HC Deb 24 April 1839 vol 47 cc501-7
Mr. R. Gordon

moved the second reading of the Rating of Tenements Bill.

Mr. Cresswell

objected on principle to the measure. He saw no reason why the owners of cottage property should have a different rule applied to them with regard to rating from that which applied to owners of other kinds of property. The plan had been tried, and had failed in Liverpool, where it was found oppressive to the poorer classes themselves. He moved, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Langdale

disapproved of the bill, as tending still more to separate the poorer classes from the classes above them; inasmuch as the occupiers of small cottages, not being rated under the bill to the poor-rate, would be excluded from vestry meetings, and thereby prevented from mingling in public with their richer parishioners.

Mr. Pendarves

was in favour of the bill, which he thought was necessary to prevent the owners of small cottages from escaping from payments to which they were fairly liable.

Mr. Pryme

opposed the bill, the principle of which had been acted upon in a section of Birmingham, but had not operated satisfactorily. In Liverpool also such a measure had worked extremely ill, driving the inhabitants of small houses into still smaller houses, and not unfrequently into cellars. He would not say more, than that he considered the bill injurious to the comforts and happiness of the humbler classes of the community, and he should therefore vote against the second reading.

Mr. Burroughs

supported the bill, because he was sure, that it would be beneficial to the poorer classes. The system of rating had been very much changed by what was called Mr. Scrope's Act; and it should be borne in mind, that the Poor Law Amendment Act had materially affected this question. Before these two Acts passed, cottage property was to a great extent not rated at all, or the occupiers were exempted from payment with the consent of the Churchwardens and Overseers. But by Mr. Scrope's Act all property was to be rated at a rack rental, and was likely to effect its object as far as regarded large properties, but not so in the case of small properties, for he believed, that hardly any two benches of magistrates in the kingdom adopted the same plan, This was not surprising, as a difference of opinion prevailed among those from whom they might expect a sound exposition of the law. A case was submitted for the opinion of her Majesty's Attorney-General, "whether Churchwardens and overseers were competent to give a valid consent to an exemption from rates where a board of guardians or a select vestry exists." The opinion given was a decided negative. A similar case was submitted to Sir W. Follett, and his answer was, "I am of opinion, that the power of giving consent to the exemption of poor persons from the payment of rates is still in the Churchwardens and Overseers." How, then, were the magistrates to act? The present was not a perfect measure; but, although it would not entirely remedy the evils which he wished to see got rid of, it would go a great way to remove them, and he should therefore vote for the second reading of the bill.

Colonel Wood

was persuaded, that the safest course would be, to leave the law on this subject as it stood. He should therefore vote against the second reading of the bill, more particularly as he was of opinion that the termination which had been put to the system of paying cottage rents from the poor-rates would prove highly advantageous to the country. With that conviction on his mind, he could not help thinking that the present system ought to have a longer trial, and that the bill now before the House was uncalled for and premature. If, however, it should pass the second reading, then he should, when it came to be committed, move certain clauses as to the amount of rating to be paid by the owners.

Mr. Brotherton

would vote for the bill, because he thought it would be a great benefit to the poor. If it was proposed to exclude the cottages let under a certain rent from being rated at all, he would vote for it, as he thought the poor paid out of all proportion towards the other taxes. His wish, founded upon the scenes of distress he had seen in the Borough he had the honour to represent, was, that the poor should never see the tax-gatherer. The landlords were to be allowed fifty per cent. for the trouble they were to be put to, and he thought that was just. It was not calculated, as some hon. Members had stated, to deprive any person of the right of voting, and he was sure, if the measure were fully explained to them, that it would meet with the approbation of the poor.

Sir G. Strickland

was opposed to the bill because he did not think that was the proper time to disfranchise any part of the people because they were poor. He wished that rates should be paid by the lowest classes possible, for any one paying even a small rate, felt himself raised in society, as he was then enabled to stand on the same footing as his superior by being enabled to vote in vestries.

Mr. Plumptre

would vote for the second reading, being persuaded that the measure would prove a very great advantage to the poor.

Mr. Estcourt

said, that disfranchisement would not, in any degree, result from this measure. It would not deprive any one of a vote, and as he believed the bill would be beneficial to the poor, he should vote for the second reading. It might require some alteration in committee, but he thought it would be extremely unjust to throw it out upon the second reading.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd

had endeavoured to look upon this question with a perfectly impartial eye, because a number of wealthy persons among his constituents had requested him to support some measure of this kind, while, on the other hand, many poorer persons, who had invested their small savings in such kind of property, wished him to oppose it; and, he must say, that if any class of people should be looked upon with favour by the House, it was that class who had invested their money in land with the natural feelings of Englishmen wishing to have a stake in the soil, and that what they had acquired by industry should descend to their children. It was on no principle of the elective franchise that he felt bound to oppose the bill. If the Legislature would pass an Act to rate large estates, machinery, or even funded property, so that the rating of all property might be equitable, he should not object to the small cottage proprietors submitting to the common lot; but as long as the present anomalies in the law of rating were allowed to continue, it would be unjust to come suddenly upon the small proprietors of one of the worst descriptions of property. He believed that in the town which he represented, there were no fewer than 100 persons who were proprietors of small tenements, the rents of which were collected with great difficulty, and which were deeply mortgaged. The obligations contracted in respect to such property had been contracted in faith of the present law. He asked the House, then, whether it were prepared to pass a bill which must be injurious to the interest of that particular class of persons to which he referred? As to the clause in the bill making it optional, that was nothing more nor less than a piece of mockery.

Mr. Pease

was of opinion, that the bill would be productive of great benefit to the poor man, and he should therefore vote for the second reading.

Mr. Briscoe

had not heard a single dissentient voice out of the House against the principle of the bill, and earnestly hoped that the second reading of it would be carried by a large majority.

Mr. A. White

assured the House, that if he thought the bill would be at all injurious to the interests of the poor man, he would not support it for a moment; but, being of a contrary opinion, he should vote for it.

Mr. Cayley

believed, that the effect of the bill, if passed, would be to prevent the investment of capital in small tenements, and consequently to cause a scarcity of houses, and an increase in the scale of rents. It would, therefore, be injurious to the poor man, and on that ground ought to be opposed.

Mr. R. Gordon

said, that the main features of the bill had been approved of by the committee which sat to investigate the subject, with the exception of three Members.

The house divided on the original motion; Ayes 32; Noes 28:—Majority 4.

List of the AYES.
Baring, F. T. Pease, J.
Briscoe, J. Plumptre, J. P.
Brotherton, J. Rick ford, W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Rolleston, L.
Burroughes, N. Rundle, J.
Chetwynd, Major Russell, Lord C.
Courtenay, P. Turner, E.
Darby, G. Verney, Sir H.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Vivian, J. E.
Etwall, R. White, A.
Goring, H. D. White, Col. H.
Handley, H. Williams, W. A.
Hoskins, K. Wood, Sir M.
Jones, W. Worsley, Lord
Kemble, H.
Lefevre, C. S. TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr. Gordon, R.
Packe, C. W. Philips, M.
List of the NOES.
Ainsworth, P. Pechell, Captain
Barrington, Visct. Perceval, Captain
Benett, J. Pryme, G.
Bewes, T. Scrope, G. P.
Cayley, E. S. Talfourd, T. N.
Collier, J. Thornley, T.
Fielden, J. Turner, W.
Grimsditch, T. Vigors, N.
Hinde, J. H. Wakley, T.
Hodgson, R. Walker, R.
Jervis, J. Williams, W.
Langdale, hon. C. Wood, Col. T.
Lister, E. C.
Mackinnon, W. A. TELLERS.
Marsland, H. Strickland, Sir G.
Morris, D. Cresswell, C.

Bill read a second time.