HC Deb 10 May 1871 vol 206 cc593-9

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MUNTZ

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in 1865, in "another place," in the Mersey Docks case, it was decided that, contrary to the custom and tendency of legislation for centuries—he might say for 200 years, at least—charities were exempt from rating; and there was no reason for this decision but a judgment on an abstract question of law. Under the 6 & 7 Vict., however, special provision was made that all scientific and literary institutions should be exempted from rating; but charities had been rated, under the ruling of the before-named decision; the Governors had refused to pay; distress warrants had been issued; magistrates had refused to be parties to selling the beds and chairs of those living in charitable institutions; a mandamus had been issued commanding obedience to the law, and this was now sub judice. He understood that the Government intended to bring in a Bill relative to the rating of charities, that would probably be in a year or two; meanwhile, he wished to pass his Bill, which would simply enact that overseers, with the consent of the vestry, should have power to exempt charities from rating where they thought it desirable, until such time as a general law should pass, putting an end to all ambiguity on the subject. It bad been asserted that many of those charities were highly endowed, and he would therefore leave it to the vestries to say whether they would exempt such institutions. It had been urged that it would be a great hardship to the rest of the ratepayers to be called on to pay for the rates of exempted charities; but what would be the result provided the charities did not exist? The amount collected in England for hospitals and charitable institutions was something enormous; and if those charities were done away with—if the poorer classes were thrown upon parochial infirmaries—the rating would amount to a very serious sum. All he asked was, that parishes might be allowed to tax themselves. It was a privilege allowed in most towns; and he would extend the privilege to parishes. He hoped that the House would agree to the second reading, if it was only to admit the principle of the measure.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Muntz.)

MR. HARDCASTLE

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he regretted that the Government Bill had been withdrawn. It seemed to him that charities must be very badly managed, if they could not afford to pay the small amount of rates levied on their property; and, again, supposing the charities to be exempt from rates, the rating of other property must be increased, while the presence of charities in a parish had often—too often, he might say—the tendency to increase the necessity for those rates. This Bill, or any Bill of this sort, proposed to collect from all ratepayers in a district an involuntary contribution to the funds of all hospitals and charitable institutions whatever; and he, as one of them, might, or he might not, approve of the object of the charity; but if an institution were relieved from the rates, he was, pro tanto, a subscriber to that institution.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

, in seconding the Amendment, said, the existence of the Poor Law did away with much of the necessity in supporting the old charities, and in like manner the taxing powers of the school boards would do away with much charity and benevolence. Exceptional legislation of this kind was not desirable. There should be one law in a district. In the borough which he represented, exemption of charities from rating would in several parishes constitute a great hardship, as the number of houses occupied by institutions of this class was considerable; and what was conceded to them must be laid on others. The rating of charities should, in his judgment, be universal.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hardcastle.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. PEASE

said, the House would remember that, in the Session of 1869, a Bill was brought in proposing a compulsory exemption on behalf of Sunday and Ragged Schools. He took exception to the mode in which the Bill was drawn, and suggested an improvement which was ultimately adopted by the House, that the rating should be left optional on the part of the rating authorities. He hoped the Bill would pass, because the local authorities could best decide whether it was desirable that such institutions should be exempted from taxation; and he thought there were many hospitals in existence in regard to which it might be desirable that they should not be subjected to taxation.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the decision against the exemption of charities from taxation was made on the ground that there was in them no beneficial occupation by owner or occupier; and in the case of the Mersey Docks at Liverpool, the profit went to public purposes. The House must do one thing or the other; they must destroy all the exemptions, or they must lay down a general rule as to what exemptions should be allowed. Now, nothing could be so unjust to the charities as the proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham, for a charity would not be rated by the vestry, where there was an advantage to be gained from it by a parish; but where a charity was participated in by nine or ten parishes then it would be rated. If they left it to the vestry to decide the question, it would not be decided upon the excellences of the charity, but on the advantage to be gained by the vestry. That was not the principle on which the House should act. After a great deal of consideration, the conclusion at which he had arrived was, that it would be wise to take away exemptions, and that all property that was occupied beneficially should be rated. A Bill had been passed exempting literary and scientific institutions from taxation; but controversy after controversy had arisen on the subject. Let Parliament do its own work; let the Legislature not throw the legislation of the country on the vestry and the magistrates; but if the Government came to a conclusion as to what it thought right in the matter, let them do it themselves. If they thought there should be exemptions, let them state what they should be; for the Bill did not go into the right of the question, it did not undertake to decide what should be exempt, and what should not; but proposed to refer the matter to some one else. He declined to give to the vestry power to decide what was for its own advantage, and at the same time to impose a rate on a beneficial institution. For those reasons he could not support the Bill.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, there could be no doubt that the exemption of charitable institutions from taxation excited the sympathies of everyone; but the exemption led to much litigation, and the Bill as drawn would add to it very materially. Under that Bill there would be the power of relieving that great hospital on the opposite side of the river from the payment of any rate which the Metropolitan Board of Works might impose upon its property. The Preamble recited that it had been usual to exempt hospitals from taxation; but when the occupiers were liable to be dismissed for breach of rules the whole building was rateable. There was actually one-fifth of this great Metropolis either eleemosynary or devoted to some charitable purpose. Were they to say that a mere vestry authority should give an assent to an exemption from rating? That would lead to a great amount of litigation. Parties had complained, and still did complain, that all would be bound to subscribe, by the exemption of charities from rates, to a charity of which they did not approve—a homœopathic establishment for instance. There ex- isted what were known as the Licensed Victualers' Alms-houses, and many people did not like them; yet, by their exemption from taxation, they were made involuntary subscribers to them, inasmuch as they had to assist in making good the exempted taxation.

COLONEL SYKES

said, it appeared to him that we were living in an age of humbug. There were those who affected a reputation for philanthropy, and who said they were desirous to promote the welfare and comforts of the poor, but when it came to a question of personal cost their philanthropy evaporated. Now, in what way could consideration be best shown for the sick poor than by provision for them in hospitals? There was scarcely a hospital in the country that paid its way. He was governor of one, and they could not make both ends meet, even by the aid of an annual dinner; and he must impress upon hon. Members that when they took off the exemption of the hospitals from taxation, they lessened and diminished the benefit which the hospital bestowed on the poor. Without these hospitals, if a working man became sick, or met with an accident, what could he do if he did not enter a hospital? His refuge could only be the union. In the cause of humanity, then, do not take off the exemption of the hospitals from taxation.

MR. FLOYER

said, that to listen to what had fallen from the last speaker the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), one would imagine that there was no difficulty attending the exemption of hospitals from rating. But the reverse of this was the case; in the balance of difficulties, and he was disposed to follow the practice which had obtained through so great a number of years, and had become a custom of the country. Custom law was hardly inferior to statute law. The custom had been to exempt hospitals from rating, and nine-tenths of the population would support a Bill which would allow the exemption to be acted upon in future.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought that the feeling of the country was decidedly against the rating of those charities. He would, therefore, support the second reading.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he would remind the House that a Committee had been sitting for the two last Sessions on the subject, taking evidence on this and other matters; their Report would soon be ready, until then, he thought the second reading of the measure under consideration ought to be deferred. He objected to the principle of the Bill, which, curiously, exempted Ireland from its operation, but included Scotland, and yet its machinery was wholly inadequate to its operation in the latter country.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Government felt compelled to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He coincided in the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy.) Those charities were increasing in number yearly, and if they were to carry the principle of exemption so as to relieve all such charities, the effect would be to greatly augment the burdens already thrown upon the ratepayers. It might be said that exemption would only occur at the wish of a majority, and with the consent of the ratepayers themselves; but it might be done by a majority, whose right to tax their fellow-ratepayers he denied. If this Bill passed, questions whether nunneries and similar establishments should be rated or not would be constantly arising, and occasioning much sectarian excitement and vexatious litigation.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he was not surprised at the attempt of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to obtain a snap division. He should be sorry to move the adjournment of the debate; and he had no wish that the Bill should become a dropped Order; but he must strongly object to a division being taken on it without a full discussion. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, after a few words on the Preamble of the Bill, suddenly pulled up short and said he would not explain the policy of his measure at length, because he was anxious to obtain a division upon it before the time was too late. ["Divide."] If the supporters of the Bill desired a discussion upon it, he should not object to the adjournment of the debate. ["No, no!"] Did he understand that hon. Members would divide against the adjournment of the debate? ["Hear, hear!"] Then, it would be his duty to proceed with the discussion of the Bill. The question before the House, was not whether the Bill should be read a second time, but whether it should be read a second time without discussion. He objected to the Bill being read a second time without a full discussion, and without stating the views of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman concluded, amid considerable interruption, by moving the adjournment of the debate.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he must protest against the offensive statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he wanted to snap a division.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 117: Majority 33.

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Debate arising.

And it being a quarter before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.