HC Deb 15 July 1862 vol 168 cc344-8

Bill considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 (Contributories to the common Fund).

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE

said, he would move a proviso to the effect that the annual value of the Government property in any parish should be excluded in the valuation lists, so that it might be rated for the purposes of the common fund. The Government annually called upon the House to vote a sum of £35,000 for rates upon Government property, and that was equivalent to a rateable value of £300,000. It was therefore of importance that that property should contribute to the common fund.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he thought the Amendment was founded on an equitable principle, and he should be ready, on the part of the Government, to accept it.

MR. HENLEY

remarked, that the exception of Government property from contribution at present bore very hard upon many parishes where such property was situated.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Copy of Valuation Lists to be deposited in Board Room).

MR. HENLEY

said, he objected to the provision directing that a person requiring to view the rate-book in an adjoining parish should be charged a fee of 1s. for doing so. Such a person was as well entitled to look at the rate-book free of charge as to inspect without payment of a fee the rate-book in his own parish.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he proposed to remove the objection by the insertion of words empowering overseers of any parish in the union to inspect the rate-book in an adjoining parish free of charge.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.

SIR EDWARD LACON

said, he wished to move to insert a clause, enacting that the owner, instead of the occupier, should be rated at the option of the board of guardians in cases where the annual value of the premises did not exceed the sum of £6.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he thought the effect of the clause would be to disturb what was generally understood to be the law. Moreover, the object was effectively provided for by the general Act.

Clause negatived.

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE

said, he would then move the insertion of a clause, empowering the overseers who should have reason to think that their parish was aggrieved by the valuation list, to appeal to the justices of the peace for the county in which the parish was situate at any quarter sessions holden a month after the allowance of and the deposit of the valuation list. The whole object of the Bill was to preserve uniformity of rating as regarded individual ratepayers in a parish, and also in respect to the parishes themselves. The right of appeal was, however, given as between individuals, but was not given to one parish as against another.

MR. HENLEY

said, that many unions were in two counties. One union in his own county had parishes in four counties. The present clause was in the right direction; for it was absolutely necessary to have some provision to equalize the rating of parish as against parish. He only doubted whether the clause went far enough. Would it not be desirable that there should be some one definite quarter sessions fixed upon for appeals from the same union? Suppose, for example, there should be cross appeals by parishes situated in different counties but in the same union; a parish in Oxfordshire might appeal against a parish in Northampton-shire, and a parish in the latter county might appeal against a parish in Warwickshire, and each of these quarter sessions might come to a different conclusion.

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE

said, he agreed that it was very desirable there should be a fixed quarter sessions in each union to which the appeals should go. He would propose, with the consent of the Committee, to alter his clause by inserting words providing that appeals should go to the quarter session of the county "in which the workhouse of the union is situate."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

remarked that in the case of appeals against orders of removal the tribunal was the quarter sessions of the county in which the appealing parish was situated; that had worked well, and he saw no reason why the same practice should not be followed in that instance.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the existing practice would not meet the case of cross appeals.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it desirable that the quarter sessions to which appeals should go should be in that county in which the majority of the parishes in the union were situate.

MR. DODSON

said, he would move that an appeal should lie to the quarter sessions of that county or borough in which the greatest number of parishes belonging to the union were situate.

MR. LEVESON GOWER

said, he wished to ask what would be done in cases where there was an equal number of parishes in each county?

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, he ob- jected to the principle of the clause. He saw no necessity for an appeal against the decision of the assessment committee to the quarter sessions. If an appeal were necessary, it could be made to the central board in London.

MR. PULLER

said, he objected to the clause altogether, as he deemed that the machinery provided by the Bill for the valuation was far better for determining such questions than the previous machinery, and certainly much more so than the quarter sessions.

MR. HENLEY

said, it would be well to ascertain if there were an equal number of parishes situated in different counties in any one union. If so, it would be easy to determine the question in such cases by carrying the appeal to the quarter sessions of the county in which the poorhouse was situated.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he would make inquiry, and, if necessary, propose a clause to meet the case.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BEACH

said, he would then move a clause disabling any justice of the peace who had acted as a member of the board from sitting on an appeal made against a rate based on a valuation list approved by the board.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he thought great practical inconvenience would ensue if the clause were adopted.

MR. HENLEY

said, that in the case of levying the county rate, which was most analogous to that under consideration, the justices who were parties to the levying of the rate were not precluded from taking part in hearing an appeal.

Clause negatived.

MR. HOWES

said, he wished to move a clause regulating what should be the definition of "gross estimated rental."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he would not oppose the clause, though he did not think it would work much good.

Clause agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

said, that as the committees under the Act were to discharge judicial functions, he thought that their proceedings ought to be open to the public. Ha would therefore move to add the following clause:—"That every meeting of any Committee under this Act shall be held, and the proceedings thereof conducted, in public."

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

On Motion, "That the clause be read a second time,"

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he could not see why the proceedings of the committee should be public, when the proceedings of the boards of guardians were not so.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, it would be better to leave the committee a discretion. The boards of guardians admitted reporters at their discretion, and no complaint had reached him of the present practice. He saw no occasion for the clause.

Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 63; Majority 35.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 210].