The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-29 00:00:00

THE WINDOW-TAX.

If we help to keep open the question of the window.
tax, it will readily be understood tnut we are not pressing
for its immediate abolition, or for its abolition at all,
without some equivalent duty in its stead. Nothing can
bs done this session, and it is vain to expect that even
next session the country will be in a condition to strike
off more than 1,800,0001. from its revenue, chit fly f
the benefit of the wealthier classes. In general, too,
it is of very little use to fret about a tax, which must be
borne whether we like it or not. But there are circum-
stances about the window-tax which make it an excep-
tion, just now especially. In the first place, every house
that is built—from the cottage which pays no window-
tax to the mansion which pays '304 or 40/.—bears the
impress of the tax on its front and on its back; from its
cellars to its very roof; from its reception-rooms to its
smallest offices—from its general plan to its most casual
appendage. An enormous amount of mischief is done
every year in the structure of houses, which, once
built, do not easily admit of alteration. Every year,
too, a considerable number of old houses are de-
stroyed, simply because the window-tax renders_
it expensive to inhabit and impossible to let
them. But, besides these constant reasons for a yearly
discussion of the subject, there happens to be a species
of window-tax crisis at this moment. We profess to be
inaugurating a great sanitary reform. By the abolition
of the glass duty, and now of the brick duty, as well as
by the reduction of the timber duties, we are giving
great encouragement to building; and this we are doing
on sanitary grounds. Further, some important in-
quiries are in progress, and some important experiments
have been recently made, on the best mode of lodging
the operative classes. From them it appears that the
window-tax has presented, and does still present, the
most serious obstacle to the best form of dwellings for
the poor. In fact, the pressure of the tax is so great
that it threatens to suspend further operations; and the
best, the most rational, and the most successful act of
benevolence attempted of late years, is almost pro-
hibited, not so much by the necessity of contributing to
the revenue, as by the mode in which that contribution
is levied. We might add, that some valuable discoveries
and improvements have been lately made, which are
likely to be comparatively unavailable so .long as the
window-tax ties our bands.

It is-from these considerations that we gladly assist
the prayer of the deputation, whose conference with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported in another pare
of our columns. Sir Charles Wood's reply offers rather
more encouragement than has been vouchsafed to some
other deputations. " The question of the window
duties," he says, " will receive the fullest -consideration
of her Majesty's Government." This is a pledge, and
we have reason to believe that it is made in the •hope of
some substitute being found. Isere, then, is our only
chance of deliverance from a tax liable to many serious
objections over and above its mere pecuniary pressure.
We will give all publicity to the problem which for half
a century has puzzled our financiers, and which once more
taxes their ingenuity. " What form of house-tax or
other tax will supply the place of the window-tax, with-
out entailing worse inconveniences?" As the problem is
exceedingly difficult; and its solution is for the henefv of
the public, it is but natural to expect that the public
should assist in its solution. Were the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to come forward to-morrow with au ela-
borate scheme for the purpose, experience leads us to
apprehend that he would find it attacked in detail, not
only by everybody who happened not to derive quite as
much benefit as he desired tram the scheme, but also by
everybody who had some reason for wishing the scheme
to founder altogether. Fourteen years ago, when the
alternative was offered, the public deliberately retained
the window-tax and rejected the house-tax, nut on the
ground that a house-tax was essentially the worse tax
of the two, but because it was thought to be unfairly le-
vied, and, moreover. nut very capable of a fairer distri-
bution. Were Sir Charles, however, to bring f sward
a new and improved scheme, we see little reason to hope
-that it would emape the opposition which proved fatal to
the house-tax actually levied tor curl years till 1836.
Indeed, it is out of all reason to expect that any
paper scheme should at once be more mature
and ready fir working than a scheme long ie
practice, and frequently amended. We repeat,
then, that if the public wishes to repeal the
win-
dow-tax,
it must do something more than hold meet-
,
ings and send deputations ; it must suggest a substitute,
the only possible substitute being some form of house-
tax. It will, perhaps, be said,. that it is time business of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find taxes and of the
public t 9 get rid of them. We do not, hoWever, admit,
that distribution of labour. The interest of both par-
ties is the same, viz., to provide for the proper expect
diture of the nation by the best and easiest me tns.
There can be little doubt as to the conditions of the
problem before us. The odiousness of the window-tax is
not so much its actual burden as its interference with
the comfort, the health, and the architectural effect of
our houses. We must not, then, expect to pay less for
our houses, excepting where a principle of exemption
has been established, but, as yet, unequally applied.
There are cases where the window-tax ought to be
amended, and where consequently a house-tax,
allowing the tame exemptions, ought to be qualified
also. For example, it the inns of court and the colleges
and halls at Oxford and Cembridge pay a .mitigated
window-tax on the distinct sets of chambers, surely the
buildings recently opened for the occupation of poor
families near St. Pancras Old Church, and other similar
establishments, ought not to pay the higher rates, mount-
ing up, as they do, to an extravagant sum. Something
too must be said for private houses let in lodgings, the
keeping of such houses being a species of trace, and the
nuraber of windows in them being out of proportion
with their value or class. These grounds of excep-
tion equally hold good, whether the tax is on the
windows or on the house itself. Except in such
cases as above,, we must deprecate all attempts to gat
rid of taxation under the cover of a just re-
pugnance to the particular shape of the pre-
sent tax. . The substitute must not be a tax
an the windows, the doors, the chimneys, the ca-
pacity, or the measurement of the house, but
simply on its value for letting as a residence. So, at
least, it appears to us. If aty. attempt 'is made to in-
clude houses of business in the tax to a greater extent
thitia they are included in the operation of the window-
tax, we anticipate an active and sucessful opposition.
The rule of the letting value, we are aware, is not of
easy and universal application. It will have to be modi-
fied. The case of first-class mansions in the country is
a special c-fse, for which a special rule must be found.
For example; it would be impossible to find a tenant for
Chatsworth-house on any terms whatever, so that its
letting value is nil, while a valuation with reference to
its cost, or its scale, would go into the other extreme.
Such houses, however, are treated exceptionally under
the present window-tax; aed might he, also, untter a
house-tax. We see no insuperable di l; culty iu the
problem before us, and so we confidently commit it to
the ingenuity of those persons who are really anxious to
get rid of a most incoevenient tax without injury to the
revenue and credit of the nation.—limes.

THE COUNT

Y MARKETS.

LITERPOOL, APRIL 27.
in the trade, and a fair busir
very full prices generally.

'There is an improved feeling
ress is going forward to.day at

S. d.

Wheat, per 701 b
English, white :. 5 9 to 5 10
Do. red. .. 5 4 5 6
Irish, best red 5 0 5 0
Do, lower quality 4 8 5 3
Manx, red,and wh. 5 3 5 6
Dantsic, highinixed 6 6 6 9
I)o., mixed .. 6 0 6 4
Rostock, &c.. .. 5 8 6 0
Ilainburgh and
Lower Baltic .. 5 6 5 S
American & white 5 10 6 0
Canadian, /red 5 4 5 6
Antwerp & Louvain 5 3 5 7
French, red.. .. 5 0— 5 4
Hungarian and
Mariaropoll .• 5 0— 5 2
Odessa, Polish • • 5 0 5 2
Do., common .. 4 10 5 0
Egyptian .• .. 310 4 3
Flour, English &
Irish, per 2801 b 28 0 29
Do., extra fine 31 0 -- 33
United States, per

e. d. s. d
Do.Meal,Perl96lb 13 0 to 14 0
Barley, English, pr
imperial quarter 24 0 25 0
Irish, Scotch, and
Marx,per6olb.. 2 10 3 0
Foreign, grinding 2 8 2 10
Rye, par 4801 b .• 22 0 24 0
Beans, English, pr
imperial quartr 28 0 29 C
Irish and Scotch,
per 4801 b.. .. 24 0— 25 0
Dutch .. 26 0 27 0
Egyptian .. .. 20 0— 21 0
!Peas, English, per
-imperial quartr 24 0 30 0
Foreign .. 27 0 27 6
Oats, per 451 b :
English, Scotch,

and Welsh, old 2 9 2 10
Irish, new, best
mealing 2 3 2 4
Do., mid and inf. 2 0 2 i
Old .. 2 3 2 4
Oatmeal, English,
Seoteh,pr24olb 'l2 0 22 6
Irish, new .. .. 20 6 21 0
Do , old . .. 19 0 --• 20 0

-barrel •• 22 0— 23 0
Canadian •• 21 6 22 6
Indi in corn, per
4801 b, white .. 27 9 —29 6

MANCHESTER, APRIL 27.—The flour trade since our last
report has been characterised by gradually increasing firmness,
caused by diminished supplies and the reduced state of the
stocks in first hands, and although buyers have not been in-
duced to operate freely, there was a fair amount of business
transacted at fully, and in some instances rather over, the
prices previously obtainable. Oatmeal has likewise continued
in fair request at late rates. Influenced probably by contrary
winds, the imports into Liverpool from abroad are on a less ex-
tensive scale than for several vteeks past, consisting only of
8,768 quarters of wheat and 5,448 quarters of Indian corn,
and from Ireland the arrivals are on a very moderate scale,
while from our own coast. the supplies are exceedingly light.
At our market this morning a more animated feeling was ap-
parent than for some time past, and wheat must be noted Id to
2d per 701 b dearer than on thss day se'nnight. There was a
good inquiry for flour, but holders firmly demanded an advance
of Is per sack, which rather checked sales. For oats and oat-
meal the previous currency was steadily maintained.
READING, APRIL 27.—Wheat, 30s to 465; barley, 20- to
255; oats, lss to 20s;` beans, 28s to 32s • peas, 27s to 32s per
quarter. Fat hogs, Os Od to ,Os Od ; porkers, Os Od.to Os Od
per score. Poultry—Fowls, per couple, 4s Od to 5s Od ;
ducks, ditto, 3s 6d to 4s od. Butter, lld to Is Od per lb. Eggs,
20 to 22 for 1 s.