The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-08 00:00:00

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.

The House then went in Committee on this Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. EWART moved the addition of the following
words:—" And be it enacted, that aeries of buildings (as
in the case of model lodging-houses, or of flats in Scot-
land) or parts thereof, occupied as separate dwellings,
and assessed separately to the poor-rate, shall be held
to be inhabited dwelling-houses under this Act, and
shall be subject to the same liabilities and exemptions
as are. with regard to inhabited dwelling-houses, iu this
Act and the schedule thereto aunt xed provided."
Mr. HUME considered that the house-tax was in
every respiAtt preferable to the window-tax ; but he was
disposed to think that if exemptions of this na-
ture were allowed, all kinds of evasions would
be resorted to for the purpose of avoiding
the tax by persons who ought to pay it. The great
merit of a house-tai consisted in its being certain, gene-
ral, and equal, and he thought, therefore, that it ought to
be extended to all houses over forty shillings.
Mr. SLANEY did not see any reason why, if
cheap cottages in the country were to be exempted from
the tax, dwellings of the humbler classes in large
towns, where land was of more value, should not
enjoy the same privilege. Tne reason for building
so many habitations under one roof, in the metro-
polis, and on different stories, instead of erecting
them separately and distinct was that the bites were so
expensive, and he thought the Government ought not
to discourage the movement, now very general over the
country, for erecting lodging-houses for the labouring-
classes, by imposing a tax on this description of erec-
done, which he trusted would considerably increase du-
ring the next five or six 3 ears.
Mr. A. HASTIE said that from inquiries he had
made he found that in Glasgow alone 3.000 persons e ho
did not pay the window-tax would be obliged to pay the
inhabited house-tax. This would, he thought, also be
the case with regard to the other towns of Scotland; and
therefore, as far as that country was concerned, he
thought no benefit would arise at all.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose,
that all exemptions to this tax were bad in principle.
He should optose the present amendment, because if any
tenement claimiug to he rated separately to the
poor's-rate were not also obliged to be rated
separately as houses, he might just as well bid good bye
to the tax altogether, us far as the case of Scotland was
concerned. The estimated reduction of tax upon that
country amounted to no less than 10,000/.
Mr. DUNCAN supported the amendment. The
house-tax, in its present shape, would not operate in
any way as to relief to Scotland.
Sir G. PECHELL quite agreed that all exemption
to the tax was bad, and for that reason he more strongly
advocated the total abolition of the tax.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said from the statement made
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all exemptions
from the tax were bad, it was clear that a new light
had broken upon him. He therefore called upon the
Right Honourable Gentleman to abandon the present
tax altogether, especially when he looked at the
present state of the revenue. He was quite sure that
instead of the house-tax diminishing the revenue it
would considerably increase it.
Mr. PACKE was also in favour of a total abolition of
the tax.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH insisted that the first duty of
the Legislature was to abolish all those taxer that pressed
heavily upon the poor, such as tea, coffee, sugar, &c.
Mr. DISRAELI would be glad to know what was
meant by the statement of the Hon. Member for
Lambeth, that it was the intention of the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reconsider the whole of
the house duty. and report his opinion to them next year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had given an
incorrect version of his statement. What be said was
this, namely, that the subject might be re-opened next
se-vion,
Mr. DISRAELI conceived the Bill at present under
censidetation was exceedingly iejudicious and im-
proper. The house-tax ought to be a complete and
not a partial compensation for the loss of the
window duty, and his object in moving the resolution
on Friday was to make such an alteration in the present
taxation as would secure no loss to the revenue. How-
ever, there was not much chance of doing that now, and
all he could say for the future was simply this—that if
direct taxatiou was to form an important feature in our
fieaneial system, that the principle of laying on the direct
must be the same as laying on indirect taxation.—(Elear.)
Mr. LOCKHART wished to know what would be un-
derstood by the term " farm buildings" that were to be
exempt from the tax ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—AII
the buildings that were actually used for farm purposes,
Mr. HENLEY was rejoiced to hear that explanation.
Sir GEORGE PECHELL inquired what would be
the mode of valuation under this Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had re-
peatedly answered the same question, but he bad
no objection to reply to it again. The rule
fir the valultion would be found in the s‘h
chapter of the 48th George 111. If a house
were rated to the poor at a 11. of the whole an-
nual value, then the peor-rate valuation would be
adopted, and so on in proportionate valuations in rating
to the poor. In other instances they would have to as-
certaiu the vacation by the beet means they could.
AI er a few words from Mr, HUME and Mr. EwAST,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Clause 2 was agreed to without any discussion.
Oa clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. A. HASTIE moved the insertion of the following
words atter the word " that":—" No church, chapel, or
place used for public worship, no college, museum,
school-house, lecture, room, public library, or place set
apart for educational or scientific purposes, attd no
court-house, police-office, prison, city or county offices,"
shall be liable to this lax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if
these buildings were nut occupied they would not be
liable to the tax, but if they were inhabited they would
be rated like other de elling houses.
After a short discussion the House divided, when there
appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 40
Against it ... • ••• ••• 164
Majority against... --124
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved an amendment, to the
effect that all houses not liable to be assessed for duty
on windows should not be liable to the house-tax, and
declared his intention of taking the sense of the Com-
mittee upon it.
Mr. COWAN supported the amendment, rand stated
that the Bill, as it stood, would render 2,000 of his con-
ssituents liable to taxation who had hitherto enjoyed an
exemption. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to accede to the amendment, which would involve no
great loss of revenue.
Sir W. CLAY thought it inconsistent with the prin-
ciple of the measure to tax those who had before enjoyed
exemption.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the amendment. He had been censured for exempting
houses under 201 a year, aid could not acquiesce in a
proposition for extending the exemption to houses of
much higher rental, merely ea the ground that they
bad hitherto escaped taxatieo• ele bad stated, on intro-
ducing the measure, that while its effect would be to ex-
empt a certain number, others would be brought under
taxation which had not been taxed hitherto.
Mr. WAWN asked, if the exemption was just, why it
was not proposed to extend it to all houses hereafter to
be built ?—(Eiear, and laughter.)
Mr. CARDWBLL urged the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth not to press his amendment.
Viscount DUNCAN concurred in the recommenda-
tion.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
was agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses of the
Bill.
In the schedule
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the insertion of certain
words, for the purpose of placing buildings used for pro-
fessional and educational purposes in the same category
as shops, and subjecting them to a duty of 61. instead
of 9d. in the pound.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question had already been submitted to the House and
negatived; and, in feet, if the distinction were extended
beyond shops, it would be impossible to prevent the lower
rate from becoming universal.
Mr. EW ART urged the claims of the proprietors of
schools, which he thought were very strong.
Lordß. GROSVENOR would support the proposition
of the Hon. Member far Finsbury, it it were confined to
mere schoels, but he could not consent to exempt pri-
vate dwelliug-houses, which were generally attached to
them.
The amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the schedule was rgrt ed to
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the following clause:—
" Provided always, and be it enacted, that no neglect or
oozitlClQU to pay, within any limited period, the duties as-