The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-19 00:00:00

HOUSE-TAX BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second
reading of this Bill. The imposition of this tax would
relieve the country from another tax which was con-
deemed generally—namely, the window tax. The new
tax would produce about 700,0001., an amount consider-
ably less than was raised from the window tax.
Lord MONTEAGLE said no one would wish to
throw out a Bill that would afford so much relief to the
taxpayers of the country. He would, however, remind
the House that a possibility existed of the finances of the
country experiencing a season of difficulty, in conse-
quence of the repeal of permanent taxes, and at a time
when the property-tax was only continued for one year,
and might at the end of that year not be again imposed.
With respect to the window tux, though it might in some

cases have operated harshly and unequally, yet it must
be recollected the houses which would be most relieved

by the repeal of that tax were the higher class of man-
sions, the owners of which could well afford the burden.
He considered the financial arrangements for this year
were singularly defective. He thought Government
ought to have retained all permanent taxes until the
time arrived for them to grapple with the great question
of the continuation of the property-tax. Ile should
not oppose the Bill, but he objected to the principle of
the Bill, as founded on a fallacious system of finance.
The Earl of STRADBROKE considered the Bill was
objectionable, because it exempted all houses under 201.,
and would therefore have a tendency to encourage the
building and consequent multiplication of that class of
houses.
Earl GREY protested against the declaration that the
window tax had been repealed because it was unpopular,
and not because it was an olejt ctionable tax. Now the
inquiry that took place into the operation of this tax
clearly proved that the health and comforts of the people
were seriously affected by the continuance of this tax.
The house-tax was sound in principle, and he firmly be-
lieved that the burden would principally fall on the
ground landlord. He did not think there was any class
of property that could better bear the iefiliction of a tax
than home property. He quite agreed with his Noble
Friend as to the inconvenient situation in which Govern-
ment were placed by the vote for continuing the income-
tax for one year; but when the time arrived for consi-
dering the financial condition of the country, he fully re-
lied on the disposition of the people to do that which
would be best for the maintenance of the credit and
honour of the country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied.
The Duke of ARGYLL said the whole of this discus-
sion proved how difficult it was to place direct taxation
upon a just foundation, and that they must found their
finances mainly on indirect taxation. He was no Pro-
tectionist. He approved of the removal of all duties
merely for the sake of protection; but if the finances of
the country were to be raised on the main from indirect
taxation they must proceed on the broad principle of
raising small taxes over the largest possible surface,
and levy them on those articles which were the most
extensively used. A great deal of nonsense had been
talked about taxing food. Abstractedly speaking there
was no more injustice in such a tax than in a tax on
lieht or clothes, or anything else. All taxes were in
themselves an evil, and if a tax was not imposed upon
principles of protection, he know not upon what abstract
ground some part of our taxation should not be raised
from food. They had to raise a certain sum yearly,
and the question was how it could be raised most equi-
tably to all classes. If they wished, as was just, a
larger sum from the richer class, tax articles consumed
by them alone—tax their carriages, their horses, and their
servants; but do not let the other classes be exempt alto-
gether, but raise in small sums imposed on articles univer-
sally used a considerable amount of taxation. This broad
principle bad been very much overlooked, and it was one
of the great evils of having a weak and feeble Govern-
ment, which, incapable of acting on any one broad prin-
ciple of finance, could not resist the pressure against any
unpopular tax, but was obliged to substitute in its stead
some other confessedly founded on false and erroueous
principles.
The Earl of CARLISLE said, if the Noble Duke
held out to the people of this country that the abolition
of the income-tax was to be connected with any design
to re-impose duties on the importation of food, he did
not think the Noble Duke would do much to advance
the views which he advocated of abandoning protective
duties.

The Bill was then read a second time.
The Militia Ballots huspension Bill, the Assessed
Taxes Composition 13111, and the Public Works, Fisheries,
&c., Bill, were severally read a third time and passed.
The United Church of England and Ireland Bill, the
Churches and Chapels (Ireland) Bill, and the Eccle-
siastical Residences (Ireland) Bill, were read a second
time.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from Dal-
keith and Alloa, in favour of maintaining the Crystal
Palace; also several petitions against Papal aggression.
The other business on the paper was then disposed of,
and their Lordships adjourned.