Barrington, Visct.

Mackie, J.

Beckett, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bellew, R. M.

M'Neill, D.

Bowles, Adm.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brotherton, J.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Brown, W.

Napier, J.

Browne, R. D.

Norreys, Lord

Busfeild, W.

Oswald, A.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, Lord C.

Clive, H. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Parker, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Pilkington, J.

Denison, J. E.

Power, N.

Dundas, Adm.

Richards, R.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Romilly, Sir J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Seymour, Lord

Emlyn, Visct.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Enfield, Visct.

Smith, J. A.

French, F.

Somers, J. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Towneley, J.

Grey, R. W.

Tufnell, H.

Halford, Sir H.

Turner, G. J.

Harris, R.

Vane, Lord H.

Hastie, A.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Hawes, B.

Wall, C. B.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Walpole, S. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Williamson, Sir H.

Heywood, J.

Wilson, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hodges, T. L.

Wyvill, M.

Howard, Lord E.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Hill, Lord M.

Lewis, G. C.

Rich, H.

SECURITIES FOR ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
The SOLICITOR GENERALrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide more simple and effectual securities for advances to purchasers of incumbered estates in Ireland. In consequence of what had occurred when he moved for leave to introduce this Bill on a former occasion, it would be necessary for him, as concisely as possible, to explain the object of the Government in proposing it. That object had been completely misunderstood by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, when he said that it was to benefit English capitalists. It was, on the contrary, to benefit Irish landed proprietors solely; and if others were benefited, it would be only by means of the benefits conferred on those individuals. The operations under the Incumbered Estates Bill had been so expensive

101
that not less than 658 offers had been made of the sale of estates; and while such a circumstance was undoubtedly a sufficient proof of the necessity which existed for such a measure, it was desirable at the same time to prevent its having an injurious result to the owners of land in Ireland. It was said, that if the Incumbered Estates Commissioners continued to sit, the Court of Chancery in Ireland would have little or nothing to do; but he believed the effect of that Bill had been to take away more than 400 suits from the court, the consequence of which was that the Court of Chancery had been more actively engaged and had done more real and substantial business than for many years before, when it had been blocked up and choked up with this mass of suits which had no operation whatever. It was then to be considered, if this immense amount of estates was to be thrown suddenly into the market, that the effect would be an enormous depreciation in the value of land, which would fall much below its real value, and a considerable injury would thus be inflicted on the owners; and it was therefore thought desirable that the Incumbered Estates Commissioners should distribute the sales over as much time as they could, and obtain the best purchasers in their power; while the means of purchasing should, if possible, be increased by legislative enactment. He did not regard so much the number of purchasers as the means of purchasing; and there was no doubt if this latter object could be effected by the introduction of English capital, a great benefit would be conferred on the class of persons who generally purchased these estates. He trusted that he should have no difficulty in satisfying the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, that he bad quite mistaken him in supposing that he had ever expected, by means of that or any other legislative measure, to create a large class of English purchasers who would buy land in Ireland. He had never expected to accomplish anything of the sort—not that there was any want of sufficient security in Ireland, or in Irish land, but that English purchasers of land, like all other purchasers of that commodity, bought it partly for purposes of enjoyment; they wished, generally speaking, to see what they bought, and that it should be easy for them frequently to visit it. He, therefore, never had expected that measures of that description could have the effect—as the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington supposed
102
him to expect—of creating a large class of English purchasers. But, though it might not be attended with any such consequences, there was no reason why its operation should not be to induce English capitalists to advance their money on the security of purchases soon to be made in Ireland by persons resident in that country. Although extensive purchases might not be made by persons residing out of Ireland, yet a great point would be gained in supplying those who purchased land there with the use of capital for the purpose of assisting them in making those purchases, and in subsequently improving the land that they bought. It was a portion of the object which he had in view that nothing should interfere with the full payment of the purchase-money of any estate sold in Ireland for the discharge of incumbrances, in order that every creditor should be paid in full, or at all events that the whole of the proceeds of every estate sold should be fairly distributed amongst all who had demands against it. Now, for this purpose two objects must be attained: one was that the nature of the purchase should be such as would induce capitalists to lend their money for the purpose of aiding those who sought to make such purchases, by supplying them with the means not only of paying the full value of the land, but subsequently of effecting on it useful and permanent improvements. The second object was to introduce such provisions as would make the borrowing of money under the present Bill as slight a fetter as possible upon the future purchasers of land in Ireland. This latter object they had endeavoured to attain by restricting the amount of money to be borrowed on the security of an estate to one-half the value of the land on which it was to be secured. It was also proposed to make every reasonable provision for a regular and satisfactory payment of the interest on such loans, and it was therefore suggested that, if the interest should be in arrear for a period of three months, the property should be sold; but it was thought that that portion of the details had better be worked out between the Commissioners and the parties, and not introduced as a portion of the Bill. One thing, however, was very manifest, that provision ought to be made for the payment of all sums due for interest money at some fixed time and place. The place proposed to be appointed for that purpose was the Bank of Ireland, where a depart-

103
ment might be created for the purpose of receiving and paying the interest on those estates, somewhat in the manner of dividends. It would of course be necessary for some companies or persons to guarantee the punctual payment of those several sums of interest, and remuneration out of the interest itself might easily be awarded to them. Looking, then, at the case as it stood, he thought it exceedingly probable that some such arrangement could easily be carried into effect. Having thus by such a Bill as he proposed to introduce provided for the perfect security of the lender and for the regular payment of the interest accruing on such loans as might be effected under the Bill, it next became a matter of great importance to see that there was no difficulty about the title. Upon that point he proposed to provide for the lenders the great advantage of a Parliamentary security. The estates would be conveyed to the new purchasers subject to the charges which it was proposed to create under the present measure, and therefore the lenders would have all the advantage of a Parliamentary title. Another object which he hoped to accomplish would be to render all the operations under the proposed measure as simple as possible. The Bill would provide a distinct form of certificate, which would be registered at the proper office in Dublin, and doubtless, from what he had said, the House would understand that these certificates would not in their aggregate amount exceed half the value of the estate upon which they were granted, and would, of course, constitute upon that estate the first charge. These certificates, which would be evidence of the loan, and a title to receive interest thereon, would be transferable by endorsement, like an inland bill of exchange, the endorsement always to be registered at the proper office in Dublin in the name of the transferee. There were some other lesser details, with which he should not trouble the House at any length, but rather content himself with observing that the measure now proposed to be introduced would be a great advantage to landed proprietors in Ireland. It would, he hoped, prevent many serious inconveniences to the owners of land in that country; and here he wished to observe that he did not mean that the certificates were to stand in the nature of personal debts against the owner of the estate upon which they were to form the first charge. The holders of those certificates would not be entitled to take the
104
holder of the estate or his goods, or to place a receiver over the estate; and thus he trusted that the landed proprietors of Ireland would be saved from the evils of receivers, and from the evils also of applications to the Court of Chancery and all their disastrous consequences. He should further say, that after the best consideration which he and those whom he advised with could bestow upon the subject, they came to the conclusion that no measure or plan was likely to be devised which would so little fetter the operations of the landlords of Ireland as the Bill which he proposed to introduce. It was well known that many persons who bought land in Ireland were unable to make that land profitable in consequence of their inability to invest sufficient capital in its permanent improvement. Then, again, though even at present there was a considerable amount of capital in Ireland, yet there manifestly was not enough to purchase the enormous quantity of land now about to be brought into the market—still less would there be found there an amount of capital sufficiently to improve that land; but with capital supplied from places out of Ireland there would be abundant means of accomplishing those objects, the land of Ireland, as he conceived, affording sufficient security to guarantee the lenders of such capital, if payable off by instalments from time to time. It had come to his knowledge that persons residing in remote parts of Ireland, having saved a little money and borrowed as much more, were enabled to purchase small estates, and so improve them as to discharge all incumbrances, all expenses, and live many years in the perfect enjoyment of an unincumbered property. If a large number of persons could be assisted by a legislative measure to proceed extensively with operations such as he had referred to, a great object would be attained. It manifestly would be impossible for him then to enter into all the minute ramifications of a subject so extensive as that which the Bill embraced, but he should say, generally, that it was a measure in framing which every care had been taken to fetter as little as possible those who might be disposed to advance capital. There would probably be associations formed for the purpose of lending money to landed proprietors. It was, of course, not possible to foresee to what extent people might be induced to invest money on such security as the purchasers of land in Ireland had to offer; but of this there could be no doubt,

105
that there was at present in this country a great deal of capital, the owners of which were seeking earnestly the means of profitable investment, and he doubted not that most English capitalists would be willing to lend their money upon certificates constituting the first charge upon Irish estates incumbered only to half their value. Some people apprehended that this Bill would not work successfully. For that apprehension he believed that there was no ground; bat, assuming that the measure failed, it could at least do no mischief, for, supposing it to be unsuccessful, nothing worse could happen than that it should become a dead letter. From its failure no evil could arise; but if it proved successful every one must acknowledge that it was likely to produce many and great advantages to the country. He had heard one objection to the proposed Bill, to which considerable weight seemed to be attached. It was, that the effect of such a measure would be to enable all proprietors to reincumber land just freed from incumbrance. To that he thought a very obvious answer could be given; namely, that every man who, living in Ireland, desired to purchase land there, would endeavour to do so on as large a scale as he could conveniently manage, and would in many eases endeavour to raise funds, not only to improve his estate, but to pay a part of the purchase-money. Now, if a man holding an estate desired to borrow money, Parliament could not interfere to prevent him—it would be totally impossible to prevent the borrowing of money. Now, what they proposed to do by the Bill was to give the lenders in these cases a Parliamentary title, and to give to the whole transaction as much as possible of a mercantile character. Do what they might money would be borrowed, and their duty was to see that such transactions produced the least possible degree of injury to the individuals concerned or to the public. Loans effected according to the plan that he proposed would be paid off by instalments, the estates would be immediately improved', and eventually unincumbered; he hoped', then, that one effect at least of the measure would be to prevent land in Ireland being depreciated below its fair value. Unfortunately there were in that country persons who had an interest in the depreciation of landed property. Many owners, or nominal owners of estates, were liable personally on account of the incumbrances upon those estates; if the estates
106
were brought to sale, and the incumbrances discharged at a time when land was deeply depreciated, the owner might manage to get rid of the liabilities, and buy the land back again for himself at a low price; then the land, freed from its old incumbrances, would only be liable to that sum which might have been borrowed for the purpose of enabling him to purchase it. Such practical results would certainly be a great evil, and the depreciation of the prices of land, which such persons as he had described desired, would also be a great evil,-both of which, he trusted, would be prevented by the proposed Bill; for it supplied a mode by which mortgages could be transferred from one person to another without minute inquiry into titles, without long draughts by conveyances engrossed upon many skins of parchment. That transfer would be very easy and simple, and he trusted that the facility of making it would greatly enhance the value of land in Ireland. [Mr. J. STUART dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark shook his head; but he did hope that all the benefits which he expected to arise from this measure would every one be realised. He had now stated to the House the general scope and object of the measure. Its main object was to enable those who wanted capital to obtain it elsewhere than in Ireland with as much ease as circumstances would permit. No doubt a measure of that description must lead to diversity of opinion, and he could not hope that every one would be satisfied with the explanation that he had attempted to give; but he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be introduced, and when they saw what it was, their understanding of it would, be of course more complete than any which they could derive from the statement that he had then made. If the sense of the country, after calm deliberation, were against the proposed measure, he certainly should not press it. It was intended for the benefit of the people of Ireland, and they could best understand its probable operation; but he would say, that since the subject had been brought under public notice, he had received several letters from Ireland, all of which were in favour of the measure, not one which was not in favour of the general principle of the Bill, and the language of the public press showed very plainly that those letters coincided with the general sentiment of the public at large respecting the measure. He trusted, then, that the Bill would prove a great benefit

107
to Ireland, and be conducive to the lasting prosperity of that country.
COLONEL DUNNEconsidered that the measure was one which would materially affect the currency in Ireland—it was one of great importance, and he would maintain that he had been fully justified upon a former occasion in calling the attention of the House to it. Such a measure ought not to have been introduced in any but a full House. At the time when he objected to it, there were only four Irish Members present, and not above twenty English; and he would now put it to the House whether it was not perfectly fair in him to have taken exception to such a Bill, brought in under such circumstances. At that time the public attention was not directed to it, and he must say that the tone and manner of the hon. and learned Solicitor General was now very different from that which he assumed when the subject was previously before the House. There was a history attached to the measure that he did not think was sufficiently known to the House. A measure of a somewhat similar character, and suggested by the success of a plan introduced in Prussia, had formerly been proposed by himself, and other Gentlemen deeply interested in the prosperity of Ireland, with a view of enabling advances to be made to Irish proprietors anxious to improve their properties, but it met with no support from Her Majesty's Government; and he was told that, if adopted, Irish estates would not be sold; and tonight he had heard, for the first time in an official quarter, a declaration from the hon. and learned Gentleman of good feeling towards the Irish proprietors. This alone was sufficient to have made him entertain doubts as to the spirit in which the Bill was conceived. He did not think the hon. and learned Member would find in the Irish newspapers an approbation of the scheme which he proposed, although they all advocated the principle put forward by himself, Mr. Frewen, and other Irish proprietors. At present, no man could borrow money in Ireland unless his estate were whitewashed by the Incumbered Estates Act, and yet they were daily called upon to apply more money to the improvement of their estates. He had always been opposed to the Incumbered Estates Act, to which this was a supplementary measure, and he considered it had failed in the objects it had proposed to accomplish. It had glutted the market with landed property, and a recent case
108
had occurred in which an estate had been sold under the Act for a year and a half's purchase. He did not hesitate to say that any gentleman whose property was taken from him and sold at such a sacrifice was robbed of it. The hon. and learned Solicitor General stated that he had received letters from Ireland, approving of the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act; but he (Colonel Dunne) had received many more letters against it, complaining of the injury, injustice, and ill-feeling which it excited. A few evenings since he had the honour to present a petition from a gentleman of the highest respectability, in a southern county, against the injustice which he suffered from the operation of this iniquitous measure. From this it appeared that Mr. Drew, of Drewsborough, had inherited, under a will made in 1796, an estate of the then value of 1,700 l. per annum, charged with a debt of 2,769 l. and a jointure of 461 l. yearly. In 1845, this estate was worth 2,000 l. a year, being all good land, and let at low rents; and the present possessor had, as he had a right to do, charged the estate with a jointure for his wife, and with a fortune for younger children. Latterly the tenants on the estate, suffering from the recent famine, and the poor-law, have fallen into arrears, and a receiver was appointed over the estate, who has neglected it, and a sum of 5,000 l., in all, is due on it. A creditor has applied for a sale under the Encumbered Estates Act. If sold now, this estate may not bring five years' purchase. If it had been sold some five years since, it would have sold, at a moderate calculation, for 35,000 l.; and whatever price it now brings, he must lose an enormous amount of its value, his wife be deprived of her jointure, and his children of their fortunes; and, if he had no other fortune, a man of old family, connected with a noble family, would be driven a beggar on the world. Another case, of which he (Colonel Dunne) believed several Members in that House were aware, was an estate of the value of 4,000 l. a year; it was not encumbered permanently to half its value; but an old jointure brought it within the power of this court; all the interest on the encumbrances and jointure were paid up, and the arrears of rent were only 200 l. The proprietor had lately removed the agent, and, in revenge, he had influenced a creditor for 1,000 l. to bring this estate into the Encumbered Estates Court, where an order was given for its sale; and, if

109
sold at the rate estates were selling, by means of that court, the malice and revenge of an individual would be able to deprive a man of high position and ancient lineage of his estate, his wife of her jointure, and her children of the means of subsistence; but these instances were too numerous, and he (Colonel Dunne) would not weary the House by repeating more. Any one who looked in the newspapers must see that every sale was made at a value far under the real value of the property. And could this law be called just, or the policy that dictated it be justified? The hon. and learned Gentleman would not find the Irish proprietors opposed to the Bill, if he would extend to them what he proposed to give to speculators by the present Bill. A great deal had been said of the advantage of giving a Parliamentary title. But a Committee sat last year on the subject of titles, and the evidence given before it went to show that the difficulty did not exist so much on the subject of titles—that, in fact, there were many Parliamentary titles in Ireland not more than 150 years old; that the difficulty lay not in their registration, but in the searches, and other legal inquiries. If these difficulties were removed, it was clear that these titles would be as good as any that the present Parliament could give. But if Parliamentary titles were to be given at all, they ought to be given to the present proprietors as well as to speculators. Judging from the tone taken by the English press, there existed an intention to drive out the present landed proprietors of Ireland, and dispossess them of their estates. He would always oppose the attempt to carry out such a design. The hon. and learned Gentleman had had very little encouragement to persevere in his legislative enactments for Ireland. Law after law had been brought in, but had only increased the sufferings of that country. Ireland had suffered much from the inflictions of Providence, but her sufferings had been greatly aggravated by bad legislation.
SIR L. O'BRIENcould bear testimony to the high respectability of Mr. Drew, from whom a petition had been presented in the early part of the evening, complaining that his estate, which was worth 2,000 l. a year, was about to be sold to discharge a debt of 3,000 l., and he complained of the law which allowed such a state of things. He (Sir L. O'Brien), for one, was quite ready to support any Bill which facilitated the sale of incumbered estates,
110
but he condemned the system of forcing sales. If Her Majesty's Ministers had legislated in a spirit of kindness to Irish proprietors; if they had said to them, we sympathise in the afflictions which have befallen you, and we will try to keep you in possession of your estates till the storm has passed over; if there are any of you whose estates are incumbered beyond the hope of redemption, we will give you facilities for their sales, but we will be no parties to rob you of your estates—if they had done this they would have conciliated, instead of exasperating, as they have done, the proprietors of the soil. He could scarcely credit the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, that an estate had been sold for a year and a half's purchase, partly because the hon. and gallant Member had neither mentioned the name of the proprietor nor the county in which it occurred, and still more because he could not believe that Baron Richards would suffer such a thing to take place. He wished to call attention to a circumstance which had a material bearing on these matters. By the provisions of the Bill the creditor could force on a sale of the estate at forty days' notice; but one reason why a landlord could not pay his debt, might be, and very often was, that his tenants did not pay their rents. He might be kept for a year and a half out of the rent of his farms by the tenants overholding, and then he might lose his estate on forty days' notice being given. If they made stringent terms for the sale of landed property, they must also give the landlord greater power to recover his rents, or to recover possession of his farms. He had himself been kept out of a farm on which he lost a year and a half's rent by the overholding of the tenant; and he knew an estate which was purchased a few years ago entirely free from debt, but on which there were now thirty farms over-held. At the same time he concurred with the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, that if they were to give this measure a retrospective effect as well as a prospective one, so that the benefit of the proposed debentures should be secured to those who now held land as well as to the speculators in new purchases, it would go far to redeem the blot existing on the present measure.
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare had stated that it was difficult to give credence to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member

111
for Portarlington, that an estate had been sold for a year and a half's purchase, because he had neither specified the name of the proprietor nor the county where the estate was situated. But his hon. Friend would be no longer sceptical when he (Mr. French) told him that the estate was in Mayo, that the name of the proprietor was Mr. M'Laughlin, that it was valued at 400 l. a year, and that it sold for 600 l. It was true there had been 658 cases of estates brought before the court; but how many sales had there been? Only four—not more than four estates had been sold, or alleged to have been sold. He said alleged, because one of the sales related to a property in Westmeath, which it was said had been bought by a farmer resident on the property at a fair value; but on inquiry it turned out that there was no such person as the alleged purchaser in existence. In the second case he would mention, he had learned from the unfortunate proprietor himself, Mr. Baldwin, that in 1845 he had refused 8,500 l. for his estate, while it was sold at the commencement of this year for 3,500 l. This estate was described as having been sold at eighteen years' purchase; but in reality, taking the ordinary value, it sold only for eight and a half years' purchase. There was one curious circumstance connected with this Bill, as compared with the former Incumbered Estates Bill. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had explained that a power was given to purchasers by the present Bill to incumber the estates when purchased to the extent of half their value; and this he described as a perfect guarantee to the lender. And yet, in the former Bill, it was assumed that when an estate was incumbered to the extent of half its value, it afforded no guarantee whatever, and ought to be sold. He alluded to this as showing the intention of the Government and their legislation to deprive such proprietors of their estates, and complained that the Government had not adopted the system practised in Silesia by the Prussian Government, where the proprietors were in as depressed a condition as the Irish landlords were; but the Government came to their assistance by lending them money to the value of half or three-fourths of the value of their estates—proper security for repayment, as well as for the interest, being taken—the consequence of which was that the Silesian proprietors were speedily raised from the dust, and restored to a state of prosperity.
MR. NAPIERdid not think they ought to refuse the hon. and learned Solicitor General permission to introduce this Bill, because the present circumstances of the country were peculiar; and he thought it was for the public interest that they should keep up the price of land. The present result he had anticipated, when the late Bill was before them, and pressed upon the attention of the House that its effect would be to force a great quantity of land upon the market. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Solicitor General that that was any proof of the beneficial working of the measure, because he remembered that a clause was introduced into the last Bill giving costs to every petitioner, and that he feared had operated as an inducement to collusive practices. It was said, that the late measure was an imperfect one. Be it so. But that was the greater reason for trying some experiment—and he admitted that this was an experiment—for improving its operation; and having talked over the question with many persons in Ireland, he found that differences of opinion existed with respect to it, and he thought, therefore, that the safer course was to allow the measure to be introduced. Another reason was, that as matters now stood there was a strong inducement to proprietors to exhaust the land; for as they had no prospect in the present state of prices of ever getting a farthing of the surplus from the sale of their estates, it would be found that between the notice and the sale the land was greatly exhausted. He thought, therefore, it was of great importance that the House should endeavour to prop up and get a crutch made for that which they had themselves made lame, till confidence was restored throughout the country. And he confessed he thought that, along with the introduction of other measures, confidence would be restored. Allusion had been made to one estate having been sold at a year and a half's purchase; but he believed that estate had not been sufficiently advertised, and he knew that parties would have given a good deal more for the estate if they had been aware it was for sale. But let them look to the north of Ireland, where there was so much agitation on the subject of tenant-right. He knew a case where the brother of a Presbyterian clergyman, one of the great agitators on the subject of tenant-right, had purchased the tenant-right of a farm at nine and a half years' purchase. The property was in an electoral division for-

113
merly of large extent; but the Poor Law Commissioners had the good sense to narrow the electoral division, and the consequence had been a reduction of pauperism and outdoor relief. People were, therefore, getting up their spirits, and land was increasing in value. He did think, therefore, that by giving the land a breathing-time—by not teasing the people with too much legislation—they would be able in a little time to have property sold at a price that would be beneficial to all parties.
MR. SADLEIRthought that power should be given to the Bank of Ireland, and to insurance companies in this country, to make advances on the certificates proposed in the Bill. He had always anticipated that great sacrifices would be experienced in the sale of incumbered estates under the recent Act. That Act was introduced for great and beneficial objects, but not for purposes of forfeiture, as was stated by his hon. Friend opposite. It was for the public good that estates heavily incumbered should be sold. As a means of benefiting both proprietors and tenantry, he had always advocated a diminution of the area of taxation; and, for the same reason, he held it necessary that excessive bankrupt properties should be brought to the hammer as speedily as possible. This might be injurious to individuals, but it was clearly for the benefit of the country at large. The great body of the proprietors in Ireland were unincumbered, and, as compared with those who were excessively incumbered, a great many more were only partly so. He was happy to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor General speak highly of the Bill, because he thought it would introduce a more simple mode of obtaining money on the security of Ireland, as he (Mr. Sadleir) looked upon a simplification of the means of borrowing money on land as a matter of the very highest consequence.
MR. STAFFORDregretted one obsersation which fell from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that the Government had given up all hope of witnessing the investment of English capital in Irish property; but that though English capitalists would not buy land for themselves, they might be disposed to lend money to those who did. He must say that if that impression went forth as the opinion of the Government, it would increase the difficulty of obtaining capital for investment in Ireland. He wished to remind the hon. and
114
learned Gentleman and the House that the difficulty thus referred to was owing to their own legislation for the last few years. The hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect the arrangements respecting the poor-law, against which he (Mr. Stafford) and others had so often protested in vain, but which the Government had at last consented to alter—the arrangements respecting the electoral unions, which rendered it impossible that any proprietor could know to what extent he would be called upon to contribute to the pauperism in his neighbourhood, or to what extent his estate would be rendered valueless from the ill management of the neighbouring property. It was only the day before yesterday that he received the plan of the new boundaries of the union with which he was more immediately connected. These boundaries appeared to have afforded great satisfaction; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman attached one-half as much importance as he (Mr. Stafford) did to the new arrangement, he would feel that it would be impossible to say how far it would affect the market price of land in Ireland. But he could not avoid again deprecating the manner in which the owners of incumbered estates in Ireland were dealt with and spoken of by the Government. There was more blame and obloquy thrown upon them than ever had been cast upon any body of men. They were represented as a doomed class which it was desirous to get rid of as quickly as possible, and yet they now found the Government inviting and holding out inducements to others to join that doomed class. Seeing that the Legislature had already drawn a distinct line of demarcation between the landed proprietor in England and the landed proprietor in Ireland, it was only folly to expect that English capitalists would invest their money in Irish land, when they could get land in England, at even double the price, and for this reason, that there was a settled state of things in England. There was not that spirit of intermeddling, and of what he might call levity, in legislating for the landed proprietary in England, which was exhibited with regard to the landed proprietary of Ireland. It might have been wise to intermeddle as they had done, but they should recollect that they could effect no improvement in Ireland, except by the introduction of capital into it. They could hope to get no capital but English capital to flow into Ireland, and there was no chance of its introduction unless there was

115
security of the most positive description afforded. Before sitting down he felt bound to say that the House and the country were deeply indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for the great pains he had taken in preparing measures for the benefit of Ireland, and for the ability he had shown; whilst the patience with which he had listened to the objections raised, and answered all the inquiries made of him respecting them, was such as to reflect the highest possible credit upon him. And there was a strong feeling amongst the well-informed and educated classes in Ireland, of deep respect and gratitude towards the hon. and learned Gentleman for the efforts he had made to carry measures for the benefit of that country. He (Mr. Stafford) hoped that the Government would bear in mind that the only hope of inducing the English people to invest their capital in Irish soil lay in the giving equal security in both countries, and in dealing out the same impartiality and fairness to them as common subjects of one common empire. The House would do well to pause before it pronounced a verdict of condemnation upon the landed proprietors of Ireland, until it had seen how the paid guardians of the poor had managed the affairs entrusted to them. Let hon. Members compare the mode in which those paid guardians had performed their duty, with that in which the landed proprietors whom they superseded had performed theirs, considering the enormous difficulties with which the latter were surrounded; and if they found, as he believed they would, that the paid guardians had manifested the grossest negligence, mismanagement, and injustice, and had made the most profligate expenditure of the funds entrusted to their care, they would probably feel somewhat inclined to reverse the unfavourable decision to which they had previously come regarding the unpaid guardians.
The SOLICITOR GENERALbegged to say a few words in explanation. With respect to what he had said regarding English purchasers, he certainly did not speak the opinions of the Government. He spoke his own individual opinion only, and no one but himself was responsible for them. But he certainly thought, from personal observation, that purchasers of landed property generally wished to live upon and enjoy personally the benefit of their property, and for that reason he thought that English proprietors would
116
not be very likely to buy estates in Ireland, unless they intended to go and reside in that country upon them; whilst many capitalists would be satisfied to advance their money upon the security of estates in Ireland, where that security would be ample. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon with respect to the half value incumbrance of the property, he completely misunderstood him if he thought he (the Solicitor General) had stated the object of the Bill to be that the estates were not to be sold unless they were incumbered to one-half their value. The original principle of the Incumbered Estates Bill was, that the estate might be sold if it were incumbered, and the owner could not pay off the incumbrance. It was in the House of Lords that the clause was introduced, providing against the sale of estates unless they were incumbered to one-half their value; but the original principle was, that if the owner could not pay the debt, the incumbrancer was to have power to sell without reference to the value. Now, with regard to the instance which the hon. Gentleman had given of an estate having been sold for one and a half year's purchase, he hardly supposed it would turn out upon examination to be exactly correct. It was, in the first place, very difficult to say what was the precise yearly rental of an estate in Ireland. Then, again, we were not told whether the assumed rental had been calculated upon the income of ten years ago, or upon what had been received the other day. But to show the difficulty of ascertaining the precise facts of the rental, he would mention that he had received the following information from the Commissioners for the sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland. The House would remember that under the Act it was essential that the commissioners should state the names of the tenants, the description of their holdings, the amount of rent they had to pay, the nature of their tenures, and the state of the land upon which they were settled. Now to show what great difficulties they had to encounter to fulfil those requirements, he should state that in many cases there was not a single person in existence who knew what the rent was. The landlord did not know it. His steward did not know it. The tenants knew as little about it as any one else. They did not in many cases know what land they had, or what were their boundaries. They merely knew generally that they held the land amongst

117
them; that they were in arrear; that the steward was to call for the rent, and that they were to make up as much for him against the time he was to call upon them as they could scrape together. The commissioners were obliged in those cases to arbitrate between the parties, and state the particulars as fairly as they could, so as to comply with the requisitions of the Act. He was bound, therefore, to receive with considerable suspicion the statement that an estate had been sold for one and a half year's purchase. And if it were stated that it had been sold for what purported to be one and a half year's purchase of what would be a fair rental at the present time, he could only say that he doubted it very much.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General, Sir George Grey, and Sir William Somerville.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions reported.
On Vote 11, 137,100 l. to defray the salaries of officers and contingent expenses of the Admiralty Office,
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was well aware how useless it was for so small a man as he was in that House to object to the vote of salaries to which he had objected on the preceding night, but he had felt it to be his duty to do as he had done. No one had a better right than he to uphold the salaries set aside for both the services. Those who had gone before him had been in the Army. He had lost a most amiable brother in the Navy—one who was a not undistinguished officer, for he had been honourably mentioned by the gallant admiral under whom he had served. And he had two sons at present in the Army, one of whom had served his country in the recent affair at Moultan. Therefore he discharged a painful duty last night when he proposed the reduction that he did. He did not know personally the individuals who filled those most important situations, the Lords of the Admiralty, except his old Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and Admiral Dundas, and he had no motive but a sense of duty, to carry out that which was much professed at the present day on that side of the House and more professed on the other—the economical system. He took the sense of the House, and he had flattered himself that he should have been supported by a vast number of hon. Members on that side of
118
the House, who professed on the hustings their determination to support economy; but he regretted to say that he was not supported by them. He might have expected it. An individual like himself could not expect much support; but that could not make him forget his duty, nor would it prevent him from going out with only one Member in the discharge of what he conceived to be his duty to his country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government promised a Committee of Inquiry to consider the reductions of salaries. He entertained the greatest respect for the noble Lord as far as his talents were concerned, but he could not say much for his consistency. He hoped the noble Lord would carry that principle into effect. He (Colonel Sibthop) took the liberty of saying that he doubted it. Nevertheless, he should pursue the course that he had done. He should watch the noble Lord as carefully as a cat watched a mouse, and he should be always on the spot.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member had made out his case for a reduction of the Lords of the Admiralty. He considered that reduction might be more easily made by exercising a vigilant superintendence over the expenditure of the dockyards.
The remaining Votes reported.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, there were several points in the Bill which deserved serious consideration, and he thought he could not do better than state the objections he entertained to it now on the second reading, in the hope that they would be duly considered by the Government before it went into Committee. It was extremely important that the object professed by the Bill should be achieved—the better and more economical administration of charitable funds. Every one knew that those at present invested with the management of these funds found great difficulty in providing fresh trustees without incurring great expense, and, in some instances, of giving due effect to the wishes and intentions of the donors. But this Bill would not effect what its title professed to have in view. It applied only to a particular class of charities, those under 100 l. a year in value; and it provided two new tribunals—one a separate Master in Chancery for

119
those charities above 30 l. and under 100 l., and another tribunal for those under 30 l. At present no property under 100 l. could go into the Court of Chancery without the certainty of being devoured. The Bill proceeded altogether on a wrong principle, for charities above 100 l. had the same right to be economically and properly administered as those under 100 l. This was nothing but a device for avoiding that reformation of the Court of Chancery in its administration of charities for which all the world had been long crying out, and the necessity of which was every day more impressed upon the public. No Government could undertake a more popular task than that of endeavouring to make the Court of Chancery what it was intended to be—the means of administering justice with regard to charities, available for all, however small in amount. If the hon. and learned Solicitor General would give his attention to such an alteration of the Court of Chancery, he would be doing a great public service; but if he persevered with this Bill as it stood, the effect would only be to hide from the public the deformities and the expense of that particular court, and to prevent any adequate reformation of it in its administration of charities; while in the meantime the charities of small amount would be remitted to a tribunal which he thought would be utterly incompetent to manage them. Some persons thought charities of small amount were of minor importance; but they involved principles of property as sacred as charities of the largest amount; and though not operating so extensively on particular classes of individuals, they still materially influenced the happiness and comfort of those within their range in their respective localities. It was not the amount, but the object to which a charity was directed, that ought to be looked at: efforts should be made to secure the donor's intentions, and prevent those abuses which had arisen more from want of an adequate tribunal for their redress, than from any fault of those who administered them. The number of small charities with which the Bill dealt was enormous; there were 4,600 of an educational character alone, which were directed to most beneficial purposes, and of which the due application should be ensured. The Bill proposed to transfer to the judge of the county court the right of dealing with the charities under 30 l. per annum; all questions as to the appropriation of the charity, and the appointment of the trus-
120
tees were to be submitted to him; he was to have the power of laying down new schemes for the administration of the charities, in conformity with what he considered the intentions of the founders. This was a very extensive power; it had hitherto been vested entirely in the Lord Chancellor, who, from his eminent position, always in the view of the public, having great responsibility attached to him, and acting always in the presence of a learned bar, who were ready to criticise, approve, or censure his conduct, had every motive for acting on just and uniform principles in the administration of these funds. But the power was to be transferred to an officer of a very different description—a county court judge, sitting in a provincial town, with no bar of any importance before him—the affairs he managed only known to a few persons resident in the immediate neighbourhood—who was not sufficiently high in his profession to be above the suspicion which always would attach to his decisions, of proceeding in some degree from political or other feelings—who, generally speaking, had to deal with questions of common law, and was very little conversant with the rules of equity. Another evil was this. At present there was a uniform tenor of decisions; but they were about to commit these questions to perhaps sixty jndges, each deciding in his separate jurisdiction on points of equity with which he was not particularly conversant, forming precedents for himself in each particular case, and running the risk, if not incurring the certainty, of giving decisions on most important points, which would involve the whole administration of these trusts in difficulty and disorder, not merely for the moment, but for all time to come. The greater number of these small charities had been left by clergymen, or members of the Established Church, for the education of the poor; and they had been so applied as to give the poor of these several parishes a good and religious education, though in many cases the testator might not have particularly specified that a religious education was to be given, such being presumed to be his intention from his own profession. The funds in these cases had been applied in aid either of the parochial schools or those of the National School Society. Now there was an impression in some parties that secular education only was necessary; and he would ask the House, was it safe to leave to such an officer as he had described, on the applica-

121
tion of any dissatisfied person in the parish, representing that there was no specific provision in the will of the founder that a religious education should be given to the people—himself, perhaps, imbued with these novel principles—the power of deciding, should he so take it into his head, that an exclusively secular education was the only one to which the trust property was applicable? This would open an infinite source of litigation and division. He might be told that there was an appeal from the decision of the county judge to the Lord Chancellor; but the party appealing must do so at his own expense, and where was the benevolent person to be found who would incur the expense of litigation in Chancery to recover 10 l. improperly withdrawn from a school? The true remedy was in the purification of the Court of Chancery, and in rendering it less dilatory and expensive; not in raising up tribunals, the only remedy for whose unjust decisions would be surrounded with all the expense, vexation, and delay which now attended questions of the administration of charity in the first instance. On these grounds he thought the Bill required serious consideration on the part of Government. It would be far wiser to undertake such a revision of the proceedings in Chancery as should give to all charities, great or small, the advantage of a proper administration, than to endeavour to bolster up what was in itself a bad system, by attempting a remedy for a portion of the evil, which would be no remedy at all, but which, though it might save some expense and litigation in the first instance, would tend to produce great dissatisfaction and injustice.
MR. TURNERcomplained that the Bill had been generally put into the paper at an unreasonable time. In objecting to its being proceeded with after midnight, he had been actuated solely by a sense of the importance of the measure. It affected mainly the interests of the poorer classes, and threw a great responsibility on the House in selecting a tribunal for the proper administration of these charities. He regretted that such administration had often been tainted with political feeling. He was most desirous of hearing the suggestions of Gentlemen conversant with the working of charities in their respective neighbourhoods. The Bill dealt with all small charities under 100 l., the number of which was about 24,000, and their income was not less than a million a year. There
122
were also between 3,000 and 4,000 charities under 30 l. a year, whose aggregate income was between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l. Their objects were very various; some were for the maintenance of churches, others of highways, others of the poor, and others for educational purposes. The descriptions of trustees were almost as various—nominated, elected, ex officio, and other kinds. In dealing with funds so large, and applicable to such a variety of purposes, it was most important to select a tribunal which would ensure their being fairly and properly administered. The first object was to take care that proper persons were selected as trustees; the next to meddle as little as possible with the discretion of those trustees so long as it was properly exercised; next, to provide a very speedy and efficient remedy in the event of any abuse of the trust; and, lastly, to take care that no groundless or vexatious suit on the subject of these charities or their administration should be incurred. No person who was unacquainted with the course of proceeding in the Court of Chancery could conceive the mischief that arose from allowing parties to come into court upon any complaint which they thought proper to prefer. As an illustration of that he might mention that when the report of the commissioners, who had been appointed some years ago to inquire into all the charities of the kingdom, had been published, and no provision had been made to prohibit any others than the Attorney General to institute proceedings for the purpose of remedying abuses in those charities which required to be remedied, a particular attorney in the neighbourhood of that House filed informations against the different charities in the city of London, and against a vast number of other charities, at the relation of some person nominally interested; and to his knowledge the funds of many of these charities had been completely wasted in the litigation which ensued, in consequence of the want of sufficient control with respect to suits to be instituted for the remedy of abuses in charities. Now, on looking to see if the provisions of the Bill provided any adequate protection against such an evil, he found that any person might sue who had the sanction of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, or of the magistrates in petty session assembled. If his hon. and learned Friend could devote sufficient time and care, consistently with the other duties he had to perform, to this matter, he should be quite satisfied to leave that discretion in his hands. But he knew

123
that it would be impossible for his hon. and learned Friend to devote sufficient attention to the subject, and without casting the slightest imputation on his hon. and learned Friend, he was acquainted with many cases where information had been filed in the name of his hon. and learned Friend, whose sanction was required pro formâ, without its being possible for him to give due consideration to the subject. No protection, therefore, which could be of any avail to these charities was thrown round them by the sanction of his hon. and learned Friend. Then, the sanction of two magistrates would be sufficient. Let the House only conceive what the effect of this must be in the different towns throughout the country. Nothing would be more easy than for a party to obtain the sanction of two magistrates in those places where a spirit of strife or party feeling existed, to file informations against a charity, and to exhaust its funds by making it the subject of appeal to the Court of Chancery. The Bill was objectionable in that respect. But it was objectionable likewise in many other respects. By the provisions of these Bills all charities between 30 l. and 100 l. were to be referred at once to the jurisdiction of a Master in Chancery, finally, and without appeal. Now, he would admit that the office of Master in Chancery was never better filled than it was at the present time; but, nevertheless, he had no hesitation in saying that it was a general practice for the parties who were litigating any case to appeal from their decision to that of the superior court. He therefore asked at the hands of the House that the right of appeal from the decision of the Master should be allowed in the case of these charities. He should not perhaps object to the Masters in Chancery being invested with the power of appointing the trustees. But this Bill proposed to give them the power of removing trustees. This would necessarily bring into the office of the Masters questions as to the conduct and character of parties, which ought to be reserved for the judgment of the higher court. With respect to charities under 30 l., the Bill proposed to place them under the jurisdiction of the county courts. To that he entertained the strongest objection, because although he wished to speak with great respect of the judges of these courts, they were not generally acquainted with the mode of administering charities, or with the principles which regulated their administration. If they were resident in
124
their different localities, and were personally acquainted with those who administered the charities, he might not entertain so strong an objection to these charities being placed under their jurisdiction. But, generally speaking, they were not local residents, they possessed no local knowledge of the persons who administered the charities. On whom, then, would the administration and control of them fall, and from whom would the judges derive their information? From their clerks. And who, generally speaking, were these clerks? They were in too many instances solicitors practising in the towns where these charities existed. They were, therefore, connected with all the local politics of the place, and had a share in every election which took place: was it right that the control of these charities should be vested in such hands? These were evils which he thought sufficient to prevent the administration of charities from being placed in the hands of the county courts; but there was another and a greater objection which he thought would be decisive on the question. Suppose the case of the appointment of a trustee, and the judge having to decide between two candidates of different politics. In order to avoid the least suspicion of partiality, he might appoint the person who was of different politics from himself, although he might not be so well fitted to discharge the trust, or he would appoint the person of the same politics as himself, and then it would be said of this judge, in whom it was of importance that the poor should have the greatest confidence, that he worked the charities for local politics, and as a political engine. But the evil did not stop at charities under 30 l. a year, for power was given to the Lord Chancellor to send charities of a higher amount to the county court, for the purpose of inquiry and administration. Under this provision of the Bill, even Rugby, Harrow, or Eton, would come within the power of the county court. It was not right to incur even the danger of that. He did not deny that some legislation was necessary on this subject. But this Bill was defective as well as faulty. It made no provision to enable charitable trustees to pass their accounts, which was a most desirable object to attain. It introduced confusion with respect to municipal charities under 30 l., which were under the jurisdiction of trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor. But this Bill places other charities of the same amount which

125
might be and were connected and administered together with municipal charities, under a different jurisdiction. Again, this Bill contained no provision to remedy the evil of requiring leases to be executed by all the trustees. He was of opinion that the objects contemplated by this measure would be effected more cheaply, and he was sure more safely and more equitably, and certainly more beneficially, through the medium of a Judge of the Court of Chancery sitting in chambers, than through the medium of the county courts or the Masters of the Court of Chancery. If the House did not approve of a Judge sitting in chambers, he thought that the commissioners of bankruptcy throughout the country, who were locally resident and were acquainted with the practice of equity courts, could more appropriately take cognisance of these charities than the judges of the county courts. He trusted that the House would prevent the administration of charities under 30 l. a year by county courts, and that it would generally repudiate the principle of the administration of charities by these tribunals. He hoped the House would rather confer that jurisdiction upon a Chancery Judge in chambers, and it was his intention shortly to introduce to the consideration of the House a measure constituting such a tribunal.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwould acquit the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down of any unreasonable opposition to this Bill; but it should be remembered, that it had been estimated that the aggregate amount of the charities under 30 l. was about 300,000 l.; and under the existing state of the law, in every one of these cases, a breach of trust might be committed without the possibility of redress, redress being too expensive for any person to attempt to proceed. All would, therefore, admit, that it was highly important to provide a remedy for such a state of things. He was not disposed to dispute that if the Court of Chancery were reformed as he could wish it to be, it might deal with all these cases as cheaply as the tribunals proposed by this Bill; but, he asked, how near were they to such a reform in the Court of Chancery? The first steps now in progress for that end, both in England and in Ireland, were only in the nature of experiments; and although he had no doubt of their ultimate success, yet what were they to do with these charities in the interval? And if they were referred, in the meantime, to the jurisdiction pro-
126
posed by this Bill, there would be no reason why, when the Court of Chancery had been effectually reformed, they should not be transferred there, if it was considered advisable. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the proceedings before the Masters in Chancery, because there was no appeal; but if he referred to the 3rd clause, he would find that there was an appeal in cases where the Master makes a special report, or makes an order subject to the opinion of the Court. This enabled the Masters to allow appeals, if in their discretion they believed it necessary; and it was generally found that they were most ready to have their opinions corrected by the superior courts. It should be observed that great expense was occasioned by protracted litigation, and in the case of a charity of only 100 l., one year's income, and probably more, would be entirely absorbed by the costs of an appeal, and the benefits to the poor recipients would be stopped. He, therefore, thought the right of appeal ought to be limited in extent. His hon. and learned Friend said it was important to give no encouragement to groundless complaints. Now, it had been a matter of course until of late years, that any person might file an information, himself being liable to the costs; and it was only within the last fifteen or sixteen years that the practice had been otherwise. This Bill sought to remedy this; for the 31st section provided that every application should have either the consent of the Attorney General or of two justices of the peace acting in petty session in the jurisdiction within which the charity was applied; and surely those justices of the peace might be safely trusted to allow a person to apply for redress regarding a charity of which it must be supposed they would have a local knowledge, and respecting which they must be presumed to be as free from party bias as they were in the discharge of their other duties. As regarded the passing of accounts, he supposed that meant a tribunal to audit the expenditure. Now, that was an expensive proceeding, and a great object of this Bill was to keep down expense as much as possible. But the Bill made special provision for the keeping and publication of accounts; and if any person thought he detected anything improper in them, he could apply to the magistrates for permission to seek for redress. With regard to the objections to the judges of the county courts, the argument about the diversity of decisions was

127
equally applicable to the county courts, as they now existed, and yet the country was strongly in favour of them. But here the evil would be less, because an appeal, under certain restrictions, would be allowed as to these charities, whereas no appeal at all was at present allowed in the county courts; and this provision would have the effect of regulating the law and practice of the courts; and he thought the judges would have sufficient acquaintance with the subject to enable them to deal with the cases that would come before them. There was no magic in them, and they would not have to deal with cases of title except in some particular instances. County court judges were not exclusively taken from the common law bar; he could name five or six gentlemen of considerable experience, from his own knowledge, who had been chosen from the Chancery bar; and that circumstance would be as strong a reason for objecting that they were not sufficiently acquainted with common law, yet he had not heard of such a complaint in any county court. Believing, as he did, that no individual could efficiently administer any branch of common law or equity without an acquaintance with the principles and even the details, to some extent, of the practice of all the other branches, he thought it exceedingly desirable that a knowledge of the whole should be united in the same individual, instead of being subdivided to such an extent as many seemed to prefer. With respect to the argument regarding the political bias likely to arise in the minds of county court judges, he confessed that he did not feel much of the strength of his hon. and learned Friend's observations. He did not believe it possible in human nature to remove all political bias from a Judge; and he believed the fear of being swayed by such an influence oftentimes made many Judges decide contrary to the truth of the case. But what did his hon. and learned Friend suggest? The county court judges were not locally resident in their several jurisdictions; but his hon and learned Friend proposed to transfer the duty to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, who were generally locally resident in their different jurisdictions; and he ventured to say that political party and local bias was much stronger in persons always resident in the same place, than in those who only went there from time to time. And, in fact, this was the reason for changing the circuit of the Welsh Judges, and not continuing them always on the same juris-
128
diction. He believed, therefore, that his learned Friend's suggestions were very unadvisable in this respect. But he also suggested that an Equity Judge should try these cases in chambers. Now it would not be possible to do this in charities under 30 l., because it would be too expensive. But why not apply the same principle to the Masters in Chancery; for it would really amount to the same thing, except in the name of the Judge—it would merely he a Master in chambers instead of a Judge in chambers; and he would venture to say—and he believed his hon. and learned Friend would agree with him—that many of the Masters of the Court of Chancery at this moment were as competent to deal with these cases as the Judges themselves. Therefore, in reality, his hon. and learned Friend's suggestions, instead, of being opposed to, turned out to be confirmatory of, the provisions of this Bill. He (the Solicitor General) was desirous to avoid trespassing upon the time of the House, but there was one observation he should make with respect to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had stated in reference to those charities that were given for educational purposes. In administering the charitable trusts, the judges appointed to administer them would find charitable trusts belonging to every denomination of persons—of members of the Church of England—of Dissenters and other persons; and in all those cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, where from the fact of the donor being a member of the Church of England, or from the fact of the trusts being administered by a member of the Church of England it was necessarily to be inferred that the intention of the founder was, that the fund should be devoted to the instruction of persons professing the doctrines of the Church of England, it would be a breach of the trusts to apply them to any other purposes. The same principle had governed the decision in the case of Lady Hewley's charity; and by that principle the judges of the county courts would be bound. He did not mean to say that there was not in the Bill a great number of matters to be improved, and was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the subject; but the general principle of the measure was to afford a speedy and cheap remedy for the administration of those charities. He did not expect any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, though he anticipated in Committee

129
a great deal of discussion on some of the clauses, and many suggestions respecting them. Those suggestions would receive consideration, and he promised to give his best attention to the subject.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it struck him that the main difficulty in the way of this and many other reforms which might be suggested in the administration of justice, arose not by any means from that part of the subject which occasioned the principal necessity for legislation. There was an important practical distinclion between the administrative and contentious jurisdiction of the court in this class of subjects; and the great practical necessity for legislation, he would venture to say, had reference not so much to cases of supposed or actual breach of trust in small charities as to the very numerous instances of their administrative wants, which, in the present very imperfect state of the law, could not be supplied without the Court of Chancery. Take, for example, the appointment of new trustees—the most simple, and often the most necessary, thing in the world. One would suppose that there would be an equally simple, straightforward, and obvious way of doing it; but no, the only mode was by the costly machinery of a petition to the Court of Chancery, reference to the Master, a return to the Court to be confirmed, and, possibly, further questions arising out of the subject. Again, the taking and publication of accounts was an important matter; so, also, was the power of re-leasing when the estates of a charity required to be let; and the case where the funds of a small charity had so increased that it would be possible to extend the basis of the foundation consistently with the wishes of the founder. All these were administrative objects, and it was for the sake of those objects that the intervention of the Legislature was necessary. All that, however, might be supplied by the present Bill without entangling themselves in any of the difficulties which arose immediately they attempted to apply the same mode of summary jurisdiction in those difficult contentious cases which would arise in small charities as well as great. It was, he thought, worthy of consideration whether it would not be better, in the first instance, to pass a Bill which should provide a cheap, simple, and effectual mode of supplying the ordinary administrative wants of charities, whilst they reserved the consideration of that contentious part of the
130
jurisdiction until they should be able to deal with the general subject of Chancery reform, in connection with which it really required very much to be considered. Another point of first-rate importance, on which, as it appeared to him, this Bill was open to grave exception, was that of appeal. It seemed to him that the House should pause before it extended the principle of giving judges, who were to be appealed from, the right of determining whether or not an appeal should lie from their decision. With respect to the Masters in Chancery, they were known so well, and they had before them so many examples and so large a course of sound and just administration, that he could not doubt but that, as a matter of course, they would allow an appeal in every case whenever it was asked; but that principle was now proposed to be extended still further with respect to the judges of the county courts, and they gave to those judges the power of removing the most respectable persons in the neighbourhood—the clergy of the parish, county magistrates, and gentlemen of that standing—from the office of trustees, and of refusing to give them an appeal; and further, if they allowed an appeal, it was proposed that the case should go to the court above from the local judge upon his statement of the facts of the case, as he had derived them from the evidence. He quite admitted, that of all the reforms which had been introduced into the country for many years past there was none for which they had more reason to thank the Government than the establishment of the county courts; and feeling that, he was not disposed to refuse to those judges, as a class, that confidence which he thought ought to be placed in the judicial institutions of the country generally; but when the question arose of referring these matters either to the county court judges or the Commissioners in Bankruptcy, he must observe, that the Commissioners in Bankruptcy had, for the most part rather greater acquaintance with equitable principles than could usually be expected from the previous practice of the county court judges; and that the questions arising out of the contentious jurisdiction in charities would be of a different class from those which were now referred by the law to the county court judges; and, therefore, it by no means followed that those gentlemen would acquire, in the ordinary exercise of their present jurisdiction, those habits which

131
were at all applicable to this class of subjects. The jurisdiction was also far greater in point of amount than was entrusted to the county court judges for any other purpose; for 30 l. a year was equivalent to no less than 750 l. at twenty-five years' purchase; and the Government which introduced this Bill was now objecting to any extension of the county court jurisdiction, even in common cases of debt, beyond its present limit of 20 l. These were, in his opinion, important reasons for endeavouring to place the jurisdiction, in cases of charities under 30 l. a year, in the hands of the Commissioners in Bankruptcy.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, it was, of course, exceedingly natural for hon. and learned Gentlemen belonging to the Chancery bar to feel great reverence for the court in which they practised; but the country did not like that court; and the great advantage of this Bill was, that it sheared that court of a considerable portion of its practice, and vested it in a body in which the public felt more confidence. He had received, from districts in which small charities were administered, communications in favour of the passing of a Bill which would relieve parties from the caprice and delay of the Court of Chancery. Bad as was the practice of the Court itself, that of the Master's Office was worse—even the place and the manner of administering justice were anything but calculated to inspire the public with confidence. He believed there was no greater evil than appeals, and that there was nothing which was viewed with greater impatience by the country than the delay and expense occasioned by this system of appeal. He could not agree with those eminent and learned men who had already spoken. He thought the change was a great advantage, and he thanked the hon. and learned Solicitor General for having carried out this work.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.