Mr. Hobhouserose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax. He began by stating, what he thought was clear to the whole country, that notwithstanding the general approbation of the House and the people, of the measures of his majesty's ministers, considerable dissatisfaction was evinced that greater relief had not been afforded from direct taxation. After the immense exertions they had made—after the unparalleled weight of taxes they had borne, and had borne patiently—they certainly had a claim to relief, which had not been extended so widely as it could and ought to have been. The speech of the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of taxation, was equally memorable for the talent it displayed and the disappointment it had created. The House had been told of the " giant smuggler," whom, it was said, the right hon. gentleman could not lay, if he was called upon to make any further reduction. Reference had frequently been made to Ireland, and to the taxes imposed upon her; and yet the window-tax had been removed from that country, though it was continued in this, and that relief had been afforded by a ministry less willing to yield than the one now in power; but, it was 772 granted to the universal demand of the people, among whom the tax had been truly and justly described as "the fever tax." The same description of it could fairly be applied to the tax in this country; where exactly the same reasons existed for its repeal. Great dissatisfaction was felt in this country at the continuance of this tax—a dissatisfaction which was too great for the right hon, gentleman to conceal even from himself. The collectors were deemed a sort of animals of an accursed kind; and a man received from their hands the paper of duty demanded, with about the same grace that a pacha received from the officers of his sovereign, that by which they were authorized to demand his head. A penalty of 50l. ran throughout the hateful document: it was asserted in the first sentence, in the various regulations which the paper contained, and it formed the termination. All its details were of the most disagreeable and disgusting nature: so much so, that the ministers who would not relieve the country from them when they might, ought not to vapour about that country's prosperity. One great effect of the tax was, to make the government hateful to the eyes of the people, by bringing them constantly into contact with the collectors; and yet this tax, so impolitic on the one hand, and so oppressive on the other —this tax, which affected all classes of the people, was suffered to remain, in order that some, which only pressed upon a portion of them, might be repealed. The petitions for its repeal had been more numerous than those presented on any subject whatever; and they had only been so, because the tax was so universally disliked. Even the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade, had felt it his duty to present a petition from his constituents in favour of the repeal of this tax—a gentleman of whose conduct they so much approved, that the, were about to present him with a piece of plate, which reflected as much grace upon the bestowers as upon the receiver, and he hoped that they would have occasion to present him with another piece plate for his vote that night. The right hon. gentleman, in a letter to his constituents, had said that this was not an inquisitorial tax. Now, if there was one feature which more peculiarly belonged to it, it was, that it was inquisitorial? The collectors had a right to enter every house at all times, to surcharge if a false return happened to be 773 made; and, twice a-year, the inspector might enter. This was enough to make any tax odious. Every week this visit was dreaded, which excited so unpleasant a feeling, as to give to this tax a most inquisitorial character. The right hon. gentleman also stated in that letter, that the amount of the direct taxes was comparatively small as compared with the amount of the indirect taxes. True; but it was because the indirect taxes were so enormous, that the direct taxes, the income-tax only excepted, could not approach them. The amount of the direct taxes was not small. On the contrary, it was large compared with what had been paid before the war. True, they were reduced within 350,000l. of what they were in 1792; but, before that period, this tax was considered as a commutation for other taxes, and to be levied only under peculiar circumstances. He would ask the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the reduction of the duty on wine, coffee, and spirits, would operate so directly to relieve the people as the one he proposed? The right hon. gentleman must agree, that taxes which pressed so heavily, and which were in themselves an intolerable grievance, ought to be repealed. When the clamours and outcries of the people against this tax were so strong, it was the duty of the House to listen to their claims, and immediately repeal it. Certainly, the chancellor of the Exchequer did repeal a portion of this tax, which, he said, relieved 635,936 persons from its operation, by taking off the duty on all houses with no more than seven windows. But, many of the parties contemplated by the right hon. gentleman were not relieved, particularly those who lived in towns, as he knew to be the case in Westminster, because the landlords paid the Window-tax, and the tenants in consequence derived no advantage from a reduction of rent. There was another point to which he must refer; namely, that in the Assessed taxes, every relaxation only rendered the assessor more severe. The year before, when a relaxation of duty took place on shop-windows on the basement story, the inhabitants of Westminster had assured him, that they paid more than they did before. In two cases, appeals were lodged, and the parties were partially relieved. Some of the inhabitants of Liverpool, who had done him the honour of communicating with him on 774 the subject, had even gone so far as to say, that they had rather the tax should stand as it originally was. He knew an individual in Westminster, who had a skylight, which lighted sixteen windows inside, and he was charged with sixteen additional windows. The collectors were impressed with the idea, that if internal windows were lighted by an external window, they were authorised in assessing those windows as if they had been external. In Westminster, there were few houses with seven windows only; and therefore few of its inhabitants had been relieved by the measure of the chancellor of the Exchequer, though nowhere was relief more necessary, for in one parish there had been more than a hundred distraints in one quarter for the recovery of these abominable assessed taxes. In the outskirts of the metropolis, a few cottages would be relieved, but no relief would be felt by those who were most aggrieved; namely, by the shopkeepers and the middling classes. The right hon. the president of the Board of Trade had recommended this tax to the people of Liverpool on account of its antiquity; but, its antiquity was a bad recommendation to a town which was much newer than this tax. As a proof how odious such taxes as these were to the people, the hearth tax, which was imposed by the 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd, and was one of the causes of the Revolution, was afterwards repealed by the 1st of William and Mary, and the preamble of this bill recited, that it was a tax oppressive to the people, and a badge of slavery to the poor. This prospect was, however, blackened in six years after by a house tax of 2s., and a tax upon window-lights in houses with nine windows; so that we were even worse off than the people of that day by two windows. In 1784, the window-tax was imposed as a commutation for a duty on tea. A small reduction in the price of tea was the consequence; but soon after it rose a hundred per cent. In 1797, also, a commutation was pleaded as the excuse for continuing the tax. So it was in 1802. The whole was a system of cajolery and delusion, and now again coffee, wine, and spirits were something cheaper, and the Window-tax was allowed to continue. He complained of the inequality of this tax. A house in Tothill-street with twenty windows, paid the same tax as a house in Lombard-street with the same number of windows, of infinitely 775 more value, the owner of which was worth:5,000l. a year, while the owner of the other was not worth 50l. a year. It also operated against the builders of houses. It made small houses uninhabitable, and large houses unsightly. In this age of architecture, look at its effects in the metropolis. The effect of this tax was, to prevent even rich men from having a sufficient number of windows. At least he could find no other reason for the absence of windows in some of our most leading streets. In Piccadilly, for instance, there was a house belonging to a very rich individual, in which scarcely a window was to be seen. It reminded him of the line of Pope, "And look on every side you see a wall." It was indeed, "Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum." It showed a hatred of the sun. It was a monstrosity, and though the hon. gentleman who owned it was a member of the Committee of Taste, there was certainly no proof of it in that building. The only way in which this could be accounted for—for in this case the tax was no object—was, that a bad taste was generated by the continuance of the window-tax. Now, it might be asked, if this tax were to be done away with, how could the deficiency be made up? This might be a proper question for a finance minister to ask; but it could scarcely be expected that those who thought with him, that the expenditure was already too large, that there were many other taxes which ought to be repealed, and that there never was any necessity for a sinking fund—it was scarcely to be expected under these circumstances, that he should furnish the right hon. gentleman with an answer. He believed, however, that, independently of the abolition of the sinking fund, there would be found in the surplus revenue a sufficient fund to carry on the operations of government, if the window-tax were abandoned. A reduction of 1,500,000l. had been made in the taxation, as stated by the chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget. But he did not think a reduction to that extent would take place in the revenue; for, taking the last quarter as his guide, the diminution was not in that proportion. He might therefore take it, that the reduction would be 300,000l. or 400,000l. less than the million and a half, in consequence of the increased consumption. This, added to the surplus of 1826, as anticipated by the right lion. gentleman, would make 776 about 900,000l. and the window-tax proposed to be reduced was only one million. It might be objected, that as the estimates had been already passed, and the expenses of this year voted, it would be unreasonable to call upon the government to make any further reduction; but, as he wished to obviate every objection, the object of his present motion was only to call on the House to pledge itself to a repeal of this tax next year. Almost all the petitions called for a repeal of all the Assessed taxes. He was therefore, moderate in contenting himself with only a repeal of the window-tax. In this tenth year of peace the people had a right to the removal of this obnoxious burthen. The hon. member concluded with moving, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the numerous and repeated petitions of the people for the repeal of the Window-Tax are highly deserving of the attention of this House; and that, from the 25th of April, 1826, the said ta:: ought to be immediately and totally repealed."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that he would not go the length of saying, that because the estimates were voted and the expenses -of the year incurred, the House were therefore incapacitated from making such seductions as they should deem expedient. But this was a question which had been already decided by the House, on the motion brought forward by the hon, member for Abingdon. The only difference between that motion and the present was, that the one called for an immediate reduction, and the other went to pledge the House to a reduction next year. Now, any one who attended to the principle upon which he had proposed the reduction of taxes to the amount of 1,500,000l. must see, that the reduction of 1,200,000l. now, would be totally inconsistent with that principle. The mistake of the hon. member was in calculating the surplus for two years instead of four years. If this tax. were repealed, the whole reduction would be 2,700,000l. and that, when, after the best calculation on the surplus of four years, it was found they could only accomplish a reduction of 1,500,000l. The hon. member had laid great stress upon the number of petitions presented in favour of the repeal of this tax. No man was more ready than he was to give them due weight, but he by no means went the length of saying, that the House were necessarily bound by them Many 777 of these petitions had been presented before he had proposed his plan for the reduction of indirect taxes. Some of them asked for the total repeal of the assessed taxes—some for the repeal of the window-tax—and others, if they could not get this, that the poorer class might be relieved from its operation. This class he had. thought it desirable himself to relieve; and. yet the relief given was now treated as utterly insignificant by the hon. member. In the effect of that relief, he, however, differed from the hon. member; for shortly after the repeal, he had been waited on by a deputation from the corporation of London; who were so surprised at the effects which it had produced, that he observed in their manner something like a conviction that he had been right in the course he had taken. If the country had been so pinched by this tax—if they were as clamorous as they were represented to be by the hon. member—if such discontent was abroad, it was a little extraordinary that the presence of a certain individual at a meeting, the object of which was the repeal of the window-tax, should have had the effect of routing the hon. baronet opposite, and his colleagues, and converting the petition into no petition at all, merely because that individual proposed to add another clause to it. The statement of the hon. member, that the reduction already made was no relief, was candid; because it proved, that those who now paid as much as they did before, only then paid half what they ought to have paid. But, in point of fact, the reduction must have left 1,300,000l. in the pockets of the people. The hon. member said, the people of Westminster had received no relief; but, he could state, that two thousand out of seventeen thousand persons who paid the Window tax in Westminster, now paid none at all. But, said the hon. member, "the landlords do not reduce their rents." It was too hard, when government reduced taxes, to turn round, and charge upon it the severity of the landlords. The hon. member complained of the inequality of the tax; but this charge necessarily applied to all taxes, when persons with different means were obliged to use the same quantity of any article that paid taxes. Another complaint was, that it was an obstacle to building, because Houses had fewer windows; but, he always looked upon paucity of windows as rather a beauty than a deformity in building. The hon. member had 778 rather significantly alluded to the House of an individual, and had pointed it out as a deformity, because it had few windows; but this instance was not an apt illustration of his argument, because he could not suppose that individual would deprive his family of comfort, or his House of the necessary decoration, on account of the expense of a few windows. He advocated the reduction of indirect taxes, because he thought it tended more to increase the prosperity of the country, than the reduction of direct taxes; and when the hon. member talked of injustice in not listening to the petitions for the repeal of this tax, he thought they were only doing them justice; because otherwise they could carry with effect those measures which would confer more lasting benefits on the country. He should, therefore, oppose even a prospective repeal; because it would render all their former calculations useless, and, therefore, be one of the most unwise proceedings the House could adopt.
§ Mr. Leycestersaid, the effect of the tax was, to render the Houses of the people dark, uncomfortable, and unwholesome. He would therefore support a motion for the repeal of such an injurious tax.
Mr. Calcarftsaid, he saw his way so clearly, in the present prosperous state of the country, that, consistently with the conduct which he had formerly pursued, he would support the motion of his hon. friend. He conceived that the abolition of the window-tax would be much more beneficial to the country, than the partial reduction of those duties with respect to wine, coffee, spirits, &c., which had been already ameliorated; seeing that that amelioration did not prevent smuggling. In fact, the coast of Kent was now patrolled by sentries armed with cutlasses and pistols, as if we expected an hourly invasion.
Mr. Herriesopposed the repeal of a tax that pressed so lightly on the community, and defended the course adopted by ministers in the reduction of indirect taxation.
Mr. Maberlysaid ,that ministers set their own individual opinions in opposition to the sentiments of the whole country.
Sir F. Burdettsupported the motion. There was no tax that he knew of that was attended with more ill consequences, or that was more unequal in its presure, than the window-tax. No regard was 779 paid in its collection to the means of those on whom it was levied. His choice would be the incorporating the window-tax with the house-tax; by which one set of collectors would be got rid of. The present system was likewise peculiarly obnoxious, from its being the means of invading the privacy of people's houses.
§ Mr. Huskissonopposed the motion. He contended, that the same motion had been brought before the House by the hon. member for Abingdon, and negatived. The hon. baronet had been somewhat indiscreet, he thought in proposing that the window-tax should be added to the house-tax. There had been a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster, to consider of the propriety of petitioning parliament for the repeal of the window-tax. Let the hon. baronet call another meeting of his constituents, and propose the union of the two taxes, and see in what manner they would receive such a proposition.
Colonel Palmersaid, that notwithstanding the rebuke given upon a former night to a worthy alderman, he agreed with his hon. friend in supporting all motions for relieving the burthens of the people; as the ministers on their side invariably opposed them, whilst in every instance of the repeal of a tax being carried, they had contrived to go on just as well without it. This, at least, was more consistent than the conduct of another worthy alderman, who, upon the same occasion, had praised to the skies, the ministers and their sinking fund, whilst he voted against them, and reprobated in the strongest terms the injustice and oppression of the assessed taxes. For his own part, looking to the principles of free trade, at length adopted by the ministers, he had considered the measures of the chancellor of the Exchequer to be best calculated for the general interests of the country; nor was it against them, but the system of the government, that his opposition was directed. The right hon. gentleman had said, in his former speech, that he could not do all at once; but, looking to the burthens of the people, he had, in fact, done little or nothing to relieve them, nor could, without a change of system. Let the ministers only consent to that, and they would find in him as warm a friend, as he was an enemy: but, being convinced that the country was never yet in greater danger, which the ministers might at once remove, by adopting the 780 only measure, to relieve the pressure of taxation, insure tranquillity in Ireland; and which, by firmly uniting the people with the government, could alone enable it to avert the impending storm. Until the ministers, whoever they might be, could resolve upon that measure—he meant reform in parliament —he should continue to oppose them with the same rooted hatred which the general of Carthage felt to Rome, in swearing his son upon the altar. The hon. member stated his regret at the continued indisposition of the right hon. the Foreign Secretary, which, with other reason, had prevented his taking a part in the debates upon the Catholic question; but he meant to avail himself of the bill yet before the House, to declare his feelings upon the subject; and, should the right hon. gentleman be still unable to attend, he hoped to be allowed to advert to his conduct as a minister, in a matter wherein he had taken so prominent a part.
781
List of the Minority. Abercrornby, hon. J. Lethbridge, sir T. Allen, J. H. Leycester, R. Althorp, visc. Lockhart, J. J. Astley, sir J. D. Maberly Baring, A. Maberly, W. L. Barrett, S. B. M. Macdonald, J. Benett, J. Marjoribanks, S. Bernal, R. Milbank, M. Bernard, visc. Mildmay, P. St. John Bright, H. Milton, visc. Burdett, sir F. Monck, J. B. Byng, G. Newman, R. W. Calcraft, J. Normanby, visc. Carter, J. Nugent., lord Chaloner, R. O'Callaghan, J. Coffin, sir I. Osborne, lord F. Colborne, N. R. Palmer, C. Crompton, S. Palmer, C. F. Davies, col. Pares,, T. Denman, T. Portman, E B. East, sir E. H. Price, R. Fane, J. Pryse, P. Fitzroy, lord C. Ramsden, J. C. Grattan, J. Ridley, sir M. W. Guise, sir B. W. Robarts, G. J. Heron, sir R. Robinson, sir G. Honywood, W. P. Rowley, sir W. Hotham, lord Rumbold, C. Hume, J. Scott, J. Ingilby, sir W. Tynte, C. K. Jervoise, G. P. Warre, J. A. Johnstone col, Webbe, E. Kemp, T. R. Whitbread, S. C. Knight, R. White, H. Leader, W. White, S. Lester, R. L. Williams, T. P.
Williams, J. Denison, W. J. Wilson, sir R. Dundas, H. T. Winnington, sir T. Fergusson, sir R. Wood, ald. Glenorchy, lord Wrottesley, sir W. Maule, hon. W. TELLERS Rice, T. S. Gordon, R. Robarts, A. W. Hobhouse, J. C. Stanley, lord Taylor, M. A. PAIRED OFF. Wharton, J. Creevey, T. Williams, W. Davenport, D. Wilson, C.
§ The House divided: Ayes 77; Noes 114; Majority against the motion 37.