Colonel Evanspresented a Petition from the inhabitants of the Strand and its vicinity, on the trade of the Metropolis. The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to call the attention of the House to the complaints of the petitioners as to the distress they were suffering, and which he could confirm without hesitation. It had been stated by an hon. Member, an Alderman of the city of London, that he had recently been compelled to issue 500 summonses against persons occupying houses of 50l. rental, for the non-payment of poor-rates. Now, if these persons were unable to pay their poor-rates, the House might be quite sure that they must have equal, if not more, difficulty in paying their Assessed-taxes. This, alone, if there were nothing else, would furnish sufficient proof of the distressed state of the tradesmen of the city of London. It had also been stated to him, that there was a great falling-off in the trade and profits of these classes of persons. Several retail dealers had declared that whereas they were formerly in the receipt of 100l. a-week, they did not now receive more than from 10l. to 15l. Another proof of the distress of the working classes was to be seen in the large number of unoccupied houses in the Metropolis. He understood, that formerly it was very difficult to obtain possession of a house in Fleet-street or Cheapside; now there were, in both these places, several houses that could not be let. Even in the parish of St. George, the rental of which was 570,000l., there was 70,000l. of rental wholly unoccupied. In the whole of the Metropolis he understood there were more than 10,000 houses unoccupied. He had made some inquiries, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there bad been any falling-off in the value of houses as a profitable investment for capital, and he had ascertained, that the falling-off had been from forty to fifty per cent. He had again to complain of the way in which the collectors had been recently enforcing the payment of these taxes, and he should be glad to know whether that had been in consequence of any instructions from the Government. He believed it was not, but he should like to know that for a 70 certainty. The Metropolis had suffered particularly by the transfer of the East India trade to the outports, as well as by the transference of the silk manufacture to Manchester. There was another point to which the petitioners had called his attention—namely, it appeared that many great capitalists were in the habit of lending their money to the small trader, who was thereby enabled to get credit to five or six times the amount by its means, and so got into business; but the capitalist had ill the meantime taken a lien on the goods and house of the trader, and by-and by he comes down with it, and sweeps away all the goods in the shop, at much under their original cost. Of course, not only was the trader ruined, but he dragged others along with him. Now, the petitioners stated, that many of these capitalists had been before the Committee on Trade, and had given very flattering accounts of the state of trade. They might well state that they were flourishing, but that was the way in which it was done—it was by the total ruin of many small traders. The hon. Member said, he had also a petition to present from certain inhabitants of the parish of St. James, Westminster, for a relief from the taxes on houses and windows. The petitioners stated, that the pressure of these taxes was insupportable. They had been led to believe, that these taxes would have been repealed during the present Session. In this they had been disappointed, and they therefore came before the House with their complaints. Though the entire rental of this parish was only 270,000l., it paid more in Assessed-taxes than Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester put together. It might be said, it was an opulent parish. It was true, one part of it was opulent, but a large part of it was far from being so. The petitioners pointed out the great disparity that existed in the manner of rating; they instanced Burlington House and the humble shop next door. One which had only a frontage of fourteen feet, and had chambers above, which were separately rated, was assessed at 105l. per annum, which was more than forty times in proportion to Burlington House. He was told that an Income-tax would lead to great inquisitiveness; but what was the plan pursued lately in regard to the surcharges? Why, the surveyor of taxes, if he supposed that the house was given in below its value, summoned the occupier 71 before the Commissioners, and there he was asked the amount of his rent; then what sum he had given for the lease, and what sum he had laid out in repairs; they put the two last sums together, and added six per cent. upon them to the rent. Now, if it was proper to follow that plan with the shopkeepers, surely it should also be followed with the nobleman. Why should not six per cent be added to the estimated rental of Northumberland House upon the half-a-million spent upon it two years ago? Or why should not the same plan be followed with Eaton Hall, upon which so much had lately been laid out in improvement? In St. James's parish, the parochial officers had, within these few days, made a fresh assessment, and they had raised Burlington House from 1,300l. to 2,941l.; so that there was great injustice done in some way—he would leave it to the House to say whether it was now or before: they had not confined themselves to that place, for they had raised one tradesman from 75l. to 110l., and others in the same way. Then, again, it was surely unfair that, when the parish officers raised any rental, the tax-gatherer followed as a matter of course; but, when the parish lowered, the King's tax-collector refused to follow that example. Where was the justice of that? He believed it to be quite impracticable to effect perfect equality in the assessments; but it was a question whether those noblemen and others, who it was seen had been rated 400 per cent. too low, ought not now to pay up the arrear, and so relieve those who had been so long paying for them. The Bank of England had been rated at only 2,500l. a-year, and yet, as had been excellently put by the Times newspaper of yesterday, that same bank, in its account of assets sents into Government, stated the value of their premises at 40,000l. per annum, and debits the Government with 28,000l. per annum for the portion occupied in the transaction of the Government business; and yet it was only rated at 2,500l. The East-India House, which occupied much the same extent of ground as the Bank, was rated at 2,500l., whilst, no doubt, it was worth much more than 48,000l. a-year. Private banks in the neighbourhood of the Bank of England, which did not respectively occupy more than a twentieth of the ground, were rated each at about 500l., or one-fifth of that of the Bank of England. It was 72 quite out of the question that, with all these inconsistencies, the tax could be continued, or be submitted to any longer. In the country the four highest assessments were for persons in trade; and it was assumed that they could afford to be so rated from the amount of their profits. But what would those Gentlemen who supported that opinion say when he told them, that the highest rated of the four parties mentioned had since the return been Gazetted in the list of bankrupts? In Piccadilly there was a tradesman's house of two floors, with a frontage of only fourteen feet, which was rated at 140l.—a higher rate than could be found in any of five counties which he could name, having among their inhabitants Dukes, Marquesses, Bishops, and other noblemen and dignitaries. The authority of Adam Smith had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to prove that taxation on houses and windows did not fall on the occupiers, but on the proprietors; but Adam Smith's opinion had not been fairly stated. Adam Smith said: 'Neither would such a tax (upon house 'rent) fall altogether upon ground rent, but it would divide itself in such a manner as to fall partly upon the inhabitants of the house and partly upon the owner of the ground. The final payment of this tax, therefore, would fall partly upon the inhabitant of the house, who, in order to pay his share, would be obliged to give up a part of his conveniency, and partly upon the owner of the ground, who, in order to pay his share, would be obliged to give up a part of his revenue. In what proportion this final payment would be divided between them, it is not perhaps very easy to ascertain. This division would probably be very different in different circumstances, and a tax of this kind might, according to those different circumstances, affect very unequally both the inhabitant of the house and the owner of the ground. Houses not inhabited ought to pay no tax.' On window taxes he said—'The principal objection to all such taxes is their inequality; an inequality of the worst kind, as they must frequently fall much heavier upon the poor than upon the rich. And, finally, upon the House-tax, The rent of houses (Adam Smith also said,) though it in some respects resembles the rent of land, is in one respect 73 essentially different from it. The rent of laud is paid for a productive subject; the land which pays it, produces it. The rent of houses is paid for an unproductive subject. Neither the house, nor the ground it stands on, produces anything. The person who pays the rent, therefore, must draw it from some other source of revenue, distinct from, and independent of, this subject. It must, in short, be paid from the wages of labour, profits of stock, or from capital or other property.' Another eminent writer on this subject (Mr. Ricardo) says: 'A tax on the rent of houses may either fall on the occupier, on the ground landlord, or on the building landlord. In ordinary cases, it may be presumed that the whole tax would be paid both immediately and finally by the occupier.' And, commenting upon Adam Smith, he says, first quoting from the latter: 'Ground-rent and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.' Mr. Ricardo also observed: 'It must be admitted, that the effect of these taxes would be such as Adam Smith described: but it would surely be very unjust to tax exclusively the revenue of any particular class of a community. The burthens of the State should be borne by all in proportion to their means; this is one of the four maxims mentioned by Adam Smith, which should govern all taxation.' The valued rents of the houses, buildings, and ground-rent in Great Britain were 11,000,000l.; and the probable rent was not less than 35,000,000l.; so that an equalization of taxation would, as it ought to do, go far to lighten the burthen that now pressed upon the former. Adam Smith stated, in his observations on a House-rent tax, that—' It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.' Now, when it was proved that the rich of the metropolis did not contribute in proportion to their revenues to the public expense, but in an inverse proportion, he thought it was high time such inequitable proceedings were done away with. He regretted that Ministers, instead of doing all they could to relieve the national burthens, had increased them by bringing forward measures which would have the 74 effect of increasing the National Debt. In his opinion, such facts as he had stated must create feelings of strong indignation and dissatisfaction. It was his opinion, and he would express it in that House, out of it, and everywhere, that unless the Government made out that the circumstances he had stated with respect to the injustice and inequality of the tax did not exist, he conceived the people ought not to pay such taxes, and that they would be justified in resisting the payment.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that having received intimation from the hon. and gallant Member of his intention to present the petition, at the same time expressing a wish that he (Mr. Spring Rice) should be present upon the discussion, agreeably to that request he had made it his duty to be so; at the same time he trusted that the gallant and hon. Member would not feel it any disrespect to him, the subject, or the House, if he did not enter fully into the merits of the petition, especially when it was considered that the subject had lately been many times before the House, and that there was at the present moment a motion on the books on that very subject by an hon. Member. He should, however, be ready to meet the statements of the gallant and hon. Member when the subject came on for practical discussion. The reason for his refraining from entering; fully into the subject now was, that he disliked entering into discussions which could lead to nothing. He must, however, be permitted to make a few observations, in reply to some of those that had fallen from the gallant and hon. Member. He thought the hon. and gallant Member had shown, if there was an inequality in the present mode of taxation—which he admitted—that the parishes themselves, if they would only look into the matter, had the means of doing justice to the Parishioners in the respective parishes. The parish officers of St. James's, above all, deserved infinite credit for the manner in which they had applied themselves to correct the inequality of taxation. He had never denied inequality, or defended it—he was an advocate for correcting inequality of taxation where it had been found to exist. The officer of the Crown had no option, but to levy according to the parochial assessment. If the House was rated parochially at a given sum, the officers of the Crown were not empowered to take less. It would, therefore, be 75 evident to the House and to everyone, that if any inequality existed, the parochial authorities had only to rate the house at its proper value; and, if that rate stood good, the amount of the King's taxes must follow it. The hon. and gallant Member had concluded by stating, that Government had made no reductions, nor afforded any relief to the people. Now, in answer to that, he would state, that upon an expenditure of more than 17,000,000l., there had been a reduction of 3,000,000l. which, in his opinion, tended to relieve the people from taxation. The hon. and gallant Member had also thrown out an opinion, that unless the evils complained of were relieved, the people would be justified in refusing to pay taxes. He could never hear that doctrine broached without deprecating it; and he was sorry that it should have found an advocate in any Member of the Legislature. He thought the hon. and gallant Member would have done better to have exhorted his constituents to use their best energies to have the taxes repealed, at the same time telling them, that it was the interest of the humblest among them more to support the law than to violate it. No man could doubt that it was violating the principles of the law to adopt that course which the hon. Member had stated.
Colonel Evansthought, with respect to parochial officers correcting the evils complained of, that unseen influence which had hitherto operated upon them would still influence them in not equalizing their mode of rating. With respect to the reduction of 3,000,000l. by Government, the late Government, of which the right hon. Baronet to his right was a Member, had made similar reductions. But that had not satisfied the country any more than the reduction by the present Ministry; nor would it, as long as a large standing army was kept up, and no alteration was made in pensions and sinecures.
§ The Petition was then laid on the Table.