The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

WINDOW-TAX.

Lord DUNCAN said, that in rising to address
the House upon this subject, he felt no small
degree of embarrassment when he looked around
and saw so many others who were much better
qualified than he was to deal with the question,
and under those circumstances he begged to
say he would occupy the House but a very short time.
Nor would he now intrude this question upon the notice
of the House, but that he felt bound to do so, for this
reason, that he was the representative of a constituency
who, except the cities of London and Liverpool, paid the
largest amount of window-tax of any town in the kingdom.
and therefore he felt bound to bring the hardships under
which they laboured, by reason of the levy of
this tax, before the notice of this House, to
the best of his ability. He begged to assure
the House that he did not bring it forward
with any view to the embarrassment of the
Government, for it was no party or political question, but
he did bring it forward because of the injustice and
impolicy of the tax ; and if no other result should
attend it, it would at all events have been brought
before the public, and public attention would have been
called to it, and then it would be seen whether or not
the people had just cause of complaint.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") The Right Honourable Baronet
opposite had said, in his financial stab. ment, that there
were three millions of houses in the metropolis that did
not pay this tax, and that, therefore, if these houses re-
quired glass, great benefit would be conferred by the
removal of the glass duty. But he (Lord D.)
would ask why had these houses been exempted i He
would explain it. They had been exempted because
many of them were the property of wealthy persons,
who had tenants who paid them 2001 a year,
ethers were exempted because they were
the offices and stores of wealthy merchants ; and others
again had eve led the tax because the houses were old, and
secupied by poor people, who filled up the windows.
The Noble Lord then produced letters which he had
r. ceivecl from various persons, complaining that the report
of the Committee on the Health of Towns had omitted to
mention the state in which many houses in large towns were
awing the number of families crowded into them,
and who yet could not have sufficient light,
owing to the great amount of the window-tax.
He could not, see how the removal of the duty on glass
would benefit houses already built ; it might serve those
now building or about to be built. The tax which he
was most anxious to remove was of much older date
than that upon glass. and was as old as the days of " the
hearth money " itself. The duty on hearths had been
taken away. Fourteen different Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer had passed 14 different Acts on the subject.
In 1808 Mr. Percival, the then Chancellor of the Ex-
cheque,, introduced a measure, which was passed into a
law, under which the assessed taxes were collected.
Since the passing of the Act of 1812 the window duty
had been consented to. The result of all these Acts
was that a sliding-scale was established—(Hear, hear)—
by which houses which had eight windows, and
from eight windows to 500 were exactly taxed in the
inverse ratio of the means of payment. To show
the inequality in the working of the tax, he would take
the house of Sir Robert Peel in Whitehall-gardens, St.
Margaret's parish, in which the number of windows was 72,
and the tax was 6s. 91d. per window, being about 3+ per
cent. on the valuation of the house, as rated for the
property-tax, which was 7001. per year. He
would contrast that with the case of a person
named Coombes, a cabinet-maker, residing at
the corner of Abbey-street, in Bath. There were
thirty-three windows in his house, and he paid 7s. 4d.
per window, being upwards of 30 per cent. as rated to the
property-tax. Apsley House, in St. George's parish,
had 129 windows, which paid ss. lid. per window, or
2 and 3-Bths per cent. under the rating to the pro-
perty-tax, which was 2,0001 a-year, Montague
house which, had 132 windows, paid but ss. 101 d. per
window, being about 31. per cent. to the rating of the
House under the property-tax, about 1,3201. Whilst
those great houses pay so small an amount of window-
tax, the smaller houses were taxed at 9s. 4d. per window.
So much with regard to the inequality of the tax. Now,
with regard to its injustice, he would state the result of
some returns which were made that morning. One of
those returns moved for by the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose stated that the amount of window duty, in 1841,
was 1,830,4571., and it was stated in, the same return that
in 1844 the amount of window duty was 1,743,4001.,
being a decrease of 87,2001. In the other return to which
he begged to call the attention of the Honourable and
Gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell), it was
stated that in 1841 the amount of duty was 1,774,638/.,
whereas in 1844 it was 1,786,5141, being an increase in
1844, as compared with 1841, of 11,876/. Now. the one
return made a decrease in 1841, as compared with 1841,
of 87,0001, and the other return made an increase iu
the year 1844, as compared with the year 1841, of
11.876/ Now,- when he found such a difference in the
two returns, he thought that circumstance alone ought to
induce the House to grant him a Committee. On look-
ing to the bottom of the return he found the amount of
duty paid by twelve of the large towns in England. In
the town of Bath, he found the window duty had ditni
nished to from 22.408/. in 1841, down to 21,551 L in 1844,
and he found the same thing had happened in the towns
of Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, and Norwich. Having
found this discrepancy between the two reports, he ap-
plied to Mr. Porter, and, on referring to his tables he
found a different account. He found that in 1839,
before the new survey, the window-tax was
1,298,622/ In the second year of the new survey he
found that it rose 365,0001, but that ever since in 1842
end 1843, it was said to be annually diminishing, not-
withstar ding that the population had increased from
18,000,000 in 1839, to 20,000.000 in 1843. In one point,
however, all the returns agreed, and that was, that in
the year of the re-survey, a large addition was made to
the tax. In 1834 there was an Act brought forward by
Lord Althorp, which was stated to be for the relief of
such persons as were duly assessed at the passing of the
Act. It was stated that all persons assessed would be
entitled to keep open, free of duty, as many windows as
they pleased. That Act lay dormant for six years, till
1840, and at that time, when it was found that the ex-
penditure of the country exceeded the income, very great
activity prevailed amongst the Commissioners of Stamps
and Taxes. Communications :pass, d between them and Mr.
Baring, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it
was determined that they should have a re-survey made
of all th• windows in the kingdOm. The consequence
was this, that a number of persons who had opened their
windows on the faith of this Act of Parliament, sud-
denly found themselves in the arms of a hungry Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.—(Laughter., The very first
person who was attacked was William Cotton, a solici-
tor, who ought to have known the laws of England. It
appeared that Mr. Cotton had, between the years 1834
and 1841, opened a few windows. He stated that he be-
lieved himself to have been duly assessed. The sur-
veyor required that Mr. Cotton should prove that
he was duly assessed, and Mr. Cotton, though
a solicitor, could not do any such thing. The
judges declared he was liable for every window he
had opened under the Act of Parliament. Another case
was that of Mr. Edwards, of Wigan, who was sur-
charged for every window, though he thought he had
been assessed in 1834. In this case there was an aggra-
vating feature ; Mr. Edwards had used, to seal some of
his letters, the device of a thistle, with the motto
" Dinna forget "--(Laughter)—and for using this seal
he was charged I/ Bs. in addition to the sum of Si. which
he had been surcharged on the windows.—(Hear, hear.)
He was charged 2/. Bs. because he sealed his letters with
a pencil-case. It might appear ridiculous to the House,
but it was an instance of great legal oppression. Were
he not afraid of wearying the House, he could adduce
two thousand similar cases. A Mr. Lewis, who had
opened two holes in his warehouse, was declared to be
liable for a window. The case of Mr. Richard Jones was
ofa similar kind, and Professor Scholefield, of Cambridge,
was declared to have been properly surcharged for a
window, because he had opened a hole in his coal-cellar
for shooting the coals through. These cases might
appear trivial and ridiculous ; but there was a strong
feeling on the subject out of doors, which was increasing
every day. The people were determined to be no
longer treated in this ridiculous manner. In
another case, that of Mr. Boone of Frome,
it was declared he had been legally surcharged
although he had stopped up the aperture, be-
cause he had not used any mortar with the stones em-
ployed for that purpose, and the Commissioners said
light was admitted between them. The reason why he
wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer particularly to this point, was that at one time
be seemed to have thought that perforated plates of
zinc placed in walls would not be charged. Many pr.-
ties had applied to Mr. Pressley, the. Chairman of
Stamps and Taxes, on the subject, and he had stated
that they might put up as many plates of zinc as they
liked, but they would be charged for every hole in that
zinc, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had borne
that gentleman out by a letter he had written to some of
these parties. He thought people ought to be allowed
to ventilate their houses.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Cubitt
hal given it as his opinion that darkness in their abodes
was pt., judicial to the norki.:-,g classk s, and Mr.
Bradshaw had stated that the sun's light and
air was necessary to the sustaining of life.