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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 19 1845.

Dr. Southwood Smith had stated it as his opinion that
dirt and darkness planted the seeds of crime. And
should they in that House, the representatives of the
English people, suffer such a state of things to exist for
a longer period ? They, the representatives of the most
useful and the most enlightened people on the face of the
globe, would they forget what it was that depressed the
many• spirit of the working classes of England ? That
people enabled the Government to wage a great com-
mercial war with all parts of the globe, for in this hos-
tile tariff England maintained her wonted spirit. France
might borrow their machinery, she might borrow their
capital, but in order to' compete with them she must
also borrow the manly spirit of their workmen.--(Hear,
hear.) Would they, the representatives of that people,
retain a tax of 9s. 4d. and of 9s. 10. upon every aper-
ture that gave ventilation to their dwellings. He ap-
pealed to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government—he appealed to him in behalf of the work-
ing classes of the town he reprepresented—he besought
him not to be indifferent to their health and to their
comfort. He appealed to the Right Honourable
Gentleman who had issued the Sanat( ry Commission
to attend to the report of that Commission. He had
granted a charter to a society for the purpose of im-
proving the dwellings of the working classes in this me-
tropolis. Let him carry that principle yet a little fur-
ther. He appealed also to the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to tell
the people of England by a sort of side-wind to ventilate
their dwellings. All he wished of him was to grant a
Committee to inquire why it was, that the houses in
England which had less than twenty windows, paid
836,0001. out of the one million and a half of which the
window duty consisted ? Why it was, that the houses
which had less that forty windows paid 1,340,0001, leaving
the insignificant sum of 250,0001. as the amount paid by
the houses which had more than that number ? He
knew that a million and a half was a large sam, and he
only asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to consent to an
inquiry whether there might not be some less vexatious
mode of collecting this tax. The people of England had
never shrunk from paying necessary taxes; but they
desired to see every man paying taxes in proportion to
his means. In conclusion, he begged to assure
the Right Honourable Gentleman that this tax, in
its present shape, would never be paid willingly
by the constituents whom he had the honour
to represent, while they saw so many towns which had
trebled their wealth and doubled their population, pay-
ing in a much less proportion. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving a Select Committee, to inquire into
the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting
the window duties in Great Britain, and to report their
opinion thereupon to the House.
Captain RODS said, in rising to second the motion,
he could assure the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord
of the Treasury that he had no wish to embarrass her
Majesty's Government in their plans with respect to the
financial condition of the country. He was aware that
a tax of 1,700,000/. could not very easily be remitted ;
but at the same time, when so many thousand artisans
in the, metropolis and the large towns of the country
were suffering from this cause, he thought it was the
bounden duty of their representatives to make known
their grievances, in order that, if possible, they might
be redressed. And he had the satisfaction of thinking
that when he appealed to his Right Hon. Friend, he
appealed to a statesman whose public life was
a guarantee that he should not plead in vain
provided a case were made out. This tax
was imposed by Mr. Pitt as a war-tax, w ith
the assurance that it would not be continued in a time
of peace. From the year 1815, up to the present
time, almost every Chancellor of the Exchequer had
promised to revise this tax, and the only revision that
had taken place was—a revision with a vengeance, for it
was an addition of ten per cent. imposed by the late Ad-
ministration. This tax was peculiarly oppressive to
persons residing in the lower parts of Westminster.
It appeared, that holes made for admitting light into
cellars and dark staircases, were taxed as windows, and
those persons who had but six or seven windows be-
came rated to the tax, although the Act of Parliament
never contemplated that they should be subjected to it.
The parish of St. Anne's was formerly the place of the
residences of the aristocracy, but now no person of in-
dependent means lived there. In that parish the tax
was most oppressive. In that parish the tax was 161
per cent. upon the rental, while in Regent-street, and
the neighbourhood of the Reform Club, it was not more
than '2l per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was a painful and disagreeable task to have to defend
taxes which Hon. Gentlemen might consider odious and
oppressive. It was impossible to deny that any tax,
however wisely conceived, or however ably car-
ried into effect, was necessarily in itself an evil.
Those feelings were necessarily stronger in cases of
direct taxation when, in addition to the evil and incon-
venience produced by the operation of the tax itself,
there was the irritating circumstance of an open and
direct demand for money from the person who was called
upon to pay it. And therefore he felt that, in stating to
the House the reasons why lie declined acceding to the
proposition of the Noble Lord, he must request the House
to consider that taxes were in themselves evils, but they
were necessary evils. The House should not suffer itself'
to be carried away by every mere detail of the hardship
arising from one particular case, but ought to consider
the general necessities of the country, and that it was
requisite that a certain amount should be raised for the
maintenance of the public revenue. The Noble Lord
opposite had detailed to them many evils resulting from
the operation of this particular tax. He did not doubt
but there were cases in which the tax subjected the
payer to considerable inconvenience ; and other cases in
which the law was not understood, and hardships sus-
tained, the infliction of which was never contemplated
by the Legislature. He could only say the Government
was most willing to interpose and prevent the recurrence
of these evils. When inconveniences and oppressions
were stated to the House, it did not, follow that these
statements were not either untrue or exaggerated ; for
although he would by no means impeach the veracity of
the Noble Mover, or the llon. and Gallant Officer who
seconded him, still he thought they might have been mis-
led by erroneous information. In consequence of what
had passed on a former occasion, he had felt it his duty
to inquire into some statements made regarding parti-
cular houses in Bath, to which the Noble Lord
had adverted. The Noble Lord then said that in

the house, 10, Galway -street, Bath, twenty win-
dows had been shut up recently, in consequence of
this tax, and that a large number of windows had been
shut up in the adjoining houses from the same cause.
That statement was not correct. In 1843 the window-

tax was assessed on a person, named Fisher, for thirty-
four windows, and in 1814 the tax was assessed on the
same house, on a person named Fisher, for thirty-
five windows, showing an increase rather than a diminu-
tion. With respect to No. 9, he had ascertained that there
were reasons why the windows should be stopped, be-
side the inconvenience of paying the window-tax, for he
believed it was pretty well ascertained that No. 9 was a
house of all fame. In other cases to which the Noble
Lord had referred, he felt compelled to refer to the state-
ment of a Noble Lord, his predecessor in the office
which he had the ho: our to fill, and he would follow
that Noble Lord in the as, c rtion that those houses,
which were unfurnished and unoccupied, and which
were only opened for the sake of ventilation, were not
liable to taxation. The character of that Noble Lord
was too well established to suppose that he was at all
likely to commit a breach of faith.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not wish to impute to the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London, or to his Honourable
Friend near him, any error in the statement which
those Gentlemen had made. The Noble Lord his
predecessor had stated, in 1834, that it was not the inten-
tion of Government to prevent any person from enjoying
the benefit of additional windows in their houses, if they
opened an additional window beyond the number at which
they were assessed. In 1834, when the proposition was
made to impose the assessed taxes for five years, there
was this express reservation, that the window-tax should
be levied according to the previous assessment, and per-
sons who were desirous of entering into a composition
of five per cent., were enabled, by the act of 1834, to do so on
the whole amount of their assessment. But the Noble Lord
asked, " Why put additional taxes on houses once rated to the
occupier at a certain number of windows, when new windows
should have been made in them ? " Why, surely, it was never
intended that those occupiers should have a perpetuity of those
houses if they should improve them by additional windows.—
( Hear, hear.) If that were so, it would be a manifest injus-
tice to others who should build new houses.—( Hear, bear. )
With respect to the motion of the Noble Lord, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) could not feel it would be consistent
in him to consent to this Committee, for he knew what the
feeling was with respect to those Committees ; it was, in fact,
nothing more nor less than to call upon the House to ex-
press an opinion, to the effect that the window-tax should be
removed. This tax amounted to a million and a half—and he
would ask, was the Noble Lord in a position to state what he
proposed to substitute for it? or to say it could be removed
without a substitute in the present state of the finances of the
country ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Montrose,
however, intended to suggest that it should be left for the con-
sideration of the Committee, whether it would not be better
that a house-tax should be substituted for the window-tax.
Now the House had already had this question before them ; and
the House, ten years ago, having before them the two taxes,
did, upon deliberate consideration, determine that the house-
tax should be abolished, and the window-tax preserved. Whe-
ther right or wrong, was foreign to the present question to de-
termine that; if they were to raise a million and a half upon a
tax derived from windows, it was not desirable to encourage an
opinion that they were about to make a change in the mode in
which they at present levied it. The Noble Lord had stated
that the number of houses was 4,000,000, but that only 450,000
of them were subject to the tax. The residences of
the labouring classes, and buildings used for manufac-
turing or agricultural purposes, were mostly exempted.
In fact, the tax in its present state was placed only upon one-
eleventh of the whole number of house-occupiers in the coun-
try. When, however, the house tax was in force, it operated
upon one-seventh of the house-occupiers of the country. If
they substituted one tax for the other, it would naturally bring
under assessment a large body of persons—he believed no less
than 270,000 in number, who at the present time were subject
to the income-tax. He should be surprised if the remission
of one-half of the window-tax on these houses occasioned any
reduction of the rent to the tenants. That rent did not so much
depend on the taxes on these particular houses as on the demand
for them for dwellings of the poor. Labouring men, rather
than reside at a distance from their employment, and encounter
the toil of walking to and from it at the beginning and end of
their work, would pay an enhanced rent for a dwelling in the
neighbourhood of their avocations. He did not see any par-
ticular advantage to be gained by going into this Committee.
He fully admitted to the Noble Lord it was the duty of the
Government to inquire into these branches of taxation, and to
see whether the abuses in them could not be remedied.
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But to grant a Committee on
this subject would only excite expectations that could not be
realised, and would lead people to believe that the window-duty
was about to be abolished, without any other tax being im-
posed instead of it. He therefore felt bound to resist the in-
quiry moved for by the Noble Lord. It had been said, that
the tax prevented healthy ventilation ; but he believed what
the poor man most looked for in his dwelling was warmth. He
was sure, if the Noble Lord entered into the dwellings of the
poor, he would see so far from their being anxious to allow the
airinto their dwellings, there was not a single hole that was
not filled up for the purpose of securing warmth, and what they
considered comfort. As to the window-tax being the cause of
ill health, he was not prepared to admit it, and there was not a

single line in the report that had been alluded to that bore
out such a supposition, but it was to be inferred from it that ill-
health was attributable to the state of the sewers, and the way
in which houses were built. He admitted, that if by the re-
moval of the taz, health could be secured, it would
be desirable that there should be some alteration
in it. He tre-tt d that the House would not take
upon itself that which was the duty of the Executive, and go
into a Committee for the purpose of discussing the removal of
a tax which they could not effect. To repeal the window-tax
tnder the present circumstances of the country would be im-
possible; and although, therefore, he admitted that it was the
duty of Government to take the subject into their own consi-
deration, he must resist the motion for a Committee to inquire
into the subject. —( Hear.)
Captain ROUS explained.
Captain PECHELL said a mere convincing speech than
that of the Noble Lord who introduced this motion he hard
never heard, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
wholly abstained from grappling with the arguments
whieh that speech contained.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
He would just show the House the number of cases of appeal
against the window duty since the imposition of the additional
ten per cent. in 1839—0 r rather, the number of cases that
had been decided by the judges, for it was impossible to as-
certain the number of eases of appeal. In England and
Wales, the number of cases with respect to the window-tax
decided by the judges was 506. In Scotland the number was
211,3, making together, 738. In one case in Wales, the decision
was made to apply to forty-seven others, so that it was really
impossible to know even the number of cases decided by the
judges. He thought this was sufficient ground for a Com-
mittee of inquiry. From 1831 to 1844, out of 1,138 cases of
appeals from the decisions of the Commissioners regarding
assessed taxes, 412 related to window- du'y. In Bath and
Bristol there was a considerable falling off in the number of
windows, which must either result from cheating the Chancellor
of the Exch quer, or from a decline in the condition of the
inhabitants. And the very same thing might be said of the
condition of most of the principal towns in England,
—Liverpool, Leeds, and Hull among the number.
( Bear, hear.) In Scotland, lodging-houses were charged
with window duty, and the landlord was obliged to pay
it, as in the case of Mr. Dunlop, of Ayr, quoted in the Blue-
book, who was brought under the 48th of George HI.-444,183
persons were assessed with window duty in 1843, and the
increased charges of this description over the preceding year
was 7,087. Several appeals had been made from the decisions
of the Commissioners, but, in most cases, these appeals were
wholly unsuccessful. Two hundred and sixteen persons had
been imprisoned last year for assessed taxes, some of them for
an amount of tax not exceeding 4s. 4d. Many of those persons
were imprisoned fifteen months for this small sum, which was
still worse than the game-laws ; while the imprisonment could
not exceed three months, unless he was punished under the
Stamp Act. In nine eases out of ten he thought houses were
not fairly assessed. He called upon the " farmers' friends "
to support the motion. In one case a farmer was taxed for the
window of an out-house, because his wife washed her clothes in
it. In 1844 a farmer was charged for a window in his dairy,
because he now and then used it as a larder. Another farmer,
whose rent and tithe and land-tax amounted to barely 2001.,
was taxed under this Act ; and there was a further instance of
a farmer being charged for a servant because a boy was
found cleaning his master's boots. This tax could no longer
be continued—the writing was upon the wall, and it must
share the fate of those odious burdens which were now on the
verge of abolition.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER would not take any part
in the debate, but that he represented a large constituency,
who felt strongly on the subject. The Noble Lord had
made out a strong case, and one which deserved the
fullest consideration,' and he showed that the poorer classes
were oppressed by it. He had got a few figures from a source
which might be relied on, and which he would read to the
House. In Budd-street, Marylebone, a house with fifteen
windows paid 4s. Bd. a window, being ten per cent. upon the
rental. In Henrietta-street, a house with eighteen windows
paid ss. 3d. a window, being ten and a half per cent. upon the
rental. In Bulstrode-mews a house paid ten and three-
eighths per cent. upon the rental, whilst the mansion of the
Duke of Newcastle, which had sixty-two windows, paid only
two and seven-eighths per cent, upon the rental, and that of
Hertford House, rented at 2,0001. a year, paid only one and
a half per cent. on the rental. The buildings which were most
affected by this tax were precisely those which he thought
ought to be most especially exempted from it. He would
take the case of the window-tax as applied to small
dwellings, and he found that houses with less than eight win-
dows were free from this tax, but if they had more windows,
if the occupiers were desirous of increasing the comfort of
their habitations by the admission of more light and air, and
were to add another window to their houses, they must do this
at an expense of 16s. 6d. per annum. The opinions of Dr.
Arnott, Dr. Guy, and Mr. Dolby, had all been most explicitly
given in favour of some measure by which the healthiness of
the habitations of the poor might be increased. The want of
those necessaries of life, as he might call them, created an im-
mense mass of disease and suffering, and he should think that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would conceive that this was
a point far above any fiscal considerations. Those able scientific
men had stated that the habitations of the poor were
particularly unhealthy from the crevices which ad-
mitted both the cold and rain. These were
inconveniences which care might remedy, but what was to be
done in the time of summer, when the necessity for air and
light was largely increased, and still more, when sickness over-
took them, when that worst of all calamities for the poor,
broken health, rendered their close and confined dwellings still
more insalubrious, when it was absolutely necessary that free
air should pass as freely through their dwellings as it did in the
open air. He was anxious to provide for futurity, and he did
not understand how the subject could be lightly or heedlessly
left.
Mr. E. ELLICE said that he felt the serious grievances to
which the poor were exposed, but one of the cases which he
particularly wished to bring under the notice of the House was
that of the hand-loom linen-weavers of Scotland. Most of
these individuals occupied houses which had eight windows,
if not less. At the end of their dwelling-houses they had a
room or shop, which, like their dwelling-houses, were exempt
from duty. These shops were almost always on the ground-
floor, and had a communication with their dwelling-houses. In
order to render these shops or warehouses snore convenient,
they had generally made in them a communication with the
highway ; but the dust from the road and other inconveniences
of a similar kind almost obliged them to destroy their com-
munication with the dwelling- houses ; but this alteration had
the effect of bringing them under the tax. It was necessary
for this business, which required much light, that there should
he a window for every loom; and he trusted therefore that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this case, and
grant a remission of this tax to men whose whole livelihood
depended on the light of their dwelling-houses. He had ven-
tured to say these few words, because he felt that the subject
was one of importance, and that it affected a class who were
little able to help themselves.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that he was sorry to see the inattention
with which the House treated this question. To him it appeared
most important, and he f lt that a debt of gratitude was due to
the Hon. Gentleman for bringing 'this subject forward. To
him, it appeared, it had been brought forward at a most oppor-
tune period. The time, indeed, was particularly fitting. The
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was in-
troducing a change in the system of taxation. He was quite
aware that there must be a certain amount of taxation raised,
and the Right Hon. Baronet appeared to be desirous of impel-
ling those great sources of national wealth, which the manufac-
turers of the country provided. Yet, though he was aware
that this amount must be raised, yet he thought the less it was
the better. The question mooted by the Noble Lord had
elicited information which had shown the oppressive
and unequal nature of this tax. In the admirable design which
the Right Hon. Baronet had brought before the House for
relieving the trade of the country from many heavy fiscal regu-
lations, there was much for which gratitude was due. But he
hoped in those alterations that it would not be forgotten, that
it was in the purity of the air in his dwelling-place, and upon
the consequent state of his health, that the working man de•
pended. He (Mr. Hume) had been instrumental in removing
one part of the tax, and he should be glad if the present dis-
cussion led to any arrangement whereby the poor man's small
means were saved from still further reduction. He trusted the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
would take this matter into account when he brought
forward his measure for the health of towns, which was
founded upon the report of the gentlemen commissioned to
make that inquiry. It appeared from that inquiry that, in
many cases, according to the evidence of medical men, that
many families lived together in one apartment on the ground-
floor. The consequence was that, in the contaminated air
which they were obliged to inhale after they went to bed, they
rose in the morning weaker rather than stronger, and with the
aspects of ghosts. There was no opportunity fur recreation—
no chance of an alleviation of toil, and he was therefore asto-
nished at the quietude and patience and contentment with
which these evils were borne. He thought that the Noble Lord
had introduced this question at a most opportune period, and he
trusted that her Majesty's Government would be willing to
grant the inquiry which he requested. 1 here was every evi-
dence of the necessity for the inquiry. They already possessed
large information, and there were others ready to give informa-
tion if the House required it. They had the evidence of Dr.
Arnott, Dr. Guy, and Mr. Dolby, and by this it ap-
peared that the artizans of England were pallid,
feeble and emaciated beings, hardly worthy of the name of
Englishmen. He, therefore, thought that this inquiry, which
largely affected all the inhabitants of towns, but especially those
termed artizans, was of singular importance. It was necessary
for them not only for the sake of enjoyment, but also for health,
that they should have as much light and air in their dwelling-
places as possible. Money would go a long way, but even money
would not provide for the poor man those enjoyments which
were absolutely necessary. He (Mr. Hume) had, during the
last ten or twelve years, endeavoured annually to rid the
country of this unfair and iniquitous tax. He was quite satis-
fied that in the alterations which were anticipated by the Right
Hon. Baronet at the bead of the Government, it would be but
a wise portion of his plan to remove the imposts from those
articles which were of the least value, and to provide the peo-
ple with food and clothing. He was willing to give instances
of the unequal nature of this tax. In his own parish, Mary-
lebone, there was one house with 'thirty-five windows, in
Poland-street, on the rent of which the window-tax amounted
to 16i per cent. There was another house in Regent-street,
on which the window-tax amounted only to 11 per cent., and
on the Reform and Carlton Club-houses. he believed the per
centage was much lower than this. There was a house in
Cross-street, the rental of which was 45/. a-year, and the
window-tax upon it amounted to 101. 6s. 9d.—a per centage
which was so glaringly unjust, that it alone was a sufficient evi-
dence of the oppressive and unequal nature of the
tax. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment had a complete apparatus for the alteration of indirect
taxation, and he thought that a good opportunity was offered
for the remission of this tax.. He had had a quarrel with the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had earnestly striven
for the removal of this tax; but that Right Hon. Gentleman
had had no money to spare. He had expended all the surplus
i
cash in Syria—he had thrown it away n Syria on shots and
shells, so that perhaps there was good reason for his deprecating
the removal of the window-tax. By the session paper
No. 102, dated the 7th of Alasch, it appeared
that the whole amount of rental on which the tax was levied
amounted in England to 35,500,000/., and in Scotland to
3,000,0001., making a total of 38,500,000/. ; on which there
was raised a duty of 1,950,000/. Last year lie believed it pro-
duced 1,600,000/., and this year it was estimated at 1,700,000/.
And he thought that if the Right Hon. Gentleman would remit
this duty, and impose a tax on property to the amount of 10d.
in the pound, which was equal to above 4 per cent., it would
sed so much to rejoice.
duty, but also prevent any
notdefi onlyiien abcyenintlie ,esu him to remitrplus mwhich
htichis
hheseemed
By this tax a premium was offered to builders to construct
houses with as little means of comfort and health as possible. Im-
munity from taxation was to be the reward of their ability.
Now the whole of that evidence went to show, and he begged
the Right Hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind, that light and
air produced the most beneficial effects upon the humble
classes, and it was, therefore, a matter of the first importance
that both should be liberally supplied to them. They were
now living in a time of change, and this alteration of the
window-tax would be a change of the most important character.
It would produce a most salutary effect on the health of mil-
lions—an effect which he (Mr. Hume) believed the remission
, of no other tax would bestow. The continuance of this tax
was opposed to all the pledges of the late Government. He
(Mr. Hume) remembered, and the late Chancellor of
1 the Exchequer might also remember, Lord Althorp
stating in that House that he was as sensible as any man of the
1 uneqtral pressure of this tax, and he conceived that it was the
intention of Government to considerably amend it. He did
not blame the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for breaking
these pledges, but he did certainly blame his Right Hon.

Friend near him (Mr. Baring).—( Hear, hear.) Chancellors
of the Exchequer were all hard-hearted.—(Laughter.) It was
but an effect of the system that they should be so.—( Con-
tinued laughter.) They had plenty to do with their money,
and therefore he (Mr. Hume) would make every allowance for
them. He would read the House an extract from a suggestion
made by himself to Lord Althorp in reference to this very
circumstance. He then hoped that there was no occasion to
remind the Noble Lot d the Chancellor of the Exchequer of
the pledge which he had given some time ago to do away with
that duty, and he suggested the propriety, at least,
of allowing every man who had paid the window-tax for one
year to open additional windows, without any increased duty,
and that of itself he considered would be a very great relief.
On the 30th of July, 1834, certain clauses were brought up
upon the subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thou
said that his (Mr. Hume's) recommendation would occasion
no loss to 'the revenue, as its only effect would be to prevent
an increase in the houses already taxed. Agreeably to that
pledge the clauses were introduced into the Bill. NI, hat was
the consequence? Why this, that those who bad shut np their
windows to the utter exclusion of fresh air, as soon as they un-
derstood that although the tax should be continued, yet that
those who had paid the tax for one year might be allowed to
open additional windows without an increased expense, they
did so, and allowed fresh air to be admitted throughout
their houses. A few years afterwards, however, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer considered it to be his duty to re-assess all
those houses. And what was then the consequence? The
tax, which had beers 1,200,0001., was raised to 1,700,0011. The
windows were again shut up, and many houses were altogether
closed, and the tax again fell in consequence of that pre-sure.
On those grounds he thought this one of those taxes which
called for immediate correction by the House ; and he thought
that if any plan were submitted to the House for a more equal
exaction of this tax, that plan ought to be a general
and an equal charge upon the rental of the houses.
He would not have an opportunity of making an amend-
ment if the Government refused an inquiry, but he
hoped that his Noble Friend would receive some assurance
from the Right Hon. Baronet that this subject would be
taken under the immediate consideration of the Government
with the view of modifying the tax.
Mr. BARING said he should be obliged to trouble the
House with a few observations, in consequence of the remarks
and the imputations of the Hon. Member for Montrose, in re-
ference to himself, and to the office which he had the honour
of holding under the late Government. The Hon. Member
had admitted that that office was a most difficult one,
but he should not accept of that admission. His
notion of the duty of a public servant was this—to
conform to the Acts which had been passed by that House;
but he did not think that any course of getting money would
be satisfactory to the Government or to the -country, if the
pledges of the Government were violated by it. In this case,
he denied that the Government had pledged itself in the man-
ner stated by the Non. Member for Montrose. The House
had heard the Hon. Member read his own speech to Lord
Althorp, but they had not heard the answer which Lord Al-
thorp had returned to him. He (Mr. Baring) perfectly re-
collected the Hon. Member bringing the question before the
House, but he did not remember, and he would not say, that
the Noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had concurred in those pro-
positions --
Mr. HUME—Read the 30th of July.
Mr. BARING was perfectly aware that the Noble Lord's
intentions were fully carried out by those appointed to do so.
The Hon. Member for Montrose seemed to think that the No-
ble Lord had been deceived by the officers of the Stamps and
Taxes ; but no one was less likely to be deceived than the Noble
Lord. The lion. Member for Montrose had also said that he
(Mr. Baring), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had wanted
money, and had acted upon the instructions in the clauses of
the Bill in a manner never acted on before. That was not the
case—that clause was acted on in the same way in 1835 and in
1841. He admitted, indeed, that an additional survey—
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) What was the construc-
tion put upon those clauses by the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose himself? His construction was this—that by the clause
a right was given to open windows without any additional tax.
But supposing that parties had opened windows under these
clauses, and supposing these parties had never originally
returned the proper number of windows—supposing that their
houses had twenty windows and they had only returned fifteen,
how would the construction put upon the clauses by the Hon.
Member for Montrore act upon that case ? Were they to open
any more windows—were they to cheat the revenue—he would
not call it cheat—he would say evade the proper payment of
the tax ; and was it to be said that proper measures should not
be taken to enforce the proper amount which they ought to pay
to the revenue? He was sure that that reading of the Act
had never been contemplated by the Noble Lord. The Noble
Lord had never had any intentions like those constantly re-
ferred to by the Hon. Member for Montrose. It was stated
thatin 1840 he (Mr. Baring) was anxious for an increased tax,
and that he had caused a survey for that purpose. That was
perfectly correct. He found that it would be necessary to
increase the amount of the window-tax ; but he thought it was
his duty, in the first instance, to see that all parties paid the tax
fairly, before he should levy any additional duty upon other
parties, and for that purpose he had caused the survey to be
proceeded with. Bet his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon-
trose was mistaken in supposing that the survey had then been
made for the first time. The survey had been going on long
before. He (Mr. Baring) had been informed that whole streets
evaded the payment of the tax, and he did not see that parties
living in those streets should be exempt—especially when they
were going to make an additional charge upon other parties.
With regard to the grievances of the tax, they all knew per-
fectly well that there was no tax existing which had not its
grievances. The Hon. Member referred to particular cases of
grievances, but it was impossible for him to answer individual
cases, brought forward by Hon Members. They had heard of
the advantages 'of direct over indirect taxation, and yet, as in
this case, the Hon. Member for Montrose was the very first to
complain of the unequal pressure of direct taxation.
Mr. HUME—Not if you tax the rental.
Mr. BARING—Oh, the Hon. Member said " tax the
rental." He happened
.to know that the tHon. Member for
Montrose had complained in no set terms of the injustice of
the houseatax. He had known some of the largest houses in
England which were taxed scarcely anything; and it was
equally well known that many gentlemen's seats did not pay so
much to the tax as the village inn beside them. He did not
say there was injustice ir, this, but he must admit that this fact
had produced an impression on the public mind which the
Hon. Member for Montrose was not slow to take advantage
of.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume, and laughter.) That
House considered it so unfair that it was done away with in
preference to the window-tax. If, however. that house-tax
were again enforced and the window-tax abolished every oue
who knew anything of the circumstances must know that the
poorer classes would pay more in that case than they did at
present. With regard to the Committee on this question he
did not think it would be of that utility which the Noble Lord
supposed it would, and if, as he thought, the Noble
Lord's intention was to take the sense of the House
upon the propriety of repealing the tax altogether
he (Mr. Baring) for one would not, in the present
state of the revenue, be prepared to assist him. If they went
into Committee on this subject, it would be but a waste of the
public time, and would lead to no useful result. But if the
Government instead were to consult their officers, with the
view of mitigating the grievances of this tax, he thought it
would be the preferable plan. Under those circumstances he
could not think of voting with the Noble Lord.
Mr. WAKLEY rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide."
The Hon. Member, after the lapse of a few minutes, obtained
a hearing. He wished to know if the tax was abandoned by
the Government ?—(Laughter. ) The late Chancellor of the
Exchequer had certainly made one of the most lame defences
which he (Mr. Wakley) had ever heard in that House. This
tax was universally condemned. Everybody said it was
a most unequal one, and pressed heavily upon the
lower classes of society. ( Hear, hear, and cheers. )
It was admitted by all that the tax was injurious to health, and
pregnant with mischief. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had told the House that there was no hope of getting rid of it
at present ; and from all the admissions of the Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, he was induced to hope that the remission
of this tax would be comprehended in their next scheme.—
( Hear, and a laugh.) He would recommend it to the electors
in the meanwhile to bestir themselves—he would recommend
them to form an " Anti-Window-tax Association"—( Hear,
and a laugh)—for there was no tax which operated more inju-
riously upon the health and morals of the people. It was the
parent of disease and vice.—( Cheers.) He himself had recently
a case in the parish of Marylebone. In a large house he had
to ascend to the highest story, where there was no window at
all. He found there a human being without any covering
lying upon the floor. It was the body of a female, 78 years of
age, and, as he was informed, the widow of a captain
in the Royal Navy.—( Hear, hear.) She could not
have been allowed to die in that state of utter destitution, if
her neighbours were acquainted with her situation. He be-
lieved that the want of light in the upper part of the house
was one of the causes of her remaining alone, and not inquired
after. If the Noble Lord persevered in dividing the House
he (Mr. Wakley) would vote with him. But he would
prefer that the Government would hold out some hopes of the
remission of the tax.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that before he went into a consideration
of the window-tat he should state, that the Government had
taken a careful and comprehensive review of all the taxation
of the country before they submitted their financial measures
to the House, and that the window-tax had not been left out of
their review.—(Hear, hear.) They thought that the taxes
which they had repealed were those the remission of which
would be most advantageous to the country. He admitted
that there were inequalities and inconveniences in the appli-
cation of the window-tax ; but all the arguments for its repeal
might just as forcibly be alleged in favour of a remission of
the soap-tax.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think it his duty,
in answer to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to give a specific
pledge for the repeal of this tax or of that—( Hear)—at the same
time, he did not deny the great inconvenience of the window-
tax—( Hear.) It had been recommended by the Hon. Member
for Montrose, in the course of this debate, that there should be
an assessment of tenpence in the pound upon all houses in the
United Kingdom. But the Hon. Member overlooked that the
return which he made the basis of his calculation included
every cottage of the value of 21. per annum.—( Hear.) There
were other burdens on the people quite as onerous and as objec-
tionable as the window-tax ; and it would be the business of
the Government to consider how these and other burdens
could be relieved.—( Hear hear.) He gave the Noble Lord
(Lord Duncan) credit for the manner in which he had pro-
posed his motion, but he hoped the Noble Lord would not press
it to a division,
Mr. HAWES said that if he thought the motion of the
Noble Lord implied a pledge of the House for the repeal of the
window-tax, he would not vote for it. As it was, however,
only for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the tax,
he would vote for it.
Colonel SIBTHORP could look upon the motion only as
one for the repeal of the window-tax.—( Hear, and laughter. )
He had heard with astonishment and regret the statement of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he thought the Hon.
Gentleman ought, in his official capacity, to follow up the in-
quiry further.—(Hear.) There had been a great deal of con-
descension upon the part of the Government as to the remis-
sion of duties upon cinnamon and copaiba—(Laughter)—but
nothing for the remission of duties affecting the comforts of
the people.—( Hear, and laughter.) He would not vote for
the motion, because he thought it would be of no use.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said, that on the ground which Mi-
nisters had stated he would not vote for the motion, for he did
not think that anything could be got by inquiry.—(Hear.)
His constituents wanted no inquiry. They had already had
sufficient experience in that way; and when he heard that
this motion had a tendency to prevent the repeal of the tax,
it was an additional reason for his voting against it.
Mr. B. WILLIAMS thought a sufficient case would be
made out to justify the repeal of the tax if a Committee were
granted.
Lord DUNCAN then replied. The Right Hon. Gentleman
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to tell
him that ho represented a pauper constituency. Now,
he was not aware that either Plymouth or Portsmouth was
in a state of pauperism; but the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement was an argument in favour of his motion. If his
constituents were paupers, why did the House subject them to
this tax ?—( Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .. ...... 47
Against it
Majority against the motion —46
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. HOPE was requesting Mr. Mackinnon, whose motion
stood next or, the paper, to withdraw it, because. it was of im-
portance that no delay should take place removing the
imputation which had been thrown upon his Noble Friend,
the Secretary of the Colonies.
Dlr. DIACKINNON would accede to this appeal, if those

Hon. Members who had motions on the paper before him
would do so too. In the first place, the Hon. Member for
Bolton had a motion relating to Colonial Accounts.
Dr. BOWRING informed the Hon. Member that he had
po:tponed his motion for a fortnight.
Mr. MACKINNON said, the Hon. Member for Li-keard
had also a motion before him. Would the Hon. Member
consent to withdraw it ?

Mr. C. BULLER replied in the affirmative.
Mr. 111ACKINNON under those circumstances begced, to Easter
recess. his motion till the first Tuesday after the aster
recess.