[BILL 149.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 21 June 1869 vol 197 cc360-98

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Occupiers of tenements let for short terms may deduct the poor rate paid by them from their rents).

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he rose to move an Amendment. The subject seemed dry and uninviting; but he believed that it would be now treated in a very different spirit from that in which it was discussed by the last House of Commons. It was the fashion last year to call the compound-householder a bore; but he ventured to say that the compound-householder would not be so designated in a House of Commons elected by household suffrage. In "another place'' a noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had described the late House of Commons, after the death of Lord Palmerston, as "thoroughly disorganized and demoralized, having no faith in any principle, no enthusiasm in any cause, and no fidelity to any Leader." If that was—as he believed it was—a tolerably just description of the late House of Commons, though it had given the country the Reform Bill, it was not surprising that the question relating to the compound-householder was treated with levity and want of consideration by that Assembly. The present Prime Minister pointed out over and over again how much the question affected the political rights and social comforts of the working-classes; and at the last election the people fully recognized the part which the right hon. Gentleman had played, and the battle which he had unsuccessfully fought on their behalf. The old rating system of the country placed it was true, the burden of the rate exclusively on the occupier, for the simple reason that, according to the then habits of the country, the tenant was generally a permanent occupier, and was to be found in the same house from year to year. However, by the end of the last century an enormous change occurred in the social condition of the working classes in great towns, in consequence of the discovery of the steam engine, and the development of manufacturing industries; and then sprang into existence that great class dependent on weekly wages and paying for their tenements a weekly rent, who now constituted, perhaps, the majority of the borough constituencies. This new state of things was dealt with in many towns by local Acts, and, in 1819, the first Small Tenements Act, applicable to tenements not exceeding £20 and not less than £6 rental, was passed. The Preamble stated that, whereas, in many parishes, and more especially in large and populous towns, the payment of poor rates was greatly affected by reason that a great number of the houses were let out in lodgings, or separate tenements, to tenants who quitted their residences, or became insolvent before the rates wore collected—and it had been found in many instances that higher rents were charged in the shape of rent in consequence—the inhabitants in vestry might order the owner, instead of the occupier, to be rated. In 1850 another Small Tenements Act was passed, giving to parishes the option of rating the owners of tenements under £6, and providing, as was important in respect to the Municipal Corporations Act, though not at that time material to the Parliamentary suffrage, that persons who ceased to pay rates should not be deprived of their franchise. The adoption of the Act on the part of any parish being voluntary, it became necessary to offer a large bonus to secure its acceptance, and by the Act of 1850 a reduction of 25 per cent off the rental in assessing the rate was practically given to the owners of the tenements as a bribe for its adoption. A proof that this system of compounding was deemed beneficial, was to be found in the fact that the great majority of town parishes had voluntarily adopted the Act of 1850. This state of things existed down to the Reform controversy of the year 1867. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) had given an interesting historical sketch of the circumstances of its abolition, which, however, to some hon. Members, might appear to be somewhat obscure. The repeal of the composition system was not adopted on any fiscal or economical ground. The Liberal party having no other choice, amid the disorganization which then afflicted our political system, accepted household suffrage, combined with the abolition of composition, and thus the political rights of the working classes were gained at the expense of their social comfort. It was only when political parties had got into an inextricable dead-lock that the hon. Member for Newark stepped forward, and his suggestion was seized on by hon. Members on both sides, as drowning men catch at a straw. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said in Edinburgh—"Thank God, you have no compounders in Scotland; and we are going to do away with them in England." This showed an extraordinary want of appreciation of the difference of the circumstances in the two countries. In Scotland the custom was yearly tenancy, while in England the tenancies were weekly. Much, too, was said concerning the "personal payment of rates." But as soon as the last Reform Act was passed, the personal payment of rates—that great Conservative palladium—which proved convenient as a means of educating a party into the acceptance of household suffrage, was discovered to be a delusion; because, according to the law, the payment of the rates by the landlord was held to be equivalent to payment by the tenant. What was the consequence that followed on the legislation of 1867? Throughout the boroughs of England the unwelcome face of the rate collector, who, under the Compounding Act, had been banished from the houses of the working classes, re-appeared. Rents were hardly anywhere reduced, and three and six months' rates were, in thousands and tens of thousands of cases demanded, which working men were not in a position to pay. Distress warrants were issued, and the men were made parochial, or, more correctly speaking, political bankrupts by the operation of the Reform Act of 1867. A man receiving weekly wages naturally desired to pay rates only for the occupation for which he paid his rent. He had an intelligent artizan working the other day at his house, who told him he earned 23s. a week, out of which he paid 9s. a week for rent, which covered his rates till two years ago; but since that time the landlord told him that he—the tenant —must either pay the rate himself, or he would be charged 6d. a week extra. The tenant said that, practically, he had no option; he was obliged to pay the 6d. a week extra—if it had been double he would have paid it—for a working man must make all his payments when he received his wages; £1 6s. per annum was, therefore, the measure of the fine on this man which the operation of the enfranchising Act of 1867 had imposed. The taxation which had thus been imposed on the working classes was the most inconvenient, irritating, and odious it was possible to conceive—and all this under the name of political reform. Not only was such a system socially inconvenient and alien to the habits of working men, but it was financially and fiscally entirely unsound. In all other cases when it was necessary to raise a large sum upon articles of con- sumption, they taxed the producer, and left him to recover the tax from the consumer. The owner of house property was in this case the producer, the occupier the consumer. Why proceed on a different principle in local taxation from that they were obliged to follow in regard to the Imperial Revenues? No doubt a larger amount of rate might thus be collected, but the irritation and injury inflicted could not be compensated by the larger sum they were enabled to collect. If they could get the owner to collect the rate, that would be a most beneficial form of levying a necessary tax. The old Law of Settlement had a very injurious effect in preventing the distribution of labour, because it did not allow a man to carry his labour to the best market. This was equally true of the present system of collecting these rates. What was wanted was that every man should take his labour where it was most wanted. He should not be tied by the leg in consequence of a payment of three or six months' rates, which he had been called upon to make, and which he felt it necessary to work out. Paying his rate with his rent on Saturday night, he could be off at once to some other district where his labour would be better remunerated. He believed it was a mistake to suppose that the most respectable of the working class in a borough were the most stationary population in it. In the Committee on Registration which was now sitting, Mr. Lambert, the Poor Law Inspector, stated that the most respectable part of the working population constantly changed their lodgings, because when a tenant remained long in the same lodgings he could not get the landlord to make any repairs; it was only by leaving and going into new lodgings that he could get a clean, respectable house. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) had informed him, that in Liverpool, if the father of a respectable family found that a disreputable establishment had been set up near him, he would give his month's notice and remove to another neighbourhood. He was assured by the intelligent rate collector of the parish in which he resided that it was heart-rending to see the collection of rates by distress warrants; and he declared it to be his conviction that if that system was continued there would be a revolution in the country. The principle ought to be that in the case of weekly tenancies the rate should be collected weekly; but it was evidently impossible to send public officers every week to the house of each occupier, and a weekly collection could only be effected through the agency of the landlords. It was admitted that in some form the burden of the rate ought to be cast upon the owner, and that he should recoup himself in the rent for the rate; and there were several ways of accomplishing that. The plan of the Bill amounted to this, that the owner was to be rated, and that at the option of the occupier, because the tenant was to be at liberty to deduct the rate from his rent. This plan did not meet the grievance of the occupier; it left him liable in the first instance for the whole rate; so that the weekly occupier might be called upon to pay three months' rate, which was the very grievance they were seeking to remove. The weekly tenant would be still left to put his hand into his pocket for a sum which he did not possess. It was the fault of the plan that it made the poor man advance the rate for the rich man; the plan adopted ought to be the opposite of that—the rich man ought to advance the lump sum, and afterwards recover it little by little from the poor man. So long as such a plan was continued we should not get rid of distress warrants. The remedy provided was to allow the tenant to deduct the rate from the rent; but that immediately brought him into a controversy with the landlord, who might say, if the tenant proposed to deduct the rate from the rent—"You can leave the house next Saturday." Therefore, the remedy provided was practically an illusory one. The parish was left with reference to its revenue just as it was before. The plan of his right hon. Friend, while it acknowledged the evil, failed to provide the remedy required, for financially it left a tax upon the consumer instead of the producer. There was another plan which was embodied in the Amendment to the 3rd clause of the Bill, proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms). His hon. Friend accepted the principle that the owner ought to be rated instead of the occupier, but, instead of making the adoption of the principle compulsory, he said the owner should be rated instead of the occupier, at the option of the overseer. He (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) much preferred that plan to the plan of the President of the Poor Law Board, but it seemed to him defective in this respect, that it left the fate of the occupier in the hands of the overseer. Both Amendments admitted that the owner ought to be ultimately rated instead of the occupier. The third plan, that involved in his own Amendment, adopted that principle, and endeavoured to carry it out more efficiently. He proposed to declare that, wherever the tenancy was for a shorter period than the term of the rate, the owner should be rated, and to rate him accordingly. This plan would have many conveniences. It would not call upon the tenant to find the amount of the rate in the first instance, and it would save him from an unequal controversy with his landlord, while the parish would derive the advantage of collecting the rate from a few persons who had funds, instead of from many who were without them. It was said that a large allowance must be made to the owners if this liability were put upon them; but to make a large allowance was to act unfairly towards the man who occupied his own house. He could not compound, but must pay 20s. in the pound; and if a deduction of 50 per cent were made to the proprietor, he paid only 10s. in the pound, which was extremely unfair as between class and class. Of course, the owner ought to have a fair allowance for the risk of loss which he incurred; and it became a question what that risk was. In the case of weekly tenancies it was plain the owner was entitled to an allowance for the time a house was vacant. Then it was said he might have defaulting tenants and ought to have an allowance made on that account. But that was not a sound principle; and, indeed, he believed that, apart from vacancies, the owner of weekly tenancies lost little or nothing. The rent was collected every Saturday or Monday, and if the tenant did not pay he had to leave the premises. He proposed to confine his Amendment to the case of weekly tenancies, because in houses of tenancy for longer than three months there was a good reason for giving a larger allowance in the way of composition, because if a tenant ran away the landlord might lose a whole year's rent. Against the scheme which he proposed, however, it was urged that the rate ought properly to be imposed upon the occupier, because by adopting any other plan the occupier did not feel the burden of the rate; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had spoken of the compounding system as a device of Old Nick to tax the poor. He entirely differed from that view. Objection might be made upon the same ground to all indirect taxation for the Imperial revenue. He contended that it was desirable, especially having regard to the heavy nature of our local taxation, that the rates should be imposed and levied in the manner which would entail the least burden on those who had to pay them. Again, it was urged that the rate might be lost, because the owner might be either an absentee or inaccessible; but he believed that that difficulty had been amply provided for by retaining the liability of the occupier as well as the owner; in addition to which he proposed that the rent should be made a security for the rate, and should be liable to attachment in case the rate was not paid. He would never have made this proposal unless he had thought complete provision were made for preserving the franchise to those who, if his proposal were adopted, would belong to the non-rate-paying classes. Personally, he believed that by far the wisest and by far the boldest course would have been to have taken the bull by the horns and have repealed the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act of 1867. They would in that case have done directly what they now meant to do, and what they had promised their constituents they would do. He for one regretted that Her Majesty's Government had touched the matter with a somewhat timid hand. It was said that if men had their votes they ought to pay their rates. While fully endorsing that principle, he contended that there would be no class in the community who more surely paid their rates than this particular class, because the landlord would take care that the rate was paid in the rent. He maintained, however, that they never could have a sound basis for the political franchise until they entirely separated it from the embarrassments which were inseparable from its connection with parochial revenue. Payment of rates had only been the screen by which the master architect who had reared the structure of household suffrage had prevented some of the masons from seeing what they were doing; but now that the building was complete, and all the necessary education finished, he could not understand why they were to deform that noble edifice by the scaffolding which, however useful in its erection, could now only have the effect of concealing its outlines. He believed that even hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would be glad to see it removed. The party opposite expected when they went to the hustings to receive the gratitude of the country for the been of household suffrage; but in this they were disappointed, not because the people of this country were wanting in gratitude, but because by tying up with it this question of the payment of rates they had poisoned the gift, and deprived it of all grace and favour. But whatever might be the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the matter, on that (the Ministerial) side of the House there was but one opinion. On no subject, not even on that of the Irish Church, were the Liberal party more deeply pledged than they were upon that. The constituencies of this country had purged the Liberal party of those who had acted with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who by their infidelity had enabled them to defeat the interests of the working classes. The Liberal majority at present in that House were principally the representatives of the borough constituencies—of the people interested in the settlement of this question. That majority had power to settle the question, and they ought to settle it. They had no caves, and he was happy to say that they had no tea-room meetings either. He was quite sure his right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Poor Law Board would not consider that he proposed his Amendment in hostility to the Government, and he believed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) would not question the propriety of adopting the principle of the liability of the owner instead of the occupier. They had begun this Session well by doing a great work for the majority of the Irish people; let them, before it was concluded, do a not less great work for the majority of the English people. He had always deeply regretted, and he regretted it now, that they had not in the House a Member of the working classes to represent their interests; but let them act for them as they would act for themselves, and thus convince them that this Parliament understood their wants and sympathized with their distress. He hoped this first Parliament, elected under the auspices of a household suffrage franchise, would not separate for the Session without satisfying the people on this matter, for the first care of a household suffrage Parliament ought to be the interest of the householders of England. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving as an Amendment in Clause 1, line 9, to leave out all after "the," and insert— Owner of every rateable hereditament which is let for a term of less than three months shall be assessed to the poor rate in place of the occupier: Provided, nevertheless, That the owner of such hereditament shall be entitled to deduct from the rate due in respect thereof a sum proportionate to the time during which such hereditament may have been vacant since the payment of the last rate.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that an Amendment in the form of that moved by the hon. and learned Member could not be put from the Chair. The question which the hon. and learned Member wished to raise could be raised by moving to strike out the word "occupier" in order to substitute for it the word "owner."

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

having moved an Amendment in this form—

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had already expressed his objections to the Bill at such length that he did not intend to go into all the questions connected with the principles of the measure. He wished, however, to express his satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government had considered the subject in a different light from that in which it was viewed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt). They had recognized that there were two aspects of the question—the political and the economical. It was quite consistent with the views expressed in former Sessions by the Members of the present Government that they should bring in a Bill to remedy what they regarded as inequalities on the political side of the question; but he was glad that in doing so they had not been so unmindful of the economical side of the question as the hon. and learned Member for Oxford appeared to be. The hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely ignored the fact that this Bill, which was one to remedy a grievance existing only in particular places, had been made applicable to all parts of the country. He was not going to deny that in some boroughs some dissatisfaction and distress existed; but he submitted that what Parliament ought to do was to pass a measure which would remedy that partial evil without unduly interfering with arrangements of long standing which had proved successful in equally important places. The hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that the liability of the occupier to the payment of poor rates was one of the oldest principles of the Poor Law. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the poor rate ought to be levied on what he called the "producer," as distinguished from the "consumer;" but there was no difference between the producer who let a house for a short time, or below a certain rental, and the producer who let houses on other descriptions of occupancy. If this argument, therefore, was good in this case, it was good for all kinds of property; but he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman on the principle itself; because he did not think that, as a general rule, it would be better to levy the rate from the owner instead of from the occupier. He believed it to be a matter of no small importance that a large proportion of those from whom the poor rate was levied should be residing in the place in which the rates paid by them were levied, and conversant with the class for whose benefit the rates were intended. It had been found that small occupiers, when they paid the rates themselves, were careful in seeing that those who should pay the rates were made to do so, and that persons did not receive relief who were not entitled to it. The same supervision in these respects could not be exercised by owners at a distance that was exercised by occupiers. Neither did he think that the case would be met by levying the rate on resident agents instead of nonresident owners, because, as a rule, agents would not be pecuniarily interested in the matter, and therefore would not scrutinize collection and expenditure as closely as occupiers did. There were statistics to show that in certain boroughs, which contained a large number of poor occupiers, the system of the payment of rates by such occupiers had worked most successfully. There were the cases of Stockport, Oldham, and Sheffield, for instance. In none of those boroughs had the compounding system ever prevailed, in Old-ham and Sheffield the landlord not even paying the full rates for the tenant. In Oldham, out of 17,800 occupiers, the majority of whom live in houses under £10, during the cotton famine only about £8,000 was lost—much less than would have been lost if the Small Tenements Act had been in operation. In Sheffield the district rate, amounting to £54,000, was compounded for by an allowance of 25 per cent on houses under £7. Of that no less than £5,800 was lost, whereas, on the poor rate of £94,000, only £947 was lost on the poorer and smaller houses. This proved that there were places of very large extent where the system of payment by the occupier had been thoroughly successful. He therefore trusted that the Committee would not alter that system throughout the whole country for the sake of a few places where it had not yet had time to be fully tried. There were other reasons why payment by occupiers was better than payment by owners. Where the owners paid the rates, depend upon it they exacted from the occupiers a large sum to compensate themselves for the trouble of collection; and therefore the payment of the rate by the owner must result in taxing the poor occupiers by a system which was nominally introduced for their relief. Again, take the instance of the poor man who, under the system of direct payment, would be excused by the parochial authorities; he would, if his landlord paid the rates for him, have to pay the rate directly to the owner in his rent. The system of compulsory composition which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford proposed would distress the poor occupiers far worse than the present system did. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought that no system of deduction of the rate paid by the occupier from rent due to the owner was wanted, except in the case of the occupier leaving before the term expired for which the rate was paid. It appeared to him that the question resolved itself into this—Why were they, for the sake of Birmingham and East London, to inflict upon Stockport, Oldham, Sheffield, and other parts of the country a system of rating which they did not want, and to which they entertained great objection? He trusted the Government and the Committee would decline to assent to the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.

MR. C. FORSTER

said, that if the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) pressed his Amendment to a division he should give it his support. He agreed with all that had been said as to the cruelty and injustice which the abolition of the system of compounding had inflicted on large masses of the people, and he had been informed that payment by the occupier greatly increased the trouble and expense of collection. The Government sought to provide a remedy in a very circuitous manner, but he should prefer the old system of compounding. The assent of the landlords would be an essential element to the success of the Bill, and he believed that that assent would, in many instances, be withheld, and that the Act would be rendered a dead letter. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) had given notice of an Amendment, giving the parochial authorities the option to make composition compulsory, but he (Mr. C. Forster) thought it would be unwise to do so, and that it would be better to fall back on the provisions of the Small Tenements Act, and give the vestries power compulsorily to rate the owners where the rental was under £6. No doubt the amended Bill was far more acceptable than the original measure; but he trusted Her Majesty's Government would go further, and would not only preserve the franchise for the poorer occupiers, but would take care that, in a pecuniary point of view, they should not be placed in a worse position than they occupied before the passing of the Act of 1867.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was sure the Committee would see the necessity of being very clear upon two or three points with respect to this question, and, in the first place, that they would feel the importance of not being guided by the views of any particular towns or alone, of the rating authorities alone, of the owners alone, or of the occupiers alone. In the many communications he had had with hon. Members of that House, and with the various local authorities upon this subject, he found that they were all too much disposed to take a one-sided view of the question, and that, therefore, were he to adopt the suggestions of any one party he should be acting contrary to the feelings of the others. Her Majesty's Government had endeavoured to be guided by general principles; to guard themselves against being influenced by any particular districts; to look at the question from a large and broad point of view; and to devise a measure which would be acceptable to the community at large. As regarded the point touched upon by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) and by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster) with reference to the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act, the Government had in one respect done more than repeal those clauses, because they said that not only should the occupiers not have to pay the rates personally, but that in many cases they should not pay at all. In the case of the weekly tenants the Government had shifted the rates from the occupiers to the owners. They had not been trammelled with any feeling as to the expediency of retaining the principle of personal payment of rates, for practically that had been abandoned before the present Government acceded to Office. And therefore the present measure had been framed, not with reference to the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act, but upon economical and financial grounds alone. As might be expected, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) had presented his own scheme in the best light; but he had not been quite fair to the scheme of the Government, for he dealt only with the 1st clause, which gave occupiers power to deduct the rates from the rent, and had scarcely alluded to the 3rd clause, which enabled owners to compound with the overseers. These two clauses must be read together. The owner was offered the option of either paying the rate in full or paying 75 per cent if he chose to compound. If either clause were taken separately it might not be successful in its operation, and he candidly admitted that the Government would not regard the Bill as successful if it were not productive of voluntary arrangements, to a large extent, between owners and the local authorities for the payment of rates by the owners. That was the intention of the measure, and if it could be shown that these clauses as they stood did not give effect to that intention, it would become necessary to consider what further arrangements were desirable for this purpose. The owners of cottage property very clearly appreciated the nature of the Government proposals, for a deputation of them had waited upon him on Friday to request that Clause 1 might be omitted from the Bill, the very clause which the hon. Member for Oxford thought would not be effectual. The deputation stated that if that clause remained in the Bill they would be compelled to compound with the collectors and overseers; and were informed that this was the object of the Bill. Clause 1, in fact, was the screw which was to be put upon the landlords, compelling them to do that which was, in fact, done in a great many cases at present, but illegally, unsatisfactorily, and in evasion of the law. It was not true to assert that under the clause tenants would have to pay a large lump sum out of their weekly earnings. The rate for a quarter did not amount on the average to more than one week's rent, and seldom exceeded one and a-half. Of course, to those who did not pay their rent at all, it would be an inconvenience to pay the rate, but that was the only case in which permission to deduct the rates from the rent would be ineffectual. Undoubtedly owners had great power over their tenants, and had been able to take advantage of the Reform Act to raise their rents; but, to assume, on that account, that if the law throughout the country was that weekly occupiers might deduct the rates from their rent, it would be ineffectual, went beyond the bounds of probability. The hope and expectation of the Government was that the owner, finding himself liable to have these deductions made from his rent under Clause 1, would compound, under Clause 3, with the collectors. The hon. Member for Oxford said there was no difference between his proposal and that of the Government with regard to the taxation of the owner instead of the occupier, but the difference was that, while under the Government scheme the deduction would be made from the rent, according to his hon. and learned Friend the owner would have to pay the rates, whether he received any rent at all or not. His hon. and learned Friend, therefore, placed upon the owner the burden of guaranteeing the solvency of the tenant without securing to him any corresponding advantage, a principle entirely novel in our legislation. Under the Small Tenements Act two different allowances were made to the owner, 25 per cent for rendering himself liable, and 25 per cent for empties. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the owners having power to turn the tenants out at a week's notice could protect themselves, but that was incompatible with tenants of the smaller class being in arrear with their rent. The hon. and learned Gentleman recognized the fact that when a burden was placed on the owners some allowance ought to be made, but he now introduced a new principle, and that was that the owner was to be liable without having any allowance at all. In the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member there was an important defect of detail, inasmuch as it contained no limitation as to the value of the property. If they gave an allowance to the owner, and there was no limit to the value, the owners of good property would shorten the tenancies in order to secure this allowance. This point had been constantly urged upon the Government. His hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would place a burden on the owner of cottage property which had never been placed by the Legislature upon any description of property. If they rated the owner of property without giving him an allowance, they would either frighten capital out of the building trade or compel the owner to ask a higher rent. The proposal was to place a higher tax upon cottage property than on any other description of property. In other cases the tenant might go away, and leave his rate unpaid and the parish authorities might lose it; but in the case of cottage property the owners would have to guarantee the rate and to do so gratuitously. It was in evidence that, in the metropolis the rents were habitually in arrear, and the risk run by the owners was a real one. It was impossible, on economical grounds, to pass the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. The owners would say they were not going to expose themselves to this risk, and would insist upon tenants taking their houses for four or six months, instead of weekly. They would change the tenancies in order to escape the burdens put upon them. Therefore, they must make an allowance if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend were agreed to. The point was one which ought not to be settled without great consideration, and he regretted that an Amendment of such extreme importance had practically only been before the country for three days. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) proposed that the overseers should rate the owners at their discretion. This emanated from the same idea—namely, that there was not sufficient compulsory power in the Bill. To that proposal he felt the same objection. It was not right to rate one owner in a parish without rating the others, or that the matter should be left to the discretion of the overseers, who were practically appointed by the justices of the peace, and whose views might vary considerably in different districts. Then it had been suggested by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster), that the principle of the Small Tenements Act should be again adopted, and that the vestry should have the power of deciding by a majority whether all the owners throughout the parish should be rated or not. Now, he so far sympathized with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that he believed it would be better to have a general law, and thus create uniformity, and that it would not be wise to give special powers to vestries. But of all the suggestions that had been thrown out, he preferred that of the hon. Member for Walsall, to give the parish the right to exercise a compulsory power. It would be necessary, however, to hedge this round with precautions. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of this Bill as affecting a permanent and absolute settlement of the question. He, however, was not so sanguine. It was impossible to settle in one Bill of this kind who were and who were not to be rated. He did not mean as regarded the franchise, but in respect to the great question whether the owner should be further rated in the future to other rates besides the poor rates. That was a question which could not be settled by one clause in a Bill, because it affected the whole of our local taxation. He would not pledge himself against the principle of the direct rating of the owner, far from it, but if they changed the whole of their burdens and placed the rates direct upon the owner, it would be necessary to re-consider how far the owner was satisfactorily represented. For the reasons he had given, it was impossible to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. The Government desired that this measure should pass this Session to secure a practical remedy for a grievance which they acknowledged, and they asked for the co-operation of the Committee to carry out that intention.

SIR HENRY HOARE

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to accept the Amendment, which had the advantage of being plain, concise, and intelligible. He urged upon the Government, and especially upon the Prime Minister, that at the elections the Liberal Members of the House were led to make many promises to their constituents in the right hon. Gentleman's name. They promised to obtain the Ballot, which was now withheld for this year; they promised to obtain the abolition of the representation of minorities; they promised to obtain a reduction of the county suffrage to a level with the borough franchise; and they promised, above all, to obtain the abolition of the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act. If this Bill was to be carried at all, it should be carried in a shape which would recommend it to the working classes, and enable hon. Gentlemen to show that they had kept their promise in spirit and in letter.

MR. CAWLEY

said, that as the representative of a large constituency of working men, he would suggest that the Bill should be so modified as to protect the occupier with regard to the recovery of rates left unpaid by his predecessor. It seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) was more technical than real. The 1st clause of the Bill only sought to make the landlord include the rate in his rent, and did not touch the question of composition.

MR. HOLMS

said, he had found that the owners of the better class of poor property were practically carrying out all the provisions of the Bill without any screw at all; but he did not believe the owners of the poorest property would be induced by any optional means to compound with their tenants for the rates. The owners of the poorer class of that property did not and would not pay the rates if they could help it; and the reason was that if they did not pay them many of the poorer occupiers got excused from their rates, and the owners paid nothing whatever. Unless power was given to the overseers to rate the owners of poor property, they would escape in future as they did at present. As to the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, he would not have given notice of it had it not been for the fact that in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill the word overseer was made to include every authority making an assessment for the poor rate, or collecting it. The objection that the Amendment would give rise to favouritism on the part of the overseers must be dealt with practically and not theoretically, and in practice that objection was not found to operate. The Amendment now before the House had this disadvantage, that instead of giving people what they wanted, in many places it would give them what they did not want.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had not seen his way to accept the present Amendment. The object of Clause 1, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was to precipitate composition under Clause 3; but the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was that it was hard upon the owner. But the harder the screw was upon the owner the more likely it would be to accomplish its effect. The more onerous the terms under Clause 1, the more likely they would be to go to the arrangement under Clause 3. He admitted that the Amendment as proposed did not exactly meet the necessity of the position. There should be a limit to the amount chargeable on the owner, but it would be very easy to alter the Amendment so as to meet that point. Probably the right limitation would be the limit imposed by Clause 3. He also admitted that the Amendment made no adequate allowance to the owner beyond the allowance for the empties. There should be some compensating allowance for the risk and trouble he would incur. He thought it probable that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) would be prepared to accept such an alteration of his Amendment, and then the proposal might meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.

MR. HENLEY

said, that before stating why he should be unable to support the Amendment, he wished to explain that he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) did not understand what was his meaning when he said that "compounding was a device of Old Nick to oppress the poor." The poor that were in his mind were those who were receiving parish relief, the widow and the destitute, for all these were made to pay. He wished to consider the Amendment in three lights—first, as regarded securing the rate; secondly, as insuring that the name of the occupier should be on the rate book; and, thirdly, as to what would be the least inconvenience to the rate-payer in paying his rates. His hon. and learned Friend based the whole of his argument as to the necessity of rating the landlord on the shifting habits of the present generation, and the fact that the occupiers were a moving class, and followed that up by a very strong, and no doubt in many cases true, description of the hardships which persons had to suffer in paying their rates. Then as to the remedy. His hon. and learned Friend said—"Rate the landlords;" but then came the difficulty which stared his hon. and learned Friend in the face—that of securing the rates to the parish. His hon. and learned Friend proposed in the case of a shifting, moving population, that in the event of the landlord mating default of payment, not of one, but of two rates—that is, as the rates were ordinarily levied every three months, of six months' rates—the parish might come upon some unfortunate occupier who might not have been a week in the house, and call upon him to pay the rates for the six months.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, that was not the purport of his Amendment. The occupier was only to pay to the overseer the weekly rent that was due, instead of paying it into the hands of the landlord.

MR. HENLEY

said, that even in that case he did not see what security the parish had for the payment of the rates, because there were defaulting landlords as well as defaulting tenants. He believed that the pressure on the tenant would then be much more severe than it was under the present state of things, while the security to the parish would be almost completely destroyed. It appeared to him that, in a very difficult matter, the proposal of the Government would create the least amount of inconvenience, and would best secure that the rate book should be the guide, and he should therefore support it in preference to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. He believed that the offer made by the Government to the landlords was one with which the latter would be tempted to close, and if that were so, very little practical inconvenience would arise.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, in answer to the appeal of his hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare), as to the pledges given at the General Election to proceed for the repeal of the rate-paying clauses, he wished to observe that it was a political formula which had been long in use, and which had not in the slightest degree grown out of the Act of 1867. Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 it had been incessantly discussed whether there should or should not be a repeal of the rate-paying clauses, meaning thereby whether the rate-payer should be exempted from paying his rate at a particular date as a condition to his obtaining the franchise. That was a totally different thing from the grievance complained of under the Act of 1867. The grievance under that Act was that a vast number of persons had been compelled to pay their rates who had never paid rates before, and that, from the position of relative inferiority in which the occupiers stood with respect to the owners, the change that had been made imposed on them the burden of paying the rate without any diminution in their rent. As far as regarded the repeal of the rate-paying clauses, if that was the promise given to their constituents, to fulfil that pledge would give no relief, for it would leave them liable to the rate in cases where they were not liable before. What the Government had to endeavour to do was to look to the actual pressing grievance, and to apply a remedy which should be effectual for the removal of the evil; but they had not attempted to introduce a system which should be universal, complete, and final. And he would venture to say that any attempt to introduce at this moment, in consequence of an Amendment first notified three days ago, a system which should be universal, complete, and final, would not only fail in itself, but would prevent them probably from applying a remedy to the present pressing evil. As to the objections to Clause 1, that of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) was that it was simply machinery to compel the owner to compound. That was a secondary object, the primary object being to afford a remedy for the grievance of the occupier. The only grievance to the occupier now would be that he would pay his rent to the collector of rates instead of to the collector of rents. Under the 3rd clause the owner would have the strongest possible inducement to compound. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) said the clause did not go far enough, because in many cases it would hold out no sufficient inducement to the owners to compound. That had been answered by the hon. Member for Sunderland. If the Bill were too weak in that respect the proper remedy was to strengthen it not by giving arbitrary powers to the parish authorities authorizing them to compel certain owners to pay and to exempt others from the obligation, but by giving a general power to the parish authorities to decide whether the owners should or should not carry into effect a spstem of compounding. That was a subject which the Government left perfectly open for consideration. He now came to the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member for Sunderland had frankly admitted that they could not insert in the Bill the Amendment as it stood, but said that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford would be willing to change its form. As it stood the Amendment was open to a practical objection which appeared to be conclusive. It proposed that the owner should be rated in lieu of the occupier in case the rateable hereditament was let for a term of less than three months. Those words seemed to him to contain an insurmountable objection to the plan. The parish authorities knew, and could know, nothing whatever of the term for which hereditaments were let; the machinery and operation of rating did not place them in contact with that subject at all. They must have a new and strange system of inquisition into private affairs of a most laborious and costly kind, of which he was sure the hon. and learned Member had never dreamt, if they were to put the parish authorities in possession of those facts; and when they had done that it would be found that the result was not worth the labour, even if it could be done, which it could not. However sound, therefore, might be the principle of rating the owner, it was placed before the Committee at that moment in a shape in which they could not possibly adopt it; because to apply it only to the case of the owners of hereditaments that were let for a less period than three months was to apply it to something which no parochial authorities would be able to define, and con- sequently their enactment would remain a dead letter for want of the knowledge, or means of knowledge, necessary to give it effect. He need not refer to the latter part of the Amendment, namely—that the owner should be entitled to deduct from the rate a sum proportionate to the time during which the hereditament was vacant, because the difficulty he had already named was insuperable. Still that second provision, though perfectly just in itself, would introduce the greatest difficulty and complication in the working of the plan. But the hon. Member for Sunderland said the Mover of the Amendment was willing that the plan should be remodelled, and that the criterion should be placed on the value instead of on the term for which the hereditament was let. No doubt by that change they would get rid of the practical objection that he had made; but when they came to deal with the question of the adoption of an alteration of their law so important as that, universally throughout the country and compulsorily, all owners should be rated in respect of a certain class of hereditaments, he thought it would be found that the mere fixing of the criterion of value for such a purpose was a matter that would require some time and consideration. But he wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) to this point, that if they were about to adopt an enactment compulsorily imposing on the owners of hereditaments below a certain value the obligation to be rated and to bear the burden of a rate, they must along therewith proceed to re-adjust their law with respect to the representation of owners in the rating body. That, however, was a thing which could not be done in a day; and he wished them all to take a practical view of that matter, and to recollect that this was not a Bill which, in order to make it more perfect, they could conveniently postpone till another year. Therefore, without wishing to prejudice the substance of the questions involved in his hon. and learned Friend's proposition, he trusted that he would be content with having given rise to a useful discussion on that difficult and important matter, and would not press his Amendment to a division.

MR. DAVISON

said, he had promised his constituents to do his best to obtain the repeal of the rate-paying clauses, but he hoped that after what had fallen from the First Minister of the Crown, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) would not press his Amendment; especially if, in addition to what he had already said, the right hon. Gentleman would give some promise that that measure was not to be considered a final measure, but that in a future Session, and, if possible, next Session, further steps should be taken in the direction of relieving the occupier from the very great difficulty in which he was placed by the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act of 1867.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he objected to the Amendment on several grounds— first, in consequence of the way in which it referred to hereditaments and tenements let for terms of less than three months, as it would be extremely difficult for the overseers to ascertain what tenements were let for such short periods; next, because it proceeded to rate the owners of one species of property, whilst it left the occupiers of every other species liable to be rated; and, lastly, because he feared that when the owner of this class of property was rateable there would be great difficulty in securing the insertion of the names of the occupiers in the rate book. In the town which he had the honour to represent (Oldham) the direct system of rate-paying had always prevailed, and the Bill would, he believed, confer no advantages on his constituents or meet any of their wants. He should, however, support the Bill, because it might meet the difficulties of the case in other boroughs.

MR. LOCKE

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) would withdraw his Amendment, because a clause which stood on the Paper in his own name was, in his opinion, a far preferable one. At all events, it was strictly in accordance with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and by the Liberal side of the House in 1867. It provided that in the case of rateable hereditaments, where the rent was payable at shorter intervals than quarterly, the owner and occupier should both be rated—a system which would, in his opinion, meet most of the difficulties of the case.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the clause of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) showed the enormous difficulties of the subject. Every Member who proposed to improve the Bill proposed to improve it in a different way. His objection to his hon. Friend's clause, which would be a very effective means of procuring the money, was that it did not sufficiently remove the grievance of the occupiers, who would still remain liable to rating and be subject to the visits of the tax-collector. Now, it seemed to be the feeling of the House that the Bill erred in this respect—that it did not sufficiently relieve the occupiers; and if it were the sense of the House that Clause 3 did not give to owners sufficient powers and inducements to compound, he would undertake to bring up a clause on the Report enabling vestries to rate the owners compulsorily.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he thought that the statement just made showed that the Government were disposed to deal as completely as they could with this subject; but he wished to know whether the vestries were to rate the owners compulsorily according to the limit of value—£20 in the metropolis, and £10 elsewhere? [Mr. GOSCHEN: Yes.] Then that was carrying the principle of compulsory rating in the case of the owner rather further than he had proposed to carry it, and he should be quite satisfied with that undertaking. His argument went to this extent—that the owners instead of the occupiers should always be rated, though he had confined his proposal to weekly tenants, because the grievance was more conspicuous and obvious in their case than in any other. It should be remembered, however, that the vestries, which would be intrusted with this option, were elected under a system of plurality of votes, and he did not think the occupiers of this country would ever submit to have their political status determined by a vestry in which the owners had a majority of votes. This would not be a satisfactory and final settlement of the question; but he believed that, as formerly in the case of household suffrage, they would be glad to accept the been which such limitations as they would get rid of on the first possible occasion. As to the rate collectors not knowing the nature of the tenancy, he ventured to say there was not a rate collector in London who did not know perfectly well whether any particular tenement was rented by the week, or the month, or the year. Regarding, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, the present proposal as an instalment, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in line 9, to leave out "rateable hereditaments," and insert "dwelling-house or other tenement."

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that the insertion of the word tenement coupled with dwelling-house would leave the clause, so far as its operation was concerned, in the same position as before.

Amendment negatived.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he rose to move in line 10, to leave out "less than" and insert "not exceeding," so as to make the clause read that the occupier of any rateable hereditament let to him for a term not exceeding three months should be entitled to deduct the rate. In his constituency (Kingston-on-Hull) many thousand working men took their houses for three months, although they paid their rent weekly or fortnightly. There was no good reason for discouraging these three months' tenancies, and the concession he asked for would not affect the main purpose of the Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RATHBONE

moved, to insert after "hereditament," the words "of a rateable value not exceeding £20." He said that in Liverpool there were warehouses of considerable value that were let for shorter periods than three months, and he did not see why existing arrangements affecting them should be upset incidentally in this way when the whole subject was to be dealt with next year.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the principle seemed to be quite as true in relation to houses above £20 as it was in relation to those below £20. He had no very great objection to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he proposed to amend the clause by making it read that the occupier should be entitled "inthe event of his tenancy being determined by any act of the owner," to deduct the rate. He said as the clause stood it would be pos- sible for a tenant to pay the rate for the ensuing three months, and immediately afterwards to give a week or a fortnight's notice to leave. He would then be entitled to deduct the three months' prospective rate from the rent, which would be a great hardship upon the landlord, who might not be able to re-let, or might have to let at a rent which would not compensate him for the rate he had allowed. The property owners of Liverpool, Manchester, and Salford were against this proposal of the Bill, which he thought would put an unfair burden on them. He begged to move in line 10, after "entitled," to insert ''in the event of his tenancy being determined by any act of the owner."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the question raised by the hon. Baronet really came to this—whether the 1st clause should be retained at all. To limit the clause as the hon. Baronet proposed was to make it altogether nugatory.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOCKE

moved, in line 11, after "poor," to leave out "rate," and insert "and other rates." Under the existing law the various rates were directed to be collected with the poor rate by the overseers, and unless the provisions of the Bill were extended to the case of those other rates as well as the poor rate it would effect very little. In the rating papers the various rates were so mixed together that it was almost impossible to separate them.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he would point out that in some improvement Bills for several small towns throughout the country the occupiers of houses were entitled to have water and gas supplied to them at a certain sum per head, and that it would be very hard if a necessity to their occupation were charged upon them in the same way as the rate for the relief of the poor. If the Bill were to be carried, it must, he thought, be limited to the objects which it was introduced to meet.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the Reform Act touched only the poor rate, and that a power of composition still existed with regard to other rates. The case of the metropolis was, however, somewhat different, for there it was provided that the overseers should, "in levying those rates proceed in the same manner as in levying the rate for the relief of the poor." It might, therefore, be necessary to refer to other rates, and if his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment he should take care that words should be introduced in the Interpretation Clause to meet the case of the metropolis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

moved, in line 11, after the insertion after the word "hereditament," to insert "for a period beyond the term of his occupation." This would confine the operations of the clause to the only case in which a grievance could possibly arise. There could be no reason why a tenant for three months should not be liable to pay a rate made for that term, any more than why a yearly tenant should not be liable to a prospective rate for a year. The grievance which this Clause was intended to remedy was where a tenant was turned out by his landlord after having paid a prospective rate for a long period, during a great part of which he would thus not be the occupier of the premises rated. His landlord ought then to recoup him; but not in any other case.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the Amendment would only make matters more complicated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HIBBERT

suggested that an allowance should be made to owners who had paid the rate, and whose tenants had left without notice and without paying the rent.

DR. BREWER

said, he thought that Parliament ought not to protect landlords against bad bargains.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he hoped that, for the sake of making the "screw" more effective, no such provision would be made.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that in the borough which he represented (Oldham), they did not want composition at all; and therefore, he thought, it would be unjust to put the "screw" on in their case.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

desired to say that he did not think what they were doing would benefit the poor people at all. By placing these rates upon the owners they would discourage them in building that particular class of tenement; the owner would prefer to use his money in other ways.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the grievance referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) might occur in some few cases. He would consider the matter; but, as he did not think that landlords were likely to suffer to any considerable extent, and as inconvenience would result from adopting the suggestion, he was not prepared to promise that he would adopt it.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amount of rate payable by occupier).

MR. CAWLEY

moved, in page 1, line 16, after "than" to leave out to end of clause, and insert "the amount of rent then due from him."

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Owners may agree to pay the rate and be allowed a commission).

MR. SIMONDS

moved, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "rateable value," and insert "gross estimated rental."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that in the clause as it stood the principle of deduction recognized in the Small Tenements Act, and in most of the local Acts, was again adopted. He did not think it would be well to depart from that principle.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

moved, in line 18, to leave out "hereditament" and insert "dwelling-house."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had no objection to the use of the words proposed in cases of compulsory compounding; but he thought it would be better to retain the clause as it stood, and before bringing up the Report he would consider the point raised by the hon. Baronet.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, that in many cases an abuse had sprung up of returning houses at lower rents than were paid, so as to bring them within the limits of compounding. Cases had been discovered at Southampton, in which the rentals actually paid for houses had been £15 12s. a year each, while they were returned to the overseers at such low rents that the compound rateable value of each house eventually became only £3. As a means of preventing this, he proposed to fix a limit of tenancy as well as of annual value. He moved, after "hereditament," to insert "let to an occupier for a term less than three months."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there were many places where the Small Tenements Act had been applied to tenancies of six months or a year, and it would be hard to exclude them. A further objection would be that the landlords would be tempted to shorten their agreements with the tenants; and generally it would interfere with the other arrangements. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment.

COLONEL EDWARDES

said, he was glad the President of the Poor Law Board had refused to accept that Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CORRANCE

moved, in line 21, after "the" to leave out "overseers," and insert "vestry of any parish."

MR. GOSCHEN said, he thought it might be advisable to insert words requiring the consent of the vestry, while retaining the word "overseers." He would consider the matter before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he proposed that the agreements between the overseers and owners should be for one year, instead of not less than one year, as provided by the clause. The reason for the Amendment was that the parochial authorities changed every year. He moved, in line 22, to leave out "any term not being less than," and insert "the term of."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

moved to leave out from "and" to "not," in line 24, inclusive. He wished to raise the question whether composition was a good thing or not, and whether the owner should pay the rates on empty houses. He did not see why the owners of empty cottages should be subjected to a charge from which the owners of empty houses of a better description were relieved. If trade were prosperous, and if a man's houses were all let, he would put the 25 per cent in his pocket, but if, on the other hand, almost all his houses were empty, then to make him pay for them was to encourage him to screw as much as he could out of those that were left, and the result would be to drive the other occupiers upon the poor rate. If the houses were empty there could be no beneficial occupation. The other day the House decided to exempt Sunday Schools from the rates be- cause there was no beneficial occupation. Why, then, should they rate houses of small value that returned no profit to the owner? No doubt in times of distress the parish would get more if the owner paid the rates for empty houses, but on the average of years the contrary practice would be for the benefit of the parish, as in prosperous years the allowance of 25 per cent would be a simple loss which need not be incurred.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would not ask the Committee to join in a general discussion upon the point which he had raised in his Amendment. No doubt the question was one of importance, but it had already been settled, and ought not to be renewed. Owners who laid out money in houses of the kind referred to of course reckoned that a certain number of them would be empty, and had no difficulty in calculating the amount of rate which they would have to pay on empty houses. This plan was perfectly simple. But if the owner was to be compelled to find out how many of these houses were occupied at a certain time, and on what particular day a tenant left or came in, he would lose a great deal of valuable time, which represented money. The overseers, moreover, would be uncertain what would be the yield of a given rate, when they ought to be able to calculate its amount exactly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WHITE

moved, in line 24, to leave out "may" before "agree," and insert "shall and are hereby required on the application of the owner to—."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, this was a proposal that the owners should compel the overseers to agree with them. As the Committee objected to giving the overseers a similar power of dealing with the owners, they should reject the Amendment. The overseers, he thought, would hardly be satisfied at a discretionary power being given to the owners of all the best property to compound and get 25 per cent off.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he proposed to substitute a commission of 83⅓ per cent for that of 25 per cent named in the clause. Circumstances varied in different towns, and the limit he proposed was purely permissive. The town represented by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) pro- bably did not require such a high rate; but in Liverpool, with a large population of a migratory character, the vestry were of opinion that a rate of 25 per cent would not induce the owners to compound.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "twenty-five," in order to insert the words "thirty-three and a-third."—(Mr. Rathbone.)

MR. CORRANCE

said, he preferred the Amendment of which he had himself given notice; but he was willing to support that now proposed; and, although But a partial recognition of the householders' rights, and of the hardships inflicted upon the poorer class, he was glad that it was not altogether in a spirit of barren penitence that the question was treated by the opposite Bench. The Amendment had, in his opinion, the demerit of imposing a limit upon the discretion of the local authorities. His Amendment proposed that the composition should not be less than 20 per cent, or more than 40. Referring to remarks which had fallen from various speakers, the hon. Member went on to express his gratification at the admission that a complete and comprehensive measure was due from the Liberal party to restore the rights of which the poorer classes had been deprived.

THE CHAIRMAN

, interrupting the hon. Member, said, that his remarks seemed rather directed to the clause as a whole than to the Amendment, which related to the amount of the commission to be allowed.

MR. CORRANCE

said, his contention was that the commission, although a solatium to those affected by the former Act, could not be regarded in the light of a final and comprehensive measure, more especially as the provisions of the present Bill extended to other towns hitherto unafflicted with political rights. Persons acquainted with local circumstances and with the local value of property were, he contended, the best and only proper judges in cases of this kind.

MR. MELLY

corroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) as to the expediency of increasing the limiting value. Not merely in different towns, but in different parishes of the same town, circumstances varied so widely as to require in some cases a commission of 30 or 33 per cent, while in other cases a commission of 15 per cent was found to be sufficient.

MR. DIXON

said, he had given notice of an Amendment raising the maximum allowance to 50 per cent where the rate- able value did not exceed £5 a year, and to 33½ per cent where it was above £5 and did not exceed £10. If the power were not given to make the allowance in some cases as large as this, the landlords would not have sufficient inducement to compound. He knew that this was the opinion of the overseers both in Manchester and Birmingham. If landlords were forced to compound at a disadvantage to themselves, they would, of course, add something to the rent in order to compensate themselves. Supposing that his proposal was even too favourable to the landlord, the poor would in the end reap the benefit, as it would stimulate the building of small tenements.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to any proposal for increasing the amount of discount. Experience had shown that 25 per cent was quite sufficient to cover the risk of collection, and anything beyond that would be a bribe to the owner. If either of the proposals before the Committee were adopted the colour of the Bill would be changed, and it would become a Bill in the interests of the owners, not of the occupiers of property. It would operate most unfairly on those who occupied their own cottages—precisely the class who were most deserving of encouragement.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) remembered what had passed that evening he would call to mind that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) and others had protested against the injustice done to owners of property by the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman evidently thought that the chief thing which the Government ought to do was to repeal the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act; but to do so would be to bring back the Small Tenements Act, with its allowances of 50 per cent, and the local allowances, amounting sometimes to 66 per cent. The 25 per cent which he himself proposed ought not to be regarded as a bribe, but as a legitimate allowance for a not inconsiderable risk. The allowance proposed by the Bill was the lowest ever introduced into any local or public Act, and if any change in it were made, it ought to be rather in an upward than a downward direction. At the same time he thought 25 per cent was enough, and if any increase at all took place, it should be made when the owners were rated not under an agreement, but under compulsory powers given to local authorities. He objected to giving options to vestries whether this or that allowance should be granted; all margins were more or less occasions for jobbery.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought 25 per cent a fair allowance. He believed an increase of the percentage would go exclusively into the pockets of the owners. He hoped the Government would be firm in resisting any increase of the maximum.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he was disappointed at hearing the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) say that 25 per cent was enough. They were, whilst restoring to one class rights abrogated by the passing of the Reform Act, proposing by that measure to take away rights belonging to another class. They were much indebted to the right hon. Member (the President of the Poor Law Board) for exposing the fallacies of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt). It was evident the hon. and learned Member, simple as was the matter, had failed to comprehend it. The 25 per cent was given to owners in case they were unfortunate enough to have their houses unlet at times; and he could not see that 50 per cent would be too much, as the vestries gave that of their own accord, and surely they knew what the risk was worth, and would give as little as possible? It had been confessed that the Liberal party owed something to the poorer classes of householders, which they gave them. Let full restitution of parochial rights follow the gift.

LORD HENLEY

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) would press his Amendment, as upon the success of that Amendment he (Lord Henley) believed depended the satisfactory working of the Bill. Unless they made a very considerable reduction there would be no inducement to owners of low-rented property to undertake payment. He wished as much as possible to place those persons who lived in small tenements in as good a position as they were before the Reform Act was passed.

MR. CAWLEY

said, it was a fallacy to suppose that increasing the amount of the deductions to the landlord would act injuriously on the occupier. Rent was really regulated by supply and demand, and. the owners of cottages would always get as much as they could from the tenant in the shape of rent. It was not the occupier who would get the benefit of the deduction, but the owner, and it was not right to encourage too large deductions. He thought 25 per cent quite sufficient.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He was convinced that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) was quite right when he said that a large part of these rates fell upon the occupiers. When they were about to remove these burdens from the shoulders of the poor occupiers, they should do the thing handsomely.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, in his opinion that an allowance of 25 per cent was quite sufficient.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government intended to be guided entirely by the opinion of the Committee in this matter. Still, he should endeavour to persuade the Committee to resist anything like an immoderate reduction from the rates for the benefit of the landlords. He might, however, observe that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had intimated his willingness to introduce a clause giving the parish authorities power to enforce composition upon the owners of small tenements, and in that case it was but reasonable that a large percentage should be allowed the landlord. The Committee was now dealing with voluntary composition. In the event of the deductions being found too small after a trial, it would be easy to ask the House to increase them, whereas if they were now made too large it would be impossible to reduce them on a subsequent occasion. It was, therefore, upon sound principles of political economy that he asked the Committee to support the clause as it stood.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) would divide the Committee, because he could not at all agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The principle had been recognized that some deductions should be allowed, and he had been assured by competent authori- ties that nothing less than 33⅓ per cent would induce the landlords to compound.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) a condemnation of the system of composition. Since, however, the House had adopted that system he was glad that Her Majesty's Government were going to stand firm at the 25 per cent deduction. That would not be the only allowance that the owners of this class of property would obtain, because, under the Valuation of Property Bill about to be considered, they would get about as much again. It was not surprising that the hon. Members for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) and Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) should support Amendments like that now before the Committee, because nothing could be more profligate than the compounding system adopted in those boroughs before the Reform Act. Actually, in a rate of 2s. in the pound at Birmingham the owners of compounding property were allowed the sum of £12,700.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought that the Amendment ought to be considered in relation to its exact terms, and not in relation to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon). They should offer to the owners of cottage property such a fair allowance as would induce them voluntarily to accept the arrangement proposed by the Bill, without the necessity of being brought under the action of a compulsory clause. He could say from practical experience, in the borough he represented (Warrington), that the 33⅓ per cent proposed would only be a sufficient allowance, and that less would not be considered fair by owners in that part of the country.

MR. M'ARTHUR

said, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, but he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool. He represented a borough which was much affected by this question. He believed that 25 per cent would not be sufficient in the borough of Lambeth, where a large number of houses were empty, and where many owners were paying the rates for houses for which they could not obtain the rents.

Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 26: Majority 187.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he rose to move that £12 be substituted for £20, the sum named in the clause. Few Members of the House, he apprehended, would wish to extend the operation of this clause beyond what was actually necessary, and he thought he could show that the limit of £20 was higher than was needed in the metropolis; for the Committee must remember that that sum referred to rateable value. Under the Valuation of Property Bill deductions might be allowed in the case of a house of £50 rental of 20 per cent for repairs and insurance, of 20 per cent because the owner paid the rates and taxes instead of the occupier, and of 20 per cent because the house was let to weekly tenants, or to tenants hiring for periods less than three months. Thus there would be a deduction of no less than 60 per cent from the gross estimated rental, so that a house let at £50 a year would be reduced to a rateable value of £20, and come under the operation of this clause. Now, the occupiers of houses of £50 per annum were not the class of persons who ought to be relieved by this Bill. Many of the local Acts of the metropolis fixed the limit of composition at from £14 to £20 annual value, and the consequence was that a great deal of property had been unfairly relieved under those Acts. He did not think there was the least need for the proposed high limit as far as the metroplis was concerned; but if there were, surely large provincial towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other Parliamentary boroughs, having a population of over 200,000 inhabitants, ought to enjoy the same advantages. He believed that the limit fixed by Her Majesty's Government was too high, and if £12, as proposed by him, was considered too low, some figure between the two might advantageously be adopted. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving in line 10 to leave out "twenty" and insert "twelve."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there was, he believed, almost a unanimous opinion in the metropolis in favour of a £20 limit. The fact was, that the rents, especially of the dwellings of the working classes in London, were much higher than they were in other parts of the country, the rents even of Liverpool bearing no comparison in this respect. He, therefore, trusted that the Committee would sanction the clause as it stood.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he rose to move in line 11 to leave out "ten" and insert "six." The fact was that, owing to deductions of 15 per cent for repairs, 20 per cent on account of the house being let to weekly tenants, and 20 per cent for the rates being paid by the landlord instead of the occupier, a house of £6 rateable value would in reality be a house of £12 rental. Not only, therefore, was that limit sufficiently high, but he believed it was all that was needed by the country. He trusted that the Committee would assent to the Amendment.

MR. RATHBONE

said, the effect of the hon. Baronet's (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's) Amendment would be to except the town which he represented from the benefit of the Act. He would suggest that there should be three limits—£20 for London, £13 for towns with more than 200,000 inhabitants, and in other towns £10.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought there should be a higher limit than that proposed by the hon. Baronet in the case of towns with a larger population than 200,000.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that this was a matter upon which the Government were perfectly prepared to meet the wishes of the Committee, who, he believed, were rather in favour of reducing the limit fixed by the clause. London and Liverpool were exceptional cases. He was informed that in the case of Manchester and Birmingham the figure 8 would be regarded as satisfactory.

MR. DIXON

said, the limit ought not to be fixed at less than £8 for Birmingham, but he thought £10 a better figure.

MR. CANDLISH

suggested that the amount should be £16 in London and £8 in the country.

MR. COLLINS

said, he believed that that limit would give general satisfaction. He believed the House had got into difficulty by fixing the amount for the metropolis too high.

MR. CHADWICK

said, he hoped the clause would be allowed to stand as it was.

MR. P. W. MARTIN

said, he thought £8 would give perfect satisfaction.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought it would be better to retain the £10 limit for the country. In places where it was too high the overseers would not put up the composition to £10.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

withdrew his Amendment of £6, and moved instead to insert £8.

MR. RATHBONE

gave notice that on the Report he should move to except Liverpool from the £8 limit, and to fix the amount at £13 in that case.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he thought it was impossible to legislate for every particular place; but he would have no objection to place Liverpool in the same position as the metropolis.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.