HC Deb 02 July 1869 vol 197 cc1082-9

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. GOSCHEN moved after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:— (Owners to give lists of occupiers and liable to penalty for wilful omission.) Every owner who agrees with the overseers to pay the poor rate, or who is rated or liable to be rated for any hereditament instead of the occupier, shall deliver to the overseers, from time to time, when required by them, in writing, a list containing the names of the actual occupiers of the hereditaments comprised in such agreement, or for which he is so rated or liable to be rated; and if any such owner wilfully omits to deliver such list when required to do so, or wilfully omits there from or misstates therein the name of any occupier, he shall for every such omission or misstatement be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding two pounds.

COLONEL DYOTT

said, he objected to the clause. The simplest plan to effect the object in view would be to introduce into the valuation list another column giving the composition value, in addition to the columns of the gross annual and net annual value. If that was done owners would not be needlessly worried by penalties and requiring them to give notice.

Mr. GOSCHEN

said, this was not a new clause at all; but two sub-sections of the Bill as it stood before had been taken and embodied in the clause as a matter of convenience.

Clause (Owners to give lists of occupiers and liable to penalty for wilful omission,)—(Mr. Goschen,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, with a blank, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, added.

MR. SAMUELSON

said, he rose to move a clause, the object of which was to make owners who omitted to pay rates before the 5th of June liable to forfeit the commission. His wish was to secure that the parish should receive the rates punctually; and if that was not done by the owners paying the rates within a reasonable time they had no right to receive the commission. Hoping that the Bill would put an end to a vicious system, he begged to move after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:— (Owners omitting to pay rates before the fifth day of June to forfeit commission.) When an owner who has become liable to pay the poor rate omits or neglects to pay, before the fifth day of June in any year, any rate or any instalment thereof which has become due previously to the preceding fifth day of January, and has been duly demanded by a demand-note delivered to him or left at his usual or last known place of abode, he shall not be entitled to deduct or receive any commission, abatement, or allowance to which he would, except for such omission or neglect, be entitled under this Act, but shall be liable to pay, and shall pay, such rate or instalment in full.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he entirely sympathized with the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuelson); but there was a difficulty in the way of the application of his principle. If the owner of a property made default in his rates he would be fined by being deprived of the commission he would otherwise be entitled to; that was all proper. But, on the other hand, if the owner became insolvent and could not pay, the rate would fall upon the occupier; and by this Amendment he also would have to pay the full rate; and it might happen that this full rate might be larger than the amount of his rent that remained to pay. It was a balance of advantages and disadvantages, and he would leave it to his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board to decide between them.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought that under the circumstances, the House would do well to accept the proposed clause, as he thought that the probable hardship of its operation upon the occupier would be very remote.

Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following clause:— (List of defaulters.) Before any revising barrister shall proceed with the revision of the list of voters for any parish or place, the overseer of such parish or place shall submit a list, verified by his signature, to such revising barrister, of all parties who shall have made default in payment of their rates, as required by the provisions of this Act or of the Representation of the People Act of 1867.

Clause (List of defaulters,)—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. A. PEEL

said, he was unable on the part of the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, as he regarded it as superfluous, and calculated to interfere with the performance of the duties of the Revising Barrister.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHADWICK moved, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "hereditament," and insert "of a rateable value not exceeding twenty pounds, if situated in the metropolis, and ten pounds, if situated elsewhere."

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after the word "hereditament," to insert the words "of a rateable value not exceeding twenty pounds, if situated in the metropolis, and ten pounds, if situated elsewhere." (Mr. Chadwick.)

Question proposed, '' That those words be there inserted."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. The principle applied to all property which was held by the tenant or occupier on short terms, that he should not pay a rate which extended beyond the period of his occupation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

moved, in clause 3, sub-section 3, line 11, to leave out "twenty," and insert "sixteen." He objected to the extravagance of the distinction that was proposed to be made between the metropolis and other towns, for he believed the rents of houses in Liverpool, for instance, were as high as those in London. His proposition would be fairer to the metropolis itself.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said, he objected to any alteration of the limit of £20 for the metropolis. The figure of £16 would make it only a half Bill for London, because the vast amount of the property which was compounded for in London was between £20 and £16. Nearly all the local Acts had adopted £20, and therefore that was the fitting line.

MR. HOLMS

said, he would willingly support Liverpool in obtaining something above the line fixed on its case; but he regarded the circumstances of London as exceptional. Every year improvements in the construction of railways were driving the poorer classes out of their dwellings in the metropolis towards the east and the south of the town, causing an increase in the rents of the habitations of the humbler classes. Even in clearing the piece of ground in Carey Street a large number of the poor were driven to Southwark and elsewhere. I He felt certain that the reduction of the limit to £16 would only lead to renewed agitation and evasion.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had arrived at the conclusion, from all the evidence he had been able to gather, that the line of £20 was too high for the metropolis, and he should, therefore support the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot).

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had investigated this matter afresh, in order to be certain whether £20 was too high. He would submit the result to the House, and ask whether they were not of opinion that the limit with respect to the metropolis should remain as it originally stood. The question was, what was the average number of houses, in different places, below a given line. He would take first an £8 line. In London there were only 18 per cent of male occupations below £8, while in Birmingham there were 67 per cent, in Liverpool 26 per cent, and in Manchester 54 per cent. It was clear, therefore, that in London there were scarcely any houses below £8. Taking a £10 line, there were in London only 25 per cent of male occupations below that line, against 72 per cent in Birmingham, 67 per cent in Manchester, and 41 per cent in Liverpool. Taking a £20 line, the total number of male occupations in London below that line was 51 per cent—that was, the line of £20 for London would not include the same percentage of male occupations as would be included in Birmingham and Manchester at the line of £8. As regarded the percentage of houses, £20 in London was about equivalent to £8 in Manchester. He, therefore, put it to the House whether £20 was not a fair line for the metropolis. He was quite ready to consider the case of Liverpool when they came to it.

MR. MELLY

said, he hoped the Government would stand firm to the £20 line for the metropolis. He wished to restore the compounder to his former position.

MR. GRAVES

said, that he was opposed at first to such a difference between London and other large towns, but an examination of the statistics had convinced him that £20 was not too high for London.

MR. COLLINS

said, he hoped the hon. Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) would withdraw his Amendment, though he thought the £20 line too high.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after the word "exceed," to leave out the words "the amount hereinafter specified," in order to insert the words "twenty pounds, if the hereditament is situate in the metropolis, or eight pounds, if situate elsewhere,"—(Mr. Goschen,) —instead thereof.

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

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty pounds, if the hereditament is situate in the metropolis, or eight pounds, if situate elsewhere,' be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, After the word "metropolis," to insert the words "or exceeds thirteen pounds if situate in any parish wholly or partly within the borough of Liverpool."—(Mr. Rathbone.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 3, section 3, page 2, line -11, after "metropolis," to insert, "or exceeds ten pounds if situate in towns containing at the last Census over two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants."—(Mr. Bazley.)

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had no objection on principle to make exceptions of Manchester and Birmingham. At the same time he had shown that an £8 line gave the same percentage of houses there that a £20 line gave for London.

MR. CHADWICK

said, he did not think the question should be settled by the proportion of houses below a certain line. That had nothing to do with the justice of the case. He objected to a sliding scale for three large towns. If Birmingham and Manchester were included, why not Salford, which really formed part of Manchester?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said; he would suggest that Manchester and Liverpool should be included in the same category, and then we should have three classes, one for the metropolis, one for Manchester and Liverpool, and one for the rest of the country.

MR. DIXON

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley). The limit £10 would give much greater satisfaction to the people of Birmingham than £8. Birmingham was almost entirely inhabited by working men, the proportion of wealthy residents being very much smaller than in other larger towns. What they ought to do was to try to find the same limit for houses of the same class.

MR. BAZLEY

said, that the President of the Poor Law Board had offered to fix the limit at £20 for the metropolis, £13 for Liverpool, £10 for Manchester and Birmingham, and £8 elsewhere, and to that proposal he would accede.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that a suggestion, had been made which, he thought, was a good one, that the rateable value of any hereditament should not exceed in the metropolis £20, in Liverpool £13, in Manchester and Birmingham £10, and elsewhere £8.

Another Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, After the word "Liverpool," to insert the words "or exceeds ten pounds if situate in any parish wholly or partly within the city of Manchester or the borough of Birmingham."—(Mr. Goschen.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the limit being fixed at £8 for all the country except these three large towns, there would still remain a great discrepancy between, say a town of 100,000 inhabitants, and a village of 500. Under the operation of the Bill the rates of every small beer-house in the country and every small quantity of land of one or two acres would be reduced 30 per cent. It seemed to him impossible to get one uniform plan which would be just alike to the towns and to the villages. Was the right hon. Gentleman wise, therefore, in altering the figure of £6? He knew that as regarded towns £6 was wholly insufficient, but the right hon. Gentleman was hardly wise in raising it to £8 all over the country.

MR. CHADWICK

said, he wished to substitute the word "eight" for "ten," except in the metropolis and those excepted towns. As the clause stood many thousands of houses in the neighbourhood of Salford and Manchester could not be compounded for. He moved to leave out the words "eight pounds," and insert the words "ten pounds," and he should divide the House upon the question.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, to leave out the words "eight pounds," and insert the words "ten pounds,"—(Mr. Chadwick,)—instead thereof.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he trusted that the hon. Member (Mr. Chadwick) would not divide the House upon his Amendment. £8 was quite high enough for the country at large.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member if adopted would operate most unjustly throughout the country. Instead of raising the figure to £10 he should prefer seeing it lowered to £6.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he could not accede to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Chadwick).

Question, "That the words 'eight pounds' stand part of the said proposed Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.

Question, That the words 'twenty pounds, if the hereditament is situate in the metropolis, or exceeds thirteen pounds if situate in any parish wholly or partly within the borough of Liverpool, or exceeds ten pounds if situate in any parish wholly or partly within the city of Manchester or the borough of Birmingham, or eight pounds if situate elsewhere,' be inserted after the word 'exceed,' in page 1, line 19, of the Bill, —put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, made.

MR. VILLIERS moved, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "dwelling houses," and insert the words "rateable hereditaments" instead thereof.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "dwelling houses," and insert the words "rateable hereditaments,''—(Mr. Villiers,)—instead thereof.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to the proposed Amendment. The words might apply to a garden or a field, and the effect would be that some persons would be unduly favoured in their rates at the expense of others.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Villiers) went too far, because it would permit naked land to be excused 30 per cent of the rates, which was obviously unjust. It was a pity that the exact words of the Small Tenements Act had not been adopted in framing the Bill.

MR. LOCKE

said, he did not see why compounding should not be applicable to land or gardens as well as to dwelling houses.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there were difficulties on both sides; but as, upon consideration, he thought that "dwelling houses" might be too narrow an interpretation, he would accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'dwelling houses' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 219: Majority 98.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought that, in consequence of the adoption of the Amendment, some words should be added to the end of the clause providing that the clause should not be applicable to any rateable hereditaments in which a dwelling house was not included.

Amendment moved, to add to the clause— Provided, this clause shall not be applicable to any rateable hereditament in which a dwelling house shall not be included."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.

MR. WALTER

said, he believed the general feeling of the House to be, that though the words "dwelling houses" ought to be struck out of the clause as being too narrow, the words "rateable hereditaments" were too wide, and he would suggest the insertion, after the words "rateable hereditaments," of the words "other than land separately let."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought that the words suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would provide for the object which the hon. Member for Berkshire had in view, and he was ready to adopt those words.

Question, "That the words 'rateable hereditaments' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made.

Other Amendments made.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.