of an arduous and costly nature;" but then, though
necessary, "inequality, vexation, and fraud would ever
be inherent in it." Mr. Labouchere deemed it an
"extreme measure." The then Lord Howick, with all the
weight of his distinguished character, branded the tax
as "exceedingly odious"—beyond everything, for its
"monstrous inequality." Sir Francis Baring felt such
grave objections to the tax, that "if he stood alone he
would record his dissent from it." These opinions of
leading members in that house made it a matter of
good faith, honesty, and sound policy, apart from all
considerations of personal consistency or partisanship
for free trade or protection, that at the present time,
when there is no arduous war on hand, no period of
famine hardly passed by, and no crisis of national
commerce still unrecovered from, the house should not
hastily impose a tax so unjust that nothing but the
pressure of an emergency embracing some of these dire
evils could excuse it. The landlord paid the tax of a
nominal rent, for the reduction of which no abatement
was made. The tenant-farmer was assessed, he might
almost say, "on his losses." The merchant, the
professional man, felt the injustice of an impost which fell
upon them far more severely than on the rich. Now,
therefore, that there was a surplus, the opportunity had
arrived for mitigating these evils. The present budget
did not promote the interests of free trade by making
things cheaper; it merely took off a direct tax; but if
this was to be done, the income tax required to be
abolished before the window tax. With the present surplus
of two millions, the former tax might be reduced from
7d. to 5d. in the pound, and a relief of £1,550,000 would
thus be effected; whereas the measure proposed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would only afford a relief
of £1,200,000. The sanitary objections to the window
tax might be obviated without any diminution of the
revenue, by a mode of assessment irrespective of the
number of windows. Mr. Herries concluded by asking
the Premier how, with a surplus in his hands, and in the
absence of any excuse for exceptional measures, he could
ask the house to continue a tax stigmatised by the noble
lord himself as full of fraud, vexation, and injustice?
—The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER denied that
there was any inconsistency between his present and his
former language in respect of this tax. When Sir R.
PEEL proposed its renewal in 1845, it was for the avowed
purpose of making "a great experiment in taxation."
He (Sir C. Wood) then admitted the sufficiency of such
a ground, and on a similar principle he now desired to
renew the income tax in order to carry out a change of
taxation. When that change was accomplished, the tax
in question might be reduced or repealed. He proposed
that the tax should be continued for three years without
any alteration in the schedules. If they appeared so
unjust to all classes, perhaps they might not be unjust
to any. Mr. Pitt and Sir R. Peel were both impressed
with the difficulty—he would almost say "the
impossibility of modifying the schedules." It might have
been more popular to ask to continue the tax for only
one year, leaving the burden of its renewal on the future
Chancellor of the Exchequer; but such a course would
have scarcely been honest. The original objections to
its extension to Ireland existed now in still greater
force. He had been accused of rendering the income
tax permanent by taking off duties on articles of
consumption; but he only proposed reductions which, by
increasing consumption, would enlarge the revenue. At
any rate, such a complaint came awkwardly from a
party who advocated the total repeal of the paper duty,
which yielded £700,000 per annum, and of the malt tax,
which produced £5,000,000. By means of the income tax
the ordinary revenue was the same now as in 1844, though
seven millions of taxes had been repealed in the
meanwhile. During the year ending April the 5th last the
Excise duties had increased about £835,000; and if
such were the results of past reductions, similar results
might be anticipated from pursuing a similar course. He
had given up a reduction of the duty on seeds because it
was stated that such a measure would be a hardship to
the agricultural interest. As to the proposal that had
been made relative to pauper lunatics, he would be no
party to transferring the poor to the national revenue.
The present amendment was only a portion of the
protectionist scheme lately developed by Lord Stanley.
—Mr. Herries' amendment was supported by Mr.
Prinsop, Mr. Booker, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Sharman
Crawford; and opposed by Mr. F. Peel, Sir R. Inglis, and
Mr. Wilson. On a division, the amendment was
negatived by 278 to 230; majority for ministers 48.

On Tuesday, April 8, Lord ASHLEY moved for leave
to bring in a Bill for the erection of Lodging Houses
for the Working Classes. He supported the measure
by some remarkable statements. In one of the best
parishes in London, that of St. George's Hanover
Square, a return in 1842 showed that there were 1462
families living in only 2174 rooms; and of these, 929
families had but a single room for all the members of
each family in common. Lord Ashley had seen a single
room containing five families; one family occupying each
corner, and one the middle. The report of the London
Fever Hospital for 1845 stated particulars of a single
room whence came a vast proportion of the hospital
patients: the room was thirty-three feet nine inches
long and twenty feet wide; in it were crowded
frequently fifty, not seldom seventy, and sometimes
from ninety to a hundred men. From that one room
came one-fifth part of the whole admissions for the year
into the Fever Hospital—one hundred and thirty
patients came from that room alone. The provincial
towns presented scenes even worse; as Lord Ashley
showed by details almost revolting to read, concerning
Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Morpeth. A great
remedy would be put into the hands of voluntary
municipal humanity by the present measure, which was
as near as possible a transcript of the Baths and Wash-
houses Act—Sir G. GREY assented willingly to the
introduction of the bill, but cautioned the house against
expecting too much from measures of this kind. The
bill was brought in and read a first time.—M. WINSTON
BARRON moved that the house should, in committee,
consider the State of Ireland with a view to the relief of
the distress there existing. He supported his motion by
statistics which went to prove that the pauper relief is
substantially increasing, although out-door relief has
been practically suppressed by the commissioners;
that the county-rates have collaterally enormously
increased; that land is going out of corn cultivation by
millions of acres; that the export trade of pigs has
almost ceased; that trade is smashed, the land ruined,
the tenants broken, and the good labourers fleeing the
country; that cities and towns are desolate, villages
erased, and the population wandering about beggars or
thieves; that housebreaking is more common than
picking pockets in London; the gaols full of criminals,
who are no sooner discharged for one offence then they
commit another, to get back into prison; emigration
already begun with the spring, and at this early time in
full swing. He concluded by asking, would the
legislature stretch forth a hand to save this unhappy
country? Sir Lucius O'BRIEN seconded the motion,
believing that we little know here what is going
on in Ireland. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE treated all
the statements as fables; the figures as garbled and
picked unfairly here and there from returns and tables,
the general drift of which they belie. He affirmed that
both pauperism and crime had regularly decreased
during the last three years. The Irish members differed
on the subject. Mr. REYNOLDS supported the motion.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL opposed it. Mr. Sharman
CRAWFORD moved the addition to it of words especially
directing the attention of the committee to consider the
best means of amending the laws respecting the
relationship of landlords and tenants in Ireland, Mr.
FAGAN seconded the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL
feared that the mover would in committee find his
supporters opposing all his proposals. On a division the
motion was negatived by 138 to 129; ministerial
majority, 9.

The second reading of the Smithfield Enlargement Bill
was moved on Wednesday, the 9th, by Sir James DUKE.
The bill was supported by a number of metropolitan
members, including Alderman SIDNEY, Mr. WAKLEY,
Mr. OSBORNE, and Mr. MASTERMAN. These members
admitted generally that Smithfield in its present state is
an inconvenience—even a nuisance, that is no longer to
be tolerated; but they dwelt upon the perfect cure of