§ Sir Samuel Whalleywas glad that the Petitions on the subject of the House and Window-tax, had been presented from Bristol, as they contained a satisfactory answer to the assertion that the cry against the Assessed-taxes was raised only in the metropolis. He was convinced that the desire was as great in all parts of the country, although in some places the thinness of the population rendered it a work of time to get up petitions. He regretted that Ministers, by their refusal to comply with the prayers of the people on this point, had rendered it necessary for him to bring forward this subject, but at least it would now 12 have the advantage of being discussed without the admixture of extraneous topics. He was ready to acknowledge his general confidence in the present servants of the Crown, he would assert, that he had no wish to embarrass them, but he was bound to say, that in their late proceedings regarding the Malt-tax, they had shown an unwillingness to comply with the wishes of the people, or to apply themselves seriously to the diminution of the public burthens. The question on the former occasion was complicated by the question, whether a Property-tax should or should not be imposed. He was himself by no means prepared for a Property-tax, much less did he think that the circumstances of the country justified the imposition of an Income-tax; and it was partly because he had an unconquerable dislike to an Income-tax, that he originated the present Motion. It was not his intention to trouble the House at any length, nor did he apprehend that the question called for much discussion, and he was convinced that the tedious debates with which the House was sometimes annoyed, materially impeded public business. He expressed the gratification he had received on the former occasion, from the declaration of the noble Lord, that the principle of taxation ought to be, that men should pay in proportion to the amount of revenue they required to be protected by the State. That was a golden legend, which he should wish to see engraven on the lintels of the doors of that House, add emblazoned in striking characters above the Speaker's Chair. A right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had said on a former night, that he supported the Assessed-taxes because they, amounted to a virtual Property-tax. Such was the very reason why he opposed them; they were virtually a Property-tax, but a Property-tax compelling the poor to contribute more towards the exigences of the State than the rich. The House-tax in particular was a graduated Property-tax, and graduated upon an inverse scale, and people were not called upon to pay in proportion to the degree of protection they required. A man with an income of 100l. a-year, who occupied a house of 20l. a-year, was obliged to contribute 2l. 10s.; while a man of 30,000l. a-year, renting a house of 500l. scarcely paid a quarter per cent, upon his income. It might be said, and indeed had been said, that the man of 30,000l. a-year paid much more in proportion in indirect taxes—for his stables, his plate, and all articles of consumption. This 13 was the only argument in favour of the present system, excepting that the tax was more certainly and more readily collected. This latter argument, however, was becoming weaker and weaker every day, for there was a disposition now very prevalent not to pay these taxes at all. If that disposition arose out of the mere spirit of defiance to the Resolutions of that House, He should say, that the House Was bound to vindicate the authority and Majesty of the law, but if it were the mere offspring of distress—if it arose from the agony of despair, occasioned by the disappointment of the hopes which the noble Lord had once held out to the people of being relieved from these taxes, and which had induced them for some time past to pay these taxes, not out of the profits of their trade, but out of the daily diminishing amount of their capital—if such were the case, then it would be the bounden duty of the House to inquire whether the feeling of the people was founded on justice, or rested on a temporary and transient delusion. If upon such inquiry it should be considered that the people had no right to complain, then he should be most ready to support Government in vindicating the law; but, if, on the other hand, it should be considered that the complaints of the people were well founded, and had been long made, then he should be prepared to argue that the House ought not to risk its authority in maintaining injustice, but should endeavour to do justice between all classes of the King's subjects, and should not be deterred from doing it by the cry that it Was yielding to intimidation. He readily admitted, that Adam Smith, whose authority he deeply venerated, had himself suggested a House-tax. He proposed it for the best of all reasons—because the weight of it fell more heavily on the rich than on the poor; but he deprecated a Window-tax, because it fell more heavily on the poor than on the rich. A right hon. Gentleman on the other side had, on a former occasion, adverted to the sum charged for Knowle Park, and the valuation of 100l. a-year put upon that mansion, observing, that in fixing the amount of Assessed-taxes payable for places of that description, the cost of building the House was less to be taken into consideration than the sum it would let for. The right hon. Gentleman stated to the House, that the collector augmented the charge for Knowle Park from 100l. to 125l.; that that proceeding had been appealed from and, upon a deliberate 14 hearing, the commissioners decided that the owner of this interesting mansion should not pay more than 100l. a-year. He (Sir Samuel Whalley) regretted that, when that valuation was made, he had not had an opportunity of bidding for Knowle Park, for he should very gladly become its tenant at 100l. a-year, though it was alleged before the commissioners that it would not let for more, because of the great expense of keeping it in repair. He would ask, did not houses in towns require keeping in repair? And had it ever happened that a house, expensive in that respect, had been ever charged less than a neighbouring dwelling which required no repairs? It was really too much to talk about repairs as a ground for diminishing the amount of House-tax: it would be vain for the House to hide from itself the truth, that there never did exist a tax that operated more unequally than did the House and Window-tax. No consideration should induce him to swerve from the principle and the position that he had taken up—namely, that there could not be a more crying injustice than that which was inflicted by the House and Window-tax. He could not regret that the right hon. Secretary opposite had succeeded in showing that the operation of that tax was most unequal, and that the inequality was of a nature which could not be removed. The agricultural interest appeared to think, that they should have the greatest reason to complain if the towns were relieved from the pressure of that tax, while they, the agricultural interest, were suffering under the pressure of the malt-tax. Now, that was a most erroneous mode of viewing the question. More than half the malt-tax was paid by London and its immediate neighbourhood. The great mistake was, to suppose that the malt-tax affected the agricultural interest alone, and the House and Window-tax affected the population of towns alone. Much of the malt-tax was paid by the towns, and no small portion of the House and Window-tax was paid by the rural population. He contended, therefore, that the removal of the malt-tax would benefit the people very little; whereas the repeal of the House and Window-tax would afford a great relief to all classes. He felt convinced that the repeal of the malt-tax would not assist the landed interest. The maltster, the brewer, the retail dealer, might reap advantage from the repeal, but neither the landed interest or the consumer would be benefitted by such an alteration. 15 It was very different with respect to the House and Window-tax; a repeal of that tax would extend relief to all. It was a most obnoxious tax; and the proposition for an inquisitorial inquiry into the property of every man, and the tenure by which he held it (a proposition that had been recently broached), had its origin in this very tax. He hoped the House would look to the invidious situation in which this impost placed the people. It was taxes such as that, which were unequally distributed, that fomented and kept up irritation between the people and the aristocracy of the country; and there was nothing, he was sure, that would so soon heal those differences, and bring back the people to a feeling of respect and veneration for the aristocracy, as the repeal of such odious burthens. He would now say one or two words on the relief proposed to be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord proposed to remit half the duty on Shop-windows. [Lord Althorp: Half the House-duty where there is a shop.] Well, how would that operate generally." What benefit would it confer on the poor lodging-house keeper? The noble Lord would relieve the shopkeeper of one-half of this duty, while he still continued to exact it from his poorer neighbour. He would say looking to the borough which he represented, that in a hundred instances out of a hundred and one the shopkeeper was better able to bear the tax than those who were living by letting lodgings. If the noble Lord could not go the whole way with him, why could he not at least take off one-half of the duty on houses rated under 100l.? That would afford considerable relief. But he could assure the noble Lord that discontent was not in the least degree allayed by the small portion of relief which Ministers expressed their intention of granting. He was then addressing a British senate, and he would say, that he was not demanding relief for any particular body, but that he was calling for the redress of a grievance which had become too heavy longer to be borne by the country. It was too oppressive to be endured; and he implored the House to wipe out the foulest blot that ever disgraced the fiscal code of any civilized nation. The motion which he meant to propose was, "That it is the opinion of this House that all taxes upon houses and windows shall cease on the 5th of October, 1833." If this Resolution were adopted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would still have one-half 16 of the financial year before him, during which he might make all necessary arrangements; and he hoped that the hon. member for Middlesex would, in the interim, impress on the mind of the noble Lord the necessity of adopting a system of the strictest and most unsparing economy.
Mr. Alderman Woodseconded the Motion. He believed his hon. friend would be content if his Motion had the effect of inducing the noble Lord to agree to the resolution passing, only postponing the commencement of its total repeal till the 5th of April, 1834, instead of the 5th of October, 1833. The public mind could never be quieted, whatever the noble Lord and his colleagues thought, until the people were relieved from those taxes, and he must agree with the public opinion, that no taxes were ever more unequal, more unjust, or more obnoxious. The noble Lord had taken off taxes to which the people were comparatively indifferent, whilst he fixed upon them taxes which were unpopular, and of such a nature, that there never could be satisfaction or quiet in the country until they were abolished. He could assure the House, that it had been his lot as a Magistrate to issue 500 summonses for rates upon houses, of from 40l. to 45l. a-year; and if the people were too distressed to pay their Poor-rates he need not say, that they were unable to pay their Assessed-taxes. Surely such classes of persons ought to be relieved, or ought at least to be cheered with the hopes of relief. He had that day seen a very large meeting in the Strand, of a Society called the Temperance Society, and this reminded him to call to the noble Lord's recollection, that the duties upon spirits in England and Ireland had been greatly reduced, and if he were only to add a duty of 2s. per gallon on the present duty he would receive the support of the Society to which he alluded, and raise for the revenue an additional million, without, in his opinion, running any risk of increasing the practice of smuggling. If the Window and House-taxes were to be continued the great and affluent ought to be taxed in proportion to the poor.
§ Mr. Spring Ricewished to call the attention of the House to what the exact proposition then before them was. The hon. Member who introduced the question had stated, that on a former occasion, when the repeal of the House and Window-tax was brought forward, it was mixed up with the Malt-tax, and with a proposed 17 Property-lax. The hon. Member, however, wished not so to treat it, but to introduce it as a distinct and separate proposition. What, then, did that proposition, so distinctively brought forward, amount to." Why, the hon. Member called on them to pledge themselves in the fullest manner to remove taxes, without any equivalent being provided, to the amount of 2,500,000l. This was not to be done on the instant. No, in the hope of catching a few more votes, it was to take place at a future, but not at a very distant day. For his own part, he thought it would be the best and most candid way to call for the absolute and immediate repeal of the tax. The hon. mover and seconder appeared to proceed on a prophetic principle with respect to the finances of the country. The former thought, that in October this subtraction might safely be made from the taxes, but the latter, not so sanguine, was of opinion, that it would be as well to wait till April. But in legislating on questions of this kind he put little faith in prophecies. The hon. Alderman had volunteered to do the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had advised that an additional duty should be laid on spirits—a measure which, he said, would be greatly applauded by the Temperance Societies, who, be it observed, were endeavouring to prevent the consumption of spirits at all. If the hon. Alderman had proposed a duty on water, then he could have understood his reference to the Temperance Societies. In that case there would have been rather more connexion between cause and consequence. The hon. mover seemed to have taken up this question as if it were Marylebone against all England. Now, he would say, on the part of many individuals who did not permanently reside here, that, by their visits, they contributed greatly to the wealth and prosperity of the capital. With respect to Marylebone itself, the hon. mover must know, that it was immensely benefited by those who, though their fixed residences were in the country, found it necessary, in consequence of business, to lodge there for a considerable portion of the year. It was a misapprehension, therefore, to imagine that England generally did not contribute to that part of the Assessed-taxes which was collected in the metropolis. The total number of houses in Great Britain was 2,846,179 of these, only 430,607 were charged with the House-tax. That did not prove the House-tax to be good, but the fact of only one-seventh of the houses in 18 the country being chargeable with it evinced that it did not operate with peculiar severity on the poorer classes who occupied the exempted dwellings. Then the rate of duty varied from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 3d., and 2s. 10d. in the pound, according to the value of the house. What could be fairer than this shifting scale of assessment." The number of houses exempt from payment of Window-tax, was 2,468,708. It might be quite true, that those on whom the House and Window-taxes fell might feel, and did feel, a severe pressure; but still he maintained, that it was a pressure, that did not fall on the great mass of the community, but on those classes, who were well able to bear it. The hon. member for Marylebone preferred a fixed ad valorem duty to the graduated scale, but certainly he had not shown that his plan would be more beneficial to the lower classes than the present plan, by which they were altogether exempted, to which he was about to apply his statement. With respect to the petitions which had been presented on the subject he would merely say, that the number of signatures to a petition was not a criterion of the number of persons who were affected by those taxes; and he could name a town which had sent to that House a petition signed by 2,000 persons, although it contained only 200 houses on which the assessments were made. He would, however, again revert to the proposition before the House, which was the repeal of taxes to the amount of 2,500,000l. a-year. He would now calculate in whose pockets this would go were the taxes to be repealed. He hoped, that Gentlemen would not be led away by their feelings, but that they would act as a, Jury and return a verdict on their oaths, when they were called upon to say, whether the repeal of these taxes would or would not be a relief to those classes for whom their sympathy had been excited. He would for instance take a case within his own knowledge. He knew the case of a house which was to be let, and the taxes on which amounted to 50l. a-year, and the treaty for the lease was now pending between the landlord and the tenant. The conditions were, that the tenant was to pay 150l. a-year for the rent of the house; but it was stipulated, that if the House-tax and Window-taxes were to be removed, the tenant was then to pay to his landlord a rent of 200l. a-year. Thus, if the taxes were to be taken off, it would be only adding to the fortunes of the Marquess of Westminster, of the Duke of Portland, 19 or of the late member for Marylebone (Mr. Portman), and other landlords, but it would not give any relief to the tenants, except to those who held leases. It would be a relief to them only during the lease, and at the expiration of their terms, they would have to pay an increase of rent, equivalent to the reduction of the taxes. The authority of Adam Smith had been much relied upon; but Adam Smith confirmed his views and had said, that the Window and House-taxes were deducted from the rent of the landlord, and to repeal those taxes would only be to put so much into the pockets of the landlords, without any benefit to the tenant. With respect to the alleged inequality of these taxes upon the great mansions of the country, he had before stated, and he still entertained the same opinion, that houses should be rated according to the sum they would let for, and not according to the sum expended on their construction. In this too he was supported by the authority of Adam Smith, who said, Houses inhabited by the proprietor ought to be rated not according to the expense which they might have cost in building, but according to the rent which an equitable arbitration might judge them likely to bring, if leased to a tenant. If rated according to the expense which they might have cost in building, a tax of 3s. or 4s. in the pound, joined with other taxes, would rain almost all the rich and great families of this, and I believe of every other civilized country. Whoever will examine with attention the different town and country houses of some of the richest and greatest families in this country, will find, that at the rate of only six or seven percent upon the original expense of building their houses, their rent is nearly equal to the whole nett rent of their estates. It is the accumulated expense of several successive generations, laid out on objects of great beauty and magnificence, indeed; but in proportion to what they cost, of very small exchangeable value.' The argument, then, which had been used about the inequality of rating great and small houses came to nothing. Any one who had heard the speech of the hon. member for Marylebone, would suppose that the measure of relief which was proposed by his noble friend was really an insult to those to whom it was offered. It was proposed to be given to the shopkeepers of London. Was it not extraordinary, if it were true, that these persons were suffering under the deepest distress—if it were 20 true that the whole amount of the tax pressed upon them with the severity which had been represented—was it not extraordinary that a remission of one half of the tax should be regarded as an insult In order to show the extent to which rellef would be afforded by his noble friend's plan, he had taken several series of fifty houses in various streets of the metropolis, and calculated the sums which they now paid, and those which they would have to pay after the proposed remission. In Union-street, Borough, he found that fifty houses, all shops, (but in other cases he had placed private houses and shops together, taking them in order as they occurred,) were rated to the House-duty in the sum of 187l. 5s. 9d., and that of this sum 93l. 14s. 1d. would be remitted. In Bond-street, the amount paid by fifty houses was 1,097l. 1s. 4d., which would be reduced by 548l. 10s. 8d. In Oxford-street, fifty houses now paid, 475l. 8s. 10d. the amount of relief would be 237l. 14s. 5d. In Piccadilly, fifty houses, of which only thirty-three were shops, paid 584l. 10s. 4l. of which 219l. would be remitted. In the Strand the same number of houses paid 792l. 12s. 6d. which would be reduced by 396l. 6s. 3d. Taking a different and more obscure part of the town, he found in Bermondsey-street fifty houses which at present paid 162l. 1s. 10d.; and would be relieved to the extent of 81l. To say that such remissions as these were not a boon to the trading and industrious classes, was not dealing justly by the Government which had adopted them. However, let the people only be put in possession of the facts, and he was not afraid of the result. There might be many hon. Gentlemen who differed with him and the rest of the Government; there might be many who would argue that the Ministers did not go far enough but it was hard that what had been proposed should not be received as a boon, and that the Government should be stigmatised as being indifferent to the great interests of the country. He acknowledged the right of the people to demand a reduction of burthens which might press upon them; but let them hear the truth of the case, and he was not afraid at any time of the result. The principle upon which his Majesty's Government proceeded was that of drawing a broad line between the industrious classes (peculiarly so called) and the more wealthy, and to regulate the burthen of the taxes accordingly. The relief that could be given had been given to the industrious 21 classes, and in the choice of that relief he was confident the Government would hereafter he rewarded by the approval of that class of persons. The plan of relief did not stop here, it had been extended to the manufacturing interests, by doing away with the taxes on clerks, bookkeepers, and various other persons in their employ. The repeal of these taxes was in unison with the principle which the Government had laid down of giving relief to the industrious classes; and to afford that relief on that branch of the Assessed-taxes which was the most objectionable and which led to the numerous complaints of surcharges. Having a limited sum at his disposal out of which to grant relief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided upon relieving the trading and industrious classes, and no doubt when the merits of the case were fully understood, Ministers would be rewarded by their confidence and approval. He held in his hand the assessment of the parish of St. James's in it 3,521 houses were rated as inhabited houses, and of that number 2,138 would get relief. Which houses would not get relief? The great houses of the nobility and gentry in St. James's-square, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, Saville-row, &c. Meanwhile the houses of tradesmen would be relieved. It had been said, that relief would not be afforded to the 10l. householders. The number of houses rated at from 10l. to 20l, was 215,000, just half the whole number of rated houses in the kingdom; 73,000 houses were rated at from 10l. to 12l., and it was proposed that the assessment upon these should be reduced from 1s. 6d. in the 1l. to 1s., thus making a remission of one-third the sum now paid. With respect to houses rated at from 10l. to 20l. generally, the duty was to be graduated by a scale beginning at ls., and ending with 2s. 3d., so that relief would be afforded to 21,5,000 houses whether shops or not) out of the entire number of 430,000 subject to assessment. From this statement it appeared that Ministers had selected as objects of relief the trading classes who had shops, and the next lowest class, residing in small houses, leaving the higher class of houses altogether untouched. This single fact was the best pledge of the disposition entertained by Government to relieve the people to the utmost extent of their power. But some hon. Gentlemen talked lightly of the extent of this relief, and the hon. Gentleman himself had done so. The fact was, that as long as a tax existed, it was loudly complained 22 of, numerous demands were made for its repeal, and when it was repealed then those who had received relief, turned round and said, "Ah! that tax was of no importance, you should have taken off some other." His Majesty's Government had not been run down and crushed by the mighty car of Juggernaut; that would have been too magnificent a martyrdom; but they had been run over by taxed carts. They had been called upon loudly to reduce the duty on carts, and when they had yielded to the strong representations which had been made to them—when they had first reduced the duty and then proposed to repeal it, they were called in derision the "taxed-cart Ministry." Had they not also in consequence of numerous complaints reduced the half of the duty on soap? Now this reduction had been met by ridicule, and it had been observed, that the effect would only be to allow people to half wash themselves. Now he must say it was not just to obtain what you could one day and treat the gift lightly the next. But he asked how could the engagements of the country be punctually met, if 2,500,000l. of her resources were to be at once taken from her, without even a substitute being named by the hon. Member who had brought forward the resolution which was before the House? In all remissions of taxation certain boundaries existed which could not be passed—he meant the boundaries presented by the necessity of maintaining the good faith and credit of the country and our national establishments. The repeal of 2,500,000l. of taxes was irreconcileable with a proper attention to those objects. He had before him a paper which had been industriously circulated, and was probably intended to form a sort of text-book or manual to confirm Members' votes on this subject. The document was evidently the production of a metropolitan reformer, who took a one-sided view of the question, and declared that as the Land-tax had been partly redeemed, it would be inconvenient to meddle with it, and therefore it had better be allowed to continue. He proposed to repeal not only the House and Window duties, but the whole of the establishment taxes of England, including the duties on carriages, horses, &c. Having got rid of taxation to the amount of 5,100,000l., minus the Land-tax, the projector recommended the Government to take a vote of credit in the House, in order to make good the engagements of the country. He 23 would repeal the permanent taxes, on which our credit could alone rest in security, and supply the deficiency by a vote of credit. It was unnecessary to spend time in replying to and explaining the absurdity of propositions such as this. He had merely alluded to the subject with a view to caution hon. Members from receiving the paper as the result of absolute wisdom. In conclusion, he declared that the concessions made by Ministers were large and liberal, and ought to be so esteemed by the country. Those were not true friends of their country who depreciated or denied the relief afforded, and who told the people that the House of Commons did not represent their interests truly, and that such being the case, they had no cause to repose hope or confidence in the Parliament or the Government. He thought all impartial persons must admit that, looking to what had been already done, the people had every reasonable ground for hope and confidence; and further, that his Majesty's Ministers being limited in the amount of relief that could be afforded, had made a most judicious selection of the taxation to be remitted
Colonel Evanssaid, that the hon. Gentleman, the member for Cambridge, had alluded, in the course of his argument, to the condition of the parish of St. James, Westminster, and by doing so had chosen the parish which of all others was most favourable to his argument. He (Colonel Evans) begged to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the parish of St. John. With respect to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, that if these taxes were repealed, the landlord would alone benefit by the increase of his rent, he would, however, first observe, that even if any instance of the kind should occur, it would not justify the House in legislating upon such grounds; but with respect to the parishes in question, the hon. Gentleman had said, that there was no distress.
§ Mr. Spring Ricehad never denied the existence of distress; but that if it existed, it was inconsistent to say, that any relief given to the shopkeepers was not a relief to the distress.
Colonel Evansdid not mean to say, that the hon. Gentleman had denied the existence of distress, but that he had stated that distress not to be great. Now, he (Colonel Evans) believed that distress prevailed to a serious extent, and, indeed, more than was assumed by the hon. Gentleman. He had been informed upon very good authority, that within the last two months no less 24 than sixteen shops in Leicester-square and Cranborne-alley, held under the Marquess of Salisbury, had been thrown up, and the tenants had gone away in a state of bankruptcy. It could not be denied, that the situation to which he had alluded was a favourable one for business, yet such were the results of the distress now prevailing. That distress had, he believed (and he spoke upon authority), been during the last seven years progressive in the metropolis. He held in his hand a document containing information worthy of consideration. From that it appeared that an extensive hardware-shop in the Strand, which had been established upwards of fifty years, had in former years been in the weekly receipt of 30l., 40l., and 50l., and the receipts of that same shop had been, during the last eight months, 4l. 9s., 2l. 11s., 3l. 10s., 5l. 11s., 2l. 11s., 1l. 18s., 2l. 9s., and 2l. 11s. per week. These were facts which were capable of proof, and could be established. It had already been communicated to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that one half of the inhabitants of Regent-street were in a state of insolvency, and he (Colonel Evans) could add, that one half of the tradesmen of the Strand were in the same condition. Almost all the houses in those streets were let to lodgers, with the exception of the shop and one or two rooms, and the shop-keepers let them from absolute necessity. The hon. member for Cambridge had also dwelt upon the omission, on the part of the hon. member for Marylebone, in not suggesting a supply for the deficiency that must arise from the repeal of these taxes, which now produced to the revenue 2,500,000l. But it should be considered, that the reduction of these taxes would increase the consumption of excisable commodities, and that increase to the revenue, together with the reduction of the expenses of levying these imposts, would amount, according to his calculations, to about 500,000l. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had calculated upon a similar surplus on the next year's revenue, which raised the amount to meet the deficiency to 1,000,000l. Again, the present force, taking into consideration the military and police, was now much larger than it had been during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington (indeed to the extent of upwards of 10,000 men), and by a reduction of that force, another half million might be saved to the country. Similar savings might be made in the excrescences, as he would call them, 25 of the military department, in the colonies, and in that branch which had been brought before the House by the hon. member for Colchester that evening,—namely, in sinecures and pensions; so that he saw no difficulty in meeting the deficiency to arise from the repeal of these taxes. These facts were already before the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was therefore surprised and astonished that the gorgon of national faith being invaded should have been produced on the present occasion. He must beg to deny the existence, as had been suggested, of a want of respect in the House to the rights of property; and for himself he would say, that if he thought any infringement of those rights were designed on this occasion, he would not give his support to the Motion before the House. He, at the same time, thought, that if any danger to the peace and tranquillity of the country now existed, it was to be attributed to these and other taxes, and the tardiness of the Government in reducing the expenditure of the country. The House had almost refused to listen the other evening to the Important debate upon the Corn-laws, and they rejected a Motion to amend those laws by a large Majority. He, therefore, had no hope in the House of Commons or in the Ministers, for though many Members of the present Government had formerly been favourable to a reduction of taxation, yet he (Colonel Evans) did not expect to see any material reduction in the expenditure of the country unless some commotion, which God avert, should press upon the Ministers the necessity of complying with the wants and wishes of the people. He supported the Motion with the most perfect sincerity.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that it was with the deepest reluctance, that he, considering the time at which the proposition had been brought forward by his hon. colleague, felt bound to oppose it. That proposition was neither more nor less than that the House should say, that from the 5th of October next the House and Window tax should cease. For this great reduction of the revenue' amounting to no less than 2,500,000l., no substitute had been proposed. This impost could not be given up without a Substitute; and if that substitute was to be a Property and Income tax, in his judgment an injury would be inflicted upon a large portion of the community, and a much greater evil would be generally effected. It was under these circumstances, the with the deepest regret, 26 he felt bound to oppose this Motion. He, however, was not Ignorant of what passed within the limits of the borough he had the honour to represent, and, such were his feelings, that if it were possible to do away with these taxes consistently with the exigences of the State, no effort should be wanting on his part to attain that object. The borough of Marylebone was deeply affected by this impost; for. Indeed, there were not above 200 houses that were of a less annual value than from 10l. to 12l.; and, therefore, if ever the time should come when the revenue of the country could afford it, these taxes should, for the sake of justice and humanity, be taken off". The reduction would be well worth any sacrifice that the Government could male, but the present was not the period.
§ Mr. Brothertonthought Ministers might be enabled to repeal these taxes, and that, too, upon a just principle. He would endeavour shortly to state in what way. From the year 1796 up to 1815, this country borrowed 582,000,000l. During the whole of this time the price of the funds averaged 60l. In reality, therefore, the sum borrowed was only 355,000,000l.; and for this they were paying 5l. per cent interest up to the present time. The country was now becoming more prosperous, and one would think that they ought to be beginning to reduce their debt. In consequence of the rise in the funds, the country had to pay 100,000,000l. more than It borrowed, and would ultimately have to pay 270,000,000l. more. This was not the way in which the affairs of private individuals were managed. For example, if money was borrowed to make a road or a canal, accordingly as the property rose in value, and the parties concerned became enabled to pay off their debts, they said to the creditor: "We are able to pay you now, you must accept payment of your capital, or reduce the Interest." His principle was, that when the funds reached a certain price, the premium arising should go for the benefit of the public. It might be said, that the debt thus contracted was never intended to be paid off. He could not admit the force of this observation as sufficient to overthrow the great claims of the public. The fairest way would be to regulate the Interest to be paid for the public debt by the price of corn. This would be only carrying a step further the principle upon which it was proposed to deal with church property, and he saw no reason why it would not be as just in 27 one case as in another. The country might thus be relieved to a very considerable extent, and no injustice would be done to the public creditor. Every man was bound to pay 20s. in the pound, but he ought not to be called upon to pay 40s., when he borrowed only 20s. The principle was perfectly equitable and simple.
§ Mr. Sergeant Spankiefelt it his duty to oppose the Motion. If the Motion had been to take the subject of the Assessed taxes into consideration, he would have supported it; but, at present, and till some substitute were found for the taxes to be repealed, the Motion involved, in fact, a breach of faith with the national creditor. He agreed, however, with the right hon. member for Cambridge, that the House-tax was a lax on property of rent; but, he believed, as it was immediately paid by the tenant, that it was felt by him as a great burthen, in a season of distress, and was consequently most unpopular. He should be happy when the time arrived that both the taxes on houses and windows could be dispensed with.
§ Sir William Ingilbyexpressed his surprise that any of the metropolitan Members should oppose such a proposition as this, which he, a representative of the rural districts, was prepared strenuously to support, though he had himself been treated very scurvily by some hon. Members the other night on this great question. And here he could not but deeply regret the manner in which the two great interests of the country had been arrayed in a compelled opposition to each other, though they could only gain strength by being united. In fact, the Ministers seemed to have resorted to every method in order to suppress the attempts of the people by their Representatives for relief from their overwhelming taxation. However, the noble Lord might rely upon it that he had not done with him yet; for he intended to bring the malt question again before the House whenever the House went again into a Committee of Supply. He considered that the people must be relieved of their burthens in every point. He was very sure that there was a sufficiency of means in the country to enable Ministers to effect the relief; but if there should turn out to be no other effective substitute, he would say, let there be a Property-tax. He would allow that this was an inquisitorial tax, a very unpleasant tax; but rather than not have the Assessed-taxes done away with, he would be one of the first to support 28 a Property-tax. The measure he had brought forward the other night ought to have been carried into effect, having received the sanction of the House. As to the proposition of the noble Lord about its having been carried by "surprise," this was a mere farce. In point of fact, there had been no such thing as "surprise" in the case. He denied that he had "spoken up," as had been alleged, for the landlords. He had "spoken up" for the farmers, the labourers, and the agricultural interest at large.
§ Mr. Roebuckdenied that this was a mere local question; it was a question intimately interesting the whole population. As to the noble Lord's proposition [Calls of "Question" and Disturbance].
§ Mr. Humerose to order. If the House were not willing to hear hon. Members, it was quite clear, that the question would never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
§ Mr. Roebuckrepeated, that the noble Lord's plan for the reduction of taxation was a mere farce. If it benefited anybody, it would only be one particular and limited class, the monopolist landholders of Cheap-side or Bond-street; while the shopkeepers at large of the metropolis, of Bath, and the other great towns, would be burthened as much as ever; and the tax would fall wholly on the tenants. He objected to those taxes, not because they were direct taxes, but because they were unequal in their operation. A great demur had been made to the mention of a graduated tax upon property; but was it forgotten that the House-duty was a tax of this description, only graduated the wrong way?
§ Mr. Tookesaid, that unless they resorted to a Property-tax, they would never keep faith with the public creditor, or satisfy the expectations of the people, who, indeed, would no longer, because they could no longer, bear their burthens. The united feeling of the whole country was against these taxes. He was sorry to trouble the House, but thought it necessary, in order to inform them that the opinions of the learned Sergeant (Spankie) were by no means those of his constituents.
§ Mr. Wardwould oppose the Resolution, not because he was hostile to retrenchment not because he was insensible to the wants and wishes of the people, but because he did not think the taxes in question the most proper which could be selected for abolition. As an honest man and a Member of Parliament, determined to do his duty to his country, he could not conceive 29 how the deficiency which would be occasioned to the Exchequer by so sweeping a reduction could be compensated for in the present state of the country. He did not conceive this compensation possible, even if the economical counsels of the hon. member for Middlesex were acted on with the most determined perseverance. The only safe and efficacious plan for the relief of the country, he believed, would be found in a patriotic revision of the whole system of taxation. He doubted whether the Assessed-taxes bore with severity on the industry of the country, and he firmly believed their amount would be added by the landlords to the rent of the houses the moment Parliament decided for the abolition of those taxes. In furtherance of the opinion he had expressed, he should be ready to support a proposition for a special inquiry respecting a general revision of the taxation of the country, as the only means of insuring practical relief.
§ Mr. Humewas sorry and surprised to hear, that the learned Serjeant (Spankie) would vote in favour of these taxes, for he had considered that hon. and learned Member's speech as conclusive against them. The hon. Member then proceeded to complain of the manner in which Ministers had persisted from the first in insulting the people on this point—first doling out this contemptible item and then that; yet persisted in keeping up a great part of it, with all its expensive machinery, though the distress of the people was undeniable. The expense of collection was enormous, and no inconsiderable portion of these expenses was given to spies, who assisted in the surcharging work. Almost the whole of these expenses might be done away with; and, indeed, he would say, that the taxes, reduced to a proper standard, might be all collected for 3,9,000l., and that this reformation would ultimately produce the highest satisfaction to all parties. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the whole amount of relief would only be 1,100,000l.; and was it to be supposed that such a sum could not be easily made up by reductions? Mr. Hume, in order to show that the sum to be obtained by reductions, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was only 1,100,000l., gave the following particulars:—
| The Amount of duty on Windows and Inhabited Houses, about | 2,500,000 |
| Deduction proposed in the Budget | 100,000 |
| 2,400,000 |
| Surplus balance in the Treasury | 500,000 |
| Leaving | 1,900,000 |
| From which deduct the amount which it is proposed to give to 215,000 houses, from 10l. to 20l. rent, if the six examples of one-half of the rates is to be taken | 600,000 |
| Leaving the sum | 1,300,000 |
| If the amount of the charges of collection of the office of taxes of the whole of the 2,500,000l. was taken off | 200,000 |
| Leaving to be provided for by reduction | £1,100,000 |
§ He would undertake to say, that a diligent revision of the pensions would enable the noble Lord to reduce them ten per cent. The noble Lord might easily economize 1,000,000l. The question, therefore, was, should the country be relieved or not from taxation If the House did not insist on relief. Ministers would not give it. Let the House he firm and reductions of expenditure, he wag sure, must be made; at least, if he were in the noble Lord's place he could effect such reductions as would make up the deficiency caused by reducing this tax. He was for no breach of faith with the public creditor, and he believed that a reduction of taxation would be a better way to preserve faith with the public creditor than these paltry time-serving proceedings. The people expected relief; they had been taught to expect it; and if they did not obtain it they would be greatly disappointed. If nothing were done to give relief to the people and gratify their expectations, they would be more disappointed than ever. If the noble Lord had no other means, he might trust to future resources as he had done in past time, and run the risk of the revenue being deficient a million.
§ Mr. Spring Riceexplained, that he did not state that there was to be a reduction in 230,000 houses of one-half. What he did state was, that there was to be a graduated scale of reduction, beginning with the lowest in the scale. Of the lowest description of houses he had stated that there were 73,000, and that the reduction on them would be one-third, or from 1s.6d. to 1s. There was to be a graduated reduction on the others, from 1s. up to 2s. 3d.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. member for Middlesex talked of the surplus revenue in a strange way, for he proposed to take away 600,000l., and then he calculated upon as large a surplus as before he took 31 away that sum. He admitted that he had, on a former occasion, reduced a larger amount of taxation than he ought; but his apprehensions of a deficiency had never been very great, because he had relied on an increase of the revenue. The hon. Member said, that he had not before heard of the plan which had been explained by his right hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice), which the hon. Member admitted would give relief, and yet he said, in the same speech, that Government was giving no relief at all. Gentlemen must be aware that all the land in towns, and all the shops were held at a sort of monopoly price, and that, consequently, the tax would ultimately be paid by the landlords, though the advantage of the reduction would, in the meantime, go to those who had leases. He objected to the Motion altogether, not because he was fond of taxation, but because he did not think it possible to provide for the necessary services of the State, if so large an amount of taxation was reduced. He objected also to the tax being repealed in October; if it must be repealed, it would be better to repeal it at once. It would, in his view, therefore, be still more objectionable to postpone the repeal to the next year. There was no Resolution he should more deprecate than one pledging the House to a large reduction of taxation at a future time, because it was impossible to foretel what might be the circumstances of the country. It might place the country in a situation of great difficulty. He admitted the inequality of the House-tax in many respects, but he did not agree to the proposition that it ought to be levied in proportion to the sum which a house cost the owner to build it. That would often lead to great injustice. He admitted, too, that these taxes were vexatious from surcharges; but it was in the contemplation of the Government to remove that evil. Too large a proportion of the surveyor's emoluments depended on the surcharges, and this was to be reduced. He had always, in his communications to the Board of Taxes, discountenanced surcharges, and had expressly stated that they ought never to be made, unless there was very good reason for making them. It was easy enough to argue against taxation, because all taxation was in itself an evil, and it was only by comparing it with the greater evil of not providing for the service of the State that it could be defended. He was perfectly ready to leave his case on the admirable speech of his right hon friend the 32 Secretary to the Treasury, which had not been answered by the hon. member for Bath, and ready to leave the case to the decision of the House.
§ Mr. Haweshad understood that the proposition was to be to reduce the tax next April, and to that he was ready to give his assent; but he could not assent to reduce it in October, in the middle of the financial year. He moved, as an Amendment that the taxes should cease on the 5th of April next, instead of the 5th of October.
Mr. Tennysonstated, that, as the 5th of April was more obnoxious to the Government, by the noble Lord's statement, than the 5th of October, he should vote for the original Motion. He thought a revision of taxation necessary, and that a Property-tax should be imposed. Unless the people were relieved, there would be no satisfaction, though he for one, would never countenance the non-payment of taxes. He was persuaded that if the House did not make the reduction now, it would be compelled to do so by and by in haste, and would then do it with regret.
§ Sir Samuel Whalleybriefly replied. He said that the tax did not fall on the landlords; and if it did, it would before now have been repealed. He requested the hon. member for Lambeth to withdraw his Amendment, as more hostile to the Government than the original Motion.
§ Amendment withdrawn, and the House divided on the original question—Ayes 124: Noes 273; Majority 149.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Curteis, Capt. E. B. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Davies, Lieut.-Col. |
| Astley, Sir J. | Denison, W. J. |
| Baillie, J. E. | Dick, Quintin |
| Barnard, E. G. | Dundas, Capt. J. W. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Evans, Colonel |
| Beaumont, T. W. | Etwall, Ralph |
| Berkeley, Hon. C. F. | Faithfull, George |
| Bewes, T. | Fancourt, Major |
| Bish, T. | Fellowes, H. A. W. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Fellowes, Hon. N. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Fenton, John |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Fielden, John |
| Brodie, Captain | Fryer, Richard |
| Brotherton, J. | Gaskell, Daniel |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Godson, Richard |
| Bulwer, H. L. | Grote, George |
| Chandos, Marquess of | Guest, J. J. |
| Chapman, A. | Gully, John |
| Chetwynd, Capt. W. F. | Hall, Benjamin |
| Chichester, J. P. | Halse, James |
| Cobbett, W. | Hanmer, Col. Henry |
| Collier, J. | Harvey, D. W. |
| Crawley, S. | Hawes, Benjamin |
| Henniker, Lord | Townshend, Lord C. |
| Hill, Matthew | Tullamore, Lord |
| Hotham, Lord | Turner, W. |
| Hope, Sir A. | Tynte, C. J. K. |
| Hughes, Hughes | Thompson, Ald. |
| Hume, J. | Walter, J. |
| Humphery, J. | Wason, R. |
| Hutt, W. | Welby, G. |
| Ingilby, Sir W. A. | Whalley, Sir S. |
| James, W. | Wigney, I. |
| Jervis, J. | SCOTLAND. |
| Kemp, T. R. | Gillon, W. D. |
| Key, Sir T. | Maxwell, Sir J. |
| Lamont, Captain N. | Maxwell, J. |
| Langton, Col. G. | Oswald, R. A. |
| Lowther, Viscount | Sinclair, G. |
| Lowther, Hn. Col. H. | IRELAND. |
| Lyall, G. | Butler, Hon. P. |
| Methuen, P. | Daly, J. |
| Miller, W. H. | Finn, W. F. |
| Molesworth, Sir W. | Fitzgerald, T. |
| Penleaze, W. | Fitzsimon, C. |
| Palmer, General | Lalor, P. |
| Parrot, J. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Pease, T. | O'Connell, D. |
| Petre, Hon. E. | O'Connell, M. |
| Philips, M. | O'Connell, C. |
| Philpotts, J. | O'Connell, T. |
| Pigot, R. | O'Connell, M. |
| Plumptre, J. P. | O'Connor Don |
| Robinson, G. R. | O'Connor. F. |
| Roebuck,J. A. | Roche, W. |
| Rotch, B. | Roe, J. |
| Seale, Colonel | Ronayne, D. |
| Shawe, R. N. | Ruthven, E. S. |
| Spry, S. T. | Ruthven, E. |
| Stanley, E. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Stewart, J. | Wallace, T. |
| Taucred, H. W. | Tellers. |
| Todd, R. | Tennyson, C. |
| Tooke, W. | Wood, Ald. |
| Torrens, Colonel R. |
| Paired off. | |
| FOR | AGAINST. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Barron, W. |
| Bulwer, E. L. | Browne, D. |
| Burdett, Sir F. | Eastnor, Lord |
| Clay, W. | Grey, Hon. Col. |
| Handley, H. | Molyneux, Lord G. |
| Handley, B. | Rumbold, C. E. |
| Morrison, J. | Sandon, Lord |
| Roche, D. | Simeon, Sir R. G. |
| Scholefield, J. | Slaney, R. A. |
| Stewart, P. | Waterpark, Lord |
| Tayleure, W. | Wood, Colonel |