The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-15 00:00:00

THE SURPLUS.

(PrAn the DsOy Nemo.)
Oar the score of the repeal of the window tax we
feel quite at ease. It is repealed. The CHANCF.LLOR
of the EXCHEQUER is quite delighted with the vio-
knee of the assaults to compel him to follow his own
inclinations. The pressure did at one time, it is
true, become a little overpowering. When the
metropolitan delegates and their members thronpel
into his chamber of audience, and insisted upon his
listening to " more lust words" he being anxious
to join his colleagues at the council board, he did
feel like the apprentice magi, clan, who evoked more
sprites than he wished, and forgot the spell-word by
which he was to dismiss; them. But the momentary
vexation over, he fbrgave the excess of seal for the
cause: he felt he could now tell the House of Com-
mons—recalitary protectioiiists inclusive—with a safe
conscience, that the demand for the abolition of the
window tax was irresistible.
We are heartily glad of this ; fur it is an on-
'speakable nuisance that same window tax. It dis-
figures our architecture ; it excludes light from our
houses, making their inmates wax wan and sickly,
us the plants that grow in mines, where the sun s
rya never penetrate ; it impedes ventilation, and La-
porte double virulence to contagion.
Its pressure, too, is most inequitable. It is a tax
the rates of which are in an inverse ratio to the
means of the payers. It is more than the poor man
OM beer, while the rich man escapes from it with
comparative impunity.
Still, though the agitators for the repeal of the
window tax have the CuANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
on their side, we can hardly advise them to disband or
rest irem their active vigilance. The idea of a house
tax as a substitute for the window tax is an unpalat-
able ingredient in that dainty dish, the forthcoming
budget. Are we never to have a kind act from the
CHANCELLOR of the Exeitt:Quat without a cuff at
the same time to prevent our enjoying it too much ?
Itepealing the window-tax and imposing the house-tax
in one breath, he will. as it were, put money into our
pockets with one hand and take it out again with the
other. His window-tax repeal will be a mere mai-
tariTvasure, no remission of taxation.
The
aggregate annual return from window duties'
is about 1,700,000/. Why not give the people this
gm
without any shabby deduction? Why. not do
the thing handsomely for once ? The remission will
net benefit a narrow class interest; it will be felt
by almost every man or family who have a house
over their heads. It will benefit those most whose
limited means nuike it most difficult to meet the
calls of the tax-gatherer without curtailing their
other expenditure. And the CHANCELLOR can afford
to do the thing handsomely. 'The surplus is sonic three
millions, and the return from the window-tax is less
than two millions. It is good policy, no doubt, in a
minister, when he sets himself to repeal taxes, to let
as many have a share in the remission as possible.
This is the plea on which the contemplated house
tax is vindicated. I give up, says the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER, some million and a half of win-
dow duty; but I will take back part of this in the
shape of a house tax, that I may have some of my
surplus left to give to others. hut this policy inay.
be carried too fur; if you try to divide
.your lost
among too many, you run the risk of giving each
only enough to tantalise him. Besides the unecr•
tainty whether the house tax discount from the win-
dow tax gilt may nut be be usurious as almost en-
tirely to absorb it.
After giving up the window tax the CitAxext.Loo of
the Exeitt:uutai will still have about 1,309,000/. to
dispose of. This he can easily apply in a way that
will make it go much further. There are duties
on articles universally in use, which were their rates
diminished would, by the increased consumption this
would lead to, positively augment the aggregate re-
turns from them. We can give the CHANCELLOR of
the Exetwaugg plenty of this kind to pick and
choose upon. There us tea, the duty on which is
positively cent. per cent. on the natural price of the
kinds in common use. There is tobacco, emphati-
cally the poor Males luxury. There is malt, the duty
CM which is so high that a very profitable smuggling
trado has grown up in it. It its notorious that a
large proportion of ground malt may be mixed up
with burley meal, and yet the appearance of the
article remain perfectly unsuspicious. Nay, more,
we have heard of well-authenticated MACS in which

unmixed ground malt has passed the customs ns bar-
Icy-meal. A reduction in the rates of malt duty
would put an end to these nefarious practices,
and increase the consumption to an extent that would
moon• than make up the reduction to the exchequer.
Then there are the 'Wks on foreign timber, to which,
since the repeal of the navigation law, our ship-
builders and the shipping interest in general have so
valid a claim. In these and similar cases the CHAN-
CELIAM might prune the rates of duty boldly, looking
to his 1,300,0‘,0/. as a mere guarantee fund against
accidental and temporary causes that might retard
the increase of consumption.
Were we allowed to choose upon which of these
taxes the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should go
to work immediately, our voice would be given, un-
hesitatingly, fur tea and timber. We have all
possible respect for the
Sublime tobacco, which from east to wrst
Cheers the tar's lid.urs and the Turkruan's rest ;

bat we must admit that it is neither so elegant nor
so utterly inimxious a narcotic as tea. And with
respect to molt, albeit our tastes do more incline to a
a draught of brown stout than a cup of "scandal
water, as the prejudiced of last century used to cull
tea, we confess that a larger guarantee fund than the
repeal of the window tax will leave at Sir Cu MIAS
oon's disposal would be advisable when dealing
with it. But tea and timber are safe articles to ex-
periment upon, and have peculiar claims to an early
remission.
It is only necessary to glance at the table in
I.ll.Cumoetea Dictionary of Commerce, which shows
the progresaive increase of the annual consumption
of tea in the United Kingdom, in order to be con-
vinced that every diminution in the amount of duty
has been followed by a rapid and marked augmenta-
tion of consumption. And it is only necessary to in-
quire among the tea-dealers who have for customers
the artisans and lalwurers of our manufacturing dis-
tricts, to be convinced that the actual consumption of
tea is at this moment less than half what it might
be, but for the high price paid in consequence of the
duty. The duty on tea might be reduced to Is. per
lb. without any diminution of its aggregate yield.
And let it be kept in rabid, that the check upon the
use of tea, which is a consequence of the high duty,
imposes almost insuperable difficulties in the way of
obtaining return cargoes from China, and thus be-
numbs and depresses our trade with that country.
As for timber, the duty on sawn and split wood
from British possessions is 2s. Ild. per load; on fo-
reign, 1/. The duty on wood not sawn or split, from
British possessions, is Is. 0-141. per load ; on forei;rn,
15s. The duty on staves from British possessions
is 2s. 1 1-sd. ; on foreign, 18s. These protec-
tive duties, and the much more unequal ones
which preceded them, have done incalculable
mischief to our North American possessions: they
have discouraged the progress of clearing and
settled industry, and they have held out a premium
on the gambling pursuit of lumbering. Upon the
shipbuilder and shipping interest they press most
unfairly. Every article employed in ;hip-building,'
except timber, can be had cheaper and of better
quality in this country than in any other. Labour,
too, is cheaper than in America. Were the best
jollities of timber to be had here at a reasonable
prbe, an immense impetus would be given to our
eanying trade and to ship-building for export, if we
mar use the phrase. In 1850 we imported from
British possessions 467,730 loads of sawn, and
823.000 loads of unsawn timber. In the same year
we imported from foreign countries 387,316 loads of
sawn, and 273,992 of unsawn timber ; yet, if any-
thing,therosts of freight and ratesof insurance on the
foreign are less than on the colonial, and the prices at
the shipping ports (quality being taken into account)
much the same. The reason of the very different
amounts imported is obvious. On the 461,730 loads
of sawn timber imported from British possessions
49,747/. of duty were paid, and on the 623,000 of un-
sawn timber, 32,7921. On the 367,315 loads of
foreign timber imported, on the contrary, 366,9111.
of duty were paid; and on the 273,922 of unsawn
timber, 205,4411. The total revenue derived from
doable in 1850 was only 632,923/, a sum with which
an guarantee fund left in the hands of the CHA.V.
mum at the Excniouss after the repeal ofthe win-
emitimwould enable him to deal with in perfeetadety.