A Tax on Companionship

William Windham MP was appalled at the idea of levying a tax on man’s best friend.

1796

King George III 1760-1820

Introduction

In 1796, a proposal went before Parliament to tax dogs, partly as a rebuke to rich sportsmen, and partly because it was felt that the poor were frittering away their income support on dog-food. Windham was not much bothered about the rich sportsmen, but he leapt to the defence of the poor man and his lurcher.

As reported, abridged

IT was unworthy [said Mr Windham] of this or any other country, to levy a rate on any animal, because that animal was not employed in tilling ground, or because the poor might feed on dogs’ provisions.* It appeared as if there was not room enough on earth for men and dogs.

Some dogs are retained by the poor as implements of trade, and the Legislature ought not to tax the industry, but the expenditure, of the people. Some were retained for their companionable qualities; if the rich man feels a partiality for a dog, what must a poor man do, who has so few amusements? A dog is a companion of his laborious hours; and when he is bereft of his wife and children, fills up the dreary vacuity.

It would be cruel and impolitic to pass such a law; it is a sort of law, from which every man would revolt. The dog is a companion to a solitary man, and to a man with a family a play-fellow for his children.*

As reported, abridged

Abridged from ‘Select speeches of the Rt Hon. William Windham and the Rt Hon. William Huskisson’ (1841), ed. Robert Walsh.

That is, because the poor were spending money on feeding their dogs instead of themselves. Windham pointed out, first, that the food given to dogs was not generally fit for human consumption, and had to be disposed of somehow; second, that such sacrifices were a testimony to man’s affection for his pets; and third, that if dogs were taxed, people wouldn’t abandon their pets, they would register for income support.

The Bill was thrown out ‘without a division’, i.e. without even bothering to take a formal vote. It was opposed also by the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger (PM from 1873-1801).

Précis
In 1796, a Bill was laid before Parliament proposing to tax dogs. William Windham MP rose to oppose it, arguing that the tax would hit the poor the hardest, as their dogs were not merely for sport, but for work or companionship in what could be a very empty existence. The Bill was comprehensively defeated.
Questions for Critics

1. What is the author aiming to achieve in writing this?

2. Note any words, devices or turns of phrase that strike you. How do they help the author communicate his ideas more effectively?

3. What impression does this passage make on you? How might you put that impression into words?

Based on The English Critic (1939) by NL Clay, drawing on The New Criticism: A Lecture Delivered at Columbia University, March 9, 1910, by J. E. Spingarn, Professor of Comparative Literature in Columbia University, USA.

Sevens

Suggest answers to this question. See if you can limit one answer to exactly seven words.

What did the Bill before Parliament propose?

Suggestion

That all dog owners should be taxed.

Jigsaws

Express the ideas below in a single sentence, using different words as much as possible. Do not be satisfied with the first answer you think of; think of several, and choose the best.

Parliament should not tax the industry of the people. It should tax only the expenditure of the people.

Read Next

‘Nobody Wants to Invade You’

Richard Cobden told an Edinburgh peace conference that the biggest threat to the United Kingdom’s security was her own foreign policy.

The Artist Gardener

Gertrude Jekyll explains the difference between a garden and a collection of plants.

Truth By Statute?

John Milton reminded Parliament that the Truth wasn’t what they and their fact-checkers in Stationers’ Hall made it.