-[Hear, hear! from sir John Newport.] He did not understand the reason why the right hon. baronet cheered the observations he had made. If the gentlemen on the other side were of opinion that the tax could be given up without another tax being imposed in its stead, they were much mistaken. The window tax was pledged to the public creditor, and could not in justice be repealed without an equivalent being substituted. If any other tax could be pointed out which would supply the place of that proposed to be repealed, and which would at the same time press less heavily on the people of Ireland, there would be no breach of faith with the public creditor, and it would be their duty to adopt it. But the important question then came, where, and in what manner, could such another tax be imposed? He thought that there would be much difficulty in answering the question. Another argument used by the hon. member with whom the motion originated, who from the fair, temperate, and candid manner in which he had argued the question, was entitled to the greatest respect and attention, was, that the window tax had contributed in a great degree to the rise and progress of contagious fever in Ireland. To that observation he would give what he hoped the House would consider a decisive answer. When in Ireland, he had devoted much of his attention to the subject of contagious fever, and conceiving that the operation of the window tax was likely to increase that disorder by a want of air, in consequence of the windows being closed up, he issued an order to different collectors and inspectors in the districts where the disorder prevailed, directing them to have it made known, that wherever it was found by a physician that windows should be opened in houses where fever existed, there would be no additional tax charged for any windows so opened. He did this, as he felt it necessary to the safety of the inhabitants of the country, that every minor consideration, as to the amount of the tax, should give way to the urgency of the distress caused by the fever. He was perfectly satisfied to be responsible for such an act, if any blame should be cast upon it, as it was justified by the emergency of the case. When this order was issued, the persons to whom it was directed were ordered to make returns of the applications made in the different places for leave to open windows, in order to ascertain how far the tax really operated in increasing the contagion. He would now inform the House what were the returns made on that occasion, from which it would be clearly seen, that the window tax did not at all tend to the increase of fever. In Dublin there was not a single application to open window, in Kildare none, in Waterford none, in Cork none, in Coleraine one. In all, there were only seven applications in Ireland. It was possible that physicians might have ordered windows to be opened in some instances without having informed the inspectors of taxes of it; but such could not be the case to any extent. From this it appeared, that the window tax was not, in any manner, instrumental to the fever in Ireland; besides, if the House would take the trouble to recollect, they would find that the window tax in Ireland was of a different nature from that in England. In Ireland no number under seven windows, and three hearths were taxed, whereas in England and Scotland six windows were taxable; and if the rent of a house was over a certain sum, window tax was charged in England, though the number of windows might be less than six. This was not the case in Ireland; and when it was considered how great a number of houses. in Ireland had less than seven windows, it would be seen that the tax affected the poorer classes of that country in a very slight degree. He hoped this argument would not be mistaken: he knew it might be said, that any tax affecting the upper classes of society tended to injure the lower classes also, but his object was, to show that the fever had not increased in consequence of the tax, as the greater number of the houses where it existed never had more than, or so many as seven windows. The window tax was proportionably equal in both countries, and when his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to reduce the Irish tax 25 per cent, he did as much as could be done consistently with the state of the country. If more could be done, he, as well as his right hon. friend would feel gratified in doing it. It was their duty to do every thing in their power for Ireland, and though they could not compel the Irish gentry to reside in the country, yet they could hold out inducements to them to do so by lowering the taxes as much as possible. It was contended that the Irish window tax, being a war tax, ought to be repealed in the same manner that the property tax in England was. But the cases were quite different. There had never been a property tax in Ireland, though there was and is a window tax in England. Looking, therefore, at all the points of the case, considering the numerous applications for the repeal of the duties on salt, leather, and other articles, he thought the reduction of 25 per cent proposed by his right bon. friend, was as much as could be expected, or as could safely be granted, and on those grounds he should oppose the motion. ceeded it in the sum of only 50,000l. Yes; taxes estimated to produce 3,500,000%. had really brought in only 50,000%. ! This was a decided proof of the inability of the country to pay. When the debts of the two countries were consolidated, ministers expected to realise a large sum by it. Their expectations were disappointed, and their project produced only 50,000l. If any other proof of this fact were wanting, it was to be found in the report of the committee that sat up stairs for the investigation of the finances of Ireland. That report stated, that for several years Ireland had advanced in taxation more rapidly than Great Britain herself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, with reThe necessary Sir John Newport said, that the window tax affected the great body of the poorest part of the community in Ireland. He alluded to those who resided in lodginghouses in great cities and towns. He denied the statement of the right hon. gen-spect to the war taxes. tleman, that the shutting up of windows inference was, that if she had made more under this tax had not had the effect of extensive exertions than even Great Bri spreading more widely amongst the popu- tain, including her war taxes, when the lation of Ireland the fever which had period of peace came, she ought to be proved so fatal. This he stated not on entitled to an equal remission with the the authority of any ambiguous order, former country. He should now call the worded so as to prevent, not encourage, attention of the House to the increase of applications. He would appeal to the taxation since the union. At that period authority of all the medical men who had the window tax was from one to four considered the subject, and who declared, shillings per window: it was now from that the shutting up of the windows had three to 14s. At the period of the Union produced the most lamentable effects. there was no horse tax: there was now a Dr. Barry of Cork had given evidence on horse tax of 2. 17s. Tea, of the best this subject, which was perfectly conclu- kind, paid 7d. per lb. the worst 5d.:— sive. He had stated, that in the lower the tax was now 98 per cent ad valorem. rooms of houses in that city, where the The tax on wine had increased in the windows were not blocked up, the tenants proportion of five to two, and the revenue were free from fever, while the upper had decreased in the proportion of two rooms, where there was not a free circu- to five. On an average, the taxes were lation of air, were filled with contagion. more than doubled since the Union; and It was stated that, on account of the thus individuals, deprived of their comsituation in which Ireland was placed on forts, were induced to become absentees. the consolidation of the two treasuries, He would submit but one question to she had no right to expect a greater re- ministers: Was it their intention to inmission of taxes than had been extended crease the absentee system in Ireland? to her. To England, 17,000,000l. were If not, would it be prudent in them to remitted to Ireland, 300,000l. Why augment taxation, together with all the was this inequality? Because Ireland other inducements to absenteeship? By failed to support burthens which were the present system the great number of beyond her strength. She, however, took Irish absentees was kept up; the gentleall that her capacity enabled her to take. men of Ireland being unable to enjoy in Ministers pressed more upon her; but her that country the comforts of life. He capacity was insufficient to bear a greater would state one simple fact to the House. burthen. This might easily be proved by There was in the neighbourhood of Coa reference to facts. In 1808, the revenue ventry a piece of land, to the extent of of Ireland amounted to 4,417,000l. Since 450 acres, in the possession of a noble that period taxes were imposed on the lord, who had immense property in Iresuggestion of the finance minister, to the land. For those 450 acres he paid 1,000l. amount of 3,500,000l. What was the in poor rates, while, on the revenue of at result? How much did the revenue of least 40,000l. which he derived from Irelast year exceed that of 1808? It ex-land, he paid neither to the poor nor to (VOL. XXXVIII, ) (S) who had asserted that not less than 3,000 persons had suffered from the effects of the contagious disease then raging in the capital of Ireland. Would the right hon. gentleman insist that they should still continue to close up their windows, although thereby they opened for themselves sure and certain graves? That right hon. gentleman should recollect how he had entreated the House formerly— the state one-tenth of that sum. He strongly recommended to parliament to lessen the taxation on Ireland at present, that she might be better able to bear it at a future period. This would be the soundest policy with respect both to Great Britain and to Ireland, whose interests were, in his opinion, inseparable. There was but one universal opinion in Ireland with respect to the tax under consideration, namely, that it was a tax peculiarly appropriated" For God's sake, withdraw your opposito the support of the war, and that it was distinctly understood that it was to be remitted on the return of peace. He had entered thus far into the details of the state of Ireland regarding taxation, merely to justify the conduct of Ireland respecting the exertions she had made in the common cause; and he was happy to say, that even the report of the committee on this subject had borne him out in the representation he had attempted to establish, namely, that Ireland had fairly and conscientiously discharged whatever ought to have been expected of her at the period of the conclusion of the union. tion for the present, and I will withdraw after the expiration of the war, the tax !" Such had been the understanding respecting the Income tax; and would it be argued, that after so considerable a sum in taxation as seventeen millions, in the shape of income tax, had been given up upon a point of honour, that ministers should turn a deaf ear to the suggestion of honour in this case, and refuse to withdraw so trifling a proportion of the general taxation, which had so eagerly been solicited by the Irish people? If the tax were not given up, the fact would be, that the produce of it would be daily reducing. It Sir N. Colthurst said, that after the able would, therefore, be advantageous to gomanner in which the question had been vernment to reflect upon those two poliadvocated by the hon. members who pre- tical truths-"Ex nihilo nil fit," and ceded him, he had little to add in its "Lex neminem cogit ad impossibilia." In favour. He fully agreed with the state- simpler phrase, there was no use in atments made by his right hon. friend who tempting to levy a tax where it was morally spoke last, relative to the state of the impossible to enforce its payment-a fact poor in Cork. He gave the Irish govern- which he was satisfied would be proved ment every credit for the exertions they upon a reference of the matter to a comhad made in affording assistance in check-mittee, and he should therefore vote for it. ing the progress of fever, yet, he must observe, that were it not for the poorer classes having been obliged to stop their windows to evade the tax, the disorder might in a great degree have been prevented. He gave his most cordial support to the motion. The chancellor of the British exchequer was also chancellor of the Irish exchequer, and he was glad of it, as he was convinced that more knowledge or more humanity could not be vested in any man, and he hoped he would display both by acceding to the repeal of the window tax. At least he hoped, that instead of one-fourth, the right hon. gentleman would agree to remit one-half. Sir Frederick Flood was surprised at the opposition which this business had received from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, more particularly as the in- Mr. Grattan stated the various grounds dulgence sought had for its object the upon which he submitted to the House devising of the best means to preserve that the tax should be taken off. The the lives of the people of Ireland, whose first was, that the endeavours to increase sufferings that right hon. gentleman had its productiveness had all failed, and that admitted to be extremely severe, one-instead thereof, the produce of the tax fourth of which, had it been experienced in this country, would have produced the most alarming effects. This burthen of taxation he would call a mortal burthen; because it affected most materially the lives of many in that country, as had been sufficiently proved by the report of the medical gentlemen of Dublin, had fallen from 380,000l. to 300,0007. The second consisted in the avowed inability of the lower orders of the people to pay the tax. The third reason for its abolition would be found in the breach of promise on the part of his majesty's government to the people of Ireland at the time of its enactment. The fourth con * Mr. Parnell was sorry for the discouragement which had been given to the proposition by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He could not see that Ireland had not borne her fair proportion of taxation and privation for some years past, although he was satisfied the tax was a very injudicious one, as the persons resident in houses of this inferior description were not able to afford a single shilling as a contribution to the exigencies of the state. He attributed this financial error in practice to one of a more general nature, which was the assuming, at the period of the Union, that Ireland ought, in the ratio of her exports to those of this country, to contribute to our financial exigencies in the proportion of twoseventeenths-a proportion much too large, it being very fallaciously supposed, that the exports of Ireland were proofs of her wealth, whereas, being all raw commodities, exported for the purpose of procuring from other countries that which she ought to produce within herself, these exports were only proofs of her poverty. But the causes of the depression of Ire land were to be found in her own mismanagement of her affairs. She was not even permitted to pave or light the streets of her metropolis, but a most burthensome and expensive board must be appointed for superintending that petty object. Upon the whole, the causes of her unproductiveness, in a financial point of view, might be attributed to the depression of the public mind, arising from the present mode of governing that country. sisted in the appeal to the humanity of government, arising from the alarming statements furnished to them as to the progress of disease in Ireland. Without stating it as a subject of accusation, he certainly thought the question of breach of faith on the part of parliament or government was a fit subject for examination in the committee, should the House consent to go into the committee. As to the dangerous prevalence of the fever being in part attributable to the confined air of the abodes of the poor, there could be no stronger proof than the relaxation granted by government, enabling the parties deprived of adequate ventilation to open their windows without being liable to the tax. The question, then, for the House to determine was, whether there was any part of the petition which ought to be examined in a committee. Perhaps the committee might propose an additional modification; perhaps the evil might be in part redressed. He by no means considered the state of our finances such as should produce despondency, but rather revision. There was, therefore, room enough to provide for the redress of this peculiar grievance as affecting Ireland. He would auspicate nothing but good from that committee; for certain he was, that no member of that committee would feel himself justified in derogating from the character of Ireland for her ready compliance in the hour when it became necessary to sacrifice her all in a grand struggle for the common cause. He believed most sincerely that Ireland might be relieved without any general injury being inflicted on the finances of this country. Ireland was in that state that she should be carefully nursed. You must treat her like a child. You must not lay too heavy a burthen on her, otherwise you will destroy her future strength. You will find it your interest at present to encourage the trade of Ireland; and by imposing moderate taxes on her, suited to her ability, you will produce present harmony and future strength. By increasing your taxes, you will find that you will diminish your revenue instead of augmenting it. For one, he should vote for going into a committee; but he could not forget, that even if the committee should be lost, the right hon. gentleman had professed his readiness to consent to a diminution of the tax; and he hoped that, at all events, some regulations would be devised for rendering it less oppressive. Mr. May recapitulated several of the preceding arguments, and concluded by voting in favour of the committee. Mr. Shapland Carew said, that every principle of humanity and justice required the House to repeal this tax. The very preamble of the tax, in point of justice, ought to induce the House to remit it. At all events, the chancellor of the exchequer ought to consent to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the facts. Mr. W. Smith said, he had heard with surprise, that officers of the revenue were allowed in Ireland to enter every house and room in the house to learn the number of windows. He trusted that such a practice would no longer be allowed in Ireland, any more than it was in England. It had been said, that the tax would be given up by a liberal government; such conduct, however, was no proof of libe rality. Officers of the revenue, in the discharge of their duty, ought to go round the outside of the house, or at most to pass through it. The tax, indeed, might in that way be diminished; but a regard would be shown for the feelings of the people, who would submit with less reluctance to pay what remained of the tax. He hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would find sufficient resources in a wise economy to enable him to do without the tax. It Mr. Peter Moore thought a sufficient resource in lieu of the tax might be found in a judicious system of economy. For his own part, he considered the tax so oppressive, that he would sooner consent to levy the same sum on England than that the tax should not be repealed. was a question that was closely connected with the health of a great portion of the population of that part of the empire. A fourth part of the tax might be remitted in the mean time, and a select committee might be appointed. Mr. Calcraft said, the question before the House was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the windowtax of Ireland. He was not fully acquainted with the state of that country; but he thought that this question stood on so narrow a ground that he was perfectly master of it. He thought that the question ought to go to a committee; but if it were for a bill to repeal the tax, he should vote for it. How many individuals from that part of the country had declared that the health and lives of the people were affected by this tax! Sufficient ground had, therefore, been raised for an inquiry at least. He was, indeed, so satisfied by the medical opinions which had been given of the injurious consequences of this tax, that, if no other grounds were stated, he should be induced to vote for the repeal. The House ought to get rid of this tax altogether. The right hon. gentleman had frequently granted committees on much slighter grounds, and yet, in this instance, he resisted a committee for inquiry. The remission of taxation since the peace had been very unequal as to Ireland and England. The question had been completely carried by argument, and the chancellor of the exchequer would be obliged upon a future day to move for the repeal of the tax. It was surely inconsistent to deny 300,000l. to the people of Ireland, when the war malt tax, amounting to 2,000,000l. had been taken off from the people of this country. Mr. Robert Shaw replied. He in particular referred to the impression attempted to be made on the House, by stating that as the window tax only fell on tenants in houses having seven windows, it could not be supposed to affect the poorer classes of the inhabitants of Dublin. Now, in that city few of the houses of the poorest class had less than that number-almost all had considerably more. He felt so strongly impressed with the importance of this concession, not only to Dublin, but to all Ireland, that he should proceed to take the sense of the House upon the expediency of going into a committee upon the subject. The question being put, the House divided: Archdall, M. Mackintosh, sir J. Monck, sir C. Moore, P. Nugent, lord Newport, sir J. Plunkett, W. C. Ponsonby, F. Smyth, J. H. Smith, W. PAIRED OFF. Brougham, H. Fergusson, sir R. Fitzgerald, lord W. Lambton, J. G. North, D. Robarts, A. HIGH BAILIFF OF WESTMINSTER.] Mr. Marsh rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that the order be discharged for the production of an account of the Income of the High Bailiff of Westminster. The ground of the former motion, with which the present was connected, and by |