The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-17 00:00:00

THE GREAT MATCH.

500 even laid.between Voltigeur and Flying Dutchman
:not p. p.)

DERBY.
7 to 1 agst Mr. Raiford 's Prime Ministar—taken to
1504
13 to 1 agst Mr. A. Nichol's Newminster-14 to 1
taken freely
35 to 1 apt Mr. Meiklam's Constellation—taken
40 to 1 agst Mr..l. Clark's Marlborough Buck —taken
40 to 1 ags,t Sir J. Hawley s onfeszor—talien
50 to 1 agst Lord Zetland s Lightfoot—taktn
OAKS.
15 to 1 tig,it Sir J. Hawley's Vermuth—taken
25 t) 1 agst Lurd Waterford's Perdits flay—taken
HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.
Southdown kids., Mon.; rolugste Statiou; Fri., Ram
CriiwisY and Horsham hds., Mon., Tilglte Lodge;
wed., Nuthurst Village ; Frl., Wivelsfield
101.
Che:,hire Mon., Abbott's Moss; Wed., Dun-
}'ln ; Thurs.. Twcinlow I1all; Sat., Beestcn
—lOl.
Sir W. W. Wynn's hds., Tues., Acton Reynald ;
Wed., St)ehe; Fri., Ilavikstone; Sat., Prees-101.
Mr. Conyor's hds., Moo., Hatfield Heath-10i.
Herefordshire hds., Tues., The Bacho; Fri., .Axon-
bury Priory-101.
Ludlow hds., Tues., Stanton Lacy; Fri., Wigmore
Castle-10.

Shropshire hds., Mon., The Fox, Albrighton; Thurs.,
Lebotwood.
Tiverton hds., Mon., Cruwy's Morchard Mill; Thurs.,
Spring Grove Park-10i.

.
_

...,,,
. REPEAL OF THE IVINDOW—TAX 1 si.. -_--',---- ----: '
The very large amount raised by, the wi tax,,
approaching as it does to two minions, hud a! ' ' tfor..-. ..
bidden U 3 to hope that, though professiAlly a R 'tal s\-,
wo should ever live to see it entirely re/noted 7 4i)*.o - •
sort of modification was all that could be expect 'it*. -
had almost said desired—in the condition of our fl 6,-----
I ever since the war. But whrn we come to the quMirin i \
of modification or commutation there are, we must con=
fess, greater difficulties than we have hitherto succeeded
in removing quite to oar satisfaction. To tax the cu-
bical contents of a house would tell very hard on capa-
cious but homely residences and on large family houses
in unfashionable situations, besides being a tax upon
health, to which space is as necessary an light and ven-
tilation. A property-tax upon howee of all sorts we
have already. Then, what is to be done? Two millions a
year are not to be sacrificed in a hurry. In the present
state of public opinion, with a Board of Health
and a Crystal Palace staring us in the face,
it is equally imposnble to retain the window-tax with
its present malignant influence upon sir and light. Tot
to steer midway between the twu itooossthilitie,, though
easy to prescribe, hitt: hilherzu Seen toutati most difficult
to accomplish. iiad the ,indatt-tax bevr, i•L t•: opm tito.l
to value, like the property-Litt, or a ti.xed cht,rg,•,iike the
laud to:, or a lair tat upon supstfluou, txpeunizure,
Tike the duty on foreign wines, o,'' Lution might have
bccoma in a manner recunelkd to it; but the burden and
t,e practical anomalies of the win..los•-tax incieese con-
tinualiy, and esery year adds to the reason:. agaiust it.
It is now in all •respects a far wore tax than when it
e, as fir.t laid on.

One t.lieEed principle of the window•tax is, that it is
a duty on expenditure, and not upon indastry. h is
laid on the residence, t.nd nos on the stoop, the
counting-house, the workroom, or the warehou,e.
The labourer's cottage, the nail farm house, the
dairy, the cheeseroom, aro all exempted. Yet a
" prefessional residence" in Bedford square may con-
tain as many windows as a house in Park-
place, and pay equal window-tax, though the rent of the
termer may be only 1201., and that of the latter 500/.
Rates and the property-tax follow depreciation; the
window-tax is a constant burden, till the value sinks to
that melancholy zero when windows are bricked up, and
drawing-rooms are used to hang up sage and thyme, or
spread out apples and onions. Lodging-houses and some
hotels have strong claims on the public consideration,
but the window-tax is levied on both without the least
mitigation or remorse. The poor widow who stakes the
last remnent of her fortunes in opening a boardinghouse
may be sadly disappointed in her expectation of boarders,
but one visitor she will certainly have,—the inexorable
man who for her 30 windows, door-lights, sky-lights, cellar-
lights, and air-holes, demands no less a sum than 10/. 15s.
10d. The rambling old manor-house occupied as a
school is treated as harshly, and the operation of the
same injustice tells prejudicially on the construction of
new colleges and schools. The tax, then, is not true to
its own principle as a tax upon expenditure. The great
number of attempts that have been made to save the
principle by particular exemptions only make the incon-
sistency more flagrant, for it is continually asked, with
good reason, why is a shop exempted and not a lodging-
house—why a small farmer's house and not a small
schoolmaster's? Now, both this principle and these in-
consistencies of the window-tax present serious difficul-
ties in the way of a " commutation." The old mansion,
which will not let, even for a ladies' boarding-school,
because, having fifty apertures for light or for air, it is
charged 19/. a year to the window-tax, would only have
that burden fixed on it for ever by a mere commutation.
Doubtless a commutation might be made palatable, and
so far practicable, by a considerable reduction. It a
house that now pays 161. a year for its 40 windows were
henceforth to pay the rent-charge of 84 a year, its occu-
piers would bear with more complacency the fact of
another house paying the same rent-charge, though of
two or three times the value.

The numerous difficulties in the way of a mere com-
mutation will lead, we believe, to the surrender of the
window-tax, and the substitution of a very moderate
house-tax. There is reason to hope that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer will have so considerable a surplus
at the end of the financial year that he can easily afford a
million or twelve hundred thousand for this long-desired
object. By the substitution of a house-tax calculated to
raise about 600,0001. for the window-tax raising about
1,800,0001., the sacrifice of revenue will not exceed
1,200,0001. Such a tax will in the first instance fall
much lighter than the present window-tax, and will not
interfere with the construction of our dwellings. We
beg to congratulate all our readers on this great measure
of relief, particularly those excellent persons who have
laboured so long to improve the dwellings of the poor,
and have hitherto found the Legislature itself their
greatest antagonist. It is enough that we have gone on
for 50 years enduring the most slavish, annoying, and
inconvenient limitations to our personal comfort and
our architectural taste. Experience shows that up
to a class of comparative influence, the most economical
form of habitation is that in apartments or flats, as is
now generally practised in Paris, as was till lately in
Rlinburgh, as was formerly the case much more than
now in this country, and as we now see revived in the
model lodging-houses for families recently erected. The
window-tax, which charges an increasing duty on any
inhabited building, whether occupied in apartments or as
one dwelling house, has almost put an end to this econo-
mical and convenient plan. It has compelled every small
family to occupy its separate howe, from the toundation
to the root', or pay a penalty for being content with half
a mansion. As ter the working class, the window-tax
has operated as a direct comataed that they shall con-
tinue to dwell in those interminable streets of little six-
roomed cottages which our railway viaducts exhibit to so
little advantage, instead of clubbing together for those
conveniences which can only be attained in large edifices
constructed for that purpose. This is only one of the
many ill fruits of this—perhaps the very wo,•st of all our
war taxes. We have dwelt en thew so oaten, that we
will at present only say that architectural antiquaries
lour or five centuries hence, will describe Ile domestic
architecture of 1800-1850 ;:s tho monumetit of a ruinous
war.— Times.

~ ..
~..;_

•