The Sun.
London, England, 1802-04-10 00:00:00

:HOUSE AND WINDOW DUTY.

Mr. N. VANSITTART moved the Order of the
Day for the House to re3olve itself into a COilltratteC
on the House and. Window Duty.
On the Question for the SPEAKER's leaving the

Chair,•
ROBSON made several objedions to the
Bill, observing, that the Tax was unequal in its
operation; that it was a Commutation for the In-
come Tax ; but 'that it fell, in a great measure,
upon those who did not contribute to the Income
Tax.
Mr. N. V ANS ITTART said, he wholly dis-
claimed, as he had done before, the idea of the pre-
,sent Tax being a Commutation for-the Income Tax.
With respekEt to the burden of the present Tax, and
the alledged inequality of its operation, he had
taken pains to colle6t an account of those who con-
tributed to the Income Tax, with relation to what
they would now be called upon to contribute to the
House and Window Tax. It would be generally
allowed that the most opulent part of the community
would live in the best houses ; many of them would
also have different establishments. This would
not, upon the whole, be found an inaccurate crite-
rion of the proportions of the present Tax, which
would be paid by the contrihutors to the Income
Tax. By this account it would be found, that those
who returned an Income of focal. and upwards,
lived in houses of from 191. to 1601. per annum,
having about 150 windows ; they would now be
called upon to pay, as their proportion to the pre-
sent duty, from 251. 95. to 471. 2s. instead of an
Income Tax of fool. a year, and upwards. Ac-
cording to the same mode of calculation, those who
returned an Income of from 20001. to goool. would
now be called upon to pay from 151. ss. to 211. 9s.
and so on in proportion, those who had returned
from 5001. to I 0001. to pay from 51. ss. to 91. 9s. ;
from 2001. to gaol. from 21. I2S. 6d. to 51. ss. ;
from 1501. to 2001. from 21. • IS. to 21. r 2s. 6d. ;
from tool. to 1501. from r zs. to 15s. This state-
ment would be found to be in general correct as to the
proportion each person would be called upon to pay,
compared with what he did pay as his contribution
to the Income Tax.
Mr. JONES was of opinion the Tax would fall
too heavily upon the poorer class of the People, and
that it required some modification. If the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would So modify it,
+hat it should fall upon those who were relieved
fro a the Income Tax, he pledged himself to sup_
port it. He added a compliment to the City, for
their successful exertions in procuring a repeal of
thP. Income Tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the Hon.' Gentleman had given a whimsical
proof of his desire to have the Income Tax repeal-
ed, by declaring, in effect, that he would not vote
for any Tax that did not bear hard upon that class
who were to be relieved from the effect: of that Tax.
1-le called for the sypport of the Hon. Gentleman on
the ground of consistency. The fact was, that the
present Tax did not attach on those who did not pay
to the Income Tax. _ _ .

Mr. SHERIDAN said, he did not clearly corn.
prebend the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR; of the EXCHEQUER
.aid, that the present Tax did not attach on those
having incomes under 601. a year, according to, the
account of the proportions between the two taxes
mentioned by his Hon. Friend, by which it also
appeared, that those who had returned incomes from
601. to tool. would pay nothing to the House Tax,
and only is. 6.1. to the Window Tax, instead of
from los. to zl. i os.
Mr. SHERIDAN said, the Hon. Gentleman
jor:Es) had expressed his wish that the pre-
sent Tax should l)e imposed upon those who did
pay the Income Tax. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
N. Vit.NSlTT.mur) had detailed to the House the
great saying which would accrue to these perms in
paying the present Tax, but he (Mr. SH ER TDAN)
wanted to know what was the criterion by which
that was to be discovered It might be fair to
take the 'rent of the house. as the criterion, but
was it mean! to be asserted, that a person might
not live ip a house with a great number of win-
_ dows and let the greater part out in lodgings, whose
actual income was not more than from 601. to tool.
whilst he,paid,as much to. this Tax as persons pos-
tbcssed of much larger incomes. He thought it un-
just that the number of windows should be taken
as the criterion of the ability of the individual to
p-ily this Tax,

The OIANCELLOR of tise EXCHEQUER
said, he could only say that the statement which he
114 d made upon the subjdi, was founded upon the best
and most accurate information that could be pro-.
cured relative to the description of hol.nes inhabited
by the different classes paying the Income Tax.
He had never said that the number of windows
should he taken as the criterion of the ability of the
individual to pay,but that the number of windows,
together with the amount of the house rent, formed
a just criterion according to the fair principles of
taxation.

Mr. HILEY A DDINGTON said, that he could
nor avoid making one observation on what had
fallen from an Hon. Gentleman (Mr. JoNE3), who
had entirely attributed the Repeal of the Income
Tax to the meritorious exertions of the City, which
he seemed at present to have some very special.
reasons for wishing to conciliate. He did not think
it necessary to state to the House what, in com-
mon' with several others, he had long known of
his Right Hon. Relation's determination on this
subjed, in case of the restoration of Peace ; but
would only observe, that the first possible oppor-
tunity had been taken of announcing that intention,
namely, the very day of the arrival of the Definitive
Treaty.
M. JONES explained.
After a short further conversation between Mr.
HILEY ADDINGTON, Mr. WIGLEY, and Mr. N.
VANSITTART, . _

The Mahe resolved itself into a Committee,
through which the Bill passed ; after some conver-
sation between Mr. RossoN, Mr. VANSITTART,
and Mr. WJGLEY, the Report was ordered to be
received to-morrow.