The Express.
London, England, 1851-01-25 00:00:00

REPEAL OF THE WINDOW TAX.

Yesterday evening a public vestry wu held in
the vestry from of a•. George the Msrtyr, Southwark, in
pursuance of s riquisition from the ratepayers to: the per
pow of eons d, ring .he mo, d. ty of petitioning the lintel&
tare for a told repeal of the window duty ; and also to take
into consideration the preprirty of petitioning parliament for
• representative control over the management end 'awn&
lure of the county MIL Mr. A. CHIIIB7II, churchwarden,
la the chair.

Me CHARLES PALMER moved the first resolution, to
the following effect: That the window du' ies were impolitic, I
unequal, and unjust, and oucht to be entirely abolished with.
not further dell : that the window tax not only operated
unequely sod oppressively upon the occupiers of the middle
and lower class of houses, but was entirely destructive of all
those sanitary improvements which had been sancticood by
the government and legislature. Ile believed that the
opinion of the injustice of the window tax was so universal ,
that it would not be tannery for him to soy one word to
prove the injury which it caused. (Hear, ken.) He would,
therefore. content himself with proposing the resolution.
Mr. HEARN seconded the resolution. He had ty.
seven good reasons for doing so. (" Rear, bear," and
laughter.) He believed there was not • second opinion so
I to the inspoliey and iejusties of maintaining a tax on air and
lon light. (Hear, hear) The tax produced • large sum of
; money to the , but nobody could suppne that the
would L•se to the entire extant of that tax which
was tak,n off. (He's., hear.) The money which was saved
by the readosin of the window duty would to some extent
be expended in other articles from which the nuance was
derived. (Hear, hen) The window duty was a war tax
and when the nee silty for which it was imposed no longer
existed it might to be abolished. (User, hear.)
Mr. ARCHER quite conentred in the expediency of n-
, pealing the duty on windows, bet, he believed, that the repeal
of the window duty would not afford thatsatisfaction whin'
it was calculated to give, if it was true, as was reported, that a
house tax was to be substituted for it. No doubt there
I would be a gain in • sanitary point of view, but as the
. I government were in a " fix ' with regard to the unitary
question, and as the government had • surplus revenue,
1 he believed they ought to be asked to ties off the tax on
windows without substituting the hoses tax. (Hear, hoar.)
Mr. BAKER thought that every government should rule,
on the principles t f justice. N.,w it was quite clear that
the window tax could not be levied on persons in proper•
tion to their income, and it being no I.thger necessary for
' the prams of revenue, it was manifestlysee jars..on prim-
' ciple. He thought therefore their demand should be baud
on its injustice stone, and that the sanitary question should
I not be mixed up in any way in the matter. He should
I therefore move an amendment to that effect.

said be quite agreed with the gentleman
w►o spoke last so to the icjustice of the wi"dow tae; bat he
thought it would be mach better to go to parliament with
the doable reason—that of the injustice of the tee, and its
*jerk's effec's upon the health of the people. (Hem.)
The ameadment was pot, and finding no support, was
deeiareil to be lest.
The origiaal resolution was then put acd carried unani-
mously.
Mr. C. PALMER moved the next resolution, to the effect
that a petition, founded on the for, going resolution, be
presented to revilement by Mr. Aldermen Hutopkery, sad
that Sir W. Moloworth sad the county memben be r►
quasted to support the same.
Mr. REACH semaded the resoluties, whisk, after a short
Mummies, was agreed to.