seeing that the window-tax was one of the most ancient taxes imposed in this country. At the present moment, notwithstanding the immense increase of the population, its produce did not much exceed the amount it yielded before the commencement of the last war; and therefore it could not be presumed to be so burdensome as it had been represented to be. England was that country, indeed, of all Europe, from which the smallest amount of direct taxation was raised, as compared with the amount of its revenue. Under all these circumstances, he should feel it his duty not to lend himself to the support of any further remission of direct taxes, so long as there should be other taxes in force, which bore more directly and more heavily on the industry and the manufactures of the country. not be adopted. But, if we had such a fund, it then became a very grave question, whether that proposition would be an advisable one to carry into effect. For his own part, he much approved of all the steps which had been taken for bringing back our revenue to a sound and wholesome system. He must at the same time caution ministers not to persevere, against the wishes of the country, in refusing the further reduction of the assessed taxes, for fear of endangering the safety of that system. He had been much surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman expressing so much indignation against tradesmen for making as much as they could of a sudden improvement in their trade. Such an expression of feeling would have astonished him, coming from any member; but, coming from that right hon. gentleman it was most inexplicable. The hon. member for Wareham had asked the right hon. gentleman whether he meant to leave for ever upon the country the immoderate he (lord Althorp), for one, should answer, that he would not be at all afraid of leaving the debt at that amount; so long as the interest and all the annuities charged upon it could be punctually and honestly discharged-although he might be of a very different opinion if the debt itself were of that amount that there was any possibility of buying it up. That, it was evident, was not at present the case. Upon the whole, he should support the two first of the resolutions that night submitted to the House. Mr. T. Wilson said, he could not repress his astonishment, at the language which had been held by the right hon. gentleman. From that right hon. gentle man, as the avowed friend of free and un-weight of a debt of 800,000,000l. Now, shackled trade, and the advocate of that cause against all monopolies, he had never expected to hear such manifest contradiction and inconsistency, as he had that night been guilty of; particularly in remarking on the recent rise in the cost of wines. The fact was, that it was the severe weight of the tax which pressed on that article, that had kept people back, upon small stocks, from purchasing: but on the first prospect of a reduction of the duties, they very naturally came forward, in order to replenish their cellars. The consequence of which was, that, for the moment, the demand exceeded the supply, and hence the price was so excessive. Were the wine-merchants to be spoken of as if this effect had been an arbitrary one with them? Could they make the right hon. gentleman, for example, buy, if he did not like to do so? Really, the right hon. gentleman had applied a most unsound doctrine to this subject. He should reserve his general opinion, as to the sinking fund, until the discussion of the promised motion; and should only observe, that he could not agree that three millions were as good as five for a sinking fund. Lord Althorp said, that we had a sinking fund of five millions, or we had not. If we had no such sinking fund, then all the discussions relative to the policy of maintaining such a fund were all put aside; and there could be no reason why the proposition for its reduction should Mr. Huskisson begged to supply an omission, of which he had been unintentionally guilty. The treaty under which his right hon. friend was bound to continue, for a certain time, a certain duty on port wine, was not, as some gentlemen appeared to suppose, the treaty of 1810; but the much older treaty, commonly called the Methuen treaty, which stipulated, that the wines of Portugal should be admitted into this country, on the payment of a duty, one-third only of that payable on the wines of France. In return for this arrangement, Portugal consented to receive the productions of our woollen trade on favourable terms. This treaty with our ancient ally bore date in 1703. By it it was agreed also, that either party to the contract, at the expiration of every period of fifteen years, might give notice to the other of any revision or alteration that it might desire; such revision to be arranged and agreed | demand regulated the supply, and the upon between the two governments. The supply the price of all commodities. But treaty of 1810 had been executed with a his doctrine of to-night was exactly the view of this kind; and at the end of 1825, reverse of all this. Why, surely no man it would be competent for either party to could say of any article-"I will have propose the introduction of such changes this at such a rate." To what purpose, and modifications as its own interests, then, were the remarks of the right hon. might seem to require. It was very true, gentleman on the conduct of the winethat honourable gentlemen had with jus- merchants? His own understanding of tice complained of the manner in which the Methuen treaty was, that if the wine the wine-trade was carried on in Portugal company of Portugal interfered with the by a chartered company, created by the trade subsisting btween England and crown of Portugal; not, however, recently, Portugal, the two states would immebut at least sixty years ago. That diately interfere to remedy the evil. But, monopoly, he should have no hesitation in what was the fact? This company said saying, was, as all commercial monopolies, one year to the English consumers-you generally speaking, were, injurious even shall have 25,000 pipes: then the next to the welfare of the commerce of Portu- year, you shall have 16,000; the next, gal herself. Its establishment arose out 10,000. It was evident then that they of the maladministration of this wine-regulated the trade at their pleasure. trade by the English factory, at that time The Chancellor of the Exchequer obsettled at Lisbon: and this treaty pro- served, that the Methuen treaty was cerposed to repress any improper encroach-tainly retained as an article in the treaty ments of the company upon the general of 1810; but, there was another article in trade in wine between the two countries, by this periodical facility of revision. It was, perhaps, difficult to say, in what specific manner the relative interests of two independent nations in a trade could be otherwise adjusted. At the close of the present year, however, he should be glad to receive any suggestions, with a view to the improvement of our winetrade with Portugal. As to what had been called his monstrous proposition about the wine merchants, he had been misunderstood. What he had said on that point, was in strict conformity to what he had said on an occasion, happening while lord Bexley was chancellor of the Exchequer. A reduction of the duty on malt was proposed by the ministers; and he at the same time intimated, that he should allow a remission of duty upon stock in hand; whereupon one of the greatest brewers rose in that House, and said, that the public would not benefit by the reduction of duty, for that the brewers would put the difference into their own pockets. He (Mr. Huskisson) then called on the chancellor of the Exchequer not to allow any such remis-government of our intention to revise and sion in the teeth of such a declaration; when the brewers thought fit to retract, and the public had the benefit of the reduced duty. What, therefore, he had done by malt, he would certainly do by wine. Mr. Calcraft had always understood from the right hon. gentleman, that the the treaty of 1810, which went, in terms, to preclude Portugal from creating or sanctioning any monopoly, or exclusive company, that should be prejudicial to the interests of the British trade. At that time, the Oporto wine company was in existence, it did not exert its powers and privileges in any such manner, or to such an extent, as to interfere with the British trade. In course of time, however, it undoubtedly did so; and that fact became the subject of a complaint on the part of the British government, to the government of Portugal. The government of Portugal, thinking, probably, that they derived some advantage from such a company, always denied the construction which England put upon the treaty; and long and unsatisfactory discussions were entered into by both the parties on that question. In 1820, a new minister was sent by Portugal to this country, charged to negociate a revision of the terms of this contract. To say the truth, he seemed to know very little about his business, and was soon after recalled. A notice had been given since, to the Portuguese reconsider the treaty of 1810. With a view to that revision, Portugal had already suspended one article of the treaty. Some of the conditions and articles of that treaty were extremely onerous to Portugal; others to this country; but the revision of the whole was, he was happy to say, open to all the contracting parties. Mr. Marjoribanks thought that the gentlemen engaged in the wine trade would act, not only unjustly, but inconsistently with their own interests, if they did not reduce the prices of all their wines after a ratio at least equal to the reduction of duties upon them. Mr. Monck differed from a right hon. gentleman as to his estimate of the great weight of assessed taxes in France. In that country, the amount of direct taxes was, upon property, about 10 per cent, and no more; and for this the payers had value received to a great extent, in paving, lighting, and roads supplied by government, and the very important exception from those turnpike dues, which assailed a man at the end of almost every hundred yards in this country. The heaviest tax which the people of France paid, was a land-tax, amounting to about 4s. in the pound, and producing a revenue of 12,000,000l. sterling, or one third, nearly, of the whole revenue raised by the French government. One thing was certain, that if the right hon. gentleman would not reduce the assessed taxes of England, the excess of smuggling in this country would soon do it for him. By the returns to this House it appeared, that during the last year one million pounds of tobacco had been run; which, had they been regularly imported, would have paid a duty of about 200,000l. The hon. gentleman then contrasted the cost of the preventive service and other establishments for the prevention of smuggling, with the value of goods seized to the Crown; and argued that lighter taxes and lower imposts would produce fewer smugglers and a greater revenue. With respect to the sinking fund, he was friendly to its principle; but, he thought a sinking fund of 3,000,000l. would be sufficient; and that would afford an opportunity of further reducing taxes to the amount of 2,000,000l. As to the assessed taxes, he hoped the right hon. gentleman would always keep in mind the relief of the working classes, and, with that view, he should be most delighted to find the duty on their beer, instead of being 10s. per barrel, only 5s. With this impression he should certainly vote for the two first resolutions. Mr. C. Calvert felt it necessary to set the House right with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman with regard to the reduced duty on malt, during the period when a noble lord, now belonging to another House, was chancellor of the Exchequer. The reduction, of which so much had been said, was no more than Ss. a quarter, and on that occasion, he would remind the House, that it was not to be expected the great brewers could lower the price of beer even as much as a halfpenny a pot, and for this reason, that a reduction of a halfpenny per pot would be equal to 21s. a quarter. He then foretold that there could be no reduction; nor was there any. The fact was, the great brewers cared nothing about his interference; it had, and would have, no effect on them, though he went about fretting and giving himself great credit for the wonders he had wrought. As to the reduction which soon after took place, it was by no means attributable to that right hon. gentleman's threats, but to a subsequent lowering of the price of grain. Mr. Alderman Heygate feared, from the course adopted by ministers, there was little chance that the country would be relieved from the taxes now sought to be repealed. After adverting to the evils of smuggling, especially as it was much aided by the middling classes of the community, he contended, in reference to the budget of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the reductions proposed did not relieve the proper persons. Those who wanted aid most were not the rich who drank French wines, nor the poor who drank spirits, but the middle orders, who were obliged to keep up a respectable appearance at an expence which they could ill afford. He gave credit, nevertheless, to ministers, for a sincere desire to benefit the people at large! He firmly believed that the greatest benefit would result to the lower orders if spirituous liquors were made so dear as to be out of their reach; for it was the opinion of the best writers, that nothing tended so much to demoralize a people, as the facility with which they could procure spirits. In voting for the reduction of the house and window tax, he did it under the conviction, that even without it ministers would be able to reduce the expenditure to the limits of the income. Sir R. Wilson noticed the state of the Netherlands, with regard to taxation. Notwithstanding the cheapness of houserent and provisions, the fiscal regulations there were so vexatious, that the English had abandoned all the principal towns where they had formerly resided. He objected to the house and window tax. because it was inquisitorial, and interfered with the privacy of life. Sir W. Ingleby observed, that, notwithstanding the flattering statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, he could see no reason to change his opinion of the necessity of a reduction of the house and window duties. Mr. Maberly rose to reply. He said, he was not surprised that ministers considered the sinking fund a tender subject, because they knew it was a mere delusion; he should, however, be glad if the chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. friend would settle between them what was its real amount. He had the authority of the chancellor of the Exchequer for saying, that next year he expected it to be 5,500,000l. and adding to it the anticipated surplus, there would remain 7,000, 000l. for the relief of the people from taxation. He contended that the relief would have been much more important, if the chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced At all the duty on tea and tobacco. events the selection of the right hon. gentleman had been injudicious. He admitted that direct taxation was just in principle; and on this account, he preferred a property tax; but from its odious inquisitorial character, he hoped never again to see it adopted. Whatever might be the result of the present motion, he was convinced that the House would at last come to the determination, that the House and Window tax ought to be repealed. The feelings of the people were in favour of its abrogation; and, after the sacrifices they had made, those feelings deserved attention. Should the result of a division be contrary to his hopes, he had the consolation of knowing that the hon. member for Westminster had given notice of a motion of a similar kind, which he trusted would meet with better success. The House divided: Ayes 64. Noes 111. Majority against the motion 47. List of the Minority. Ingilby, sir W. Monck, T. B. Poyntz, W. S. Ridley, sir M. W. Robarts, A. W. Taylor, M. A. Robinson, sir G. Rowley, sir W. Tierney, right hon. G. Townshend, lord C. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, March 4. SPRING GUNS.] Lord Suffield rose to move the second reading of his bill for declaring Spring Guns illegal. He said, be would briefly refer to certain cases on this subject, which had been decided in courts of law. As he had already observed, there was no distinct law respecting the employment of spring guns. In most of the cases which had come before the courts, the judges had been guided in their decisions by analogy and inference. From an examination of the cases which have been reported, it would appear, that the setting of spring guns was considered illegal; and secondly, that in those cases in which the setting of those weapons had been supposed to be legal, their use had been regarded as contrary to humanity, and those principles of moral justice on which all law ought to be founded. The noble lord then cited the case of Beer v. lord Cawdor's gamekeeper, and several other cases, in which lord Ellenborough had held, that persons were not justifiable in inflicting, by the means of such weapons, the penalty of death, unless the individual who might expose himself to the hazard of destruction was in the act of committing a capital felony. He also mentioned the case of a boy, who though guilty of a trespass in cutting a stick from a hedge, got 160l. damages for being wounded by a spring gun. A man was tried some years ago at the Old Bailey, for shooting another who personated a ghost. The jury wished to bring in a verdict of manslaughter, but the judge refused it, and told them it must either be "murder," or "not guilty," as the personating a ghost was not a felony. | poachers. He, however, thought it exIn a case in which damages were recovered tremely cruel that they should be used in for the loss of a dog, which, in pursuing a that way; but, if it were humane and just hare, had run upon spears so placed that to use them in that way, it would be ima hare could pass under them, the judge possible to confine their action to poachers held, that damages must be given on the only. A notice, it was said, might be same principle as if the defendant had seen. In the day-time it could, but not speared the dog with his own hand; be- at night. And, might not a man travelcause, the law did not permit a man to do ling along a road go over a hedge without that indirectly which he might not do di- any criminal design? A gentleman had rectly. In a late case, the chief-justice, told him, that while riding on the north and other judges of the court of King's-road, in a snow storm, his hat was nearly bench had held, that a defendant was not liable to damages because it was proved that the plaintiff who had been injured was aware of spring guns being set in the grounds into which he voluntarily went; but the judges came to this decision with reluctance. The only ground on which he had heard the practice of setting spring guns defended, was the advantage of collecting a great quantity of game; but, a great quantity of game was collected solely for the purpose of committing an extensive and unnatural slaughter. The only inducement, then, which a landed proprietor had to place murderous engines in woods was, that he or his friends might have two or three days' shooting. For this object, innocent persons as well as poachers were exposed to death. It appeared from a review of the law reports, that the only case in favour of spring guns was one in which it had been proved, that the person injured had received notice of their being set. In this case, however, the law was at variance with itself; for this decision of the judges was contrary to others, in which they had held, that a man could not do indirectly that which the law did not allow him to do directly. The defendant in this case certainly could not have legally put the gun to his shoulder, and fired it at the plaintiff; though it must be confessed, that in this way the latter would have had a great number of chances for his life, as the former, while his finger was at the trigger, might still relent, but a spring gun was.sure to execute the purpose for which it was set, on any one who might come in its way. Two very melancholy accidents occasioned by the use of spring guns had come to his knowledge. These, however, he forbore to state; one in accordance with his own feelings, and the other because a member of the other House, who represented a County, had requested that he would not mention it. These guns, it was said, were meant to be employed only against blown off; he put up his hand to save it, |