Star.
London, England, 1819-05-06 00:00:00

'44 ',:.1.1031E

The Window tax, in consequence of the modification
made on it; had been reduced to a half, and in three
martyrs of a year the reduction in the taxation of.
Ireland had been £450,000. How could-he be jus'
tilled to England awl &Wang if be. Made them pay,
-a tax amounting to two millions .and a half, from
which Ireland had been relieved ? -Three-fourths of
the houses in that country were exempt from the
operation of,the tax, as no house in Ireland under',
seven windows was taxed, whereas in England houses
were taxed under six. The tax was hard on the poor,
residing in large houses ; but the Irish Government
had ordered that,'upon the representation of a medi-
cal man, windows should be opened .without ani
additional tax upon the ;nhabitants, and the owners,
and not the occupants, must bear the expense. The
tax on lodging-houses was a shilling on each window,
and l'hottse of SO windows paid only sos.--whereas
had it been occupied by one family it tcould hire
paid £l4. What could Parliament do more? In all
cases of taxation there was some hardship,. but he
-:oust protest against any further reduction of the
Revenue of Ireland.
Mr. CAIIEIV thought the tax had been intended
to continue only daring the war.
Mr. VEREKEII hoped the House would lend a
favourable ear to the motion.

Sir G. HILL could not vete for the repeal of the
tat consistently with his duty as a-public man. His
constituents were a portion of the inhabitants of Le-
land, ietrticularly entitled to relief if it could ,be if
forded ; but be yeas unable to support their Petition.
He denied that any pledge bad been given by Mr.
Corry' when he proposed tee tax : but, admitting it
had been given, it was done away by the new war..
The people of Ireland were not entitled to an exemp-
tion from a tax that was to be continued to England
and Scotland. especially as the assessed taxes were
much less in Ireland than in Great Britain. No far-
mer in Ireland complained of the tax, and the whole of
the agricultural class was relieved from its operation.
Mr. COCKS contended this tax was for a limited
time. The continuance of the tax would continue the
slovenly habits of tee people.
Mr. PLUNNETT made no doubt that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was compelled, by his sense
of public cline, to oppose the motion. If the pledge
of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
binding, then no pledge whatever by a public man
could be so. 'From the face of the Statute Book, the
tax was evidently a war tax, and that only, as it had
been imposed in order to keep up a military force at
50,000 men. Istland was actually in a state of Bank-
ruptcy, with respect to her taxes, as she had been
made to go on at a tate of contribution to which her
resources were unequal. The tax was one upon civi-
lisation, and was calculated to keep the people in a
state of barbarism. It was most unequal, and coast.
euently unjust, as Dublin alone paid more than one-
fourth part of the tax. That city suffered much from
the Union ; as at that period on. hehdred noble fami-
lies resided there, and at present not one. The eat
was diminishing daily, and there had been a gradual
tailing of for the three last yeart. It was not fair in
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call upon the op-
posers of the tax to propose a substitute. That was
the Any of the Minister of Finance, which, If he
could hot discharge, (he said so with perfect respect)
he esoghe to resign his office.
Mr.C. GRANT defended the Tax. No pledge had
been given that the Tax ins to continue only during
the war. Had such a pledge been given, the ques-
tion would have been decided at once. The whole
ef the revenues of Ireland were, by the Act of Union,
pledged to the public creditor. In the year 1803,
*te.Cleancellor of the Exchequer, who had originally
almond the Tax in the Parliament of Ireland, moved
for its renewal in the Imperial Parliament. He then
denied that any pledge had been given, and what
was still more, PaOiameet wits of the same opinion.
Had be the renege; he would relieve Ireland from a
great part of her Taxes; but he could not appeal to
Parliament to grant that indulgence to Ireland, that
could not be extended to England and Scotland.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT contended, that since the
union of the two countries, Ireland had been made
• to contribute more to the exigencies of the State than
the condition of die.country allowed. From the year
1808 to 1817,"the actual increase of revenue, instead
of three millions and a half, had been only. £50,000.
Lunt CASTLEREAGH could not support the
motion. In the last year there had been a reduction at
an average of S per cent. and at present the claim
was not for any Modification, but a claim of right.
Let them always tell Ireland, that, though she might
• hive been disposed to fight the battles ofthe Empire,
yet, in the mutual arrangement of the Treasuries of
the two countries, Ireland had been relieved from her
own internal expenses, in a great measure, which she
would have had in other circumstances to have borne
herself. Ireland never raised a farthing of Property
Tax during the war, while England and Scotland
raised 200 millions. He was as little disposed many
UM to depreciate the honour or capability of his
country, or to place her lower in the scale than Scot-.
land, yet the latter country did, during the war,
bear a Property Tax; and was now enduring a Win-
dow Tax at a higher rate than was imposed upon
Ireland. He was convinced that this Tax was not
severely felt in Ireland, unless it might be in the
City of-Dublin.
Mr. WILBERFORCE said, that we had a long
artear of crimes against fielane., whilst' should in-
duce us now to ackeowledge her as our sister coun-
try, and io shew that we were disposed to treat het
with kindness. Still he considered the present ques-
tion as untenable, especially in the present state Of
Our own country.
Mr. C HUTCHINSON' did not think that the
pledge had been redeemed, which was made to Ire-
land, that this tax should be purely a war tax. He
denied that Ireland had been benefited by her union
yeith this country; but rather that every year since
that diabolic,: measure took place, Ireland had been
deteriorated adore and more. The Noble Viscount
;night read a lecture to the Irish Members whom he
bast brought here as Representatives of that country,
wider promises which had never been fulfilled. He
could assure the House that there was but one GO
eioss in Ireland as to that tax, that it prodneed dembe
ehtine exchision Or light. Tee people would be most
auktill to tile Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he
would devive some.cher tax in lieu of this.
Mr, MARTIN (of Galway) said, that he should
Tote against the tax; bathe must sae, 31ts the long

,
L 1

. •--