The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-11 00:00:00

for non-effective forces, and 500,000/. for the civil
departments, and 3,000,0001. for the military estab-
lishments of our colonial empire, he is surely insisting
upon something more resionable than the resignation
of that empire to the avarice or valour of even the
most energetic of the great powers in the eastern or
western hemisphere. No, it is a mere blinking of
the question at issue to pretend even for an instant
that the demands made by Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
and his supporters, go to lengths so flagrantly Quix-
otic in their exaggeration. What they are re-
quiring, what we the financial reformers
of England are requiring in the House
and out of the House, through speeches
and through leading articles, on the floor of the Com-
mons and in the broadsheets of the public journals, is
not a niggardly evidence of parsimony, not a petty
evasion of disbursements justly and equitably de-
manded of the Treasury, not a mean and miserable
restriction of the powers of Government going so far
as to stunt the growth of our energies, but a whole-
some revision of the expenditure in the colonial as
well as in the other departments of the Administra-
tion, to the end that economy may temper generosity
in the apportioning of the national revenues. Those,
we take it, were the principles advocated last evening
by Sir WILLIAM MOLES %N. ORTH, and forasmuch as he
has been earnest, and w, believe conscientious in their
advocacy, he is entitled to the cordial approbation of
the community.

The resolution for the repeal of the window-tax,
and the imposition of a house-tax in lieu of it, will be
brought forward this evening in the House of Com-
mons. To the first branch of the proposition, the
repeal of the tax on light and air, we do not anticipate
any opposition. Al parties must be too well aware
of the injustice and impolicy of the present system to
desire its perpetuation. Even those who are advo-
cates fur a house-tax clearly perceive that no more
injudicious mode of assessment could be adopted
than that on the number of apertures, which
not only interfered with architectural beauty,
but was exceedingly prejudicial to health, and
which pressed most unqually on the tax-
payers ; some districts being charged three or
four times as much in proportion to their actual
value as other more fashionable localities. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire
has expressly declared that the amendment, of which
he has given notice for this evening was not intended
as an amendment to the motion for the repeal of the
window-tax, nor was he prepared to oppose that
repeal. If, then, the recognized leader of the
Agricultural Party does not object to the removal of
the unwise and inequitable impost, it is not probable
that any person will assume the invidious position
of champion of the existing abuse, or resist its abo-
lition.

There will not, however, be such perfect unanimity
on the second part of the motion. Many, including
the metropolitan Members—no inconsiderable or un-
influential body—will demand the total and uncon-
ditional repeal of the tax—that it shall be abolished
without any substitute whatsoever. The present is
undoubtedly a much fairer proposition than that
brought forward in the first edition of the precious
Budget. That recognized and attempted to per-
petuate the evils of the existing system. It reduced the
amount by one-third, but it made no alteration whatso-
ever in the apportionment, so that the grievance
so loudly and so justly complained of, as to the in-
equality of assessment, would be continued in all its
naked enormity. No person could have adduced
more cogent reasons against that very system than
Sir CHARLES WOOD himself in his second speech.
He fully admitted that " the fairest mode—the mode
most consistent with principle—is to impose a uniform
duty upon old and new houses." He had not the
courage, however, in the first instance to act accord-
ing to his own convictions. He was afraid to per-
form an act of simple justice lest he might have
excited a clamour among those residing in
better class streets, whose assessments might
possibly be increased thereby. He, therefore, deli-
berately and advisedly abandoned what he considered
to be more just and equitable, in order to avoid an
interested outcry from a few, who having long con-
tributed less than their fair proportion, would desire
still to be benefited at the expense of their less for-
tunate brethren ; and this is the Minister who, in
another p trt of the very same speech in which he made
this damaging confession, declared that it seemed
to him to be "his clear policy, his duty, his
best and only practical course, to propose
that which he honestly deemed right to
the House, and having made such proposal,
to abide by it." It won't do, Sir CHARLES. That
may do for the members of that gallant corps who
are supposed to possess an extraordinary degree of
credulity. You may tell it to the marines, but it will
hardly receive general credence when we find it ex-
pressly contradicted by yourself in the course of the
very same oration.
The question for the House to determine, however,
is not the comparative merits of the two propositions,
—it is whether there should be such au invidious
distinction maintained between houses and all other
descriptions of property, real or personal, as that the
former should be compelled to pay a direct tax of 61
per cent. on the valuation, while others are only
charged 3, or more properly, 2 11-12 per cent. If
there is to be a property-tax, we do not see why
that tax should not be imposed equally on all kinds
of property, without exception or drawback. There
might be some reason perhaps for charging personal pro-
perty that was not subject to local rates fur the relief
of the poor or other purposes, which are levied to the
extent of 12,000,0001. or 13,000,000/. per annum, with
an additional per-tentage, so as to equalise the burdens
as nearly as possible ; but there can be none for placing
the addition on that which is already liable to
the heaviest demands. It is therefore unfair and
unjust to impose a new house-tax. Far better, if it
were absolutely necessary to obtain a substitute for
the window-tax, to increase the charge under Sche-
dules A and C of the income•tax to ls. in the pound,
a change which would more than compensate for the
abolished impost, and enable the Minister of Finance
to relinquish the taxes on knowledge and cleanliness,
or at least on advertisements, and paper, and soap.
There are also strong objections justly entertained
to the exemption of all houses below the value of 201.
per annum, which are to be altogether exempted from
the tax. That tax is one that would fall, not on
the occupier, but on the owner, as it would unques-
tionably be taken into consideration in settling the
amount of rent to be paid for the premises. Now,
that owner may be a man of large fortune, and we
cannot underbtamd why the proprietor of 100 cot-
tages, worth 18/. per annum each, should escape, while
the proprietor of a single house, wortb 501. or 1001.
per annum, should be liable to the additional assess-
ment. There should not, in fact, be any exemption
recognised in a direct tax on property—all should pay
in proportion to their means. A great deal of fraud
would be avoided by the recognition of this salutary
principle, and there will be a greater temptation to
that fraud, as the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEVER
declines to bind himself to any particular assessment,
either that of the poor-law or property: but " will
adopt that which in the particular district would re-
present most accurately the real annual value of the
houses." This leaving matters in doubt, in order
that the cofactor may extract the largest possible
amount from the tax-payers, will occa-
sion the greatest beartburning and liti-
gation ; there will be constant complaints
and appeals from the valuation, which would
be avoided if either the, poor-law or the property-tax
valuation were selected as the basis of the charge.
Sir CHARLES WOOD, however, appears determined to
carry out every proposition in the most unwise and
impolitic manner, that it may be executed, as it is
conceived, in the narrowest and most paltry spirit.
She exemption, too, besides being unjust, is impo-
litic. It is calculated to produce the evils so graphi-
cally depicted by Lord ASHLEY in his admirable ad-
dress respecting the dwellings of the humbler classes,
to which we have already directed the public attention.
It will prevent the erection of large buildings, to be
subdivided among numerous families, who may have
far greater conveniences in such dwellings than they
could
rs
lhyraevsoepp
respect—its
eseparates
tcitouttt
ee
injuriouslygv
ieisl .1
pTtrooh
de
tuheweei window-tax
an
interestsdsoiwm-itlaaxr
ifnormthei
result, although in a smaller degree. The object
should be to economise the space on which such
11 buildings should be erected, but this will be prevented
by the impolitic exemption to which we have alluded.