SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL. (Hansard, 12 June 1850)

§ MR. P. SCROPE
, pursuant to notice, moved that it be read a third time that day six months. He did so, because he conceived the Bill to be unjust in principle, and that its operation would be injurious to the interests of the poor. The object of the measure was, to render the poorer class of houses, which were at present exempted from the poor-rates and highway-rates, 1143 in consequence of the poverty of the occupiers, liable to these taxes, by transferring them to the owners. He had reason to believe that the number of small tenements at present excused from paying these rates throughout England, amounted to no fewer than 2,000,000. He appealed to the legal Members of the House, whether, from the passing of the Poor Law of Elizabeth until now, the poor-rate had not been considered a personal, and not a property tax? The effect of this Bill, then, would be to make the tax, for the first time, a direct tax upon property; and that, too, with respect to the poorer class of tenements alone—thus instituting a most invidious, as well as an unjust distinction. He admitted that there were inconsistencies and abuses in the working of the present system, which ought to be remedied; and he had formerly suggested a mode by which, in his opinion, the humane principle of the present measure would be carried out, namely, by fixing a line below which all small houses should be exempted; but he could not think that the operation of this Bill would be at all an improvement on the existing system. As far as he could calculate, the present exemptions amounted to upwards of 500,000l. a year. And upon whom were they going to impose burdens? Upon the poor of the country; for although it was proposed to levy the rates upon the owners instead of the occupiers, it was the occupiers upon whom it would ultimately fall. It was with houses as with carriages, coffee, and sugar; the tax, although imposed upon the producer in all cases, ultimately fell upon the consumer. He was surprised at the conduct of the Government in supporting this Bill. He observed with pleasure that the Prime Minister presided the other day at a meeting of the Society for Improving the Dwellings of the Poor; but he and his Colleagues, by supporting this Bill, would do more to deteriorate the dwellings of the poor, as well as to diminish their supply, than all that that society could do to improve them. He begged to say, too, that the Government ought to have introduced the Bill themselves if they felt that a measure of this kind was required. But he thought it would have been still better if they had induced the hon. Member to postpone the Bill until they had considered it in connexion with the whole law of settlement, of which this subject formed a branch.

§ MR. HUME
opposed the Bill on the ground that it introduced an entirely new principle. If they adopted this measure, the House would, in consistency, be bound to apply the same principle to every house and every estate in the country.

§ MR. BROTHERTON
would tell the hon. Member for Stroud why the Bill did not apply to other property. Formerly the rents of small tenements were collected quarterly, and consequently the tax-gatherer had some chance of getting payment of the taxes from the occupiers. Now, the landlords anticipated tax-gatherers by collecting the rents weekly, and the result was that it was found impossible to collect

§ MR. ROBERT PALMER
opposed the Bill on the ground that it would be no relief at all to the occupiers, who would be made to repay the owners in the shape of increased rent.

§ MR. BAINES
said, that the Bill was so fully discussed on the second reading that he did not think it necessary to go at any length into the matter now. He begged, however, to state that it was altogether incorrect in the hon. Members for Montrose and Stroud to assert that the Bill introduced a new principle. So far from the principle being new, he believed that for a long series of years almost every local Act that had been passed to regulate taxation, had embodied it. The Act which was known as Sturges Bourne's Act contained the same principle as this Bill did; but, without any reason that he had been able to discover, stopped at the minimum limit of 6l. It gave power to the vestry to pass resolutions by a majority to rate the owners instead of the occupiers in cases where the rent did not exceed 20l., nor was less than 6l. a year. The object of the present Bill was to extend Sturges Bourne's Act below that minimum limit. As he had already said, many local Acts had been passed within the last ten or twenty years to establish the same principle in different parts of the country; and he believed that many more would have been applied for had parties not been deterred by the great expense of local Acts. The object of this Bill was to give to vestries the general power of adopting the principle whenever they should think fit, without applying for a local Act in each case. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Stroud, that it would operate in any respect against the 1145 poor. If he had agreed with him, he would I not have supported the Bill; for he was the last man, and ought to be the last man, to wish to do anything to injure the interests of the poor; but he believed that it would have a directly contrary effect. It was the experience of his predecessors, and it had been confirmed by his own, that the owners of small tenements, finding that the justices would probably excuse their tenants from paying rates, charged them so much more rent than they would otherwise have done; and thus it was the owner who alone benefited by the exemption, and not the occupier. This Bill would not at least render the condition of the occupier worse than it was, while the present ratepayers would no longer have cast upon them the burden which ought to fall upon the mass of property at present excused.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
said, that from his practical knowledge of the working of the principle in Ireland, he anticipated nothing but injury and oppression to the poor from its application to England.

§ SIR G. PECHELL
gave his support to the Bill, on the understanding that the franchise was to be secured to the occupiers, a provision which he understood was to be proposed at the proper time.

§ SIR G. GREY
thought more time should be given to consider the wording of this clause.