The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-18 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE.

Mr. E WART wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite. Since the penny postage
system had been established, a custom had sprung up of
sending small parcels through the Post-office. Latterly
these parcels hadoiw if
been olpvaesnesdanacttiotnhed the
Post-office.
tt-hoeffi ce.lie
wished Govern-
ment? He wished to call the attention of the Hon.
Gentleman to another subject connected with the Post-
office. If a newspaper, with the sender's name upon it,
were sent from one place to another in the metropolis it
was charged upwards of 3s, but if he sent a newspaper
with his name upon it to the country it went free.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not aware that any such charge as that mentioned
by the Hon. Member existed against any department of
the Post-office ; and it certainly was not the intention
of her Majesty's Government to have issued any orders
to the Post-office authorities to do that of which the
Honourable Member complained ; therefore with re-
gard to the opening of the packet complained of by
the Hon. Member, he presumed there must be some
error. Rut perhaps it would be well to mention, that in
consequence of the abuse of the facilities afforded by the
cheap rate of postage, some orders wt re obliged to be
issued. For instance, such articles as knives and
scissors had frequently been sent ; and upon one
occasion it had been discovered that part of a human
body had been transmitted ton surgeon.--(A laugh.)
In consequence of this, it had become necessary to make
an order prohibiting the transmission of flesh and fish--
(A laugh)—'end such other articles, or of knives or scis-
sors, &c.; but if any other packet had been opened, it
was against the orders ; and, indeed, he had heard of
but one such complaint, and that had bet n ordered to be
investigated.

WINDOW-TAX.
Lord DUNCAN said, that in rising to address
the House upon this subject, he felt no small
degree of embarrassment when lie 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 Home 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-tux ofany 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 Home, 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
cb.
aterde
ttoh e i t p,
au
dl i ct,haend p
ni
tu c
would a
bt tee nst ioeenn would
whether
l
haveor
beennot
the people had just cause of complaint.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") The Hight Honourable Baronet
opposite had said, in his financial statement, 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 a-k why had- these houseS been exempted ? 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,
others were exempted because they were
the offices and stores of wealthy merchants ; and others
again had evaded the tax because the houses were old, and
occupied by poor reople, who filled up the windows.
The Noble Lord then produced letters which he had
received from various persons, complaining that the report
of the Committee on the health of towns had omited to
mention the state in which many houses in large towns were
owing to 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 differeilt Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer had passed 14 different Acts on the subject.
In 1808, Mr Percival, the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, 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 bsen 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 me ans of payment. To show
the inequality in the working of the tax, he would take
vaSari
sirs
Gs.
.oi
n9b
iewrd
ht.
iplc'ehert; lhweii
nn W n
du
oinwb,h( Whitehall-gardens,
being
ifl
ni lvgi lna-g db
oaowrudste
wn3 sin ,8
p7Se2tr:
andiae r hg
theoarn es
tax te'
sotp:
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. 41c1.
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. 11d. per window, or
2 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 3/. per cent. to the rating of the
House under the property -tax, about. 1,320/., whilst
these 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.
[LEFT BPEAKINO.]