The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-01 00:00:00

REPEAL OF THE HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX.

Sir J. KEY then rose to bring for ward his pro-
mised motion for the repeal of the house and win-
dow taxes. Although Honourable Members might be
anxiously I,oking forward to the result of the mo-
tion he should have the honour of submitting to the
House, eat he rejoiced in the delay—the short delay that
had taken place, in affording tin opportunity of presenting
peteiona, because it would afford nut only to Alinis.ers, but
also to all Members or the House, an opportunity of seeing
and knowing that not only the inhabitants of London
and the large towns were anxious as to the results es_ the
=vital he should submit, but th it the same expectation
and wishes were txperienced in other ports of the coun-
try. He should have been well pleased if some Member
or greater talent and experience than hitriselt had under-
taken the task or moving for the repeal of the house
and window duties, but, representing one of the
largest. districts ch efly aggrieved by the injustice and
inequality of the tax, he trusted he should never
be accused, in bringing forward that measure, of
a wish to embarrass the Government. It would not
be necessary for hire at the present period to enter into an
historical ace unt of the rise and progress of those taxes ;
It would be sufficient for hint to remark that, like other
bid measures in their first imposition, they were so mild
in their opera ion and so moderate in their amount that
they met with but little opposition. When first imposed
they only amounted to from 2s. to Ss. on each
house, and in progress or tune had amounted to
the enormous SUMS that were now exacted, producing a
deadly influence on trade, and an almost total stagnation
to industry, and swallowing a great portion of the income
of the industrious classes who, as the sinews and
support of the state, were entitled to have that
income employed for their own comfort. It was true that
the house and window tax had not risen to its present enor-
mous amount without frequent remonstrance ; majorities
of an untelotmed House of Commons, which example, he
trusted, would never be followed in a reformed Hewer, had
borne down those remonstrances. The house tax, as ap-
pe tred from returns, amounted to upwards of 1,357,0411.
I3s. 111., of which London and its districts within
the bills of mortality paid considerably more than half;
and if to that was added those hives of industry, York-
shire, Sinners-tshire, and Lancashire, it would
be found that more than three-fourths of
the amount was paid by ' four counties
out of the fifty-two, showing clearly that the tax was
chiefly on trade and industry. With the advocates
of direct taxation, these taxes were obnoxious on
two principles—first, because they were almost equally
expensive in their collection with indirect taxes ; se-
condly, because they were a tax which appeared to be on
consumable commodities, seeing it , bore unequally and
principally on tradesmen. These taxes had the et&ct of
increasing the price of commodities in their progress to
consumers precisely the same as it the taxes were so much
money Itvied on the commodities themselves. With the
advocates of indirect taxation they must be equally 0' jec-
tionable. Adam Smith, and other disciples of political
economy, had seated that the house tax was a just tax, and
they defended their position by two arguments,
first, that it was in the nature of a property tax,
and thereby justifiable, orr the acknowledged principles
that all property ought to pay towards the state for the
protection it off irded ; and secondly, because they said the
value of an individual's house rent was a fair criterion of
the amount of his disposable income; and therefore an
ad soh rem lax on }liaises in this way was equivalent
to g tax on disposable income. The Hon. Baronet was
prepared to contend that both those propositions were
unsustainable, and that a tax in this way was not to be
consi:iered either in law or t quity equivalent to a tax
on disposable income. It would be idle to con-
sider it a tax on disposable income—it would have to lie
if it were so, as Dr. Smith called it, a tax on the build-
ing, rent, and materials of the premises; and if that were
really so, the humble tract swan wou'd be but lightly
taxed, while the Noble Peer and wealthy Commoner
would have to pay heavily for their splendid mansion.
Dr.
.Smith had said that, if a property-tax were
thus imposed it would ruin half the nobility in the
country. Supposing such to be the case, Honourable
Members would have to recollect how many hundreds
of honest and industrious traaesne:n had been ruined
by the extreme taxation upon them, caused by the
unequal pressure of the system.—(Hear, hear.) If
Nobleman and Gentlemen did not pay these taxes in
proportion with the rest of society, they could not clearly
have the same right to a protection for their property as if
the same amount was laid out in the o'er changing channels
'a
of trade, and were thus contributing to the wealth of the
eth°ennfutnictt, that Y.---(Hear het
in the county of Worcester there
were but two houses assessed at. 2001. per annum,
con-
sidered to be a propertyr.) tax B"
mightthat it cannothe kno bsven i,
arid these to o were occupied fur business purposes. In
the county of 11-dforif there were but two assrssed at
170/., and yet in that county were to he found
Woburn Abb-y, and many other splendid palaces anit
m insioret, upon which thousands had been expended.
It would be absurd to call it a tax upon property,