HC Deb 11 July 1862 vol 168 cc234-40

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 14 (Committee may enlarge Time for making Valuation Lists, and may give Directions concerning Valuations and Valuation Lists, and may appoint Persons to make the same).

MR. ASPINALL TURNER

said, the Bill was one of the greatest importance, and had caused much excitement throughout the country, and the fact that they were about to discuss it in a Committee of only about twenty Members was perfectly monstrous. He therefore begged leave to move that the Chairman do report progress.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that almost every one who had taken a part in former discussions had been in favour of the principle of the Bill. That was the third time the House had gone into Committee on the Bill; and as the remaining clauses only involved the machinery of the Bill, he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, he was of opinion that the fact of so few Members being present, showed that the Bill had created no excitement in the country, and that the absent Members were satisfied with it.

MR. ASPINALL TURNER

said, he should persist in going to a division.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 7; Noes 29: Majority 22.

MR. KNIGHT

said, he objected to the power given to the committees to appoint valuers without specifying the exact amount of remuneration, and also to the mode of valuation. There was only one way of mitigating the injurious operation of the clause, namely, by making the cost of the valuation payable out of the common fund of the union. He thought the whole of the clause so objectionable that he was inclined to move the omission of all the words in it after the words "The union," at its commencement.

MR. DODSON

said, the clause contained the pith and marrow of the Bill; and he hoped after it had been agreed to there would be no further objection to the progress of the measure, which had been thoroughly examined in the Select Committees.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought that there could be no doubt that the real difficulty was that which was felt by the hon. Member for Manchester, when he moved to report progress—namely, that the Bill was being discussed by a mere fraction of the House; and, as far as the opinion of the Members were concerned, he was thoroughly convinced that the seven who voted for reporting progress fairly represented the opinion of the absent Members.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he was of opinion that the hon. Member was making mountains of mole hills, and that the real cause of the absence of Members was because the absentees were thoroughly satisfied with it.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the clause was one of the most important of the Bill; and believing that it was neither fair nor decent to go on with the discussion in such a House, he had voted in the minority in favour of reporting progress. The Bill was in a very curious state, because when a Committee had sat two years upon it, and, as they said, settled the whole matter, they found that even the Government that supported it and Members of the Committee who sat upon it differed widely with regard to the clauses. Two things were wanted in such a measure as the present—first, to secure equality between occupiers in the same parish; and, secondly, to secure equality between parish and parish in the same union. With regard to the first, if the system were to come into force, the occupiers of houses in a particular parish in a union ought to have power to go to the committee to say, that as a parish they were satisfactorily valued, but that they required to have the valuation more fairly apportioned among themselves. With regard to the second point, the common fund was so important an item of expenditure that the Bill ought to have contained some more distinct provision that all those parishes should be rated on the same basis. He thought that the power of appeal given by the hon. Member for Bridgwater would not cure those difficulties, because they could only deal with the appeal as to those parishes which happened to be in the county to the quarter sessions of which the appeal would go. At the same time, he quite admitted that he did not see how it was possible to remedy the existing defects.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that enormous evils and great irregularities existed in regard to parochial assessments, and the Bill contained an improved machinery for correcting some of those evils. It provided effectually for remedying inequalities between occupiers in the same parish. As between parish and parish, there were no means of establishing a uniform rate. The assessment committee, however, would have a sort of jurisdiction over the whole union, and they would be able to rectify any inequality between different parishes. Something like a principle of rating was established in the 6 & 7 Will. IV; but it was not always acted upon, and it would be the duty of the assessment committee to gee that that principle was fairly carried out. The object of the Bill was to prevent expense, and to obtain a correct and uniform valuation of different parishes. He proposed, however, to insert a provision against the assessment committee correct- ing the valuation without referring the subject to the whole of the board of guardians. With respect to the parishes forming part of a union situated in two counties, there would be the same remedy as in the case of an appeal against a county rate.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not at all met the case he put. The union which he had in his mind was situated in two counties, and it might happen that the parishioners of one might appeal to the quarter sessions of another county, and those two courts of quarter sessions might come to contrary decisions. The inconvenience which might arise from such a state of things was not provided for in the Bill, and in his opinion it was a capital defect.

COLONEL NORTH

said, the case might be carried still further, because some unions were situated in three counties.

MR. AYRTON

said, the Bill aimed at remedying certain inequalities in regard to tenements, and also at establishing uniformity of rating between parish and parish; but it appeared to him that the Bill proposed to accomplish those two objects in a very inconvenient manner. He proposed to omit the words "correctness of such list," and to insert "for ensuring a uniform and correct valuation of every parish in the union."

MR. DODSON

said, he could not see any advantage in the Amendment, as it merely substituted words the meaning of which was exactly the same as the words already in the clause.

MR. KEKEWICH

said, he thought the Poor Law Board should have the power of confirming the appointment of the surveyor, in order to provide against the appointment of an incompetent person.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, that under the present system, where a new valuation was required, the Poor Law Board agreed to such new valuation being made, and left it to the board of guardians to appoint the surveyor. As the object of the Bill was to effect a correct and uniform rating in every parish in the union, of course he should have no objection to the insertion of any words which might attain that object more conveniently than would the clause if passed in its present shape. He had no objection to permit the representatives of different parishes to come before the assessment committee to complain of inequality.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENLEY

said, he thought the first thing the assessment committee would have to do after the passing of the Bill, would be to direct a new assessment of the whole of the property in the union. It might cause some extra expense, but it would prevent a vast deal of litigation.

MR. DEEDES

said, if the slightest idea had existed that there was to be a new valuation of the property in the unions, the greatest objection to the measure would have arisen throughout the country, and the result would be that no Bill of the sort would be passed through either House.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the clause should stand as it was, and that parties should be left to do as they liked with regard to a new valuation. If a new valuation should be made compulsory, the anticipated expenses would create much opposition to the Bill, and it would be their duty to resist the passing of it altogether.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Valuation Lists to be deposited for Inspection, and afterwards transmitted to the Committee).

MR. HENLEY

said, it sometimes happened that a surveyor valued the property in a parish too high by 20 or 25 per cent. If the surveyor made a valuation of that kind, he wished to know whether the assessment committee were to have any discretion in the matter, or were they to send the valuation to the parish to be appealed against? He thought the assessment committee ought to exercise their own judgment before they sent the valuations to the parish. He thought also that some provision should be made by which parishes should have an opportunity of seeing, at the board of guardians, how other parishes were rated, so that they might appeal if they considered themselves aggrieved.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, the suggestion was deserving of consideration. If an alteration of the clause were thought desirable, it might be made on the report.

MR. DEEDES

would prefer that the valuation should be sent at once to the parish, instead of being cavilled over by the assessment committee.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would move, as an Amendment, words which would provide that a copy of the valuation lists should be sent to the board of guardians, and be there open to inspection of the ratepayers.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. KNIGHT

said, he could not allow the clause to pass without taking a division against it. The Bill would cause great expense, and much objection would be felt to it in country districts.

MR. WALTER

said, that the clause had nothing to do with taxation. If the hon. Member wished to raise the question whether the expense of the valuation should be defrayed out of the common fund or out of the rates of each parish, the proper time for so doing would be on the 34th clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Objections to Valuation Lists).

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to move an Amendment, to the effect that any overseer of any parish in a union should have the same right as any person to object on behalf of the parish to the valuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 19 also agreed to.

Clause 20 (If on Appeal a Rate is amended, the Valuation List to be altered).

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask the Committee to consider whether it was wise, on a simple question of value, to give an appeal to a couple of justices in petty sessions, as well as an appeal to quarter sessions.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, that the Select Committee were desirous to disturb the existing law as little as possible.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he trusted that the right of appeal to petty sessions would not be taken away.

MR. AYRTON

suggested that the ratepayers should be able to appeal against the assessment and the valuation as well as against the rate.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, were also agreed to.

Clause 24 (Committee may from time to time direct new Valuation and new or supplemental Valuation List).

MR. HENLEY

said, he objected to the provision giving power to the Committee to require a person applying on frivolous or insufficient grounds for a new survey to pay the costs of the new valuation.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, the words were inserted by the Select Committee; but if the right hon. Gentleman had no fear of any frivolous application, he was willing to strike out the proviso.

MR. HENLEY

said, the assessment committee need not be at any expense, as they were not obliged to order the survey unless they thought it necessary.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 was also agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next at Twelve of the clock.