HC Deb 05 May 1873 vol 215 cc1491-520
MR. STANSFELD,

in rising to explain the provisions of the three measures which he had placed upon the Paper—namely, a Bill to amend the Law respecting the Liability and Valuation of property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes; a Bill to provide for uniformity in the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes; and a Bill to amend the Law respecting the collection and making of Rates, and to provide for a Consolidated Rate, said:—Sir, I propose to confine myself to-night to moving for Leave to bring in these three Bills, and to postpone to a future day the Motion of which I have given Notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the desirability of altering the existing Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties. I will therefore at once proceed to explain the nature of the proposals I am about to make to the House. The first of the three Bills is a measure, the object of which is to repeal certain existing exemptions from rateability, so as to enlarge the area of rateable property throughout the country. The object of the second Bill is to make uniform for the purposes of both rating and taxation, the valuation and the assessment of property over the same area; and the object of the third Bill is to simplify the collection of rates by the adoption of the scheme for a consolidated rate, which has been already brought under the notice of the House by my right hon. Friend who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen). There can be no doubt of the great interest felt in, and the growing sense of the difficulty and importance of, the large complex question of which these Bills only form as it were a threshold and a part, for the interest of the House and of the public has been awakened to the question of local government and local taxation by a sense of the pressure of local rater When the shoe pinches, great reforms are sometimes at hand; and, as far as I am concerned, I do not regret any debate which has occurred in this House during the present or the preceding Session, although in the course of them exaggerated views may have been occasionally expressed; because I for one, as taking an interest in the reform of our system of local government, am glad that the attention of Parliament and of the country has been called to this important subject. But though that is the case, I trust the House will allow me, in no disputatious spirit, but for the sake of accuracy, which can do no man and no cause any harm, and for the sake of that common moderating of views and feelings on all sides which, I trust, may lead us to consider this subject, so as to bring it to a happy issue—I hope the House will allow me to refer to some of the financial aspects of the question. Now, as the House knows, there is something attractive and even unduly fascinating in figures when they become familiar. The mind likes to dwell on large amounts, such as millions, whether they refer to possessions, or even to the burdens which are supposed to weigh upon individuals or the community. Now, I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is not, in some sense, responsible for those large figures which have struck the imagination, and caused confused perceptions of this subject, for to him we owe the first Return of the total local expenditure of the country. The imaginative figures of that Return, which have taken possession of some minds, state that the total local expenditure of the country in 1871 was £29,948,030. In commencing to deal with the subject, it is my first duty to endeavour to take something away from the attractiveness of those figures, and to look into the details of the Return, in order to present the result with accuracy to the House. Well, £30,000,000, roughly speaking, was the total expenditure in 1871 upon objects which we have been accustomed to call local objects in this country; but the burden on the ratepayers of the country is something very different, and very much less. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) put the burden upon the public in the localities at £25,000,000 of money, and I take it he arrived at that result by the very legitimate process of eliminating from the account the amount of tolls, dues, and duties; for the House will understand that tolls, dues, and duties are neither taxes nor rates, because they are payments demanded not from the general community, but from persons choosing, of their own free will, and finding it worth their while, to avail themselves of some existing local advantages and conveniences, for which they are glad with the same free will to pay. But I shall have to reduce the sum very far below that total of £25,000,000, because when I turn from the column of total expenditure to the column of charge in respect of rates, I find the total reduced from very nearly£30,000,000 to £17,405,711. But my process of the disintegration of this amount, I am bound to say, is not yet finished, for with reference to the question, not merely of local burdens, but of local burdens which have no claim to Imperial relief, we have to go further, and. in going further I am reading no new lesson to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), for if it were necessary, I could cite extracts from his speeches in which he has drawn the distinction which I seek to draw. The distinction which I seek to draw, broadly speaking, is between remunerative and non-remunerative rates, or, to speak more exactly, I should say between directly remunerative and what you might call property-improvement rates—expenditure of a character which an enlightened owner of large property would undoubtedly take upon himself, if it were not otherwise provided—and that expenditure for more general purposes which, whether levied nationally or locally, in no inconsiderable degree undoubtedly increases the value of property in all localities throughout the country. Well, I have made that distinction, and the result at which I have arrived with regard to the year 1871 is this—I take what I call non-remunerative, or at least not directly remunerative rates—the poor rate, the county and rural police rates, the borough police rates, the metropolitan police rate, the City of London police rate; and I make the total—so far as it is levied by taxation, and is not derived from other sources—to be £11,426,087. On the other side I take the highway rate, the metropolitan local management rate, the metropolitan consolidated rates, the City of London ward rates, the towns' improvement rates, the local board rates —many of which really include the charge for gas and water, and are not strictly speaking rates at all, lighting and watching rates, sewers rates, and drainage rates, and so on; and I put all this down at a total of £5,979,624. Therefore, giving the figures in round numbers, I find that in 1871 the rates not directly remunerative amounted to £11,500,000, or a little less; while the directly remunerative or property-improvement rates, which can have no shadow of a claim to Imperial contribution, amounted to something less than £6,000,000. I have therefore reduced the great and fascinating figure of £30,000,000; first, to £17,500,000, and then, to £11,500,000, as far as this question is concerned; but I cannot even leave the £11,500,000 without deduction. A fallacy has obtained in the arguments of many hon. Gentlemen on this subject, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon has always escaped from it. The fallacy is as follows. Because a certain amount is levied on the real property of the country, it is assumed or argued in a somewhat vague way, that the injustice of the burden has some relationship and proportion between the annual value of the real property of the country and the income of the country, as derived from all sources. Now I wish to show what I venture to call the fallacy of this notion. The rates fall upon occupiers and owners, no matter for the moment in what proportion; but occupiers and owners, and those who depend upon occupiers and owners, are the people of the country, with very small exceptions, and therefore it is not correct to say that the gross value of the property of the country is £120,000,000, or what amount we like, and the income of the country £400,000,000, £500,000,000, or £600,000,000; and the injustice is in that proportion, because the income is possessed by the very persons who are taxed upon rateable property. Consequently, even the question as to the reduced sum of £11,500,000 is subject to the consideration as to how far the owners and occupiers of property are taxed in proportion to their ability, and in proportion to the advantage they derive from the expenditure of these local rates. All political economists, will, I think, bear me out in the assertion, that there is, perhaps, no subject more difficult upon which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion than the real, exact, and ultimate incidence of rates and taxes; but this I will venture to say—and I think no one will deny it—that however partial the incidences on persons of a tax or a rate may appear to be, yet its tendency, if you give it time, is to diffuse itself, and that, therefore, the burden of £11,500,000 is first of all to be diminished in a matter of argument with reference to the consideration, how far it may or may not be fairly distributed amongst those who, as practically constituting the whole community, should bear it; and secondly, with reference to that intricate problem of political economy, what is the ultimate and the accurate and exact incidence of any rate or tax? But, Sir, I have made these remarks not for the sake of, or with the slightest desire to attenuate in any hon. Member's mind the interest and importance of this subject, because I venture to say that no man can attach a greater importance to it than I do myself; and because I congratulate myself and I congratulate all those who feel an interest in the subject, on the fact of the discussions which have taken place, and on the fact that some sense of the burden has led the minds of hon. Members of this House to open themselves on a question which I believe to be of the greatest interest and importance to the future of this country, whether in reference to the Imperial Government or to local government itself. The subject being not only of great interest and importance, but of very great complexity and dimensions, I presume only to touch the very fringe of the question to-night, and, therefore, I propose only to introduce to the House some measures having for their object the practical reform of the existing system of local taxation. Next, I shall have to ask the House to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the parish, union, and county boundaries, and the object of that inquiry will be to prepare the way for the very much greater and more important and difficult branch of the question—namely, the subject of local government itself. When we have come to the question of local government itself, the House knows that in the next place—and, I might almost say, contemporaneously with that inquiry—we must address ourselves to the question which is uppermost in men's minds—the question of the true relations for the future between Imperial and local government, and the nature and the amount of contributions which might properly be made, and the conditions under which they ought to be made out of the Imperial revenue in aid and in relief of local burdens. The House, I am sure, therefore, will not differ from me when I say that we must address ourselves to the whole of this question by steps and by degrees. I know very well that this will require patience, if not some confidence in us, on the part of the House. I would say, as a justification for our appeal to the patience, and to some extent to the confidence, of the House, that there is really no alternative; that no party occupying the position of a Government could deal with the question in any other way; and that no persons—and here I would appeal with confidence to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon—feeling any responsibility on this subject and being bound themselves not merely to bring it before the attention of the public and of Parliament, but to propose its solution, could pretend or presume to approach it except gradually and by degrees. I would adduce this further reason in favour of that mode of proceeding—that if we really ask ourselves honestly the condition of this question as a whole in our own minds, as well as in the mind of the public, we are conscious that we want time for it to grow; we know that we want it to be brought gradually before the public. We want to know what the public outside think, as well as what we ourselves have begun to think; and as for myself, though I probably have given as much daily close attention to the subject for the last 12 months as any man, I should not be prepared, and I should be unwilling to address myself to the solution of the great and ulterior questions to which I have referred until I had first of all taken these preliminary steps to which I am now inviting the attention and acquiescence of the House. My right hon. Friend the First Minister the other night indicated the order of proceeding. I move to-night for the introduction of three Bills, and I hope to move on the next occasion, possibly on Thursday next, for the Committee of which I have given Notice. When that Committee shall have reported, I shall be in a position, and the Government will be in a position, to consider what further measures it will be necessary to adopt in order to complete the system of the local organization of the country with respect to those burdens. Now, Sir, in considering the subject of local taxation, there are three matters which we have to bear in mind. We have to think first of the property which ought to be subject to rates, and made liable to rateability; we have to think, in the next place, of how this property ought to be valued; and, in the third place, we may address ourselves as a question of practical convenience to the easiest and simplest method of collecting the rates. Now, Sir, what property ought to be rated? The House knows that our law is based upon the statute of Elizabeth. The statute of Elizabeth is the first Act of Parliament by virtue of which those properties are defined which are the subject-matter of rates. That Act has been somewhat modified by subsequent legislation, and its meaning has been made clear by the interpretations from time to time of Courts of Law; but the principle—if I may so say—of the Act of Elizabeth was this—that property to be rated should be locally situated in the parish in which it was to be rated, and that it should be tangible and visible property. That principle of the Act excluded incorporeal hereditaments, such as rights of shooting, fishing, and the franchise, and all other such rights, when severed from the occupation of the soil; because the House must understand that rights of that kind when enjoyed together with the occupation of the soil added to the value of the occupation, and therefore came to be rated when the annual value of real and tangible property had to be rated and assessed. Well, but besides the exclusion of incorporeal hereditaments, certain corporeal hereditaments of real property came to be excluded by the words of the Act of Elizabeth and by the interpretation placed upon those words by the Courts of Law. The Act of Elizabeth mentioned coal mines only, and therefore ail other mines—all metalliferous mines—have been excluded from the rates, with this exception—that where the owner has been paid not by a rent, but by a portion of the produce, by a kind of fiction in the Courts of Law he has been held to be in occupation of a portion of the mine, and has been rated in respect thereof, Again, in the Act of Elizabeth, saleable underwood is mentioned only, and therefore by the interpretation of the law, woods and plantations which are not underwood have been excluded from rateability. The Crown, too, is not mentioned in the Act, and as hon. Members are aware, since no Act can bind the Crown in which the Crown is not mentioned, all Crown property—a phrase to which the Courts have given a very large interpretation—has practically been exempted from rates. Besides these exemptions based upon interpretations of the Act of Elizabeth, there are exemptions founded upon subsequent legislation. The House knows that churches and chapels have been exempted from rateability by an Act of William IV., and, although Sunday schools and ragged schools have been—I will not say exempted, yet the parish in which they are located has been enabled, at its own cost, to exempt them by Act of Parliament—and literary and scientific institutions have also been exempted by statute. Now, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty dealt with this subject in his Bill of two years ago. He dealt with it in a way complete, and in a very logical method. He abolished all the exemptions, he made all hereditaments—corporeal and incorporeal—the subject-matter of rates, and in his Bill He proposed to assign the house tax in relief of the coal bin-dens, which were occasioned by imposition of rates. What I have to do now is to explain to the House how far the present proposal of the Government is identical, and how far and in what respect it differs from their former proposal. We have not endeavoured to frame a measure upon the consideration that it should have the advantage and the merit of being so logical and complete as the measure which we proposed two years ago. There is no doubt that the perfection of the logic and the completeness of a measure is a great recommendation; but we have thought from criticisms which that measure received, that perhaps we should better meet the general orders and wishes of the House by taking a less ambitious course. We have, therefore, in order to meet those views, and secondly in order to make our meaning, and to make the effect of our proposed legislation so clear that no one can by possibility misunderstand it —we have inverted the form of proceeding, and we have adopted the less philosophical method than that adopted two years ago of indicating one by one the subject-matters to which we think it, on the whole, advisable to extend the law of rateability, so that, at least, our present proceeding will have the advantage in the eyes of the House of making perfectly clear what additions we propose to make to the liability of owners of property of any kind. In the first place, we propose—and I am sure the House will be prepared for this announcement—to rate all mines besides coal mines. The Bill, as it is now drawn, simply includes them in the liability to rating. I know that various questions will be raised as to the method by which we should arrive at a valuation of mines for rating purposes, and I have not seen my way to doing more than saying that the Act of Elizabeth shall extend from coal mines to all other mines. We come next to woods and plantations other than saleable underwood, and we propose to make them liable also. We have not again inserted in our Bill any proposed method of valuation. I might have fallen back on the method of the Scotch Act. Scotland is a wood-growing country; the Scotch people are generally supposed to understand business, public or private, and therefore I might have done what I felt disposed at one time to do. I might have fallen back on the precedent of the Scotch Act, and defined in my Bill the method of valuation so as to determine the rateability of plantations. On the whole, however, I thought, and the Government thought, it would be better to place the Bill before the House simply as a measure proposing to introduce a rateability where rateability does not now exist. Then we propose to retain the statutory exemption for churches and chapels, and that is the only statutory total exemption from rateability that we propose to retain. The House will not forget that we are intending to submit Government property to rateability; and, therefore, the question what property ought to be rated and what property ought to be exempted is not exactly the same as it was when it was not proposed to subject Government property to rateability. We proposed, therefore, to repeal the Act which enables Sunday schools and ragged schools to escape from their contribution to the rates of the parish in which they are situated. There are also public Acts, and Local, Personal, and Private Acts, which hardly, correctly speaking, exempt property from rateability, but which sometimes exempt the occupiers from payment of the rate, throwing it on the parish—I will not undertake to say my recollection is accurate, but, probably, the Foundling Hospital is in that position—or, which reduces, fixes, and minimizes the value on which certain properties are in future to be rated. Now, on the first blush of the question, and taking what I may call an abstract and philosophical view, one would say undoubtedly, that all these provisions, Public or Private, should be repealed. But, nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion, and my Colleagues have shared in it—on looking at all those Acts, their number, the length of time during which they have operated, considering how much property has been bought, sold, and inherited with reference to these conditions, and how far these partial exemptions may fairly be regarded as statutory—they have come to the conclusion not to interfere with these cases, and to leave these partial exemptions just as they stand under existing legislation. I come lastly to the question of the rateability of Government property. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) proposed to repeal the exemption which Government property has enjoyed, and we now continue that proposal; but I have to explain to the House—and I must do it as carefully as I can—the method in which we mean to deal with that subject. It is not possible to deal with it simply by repealing the exemptions; at least, if it is possible; it is not advisable; and I think the House itself will hardly treat the question, simply by repealing the exemption of Government property, and leaving the question of its rateable value to be determined by the tribunals of the various localities in which it is situated. Let us consider for a moment the peculiar character and conditions of Government property with reference to this subject. I will take four cases. First, there is the case of a building appropriated, in town or country, to the use of the Post Office, or the Inland Revenue, and other small properties of that kind employed for the purposes of the State. These, I think, may very easily be dealt with on ordinary principles, and be fairly and safely referred to the local assessment committees and and local judicial tribunals to decide. But I next come to a totally different class of case. I will take the Parks. The Parks of this metropolis, with some minor exceptions which I need not mention, have never been the subject-matter of rates, and they have never been withdrawn from rateability to which they had previously been subject; so that parishes have grown up around these Parks with a perfect knowledge of that condition relating to them. Further, these Parks are not properties which create either wealth or poverty. The kind of property which is logically the subject-matter of rates is that which. creates wealth, and which, at the same time, unfortunately, as far as our experience goes, inevitably creates poverty as well. That is to say, it employs labour to a large extent. In the third place, the Parks of London are maintained at a very considerable cost to the general taxpayer, no doubt for the convenience and pleasure of the general taxpayer when he wishes, but, perhaps, more for the convenience and pleasure of the residents of London themselves. And further, it is within the knowledge of the House, that the value of the property immediately adjoining the Parks is not diminished by their unrateability, but very largely increased by the amenity they give to that part of the town. I do not think, therefore, the House will consent to the Parks being taxed, unless it is placed in the possession of some kind of estimate, however rough, of the amount which we should have to call upon it to pay out of the general taxation of the country, and at this moment I can afford no such information —the House will not consent, simply on the ground of general principle, to say that the Parks, like other Government property, should be subjected to rates, and leave it to the local tribunals to ascertain their value and assess them. Then I come to fortifications, which are often constructed, as the nature of the case makes evident, on hill-sides. Those hills may feed sheep; but that is all they are likely to do. An enormous sum, however, was spent in converting those hill-sides or cliffs into fortifications. Undoubtedly, if we leave the valuation of such property to a local tribunal, there will be considerable risk that it may, in the interest of the locality, value the fortifications with reference to the amount of capital expended on that barren land. That would be very un- sound, because, however useful they may be for the defence of the country, they have no mercantile or money, and therefore, properly speaking, no rateable value. It has come to my knowledge that when the late Sir George Cornwall Lewis in 1859 was contemplating a measure of this description, he obtained a rough estimate of the value of War-Office property. I have not been able to get that estimate, but the gross amount was something like £17,000,000, the amount of capital, probably expended upon them, a basis very unsound in my view, for valuation. I, therefore, put it to the House whether, in regard to property of this kind, it should be left to local authorities to value it on some arbitrary plan in reference to the amount expended on it? I come now to a totally different class of Government property—I mean the manufacturing departments of the Government, the dockyards and arsenals, on which I think rates have a very fair claim. Now, I am sure the House will agree With me that everything which produces wealth or property produces pauperism likewise, and therefore ought to bear its share of taxation—and the dockyards and arsenals belong to this class, but even here I think the House will agree that it should not be left to be valued according to ordinary and local measures of valuation. If we had a shipyard used, like a firm, for the purpose of producing a balance-sheet, with something on the profit side of the account, we might fairly value our premises according to the ordinary valuation of the assessment committees. But a Government dockyard is not in that position. No private firm could undertake to pay the rent that ought to be paid for a Government dockyard, doing no more business than a Government does, because, a dockyard as an arsenal exists not only for the ordinary purposes of manufacture and repairs during time of peace, but for the extraordinary exigencies of a time of war. Thence it appears to me, and I hope also to the House, that it is wiser not simply to say that Government property shall be subject to rateability, and leave its valuation to local tribunals, but to retain some hold of that question ourselves, and to settle it in a different method. We, therefore, propose in the first place, to repeal the existing exemptions of Government property from rateability; but it is also proposed that these exemptions shall take effect when the value for the purposes of rating has been ascertained; and I have also a proposal to make with respect to the method of valuation. What I have to propose is, that the Government, availing itself of whatever assistance it may deem necessary, and having caused to be enumerated the properties properly subjected to rates, and those which are not, shall submit to the House a scheme for valuation, which will be brought forward at the beginning of next Session, and which will show the valuation of these properties which should be subject to rateability. That scheme or schemes will, like Provisional Orders, require confirmation by Act of Parliament, and any scheme to which local objection may be made may be discussed before a Select Committee of the House. I can not help thinking that the House will agree with me that this is a proposal which the complications and difficulties of the subject make reasonable, and that it is a proposal just both to the localities which have to be relieved, and the taxpayers who have to pay for that relief. I come, in the next place, passing from the first Bill, to the second, which deals with measures of valuation and assessment. Much has been done by the legislation of recent years to secure accuracy and uniformity of assessment. The Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), passed in 1862, and known as the Unions Assessment Act, is one of great value, and one which reflects great credit on the Poor Law Department as well as upon my right hon. Friend himself. By that Act is secured what was very much wanted at the time, uniformity of valuation and uniformity of deductions, for the purpose of getting at the gross rateable value within unions, and the result of the Act has been eminently successful in procuring uniformity of valuation. But the Act was of course not complete, for his right hon. Friend could not, he believed, have well gone farther at the time than he had done, and there was accordingly a deficiency in the measure. The county rate, as the House knows, is levied by the valuation which the Justices make, and the valuation of the union assessment committees does not bind the county; so there is not uniformity between unions and parishes and different unions, and, above all, the Act does not secure a valuation which may be accepted as the basis not only of rates, but of taxation also. The variation in valuation as distinguished from assessment is not comparatively great, but I think the House will be surprised to hear how very great and how very numerous and complicated are the differences in arriving at the net or rateable value of property. You first value the property gross, and then you make those reductions which are necessary to obtain the net value. From a Return issued in 1866, I find that, at that time, as to land without buildings there were 37 different scales in the different unions of the country, and that the deductions varied from nothing—if that can be called a deduction—to 24 per cent. I find, with regard to land with buildings there were 56 different scales, and deduction from 1½ to 50 per cent. As to the houses above £5 and under £8, there were 74 different scales, and deductions from 2 to 50 per cent. With houses from £8 to £15 there were 48 scales, with deductions from 5 to 36 per cent; and with houses from £15 and upwards there were 53 scales, with deductions varying from 5 to 33 per cent. As to mills there were 56 scales, with deductions from 10 to 50 per cent; and with regard to manufactories there were 41 scales, with deductions from 5 to 50 per cent. Now, what is desirable must be at once evident to the House. It is desirable that we should have uniformity of gross valuation, and uniformity of deduction for the purpose of arriving at the net or rateable value not only as between every parish and union in the county, but as between the various counties, in order that we may have one basis of valuation for taxes such as the income tax, the house duty, as well as for rates. This desideratum, which is no novelty, and not an invention of mine, has been the subject of two Bills before the House already—one in 1867, by the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt); and another in 1869, by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. Now the Bill which I propose is founded upon those two measures. We propose to secure accuracy and uniformity of valuation by introducing the surveyor of taxes to propound the valuation, and to deal with it in the interests of the Inland Revenue, and we propose to secure uniformity of deduction by inserting certain maximum deductions in the Bill which, from our experience of the Metropolis Valuation Act, we think will be generally accepted as the general deductions to be made. We further propose that the valuation shall be quinquennial, and that there shall be an appeal; but at the same time we think it desirable that the existing system of appeal first against the valuation, and then against the rate founded upon it, shall not be adopted, as involving a waste of time and money. [An hon. MEMBER: To whom, then, will the appeal lie?] In the first place, to all the Justices; but there must be an alternative, and I am not sure how the matter may be ultimately settled. But the first appeal will be to the Quarter Sessions, or to a Committee of the Sessions. I might, perhaps, make my explanation more clear, if I were to state categorically, in what respect the present proposals differ from those which are contained in the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, to which I have already referred. That Bill retained the present assessment committees and my Bill does the same. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman created a County Board—which was to expire when its functions were performed—to fix the scale of deductions within the limits of the Bill. I make no such proposal, and I believe, from experience, it will be found that the maximum scale proposed will be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in the third place, that the valuation should be conclusive, both for Government and local purposes, and my proposal is identical; but while the right hon. Gentleman's Bill provided that the valuation should be revised every three years, my proposal is that the revision shall be quinquennial. Again, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint a surveyor of taxes, with a right of appeal, and in the present Bill a similar proposition is contained; but the right of appeal which the right hon. Gentleman would give to the County Court Judge, it is now proposed to give to Quarter Sessions. [Mr. HUNT said, he gave a right of appeal to the County Court Judge, or to a Committee of Sessions.] I would, in the next place, observe that there has been somewhat of a scandal with regard to the uncertainty with which great mansions have been valued, although I am bound to say that the result of the Unions Assessment Act has been to diminish that scandal. It is not unnatural that there should be some sense of grievance at what I may term, at least, an inaccuracy of valuation. The ordinary principle of valuation adopted, whether legally or not I cannot say, is to test the value of property by its lettable value. But when the property consists of a mansion, which is the ornament of an estate and which is never let, there is no means of ascertaining its lettable value; and the owners of such properties have escaped on terms which they themselves scarcely regard as creditable or equitable against themselves. It is not an easy matter to define value when the market value cannot be ascertained; but I have endeavoured, in response to the general feeling of the House, in which I myself share, to draw up a clause to secure the fair valuation of such property as I have just referred to. I will not dwell upon the point at the present moment, and it will be best for the House to well consider it when it is before them; but I will merely state the clause proposes to impose upon the rating authority, and upon the judicial authority which may have to decide between the rating authority and the appellant owner of the property rated, the duty of determining the rateable value of a house, the letting value of which cannot be ascertained, because it is not liable under ordinary circumstances to be let. If the House will allow me I wish to state that I put this clause before them for discussion and in no absolute spirit, for I am fully aware of the difficulty of the subject; but at the same time I feel that there is a general sense that if possible some form of words shall be arrived at which will make it palpable to the public that the owners of houses of the peculiar character I have pointed out are on the whole bearing their full share of local burdens. [An hon. MEMBER: Do the proprietors of mines and woods get the benefit of the maximum deductions?] I am asked whether the maximum of deductions to which I have referred will apply to mines and woods. Certainly they will, and to all other classes of property, unless we find reason in passing this Bill through Committee, to make other and more specific methods of dealing with them. I now come to the third Bill, as to which I need detain the House but a very short time. The object of the third Bill is to enable the making of a consolidated rate. Any man who pays rates—and where is the man in this House who does not—has an experience not altogether agreeable, not only as to their amount, but as to their unintelligibility. I think it advisable that they should be intelligible, and I do not know a better way of making them intelligible than by providing that all rating authorities should make their demands upon a parochial authority, who should levy a consolidated rate, stating in the demand note the proportions of that rate for each particular subject of demand, and levying that rate by convenient, probably quarterly, instalments. The object of that proposal is to make the rate intelligible to everybody. That appears to be a very simple object, but I think it one of very considerable importance, and it is a proposal based upon the Reports of two Committees of this House. The first is the Report of the Select Committee upon Poor Rate Assessments, which sat in 1868, and was presided over by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton). In that Report I find a recommendation to the effect, that every local authority entitled to raise any money by means of local rates shall make a requisition upon the overseers, or other proper officer, for the whole amount required, as far as the same can be estimated for a period of one year, that the requisition shall be delivered to the overseer, or such other officer, a reasonable time before the commencement of the year, so as to enable him to comply with the terms of such requisition; and that such overseer shall, on receipt of such requisitions, make one consolidated rate sufficient to satisfy all such requisitions. The other was the Committee on Local Taxation which sat in 1870, and was presided over by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen); and they recommended that on a rate being made, a demand note should be left with every ratepayer, stating the amount of the requisition, the rate in the pound for each purpose, the period for which the rate is made, the rateable value of the premises, the amount of rate, and the date for payment of each instalment. We adhere to their proposals with two exceptions; we do not propose to create parochial councils for any purpose, and in fact the Public Health Act of last Session will have prepared hon. Members for the announcement. We propose to leave the parochial collection of rates to the overseers. In the next place, there is a special partial exemption from rates which land as distinct from houses enjoys in sanitary districts to the extent of three-fourths of the sanitary rates. There can be no doubt that if you have an area of local taxation perfectly hornogeneous in its character, as a thoroughly urban population, there will be very great convenience as well as justice and great simplicity in having all rates based upon a full valuation; but, however desirable that may be, it is not possible as things are. For instance, I suppose the greater proportion of municipal boroughs in this country consist to some extent of land which is not covered with houses, and which does not derive equal benefit from the expenditure on sewers, the supply of gas and water, or the paving of streets as that part of the borough which is more thickly populated. But we have also to deal with urban sanitary authorities of all kinds, with local government boards, and local government districts, and I speak practically and from an administrative point of view when I say that in such a matter you could not possibly have that uniformity which is desirable, with any justice to that portion of the district which is not already covered with houses. Hon. Members know that in the Public Health Act of last year, I gave urban powers under certain circumstances to rural authorities. Where you have a village or some little industrial community not large enough to be constituted an urban authority in itself, we took power to give the rural sanitary authority urban powers as regards their expenditure on such portions of their district. Now we have no wish, in any degree, to appear to restrict or take away those powers, as we should have to do in fixing an uniform valuation, and, therefore, it would be extremely unfair to have the same valuation in all cases. I hope I have now, though only in dry outline, afforded sufficient information to induce the House to give me leave to introduce these Bills, and that I have not wearied them in doing so. I hope at the earliest possible period to go into the larger and in one sense more interesting and important question of local government in its relation to the Imperial Government, and to the hold which the Imperial Government ought to have upon it. When I come to that subject, I shall only have to ask the House to enable me to prepare the way to propose measures on a future occasion. For the present, all that I have done is to address myself to the first, smallest, and simplest branch of the subject; but I trust that I have sufficiently satisfied the House to give me leave to introduce these Bills, and that I have succeeded in so presenting the question, that the House will feel that our object and endeavour have been to present to it proposals fair, practical, and moderate; and tending, as we hope they will, to an issue in which we may all join. I move for leave to bring in the first of the Bills of which I have given Notice.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to amend the Law respecting the Liability and Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes (Queen's Consent signified), ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. GOSCHEN, and Mr. HIBBERT.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, —"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for uniformity in the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, he rose for the purpose of making a few general remarks on the statement of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. To many portions of the scheme of the Government Local Taxation, Reformers would, no doubt, give their adhesion; but he was bound to say, that instead of bringing forward the comprehensive measure promised to the House four years ago, the Government were going to deal with the question in a piecemeal manner; and instead of giving the promised relief, the Government were about to aggravate the grievance complained of. Many of the proposals embodied in the Bills would be advantageous, such as those relating to the consolidation, the collec- tion, and the auditing of rates, and to the uniform valuation; but the cardinal grievance of which he complained would remain unredressed, as no remedy whatever was provided for the excessive taxation which constituted the grievance. Only the other evening the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government said the essence of the Resolution passed last year was relief to local burdens. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman however, how that relief was to be applied. It was useless to dangle before the eyes of hon. Members visionary and shadowy schemes of relief. Something real, practical, and tangible was required, and the relief ought not to be contingent or prospective. In what way would these Bills give the relief that was required? He could not help thinking that by including a description of real property which at present was exempted from taxation, the right hon. Gentleman was aggravating the grievance complained of. By the Act of Elizabeth certain descriptions of real property were exempted, but under that statute all personal property was liable to rating. Now, he thought it very hard that while the Government were spreading their net so as to include a small proportion of real property which was now exempt, all personal property would continue exempt. That would intensify the grievance, and, in fact, the Government were simply going to adjust the chains of the local taxpayers in order to make them more secure. His right hon. Friend had truly said he (Sir Massey Lopes) had never complained of the whole of the large amount of rates which was collected in this country. He had always confined his grievance to the £11,500,000 to which his right hon. Friend referred. What he wanted was, not only a consolidation, but also a classification of rates, and an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining for what purposes, local or national, they were raised. That was almost the foundation of what was required in order to get anything like a solution of this difficult problem. Local rates were of two kinds—namely, those levied for local and those levied for national purposes. If a town wished for its own comfort and convenience to tax itself voluntarily, the cost ought to fall on the town, and not on the nation. This, he maintained, was not taxation in the real sense of the word, for to a certain extent such improvements were in the nature of investments. They were in fact reproductive, and were voluntarily incurred. There was a great distinction between such rates and those raised for national purposes, over which the local ratepayers had no control whatever. That was the crucial test, and the extent and degree to which the nation or the Government exercised control over the rate, and to that extent only, was the locality justified in asking for relief from the nation for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. He complained that the First Lord of the Treasury, the President of the Local Government Board, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken up a false issue in this matter, and endeavoured to evade the real question. The question raised in that House was the relative taxation between the different descriptions of property—real and personal; but the right hon. Gentleman had narrowed the issue and had discussed the question as though it were one as to the relative taxation of the same descriptions of property—namely, land and houses. He (Sir Massey Lopes) had been much misrepresented and misapprehended with regard to what he asked; but he had never asked for the local rating of personal property. It might be just to rate stock in trade, but he had never asked for it, feeling it to be impracticable of accomplishment. From local rates locally administered they had no claim for exemption, nor for what were termed hereditary burdens; but the grievance which he had endeavoured to urge was with reference to those new impositions which had been continually imposed in recent years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted the other night that during the four years he had been in office he had remitted,£9,000,000 of Imperial taxation, but he (Sir Massey Lopes) was prepared to prove that during that time he had imposed burdens on the local taxpayers on one description of property fully half that sum —namely, £4,500,000 of taxation. That was the injustice of which he complained. He therefore asked for additional subventions for national purposes as the best, and easiest, and fairest way of meeting those rates which were levied for national purposes. It was not asking the House to adopt a new principle, because for years past the Imperial Ex- chequer had contributed, not one-fourth as was supposed, but only one-fifth of the expense of the police; neither did he ask for an indefinite sum to be taken from the Consolidated Fund, but that relief should be given for definite objects of an Imperial character. He asked, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for equality between the different classes of the community in respect of their aggregate contributions to general burdens. The proposed legislation was not satisfactory, and it was, in fact, deluding the country with false expectations and visionary schemes. The Resolution which the House agreed to last year was a very simple one—namely, that no legislation would be satisfactory that did not give relief for certain definite objects. Government not only refused to carry out this solemn decision of the House, but were pursuing a course expressly condemned by that Resolution when they proposed to impose on certain real property, hitherto exempt, exceptional taxation for national objects.

MR. CORRANCE

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in introducing his measures, had departed from the usual course of tracing his subject, and then arriving, by an exhaustive process, to the measures he was about to submit, he would endeavour to supply the information. The subject as to the incidence of local burdens was one of a somewhat ancient date, for in 1868 the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) moved a Resolution upon the subject. In 1869 the Government mentioned the subject in the Queen's Speech in these words — "A measure will be brought under your notice for the relief of some classes of occupiers from hardships in respect of rating, which appoar to be capable of remedy." In that year the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and on that occasion the Prime Minister said—"I think it would be the duty of the Government to make such proposals as they might think called for, with regard to a matter standing in the very front rank of duties devolving on a Government," and the present First Lord of the Admiralty said—"That though he might take a biassed view of it, his constituents were as much, if not more than any other class, interested in a diminution of local taxation." In 1870 the right hon. Gentleman moved for the appointment of a Select Committee for a general inquiry into the subject, though in the Queen's Speech they were told—"That Bills had been prepared for extending the incidence of rating, and for placing the collection of the large sums locally raised for various purposes on a simple and uniform footing." In 1871 the Legislature was again invited in the Queen's Speech to apply itself to the readjustment of local burdens. The present First Lord of the Admiralty introduced a Bill, but it was never discussed. It was now said that this measure was received with partial satisfaction, but it fell still-born, and its author had never given the House an opportunity of considering it. The Government instituted private inquiries during the Recess, and it was expected that when Parliament again met the Local Government Board would be ready with a measure. The Session of 1872 was, however, a perfect blank. The topic was not alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, and there was no Bill except in embryo. That was too much for the patience of the House, and his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes) having called attention to this grievous omission, the result was that memorable majority by which the Government were defeated. The Prime Minister thereupon promised the House a great and comprehensive measure, but where was it? Why, instead of redeeming their promise they had found it more discreet and prudent to deal with the subject in detail, doubtless under the idea that by so doing they would obtain more support from the different sections in the House than would be the case if it were dealt with in one Bill. There was, perhaps, not much to which exception could be taken, so far as the scope of these Bills was concerned; but the proposal with regard to assession of taxes would not meet with the approval of the local authorities. It was the most objectionable feature of the measure, and savoured of centralization of the most objectionable character. Such a proposition would meet with his decided opposition. He further believed it was impossible to establish any rule with regard to a maximum rate for deductions. The Government, in fact, were not dealing with the matter in a fair, impartial, and just manner. Any fair settlement, even if it were of a partial description, should receive his support, but he was certain that the country would be disappointed with the meagre measures now proposed.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that but for the opposition of the Government to deal with the question piecemeal, these Bills might have been introduced long ago, for they merely embodied some of the provisions of three Bills, which had been for some years before the country. The first Bill was addressed to the property to be rated. It specially exempted certain property which was already exempted by local and other Bills, such as canal property, and it removed the existing exemption from property in mines and trees and certain descriptions of Crown property. The second Bill, relating to valuation, was very little wanted in his own county (Wiltshire), and probably elsewhere. Now, at the end of three years, after the country had been waiting for some general measure dealing with the subject in its entirety, and giving relief to local taxation from the general funds, all that they had presented to them was those three meagre Bills, the nature of which he thought would disappoint the House, and at the same time would meet the general disapproval of the country. As he understood the Government proposition, it was that the bodies who were to make the local improvement rate, the county rate, the district rate, the sanitary rate, and so on, were to send in particulars to the overseers. It seemed to him, however, that it would be better, instead of throwing additional duties upon the overseers, to give the Boards of Guardians the power of appointing a person to levy and collect the rates. He could not, moreover, understand why the Government should not have taken a more comprehensive view of the subject, and have provided that the estimates of requirements should be sent to the unions instead. As regarded the rateability of property, too, he thought it was greatly to be regretted that a more comprehensive view had not been taken—such a view, for instance, as had been taken by another Department of the Government in the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill. Unless the whole subject were dealt with in a broader way, it would be much better that the Government should withdraw these measures, and re-introduce them in an amended form next Session.

MR. PEASE

said, that he did not share the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Bills, for he maintained that local taxation must be placed on one equitable basis for the whole country. He especially approved of the Bills because they were intended to deal with an existing difficulty of great importance. In North Yorkshire alone there was a large ironstone district producing to the owners a rental of £120,000 to £150,000 a-year, which remained untouched so far as being, rated to the poor was concerned. In Cornwall, in Wales, and other mining districts, property of that kind escaped local taxation. But the Bills would grapple with cases of this description, and would, he trusted, pave the way for a more equitable distribution of our local rating. He also thought the Government had adopted a wise course in trying to settle that principle before proposing to assist the rates by transferring any of them to the Consolidated Fund. He owned, however, to feeling some disappointment at finding that instructions had not been given in the Bill as to how or on what principle the rating of mines was to be conducted.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had no objection to these Bills, if they only paved the way to the settlement suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken; he feared, however, that their tendency was rather to block it. If the Bill were permitted to pass unchallenged by hon. Members on that side of the House, it might be supposed that they acquiesced in the principle involved in it, and accepted it as a solution of the great question of local taxation; whereas, it could in no way be considered by them as a settlement. What they contended for at that side of the House was, that all property, real and personal, should be subject to the burden of local taxation. Why should persons be exempted who held property quite as fixed, as secure, and as valuable as real property? Take, for instance, the case of the mortgagee. His principal money was amply secured, and his interest was paid in priority to the demands of the owner; yet the mortgagee contributed nothing in respect of that source of income to the local burdens. The fund owner in the same way, and the holders of debenture stock, held property as substantial security as real property; but, so far as that property was concerned, contributed nothing whatever to local taxation. But all owners of property were interested in such taxation, and should bear the burden of it in proportion to their interest. Under the Bill of the Government, they would not do so; and he protested, therefore, against those measures being accepted as in any degree a satisfactory settlement of the question with which they were meant to deal.

MR. CRAUFURD

thought, as a Scotch Representative, that he had a right to complain that Scotland derived no benefit whatever from the pledge contained in Her Majesty's Speech, that the question of local taxation should be the subject of legislation this Session as well for Scotland as for England. He was sorry the Government did not adopt the broad principle of taxing property on the gross value, which had been worked out so satisfactorily in Scotland for many years. Instead of that, they adhered to the present objectionable practice which obtained in England, of rating property according to some arbitrary distinction between its gross and its rateable value. Scotland was far ahead of England in the matter, and experienced no difficulty in regard to the rating of mines. But what he chiefly complained of was that these Bills utterly ignored the demand for relief from Imperial funds to local taxation. The principle for which he contended had, to a considerable extent, been adopted in the case of Privy Council grants for education, in respect of which national object, assistance from Imperial resources was given to various districts of the country. It was also adopted in the case of grants for the administration of justice, and for medical and sanitary officers under the Poor Law and Public Health Acts. Why should it not be further extended so as to embrace all objects of a national character which were now paid for out of local taxation? He regretted that this subject of subvention had been postponed by Her Majesty's Government; for this he knew, that the burden of local taxation had become intolerable. He hoped the Government would reconsider their pledges, and would not put off to the Greek Kalends compliance with the demand made last Session by a large majority, comprising hon. Members on both sides of the House, irrespective of party, that the general property of the country should be made to contribute equitably to local taxation. The Bills of the right hon. Gentleman might be good so far as they went, but they were only as a drop in the ocean of the general subject.

MR. A. JOHNSTON

wished to know whether the Bills dealt with highways, which, owing to the abolition of turnpikes, were becoming a more and more pressing question. He was afraid that if the new system of local taxation were once stereotyped, without perfecting the machinery and embracing the question of highways and roads, it might throw obstacles in the way of dealing with that subject in future.

MR. STANSFELD,

in reply to the various questions put to him, would first explain that the Bills did not deal with highways. They would fall under the second and larger branch of the subject —namely, local government, for which the Committee on Boundaries was intended to be a preparation. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) had complained of the postponement of the question of a Government subvention in aid of local taxation. Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) had to complain that scarcely a fair construction had been placed upon the explanation he had given with regard to the position of the Government in the matter, for they were pledged, deeply pledged, to offer at the proper time substantial relief to local burdens, but they must be allowed some discretion as to the time, and he had stated very explicitly not only the reason why the Government felt that they could not enter upon that question at present; but also the steps by which they thought that it could be best approached, and he had indicated at the same time the period when it might best receive consideration. Meanwhile there was yet a much greater question for consideration than that of affording relief from local burdens out of local taxes. That relief might, under existing circumstances, be made under conditions which would make it no relief at all; which would produce demoralization, and lead to extravagance instead of to efficiency and economy. The Government were therefore distinctly of opinion, responsible as they felt themselves to be, that they could only approach the question of a Government subvention by the steps which they had indicated, and that such subvention must come in the very last instance, crowning, as it were, the arrangements for the complete organization of local government, and of the relations between local and Imperial control. He did not pretend that those Bills were a settlement of the financial question, for it remained intact; and hon. Members like the Government, were free to approach it under what he thought would be more favourable circumstances and a more fitting opportunity. The hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had asked why he did not extend the area of collection. Now, there would certainly be advantages in enlarging the unit, not only for the purpose of administration, but for the collection of rates, from the area of the parish to that of the Union. Collection would thus be invariably in the hands of paid and presumably competent and responsible men. Simple, however, as the proposal might appear, it would be a great revolution in the habits and perhaps the prejudices of 16,000 parishes, and his proposing it would probably result in the defeat of the whole measure. Should, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman raise the question in Committee, the Government would meet it fairly, and would admit the recommendations it possessed, whatever difficulties attended it. The proposal in the second Bill to bring in the surveyor of taxes in the valuation of property had given the lion. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) a not unnatural suspicion of centralization. That arrangement, however, already existed in the Metropolis, and it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) in 1867, and by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1869. It was essential to a valuation list complete for Imperial as well as local taxation, and the assessment committee might refuse the surveyor's valuation, which would only be one of the elements of the case before them, and he would have no greater right of appeal than a local authority or individual, while his suggestion would in the last resort be judged, in 99 cases out of 100, by local tribunals. In conclusion he might explain that he had accidentally omitted to explain a proposal as to incorporeal hereditaments. Putting aside rights of way, of common, of navigation, and manorial franchises of various kinds, which, from their small and uncertain value, would not be likely to contribute appreciably to the rates, the Government proposed to legislate with regard to the right of sporting. This, when united with the occupation of land, as owner or tenant, was included in the value of the occupation, and was therefore rated, but when severed from such occupation it escaped. Where the owner in occupation, or an occupier having a right to the game, let the sporting, the rent received for it was taken into account in reckoning the rateable value. Where, however, the owner let his land, reserving the game to himself, the value of this incorporeal hereditament was not estimated; and where he let the land to one person and the shooting to another, the right was likewise not valued. The Government thought it fair that in both these cases the right of sporting should be subject to rates, and he anticipated no objection to the proposal.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

asked in what order the Bill would be taken, and when?

MR. STANSFELD

said, he proposed to move the second reading of the first Bill, for abolishing exemptions, and of the Bill relating to assessments on Thursday, the 15th inst. The second reading of the third Bill, providing for a Consolidated Rate, he was prepared to postpone, because, practically speaking, he did not think they could make progress with it until they had advanced some way with the other two.

MR. CLARE READ

asked when the Bills would be in the hands of hon. Members?

MR. STANSFELD

said, the first and second Bills were already in type, and would be in the hands of hon. Members certainly before the end of the week. The third Bill was not yet printed.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

hoped sufficient time would be given for the circulation of the Bills through the country before the second reading. If they were to be in the hands of hon. Members only by the end of the week, and the second reading to take place on Thursday next week, there would be very little time.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had proposed an early day because he thought the discussions would arise mainly in Committee, and because he was anxious, as time was running on, that no more of it should be lost than was necessary. He had no objection, however, to name Monday, the 19th, instead of Thursday, the 15th for the second reading, and he would give any time that was deemed reasonable for the Committee.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would move for the Select Committee on the Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties, on Thursday next?

MR. STANSFELD

Yes, on Thursday next.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to provide for uniformity in the Valuation of Property for the purposes of Rates and Taxes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. Secretary BRTJCE, Mr. GOSCHEN, and Mr. HIBBERT. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]

CONSOLIDATED RATE,—Bill to amend the Law respecting the collection and making of Rates, and to provide for a Consolidated Rate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. GOSCITEN, and Mr. HIBBERT. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]