No doubt he would be told that this was | proper means of ventilation. On account not the time to bring forward this Motion; of the operation of the window-tax, Mr. but that did not shake his opinion as to the Byers further stated that he had been emexpediency of doing so, because he ob-ployed upon nearly every house in Comptonserved that time was the invariable pretext street, Soho, to reduce the number of used by all Ministers opposed in their windows. hearts to any troublesome Motion, but who had not the courage to say so openly. The history of the house-duty and window-tax, was worth the attention of the House. It was the history of a long series of struggles between the people of Great Britain, and their rulers, in which, he was sorry to say, the health of the people, and the architecture and ventilation of houses in Great Britain, had grievously suffered. particularly dangerous. It was so easy for a Minister to add a little from time to time to the window duties, almost imperceptibly, until by constant additions, the tax had become altogether oppressive and intolerable in the minds of a civilised people, and until the cup was filled to the brim, no one had been aware of the bitterness of the draught. The last time he brought this subject forward, he moved for a Committee of Inquiry; but, unfortunately for him, at that time Committees of Inquiry into the finances of the country were not so popular with the then occupants of the Treasury benches as they were now. On that oc- The window-tax was one of a class of taxes casion he was defeated, and, therefore, finding that inquiry was as much objected to as usual in similar cases, he had been emboldened now to bring forward a Motion for a full and complete repeal of the window-tax. He fairly owned that he threw himself upon the indulgence of the House in performing the task which he had undertaken. And he trusted the House would remember that a humble Member like himself, had not the same means of reviewing the resources of this country as were possessed by his hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, on looking over the taxes of this country, he thought he could find a substitute in the place of the window-tax, and he was ready to propose it for the consideration of Gen-dows. This Act was augmented in Queen tlemen on all sides of the House. It had been boasted that out of 3,500,000 houses in Great Britain, only 500,000 paid the window-tax. He was astonished that such a boast should be made, because the reason why so many houses were exempted was, partly that many houses belonging to wealthy parties had been exempted under various pretexts by various Ministers; partly that in a very great number of houses the number of windows in each had been reduced to seven, on account of the extreme pressure of the window-tax. The first Act for levying duties on inhabited houses was passed in 1695, in the time of William III. This Act, like some of modern times, was only to continue for three years. The tax was 2s. on each house, except a cottage; 4s. additional upon houses with ten windows; and 8s. additional upon houses with twenty win Anne's reign, and again in that of George I., windows being taken as the criterion of the value of a house. In 1747, Pelham passed an Act imposing a tax of 2s. per house. In the same Act a duty was levied of 6d. per window on houses with ten to fourteen windows; 9d. per window from fifteen to nineteen windows; 1s. per window on twenty windows and upwards. The preamble of this Act stated, "whereas the duty on houses has for some years greatly decreased, and the same appears still likely to diminish, owing to the attempts made to He had lately received a letter from evade the tax;" and the next Act, in the Dr. Southwood Smith, a high authority on year 1766, passed by Dowdeswell, again the subject; and in that letter the writer stated, "whereas said house and window said, he did not believe that sanitary re- duties have been greatly evaded." In form could be complete until the window- 1785, an Act was passed to prevent smugtax was abolished. He had received ano-gling in tea, and in consequence of a report ther letter from Mr. Byers, the president of the Carpenters' Society in London, and who had built a great number of houses, which were occupied by persons in the middle classes; and he stated that in houses of that description it often happened that washhouses, and privies, and other outbuildings, were erected without the of the Committee on illicit trade, Mr. Pitt proposed low ad valorem duties on tea, and to make up the deficiency in the revenue by substituting a heavier window-tax. Mr. Pitt introduced his Commutation Bill, and carried it, in defiance of the arguments of Mr. Fox, "that in spite of the absurd calculations of the Committee in respect to Mr. In consequence of re-assessment, an increase of 56,877 houses; Paying additional tax of £262,378. Number of Increase. Decrease. 1841 450,913 ... ... Amount of Tax. Increase. Decrease. ઈ £. 1,613,308 £. ... 466 3,493 1,613,774 1844 447,383 1,275 1,624,103 8,840 years the saving that the taking off the duty on tea, and the laying a tax upon air and light would be to the poor, he trusted that the House would reflect that a window was a necessity, and tea a luxury, and that tea and windows had no more to do with one another than bricks with horses or hats." Belsham said, "Owners both in town and country began to disfigure their houses immediately after the passing of this Act, by blocking up their windows." In 1797, came the Triple Assessment Act. Fox, who had absented himself from Parliament, was specially sent down to oppose this Act, but in vain. The Act passed, even Mr. Pitt regretting that it was necessary to proceed to such extreme financial In number of houses... Total decrease Deduct increase...1,275 measures, owing to the war; and thousands of windows were blocked up next Total decrease in houses assessed in four day, and " Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Pitt!" was chalked upon the vacant spaces. In 1802 and 1808 two more Acts were passed, augmenting the mischief. After these, there was a lull till 1822, when the present Sir John Hobhouse, then Member for Westminster, was defeated in a Motion for the repeal of the window duties. In spite of this, Mr. Robinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1823, finding the heavy window-tax could no longer be sustained in public opinion, had to take off half the amount of the tax. Then came the Act of Lord Althorp in 1834, taking off the house-tax; and in that Act there was a clause which specifically stated, that persons who had been duly assessed, should have the power to open as many windows as they pleased, free of duty; and many people took advantage of that Act by opening a great number of windows. But, unfortunately, in 1841, there was, as there is now, a deficiency in the revenue; and Mr. Baring, after putting 10 per cent upon the assessed taxes, had recourse to a re-assessment, in violation of Lord Althorp's Act. The total number of Houses in Great Britain assessed to the Window-duties in the years previous and subsequent to Mr. Baring's Act for levying additional 10 per cent, were in the years ending April 1st: Total Num ber of Houses. 3,350; ...£10,795 It was the custom with persons to blockade their windows, so as to reduce the number to seven, and thereby free themselves from the window-tax; and if we looked to the number of houses at present with eight or nine windows, and compared them with the number of houses of a similar description in former times, we should see what a frightful state of things had arisen from the infliction of the tax. Total number of houses assessed in 1784, 413,515; ditto in 1845, 453,738. Therefore, in round numbers, there were only about 40,000 more houses assessed in 1845 than in 1784, in spite of the enormous increase in the revenue, wealth, and population of Great Britain (from 10,000,000 in 1784, to 20,000,000 in 1848), during that period. The number of houses assessed with eight windows in the year previous, and subsequent to Baring's Act for imposing additional 10 per cent, also with nine windows: 1840 ... Increase. in 4 years... Window-tax...£6,406 £1,220 Piccadilly, without a house rented under 701, and some houses as high as 1,000l. and 2,000%. Another frightful instance of blocking up win- a year, pays only 1,791. dows to evade the tax. Five hundred and three rich houses in Oxford Houses with eight windows assessed. Extract-street pay 2,310l. window-tax, average 41. 118. In 1841-62,838 { Mr. Baring's re-assessment and 10 per cent additional. per house. Ten small houses in Dufours-place pay 781. window-tax, average 71. 8s. per house. Forty-nine small houses in Broad-street pay 3321. window-tax, average 67. 15s. per house. In Porter's tables (up to the 5th April, 1845), in the account of all the houses in Great Britain which contribute to the window-tax, he gives a list of houses, by which it appears that the tax amounts to 1,647,3051., of which The houses under fifteen windows contribute 544,000l., or one-third of the total amount. The houses under twenty windows contribute 854,4351., or one-half the total amount. The houses under twenty-four windows contribute 1,028,000l. The houses under fifty-five windows contribute 1,500,000l., or two-thirds of the amount. In 1842-59,032 In 1843-56,765 Leaving about 147,000l. to be contributed In 1844...55,692 by the larger houses. He felt that any There was a mistake made with regard to person must be astonished who referred to the window-tax, namely, as to the mode the little book which he held in his hand, in which the windows were taken as the and which was called the Assessor's criterion of the value of a man's house. Warrant. The first point that struck They might as well take the buttons on him was the number of exemptions from his coat as a criterion of the value of what this tax. As usual Ireland figured at the was in his pocket, as take the number of head of the list of exemptions; but, unlike windows in a house as a criterion of the his modern successors, Mr. Robinson had value of the property in it. He begged to given a good reason for exempting Irecall attention to the gross inequality of land. Ireland had been exempted because, He So that if a brick fell out of a wall, and provided the light came through, any man might be instantly surcharged by the assessors not only for one additional window, but, provided the windows in his house were below the magic number 40, he might be surcharged for every window in his house owing to the extra number. as stated by Mr. Robinson in 1821, "the | for those windows he had to pay. impoverished inhabitants of Ireland, to might add that cases of this kind were avoid the additional tax, had resorted to perfectly innumerable. There was another the miserable expedient of stopping up great grievance to be complained of, their windows, and thereby rendering their namely, that the Act of Parliament did houses dark; but in England no such not specify what a window was; and Proeffect had been produced by the window- fessor Scholefield, of Cambridge, had to tax." They next exempted all the public pay for a hole in his coal-cellar, used for offices from the window-tax, and therefore shooting coals through; Mr. John Hatch, the gentlemen who enjoyed themselves in of Soham, near Newmarket, was found public offices might open as many windows liable to pay as a window for similar hole as they pleased. The next exemption con- in his coal-cellar; Mr. Gregory Gragoe, sisted of all farm-houses under 2001. a year toyman, Parson-street, St. George's, Westin the country districts, not in the town dis-minster, was charged for having under the tricts. The next exemption was brought stall-board of his shop an opening into his in by Lord Althorp, who was an agricul- cellar, which opening is supported by iron tural Chancellor of the Exchequer; and bars, but unglazed. He was also charged the agricultural interest in those days was for a hole in the wall of his back cellar, of stronger than the agricultural interest at the dimensions of eighteen inches by fourpresent. Lord Althorp brought in an Act teen, likewise unglazed. The judges were exempting windows and lights in dairies of opinion that Mr. Gragoe was liable to and cheese-rooms. The windows in fac-pay for each hole as a window accordingly. tories were also exempted. There was a certain body in Great Britain which seemed always ready, as far as they could, to follow the example set by the people of Ireland-he alluded to individuals connected both with the law and the Church. He found that the chambers in Oxford, Cambridge, and Lincoln's Inn, were each charged as separate dwelling-houses. That was not the case as related to poorer houses, which were assessed to the window-taxthe different apartments were let separately, but the tenements were charged collectively as a house; consequently, three sets of chambers in the Inns of Court, &c., with seven windows each, were not chargeable, but a house inhabited by three families with seven windows each paid for twenty-one windows upwards of 67. a year. He would now call attention to the manner in which the law was carried into effect in various parts of the country. No window or light in any dwelling-house could be stopped up except it should be effectually done with stone or brick, or the same kind of materials whereof that part of the outside walls of such dwelling-house does consist. No window, for instance, in a brick house could be stopped with wood. It appeared that some persons, ignorant of the law, had stopped up their windows with mortar instead of brick, and he begged to refer to some cases to show what was the result. Amongst them was the case of Hugh Evans, who had closed up seven windows with lath and plaster, instead of with stone; but after having done so he was still charged for those windows, and This tax was collected in a very different manner from the other assessed taxes. In other cases a rich man was trusted to set down how many servants, carriages, or horses, he had, and for these he was charged; but with regard to windows, a poor man was not asked how many he had; and if he had the misfortune to live at a time when a Chancellor of the Exchequer like Mr. Baring took it into his head to renew the assessment, he might find that he was called upon to pay for more windows than he ever knew he possessed. Another grievance was, that all skylights, however constructed, were liable for payment; and thus apertures of all kinds, from double or triple windows, down to openings of half an inch wide, were or might be included. He had heard a great deal of the distress in the country, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that communications on this subject had reached him from persons in the glass trade. It was stated, in a letter from a friend of his in the glass trade (Mr. Swinbourne), that a great part of the community feel no benefit from the reduction of the duty on glass, and that the poor man got no more air or light than before, because the builder had the fear of the assessed taxes before him, and consumed the smallest modicum of glass he could. He might mention the case of one individual who was about to put a glass top to a house, but so much afraid was he of the bill that would be sent in to him for the assessed taxes, that he refrained from doing so. It was said that the houses of the poor were exempt from the tax; and true it was they were, until they came up to a house with eight windows. The charge per window, in a house with eight windows, was 2s. 3d., and then it mounted up until it came to the number of forty, the charge per window for a house with forty windows being 7s. 6d. Then the scale began to descend, and went regularly downwards, until it came to the number 179. He (Lord Duncan) did not like sliding-scales, and thought they had gone out of fashion with the corn laws. Now, he would come to part of his plan-if he might call it by that name-to which he should beg to call the patient attention of the House. It was that part of the plan by which he meant to propose something, as a substitute for this odious and obnoxious tax on light. The House would recollect that the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates in the year 1825 amounted to 15,310,000l.; in 1835, 11,600,000l. was deemed sufficient; in 1845, 15,664,000l.; in 1846, 16,864,000l.; and in the finan-ditional 600,000l. His attention had latecial statement which he had the pleasure, ly been called to a report of the Commisor rather the pain, to hear explained the sioners of Woods and Forests; and he other night to the House, the estimates for must say that that document had struck the year 1848 were calculated to amount him with unmingled astonishment; for the to 18,957,000l. Now, if his right hon. revenue of the woods and woodlands was Friend would in this time of peace merely there stated at 44,245l. 13s. 101d.; the ask the same sum for the Army, Navy, expense of management at 35,839. 7s. 4d. and Ordnance that was required in 1846, In what he was about to propose to the he could at once take 2,000,000l. off the House, he felt it his duty at once to say estimates, which would enable him to grant that he would not include the Royal palthe repeal of the window-tax. However, aces; for, considering the gracious bearing that was not the plan he meant to propose: of Her Majesty on all occasions of public in making that suggestion, he merely wish-distress, and the readiness with which Her ed to show that if his right hon. Friend were anxious to do what he (Lord Duncan) required, how it could be done in a most popular manner; however, he only mentioned this to show that by such a course the window duties might be got rid of. Ordnance, 245,000l.; while for militia there was a sum of 150,000l.—making on the whole an increase of 600,000l. Now, he should propose and assume that his right hon. Friend having carried the property-tax and the rest of the budget, should take the same estimates as last year, and then there would fall to be deducted a sum of 600,000l. Next, he would cut off the squadron employed on the African coast for the suppression of the slave trade, and he found this expenditure amounted to 300,000l.; so that with these two sums they had 900,000l. The next proposal that he would make was, that in place of the 5,000 additional soldiers coming home from India, the Government should furnish the metropolitan police force with muskets. He did not wish to make them soldiers; but he thought that in the event of the French coming over, it would be of great use to have such a large armed force in the metropolis; while the troops from India, on their arrival in their own country, could be allowed to repose on their laurels. In this case, then, there would be a reduction of 100,000l.; altogether making 1,000,000l. He would now come to an important part of the plan which he recommended. He had shown how they could retrench 1,000,000l. by various modes of economy, and he would now point out how they could raise an ad He had listened the other evening most attentively to the statement of the noble Lord, and he heard from him that he estimated the whole amount of the expenditure for the following year at 54,750,000l. The increase in the service estimates was, for the Navy, 164,000l.; Army, 43,000l.; Majesty, when the budget of 1842 was brought forward, had graciously signified Her intention of spontaneously taking upon herself Her share of the public burdens, he trusted he should be the last man in Her dominions to make any proposition for interfering with the Royal palaces or domains. He would, however, direct their attention to that portion of the property under the charge of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests called the outlying property; and the greater part of that he would dispose of. The property he alluded |