ADDRES MOVED. (Hansard, 9 May 1864)

COLONEL NORTH
, who was almost in audible, moved an Amendment with reference to the rates and taxes recently charged upon the officers resident in Chelsea Hospital in respect of houses therein officially occupied by them. The hon. and gallant Member was understood; to urge that the long and gallant services of these gentlemen entitled them to every consideration.

MR. PEEL
said, that the question brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under consideration at the Treasury, in connection with the general question of the exemption of Government property from local taxation. He understood that no conclusion had been come to, but that the subject was still under the consideration of the Admiralty and War Office. The particular case of Chelsea Hospital had not been brought before the attention of the Treasury since 1858 The question whether official residences 199 should be exempted or not from local rates was, of course, one of great importance to the parishes interested. There must be a beneficial occupation in order to render official residences liable to assessment; but it was not in his power to give a definition of what was to be considered a beneficial occupation. There was then the further question, whether the rates should be paid by the Government or the officers themselves, and a decision had been arrived at in favour of the latter course among other reasons, because it was deemed desirable that the emoluments of officers should be fixed and certain rather than be made up of such uncertain elements as free quarters, free from rates and local charges. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion, moreover, went beyond the mere question of rates and applied to taxes. A similar question was raised in 1858, when an application was made to the Treasury on the subject of the House duty, and the decision arrived at in reference to that application was that, saving present appointments, the officers should pay the assessed taxes themselves. It appeared to him, indeed, that there was no better reason why the officers of Chelsea Hospital should not pay those taxes than why they should be exempt from the income tax, for the payment of which by them provision was made in the Act of Parliament.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, that the residence of these officers in the Hospital was compulsory, and was necessary to the duty which was imposed upon them, and that they therefore ought not to be mulcted on that account. The argument, he observed, applied not only to Chelsea Hospital, but to every barrack in England. For his own part he did not think it right that, because the parish of Chelsea chose to levy high rates they ought to be thrown on those unfortunate officers, contrary to all right and justice. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the matter.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in saying that his right hon. Friend knew nothing about the matter, had gone somewhat beyond the ordinary licence of debate. The position of the officers in Chelsea Hospital did not appear to him to be precisely analogous to that of ordinary regimental officers residing in barracks. The former were rather to be regarded in the light of civil or public 200 servants. Be that, however, as it might, the question involved in the discussion took a much wider scope than its bearing simply upon the Chelsea officers, and it appeared to him that the point of the liability of these gentlemen to pay rates ought to stand over for consideration until the general question had been brought to issue. If when that general question was decided, the hon. and gallant Gentleman still remained dissatisfied with the views of the Government, he would be in a position to ask the House to pronounce a judgment on the subject with greater advantage than at present.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, the question was one in which the Government, and the Government alone, were concerned. It was impossible that a parish would tax any Institution like that of Chelsea Hospital without the consent of the Government. If the Government gave up their rights, and said they would not defend such Institutions, it was quite obvious that the parishes might do as they pleased. A similar question had arisen in the case of Hampton Court Palace. The Government refused to oppose the demand, and the persons residing there had to pay their own taxes, whereas, in the case of St. James's Palace they had interfered and expressed a determination that it should not be made liable to rates. The charge, therefore, against the Government was that they had not performed their duty in defending Chelsea Hospital, and he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would go to a division on the subject.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the question was one which affected not only Chelsea Hospital but all the barracks in the Kingdom, and he hoped that his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a division. In Ireland a movement had been made to impose the rates upon barracks, and he understood that even the lodging money given to officers had been charged with income tax.

LORD NAAS
said, it appeared by the Returns that no general rule existed with regard to these assessments; he therefore desired to know whether, before the House came to those Votes in the Civil Service Estimates which provided for the payment of rates, the Government would state the conclusion at which they had arrived upon this rather important question?

MR. COWPER
said, that by law parishes had a right to rate all property which was beneficially occupied, and the 201 Government could not prevent it from being rated. The residences of officers in Chelsea Hospital had been held to be property beneficially occupied, and therefore the parishes had a right to receive rates for them. The only question was, whether or not the Government should pay for the officers the rates which were legally due. The question was considered in 1858, and the Government then decided that all officers who were appointed after that date should pay their own rates, and that regulation had not been since departed from. As the whole subject was now under consideration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had no reason to press his Motion.