SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL. (Hansard, 20 March 1850)

§ MR. P. SCROPE
protested against the measure being proceeded with, and regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not interfered to stop it. It was a measure of great importance to a large class of the community, for it proposed to alter the position of the owners and occupiers of property to the number of two millions. One million of this number were at present excused altogether from the payment of poor and highway rates; but this measure was intended to impose rates upon them to the extent of 500,000l. annually, for the benefit of owners of property. It might be said it was a measure to relieve the occupier, and place the burden upon the owner; but, to his mind, it appeared certain that if the owners were made liable to the rates, they would screw them out of the occupiers in the shape of increased rent. What would be its effect upon the owners of cottage property? The owners of this kind of property might be divided into two classes. The first were those landlords who, from benevolent motives, built houses for the accommodation of their neighbours, and let them upon a moderate rent. The Bill would impose rates upon them, whether they received a fair rent or not. The Duke of Bedford, for example, had recently built 500 or 600 cottages for his tenants and labourers. This Bill would impose poor and highway rates upon the noble Duke for all those houses. In this respect, therefore, it would operate to check the extension of small tenements for the occupation of the poor. Lord Ward, also, was the owner of 1,400 cottages, which had been built by his father for the accommodation of the labourers upon his estate. Under this Bill the noble Lord would be liable for the rates in respect of all those cottages, which, upon a moderate estimate, would be 1l. each. A tax, therefore, of 1,400l. a year would be imposed upon Lord Ward for having built cottages for the accommodation of the labouring classes. The other class of owners were those who built houses upon speculation, and who looked mainly for their profit to an increased population creating a demand for houses. The effect of the Bill upon this class would be, to discourage their proceedings. He opposed the measure, therefore, because it tended to make houses scarcer and dearer than they were at present to the poorer classes 1188 of the community. Another consideration was, by an ex post facto law, it would impose a tax upon tenements already built. In the houses occupied by the wealthy all the rates were paid by the occupier, and he contended that the Bill sanctioned a departure from the uniform practice of the country in this respect since the 43rd of Elizabeth. He should not divide the House upon the question, but he hoped that in Committee the clauses would be carefully considered, and that time would be given before the third reading for the country to consider the nature of the measure.

§ MR. ROBERT PALMER
concurred very much with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stroud. He thought the practical effect of rating the owners of small tenements rather than the occupiers would be to diminish any inducement people might have to build cottages for the poor. The great object in country parishes was rather to hold out inducements to do so; but he was afraid that when a landlord who might be desirous to build comfortable cottages found that he was to be saddled with rates for so doing, he would, in many instances, give up his intentions. He was perfectly aware that the chief ground on which the measure was brought forward was to render it more convenient to collect the rates from small tenements. He admitted that inconvenience was at present felt; but still he thought that where people had laid out the savings of a long life of industry in the purchase of a small portion of land, and had, besides, invested money in the erection of a building on the faith of the law as it now stood, it would be unfair, by means of an ex post facto law, to impose upon them a rate in the way proposed by this Bill. He thought, however, that his hon. Friend had acted wisely in not dividing the House at this stage, considering the great majority that voted in favour of the Bill on the second reading.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
had always objected to the system of exempting particular persons from the payment of rates, because he was aware that in many cases the persons who asked for mitigation or relief were the mere agents of the owners. This was quite notorious. Tenants pleaded they were unable to pay; the authorities relieved them from the rate, and the landlord, m the end, got the benefit. He should be glad to see magistrates relieved from the unwholesome power of remitting poor-rates 1189 to the lower class of tenants, because the relief was, in fact, in such cases given to the landlords, who remained in the background.

§ SIR G. GREY
hoped, that as the House had already affirmed the principle of the Bill on the second reading, the hon. Member for Stroud would allow the Rill to go into Committee. The hon. Member assumed that cottage property was now by law exempt from rating. Now, it enjoyed no such exemption. The exemption which magistrates were entitled to give was a personal exemption, and he believed that great inconvenience and inequality arose from the exercise of this power of exemption. It was said it was bard a retired tradesman should not be able to invest his savings in the construction of some cottages without making himself liable to the poor-rate in respect thereof. But the Bill, in fact, only placed the law on the same footing with regard to property under 6l. value upon which it now stood with respect to houses of between 6l. and 20l. If the retired tradesman invested his property in building looses, say of 12l. value, he might be made liable by the vote of a majority of the vestry to the payment of the rates upon this property. The Bill was not in the hands of the Government, but he trusted the House would go into Committee.

§ SIR J. PAKINGTON
thought it would be better if the adoption of the measure was made compulsory instead of being left optional with the vestry. He should have moved an Amendment to that effect, but that he feared he might thereby endanger the ultimate success of the Bill. Several local Acts had been passed by the House containing these compulsory enactments. These local Acts had worked very well, while the public Act to which the; right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had adverted, which gave an optional power to the vestry to obtain poor-rates from the landlords of houses of between 6l. and 20l. value, had remained a dead letter on the Statute-book. He was apprehensive of a somewhat similar result if the adoption of the present Bill were loft to the option of the vestry instead of being made compulsory. The hon. Member for Stroud opposed this Billon behalf of the poor; but if there were one reason more than another that weighed with him in supporting this Bill, it was because he believed it would be of the greatest possible benefit to the poor.

MR. BERNAL
could corroborate the statement of the hon. Baronet, that in the greater number of local Acts which passed that House, the payment of the rates by the landlords of small cottage properties was made compulsory, and no discretion was left to the vestry. Those Bills varied as to the value of the tenements for which the owner was declared liable; but they appeared to have worked well, and if the House were justified in making the operation of these local Acts compulsory, why should they not adopt a similar course in legislating for the entire country? In his opinion, the less local legislation they had the better. He considered this a measure which would work for the benefit of the poor.

§ MR. ELLIS
gave the Bill his cordial support, believing that it would be highly beneficial.

§ MR. HALSEY
wished to deny the charge that in bringing forward this Bill, he desired to keep down the population. He believed that the Bill would encourage the formation of a better class of houses.

§ MR. HALSEY
proposed to omit the words "by a majority of two-thirds," so as to leave the adoption of the clause to be decided by a bare majority of the persons present at the vestry.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
said, that by a subsequent part of the clause it required a majority of two-thirds of the vestry to rescind the order for the operation of the Act.

§ MR. LAW
was strongly in favour of making the Bill compulsory; and, as that appeared to be the general feeling of the House, he would move to insert, after "It shall be lawful for the vestry of any parish to make the order," the words, "and they are hereby required." This would make it compulsory upon the vestry to meet and make the order.

§ MR. CHRISTOPHER
suggested, that if the Bill were made compulsory, its success might be endangered elsewhere. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere in his Amendment.

§ SIR G. GREY
joined in the same request. No notice had been given of any Motion or Amendment to make the powers of the Bill compulsory, and it would be better to make such Motion, not in Com- 1191 mittee, but at a subsequent stage of the Bill. If they made the Bill compulsory, then it might deserve the consideration of the House whether it might not be desirable to make a corresponding change in the law regarding houses of between 6l. and 20l. value.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
was in favour of making the clause compulsory, and thought that one of the most objectionable features in the present law was, that there should be any doubt upon the subject. He thought that all property ought to be rated to all rates, nor did he see why, if a speculator in cottages wished to lay out his money in building a considerable number of cottages, he should do so in the expectation that this property would be relieved from the payment of poor-rates. So long as magistrates were enabled to exempt persons from payment of poor-rates, so long would jobbing, favouritism, and partiality exist in obtaining this exemption.

§ MR. BAINES
agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge as a matter of principle, that a measure like the present ought to be compulsory in its operation. He was, however, anxious to obtain the greatest amount of good that he could procure, and he feared that if the Amendment were carried, the success of the Bill would be endangered. Still, he felt so strongly on the subject that if his hon. and learned Friend gave notice that on a subsequent stage of the Bill he would submit a clause making the Bill compulsory, he (Mr. Baines) would vote for it. The consent of a bare majority of the vestry only was required by Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and if that were sufficient to enable the vestry to make an order in respect of houses of from 6l. to 20l. value, he did not see why the consent of two-thirds should be necessary to make a similar order in the case of tenements below 6l. in value.

CAPTAIN HARRIS
hoped his hon. and learned Friend would persevere in his Amendment, and protested against the doctrine that the House of Commons were not to do what hon. Members felt to be right, on some apprehension that if they did so the Bill might be thrown out elsewhere. That was not a mode of proceeding that would obtain for them the respect and confidence of the country. The optional clause in the present law bad given occasion for much strong party feeling and irritation in Southampton, and other towns; 1192 and he did not see why they should retain the same provision in the present Bill, seeing that it could not fail to create much animosity.

§ MR. SOTHERON
recommended that the compulsory clause should not be proposed until the Bill came out of Committee.

§ MR. COMPTON
would be sorry to do anything to risk the loss of the Bill, but he would support the proposal to make it compulsory.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
confessed that he should prefer making the Bill compulsory. If they left it optional they would throw a firebrand into almost every parish vestry. There would be a struggle, in the first place, to obtain a bare majority in favour of the order, and then there would be a never-ending struggle to repeal it.

§ MR. W. PATTEN
intended to propose that vestries should have the option either of making an abatement with the landlord, if he paid the rates, or of collecting the whole of the rates from the occupiers. In some cases vestries might prefer to obtain the rates from the occupiers. He thought that in cases where they elected to obtain the rates from the landlord, they ought to be empowered to make an abatement from the assessment.

§ MR. WALTER
said, it was his intention to have proposed an Amendment similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, and if the hon. and learned Member should press his Amendment to a division, he would vote with him. When the whole question came to be more fully considered, and after the present Bill had worked for some time, the proposal to make its provisions compulsory would not, as he believed, excite that diversity of opinion with which it was at present regarded. He contended that no species of real property, whether cottage property or otherwise, should be suffered to be exempt from poor-rates. But the question was one of convenience as well as of principle; for in cases where it happened that the owners of small tenements did not reside in the same part of the country, it was found almost impossible to collect the rates from the occupiers, and this difficulty and inconvenience were provided for by obtaining payment of the poor-rates from the landlord. This was a question in which he (Mr. Walter) took great interest, and he tendered his thanks to the framers of the Bill for having brought in a measure on 1193 this subject. If they had not done so, he should himself have proposed, during the present Session of Parliament, some Bill of the same nature as that now before the House. With regard to the question, how far such a Bill as the present might deter landlords from building cottages, he believed that entirely erroneous views were entertained upon this point. The difficulties in the way of building cottages were of a different character, and might be referred to different sources. The law of settlement, for example, had a vast deal more to do with the building of cottages than the apprehension, on the part of proprietors, of being called upon to pay rates upon this property.

§ MR. W. MILNES
was sorry to hear-the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board express so strong an opinion in favour of making the provisions of the Bill compulsory. He hoped that the Bill would be passed in its present state, and then, four or five years hence, if it should work well, it might be made compulsory. The compulsory provision might pass this House, but elsewhere it would endanger the success of the Bill.

§ MR. P. HOWARD
believed there would be great anxiety on the part of parish vestries to enforce the provisions of this Bill.

CAPTAIN HOWARD
hoped the measure would not be made compulsory. He believed that the Bill would be a great boon to the poor, even if the landlord should make a corresponding addition to his rent. The occupiers of these tenements would much rather pay the same sum in the rent than in the form of rates, because, in the event of their temporary inability to pay their rent, they might expect to have a little time from the landlord; hut, when the rate collector came round, their goods were distrained upon if they could not pay the poor-rates.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
wished the Committee to observe that not one hon. Member had addressed them who did not admit that the principle of this Bill ought to be compulsory. Where the danger to the Bill was to come from, when the House were so unanimous, he could not conceive. The discussion had, however, been valuable, because it would go forth to the public, and parties concerned would ascertain that the avowed opinion of the House of Commons was in favour of the compulsory principle; and they might expect that those parties would attend most diligently to the opinion so expressed by the House.

§ MR. CAREW
believed that they had lost several Bills with the compulsory clause, still he would vote for making the Bill compulsory if it came to a division; but rather than lose the Bill, which he believed would be of great public advantage, he would support it in its present shape. He had received assurances from several vestries that they would avail themselves of the permissive powers of the Bill if it were passed in its present form.

§ MR. SLANEY
had had charge of a Bill on this subject for three years. A Committee upstairs had sat for three months, and they decided in favour of such a measure as the present. He was also favourable to the compulsory principle. But he thought it better to discuss the proposal to make the Bill compulsory at a future stage.

§ SIR G. GREY
repeated his opinion that so important a change in the Bill should not be proposed without distinct notice.

§ MR. SPOONER
was decidedly in favour of the compulsory clause.

§ MR. LAW
said, that after the suggestion of the right hon. Home Secretary, he would not press the Amendment then, but reserved to himself the power of doing so at the proper opportunity. Almost every hon. Member who had spoken was in favour of the compulsory clause.

§ MR. WALTER
said, there was one question upon which the compulsory clause appeared to him entirely to depend, and he, for one, required to be set right on that point. It was this—whether or no, under any circumstances, the power of exempting certain cottages from rating was to be continued to magistrates, because, if that power of exemption under any circumstances was to be continued, he thought the whole object of the Bill would be defeated.

§ MR. BAINES
said, the question was an extremely important one, and be had no doubt whatever the effect of this Bill, coupled with the 54th of George III., c. 170, s. 11, under which these excusals took place, would leave the law in this state—that with regard to cases in which the vestry determined to rate these owners, the rate would be recovered from them under the provisions of this Bill; but when that resolution in vestry was not come to, then the occupiers would continue to be rated as at present, the magistrates having the same power to excuse as they now had.

§ MR. HENLEY
wished to guard himself 1195 against the statement of the hon. and learned Recorder, that the Committee generally were in favour of the compulsory clause; and his reason was this, that by the law of England property was not liable to be rated. The rate was on the occupier, and he, for one, was unwilling to make a distinction between that property in which the poor alone were concerned and other property.

§ MR. HALSEY
then proposed, that in line 14 the words "rent or" should be omitted, and the word "rateable" inserted in their place.

§ MR. BAINES
said, that Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act had laid down an invariable rule for ascertaining the assessable value of property, although it appeared that it was not so strictly adhered to as it might be. He apprehended they were to look to the definition of assessable value as given by that Act, and the words "rateable value," therefore, were the best to be inserted in this Bill.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
said, the law as it now stood was much evaded, although considerable expense was incurred by the parishes to ascertain a correct valuation of property.

§ MR. HALSEY
moved that the following proviso be added at the end of the first clause:— Provided always, that in every case where the owner of such tenement shall be so rated and assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor, in respect of such tenement, instead of the occupier thereof, it shall be lawful for such occupier to demand at any time to have his name substituted on the rate as the party assessed, instead of such owner; and after such demand and payment, or tender, of the last made rate, if then in arrear in respect of such tenement, such occupier shall be entitled to exercise all rights, privileges, and franchises whatsoever, as fully as if his name had originally appeared upon the rate as the party assessed.

§ MR. ROBERT PALMER
thought it better the Amendment of which he had given notice should be moved before the proviso of the hon. Gentleman. It was to this effect:— Provided always, that no owner of any such tenement shall be assessed on any higher valuation than the sum at which the said tenement shall be let to any occupier thereof. His meaning was to make this Bill operate fairly to the owners of all this kind of property. It was a common practice for persons to let cottages to labourers at very moderate rents, and under the provisions 1196 of this Bill these owners might be rated at much more than they received.

§ MR. BAINES
considered the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berks objectionable. Its effect would be to repeal the principle to which they had just agreed as to the rateable value. The question ought to be, what was the assessable value? and not what was the particular contract between landlords and tenants.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
then proposed to leave out all the words in the proviso of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire after the word "thereof," and that in place of them should be inserted others, that such occupiers should be entitled to be placed on the burgess roll under the Municipal Corporations Act, although they had not paid the poor-rates for such premises, provided they were otherwise duly qualified,

§ MR. BAINES
thought the House ought not to decide that question without further consideration. He had every wish to preserve the franchise to all who now possessed it; but he could not help seeing that one consequence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would be, that the occupiers of tenements under 6l. would be placed on a different footing from occupiers above that amount and under 20l.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
recommended the postponement of the question, to allow time for its consideration.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
intimated his willingness to postpone his Amendment if the hon. Member for Herefordshire would do the same with respect to his.

§ MR. WYLD
then proposed an addition to the clause, the object of which was to enable occupiers of tenements at a rack-rent not exceeding 6l. to deduct from the landlord's rent all the poor-rates and highway rates which they might pay.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
protested against amendments of this description being brought forward without notice. It was unfair to call upon the Committee to give an opinion at once, aye or no, upon the important point raised by this Amendment.

§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBY
thought that the Amendment now proposed would aggravate what he conceived to be the evil tendency of the Bill; he alluded to the check it would exercise upon the benevolent intentions of landlords who built cottages and let them to labourers at a merely nominal rate. It was within his own know- 1197 ledge that one landowner had built 1,400 cottages, and let them at 1s. each per annum.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
suggested that the Committee should entertain no amendments which had not been printed with the votes.

§ SIR G. STRICKLAND
denounced the Bill as a mischievous attempt at legislation. It was preposterous to delegate to vestries the power of deciding important questions between landlord and tenant.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
thought it was rather hard on those Members who were endeavouring to make the Bill perfect in its details to be met with sweeping denunciations of its principle, or amendments moved without notice. He hoped that hon. Members who had amendments to propose would be kind enough to cause them to be printed.

§ MR. WYLD
said, he would not press his proviso then, as he believed the Bill to be a most beneficial measure. He was glad to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham that so many as 1,400 cottages existed on the property of one person, which were let at a mere nominal rent; he wished more instances of the kind could be quoted.

SIR J. HANMER
remarked that it had been stated that the object of the Bill was to make property pay the rates, but it appeared that it was intended by it to make the owners pay the rates. He believed this Bill, if it should pass, would operate as an Act for the abolition of cottages. This was not only his own opinion, but also that of many persons in the part of the country with which he was connected. Cottages on an estate were generally very unprofitable; and he knew instances where lords of manors were owners of 300 or 400 of them, which would not be kept up if they found themselves liable for the rates. Under such circumstances he thought he was justified, at that stage, in expressing his opinion against the Bill, as this first clause involved the principle of it. If any hon. Gentleman would divide upon it he should certainly vote with him.

§ SIR H. VERNEY
did not believe that the owners of cottages for the poor would be influenced by considerations of such a nature as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint. At present in many parts of the country the cot- 1198 tages were of a most miserable character. He knew an instance of a beershop-keeper who bought a block of thirteen cottages for 270l., and they had only one privy for the whole of them, and for these places he obtained 22l. a year. The more wretched the cottage, the more profitable it was to the owner, because he got exempted from the rates under the plea of poverty. This Bill would affect that class of persons.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
was sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint had not made his speech on the second reading of the Bill, instead of now getting up a discussion on the principle of it when they were considering the details.

§ MR. P. SCROPE
felt that his hon. Friend the Member for Flint was perfectly justified in the course he had taken in discussing the principle of the measure on the question being put that this clause stand part of the Bill. He doubted whether the owners of property would be induced to build cottages in consequence of the remission of the duty on bricks. He was desirous that they should exempt all small cottages from rates, for in such cases the occupiers would derive the benefit, and not the owner. He would appeal to the hon. Member for the West Riding as to whether he anticipated any beneficial results from the abolition of the brick duty? The object of the proposed Bill was to abolish all cottages, or to make them so dear that the peasantry could not occupy them.

MR. E. B. DENSION
having been thus appealed to, would not hesitate to say that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in repealing the brick duty was to benefit the poorer classes, and he (Mr. Denison) believed that the measure would have that effect. With respect to the Bill now under the consideration of the Committee, the chief reason which influenced its framers in making the payment of rates compulsory was, that there might be no opportunity for jobbing or evasion, but that all property should contribute its fair proportion to the rates. It was well known that at present a large portion of cottage property was unfairly exempted from the payment of rates. It was not his opinion that the Bill would have the effect of diminishing the number of cottages. It was said that in some parts of the country cottages were let at a nominal rent; but he believed that the owners obtained the annual value of the cottages either in meal or in malt. They obtained from their tenants services which were equivalent to 1199 the rents paid in other parts of the country for better cottages.

§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBY
wished to know from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire what would be the effect of the words, "such owner shall be rated and assessed?" In a case of the owner of a cottage, where he lets at a nominal rent of one shilling a year, was it intended that he should pay all the rates on the house and garden? How was he to reimburse himself without raising the rent?

§ MR. HALSEY
, in reply, said, that the onus of paying the rates would be thrown on the owners of cottages.

§ MR. E. B. DENISON
said, if this was not the case, they would exempt the property from paying all these rates.