HC Deb 16 June 1854 vol 134 cc254-61

Order for Committee read. House in Committee, Mr. BOUVEME in the Chair.

Postponed clauses brought forward. Clause 2.

MR. W. LOCKHART

said, he wished to have some explanation of the numerous Amendments of which the Lord Advocate had given notice—whether they would affect the clauses now to be considered, or what influence they would have upon the general scope of the Bill. This was the third time that the Bill had been in Committee. About 150 Amendments had been proposed before this last batch, which he had taken the trouble to count, and which were no fewer than sixty-two.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he must decline to make any statement with reference to the Amendments generally, until the postponed clauses had been disposed of. It was true, no doubt, that several Amendments had been made—and made very properly—for the measure was one of great practical importance, and dealt with a great many practical matters. The Bill was intended to provide a valuation of the land of the country, and every clause, therefore, ought to be well weighed. He could assure the hon. Member that ample opportunity would be given to consider all the Amendments that were proposed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (New qualification for Commissioners of Supply).

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he would propose to omit certain words which provided that with reference to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply under the Act, house property should be estimated at only half its annual value. He could see no reason why the house proprietor should not be placed upon the same footing as the proprietor of land, or why a property of 1,000l. or 100l. a year in houses should be only equal to 500l., or to 50l. a year, in land.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 22, to leave out the words— Provided always, That, with reference only to the qualification of Commissioners of Supply under this Act, the yearly rent or value of houses and other buildings, not being farmhouses, or offices, or other agricultural buildings, shall be estimated at only one-half of their actual yearly rent or value, in terms of this Act.

MR. E. ELLICE

said, he thought the proviso had reference to a part of the Bill which had been struck out, and therefore the reason for a difference between landed and house property ceased to exist.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, this clause was to extend the qualification by giving it to property never before qualified. It would be scarcely fair to say parties possessing property worth only twelve or fifteen years' purchase should be in the same position as others possessing property worth thirty years' purchase. That house property brought less than real property was a fact, and therefore there could be nothing offensive in the proviso.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, the principle of the Reform Bill was that 10l. rent in towns should be equal to 50l. rent in the county. If all who were qualified would be Commissioners of Supply, there might be some force in the objection to the introduction of so large a body; but that was not so; and as 100l. a year rent in a town was taxed as much as 100l. a year rent in the country, he should divide against the proviso.

MR. DUNCAN

said, he also considered the proviso very unfair towards the owners of house property. if that property was to be taxed to the full amount of its annual value, the privilege should be granted to the full amount, and not limited to one-half.

MR. DUNLOP

said, that giving the privilege to houses worth 200l. a year would only let in one or two persons in a county. As houses and lands were taxed equally, the fair and handsome thing was to treat them equally.

MR. ELLIOTT

said, he should vote for the omission of the proviso. The distinction made between farm-houses and other houses appeared to him inexplicable.

MR. CHRISTOPHER

said, that all farm buildings formed part of the farm, and were necessary for its cultivation. With regard to the Amendment proposed, he should vote against it, because he thought the whole clause was drawn upon a fair system of representation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 28: Majority 11.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29.

MR. SMOLLETT

said, it was worthy of serious consideration whether the production of title should be dispensed with, and whether provision should not be made that a person ceasing to be on the valuation roll should also cease to appear on the register of voters.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the names of parties appearing on the valuation roll was to be primâ facie proof of title. The result would be to simplify very much the expense of registration, because in nine cases out of ten the proprietorship might be reasonably presumed from the payment of assessment; and if the title were questioned, the opponent would have to show a probable case for the decision of the sheriff. His own inclination was to carry the principle still further, believing the valuation roll was the best means of deciding who was entitled to the franchise.

MR. DUNLOP

said, he thought it wrong to call upon the objector to disprove ownership. Would it not be better to require that if the title were challenged it should be produced?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36 (Interpretation clause).

MR. DUNLOP

said, he wished to move the insertion of the words "feu duties and ground annuals." With the permission of the Committee, he would briefly state the nature of these feudal tenures in Scotland. The person who granted the feu and the person who took it were both proprietors, both being infeoffed in the land, and there were cases in which the proprietors of feu duties, in the neighbourhood of large towns, derived revenues of 2,000l., 3,000l., and even 10,000l. a year from them. In one case, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, the income from this source was as much as 25,000l. a year. In point of principle there was no reason whatever why the owner of the land, the superior who owned the land, and who derived what was substantially a rental from it, should not pay upon the rental which he so received his fair proportion of the tax, where there was no contract to the contrary. He would just put a case, by way of illustration. Some proprietors, who could not grant fens, granted building leases. Now, supposing a proprietor to grant building leases, say for ninety-nine years, at a rental of 50l. per acre; another proprietor granted feus upon the same terms. The fetter and the lessee both build upon the land houses of equal value. Under all the late Statutes, they would be held to be owners of the land with respect to the franchise and the payment of prison rates and poor rates; but if this interpretation clause should pass in its present form, the result would be that the lessee who drew 200l. a year from his house, out of which he paid 50l. to the landlord, would be rated only upon the 150l. which he retained; while the fetter, who received and paid precisely similar amounts, would be rated on the whole 200l. In the case of the lessee, the over landlord would pay upon the 50l. which he received; in the case of the fetter, the oven-landlord would not be rated at all to the extent of a single penny. Now he thought there was no justification for making this great distinction between cases which were perfectly analogous—which differed from each other in no respect whatever, except in the mere technical matter of title. Where there was a contract, a stipulation in the feu charter, that the tenant should pay the whole, of course he would not interfere with it; but where there was no contract, he thought that those who were substantially in the same circumstances should be placed upon the same footing. It was objected to this proposal that this was a Valuation Bill, and was not intended to alter the law; but even if it were tree that his Amendment would alter the law, he would remind the Committee that this very clause proposed to rate manse and glebe houses which had been judicially decided to be exempt. The exemption of clergymen upon their stipends had been already done away; and the exemption formerly enjoyed by his (Mr. Dunlop's) own profession, and by Queen's tradesmen, had also been abolished; and certainly the great aristocracy, who generally received these feu dues, ought not to retain an exemption which they were doing away with in every other case. But what he contended was, that this Amendment would not change the law; for it had been judicially decided and acquiesced in, that feu duties were liable to prison rates; and the judgment of Lord Mackenzie, which had been relied upon on the other side, did not go the length of deciding that on legal principles such duties Were not liable to be rated. The clause, as it now stood, would confer upon them an exemption with respect to prison rates, which they did not now enjoy. Then, the question had an important bearing as regarded the franchise. At present, a man claiming in respect of feu duties could be enrolled as a voter, but the Bill would have the effect of disfranchising this very large class; while, on the other hand, if the feu duty was not to be deducted, say from a 10l. qualification, the effect might be to let in persons with houses of only 8l. rent. That might or might not be a good change, but it ought not certainly to be confined to this class of voters. He contended, therefore, that there should be no exemption of the great over-lords, but that every man should be called on to pay according to the interest he had in the land.

Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 21, after the word "teinds," to insert the words "fen duties, ground annuals."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that the effect of introducing feu duties into the clause would be, that all the public burdens laid on real rents would be proportionately laid on the proprietors of the feu duties. That was the result at which the hon. and learned Member aimed, but he left out of sight that the feu duties were daily dealt with on the ground that they were exempt from public burdens. When parties bought feu duties, they bought them without any deduction on the ground of those burdens; but when parties bought land they bought it with a deduction on that account. Therefore they could not interfere with feu duties without interfering with the general understanding on which they were bought and sold. The public had no interest in the question; the property was already assessed, and the only result would be to place burdens on parties who had stipulated to be relieved from them, and to relieve those who were under obligation to pay them.

MR. FERGUS

said, he should be sorry to interfere with anything established by law, but it was merely a custom to which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had alluded. He should support the Amendment.

After a brief discussion, in the course of which Mr. COWAN, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR, and Mr. DUNCAN supported the Amendment, and Mr. SMOLLETT, Sir GEORGE MONTGOMERY, Mr. CHRISTOPHER, Mr. LOCKHART, and Sir ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL resisted it.

MR. DUNLOP

, in reply, said, it was his intention to divide the Committee, because the exemption clauses in some charters implied the general understanding that without such a provision feu duties were liable to assessment, and that without his Amendment feu duties in some parts of Scotland would actually be relieved from the payment of prison rates at present levied on them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 61: Majority 42.

COLONEL BLAIR

said, he wished to move to strike out the words "manses and glebes" from the interpretation clause. By the present law the ministers in Scotland were not assessed on their manses and glebes, and he might state, that when the present Poor Law for Scotland came in force, it was attempted to do so, but the Court of Session and House of Lords decided to the contrary. He begged to state, for the information of English Members, that the average stipends of Scotch ministers did not exceed from 200l. to 250l. per annum, and he could see no reason why they were to be assessed in the manner proposed. Every one knew in large parishes the claims made on them for charity, and though the rate might not be large, it would be a serious tax on them. At any rate they ought not to be rated as owners, but as tenants, and, as such, only pay one-half. He begged to state that he included in this proposition, not only the ministers of the Establishment, but those of all denominations.

MR. E. ELLICE

said, as the exemptions in respect to the stipends of clergymen had been abolished, it had been thought only fair that incomes derived from other sources than stipends should be placed on the same footing.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he could add but little to the answer made by his hon. Friend. If stipends were to pay, he could not see why a clergyman whose main source of income was a large glebe should be exempt.

MR. FORBES

said, he was of opinion that, after the vote just come to with respect to feu duties, they ought not to lay a new tax upon the small incomes of the clergy.

MR. DUNLOP

said, they had just refused to place the great proprietors on the footing of being assessed on their feu duties, and now they had poor clergymen included in the assessment. He thought it was a fair principle to tax them all, yet the Committee had refused to tax the great proprietors, whose case was, to say the least, a doubtful one in point of law, while they included clergymen, whose claim for exemption legal decisions had put beyond doubt.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would be very happy to acquiesce, if the general sense of the Committee should be in favour of continuing the exemption.

MR. E. ELLICE

said, if the exemption were to be continued, and strict justice to be done, the liability which now existed with respect to stipends ought to be abolished.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

promised to consider the question in the course of the future progress of the Bill.

MR. DUNCAN

said, he wished to strike out, after the word "forests," the words "except where the said shootings and deer forests are actually let." He saw no reason why the proprietors of these shootings, which were valuable properties, if they choose, instead of letting them, to keep them for their own gratification, should escape paying their fair proportion of taxation; at all events, if they were, let the owners of Louse property be placed in the same position.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would take that opportunity of stating what he proposed to do with the Bill. The amendments, though numerous, were, for the most part, merely verbal, and called for no special remark; but he wished hon. Gentlemen to consider, before they took up the Bill again, what was to be done with reference to the Court of Appeal. The provision at present in the Bill was introduced in compliance with the wish of a very large and numerous meeting of the Scotch Members; but he had no strong feeling on the subject; and if there was a general feeling in favour of an alteration, he should put no obstruction in the way. With respect to the shootings he thought the provision in the Bill was a fair one. If they were let, they paid; if they were not let, they paid upon their agricultural value.

MR. DUNLOP

said, he thought the case might be put even more strongly than the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Duncan) had put it; because, when a house was unlet, the proprietor obtained no benefit from it; but, though a forest should not be let, the proprietor could always enjoy the privilege of shooting over it himself.

Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress.

Back to